Who Was The Best Fighter Rocky Marciano Beat?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

You changed your question. The original question wasn't "Who is most formidable and toughest opponent Rocky Marciano beat?" Nor it is "Who is the best heavyweight Rocky Marciano beat?" The question is "Who is the best fighter Rocky Marciano beat?" I agreed with Buzz that it was Archie. Had Marciano ever fought Willie Pep, I would have said Pep.

In going back just now and seeing that you qualified the question in your first text as ". . . the best fighter Rocky Marciano beat when that fighter was in his prime," I'd change my answer and say Louis since, prime to prime, I think Louis was a better overall fighter than Archie. But again, had Marciano ever fought Willie Pep, I might still say Pep, since the question is fighter, not heavyweight, and Willie was arguably a better fighter, prime to prime, than Louis.

Marciano said his toughest opponent was Walcott in their first fight. I'm happy to take his word for it.

I'm not qualifying anything...Here's my original question :

"Who was the best fighter Rocky Marciano beat when that fighter was in his prime?"

We seem to be debating whether Rocky's tougest opponent was a thirty eight or thirty nine year old man...

All the obscurantist arguments in the world notwithstanding, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, or Joe Louis were not the same boxers at 37, 38, and 39 that they were at 27, 28, and 29...The laws of physiology are immutable...As one ages, especially as they close in on the fourth decade of life their lens thicken, their reflexes slow, and the amount of fat to muscle increases...Boxing isn't golf and a boxer isn't a punter or field goal kicker whose performance is not as greatly affected by age...

Look at the career arcs of Sugar Ray Robinson, Tommy Hearns, Sugar Ray Leonard, Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones Jr, Muhammad Ali, etcetera ; they all started losing fights late in their career to boxers they would have embarrassed at any other point ...Did they all of sudden forgot how to box?

You asked "Who was the best fighter Rocky Marciano beat when that fighter was in his prime?" And I am saying that Louis was better in his prime than Moore, Walcott, Charles were in their primes. Is that not what you were saying? Or did you mean "Who was the best fighter Rocky Marciano beat when Marciano was in his prime?" That's a different question than what you wrote.

Again, Rocky said Walcott gave him his toughest fight . . . so who am I to disagree with him . . .

And what inference are we to draw that Rocky Marciano said of his forty nine professional fights his toughest fight were with a thirty eight and thirty nine year old man?

What inference would you draw if Hector Camacho said Sugar Ray Leonard was his toughest fight?

Would not most boxing historians say Hector Camacho beat up a forty year old boxer who was well past it?

[raylawpc]

And what inference are we to draw that Rocky Marciano said of his forty nine professional fights his toughest fight were with a thirty eight and thirty nine year old man?

What inference would you draw if Hector Camacho said Sugar Ray Leonard was his toughest fight?

Would not most boxing historians say Hector Camacho beat up a forty year old boxer who was well past it?

We are talking about Rocky Marciano, so let's stick with Rocky Marciano.

I suggest that a competent historian would not draw any inferences from a single statistic or generalities based on age.

A competent historian would look beyond these generalities and statistics to the real story. A competent historian would look at the available newspaper accounts of the fight, written by professionals who were there at ringside. He would discover that most writers agreed with Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Red Smith, who said of Walcott, “He stood and fought like a man, and not like an old man. It was a magnificent performance, a gory and glorious redemption of a man who had sinned over and grievously by over-caution.” New York Herald Tribune, 9-24-1952 at page 30 (my italics).

A competent historian would look at the films available for the fight. A competent historian would see exactly what Smith and others saw from ringside: a 38 year-old who fought like a 28-year-old, who fought aggressively and skillfully.

Like Buster Douglas 38 years later against Mike Tyson, Walcott pulled it all together and fought the best fight of his life, becoming Rocky’s most formidable opponent, and a fighter whose performance belied his age. Many people on this forum have written that Douglas, at that one point in time, would have been a tough and formidable opponent for any heavyweight in history. The evidence suggests the same of Jersey Joe Walcott on September 23, 1952.

