Marciano vs the top light-heavyweights of all time

[RobMan]

Rocky weighed in around 185 for his whole career and with today's weigh-ins could have made lightheavy..any lightheavy have a chance of beating him? Obviously not Ezzard or Moore because he beat them but what about Spinks, Foster, Toney, Hopkins, Jones, Fitzsimmons and many more???

[Dempsey1238]

Not a chance imo, Whats often forgotten, is Marciano train DOWN in weight.

There is no way he would have reach 175 imo. He was as down to his body weight as can be.

[PetethePrince]

He beats all those fighters at LHW (As Dempsey said he can't make that weight). If they want to come up they lose too. A Jones HW or a heavier Hopkins and Spinks lose too.

[Maxmomer]

Not a chance imo, Whats often forgotten, is Marciano train DOWN in weight.

There is no way he would have reach 175 imo. He was as down to his body weight as can be.

Could he sweat off ten pounds before the weigh in?

[KTFO]

Hopkins by SD
Toney by UD
Jones by slaughtering plus clowning between combos.

[TommyV]

Rocky weighed in around 185 for his whole career and with today's weigh-ins could have made lightheavy..any lightheavy have a chance of beating him? Obviously not Ezzard or Moore because he beat them but what about Spinks, Foster, Toney, Hopkins, Jones, Fitzsimmons and many more???

What do you mean 'obviously not Charles or Moore because he beat them'?

You think they were prime versions? Moore was 39 years of age and 20 years as a pro with over 175 fights under his belt.

Charles wasn't exactly primed either, still 34 & 14 years as a pro with nearly 100 fights under his belt.

Give Marciano a '46-48 version of Charles and I'm sure he has a lot more trouble, even if he does still beat Charles.

Likewise Marciano would have his hands-full a lot more with a '45 version of Moore than the '55 version.

[DudeGuyMan]

Hopkins by SD
Toney by UD
Jones by slaughtering plus clowning between combos.

Wait what?

[TommyV]

Fitzsimmons woud lose. Doesn't have the technique or skills to keep Marciano off of him, his chin might hold up for a while beat he'll be knocked out eventually. Toney would also lose, I don't think he'd be able to sit in the pocket or against the ropes and soak up The Rock's punishment, and he won't have enough room to box off the back foot. Jones probably get's his chin cracked at some point aswell, the same with Foster. We'd have to be talking about Marciano weighing in at the 183-185 region. I doubt he could make the true light-heavyweight limit.

[GDG]

I'm pretty sure he couldn't get any lower than 180.

At say 180, I give prime Moore and Spinks a very decent chance. Spink in particular I actually favour.

[China_hand_Joe]

Hopkins by SD
Toney by UD
Jones by slaughtering plus clowning between combos.

Agreed, though he can maybe do Hopkins on workrate over 15.

Jones clowns him, simple really.

Toney... now as much as I hate Toney this is the perfect fight for him to look good.

[McGrain]

I don't think anyone weighing under 200lbs is much more than evens against Marciano. I'd maybe take Dempsey. After that, probably Tunney has the best shot.

[GDG]

I don't think anyone weighing under 200lbs is much more than evens against Marciano. I'd maybe take Dempsey. After that, probably Tunney has the best shot.

What sort of chance do you give Holyfield??

Either way it'd be an absolute classic!!!

[Flea Man]

I think Marciano would beat Dempsey.

Louis in his prime was under 200lbs, I think he'd beat him/

[Legend X]

I think Ezzard Charles of 1948 - 1950 might well have outpointed Marciano.

[McGrain]

What sort of chance do you give Holyfield??

Either way it'd be an absolute classic!!!



HW Holfyeild has a very good chance, having a bigger weight advantage and the experience. But I don't think anyone with less than 20 fights is beating Rock.

