Marciano: alternate legacy

[Greatest1942]

You need to explain how that was a "good" win. Liston beat every top fighter he needed to beat with the exception of Ali. Charles heavyweight resume is not better or on par with Liston's no matter how you try to spin it.

List down the top 10 guys Liston beat. I will list down the top 10 Charles beat. You will see that it is pretty close. And pretty much on par.
Remember I am not dis*****g who was the better heavyweight, it was Liston ( I rank him ahead of Charles). BUt Charles resume is on par. There are a few wins in Listons resume better than Walcott or even the shot screwed Louis ( I rank Walcott as a better heavy than Floyd).

"Liston beat everybody he had to beat"

Same as every other great heavy did. Nothing astonishing in that. Doesn't mean he has automatically a better resume.

[Greatest1942]

Is that a serious question or do I really need to tell you the top fighters that Liston beat? And when did I say Rex Layne "didn't matter?" Or anything about "cherry picking?" Don't put words in my mouth.The point was Charles heavyweight resume doesn't match Liston's and unless you come up with something compelling that says otherwise, that stands.


And whether you like it or not, Charles was 2-2 in his last 4 fights and aging when he first fought Marciano.

Atleast some of his loses were disputed. I assure you...need proof let me know.

And Liston was the same age he met Ali, so was Ali when he met Foreman. So was Louis when he met Walcott.

In boxing the young ultimately come up and unseat the old. Its done foreever and will be done. Marciano gets a bad stick for it.

[joseph5620]

List down the top 10 guys Liston beat. I will list down the top 10 Charles beat. You will see that it is pretty close. And pretty much on par.
Remember I am not dis*****g who was the better heavyweight, it was Liston ( I rank him ahead of Charles). BUt Charles resume is on par. There are a few wins in Listons resume better than Walcott or even the shot screwed Louis ( I rank Walcott as a better heavy than Floyd).

"Liston beat everybody he had to beat"

Same as every other great heavy did. Nothing astonishing in that. Doesn't mean he has automatically a better resume.

Then what are you dis*****g exactly? If you're going to go off topic then there is nothing to argue here. Liston was a better heavyweight than Charles which is what I said. Period. Until you come up with anything to dispute that fact I'm not going to waste time with this.



And Charles heavyweight resume is not on par with Liston's. I know from your previous post that you're biased against Liston but you have no case for that. No matter how you try to spin it.




Why don't you post their heavyweight resumes and compare them. See how it works out. I already know.

[joseph5620]

Atleast some of his loses were disputed. I assure you...need proof let me know.

And Liston was the same age he met Ali, so was Ali when he met Foreman. So was Louis when he met Walcott.

In boxing the young ultimately come up and unseat the old. Its done foreever and will be done. Marciano gets a bad stick for it.

Fighters age differently and at different times. Are you really going to argue that?

[joseph5620]

Charles lost the last fight by decison, not by KO. You are wrong there. And he by most accounts won that one. So its probably 3-1 in favour of Charles, which coming against a top 25 Heavyweight is not bad. Ali is probably 2-1 against Norton, Louis 1-1 against Schemelling. Surely you as a fighter will appreciate that when you fight the best you will sometimes lose to the best. Thats why boxing of yesteryears was exciting.

"Louis"

Louis was not the Louis of old. everyone knows that. But he did have some great wins in his bag when he fought Marciano. He had beaten Bivins, Savold.
Take it this way if you see a fighter today beating the the top 5 ranked contenders , don't you think it will be great wins. Louis beat the top contenders, that shows he was still good enough as a contender. It was a good win.

Ezzard was better at light heavy but he was also good at Heavyweight. The names that he beat shows it. Tunney was probably better at light heavy, than at heavy but it doesn't make him a bad heavyweight or even an average one.

Moore went on to beat the top ranking contenders of his era after Marciano beat him. He was still better than any one at light heavy weight.

He was the #2 in the ring ratings for heavy weight in 1956.He continued to be the light heavy champ beating good completion's at heavy and light heavy, looks like he was not so faded as you would like to portray as well. Moore said the Floyd loss was teh worst performance of his life. It also looks from proof that he was simply not at his best.

The way you are dissecting Rock's career I can dissect Ali's too or even Louis's.

take Ali's beats an over the hill Liston who quits. Beats a Williams who is shot,loses to Frazier, beats a Foreman who is embarrassingly erratic, beats a Frazier who is over the hill clearly, loses to Norton never beats him clearly and
is beaten by Leon Spinks whose career is atrocious to speak off.

You have a real fixation on light heavys turned heavy's right? ****ell was the #2 ranked contender when he met Marciano. One year earlier he had beaten LaStraza and Harry mathews both top 10 ranked heavyweights. He was the Commonwealth (British Empire) heavyweight title, an alphabet title in todays term. He doesn't seem as bad as you are trying to make him look. Not worse than many title defenses of even Ali or Louis or Dempsey. And by all accounts looking at his rankings and performance, he seems to be a good win.