It is unfair to simply look at Walcott's age, conclude he was a washed-up "old man," and draw a negative inference on Marciano.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

And what inference are we to draw that Rocky Marciano said of his forty nine professional fights his toughest fight were with a thirty eight and thirty nine year old man?

What inference would you draw if Hector Camacho said Sugar Ray Leonard was his toughest fight?

Would not most boxing historians say Hector Camacho beat up a forty year old boxer who was well past it?

We are talking about Rocky Marciano, so let's stick with Rocky Marciano.

I suggest that a competent historian would not draw any inferences from a single statistic or generalities based on age.

A competent historian would look beyond these generalities and statistics to the real story. A competent historian would look at the available newspaper accounts of the fight, written by professionals who were there at ringside. He would discover that most writers agreed with Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Red Smith, who said of Walcott, “He stood and fought like a man, and not like an old man. It was a magnificent performance, a gory and glorious redemption of a man who had sinned over and grievously by over-caution.” New York Herald Tribune, 9-24-1952 at page 30 (my italics).

A competent historian would look at the films available for the fight. A competent historian would see exactly what Smith and others saw from ringside: a 38 year-old who fought like a 28-year-old, who fought aggressively and skillfully.

Like Buster Douglas 38 years later against Mike Tyson, Walcott pulled it all together and fought the best fight of his life, becoming Rocky’s most formidable opponent, and a fighter whose performance belied his age. Many people on this forum have written that Douglas, at that one point in time, would have been a tough and formidable opponent for any heavyweight in history. The evidence suggests the same of Jersey Joe Walcott on September 23, 1952.

It is unfair to simply look at Walcott's age, conclude he was a washed-up "old man," and draw a negative inference on Marciano.

Red Smth is a dead newspaper writer....He was not a physiologist ...You can't train your lens to prevent them from thickening...You can't train your reflexes to prevent them from atrophying...You can't train your aerobic capacity from decreasing with age, and a man approaching forty years old is experiencing all those physiological deficits as well as deficits in other areas which is best left for another board and another discussion...And we won't even begin to address the fact that with sparring, amateur bouts , and professional bouts , that Walcott had probably boxed over 10,000 rounds...

If you believe that Jersey Joe Walcott was exempt from the laws of nature there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion....

As an added note it is ironic, that Joe Walcott, a man who Red Smith said "stood and fought like a man, and not like an old man. It was a magnificent performance, a gory and glorious redemption of a man who had sinned over and grievously by over-caution.” got knocked out in the first round of their re-match and then retired...

Do you think Ray Robinson, Ray Leonard, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes, Bernard Hopkins, Roy Jones Jr., Evander Holyfield, et cetera started losing fights in their mid to late thirties and forties is because they forgot how to box?

I prefer the principle of Occams' Razor-one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything. Those gentleman got old...

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

Phil Muscato WKO 5
Carmine Vingo WKO 6
Roland LaStarza W 10, WKO 11
Gino Buonvino WKO 10, WKO 2
Bill Wilson WKO 1
Rex Layne WKO 6
Fred Beshore WKO 6
Joe Louis WKO 8
Lee Savold WKO 6
Bernie Reynolds WKO 3
Harry Matthews WKO 2
Jersey Joe Walcott WKO 13, WKO 1
Ezzard Charles W 15, WKO 8
Don Cockell WKO 9
Archie Moore WKO 9

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Phil Muscato WKO 5
Carmine Vingo WKO 6
Roland LaStarza W 10, WKO 11
Gino Buonvino WKO 10, WKO 2
Bill Wilson WKO 1
Rex Layne WKO 6
Fred Beshore WKO 6
Joe Louis WKO 8
Lee Savold WKO 6
Bernie Reynolds WKO 3
Harry Matthews WKO 2
Jersey Joe Walcott WKO 13, WKO 1
Ezzard Charles W 15, WKO 8
Don Cockell WKO 9
Archie Moore WKO 9

