BoxRec

pundit wrote:

Marciano Frazier wrote: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.

No, it is not. Look, when Walcott beat Charles, Charles had just beaten Oma, Walcott and Maxim, all in decisive fashion, and all in the last six months! What would make you think, then, that he was "slipping badly?" Please address this, rather than dismissing it offhand. And when Marciano beat Walcott, Walcott

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.

No, actually, in case you didn't notice, I ranked Ali and Louis #1 and #2, and Marciano #4. To tell you the truth, I agree in part with your position- I think they have the edge over Marciano based on longevity and depth of oppositoin legacy-wise, and were better on their best nights. I have never once said that Marciano ranks as highly as Ali or Louis(although I do think he outranks Johnson). I have said that his legacy is comparable to theirs and that he can be reasonably ranked alongside them, but I think they outrank him overall.

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.

Again, how are you defining this? How can you tell Louis wasn't bringing his A-game on any particular instance he struggled? Because he struggled? Then why don't you assume Marciano also wasn't bringing his A-game whenever he struggled? Besides which, why should these guys have permission to not come in at their best when fighting for the world heavyweight championship? If they didn't train hard enough, it was their own fault and their legacies should suffer just as much for it.

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.

I think adding "prime or near-prime" Walcott would be just as accurate as adding "old" Walcott. Contrary to your apparent belief, adding a negative adjective every time you mention an opponent is not the way to present an accurate picture. And again, Charles was slightly past his prime, but you're just hugely exaggerating when you say he was "a shell of his former self" or somesuch. He was still the #1 contender for the heavyweight championship and was coming off back-to-back emphatic wins over rated opponents. He should've had a win over Harold Johnson according to most every account I've ever seen right before that. The stamina and heart he displayed in the first Marciano fight was easily the best he ever showed. Charles was past peak, but he was far from a "shell" of himself.

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.

Uh-huh. You see, one thing Marciano undeniably proved in his career was that sometimes slow and steady wins the race. To me, it doesn't really matter if a fighter looks invincible every second of a match, as long as he wins. The important thing, above all, is winning. And Marciano won. Every time. Moreover, while I suppose he didn't put on any performances where the other guy just looked like a helpless idiot, the overwhelming majority of his wins, including in major fights, were in sound, decisive fashion.

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.

I strongly disagree here. Walcott was absolutely better than Schmeling, and I think the Charles Marciano fought was at least Schmeling's equal. Let us not forget, here, that Schmeling only won the championship by disqualification in a fight he was losing, was decisively beaten and knocked out by Max Baer(who I absolutely do not believe would beat Walcott or Charles, and yes, I mean the Walcott and Charles Marciano fought), and he lost to Steve Hamas. In fact, if by your standards Charles was declining badly when he fought Walcott, how exactly was Schmeling still in his prime when he fought Louis? After all, he was 31, he'd gone 3-2-1 in his last six fights and hadn't fought in nearly a year. This certainly doesn't compare with Charles' 30, having fought three times beating three top opponents in the last six months.

Jersey Joe in the first fight comes closest, but remember? Near-39-years old Walcott handily beat Marciano for most of the fight.

I think Walcott was better than Schmeling(he won the title legitimately, should've been champ twice, looks more impressive on film), and, once again, Walcott only had a sizable lead because Marciano spent a significant portion of the fight semi-blind, and, once again, this being the big point you seem to miss every time around: Louis lost badly and was knocked out, whereas Marciano won the bloody fight, just like every other fight of his professional career.

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.

Not according to a good number of accounts, which I can dig up if you like.

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.

Now, if I wanted to be like you, I could just laugh this off and say "You're not giving me any news bud. Face the facts: Johnson was floored and hurt badly by a middleweight!!! And why didn't you call Ketchel 'middleweight' Ketchel???" But I feel compelled to actually delve into the subject.
The story that Ketchel had agreed prior to the fight not to try to hurt Johnson isn't very well-supported and comes, as best I can tell, almost entirely from Johnson himself, who seemed to have an excuse for every loss and bad performance on his ledger. Besides which, after seeing the tape, I frankly don't believe it to be true. If Johnson had agreed not to hurt Ketchel, he broke his end of the bargain long before Ketchel broke his own; Ketchel was down and in trouble early in the match and Johnson was not pitter-pattering at all. I do believe Johnson may have been toying with him to some extent and gotten careless before he was blasted by that cross, but I do not believe the pre-arrangement story.[/i]

By the way, let me reiterate, since you've gotten the wrong picture and may be unlikely to read my last post:
I do not rank Marciano as highly as Ali and Louis. Marciano is my #4 all-time heavyweight, with Ali and Louis at #1 and #2, as you can see on the list I posted earlier in this thread. The arguments I have been presenting have been geared towards the conclusion that Marciano was better than you believe him to be and could reasonably be placed in the same echelon as them.

Marciano Frazier wrote:By the way, let me reiterate, since you've gotten the wrong picture and may be unlikely to read my last post:
I do not rank Marciano as highly as Ali and Louis. Marciano is my #4 all-time heavyweight, with Ali and Louis at #1 and #2, as you can see on the list I posted earlier in this thread. The arguments I have been presenting have been geared towards the conclusion that Marciano was better than you believe him to be and could reasonably be placed in the same echelon as them.

4th!!!. ... jeeze!... I'm sorry man but Marciano wasnt better than we believe, he was simply not as good as you and other Marciano addicts would like to have us believe.... you want proof, watch his fights and look at his opposition... his best opponents were all past their best and yet still managed to give him hell... he was brave but also clumsy, technically limited, a notorious slow starter and he cut up like tissue paper... these are all facts!... no matter how you try to avoid it...

Look, MarcianoFrazier, I don't think continuing here will yield much. You just repeat your points with slight variations, but none of them does anything to undo my key point -- that Marciano on his best night looked far less impressive than other ATG heavyweights did on theirs.

Now, if you really want to put Marciano at #4 so be it (Marciano fans tend to be similarly enduring as their hero). I just don't. I have him around #10, as I just can't see how Marciano would have beaten the likes of Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Foreman, Liston, Lewis etc. on their best nights. Most of them bigger and faster men with far better boxing skills. Each of them I would expect to have dominated Marciano's era, but hardly vice versa.

I sometimes think I should put Marciano even lower, as I can't see how prime Charles (who I have a few spots below Rocky) would have lost to Marciano -- given that a deteriorated Charles gave Marciano all he could handle. But then Marciano achieved more at heavyweight than Charles, and every list contains some compromises between different criteria.

Cheers,
P

PS: I don't agree that Walcott looks better on films than Schmeling. Both look like well rounded, well moving, pretty complete, analytical heavyweights. Walcott vs. Schmeling prime for prime could have been very interesting. But by the time Walcott was near 39, I certainly would not pick him over Schmeling.

PPS: Ketchel didn't hurt Johnson badly. He caught Johnson off-balance, but Johnson was up immediately and knocked Ketchel out cold with his next punch. I've no clue why you make so much of this incident.

