Marciano vs Tua at cruiserweight

They weren't in their physical prime, no way.

But could one argue that they were at the peak of their careers?

 

I don't think so. Charles had won 2 of his last 4 fights, as had Walcott.
Charles prime is generally considered to be at light heavyweight.
I think Walcott was better against Louis than against Marciano ,that's 4 years earlier.
Moore was 39 by his account, over 40 by his Mother's testimony and he himself said his legs were gone. Louis I can't see any need to comment on.

 

The stone cold fact (as you put it) is that Walcott and Moore were never higher regarded at any other point in their careers than when they actually fought Marciano.

 

Neither Walcott not Charles were particularly highly regarded at all,until the last quarter of a century when their reputations took something of an upswing.
So that's saying very little.
Moore is routinely considered to be a great lhvy. I've never seen him listed as such on a page ranking heavyweights.

 

We have been through this over and over and you can't dispute any of it. Charles was a light heavyweight for no longer than Patterson was.

You want to rank Charles as a lightheavyweight you have to rank Patterson as a lightheavyweight too.

It's barely two years and even that was not exclusive against lightheavyweights. his fight with Bivins after the war marked Charles first heavyweight fight.

The rating of Charles at light heavyweight is based on his series with Moore, who was not yet a champion. It's a "hindsight rating".

Truth is, Charles was too good for that division, if it even existed, because it was not exclusive. The better ones always fought heavyweights.

Mate Parlov was the first exclusive lightheavyweight champion.

 

In their careers they (Charles, Moore) were NEVER higher regarded than they were against Rocky. You can't dispute this.

When we're they more celebrated or considered World beaters?

 

i am hardly "little" when i am 31 years old , 6´1 1/2 and 220 pounds of muscle.
you are a sad sad poor adolescent and you got absolutely mad reading the absolute truth

 

Because everybody on the internet is 6'2" and 220lbs of muscle

 

:tired

In the latest Ring Magazine, Charles was rated the number one greatest 175pounder of all time . Anyone have him top 5 at heavyweight?
Charles was rated no3 at Lhvy in 42 then he went into the Army on his retuRn he was rated no 2 in46,and no1 in47 he would have undoubtedly been rated in the years between had he not be in the Army, that would be 5 straight years! Gus Lesnevich became champion while Charles was in the Army ,do you want to argue his chances against Charles at175lbs?
Charles is rated number one at Lhvy because not only beat Moore thee out of three ,he beat Marshall ,Fitzpatrick,Maxim ,and Bivins for which fight by the way he weighed 170.25lbs.


Why don't you stick to nonsensical remarks like Embrell Davidson ko'd Marty Marshall to try and prove your non- existant points. You're making no kind of logical argument here.


You wear posters out do you know that?:-tired

 

i don´t know the rest of the people on internet... i am what i am.. i got videos and photos , but yes, probably you are a pathetic virgin at 50 years old living with your mother and you never trained boxing in your sad life , by the way i am not 6´2 i am 6´1 1/2

 

I was buying bread from a guy from Brussels, he was six foot four and full of muscles....

 

Yes it's called a hindsight rating.

Please answer this:

"Was Charles more celebrated at lightheavyweight when he was within those ranks for those short years than he was as a heavyweight?"

Did Micheal Moorer have a higher profile at Lightheavyweight?

 

I'm 5 foot 8.5 ,but I do like mussels!

 

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?t=567403