Rocky Marciano’s Toughest Opponent

[Elmer Ray]

You throw around hall of fame names that were way past their best when Rocky fought them.

Ezzard Charles had been knocked out by Walcott, lost a listless decision to Walcott, lost to Rex Layne, Nino Valdez (a huge heavyweight Rocky wanted no part of) and light heavyweight Harold Johnson before the first Marciano bout. He had over 100 fights at that point, was shot and would have a 50/50 record the rest of his carer, losing to journeymen following the Rocky bouts. He would never have 1 significant win. That's shot so lets not say he was the post-ww2 Charles that was one of the all time pound for pound fighters.

Joe Walcott, crafty and colorful, is perhaps the most overated heavyweight champ in history. Putting aside the James Braddock feel good aspect, he is known for being the oldest man ever to win the title pre-Foreman 2 and for losing big fights. He lost Louis 1, he has ko'ed in Louis 2, he lost twice to Ezzard Charles before his hail mary connected. Before that he lost many times, including by KO to Ettore and Simon. Nice story about being a victim of the depression and how it efected him but I really don't know how many fighters did not suffer similiar circumstances. Walcott never looked better in his entire career than in Marciano 1 where even at 38 he was able to pound Marciano's face to pulp until Youth and a great right took him out. hen he fough Rocky he was 38, took a quick exit in the rematch and called it a day.

Archie Moore, most likely the best fighter Rockyever fought, was 39 plus and a light heavyweight. I have watched the fight many times and it is a classic. He hurt Marciano, he tagged him hard many times and he lost to a much younger, naturally bigger man. Moore would go on to fight with success for many more years but lost faster and a lot easier to a young Floyd Patterson the year after the Marciano bout. The rest of Moore's career successes would come as a light heavyweight.

I think any of Ken Norton, Tm Witherspoon, Tervor Berbick, Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Gerry Cooney and others could have beaten these three at the time Rocky did.

HE please provide strong sources and evidence marciano wanted no part of nino valdez. please. because if you know anything about marciano era, that was not the case. marciano gave valdez countless oppertunities for valdez to face him. marciano would have creamed valdez.

marciano sparred with nino valdez. according to john garfield, when the sparring session ended valdez looked beaten down and had the look on his face that he went through hell and was broken mentally and physically

[kikibalt]

i totally diagree ur being wayy too harsh


walcott didnt have the same legs he had in the louis fight, but everything else was there in the marciano fight.....power, strength, handspeed, jab, boxing skills were all the same in marciano I.

walcott never threw combinations as well as he did in marciano I. his punching abilities and agression were at there finest in marciano I



whether or not you think walcott had declined, i think its clear walcott was STILL A GREAT FIGHTER when he fought marciano. marciano beat the same walcott who had just knocked out ezzard charles with 1 punch

Elmer Ray

Walcott was 38+ years old when he fought Marciano, no way was he the fighter that fought Louis the first time, He put up a great fight against Marciano, but any body with boxing knowledge will tell you that Walcott was over the hill when he fought Marciano.

[Elmer Ray]

"Joe Walcott, crafty and colorful, is perhaps the most overated heavyweight champ in history. "


i think hes the most underated heavyweight champ in history. ever heard of guys like elmer ray, lee q murray, ezzard charles, harold johnson, joe louis, jimmy bivins, joey maxim, all guys who walcott beat?


im leaving off many other dangerous contenders walcott beat like tommy gomez, hatchetman sheppard, huge punching lorenzo pack, willie reddish, joe baksi, hein ten hoff

[Elmer Ray]

Ring Magazine monthly issue had charles as # 1 ranked contender when he challenged marciano in june 1954. valdez was # 2.


valdez before he fought charles wasnt even rated in the top 10. why should one flukish win be enough to get valdez a title shot over ezzard charles who had been much more consistent and more proven? charles was in much better shape for marciano I bout then he was for valdez

[Elmer Ray]

Elmer Ray

Walcott was 38+ years old when he fought Marciano, no way was he the fighter that fought Louis the first time, He put up a great fight against Marciano, but any body with boxing knowledge will tell you that Walcott was over the hill when he fought Marciano.

i never said he was. but he was the same fighter who just knocked out a prime ezzard charles in 7 rounds months earlier. clearly walcott was still a great fighter when he fought marciano


i happened to be a huge walcott fan, hes my # 1 favorite fighter of all time

[kikibalt]

ever heard of guys like elmer ray, lee q murray who walcott beat?