Marciano Frazier wrote: I strongly disagree here. Walcott was absolutely better than Schmeling, and I think the Charles Marciano fought was at least Schmeling's equal. Let us not forget, here, that Schmeling only won the championship by disqualification in a fight he was losing, was decisively beaten and knocked out by Max Baer(who I absolutely do not believe would beat Walcott or Charles, and yes, I mean the Walcott and Charles Marciano fought), and he lost to Steve Hamas. After all, he was 31, he'd gone 3-2-1 in his last six fights and hadn't fought in nearly a year. This certainly doesn't compare with Charles' 30, having fought three times beating three top opponents in the last six months.

I think Walcott was better than Schmeling (he won the title legitimately, should've been champ twice....

In my opinion Walcott was not absolutely better than Schmeling.

Yes, he won the title by foul, but you can't say he would have lost the fight to Sharkey. Max was a slow starter and the first 3 rounds were nearly even. And you forget to mention that two years laster Max showed against Sharkey that he is the better fighter, especially in the late rounds.
The fight with Max Baer was Schmelings weakest one in his entire career I guess but still very close until round 10 were it was stopped by a TKO.
The loss to Steve Hamas was avenged one year later by a decisive victory and with the win over highly ranked Walter Neusel the year before Max came back and was ranked 2. by the Ring Magazine right behind Joe Louis.

And if you say Walcott should've been champ twice you must say the same about Max Schmeling for sure, cause he deserved the title-fight against Braddock in '36 or '37.

Friedie wrote:

Marciano Frazier wrote: I strongly disagree here. Walcott was absolutely better than Schmeling, and I think the Charles Marciano fought was at least Schmeling's equal. Let us not forget, here, that Schmeling only won the championship by disqualification in a fight he was losing, was decisively beaten and knocked out by Max Baer(who I absolutely do not believe would beat Walcott or Charles, and yes, I mean the Walcott and Charles Marciano fought), and he lost to Steve Hamas. After all, he was 31, he'd gone 3-2-1 in his last six fights and hadn't fought in nearly a year. This certainly doesn't compare with Charles' 30, having fought three times beating three top opponents in the last six months.

I think Walcott was better than Schmeling (he won the title legitimately, should've been champ twice....

In my opinion Walcott was not absolutely better than Schmeling.

Yes, he won the title by foul, but you can't say he would have lost the fight to Sharkey. Max was a slow starter and the first 3 rounds were nearly even. And you forget to mention that two years laster Max showed against Sharkey that he is the better fighter, especially in the late rounds.
The fight with Max Baer was Schmelings weakest one in his entire career I guess but still very close until round 10 were it was stopped by a TKO.
The loss to Steve Hamas was avenged one year later by a decisive victory and with the win over highly ranked Walter Neusel the year before Max came back and was ranked 2. by the Ring Magazine right behind Joe Louis.

And if you say Walcott should've been champ twice you must say the same about Max Schmeling for sure, cause he deserved the title-fight against Braddock in '36 or '37.

Had Max been American, or if the politics of the time had been different, Schmeling would have got the shot against Braddock, most probably would have won, and would have been the first champ to regain his title.

I think Schmeling gets underrated.

As for Walcott and Charles I do believe that they had passed their peaks when they fought Rocky BUT like many greats Charles was able to turn back the clock in the first fight and put in a near-peak performance. Charles that night would have beaten many other champs. Walcott was still a very dangerous fighter when he met Marciano. I think they are excellent wins for Rocky.

Ezzard wrote:

Friedie wrote:

Marciano Frazier wrote: I strongly disagree here. Walcott was absolutely better than Schmeling, and I think the Charles Marciano fought was at least Schmeling's equal. Let us not forget, here, that Schmeling only won the championship by disqualification in a fight he was losing, was decisively beaten and knocked out by Max Baer(who I absolutely do not believe would beat Walcott or Charles, and yes, I mean the Walcott and Charles Marciano fought), and he lost to Steve Hamas. After all, he was 31, he'd gone 3-2-1 in his last six fights and hadn't fought in nearly a year. This certainly doesn't compare with Charles' 30, having fought three times beating three top opponents in the last six months.

I think Walcott was better than Schmeling (he won the title legitimately, should've been champ twice....

In my opinion Walcott was not absolutely better than Schmeling.

Yes, he won the title by foul, but you can't say he would have lost the fight to Sharkey. Max was a slow starter and the first 3 rounds were nearly even. And you forget to mention that two years laster Max showed against Sharkey that he is the better fighter, especially in the late rounds.
The fight with Max Baer was Schmelings weakest one in his entire career I guess but still very close until round 10 were it was stopped by a TKO.
The loss to Steve Hamas was avenged one year later by a decisive victory and with the win over highly ranked Walter Neusel the year before Max came back and was ranked 2. by the Ring Magazine right behind Joe Louis.

And if you say Walcott should've been champ twice you must say the same about Max Schmeling for sure, cause he deserved the title-fight against Braddock in '36 or '37.

Had Max been American, or if the politics of the time had been different, Schmeling would have got the shot against Braddock, most probably would have won, and would have been the first champ to regain his title.

I think Schmeling gets underrated.

As for Walcott and Charles I do believe that they had passed their peaks when they fought Rocky BUT like many greats Charles was able to turn back the clock in the first fight and put in a near-peak performance. Charles that night would have beaten many other champs. Walcott was still a very dangerous fighter when he met Marciano. I think they are excellent wins for Rocky.

But Charles performances against Rocky were great due to his courage rather than the ability he had left... if you watch him against Marciano and then watch some of his peak performances from the late 40s you see that Ezzard was much slower and his legs especially seemed to have gone... he was very flatfooted against Rocky... I'm sure a peak Charles would have outboxed and outpointed or even stopped Marciano...
in one article I've read Ray Arcel, Charles trainer said that he thought Charles was possibly already in the early stages of his later illness when he fought Marciano... he used to complain of stiffness in his limbs and muscles and thought this was just down to age....

-Max Schmeling is quite under-rated. People sadly remember him for losing to Joe Louis in their rematch, and as being a 'Nazi' which was the furthest thing from the truth. Schmeling was robbed in his rematch with Sharkey, and he beat Joe Louis fair and square. People blame it on because Louis was still green, but hell, Louis just destroyed Baer and Carnera who were still near their primes. Baer damn near killed Schmeling, yet Schmeling toppled Louis. Then throw in the fact he was a very solid European fighter/champion. Schmeling was a superb tactician who hit very hard.

-Johnson vs. Ketchell is all a joke made up by the Johnson industry (as granberry would say). Johnson in his biography made up alot of things, not including his 'dive' against Jess Willard in Cuba so he could come back to the USA without doing jail time (yet he still did a year and a day). Watch the Johnson fight with Ketchell, poor Ketchell was knocked around like a rag doll and the side of his face was just one giant bruise. Broke a pre-arranged agreement? My ass. It's horse shit. Johnson was knocked down fair and square, and is that a bad thing? No really considering Ketchell still to this day holds the record for being the hardest hitting MW fighter/champion so far.

