Why was Marciano so successful?

Dude, boxing is very much an athletic sport. What on God's green earth are you talking about here. You're making it seem like physical attributes are secondary, while technique and experience are more important. Is that your stance? If it is, then we really can't carry on the conversation any further, as that is just plain wrong. If you don't, and concede that physical attributes are the most important thing, then there can be no possible way Walcott was prime.

Let's say you believe boxing is 50% physical attributes, 20% mental, 20% technique and 10% experience to be great; well even then we'd be left with Walcott having 50% of his prime years lost to being a part time fighter. It's really that simple. So tell me, how much does physical attributes make up of a boxer?

I'm also confused why you went on and on about how sometimes a physical peak doesn't coincide with a mental or technical peak... nobody is arguing otherwise, in fact, that is exactly my point. Since that didn't coincide in Walcott case (as you admit) then there can be no possible way he was prime. Impossible. The best physical years of his career were lost, done, and could never be gotten back no matter how much techinue or experienced was gained.

The absolute most one coud say is that Walcott best PERFORMANCES were later in his career. The point where he got full time management, was a full time fighter and got full time training. I don't argue those points, those are my points. That is still the most you could say, you could never say he was prime during that time.

 

That's the thing.. the only reason why 39 Walcott was more formidable was because that is when he had all the proper backing and was a full time fighter. He wasn't at 27. However, that doesn't make him prime. The most important variable for any fighter or athlete is their physical tools or attributes. Do you disagree with that? If you don't, then you must realize Walcott wasn't prime then, he couldn't possibly be. Just because John Elway won 2 superbowls at the tail end of his career, when his physical attributes were clearly diminished.. doesn't mean that was the prime of his career. Nobody calls that the prime of John Elway's career. His physical tools had faded by then. He simply had a better team and better management which allowed him to have the best defining moments of his career. That doesn't mean he was prime, and nobody calls him prime. Same thing here, it's impossible to call Walcott prime at 40. No way no how.

 

I'll go ahead and wait for you to answer the question I posed. Are physical attributes the most important variable for a fighter/athlete?

 

I'm not suggesting for one moment that you are lying,I just question the provenance of that quote.

Marciano died very shortly after the computer fight, that means he only saw one facet of the fighter we now know as Muhammad Ali.

 

Cool, so he wasn't at his physical peak, which is precisely the point. I can never call someone prime, when they are 40, that defies what we know about sports and the human body. We know for a fact somebody is physically prime at 40, thus using the term prime for them simply can't be used.

 

The Marciano quote I've seen close to that was 'I could have licked him in my prime'.
It was a remark he made in a private conversation.
Publicly, the only thing I've seen from him was to compliment Ali on his speed.

He was asked once if he could predict the round his opponents would go as Ali did. Rocky said 'No. I was never that confidant'.

 

He was a class guy when interviewed.:good

 

Thats the one, it was some years ago and i remember it different. I thought Marciano said he would have killed Ali though.

 

There is a video I have seen on YouTube where Marciano with a wry smile states "I would have killed him" when asked about fighting Ali in his prime.

 

Just found the video and I was mistaken. It's someone quoting Rocky.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8m8F13xhnHk

 

Its always refreshing when people can admit they were mistaken. I've never had a problem with it, but then I've had a lot of practise.

 

Physical attributes are absolutely vital. A fighter has to have been a great athlete at some point. An excelent level of physical prowess can be maintained once he reaches a level. Prime can last a little longer than a physical prime if the balance of experience allows. Boxing is a sport of levels of competition though. Once a level has been achieved it can be maintained with a distribution of experience and physical attributes.

if a fighter is good enough he's young enough. To start with a fighter relies more on physical attributes and its just as well. This is when they can afford to pay for mistakes. Later things level off, but he's a better fighter by then. Level of competition is crucial.

Yes, absolutely each fighter has to have a good core physical prowess.

The physical attributes ON THEIR OWN are no use at all, other than to allow him to take more of a beating over more rounds once the fighter is out of his depth. If the physical prowess is all he has. Where as a clever physically declining fighter will at the least have the know how to survive at a higher level even if he still loses.

Walcott would have been a better fighter at a younger age if his physical prime coincided with his career prime. Better than he was at a younger age anyway.

He would not necessarily have been a better fighter at the earlier point than he wound up being at the end.

You can't buy experience. Archie Moore and Walcott spent years perfecting their tricks and style. It's impossible to combine both youth and experiences. A mature crafty mind on young shoulders?

But this is where his Career Prime was. He achieved a higher level at this point. He built up to that. Yes he was initially a special athlete but because his potential was not met he had a fair bit preserved of what he had as a younger man.