BoxRec

Back to the threads original premise..... Can you give the top 5 in your estimated order?
Not the fighter based on the record but let's say the "event" itself. Taking into account all varying factors to the best of your ability. I made a case for Moore over Charles Walcott and LaStarza based on "Event" criteria.

what is your final assessment?

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

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

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

You said:

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

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

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

I didn't say we can't compare; I said there's no measure. We're like a bunch of numbskulls without a ruler arguing about how long an inch is. Nobody knows how good Marciano really was because he never reached his upper limit of ability.

Does that make more sense than what you thought I'd said?

BoxBuzz wrote:Back to the threads original premise..... Can you give the top 5 in your estimated order?
Not the fighter based on the record but let's say the "event" itself. Taking into account all varying factors to the best of your ability. I made a case for Moore over Charles Walcott and LaStarza based on "Event" criteria.

what is your final assessment?

I think this was one of his better fights:


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

fistic mystic wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

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

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

You said:

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

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

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

I didn't say we can't compare; I said there's no measure. We're like a bunch of numbskulls without a ruler arguing about how long an inch is. Nobody knows how good Marciano really was because he never reached his upper limit of ability.

Does that make more sense than what you thought I'd said?

It made certain sense the first time... I guess it's a matter of what inferences you draw...Some folks here are drawing positive inferences from his opponents...I guess I am drawing negative ones...

He beat up everybody he fought...We should leave it at that...

Well for the record Cockell did not appear to be much more than a Heavy Bag without a chain in as far as great compeition goes. But maybe that's just me. Marciano was great but as far as being the best of the best I still have to say he was ultimately untested except (and this is a big "except" ) for the best of his era who for the most part were fading.. And though they be great names I still think his biggest "event" was his win (enduring a KD) over the reigning and phenomenal Light HW champ of the era.

Holmes couldn't manage to do it. So perhaps we need to keep it all in perspective.

BoxBuzz wrote:Well for the record Cockell did not appear to be much more than a Heavy Bag without a chain in as far as great compeition goes. But maybe that's just me. Marciano was great but as far as being the best of the best I still have to say he was ultimately untested except (and this is a big "except" ) for the best of his era who for the most part were fading.. And though they be great names I still think his biggest "event" was his win (enduring a KD) over the reigning and phenomenal Light HW champ of the era.

Holmes couldn't manage to do it. So perhaps we need to keep it all in perspective.

Lets' say Holmes wins...He was about to retire... And if he did do you think he wouldn't have come out of retirement? And do you think a forty something year old Holmes beats Tyson, Holyfield, and Lewis...

He loses eventually...That suggests to me that an undefeated fighter is one who has not fought everybody...

But, alas, we are back to speculation again...

Which reminds me of something...The line between a boxer having it and not having it is so thin...Look at Ray Leonard...He's fifty years old and looks like a million bucks...I watched him skip rope recently and he skipped it like a sixteen year old...But when he stepped in the ring, ten years younger, he got bombed...I don't think there is any sport as unforgiving of the foibles of age as boxing...

If I offended anybody who admired the Rock I apologize...As any kid who liked sports growing up in the sixties you could not but help like his life story...He beat everybody he fought...Perhaps, it should have been left at that...

Technically, since Walcott wasn't at his absolute prime and therefore can't be considered, I guess La Starza would be the best fighter that Marciano beat who was in his prime at the time he fought Marciano. Layne would probably be next.

However, more importantly, Walcott was a better fighter than they were even at that stage. Walcott is the rare exception that still could fight at a high level at that age. He may have been the best 37-38 year old heavyweight ever. He was actually much better at that age than he was in his 20's. He slipped a little from when he fought Louis but not that much.

This isn't remotley like a 40 year old Leonard who hadn't fought in more than 5 years taking on Camacho. Walcott was still fighting at a fairly high level.

As mentioned, Moore simply wasn't anywhere being near a great heavyweight. Outside of Marciano, Patterson was by far the best heavyweight he ever fought and he was ko'd in 5 rounds. If his name was John Smith no one would think anything of what Moore did at heavyweight.

