was marciano like wagner?

[jaclem2]

..no, i don't mean dick wagner the 50s light heavy who gave patterson a couple of tough fights, i mean wagner the composer. Mark Twain quoted edgar wilson nye as saying "wagner's music is better than it sounds."
the connection? sometimes i think marciano must have been better than he looked. a clumsy, stumbling miss-a-punch and fall on the vanvas stylist, ring magazie and the new york boxers didn't think much of him. before their first fight, walcott said if he couldn't beat "this guy" he wanted his name taken out of the record books.when ezzard charles saw him against roland lastarza, charles said "this is going to be real sweet" in thinking about his own future match against marciano. i don't think either one of these two veteran boxer-punchers could imagine this guy beating them. as for me, i chose going to a party over watching him fight joe louis on tv, figuring the bomber, though past it, could handle guys like this until he was sixty.

and yet..and yet. he had to have SOMETHING!! the charge that he got there by beating great fighters who were past their prime is valid, but beat them he did. i think the biggest surprise he held for them was his strength, and he wasn't a big heavyweight. and strength and stamina are two overwhelming assets that were perfect for him in the era of fading guys who were on the tail end of their careers. yet,,beat them he did. now i saw him live tv, before the 49-0 mark was registered. does he look better to me now on film and in historic perspective than he did then? sorry...i just can't see it. but dammit...beat them he did. and frankly, i just can't understand it. :??

[I Feel Fine]

It is what it is. I too sometimes wonder "How did this guy never lose?" But there were a lot of factors. He had dedication, which goes a long way. Dedication translated into his intense training for almost all of his fights, which helped him stay consistent and avoid stupid upsets that tarnish the careers of fighters who may have been better than Rocky. This helped him keep up his high punch out put late into fights; there were times where he seemed almost like a Heavyweight version of Henry Armstrong in terms of pure volume punching. He seemed indefatigable, and that was probably his biggest weapon, more so than his punch. On that note, however, he obviously had power, and though we think of him as very small for a Heavyweight champion, he was not much smaller than a Dempsey, in terms of weight. Few of his opponents would be considered big or even average by modern Heavyweight standards, anyway, and many of his KO's came on an accumulation of punches, so it is not as though you had a completely out-sized midget producing one punch KO after one punch KO; rather, in many of his big fights you simply had a below average sized fighter beating down, over the course of a few rounds, men who were generally only a bit bigger than he. Marciano's punches were also more accurate than you would think, I doubt Archie Moore would have ever thought that Rocky could have landed as many punches on him as he did. Rocky's handspeed was not terrible. And he did little subtle things, like distracting Walcott with a sort of feint (if I remember right) before landing the right, or his mixing in fouls (he said that boxing is "not a card game"). He was a great inside fighter, and his great chin and great pressure made it hard to keep him away. Against limited opposition, you can accomplish a lot with those traits. He was clearly very tough, which goes a long way, whoever you are. Marciano's pressure style must have been very discouraging to his opponents.
Add to that the fact that his era was weak (I know people do not like to hear it, but it was) and that his best opponents were all past their primes; Louis was a shell of his former self, fighting only for the money, Walcott was still great but was also the oldest champ ever at that point in time, Charles was a bit past it. Moore was probably close to his best, but he, and Charles for that matter, were more natural to lower weight classes. All together, you can see how Marciano did it. Louis and Walcott and Charles and Moore certainly did not have bad chins, but none of them had great chins either, for Charles and Moore certainly not at Heavyweight. So that also helped, especially considering their age, which surely made them easier to hit as well. When Rocky was in desperate waters he could depend on his power to help him.
And, perhaps most importantly, in terms of his undefeated record; he retired very early, at 32. If he had fought on for too long someone likely would have gotten him eventually, especially if he had continued fighting the best out there (which is something he should get credit for, also, he never really ducked anyone.)
Marciano was a great fighter, not just anyone could have accomplished what he did; but I also have little doubt that Louis, Ali, Frazier or Holmes could go undefeated in his era. I think Rocky would lose to a lot of the great Heavyweight champions, in their primes. Perhaps a younger Charles beats Rocky? I am sure that a younger Louis does.
But, he was still a great, and I think he deserves to be ranked at least top six among Heavyweight champions. His fights are entertaining, too, which does not hurt his legacy. I mentioned it in another thread, but I think Rocky usually is badly underrated or badly overrated, depending on who you are talking to. One guy will tell you that Rocky was the best fighter ever P4P, which is absurd, but another guy might tell you that Rocky was nothing special, which is also clearly not true. Marciano is a bit enigmatic, but there was clearly real greatness there, it was not all circumstance.

[Robinson]

As far as his major wins go, I think that his opponents did not take
him as serious as they should, and underestimated his very real
traumatic power.

His dedication to training can not be stated enough. This is perhaps
why he did not stay champion for long, in the sense he had to retire...
he was so hard on himself, training so intensely over coming his
weaknesses and weighing them up with power, tenacity and conditioning..

As for him being like Wagner...I dont know.

Like IFF says above, he dominated in an era that was not as great as many
remember it as being, but that should not take away from his achievements.

[I Feel Fine]

Another thing I should have said about the size advantages is that, aside from Charles and Moore, Matthews and Cockell were also coming up in weight. Cockell had a loss to Turpin. LaStarza was about the same size as Rocky, he was not much bigger. Those are all important wins for Rocky, some of the more prominent non-Hall of Famers he met. Marciano is sort of like Napoleon; Napoleon has a reputation for being very short, but he was average in height for his day, though he was short for a soldier. Marciano was small, but he was not David facing 49 Goliaths.