-Charles is vastly under-rated. He started out as a Welterweight (amateur) and moved up all the way to HW. Having the gross misfortune of following Joe Louis and in a HW era filled with no real competition. He was also the greatest Light Heavyweight that ever lived. Doing all this at no bigger than a MW is quite an accomplishment (ironically the same argument can be made for Tommy Burns but he's easily discredited which is also quite unfair).

-Walcott style wise would have given Muhammad Ali the hardest fight, out of all previous tacticians/movers, in a hypothetical fight. Sure Ali would win, but not with the ease that people think. Walcott was an innovator and got better with age. Dont believe this? Ask Joe Louis, he said the same damn thing. People want to say Lennox Lewis got better in age, but somehow Walcott can't. I guess whatever suits your case best. None the less, Walcott was robbed against Louis, was beating Louis in rematch before being knocked out, was robbed a few times against Charles in title fights, wins the title at age 37 a distinction he would hold until 1994 when Foreman won the title at age 45, and only lost to possibly the greatest brawler in history (Marciano).

-Rocky better than Louis, Ali? That's a broad statement. The more logical way of thinking is that ANY of the top HW champions could have beaten eachother on any given night. Marciano would have, could have beaten Ali and Louis just as much as they could beat him. Marciano's era wasn't Ali's that's true, but that's wrong the judge comparison's to the greatest era for HW's (the 70's) to any other era. Also, Louis's opponents were either on the level with Marciano's or less---or did everybody forget the bum of the month club? I can't see Tony Galento dropping Walcott, Arturo Gudoy giving Charles the kinda hell he gave Louis (a prime Louis that is).

This in no way says Louis is less than Marciano, 25 defenses and a title reign almost lasting 12 years is nothing to sneeze at, and that's a record that still stands virtually 60 years after the fact. Louis was the better boxer, but Marciano was the better brawler. Ali was the better mover than Louis, but Louis threw possibly the best combinations in history. And if my aunt had nuts she would be my uncle...I mean, you can really make the case for any of the top HW's as being the greatest of all time.

I can make the case for Johnson being the best, I can also make the case for Louis and Ali, and yes even Marciano...therein lies the problem...all these guys are so great and done such awesome shit its hard to say who could do better than whom.

silkov wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Friedie wrote: In my opinion Walcott was not absolutely better than Schmeling.

Yes, he won the title by foul, but you can't say he would have lost the fight to Sharkey. Max was a slow starter and the first 3 rounds were nearly even. And you forget to mention that two years laster Max showed against Sharkey that he is the better fighter, especially in the late rounds.
The fight with Max Baer was Schmelings weakest one in his entire career I guess but still very close until round 10 were it was stopped by a TKO.
The loss to Steve Hamas was avenged one year later by a decisive victory and with the win over highly ranked Walter Neusel the year before Max came back and was ranked 2. by the Ring Magazine right behind Joe Louis.

And if you say Walcott should've been champ twice you must say the same about Max Schmeling for sure, cause he deserved the title-fight against Braddock in '36 or '37.

Had Max been American, or if the politics of the time had been different, Schmeling would have got the shot against Braddock, most probably would have won, and would have been the first champ to regain his title.

I think Schmeling gets underrated.

As for Walcott and Charles I do believe that they had passed their peaks when they fought Rocky BUT like many greats Charles was able to turn back the clock in the first fight and put in a near-peak performance. Charles that night would have beaten many other champs. Walcott was still a very dangerous fighter when he met Marciano. I think they are excellent wins for Rocky.

But Charles performances against Rocky were great due to his courage rather than the ability he had left... if you watch him against Marciano and then watch some of his peak performances from the late 40s you see that Ezzard was much slower and his legs especially seemed to have gone... he was very flatfooted against Rocky... I'm sure a peak Charles would have outboxed and outpointed or even stopped Marciano...
in one article I've read Ray Arcel, Charles trainer said that he thought Charles was possibly already in the early stages of his later illness when he fought Marciano... he used to complain of stiffness in his limbs and muscles and thought this was just down to age....

I think the skill and ability were there. Charles had lost a beat in reflexes and speed. Most of all though he had lost a little bit of stamina. This is why I believe a prime Charles would win. If he had the legs to be able to win 2 more rounds he'd have won the fight.

Even so Marciano's win was really something. Many would have been discouraged by Ezzard's great early showing. You have to give Rocky credit for a great win. The man he fought that night was still a formidable fighter.

I read that from Arcel too but we can only speculate...

HomicideHenry wrote:-Max Schmeling is quite under-rated. People sadly remember him for losing to Joe Louis in their rematch, and as being a 'Nazi' which was the furthest thing from the truth. Schmeling was robbed in his rematch with Sharkey, and he beat Joe Louis fair and square. People blame it on because Louis was still green, but hell, Louis just destroyed Baer and Carnera who were still near their primes. Baer damn near killed Schmeling, yet Schmeling toppled Louis. Then throw in the fact he was a very solid European fighter/champion. Schmeling was a superb tactician who hit very hard.

-Johnson vs. Ketchell is all a joke made up by the Johnson industry (as granberry would say). Johnson in his biography made up alot of things, not including his 'dive' against Jess Willard in Cuba so he could come back to the USA without doing jail time (yet he still did a year and a day). Watch the Johnson fight with Ketchell, poor Ketchell was knocked around like a rag doll and the side of his face was just one giant bruise. Broke a pre-arranged agreement? My ass. It's horse shit. Johnson was knocked down fair and square, and is that a bad thing? No really considering Ketchell still to this day holds the record for being the hardest hitting MW fighter/champion so far.

-Charles is vastly under-rated. He started out as a Welterweight (amateur) and moved up all the way to HW. Having the gross misfortune of following Joe Louis and in a HW era filled with no real competition. He was also the greatest Light Heavyweight that ever lived. Doing all this at no bigger than a MW is quite an accomplishment (ironically the same argument can be made for Tommy Burns but he's easily discredited which is also quite unfair).

-Walcott style wise would have given Muhammad Ali the hardest fight, out of all previous tacticians/movers, in a hypothetical fight. Sure Ali would win, but not with the ease that people think. Walcott was an innovator and got better with age. Dont believe this? Ask Joe Louis, he said the same damn thing. People want to say Lennox Lewis got better in age, but somehow Walcott can't. I guess whatever suits your case best. None the less, Walcott was robbed against Louis, was beating Louis in rematch before being knocked out, was robbed a few times against Charles in title fights, wins the title at age 37 a distinction he would hold until 1994 when Foreman won the title at age 45, and only lost to possibly the greatest brawler in history (Marciano).