Charles had lost 5 times in the last 3 years before fighting Marciano. Winning a competitive 15 round decision over him really isn't that impressive.

Louis was shot when he fought Marcinao, regardless of his ranking. That fight means absolutley nothiong when rating Marciano or Louis.

Walcott is the best heavyweight that Marciano ever beat. And that was a respectable win.

This has been an interesting subject. Just a couple of quick points to add.

!.) Rocky got a late start, so we may have never seen a true prime performance from
him.

2.) Comparison of athletes from different eras is tricky, contriversial, and fun.

3.) Larry Holms and Mike Tyson both thought Rocky's record was pretty special when they were trying to match it.

histboxfan wrote:This has been an interesting subject. Just a couple of quick points to add.

!.) Rocky got a late start, so we may have never seen a true prime performance from
him.

2.) Comparison of athletes from different eras is tricky, contriversial, and fun.

3.) Larry Holms and Mike Tyson both thought Rocky's record was pretty special when they were trying to match it.

Obviously 49-0 for a HW Champion is impressive regardless of the calibre of opponenets faced. Even so, 1 Prime v Prime against a Legend > 100 Prime v Non-Prime Good fighters.

The point some of the posts have already made is that while the major oponents Rocky faced were not in their prime, many of them were still very special.

Other sports have some of these same contiversies. For example, while some question the quality of their oponents and the era itself, football fans have come to recognize that 17-0 for the Miami Dolphins is a special achievement.

Ted William's batting .400 in the modern era of baseball.

Tiger Woods dominance in golf.

Rocky's record is in that same class.

histboxfan wrote:The point some of the posts have already made is that while the major oponents Rocky faced were not in their prime, many of them were still very special.

Other sports have some of these same contiversies. For example, while some question the quality of their oponents and the era itself, football fans have come to recognize that 17-0 for the Miami Dolphins is a special achievement.

Ted William's batting .400 in the modern era of baseball.

Tiger Woods dominance in golf.

Rocky's record is in that same class.

I am a huge Miami Dolphins fan... I have seen every snap Dan Marino took as a pro...That being said while I honor the achievement of the 1972 Miami Dolphins I do question how they would fare against today's Super Bowl winning teams...It's been so long since I thought about it... I would need to focus on the size, speed, and conditioning differences between that era and now...

I think it might be easier with golf though I am far from an expert...Just compare Tiger's best performance at Bay Hill, Augusta, and Pepple Beach to the performance of past greats like Palmer and Nickalaus...

Same with Rocky...

Everybody thinks their era was the best... That's why I think Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, and Tommy Hearns could beat the Pretty Boy. and I think Shaquille O'Neal would outplay Wilt and Bill Russell...

The best fighter the Rock ever beat was in his prime was Ezzard Charles, at the time of the first fight , Charles was only 32. The fight with Joe Lewis you could say was past lewis prime, but he was only 37yrs old . I don't think you can say he was to old to fight by the way guys are fighting today! The other big fights were with Walcott who Rocky beat the first time when Joe was 38 yrs old and the second time at 39yrs old. I don't think the rock would have lost to Walcott at any age.

Charles was past it as well; though not completely shot. He had lost 5 times in the last three years.

.

Thats deceiving. The harold johnson and rex layne losses were robberies, and 11 out of 13 ringsiders scored walcott IV fight for charles.......so thats 3 losses that should be excluded. That means in the past 3 years without robberies, his record would be 14-1!!!!


Charles performances right before against satterfield and wallace two top 10 rated big punchers were oustanding

Moore was never close to being a great heavyweight

Moore had just cleaned out the divisions best young talented heavyweight contenders clarence henry, bob baker, and nino valdez proving moore was an oustanding heavyweight in 1955.



Joe Louis won 8 in a row including a knockout over # 2 savold, 1 round knockout over nino valdez, and wide decision over jimmy bivins proving he still was quite dangerous despite being past it. you have to remember louis was 6'2 215lb so with his size, he was very hard to beat by the smaller heavyweights of that era.