[Bummy Davis]

Marciano murders all of them, Rocky had a superheavyweight punch. He was a freak and he would test some of the lesser chins in even the Super Heavys...Roy Jones never had a chin and he fought guys that did not want to test it and avoided some of the guys with heart like Darius Mski...some of the guys who post here only know rocky from their video games

[RobMan]

Fair enough 180 is probably more realistic as a catchweight. And I overlooked the fact that Moore and Charles were past prime when fighting Marciano. Some drink was involved ha!

Charles in particular in his prime would make it very close considering how competitive their heavyweight fights were.

[Minotauro]

The more I think about the more I feel Dempsey would beat him although I used to feel Marciano would win. I think a prime Charles has a great chance as well as Walcott at his best like when he outboxed Louis.

[guilalah]

Thoughts on Marciano vs. Fitzsimmons

If the Marciano of his championship years actually trained down to 175 lbs, he'd be in a state where Fitzsimmons would be a very dangerous proposition.

If Marciano came along in Fitzsimmons day, maybe Marciano would have been a smaller guy, as from the last third of the 1800's up to the 1960's there was a tendency of increase in average height. I'm generalizing a lot, but it's certainly plausible that Marciano coming along in Fitzsimmons day could ahve healthily made 175. But, again, Fitzsimmons would be dangerous to this slightly down-sized Marciano.

[PetethePrince]

What do you mean 'obviously not Charles or Moore because he beat them'?

You think they were prime versions? Moore was 39 years of age and 20 years as a pro with over 175 fights under his belt. He was also coming of a 55-1 type streak.

Charles wasn't exactly primed either, still 32 & 14 years as a pro with nearly 100 fights under his belt.

Give Marciano a '49-51 version of Charles and I'm sure he has a lot more trouble, even if he does still beat Charles.

45 Moore version was almost a super middleweight at that time.

Fixed

[MrMarvel]

Not a chance imo, Whats often forgotten, is Marciano train DOWN in weight.

There is no way he would have reach 175 imo. He was as down to his body weight as can be.

This is actually mythology. In fact, Marciano ate like a beast to put on weight. This was often noted by newspapers of the day.

Marciano could have easily reached 175lbs.

[MrMarvel]

Marciano would not do well against the best light heavyweights, just like he would not do well against a lot of good heavyweights, nevermind the best of them.

[Boilermaker]

Thoughts on Marciano vs. Fitzsimmons

If the Marciano of his championship years actually trained down to 175 lbs, he'd be in a state where Fitzsimmons would be a very dangerous proposition.

If Marciano came along in Fitzsimmons day, maybe Marciano would have been a smaller guy, as from the last third of the 1800's up to the 1960's there was a tendency of increase in average height. I'm generalizing a lot, but it's certainly plausible that Marciano coming along in Fitzsimmons day could ahve healthily made 175. But, again, Fitzsimmons would be dangerous to this slightly down-sized Marciano.

Marciano is an awful matchup for Fitz though (well maybe not if you think about a Sharkey comparison i suppose). But Marciano will keep coming forward and hitting fitz with combinations, whether they land or not. NOw i think about it, he isnt that fast so Fitz does have a good chance at landing the big counterpunch. I was going to give Fitz only a punchers chance but on second thoughts, i think he might become a live underdog.

I give Tunney the best chance of all, he has the power and ability to stay away from him and land regularly. May even start a slight favourite or at least as close to a 50-50 call.

Spinks also was a very, very good fighter who was very 'modern'. Despite the Tyson lost (he wasnt the only good heavy to get caught by Tyson) he had a heavyweight chin, and makes a fight of it. I favour Marciano but he is a good chance.

I cant think of anyone else with a chance as good as these three, at the moment. Maybe a gamble with Choynski or Braddock, but i dont really think so.

I just rememberd Greb. Now that would have been a good fight. Marciano the favourite, but Greb has a big speed and possibly workrate and even stamina advantage. Greb can take a punch too. It would certainly be interesting. Rocky probably would be favoured to pull out a late stoppage, but i dont think he can win on points and i dont think it is ever good to rely on a stoppage to win. Greb is a very, very live underdog.