Don Cockell WKO 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QWAbm_zAMY

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

Phil Muscato WKO 5
Carmine Vingo WKO 6
Roland LaStarza W 10, WKO 11
Gino Buonvino WKO 10, WKO 2
Bill Wilson WKO 1
Rex Layne WKO 6
Fred Beshore WKO 6
Joe Louis WKO 8
Lee Savold WKO 6
Bernie Reynolds WKO 3
Harry Matthews WKO 2
Jersey Joe Walcott WKO 13, WKO 1
Ezzard Charles W 15, WKO 8
Don Cockell WKO 9
Archie Moore WKO 9

Don Cockell WKO 9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QWAbm_zAMY

[TheOneIsHere2008]

These are the arguments put forward by Marciano fans that motiovate me to start threads like this:

"Joe Louis was not old. He was not even 40!"

-boxing maniac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sncQC8_5 ... re=related

Maybe he beats Louis in his prime but to suggest the Louis he beat was in his prime is ridiculous.

[Knucklez]

These are the arguments put forward by Marciano fans that motiovate me to start threads like this:

"Joe Louis was not old. He was not even 40!"

-boxing maniac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sncQC8_5 ... re=related

Maybe he beats Louis in his prime but to suggest the Louis he beat was in his prime is ridiculous.

The One. Please answer the following question: was Lennox Lewis a better fighter at 25 or 35?

[TheOneIsHere2008]

These are the arguments put forward by Marciano fans that motiovate me to start threads like this:

"Joe Louis was not old. He was not even 40!"

-boxing maniac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sncQC8_5 ... re=related

Maybe he beats Louis in his prime but to suggest the Louis he beat was in his prime is ridiculous.

The One. Please answer the following question: was Lennox Lewis a better fighter at 25 or 35?

I would say yes.But he certainly wasn'tas good at 38 as he was at 28...He said he was retiring because he didn't like the way he reacted in the Klitshko fights and from 35 to 38 in boxing years are dog years...Oh, he also didn't lose a fight to he was 29...And, oh again, he wasn't even fighting at 38 and 39 ...


Was Muhammad Ali a better boxer at 38 than 28?

Was Sugar Ray Leonard a better fighter at 40 than he was at 30?

Was Joe Louis a better fighter at 38 than he was at 28?

Was Oscar DeLaHoya a better fighter at 35 then he was at 25?

Was Larry Holmes a better fighter at 38 than he was at 28?

Was Bernard Hopkins a better fighter at 38 than he was at 28?

Do you see where I'm going?

Boxers aren't like wine ...They don't get better with age...Even the spetacular George Foreman didn't improve with age...


.Oh, and The Old Mongoose was rumored to lie about his age as was Sonny Liston...In the old south many African Americans were not given birth certificates, ergo:

Archie Moore, Born Archibald Wright (December 13, 1913 – December 9, 1998), was light heavyweight world boxing champion between 1952 and 1959 (and again in 1961) and had one of the longest professional careers in the history of his sport. A native of Benoit, Mississippi, raised in St. Louis, Mo., he died four days short of his 85th (or 82nd) birthday,

That means Moore might have been 41 when Marciano beat him...

Can we stipulate that Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Joe Louis and Archie Moore had the most impressive records of Marciano's opponents?

If we can than we are back to square one and are debating if those gentlemen were in their prime...

I submit they weren't...

None of them accomplished nearly as much after fighting Marciano as they did before it...Walcott and Louis immediately retired...Charles didn't do much...He lost fifteen or so of his next twenty fights...Archie Moore seemed to have hanged around forever, but he never did much of note after that fight...

Rocky Marciano is a legend...He beat up everbody that he fought...I just contend the boxers he beat up weren't "all that" and the boxers who we have been arguing about, Charles, Moore, Louis, and Walcott, were once "all that " but weren't by the time Rocky got to them...