Walcott was heavyweight champion coming off a career definying performance knocking out ATG champion Ezzard charles...Walcott also gave marciano his toughest fight


Rex Layne was 34-1 strong 22 year old slugger who had beaten jersey joe walcott, bob satterfield, turkey thompson. Clearly at the time he was highly regarded contender, and he deserves mention as a candinate.

Lastarza 37-0 23 years old one of the best young defensive boxer in the divison, not much of a resume



Heres how I would rate them

1. Walcott I
2. Charles I
3. Louis
4. Moore
5. Layne
6. Lastarza

Posts: 8 The point some of the posts have already made is that while the major oponents Rocky faced were not in their prime, many of them were still very special.

agreed. also young guns like rex layne and roland lastarza were formidable foes too

I don't think that Charles record was that decieving. Many people thought Johnson deserved the decision; it's quite a stretch to call it a robbery. He should have been able to beat Layne convicingly. You are also leaving out the embarrassing loss to the overrated Valdes. Valdes lost every other big fight in his career.
A prime Ezzard Charles doesn't lose these fights. The Charles that Marciano fought already had over 90 fights, many of them very tough. That took a lot out him.

Satterfield won less than 2/3 of his fights in his career. He was kncoked out by 13 different opponents. Charles did knock him out cold, but that really isn't that impressive considering who he was fighting. Likewise his win over Coley Wallace isn't that big of a deal either. Wallace never beat anyone worth noting.

I love Archie Moore as well; but the fact is he wasn't a great heavyweight. Yes he beat Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Nino Valdes etc. However, that is a huge dropoff from fighting Marciano and Patterson. When he fought them he got knocked out both times. Patterson beat him very badly. He fought several heavyweights after that, but never the top contenders. Had he beat Eddie Machen,Zora Folley,Ingemar Johansson, or Sonny Liston you would have a case.

I agree that Walcott was the best opponent that Marciano beat. Walcott was a exception to the rule as far as age goes. He was still a very good fighter when he fought Marciano the first time.

Ambling Alp wrote:I don't think that Charles record was that decieving. Many people thought Johnson deserved the decision; it's quite a stretch to call it a robbery. He should have been able to beat Layne convicingly. You are also leaving out the embarrassing loss to the overrated Valdes. Valdes lost every other big fight in his career.
A prime Ezzard Charles doesn't lose these fights. The Charles that Marciano fought already had over 90 fights, many of them very tough. That took a lot out him.

Satterfield won less than 2/3 of his fights in his career. He was kncoked out by 13 different opponents. Charles did knock him out cold, but that really isn't that impressive considering who he was fighting. Likewise his win over Coley Wallace isn't that big of a deal either. Wallace never beat anyone worth noting.

I love Archie Moore as well; but the fact is he wasn't a great heavyweight. Yes he beat Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Nino Valdes etc. However, that is a huge dropoff from fighting Marciano and Patterson. When he fought them he got knocked out both times. Patterson beat him very badly. He fought several heavyweights after that, but never the top contenders. Had he beat Eddie Machen,Zora Folley,Ingemar Johansson, or Sonny Liston you would have a case.

I agree that Walcott was the best opponent that Marciano beat. Walcott was a exception to the rule as far as age goes. He was still a very good fighter when he fought Marciano the first time.

I don't think that Charles record was that decieving

I do...3 robberies is a lot



[quotMany people thought Johnson deserved the decision; it's quite a stretch to call it a robberye][/quote]

Many? not at all. In fact most who saw the film believe ezzard won. Ezzard landed the harder blows, landed the cleaner punches, and floored johnson in the 10th with a right hand. what more do you want?

He should have been able to beat Layne convicingly.

He did.....he shutout layne in 1953 knocking him down 3 times and winning every round

You are also leaving out the embarrassing loss to the overrated Valdes. Valdes lost every other big fight in his career

2 points....

