Who Was The Best Fighter Rocky Marciano Beat?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Im interested to see how some of you guys think Lastarza layne or moore would be able to beat a 6'2 215lb skilled hard punching heavyweight like 1950s louis? they will be giving up huge size difference. how would they ever get past louis left jab? even a 1954 charles, if a 1950 charles face was busted up badly by louis do you not think louis would really bust up a 1954 charles?

[Ambling Alp]

Louis jab was very easy to get past by this time. He was much slower and didn't throw it as much anyway.
This version of Louis was heavier, but the weight hurt him. He wasn't nearly as hard of a puncher as he once was, and he couldn't follow up when he did land a good punch. He seldom through combinations anymore. He fought at a slower pace, and was easier to hit. He only scored 3 knockouts in the 10 fights from Charles to Marciano.

LaStarza should be able to win an easy decision against him. Moore as well, maybe even knock him out in the later rounds. Louis would have a better chance against Layne, but he still would probably lose.
The 1954 Charles vs the 1950 Louis? Well, I have to admit I never thought of this matchup. However, Charles though slipping, probably had enough left to beat Louis. Who cares anyway?

You can make a big deal about Charles getting "busted up" by Louis; but the bottom line is that Charles completely dominated Louis when they did fight in 1950.

Marciano's win over a shot Joe Louis is no more impressive than Mike Tyson beating Larry Holmes. Means nothing.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

lastarza doesnt have a chance against louis. Louis was too big too skilled too powerful for roland.


What skilled 6'2 215lb fighter with a top jab did roland ever beat?

Layne did fight louis in 1951 exhibition, louis knocked him out. layne said louis hit harder than marciano(a 1951 louis he was talking about)


btw i find it funny in the other thread u talk about gibbons going 11-0 heading into the tunney fight which shows he was still very capable.....yet louis going into the marciano had won 8 fights in a row 8-0 yet somehow he was shot? Louis beat FIVE ring magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders during that stretch, while gibbons beat maybe 1(a blind norfolk)..yet gibbons is more capable? u say gibbons did well vs dempsey, but on the film i saw it showed a scared little jack rabbit with a low gaurd running away for 15 rounds, in fact gibbson won just 3 out of 15 rounds hardly impressive. Louis age 36 rusted won more rounds against ezzard charles and did far more damage to charles face than gibbons did to dempsey.

[Ambling Alp]

Gee, where to start?
Ok, first of all, La Starza probably would have little problem with that version of Louis. So what if Louis put on 15 pounds? He certainly didn't look good. He was much slower, had slower reflexes, couldn't fight at as fast of a pace, and wasn't throwing combinations like he used to.

La Starza was competitive with a prime Marciano. He wouldn't have much problem using his boxing skills and vastly superior speed to win an easy decision against a shot Joe Louis.

We have the proof that Louis was shot going into the Marciano fight. He looked awful against Charles just a year earlier. It doesn't matter if Charles face got marked up. He easily dominated Louis, and probably could have stopped him in the late rounds he would have went for it.

In the fights that Louis fought between Charles and Marciano, he was not fighting that good of competition. He didn't beat 5 Rated contenders as you say. Only Savold was rated going into the fight. That Savold was rated as high as he was shows how weak the division was at the time. Normally he wouldn't have been ranked.
Even so, Louis only scored 3 knockouts in those 8 fights, including a 10 round ko of the great Andy Walker. In his prime, Louis probably would have knocked out all 8. Louis would have probably beat Charles; at the very least he wouldn't have been slapped around so easily.

I'm not quite sure why you are bringing the Gibbons discussion over from the other thread but whatever.
You haven't offered any evidence of Gibbons slowing down outside of your biased view of how he looked on film. (It's quite a coincidence that your favorites always look great on film, guys you don't like seldom seem to.)

Gibbons ran like a "scared little jack rabbitt" and won only three rounds? What in the world are you talking about?
It was a close fight, some people even think Gibbons won. That Gibbons didn't damage Demspey's face too much is irrelevant.
Is that how you judge fights? How damaged a guys face is? Wow.

That was against a prime Dempsey. That was a very good showing for Gibbons. that he rolled over his opponents in the 11 fights in only two years between that fight and the Tunney fight; indicates that he was still fighting at a high level. You certainly haven't offered anything serious to contradict that.

[dempseyfire]

Dempsey-Gibbons was NOT close. Most scribes had Gibbons winning no more than 5 rounds.