[observer1]

These are the arguments put forward by Marciano fans that motiovate me to start threads like this:

"Joe Louis was not old. He was not even 40!"

-boxing maniac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sncQC8_5 ... re=related

Maybe he beats Louis in his prime but to suggest the Louis he beat was in his prime is ridiculous.

The One. Please answer the following question: was Lennox Lewis a better fighter at 25 or 35?

I would say yes.But he certainly wasn'tas good at 38 as he was at 28...He said he was retiring because he didn't like the way he reacted in the Klitshko fights and from 35 to 38 in boxing years are dog years...Oh, he also didn't lose a fight to he was 29...And, oh again, he wasn't even fighting at 38 and 39 ...


Was Muhammad Ali a better boxer at 38 than 28?

Was Sugar Ray Leonard a better fighter at 40 than he was at 30?

Was Joe Louis a better fighter at 38 than he was at 28?

Was Oscar DeLaHoya a better fighter at 35 then he was at 25?

Was Larry Holmes a better fighter at 38 than he was at 28?

Was Bernard Hopkins a better fighter at 38 than he was at 28?

Do you see where I'm going?

Boxers aren't like wine ...They don't get better with age...Even the spetacular George Foreman didn't improve with age...


.Oh, and The Old Mongoose was rumored to lie about his age as was Sonny Liston...In the old south many African Americans were not given birth certificates, ergo:

Archie Moore, Born Archibald Wright (December 13, 1913 – December 9, 1998), was light heavyweight world boxing champion between 1952 and 1959 (and again in 1961) and had one of the longest professional careers in the history of his sport. A native of Benoit, Mississippi, raised in St. Louis, Mo., he died four days short of his 85th (or 82nd) birthday,

That means Moore might have been 41 when Marciano beat him...

Can we stipulate that Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Joe Louis and Archie Moore had the most impressive records of Marciano's opponents?

If we can than we are back to square one and are debating if those gentlemen were in their prime...

I submit they weren't...

None of them accomplished nearly as much after fighting Marciano as they did before it...Walcott and Louis immediately retired...Charles didn't do much...He lost fifteen or so of his next twenty fights...Archie Moore seemed to have hanged around forever, but he never did much of note after that fight...

Rocky Marciano is a legend...He beat up everbody that he fought...I just contend the boxers he beat up weren't "all that" and the boxers who we have been arguing about, Charles, Moore, Louis, and Walcott, were once "all that " but weren't by the time Rocky got to them...

I pretty much agree.

A Class Boxer will keep his skills until he is slightly old, but at the end of the day, if your Boxing skills have not gone down much with age, your physical peak will go down with age. Most of the Legends peaked at a young age, so inevitably, though good, they would be a lot of weaker with age.

Marciano indeed is a World Class Boxer, simply for fighting and winning. But after watching his fights in hindsiggt, it is safe to say most boxers on the Legendary list would take out Marciano.

[fistic mystic]

A few thoughts...

1. The original question would have been better understood if it had been more clearly put. For instance, "Of the boxers who Marciano beat who were in their prime when he beat them, who was the best?"

2. Studies on professional athletes have established that in terms of speed and reflexes a man peaks at age 27-28, but in terms of physical strength a man's peak potential is reached at about age 40. Variable factors that science can't measure include acquired knowledge (that is, experience), and conditioning. So there's some room for disagreement about when different fighters were at their peak, and how long they were at their peak. It isn't inconceivable that a professional boxer's performance could peak at ages 37-39. Whether it's likely is a matter for interpretation.

3. Take Jersey Joe Walcott as an example: Walcott lost to 5-2-1 Henry Taylor at age 19, to 35-25-8 Billy Ketchell at age 22, to 12-0-1 George Brothers at age 23, to 24-5 Abe Simon at age 26, and to 11-15-1 Johnny Allen at age 31...and he became world champion at age 37. Looking at his performances during the progression of his career it becomes pretty clear that Walcott was a better fighter at age 37 than he was at those earlier ages.

