Top 100 heavyweights all time

[silkov]

I have to agree with Dec and BB and see no reason for anyone to passionately question Rex Layne as a top 100 ATG HW. As Brocky noted, he beat a number of world class HWs and was a top contender for a few years. While he’s probably not going to make anybody’s top 20, he’s certainly as acceptable as just about anybody else in the 40+ position of the lists posted. I think once you get past the top 30 or so in these lists, there’s probably over 200 fighters that could be included in the remaining 70 slots, it’s just more a matter of who you are familiar with.

It’s nice to see a guy like Choynski in a few lists, even though at 5-9 and about 170 it’s hard even for me to give him very good marks in the head to head part of my rating process. But he was one of the best HWs for close to a decade and beat a slew of top guys, so he certainly belongs in the list at least as much as many of the more recent HWs who seem to have spent most of their careers avoiding world class opponents.

It would be nice to see more of the top HWs from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s in these lists, but it’s very hard to rate them because most of us don’t know enough about guys like Goddard, the first George Godfrey, Killen, McAulife, Martin, etc. to adequately rank them.

I'm not passionately against Layne but just dont consider him to be worthy of the position that Dec originally put him in... thats my opinion and Dec actually agreed with me on this point and revised his list... its Brockton who is throwing his rattle out of his pram and turning this issue into a personal argument... this is a debating forum and people should be able to air their opinions without the Marciano thought police blowing a gasket when ever you indicate that perhaps Marcinao wasnt really Superman and some of his opponents like Lane were actually rather limited... I've seen plenty of Lane and he was very limited... end of story!...[/quote]





You seem to be contradicting yourself slightly, in one breath you state this is a 'debating forum and people should be able to air their opinions' and then you state 'end of story'. Surely if you wish people to air their opinions with you then you should ease up the 'end of story' and listen a bit more. That's kind of how a debate works, they have a turn, you have a turn, no 'end of story' needed. That just sounds as though it is you 'throwing the rattle out of the pram.'

Anyway, rant over. I tend to agree with Brock and John L, Layne was a boxer of quality, certainly enough to be added into a top 100 at a decent place. Layne came of the win from Walcott and backed it up with a great performance against Bob Satterfield catapulting Layne into the paths of Marciano, Matthews, Charles and Baker with creditable performances put in despite few wins.

[/quote]

Christssake!... I said end of story as in thats what I've got to say on the matter, but lo behold another bleeding heart Marciano lover rears his head... you guys really like to nitpick dont you... God forbid that anyones says anything bad about the Rock or anyone that he fought!!... then you use your trump card and call me biased!!!... 8) .....have you seen Lane fight??... do you know anything about Lanes fights with Charles and Walcott??.... I think not!... Walcott was overweight and undertrained when he fought Layne, Charles beat Layne in 2 out of 3 fights... and gave Layne a good shellacking in the winning fights, his only loss to Layne was after his title loss to Walcott when he was already in decline and the decision itself was questionable... as for Laynes win over Satterfield, Satterfield was at his best at light-heavy and was vulnerble chinwise even in that division... as I've said before Layne was strong and had heart but I dont see him beating fighters like Greg Page and Mike Dokes etc...
...but then again, ...I'm biased!!

[Friedie]

Tommy Loughran beat Jack Sharkey, Max Baer and Jim Braddock.
Tony Shucco beat Jim Braddock and Jack Sharkey.
Al Ettore beat Jim Braddock and Jersey Joe Walcott.

The recordholder must be Joe Louis then...he beat 6 lineal Champions (one of them twice):

Primo Carnera
Max Baer
Jack Sharkey
James Braddock
Max Schmeling
Jersey Joe Walcott (twice)

his only 3 career losses were against lineal Champions to:
Max Schmeling
Ezzard Charles
Rocky Marciano

[Ezzard]

Holyfield managed 7

Douglas
Bowe
Tyson (x2)
Foreman
Holmes
Rahman
Moorer

[Friedie]

Holyfield managed 7

Douglas
Bowe
Tyson (x2)
Foreman
Holmes
Rahman
Moorer

lineal...yes. but not all of them were undisputed I guess.

[Ezzard]

Holyfield managed 7

Douglas
Bowe
Tyson (x2)
Foreman
Holmes
Rahman
Moorer

lineal...yes. but not all of them were undisputed I guess.

Fair enough, Friedie... Just keeping you on your toes.

[silkov]

I'm just listing crappy heavyweights who beat two or more Lineal Heavyweight Champions.

I agree and neither Charles nor Walcott can be said to have been in their prime or in prime condition when Layne beat them... I dont even think Laynes win over Charles was a good decision... and Charles beat the crap out of him in their other two bouts...

[Marciano Frazier]

I'm just listing crappy heavyweights who beat two or more Lineal Heavyweight Champions.

Yes, but most of those you listed beat their champions while those champions were well before or after their best and not elite opponents. Walcott and Charles were both still at the top of the division, had had elite-level success shortly before fighting Layne and would have elite-level success again shortly afterward, and thus Layne's wins carry the weight of at least near-prime victories over champions, whereas, say, Bearcat Wright beating Johnson and Langford(who you incorrectly count as a champion, although his lack of a title is equally trivial) is more a bit of trivia than an actual operative legacy, since Johnson was utterly shot and 50 years old and Langford was almost completely shot and 40 years old.

[Marciano Frazier]

I'm just listing crappy heavyweights who beat two or more Lineal Heavyweight Champions.

I agree and neither Charles nor Walcott can be said to have been in their prime or in prime condition when Layne beat them...

I strongly disagree. Walcott was absolutely in his prime when he lost to Layne. This after the Louis fights and in the middle of his series with Charles. He had just gone on a winning streak that included an impressive three-round victory over Harold Johnson and would less than a year later win the title in an absolutely brilliant performance against Charles.
It is true Walcott was not in top shape for the Layne fight, but you're exaggerating- he was 200 even for that match, and his best weight was 194-196. Another point here worth noting, however, is that Walcott reportedly broke his right hand from a shot to the top of the head in the second round of this fight.

I dont even think Laynes win over Charles was a good decision... and Charles beat the crap out of him in their other two bouts...

I'm quite certain you've never seen the fight. This tendency you've had lately for judging decisions you've never seen and for which you haven't seen more than one or two newspaper accounts(like you did for Charles-Ray) is a rather inadvisable one, I'd say. However, I will say that it seems the majority of sportswriters did favor Charles to have deserved the win in that match.

All of this said, I think whether or not Layne places in the top 100 is highly debatable. When I compiled my list earlier in this thread, he made it in the mid-90s, I believe, but my list wasn't counting fighters who are currently active and not necessarily finished at the elite level, and so he would likely be bumped off the list if they were included.
I also think his placement depends at least in part on one's opinion of the era as a whole. Silkov has a standpoint which obviously looks to detract from the standings of most fighters from the late '40s through mid '50s era, while BrocktonBlockbuster tends to promote them, thus leading to a wide discrepancy between their rankings. The thing here is, there really isn't any objective way to say who is right about whether the era was strong or weak- the only obejctive way we can assess the fighters of any given era is by how they did against each other, and therefore we simply can't objectively compare them with fighters of other eras on a 1:1 basis, unless we assume all eras to be equally strong, which Silkov and BrocktonBlockbuster obviously aren't doing.

[Marciano Frazier]

Walcott surely didn't look like he was in his prime when he fought Layne.

He may not have looked like it(he was undertrained, overconfident[seeing how he was a 5-1 favorite going in against an opponent who was viewed as too inexperienced to present a threat], described by ringsiders as having been lackadaisically going through the motions, and broke his hand early in the fight), but he was absolutely in his prime. It may not have been a performance representative of what Walcott could do in his prime, but Walcott was in his prime. Do you think it was a well-past-his-prime Walcott who soundly outfought Charles for six rounds and then flattened him with one of the best left hands of all time less than a year later? Absolutely not.

As for Charles, the fact is that since losing the title to Walcott, Charles had beaten three noteworthy opponents in a row and then held him to a very close decision in their fourth fight and would proceed to go on an impressive winning streak over the next few months after the Layne loss. If you're going to say Charles was past his prime at that point(as a heavyweight, of course, since his absolute best was at light heavyweight), you'd pretty much have to say he was past his prime because he lost to Layne, which is a circular argument; Detractor: "Layne wasn't a good fighter."
Supporter: "Layne beat Charles, so he must have been a good fighter."
Detractor: "Layne beat Charles when Charles was past his prime."
Supporter: "How do you know Charles was past his prime?" Detractor: "Because he lost to Layne, and Layne wasn't a good fighter."
In fact, that goes for both Walcott and Charles.

Now, I agree that Layne was lucky to get wins over those guys(he caught an out-of-shape, overconfident, injured Walcott by surprise and got what many felt was a gift decision in his home territory against Charles), but the point is that these are not to be dismissed and are very noteworthy, not like Bearcat Wright beating up shot versions of Johnson and Langford. I think Layne is a guy who reasonably could or could not be included in the top 100, depending on one's subjective judgment.

[silkov]

Its just ludicrous to say that Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano, just because he was champ!... the truth is Walcott was champ because he had finally beat a fading Ezzard Charles, who was probably in the early stages of his later terminal illness...
how often do you here people say that Norton was in his prime when he fought Holmes??.... and Norton was actually far closer to his prime in that fight than Walcott was against Marciano!...
...I suppose Charles, Louis and Moore were all in their primes as well when they fought the Rock!...

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Tommy Loughran beat Jack Sharkey, Max Baer and Jim Braddock.
Tony Shucco beat Jim Braddock and Jack Sharkey.
Al Ettore beat Jim Braddock and Jersey Joe Walcott.

The recordholder must be Joe Louis then...he beat 6 lineal Champions (one of them twice):

Primo Carnera
Max Baer
Jack Sharkey
James Braddock
Max Schmeling
Jersey Joe Walcott (twice)

his only 3 career losses were against lineal Champions to:
Max Schmeling
Ezzard Charles
Rocky Marciano

realistically he lost to 4, since everyone knows including louis that walcott beat joe that first time

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

A lot of people say that Walcott was in his prime from 1947 to 1953. They also forget that he won about half of his bouts in this era.

i say 1946-1952. i also say that walcott cleaned out the heavyweight division 1945-1947 like no other, beating 8 top 10 ranked heavyweights.

walcott also beat the 3 best heavyweight contenders of the mid 1940s elmer ray, jimmy bivins, lee Q murray all dangerous black fighters

[Marciano Frazier]

Its just ludicrous to say that Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano,

This is interesting. I never even mentioned Marciano. You brought up Rex Layne's ranking, then said Walcott wasn't in his prime when he fought Layne. I responded with my above post, and you jumped to whether Walcott was in his prime against Marciano. Does anyone think there could be an agenda here?
That said, Walcott was in his prime going into his first fight with Marciano, and since you've abruptly shifted the topic to such, I will debate.

just because he was champ!...

