Anyways, i don't really agree with the heavyweight hypos because earlier eras would have trouble agaisnt hte current era. Come on. Marciano 5-10 Paisan against 6-7 Klitchko? You really think Rock had a shot?
Maybe not, but that size is not exactly new. Primo Carnera was just under 6-6 with a longer reach than Klitchko, but still lost to Joe Louis. What gets me is some people will say you can't compare boxing eras and pooh-pooh someone like Marciano, but afterward will say Joe Louis was one of the greatest of all time, undermining their own logic. Floyd Mayweather is currently 36, close to the same Louis (age 37) lost to Marciano, but still considered at the top of his game.
Marciano beat Charles, Walcott and La Starza two times each, but I guess that isn't good enough... lol. I don't think he was the best, but better than what some people give him credit for.
I still think Tyson in his prime (with Kevin Rooney as trainer) would beat just about anyone.
Marciano was a great HW, i'd probably have him no.10 all time. Noone can say that Louis wasn't completely past it while Marciano was at his peak though. Jersey Joe had lost 7 of his 17 previous fights before fighting Marciano, not exactly prime opposition if you ask me. Moore was a great fighter but was a natural light heavyweight imo and was also a lot older than Marciano, but i give Rocky those 2 fights.
As i have already stated i believe La Starza should've won the first ffight when both were undefeated. Charles was also a natural LH, who had started his career at middleweight. His 2 victories against Ezzard were imo the best of his career. The only thing aout Charles was that he had gotten alot less aggresive after he killed that guy.
I also don't think Floyd is as good as he ever was imo his peak was from the late 90s until the mid 2000's. No argument from me about the 80's Tyson.
