View Full Version : Marciano - fresh eyes...
06-16-2005, 04:31 PM
Last night I actually had the time to sit down and watch the Marciano/Walcott fight from start to finish on Classic. Here are my thoughts.
Marciano was very tough. He took a pretty good shot. I say pretty good because this was Walcott hitting him, not a prime Louis, Dempsey, Foreman or Tyson. Walcott was a pretty decent banger but not an all time banger. I cannot really say off hand any bigger hitters than Walcott that Rocky faced.
Marciano had a big heart and had great stamina. He was still fresh after 12 rounds of action. He was able to keep his power late into the fight.
All this being said, to rate him as one of the top all time heavyweights is crazy if you ask me. I'd rate him as one of the all time cruiserweights. I simply think his lack of size combined with his deecnt but still average speed would simply put him at way too much of a disadvantage when going up against the best of the best.
It's interesting to see how much history alters perception. The fight itself was a tough fight but by no means a great fight. Walcott was still a very cagey fighter but after the first few rounds he fought like a great 37 year old man. He fought on spirts. He could not sustain a consistent fast pace so had to resort to all means of economizing his strength.
After watching this fight I feel more than ever that when rating all time greats we really should rate the Dempseys, Tunneys, Marcianos and so on as cruiserweights even thought without question they could beat many of the bigger men. I just think it works better as a whole.
06-16-2005, 09:42 PM
Based on how well a very old Louis did against Marciano I would pick him to easily outpoint or stop the rock. Some people are going to have a knee jerk reaction and say "nobody handles the rock EASILY". Im sorry but Louis pounded Rockys face into hamburger with ONLY his jab. If Louis had those dynamite combinations working like he did in his prime its an easy fight. Louis broke Marcianos nose, blackened both of his eyes, and knocked out some of his teeth. This was a prime Marciano and Louis far past his best. Most agree that Louis was never the same after the war and had probably seen his peak in the late 30s or early 40s. Marciano doesnt handle that dynamo.
06-16-2005, 09:43 PM
Of my two all time favorite fantasy match ups one is Dempsey-Marciano. Weight wise they were roughly equal & I can't imagine a better match up than those two ...
As to Marciano's level in the pantheon based on accomplishments & body of work alone, Marciano deserves to be right up there with anybody. The reality though is that he was a 185 pound 5'10-11? fighter.
It's hard to imagine him beating a Foreman, Liston, Ali, Bowe, Holyfield, or Lewis in their primes. The size differential is huge & it's not like the Rock would make up for it with speed.
But then I think of a small welter like Basilio actually beating Robinson. Or a much smaller Holyfield beating Bowe, or a natural lightweight like Sweet Pea winning a jr. middle belt or Dick Tiger a 5'8 natural middle fighting at barely above middleweight, winning the light heavy title at not only an advanced (for those days) age but in the begining stages of the cancer that would kill him & you gotta wonder ...
Boxing is really more mental than physical & Marciano's sheer grit & tenacity has to count for something. But logic tells me different, even though I well know that logic & boxing have only a passing acquaintance with each other.
So my answer is I don't know. I'm not trying to be a fence sitter but I've seen much smaller fighters do amazing things. But in my heart of hearts I really do have a hard time imagining Marciano being competetive with those much bigger, highly skilled heavyweights.
& oh yeah, my other all time favorite fantasy match up is, LaMotta v. Fullmer.
06-16-2005, 11:00 PM
I'm too busy to comment in detail but I basically agree (with some reservation) I've always thought a prime Foreman-Marciano would be a knocked from one side of the ring to another one-sided affair. Tho a Frazier-Rock scrap has always intrigued me.
I've just always stopped short of any definitive verdict based on your parameters.
IMO Ali-Dempsey would be one hell of a scrap (perhaps THE greatest Ali matchup with a former champ)
Tunney-Tyson (ok, maybe a stretch here) but if Gene gets the stick and move thing working, Tyson is in for a long night as long as da big bomb doesn't come crashing down.
Dempsey-Frazier (Joe a slow starter-who knows?)
As I run out of ideas here (prime Louis/Rock would have been a real scrap)
My $0.02 (you guys know more than me)
06-17-2005, 12:08 AM
I think it is unfair to rate heavyweights as cruiserweights. Despite the size differences, they legitimately fought heavyweights and beat them. While there is a weight differential, that doesn't mean there aren't advantages to being smaller as well. Like when Conn boxed Louis silly and would have won if he didn't get careless. Or Dempsey flattening Willard, etc. Smaller fighters like Rocky clearly would have the stamina advantage over the bigger fighters if they were to fight. In the Walcott-Marciano fight you mentioned, Walcott had to economize his output. This is not just a function of age, but of carrying more weight. Marciano was relentless in the fight.
I just think there is a slippery slope if we start rating heavies as cruisers based on weight. For instance, Rock was 185-190 and Holyfield in his prime was 205-210, a 20lb difference. How is that different than Holyfield-Bowe with Bowe at 235, Holyfield at 205, a 30lb difference? Should Holyfield or Joe Louis be classified separately than Bowe or Lennox Lewis or Jess Willard for that matter, just based on weight? To me, heavyweight is heavyweight and a fighter like Rocky Marciano would have found a way to beat some of these guys because of his greater heart and desire in the ring, and the excellent leverage he got on his punches. He legitimately is a Top 10 heavyweight and would have been a champion in most eras of boxing.
06-17-2005, 12:09 AM
Well with the crap pile that is today's heavyweight division he'd certainly be a champ. I believe he would either demolish Klit or force him to quit. The pressure & work rate of The Rock would be too much for him. & remember Klit is NOT that big a banger because he's an arm puncher & about as fluid as concrete.
I think he would collapse from the sheer exhaustion of carrying that big carcass around with the pressure being put on him by Rocky.
06-17-2005, 01:10 AM
I want to stress this...I have huge respect for Marciano...Walcott came out in that fight trying to tear his head off. He was lightning fast and hit real good. Rocky took some huge shots. I always thought the knockdown in the first was a one punch thing but it wasn't. Rocky was staggered by a nasty right first. Reguardless, he did not cave. He hung real tough and came back firing. He was no white slow moving tomato can built up on a soft record that folds when facing a hell of a champ. I'm just saying that I don't see him surviving the same from a prime Tyson or Foreman. As far as Louis goes, please. Joe went almost 8 with him when he was shot. An even fight for 6. Louis would have torn his head off. I also dream of a Dempsey/Marciano fight but I favor Dempsey. Too fast, too hard hitting, too fast starting and just as tough. I do rate Marciano as a top ten cruiser and feel he would be very tough and always dangerous for any of them.
06-17-2005, 08:28 AM
Dnahar...some strong points about the weight differences. My only point is that you have to cut it somewhere or why have weight divisions at all. Why not leave it one open class and have the best man win ?
06-17-2005, 08:29 AM
I agree with Dhnar. You can't suddenly **** with history & abruptly turn Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano, etc. into cruisers. Not only does it not make sense it's untrue. Especially when for instance, both Dempsey & Marciano proved they could beat/ko much bigger men.
In their day those guys WERE heavyweights & that's were they should remain. You can't suddenly revise the past on a whim. Especially with a sport like boxing that has a centuries long tradition & an incredibly rich history.
06-17-2005, 01:36 PM
If you guys read what I wrote it was that he could not beat the best of the bigger men, not any bigger man.
06-17-2005, 01:37 PM
I was reading this,
I would POINT out, But saying a Prime Louis kills Rocky because it took 8 rounds for Marciano to ko a shot Louis is wrong imo. You cant relly judge on that fight on who a prime Louis vs Prime Marciano would go.
Reason, Louis being shot of couse
And Rocky not reaching his fighting peak, I belive he reach his peak around the Lastsa rematch. After the Walcott fight, Marciano change his style.
Before Walcott, Marciano would down a man with a singel blow, and always go for the ko.
After the Walcott fight, Marciano would poke and wear the guy out over the course of the fight. You see a diff fighter when you watch Marciano vs Walcott and Marciano vs Moore.
06-17-2005, 03:05 PM
This talk of Rocky or Dempsey being cruisers sure sounds silly. We'd have to rank Louis as a cruiser as well since he fought 195-200. Dempsey beat some of the biggest men to that point in history, same with Louis.
Sorry Gor, Rocky would not have a ghost of a chance against Vitali or any good big heavy. I admire the Rock greatly, but no, not a chance. Rocky really didn't face any big heavies of note and his limitations would be as obvious as his 68" reach against guys like that.
06-17-2005, 03:21 PM
Marciano KILLS any heavyweight out there today.
06-17-2005, 03:41 PM
This thread is ridiculous.
Klitschko is basically a big boob who fatigues badly after several rounds. He can't beat an overblown middleweight in Chris Byrd but yet beats Rocky Marciano, huh? Klit is not that good a fighter-and he and his brother both have stamina problems.
06-17-2005, 03:42 PM
Marciano has this problem.
He is immortalized by his unbeaten record and characterized by his great heart/will to win. This has only gone to cloud though what a decent thinking fighter he was.
It's all to do with 'aesthetics' Marciano looked crude so couple that with what the common concensus' of him and most perceptions of him (ability wise) are going to be fairly inaccurate-when you lay your eyes on the great HW.
What he did, how he and his opponents fought and what transpired in the fight's though seems to get forgotten. There is always arguments claiming Marciano did not fight top draw opponents (purely off noting their age and the numerous loss' they had) without really coming up with anything factual.
I mean most Marciano's critics draw great double standards. Everybody knows Marciano was a tremendously strong man and could really swat with either hand-these are simple known facts-then how can you say he fought 'over-the-hill' fighters when they went through such hell with him.
I believe Ezzard Charles was most likely a better LH than a HW but He was a fine HW and the fight he put up against Marciano in their first clash was inhuman and most probably his best ever performance-power shot after power shot to the body, head, arms-even to the throat.
He looked like he had been run over after the fight literally but he still stood-how you can question his opposition after such brutality is crazy.
Marciano's ability as a fighter has gone by greatly un-noticed.
Marciano was a brawler-you don't watch him to see a real flashy technician go to work but viewing the Rock in this supposedly intended manner of “I wanna see action and blood!” will only inadvertently make you miss his effectiveness/skill in the ring.
The other day I put Marciano vs. Walcott I on and was startled at the amount of jabs he slipped, he crouched and kinda slithered along the floor while looking to pounce inside/force him to the ropes. As he slipped he used his right parrying hand to push the jab away at the same time-it proved very effective.
Marciano was only ever really caught flush on the counter, which was from 'taking chances'-he put himself at risk to get Walcott in the position he wanted-he did not stumble forward and eat shots until he landed his.
You often do not notice but while Walcott was indeed edging the fight with the sharper work Marciano was always fighting on even terms each round and landing quality shot's through educated pressure and timing. He made Walcott brawl with him-he made him fight his fight-a great quality of Marciano's.
Like I said it is because of aesthetics and not enough viewing of Marcianos actual fights and noting what transpired. If the Rocks opponents were old/shot/past it they would have never of been able to go through those wars with him.
To summarise Marciano (as a fighter) is greatly underrated because 1) Fans don't watch him to see 'skill' and 2) in boxing they tell you HOW you should do things NOT what actually works is effective-when you look at the rock your eyes may disagree but they cannot pin down the effectivness of him-this is because he was a unorthodox fighter with a style that perfectly suited his attributes.
Charley moulded Marciano not into just a legendary champ but a great fighter who unfortunately is not given the his due's effectiveness wise because he represents something entirely different.