I never said that either. Please, point out where I even implied the argument you just cited. I did say that, since Walcott would go on a few months later to soundly outfight and knock out Charles in one of the most impressive performances if not the single most impressive performance of his career, he plainly wasn't past his prime when he fought Layne, but again, I never even mentioned Marciano, and even if you were to imply an argument about Walcott's status when he fought Marciano, it certainly wouldn't be that Walcott was in his prime "just because he was champ."
In fact, you seem to be making up a huge strawman of my position based entirely on arguments I never used on a subject I wasn't even discussing. No, Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano because, A. he had just beaten his arch-nemesis twice in a row over the last year, B. the third Charles fight was arguably his most impressive performance ever, and C. the Marciano fight was one of his most impressive performances on film.
Now, please, tell me what aspects- specifically- of Walcott's make-up which you think Walcott had declined in by the time he fought Marciano. Was he soft and flabby? Absolutely not- he was hard as nails. Was he slow, lethargic? Again, not a chance. Did he lack stamina? No, and in fact the 11th and 12th were two of his most active and impressive rounds in the fight.

the truth is Walcott was champ because he had finally beat a fading Ezzard Charles,

...who you can tell was fading because he lost to Walcott. In fact, every top heavyweight in the 1940s through mid 1950s who ever beat another top heavyweight only did it because that other heavyweight was fading. And you can tell that whoever it was who lost to someone else from that era was fading because he lost to them. Layne beat Walcott and Charles because they were past their primes, Charles beat Walcott because Walcott was past his prime, Walcott beat Charles because Charles was past his prime, and Marciano beat everyone because they were all past their primes.

who was probably in the early stages of his later terminal illness...

Wild speculation. Present some kind evidence, or else you're just picking out whatever unsubstantiated assumptions best suit your argument.

how often do you here people say that Norton was in his prime when he fought Holmes??....

Norton may not have been "prime" in the sense of his career as a whole, but I would say his performance against Holmes ranks among his best ever.

and Norton was actually far closer to his prime in that fight than Walcott was against Marciano!...

On what basis????? This is a rather frustrating discussion, because you're not providing any kind of supporting evidence for your viewpoints. All you seem to be doing is throwing out a lot of unsubstantiated claims and opinions and then adding a lot of emoticons to give off the impression that the opposing viewpoint is somehow silly or childish.

...I suppose Charles, Louis and Moore were all in their primes as well when they fought the Rock!...

A prime example. Again, I never even brought up whether anyone was in their prime when they fought Marciano. This is apparently something which is gnawing at your mind all the time, and so when anyone ever even comes slightly close to the topic of whether any one of his opponents was in his prime, (ie saying that Walcott was in his prime for an unrelated fight while not even mentioning Marciano) you launch into a tirade about it and expand the topic to every older top opponent he fought!
Now, Louis was well past his prime when he fought Marciano. He was heavier, slower, had lost to Charle and been less impressive in recent bouts than in his heyday, and on film appears to lack the old timing, sharpness and stamina he had in his youth. He was still a very good fighter even at that stage of his career, but he was nowhere near the level he had been at in his prime.
You see, what I'm doing is assessing the facts as they stand to come to a conclusion which I try not to preconceive beforehand. What you're doing is apparently lumping various groups of fighters together and taking a dogmatic stance on them which you defend by ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you.
Notice: Louis was softer and heavier than he had been in his prime when he fought Marciano, while Walcott was at his peak weight and hard and muscular as ever. Louis had been relatively unimpressive winning against relatively unimpressive opposition in recent fights before facing Marciano, while Walcott had been extremely impressive winning against top-notch opposition. Louis appeared slower, less dynamic, less sharp and accurate in his punching, and not as well-conditioned as he had in his prime, while Walcott, looked extremely quick, energetic, sharp, accurate, busy, and has brilliant skill and stamina. Thus, I conclude that Louis was past his prime when he fought Marciano, and Walcott was not. If you disagree with my position, please point out something wrong with my assessment of the facts instead of simply implying that my opinions are stupid and then pasting on a few sarcastic emoticons.

[silkov]

Its just ludicrous to say that Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano,

This is interesting. I never even mentioned Marciano. You brought up Rex Layne's ranking, then said Walcott wasn't in his prime when he fought Layne. I responded with my above post, and you jumped to whether Walcott was in his prime against Marciano. Does anyone think there could be an agenda here?
That said, Walcott was in his prime going into his first fight with Marciano, and since you've abruptly shifted the topic to such, I will debate.

just because he was champ!...

I never said that either. Please, point out where I even implied the argument you just cited. I did say that, since Walcott would go on a few months later to soundly outfight and knock out Charles in one of the most impressive performances if not the single most impressive performance of his career, he plainly wasn't past his prime when he fought Layne, but again, I never even mentioned Marciano, and even if you were to imply an argument about Walcott's status when he fought Marciano, it certainly wouldn't be that Walcott was in his prime "just because he was champ."
In fact, you seem to be making up a huge strawman of my position based entirely on arguments I never used on a subject I wasn't even discussing. No, Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano because, A. he had just beaten his arch-nemesis twice in a row over the last year, B. the third Charles fight was arguably his most impressive performance ever, and C. the Marciano fight was one of his most impressive performances on film.
Now, please, tell me what aspects- specifically- of Walcott's make-up which you think Walcott had declined in by the time he fought Marciano. Was he soft and flabby? Absolutely not- he was hard as nails. Was he slow, lethargic? Again, not a chance. Did he lack stamina? No, and in fact the 11th and 12th were two of his most active and impressive rounds in the fight.

the truth is Walcott was champ because he had finally beat a fading Ezzard Charles,

...who you can tell was fading because he lost to Walcott. In fact, every top heavyweight in the 1940s through mid 1950s who ever beat another top heavyweight only did it because that other heavyweight was fading. And you can tell that whoever it was who lost to someone else from that era was fading because he lost to them. Layne beat Walcott and Charles because they were past their primes, Charles beat Walcott because Walcott was past his prime, Walcott beat Charles because Charles was past his prime, and Marciano beat everyone because they were all past their primes.

who was probably in the early stages of his later terminal illness...

Wild speculation. Present some kind evidence, or else you're just picking out whatever unsubstantiated assumptions best suit your argument.

how often do you here people say that Norton was in his prime when he fought Holmes??....

Norton may not have been "prime" in the sense of his career as a whole, but I would say his performance against Holmes ranks among his best ever.

and Norton was actually far closer to his prime in that fight than Walcott was against Marciano!...

On what basis????? This is a rather frustrating discussion, because you're not providing any kind of supporting evidence for your viewpoints. All you seem to be doing is throwing out a lot of unsubstantiated claims and opinions and then adding a lot of emoticons to give off the impression that the opposing viewpoint is somehow silly or childish.

...I suppose Charles, Louis and Moore were all in their primes as well when they fought the Rock!...

A prime example. Again, I never even brought up whether anyone was in their prime when they fought Marciano. This is apparently something which is gnawing at your mind all the time, and so when anyone ever even comes slightly close to the topic of whether any one of his opponents was in his prime, (ie saying that Walcott was in his prime for an unrelated fight while not even mentioning Marciano) you launch into a tirade about it and expand the topic to every older top opponent he fought!
Now, Louis was well past his prime when he fought Marciano. He was heavier, slower, had lost to Charle and been less impressive in recent bouts than in his heyday, and on film appears to lack the old timing, sharpness and stamina he had in his youth. He was still a very good fighter even at that stage of his career, but he was nowhere near the level he had been at in his prime.
You see, what I'm doing is assessing the facts as they stand to come to a conclusion which I try not to preconceive beforehand. What you're doing is apparently lumping various groups of fighters together and taking a dogmatic stance on them which you defend by ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you.
Notice: Louis was softer and heavier than he had been in his prime when he fought Marciano, while Walcott was at his peak weight and hard and muscular as ever. Louis had been relatively unimpressive winning against relatively unimpressive opposition in recent fights before facing Marciano, while Walcott had been extremely impressive winning against top-notch opposition. Louis appeared slower, less dynamic, less sharp and accurate in his punching, and not as well-conditioned as he had in his prime, while Walcott, looked extremely quick, energetic, sharp, accurate, busy, and has brilliant skill and stamina. Thus, I conclude that Louis was past his prime when he fought Marciano, and Walcott was not. If you disagree with my position, please point out something wrong with my assessment of the facts instead of simply implying that my opinions are stupid and then pasting on a few sarcastic emoticons.

The agenda can be seen by the huge amount you've written in reply to my short statement, ....what I wrote wasnt even directed at you, but its interesting that you see an agenda in anything mentioned about Marciano or anyone that he has fought that isnt covered in sugar coating.... I suppose you see yourself as unbiased as well!...

[pundit]

Its just ludicrous to say that Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano,

This is interesting. I never even mentioned Marciano. You brought up Rex Layne's ranking, then said Walcott wasn't in his prime when he fought Layne. I responded with my above post, and you jumped to whether Walcott was in his prime against Marciano. Does anyone think there could be an agenda here?
That said, Walcott was in his prime going into his first fight with Marciano, and since you've abruptly shifted the topic to such, I will debate.

just because he was champ!...

I never said that either. Please, point out where I even implied the argument you just cited. I did say that, since Walcott would go on a few months later to soundly outfight and knock out Charles in one of the most impressive performances if not the single most impressive performance of his career, he plainly wasn't past his prime when he fought Layne, but again, I never even mentioned Marciano, and even if you were to imply an argument about Walcott's status when he fought Marciano, it certainly wouldn't be that Walcott was in his prime "just because he was champ."
In fact, you seem to be making up a huge strawman of my position based entirely on arguments I never used on a subject I wasn't even discussing. No, Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano because, A. he had just beaten his arch-nemesis twice in a row over the last year, B. the third Charles fight was arguably his most impressive performance ever, and C. the Marciano fight was one of his most impressive performances on film.
Now, please, tell me what aspects- specifically- of Walcott's make-up which you think Walcott had declined in by the time he fought Marciano. Was he soft and flabby? Absolutely not- he was hard as nails. Was he slow, lethargic? Again, not a chance. Did he lack stamina? No, and in fact the 11th and 12th were two of his most active and impressive rounds in the fight.

the truth is Walcott was champ because he had finally beat a fading Ezzard Charles,

...who you can tell was fading because he lost to Walcott. In fact, every top heavyweight in the 1940s through mid 1950s who ever beat another top heavyweight only did it because that other heavyweight was fading. And you can tell that whoever it was who lost to someone else from that era was fading because he lost to them. Layne beat Walcott and Charles because they were past their primes, Charles beat Walcott because Walcott was past his prime, Walcott beat Charles because Charles was past his prime, and Marciano beat everyone because they were all past their primes.

who was probably in the early stages of his later terminal illness...

