Who is the biggest person Rocky Marciano fought?

:good good quote

 

even though he was a heavyweight, I have to say in a lb for lb sense Joe Louis in his prime was still Platinum with diamonds

 

There was a discussion earlier on where in the ratings the guys Louis fought in 1951 were. Well, here is the end of the year 1951 Ring heavyweight ratings:

Champion--Jersey Joe Walcott

Group 1

1--Ezzard Charles
2--Rocky Marciano

Group 2

1--Clarence Henry
2--Roland LaStarza
3--Joe Louis
4--Bob Baker
5--Cesar Brion
6--Rex Layne
7--Hein Ten Hoff
8--Joe Baksi
9--Johnny Williams
10-Jack Gardner
11-Omelio Agramonte
12-Karol Sys
13-Gene Jones
14-Jimmy Bivins

Lee Savold and Freddie Beshore were listed in the Class A section, which was in alphabetical order and would include the rest of the top fifty. This is of course, after their losses to Louis.

 

How good do you guys think Ezzard Charles still was in the early 50's? Obviously his greatness over all should never be questioned. I think he was certainly still among the elite and very capable in the ring. Not sure if he was prime or not by the time his fights with Marciano came off.

 

I think Charles was so active that if he fought 10 times a year he had two duds and 8 good wins. Two performances a year where he was not as good, you just cant fight that often and be good all the time and if you look at his record this pattern follows his entire career. However when he went into a camp and had a 3 month break he was usually good. Some of Charles's 1950s wins were as good as anything that came before. His fight with Harold Johnson was prety close and could have went either way. Same with his challenge to Walcott. The Bernie Renolds,Coley Wallace, and Bob Satterfeild knock out wins are as good as anything that was filmed. Ezzard fought like a tiger in the first Marciano fight too. Apart from 3 points in the fight (of the availible rounds) where Rocky managed to overwhelm him with workrate there was nothing much to separate Charles from Marciano.

 

What would have happened if Marciano had met the three years younger Charles that beat Walcott twice?:think

 

I think that's a good question and one that I have been pondering myself. I guess we need to ask ourselves, was Charles better three years earlier?

 

Charles prime was difficult to pinpoint because he fought through three weight divisions and his elite showings came and went in spurts. As you say, a lot of this was largely due to his prolific schedule and constantly being matched against the best of the best, which led to dropping a loss here and there as expected. Some felt he actually deserved the nod in his fourth and final meeting with Joe Walcott, though I've never seen any footage of it. It was also believed that he was robbed against Elmer Ray and a few others. Fighting as often as he did against the elite and also having to suffer through poor officiating makes it nearly impossible to have a clean record. And hence difficult to gauge "prime" as well.

 

Couple quotes from writers that followed Charles his whole career cited the first Marciano match as one his best performances and that it would be hard to imagine him doing anything else.

 

Sure, getting beat by Marciano is better than KO'ing Jimmy Bivins in 4, almost KO'ing Archie Moore or beating Burley twice.

Who were these writers?

 

A best performance doesn't have to be a victory.

Wilfrid Smith: "Charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his long career"

W.J. McGoogan "You wander what Charles could possibly do in September or any other time that he did not do on June 17. He fought a wonderful fight, possibly the best in his career of about seventeen years".
(credit to Rock of His Times)

 

Depending on his schedule Charles could have been worse three years earlier. Like I said before if he fought 10 times in a year two fights would be duds. Six fights in 6 months. And so on. Three years before he fought Marciano he had been knocked out by Walcott, struggled more with Layne than Rocky did and was not exciting against maxim. The year before he failed to thrill in wins over Barone and Beshore. Charles did not sparkle each time because he fought too often. Give him a few months rest between fights (as he got against Rocky) and he was great. Charles fought a great fight against Rocky.

 

True. Sir Bert Cooper probably had his best showings in defeat.

 

I am aware of the first statement.

Rock of His Times was not a particularly good read and the quote could be construed as a bit self serving.

I'll look back at some of the next day's and see what the opinion was of ringsiders. I am open to it being his best performance, just a bit skeptical when noting some of his victories at lower weights. Almost KO'ing and beating Charlie Burley, who himself was on a very good run, is a pretty great performance… same with having a prime Moore out on his feet and taking a decision.

 

Almost Kayoing Charlie Burley when Charles was a 21 year old kid came just 18 months before his terrible back to back beatings from Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins where Ezzard was subjected to 15 knockdowns. Had his career continued at that time Charles, still only a tall middle weight might have been ruined as a fighter.

Kid Charles was burnt out just in time for the war to allow this youngster a three year break and time to mature physically into a real small heavyweight. When he came back he was 25, fully recovered -but with an experienced head on young shoulders. Within 9 months Charles was beating heavyweights. He was not a light heavy for long.