Was Marciano-Walcott I a fix just because Walcott took a dive in the second fight? You're a Marciano fan, I'm sure you don't believe that. And yet Walcott did the same thing Liston did.
Difference is Walcott readily admitted that he had nothing left after his first encounter with Marciano, he put everything he had into that fight and was destroyed all by one punch when after 12 he was leading rather easy. Difference, also, is that Walcott was alot more older than Liston was, and another difference is, the left hook-right upper cut combination that Marciano landed on Walcott was a hell of a lot more solid a punch than Ali's so-called 'Anchor Punch' that he thrown against Liston in the rematch.
There was no fix, that two punch combination Marciano thrown, more than likely would have knocked down, or knocked out, nine out of ten heavyweights currently on the scene---considering that they landed FLUSH on Walcott, who said after the fight he couldn't remember a thing until he heard "Nine!...Ten!...You're Out!"
Jones - Ali can be scored either way. But let's not forget that boxrec maxim: different styles make different fights.
Ali beat 2 great fighters in Liston and Foreman and in a way both men suited his style perfectly. Then along come guys like Frazier and Norton who would always give Ali hell but who probably would last 6 rounds in counting 2 fights each against Liston and Foreman.
Well I guess technically any fight can be scored either way. Technically you could score you could score Cobb-Holmes either way.
However if you are going to actually score each individual round objectively, then it can't be scored for Jones. If you give Jones the close rounds, you still can only give him 4 rounds, which is what 2 judges did. If you give the guy that beat Patterson, Liston,Frazier and Foreman all of the the close rounds, than it's pretty lospsided.
Many fights can be competitive and still leave no doubt who was the winner. This was the case here. Jones fought a very good fight and would have almost won against a different opponent. However, it wasn't enough and he lost.
Was Marciano-Walcott I a fix just because Walcott took a dive in the second fight? You're a Marciano fan, I'm sure you don't believe that. And yet Walcott did the same thing Liston did.
Difference is Walcott readily admitted that he had nothing left after his first encounter with Marciano, he put everything he had into that fight and was destroyed all by one punch when after 12 he was leading rather easy. Difference, also, is that Walcott was alot more older than Liston was, and another difference is, the left hook-right upper cut combination that Marciano landed on Walcott was a hell of a lot more solid a punch than Ali's so-called 'Anchor Punch' that he thrown against Liston in the rematch.
There was no fix, that two punch combination Marciano thrown, more than likely would have knocked down, or knocked out, nine out of ten heavyweights currently on the scene---considering that they landed FLUSH on Walcott, who said after the fight he couldn't remember a thing until he heard "Nine!...Ten!...You're Out!"
There were a lot of strange things in this fight:
First, Walcott walks around the ring, not doing very much. He seems listless.
-Neither fighter was known for holding, but there was 9 clinches in less than one round.
-Walcott gets knocked down but doesn't seem hurt at all.
-The referee begins to count immediately, without making sure Marciano is in a neutral corner.
-The referee also seems to be counting too fast.
-Walcott looks like he could get up anytime around the count of 4, but stays down and seems to be listening to the referee's count, yet strangely doesn't get up in time. He pops up right after the count of 10.
-At first he doesn't seem to be that angry, then after the fight is over for more than a minute he starts to act like he is angry.
There just seems to be a lot of odd things happening in a fight that took less than one round.
Did he throw the fight? Who really knows. However, like Liston it really isn't that important. He wasn't going to win anyway.
Doug Jone's real career was as a lightheavyweight.
After he was stopped by Harold Johnson from winning the lightheavyweight title, Jones gave up on fighting at his natural weight and moved up above 175.
He was fat at 185.
The fact the the supposed "greatest of all time" heavyweight struggled as he did with overweight lightheavyweight Doug Jones two fights before he supposedly was able to "beat" Sonny Liston
is something which puts the media salesman for Ali in agony.
Their attempted solution is to bray that "Ali beat Jones. Ali beat Jones."
That doesn't work.
Ali showed no punching power against Jones.
Ali showed no defense against Jones.
Ali showed he was very hurtable against Jones.
Just as Ali showed he had no defense, was very hurtable, and had no punching power against Henry Cooper in his next fight.
All the Ali salesman in the media put together can't explain
the farce of Ali struggling with overweight lightheavyweight Doug Jones and 185 pound Henry Cooper
and then suddenly being able to "beat" Sonny Liston.
The reason Jones beat Ali was because Doug Jones knew how to box. Ali didn't.
The reason Jimmy Young made such an ass out of Ali for 15 rounds was because Young knew how to box, and Ali didn't.