[RobMan]

Marciano would not do well against the best light heavyweights, just like he would not do well against a lot of good heavyweights, nevermind the best of them.

A bit harsh on the man. I do think he'd give every light-heavyweight hell with his combination of stamina and power.

What light-heavy would best diffuse his physical advantages? If you nulify his physical advantages you take a lot away from Marciano..

[john garfield]

Agreed, though he can maybe do Hopkins on workrate over 15.

Jones clowns him, simple really.

Toney... now as much as I hate Toney this is the perfect fight for him to look good.

This may surprise you, Chj, during a conversation with JT, he mentioned Marciano as one of the few fighters he respected. The others were SRR, Burley, Moore, 'n Holman Williams

[My2Sense]

Hopkins by SD

In a track run maybe.

Toney by UD

In an eating contest maybe.

Jones by slaughtering plus clowning between combos.

In a battle rap maybe.

[Seamus]

In a track run maybe.



In an eating contest maybe.



In a battle rap maybe.

Post of the day.

[Farmboxer]

Marciano would have beaten all the lightheavyweights, no doubt about it and the cruiserweights.

[Rise Above]

If and its a big if, he could make 175 then I couldnt see anyone beating Marciano.

[Rise Above]

Also how would losing the weight affect his power ? We all know the Rock wasnt known for his technique or for being slick but relied upon his power.

[Maxmomer]

I think Marciano would beat the LHW versions of Charles, Moore and Tunney. The prime HW versions of those same fighters would be a lot more trouble. I actually pick the Tunney of the Heeny fight to beat Marciano. Charles would be 50/50. I think Marciano beats any version of Moore, though never easily. I also pick 180 pound Langford over Marciano.

[Buddy87]

I want to see Rocky Marciano fight Thomas Adamek..lol both punches and punches with indestructible heads.

[PetethePrince]

I want to see Rocky Marciano fight Thomas Adamek..lol both punches and punches with indestructible heads.

Rocky annihilates him.

[PetethePrince]

This may surprise you, Chj, during a conversation with JT, he mentioned Marciano as one of the few fighters he respected. The others were SRR, Burley, Moore, 'n Holman Williams

Doesn't JT love Walcott, Lamotta, Pep, Charles, and tough old school guys like that? I remember seeing him in an interview say so.

[Bummy Davis]

This is actually mythology. In fact, Marciano ate like a beast to put on weight. This was often noted by newspapers of the day.

Marciano could have easily reached 175lbs.


This is contrary to any facts ever written by anyone about Marciano so I guess you have a cristal ball, Marciano ran 8 miles a day until he started training then upped it to 10 the ran 15 miles a day leading up to the fight. Marciano blew up to 270 after the Moore fight and he still was not fat just wide. Marciano had to train so very hard to make 188 so I dont know where you get that insight

[frankenfrank]

Marciano would have beaten all the lightheavyweights, no doubt about it and the cruiserweights.
marciano was very lucky to never fight someone as big or massive in his prime such as juan carlos gomez or david haye.
marciano could have easily made 175 and that is where he belonged.
he was hw for financial reasons.
against moorer and spinks he may be hit hard , and if he swarms , he might run into punches and get hit even harder.
against patterson i think he knew himself he may be in a problem , and i guess he knew it better than i , as he retired before facing patterson.
marciano was even smaller than patterson. not by far , but still smaller.
and patterson was a 175 for a period.
i do think marciano is a top5 175 , maybe even #1 there.
but at higher weights he simply will be too small which will increase his lack of power , reach and height. p4p he was strong , but weaker than haye.

[SuzieQ49]

marciano was very lucky to never fight someone as big or massive in his prime such as juan carlos gomez or david haye.

:lol:

[he grant]

None are outslugging him except Langford. A few might outspeed him and squeeze a decision .. Michael Spinks and a prime Charles, maybe ... a prime Moore , maybe ... if those guys fought the fights of their life ... I would not bet on any of them, that's for sure ...