1. I wouldnt call valdez overated if you have not seen film of him. He was a skilled big man with a top jab who could punch hard in either fist. This was one of charles worst nights, he took valdez very lightly and showed up a career high 193lb out of shape. charles and the NBA sought for a rematch, valdez manager gleason refused.

2. This was charles lone clear loss in 15 fights, thats still arguebably a 14-1 record in his last 15, or if u want to get technical charles won 11 out of his last 13.

A prime Ezzard Charles doesn't lose these fights.

A 1952-1953 charles didnt lose most of these fights either, he got them stolen from him by the judges kind of like pernell whitaker had gone to him a couple times.

2ndly, no one is argueing that is a prime charles, but the Ezzard Charles of June 1954 was undoubtably still the best heavyweight in the world outside of rocky, and still a great fighter. It was widely the consensous that ezzard got himself more mentally and physically prepared than he had in years for the first title fight, trained like a madmen coming in light and fit and focused. Charles came to fight and put up one of his better performances. I would take the june 1954 Charles over certain champions and over many heavyweight contenders throughout history.


"No heavyweight in the world could have lasted 15 rounds with ezzard charles on june 1954, let alone win the decision"- Boxing and Wrestling 1954

The Charles that Marciano fought already had over 90 fights, many of them very tough. That took a lot out him.

Marciano finished him as a world class fighter. but going into the rocky fight, he was still a great fighter and great contender putting up top performances on film prior to the marciano fight and during it.

Satterfield won less than 2/3 of his fights in his career. He was kncoked out by 13 different opponents. Charles did knock him out cold, but that really isn't that impressive considering who he was fighting. Likewise his win over Coley Wallace isn't that big of a deal either. Wallace never beat anyone worth noting.

satterfield was a top level puncher who knocked out many rated men....if u watch the fight u would realize satterfield came to fight that night, but ezzard got rid of him.

Coley Wallace had a lot of talent/power and had the size too, he was defintley an underachiever, but he was rated # 9 in the world when charles systematically broke him down and knocked him out in a top film performance.

I love Archie Moore as well; but the fact is he wasn't a great heavyweight. Yes he beat Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Nino Valdes etc.

These are top wins. These 3 were the best young heavyweight contenders of the era. Henry is a member of the boxing hall of fame. moore beat him 9 rounds to 1!!

However, that is a huge dropoff from fighting Marciano and Patterson.

mayeb marciano, but patterson? pattersons camp wouldnt dare throw floyd in the ring vs baker and valdez, out of fear of floyd getting knocked out. this is an undeniable FACT

He fought several heavyweights after that, but never the top contenders. Had he beat Eddie Machen,Zora Folley,Ingemar Johansson, or Sonny Liston you would have a case.

Pretty hard to ask a man in his 40s to beat those guys dont u think? Moore in his prime did whip up on bivins, johnson, valdez, henry, baker. All those 5 guys were on equal level of folley and machen, and johansson. in fact a 33 year old harold johnson beat eddie machen, whom moore beat 4 times.

He fought several heavyweights after that, but never the top contenders.

Wrong. Archie Moore in 1962 defeated 6'4 212lb # 4 rated contender alejandro lavorante so badly lavorante had to be carried out of the ring on a stretcher!!! lavorante recently knocked out ZORA FOLLEY out cold!!!




Moore was undeniable a top level heavyweight. his record against men over 200lb is an astonishing 22-1(19 kos)!! his record at heavyweight is an amazing 75-3!!!!!

I agree that Walcott was the best opponent that Marciano beat. Walcott was a exception to the rule as far as age goes. He was still a very good fighter when he fought Marciano the first time.

I think archie moore was an exception too. Archie moore prior to the marciano fight was coming off a 45-1 run with 3 wins over top 5 rated heavyweights in the world henry baker and valdez! Moore became the # 1 heavyweight contender in 1955! you cant GET MUCH BETTER THAN THAT!!!


I also think you dont give enough credit to first ezzard charles win. Charles on film still looked very very good in 1954 with top boxing skills/handspeed warrior fighting spirit and lots of ring intelligence and was still whupping up on top level fighters. marciano really had to struggle to beat charles that night.


