Punching Power--Marciano or Frazier?

Waiting for his answer

 

Rocky was an ATG. This is indisputably true.

Walcott a true pro with great boxing ability fought both Louis and Marciano. He stated Rocky hit harder than Louis. No one disputes Joe Louis punching power. No one should dispute Marcianos power. The guy was an all time puncher. He hit harder punch for punch than Joe Louis. That's very very hard.

There have been eras where boxing talent was lean in the hwt division but still no one aside from Rocky went to bat 49 times and walked away with 49 wins.

 

Charles was 32 for the first Marciano fight.

He was 33 for the rematch. Slightly more than a month removed from his birthday, so you rounded up about 10 plus months. It would also be correct to say he won 11 of his last 13.

Marciano was 30 and 31 for these fights.


A common thread since I've been to this board is posters getting Ezzards age wrong, often by 2 to 4 years.

 

I was wrong he was 32 .
DOB 7th July 1921` Fought Marciano 17th June 1954
So ONE MONTH from his 33rd birthday
2nd Fight was 21st Sept 1954 he was 33 .Nine Months short of 34 I rounded up nothing just made an honest mistake .
Marciano had nothing like the mileage on his clock Charles had and Charles was at his best as a light heavyweight.

My points still stand and would do so if Marciano was 40 years old, because we are discussing his opponents not him..

 

I cant believe you were a full month off mcvey

 

Can't talk now, I'm throwing the rope over the roof rafters.:---( Tell my folks I love them.

 

A full year actually.

To be 33 and 34 for both fights.

To be a month off, he would have to claim he was 33 for both fights.

 

To be 33 and 34 for these fights, you had to be off a full year.


Mileage is debatable. Charles had more fights but Marciano fought a more taxing style and took more punishment on a par fight basis. Marciano also carried a laundry list of bad prexisting injuries before turning pro at a late age.

 

You know what a pedant is right?
The mileage is not even debateable .Marciano had 45 fights going in ,Charles 96! Or as you like numbers ,over 100% more .
If you prefer it Marciano had boxed 218rds Charles780 rds.
Case closed! You actually know this to be the case ,so why you are even debating the point is a total mystery.
If it was Mendozy, I could understand it.:-(

 

More fights does not equate to more performance hindering damage.

Debatable for reasons I listed. No way you can measure such a thing.

The only fact is that they were less than two years apart in age, and one was a vet of more pro bouts.

The first meeting has been described as one of Charles' best performances and one of Marciano's worst as champion.

 

Was Charles at his best as a light heavyweight or as a heavyweight?
Why do you constantly deny the facts?
How desperate you must be not to concede an argument?

And Charles like Walcott was described as past prime going into the fights.

 

Charles was at best from 46 to 52, which spans both weight classes. From 52 to 54, he became less consistent but still great on most nights.

Name these facts I denied.

I don't feel disageeing with your flimsly logic is an act of desperation.

And the press that called Walcott and Charles past prime were quick to write both men never looked better after the fights in question.

 

100 % right

 

1.The fact that Charles was at his best at 175lbs
2. The fact that Walcott,Moore and Charles were all past prime when they faced Marciano.
3. The fact that Charles had significantly more mileage on his clock than did Marciano.
Do you know what makes your response particularly pathetic?
If anyone other than myself had made my points you would not have challenged them.:-(

 

I see three disputable opinions.

I suppose this last bit is a "mcvey fact" as well.