Great fighter but not THE greatest.
Interesting thing with Marciano is though that had he taken up boxing earlier and kept going a bit longer it is not beyond reason to think he could have held the title for 11 years from say 24 to 35.
At 24 he would be facing a fading Joe Louis so would have a very good chance of taking the title around 1947.
From then on you are looking at the same fighters who he did beat Walcott, Charles etc albeit a little more prime.
After he retired you are looking at Patterson, I'd fancy Marciano to beat Patterson and his contenders.
The only real problem on the horizon is Liston so you are pretty much looking from 1959, if he faces Liston on schedule, or maybe 1961/1962 if he avoids Liston for a bit.
So it is not inconceivable that had Marciano turned pro at 20 and kept himself in good nick until his mid 30's he could have at last equalled Louis reign which would make a good talking point.
Doesn't make his era any better of course but if you were feeling churlish you could level similar criticisms at Louis.
A lot of the name fighters he beat were past their best such as Baer, Sharkey, Carnera, Schmelling.
Throw in a few light heavy's such as Conn, Braddock and Lewis and you are then left with his contenders. Would Marciano struggled against Godoy, Galento, Simon, Mauriello etc?
Personally I think Walcott improved as he got older like BHop and Moore so whether the Walcott that Louis faced was better than the one Marciano faced is debatable.
Charles was certainly better but he comfortably beat Louis and fought well and lost twice to Marciano.
Don't get me wrong I rate Louis above Marciano but playing devils advocate here......
Interesting thing with Marciano is though that had he taken up boxing earlier and kept going a bit longer it is not beyond reason to think he could have held the title for 11 years from say 24 to 35.
At 24 he would be facing a fading Joe Louis so would have a very good chance of taking the title around 1947.
From then on you are looking at the same fighters who he did beat Walcott, Charles etc albeit a little more prime.
After he retired you are looking at Patterson, I'd fancy Marciano to beat Patterson and his contenders.
The only real problem on the horizon is Liston so you are pretty much looking from 1959, if he faces Liston on schedule, or maybe 1961/1962 if he avoids Liston for a bit.
So it is not inconceivable that had Marciano turned pro at 20 and kept himself in good nick until his mid 30's he could have at last equalled Louis reign which would make a good talking point.
Doesn't make his era any better of course but if you were feeling churlish you could level similar criticisms at Louis.
A lot of the name fighters he beat were past their best such as Baer, Sharkey, Carnera, Schmelling.
Throw in a few light heavy's such as Conn, Braddock and Lewis and you are then left with his contenders. Would Marciano struggled against Godoy, Galento, Simon, Mauriello etc?
Personally I think Walcott improved as he got older like BHop and Moore so whether the Walcott that Louis faced was better than the one Marciano faced is debatable.
Charles was certainly better but he comfortably beat Louis and fought well and lost twice to Marciano.
Don't get me wrong I rate Louis above Marciano but playing devils advocate here......
Comment