I will agree with Alp about the Louis of 1951, just look at him vs Charles, Savold, and Rocky. His reflexes are so shot it's just sad. It's clear he'd lost a good deal of his ability to pull the trigger a la the current version of Holyfield. Was he still a decent fighter? Of course, but not a great one at that point in time. I can certainly see LaStarza beating that Louis or at least making him look awful in a close fight.

[Ambling Alp]

Every description that I had ever read describing the Gibbons-Dempsey fight has it as a close, competitive fight.
Every description I ever read about Louis-Charles had it as an easy win for Charles. Watching it myself I agree. His reflexes looked shot in that fight as well as the Marciano fight.

Louis was clearly declining when he came back after World War II. He wasn't impressive in the 2nd Conn fight or the Walcott fights. By the Charles fight, he didn't have a lot left.

[Ezzard]

Reports I read on Dempsey-Gibbons do not have the fight as being that close BUT they do criticise Dempsey for not blowing his house down. I get the feeling that because of the early KOs and the Willard fight that Dempsey's fights became something akin to a public execution (Tyson's were the same for a while). When the KO didn't come many criticised Dempsey.

I've seen clips of the fight, not the whole show.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I, too, have large sections of clips of the bout, but not the contest in its entirety. The accounts I've read declared Gibbons far too gun-shy, & made Dempsey out to be a wide-margin victor. This is the first I've heard of Alp's assertions. Any links, Alp? Would be interesting.

[Ambling Alp]

Well I looked at the books that I had that were handy.
3 of them made passing references to the fight; all indicated brieldy that the fight was competitive,but didn't say how close.
This included Dempsey's own account in "In This Corner" by Peter Heller, "The Boxing Register" by James Roberts and Alexander Skutt, and "An Illustrated History of Boxing" by Nat Fleischer and Sam Andre.

Another book called "The Legendary Champions" by Rex Lardner goes into the fight into a little more detail. It implied that it was a very close fight. It claims that Gibbons outboxed Dempsey thoroughly in the early rounds and frustrated Dempsey enough to hit Gibbons low several times. It even went as far to say that the referee (and sole judge) was a friend of Dempsey's (and "personal selection of Dempsey's manager/trainer Doc Kearns.) and let it the low blows go and gave Dempsey the decision.
(The Boxing Register also says that Doc Kearns used his "own referee".)

I have read other more detailed account of the fight in books that I have borrowed from the Library that have called this a close fight as well.

[dempseyfire]

The actual newspaper accounts have a different story. I think you can get the NYT write-up off their website (I'm too lazy right now to get it myself)

[observer1]

Marciano's win over a shot Joe Louis is no more impressive than Mike Tyson beating Larry Holmes. Means nothing.

Hmm, i would compare Marciano V Louis to Lewis V Tyson.

Tyson beating Holmes was not some big upset, but it was still surprising and amazing how Tyson managed to KO him in just 4 rounds. Especially when you consider Larry Holmes never being stopped, and going on for 10 more years and holding his own.

[Goodnight, Irene]

People can say what they want about Holmes' age & inactivity, but no one ever did to him what a young Tyson did, previously, or thereafter. That victory has some credibility, because of the manner in which Tyson disposed of Holmes.

It deserves some merit.

[JABARDELLI]

In winning the heavyweight championship, Marciano is constantly criticized for beating up "old man Walcott." Well, let's consider some other facts in fairness to Marciano in lending "historical perspective" to the equation. Marciano was 9 years younger than Walcott when they fought. Examining the ages of champions and contenders when the title changed hands in other eras, one sees that James J. Jeffries was 12 years younger than Bob Fitzsimmons, Jack Dempsey was 13 years younger than Jess Willard, Joe Louis was 12 years younger than Jimmy Braddock, Muhammed Ali was 10 years younger than Old Man Sonny Liston, Larry Holmes was 6 years younger than Kenny Norton, and Leon Spinks was 11 years younger than Muhammed Ali. All told, Marciano's 9 year "advantage" is not as great as most of the mentioned contenders yet do we ever hear anyone rage as much about this as we do those who have a bone of contention to pick with Rocky Marciano. The answer is that we rarely ever hear the others criticized.

The Marciano critics include Ezzard Charles as being one of the old fighters Marciano had easy pickings with and who should not have been in the ring with a young Marciano. Goodness sakes, fans, Charles was 32, only two years older than Marciano who was 30 when they first met. When he met Marciano the first time, his record was 72-10 with 54 KOs to Rocky's 45-0 with 38 knockouts.

