Marciano in the Joe Louis era?

Baer and Marciano's age has little relevance regarding their prime ,which you are only too well aware of ,and I am too fly to let that serve go without a return.Marciano trained like a Monk ,Baer trained like a ******, a performing circus ******,he smoked ,drank and bedded every skirt he could catch , and , with a build like Hercules and looks to match he caught plenty ,sometimes two or three a night.plus his hands were bad in his last years ,indeed he stated they both went in the Braddock fight. I agree you can only fight whats out there, Marciano would in all probablility have kod Valdes, that would have been a good win over a big guy. Rocky probably would have got to Schmeling too ,but because he didnt have the opportunity does not demean Baer's win. 3 stoppages in 81 fights. 3 more than Marciano suffered,but what if Marciano had 81 fights?

I see you mentioned that Hamas decisioned Schmeling ,you didn't mention that Schmeling knocked him out in the rematch a year later did you?

 

1. Baer gets no slack from me for being a playboy. That is part of the package. Louis criticized Baer for never really learning his craft despite all his talent. Marciano, even with a late start, did much better.

2. Marciano beats Valdes--a better win than Cockell. Not as good as Moore, Charles, Walcott, or Louis. Certainly extra wins always improve anyone's resume and Marciano should have fought Valdes instead of fighting Cockell. That is a reasonable criticism.

3. Schmeling ko'd Hamas in 1935. That does not eliminate his loss to Hamas in 1934 anymore than Louis' ko of Schmeling in 1938 eliminates his ko loss to Schmeling in 1936. As for me not mentioning it--it is common knowledge and not pertinent to my argument, in my judgement. You used it in rebuttal just like I used Nova.

 

Cockell was picked over Valdes because he was a weak hitter and they wanted to test Marciano's nose out after Charles had split it in half.
The fact remains at comparable ages 32 Baer was well into decline whereas Rocky was still reigning Champ and likely to have had a couple more successful defences if he had gone for them.I make no excuse for Max ,it was his choice to be a playboy , but you cannot ignore the facts.

 

Who's ignoring the facts. Marciano was able to fight and win to the same age as Baer fought. Training is part of the reason. Another part might also be that Marciano learned his craft better and so was more able to cope with physical decline. Either way, you are basically criticizing Marciano for being successful.

 

I'm not criticizing Marciano at all . Just stating the facts as I see them .Marciano makes my top 10 Baer does not.Marciano did the most he could with what he had, Baer did not, end of story.

 

Fair enough. Nice debate.

 

Do I get a draw?

 

That depends on who names the judges.

 

Eaxactly....Walcott was Champion...Moore beat Baker,Valdez and Johnson, Charles beat Wallace and Satterfield....they were all # 1 contenders...the best of the time...had Valdez beat Moore, he would have gotton the shot

 

NO, because A beats C he becomes the # 1 contender...You are saying Marciano avoided the bigger guy but you are not saying he avoided the BEST of his time.... The reason Marciano fought Walcott is because he was CHAMPION. The reason Valdez lost his # 1 spot is because he was eliminated by Archie Moore in 2 fights (Moore was the better tougher man) Charles had 2 explosive wins and was Champion and # 1 contender.....If Marciano would have fought the Losers instead of the winners, you would be saying he never fought Moore,Charles ....When a fighter fights the best that is all you can ask of him...not even Joe Louis could fight everyone and as far as Baer and Scmeling, they were eratic, inconsistant and IMO would have lost to Charles,Moore and Walcott

 

old louis wouldn't get to the 3rd round v frazier or liston. ali would do a cleveland williams on old louis. be a total mismatch. charles and moore are Patterson level. look at what peak ali and liston did to patterson. they'd do the same to charles and moore and especially the versions marciano faced.

 

If Rocky fought the same boxers at the same time frame as Louis did, or at the same age as Louis did, he would have had some problems keeping a perfect record and here's why.

Rocky fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 26th bout when he won a close split decision against LaStarza. He fought another 10 bouts before he fought another top 10 contender when he stopped Rex Layne. When he fought Moore that was only the 11th time Rocky ever fought a boxer that was rated in the top 10 when he fought them.

