Rocky Marciano vs the 80s heavyweights.

[

Physical prime and career prime are two separate things my friend.

An actual prime is the best body of work a fighter produces. For Walcott it was avenging two losses to Charles.

You can argue that Walcott would have been better younger but balence that with where he was at that time. a part time fighter with a day job. He was years wiser and prety well preserved for his age once Walcott finally got the backing to go full time. An old head with a young body and right connections finally proved to be the winning combination.

There's no saying that with the right baking all along that a young Walcott would have been mature enough to develop into the fighter he became as a veteran.how much was owed to Walcotts success at being in good shape "for his age" or simply being a great fighter who was able to rebuild, be in shape and well conditioned enough to work out how to beat a good fighter.

 

Walcotts prime was 1946-1952. No doubt about it. He did peak in 47-48 though. His legs and reflexes were slightly faster sharper when he fought Louis compared to when he fought Charles and Marciano. Watch the films, Walcott moves better in 47-48

 

I didn't include Moorer so why you did, I've no idea. I'm content I made my point.

 

Again what has this to do with the thread?



Answer JACK SH*T!atsch

 

Why isn't Tyson the outstanding contender of the decade?


I would pick all those to beat:
McMurtry
Hunter
Summerlin
Norkus
Mittef
Carter
Garner
London
Erskine
Savold
Oma
Lastarza
Sys
London
Williams
Dunlop
Neuhaus
C*ckell
Walls
Bucceroni
Harris
Brion
All of whom made the ratings in the 50's.

 

Walcott and Moore continued to progress certain details of their game into a later age. Ring smarts compensated for slowing down allowing them the same level of effectiveness. I'm certain they recorded better results outside of their physical prime than they could have recorded within it.

The 1948 Walcott was of fleeter foot but the later version utilised pace and his left hook was better. He finally worked out prime Charles then didn't he?

 

No!

 

All very interesting, but absolutely NOTHING to do with what I wrote which was this.

A 38 year old man, could never possess the skills, fitness level, stamina, or indeed the reflexes, he possessed when he was 25. That has everything to do with biology, and sweet FA to do with sport.

Now unless you are going to show, medical / biological evidence to the contrary I have no idea what your point is.

I might relent on the skills bit given that Ed Moses was still able to maintain his 13 strides between hurdles up until his retirement aged 33.

 

Abe Simon clearly beat the best version of Walcott.

The so called Great Black Murder's Row has been exposed by you. The Myth of the Ducked Black Man is clearly just that..a myth. A bed time story to scare children. Clearly none of them were great as the White Beast Abe Simon. Why could these talented black men not reproduce the feats of his bulging snow tanned muscles? Perhaps they are just inferior? That is some song you are singing, do you play the bango?

Charles, Bivins, Murray, Johnson, Sheppard, Elmer Ray, Joe Louis. None of them can approach Abe "The Aryan Barbarian" Simon. Those pale powerful arms clubbing the best version of Walcott into submission, doing what no black man could do with an older washed up version with inferior reflexes, stamina, and fitness level. How did this myth of the great Walcott come to pass? Clearly he peaked before he took up boxing full time. Thank you Simon for proving your superiority over an entire generation of black fighters. Abe Simon, in his name, we pray..amen.

 

So they would beat the second tier fighters of the 50s but not the top tier?

All those fighters you listed are bottom feeders

 

All were rated in the 50's
Bottom feeders?
C*ckell was no 6 in53,and no2 in 54
Savold was no 2 in 50
Walls was no 5 in53, and 54
Bucceroni was no 3 in 53
Sys was no5 in 51
Dunlop no4 in 52
McMurtry no5 in57
Lastarza no4 in 51 ,no7 in 52 ,and no4 in53

That's the top half of the top ten is it not?

 

Yes but because it's boxing and not athletics a fighter could get KTFO at 25 years of age losing to much worse guy that he might beat at age 38.

Experience makes boxers better.

 

You're on the downslide past thirty.

 

Physically of course you are but it depends if the guy had reached his potential or not when younger. Perhaps a fighter in the full bloom of youth is operating at 20% of what he could be he won't be so burnt out later will he? If he was not ever quite able to utilise his talent, then took a break from boxing then potentially there is a lot more to come from him if he is ever able to apply himself at a later point. He won't regain his youth, that is for sure, but he will progress and utilize his talent. He will tailor his style to get the most out of what he has and not being so young and impatient perhaps he would be more economically effective. Often youth is wasted on the young, but then you know this.:good I won't preach to the converted.

 

its about that extra provided by youth when its thetop level though.

theres thousands with experience.

to top the pile you need the experience and the young powers, amongst otherthings.

when you lose just seconds, that magnified at the toplevel.