The top 4 guys Marciano beat were all either at the end of long career, or pretty high in age. How would he have done against the.prime version of: Louis Charles Walcott Moore
Definitely loses to Louis and Charles. 50/50 w Walcott, he could pull it out of the bag again, or he could drop a decision. Moore has a chance, but I think Rocky's always too rough for him.
It's an unpopular opinion, but I still think Marciano beats them all, including Louis. However, in a best of three I'd pick Louis to win two. I think Marciano was really the type of guy who could rise to the occasion, at least once, even against superior opposition who should beat him. As cheesy as it sounds, I think he'd 'find a way to win' (as the forum catch phrasing goes) but Louis would adapt in rematches and Marciano wouldn't pull off the same fire again. On that note, I like matching greats in best of threes. Some of the guys in H2H match ups are too good to not pull things off at least once imo.
I don't see a reason to favour Marciano over Charles, prime for prime. Charles was well past his best and Marci put in two of his finest performances and still nearly lost. Twice. I think a younger, fresher, quicker Charles with better stamina would beat him.
That's pretty much how i see it also, but i think Moore should be favored over him. He looked so much better than him early on, that id be surprised if he couldn't beat him if he was a few years younger. Btw, does anyone know why archie moore age is all over the place? Some articles say he was 36 for the Marciano fight, and others claims he was 41. On his wikipedia page, the info are inconsitent ( born in 11 and died in 98 at 81 yo!!!!)
It's because he couldn't keep a story straight. He disagreed with his own mother on when he was born.
Moore himself said he was born in 1916. His mother however thought it was already in 1913 and that has usually been accepted as the consensus