-Rocky better than Louis, Ali? That's a broad statement. The more logical way of thinking is that ANY of the top HW champions could have beaten eachother on any given night. Marciano would have, could have beaten Ali and Louis just as much as they could beat him. Marciano's era wasn't Ali's that's true, but that's wrong the judge comparison's to the greatest era for HW's (the 70's) to any other era. Also, Louis's opponents were either on the level with Marciano's or less---or did everybody forget the bum of the month club? I can't see Tony Galento dropping Walcott, Arturo Gudoy giving Charles the kinda hell he gave Louis (a prime Louis that is).

This in no way says Louis is less than Marciano, 25 defenses and a title reign almost lasting 12 years is nothing to sneeze at, and that's a record that still stands virtually 60 years after the fact. Louis was the better boxer, but Marciano was the better brawler. Ali was the better mover than Louis, but Louis threw possibly the best combinations in history. And if my aunt had nuts she would be my uncle...I mean, you can really make the case for any of the top HW's as being the greatest of all time.

I can make the case for Johnson being the best, I can also make the case for Louis and Ali, and yes even Marciano...therein lies the problem...all these guys are so great and done such awesome shit its hard to say who could do better than whom.

I agree with most of this and will reply to bits I don't agree with...

Johnson did get dropped, whatever the arrangement was or wasn't, but I'm pretty sure an arrangement was in place. The reason I think this is that (1) Johnson could have finished Ktechel at almost any point. (2) The famous photo of Ketchel in the padded up coat and heeled boots suggests that there were machinations behind the scenes.

I don't believe the Willard fight was a fix. Johnson probably could have got up but it would only have prolonged the beating. Had he just got to survive and another round or 2 he would/could/might have managed it.

Walcott would have given Ali a very hard time and if I was betting on a fighter to upset Ali I'd go with Walcott. Any sportsman can refine the skills and become technically better but this is offset with a loss of reflexes, speed and stamina. Jersey Joe might have fought his best fights at an older age but nobody's physical peak is post 35.

The top HW's could beat each other. Give Rocky 10 fights with anyone and he's going to get at least 1 win. But I don't think Rocky is as likely to beat Louis or Liston as they are likely to beat him.

Good post. Here are my main quibbles:

HomicideHenry wrote:-Max Schmeling is quite under-rated. People sadly remember him for losing to Joe Louis in their rematch, and as being a 'Nazi' which was the furthest thing from the truth. Schmeling was robbed in his rematch with Sharkey, and he beat Joe Louis fair and square. People blame it on because Louis was still green, but hell, Louis just destroyed Baer and Carnera who were still near their primes. Baer damn near killed Schmeling, yet Schmeling toppled Louis. Then throw in the fact he was a very solid European fighter/champion. Schmeling was a superb tactician who hit very hard.

Schmeling was widely considered the world's best heavyweight 1931-33, until the Baer loss. The Louis fights were more an afterthought to Schmeling's already outstanding career, an unlikely comeback by a written-off ex-champ. But what an ex-champ he proved to be.

-Johnson vs. Ketchell is all a joke made up by the Johnson industry (as granberry would say). Johnson in his biography made up alot of things, not including his 'dive' against Jess Willard in Cuba so he could come back to the USA without doing jail time (yet he still did a year and a day). Watch the Johnson fight with Ketchell, poor Ketchell was knocked around like a rag doll and the side of his face was just one giant bruise. Broke a pre-arranged agreement? My ass. It's horse shit. Johnson was knocked down fair and square, and is that a bad thing? No really considering Ketchell still to this day holds the record for being the hardest hitting MW fighter/champion so far.

Well maybe. There is no way to know for sure. I for my part, however, can't help to find Johnson pretty lacklustre until the knockdown. And again, he didn't go down from some monstrous haymaker, he was just caught off-balance. The fact that Johnson could end the fight with his next punch shows that he was fully in control.

-Charles is vastly under-rated. He started out as a Welterweight (amateur) and moved up all the way to HW. Having the gross misfortune of following Joe Louis and in a HW era filled with no real competition. He was also the greatest Light Heavyweight that ever lived. Doing all this at no bigger than a MW is quite an accomplishment (ironically the same argument can be made for Tommy Burns but he's easily discredited which is also quite unfair).

I could not agree more.

-Walcott style wise would have given Muhammad Ali the hardest fight, out of all previous tacticians/movers, in a hypothetical fight. Sure Ali would win, but not with the ease that people think. Walcott was an innovator and got better with age. Dont believe this? Ask Joe Louis, he said the same damn thing. People want to say Lennox Lewis got better in age, but somehow Walcott can't. I guess whatever suits your case best. None the less, Walcott was robbed against Louis, was beating Louis in rematch before being knocked out, was robbed a few times against Charles in title fights, wins the title at age 37 a distinction he would hold until 1994 when Foreman won the title at age 45, and only lost to possibly the greatest brawler in history (Marciano).

Walcott did get better with age, but this "age" were his early to mid 30s when he came under professional management. Not the retirement age by which he fought Marciano. The 1952 Walcott wasn't better than the 1947 version. Btw, also Lennox Lewis didn't get better by the age of 39.

-Rocky better than Louis, Ali? That's a broad statement. The more logical way of thinking is that ANY of the top HW champions could have beaten eachother on any given night. Marciano would have, could have beaten Ali and Louis just as much as they could beat him. Marciano's era wasn't Ali's that's true, but that's wrong the judge comparison's to the greatest era for HW's (the 70's) to any other era. Also, Louis's opponents were either on the level with Marciano's or less---or did everybody forget the bum of the month club? I can't see Tony Galento dropping Walcott, Arturo Gudoy giving Charles the kinda hell he gave Louis (a prime Louis that is).

I can't see atall how Marciano would have beaten Ali or Louis on their best night. For this he struggled too much with old Walcott and beyond prime Charles -- while Louis hit a prime Baer from pillar to post with amazing ease. Marciano's best performances are great examples of endurance and courage, but they lack the awe-inspiring quality of Ali's and Louis' best wins .

Cheers,
P

Decagon wrote:

silkov wrote:But Charles performances against Rocky were great due to his courage rather than the ability he had left... if you watch him against Marciano and then watch some of his peak performances from the late 40s you see that Ezzard was much slower and his legs especially seemed to have gone... he was very flatfooted against Rocky... I'm sure a peak Charles would have outboxed and outpointed or even stopped Marciano...
in one article I've read Ray Arcel, Charles trainer said that he thought Charles was possibly already in the early stages of his later illness when he fought Marciano... he used to complain of stiffness in his limbs and muscles and thought this was just down to age....

Two things:

• Charles still had skill: I simply cannot watch Marciano-Charles I and not say that Charles was the more skilled fighter. He didn't have enough in the tank to beat Marciano.
• Charles's heart is sooooooo underrated. In that shit-ass ESPN article, LaMotta and Charles were almost side-by-side. Even though Charles was much more accomplished, many defended the ranking because LaMotta had "more heart." That's just fucking bullshit. Charles was really no bigger than LaMotta, weight-wise, but he got in there with Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, Rocky Marciano, Archie Moore, Joey Maxim, Jimmy Bivins and all those other great fighters, and came out on top in nearly every exchange.