Wild speculation. Present some kind evidence, or else you're just picking out whatever unsubstantiated assumptions best suit your argument.

how often do you here people say that Norton was in his prime when he fought Holmes??....

Norton may not have been "prime" in the sense of his career as a whole, but I would say his performance against Holmes ranks among his best ever.

and Norton was actually far closer to his prime in that fight than Walcott was against Marciano!...

On what basis????? This is a rather frustrating discussion, because you're not providing any kind of supporting evidence for your viewpoints. All you seem to be doing is throwing out a lot of unsubstantiated claims and opinions and then adding a lot of emoticons to give off the impression that the opposing viewpoint is somehow silly or childish.

...I suppose Charles, Louis and Moore were all in their primes as well when they fought the Rock!...

A prime example. Again, I never even brought up whether anyone was in their prime when they fought Marciano. This is apparently something which is gnawing at your mind all the time, and so when anyone ever even comes slightly close to the topic of whether any one of his opponents was in his prime, (ie saying that Walcott was in his prime for an unrelated fight while not even mentioning Marciano) you launch into a tirade about it and expand the topic to every older top opponent he fought!
Now, Louis was well past his prime when he fought Marciano. He was heavier, slower, had lost to Charle and been less impressive in recent bouts than in his heyday, and on film appears to lack the old timing, sharpness and stamina he had in his youth. He was still a very good fighter even at that stage of his career, but he was nowhere near the level he had been at in his prime.
You see, what I'm doing is assessing the facts as they stand to come to a conclusion which I try not to preconceive beforehand. What you're doing is apparently lumping various groups of fighters together and taking a dogmatic stance on them which you defend by ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you.
Notice: Louis was softer and heavier than he had been in his prime when he fought Marciano, while Walcott was at his peak weight and hard and muscular as ever. Louis had been relatively unimpressive winning against relatively unimpressive opposition in recent fights before facing Marciano, while Walcott had been extremely impressive winning against top-notch opposition. Louis appeared slower, less dynamic, less sharp and accurate in his punching, and not as well-conditioned as he had in his prime, while Walcott, looked extremely quick, energetic, sharp, accurate, busy, and has brilliant skill and stamina. Thus, I conclude that Louis was past his prime when he fought Marciano, and Walcott was not. If you disagree with my position, please point out something wrong with my assessment of the facts instead of simply implying that my opinions are stupid and then pasting on a few sarcastic emoticons.

Still, Walcott was near 39, and most fighters have lost some speed and reflexes by that age. And he was winning the fight until Suzie Q came to the rescue.

Charles was of course years beyond his prime when he almost beat Marciano. I severely doubt Marciano could have handled the 1949 Charles, given how much trouble he had with the deteriorated version.

[Marciano Frazier]

Its just ludicrous to say that Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano,

This is interesting. I never even mentioned Marciano. You brought up Rex Layne's ranking, then said Walcott wasn't in his prime when he fought Layne. I responded with my above post, and you jumped to whether Walcott was in his prime against Marciano. Does anyone think there could be an agenda here?
That said, Walcott was in his prime going into his first fight with Marciano, and since you've abruptly shifted the topic to such, I will debate.

just because he was champ!...

I never said that either. Please, point out where I even implied the argument you just cited. I did say that, since Walcott would go on a few months later to soundly outfight and knock out Charles in one of the most impressive performances if not the single most impressive performance of his career, he plainly wasn't past his prime when he fought Layne, but again, I never even mentioned Marciano, and even if you were to imply an argument about Walcott's status when he fought Marciano, it certainly wouldn't be that Walcott was in his prime "just because he was champ."
In fact, you seem to be making up a huge strawman of my position based entirely on arguments I never used on a subject I wasn't even discussing. No, Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano because, A. he had just beaten his arch-nemesis twice in a row over the last year, B. the third Charles fight was arguably his most impressive performance ever, and C. the Marciano fight was one of his most impressive performances on film.
Now, please, tell me what aspects- specifically- of Walcott's make-up which you think Walcott had declined in by the time he fought Marciano. Was he soft and flabby? Absolutely not- he was hard as nails. Was he slow, lethargic? Again, not a chance. Did he lack stamina? No, and in fact the 11th and 12th were two of his most active and impressive rounds in the fight.

the truth is Walcott was champ because he had finally beat a fading Ezzard Charles,

...who you can tell was fading because he lost to Walcott. In fact, every top heavyweight in the 1940s through mid 1950s who ever beat another top heavyweight only did it because that other heavyweight was fading. And you can tell that whoever it was who lost to someone else from that era was fading because he lost to them. Layne beat Walcott and Charles because they were past their primes, Charles beat Walcott because Walcott was past his prime, Walcott beat Charles because Charles was past his prime, and Marciano beat everyone because they were all past their primes.

who was probably in the early stages of his later terminal illness...

Wild speculation. Present some kind evidence, or else you're just picking out whatever unsubstantiated assumptions best suit your argument.

how often do you here people say that Norton was in his prime when he fought Holmes??....

Norton may not have been "prime" in the sense of his career as a whole, but I would say his performance against Holmes ranks among his best ever.

and Norton was actually far closer to his prime in that fight than Walcott was against Marciano!...

On what basis????? This is a rather frustrating discussion, because you're not providing any kind of supporting evidence for your viewpoints. All you seem to be doing is throwing out a lot of unsubstantiated claims and opinions and then adding a lot of emoticons to give off the impression that the opposing viewpoint is somehow silly or childish.

...I suppose Charles, Louis and Moore were all in their primes as well when they fought the Rock!...

A prime example. Again, I never even brought up whether anyone was in their prime when they fought Marciano. This is apparently something which is gnawing at your mind all the time, and so when anyone ever even comes slightly close to the topic of whether any one of his opponents was in his prime, (ie saying that Walcott was in his prime for an unrelated fight while not even mentioning Marciano) you launch into a tirade about it and expand the topic to every older top opponent he fought!
Now, Louis was well past his prime when he fought Marciano. He was heavier, slower, had lost to Charle and been less impressive in recent bouts than in his heyday, and on film appears to lack the old timing, sharpness and stamina he had in his youth. He was still a very good fighter even at that stage of his career, but he was nowhere near the level he had been at in his prime.
You see, what I'm doing is assessing the facts as they stand to come to a conclusion which I try not to preconceive beforehand. What you're doing is apparently lumping various groups of fighters together and taking a dogmatic stance on them which you defend by ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you.
Notice: Louis was softer and heavier than he had been in his prime when he fought Marciano, while Walcott was at his peak weight and hard and muscular as ever. Louis had been relatively unimpressive winning against relatively unimpressive opposition in recent fights before facing Marciano, while Walcott had been extremely impressive winning against top-notch opposition. Louis appeared slower, less dynamic, less sharp and accurate in his punching, and not as well-conditioned as he had in his prime, while Walcott, looked extremely quick, energetic, sharp, accurate, busy, and has brilliant skill and stamina. Thus, I conclude that Louis was past his prime when he fought Marciano, and Walcott was not. If you disagree with my position, please point out something wrong with my assessment of the facts instead of simply implying that my opinions are stupid and then pasting on a few sarcastic emoticons.

Still, Walcott was near 39, and most fighters have lost some speed and reflexes by that age.

Walcott-was-a-late-bloomer. His-age-does-not-instantly-justify-the-conclusion-that-he-was-over-the-hill. All-the-data-I-just-discussed-indicates-that-he-was-not. Please-form-some-kind-of-argument-against-that-data-if-you-want-to-tell-me-I'm-wrong.

And he was winning the fight until Suzie Q came to the rescue.

A. SuzieQ did come to the rescue, so who was ahead before the knockout is pretty academic. The fact is that Marciano won, just like he won every other professional fight he ever engaged in.
B. Marciano's vision was considerably impaired for two to three rounds in the middle of this fight. At the time of the knockout, he was behind 8-4, 7-4-1, and 7-5(which I believe and imagine you agree were reasonable scorecards). Supposing he could have just won one more round without the cut medicine in his eyes, the fight would have been 7-5, 6-5-1, and 6-6 after 12, or razor close.
What's more, Marciano was building momentum during the fifth and sixth rounds before the cut medicine started interfering with his vision. Marciano was the sort of fighter who took a little and turned it into a lot, who got a toehold in a fight and then sunk his teeth in deeper and deeper until he took charge and won. For example, in the Moore fight, Marciano struggled some in the first few rounds, but by the fourth and fifth, he was turning up his punch output and beginning to sap Moore's strength, and he only kept building momentum until he broke through and completely took over the fight in the sixth. Now, imagine that, instead of what actually happened, Marciano came back to his corner with his eyes burning at the end of the fifth, then had continued trouble seeing for the next couple rounds. Quite likely he would lose his momentum, Moore would get the chance to grab a second wind and pile up some points, and after Marciano's vision cleared up the fight would go into the late rounds and be very close on the scorecards.
Applying the same sort of reversal to the Marciano-Walcott fight, imagine Marciano's vision is never impaired and he is able to follow up on the momentum he was starting to build in the fifth and sixth rounds. Walcott would never have gotten a reprieve from the pressure nor the extra points on the scorecards, and Marciano would have been able to continue building momentum as he did against Moore, Charles, LaStarza, etc. and broke them all down, when the process wasn't interrupted like it was against Walcott. I don't think it's very implausible that Marciano could have stopped Walcott sooner and been even or ahead on the scorecards at the time of the stoppage in this scenario. Not saying this is the case for certain, but it is something worth consideration. It is also a point of consideration that Marciano was barely able to see for a significant portion of the fight and still won- this hardly supports the notion that he wasn't a better fighter than Walcott.

Charles was of course years beyond his prime when he almost beat Marciano. I severely doubt Marciano could have handled the 1949 Charles, given how much trouble he had with the deteriorated version.

First, let's examine the statement that Charles "almost beat" Marciano:
In their first fight, Charles did take Marciano through a grueling 15-round battle. The fact is, however, that Marciano won the decision by a clear-cut margin and there was not a sportswriter to be found who did not agree. Charles never had Marciano down or in serious trouble and was not close enough on points to be within striking range to take the decision. Did he give him a tough fight? Absolutely, a very tough fight. Did he "almost beat" him? No.