Never have, I'm new to the game, read a few books and watch a few fights on t.v

[Elmer Ray]

The problem is: Marciano never fought a top drawer fighter who was significantly taller or heavier or had a significantly longer reach than him. So those who make the claim he "could have" or "couldn't have" defeated talented, bigger men have no data from which to prove or disprove their points.

6'2 214lb joe louis 76" reach. # 1 ranked contender is that good enough for you?


joe louis knocked out nino valdez in 1 round in 1950 in a exhibition

[Elmer Ray]

g

[Sharkey]

i never said he was. but he was the same fighter who just knocked out a prime ezzard charles in 7 rounds months earlier. clearly walcott was still a great fighter when he fought marciano


i happened to be a huge walcott fan, hes my # 1 favorite fighter of all time

Define great.

[hawk5ins]

"Never have, I'm new to the game, read a few books and watch a few fights on t.v"

Soda through the nose and on to my laptop.

It burns like hell right now, there are painful tears in my eyes right now and my computer will have keys sticking for months now. But that was funny as hell and well worth the rpice of admission today.

Thank you Frank.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

Frank, are you being sarcastic?!?!

[kikibalt]

"Never have, I'm new to the game, read a few books and watch a few fights on t.v"

Soda through the nose and on to my laptop.

It burns like hell right now, there are painful tears in my eyes right now and my computer will have keys sticking for months now. But that was funny as hell and well worth the rpice of admission today.

Thank you Frank.

Hawk

Now you have me LOL!!

[Elmer Ray]

frank is defintley being sarcastic. hes had it in for me from the start, i dont know why frank doesnt like a kid like me, hes been all over me since i got to this forum. i happen to be a huge fan of his son too

[Elmer Ray]

Define great.

sure


still a top 20 heavyweight of all time. still great enough to be able to knockout prime ezzard charles in 7 rounds?

[kikibalt]

Frank, are you being sarcastic?!?!

Sharkey

Yeah, I guess I'm being sarcastic! But my meds are not working and I can't do nothing with the old lady, I finally rounded her up and then I can't do shit.

[hawk5ins]

Sock-it-to-me..Sock-it-to-me..Sock-it-to-me..Sock-it-to-me..Sock-it-to-me..Sock-it-to-me..Sock-it-to-me..Sock-it-to-me..

Hawk

[Elmer Ray]

hawkins since u were confused why ezz charles got a well deserved title shot over nino valdez, i hope u adress my points

[hawk5ins]

But I'll bet Sharks was being sarcastic about being sarcastic.

No sarcasm intended.

Hawk

[Elmer Ray]

i weigh 165lb right now, i wrestled 133lb this past season. damm ive gained 32lb since februrary

[Elmer Ray]

btw hawkins from the film youve seen of nino valdez how do you think he would fair vs marciano. if u have not seen film of nino, how do you still see this matchup going

[hawk5ins]

Been down this road before.

Charles getting a shot over Valdes, doesn't sit well with me.

Especially seeing how Valdes Beat Charles.

That said, I will defer to Sharkey's comment about defenses made by greate fighters such as Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey and Johnson.

He's correct. He directed this at me (even if in disquise). And he has made a very valid point as I myself have done this re Dempsey in the past.

So I will shut down my inquiry into Marciano. I dont think it's fair or accurate the way it has been done re Holmes. To do so to Rocky or Dempsey, I think is just as unfair and unwarranted.

I shall not continue with this needless tit for tat.