Harold Johnson was a superior boxer to Doug Jones.
Doug Jones said after he retired that the most gifted fighter he fought in his career was Harold Johnson.
granberry wrote:Doug Jone's real career was as a lightheavyweight.
After he was stopped by Harold Johnson from winning the lightheavyweight title, Jones gave up on fighting at his natural weight and moved up above 175.
He was fat at 185.
The fact the the supposed "greatest of all time" heavyweight struggled as he did with overweight lightheavyweight Doug Jones two fights before he supposedly was able to "beat" Sonny Liston
is something which puts the media salesman for Ali in agony.
Their attempted solution is to bray that "Ali beat Jones. Ali beat Jones."
That doesn't work.
Ali showed no punching power against Jones.
Ali showed no defense against Jones.
Ali showed he was very hurtable against Jones.
Just as Ali showed he had no defense, was very hurtable, and had no punching power against Henry Cooper in his next fight.
All the Ali salesman in the media put together can't explain
the farce of Ali struggling with overweight lightheavyweight Doug Jones and 185 pound Henry Cooper
and then suddenly being able to "beat" Sonny Liston.
The reason Jones beat Ali was because Doug Jones knew how to box. Ali didn't.
The reason Jimmy Young made such an ass out of Ali for 15 rounds was because Young knew how to box, and Ali didn't.
Harold Johnson was a superior boxer to Doug Jones.
Doug Jones said after he retired that the most gifted fighter he fought in his career was Harold Johnson.
Anyone who says "Jones easily beat Clay" has no credibility. You'd have to be extremely generous to give Jones a majority of the rounds, much less an "easy win."
Alp makes a good point, and this is something I've always thought myself. The reason why this fight comes up so much, as alp says, is because it gives Ali's critics hope. Like Mayweather today, what is there really to bash? Not much, so people cling to his one controversial win over Castillo (which, unlike Clay-Jones, I thought Mayweather did legitimately lose.) The fact that Floyd won a clear rematch, and that he went on to beat opponents better than Castillo is less important, because critics of Mayweather need something, anything, to bash him with; and that's all they can use. Same with Ali, he went on to be a much better fighter than he was that night; but there's not much else to criticize him for, so his critics have to go back to his early stages where he was still developing and where he had not reached, or come close to reaching peak. It's sort of like when there's a big fight coming up, and you look up the two fighters records, and one guy got knocked out four or five years ago in the second round, so you assume he'll get knocked out that night. Then they fight, the guy instead has a great chin, and he ends up winning by knock out. Vazquez-Marquez is an example of that, Marquez had been knocked out a couple of times early in his career, so Vazquez's people figured Vazquez would beat him easy, by an early KO. Vazquez did manage to win the trilogy, but only by a hair, and even when he did stop Marquez it was a controversial stoppage; not a second round blowout. So some today will take Clay's early struggles, and extrapolate that to mean that Jones could have done that to any version of Ali, and that's clearly not the case. Just a year later he beat a much better fighter in Liston; and he did beat him, and those who say otherwise are crackpots.
I think the clear example that is undisputable, and that few would try to address because it is so (some of whom are in this thread), is the Clay-Cooper fights. In '63 Clay gets hit by Cooper, and then knocked down by him. It wasn't an easy fight. In '66 it was, Cooper couldn't touch Ali and it looked more like a sparring session.
Fighters develop, the notion that one would take Ali's performances in '63 (where he was, oddly, the fighter of the year... not saying he deserved it, but its funny what the perception was of Clay that year compared to the way people think of that year now) and extrapolate that to mean "Ali couldn't take a punch... Ali had no defense... Ali couldn't beat a good boxer" is simply a case of non-thinking. Do we take some of Jack Johnson's or Henry Armstrong's early losses and take that to mean those things? And, as much as granberry will resist it; Clay did win those two fights, they were not losses. Joe Louis had a loss early in his career. But he got better, took his opponents more seriously from then on, and he was successful. Clay had a couple of tough wins early on, he took the opponents lightly and almost paid for it, but he got through it and became a better fighter for it. That's the real storyline, but Ali's critics want to the storyline to be "Clay got two breaks" when in reality, neither of them were breaks; he deserved the Jones decision, and he only received a few seconds of time because of the torn glove... but the urban legends say that Jones dominated him and that Clay received a five minute break, and the weak minds will follow the urban legends rather than the easily available fight film which shows those things to be untrue.
