BoxRec

dempseyfire wrote:But Marciano would be in a real fight and probably even tastes the canvas a few times . . .he never fought a prime, big athletic HW who had a jab like a peak Norton..

This is an old argument, and as such. I'm not going to delve deep into this. There are numerous occasions when this topic has been discussed in the past.
I suggest you use the BoxRec search engine and check for Jersey Joe Walcott threads.

However I will say this, (much like Hopkins these days)... Walcott got better with age, he was a better fighter in his 30s than what he was in his 20s.

Walcott in his younger days had struggled against Ezzard Charles and had been outpointed by him during their first 2 encounters.
In 1951, when he was 37, Walcott KO'd Charles to win the world title.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFX0F0qUM-Q

Walcott actually IMPROVED as a fighter as he became more seasoned....
Marciano beat the rpime Walcott, no doubt about that.

And if you want to talk about "prime, big athletic HW" I suggest you check Archie Morre's record, see how many men he knocked out, then come back to me.

And if you want to talk about "prime, big athletic HW" I suggest you check Archie Morre's record, see how many men he knocked out, then come back to me.

Like who? Anyone of Norton's level?

theone wrote:

And if you want to talk about "prime, big athletic HW" I suggest you check Archie Morre's record, see how many men he knocked out, then come back to me.

Like who? Anyone of Norton's level?

Either you haven't checked Morre's list of victims or you are overrating Ken Norton.

theone wrote:•Marciano, "Suzy-q" punch on the not so iron-jawed Walcott aside, Marciano usually needed tons of punches to ko his opponents; he was NOT the puncher Foreman or shavers was.

Archie Moore has been in the ring hundreds of times, against a multitude of fighters. When asked which of Marciano's pucnhes hurt, he replied and I quote:
"Man, they all hurt".

Moore was THE knockout specialist but even he had no answer to mMrciano's brute force and punch power.
If there's anyone in boxing history who is qualified to talk about punching power, it is Archie Moore.

Later, Moore also said that Marciano was the hardest hitter he had ever faced.

Just something for you to contemplate.

Crease wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:But Marciano would be in a real fight and probably even tastes the canvas a few times . . .he never fought a prime, big athletic HW who had a jab like a peak Norton..

This is an old argument, and as such. I'm not going to delve deep into this. There are numerous occasions when this topic has been discussed in the past.
I suggest you use the BoxRec search engine and check for Jersey Joe Walcott threads.

However I will say this, (much like Hopkins these days)... Walcott got better with age, he was a better fighter in his 30s than what he was in his 20s.

Walcott in his younger days had struggled against Ezzard Charles and had been outpointed by him during their first 2 encounters.
In 1951, when he was 37, Walcott KO'd Charles to win the world title.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFX0F0qUM-Q

Walcott actually IMPROVED as a fighter as he became more seasoned....
Marciano beat the rpime Walcott, no doubt about that.

And if you want to talk about "prime, big athletic HW" I suggest you check Archie Morre's record, see how many men he knocked out, then come back to me.

This is simply not true. Walcott finally for proper management in the mid 40s and was able to actually have proper training camps and not just show up to fight after working all day on short notice. Had he had those opportunities earlier, he would've gotten to the top of the division much sooner.

And b/c he KO'd Charles in the 3rd fight it means he was a better fighter? Huh? First off, all of their fights were close. 2ndly, most ringsiders had him losing the 4th fight with Charles, so where's this improvement? There is no way anyone can convince me the 38 year old Walcott is better than the 33-34 year old Jersey Joe who fought Louis. Age does have an effect on everybody.

And yes, Moore beat a lot of big athletic guys . . .that doesn't suddenly make him style-wise akin to Ken Norton or the guys he beat. Just b/c A beat B to get a title shot doesn't mean A neccesarily provides a sterner test to champ C. There's a chance Moore loses to Marciano but Bob Baker or Clarence Henry beat him . . Moore beating them doesn't automatically mean Rocky does too.

Crease wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:But Marciano would be in a real fight and probably even tastes the canvas a few times . . .he never fought a prime, big athletic HW who had a jab like a peak Norton..

This is an old argument, and as such. I'm not going to delve deep into this. There are numerous occasions when this topic has been discussed in the past.
I suggest you use the BoxRec search engine and check for Jersey Joe Walcott threads.

However I will say this, (much like Hopkins these days)... Walcott got better with age, he was a better fighter in his 30s than what he was in his 20s.

Walcott in his younger days had struggled against Ezzard Charles and had been outpointed by him during their first 2 encounters.
In 1951, when he was 37, Walcott KO'd Charles to win the world title.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFX0F0qUM-Q

Walcott actually IMPROVED as a fighter as he became more seasoned....
Marciano beat the rpime Walcott, no doubt about that.

And if you want to talk about "prime, big athletic HW" I suggest you check Archie Morre's record, see how many men he knocked out, then come back to me.

You are right, Walcott was better at a much later age than most HW's.

You are wrong, he was not in his prime when he faced Marciano. The prime Walcott was in-&-around the time he fought Louis, several years previous. Walcott was still old as prime fighters go then, but he had faded by the time Marciano got him (though he did find some vintage form in the first fight).