[turpinr]

Not a chance imo, Whats often forgotten, is Marciano train DOWN in weight.

There is no way he would have reach 175 imo. He was as down to his body weight as can be.:good:good

[SuzieQ49]

Archie Moore ain't better than what we saw of him on film from 1951-1955. That was his best stuff. Moore put up the best fight he could vs Marciano. Charles was past his prime. I don't think Archie was.


Take a read at this article...

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

"So far Moore hasn't shown even the faintest sign that he is on the way down."- Aug 10 1954 New York AP

[bodhi]

I can´t see nobody around his weight that would beat him including Fitzsimmons, Langford and Greb.

[djanders]

I can't see any reason why Marciano would have wanted to try to make 175, and I doubt if he could have while retaining his great health. He could have more easily weighed in at a healthy 205 than 175.

[mcvey]

Rocky weighed in around 185 for his whole career and with today's weigh-ins could have made lightheavy..any lightheavy have a chance of beating him? Obviously not Ezzard or Moore because he beat them but what about Spinks, Foster, Toney, Hopkins, Jones, Fitzsimmons and many more???
Marciano would have to come into the ring with no trunks, no shoes, no protector,no gloves ,and no toupee, to make anywhere near 175lbs it would not happen.

[choklab]

I know rocky did scale a pound or so over light heavyweight early in his career but at his peak I dont think he could make it. back then light heavyweights often operated as heavyweights. The division didnt realy operate exclusively as other divisions even though it had its own title. by the standards of the day anything over middle was heavyweight only there were "light" heavyweights amoung them. marciano was a 200lb man who boiled down and ran a lot thats how he was 187. as lightheavy was anyone barly over midleweight marciano was never that. Id say though rocky was nearer LH than he was modern heavys he had a natural advantage over a division of guys who were often super middleweights with a meal in them. It is a true weight class now but back then LH was just a stopgap. LH was always closer to modern day super middle than the cruser end of the division.

[Boilermaker]

This is contrary to any facts ever written by anyone about Marciano so I guess you have a cristal ball, Marciano ran 8 miles a day until he started training then upped it to 10 the ran 15 miles a day leading up to the fight. Marciano blew up to 270 after the Moore fight and he still was not fat just wide. Marciano had to train so very hard to make 188 so I dont know where you get that insight

No one doubts that Rocky trained astonishingly hard, or that if heused todays training methods he would be heavier not lighter (with the weights emphasis, rather than stamina emphasis), but I have seen a few articles floating around where Marciano has said that he is trying to add a few extra pounds. If this is the case, then you would think that witout this emphasis and instead with an emphasis in losing a couple of pounds, it wouldnt be totally impossible for him to make the limit without losing too much. Though i must say, 175 would seem too low.

For someone like Tunney in particular though, one aspect which hasnt been considered, is whether coming in below the light heavyweight limit would actually effect them. When tunney fought at heavy, he himself went up to the heavyweight limit, and he probably relied on power against Dempsey more than people realise, so is it possible that a smaller version may lack the power to keep marciano off, and maybe just maybe, he would be better off taking the fight at heavy.

[SuzieQ49]

I spoke to Rocky's brother Peter several months ago. He told me Rocky weighed around 210 to 215 when he was not training, and that he really struggled to get his weight under 190lb. That should put an end to the arguement Rocky was trying to "Gain Weight".

[choklab]

I think Ezzard Charles of 1948 - 1950 might well have outpointed Marciano.

absolutly no chance.

the beginning of a decline is a fighter who drops a class level since he can no longer knock out fighters at his previous level. a faded fighter past his prime is one step further. this is a guy who can barley "hold his own" on the fringes of his previous level and is humiliated if he steps up. ezzard Charles was neither of these guys between losing the title and challenging marciano.

to begin with initially ezzard boxed for only three years then took two years out in the war. since he was out for almost as long as he’d been active when he returned it was basically a new career.