Anyway; I had it Clay 5-4-1, which two of the judges had it. This was a close fight, but not one of the closest I've ever seen, and certainly not a fight that I would call one of the closer or more controversial decisions in boxing history... you can name many, many fights that were closer than this one where the winner did not get that much scrutiny. It wasn't as bad as Holmes-Witherspoon, for example. And all the things that are said of Clay; that he was hurt, that he was hit a lot, etc. can be said of Jones, Clay clearly out landed Jones, and he hurt Jones as many times as Jones hurt him. But every time Jones hurt Clay it was a big dramatic moment, while no one seems to pay attention to the times Clay hurt Jones. Its like Merchant would say, Jones won the "drama of the fight" and that's often more important than winning the fight itself. All you have to do is win the former and there will always be some weak mind who will conclude that you won the fight.
The last thing that I would say about it is that if Jones thought Harold Johnson was his best opponent, he was probably right. Clay knocked out Archie Moore, but Jones and Cooper proved to be better opponents. The reason being that Moore was an old, old fighter; and the fight was simply a showcase. The Johnson that Jones fought was a great, mature fighter, while Clay was not. If Jones had managed to beat Chuvalo or Terrell, he might have fought Ali in a rematch; and he'd have saw a major difference. As Schmeling and Qawi did in their rematches with more mature versions of Louis and Holyfield.
As for the Marciano-Walcott comparison, no, I think its a quite good one. Few people believed Walcott was legitimately KO'd. He seemed to show up for his last payday, go down, and not take too much punishment. Which is what Liston seemed to do.
Or, if not that, maybe Walcott, who was pretty old, had left everything he had left in the first fight and got KO'd by a weak shot in the rematch. Fine. You could say the same for Liston. Every so often Ali threw a shot from no where that KO'd an opponent, and Liston was old, and maybe that's what happened. I personally don't think so, I believe Liston could have gotten up. But I think Walcott could have as well.
But what I don't think is that Marciano-Walcott II in any way hurts the legitimacy of the first fight. Some seem unable to follow that logic when it comes to Clay-Liston. Why would Liston take all that punishment, including a cut and a busted up face (lest someone say he wasn't really getting hit) to sell the first dive, yet not even bother to go past the first round to make the second dive look good? It makes no sense. One minute he's a great choreographer, chasing Clay, pumping his jab, landing some big left hooks that would have certainly been enough to stop Patterson; all the while with the intention of throwing the fight. The next fight he goes down in the first round off a seemingly light punch. Makes no sense. Neither would it make sense for Walcott to fight a war with Marciano, with the intention of taking a dive, and then a year later, on the second dive, go down from a light punch in the first.
The rematches show that these guys didn't know how to sell a dive or how to make it look good. If they did have that capability in the first fights, they would have had it in the second fights. Why go through one big act the first time, then not bother the second time? Was Liston a brilliant method actor; how did he manage to look so convincing the first time? This wasn't a bright guy, and he showed himself not to be one the second time.
Really, some of you don't put much thought into the things you say, do you? All your mind tells you is "Marciano good, Ali bad" and not much else follows in terms of coming up with reasoned arguments.
Last edited by I Feel Fine on 28 Mar 2008, 17:21, edited 1 time in total.
Extreme wordiness is a giveaway that the advocate has something faulty about his sales pitch.
Jabber jabber jabber.
Doug Jones was a better boxer than Ali. He had a better defense. He had a better jab. He had a better right hand. His punches were shorter.
He was a much more accurate puncher than Ali.
And he was an overweight lightheavyweight who was not as good as Harold Johnson.
As for the Marciano-Walcott comparison, no, I think its a quite good one. Few people believed Walcott was legitimately KO'd. He seemed to show up for his last payday, go down, and retire without having to take too much damage. Which is what Liston seemed to do.
Maybe Walcott, who was pretty old, had left everything in the first fight and got KO'd by a weak shot. Fine. You could say the same for Liston. Every so often Ali threw a shot from no where that KO'd an opponent, and Liston was old, and maybe that's what happened. I personally don't think so, I believe Liston could have gotten up. But I think Walcott could have as well.
There has been only ONE fighter I have ever seen who could hurt an opponent while throwing a punch when he was going back on his bicycle and that was Sugar Ray Robinson...not Muhammad Ali...that phantom punch, was when he was backing up against the ropes away from Liston.
At least Marciano's two punch combination landed solidly on Walcott's jaw. The way I look at Walcott's "could have gotten up, but didn't" scenario is like how Gene Tunney put it when he was knocked down against Jack Dempsey in the famous "long count"...that he could have gotten up, but if he had, he didn't think he would have won.
Walcott took the shot, realized his body simply couldn't take it any more, and more than likely, if he wasn't indeed knocked out for a few seconds, went out on his shield for an 'easy' pay day.
