| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
No question...also no question that Walcott, Charles and Moore (Louis as well) were all past their best days...that is why Rocky is so open to question. If he beat them all in their primes than he would be top five material without a doubt.
So you are saying standing toe to toe up close with Marciano was the 38 yr old fighter's best chance of winning . . . . . . . .(????)
Funny you bring up LaStarza as a large number of people at the time believed he beat Marciano in their first fight, which would destroy his aura of invincibility forever.
Charles was past it, Moore was past it. TO try to argue these guys were in their primes when they fought Rocky b/c you are a Rocky fan is a little juvenile. "Physical prime shit" . . . go ask any doctor sonny when a human being's physical peak is. I don't care if you are ripped to shit, no man is physically superior in their late 30s than in their late 20s. Outside factors (malnutrition, poverty, corruption) point to Walcott's inconsistant success at that age, but in no way did he buck biology and become physically better as he passed 35 years of age.
i disagree,Originally Posted by HE Grant
walcott was at/near his prime. moore was in his heavyweight prime. i rate moore # 32 greatest heavyweight of all time. moores was at his heavyweight peak when he fought marciano.
i have film of moore in mid 40s and let me tell u, moore is a better fighter in the early-mid 1950s. hes just as fast except better smarter boxer.
to say archie who was 45-1 in his last 46 fights entering the marciano bout was past his prime is laughable. moore was the # 1 heavyweight contender.
charles was past his prime but still a great fighter who put up a preformance in 1st marciano fight that would have toppled a lot of champions. louis was far past his prime but still a legite dangerous top contender.
Last edited by Elmer Ray; 04-25-2006 at 11:32 AM.
film doesnt lie, go watch archie moore vs jimmy bivins in 1947, and then go watch archie moore vs harold johnson in 1954(one year prior to marciano)
on film, archie looks better in 1954 than vs bivins in 1947.
i would love to hear how archie moore was past his heavyweight prime when he fought marciano?
archie moore was a fighter who got better with age, his record and film backs this claim up.
funny how u never mention rocky was horribly green in the lastarza I fight taken place in 1950. look what rocky did to roland lastarza in the rematch, he brutalized him breaking his arms.
lastarza said after "rocky improved 5000% since the last time i fought him."
reporter asked lastarza "what area did he improve the most"
lastarza replied "defintley his defense"
-yet marciano detractors dont have much to work with so they try to nitpick in any way. im posting facts and quotes in all my posts, hagler is posting nothing but his wild opinion.
-i want to see some proof archie moore were past his prime when he fought marciano
the biggest misconception marciano detractors make is lumping moore,charles,walcott, louis together as past there prime fighters.
it couldnt be further from the truth. you have to look at each fighter differently.
after doing much studying on film, circumstances, reports, records i came to the conclusion that archie moore and jersey joe walcott were at/near there prime and that ezzard charles was past his prime and joe louis was far past his prime
the biggest misconception marciano detractors make is lumping moore,charles,walcott, louis together as past there prime fighters.
it couldnt be further from the truth. you have to look at each fighter differently.
after doing much studying on film, circumstances, reports, records i came to the conclusion that archie moore and jersey joe walcott were at/near there prime and that ezzard charles was past his prime and joe louis was far past his prime
Hegrant to tell u the truth, after reading some of ur posts, i dont think u have done enough studying on marcianos era. if u think u have i would like a very detailed explanation on how archie moore was over the hill when he fought marciano. ur going to have trouble making ur case cause film and archie's record backs up that he got better with age.
also hagler look on page 2, i made huge paraghraps on why walcott was in his prime vs marciano, u have not responded to one thing. instead u simply continue to make ur own conjectures not providing any evidence to back ur claim up.
im telling u charles was past his prime when he fought marciano, HOWEVER archie moore was at/near his prime when he fought marciano.
Last edited by Elmer Ray; 04-25-2006 at 11:41 AM.
Elmer Ray
You want some proof Archie Moore was past his prime when he fought Marciano, the proof is in front of your eyes, his age, no fighter get better when he is 38 years old.
Frank B.
agreed.
Success does not always equal prime.
sorry Frank B. but if ur going to convince me ur going to have to do way better than that.
archie moores prime was 1947-55, if u disagree with me state ur case on why.
archie moore was 45-1 in his last 46 fights before fighting marciano and was coming off wins vs HOF harold johnson,# 1 nino valdes, # 3 bob baker, etc. after the marciano fight, archie went 28-2 and ruled the light-H division for the next 6 years and was a top heavyweight contender the next 6 years.
archie moore had a heavyweight career too. it was a long one. archie was at his heavyweight peak in the 1950s and he wiped out all the top contenders in the early-mid 1950s. i rate moore # 32 greatest heavyweight of all time, i defintley think archie was in his heavyweight prime when he fought marciano. if u disagree with me state when u think his heavyweight prime was.
are u telling me archie was in his prime when he lost all those fights in the 1940s compared to the 1950s when he lost relativley few fights usually only to ATG's?
then that means rocky would have a much easier time with a "prime" moore since he was a lot more succesful when he fought rocky.
state ur case on when archie moores heavyweight prime was?
bottom line: whether or not u believe they were in there "prime", then at least admit moore, charles, walcott were all still great fighters when they fought rocky and legite dangerous top contenders.
marciano beat the 4 best heavyweights of his era louis, charles, moore, walcott and he beat them decisevley. moore fight was a one sided drubbing, charles won only 5 rounds in the first fight and was dominated in the rematch, walcott did the best but was still knocked out, and louis was dominated and knocked out. end of discussion.
that kind of logic seems to not be logic.
explain how that would be, necessarily, if you don't mind.