06-17-2005, 04:10 PM
I just wanted to comment on Jimmy's post and say how right on I think it is. I've studied as much of Marciano's technique as I can, and compared to other greats I think its serverely underrated. You always hear about his toughness and power, but never his technique.
He was very, very unorthodox and people don't know what to look for when they see him, so they relegate him as a brawler, nothing more. The reality is this man had some really unique technique to him that allowed him to make every fight his fight inside. Ezzard Charles was just one of the few who attested to it by saying how "Peculiar" Marciano's style was. Rocky had real knowledge of how to use his elbows and forearms as an offense/defensive weapon/shield He had a type of offensive shell he used to barrel into his opponents and stay relatively well defended inside, and was a master of position inside...which is one of the reasons I favor him against bigger men.
06-17-2005, 04:11 PM
I see that you're a relatively new member of the board. You got here just before we got hacked. It's obvious you know your stuff & are a serious student of the game. We like guys around here like that so let me be the first to welcome you to the board!
06-17-2005, 04:24 PM
[[[Marciano KILLS any heavyweight out there today.
Hmmm, well, how long has it been since a 185 lb heavy dominated the division?
Answer: Rocky Marciano, over 50 yrs ago
Followup: There's a damn good reason why no 185lber has cleaned up the heavy division since. Roy Jones most recently beat Ruiz, but his actual fight weight is unknown. It was probably not much over 185, but the title was just loaned to him by King who wanted him in his tournament. Roy is 1-2-0 with 2 brutal KO losses since then which should clue you in how much dominance he was capable of.
06-17-2005, 04:43 PM
The size and reach of the modern big heavy would be so difficult for one of the smaller heavies of old... Klit v. Rock? That huge reach -- how the hell do you overcome that? It's almost a matter of geometry... seems impossible for the 185 lb. fighter to prevail over a 6'8" tall man with a 78" reach...
But numbers are just numbers... And if my recollection of "The Prisoner" is correct, no man is a #... Rock isn't just a number -- not his weight, not his reach... His heart -- how am I going to calculate that? Power? Craftiness? Other intangibles? Nah -- I'll go with Rock, bobbing and weaving, pounding the body,and finding Klit's chin once in the 12-15 rounds and laying him out flat...
06-17-2005, 05:34 PM
I think if we're using Rock as the example of the small heavyweight, we should remember that he trained down to 185. He could have been 190-195 if he wanted to. A lot of the excess weight today is not muscle. Klitschko is in terrible shape compared to the Rock. All Rock would have to do is get inside, smother Klitschko's punches, keep firing, and Klitschko would tire. Plus, Rocky Marciano always came forward and got great leverage on his bombs. What does Klitschko know about defense, generating punching power, etc? The amateurish way he fights? Here's a man that was tiring against Corrie Sanders who doesn't exactly put on the pressure. What would he do against Rocky? If Jersey Joe Walcott lands the same bomb on Klitschko that he did on Ezzard Charles, it's the same result, damn the extra 50 pounds. Ali summed it up best. When addressing the size difference between him and Wilt for that proposed fight and what would happen, Ali simply said, "Timber!!" That's what we would see, all 6-7 of Vitali Klitschko falling to the ground at a slowly accelerating rate.
In general, just because a 185lb hasn't been heavyweight champion recently, doesn't mean it can't be done. It's just frowned on today. Jones was pressured into putting on more weight than he should have because of "media" thoughts and today's perception that he would get beat if he was too small. And you know how ignorant the general sports media is about boxing. Jones was not 193 pounds stripped, he was less than that. A 185lb Toney or Jones would have beat Ruiz as well. The only difference with the 185lb fighter is that he would have to be a great fighter to overcome the weight difference and win, while the bigger fighter can get away with less talent and make more mistakes to win simply because of weight. Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney, Langford, etc. are the kind of special smaller fighters that could do it.
06-17-2005, 07:17 PM
GorDoom, thank you very much, sir. I'm just a baby compared to you guys in knowledge and expertise, so I'm here to listen and learn first and foremost. I love combat sports/arts, and try and study the greats of these fields so I can take something from them and put it in my own, much lesser technique. Practice helps, but so does study and that's why I'm glad to be a part of the board. Thanks again.
06-17-2005, 07:53 PM
I agree that Rocky Marciano had alot more skill
than a regular brawler. Yes, Marciano was far
from being graceful, but he knew how to fight.
Another boxer who had underrated skills was
Carmen Basilio, who also was far from being
- Chuck Johnston
06-17-2005, 09:26 PM
If you think about it Basilio & Marciano had almost exactly the same style. The difference was that The Rock was a murderous puncher & Basilio wasn't.
I wouldn't call this thread silly & it has evoked some excellent responses.
I appreciate Grant's point re the rationale behind having weight divisions in the first place. I'll further that point by quoting the axiom "A good big man beats a good little man". With all other things being equal, size will make the difference.
However, the die has been well & truly cast for the Dempseys, Louis etc. not just as HWs but as Great HW Champs, with all the meaning that went along with that prestigious title in each man's given era. The best of the biggest. Literally the most superior fighter (not necessarily the p4p greatest) across all divisions.
Another thing. At 185 lb or so, they were approaching the weight (if not already there, with their transcendant p4p pwer in mind) at which they could hurt any opponent notwithstanding that opponent's weight advantage (note - it seems that we're only really looking at the elite p4p punchers among yesteryear's smaller HWs). However, getting to their dimensionally larger & heavier opponent & absorbing their return fire in the mean time is another thing again.
Also, it's one thing to imagine the absolute prime Dempsey in a one off bout against say, the much larger Lewis. It's another thing again to imagine Jack viably fighting men of comparable size and skill on a consistent basis.
So that leaves us with past HW champs who cannot (& will never be) reduced to cruisers but who would suffer for (but not necessarily lose because of) their size disadvantage. Rather than leaving them in limbo, that's where a measure of p4p perspective may be factored into their being rated alongside the best of the big men that followed them.