Now, to the rematch. It amazes me that the content of this fight is used by so many people as a polemical counter-Marciano argument. Consider here: Marciano had Charles down and nearly out in the second round. He had won nearly every round through the first seven. All-in-all, he soundly and consistently controlled the action of the fight. The only reason the outcome was in doubt was because of a freak-of-nature cut which was quite likely the result of an elbow.
It is often said that the fight likely would have been stopped with a modern commission, but I expect it would have gone to the scorecards and been a wide Technical Decision win for Marciano in such instance. Beyond which, even if we imagine this cut to be the result of a gloved hit and not an elbow(contrary to the opinions of numerous observers, and the seeming implausibility of the notion that a gloved fist could make a deep tear through the cartilege of someone's nose like that), it was a one-in-a-million fluke. The fact that, in a stroke of incredibly bad luck, he suffered one of the most bizarre freak-of-nature injuries ever observed in a boxing match should hardly be some kind of damning evidence against his standing among the all-time greats. Supposing Marciano had lost because of that cut, would we then discuss Marciano vs. the other greats of history and say "Oh, I think Marciano would lose because a surprise uppercut would tear the cartilege of his nose in half"? The fact is, Marciano dominated the fight and was incredibly unlucky to suffer that cut. The fact that he still won anyway should be an undeniable confirmation of his greatness.
Did Charles "almost beat" Marciano this time out? Technically, yes. But this certainly isn't evidence against Marciano's ability- to the contrary, it shows that even when Marciano suffered a stroke of incredibly bad luck in the middle of a world title fight, he still had more than enough to come through with the victory. Even when Charles had one of the greatest strokes of luck you could ever hope for in a fight, he was still emphatically beaten to a pulp and knocked out. Marciano was head-and-shoulders the better man in both Charles fights, just as he was in all of his title fights.

[pundit]

This is interesting. I never even mentioned Marciano. You brought up Rex Layne's ranking, then said Walcott wasn't in his prime when he fought Layne. I responded with my above post, and you jumped to whether Walcott was in his prime against Marciano. Does anyone think there could be an agenda here?
That said, Walcott was in his prime going into his first fight with Marciano, and since you've abruptly shifted the topic to such, I will debate.
I never said that either. Please, point out where I even implied the argument you just cited. I did say that, since Walcott would go on a few months later to soundly outfight and knock out Charles in one of the most impressive performances if not the single most impressive performance of his career, he plainly wasn't past his prime when he fought Layne, but again, I never even mentioned Marciano, and even if you were to imply an argument about Walcott's status when he fought Marciano, it certainly wouldn't be that Walcott was in his prime "just because he was champ."
In fact, you seem to be making up a huge strawman of my position based entirely on arguments I never used on a subject I wasn't even discussing. No, Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano because, A. he had just beaten his arch-nemesis twice in a row over the last year, B. the third Charles fight was arguably his most impressive performance ever, and C. the Marciano fight was one of his most impressive performances on film.
Now, please, tell me what aspects- specifically- of Walcott's make-up which you think Walcott had declined in by the time he fought Marciano. Was he soft and flabby? Absolutely not- he was hard as nails. Was he slow, lethargic? Again, not a chance. Did he lack stamina? No, and in fact the 11th and 12th were two of his most active and impressive rounds in the fight.
...who you can tell was fading because he lost to Walcott. In fact, every top heavyweight in the 1940s through mid 1950s who ever beat another top heavyweight only did it because that other heavyweight was fading. And you can tell that whoever it was who lost to someone else from that era was fading because he lost to them. Layne beat Walcott and Charles because they were past their primes, Charles beat Walcott because Walcott was past his prime, Walcott beat Charles because Charles was past his prime, and Marciano beat everyone because they were all past their primes.
Wild speculation. Present some kind evidence, or else you're just picking out whatever unsubstantiated assumptions best suit your argument.
Norton may not have been "prime" in the sense of his career as a whole, but I would say his performance against Holmes ranks among his best ever.
On what basis????? This is a rather frustrating discussion, because you're not providing any kind of supporting evidence for your viewpoints. All you seem to be doing is throwing out a lot of unsubstantiated claims and opinions and then adding a lot of emoticons to give off the impression that the opposing viewpoint is somehow silly or childish.
A prime example. Again, I never even brought up whether anyone was in their prime when they fought Marciano. This is apparently something which is gnawing at your mind all the time, and so when anyone ever even comes slightly close to the topic of whether any one of his opponents was in his prime, (ie saying that Walcott was in his prime for an unrelated fight while not even mentioning Marciano) you launch into a tirade about it and expand the topic to every older top opponent he fought!
Now, Louis was well past his prime when he fought Marciano. He was heavier, slower, had lost to Charle and been less impressive in recent bouts than in his heyday, and on film appears to lack the old timing, sharpness and stamina he had in his youth. He was still a very good fighter even at that stage of his career, but he was nowhere near the level he had been at in his prime.
You see, what I'm doing is assessing the facts as they stand to come to a conclusion which I try not to preconceive beforehand. What you're doing is apparently lumping various groups of fighters together and taking a dogmatic stance on them which you defend by ridiculing anyone who disagrees with you.
Notice: Louis was softer and heavier than he had been in his prime when he fought Marciano, while Walcott was at his peak weight and hard and muscular as ever. Louis had been relatively unimpressive winning against relatively unimpressive opposition in recent fights before facing Marciano, while Walcott had been extremely impressive winning against top-notch opposition. Louis appeared slower, less dynamic, less sharp and accurate in his punching, and not as well-conditioned as he had in his prime, while Walcott, looked extremely quick, energetic, sharp, accurate, busy, and has brilliant skill and stamina. Thus, I conclude that Louis was past his prime when he fought Marciano, and Walcott was not. If you disagree with my position, please point out something wrong with my assessment of the facts instead of simply implying that my opinions are stupid and then pasting on a few sarcastic emoticons.

Still, Walcott was near 39, and most fighters have lost some speed and reflexes by that age.

Walcott-was-a-late-bloomer. His-age-does-not-instantly-justify-the-conclusion-that-he-was-over-the-hill. All-the-data-I-just-discussed-indicates-that-he-was-not. Please-form-some-kind-of-argument-against-that-data-if-you-want-to-tell-me-I'm-wrong.

And he was winning the fight until Suzie Q came to the rescue.

A. SuzieQ did come to the rescue, so who was ahead before the knockout is pretty academic. The fact is that Marciano won, just like he won every other professional fight he ever engaged in.
B. Marciano's vision was considerably impaired for two to three rounds in the middle of this fight. At the time of the knockout, he was behind 8-4, 7-4-1, and 7-5(which I believe and imagine you agree were reasonable scorecards). Supposing he could have just won one more round without the cut medicine in his eyes, the fight would have been 7-5, 6-5-1, and 6-6 after 12, or razor close.
What's more, Marciano was building momentum during the fifth and sixth rounds before the cut medicine started interfering with his vision. Marciano was the sort of fighter who took a little and turned it into a lot, who got a toehold in a fight and then sunk his teeth in deeper and deeper until he took charge and won. For example, in the Moore fight, Marciano struggled some in the first few rounds, but by the fourth and fifth, he was turning up his punch output and beginning to sap Moore's strength, and he only kept building momentum until he broke through and completely took over the fight in the sixth. Now, imagine that, instead of what actually happened, Marciano came back to his corner with his eyes burning at the end of the fifth, then had continued trouble seeing for the next couple rounds. Quite likely he would lose his momentum, Moore would get the chance to grab a second wind and pile up some points, and after Marciano's vision cleared up the fight would go into the late rounds and be very close on the scorecards.
Applying the same sort of reversal to the Marciano-Walcott fight, imagine Marciano's vision is never impaired and he is able to follow up on the momentum he was starting to build in the fifth and sixth rounds. Walcott would never have gotten a reprieve from the pressure nor the extra points on the scorecards, and Marciano would have been able to continue building momentum as he did against Moore, Charles, LaStarza, etc. and broke them all down, when the process wasn't interrupted like it was against Walcott. I don't think it's very implausible that Marciano could have stopped Walcott sooner and been even or ahead on the scorecards at the time of the stoppage in this scenario. Not saying this is the case for certain, but it is something worth consideration. It is also a point of consideration that Marciano was barely able to see for a significant portion of the fight and still won- this hardly supports the notion that he wasn't a better fighter than Walcott.

Charles was of course years beyond his prime when he almost beat Marciano. I severely doubt Marciano could have handled the 1949 Charles, given how much trouble he had with the deteriorated version.

First, let's examine the statement that Charles "almost beat" Marciano:
In their first fight, Charles did take Marciano through a grueling 15-round battle. The fact is, however, that Marciano won the decision by a clear-cut margin and there was not a sportswriter to be found who did not agree. Charles never had Marciano down or in serious trouble and was not close enough on points to be within striking range to take the decision. Did he give him a tough fight? Absolutely, a very tough fight. Did he "almost beat" him? No.

Now, to the rematch. It amazes me that the content of this fight is used by so many people as a polemical counter-Marciano argument. Consider here: Marciano had Charles down and nearly out in the second round. He had won nearly every round through the first seven. All-in-all, he soundly and consistently controlled the action of the fight. The only reason the outcome was in doubt was because of a freak-of-nature cut which was quite likely the result of an elbow.
It is often said that the fight likely would have been stopped with a modern commission, but I expect it would have gone to the scorecards and been a wide Technical Decision win for Marciano in such instance. Beyond which, even if we imagine this cut to be the result of a gloved hit and not an elbow(contrary to the opinions of numerous observers, and the seeming implausibility of the notion that a gloved fist could make a deep tear through the cartilege of someone's nose like that), it was a one-in-a-million fluke. The fact that, in a stroke of incredibly bad luck, he suffered one of the most bizarre freak-of-nature injuries ever observed in a boxing match should hardly be some kind of damning evidence against his standing among the all-time greats. Supposing Marciano had lost because of that cut, would we then discuss Marciano vs. the other greats of history and say "Oh, I think Marciano would lose because a surprise uppercut would tear the cartilege of his nose in half"? The fact is, Marciano dominated the fight and was incredibly unlucky to suffer that cut. The fact that he still won anyway should be an undeniable confirmation of his greatness.
Did Charles "almost beat" Marciano this time out? Technically, yes. But this certainly isn't evidence against Marciano's ability- to the contrary, it shows that even when Marciano suffered a stroke of incredibly bad luck in the middle of a world title fight, he still had more than enough to come through with the victory. Even when Charles had one of the greatest strokes of luck you could ever hope for in a fight, he was still emphatically beaten to a pulp and knocked out. Marciano was head-and-shoulders the better man in both Charles fights, just as he was in all of his title fights.

