Who Was Marciano's Worst Title Challenger?

yes I chose Cokkell only because number Two is lower than number one. He beat one of the challengers so on that basis he wasn’t a bad challenger.

 

Marciano is what happened.

 

Lol calm yerself

The answer is the fat Englishman

 

Not really, so you saying Louis, Walcott, Ezzard and Archie were at their peak when Rocky fought them?

 

Marciano was old also and he started his pro career at 25. Had no size advantage like most heavyweight champs and had no reach.

 

Late start also means less war torn. I think Ricky was just about as perfectly timed and managed as they came (and I mean that in a positive light). They gave him enough time to learn on the job by take their time moving him up the levels and when they did they seemed to get the step ups spot on in Vingo, LanStarza I and then again with Layne before Louis.

He was pretty much in his prime when he got to world level and he had a short run against ATGs who were just past their prime years. Probably retired at the perfect time as well though he could have won a few more if he continued.

Ezzard had had near 100 fights and some of them were absolute wars, brutally KO'd by Walcott and had showed some patchy form previous.

Louis had already retired and came back for the pay cheque and hadn't looked the same since his inactivity from the war years, scraped by Walcott in the first fight which is open to dispute (though no footage to make a clear argument), lost to Ezzard lop-sidedly, went on a run of lower level fighters to ease his way back up beat Savood and a shot Bivins then destroyed by Rocky, he was probably a good six plus years past his prime.

Archie and Walcott are a bit different as they have patches of form throughout and both had good runs at heavyweight. Archie was a better fighter at LHW imo but tbf his HW run to Rocky was pretty good and worthy of a challenge. Walcott was the champ and probables the closest to their best out of the quartet but still a 39 year old with 70 fights behind him who had worked his way up the hard way.

Not taking anything away from Rocky, he beat everyone he could but I'm also not gonna pretend he got his big fights at the prime of their careers.

I rank Marciano higher than the vast majority of historians and the like I've seen rate him. On my list he sits at seven in my all time heavyweight rankings.

 

And I gave you the name that everyone agrees on! Now you're just into your usual cankerous mode. You've got several heated things going on right now with other posters. Gee, I wonder why.

A difference between you and me is I will answer questions. You say you will answer them, and duck out.

Most recent example showing if Henry Hank beat any 10 ten middleweights when they were ranked.

[url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/gennady-golovkin-vs-tiger.613034/page-10[/url]

 

I think Marciano would have been even better if he started young like most boxers. Most boxers hit their prime by the time Rocky had only taken up the sport. By the time he got good he was already past his physical prime, which is close to mid twenties.

Really lots of the great boxers have wins over past prime greats. I think Rocky’s wins over Walcott, Charles, Moore, trumps Lewis wins over Holyfield, Tyson and Vitali. And Louis had more left then Tyson. Just one example.

 

Kocell was rated # 2 and all of the others were # 1 contenders when Marciano fought them so even though Don C fought his heart out & showed tremendous heart, he was the worst.

 

Cokkell why this name censored

 

That's the thing about Rocky. He only had six of'em.