Rocky Marciano vs the 80s heavyweights.

Kaylor was never world class I saw most of his fights he lost to the three world class opponents he faced.
Graham
Sibson
Drayton who was a light middle but kod him.
The fact that there was significantly more depth aboput duringthe 80 ,made the fights more competitive and precluded a dominant contender emerging.Certainly the idea of a 39years old light heavyweight who hd lost 19 times, and been kod 4 times, being the number one contender would have been laughable.

 

well you could swap Kaylor for Frank Fletcher or Robbie Simms or Don Lee or Mustafa Hamsho they're not going to beat welterweight Ray Leonard are they?

was there really? Another way of looking at it is seeing a whole bunch of twenty fight prospects winning a belt in their very first "step up fight", losing the next one then having a 50-50 record in comparative fights. These guys could never replicate their best performance, could lose any rematch against a guy they beat. There is a difference between contenders and champions, a greater difference between mere contenders and ATG champions and absolutely no difference between a 1980s belt Holder and a regular contender.

We both know the system and the circumstances. We both know that your summery of "39years old light heavyweight who hd lost 19 times, and been kod 4 times, being the number one contender would have been laughable" leaves out greater factors like the 40 fight win streak, record number of knockouts and unusual progression Moore famously exhibited as a veteran fighter.

 

Bottom line put Moore in that 80's mix would he be the number one contender/ would he even be a contender? 40 fight streaks are fine Lamar Clark had one , not great fighters but at least they were heavyweights.

 

Would he even be a contender? Marvis Frazier had a rating! Michael Spinks was champion!

There were heavyweight contenders within that Archie Moore 40 fight streak. Big guys like Valdes and Baker who would win 50% of their fights against the entire list of the 1980s lost generation.

Bob Baker definitely wins a belt in the 1980s if Tony Tubbs could. Archie Moore knocked Baker out!

None of those 1980s guys had a record even as good as Bob Baker when they challenged for titles. Who did Dokes actually beat? Didn't 1950s sized Ossie Ocassio get robbed against him?

Scott Frank drew with Snipes who beat Berbick who beat Page who beat Coetzee who drew with Thomas who beat Witherspoon who went 1-1 versus Smith who Marvis Frazier beat. These guys were all equally erratic.

These were just good contenders. Erratic at competative level like most contenders including the 1950s guys.

 

I don't know. Seems a tall order for Marciano. I know size doesn't equal greatness. And when guys are comparatively close in size I can see the better man winning often. I have a hard time picturing Marciano of 5'10.5 184.5 with a 68' reach (his measurements for Walcott 1) defeating 6'6 225.5 81' reach Gerry C. Of the Holmes fight.
Marciano never fought anyone close to those dimensions. 41lbs and 7.5 inches in height and 13" in reach is A Lot. Especially for a come forward fighter that was never that hard to miss at.

 

That's about right, two thoughts

Rocky fought four good fighters and they were all past their primes.

These guys all have AT LEAST 30 lbs. on Rocky, and if size didn't matter they wouldn't have weight classes.

That doesn't mean I have anything against him, he didn't duck anyone; in his 7 title fights, he fought the best available at the time.

 

If Rocky only fought four good fighters, then there isn't a single good fighter on the list in the opening post.

 

I know it seems like a ridiculous amount of size differential but that sized guy always existed. And they just got creamed. Too much target. Rarely made the grade. The reduction of 15 to 12 rounds and an increase in glove size made it even harder for smaller guys to make the same impact. Big guys look a whole lot better for it.

However, we are talking about marciano in an era where the best alphabet soup champion was knocked out in one round by a guy Marvis Frazier beat. No disrespect to Marvis, he was a much better fighter than given credit for but overall not rated anywhere near Archie Moore in a historical sense is he?

 

Dokes v Coc* ell,Lastarza,Mathews,Brion,Layne,Bucceroni?

Hand on heart who do you pick?

 

Moore's streak had 21 heavies on it ,4 of whom scaled 180lbs and often fought as light heavies,only 4 of the 21 had any pretensions to contender status.Several of them were super middles. Marvis Frazier and Mike Spinks both beat C*ckell and Mathews, and Lastarza.Spinks probably beats all Marciano's challengers.

Where Marvis Frazier is rated historically compared to Moore is irrelevant The question we are arguing is was Moore a great heavyweight, I say he wasn't and I've enough feed back from others to say the consensus agrees with me.

 

I would make Layne even money or better, against Dokes.

 

Individual basis best night ever, best night for best night Dokes would beat each of them using his best performance. But in life he used that best performance one time only.

He can't keep using that one effort that he never could duplicate. so if he beats the pants off Cokkell using his weaver win he could turn up against say Bucceroni using his Tex Cobb performance and get punched all over the ring. Then Dokes fights Layne using his Coetzee performance and Layne beats him up too.

Thing is, Charles, Walcott and Archie Moore had a number of wins at top level. A Quality and consistency non existent throughout the entire 1980s beltholders that I proved in one paragraph ( that I shall call from now on the "Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier chain of events") that two of the weakest challengers of that era beat and drew to guys on par with the cream of the elite heavyweights of the day.

Yes those 1980s guys were bigger and showed traces of decent ability that could not be relied upon. They lacked greatness, seasoning, consistency and all proved that they could lose to or draw with guys who lost to guys they could beat.

Scott Frank drew with Snipes who beat Berbick who beat Page who beat Coetzee who drew with Thomas who beat Witherspoon who went 1-1 versus Smith who Marvis Frazier beat. These guys were all equally erratic.

 

If Ken Norton is a great heavyweight then Archie Moore can't be so far behind.

Neither held the real title but both were excelent contenders.

Archie losing to Ali and Patterson is not so bad as the Shavers, ****ey and Foreman blow outs. Nor the draw with LeDoux.

 

Dokes was bigger, faster, stronger and more skilled.

Other than that, I'm sure Layne had a lot going for him.

 

What, you mean like actually having beaten some of the best heavyweights of the era?