You are telling me nothing new bud. The facts remain:

1) Walcott was almost 39. An old fighter by any standard. And markedly slowed down from his prime years (about 5 years earlier).
2) Old Walcott beat Marciano for most of the fight
3) Lightyears-beyond-prime Charles gave Marciano a gruelling and close fight. This was the Charles who could not beat Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson any longer.

And better opponents were not around.

[Marciano Frazier]

Still, Walcott was near 39, and most fighters have lost some speed and reflexes by that age.

Walcott-was-a-late-bloomer. His-age-does-not-instantly-justify-the-conclusion-that-he-was-over-the-hill. All-the-data-I-just-discussed-indicates-that-he-was-not. Please-form-some-kind-of-argument-against-that-data-if-you-want-to-tell-me-I'm-wrong.

And he was winning the fight until Suzie Q came to the rescue.

A. SuzieQ did come to the rescue, so who was ahead before the knockout is pretty academic. The fact is that Marciano won, just like he won every other professional fight he ever engaged in.
B. Marciano's vision was considerably impaired for two to three rounds in the middle of this fight. At the time of the knockout, he was behind 8-4, 7-4-1, and 7-5(which I believe and imagine you agree were reasonable scorecards). Supposing he could have just won one more round without the cut medicine in his eyes, the fight would have been 7-5, 6-5-1, and 6-6 after 12, or razor close.
What's more, Marciano was building momentum during the fifth and sixth rounds before the cut medicine started interfering with his vision. Marciano was the sort of fighter who took a little and turned it into a lot, who got a toehold in a fight and then sunk his teeth in deeper and deeper until he took charge and won. For example, in the Moore fight, Marciano struggled some in the first few rounds, but by the fourth and fifth, he was turning up his punch output and beginning to sap Moore's strength, and he only kept building momentum until he broke through and completely took over the fight in the sixth. Now, imagine that, instead of what actually happened, Marciano came back to his corner with his eyes burning at the end of the fifth, then had continued trouble seeing for the next couple rounds. Quite likely he would lose his momentum, Moore would get the chance to grab a second wind and pile up some points, and after Marciano's vision cleared up the fight would go into the late rounds and be very close on the scorecards.
Applying the same sort of reversal to the Marciano-Walcott fight, imagine Marciano's vision is never impaired and he is able to follow up on the momentum he was starting to build in the fifth and sixth rounds. Walcott would never have gotten a reprieve from the pressure nor the extra points on the scorecards, and Marciano would have been able to continue building momentum as he did against Moore, Charles, LaStarza, etc. and broke them all down, when the process wasn't interrupted like it was against Walcott. I don't think it's very implausible that Marciano could have stopped Walcott sooner and been even or ahead on the scorecards at the time of the stoppage in this scenario. Not saying this is the case for certain, but it is something worth consideration. It is also a point of consideration that Marciano was barely able to see for a significant portion of the fight and still won- this hardly supports the notion that he wasn't a better fighter than Walcott.

Charles was of course years beyond his prime when he almost beat Marciano. I severely doubt Marciano could have handled the 1949 Charles, given how much trouble he had with the deteriorated version.

First, let's examine the statement that Charles "almost beat" Marciano:
In their first fight, Charles did take Marciano through a grueling 15-round battle. The fact is, however, that Marciano won the decision by a clear-cut margin and there was not a sportswriter to be found who did not agree. Charles never had Marciano down or in serious trouble and was not close enough on points to be within striking range to take the decision. Did he give him a tough fight? Absolutely, a very tough fight. Did he "almost beat" him? No.

Now, to the rematch. It amazes me that the content of this fight is used by so many people as a polemical counter-Marciano argument. Consider here: Marciano had Charles down and nearly out in the second round. He had won nearly every round through the first seven. All-in-all, he soundly and consistently controlled the action of the fight. The only reason the outcome was in doubt was because of a freak-of-nature cut which was quite likely the result of an elbow.
It is often said that the fight likely would have been stopped with a modern commission, but I expect it would have gone to the scorecards and been a wide Technical Decision win for Marciano in such instance. Beyond which, even if we imagine this cut to be the result of a gloved hit and not an elbow(contrary to the opinions of numerous observers, and the seeming implausibility of the notion that a gloved fist could make a deep tear through the cartilege of someone's nose like that), it was a one-in-a-million fluke. The fact that, in a stroke of incredibly bad luck, he suffered one of the most bizarre freak-of-nature injuries ever observed in a boxing match should hardly be some kind of damning evidence against his standing among the all-time greats. Supposing Marciano had lost because of that cut, would we then discuss Marciano vs. the other greats of history and say "Oh, I think Marciano would lose because a surprise uppercut would tear the cartilege of his nose in half"? The fact is, Marciano dominated the fight and was incredibly unlucky to suffer that cut. The fact that he still won anyway should be an undeniable confirmation of his greatness.
Did Charles "almost beat" Marciano this time out? Technically, yes. But this certainly isn't evidence against Marciano's ability- to the contrary, it shows that even when Marciano suffered a stroke of incredibly bad luck in the middle of a world title fight, he still had more than enough to come through with the victory. Even when Charles had one of the greatest strokes of luck you could ever hope for in a fight, he was still emphatically beaten to a pulp and knocked out. Marciano was head-and-shoulders the better man in both Charles fights, just as he was in all of his title fights.

You are telling me nothing new, bud. Still, the facts remain:

1) Walcott near 39 -- and old fighter
2) Walcott beats Marciano for most of the fight

He-was-old-but-he-was-a-late-bloomer-coming-off-some-of-his-greatest-performances-ever-and-still-couldn't-beat-Marciano-in-spite-of-having-him-semi-blinded-for-a-significant-portion-of-the-fight. It's a little annoying when I go into these long discussions of the topic and explain, point by point, why Walcott's being old is not in and of itself proof he was over the hill and then provide evidence from every angle I can think of that he wasn't, and you simply respond by repeating what you just said- "Yeah, but he was old."

3) Lightyears-beyond-peak Charles gives Marciano a gruelling and close fight.

Now, I agree Charles' absolute peak was in the late '40s, but please explain "light years beyond peak." He had officially lost to Valdes and Johnson, but the Johnson loss was a heavily disputed decision and most everyone I've spoken to who's seen the fight has said that Charles won clearly and was robbed. Since then, he had impressive back-to-back knockouts against Wallace and Satterfield. His performance in the first Marciano fight was nothing short of incredible in terms of the stamina and determination he showed in the ring, keeping up the kind of workrate he did for an entire 15-rounder in which the two fighters never once had to be separated from a clinch.

And better opponents were not around.

Clearly Marciano was a coward ducking all the real opponents by fighting the champion and #1 contender in his weight division.

Hmmmm... simply not all that convincing, if you ask me.

Hmmmm... It appears to me that you are looking very selectively at a couple of Marciano's fights with an unnecessarily negative slant and holding him to a standard which no champion would live up to. One could make far worse attacks on the legacies of Louis, Ali, Johnson, Dempsey, or any number of other legendary champions.

[pundit]

He-was-old-but-he-was-a-late-bloomer-coming-off-some-of-his-greatest-performances-ever-and-still-couldn't-beat-Marciano-in-spite-of-having-him-semi-blinded-for-a-significant-portion-of-the-fight. It's a little annoying when I go into these long discussions of the topic and explain, point by point, why Walcott's being old is not in and of itself proof he was over the hill and then provide evidence from every angle I can think of that he wasn't, and you simply respond by repeating what you just said- "Yeah, but he was old."

3) Lightyears-beyond-peak Charles gives Marciano a gruelling and close fight.

Now, I agree Charles' absolute peak was in the late '40s, but please explain "light years beyond peak." He had officially lost to Valdes and Johnson, but the Johnson loss was a heavily disputed decision and most everyone I've spoken to who's seen the fight has said that Charles won clearly and was robbed. Since then, he had impressive back-to-back knockouts against Wallace and Satterfield. His performance in the first Marciano fight was nothing short of incredible in terms of the stamina and determination he showed in the ring, keeping up the kind of workrate he did for an entire 15-rounder in which the two fighters never once had to be separated from a clinch.

And better opponents were not around.

Clearly Marciano was a coward ducking all the real opponents by fighting the champion and #1 contender in his weight division.

Hmmmm... simply not all that convincing, if you ask me.

Hmmmm... It appears to me that you are looking very selectively at a couple of Marciano's fights with an unnecessarily negative slant and holding him to a standard which no champion would live up to. One could make far worse attacks on the legacies of Louis, Ali, Johnson, Dempsey, or any number of other legendary champions.

It's a little annoying when you get into long-winded "explanations" that say -- nothing. Walcott was old, get over it. At near-39 any fighter is. He was also markedly slowed down from his prime years (1946/47).

Wallace and Sattlerfield.... yeah. Very impressive. You need to try a bit harder bud.

My "selectivity" is to look closely at Marciano's best fights, and noting that these were against old (Walcott) and/or deteriorated (Charles) fighters -- who nonetheless got Marciano at the brink of defeat. I severely doubt Marciano could have beaten a prime Charles. As did their contemporaries, btw, Arhcie Moore included.

Now tell me where you find anything remotely similar to this in Ali's or Louis' or Johnson's best fights. That is, Ali vs. Foreman, Frazier II/III, Terrell, Williams, Liston, Patterson. Louis vs. Max Baer, Braddock, Schmeling II, Mann, Nova, Buddy Baer, Mauriello, Conn II. Johnson vs. Jeffries, Jeanette, McVey, Burns. Emphasis on best fights, as Louis -- and to a lesser extent Johnson -- were known for being a bit sloppy when they didn't take an opponent seriously.

When they came in focussed during their loong primes though they were untouchable, and so was Ali, at least the 60s version. Marciano in contrast never quite was. He won his big fights -- add at least Moore to Charles and Walcott -- and deserves credit for this. But he did not do so in the all-doubts-erasing manner that is the trademark of the first rank heavyweight legends. He also wasn't around at the higest level for long enough to play in the same league.

You have a point with Dempsey though. Dempsey wasted too much of his reign in fighting subpar opposition, although there would have been terrific opponents out there, notably Harry Wills. Partly this was due to the era and not entirely his fault, but this is why I have him a rank below the first-rank legends, too.