4. Marciano never lost to any man as a professional, which means that there's no practical measure of what it would have taken to beat him.

[Knucklez]

These are the arguments put forward by Marciano fans that motiovate me to start threads like this:

"Joe Louis was not old. He was not even 40!"

-boxing maniac

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sncQC8_5 ... re=related

Maybe he beats Louis in his prime but to suggest the Louis he beat was in his prime is ridiculous.

The One. Please answer the following question: was Lennox Lewis a better fighter at 25 or 35?

I would say yes.But he certainly wasn'tas good at 38 as he was at 28...He said he was retiring because he didn't like the way he reacted in the Klitshko fights and from 35 to 38 in boxing years are dog years...Oh, he also didn't lose a fight to he was 29...And, oh again, he wasn't even fighting at 38 and 39 ...


Was Muhammad Ali a better boxer at 38 than 28?

Was Sugar Ray Leonard a better fighter at 40 than he was at 30?

Was Joe Louis a better fighter at 38 than he was at 28?

Was Oscar DeLaHoya a better fighter at 35 then he was at 25?

Was Larry Holmes a better fighter at 38 than he was at 28?

Was Bernard Hopkins a better fighter at 38 than he was at 28?

Do you see where I'm going?

Boxers aren't like wine ...They don't get better with age...Even the spetacular George Foreman didn't improve with age...


.Oh, and The Old Mongoose was rumored to lie about his age as was Sonny Liston...In the old south many African Americans were not given birth certificates, ergo:

Archie Moore, Born Archibald Wright (December 13, 1913 – December 9, 1998), was light heavyweight world boxing champion between 1952 and 1959 (and again in 1961) and had one of the longest professional careers in the history of his sport. A native of Benoit, Mississippi, raised in St. Louis, Mo., he died four days short of his 85th (or 82nd) birthday,

That means Moore might have been 41 when Marciano beat him...

Can we stipulate that Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, Joe Louis and Archie Moore had the most impressive records of Marciano's opponents?

If we can than we are back to square one and are debating if those gentlemen were in their prime...

I submit they weren't...

None of them accomplished nearly as much after fighting Marciano as they did before it...Walcott and Louis immediately retired...Charles didn't do much...He lost fifteen or so of his next twenty fights...Archie Moore seemed to have hanged around forever, but he never did much of note after that fight...

Rocky Marciano is a legend...He beat up everbody that he fought...I just contend the boxers he beat up weren't "all that" and the boxers who we have been arguing about, Charles, Moore, Louis, and Walcott, were once "all that " but weren't by the time Rocky got to them...

When Lennox was mid 20s, he was fighting the likes of Noel Quarless, Calvin Jones and Dan Murphy and was coming through the ranks, having made no mark on the sport.

When he was mid thirties he was fighting the likes of Holyfield, Tua, Grant and was the dominant heavyweight in the world.

You can make a very strong case for arguing that he was a better, more round, complete fighter in his mid twenties than he was in his mid thirties.

Bernhard Hopkins had only just got going in his professional career at age 25 and was fighting up and comers like himself. In his mid thirties he was beating the Felix Trinidads and ODLHs of this world and was clearly a far better all round fighter than he had been in his mid twenties.

So as you can, see, SOME fighters do improve with age. You said "Boxers aren't like wine ...They don't get better with age...Even the spetacular George Foreman didn't improve with age..." but this is a sweeping generalisation to make about every single boxer in the entire history of the sport, especially faced with the statements I've made above.

So if Lewis and Hopkins can improve with age, why can't Walcott? Going into the first Marciano fight, he was coming off two wins over Ezzard Charles, one by KO.