I dont really understand your point?... If Charles still had his skills why werent they in evidence against Rocky??.... ofcourse he still had some skills but they were severely faded from his peak of the mid to late 40s... you only need to watch some of Charles earlier fights to see this...
as for Lamotta he was a middleweight who sometimes fought at light-heavy while Charles was a light-heavy who fought at heavyweight... I dont see how you can say they were the same size... they had totally different physiques and Charles was 6 feet tall while Lamotta was 5 feet 8...

Johnson did get dropped, whatever the arrangement was or wasn't, but I'm pretty sure an arrangement was in place. The reason I think this is that (1) Johnson could have finished Ktechel at almost any point. (2) The famous photo of Ketchel in the padded up coat and heeled boots suggests that there were machinations behind the scenes.

-Johnson loved to toy with his opponents. Maybe he could have knocked Ketchell out at any time, but in the Jefferies fight Johnson for 14 rounds clowned and tormented the former champion with his constant "Is that the best you can do Mr. Jim?" and "They told me you were so strong Mr. Jim!" all the while clinching and pushing Jefferies around. Same can be said, though truthfully without the same sort of conviction of the Burns fight (I say this as Burns did break quite a few of Johnson's ribs and 'The Galveston Giant' did secretly stay in a hospital for a week), as Johnson constantly would say "Is that the best you can do little Tommy?" or "See how it is little Tommy?" all the while smiling and popping Burns with shots.

It's not a matter of Johnson being able to beat men sooner, but was all about Johnson getting the audience pissed at him. I mean hell, Johnson could make double, triple the money fighting the newest 'white hope' that all America was backing than fighting a lesser opponent or a black man. Sounds logical to me.

As for the Willard fight, I believe it was all a myth concerning the 'dive'. I quote Jess Willard: "If he took a dive, why didn't he do it sooner? It was hotter than hell down there (Cuba)!"

Lmao.


As for the comment on Marciano not being able to beat Louis/Ali on their best night, there used to be an old saying/theory in boxing that whenever a fighter won the title that he/she was unbeatable on that particular day. While I personally don't believe this, your statement somewhat goes along these lines. With this logic, Ali couldn't beat Jack Dempsey, the same Dempsey who annihilated Willard in Toledo, Ohio. Or that Louis couldn't beat the same George Foreman who beat Joe Frazier in Kingston.

Myself I think a Marciano-Louis fight in their prime would be a more closer bet for Marciano than if he fought Ali, only in this regard: Louis in his prime would have been a more willing fighter to mix it up, brawl, really fight it out with Marciano. I personally don't think Joe Louis could brawl Marciano, box yes, but not brawl. Louis had a rather soft chin for a HW, it was his hand speed, power, accuracy, tenacity and his jab that won him fights---as evident in his fights with Buddy Baer, Tony Galento, Max Schmeling, Jimmy Braddock, and a few others, who were light years behind Marciano in power, Louis could be dropped, was knocked out a time or two in his day by much lesser men. Hell truth be told, watch the first Conn fight and see the 169 pound Conn wobble Louis at times.

If Louis was to beat Marciano, he had to do it by boxing him. I just can't see Louis knocking Marciano out---if Marciano could take a beating from Walcott for 12 rounds, could fight through his nose being torn to ribbons, then he could wade through Louis' onslaught. Besides, most sparring partners who worked for both Marciano and Louis, as well as Walcott and Charles, they all said one, ONE, of Rocky's punches hurt as much as four, FOUR, of Louis' punches. And considering Marciano all but worked at a MW pace (he averaged 80-85 punches thrown in a round, wasn't unusual for him to throw over 100 a round), and each one had KO written all over it, I don't see Louis taking it---that is of course if he brawled with Rocky.

Ali...that's a different story, and I'm too tired to debate that particular debacle.

HomicideHenry wrote:Louis had a rather soft chin for a HW, it was his hand speed, power, accuracy, tenacity and his jab that won him fights---as evident in his fights with Buddy Baer, Tony Galento, Max Schmeling, Jimmy Braddock, and a few others, who were light years behind Marciano in power, Louis could be dropped, was knocked out a time or two in his day by much lesser men.

That's ridiculous, Max Schmeling wasn't lightyears behind Rocky Marciano in power...and he was the only fighter beside Rocky Marciano to knock Joe Louis out.

As for "unbeatable on the best night", what sets Marcinao negatively apart from the first rank of ATG heavyweight sis that he did NOT look unbeatable, not even on his best nights. Had Walcott not gotten careless in the 13th, being well ahead on points, he would have beaten Marciano with relative ease. Had Charles possessed a bit more of his speed and evasiveness of earlier years it's hard to see how he could have lost to Marcano.

By contrast, Ali and Louis on their best nights looked indeed untouchable. Dempsey too, but ever since winning the title his opposition was sub-standard (including Willard), so it's hard what to make of this. Foreman is a different matter, his best wns over Frazier and Norton are indeed impressive, while he seemed far from his best in Kinshasa and fought a stupid fight. This is why I have Foreman in my top 5, but not Marciano.

Btw, the suggestion that prime Louis could have struggled with Marciano seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Louis wasn't untouchable by any means. Galento floored him, as did Buddy Baer, and Gudoy gave him hell, as did Tommy Farr, and I won't even get into his bout with Billy Conn who was whooping Louis silly for 12 rounds. And these were all in Louis' prime years. Depending on who he fought, Louis did look untouchable (against the Levinsky's, Mouriello's, Paycheck's, of the world) but he was certainly not unreachable.

Marciano's style was very beatable, but if yo uare to place blame on Rocky you must say the same for Frazier, Jefferies, Dempsey and Tyson as they all fought in that style, which is the hardest style to fight in this business. Rocky had a late start, shortest reach in HW history and was only 5'11". For all those things going against him he did extremely well with what he had.

As I always say, to sum up Rocky, the style was beatable but the man was unbeatable, he refused to accept defeat. Not to say Rocky could never lose, there were a few fights he had where it was really close and I am sure that a few of the all-time greats would have beaten him---but I do believe he could have beaten them just as much or as well.

As far as Schmeling being not light years away from Rocky in power, I only quote Joe Louis who said "This kid (Marciano) hits much harder than Schmeling, he has what it takes to beat anyone." Schmeling did hit hard, but nonetheless, I don't see the same man who had to settle for decisions against Sharkey and it took him 8 rounds to knock out former Welterweight champion Mickey Walker---being on equal ground or within a stone's throw of Marciano.

As far as Dempsey looking untouchable, well look at the opponents. Most of his fights were against over sized white hopes on his way up, and Willard never was anything to scream over and nobody knew who the hell Luis Firpo was until he fought Dempsey, yet he struggled with Gibbons and most movers. It can be argued it wasn't until he fought Tunney, that Dempsey actually fought a truly solid opponent.