[Marciano Frazier]

He-was-old-but-he-was-a-late-bloomer-coming-off-some-of-his-greatest-performances-ever-and-still-couldn't-beat-Marciano-in-spite-of-having-him-semi-blinded-for-a-significant-portion-of-the-fight. It's a little annoying when I go into these long discussions of the topic and explain, point by point, why Walcott's being old is not in and of itself proof he was over the hill and then provide evidence from every angle I can think of that he wasn't, and you simply respond by repeating what you just said- "Yeah, but he was old."

3) Lightyears-beyond-peak Charles gives Marciano a gruelling and close fight.

Now, I agree Charles' absolute peak was in the late '40s, but please explain "light years beyond peak." He had officially lost to Valdes and Johnson, but the Johnson loss was a heavily disputed decision and most everyone I've spoken to who's seen the fight has said that Charles won clearly and was robbed. Since then, he had impressive back-to-back knockouts against Wallace and Satterfield. His performance in the first Marciano fight was nothing short of incredible in terms of the stamina and determination he showed in the ring, keeping up the kind of workrate he did for an entire 15-rounder in which the two fighters never once had to be separated from a clinch.

And better opponents were not around.

Clearly Marciano was a coward ducking all the real opponents by fighting the champion and #1 contender in his weight division.

Hmmmm... simply not all that convincing, if you ask me.

Hmmmm... It appears to me that you are looking very selectively at a couple of Marciano's fights with an unnecessarily negative slant and holding him to a standard which no champion would live up to. One could make far worse attacks on the legacies of Louis, Ali, Johnson, Dempsey, or any number of other legendary champions.

It's a little annoying when you get into long-winded "explanations" that say -- nothing. Walcott was old, get over it. At near-39 any fighter is. He was also markedly slowed down from his prime years (1946/47).

Why don't you just say "38"? Is it that important to promote the age thing as much as possible?
Do you think Hopkins was past his prime at 39? How about Moore? Walcott was an exception. As best I can tell, he looks as fast, strong, sharp, active, well-conditioned and focused as ever in the third and fourth Charles fights and first Marciano fight. He beat his arch-nemesis twice, once in extremely impressive fashion, while winning the title, and then gave hell to the

Wallace and Sattlerfield.... yeah. Very impressive. You need to try a bit harder bud.

Satterfield had just flattened Baker in one round and won his last four straight. He was one of the hardest hitters alive and the #6 contender for the championship. Charles flattened him in crushing fashion. This should be an impressive win to any objective observer.

My "selectivity" is to look closely at Marciano's best fights, and noting that these were against old (Walcott) and/or deteriorated (Charles) fighters -- who nonetheless got Marciano at the brink of defeat. I severely doubt Marciano could have beaten a prime Charles. As did their contemporaries, btw, Arhcie Moore included.

Now tell me where you find anything remotely similar to this in Ali's or Louis' or Johnson's best fights. That is, Ali vs. Foreman, Frazier II/III, Terrell, Williams, Liston, Patterson. Louis vs. Max Baer, Braddock, Schmeling II, Mann, Nova, Buddy Baer, Mauriello, Conn II. Johnson vs. Jeffries, Jeanette, McVey, Burns. Emphasis on best fights, as Louis -- and to a lesser extent Johnson -- were known for being a bit sloppy when they didn't take an opponent seriously.

You see, it's your definition of "best" fights which is questionable here. When you talk about Ali, Louis, Johnson, etc., you pick the fights where they didn't struggle and looked impressive as being their "best." When you talk about Marciano, you pick the fights where he struggled the most. Why do you ignore Louis-Conn I, in which Louis was behind on points after 12 rounds and repeatedly rocked against a light heavyweight with a low knockout percentage before coming back in the 13th, and instead choose Louis-Conn II, where he soundly defeated a deteriorated version of the same opponent, but use Marciano-Walcott I, where he struggled mightily, and ignore the rematch, where he won a first-round knockout? Why does Ali-Frazier I not count among Ali's "best" fights by your standard, but the second and third fights do? Why don't you count Marciano-Layne, Louis, Walcott II, LaStarza II, Charles II, and Moore instead of Walcott I and Charles I as being his best fights?
Please, explain your definition of "best" fights. If by "best" you mean the fights in which they performed the best, why would you assume fights in which Marciano struggled were his best? If by "best" you mean the fights against the best opposition, why would you include Ali vs. an utterly washed-up Cleveland Williams or Johnson against a five-years-retired Jim Jeffries? And surely if dominating a(literally) shot Cleveland Williams or 35-year-old Jeffries who hadn't fought in five years constitutes a great performance, then Marciano beating a Louis who had won eight fights in the last 11 months and was #1 contender or battering Lastarza into submission or blasting out Matthews should count as well.

When they came in focussed during their loong primes though they were untouchable, and so was Ali, at least the 60s version. Marciano in contrast never quite was. He won his big fights -- add at least Moore to Charles and Walcott -- and deserves credit for this. But he did not do so in the all-doubts-erasing manner that is the trademark of the first rank heavyweight legends.

He beat them four times out of four. He struggled in the first fights, so he gave them rematches and proved his point, exactly the way Louis did with Conn and Godoy or Ali did with Cooper. Except that when it's Louis or Ali, you focus on the rematch where they dominated, but when it's Marciano, you focus on the first fight where he struggled.

He also wasn't around at the higest level for long enough to play in the same league.

Really. It may be that Marciano's title reign wasn't long, but it was thorough and decisive. Of Marciano's six title defenses, five were against the current #1 contender, and the other was against the #2 contender. No other champion has faced that high a consistent standard of opposition in his title reign in the history of the division.

Another problem I see underlying your methodology is that you appear to reward "lack of focus" and "inconsistency." Since you view Ali, Louis and Johnson as having lacked focus in some of their fights and been overconfident, you forgive their various career shortcomings and unconvincing performances. But since Marciano was extremely focused and consistent, apparently it not only counts when he struggles, but it counts doubly hard! If Louis is knocked out by aging ex-champ Schmeling, floored by rusty, aging Braddock, struggles with Tommy Farr, barely edges out Godoy, is dropped and hurt by fat bartender Toney Galento, has to come from behind to knock out Conn, is floored and hurt by B. Baer, and gets a robbery over Walcott, it's all because he wasn't focused for those fights, and only the rematches count among his "best" fights. But if Marciano struggles with Walcott and Charles- much better opponents than many on the aforementioned list- before beating them decisively in the rematches, then clearly the first fights are his best and are what we need to focus on. Now, even if it were true that Louis and Johnson and Ali always just weren't focused whenever they didn't look superhuman, while Marciano was a mentally-stagnant robot, what would be the point in rewarding them for that?

[pundit]

He-was-old-but-he-was-a-late-bloomer-coming-off-some-of-his-greatest-performances-ever-and-still-couldn't-beat-Marciano-in-spite-of-having-him-semi-blinded-for-a-significant-portion-of-the-fight. It's a little annoying when I go into these long discussions of the topic and explain, point by point, why Walcott's being old is not in and of itself proof he was over the hill and then provide evidence from every angle I can think of that he wasn't, and you simply respond by repeating what you just said- "Yeah, but he was old."

Now, I agree Charles' absolute peak was in the late '40s, but please explain "light years beyond peak." He had officially lost to Valdes and Johnson, but the Johnson loss was a heavily disputed decision and most everyone I've spoken to who's seen the fight has said that Charles won clearly and was robbed. Since then, he had impressive back-to-back knockouts against Wallace and Satterfield. His performance in the first Marciano fight was nothing short of incredible in terms of the stamina and determination he showed in the ring, keeping up the kind of workrate he did for an entire 15-rounder in which the two fighters never once had to be separated from a clinch.
Clearly Marciano was a coward ducking all the real opponents by fighting the champion and #1 contender in his weight division.

Hmmmm... It appears to me that you are looking very selectively at a couple of Marciano's fights with an unnecessarily negative slant and holding him to a standard which no champion would live up to. One could make far worse attacks on the legacies of Louis, Ali, Johnson, Dempsey, or any number of other legendary champions.

It's a little annoying when you get into long-winded "explanations" that say -- nothing. Walcott was old, get over it. At near-39 any fighter is. He was also markedly slowed down from his prime years (1946/47).

Why don't you just say "38"? Is it that important to promote the age thing as much as possible?
Do you think Hopkins was past his prime at 39? How about Moore? Walcott was an exception. As best I can tell, he looks as fast, strong, sharp, active, well-conditioned and focused as ever in the third and fourth Charles fights and first Marciano fight. He beat his arch-nemesis twice, once in extremely impressive fashion, while winning the title, and then gave hell to the

He beat his "nemesis" because this nemesis was sliding, and badly so. I doubt Walcott could ever have beaten prime Charles. And neither could Marciano have.

And as to your previous question: yes of course, by 39 every fighters is slowed down, including Hopkins and Moore. Conditioning can limit the effects of age, and ringsmarts and ring generalship can compensate for them in parts, but nothing can undo them.

Btw: the issue with Walcott is not that he was a "later bloomer", at least not abilitywise. He always had world class potential, even in the late 1930s. The issue is that he didn't come under professional management until after WWII, when he enjoyed for the first time the same careful preparation, conditioning and planning that the other world class heavyweights enjoyed. The results came immediately. The best Jersey Joe Walcott was the pre-title Walcott of 1946-48. At that time the competition was too strong though for Walcott to gain the heavyweight title: Louis was sliding but still good, Charles was in his prime.

Not so in the early 1950s.

Wallace and Sattlerfield.... yeah. Very impressive. You need to try a bit harder bud.

Satterfield had just flattened Baker in one round and won his last four straight. He was one of the hardest hitters alive and the #6 contender for the championship. Charles flattened him in crushing fashion. This should be an impressive win to any objective observer.

Your cluching to straws here. Sattlerfield hardly makes the top 20 of Charles' best wins.

My "selectivity" is to look closely at Marciano's best fights, and noting that these were against old (Walcott) and/or deteriorated (Charles) fighters -- who nonetheless got Marciano at the brink of defeat. I severely doubt Marciano could have beaten a prime Charles. As did their contemporaries, btw, Arhcie Moore included.

Now tell me where you find anything remotely similar to this in Ali's or Louis' or Johnson's best fights. That is, Ali vs. Foreman, Frazier II/III, Terrell, Williams, Liston, Patterson. Louis vs. Max Baer, Braddock, Schmeling II, Mann, Nova, Buddy Baer, Mauriello, Conn II. Johnson vs. Jeffries, Jeanette, McVey, Burns. Emphasis on best fights, as Louis -- and to a lesser extent Johnson -- were known for being a bit sloppy when they didn't take an opponent seriously.

