The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

Walcotts only win over a top 10 heavyweight after age 36 was Charles and he shortly afterwards lost to Marciano twice via kayo. He wasn't dominating anything in his late 30s and Charles is really his only good win at 37-38. Joe Louis only beat one young prime contender in his comeback, Cesar Brion, again he wasn't dominating.
Moore is the only old guy who was routinely beating up young prime contenders in his late 30s and still came up short in his two title shots losing both via decisive kayo. He seems to have been a special case though and aged much better than most guys in his era.

Foreman and Holmes diminished over the course of the 1990s and were losing to guys in the late 1990s they could have beaten in 1990-1992. Their bad performances later doesn't diminish that they were still dangerous in the early 1990s at 40 plus. Holyfield losing to Toney and Donald doesn't change the fact that he was successful against Rahman and Ruiz in his late 30s. Also most had Foreman beating Briggs.

Tucker beat McCall and Norris plus went the distance with Lewis. Many had Tubbs beating a prime Riddick Bowe. These guys werent old chronologically but like Charles seemed diminished from their prime selves.

 

In the two years before he met Marciano Walcott had wins over Charles x2 the great Harold Johnson who although not ranked at HW had arguably top 30 all time wins there, Agramonte (not sure if he was ranked then), formally ranked Shkor, and 18-0 Hein ten Hoff. Not quite the desolate picture there.

 

Much agreed. If he beat a big younger fighter like Bob Baker or Nino Valdez it could have been at the expense of missing out on Charles or Moore which wouldn’t have satisfied anyone. The same ones screaming about Rocky ducking bug guys would today be complaining that Charles and Moore didn’t get their chance.

other than the limited number of championship wins in him, fair criticisms of Marciano can mostly only be aimed at his pre contender days..

The incredible luck Marciano had at the beginning in signing with Al Weil just before he became so influential in boxing cannot he stated enough. It meant Rocky could benefit from favourable match making he got in Rhode Island where upon he was able to develop to full potential as the unbeaten house fighter away from his management base in New York. It prepared him for what came next and probably would not have made the grade without it since by all accounts Marciano was exceedingly raw initially.

Even so. He deservedly earned his title shot because a lot hung on that Rex Layne win that got him the Joe Louis fight and a clear path to the title.

without that Rex Layne fight, Marciano could have ran out of time reaching the title the slower way around. Whoever got Rex Layne first was going to get that pathway to the title. But Rocky, who was limited to a fewer number of top wins needed to get there first.

 

I agree with the above. I also believe the critical factor for Marciano was obtaining Charley Goldman as his trainer. Goldman had the smarts to get the best out of him.

Here is a quote from ESPN,com by Angelo Dundee:

"Charley taught the technique that if you are short, you make yourself shorter. Charley let him bend his knees to a deep knee squat. He was able to punch from that position coming straight up and hitting a heck of a shot."

I think this quote really hits on a critical point. Short men using a crouch often punched above their weight. The legs driving up added to the force of the blow in a way a taller man punching down might not. Even the relatively tall Dempsey found fighting in a crouch and springing up adding to his power.

 

Not just the run from 45-46. He was also pretty dominant from 49-52. He avenged his losses to Charles with 2 sensational wins, and also had wins over Johnson and Goff and was the clear #1 in the division until Rocky dethroned him.

I wasn't suggesting he dominated the entire era the way Louis did for example, just that he was a pretty dominant force for 2 brief periods. It's certainly more convincing than what old Foreman did.

 

This content is protected

 

Salient points!

 

"

Savold was one fight away from having his licence taken away for the good of his health, he was done.
Andy Walker was a journeyman who would lose his next11 fights and retire.
Agramonte has lost his last 2 fights ,would beat 2 nobodies then lose his next 5 being floored 20 times in them. Louis couldn't drop him.
Beshore had lost his last 4, he cut from a hard look.
These were used up veterans or third rate trial horses.
Who is doing the re -writing of history here?

 

You are the one rewriting history here, because you missed out Cesar Brion who you know very well was young and 100% live. Louis fought him twice. 20 rounds worth. And nobody else was knocking out Brion at that point. Brion did just as well against Ezzard Charles. Took Rex Layne to a split decision between the Louis fights and kayoed Mauriello and Charlie Norkus.

I can’t think why you left Cesar Brion out?

 

I left out Brion because though not "quality" he was better than the also rans and past it names Louis was beating.
Brion did not do well against Charles the score were 7-2-7-3,7-3.
"A busy, fight-a-month campaign was being mapped out today for Ezzard Charles following the former heavyweight champion's decisive triumph over game Cesar Brion of Argentina. Charles was eager to keep in action. he was disappointed that he didn't knock out or floor Brion although he handed the husky invader a shellacking. Mauriello was washed up and having his last fight.

I generally avoid debating with you because I find your posts cynically hypocritical ,and at some point you usually manage to introduce something negative about either Liston,Foreman,or Williams,so far it has only been Foreman,but we will see.

 

I don’t see it quite that way. To me you can’t surgically cut out losses as if they were fat being trimmed from a steak.

He went 7-4 in the years you mentioned. That’s not dominanant. But the first loss in 1946 completed a three-fight losing streak, so that quickly becomes 7-6 if you don’t arbitrarily start the clock when you did and look at the actual flow of what he was doing (running cold and hot) at that time.

He lost to Rex Layne, a fight where he was a 4-1 favorite, for instance. He finally won a title after being gifted an immediate rematch with Ezzard after losing by 6, 8 and 10 points on the cards and being floored … that doesn’t happen without ‘supernatural’ (as in mob) influence that was determined to keep giving their guy title shots until he finally won one (again, credit to Joe that he did, but he should have gone to the back of the line after that loss to Ezz rather than stay at the front of it).

I never understood how/why the win over Ten Hutt (or Ten Hoff or Ten Huff and Puff) gets credited so highly on Joe’s record. He was German champ, and that title held little sway at the time (if he was Euro champ maybe you could make a case that it was a quality win, but Germany wasn’t exactly a hotbed of heavyweight activity at the time). He had draws with journeymen in 2 of his last 4 fights before Walcott beat him. He never once, before or after meeting Walcott, defeated a notable opponent. Heck, he hardly beat ANY fighters with winning records who weren’t Germans in his entire career. They fought in May 1950 … in the February 1950 issue of The Ring (from which 1949 annual ratings are cited), he wasn’t in the top 10. He is not held up as a quality opponent for any fighter he ever faced who wasn’t named Joe Walcott, but people throw him out there like Joe knocked off a highly-rated guy.

Of Joe’s wins in the period you cite as being dominant, four of them were vs. journeymen (Tandberg and HoF being two of them). I just don’t see it.

 

Louis did drop him.

 

I don't think the word "dominant" is appropriate.

Here is his actual record from late 1950 through 1952:

Lost decisively to Rex Layne
Lost close decision to Ezzard Charles
KO'd Charles with beautiful left hook to become champion
Won close decision over Charles
Gave strong defense against Marciano, but KO'd in end

So Walcott lost to all three men he fought, but also looked very good against Charles and Marciano.

 

Source?