Modern Day "All-Time Heavyweight" Tournament

[HomicideHenry]

#1) I did acknowledge that Louis' title reign was 11yrs, and that for four of those years he was in the Army.

#2) Ask Joe Louis whether or not he felt Walcott fought better in age. And, as I said before, Charles was only two years older than Marciano, and you got to remember, Marciano himself had a late career start. Moore on the other hand, couldn't have been too bad considering he held the Light Heavyweight title for an additional decade after his loss to Marciano---and it was Moore who challenged Rocky, not the other way around.

#3) Schmeling didn't peak, he was lucky, and Louis was green. Schmeling just realised that Louis carried his hand too low, and that's what worked for him. And as far as Schmeling winning over a few German fighters---let's be honest, most European fighters can amass a great record in their homeland and come to the states and flop, Schmeling had far more experience on the world's stage and that's probably how he managed to win.

#4) And I listed off the facts, most those guys were on their way down. Sure Louis fought more HOF fighters in his career, but really look at what state they were in by the time Louis fought them and use some sense.

As far as Sharkey and Baer goes, they had potential to be great, but their mental make-up wasn't great and they were far too inconsistant to be judged as great fighters---they were 'could have beens' not has beens or even were's.

[granberry]

I will quote Nat Fliescher, who said this of Marciano, when he faced and defeated Ezzard Charles for the first time:

"There is nobody who could have went the 15 round distance, let alone win it, against Charles that night."

u misquoted him


heres the real quote

Boxing and Wrestling, November 1954, said of their first meeting,

"It was also generally agreed that no fighter in the world other than Marciano could have lasted 15 rounds against the Ezzard Charles of the night of June 17, let alone with the decision."

Now quote for us what Nat Fleischer said about Marciano after Marciano's struggle to finish tired old lightheavyweight Archie Moore.

[pundit]

#1) I did acknowledge that Louis' title reign was 11yrs, and that for four of those years he was in the Army.

#2) Ask Joe Louis whether or not he felt Walcott fought better in age. And, as I said before,

Louis fought Walcott in the late 1940s, Marciano in the early 1950s. Walcott was still a formidable fighter, but he was old by any standard

Charles was only two years older than Marciano, and you got to remember, Marciano himself had a late career start.

Sure, but Charles deteriorated early and relatively rapildy.

Moore on the other hand, couldn't have been too bad considering he held the Light Heavyweight title for an additional decade after his loss to Marciano---and it was Moore who challenged Rocky, not the other way around.

Moore was a phenomenon, but the fact remains that he was well in his 40s.

#3) Schmeling didn't peak, he was lucky, and Louis was green. Schmeling just realised that Louis carried his hand too low, and that's what worked for him. And as far as Schmeling winning over a few German fighters---let's be honest, most European fighters can amass a great record in their homeland and come to the states and flop, Schmeling had far more experience on the world's stage and that's probably how he managed to win.

I respectfully disagree. In 1935, Schmeling avenged his loss to Hamas and a draw with Uzcudun in most convincing fashion. In his autobiography, he describes himself how he temporarily lost it in 1934.

#4) And I listed off the facts, most those guys were on their way down. Sure Louis fought more HOF fighters in his career, but really look at what state they were in by the time Louis fought them and use some sense.

Thanks, I'm trying my best.

As far as Sharkey and Baer goes, they had potential to be great, but their mental make-up wasn't great and they were far too inconsistant to be judged as great fighters---they were 'could have beens' not has beens or even were's.

Well, you can find a weaknesses with any opponent if you only look long enough. But at least Baer was considered to be in his absolute prime when Louis beat him up. I don't think this should be taken away from Louis.

[Cojimar 1945]

One can criticize the oppossition of Louis but he fought the best contenders available. The same is not true of all champions. His era was perhaps not great but it does not seem worse than the eras before and after it.

[Cojimar 1945]

Marciano fought some good fighters but I don't think Marciano's era was particularly outstanding. Other eras including Louis's era produced a number of very good fighters.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

John Henry Lewis- was half blind and shot

how was lewis shot? he was only 25 years old. he had recentley outpointed contender al gainer right before fighting joe louis

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

walcott was defintley in his prime when he fought joe louis. it was walcotts best preformance on film. the years 47-52 were walcotts prime IMO. walcott was also in his prime vs marciano IMO, this was his 2nd best preformance on film. despite being 34 years old when he fought joe louis, i believe walcott was at his peak.