You see, it's your definition of "best" fights which is questionable here. When you talk about Ali, Louis, Johnson, etc., you pick the fights where they didn't struggle and looked impressive as being their "best." When you talk about Marciano, you pick the fights where he struggled the most. Why do you ignore Louis-Conn I, in which Louis was behind on points after 12 rounds and repeatedly rocked against a light heavyweight with a low knockout percentage before coming back in the 13th, and instead choose Louis-Conn II, where he soundly defeated a deteriorated version of the same opponent, but use Marciano-Walcott I, where he struggled mightily, and ignore the rematch, where he won a first-round knockout? Why does Ali-Frazier I not count among Ali's "best" fights by your standard, but the second and third fights do? Why don't you count Marciano-Layne, Louis, Walcott II, LaStarza II, Charles II, and Moore instead of Walcott I and Charles I as being his best fights?
Please, explain your definition of "best" fights. If by "best" you mean the fights in which they performed the best, why would you assume fights in which Marciano struggled were his best? If by "best" you mean the fights against the best opposition, why would you include Ali vs. an utterly washed-up Cleveland Williams or Johnson against a five-years-retired Jim Jeffries? And surely if dominating a(literally) shot Cleveland Williams or 35-year-old Jeffries who hadn't fought in five years constitutes a great performance, then Marciano beating a Louis who had won eight fights in the last 11 months and was #1 contender or battering Lastarza into submission or blasting out Matthews should count as well.

When they came in focussed during their loong primes though they were untouchable, and so was Ali, at least the 60s version. Marciano in contrast never quite was. He won his big fights -- add at least Moore to Charles and Walcott -- and deserves credit for this. But he did not do so in the all-doubts-erasing manner that is the trademark of the first rank heavyweight legends.

He beat them four times out of four. He struggled in the first fights, so he gave them rematches and proved his point, exactly the way Louis did with Conn and Godoy or Ali did with Cooper. Except that when it's Louis or Ali, you focus on the rematch where they dominated, but when it's Marciano, you focus on the first fight where he struggled.

He also wasn't around at the higest level for long enough to play in the same league.

Really. It may be that Marciano's title reign wasn't long, but it was thorough and decisive. Of Marciano's six title defenses, five were against the current #1 contender, and the other was against the #2 contender. No other champion has faced that high a consistent standard of opposition in his title reign in the history of the division.

Another problem I see underlying your methodology is that you appear to reward "lack of focus" and "inconsistency." Since you view Ali, Louis and Johnson as having lacked focus in some of their fights and been overconfident, you forgive their various career shortcomings and unconvincing performances. But since Marciano was extremely focused and consistent, apparently it not only counts when he struggles, but it counts doubly hard! If Louis is knocked out by aging ex-champ Schmeling, floored by rusty, aging Braddock, struggles with Tommy Farr, barely edges out Godoy, is dropped and hurt by fat bartender Toney Galento, has to come from behind to knock out Conn, is floored and hurt by B. Baer, and gets a robbery over Walcott, it's all because he wasn't focused for those fights, and only the rematches count among his "best" fights. But if Marciano struggles with Walcott and Charles- much better opponents than many on the aforementioned list- before beating them decisively in the rematches, then clearly the first fights are his best and are what we need to focus on. Now, even if it were true that Louis and Johnson and Ali always just weren't focused whenever they didn't look superhuman, while Marciano was a mentally-stagnant robot, what would be the point in rewarding them for that?

Again lots of excited verbosity with little news.

Face it, bud: Marciano struggled with small, old and deteriorated men even when he brought his A game. This is the bottom line. Fine, he knocked out an unmotivated almost 40 years old Walcott (who seemed in no urgency to get back to his feet), and also an Ezzard Charles who was a shell of his former self and went on to lose to Toxie Hall. He even wore down light-heavyweight Archie Moore. Sure, all this is respectable, but it seems rather thin for putting him in the league of Ali, Louis or Johnson.

By contrast, when Ali, Louis or Johnson brought their A game they were untouchable. Sorry, but Marciano never delivered fights like Louis did against Max Baer, or Ali did against Ernie Terrell (these are just examples): making an in-prime world class opponent look utterly uncompetitive. Marciano was a tough kid who earned his dues the hard way, but for the very first class of ATGs his means as a boxer were too limited.

Cheers,
P

[silkov]

It's a little annoying when you get into long-winded "explanations" that say -- nothing. Walcott was old, get over it. At near-39 any fighter is. He was also markedly slowed down from his prime years (1946/47).

Why don't you just say "38"? Is it that important to promote the age thing as much as possible?
Do you think Hopkins was past his prime at 39? How about Moore? Walcott was an exception. As best I can tell, he looks as fast, strong, sharp, active, well-conditioned and focused as ever in the third and fourth Charles fights and first Marciano fight. He beat his arch-nemesis twice, once in extremely impressive fashion, while winning the title, and then gave hell to the

He beat his "nemesis" because this nemesis was sliding, and badly so. I doubt Walcott could ever have beaten prime Charles. And neither could Marciano have.

And as to your previous question: yes of course, by 39 every fighters is slowed down, including Hopkins and Moore. Conditioning can limit the effects of age, and ringsmarts and ring generalship can compensate for them in parts, but nothing can undo them.

Btw: the issue with Walcott is not that he was a "later bloomer", at least not abilitywise. He always had world class potential, even in the late 1930s. The issue is that he didn't come under professional management until after WWII, when he enjoyed for the first time the same careful preparation, conditioning and planning that the other world class heavyweights enjoyed. The results came immediately. The best Jersey Joe Walcott was the pre-title Walcott of 1946-48. At that time the competition was too strong though for Walcott to gain the heavyweight title: Louis was sliding but still good, Charles was in his prime.

Not so in the early 1950s.

Wallace and Sattlerfield.... yeah. Very impressive. You need to try a bit harder bud.

Satterfield had just flattened Baker in one round and won his last four straight. He was one of the hardest hitters alive and the #6 contender for the championship. Charles flattened him in crushing fashion. This should be an impressive win to any objective observer.

Your cluching to straws here. Sattlerfield hardly makes the top 20 of Charles' best wins.

My "selectivity" is to look closely at Marciano's best fights, and noting that these were against old (Walcott) and/or deteriorated (Charles) fighters -- who nonetheless got Marciano at the brink of defeat. I severely doubt Marciano could have beaten a prime Charles. As did their contemporaries, btw, Arhcie Moore included.

Now tell me where you find anything remotely similar to this in Ali's or Louis' or Johnson's best fights. That is, Ali vs. Foreman, Frazier II/III, Terrell, Williams, Liston, Patterson. Louis vs. Max Baer, Braddock, Schmeling II, Mann, Nova, Buddy Baer, Mauriello, Conn II. Johnson vs. Jeffries, Jeanette, McVey, Burns. Emphasis on best fights, as Louis -- and to a lesser extent Johnson -- were known for being a bit sloppy when they didn't take an opponent seriously.

You see, it's your definition of "best" fights which is questionable here. When you talk about Ali, Louis, Johnson, etc., you pick the fights where they didn't struggle and looked impressive as being their "best." When you talk about Marciano, you pick the fights where he struggled the most. Why do you ignore Louis-Conn I, in which Louis was behind on points after 12 rounds and repeatedly rocked against a light heavyweight with a low knockout percentage before coming back in the 13th, and instead choose Louis-Conn II, where he soundly defeated a deteriorated version of the same opponent, but use Marciano-Walcott I, where he struggled mightily, and ignore the rematch, where he won a first-round knockout? Why does Ali-Frazier I not count among Ali's "best" fights by your standard, but the second and third fights do? Why don't you count Marciano-Layne, Louis, Walcott II, LaStarza II, Charles II, and Moore instead of Walcott I and Charles I as being his best fights?
Please, explain your definition of "best" fights. If by "best" you mean the fights in which they performed the best, why would you assume fights in which Marciano struggled were his best? If by "best" you mean the fights against the best opposition, why would you include Ali vs. an utterly washed-up Cleveland Williams or Johnson against a five-years-retired Jim Jeffries? And surely if dominating a(literally) shot Cleveland Williams or 35-year-old Jeffries who hadn't fought in five years constitutes a great performance, then Marciano beating a Louis who had won eight fights in the last 11 months and was #1 contender or battering Lastarza into submission or blasting out Matthews should count as well.

When they came in focussed during their loong primes though they were untouchable, and so was Ali, at least the 60s version. Marciano in contrast never quite was. He won his big fights -- add at least Moore to Charles and Walcott -- and deserves credit for this. But he did not do so in the all-doubts-erasing manner that is the trademark of the first rank heavyweight legends.

He beat them four times out of four. He struggled in the first fights, so he gave them rematches and proved his point, exactly the way Louis did with Conn and Godoy or Ali did with Cooper. Except that when it's Louis or Ali, you focus on the rematch where they dominated, but when it's Marciano, you focus on the first fight where he struggled.

He also wasn't around at the higest level for long enough to play in the same league.

Really. It may be that Marciano's title reign wasn't long, but it was thorough and decisive. Of Marciano's six title defenses, five were against the current #1 contender, and the other was against the #2 contender. No other champion has faced that high a consistent standard of opposition in his title reign in the history of the division.

Another problem I see underlying your methodology is that you appear to reward "lack of focus" and "inconsistency." Since you view Ali, Louis and Johnson as having lacked focus in some of their fights and been overconfident, you forgive their various career shortcomings and unconvincing performances. But since Marciano was extremely focused and consistent, apparently it not only counts when he struggles, but it counts doubly hard! If Louis is knocked out by aging ex-champ Schmeling, floored by rusty, aging Braddock, struggles with Tommy Farr, barely edges out Godoy, is dropped and hurt by fat bartender Toney Galento, has to come from behind to knock out Conn, is floored and hurt by B. Baer, and gets a robbery over Walcott, it's all because he wasn't focused for those fights, and only the rematches count among his "best" fights. But if Marciano struggles with Walcott and Charles- much better opponents than many on the aforementioned list- before beating them decisively in the rematches, then clearly the first fights are his best and are what we need to focus on. Now, even if it were true that Louis and Johnson and Ali always just weren't focused whenever they didn't look superhuman, while Marciano was a mentally-stagnant robot, what would be the point in rewarding them for that?

Again lots of excited verbosity with little news.

Face it, bud: Marciano struggled with small, old and deteriorated men even when he brought his A game. This is the bottom line. Fine, he knocked out an unmotivated almost 40 years old Walcott (who seemed in no urgency to get back to his feet), and also an Ezzard Charles who was a shell of his former self and went on to lose to Toxie Hall. He even wore down light-heavyweight Archie Moore. Sure, all this is respectable, but it seems rather thin for putting him in the league of Ali, Louis or Johnson.