Louis fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 12th bout when he stopped Lee Ramage. He would box 9 more top 10 contenders before he fought Braddock for the title. That was Louis's 36th pro bout. So after 36 bouts, Rocky fought 2 top 10 contenders and Louis fought 11. Also, Rocky fought 49 bouts and Louis fought 36 and they both faced 11 top 10 contenders. The time Louis had 49 bouts, he faced a total of 21 top 10 contenders.

If Rocky fought Top 10 contenders as fast as Louis did, he might a had some problems. Rocky learned as he went along and his management brought him along slowly. Louis fought Baer in his 21st bout, Rocky was boxing Ted Lowry in his 21st bout and most people thought Lowry won. What if Rocky was boxing Baer at that time instead of Lowry?

If you go by age, it gets even worse for Rocky.

At the age Louis became Champion, Rocky was still an Amateur.

 

I am not saying Marciano avoided anyone,and you won't find it anywhere in this thread.Please don't tell me what I would be saying if the scenario was different , I prefer to do my own thinking ,not have some one do it for me.
I am saying Marciano's best wins were over .1 Men past their prime ,and. 2 Men at or under 200lbs.Anything inaccurate about that statement?
Walcott 37 and 38 196 and197 3/4
Charles 33 and a former LH 183 3/4and 192 1/2
Moore 40[42 if you beleive his mother] 188

His other big win was over a 36 going on 37 year old Louis.Who may have been Joe Louis, but was no longer "The Brown Bomber".
I know why Valdes ,[it is Valdes not Valdez], lost his chance ,I was around then ,Louis was Champ when I was born.Speaking of Louis ,no you can't fight everybody,but who do you think Louis missed?
Conversely it could be argued Marciano ,for whatever reason ,missed,Valdes,Gilliam,Wallace,Baker, Satterfield, Henry.

 

Seems like you are looking for something negative to say. I say Marciano beat the best of his time. Walcott was Champion so Marciano had to fight him to be Champ and Walcott in the 1st fight was a prime as a fighter could be despite his age.

Gilliam beat Valdes but lost to Baker(3 times) Johnson and Ezz Charles and was KO'd by Coley Wallace

Valdes lost 2 to Moore and then his final shot vs Satterfield

Satterfield was KO'd dramically by Ezz Charles in 2 rds

Coley Wallace was KO'd by Charles and lost to Bob Baker 2 times

Baker was Ko'd by Satterfield in 1 and Ko'd by Moore in 8

Clarence Henry was beaten by Archie Moore and Harold Johnson (who also was stopped by Moore


I think it is clear that Charles and Moore were the dominant contenders of the day and Walcott was the Champion. If you are looking to pick hairs it could be argued that they were older but in fact Moore was on the best win streak ever and recently beat the two of the top heavys Valdes(2 times) KO'd Baker and Harold Johnson and beat Clarence Henry

Charles KO'd Satterfeild in 1 and Coley Wallace in 8 and was certainly in his best condition for the Marciano1 WAR

I would argue that Moore was at his best...Charles was fit and ready and still dangerous at 33 and IF he was slipping it did not show vs Satterfield and Wallace ( Charles 2 best fight as a Heavy)

As I stated in a pror post it could not be argued that Marciano did not fight the best of his era....to say he did not fight all of the contenders would be a WEAK arguement indeed

Hope I helped refresh your memory as to why Gilliam,Satterfield,Baker,ValdesWallace and Henry fell in rankings and GRACE (they lost fights to better men who moved up for title shots because they earned it by winning)




by the way Thanks for the spell check

 

Actually Charles slipping DID SHOW,as he had lost his two previous fights before those you mentioned ,to Valdes and to Johnson a LH.You did not refresh my memory as I haven't quite lost it yet.
I did not say Marcino didn't face his best challengers.
What I said was, he faced men past their prime and under 200lbs.
Dress it up anyway you want those are the facts.