A good point, Marciano didn't win because of his illegal tactics he won because of his will, fitness, skill and power I think he is a handful for anyone.
What modern rule set are you referring to? If he would have lost a point or two in a fight, would it have made any difference regarding the outcome?
Eh, it was mainly the Brits. It's true Marciano fouled a lot, but I would say the main reason was that the ref did a fairly incompetent job and didn't warn him, which would have caused him to be more careful and rein it in to avoid a DQ. No, Walcott's knees weren't on the floor. You actually need to look at this- Walcott is dangling on the ropes and is very well up off the floor when Marciano nicks him with that little follow-up hook that helps shake him down.
Getting rid of grade school double "psychology" would help. Prodding a poster accomplishes ZERO in my book. In other words, you got a point, make it! Don't mask it in a bunch of **** in the form of a question.
Then you were not looking. He was not a dirty fighter. Look, you have one reason for your post: To put him down. If you don't like him, don't think he was great--ok, your opinion. But don't be an ******* and make like it's a given that he broke rules. He didn't. ****, Ezzard Chales elbowed him, Walcott grabbed and hit beheind head in their fight---cut the crap.
Nice clip, it shows what a lot don't know about that ko. Marciano feinted Walcott ito thinking he had opening for right hand, then beat him to punch. That takes skill, and Marciano had it.
Yes but limiting the rounds from 15 to 12 and quicker cuts stoppages / swelling stoppages of the modern era would hinder him the most.