For argument's sake, let's say that I could actually envisage Marciano and Ali fighting to a draw or near enough to. If based only upon that point of ref., I would rate them equal at HW but for obvious reasons I would rate Rocky as the greater p4p fighter. Depending on how I wanted to work it, I might rate Ali & Rocky equal at HW or put Rocky above Ali because of p4p considerations. That way, we can have our cake and eat it too & past HW champs can remain in their rightful place, size notwithstanding.
Anyway, I hope some of that made a modicum of sense.
06-18-2005, 12:00 AM
Jeri Curl aka Overhand Right
07-01-2005, 10:10 AM
Yeah but one of the main reasons heavies are bigger these days are the more modern & advanced training techniques & vitimins & diet etc.
If we transported Rock to the current era under these conditions he would surely be about 215- 220 wouldnt he? Big enough to mix & hurt any heavy, and also with the stamina & toughness lacking in a lot of recent fighters.
His determination would be a big prob for many of the 80s & 90s & current heavies too.
Am i right or am i wrong?
07-01-2005, 04:18 PM
roland la starza took so many shots to the arms and shoulders against marciano that he finaly-gladly gave up his head.
wasn't it against little chris byrd that the big klit quit because of a sore shoulder?
i see rocky going up his nose holes and klit quitting like a dog.
as for calling them cruiser weights...just don't. with the putrified slabs of meat competing at heavy today i am of the opinion that anyone over 200 lbs. should be asked to take up something else. bunch of overblown jerks that i ain't gonna pay to see. sorry.
07-01-2005, 07:25 PM
1) Dempsey did consistenly go up against big guys. The average HW today isn't taller anyway, just heavier.
2) I think Jack would have an EASIER time against guys like McCline, Whitaker, Rahman etc. then against the crafty smaller men like Miske and Gibbons that Jack had some problems with. With their slow punches and awful stamina, I see someone like Dempsey or Louis having a field day with today's heavier, less skilled heavyweights. Cruiserweight is a division that is a joke and will always be so . . it's basically a haven not for small heavyweights but for blown up light HWs.
07-02-2005, 12:47 AM
Evander Holyfield went from the cruiserweights to
the heavyweights with a great deal of success.
At his peak, Holyfield would have a field day
with today's heavies. Like Marciano, Holyfield
had the intangibles that are essential for
greatness in boxing.
- Chuck Johnston
07-02-2005, 02:09 AM
Well, like tattoos and Micheal Jackson media coverage, it's fashionable to slam today's heavies.
Claiming the 185 lb Marciano would weigh 220 today and clean up the division, then surely it follows that Jess Willard would weigh 300 and blow the division up, right?
Let's see, Holy was so great that he had diabetic Douglas lay down for him, ran from old man Foreman, got beat up by late sub journeyman Cooper, tied up by ancient Holmes, and loses his belt to mighty mental midget Bowe and Holy would clean out today's heavy division?
No wonder Holy won't retire!
Jeri Curl aka Overhand Right
07-02-2005, 10:13 AM
Robert man, your recollection is very poor.
Those guys you think beat Holyfield actually got their asses completely kicked & you know it.
To say Bert Cooper "beat up" Holyfield because of his 30 seconds of glory in rd 3... Whatever man.
07-02-2005, 04:53 PM
ran from Foreman??? He basically went toe to toe the whole fight and had Foreman seriously hurt on more then once occasion . . .I agree Roberto's recollection must be poor.
07-02-2005, 05:41 PM
Roberto, AKA MacDittoCom on AOL's boxing board, has never forgiven Holyfield for beating Foreman and Tyson.
07-02-2005, 05:56 PM
I agree that you boys don't know boxing. Holy fought a smart hit and run fight against George. About the only combination he stood in to throw in the fight was a quick and sudden burst of 10 or so punches that stopped George's forward momentum briefly and then Holy went back into retreat. George was the one who had Holy in trouble, but lacked the footspeed to catch him for the KO.
Like I say, Holy fought a smart fight, but watch the Lewis fights and compare the difference. Holy attempted to outmuscle the bigger Lewis and move in close. Big, big difference in style, but it may be lost on those who don't know.
Regardless, Holy struggled in the heavy division for most of his fights and finished with a 10-5-2 record which is hardly clearing out the division in his prime. I was a big fan of his, but I don't look at him through rose colored glasses. Likely he was 'roided out for much of his career and clearly delusional at the end.
07-05-2005, 04:11 PM
Regarding Marciano's style:
While looking through some old boxing magazines recently I found an interesting Tommy Loughran interview by Murray Olderman. The 1956 article was entitled “Today’s Fighters! They’re Better Than We Were” Here is Loughran’s take on Rocky Marciano.
Quotes: (1) “When Rocky Marciano threw punches every part of his body moved. He didn’t get hit as much as people thought, he was a moving target.” (2) “By now it should be clear that Rocky Marciano had a little something extra besides stamina and determination. In his very crudeness as a boxer he was able to protect himself. He rates second to me only to Dempsey, in my book. He beat Joe Louis when the latter was an old man, but he could have beaten Joe as a young man, too. Rocky’s greatness came from his crudeness. You watch the average boxer. When he throws a left jab or crosses with a right, the body moves but the head remains in the same plane in the classic tradition. Rocky defied all conventions. When he threw a punch every part of him moved. His head, instead of being stationary, became a moving target, bobbing and weaving, and any rifleman can tell you how much more difficult it is to hit a deer in flight, than a bulls eye nailed down on the firing range. Marciano didn’t get hit as much as people presume.”
I thought it was interesting considering the source.
07-05-2005, 05:20 PM
I'm no fan of the giant heavyweights, but they are tough to fight. A great old time heavy might well beat one of today's best but could a 185-205 pound fighter give up 4 or more inches and 30-60 pounds every fight and continue to win? For a Marciano or Dempsey or Louis to fight today just as they were, they would be giving up height and weight every time out.