You can diss everyones career if you have to...and at the moment you are simply clinging on straws to diss Rocky's.

Those were not "great wins." Not even close. And Louis wasn't knocking fighters out like he used to during that comeback.

[Greatest1942]

Those were not "great wins." Not even close. And Louis wasn't knocking fighters out like he used to during that comeback.

So beating top 10 contenders does not mean anything? Only knocking out them counts? Who is dis*****g this was the Louis of old...he was a great champion..at these stage he was a very good contender. I hope you get the difference. He did KO Savold however brutally in this spree.

Me biased againt Liston? Just because in one thread I gave Rocky a chance against him, and showed how he might win? This is a comment.

Can you find the post where I stated Charles was better than Liston as a heavyweight..
here is what I posted "How many guys did Liston beat who can be ranked in the top 30 or Dempsey or Tunney or even Tyson."So before alleging that someone is backing up try and ascertain what they were saying. Show this piece of text to a School student who has moderate IQ and he will let you now the actual meaning.



All I tried to say was that Charles probably had better wins in his kitty than Liston has at heavyweight. Charles beat three guys who were ranked in the top 30 (edit:- by Ring magazines ranking). Liston beat 1(Patterson). My question applied to Dempsey and Tunney too.

I will restate so that you can get this in your head "Liston has lesser top 30 wins than Charles".

I am not trying to spin anything but stating the fact. And just signifying that Charles was a pretty good heavyweight, and a good win for Rocky. I have him in my top 30.

Care to elaborate what is so offensive in that post? You really are touchy about Liston it seems.

Try to read properly before posting this irrelevant stuff.

[RubenSonny]

So beating top 10 contenders does not mean anything? Only knocking out them counts? Who is dis*****g this was the Louis of old...he was a great champion..at these stage he was a very good contender. I hope you get the difference. He did KO Savold however brutally in this spree.

Me biased againt Liston? Just because in one thread I gave Rocky a chance against him, and showed how he might win? This is a comment.

Can you find the post where I stated Charles was better than Liston as a heavyweight..
here is what I posted "How many guys did Liston beat who can be ranked in the top 30 or Dempsey or Tunney or even Tyson."So before alleging that someone is backing up try and ascertain what they were saying. Show this piece of text to a School student who has moderate IQ and he will let you now the actual meaning.



All I tried to say was that Charles probably had better wins in his kitty than Liston has at heavyweight. Charles beat three guys who were ranked in the top 30. Liston beat 1(Patterson). My question applied to Dempsey and Tunney too.

I will restate so that you can get this in your head "Liston has lesser top 30 wins than Charles".

I am not trying to spin anything but stating the fact. And just signifying that Charles was a pretty good heavyweight, and a good win for Rocky. I have him in my top 30.

Care to elaborate what is so offensive in that post? You really are touchy about Liston it seems.

Try to read properly before posting this irrelevant stuff.

Who are the 3 Charles beat?

[Greatest1942]

I doubt some who are arguing "I know how it works",, ever tried to make a top 10 list for both Charles and Liston, so here goes

Sonny Liston's top 10 :-

1. Patterson
2. Machen
3. Folley
4. Williams
5. Valdes
6. Harris
7. Bethea
8. DeJohn
9. Clark
10. Summerlin

Ezzard charles top 10 (at heavy)

1. Joe Walcott
2. Jimmy Bivins
3. Elmer Ray.
4. Rex Layne
5. Pat Valentino
6. Gus Lesnevich
7. Joe Baksi
8. Lee Oma
9. Joe Louis (put him down here, because he was just a contenderif you guys think he was worse than ATGS like DeJohn or Clark even at this stage okay )
10.Bob Satterfield.


Made 8 defences of his title.Lost in his 9th. Couldn't fit Maxim there though he weighed over the 175 mark.

Now Joseph tell why is Ezzard's resume not on par with Liston's, unless you think LAyne, Oma, Baksi, Elmer Ray, Bivins etc were much worse than Williams, Folley, MAchen, Bethea, Clarke, Summerlin etc.

[Greatest1942]

Who are the 3 Charles beat?

Louis, Walcott and Bivins (ranked #26 by the ring).

[RubenSonny]

Louis, Walcott and Bivins (ranked #26 by the ring).

More important than who is when, Bivins was past it as was Louis, it's not like their ranking holds any weight at that point. If you took the heavies ranked after them in their prime against those versions of Bivins and Louis many of them would beat them, so that's not really a good measure. Also Bivins isn't consensus top 30 and even if he was its such an even field after awhile where many fighters can be thrown out for others. In addition Charles was also brutally KO'ed by Walcott which is a detriment to his heavyweight legacy.