In a new four year career against albeit excellent opposition Charles notched up a new 40-2 record by which time he had lost the title to Walcott a guy he’d previously beat twice, the other loss was also avenged.

not including light heavyweights, 14 of the 42 fights were against heavyweights at that time rated in "The Ring" annual ratings. that means he won 12 (6 by KO) fights with rated heavyweights by the time he lost the title.

in Charles next 18 fights over 36 months he faced 11 at that time rated contenders a far higher ratio. he was 14-4 in these 18fights and knocked out 4 of the 7 rated contenders he beat.

this means ezzards 1951-54 win ratio is negligible against his 1946-51 record and his KO percentage was actually higher in the 36 months since losing the title against at that time rated contenders.

This study proves that on paper against rated heavyweights Charles was apt to lose once in a while so long as he fought as often as he did and the film proves he was still putting out championship class performances, knocking out rated contenders throughout the 48-54 period. Charles never made the ring ratings as a heavyweight until 1948 so his peak began at the tail end of the 40s.

in 1955 Charles fought 11 times. altogether he fought 3 times in December, 2 times in April and august each. unsurprisingly Charles only won 6 times out of the 11. he fought 8 rated heavyweights that year and did not knock out any of them.... this was when he faded. against marciano charles was still as great a fighter as 48- 49'.

[he grant]

absolutly no chance.

the beginning of a decline is a fighter who drops a class level since he can no longer knock out fighters at his previous level. a faded fighter past his prime is one step further. this is a guy who can barley "hold his own" on the fringes of his previous level and is humiliated if he steps up. ezzard Charles was neither of these guys between losing the title and challenging marciano.

to begin with initially ezzard boxed for only three years then took two years out in the war. since he was out for almost as long as he’d been active when he returned it was basically a new career.

In a new four year career against albeit excellent opposition Charles notched up a new 40-2 record by which time he had lost the title to Walcott a guy he’d previously beat twice, the other loss was also avenged.

not including light heavyweights, 14 of the 42 fights were against heavyweights at that time rated in "The Ring" annual ratings. that means he won 12 (6 by KO) fights with rated heavyweights by the time he lost the title.

in Charles next 18 fights over 36 months he faced 11 at that time rated contenders a far higher ratio. he was 14-4 in these 18fights and knocked out 4 of the 7 rated contenders he beat.

this means ezzards 1951-54 win ratio is negligible against his 1946-51 record and his KO percentage was actually higher in the 36 months since losing the title against at that time rated contenders.

This study proves that on paper against rated heavyweights Charles was apt to lose once in a while so long as he fought as often as he did and the film proves he was still putting out championship class performances, knocking out rated contenders throughout the 48-54 period. Charles never made the ring ratings as a heavyweight until 1948 so his peak began at the tail end of the 40s.

in 1955 Charles fought 11 times. altogether he fought 3 times in December, 2 times in April and august each. unsurprisingly Charles only won 6 times out of the 11. he fought 8 rated heavyweights that year and did not knock out any of them.... this was when he faded. against marciano charles was still as great a fighter as 48- 49'.

So your theory is that as a faded heavyweight he gave Rocky a terrific 15 round bout in losing but had no shot against the same man if he himself were in his prime ? I disagree.

[Vockerman]

I don't think anyone weighing under 200lbs is much more than evens against Marciano. I'd maybe take Dempsey. After that, probably Tunney has the best shot.

:good

[Hookie]

Rocky weighed in around 185 for his whole career and with today's weigh-ins could have made lightheavy..any lightheavy have a chance of beating him? Obviously not Ezzard or Moore because he beat them but what about Spinks, Foster, Toney, Hopkins, Jones, Fitzsimmons and many more???

Back up... not Ezzard Charles because of what???!!! Those were Ezzard Charles' 98th and 99th pro fights and he gave Marciano absolute hell both times (L15 and LKOby8 ). Charles went just 10-13 after facing Marciano, then retired.

A prime Charles would have an excellent chance of beating Marciano.

I'll agree with you on Moore. Despite Moore's age, he was as good as ever vs. Marciano.

