who beat better competiton liston or marciano?

[SuzieQ49]

moore was either 39 or 42, cause his birth year is debated as either 1913 or 1916. most experts agree however that it is 1913, so he was 42.

wrong, listen to yogi. moore was born in 1916, making him 38 when he fought marciano.

i think floyd was better. look at who they fought and beat and how difficult it was. check out the power and speed of hands of patterson as opposed to walcott and charles.

ok

at heavyweight, charles beat elmer ray, jersey joe walcott, jimmy bivins, harold johnson(robbery), archie moore, past prime joe louis.


thats a better resume than patterson's


can u imagine ezzard charles being knocked out by ingemar johannsen?


charles in the 1st two walcott fights won clear decisions over walcott. and walcott was a better boxer than floyd.

charles completley dominated a post prime but still dangerous louis


charles dominated and knocked out elmer ray, a very good heavyweight

charles knocked out archie moore with 1 punch OUT COLD in a even fight entering the 8th.

charles beat jimmy bivins 3 times in clear fashion



patterson struggled to win a trilogy with ingo johannsen, losing 1 of the fights by KO

patterson knocked out ill prepared archie moore, but he lost the first 4 rounds before he knocked out moore

patterson was robbed twice vs quarry, and vs ellis

patterson beat chuvalo, but struggled

patterson was dominated lasting less than 2 rounds in 2 fights with liston. no way liston knocked walcott and charles out in 1.

patterson did not fight the best fighters of his era during his title reign.



I favor charles





the harold johnson-charles fight is a must see by everyone. charles was clearly robbed, like holyfield-lewis I.

I thought ezzard won about 7 rounds out of the 10

according to a huge ezzard fan, this fight was the only decision ezzard ever claimed was a "bad decision" and ezzard claimed it was a hometown decision.




walcott beat joe louis(total robbery), ezzard charles, harold johnson, jimmy bivins, elmer ray


thats a better resume than patterson



walcott knocked down twice and outboxed joe louis and was robbed. louis was better than any fighter patterson ever beat. even the 1947 version of louis was better than patterson.

walcott beat elmer ray in convinsing fashion knocking him down 3 times

walcott knocked harold johnson down and was dominating the fight until johnson got hurt

walcott knocked a peak jimmy bivins down and won a close decision

walcott twice beat HOF great ezzard charles, including a 1 punch KO. charles was better than any fighter patterson beat.



can u picture walcott in his prime being knocked out by ingo johannsen?


can u picture patterson beating joe louis and knocking out ezzard charles?



patterson, walcott, charles were all great underated heavyweights


however i rate them as heayvweights

1. ezzard charles
2. jersey joe walcott
3. floyd patterson


all 3 are in my top 20








pattersons problem is he loved to brawl, yet he wasnt strong enough and didnt have a chin to do that. if he brawled vs walcott, theres a good chance walcott would knock him out.

check out the power and speed of hands of patterson as opposed to walcott and charles.

yes patterson had incredible handspeed, the best. he also had excellent power.

HOWEVEWR, walcott had just as much power as he did. check out walcotts left hook that nearly took the head off of ezzard charles when he knocked him out cold. check out the shots that put hall of fame greats like joe louis and rocky marciano on there asses.


a one punch KO over ezzard charles means more than a KO over ingo johannsen


walcott also floored joe louis 3x and rocky marciano


floyd patterson never floored sonny liston or muhammad ali






as far as handspeed goes, patterson tops them all. in fact, HE TOPS ALI!


but charles had faster footspeed than patterson and was overall the more skilled boxer. charles was a lot smarter, had better footwork and movement, better defense, etc. charles was overall clearly the better skilled fighter.

plus ezzard could hit too, dont think he couldnt. charles had a lot of snap on his punches. charles timing was also better than pattersons. charles was a cutter as well like muhammad. charles cut peoples faces to shreds.

check out charles amazing footwork vs pat valentino. watch the way charles knocks out valentino. he knocks him out with the most beutiful 1-2 combo of all time IMO

charles also is a better counterpuncher than floyd. charles unlike floyd was NEVER off balance and he could throw counterpunches at all inconsieveable angles.

check out walcott II 9th round where charles leaning the other way still manages OUT OF NOWHERE to throw a lightning fast left hook counter which sends walcott to the canvas. the way charles threw it was amazing, it seemed like he had no leverage, but then again charles was special!

charles was also a smarter and better inside fighter than floyd. floyd got pushed around on the inside and outmuscled. charles throughout his career demonstrated masterpiece work on the inside, see joe louis fight.



walcott on the other hand had far better movemeand and footwork than patterson. walcott with his movement and tricks made fighters look foolish. walcott was very unpredictable. walcott was also a lot stronger than patterson and had just as much power as patterson. walcott had a better jab than patterson and was a better counterpuncher than floyd. i think in terms of overall boxing skill, walcott is better than floyd. walcott was faster, more elusive, better ring smarts. walcott was clearly the better ring technician.


watch joe louis I for best results of walcotts movement, footwork and boxing skills.