Sure, but Charles deteriorated early and relatively rapildy.

how so? he sure didnt look very deteriorated when he fought marciano in that first fight.

charles also didnt look deteriorated when he BEAT hall of famer harold johnson and brutally knocked out contenders satterfield and wallace right before facing marciano.



the only fight charles had lost leading up to the marciano fight was to nino valdes, in which charles showed up out of shape and overconfident and took valdes way too lightly.

since losing a narrow decision to walcott for the title in 1952, charles went 14-1(layne and johnson losses were robberies) leading up to the marciano title fight in 1954. thats an impressive streak not to mention alot of those wins were over ranked contenders

though that was not a prime charles in there vs marciano, it was unquestionably a very good version of charles on june 1954. charles put on a preformance that night that would have toppled many champions.



its clear charles didnt deteriorate rapildy until after the marciano fights

[pundit]

its clear charles didnt deteriorate rapildy until after the marciano fights

If you're a Marciano hugger, perhaps.....

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Marciano fought some good fighters but I don't think Marciano's era was particularly outstanding. Other eras including Louis's era produced a number of very good fighters.

yes it wasnt oustanding, but it was not a bad era.



you had


rocky marciano
jersey joe walcott
ezzard charles
young floyd patterson
archie moore
old joe louis
harold johnson
clarence henry
nino valdes
bob satterfield
bob baker
earl walls
roland lastarza
young eddie machen
young zora folley
rex layne
harry kid mathews
hurricane jackson
colley wallace
heinz neuhas
don cockell
harold carter




not one of the best, but far from being one of the worst. it has a solid list of dangerous top contenders as well as a few great heavyweights.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

its clear charles didnt deteriorate rapildy until after the marciano fights

If you're a Marciano hugger, perhaps.....

u obviousely did not read my post. i suggest reading it again.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Moore was a phenomenon, but the fact remains that he was well in his 40s.

actually moore was 38 when he fought marciano.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i believe schmeling, baer, carnera were all at/near there primes when they fought joe louis.

[JC]

walcott was defintley in his prime when he fought joe louis. it was walcotts best preformance on film. the years 47-52 were walcotts prime IMO. walcott was also in his prime vs marciano IMO, this was his 2nd best preformance on film. despite being 34 years old when he fought joe louis, i believe walcott was at his peak.

What has alway puzzled me about the Walcott Marciano fight is that directly before the knock out Walcott is backing flat footed onto the ropes with his hads low. He appears to buy a couple of Rocky's faints and then is obviously knocked cold by that huge punch.

It seems strange that a fighter who was so good defensively and had such good footwork would have allowed himself to be walked down in this way. The two explanations I can think of was that he was just exhausted from the gurelling rounds and the punishment he had taken. Or he was about to throw a punch from an odd angle the way he did to KO Charles.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

walcott was defintley in his prime when he fought joe louis. it was walcotts best preformance on film. the years 47-52 were walcotts prime IMO. walcott was also in his prime vs marciano IMO, this was his 2nd best preformance on film. despite being 34 years old when he fought joe louis, i believe walcott was at his peak.

What has alway puzzled me about the Walcott Marciano fight is that directly before the knock out Walcott is backing flat footed onto the ropes with his hads low. He appears to buy a couple of Rocky's faints and then is obviously knocked cold by that huge punch.

It seems strange that a fighter who was so good defensively and had such good footwork would have allowed himself to be walked down in this way. The two explanations I can think of was that he was just exhausted from the gurelling rounds and the punishment he had taken. Or he was about to throw a punch from an odd angle the way he did to KO Charles.

if u taped the marciano ringside on ESPN classic, go to the part of the walcott marciano KO. ted atlas gives an excellent desciption on how marciano landed the shot and how marciano set it up. but teddy makes it clear when he says it was not a lucky shot.

its a great technicial anaylsis

The two explanations I can think of was that he was just exhausted from the gurelling rounds and the punishment he had taken.

this doesnt make sense since walcotts two best rounds were the 11th and 12th rounds. he dominated marciano badly in these rounds and hurt marciano in round 11. so walcott defintley wasnt fading.

It seems strange that a fighter who was so good defensively and had such good footwork would have allowed himself to be walked down in this way.

you ever wonder perhaps its more due to marcianos greatness and his underated skill level ???


walcott was shoulder feinting, he got beat to the punch. he tried to throw a sneaky counter right but marciano beat him too it.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

One can criticize the oppossition of Louis but he fought the best contenders available. The same is not true of all champions. His era was perhaps not great but it does not seem worse than the eras before and after it.

louis fought very solid opposition.


you can say louis never fought black contenders, but no one in particular really stuck out. i believe louis would have fought some of the top black contenders of the early-mid 1940s but the war prevented these fights from happening.



i believe louis beat better opposition than larry holmes did

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Now quote for us what Nat Fleischer said about Marciano after Marciano's struggle to finish tired old lightheavyweight Archie Moore.

granberry wuts up with u and ur constant critisism of archie moore. wut do u have against moore??? is it sour grapes cause he beat ur beloved harold johnson 4 times?