HomicideHenry wrote:There has been only ONE fighter I have ever seen who could hurt an opponent while throwing a punch when he was going back on his bicycle and that was Sugar Ray Robinson...not Muhammad Ali...that phantom punch, was when he was backing up against the ropes away from Liston.
At least Marciano's two punch combination landed solidly on Walcott's jaw. The way I look at Walcott's "could have gotten up, but didn't" scenario is like how Gene Tunney put it when he was knocked down against Jack Dempsey in the famous "long count"...that he could have gotten up, but if he had, he didn't think he would have won.
Walcott took the shot, realized his body simply couldn't take it any more, and more than likely, if he wasn't indeed knocked out for a few seconds, went out on his shield for an 'easy' pay day.
Quit repeating that retarded line you got from Bert Sugar about how Robinson was the only fighter who could hurt an opponent moving backwards. Ali hurt plenty of fighters moving back; didn't you see the Foreman fight?
There was no "phantom punch." Ali clearly hit Liston. Do I think Liston was legitimately knocked out? No. But I don't think Walcott was either.
The idea that Walcott didn't get up because if he had, he would have lost, could be said of Liston.
As I said, you people think "Marciano good, Ali bad" and everything you say follows from that. No logic behind any of your points, just pure ball licking for Marciano and pure contempt for Ali. Not much else.
Muhammad Ali was a great fighter, in terms of accomplishments. I just look at it in an entire scope; a complete break down and analysis of his career. And guess what? He's a bit like everyone else, everyone has their high and low points throughout their careers, and you can't really hold certain things against him...but I don't believe he was the greatest, though I do believe he could beat nine out of ten heavyweight champions of any era rather comfortably.
I think greatness isn't just who had such and such skill or exactly so much of who beat whom, though they are tremendous variables. I believe the true greatness of a fighter, is what they had to over come to become the best of their time...that's why I say the Ali of the 1970's was the better version (1970-1975) because he proved alot of things left unanswered when he was actually in his physical peak years.
Marciano, for all intents and purposes, in my opinion, overcame greater difficulties due to his size and reach disadvantages, as well as starting in boxing relatively late in his life; throw in that for the first ten or so fights of his career he was his own trainer as well...he was crude, got by on his strength and conditioning, and his own toughness; it was his sole belief in himself that made up for whatever losses he had.
And, like Marciano, it was his own self belief in himself that made him great, and I am referring to Ali.
HomicideHenry wrote:Marciano, for all intents and purposes, in my opinion, overcame greater difficulties due to his size and reach disadvantages, as well as starting in boxing relatively late in his life; throw in that for the first ten or so fights of his career he was his own trainer as well...he was crude, got by on his strength and conditioning, and his own toughness; it was his sole belief in himself that made up for whatever losses he had.
Oh please. Every excuse in the world for Marciano, as if Ali got everything served to him on a silver platter. Short fighters with physical strength and power can be very successful, I don't think I should need to point that out. Not to mention that Marciano was fighting dead men or former Middleweights. Or that the referee's let him foul as much and as blatantly as he wanted.
First its a clear Jones win. Then its a close fight that could have gone to Jones. Which one was it? I've been consistent about what I thoght it was; close fight, with Clay winning narrowly. I wouldn't go bat shit if someone had it a draw, though I would disagree.
I don't have to take crap from anyone about my ability to be objective about Ali. I'm sure most Ali fans would be inclined to give him the Shavers fight, for example. He got the decision, it was a competitive fight, people in general seem to be split about who won. I had Shavers winning.
I'm an Ali fan, but I can have him losing a fight, and I have. On the other hand, I can't say that people who dislike Ali on this forum are able to have him winning a close fight; I haven't seen any of his critics here say they had Ali winning a close fight. There are a number of people here who had him losing every close fight he ever had.
I had him losing Norton III, so again, I don't have to hear anyone lecture me about that fight.
Ali is God? I didn't say that. I don't even have Ali as the greatest fighter of all time, I have six or seven other people ahead of him pound for pound, maybe more if I knew more about pre-30's fighters.
But I would certainly raise my hand and say yes in regards to what you say about Marciano. I do think Rocky was a great fighter, but on the same token one of the two most overrated Heavyweight champions.
Ambling Alp wrote:Well I guess technically any fight can be scored either way. Technically you could score you could score Cobb-Holmes either way.
However if you are going to actually score each individual round objectively, then it can't be scored for Jones. If you give Jones the close rounds, you still can only give him 4 rounds, which is what 2 judges did. If you give the guy that beat Patterson, Liston,Frazier and Foreman all of the the close rounds, than it's pretty lospsided.
