Well...somewhat.... And don't think the addendum makes it any better. This reasoning leads to a slippery slope heading toward mikE's ridiculous theory that the fighter with the better record is always the better fighter. To me, if a fighter is in the ring regularly against quality opposition, the chances of losing a fight are much higher than another fighter who doesn't take the same chances.
The question was best, not greatest. Charles declined quickly and steeply at heavyweight and so his overall body of work is modest but the version who beat Louis & Wallcott in the first 2 fights would probably beat Marciano, IMO. Marciano beat a nearly used up version of Charles and the first fight was even closer than the scorecards acknowledged.
Marciano's best 4 wins Moore - Chalres beat the prime version of him 4/4 Wallcot - Charles won his first 2 fights with a younger version of him dominantly. No dramatic come from behind comebacks necessary. Louis - Charles beat a less shot version than Marciano and did it 13-2 on the cards Charles himself - Charles was near used up and the first fight was still contentious. Many people thought Charles won. Though to Marciano's credit there was no question about the rematch. I just think 49-50 version of Charles is slightly a better heayweight than Marciano.
I anticipated this comeback. This is my response. Moore - Charles beat him at Lightheavyweight, irrelevant for Heavyweight discussion Walcott - Charles SPLIT four fights with Walcott, one of which he was KO'd in, Marciano stopped Walcott twice. Whether a couple years younger or not...it's not enough to reverse the edge Marciano has in terms of results vs common opponent. Louis - I tend to agree, but Marciano brutalized Louis and stopped him and so it's a wash. Louis was shot before charles also whether he was "less shot" isn't that relevant. Charles himself - Marciano won twice, end of story. No Justification to rate Charles above Marciano, even as a "better" heavyweight as opposed to "greater".
Moore - Charles beat him at Lightheavyweight, irrelevant for Heavyweight discussion If it's irrelevant it's only because the wins are so much more meaningful against a 175lb YOUNGER Moore, it doesn't even bare comparison. It's not as if Moore became better at heavyweight than Charles. Walcott - Charles SPLIT four fights with Walcott, one of which he was KO'd in, Marciano stopped Walcott twice. Whether a couple years younger or not...it's not enough to reverse the edge Marciano has in terms of results vs common opponent. Charles was never the same after the 3rd Wallcott fight, IMO. And by the time of the 4th he was moving into a run of form that saw him losing more fights against ranked contenders than he won. Charles won the first two fights decisively when both were frsh and at the period I'm taking Charles as being better than Rocky. Marciano has an edge in the 'Wallcott' department, but not one without significant astrix' beside it. Louis - I tend to agree, but Marciano brutalized Louis and stopped him and so it's a wash. Louis was shot before charles also whether he was "less shot" isn't that relevant. Not that relevant, but worth noting. Marciano doesn't really have much edge to claim in his success against louis for that reason. Charles himself - Marciano won twice, end of story. Please don't resort to this dismissive 'end of story' shit. It's really belligerent and annoying. It's probably my only pet peeve on these forums apart from people resorting to calling other folk stupid. If you don't wanna discuss the issue, just don't bring it up. 'Tarver beat Jones, end of story. He's better'. See how annoying that is? No Justification to rate Charles above Marciano, even as a "better" heavyweight as opposed to "greater" IYO. I've just given you a pretty cogent justification. Your disagreement is reasonable and noted.
As is yours Hutster. May I formerly apologize for my "End of story" remark. I can agree that this is an annoying way to discuss things.