What I typed was, "Success does not always mean prime". Quite a qualifier on there. Doesn't speak at all to how Moore does against Rocky had he been younger...nor does it talk about how good results cannot indicate a prime.
Elmer
You can think all you want, but Archie Moore was an old man when he fought Marciano , an you saying that he was not old does not make it so, again i say no fighter is in his prime at 38-40 years old, i don't know how old you are but if you are past 33 or so you are not the man you were at 22-25, an that goes for the fighters.
Frank B.
i dont like the way ur logic works. there are exceptions, fighters who got better with age like bernard hopkins, lennox lewis, etc
by ur logic, then marciano was past his prime too. he was 32 years old when he fought moore.
For an example of what I mean: When Larry Holmes beat Ray Mercer, he was not more prime than when he 'lost' to Truth Williams..or when he had to dig to beat Bonecrusher. The Larry Holmes that lost to Spinks would have lost to holyfield by at least as wide as the Larry that DID lose to Evander. Thinking he had a second prime, or that he ceased declining to explain how a half dozen plus years seemed to revive Holmes is one theory. One that is totally wrong I believe.
It also wasn't all Mercer being really incapable. It was, rather, in my opinion, Holmes working better with what he had..no longer vainglorious or fighting as if he was still young, fast and strong.
Elmer
Lennox Lewis got better with age? now i know you have a close mind.
lennox lewis was a better fighter in his early-mid 30s than he was in his 20s
my point about moore was he was at his heavyweight peak, not necessarily his absolute prime(which is light-H). moore had a very good heavyweight career
I can only imagine where they would rank today if they had been fortunate enough to reach their peak in terms of abilities at the same time they had reached their "physical" primes, say in their mid to late 20's.
Circumstances each man endured through their earlier careers honed them into tough. resourceful fighters...low purses, poor management, attitudes regarding race, etc. This served them well in terms of career extensions beyond what would normally be expected in terms of competiveness.
I'm certain Archie Moore's very untraditional methods in terms of diet and training came as a result of his own perceived necessity to cheat father time and continue making a living at what he knew best. Charles didn't get the chance to see how long he could go due to illness, and Walcott finally hit the wall. Louis should never have been forced by finances to have to climb in the ring at that point....he earned and deserved a better fate.
If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times. Holmes beat the Truth. It says so right in the record books. This is not up for dispute (Actually had Holmes winning by a point. ANd had Larry beating Witherspoon by 2 or 3 points.).
The only decisions that you are allowed to question when it comes to Holmes is the second Micheal Spinks fight, in which we truly had a bad duke (Actually had Larry winning by about 4 points.).
ANd as far as Mo Harris? lalalalalalalala. I can't hear you! I'm singing! lalalalalala. (I can't seem to remember my scorecard for that fight. I possibly didn't keep a card handy with me that night. Plus that was the night my perscription for my glasses ran out. Can't trust my peepers with exprired glasses on can I?)
Hawk
u still havnt answered kiki was marciano at 32 past his prime vs moore?
“lastarza tried it and he got his arms broken as a result”
Marciano didn’t “break LaStarza’s arms” in their rematch. LaStarza suffered some broken blood vessels in his forearms, and there’s a clear and significant distinction between the two. The fact that you post such stuff really undermines your credibility.
You are always there to keep me from talking to myself.
Truth? Well, he certainly didn't help his case for a clear victory by allowing Larry to lacerate his body over the last third of the fight. Not sure who won, but a case could be made for either.
Witherspoon lost to Holmes. But he didn't get beat up or really 'defeated' so to speak. A kind of fight where had Spoon been declared the winner, it would have caused rumblings but not outrage.
The Harris fight belongs up there with Thunder-Tubbs some say. I remember it differently. Larry rallying back to win a just decision. A localized blizzard kept me from recording the fight or keeping score (wolves came over the frozen river for the first time since 'ought-9).
I also remember Scott Hoch winning the Masters.
Marciano was past his prime versus Moore. And he knew it - that's why he never fought again. Rocky was no fool.
Second Spinks fight. Larry deserved to win but set it up to lose. He stopped being agressive, threw about 3 combos the entire fight and his jab was errant.
BUT he sure seemed to win to me.
Despite articles written about WHY he didn't get the nod.
Psst. Sharks. Did you read where Tko called Archie Moore a Fool?
Hawk
yes I did. What gives?
Memory serves me right, you and I watched the Harris fight together. You were getting drunk by feel and I was fending off the wolves with beer bottles. It seemed like Larry lost, but the wind was so bad it was hard to tell.
Jeff Ryan didn't get a room rate break at the Holmes Commodor Inn in Easton and held it agianst him ever since.
Man I can't beleive T and his lack of respect for the Mongoose.
Sheesh. Must be a Canadian thing.
Hawk
lastarza suffered broken BONES and broken blood vessels in his arms. broken bones equals broken arms. i suggest u do more research before spreading false facts.
lastarza suffered more than just broken blood vessels. go check the report.
Please provide a documented source for this.
Hawk
Posting Permissions
| News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia | Links | Home |
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks