For myself I simply do not believe a boxer is in his prime at 37 and 40years old.Walcott's subsequent outing emphatically showed that. A year after losing to Marciano, Moore was taken out in 5 rds by Patterson, that again is a telling result imo.
It is just very misleading when you say the average age of his opponents was 36.5 years old. Most fighters are retired at that age whereas these guys obviously still had juice left. Walcott was better in older age imo. That is rare in a fighter.
d. I have changed my opinion in part due to how a washed up Joe Fraizer almost killed Ali. In my opinion Frazier was not a great heavyweight by any means. His record was 32 - 4 - 1 not great. People will say "oh but Joe fought in the golden age" and all that bull**** but how many fighters have been so resoundingly beaten like he was against Foreman twice and still been considered great. He took 2 one sided beatings - no lucky punches - just beatings. With the exception of Ali and Foreman there really is not many names oh his record that where much good. How many times was he dropped - someone tell me I read once it was 14 or 16. This content is protected
It isn't misleading, it is a stone fact, the truth can never be misleading . You contend that the Walcott who fought Marciano was better than the one who fought Louis 5 & 6 years earlier? I disagree.
I think he was in practically just as good condition. The difference, if any, is negligible. To say his opponents were 36.5 years old is a fact but it doesn't tell the whole story. Thus it is misleading.
The statement never purported to tell the whole story so there was no intention to mislead and therefore any muddying of the waters is the fault of the recipient not the originator of the quote.
The cuts he sustained against Simmons and Charles would mean both fights would be stopped today,imo. Rocky was cut against Walcott,Louis,Moore,Charles,Simmons and in a couple of other fights,factor in he would be facing a laser- like jab from a great boxer in his prime=he is getting cut in this one. Marciano never faced a guy as big and good as Ali who was not only faster than anyone he ever met but as strong as a bull inside too. Foreman beat on a past prime Ali's arms and body for 8 rds and then was ko'd,Marciano is going to do better? Marciano was not as quick as Frazier in either foot or handspeed,neither was he as big,the only area he surpasses Joe is in two handed power. Marciano was beating on older ,past prime fighters, is it such a surprise he eventually ground them down? Charles was 33 ,6ft, and under 190lbs,and he had over 100 fights of mileage on his clock ,plus he was best as a light heavy. Walcott was getting on for 40 ,6ft 192lbs, as the fight went on he resorted more and more to snatching a rest on the ropes. A 6ft 3"212lbs prime Ali could dance all night. Moore was 39/40 depending whether you believe him or his Mother , he was also under 6ft and under 190lbs. We know Ali could take heavy punishment because he proved it as he aged surviving the punches of Foreman,Frazier and Shavers. We don't know that Marciano could survive the amount of left jabs and right crosses Ali would land on his suspect skin and the evidence ,such as it is, [Rocky never faced a skilled 6ft3" 212lbs man in his prime,] suggests that he couldn't. Ali stops Rocky on a tko in around 8rds imo.
Have you actually watched the fight or just going by Chuvalo's unconfirmed story that he made Ali **** blood? Chuvalo didn't land much of consequence and most of what he landed was low. An unusually tough fight for Ali at that time in the sense that he couldn't make George go away no matter how many jabs and combos he unleashed on him, but by no means was he hurt or took any real punishment.
Ok so was Chuvalo lying about Ali pissing blood and needing to go to the hospital? And yes I've seen the fight and off that performance Marciano would have given Ali hell.
The question is how would he know? Lots of false rumors are being repeated without it being meant as a lie by the one repeating them. It's often just the case of repeating and perhaps embellishing something someone has said without checking the original source. By no means can Chuvalo, who wasn't with Ali after the fight and quite probably didn't know anyone who was, be seen as a very reliable source in this case. I'm not saying that Chuvalo 100% was wrong, just that I'd like to see more and better sources before I believe it. And if it turned out to be true, I would put in down to George repeatedly hitting Ali low than any brutal body attack. So whichever you look at it, I think way too much is made out of that quote from Chuvalo. Ali scored close to a shutout in Chuvalo's hometown and was unmarked afterwards, but because of Chuvalo saying that the fight seems to go down as almost a brutal war in some people's mind. Personally I don't see much in this fight which makes me believe Marciano would beat Ali (but unlike you I don't see anything that suggests Folley took a dive against Ali either). Chuvalo didn't catch up to Ali after all (except when Ali by on his own choosing stayed on the ropes early on) and it doesn't matter how much more of a dangerous puncher Rocky was than George if he can't get close enough to hit Ali repeatedly. And Rocky put on a pretty slow methodical pressure, similar to that of Chuvalo, but had a shorter reach, so I see nothing from that fight that suggest that he would get close enough on a consistent basis. Yes, if Ali played around on the ropes as he did against Chuvalo early on he would be in for an uncomfortable time, but if he stayed focussed and on the move, like he did for almost every round, he should be alright.