Dunno where you come with that assumption, considering had Conn not went for the knockout he would have beaten Louis via 15 round decision. Louis couldn't hit Conn effectively during those 12 rounds, and anyone who gives Louis more than a round or two is really full of themselves.

HomicideHenry wrote:
As far as Schmeling being not light years away from Rocky in power, I only quote Joe Louis who said "This kid (Marciano) hits much harder than Schmeling, he has what it takes to beat anyone." Schmeling did hit hard, but nonetheless, I don't see the same man who had to settle for decisions against Sharkey and it took him 8 rounds to knock out former Welterweight champion Mickey Walker---being on equal ground or within a stone's throw of Marciano.

I didn't say they were on equal ground, I only said the're not lightyears away from each other. And Micky Walker, not a welterweight for years when he fought Schmeling wasn't easy to knock out, did you see this fight ? Schmeling had Walker down in the first and several times more during the fight and Walker was a guy like Rocky...never wanted to quit. Beside a K.o. loss in 1919 and a tko loss because of bleeding in 1926 this was Walkers worst beating he ever had. Schmeling did what other well known Heavyweights like Risko, Sharkey, Levinsky or Uzcudun failed to do.

Sure Marciano had a far better left hand than Schmeling but with the right cross I'm not so sure.

pundit wrote:Btw, the suggestion that prime Louis could have struggled with Marciano seems pretty ridiculous to me.

So Joe Louis himself seems pretty ridiculous to you! He is famously quoted saying that he could never have beaten Rocky even in his PRIME! If Louis believed it so easily why do you find it so hard...

HomicideHenry wrote:As I always say, to sum up Rocky, the style was beatable but the man was unbeatable...

That is exactly how I sum Marciano up. Face it, there was holes in his armour and his defence may have not been great. He was in your face, always on the inside, some say easy to hit, others say hard. He cut easily (I don't personally agree with this but the majority do), he was too small, too light, never brought his A-game, never showed class, never demonstrated victory's as good as Johnson, Ali or Louis (bullshit), only beat 'old, over-the-hill champ's or contenders' (bullshit) as they would have beaten a lot of other Champions opposition. But despite whatever you think about Marciano, despite however hard anybody tried and nearly succeeded or how 'careless' they may have gotten (bullshit), nobody could beat Marciano. His principles wouldn't have allowed it. He trained, conditioned himself probably better than any other boxer and Marciano did everything possible within his capabilities to never suffer a defeat. The style was beatable, the man wasn't...

silkov wrote:

Marciano Frazier wrote:By the way, let me reiterate, since you've gotten the wrong picture and may be unlikely to read my last post:
I do not rank Marciano as highly as Ali and Louis. Marciano is my #4 all-time heavyweight, with Ali and Louis at #1 and #2, as you can see on the list I posted earlier in this thread. The arguments I have been presenting have been geared towards the conclusion that Marciano was better than you believe him to be and could reasonably be placed in the same echelon as them.

4th!!!. ... jeeze!... I'm sorry man but Marciano wasnt better than we believe,

Yes, I think he was, and the facts support it.

you want proof, watch his fights and look at his opposition...

I assure you I've done a heck of a lot more research on Marciano's fights and opposition than you have.

his best opponents were all past their best and yet still managed to give him hell...

Not true. Out of his five best opponents(Walcott, Charles, Moore, Louis, LaStarza) I believe two were past their best and one was substantially past it. Of those, one gave Marciano hell, but was decisively beaten, and the other was just soundly beaten. All-in-all, Marciano didn't struggle substantially more often than any other all-time great did against the same level of opposition.

he was brave but also clumsy,

Have you seen the way that man could pivot, punch effectively from virtually any angle to virtually any part of his opponents(including the illegal areas), etc.? Often off-balance, yes, but I do believe it is a myth that Marciano was "clumsy" in the sense most mean when they say it.

technically limited, a notorious slow starter

"notorious" slow starter? Now, Marciano was no Jack Dempsey or Mike Tyson in there, but he won 26 of his 49 fights by knockout in the first three rounds. He had first-and-second-round knockouts against Walcott and Matthews and scored knockdowns in the first couple rounds against several other noteworthy opponents. He was a lukewarm starter, maybe, but not a "notorious slow starter."

and he cut up like tissue paper...

The only time in any of his major fights that Marciano was in serious danger of being stopped on cuts was when the cartilege of his nose was torn open by either an uppercut or more likely an elbow after a missed uppercut. I hardly think this demonstrates any significant weakness on his part(unless you want to argue that the cartilege of Ali's and Louis' noses was untearable and Marciano would be at a great disadvantage because of his weak nose-cartilege).
Now, it is true that Marciano was more easily cut than the majority of other heavyweight champions, but, as you seem to do in every department here, you're exaggerating and magnifying whatever reflects negatively on Marciano while brushing off the numerous glaring evidences which reflect on him in an overwhelmingly positive light.

these are all facts!... no matter how you try to avoid it...

Look, you really aren't adding much to this discussion. I may disagree with some of the other posters on this thread, but at least they're respectful and are at least taking the time to address some of my points on the material to some extent. Your posts, on the other hand, are near-identical repetitions of the exact same little formula of statements you make every time Marciano comes up. All you do is make some dismissive remark about someone else's views, repeat the exact same set of claims without any supporting evidence, and throw in some mocking emoticons. This is really pretty unproductive and a little annoying.

Marciano Frazier wrote:

silkov wrote:

Marciano Frazier wrote:By the way, let me reiterate, since you've gotten the wrong picture and may be unlikely to read my last post:
I do not rank Marciano as highly as Ali and Louis. Marciano is my #4 all-time heavyweight, with Ali and Louis at #1 and #2, as you can see on the list I posted earlier in this thread. The arguments I have been presenting have been geared towards the conclusion that Marciano was better than you believe him to be and could reasonably be placed in the same echelon as them.

4th!!!. ... jeeze!... I'm sorry man but Marciano wasnt better than we believe,

Yes, I think he was, and the facts support it.

you want proof, watch his fights and look at his opposition...

I assure you I've done a heck of a lot more research on Marciano's fights and opposition than you have.

his best opponents were all past their best and yet still managed to give him hell...

Not true. Out of his five best opponents(Walcott, Charles, Moore, Louis, LaStarza) I believe two were past their best and one was substantially past it. Of those, one gave Marciano hell, but was decisively beaten, and the other was just soundly beaten. All-in-all, Marciano didn't struggle substantially more often than any other all-time great did against the same level of opposition.

he was brave but also clumsy,

Have you seen the way that man could pivot, punch effectively from virtually any angle to virtually any part of his opponents(including the illegal areas), etc.? Often off-balance, yes, but I do believe it is a myth that Marciano was "clumsy" in the sense most mean when they say it.

technically limited, a notorious slow starter

"notorious" slow starter? Now, Marciano was no Jack Dempsey or Mike Tyson in there, but he won 26 of his 49 fights by knockout in the first three rounds. He had first-and-second-round knockouts against Walcott and Matthews and scored knockdowns in the first couple rounds against several other noteworthy opponents. He was a lukewarm starter, maybe, but not a "notorious slow starter."

and he cut up like tissue paper...