Many fights can be competitive and still leave no doubt who was the winner. This was the case here. Jones fought a very good fight and would have almost won against a different opponent. However, it wasn't enough and he lost.
there are enough voices here who think Jones won. I haven't seen the fight for over 10 years when a friend of mine showed it me on his uncle's projector. I don't join the debate that Ali won or Jones won because I simply cannot remember. When opinion differs on a fight like this then it's really up for grabs.
You think Ali won fair and square with no doubts. That's up to you, but that means anyone with a different view has an agenda, doesn't it? I don't think Terry D is anti-Ali and I'm certainly not. but let's pretend my point is that Cobb should have got the decision against Holmes??? That's a poor device for trying to cut off any debate. Why would you want to keep a ceiling on discussing boxing on an internet forum? the whole point is to encounter different viewpoints. Hopefully this will help you defend your argument or consider other view points. If you don't want to do that then what's the point?
The fight is talked about because many people think it was close. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that.
Anyway, who thinks Marciano was a crude slugger who beat old men, was protected, and could not carry Ezzard Charles' jockstrap if both fought in their prime?
Larry Holmes, after losing to Michael Spinks threw a cry baby fit proclaiming that "if the truth be known, Rocky Marciano couldn't carry my jock strap," because he was unable to match Marciano's 49-0 record...at least Nicolay Valuev had more common courtesy and respect toward the dead, than Holmes did.
Ambling Alp wrote:Well I guess technically any fight can be scored either way. Technically you could score you could score Cobb-Holmes either way.
However if you are going to actually score each individual round objectively, then it can't be scored for Jones. If you give Jones the close rounds, you still can only give him 4 rounds, which is what 2 judges did. If you give the guy that beat Patterson, Liston,Frazier and Foreman all of the the close rounds, than it's pretty lospsided.
Many fights can be competitive and still leave no doubt who was the winner. This was the case here. Jones fought a very good fight and would have almost won against a different opponent. However, it wasn't enough and he lost.
there are enough voices here who think Jones won. I haven't seen the fight for over 10 years when a friend of mine showed it me on his uncle's projector. I don't join the debate that Ali won or Jones won because I simply cannot remember. When opinion differs on a fight like this then it's really up for grabs.
You think Ali won fair and square with no doubts. That's up to you, but that means anyone with a different view has an agenda, doesn't it? I don't think Terry D is anti-Ali and I'm certainly not. but let's pretend my point is that Cobb should have got the decision against Holmes??? That's a poor device for trying to cut off any debate. Why would you want to keep a ceiling on discussing boxing on an internet forum? the whole point is to encounter different viewpoints. Hopefully this will help you defend your argument or consider other view points. If you don't want to do that then what's the point?
The fight is talked about because many people think it was close. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that.
Here it is. Those who scored it for Jones, post your scorecards:
5-4-1 isn't a draw. Simple math. If anything, I gave the closer rounds to Jones, lest I be accussed of bias towards Clay. I might not have given Jones one of those closer rounds if he had been fighting someone else. But, because I had Clay winnning in a close fight doesn't mean that I'm going to disqualify myself from the conversation. If someone had Jones winning close or had it a draw, that's fine, but I will disagree.
I rarely, if ever, tear down Ali's opponents. Quite the opposite, I always say that Ali was great because he fought such great opponents, and in the 70's fought in perhaps the best era in Heavyweight history. But I do believe Jones gets too much credit for his close loss against a young Clay, and for his KO win over an even less experienced Bob Foster. Maybe he would have beaten Foster at his best, but that's something we'll never know.
Why should Jones get less scrutiny than anyone else? If I thought his success against Clay and Foster was due to their inexperience, that's certainly not a crazy or novel viewpoint. I haven't been anywhere near as negative about certain fighters as others on this forum have been.
If you would read more carefully, you would see that I said that I can accept someone having Jones winning close, or having it a draw, even if I disagree. I said numerous times that it was a close fight. I haven't "suggested otherwise" so I can hardly be called crazy. Just as I never called Hagler a "non-puncher" yet you somehow took that from my post, when I in fact called him a "very good puncher." Your misreadings, intentional or not, make conversation with you quite pointless.
Anyway, as I said, I did give Jones the benefit of the doubt in my scoring, and I still didn't have him winning. Hence, if I want to say that I believe that a Clay win is the right result, I'm well within my rights to say that.
I've complained that Heavyweights are talked about too much on this forum myself, particularly these Heavyweights. Still, I'm not going to apologize for anything I said about Jones or Marciano.