watch marciano I for walcott best display of aggresion and punching power

walcott was a master at defense. he was great at feinting, making his opponents miss and become off balance, blocking shots with his elbows, using his incredible head movement to make opponents miss with jabs, shoulder rolls, upper body movement, parrying punches.

just when walcott made u feel like u were content, BOOOM!!!!! A SNEAKY RIGHT HAND OR A POWERFUL LEFT HOOK COMES OUT OF NOWHERE! watch ezzard charles III for best results

walcott and charles were also more durable than patterson

walcott rated 65th on RINGS TOP 100 GREATEST PUNCHERS. patterson wasnt even ranked(though he should be)

[SuzieQ49]

I'd say Marciano. Walcott, charles, Moore, Louis and LaStarza is a fine list of fighters. Liston beat Folley, Machen, Williams and Patterson. Also an excellent resume, however Marciano's takes the cake.

i agree


both have excellent resumes

[Da Iceman]

wrong, listen to yogi. moore was born in 1916, making him 38 when he fought marciano.





ok

at heavyweight, charles beat elmer ray, jersey joe walcott, jimmy bivins, harold johnson(robbery), archie moore, past prime joe louis.


thats a better resume than patterson's


can u imagine ezzard charles being knocked out by ingemar johannsen?


charles in the 1st two walcott fights won clear decisions over walcott. and walcott was a better boxer than floyd.

charles completley dominated a post prime but still dangerous louis


charles dominated and knocked out elmer ray, a very good heavyweight

charles knocked out archie moore with 1 punch OUT COLD in a even fight entering the 8th.

charles beat jimmy bivins 3 times in clear fashion



patterson struggled to win a trilogy with ingo johannsen, losing 1 of the fights by KO

patterson knocked out ill prepared archie moore, but he lost the first 4 rounds before he knocked out moore

patterson was robbed twice vs quarry, and vs ellis

patterson beat chuvalo, but struggled

patterson was dominated lasting less than 2 rounds in 2 fights with liston. no way liston knocked walcott and charles out in 1.

patterson did not fight the best fighters of his era during his title reign.



I favor charles





the harold johnson-charles fight is a must see by everyone. charles was clearly robbed, like holyfield-lewis I.

I thought ezzard won about 7 rounds out of the 10

according to a huge ezzard fan, this fight was the only decision ezzard ever claimed was a "bad decision" and ezzard claimed it was a hometown decision.




walcott beat joe louis(total robbery), ezzard charles, harold johnson, jimmy bivins, elmer ray


thats a better resume than patterson



walcott knocked down twice and outboxed joe louis and was robbed. louis was better than any fighter patterson ever beat. even the 1947 version of louis was better than patterson.

walcott beat elmer ray in convinsing fashion knocking him down 3 times

walcott knocked harold johnson down and was dominating the fight until johnson got hurt

walcott knocked a peak jimmy bivins down and won a close decision

walcott twice beat HOF great ezzard charles, including a 1 punch KO. charles was better than any fighter patterson beat.



can u picture walcott in his prime being knocked out by ingo johannsen?


can u picture patterson beating joe louis and knocking out ezzard charles?



patterson, walcott, charles were all great underated heavyweights


however i rate them as heayvweights

1. ezzard charles
2. jersey joe walcott
3. floyd patterson


all 3 are in my top 20








pattersons problem is he loved to brawl, yet he wasnt strong enough and didnt have a chin to do that. if he brawled vs walcott, theres a good chance walcott would knock him out.






yes patterson had incredible handspeed, the best. he also had excellent power.

HOWEVEWR, walcott had just as much power as he did. check out walcotts left hook that nearly took the head off of ezzard charles when he knocked him out cold. check out the shots that put hall of fame greats like joe louis and rocky marciano on there asses.


a one punch KO over ezzard charles means more than a KO over ingo johannsen


walcott also floored joe louis 3x and rocky marciano


floyd patterson never floored sonny liston or muhammad ali






as far as handspeed goes, patterson tops them all. in fact, HE TOPS ALI!


but charles had faster footspeed than patterson and was overall the more skilled boxer. charles was a lot smarter, had better footwork and movement, better defense, etc. charles was overall clearly the better skilled fighter.

plus ezzard could hit too, dont think he couldnt. charles had a lot of snap on his punches. charles timing was also better than pattersons. charles was a cutter as well like muhammad. charles cut peoples faces to shreds.

check out charles amazing footwork vs pat valentino. watch the way charles knocks out valentino. he knocks him out with the most beutiful 1-2 combo of all time IMO

charles also is a better counterpuncher than floyd. charles unlike floyd was NEVER off balance and he could throw counterpunches at all inconsieveable angles.

check out walcott II 9th round where charles leaning the other way still manages OUT OF NOWHERE to throw a lightning fast left hook counter which sends walcott to the canvas. the way charles threw it was amazing, it seemed like he had no leverage, but then again charles was special!

charles was also a smarter and better inside fighter than floyd. floyd got pushed around on the inside and outmuscled. charles throughout his career demonstrated masterpiece work on the inside, see joe louis fight.