Also what about the Joe Louis, Rex layne, and Roland lastarza wins? these are top level wins. louis was 6'2 215lb and it appeared none of the smaller heavyweights of that time could take him even by 1950 evidence of his 9 in a row victories(counting the valdez kayo) and # 1 rating. layne was 34-1 22 year old stud who was viewed by the press as the heir to the throne. lastarza was the brightest young heavyweight contender in the division at 37-0.

Thanks for the book. You haven't said anything new since we have argued these points a couple of years ago and I countered them then. Not worth getting into all over again.

I'm in between BB and Alp in the debate regarding Rocky's opponents. Charles was clearly past his peak but he was still a very dangerous opponent, as was Walcott. Alp dismisses Moore way too easily. I used to think the same of the HW Moore until I learned more and saw film of many of the HWs he beat: Valdez, Henry, and Baker were top contenders and dangerous fighters and I agree with BB that they are not out of the league of Patterson and Johansson. Even Whithurst, Lavorante, Parker were good gatekeeper level opponents. That was a very solid win for Rocky.

At the same time, his resume is clearly lacking in depth. You have the aging trio of Charles, Walcott, and Moore which are very solid. Then a badly faded Louis (who was still a good HW but far from great).

Then Rex Layne, who I must say is one of the least impressive looking top contenders I've ever seen on film. He got lucky in beating Walcott when the latter had an off-night and also getting a gift decision vs Charles once (Ezzard kicked his ass the other two fights). Other than that, the only real attributes I can give to Layne is his durability, punching power, and sheer stuborness/will to win.

LaStarza was a good boxer but he beat no-one of note (except arguably Marciano himself in their first fight and a SD over Layne)

I go back and forth on Marciano. It's a shame we didn't see him with someone like a Liston, we could have gotten a much better barometer of his overall worth.

raylawpc wrote:In answer to the original question, I think the best fighter Rocky ever face was Archie Moore, with Ezzard Charles a very, very close second. (And I could be convinced with some ease to switch to Charles No. 1.) Walcott is a distant third.

However, I think Walcott gave Marciano his toughest title fight in their first meeting.

Good selection and comments on Jersey Joe.

Question 1: "Who is most formidable and toughest opponent Rocky Marciano beat?"
Archie Moore. At the time of the fight, you would have to say Moore... Moore was in his prime and was KOing boxers all around him.

Question 2: "The Greatest fighter Marciano ever beat?"
Joe Louis... Louis was one of the best Heavyweights to EVER live. Full stop. -Yes, he had degraded with age, but still, Joe Louis.

Question 3: "Who at the time of his fight vs Marciano fight, was the best heavyweight that he beat?"
I would say Archie Moore.


JOE LOUIS:
Louis was on a comeback trial, trying to raise cash and regain his old title... Louis (prioer 4 months to the fight) had dispatched of Jimmy Bivins and Lee Savold- both who were top 10 contenders, so he couldn't have been that deteriorated... Rocky didn't wnat to fight Louis. Louis wanted the fight. Rocky knocked him out.
The critics will forever say that Louis was over the over-the-hill... And maybe he was a little degraded... But he wasn't the broken down old buffer that people are letting on...
He was still the skillful, slinky Joe Louis, with a 1000 rounds of experience behind him. Louis was 37 when they fought.


JERSEY JOE WALCOTT:
People say that Walcott was "past his best". But he was still the #no 1 Heavyweight in the world when they fought. Although Rocky got knocked down for the 1st time in his career, he would later say that he just "fell off balance" and that he was "never hurt" during the fight... Walcott's skilled punches and footwork warded the bulldozer off for 12 gruelling rounds and then, BAM! Fight over.
The 2nd fight was a Marciano destruction... Walcott had to take the fight to Rocky, to take his title back... He couldn;t stand up to the punches.
ALSO, during the 1st fight, Walcott was 37... But he was off back-to-back victoires over his arch-rival Ezzard Charles... (Something which he couldn't do in his earlier years)... Walcott is a case very much like Bernard Hopkins.... He gets better in his late 30s, instead of reaching his maximum peak in his late 20s, early 30s.
But Walcott's peak is a debate for another time. I am merely putting my point across.


