Marciano vs. Walcott - Why is Marciano faulted...

In all honesty, I think he's only faulted by those who don't know better.

 

Here's the trouble. Walcott never won another fight after he fought Marciano, hence we don't know how much he had left. Walcott had many children to feed. If he had something left after the back to back losses to Marciano, it is likely he would have fought some more. The purses were there for him.

There comes a point where age catches up to everyone. I do think Marciano beat an older but still dangerous Moore. We know this because Moore went on to win many matches after he meet Rocky.

 

I think its a bit of both.

 

I think that a number of fighters were never as good again, after going through the Marciano gravel crusher.

 

Not to drag the point out, but I'm sure you've all seen the entire fight.
Tell me Walcott fought like a 37 year old in there. He was magnificent.
If that version of Walcott had shown up in his other fights, he'd have had a lot more wins on his record, imo.

 

Fists of fury, I agree.
Walcott came out blazing, and fought a heck of a fight, a HARD fight, in there. There's no reason in my mind to believe this was a diminished version of Walcott. He looks the same as he did when he KO'd Charles for the title.

McGrain admits to underrating Marciano.
Mendoza will tell you Corbett was near his best when he fought Jeffries, based on second-hand accounts, so I dont think he would argue against what we can see on film.
Of course, anyone is free to say Walcott LOOKS diminished against Marciano if that's what they see, but I dont see it.

Walcott went in there to punch Marciano out, and he looked strong through the first 12 rounds attempting to do so, he looked strong and capable up until the final punch.

 

Russell, just to point out that Louis was far from ahead officially in the Marciano fight. I can't recall the exact scores, but I'm pretty sure he was at least two rounds down on all cards.

 

True, but when looking at the record of a guy who's a 49-0 world heavyweight champion with 43 knockouts, 7-0 with 6 KOs in world championship fights, people who aren't knowledgeable about him, can't accept that he really was what he seems to have been, or just plain don't like him have to latch onto anything they can get ahold of. The way some peoples' minds work, when they see a record as stunningly flawless as Marciano's, especially attached to a well-liked white American heavyweight, the words that immediately jump to mind are "hype-job" and "overrated," and they proceed from the premise that Marciano falls into these categories- thus, when they see that he won the title from and defended it against a guy in his late 30s and also defended against a guy in his late 30s to early 40s, they see their hypothesis as being confirmed. People who are more knowledgeable than they, but simply refuse to accept Marciano or have personal dislike of him seem to cover their ears and shout "WRONG! WRONG!!!" when presented with the evidence.

"Age-of-opponents" is kind of an eye in the storm for people who want to exclude Marciano from the elite of all time to take refuge in.

 

Marciano was up 4-3, 4-2-1 and 5-2 on the scorecards going into the eighth round against Louis.