Marciano destroyed Charles in both contests. Never mind what reporters have to say about Charles nearly beating Marciano in their first fight. Watch the fight yourself. Marciano literally ruined Charles in their first fight and gave Charles a worse beating in defeating Charles over the course of the 15 round decision in that first encounter than he did in knocking him out in 8 rounds in their second fight.

We next come to Archie Moore. Old Long Pants. No doubt about it, Moore was a veteran campaigner when he fought Marciano. Moore went to the public and clamored for a match. He aroused the public to the point that if Marciano did not fight Moore, Marciano would be accused of "ducking Ancient Archie." Well, as Marciano responded: "He wants the match and he's going to get it." Whether either the press or whether Moore understood the portent of things to come or not, oh brother, did Moore ever get it! Marciano waded through Moore like a hot knife through butter and literally slaughtered Moore before knocking him down and out in the 9th round. Forced into the fight by Moore, the press, and the public, Marciano made sure nobody would doubt he won his final fight. There absolutely was no doubt, Rocky. And yet the press immediately had the audacity to claim that Moore was too old!!!

To this day, Marciano is heavily criticized for taking on Moore at a time when, we are lead to believe, Moore had become an ancient relic. What are the facts? In truth, Marciano was 10 years younger than Archie Moore. Now let's be fair again when we start looking at Moore and some of his other opponents. Muhammed Ali was 19 years younger than Archie Moore when they fought and yet how frequently does one hear any criticism, whatsoever, leveled at Ali for knocking out Archie Moore?

The same is true of Floyd Patterson who was 21 years younger than Archie Moore when he knocked out Moore to win the heavyweight championship!!! There is absolutely no criticism of Patterson either. Only Marciano is criticized and on a comparative basis, Moore was a much more worthy opponent fighting Marciano than he was against either Ali or Patterson. Also, Marciano inflicted a frightful beating upon Moore which went above and beyond the combined assaults of Patterson and Ali on Moore.

How ancient was Moore when he fought Marciano? When they entered the ring at fight time, Moore's record was 150-22 with 121 KOs. Marciano sported a 48-0 record with 42 KOs. Without question, Moore was a worthy and dangerous challenger. As noted, Marciano knocked Moore out but only having getting knocked down, himself, in the second round. Was Moore the washed up fighter he is reputed to be by some of the boxing historical revisionists? Consider these facts. After the Marciano knockout, Archie Moore fought 49 more times, with 24 KOs and only 4 more loses and two of those loses were inflicted by Ali and Patterson as I have noted. That is a record of which Roy Jones would be envious to hold considering the caliber of opponents Moore went on to fight after the Marciano knockout in comparison to the fighters Jones is engaging in today's market.

Consider that the Moore-Marciano fight took place in 1955. Moore became the light heavyweight champion in 1952 and he held the title until 1962. He never lost the title in the ring, he was stripped by licensing bodies. After the Marciano loss, Moore fought an entire career by today's standards. Included within his opponents were Floyd Patterson, Tony Anthony, Eddie Cotton, Roger Rischer, Bert Whitehurst, Willie Besmanoff (2), Howard King, Charlie Norkus, Howard King, Yvon Durelle (2), Giulio Rinaldi (2), Buddy Thurman, Pete Rademacher, Alejandro Lavorante, Howard King (2), Willie Pastrano, Cassius Clay, and Mike DiBiase. Without a doubt, Moore's record AFTER his fight with Marciano was something most fighters would be proud to own.

[bull]

-Who was the boxer who beat Rocky Marciano in his early, prime and late carrier?

-Nobody!

49-0/43/

[The Great John L]

People can say what they want about Holmes' age & inactivity, but no one ever did to him what a young Tyson did, previously, or thereafter. That victory has some credibility, because of the manner in which Tyson disposed of Holmes.

It deserves some merit.

Tyson's win over Holmes has no more merit than Williams win over Tyson.

[p4p1]

-Who was the boxer who beat Rocky Marciano in his early, prime and late carrier?

-Nobody!

49-0/43/

who was the best boxer who beat sven ottke?

[Goodnight, Irene]

"Tyson's win over Holmes has no more merit than Williams win over Tyson." - The Great John L.

I don't agree. For one thing, Tyson's heart was not --- & had not --- been in the ring in years. I like the way Ron Borges summed it up --- "He'll be fighting for money for a while longer, because he won't have any choice, but he stopped fighting to win a long time ago."

