Who Was The Hardest Puncher Marciano Met?

I don't see how that's a knock on Walcott's power. The average 50s HW was within the cruiser range, and he had over 10lbs on Rocky.

 

Mendoza has relevance its just that you dont care for a touch of your own medicine. I said you were biased against certain fighters but do not use the same rule set against those you rate highly, this is obvious you OLD ARSEHOLE and when someone points it out you act out like a cantankerous old biddy

 

I hardly think that cushioned Walcott's blows.

Did Ezzard Charles being 6 years younger magically protect his chin from Walcott's uppercut in their third meeting?

How about Moorer's huge youth advantage against Foreman? Did that make the right hand lighter?

:think

 

Depends on the situation and fight. In this case, we know Walcott nailed Marciano flush with several heavy punches. As Rocky was having to pressure and work inside as the smaller man. So Rocky did not stay out of range of Walcott's punches. Why pose such a stupid question, have you not seen the fight?

The rest of this post, you aren't discussing Walcott's punching power. You seem to once again be questioning Rocky's. Off topic. I brought up Walcott's weight advantage to point out it didn't matter if he was what modern fans would call a cruiser, he was the bigger man against Rocky.

 

-No. I just found your question to be irrelevant.

We aren't debating "youth" vs "size" which again depends on the situation and can't possibly be reduced to a single generalization. We were discussing who was the hardest puncher Marciano met, and I was addressing a specific criticism made against Walcott by lufcrazy.

Pointing out that Walcott would be a "cruiser" by modern standards is fruitless when he had a 10+ pound advantage over Rocky and was a decent sized heavyweight for his era.

-Its not hysterical to ask why you would pose such a stupid question regarding Marciano/Walcott.

 

I'd say Bert Cooper had a ferocious punch.

Michael Moorer was a pretty decent puncher at heavyweight, at 200 he'd be a beast I reckon.

 

Actually one can make the case Charles was the better puncher. Robinson rarely stopped men larger than a few pounds of himself. Looking through the weights of his opponents, only Maxim was close to 10% of Robinson's body weight heavier, and Robinson didn't stop him. The most weight Robinson ever gave up and stopped an opponent was 12 lbs. with Freddie Flores and Sidney Miller and both had losing records.

In contrast, Charles not only faced the tough black dynamite crew that Robinson avoided at middleweight and light-heavyweight, but moved into the heavyweight division in which he stopped men giving up great gobs of weight.

He stopped Jimmy Bivins when giving up 14 lbs. He gave up 17 lbs. to Elmer Ray (10% of his body weight) and knocked him out. Bivins and Ray were top men. He gave up 33 lbs., close to 20% of his body weight and stopped the durable Joe Baksi for the only time in Baksi's career. He gave up 35 lbs. and 20% of his body weight to Johnny Haynes and knocked him out. Haynes was not a top contender, but a solid second-tier fighter who was coming off a victory over Curtis Sheppard and had stopped Lee Murray.

Charles proved he could carry his power against much bigger men, something Robinson never proved.

And frankly, I'm more impressed with the opposition Charles faced than the opposition Robinson faced.

I consider Robinson the best p4p fighter I have seen, but Charles deserves his due as a great fighter all the way from middleweight to heavyweight.

 

"cruiser"

There was no cruiserweight division in the 1950's. All talk of it is totally ahistorical and therefore nonsensical. Walcott was considered at about 195 to be a good-sized heavyweight in his era and was in fact the heavyweight champion, a pretty good definition of what a heavyweight is.

I, at least, am making no claim Marciano would do well against modern super-heavyweights, any more than old NFL football teams could do well against modern super-sized teams. But the old NFL champion teams and Marciano dominated the opposition of their eras, which is for me the only legitimate test of greatness.

 

size versus age

Boxing has weight divisions, not age divisions.


Folks who think age determines how good a fighter is should put money on their belief and get rich by betting against old men like Wlad and Hopkins, and earlier Lewis and Vitali.

 

I don't get the "cruiser" criticism at all, especically when Walcott had roughly 12 lbs on Rocky in their first meeting.

 

Excellent post.

I don't know where McGrain was coming from with that one.

It is perfectly sensible to compare the two as punchers. And I think Charles is a guy in general that is getting slept on in this thread. As I pointed out, he has KOed many men with his left hook. Many of which were cold one punch stoppages.

And Charles in particular has KOed many common opponents Walcott could not in the same timeframe like Bivins, Oma, Layne, Ray, and Baksi. There is a case for Charles.