The Klitschkos and some of the other giant fighters are not circus freaks who turned to boxing. They were top amatuers. They might not be fun to watch, but they are at the top for a reason, they are effective.
Tye Fields is the other type of giant heavyweight. The strong man/giant who decided to give boxing a try. He probably won't be champion, but on size and strength alone he beaten some decent fighters. Guys like him have always been dangerous opponents. Mike "The Giant" White has some decent wins on his resume and he was not as physically imposing as Fields. Valuev (sp?) is another giant who has beaten some decent opponents.
It is popular to denigrate today's heavyweights, but it would be tough to get to and stay at the top of the heavyweight ranks today. Big, strong boxers have always been tough to fight, and today there are a lot of them.
07-13-2005, 01:18 AM
Naf is correct as always. Look at Bowe. With is size, he cleaned up on the smaller man like Holyfiled. too much girth to overcome. Check out how easy a time he had with Fergueson and Cooper. And i don't have to tell you what he would have done to Frazier.
07-13-2005, 01:56 PM
How can you seriously compare Fergussan and Cooper to Joe Frazier? That's like saying a 60 lb black lab is the equivalent of a pitbull because they weigh approximately the same.
07-13-2005, 03:12 PM
I agree with the premise of Loughran's comments on Rocky. Had Rocky tried to fight more conventionally, he would never have acheived so much. Probably Rocky was being hit as much as people thought though, but his style tended to deflect much of the power because he made his fights such close up wars.
BTW, speaking of unfair refs and all, one of Archie Moore's complaints was that Rocky received additional time from the ref when he was knocked down. Rocky beat the count easily, but the ref appeared to have delayed resumption of the action by several seconds from what I understand. Any thoughts on that?
07-13-2005, 07:05 PM
In hindsight it's somewhat of a moot issue since the ref later gave Moore the extra time as well (and he needed it as he went down several times later in the fight). It would have been a different matter alltogether if there had been a double standard with only Marciano receiving the full 8 count.
07-14-2005, 02:19 AM
What was so different about them? Fergy was coming off a nice win over Mercer that got him in line for his title shot with Bowe. didn't last long with Bowe though!
Cooper was about the same weight as Smokin Joe when he faced Ali? They had similar fighting styles. Both got hit a lot. They both folded quickly when faced with a bigger, stronger man. used the left hook heavily. Was trained by Joe and even looked a lot like Joe.
In fact, Cooper was a little more versatile than Frazier. he had a pretty good right hand and liked to rumble a lot.
Loved his fight with Moorer.
I really don't think that Joe could compete in the world of big men. Although a dream fight or fantasy fight with Holyfield would have been fascinating. it would be billed as "The battle of the hookers".
Anyways, i told you how they compare. Tell me how they differ?
07-14-2005, 03:43 PM
Cooper was a crack addict . . didn't have near the stamina or work-rate of Joe . . .had a much lesser chin. To compare him in any equitable way to Joe Frazier is laughable . . Joe did face bigger stronger men (Bonavena, Ali, Mathis, Chuvalo) and did pretty well.
07-18-2005, 04:15 PM
The Rock was smaller than the guys now......But hed murder them all. Too much man. Too much mental toughness. Too much fighting maturity.
07-18-2005, 04:17 PM
Id also like to comment that Marciano is the most athletic of all the modern champs. Watch the films and youll see the amazing postures he takes to slip and then counter. Very athletic guy. A natural athlete who gets unfairly nailed as being "uncoordinated". yeah.
08-06-2005, 05:06 PM
You say too small and I say Barry Sanders everytime. Rocky had the heart of a lion. Size don't mean squat. Guts means everything. Maricano was a fighter that had guts.
Klitschko would be gone in 60 seconds. His hands are slow than Moore's was, he doesn't hit as hard as Walcott, and he doesn't have better stamina than the Louis that Rocky KO'ed.
Unless we are prepared to call Klischko a great heavyweight fighter we should leave him and Rocky out of the same sentence.
Rocky was a patient fighter. He was trapped in his height and weight, but he boxed smart. He leaned back shuffling in behind his guard. He bobbed and weaved a bit but not too much. He didn't like to waist much energy. He looked for openings and fired hard everytime he found one. Not many could take two or three shots from Maricano in a row.
He was always in great shape and was ready to go all the way to round 50. Split nose and all, lets go.
08-08-2005, 02:16 PM
Who is Barry Sanders?
08-08-2005, 05:08 PM
On another thread I stated mny thoughts on Rock but I will ad that many of today's heavies are bigger only because they are lazy. ONLY! Look at rahman; the one time he trained like a professional in the last seven years, he weighed around 220 for Holyfield.
08-08-2005, 06:04 PM
you are comparing apples and oranges: Barry was 5'8'' 220 lbs, and his low center of gravity made it nearly impossible to tackle him ( i am a die hard packer fan, this guy has given me headache after headache ). while i agree with you that rocky would defeat klit, i do believe size matters. Rocky is great, but i think big, strong defensive fighters would give him a lot of trouble BECAUSE of their size and strength ( jeffries, johnson, ali and lewis for instance ).
08-08-2005, 08:35 PM
I have no problem with Maricano losing to Johnson,Ali, or Lewis. Maricano doesn't lose to these guys because of a weight difference though. Those guys were just better fighters. Put Rocky into today mix and he goes 49-0-49KO's.
The point about Barry Sanders is that he was super small compared to the players who were trying to kill him, but he still found a way to be the greatest running back of all-time.
(I was too late for Walter's prime but from what I saw he was a tough, tough runner, and from his stats he was a great receiver. Although Sanders wasn't a good reciever he was a better runner than Walter. Give Barry Aikman, Irvin, the offensive line and Jimmy Johnson...Barry might have hit 3000 in a season.)
Sorry but it too close to the season. Starting to get the fever.