walcott on the other hand had far better movemeand and footwork than patterson. walcott with his movement and tricks made fighters look foolish. walcott was very unpredictable. walcott was also a lot stronger than patterson and had just as much power as patterson. walcott had a better jab than patterson and was a better counterpuncher than floyd. i think in terms of overall boxing skill, walcott is better than floyd. walcott was faster, more elusive, better ring smarts. walcott was clearly the better ring technician.


watch joe louis I for best results of walcotts movement, footwork and boxing skills.

watch marciano I for walcott best display of aggresion and punching power

walcott was a master at defense. he was great at feinting, making his opponents miss and become off balance, blocking shots with his elbows, using his incredible head movement to make opponents miss with jabs, shoulder rolls, upper body movement, parrying punches.

just when walcott made u feel like u were content, BOOOM!!!!! A SNEAKY RIGHT HAND OR A POWERFUL LEFT HOOK COMES OUT OF NOWHERE! watch ezzard charles III for best results

walcott and charles were also more durable than patterson

walcott rated 65th on RINGS TOP 100 GREATEST PUNCHERS. patterson wasnt even ranked(though he should be)

but him mom says he was born in 1913, and his mom is more likely to know the date.

[Da Iceman]

butterfly's right for the first time he was born in 1913

[BKM-]

Easy! Marciano by a landslide.
Wallcott, Charles and Moore were NOT washed up. You can say it as many times as you want, but if you watch those fights, you would know they fought as good as they ever fought(You're lying or didn't see the fights if you disagree, they were the kind of fighters who were GREAT at an older age). Past prime (Former greatest puncher ever)Joe Louis was still a very good boxer because of his experience and the power he still possesed. He was still dangerous because of his punching. He was better than most fighters Liston fought.

Liston beat a smaller scared to ****less Patterson. Ofcource, that was his best win but overall, but Marciano fought way better competition and anyone who knows boxing would agree.

Butterfly, again you show how biased you are. Patterson fought Ali, so therefore he's better than anyone Marciano fought huh You don't even have to defend yourself, we know.

[SuzieQ49]

its been proven moore was born in 1916

[Kid Achilles]

Really this could go on for a very long time but I'll just say it was very close. Charles and Walcott were both better than Patterson IMO, even at the advanced ages that Marciano fought them at. Patterson had the talent but a less than stellar defense as well as the frailest chin of any heavyweight champion.

To be honest I think Liston beating Williams in three and then two rounds is more impressive than his defeats of Patterson. Williams was a legitimate all time heavyweight puncher IMO and everyone who fought him had great respect for his power. His own chin wasn't very solid and that is the kiss of death at heavyweight.

Zora Folley had great skill but was neither a big man nor a big puncher and losing to Brian London and Henry Cooper on points does not bode well for his standing as a great contender.

Eddie Machen was another solid contender and very good defensive boxer but again getting wiped out in one round by Ingemar Johansson tells you all you need to know about his chin.

Liston had an impressive march on the way to the top and really gave Floyd no chance whatsoever of winning in their fights. Liston is very underrated and I consider him in his prime a better and all around more dangerous fighter than Foreman (I can see the flames flickering in the distance).

However Marciano beat Charles, one of the greatest P4P fighters of all time, and Jersey Joe Walcott who pulled a Buster Douglas performance and fought the fight of his life, as well as underrated contenders on his way up like Rex Layne, Kid Matthews, and Roland LaStarza. These were guys who were very respected as prospects and contenders and may have won the title had they not been ruined by Marciano.

It's a close call but I think I may have to give it to Liston by a hair based on the youth, strength, and size of his opposition. However Charles, IMO Marciano's greatest opponent (and he beat him twice) was better than anyone Liston beat.

[SuzieQ49]

folley had good power. he defintley packed some wallop in his fists. he was a skilled boxer-puncher who had very good all around boxing skills, tight defense, and good power.


however he had one HUGE downfall: he had a glass jaw





- folley flattened henry cooper in the rematch

[SuzieQ49]

cleveland williams is defintley a very good heavyweight and was a huge powerful all time puncher. top 50 heavyweight for sure



but patterson wins are defintley more impressive. patterson was an all time great heavy, top 20 all time. liston put him out twice for 10 counts. ONLY TIME in pattersons career he was ever down for full 10 count was both liston fights. patterson was the better heavy than cleveland williams

[Kid Achilles]

Patterson was the better heavyweight than Williams in terms of accomplishments and talents but man did he freeze against Liston. No way did he fight his best in that fight. He was just not in his element against a big intimidating heavy punching heavyweight like Liston. Williams fought back hard and tested Liston's chin and that's why I consider the wins over Williams as being more impressive. The Patterson who fought Liston (both times) was not the same one who nearly killed Ingo and bombed out Moore. It's like judging Golota entirely by the way he was KO'ed in one round against Lewis. Patterson did not fight to his best potential against Liston IMO.

Patterson was the better fighter than Williams when you compare their careers but against Liston, Patterson did not perform like the better fighter.