[bennie]

Age is irrelevant, a fighter's PEAK is the crucial period of his career, and many fighters, particularly heavyweights, peak in their 30s.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Age is irrelevant, a fighter's PEAK is the crucial period of his career, and many fighters, particularly heavyweights, peak in their 30s.

How many heavyweight boxers have peaked at 38, 39, and 42, the respective ages of Joe Louis, Joe Walcott, and Archie Moore?

George Foreman won the world heavyweight championship at 45...That made him the oldest man to win the championship in the history of the sport. Could you please tell me how old the second oldest man was to win the world heavyweight championship was ?

And then could you please tell me the median and mean age of the boxers when they have won the world heavyweight championship?

Thank you.

[bennie]

You're beginning to bore me but anyone who knows anything about boxing knows that heavies peak late. I don't understand your argument anyway. You seem to have a thing about age and that the older a fighter is the worse he is. But experience is everything in boxing. A fighter in his 30s, with masses of experience and that spring in his step still, is right at his peak.
At his best.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

So if Lewis and Hopkins can improve with age, why can't Walcott? Going into the first Marciano fight, he was coming off two wins over Ezzard Charles, one by KO.

-knucklez

Respectfully. Of course an athlete gets better with age, up to a certain age...

BHop has lost three of his last five fights...

Lenox retired at 38 because he felt he didn't have "it" anymore against Klitschko...

And if Walcott, Louis, and Charles were at their peak when they fought Rocky why did Louis and Walcott retire immediately after the fight?

Do boxers generally retire at their peak?

And why did Charles go on to lose fifteen of twenty of his fights after losing to Rocky?

Archie fought forever...Hell, he even fought Cassius Clay at 49 or something, but he never did anything of note after losing to Rocky...

[TheOneIsHere2008]

You're beginning to bore me

ad hominem attack

but anyone who knows anything about boxing knows that heavies peak late.

argumentum ad populum

You seem to have a thing about age and that the older a fighter is the worse he is.

strawman

Three logical fallacies in one parargaph...That must be some kind of record...

If you were stumped by my questions the gentlemanly thing to have done was to either ignore it, admit it, or move on...

I am sorry if I bore you...I am going to work out soon...If you saw me in my workout attire you might find me quite interesting or fetching, if you are of that generation who uses that colloqiualism...And if you saw my sinewy muscles as I hit the bench press, leg press, and squat rack you might actually be stimulated...Perhaps I can make a youtube for you...Something you and the mrs. might enjoy...

I never said as a fighter ages he gets worse...Obviously a twenty five year old man could beat up the man he was at fifteen... I made the simple observation that as a boxer nears forty his reflexes, hand-eye coordination, aerobic capacity, and fat to muscle ratio are diminished...And one does not have to be Gil Clancy, Angelo Dundee, Eddie Futch, or Marv Jenson to make that observation...

I'll repeat my questions

How many heavyweight boxers have peaked at 38, 39, and 42, the respective ages of Joe Louis, Joe Walcott, and Archie Moore?

George Foreman won the world heavyweight championship at 45...That made him the oldest man to win the championship in the history of the sport. Could you please tell me how old the second oldest man was to win the world heavyweight championship was ?

If Walcott and Louis were at their peaks why did they retire , immediately, after the fight?

And if Charles was at his peak why did he lose fifteen or so of his next twenty fights?

And then could you please tell me the median and mean age of the boxers when they have won the world heavyweight championship?

Oh, if you treat me with respect ...I will treat you with respect...No need to insult me over a difference of opinion.

I must depart now...But let me know about the youtube...My fiancee bought me a camcorder for my birthday...

PEACE

[bennie]

Yaawwwn.

[BoxBuzz]

Hey "One" when are you going to come around to stating (based on your own, what according to bennie might be considered sleepy logic) that you and I agree that Archie Moore was his greatest conquest.

Archie's follow up record would indicate that he may have been the exception to your stated age assumption. And that he peaked much later than most of the other fighters in question. Thus making his condition and ability at that point in time Rocky's greatest challenge.