08-08-2005, 10:22 PM
Please, boxing is not football. There is no comparison other than both require a degree of strength, skill, and athleticism. Pingpong might well be a closer sport to boxing but I would not be so ridiculous to bring up great pingpong players to justify a boxing point.
Sorry, but there is too much hype over Rocky. One of my favs for sure, but he was also lucky to come along in the right era for his success and retire at the perfect time. He would struggle mightily against all the greats, some of whom would not struggle with him at all.
There is nothing in Rocky's history that suggest he could handle a prime Tyson or Vitali. Like I said, put a prime Tyson into Rocky's era in 6oz gloves and you'd have murder in the ring.
It's popular to pick on Tyson since he been circling the drain for the past 14 yrs or to pick on Vitali with clever Soviet style Lurchisms, but it takes a quick, durable pseudo Ali type fighter like Byrd every oz of his being just to hang in with these big guys today and Rocky is much more hittable than Byrd. I think he could handle the cruiser division, but most of those champs would be more prime than he's used to and larger as well.
Please, if you have to resort to football to make a boxing point, you've lost your point and are in the wrong sport.
08-09-2005, 12:11 AM
oberto, very honest and right on about Rocky...said with all respect to the man.
08-09-2005, 07:46 AM
First off all don't even try that lame stuff. I'll take about any sport I want. If I want to compare to sports I will.
What worst? Saying that Maricano would lose to Klischko or, saying that even though he was small for his position (runningback, Heavyweight) like Sanders he was still a all-time great.
Where is the evidence that Mike would beat the Rock. Who has Mike beat even close to Rocky's class. If you bring up Holmes and Spinks I'm going to lose it. Mike whooped a bunch of cans that Rocky would have whooped to. I don't think Mike would have beaten Walcott, and me might have lost to Charles as well.
Saying Klistchko couild beat Marciano is almost a capital offense. Who as Klischko proven himself against? Corrie Sanders, Danny Williams? The only fighter that you mentioned that would lose to Frankstein is Tyson. Heck, I'd take Rahman, Tua, and Toney over Klischko and they all suck.
I'm done with you homeboy. Make a list of guys around here who think the same thing a promise you I will ignore every post you guys make from here on out.
08-09-2005, 07:47 AM
I agree with JLP here concerning Marciano.
Klitschko is basically an ordinary pug who has a history of quitting and fatigues very, very quickly, IMO.
He's a good fighter-but I wouldn't call him outstanding, no way.
08-09-2005, 11:01 AM
JLP: Holmes and Spinks were, even at that point, probably as good or better than anyone Rock fought. Ever.
08-09-2005, 01:47 PM
One of the reasons I stopped posting on the fantasy fight board is the lack of objective reasoning skills to evaluate the projected matchups. Obviously there are very experienced savvy historian types who provide good context to support their positions, but there seems to be the kneejerk new school or old school types who lack a historical foundation and context and get pushy about things.
Boxing has gone through eras, the major ones being the bare knuckled, then early gloved, intermediate gloved, and finally a late gloved era. Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, and Rocky did not have 12rd mandatory title fights in 10 oz gloves with eagle eyed refs and docs ready to waive a fight at the first sign of blood or knockdown. Nor have Vitali and Tyson had the luxury of sub 200 lb heavies and middleweights like many heavy champs in the past have had.
As soon as one of those fantasy matchups goes up, it's almost a guarantee that ring and fight conditions are never specified, or, when they are, they are ignored. These are important assets that are vigorously negotiated by the competing camps, and as much as not one fighter will have a big edge in conditions before stepping into the ring. The resulting dialogue is comparing apples to oranges to decide which is better. Then you get into the fighter's corner, primes, peaks, overall records and other matchup factors.
Go ahead and bring up football to say why Rocky would beat whomever. I don't post on football boards and don't even like the sport any more. Maybe I should bring up womens boxing as to why Tyson would beat whomever in a "tit" for tat kneejerk response and watch the subsequent digression, but I ain't here for digression. I get a bellyfull of that every election cycle. Don't count me out of boxing, but I'll bench myself during football scrimmage and let the scrubs battle it out.
I will say this, I do post on many baseball boards, and some very intelligent folks recognized a few years back that they needed and wanted a credible way to compare players of different eras, and came up with various statistical innovations that are possible because of the vast stats baseball has always kept. The Holy Grail they ain't, but they are amazing when compared to each other and come up with the expected results with some great surprises and forces a new understanding of the game.
You don't see that in boxing because the core fan base is smaller and the historical record is less reliable because of a historical lack of central organization. So I do appreciate the historical perspective of those in the know more than I and hope I haven't offended too many, but mainly, just say NO to football on the boxing board!
08-09-2005, 02:21 PM
[[[In Rocky's era heavyweights used 8 oz. gloves not 6 oz.]]]
It's my understanding that as late as the mid 60s NY specified a 6oz mandatory glove size in title fights. Perhaps one of our historians can weigh in on this since most of Rocky's title fights were in NY.
08-09-2005, 02:22 PM
You might be right , i have to say that i don't know about N.Y. , i know that here in California back then , the time we are talking about ( 1950's ) 6 oz. gloves were used from 112 lbs. to 147 lbs., over 147 lbs. it was 8 oz gloves , title fights an none title fights
08-09-2005, 02:44 PM
In Rocky's era heavyweights used 8 oz. gloves not 6 oz.
08-09-2005, 03:19 PM
"Sorry, but there is too much hype over Rocky. One of my favs for sure, but he was also lucky to come along in the right era for his success and retire at the perfect time. He would struggle mightily against all the greats, some of whom would not struggle with him at all."
08-09-2005, 08:00 PM
OK, name the ballet dancer that shows what a good fighter Robinson was.
In the meantime, Tyson was 19 yrs old when he challenged an experienced 28 yr old former title contender, knocked him down, and won a UD. Go find me a 19 yr old heavy who handled better comp than that.
That should keep you busy for, oh, the rest of your life. Make sure to drink plenty of water and use plenty of bug spray!