By contrast, when Ali, Louis or Johnson brought their A game they were untouchable. Sorry, but Marciano never delivered fights like Louis did against Max Baer, or Ali did against Ernie Terrell (these are just examples): making an in-prime world class opponent look utterly uncompetitive. Marciano was a tough kid who earned his dues the hard way, but for the very first class of ATGs his means as a boxer were too limited.

Cheers,
P

Exactly, ...excellent points!... 8) .

[Marciano Frazier]

It's a little annoying when you get into long-winded "explanations" that say -- nothing. Walcott was old, get over it. At near-39 any fighter is. He was also markedly slowed down from his prime years (1946/47).

Why don't you just say "38"? Is it that important to promote the age thing as much as possible?
Do you think Hopkins was past his prime at 39? How about Moore? Walcott was an exception. As best I can tell, he looks as fast, strong, sharp, active, well-conditioned and focused as ever in the third and fourth Charles fights and first Marciano fight. He beat his arch-nemesis twice, once in extremely impressive fashion, while winning the title, and then gave hell to the

He beat his "nemesis" because this nemesis was sliding, and badly so. I doubt Walcott could ever have beaten prime Charles. And neither could Marciano have.

Again, what makes you think that? Why is it that everyone who beats anyone in the 1950s does it because that person is past their prime? It seems to be the sort of universal excuse-card to demote everyone who fought in that era, especially Marciano; "Marciano beat Walcott." "Oh, but Walcott was past his prime." But Walcott had just beaten Charles! "Oh, but Charles was past his prime."

And as to your previous question: yes of course, by 39 every fighters is slowed down, including Hopkins and Moore. Conditioning can limit the effects of age, and ringsmarts and ring generalship can compensate for them in parts, but nothing can undo them.

Btw: the issue with Walcott is not that he was a "later bloomer", at least not abilitywise. He always had world class potential, even in the late 1930s. The issue is that he didn't come under professional management until after WWII, when he enjoyed for the first time the same careful preparation, conditioning and planning that the other world class heavyweights enjoyed. The results came immediately. The best Jersey Joe Walcott was the pre-title Walcott of 1946-48. At that time the competition was too strong though for Walcott to gain the heavyweight title: Louis was sliding but still good, Charles was in his prime.

Not so in the early 1950s.

Wallace and Sattlerfield.... yeah. Very impressive. You need to try a bit harder bud.

Satterfield had just flattened Baker in one round and won his last four straight. He was one of the hardest hitters alive and the #6 contender for the championship. Charles flattened him in crushing fashion. This should be an impressive win to any objective observer.

Your cluching to straws here. Sattlerfield hardly makes the top 20 of Charles' best wins.

My "selectivity" is to look closely at Marciano's best fights, and noting that these were against old (Walcott) and/or deteriorated (Charles) fighters -- who nonetheless got Marciano at the brink of defeat. I severely doubt Marciano could have beaten a prime Charles. As did their contemporaries, btw, Arhcie Moore included.

Now tell me where you find anything remotely similar to this in Ali's or Louis' or Johnson's best fights. That is, Ali vs. Foreman, Frazier II/III, Terrell, Williams, Liston, Patterson. Louis vs. Max Baer, Braddock, Schmeling II, Mann, Nova, Buddy Baer, Mauriello, Conn II. Johnson vs. Jeffries, Jeanette, McVey, Burns. Emphasis on best fights, as Louis -- and to a lesser extent Johnson -- were known for being a bit sloppy when they didn't take an opponent seriously.

You see, it's your definition of "best" fights which is questionable here. When you talk about Ali, Louis, Johnson, etc., you pick the fights where they didn't struggle and looked impressive as being their "best." When you talk about Marciano, you pick the fights where he struggled the most. Why do you ignore Louis-Conn I, in which Louis was behind on points after 12 rounds and repeatedly rocked against a light heavyweight with a low knockout percentage before coming back in the 13th, and instead choose Louis-Conn II, where he soundly defeated a deteriorated version of the same opponent, but use Marciano-Walcott I, where he struggled mightily, and ignore the rematch, where he won a first-round knockout? Why does Ali-Frazier I not count among Ali's "best" fights by your standard, but the second and third fights do? Why don't you count Marciano-Layne, Louis, Walcott II, LaStarza II, Charles II, and Moore instead of Walcott I and Charles I as being his best fights?
Please, explain your definition of "best" fights. If by "best" you mean the fights in which they performed the best, why would you assume fights in which Marciano struggled were his best? If by "best" you mean the fights against the best opposition, why would you include Ali vs. an utterly washed-up Cleveland Williams or Johnson against a five-years-retired Jim Jeffries? And surely if dominating a(literally) shot Cleveland Williams or 35-year-old Jeffries who hadn't fought in five years constitutes a great performance, then Marciano beating a Louis who had won eight fights in the last 11 months and was #1 contender or battering Lastarza into submission or blasting out Matthews should count as well.

When they came in focussed during their loong primes though they were untouchable, and so was Ali, at least the 60s version. Marciano in contrast never quite was. He won his big fights -- add at least Moore to Charles and Walcott -- and deserves credit for this. But he did not do so in the all-doubts-erasing manner that is the trademark of the first rank heavyweight legends.

He beat them four times out of four. He struggled in the first fights, so he gave them rematches and proved his point, exactly the way Louis did with Conn and Godoy or Ali did with Cooper. Except that when it's Louis or Ali, you focus on the rematch where they dominated, but when it's Marciano, you focus on the first fight where he struggled.

He also wasn't around at the higest level for long enough to play in the same league.

Really. It may be that Marciano's title reign wasn't long, but it was thorough and decisive. Of Marciano's six title defenses, five were against the current #1 contender, and the other was against the #2 contender. No other champion has faced that high a consistent standard of opposition in his title reign in the history of the division.

Another problem I see underlying your methodology is that you appear to reward "lack of focus" and "inconsistency." Since you view Ali, Louis and Johnson as having lacked focus in some of their fights and been overconfident, you forgive their various career shortcomings and unconvincing performances. But since Marciano was extremely focused and consistent, apparently it not only counts when he struggles, but it counts doubly hard! If Louis is knocked out by aging ex-champ Schmeling, floored by rusty, aging Braddock, struggles with Tommy Farr, barely edges out Godoy, is dropped and hurt by fat bartender Toney Galento, has to come from behind to knock out Conn, is floored and hurt by B. Baer, and gets a robbery over Walcott, it's all because he wasn't focused for those fights, and only the rematches count among his "best" fights. But if Marciano struggles with Walcott and Charles- much better opponents than many on the aforementioned list- before beating them decisively in the rematches, then clearly the first fights are his best and are what we need to focus on. Now, even if it were true that Louis and Johnson and Ali always just weren't focused whenever they didn't look superhuman, while Marciano was a mentally-stagnant robot, what would be the point in rewarding them for that?

Again lots of excited verbosity with little news.

You see, this method of just dismissing every argument I make and then repeating yourself just makes for a convoluted discussion that goes nowhere.

Face it, bud: Marciano struggled with small, old and deteriorated men even when he brought his A game. This is the bottom line.

Again, Ali, Louis, Holmes, Johnson, Dempsey, and any other champion all struggled with worse opponents than Walcott and Charles. Why do you assume Marciano is always putting on a peak performance, but give other champions free passes to underperform as much as they like? It seems you penalize Marciano for being consistent and push his flaws as being worse while sweeping them under the rug for other champions on the grounds that they were "just not focused." Even if it is the case that Marciano was always exactly the same for every fight and putting on a peak performance every time out, while the other champions were just not focused whenever they struggled and were focused when they dominated, then why should they be greater for it and Marciano be less great?
Face it, friend: Even if Louis on his best night was better than Marciano, Louis- and this being in his prime- not only struggled, but lost badly and was knocked out by Max Schmeling, while Marciano won every fight of his entire professional career. Even if Johnson on his best night was better than Marciano on his own, he was still beaten by Marvin Hart and decked by middleweight Ketchel. Max Schmeling and Marvin Hart were not better than the best opponents Marciano fought. This constitutes a sound argument for ranking Marciano ahead of these men.

[pundit]

Again, what makes you think that? Why is it that everyone who beats anyone in the 1950s does it because that person is past their prime? It seems to be the sort of universal excuse-card to demote everyone who fought in that era, especially Marciano; "Marciano beat Walcott." "Oh, but Walcott was past his prime." But Walcott had just beaten Charles! "Oh, but Charles was past his prime."

Well sorry bud, but both statements are simply correct. I've explained a few times why and frankly I am tired of repeating myself.

It's pretty obvious anyway.

You see, this method of just dismissing every argument I make and then repeating yourself just makes for a convoluted discussion that goes nowhere.

Why don't we just stop it then. You're obviously married to the view that Marciano was at least as good or better than Ali or Louis, and it's true -- I won't be convinced.

Face it, bud: Marciano struggled with small, old and deteriorated men even when he brought his A game. This is the bottom line.

Again, Ali, Louis, Holmes, Johnson, Dempsey, and any other champion all struggled with worse opponents than Walcott and Charles.

Not when they brought their A game.

And please add "old" to Walcott and "years beyond prime" to Charles, otherwise you risk giving a misleading impression -- which you certainty would want to avoid.

Why do you assume Marciano is always putting on a peak performance, but give other champions free passes to underperform as much as they like? It seems you penalize Marciano for being consistent

I "penalize" Marciano for never putting in a performance like Louis vs. Baer or as Ali vs. Terrell. Not once. Why? Because he could not.

Face it, friend: Even if Louis on his best night was better than Marciano, Louis- and this being in his prime- not only struggled, but lost badly and was knocked out by Max Schmeling, while Marciano won every fight of his entire professional career.

.... while never fighting anyone as good as the 1936 Max Schmeling, of course. Jersey Joe in the first fight comes closest, but remember? Near-39-years old Walcott handily beat Marciano for most of the fight.

Even if Johnson on his best night was better than Marciano on his own, he was still beaten by Marvin Hart

He was robbed against Marvin Hart.

and decked by middleweight Ketchel.

.... because Ketchel broke the pre-fight agreement that he wouldn't try seroiusly, in return for not being hurt seriously. Ketchel broke his part of the agreement -- hence Johnson broke his, with his next punch. Result: Ketchel out cold and lacking a couple of teeth.

Cheers,
P

[dr_devious]

Pundits analysis of where Marciano comes in the HW pecking order is absolutely spot on, as are the reasons why. Good post Pundit