[BoxBuzz]

Oh and keep it succint and brief....I'm running out of coffee.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Hey "One" when are you going to come around to stating (based on your own, what according to bennie might be considered sleepy logic) that you and I agree that Archie Moore was his greatest conquest.

Archie's follow up record would indicate that he may have been the exception to your stated age assumption. And that he peaked much later than most of the other fighters in question. Thus making his condition and ability at that point in time Rocky's greatest challenge.

I should depart from this thread...Belief in the invincibility of certain boxers takes upon it an almost religious quality...If folks are so certain in their beliefs it doesn't serve any purpose to try to disabuse them of them...

As Plato noted in The Republic, noble lies are valuable to a society or individuals and should not be disturbed...

[BoxBuzz]

Hey "One" when are you going to come around to stating (based on your own, what according to bennie might be considered sleepy logic) that you and I agree that Archie Moore was his greatest conquest.

Archie's follow up record would indicate that he may have been the exception to your stated age assumption. And that he peaked much later than most of the other fighters in question. Thus making his condition and ability at that point in time Rocky's greatest challenge.

I should depart from this thread...Belief in the invincibility of certain boxers takes upon it an almost religious quality...If folks are so certain in their beliefs it doesn't serve any purpose to try to disabuse them of them...

As Plato noted in The Republic, noble lies are valuable to a society or individuals and should not be disturbed...

Nonsense, stop abdicating the responsibility of carrying this subject on and answer the question. Though I use self deprecating humor to balance my enthusiasm regarding Archie I do attempt to keep my assertions rooted in high probabilities. You can not deny that the record would indicate that Archie was at the very least not deteriorating at a typical level by this point in his career. Making this a legit question based on timing...if perhaps not "holistic records".

It makes my assertion a plausible one and one worthy of your analysis and assessment.

Now analyze, assess and respond. I'm still having trouble buying that La Starza was the greatest test. Though the truth that Rocky exploited a hole in the fabric of time based on the limited talent pool availability can not be credibly denied I.M.H.O. Which I think is your greater point.

[fistic mystic]

"The One," I'll assume that you ignored my post because you're afraid of my freakishly hyperintelligent brain. It's quite sexy. Sometime I'll take a picture of my brain and post it here for you to lust after - since you seem to be into that kind of thing.

[BoxBuzz]

"The One," I'll assume that you ignored my post because you're afraid of my freakishly hyperintelligent brain. It's quite sexy. Sometime I'll take a picture of my brain and post it here for you to lust after - since you seem to be into that kind of thing.

Brain porn is not allowed in these hallowed halls. I'm sure TheOne has no fear of even the highest of IQ watermarks. State your case, and he will likely eventually respond..

[TheOneIsHere2008]

"The One," I'll assume that you ignored my post because you're afraid of my freakishly hyperintelligent brain. It's quite sexy. Sometime I'll take a picture of my brain and post it here for you to lust after - since you seem to be into that kind of thing.

I read it...It was interesting...I am beginning to repeat myself and would not blame others for thinking I was a drone...I think the prime for most athletes , regardless of their chosen sport is in his or her late twenties to early thirties...And with all the blunt force trauma, boxers take to their head/brain and other vital organs the window might be even smaller...I think this could be easily documented if you measured actual perfomance in their respective fields or if you did actual medical tests on them...

You said:

"4. Marciano never lost to any man as a professional, which means that there's no practical measure of what it would have taken to beat him."

Does that mean I can say that Ike Ibeabuchi and Floyd Mayweather never lost to any man as a professional, which means that there's no practical measure of what it would have taken to beat them. I have seen that argument used to suggest Ike beats George Foreman and Floyd beats Sugar Ray Robinson...

Under your rigid criteria we can never compare two athletes or two teams unless they actually faced one another and with that caveat in mind most sports arguments would come to a halt...