Rocky Marciano vs the 80s heavyweights.

Top guys of the 1950s were Marciano, Louis, Charles, Walcott, Patterson, Jackson, Johansson, Liston, Machen, Folley, Johnson, Moore, Valdes, Baker, Henry. Those were the top talents

Those are Teir 1

The men you mentioned in your thread were easy victims for the names I mentioned above


Cokkell got bent over by Valdes and Marciano
Savold got brutalized by Louis and Marciano
Walls never even became good enough to fight someone like that
Bucceroni destroyed by Hurricane Jackson
Sys annihilated by Valdes
Dunlap got hammered by Archie Moore
McMutry utterly clowned in 1 round by Valdes and Machen
Lastarza bludgeoned by Marciano, he also ducked baker, moore, charles and louis.

 

But a compromise is made if it is a special fighter, well preserved, whom progressed into the top levels at an older age that he was prevented from reaching at a younger age.

He did not realize this level when he was younger so whilst he had slowed some he won't be better younger han he was when he was older because the competition from his youth did not lift him into that level. The errosion occurs against a lower level not the level he should have been operating at.

Jersey Joe Walcott was like an old V8 engine that only started using all its cylinders later in life.

 

Has anyone even seen film of the younger Walcott ?

 

I dunno, at the top level there are so many and the margin for error is so small... I mean, one half a step too late and you don't quite make it, that compromise is a no go area.

 

Of course not.

There is film of a young Archie Moore fighting in Australia though. He fought completely differently. Archie looked wilder, more wasteful but a strong natural physical specimen. He adapted, progressed and matured into a more effective fighter. No doubt his natural base physical attributes helped with his longevity.

 

How young?

I can give you fight descriptions of any 1930s fights, they were covered well in his book by James Curll

Walcott-Louis I is the earliest film on Walcott.

The Walcott book insinuates had he gone to train with Blackburn in 1936, he may have reached his peak at an earlier fighting age. But, it didn't happen. So the best Walcott we got to see was anywhere from 1946-52. Probably the 47-48 Walcvott.

 

Unforgiven,

Don't know how much you care about Jersey Joe, but ill post some of his 30s fight descriptions later. One thing people might be surprised about, Walcott could REALLY hit. Even in the 30s, he knocked quite a few people out cold, unconscious. 3 men were hospitalized in a coma, and nearly died. Walcott almost quit fighting because of this.

All the stories of Walcott going into fights dealing with severe poverty, starvation, malnutrition...are NOT exagerated. In fact, quite the contrary. Poor Walcott developed Rickets from lack of Vitamins, and the abe simon fight was Walcott at his worst physically. Ill explain later.

Walcott is an ELITE talent who would have done very well in ANY era. He is also one of the few sub 200lbers in history I would pick to do well against the super heavyweight greats because of his style. Not beat, but do well against. Walcott is a head to head nightmare!

 

While, I think Walcott and Moore got better in there 30s, Charles definitely did not. Charles peaked in his 20s, he was a fighter whom relied on reflexes/speed, and when he began losing them in his 30s he went downhill. He was still very dangerous up until the end of 1954. Then Booom....In 1955, he first began to notice signs of the ALS disease, in the Toxie Hall and Hurricane Jackson fights, Charles fought flatfooted with his left foot limping like he hurt his ankle. He felt fine, he couldn't understand why his left foot wouldn't react normally. He couldn't move normally, everything appeared like he was drunk. Poor guy. "After a guy hit me, I didn't seem to be able to get away," he recalled. "I didn't have the same coordination."

 

Absolutely. I understand this entirely. You are correct. but crafty old guys like Moore and Walcott (among many others) do compensate by dictating what's happening. They allowed for errors in margin by forcing the other guy to react to them and not the other way around. All the youth and timing is wasted if the youngster is tricked into waiting for the old guy to make the first move. Archie Moore wrote about "perfecting his style" he boasted of working on a system whereby all he moved was his shoulders. Saved using his legs. He could direct a younger opponent where he wanted to move him too. If you study Moore closely without moving his footing he could lean himself into several positions and create a lot of different angles that could be used be both defensively and offensively against his opponent.

 

Yeah, I'm very interested in Walcott. :good

Sounds like I need to get a copy of that book.

Ray Arcel always said Walcott was a devastating puncher.

 

Of course he was in better physical condition at 25 than he was at 34, just the same as BILLIONS of men world wide.

Given the choice between your hero worship of some fighters and medical science it's a no brainer.

 

I think you need to look who you are replying to before you post. I have not mentioned Abe Simon, Joe Walcott, or black murderers row, but i'm glad if you feel better for getting that off your chest.

 

Which is EXACTLY what I said, so all this talk of skill sets, experience and technique have nothing to do with a man being physically inferior at 34 to what he was at 25.

 

So Hopkins was a better fighter at 25 than 34?