M. Spinks gives Marciano plenty of trouble but I think Rocky could beat him in a great fight. Rocky would have to stay close and pressure Spinks. He'd also have to slip plenty of punches in order to stay in position to land good shots.

...to be continued 8 - )

[choklab]

So your theory is that as a faded heavyweight he gave Rocky a terrific 15 round bout in losing but had no shot against the same man if he himself were in his prime ? I disagree.



exactly the oposite. My theory is charles was as good. his real peak was 48-54. he was no beter against bivins in 49' than he was against harold johnson in 53 -and both fights could have gone either way.
had he been a more popular champion charles may have got the benefit of the doubt in his last closest fight with walcott and regained his title!! instead they gave the older guy a break since he'd been a great chalenger for so many years. apart from losing the title charles had never been convincingly beaten beyond dispute since the war and he'd beat walcott twice and another time that could have gone either way. marciano and walcott were the only guys to clearly beat charles within his true post war peak.
I believe the 48-49 charles fares no beter against marciano. check the 49' charles v bivins fight for proof of this.

[Hookie]

exactly the oposite. My theory is charles was as good. his real peak was 48-54. he was no beter against bivins in 49' than he was against harold johnson in 53 -and both fights could have gone either way.
had he been a more popular champion charles may have got the benefit of the doubt in his last closest fight with walcott and regained his title!! instead they gave the older guy a break since he'd been a great chalenger for so many years. apart from losing the title charles had never been convincingly beaten beyond dispute since the war and he'd beat walcott twice and another time that could have gone either way. marciano and walcott were the only guys to clearly beat charles within his true post war peak.
I believe the 48-49 charles fares no beter against marciano. check the 49' charles v bivins fight for proof of this.

So, let's get this straight... you're saying that in Ezzard Charles' 98th and 99th pro fights he was "as good as ever"? How does an "in prime" all-time great fighter like Ezzard Charles go just 10-13 in his next 23 fights? Are you suggestion that Marciano beat the prime out of Charles'?

Charles rose to the occasion and gave Marciano a very tough time. Those fights were his last hurrah, believe it!

[choklab]

So, let's get this straight... you're saying that in Ezzard Charles' 98th and 99th pro fights he was "as good as ever"? How does an "in prime" all-time great fighter like Ezzard Charles go just 10-13 in his next 23 fights? Are you suggestion that Marciano beat the prime out of Charles'?

Charles rose to the occasion and gave Marciano a very tough time. Those fights were his last hurrah, believe it!

but they were not really charles's 97th and 99th fight. charles was 40-2 in his post war record by the time he lost to walcott. remember charles only boxed 3 years then was a soldier for 2 years when he never boxed. he was out almost as long as hed been in. after the war he had to start all over again, he was bigger. marciano did tip him over the edge and from that pointy on he was baddly matched fighting as many as 11 times a year with as many as 7 involving hungry contenders. he never avraged more than 4 rated guys a year before that point thats what tipped him over.

[he grant]

exactly the oposite. My theory is charles was as good. his real peak was 48-54. he was no beter against bivins in 49' than he was against harold johnson in 53 -and both fights could have gone either way.
had he been a more popular champion charles may have got the benefit of the doubt in his last closest fight with walcott and regained his title!! instead they gave the older guy a break since he'd been a great chalenger for so many years. apart from losing the title charles had never been convincingly beaten beyond dispute since the war and he'd beat walcott twice and another time that could have gone either way. marciano and walcott were the only guys to clearly beat charles within his true post war peak.
I believe the 48-49 charles fares no beter against marciano. check the 49' charles v bivins fight for proof of this.

I think your slightly nuts .. :hey

[SuzieQ49]

I am a huge Marciano fan as the get, but I admit Charles was past his prime by 1954. Clearly. I still think he was a great fighter in 1954, but he had slowed down physically. Charles best work was in the late 1940s. This is undeniable.