The only time in any of his major fights that Marciano was in serious danger of being stopped on cuts was when the cartilege of his nose was torn open by either an uppercut or more likely an elbow after a missed uppercut. I hardly think this demonstrates any significant weakness on his part(unless you want to argue that the cartilege of Ali's and Louis' noses was untearable and Marciano would be at a great disadvantage because of his weak nose-cartilege).
Now, it is true that Marciano was more easily cut than the majority of other heavyweight champions, but, as you seem to do in every department here, you're exaggerating and magnifying whatever reflects negatively on Marciano while brushing off the numerous glaring evidences which reflect on him in an overwhelmingly positive light.

these are all facts!... no matter how you try to avoid it...

Look, you really aren't adding much to this discussion. I may disagree with some of the other posters on this thread, but at least they're respectful and are at least taking the time to address some of my points on the material to some extent. Your posts, on the other hand, are near-identical repetitions of the exact same little formula of statements you make every time Marciano comes up. All you do is make some dismissive remark about someone else's views, repeat the exact same set of claims without any supporting evidence, and throw in some mocking emoticons. This is really pretty unproductive and a little annoying.

Marciano Frazier, you still fail to address the decisive point: Marciano never put a prime performance in like Louis or Ali or some of the other ATG heavyweights. Not once.

Why? Because he couldn't. He didn't have the means.

Ezzard wrote:

Friedie wrote:

Marciano Frazier wrote: I strongly disagree here. Walcott was absolutely better than Schmeling, and I think the Charles Marciano fought was at least Schmeling's equal. Let us not forget, here, that Schmeling only won the championship by disqualification in a fight he was losing, was decisively beaten and knocked out by Max Baer(who I absolutely do not believe would beat Walcott or Charles, and yes, I mean the Walcott and Charles Marciano fought), and he lost to Steve Hamas. After all, he was 31, he'd gone 3-2-1 in his last six fights and hadn't fought in nearly a year. This certainly doesn't compare with Charles' 30, having fought three times beating three top opponents in the last six months.

I think Walcott was better than Schmeling (he won the title legitimately, should've been champ twice....

In my opinion Walcott was not absolutely better than Schmeling.

Yes, he won the title by foul, but you can't say he would have lost the fight to Sharkey. Max was a slow starter and the first 3 rounds were nearly even.

I've seen that fight more than once, and Sharkey had a clear edge through the match before the low blow. Yes, I can't say with any degree of certainty that Schmeling would have lost, but obviously you can't say with any certainty he would have won, and from what had happened so far, I do think he would probably have lost if not for the foul.

And you forget to mention that two years laster Max showed against Sharkey that he is the better fighter, especially in the late rounds.

That is debatable. I've never seen this full fight, but from what I've read, while there were some who regarded the decision as a poor one, others claimed that Sharkey deserved it clearly, or that it was even or a slight edge to Sharkey, but Schmeling's late rally had left more of an impression in people's minds.

The fight with Max Baer was Schmelings weakest one in his entire career I guess

Oh, no- I'd say the one-round knockout loss to Gypsy Daniels and a couple others were much worse. But Schmeling clearly hadn't reached his best at that point, so I don't consider it a huge strike against him, much like all of Walcott's early losses.

but still very close until round 10 were it was stopped by a TKO.

Sure, it was a TKO, but if you've seen it you know that isn't very meaningful(except that Schmeling's courage in continuing to get up and try to continue from that kind of beating is very impressive). Schmeling took an absolute bludgeoning and was completely finished when it was stopped.

The loss to Steve Hamas was avenged one year later by a decisive victory and with the win over highly ranked Walter Neusel the year before Max came back and was ranked 2. by the Ring Magazine right behind Joe Louis.

Yes, I recognize that the Hamas loss(and Uzcudun draw) was avenged, but my point there was that Pundit claims Charles was "slipping badly" when he lost to Walcott in 1951 even though Charles was 30, champion coming off an enormous winning streak, and had just made three dominant title defenses in the last six months, but considers Schmeling to have been prime when he beat Louis, even though Schmeling was 31, years removed from the title and had won only three of his last six. This is inconsistent and selective judgment, unless you're going to argue in a circle.

And if you say Walcott should've been champ twice you must say the same about Max Schmeling for sure, cause he deserved the title-fight against Braddock in '36 or '37.

Had Max been American, or if the politics of the time had been different, Schmeling would have got the shot against Braddock, most probably would have won, and would have been the first champ to regain his title.v

It is true that you and I think Schmeling probably would have beaten Braddock if he'd been granted his title shot, but the fight didn't actually happen for us to say that with any certainty- Walcott actually physically won the championship twice, but was robbed of it once.

like many greats Charles was able to turn back the clock in the first fight and put in a near-peak performance.

Exactly. This is what I've been trying to say. Here is some discussion on the topic from "The Rock of His Times" by Russell Sullivan:
"Perhaps he[Charles] never won complete respect as a champion because he typically won 'with skill and finality but with no flash of fire,' in the words of Red Smith. Or perhaps, Smith mused, it was because 'he never quite accepted himself as heavyweight champion of the world... Chances are that Ezzard never realized that it was his reluctance to assert himself that conditioned the public attitude. Neither in the ring nor out of it did he ever play the role of boss to the hilt. Others also focused on the way he carried himself as champion. 'Ezzard never assumed the dignity and confidence that go with the mantle,' Arthur Daley maintained. 'He acted as if he were an imposter, a small body masquerading in false purple.' Added H.G. Salinger, 'The public did not believe in him and he generally looked like a man who did not believe in himself.'
"That he was not a popular champion plainly bothered and frustrated Ezzard Charles. 'Maybe, maybe I'm not big enough,' he once mused. 'I don't look very big in street clothes. Maybe they expect the champion to be massive and look like a killer...'
"The IBC rewarded him by arranging a title bout with Marciano in June in Yankee Stadium. 'This is the chance of a lifetime,' Charles proclaimed.
In truth, it was his last chance- and everyone knew it. Charles seemed determined to take advantage of it as he trained for the bout in his camp at Monticello, several miles away from Marciano's camp at Grossinger's. He had been studying films of Marciano's fights and claimed that he had been working on a plan to beat the champion for eighteen months...
This, then, was the 'new Charles,' a more focused and passionate fighter who had a fresh, unburdened mental determination to go along with his established physical skills...
"The question was, of course, whether 'the new Charles' would really bring some determination into the ring. Charles, observed Wendell Smith, 'must realize that he cannot affored to be gentle and merciful in this one. He must exhibit the fiery enthusiasm of a savage, the cruel instincts of a jungle beast. He cannot be kindly, tender or dispassionate...'
"It was, Paul Zimmerman of the Los Angeles Times declared, 'a bout that must go down in hisotry as one of the most bitterly fought in heavyweight ring history...'
"All three judges gave Marciano a clear edge in rounds. And all three gave him an even more decisive advantage on points, the supplementary(and in this case more accurate) indicia...
"As Wilfrid Smith observed, 'Charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his long career...'
"'He[Charles] fought a wonderful fight, possibly the best of his career of about seventeen years, and still he was beaten to a pulp by the younger, stronger champion.' -W.J. McGoogan'"

