It's not just the age ,it's the mileage on the clock. Like Walcott , going into the Marciano fight. Charles had won just 2 of his last 4 fights.
Irrelevant. Marciano never fought a 25 year old Charles... Marciano never fought a 29 year old Charles.. Marciano never fought Charles at light heavyweight..
Than why did you ask the question? Charles very much had prime fights at HW. If one defines prime by being in their 20s.
having a good showing in a different weight class doesn't necessarily define "prime". Roy Jones Junior won a title at heavyweight when he was 33 years of age. He wasn't even close to prime. Spinks was 29 when he beat Holmes. Heavyweight was not his best division. Believe me, this isn't worth pages and pages, not to mention hours of our lives arguing about.
I won't call you a liar because I like you. But you're going to extreme lengths to create a reality that just doesn't exist. Moore and Charles were not known for being at their pinacle at heavyweight and more importantly were aging by the time they fought Marciano. I can't put it any more simply than that.
Yeah, but this was the 50s. Charles wasn't adding 30 lbs of muscle to move up to Heavyweight for a big fight. He just wasn't cutting down to 174 and coming in at a natural filled out 175-185. These guys like Charles, Johnson, Maxim, Sattefield, they just bounced around both sides of 175 from match to match with equal success to score whatever fight they could land. Something that doesn't happen today because of the CW division and more opportunities for titles within each weight class.
-No, don't call me a liar because I haven't lied about anything..and its just tacky when we are all just giving our own spin on facts.
Calling any of those guys prime against Marciano is a pretty big spin though. enough to send the world reeling off its axis.
True, but neither Jones nor Spinks stopped at CW before winning a heavyweight title. Those guys weren't prime at heavy either despite becoming champions.