Why was Marciano's era not strong?

I found a German source which listed various claims for his height, including 1.96 meters and 1.98 meters (6' 4.5" to 6' 5")

His weight was generally between 215 and 225. He weighed 219 for Walcott. 223.5 for Johansson. His reach is generally listed at 84"--

Most of the modern sources do list him as 6' 3" but I personally think 6' 5" is much more likely given what he looks like against both Walcott and Johansson on film and his listed weights. If he were 6' 3" with that physique, I think his weight would be considerably lower.

 

I personally think he could be taller than 6'3.

http://p2.la-img.com/577/12911/3743208_1_l.jpg
http://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs/...g_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/939252360.jpg
He looks like he could be more than 3 inches taller than Walcott, but we won't know any time soon.

 

Just means they're good enough to be favoured over Joshua etc.

That and the reduced jump in weight.

 

Here we go again...weight!

The jump in weight did not prevent Walcott beating the monstrously sized Hoff did it?

Or Satterfeild beating Valdez

Or Marshall beating Liston

Or Charles beating Baksi

Or Moore beating Baker

 

I guess, if you rate Joshua as a top fighter.
Would you favour Ali over every fighter today?

 

Yeah, certainly, Foreman also.

Frazier I would favour but him being blown out wouldn't be a huge shock.

 

But are you saying Frazier's not quite small enough for that to mean this era is weak?

 

How could one man define the strength of an era?

My view is that Walcott, Patterson, Moore and Charles are atg skill fighters but wouldn't be HW forces today. That era didn't produce a murderers row of HW fighters.

 

Like I said, Charles and Moore might be the greatest light-heavies of all-time. I'm sure they could beat some of todays top 10.
Patterson would do okay today. I expect Patterson could beat Charles Martin and Dillian Whyte and David Haye.
Walcott would do okay.

 

That's where we disagree.

 

Without those fighters (Charles, Walcott, Rocky, Moore, Patterson) the next best guys may very well have been Elmer Ray (who beat Charles and Walcott) Nino Valdes (who beat Charles) and Bob Baker (who beat Jimmy Bivins). Then with none of the best fighters to beat them would you then call it a stronger era just because Baker, Ray and Valdes were Heavyweights?

 

if Baker, Elmer Ray and Nino Valdez had things to themselves (without Charles, Moore and Rocky) you wouldn't know any different would you? It would be an era on par with the 1970s so far as you are concerned because those guys are all over 200lb. It would be right up your street.

 

What, you'd expect Dillian Whyte to beat Floyd Patterson ?