My Take on Marciano

I see a Walcott retreating in postholes after the 11th. He clearly was digging deep in to his bag of tricks to avoid his opponents superior stamina and strength. If you think Ezz was anywhere near his peak, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

I am speaking in context of what the division became after him.

And this list is useless. I am concerned with performances against elite fighter.. These are ham and eggers mixed with a beyond shot Joe Louis...

Humphrey Jackson--71 lbs. (4-2)
Bill Wilson--39 lbs. (41-11)
Johnny Shklor--30 lbs. (30-18)
James Connerly--28 lbs. (8-5)
Bill Hardeman--25 lbs. (1-4)
Gilley Ferron--20 lbs. (4-10)
Artie Donato--20 lbs. (7-10)

 

Yes... Charles is my all time favourite. Of course I have. He gassed late, he looked slower, he was 2-2 in his last 4 going in. He was 3 years removed from a devastating one punch KO which ended his prime anyway. Furthermore, he was above his prime weight.

Charles was shopworn. This is common knowledge.

 

That's because Rocky put pressure on his men, and scored hard to the body. Walcott had the lead at the time of the stoppage, by 2 point or so. This was one of Walcott's best nights.

Ezz had a great fight with Maricnao, his tactics to go to to toe made it a great fans fight but hurt his chances of winning it.

Watch it sometime, no shot fighter offers that much action.

 

How many fights did Marciano have when he fought these men?

Jackson--6
Hardeman--7
Connerly--10
Ferron--11
Donato--13

So, Marciano gave up 20 or more lbs. five times in his first fourteen fights.

But it always boils down to compared to what and whom.

How does the 1951 Louis at 213 compare to Jack Munroe, the only Jeffries opponent over 210 lbs.? How does the 1951 Louis compare to Tom Heeney, Tunney's heaviest opponent? What about Ben Foord, Schmeling's heaviest opponent? Or old Willard or Carl Morris or Firpo?

Would Munroe or Foord even be favored over Shkor or Wilson?

You find the list useless. I find your argument useless as it ignores the world Marciano fought in to judge it by a world that wasn't in existence yet. The "elite" fighters of that era, other than Louis, were generally not super-heavyweights. Joe Baksi was over 210 but had lost to Walcott and been stopped by Charles and was only semi-active. Valdes has been mentioned as an opponent Marciano should have defended against, with his size emphasized. Valdes had 18 fights while Marciano was champion and posted 11 wins and 7 losses, including losses to Moore (2), Harold Johnson, and Satterfield, as well as two to Bob Baker, who seems to have been the better big man. Baker was KO'd by Moore, Sattterfield, and Henry. There were a couple of over-sized Euros, Ten Hoff and Neuhaus, but they weren't even up to the level of the American big guys.

And the little guys being better was not unusual. Jeff's wins over Fitz, Corbett, and Sharkey are his signature wins, not those over Munroe, Kennedy, or Ruhlin. Dempsey might have slaughtered the big guys, but had more trouble with Tunney, Gibbons, and Miske. So with Louis with Schmeling, Conn, and Pastor compared to Carnera, Simon, and Buddy Baer.

The heavyweight champion by definition is the man who can beat anyone walking the Earth in a boxing match. Marciano managed that despite being smallish even in his own day. I don't see the point with comparing him with fighters from decades or even the better part of a century later. And this holds true for later champions also. With weights at winning the title of 215 (Liston), 210 (Ali), 205 (Frazier), 217 (Foreman) and 209 (Holmes), that era looks kind of tiny compared to the 21st century world of 6-5 to 6-9, and 240 to 273 champions. Perhaps 70 or so years on the modern giants will look small in a world in which even small champs would start at 6-10 or so and 300 lbs.

I agree with you that the world obviously moved on, but don't see evaluating past greats on that basis rather than how they did in their own world.