08-09-2005, 08:01 PM
Any other conversation Tillis would be call a bum. Not a former contender, a bum.
I give you the name of that ballet dancer when you convince me how Klitschko beats Rocky.
08-09-2005, 09:01 PM
Roberto I compared boxing and football, some people have compared Robinson to ballet dancers. Get over it.
Now since you have so much to say and so much intelligent convince me how Klitschko who's best win is over Corrie Sanders and Danny Williams, best fight is getting his eye turned into a bloody mess by Lennox, and worst loss is quitting against Chris friggin' Bryd is going to beat blood and guts true champion Maricano. Klischko is not even the undesputed champ. He babysitting the title. He's going to beat Rocky?
Crold, Spink quit in the first round of his fight with Mike and Holmes was too old to get past the sixth round with Mike. Henry Tillis did better against Mike that both those two. Henry Tillis did better.
08-09-2005, 11:31 PM
Tillis was on a three fight losing streak coming into that fight with Tyson... he had 8 total losses at that point... he was definitely way past it...
As for good 19 year old heavies... Floyd Patterson wasn't too bad... but I can't think of too many others... they mature so much later...
08-10-2005, 12:49 AM
It's a winless argument Roberto...with all respect to Marciano...to guys like this I simply ask why there are any weight divisions at all ?
08-10-2005, 10:14 AM
Roberto ,were you trying to say that Tyson was green when he fought Tillis? Because if you were I'm having a big problem with that. Most people call this part of Mike's career his prime.
He was on a 19 fight KO streak coming into this bout. Mike was at his best. The begining of the famed 86-88 years or whatever.
HEGrant, I have no idea what your talking about, but let me ask you sinse your siding with Roberto, do you think Marciano losses to Klitschko? I don't think Kliischko would have even been a contender in Rocky's day. Charles and Walcott both beat this guy everytime and he'd get almost killed if he wanted a rematch with either one of them.
08-10-2005, 11:05 AM
JLP: I am a believer that smaller greats could definately defeat the much bigger guys of today based on the match up. However, I do not feel that all great small men would have achieved equal success. I place Rocky with this second group based on his style, limitations and size.
I have great respect for Rocky but feel that he was too small and too slow to beat very good guys that are sixty pounds heavier. Rocky occupies a unique place in history for many reasons. He was courageous. He was a slugger. He was a great white heavyweight champion at a time that hinged history. He fought limited opposition and big names past their best. He never fought anyone like a Liston, Frazier, Foreman or prime Tyson. He never fought anyone like an Ali or Holmes. He ducked no one. However, his timing was perfect to establish all he could with what he had.
I feel more than almost any other fighter Marciano strikes a cord with certian people. I feel that they over glorify the man. I think that is the case here.
Walcott and Charles were both great but flawed fighters. Walcott was inconsistant his entire career and had a suspect chin. Charles, a great light heavy, lacked fire and never went for broke as a heavyweight. To say either of these guys defeat a much larger, very good Klit Sr. is bit of a leap to me. Tell me Joe Louis does and I'll say I agree with you 1000%.
08-10-2005, 02:48 PM
Like I say, the obvious lack of objectivity and historical context that some display regarding fantasy fights is disheartening and certainly discourages me from wasting my time. I get instant results from modern predictions.
There are also folks who insist the moon landings were staged in the SW deserts of the US, that Mikey Jackson ain't a child molester, OJ is really innocent, the last two elected presidents really weren't draftdodgers who started unneeded wars, and that visiting aliens cloned mankind from themselves and will be returing soon to impregnate bald surrogate Raelian female volunteers to reseed the earth. I let them believe, believe you me!
08-10-2005, 05:29 PM
Roberto answer my freakin' question or leave this conversation. Marciano-Klitschko, and why you think Maricano loses.
HEGrant we'll agree to disagree. I'm not a big Maricano fan but if someone says any of the current heavyweights were too much for him I'll speak up quick.
08-10-2005, 10:04 PM
JLP: I agree that it's cool to agree to disagee. I'll also agree that I am far rom right all (or most) of th time. However, let me take a stab at Marciano/Klit...
I feel Klit Sr. is far better than most give him credit for. He is a very good athlete. He is a coordinated fighter. He has tremendous physical attributes which would be almost comical and completely unfair vs Marciano at 5'11" with a 69" reach. Klit is physically much stronger than Marciano. He has a good punch and knows how to make the most of his size advantages. While his stamina is open to question, he never died out and manages to hold it together. Most imporantly, Klit is extremely bright and determined. He is focused and takes it very serious every time he enters the ring. In adition, he has a granite chin. He took ful bombs from Lewis, a terrific puncher. He took great blasts from Saunders, a great puncher.
08-10-2005, 10:04 PM
It is round 13 in a tough fast paced bout. Two more to go. Who do you think finish the bout stronger?
My guess it won't be the 6'8" 250+ pound guy.
08-11-2005, 10:56 AM
My guess is that it would never get to round 13..
08-11-2005, 06:46 PM
Come on, I can see guys like Lewis and possibly even Bowe giving Marciano a lot of trouble . . .but Vitali Klitschko???
The guy who was panting after 4 rounds with a fat golfer in Corrie Sanders,and after 8 rounds in which Sanders showed as much activity as Hugh Hefner without the Viagra, was literally hyper-ventilating many minutes after the bout was over???? Sanders is a guy who in shape would be about 210 lbs at 6'4. I think the rock solid Marciano, who had the stamina of 5 men (and that's not hyperbole . . .watch his fights) would easily outlast the brother sr. Klitschko is a smart, tough fighter who's under-rated by several big name boxing scribes, but in with a guy who'll make him work 3 minutes of each round and who would work that big body of his . . .forget about it.
08-11-2005, 10:37 PM
But that's the point Hagler; he was 6'4 and could land. What is Rock gonna' hit. Personally, I think he could get to Vitali's body and KO him late; I'd pick Dempsey to damn near kill Vitali; hell, I'm not sure Mormeck couldn't give Vitali hell. But it would be the toughest physical test Vitali or Rock had ever faced.