EZZARD CHARLES:
Eazzard Charles foguth Marciano for his title twice... And lost on both occasions... Charles was 32 when they first fought, and was 33 in the second fight...
The second fight is the one most boxing pundits will comment on and remember, because of the devasation of Marciano's face (in particularly his nose).
The blow(s) that ripped Marciano's noe practically off, weren't the "uppercuts" that some claim, it was in effect and mis-qued uppercut, and struck the champion with an upward elbow strike.
The bleeding was so heavy that Marciano was told that he would have to KO the challenger in the next round.... He did.
Later, Rocky admited that he had never been so hurt as he had in the 2nd Charles fight.

If you look as Charles' record you will see a lot of RED (starting around 1955) and eventually getting more flush coming to '58...
The Marciano fights were BEFORE Charles' decline!!!
And some might argue that Rocky was the cause of Charles' decline, because of Rocky beating the heart out of him... (But that is another arguement for antoher time).


ARCHIE MOORE:
Moore was 38 when he fought Rocky. Rocky wanted to retire quietly, Moore campaigned for the fight. I have heard some foolish people say that Moore was "past his best" when he fought Marciano.
*Porbably because whenever people see that age, they automatically think that he's "past it"*
But I would remind those people that Moore was KOing opponents all around him at this period in time... ALSO, Moore was still floating around the top 10, whenever he came up against a young Cassius Clay, so Moore's longevity was fantastic... And his punching ability amazing!!!
Moore did knock Rocky down.... But Rocky returned the favour with interest.

Whenever people discuss Rocky, these are the main 4 challengers that come into question...

In my opinion, none of these were an "easy fight", and each proved too have its own obstacles... The fact is Rocky beat them all, one-by-one, and in some on some occaisons he fought the boxers twice.

People rarely discuss the likes of Roland La Starza, Rex Layne, Don Cocknell, Lee Savold or Freddie Beshore... But Marciano beat them down too.

Marciano was a consistent and ruthless machine, the likes of which the world has never seen since.

Tyson & Lewis were inconsistent.
Frazier ALWAYS got tired toward the later rounds.
And Foreman's power abandoned him in the midrounds.

Indeed, Marciano overrated? I certainly think not.

Yes he beat Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Nino Valdes etc. However, that is a huge dropoff from fighting Marciano and Patterson.

Patterson? Cus Damato purposeley avoided throwing patterson in the ring vs baker and valdez. Valdez Manager Bobby Gleason challenged floyd patterson's camp every month from 1957-1958 and Damato simply refused to throw patterson in the ring vs valdez despite valdez earning a ring magazine # 2 rating in the world because of valdez size and power.....

In 1955 Cus Damato said to floyd "when your ready to fight heavyweights....ill let you know....but never ever against a guy like bob baker."


whos to say patterson would have beaten baker and valdez? what skilled 6'3 215lb heavyweight punchers did patterson ever beat? Patterons style could have played right into valdez's hands. look at the demolition job valdez did to hurricane jackson, who floyd it took 22 rounds to put him away.



Moore simply had one of his career worst nights vs patterson not to mention he did not match up well vs floyd. but floyd did not match up well against baker and valdez. styles make fights.

BoxBuzz wrote:Back to the threads original premise..... Can you give the top 5 in your estimated order?
Not the fighter based on the record but let's say the "event" itself. Taking into account all varying factors to the best of your ability. I made a case for Moore over Charles Walcott and LaStarza based on "Event" criteria.

what is your final assessment?

Walcott 1

Charles 1

Moore

Lastarza 1

charles 2

The best fighter was Charles, IMO.

lastarza better than joe louis? lastarza would have been lucky to see the final bell even vs a 1951 joe louis.

No one other than prime versions of marciano and charles could come close to beating a 1950 joe louis....and even then marciano and charles got busted up horribly by louis.