[JC]

you ever wonder perhaps its more due to marcianos greatness and his underated skill level ???

walcott was shoulder feinting, he got beat to the punch. he tried to throw a sneaky counter right but marciano beat him too it.

Wasn't trying to take anything away from the Rock he set him up for the OK very adptly, I just odd to see Walcott backing off in a stright line like that.

I'll try and check out the Teddy Atlas analysis if I can find it.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

you ever wonder perhaps its more due to marcianos greatness and his underated skill level ???

walcott was shoulder feinting, he got beat to the punch. he tried to throw a sneaky counter right but marciano beat him too it.

Wasn't trying to take anything away from the Rock he set him up for the OK very adptly, I just odd to see Walcott backing off in a stright line like that.

I'll try and check out the Teddy Atlas analysis if I can find it.

yea defintley check out teddy atlas, its a much better anaylsis than i could give u

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Besides, Louis fought prime Walcott and Charles, while Marciano fought old Walcott and over-the-hill Charles (this will get me into trouble with Brockton, but these are simply facts).

those arnt facts, those are ur opinions. if walcott is considered old when he fought marciano cause of his age, then he must be considered old when he fought louis too becase of his age.


so a 34 year old walcotts prime but a 38 year old walcotts old? thats bias crap. hadvnt u seen the marciano-walcott fight? walcott didnt look old to me. his reflexes looked sharp, he was more aggresive than hes ever been, his handspeed was fast. wheres these signs of being old? i refuse to believe walcott suddenly aged over night after scoring a very impressive knockout win over charles.




do u also believe that ezzard charles twice lost to an old walcott??


marciano beat the same version of walcott who just beat Hall of famer ATG ezzard charles.




walcott prime was 1947-52. did louis beat a prime walcott? yes. did marciano beat a prime walcott? yes. did charles beat a prime walcott? yes. pundit if u disagree with me, please state walcotts prime years.


or please describe to me besides louis I, which fight on film did walcott look better in than marciano I???





pundit wut do u make of this walcott quote


"no fight that i ever fought did i feel better or more confident"- jersey joe walcott about the first marciano fight

[pundit]

Besides, Louis fought prime Walcott and Charles, while Marciano fought old Walcott and over-the-hill Charles (this will get me into trouble with Brockton, but these are simply facts).

so a 34 year old walcotts prime but a 38 year old walcotts old? thats bias crap. walcott prime was 1947-52. pundit if u disagree with me, please state walcotts prime years.

In boxing 38 is A LOT older than 34.

Besdies: Louis himself wasn't at his best any more in 1947.

"no fight that i ever fought did i feel better or more confident"- jersey joe walcott about the first marciano fight

What I make of this? Walcott considered Marciano a "bum" (direct quote), so no wonder he felt confident.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

In boxing 38 is A LOT older than 34.

i didnt notice any difference of hopkins or archie moore from 34 to 38 years old

[pundit]

In boxing 38 is A LOT older than 34.

i didnt notice any difference of hopkins or archie moore from 34 to 38 years old

But you may notice it in RJJ, for example; and arguably 80 or 90 percent of all fighters.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

you know wut i dont understand. u make a big deal about ages and walcott and moores age, and u talk about how walcott was prime at 34. yet when i say charles was 32 when he fought marciano, then suddenly age doesnt matter anymore and u remark that charles had rapidly declined. so charles is shot at 32, but marciano is in his prime at 32 when he fought moore?


hopkins was 37 when he fought tito. but no ones going to argue with me that was an over the hill hopkins in there. in fact quite the contrary.



ur playing these stupid tricks with the age game and all ur bias views are coming back to bite u in the ass.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

In boxing 38 is A LOT older than 34.

i didnt notice any difference of hopkins or archie moore from 34 to 38 years old

But you may notice it in RJJ, for example; and arguably 80 or 90 percent of all fighters.

yes but there are exceptions.


here are a few examples

archie moore
jersey joe walcott
bernard hopkins
dick tiger
bob fitzsimmons
eddie cotton
even the same can be said about lennox lewis, his arguebaly best preformance was his knockout win over hasim rahman at age 35.

[pundit]

you know wut i dont understand. u make a big deal about ages and walcott and moores age, and u talk about how walcott was prime at 34. yet when i say charles was 32 when he fought marciano, then suddenly age doesnt matter anymore and u remark that charles had rapidly declined. so charles is shot at 32, but marciano is in his prime at 32 when he fought moore?

What is so unusual about this? Some fighters deteriorate earler, others later. 40-somethings are old by any measure, however.