Charles viewed this fight as his last chance at gaining glory and public acceptance, and fought with the sort of ferocity, focus, intensity, and relentlessness he had never shown in his younger years. To make a more recent analogy, Ken Norton was 35 when he fought Holmes and would be completely out of the picture within a year, but I still consider his performance in the Holmes fight to be among the very best of his career, because, as you say, he "turned back the clock."
Charles didn't have quite the speed and snap of his youth against Marciano, but he had attributes he'd lacked before. A younger Charles would have been a more elusive target than the one Marciano fought, but didn't have the same kind of workrate, endurance, fortitude or intensity in the ring. Personally, I think a fight between Marciano and a younger Charles would have looked different from this one, but had essentially the same outcome(Marciano wins in competitive-but-clear-cut fashion).

Marciano Frazier, you still fail to address the decisive point: Marciano never put a prime performance in like Louis or Ali or some of the other ATG heavyweights. Not once.

Why? Because he couldn't. He didn't have the means.

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on "looking impressive." Boxing is not a black-and-white sport. In the end, how you looked counts for absolutely nothing, and getting the job done counts for everything.
One fighter may look more spectacular and unbeatable than another, but the other man may still be the more effective fighter in the end. For example, let's compare Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield:
Tyson at his peak was as dominant and untouchable-looking as any champion has ever been in the history of the sport. His combination of intimidation, technique, speed, and raw power allowed him to completely overwhelm his opponents and make them look completely overmatched. He was far, far more dominant and impressive-looking than Holyfield ever was, and beat some of the same opponents in much more convincing fashion.
Holyfield had to scrap out a lot of his wins. Even as champion, he struggled and looked vulnerable against ex-champions in their 40s and a smallish journeyman in Bert Cooper. Using the criteria of "looking untouchable," Tyson would easily best Holyfield. But it was Holyfield dealing Tyson the defeats when they were in the ring together, and it is Holyfield who leaves a legacy with a better resume, more longevity and greater accomplishments.
You see, Tyson was great because of his athleticism, his offensive technique, his power and his intimidation. That was a combination of attributes which made him look unstoppable against most opponents. But when those abilities were tested, or when they failed, he didn't have the mental strength or physical endurance to fall back on and gut out the battle.
Holyfield, on the other hand, had only good speed, power, and boxing skill, but was made great because of mental attributes, durability, resilience, and sheer fortitude and determination. Now, you can't very well overwhelm opponents and make them look like little boys using mental fortitude or durability. You're not going to look untouchable and unstoppable taking people down through sheer grit, determination and an iron constitution. But those attributes are reliable and will win you fights in the long run, sometimes even against people with attributes which do make them look unstoppable and unbeatable, like Tyson.

Louis and Ali and Tyson had strengths which made them look unbeatable and unstoppable on their nights because they were the sort of strengths that were obvious and physical and geared towards immediately and directly dominating opponents. Marciano had strengths, like his freakish stamina and unbelieveable strength of will, which were geared towards outlasting opponents and outgutting opponents. They were great in different departments. Tyson was great in such a way that he could look invincible, but could scarcely win at all when he didn't, while Marciano was great in such a way that he seldom looked invincible, but was able to win in situations where Tyson would fold. Outside his power, Marciano's greatest strengths were not the flashy kind, not the aesthetically pleasing or immediately obvious kind, but they were reliable and in the longrun overwhelmingly effective. It's like a sprint runner against a distance runner- the sprinter can look far more spectacular at any given moment and make the distance runner look positively worthless, but in the long haul, the distance runner will always prevail.

Marciano Frazier wrote:

Marciano Frazier, you still fail to address the decisive point: Marciano never put a prime performance in like Louis or Ali or some of the other ATG heavyweights. Not once.

Why? Because he couldn't. He didn't have the means.

I think you're putting far too much emphasis on "looking impressive." Boxing is not a black-and-white sport. In the end, how you looked counts for absolutely nothing, and getting the job done counts for everything.
One fighter may look more spectacular and unbeatable than another, but the other man may still be the more effective fighter in the end. For example, let's compare Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield:
Tyson at his peak was as dominant and untouchable-looking as any champion has ever been in the history of the sport. His combination of intimidation, technique, speed, and raw power allowed him to completely overwhelm his opponents and make them look completely overmatched. He was far, far more dominant and impressive-looking than Holyfield ever was, and beat some of the same opponents in much more convincing fashion.
Holyfield had to scrap out a lot of his wins. Even as champion, he struggled and looked vulnerable against ex-champions in their 40s and a smallish journeyman in Bert Cooper. Using the criteria of "looking untouchable," Tyson would easily best Holyfield. But it was Holyfield dealing Tyson the defeats when they were in the ring together, and it is Holyfield who leaves a legacy with a better resume, more longevity and greater accomplishments.
You see, Tyson was great because of his athleticism, his offensive technique, his power and his intimidation. That was a combination of attributes which made him look unstoppable against most opponents. But when those abilities were tested, or when they failed, he didn't have the mental strength or physical endurance to fall back on and gut out the battle.
Holyfield, on the other hand, had only good speed, power, and boxing skill, but was made great because of mental attributes, durability, resilience, and sheer fortitude and determination. Now, you can't very well overwhelm opponents and make them look like little boys using mental fortitude or durability. You're not going to look untouchable and unstoppable taking people down through sheer grit, determination and an iron constitution. But those attributes are reliable and will win you fights in the long run, sometimes even against people with attributes which do make them look unstoppable and unbeatable, like Tyson.

Louis and Ali and Tyson had strengths which made them look unbeatable and unstoppable on their nights because they were the sort of strengths that were obvious and physical and geared towards immediately and directly dominating opponents. Marciano had strengths, like his freakish stamina and unbelieveable strength of will, which were geared towards outlasting opponents and outgutting opponents. They were great in different departments. Tyson was great in such a way that he could look invincible, but could scarcely win at all when he didn't, while Marciano was great in such a way that he seldom looked invincible, but was able to win in situations where Tyson would fold. Outside his power, Marciano's greatest strengths were not the flashy kind, not the aesthetically pleasing or immediately obvious kind, but they were reliable and in the longrun overwhelmingly effective. It's like a sprint runner against a distance runner- the sprinter can look far more spectacular at any given moment and make the distance runner look positively worthless, but in the long haul, the distance runner will always prevail.

It's not about being flahsy, it's about dominating your opponent. Marciano didn't dominate world-class opponents, not even in his best fights. He just scraped through.

This is why the facts do NOT support putting Marciano in the top 5.