Regardless of how much of a breast man I am.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

Elmer, is that a question? If so my answer is "thanks for your personal definition."

Frank has had it out for you? Maybe he just doesn't agree with you. I can't read his mind however. OR anyone else's for that matter.

I disagree with your assessment, and moreover your explanation of your supporting evidence to me is a bit circular....but I am not out to get you.

[Elmer Ray]

well if you do not consider walcott still great in sept 1952 please explain why. my reasons are simply because he still had the all around talent, skills of a great fighter and proved he could still beat/nearl beat great fighters(charles and marciano)

[Elmer Ray]

"Charles getting a shot over Valdes, doesn't sit well with me.

Especially seeing how Valdes Beat Charles."



but charles was ranked # 1 by ring magazine when he fought marciano in 1954, do you me to post the top 10 rankings? valdez was not # 1, he was # 2.

in fact 5 out of 6 of marcianos title defenses were against # 1 ranked contenders, how many champions can say this?




valdez wasnt even RATED IN THE TOP 10 prior to the charles fight. valdez lost FOUR times in 1953. why should one upset win over a out of shape ezzard charles gaurantee a title shot over much more consistent popular ezzard charles? NBA offered a valdez-charles rematch as an eliminater but valdez ducked charles and refused, and then charles knocked out ranked contenders coley wallace and bob satterfield regaining the # 1 spot, after valdez recieved a gift decision over 185lb obscure archie mcbride


charley goldman wanted rocky marciano to take on nino valdez in early 1954 as a TUNEUP for ezzard charles. thats how much goldman thought of charles compared to nino.

nino was a world class solid fighter( i have film) who simply spoiled his biggest oppertunities for title shots. marciano should have taken on valdez over cockell, but marciano took on cockell as a tuneup to test his nose and to prepare for a major fight with valdez/moore

[Sharkey]

Been down this road before.

Charles getting a shot over Valdes, doesn't sit well with me.

Especially seeing how Valdes Beat Charles.

That said, I will defer to Sharkey's comment about defenses made by greate fighters such as Holmes, Marciano, Dempsey and Johnson.

He's correct. He directed this at me (even if in disquise). And he has made a very valid point as I myself have done this re Dempsey in the past.

So I will shut down my inquiry into Marciano. I dont think it's fair or accurate the way it has been done re Holmes. To do so to Rocky or Dempsey, I think is just as unfair and unwarranted.

I shall not continue with this needless tit for tat.

Regardless of how much of a breast man I am.

Hawk

It can be instructive to delve into their fight records IF the focus is on their records. Surely one can have an opinion regarding Dempsey and Wills for example... especially in a conversation regarding Wills' qualifications for a shot. I don't think we ought not to ask these questions, but rather I believe that the same question applies to everyone and not a select few based on how sexy or controversial the omission is.

As a Holmes fan, I do not believe that Larry Holmes is defined by 20 (19) defenses in terms of how GOOD he was at his best. Yet it is fair for anyone to ask how we can tell how good he really was if they are of the belief that his entire cast of challengers were not so hot.

But, anyone who has that take, to me, bears the burden of explaining their take IF they have an entirely different take of a different fighter...and is drawing a distinction despite totally similar circumstances (losses, yet title shots...etc).

[Sharkey]

Elmer,

explain why he was ever GREAT to begin with then we will go from there. I'm not big on proving negatives.. nobody big on logic is.

[hawk5ins]

20.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

I know I know. (19)

[hawk5ins]

As Long as we are clear.

(20).

As we both know, Heavyweight champs do not fight non title bouts.

(Twenty).

BTW, 1987 was my favorite year. It was the year I turned....................

Which of course we all know was (XX) years ago this year.

Got to scoot. I have a Meeting in a little over 19 mins.

Hawk

[Sharkey]

1973 I was born. 20 ought 7 I am still here. Either way, 19 or 20 is marvis. Even if I didn't agree with the theory that a heavyweight champ can't have a non title defense. Which I am not saying I don't or do. Count the number of e's.