I do disagree on Archie Moore though. I feel Archies best work started from 1951 all the way thru 1955. Archie was fighting as good as he ever was in 1955.

[mr. magoo]

He already DID beat a lot of great light heavyweight fighters.... In fact, that accounts for MOST of what he fought.

[The Mongoose]

So, let's get this straight... you're saying that in Ezzard Charles' 98th and 99th pro fights he was "as good as ever"? How does an "in prime" all-time great fighter like Ezzard Charles go just 10-13 in his next 23 fights? Are you suggestion that Marciano beat the prime out of Charles'?

Charles rose to the occasion and gave Marciano a very tough time. Those fights were his last hurrah, believe it!

Charles nearly lost every round and took the worst beating of his second career in the last Marciano fight. You are certainly not going to be the same after something like this.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Bummy Davis]

Rocky would beat them all, I think Charles would beat them all pretty convincingly but Charles never went for that title, he was a Heavyweight and beat some good big boys. It could be argued that the 32 year old Charles saw better days but he just had 2 of his best wins over Satterfield and Wallace by KO and looked the best he had in years. I still think Marciano dominated him in 2 fights, the 1st one being competitive but I dont think Anyone could argue that Charles won. Marciano beat 2 of the best Moore, and Charles and those 2 would beat the rest, no doubt

[choklab]

He already DID beat a lot of great light heavyweight fighters.... In fact, that accounts for MOST of what he fought.


until about 1970 anything over middleweight was a heavyweight, you just had "light heavyweights" as the name says. even though they had a title the division was not exclusive. excluding joe louis, liston and ali The best heavyweights were all lightheavyweights roughly speaking. there was always big guys over 200 but most often those little dudes were beter.

[choklab]

I am a huge Marciano fan as the get, but I admit Charles was past his prime by 1954. Clearly. I still think he was a great fighter in 1954, but he had slowed down physically. Charles best work was in the late 1940s. This is undeniable.


.


perhaps but he was just as efective much, much later. have you seen the bivins fight? charles fasster but its a bruising fight where he was unable to make use of an advantage. I think his wins as late as 53 are more rounded against guys as good.

[dmt]

Moore was NOT past his prime when Marciano defeated him. Moore was 39, yes, but he was the world light heavy champ and continued to be for like 5 years after that

[RockyJim]

Marciano trained himself down to 185-189 lbs...when he retired in April 1956 he was over 200 lbs...

[he grant]

Moore was NOT past his prime when Marciano defeated him. Moore was 39, yes, but he was the world light heavy champ and continued to be for like 5 years after that

Being the champion and being the best ever Archie Moore are two different points. Ali was heavyweight champ in 77. Was he in his prime ?

[choklab]

Being the champion and being the best ever Archie Moore are two different points. Ali was heavyweight champ in 77. Was he in his prime ?


marciano beat a peak moore. moores resume was never beter. film of moore agianst heavyweights during the marciano era are the best film there is of moore. he knocked out all the best heavyweight contenders. when was another lighthheavyweight champ good enough to do that?

[bodhi]

Marciano has six fists, no lightheavyweight can beat a hw with six fists.

evidence: my avatar.

[SuzieQ49]

Moore is a odd ball. Fans of the black murders row believe Archie's prime was closer to 1945 when he was in his 20s and fighting around 165lb. Marciano fanatics point to Moore's 45-1 winning streak going into the marciano fight as evidence of him being a later bloomer who was still fighting in his prime in 1955 at age 38. I feel it's somewhere in the middle..But lean more toward 1955 than 1945. I think the early 1950s specificully was the best we had ever seen of Moore. There is no question that Moore was a late bloomer. But even late bloomers age at some point. I feel he still had pretty much all of his speed and reflexes in 1951 at the age of 34, when I watch him on film. During this time, he put on some spectacular performances, including wide decision wins over a young prime hall of famer harold johnson. I think the trait moore had in 1951-52 he did not possess in 1945 was Ring Intelligence and Savvy. Moore got smarter as he got older. He really combined his new found ring intelligence with his physical peak in the early 1950s. Right around 175lb, that was the best Moore we had ever seen. 1955? I would say damm close to it, even if not in it.

[Bummy Davis]

Moore is a odd ball. Fans of the black murders row believe Archie's prime was closer to 1945 when he was in his 20s and fighting around 165lb. Marciano fanatics point to Moore's 45-1 winning streak going into the marciano fight as evidence of him being a later bloomer who was still fighting in his prime in 1955 at age 38. I feel it's somewhere in the middle..But lean more toward 1955 than 1945. I think the early 1950s specificully was the best we had ever seen of Moore. There is no question that Moore was a late bloomer. But even late bloomers age at some point. I feel he still had pretty much all of his speed and reflexes in 1951 at the age of 34, when I watch him on film. During this time, he put on some spectacular performances, including wide decision wins over a young prime hall of famer harold johnson. I think the trait moore had in 1951-52 he did not possess in 1945 was Ring Intelligence and Savvy. Moore got smarter as he got older. He really combined his new found ring intelligence with his physical peak in the early 1950s. Right around 175lb, that was the best Moore we had ever seen. 1955? I would say damm close to it, even if not in it.


Yes he was on fire and beat the best of the Heavyweights at the time Excluding Charles and Moore. Moore also had a 50 fight wins streak marred by a DQ and a controversial Nod to ATG Johnson, which he avenged, and his resume was THICK. I have to agree he was at his peak or close to it all around in 1955

[PetethePrince]

Being the champion and being the best ever Archie Moore are two different points. Ali was heavyweight champ in 77. Was he in his prime ?

Moore was in his prime, but not his peak. The guy was running a 55-1 run, and remained LHW champ 5 years after the loss. Remained a contender in the HW division till 62-63 I believe.

[cuchulain]

Hopkins by SD
Toney by UD
Jones by slaughtering plus clowning between combos.

Jones would have a very small chance.

The other two, none.

[he grant]

I don't think Moore was in his prime or at his best when he fought Rocky. However, he was still clearly a terrific fighter when he fought him. In addition, I don't see the best Archie really beating Rocky ... at 160 or so he would have been too light ... Rocky was just so damn strong for his size he would have been too much .. Maybe it's me but after that second round I do not find their legendary fight to be that competitive. Exciting, yes, dramatic, yes ... but after the second round to me it really semed like a matter of when fight not a I wonder who will win fight ...

Very, very few fighters under 200 were severly testing Marciano ..

[SuzieQ49]

I don't think Moore was in his prime or at his best when he fought Rocky. However, he was still clearly a terrific fighter when he fought him. In addition, I don't see the best Archie really beating Rocky ... at 160 or so he would have been too light ... Rocky was just so damn strong for his size he would have been too much .. Maybe it's me but after that second round I do not find their legendary fight to be that competitive. Exciting, yes, dramatic, yes ... but after the second round to me it really semed like a matter of when fight not a I wonder who will win fight ...

Very, very few fighters under 200 were severly testing Marciano ..

:good

[choklab]

Moore is a odd ball. Fans of the black murders row believe Archie's prime was closer to 1945 when he was in his 20s and fighting around 165lb. .

these people are mischeivious. its conveinent that there is no proof in film other than greater unconsistancy in moores record at this point. there is an argument that perhaps with the right manager and training camps archie may have develped into his prime earlier but the record shows moore did not blosum until after the morrow rematch. I believe moore fought with the intension of holding something back for the next fight for much of this career preserving himself until doors opened. by then archie had developed a winning style and so much experience.

Marciano fanatics point to Moore's 45-1 winning streak going into the marciano fight as evidence of him being a later bloomer who was still fighting in his prime in 1955 at age 38. I feel it's somewhere in the middle..But lean more toward 1955 than 1945..

agreed.:good a fighters prime usualy ends when he cannot knock out a rated fighter but moore did this much later. he is posibly a unique exception.

[he grant]

:good

:yikes