The Tyson who entered the ring against Williams had no desire, &, to my thinking, even more eroded skills & conditioning than Holmes did in 1988. Tyson also suffered three defeats inside the distance in three years, between Lewis & McBride, showing what Williams did was not an unthinkable feat.

In contrast, Holmes came to fight in '88, IMO. Who is more deluded than Holmes? I've no doubt he believed he could best Tyson, & he fought accordingly. He came to win, which is more than can be said of Tyson against Williams. Holmes, as I said, had never been beaten inside the distance, or floored multiple times in a single round, &, just as tellingly, he never would again.

Don't get me wrong --- the win does little for me. However, I think people are going overboard when they say that result, "means absolutely nothing." Holmes' pre & post-Tyson bouts indicate otherwise.

[observer1]

"Tyson's win over Holmes has no more merit than Williams win over Tyson." - The Great John L.

I don't agree. For one thing, Tyson's heart was not --- & had not --- been in the ring in years. I like the way Ron Borges summed it up --- "He'll be fighting for money for a while longer, because he won't have any choice, but he stopped fighting to win a long time ago."

The Tyson who entered the ring against Williams had no desire, &, to my thinking, even more eroded skills & conditioning than Holmes did in 1988. Tyson also suffered three defeats inside the distance in three years, between Lewis & McBride, showing what Williams did was not an unthinkable feat.

In contrast, Holmes came to fight in '88, IMO. Who is more deluded than Holmes? I've no doubt he believed he could best Tyson, & he fought accordingly. He came to win, which is more than can be said of Tyson against Williams. Holmes, as I said, had never been beaten inside the distance, or floored multiple times in a single round, &, just as tellingly, he never would again.

Don't get me wrong --- the win does little for me. However, I think people are going overboard when they say that result, "means absolutely nothing." Holmes' pre & post-Tyson bouts indicate otherwise.

Exactley, people are quick to forget Holmes went on for Years after this fight. Such as Winning Ray Mercer 4 years later, and going all 12 rounds against Holyfield.

Holmes was only KO's once too, that was against Tyson and in 4 rounds only. Holmes may have been passed it, but not as passed it as Tyson was when Tyson faced Williams.

To me, that was NOT a small feat.

[The Great John L]

Don't get me wrong --- the win does little for me. However, I think people are going overboard when they say that result, "means absolutely nothing." Holmes' pre & post-Tyson bouts indicate otherwise.

Tyson's win over Holmes meant absolutely nothing from a historical perspective. Yes, Holmes came to fight. Unfortunately, he didn't have any real preparation for the fight.

[Goodnight, Irene]

To be fair, Holmes had his sea-legs back under him when he defeated Mercer, & lost to Holyfield. He was a few years older, but I think that was a better Holmes than the ring-rusted one Tyson met. Even so, those results put Tyson's victory in, at least, reasonable territory. I don't think this is a great win for Tyson, in truth, but I do think it qualifies as a good one. To say it means nothing, as so many do, doesn't make sense to me.

I still stand by my original point meaning something --- no one else ever did that to Larry. Ever.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Don't get me wrong --- the win does little for me. However, I think people are going overboard when they say that result, "means absolutely nothing." Holmes' pre & post-Tyson bouts indicate otherwise.

Tyson's win over Holmes meant absolutely nothing from a historical perspective. Yes, Holmes came to fight. Unfortunately, he didn't have any real preparation for the fight.

At the risk of sounding trite, we'll have to agree to disagree. It's a reasonable win, IMO. Not great, but carrying some merit.

[Robinson]

tyson's win over Holmes was incredibley impressive. however....

Holmes was extremely inactive leading up to this fight...

and in his come back, he worked his way into it with
tune up fights and proper preparation...that makes all
the difference.

[The Great John L]

tyson's win over Holmes was incredibley impressive. however....

Holmes was extremely inactive leading up to this fight...

and in his come back, he worked his way into it with
tune up fights and proper preparation...that makes all
the difference.

Bingo.

[bull]

Sven Ottke never been heavyweight champion of the worold.
He even never fought 49 pro bouts.
He had 6 ko, Marciano had 6 pts.
His heavyweight record is just one "0".
He is great german and european boxer, but he is just belt holder of one fake weight division - "super midelweight".
Don't compare him with Rocky Marciano if you are real boxing fan.

[Crssbones]

You fight the best fighters available to you in your era. So even with the age factor you would have to say:
Ezzard Charles
Archie Moore
Joe Louis