Rocky Marciano vs Evander Holyfield

Moore's "old age" light heavy champ run that some consider his prime-not me- coincided with a significant drop in competition(harold Johnson being the one standout) at that weight compared to the level of fighter he was fighting semi-regularly in his earlier years.

Interesting that, isn't it.

imo none of Walcott, Charles or Moore were in their prime-and certainly not peak effective years- when they fought Marciano.

But they were all still very good world class fighters.it's just that when comparing them as top opposition for the rock compared to the all-time great natural heavyweights, they all fall somewhat short due to their size and faded nature.

imo Rock's main problem in imposing his style on bigger, natural heavyweight greats is how slooooow he was.The man was slow by any standard, ben Tackie as a heavyweight slow.Against bigger, quicker men with great ability he's going to find it hard to do his "grind them down" thing quick enough.

 

Good catch on Muscato but even than, we can only go back 6 years to a 32 year old Moore coming in at an abnormal than career highest 181 who still wouldn't be favored to do anything but marginal better at best. There really isn't a version of Moore anybody is going to look back on that could reverse the result or do significantly better, because Moore had his most sustained success at HW or even LHW in the years just prior to facing Marciano.

 

The drop off in Moore's LHW competition doesn't occur until after the Marciano fight. Though Durelle, Pastrano, Rinaldi, Pompey, Anthony were a decent crop.

Leading up to Marciano, Moore defended the LHW title against Maxim, Olson, and Johnson. And those are easily 3 of his best wins at the weight.

 

While Moore always had his punching power, my concern would be that trading off of the 38 year old version's size/physical power, confidence, and experience for the 32 year old's speed and youth wouldn't be enough to drastically alter the outcome.

 

It's possible, certainly these days with injury rehab, drugs, all sorts of science and easy fights and opportunities to rest. I can't name any for certain, but it's become a possibility imo.

But Archie Moore doesn't fit the bill, in my opinion. He's was very well-preserved considering his about of fights, but certainly not prime.

Maybe Wladimir Klitschko's still prime, and he's almost 39 I think.
I think a fighter who hasn't taken too much punishment and fights with that kind of style, a big heavyweight who "thinks" his punches as a style, rather than relying on pure reflex, is a likely candidate to extend their prime towards 39 or 40.

Archie's prime was probably in the 1940s.

 

I would agree that Moore still produced some decent results after being beaten up by Rocky, a rather unique exception imo. Walcott,****ell ,Layne, Lastarza,Charles were all significantly diminished after getting in the ring with
Marciano.
That is simply because of the type of fighter he was, he remorselesly beat you up, and ground you down, if he couldn't find your chin he would pound on your arms, kidneys,shoulders, wherever he could land.A fight with him was a career shortening experience.

 

No version of Moore beats Marciano imo, prime Charles possibly may have .

 

What they claim is that Louis ,Walcott ,Moore ,and Charles were significantly better than they really were at that stage of their careers.

I'm crusading against nothing and no one, I'm a Marciano fan, but I hope I see him through objective eyes.
Joe Louis said his last great fight
was against Tami Mauriello, that was September 1946, he fought Marciano on October 1951, just over a 5years span. Moore says his legs were gone for the Marciano fight and had probably been gone for up to 5 years. Should we ignore their opinions of their own physical capabilities? Because that is the implicit alternative.

 

Box rec has Moore's DOB as Dec 13th 1916. In his interview with Heller, Moore's DOB is given as Dec 13th 1913. His mother said he was 2 years older than he claimed.

 

I think Joe Louis was still capable at a good level whilst still being a world away from being the old Brown bomber. He handled Brion as well as the other elite fighters of that era. I think Louis had no more great fights left in him but enough left to take anyone but a champion. He wasnt prime but still good, just wasn't anywhere near as good as he'd been. Just didn't stand out anymore. Is dropping a level the same as a decline? Nobody wants to see a once great fighter dropping a level but there is dropping a level winning against top fighters and dropping a level and struggling against hand picked losers. Louis was not facing hand picked losers.

Walcott and Charles had good fights left in them when they fought Rocky. They just did not after they fought him.

That's where I would put those two, about where Ali was against Foreman. Still having good performances left to produce but at the twilight of a career prime. Walcott had overturned his losses to Charles as Ali had overturned his losses to Norton and Frazier. Charles was regarded the next best in the world and was the age Ali was against Foreman.

If Foreman beat ALi in 74' would George have beat a declining champion with no leggs?

 

Prime Louis would have destroyed Brion.

Yes!

 

:good

I think Marciano is one of the last guys I would pick to share the ring with because the pain never stops until you do. He was mean with a quiet voice and a smile.

Jack Dempsey also had that low pitched voice. Tyson as well but Tyson did not hide what he wanted to do to you, JD had the snarl but Marciano was all smiles and polite until the bell rang and then he hit you in every place you mentioned