08-11-2005, 10:56 PM
Who is the best fighter Rocky Marciano beat at the time Rocky fought him ? I'd like to know ...
Was it 37 year old Louis, 35 year old Charles or 42 year ol Moore ?
08-11-2005, 10:57 PM
Be fair He; the most impressive fights og Klit's career were 38 year old Lewis and 38 year old Sanders
08-12-2005, 05:51 AM
If weight mattered so much how come Rocky won the title in the first place. He did beat some guys who weight 40 more pounds than him.
It's more than weight. Vitali would deffinatly not be the hardest hitter that Rocky faced. It goes the route win or lose.
08-12-2005, 12:33 PM
Vitali has some tools to give the rock a few problems but the guy is not adept in the slightest at fighting on the back foot and he really lacks a classical defence-blocking/parrying etc.
Marciano would slip underneath his jab and bang away at his body. Go re-watch Marciano's first duel with Walcott and you'll be amazed at the amount of jabs he slips-bear in mind how fast an accurate Walcott's was.
Marciano's pace and range of engagement would be the decisive factors as Vitali is unable to get his shots off and starts to run out of gas down the home stretch and either get's taken out late or battered to a points loss.
10-25-2005, 01:47 PM
I rewatched the fight again last night on classic...I remain having mixed feelings about Marciano...for much of the fight, Walcott really teed off on him...I mean he hit hit with many tremendous shots...without question, Marciano was tough as nails. He was very tough and durable. He had a hell of a chin. Walcott could really sock when he planted his feet and threw...Louis or Charles both would have agreed to it...in addition, the shot he landed in the 13th, after such a long and grueling fight was exceptional...Walcott was lucky he was not permently hurt from it....still, I cannot help but think if he fought a better fighter than Walcott he more than likely would not have survived...A Liston or Forman or Tyson simply had the styles to really hurt a guy that could get hit like that...Louis as well...however, against guys that were not murderous hitters say like Ali, Holmes, Holyfield and many others, despite the size difference, Marcaino would have been very competitive. He may not have won but man he would have been dangerous all the way...
The two dream Marciano fights for me would have been Frazier and Dempsey...what wars !!!
10-25-2005, 02:29 PM
'Jersey' Joe will always be viewed as just a good HW by most, but the majority his career was a constant up hill struggle infested with financial problems (constricting his boxing career).
He was taken out by Ettore/Simon while winning, but he ran out of gas due to his poor lifestyle (often not training!). If Blackburn continued to train Walcott instead of going to Louis his record would be far prettier and his fighting prowess would be far more revered (just like it should be from fans looking at the film instead of going along with the general concensus/staring at his record).
When healthy and conditioned Walcott was only ever taken out by Louis/Marciano-two of the greatest punchers in HW history.
You can't watch the first Marciano fight and conclude Walcott had a weak chin. In that fights it's for all to see that he had some sturdy whiskers and could fight on even terms with a tremendous slugger before falling fate to a perfectly timed right.
'Jersey' Joe (with all cylinders pumping) would create some shocks against the commonly ranked greats, I'm sure.
10-25-2005, 05:00 PM
late to this post, js is right as usual imo. walcott in shape to me was in the top 10 ever heavys- hell just watch that film.they dont fold when hit, every punch hurts, these guys were tough well schooled fighters who would make you miss and make you pay- and at least try to figure you out and create openings.
10-25-2005, 05:48 PM
I by no means discounted Walcott...he was a hell of a fighter...however, to say he did not train up to the best of his ability for the Louis rematch through Marciano 2 is a stretch...like many , many other fighters (most) he had a difficult road. No one can say he did not have a good chin...Rocky hit him with many good shots over the length of the bout and Joe took them....the one that took him out would have taken out many and hurt all....
10-25-2005, 08:55 PM
Joe boxed Maricano up for 12 rounds nicely. That right hand should have never landed. I consider Walcott right up there and I think he give Ali plenty of trouble.
10-26-2005, 12:52 AM
off the thred here, but walcott may well have defeated ali; no shame to ali;im not a big ali fan;too techniqically falwed and a cute puncher like walcott could go after both alis strenghts and weakness- that is be fast and play pitty pat as well use hard body and head shots- short or long- to win.
10-26-2005, 02:51 AM
I think that Felix Bocchicchio should be given
alot of credit for managing Jersey Joe Walcott
during the latter's glory days. Yes, I know
that Bocchicchio was regarded as a shady
character, but he turned Walcott's career
around in a big way. Walcott's career is
somewhat like Freddie Pendleton's (Please!
I am NOT saying Pendleton was as good
a fighter as Walcott. I am saying that
both Walcott and Pendleton had quite
a bit of success despite terrible starts.
- Chuck Johnston
10-27-2005, 08:59 AM
Not enough credit is ever given to the guys that got off to bad starts and somehow ended up w/ a terrific career. And, almost always, these guys are the road warriors. How many of the recent top fighters can you say that about? One hand is more than enough...
Just look at the last 20 years or so and how many of these guys cannot handle the obsticle of overcoming their initial defeat. Frontrunners and they look real good when they get the breaks. When the shoe is on the other foot, how many really overcome much?
Now imagine these guys being an Arguello and getting ko'd in there first bout. Or a Mike Weaver or Joe Walcott and rising to the top after years of obscurity and losses? Even a guy like Kallie Knoetze--lost his first 13 bouts as an amatuer in south africa where guys build tremendous amatuer records. Yet he went on to have a fine career.
I just have a real soft spot for those freddie pendleton types and usually these guys are scrutinized by their boxing records and nothing more. Anymore 5 defeats means you're a bum but it's okay to pad a record with 3rd rate opposition to build an impressive record on paper===just look at Calzaghe and Ottke.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.