It is also a good point about Marciano being underestimated. It has already been said what Walcott and Charles thought of him. Archie Moore stated that his attitude going into the fight was that he could not possibly lose to a fighter like Marciano who would come straight at him. Moore assumed that he would be able to hurt Rocky. Outside of the knockown, however, Marciano barely seemed to notice Moore's punches. The perceived style advantage that Moore thought he had over Rocky came to nothing.

I remember seeing some unfortunate poster on this forum say that James Toney would beat Rocky. Sorry, if Archie could not do it, then there is no way fat ass Heavyweight Toney does. Toney is a very good fighter, but he is no Archie Moore, by any means, and Marciano is not a Ruiz or a shot Holyfield, let alone a Jirov.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

All 3 of you guys are underrating Marciano's Skill set. I really dont feel like going into long detail about his style and I don't care too, but Marciano had alot of skill for his style and it would be nightmare for most heavyweights head to head at his best. You have to study his skills and defense in his crouch carefully on film to understand just how effective he was. I rate marciano # 5 on my all time heavyweight list, and I pick him over many ATGs head to head, although some would beat him.

Add to that the fact that his era was weak

Untrue. His era had Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Harold Johnson, Jimmy Bivins, Nino Valdez, Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Rex Layne, Roland Lastarza, Hurricane Jackson, Harry Kid Matthews, and Earl Walls. I have seen all of these fighters on film, and most of them impress tremendously.

and strength and stamina are two overwhelming assets that were perfect for him in the era of fading guys who were on the tail end of their careers.

Rex Layne and Roland Lastarza were both undefeated 23 year olds top 10 rated. Rocky destroyed them. I might add those "Fading" old guys you like to bring up were destroying all the big top dangerous young black heavyweights of the era like Baker, Valdez, Henry, and Wallace. Perhaps you would have thought more highly of marciano if he beat valdez, henry, baker instead of moore, charles, louis?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I do have a question for people in this thread....

Say instead of beating Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles 2x, and Archie Moore Rocky beat Clarence Henry(replaces Joe Louis), Nino Valdez 2x(replaces ezzard charles) and Bob Baker(replaces archie moore)

Then Rockys win resume would look like

Jersey Joe Walcott 2x- 38-39 years old
Nino Valdez 2x- 29-30 years old
Clarence Henry- 25 Years old
Bob Baker- 26 Years old
Roland Lastarza- 23 years old
Rex Layne- 22 years old
Harry Kid Matthews- 29 years old
Don Cockell- 26 years old
Carmine Vingo- 20 years old


Do you think thats a more impressive resume or worse? Tell you the truth past there primes or not, I think Louis Moore Charles were better fighters and better names to have on rockys resume than those young studs of the 1950s.



How much higher would you have rated rocky if he fought a 50th fight at age 33 in 1956 and knocked out a young floyd patterson? because of patterson age, would you cement this as the biggest victory on rockys resume despite floyd being unproven?

Seriousely, what more do you want the guy do to? He beat the best heavyweights of his era, went 6-0 with 5 knockouts against Hall of Famers, defended his title 5 out of 6 times against Ring Magazine # 1 contender, and he never lost. His record against Ring Magazine top 10 contenders was 11-0 with 10 knockouts. I think people are jealous of that.

[BoxBuzz]

As far as I'm concerned it's like the military guys who stormed Anzio and/or Normandy....some were in the right place, right time made it to the other side alive and were very lucky. And the guys who stormed in toward the end, as the enemy was beginning to "weaken" somehow had even better luck than the first wave. (Who'd a guessed it?) He ran through the incoming all the while shooting with intensity at the enemy, staying on the move....and when the dust settled no one had bested him.

Luck more than skill, will more than skill, conditioning more than skill, and the guys on the other side beginning to slow down all added up to a career that was "touched by an angel". A man that won't be beaten can't be beat, and he sort of personified that. I'm not quite saying he was a fluke, but having a pinch of manifest destiny probably didn't hurt none.

IMHO Louis, Charles and Walcott all had better skills. But it was The Rock that was left standing in those battles.

[I Feel Fine]

Old Louis, old Charles and blown up Archie were great top contenders. No one denies that Rocky could beat great top contenders. It is not the same as beating a fellow top ten all time Heavyweight in or close to their prime. Louis was never the same when he came out of the army, and he was even worse when he came out of retirement to lose to Charles. Charles was 34, had lost to Valdez, and was in the last throes of his career as an elite fighter. Walcott had escaped the fourth Charles fight with a controversial decision, and though he was still a great champion, he was not a top ten all timer either. He was 38, and though he seemed ageless, he was the oldest Heavyweight champion of all time to that point, it is hard to ignore that. It is still a great win, but it is not hard to picture many other all time greats taking the title from that Walcott. Moore was a champion, was still a great fighter, but his best weightclass was not Heavyweight.
It is a great resume, it puts Rocky top 5-6 all time. You can hardly be accused of underrating a fighter when you have them ranked that highly. I have Rocky rated ahead of Liston, Holyfield, Lewis, Frazier, and many other greats. But, put Louis or Ali or Frazier or Foreman or Holmes in that era and they probably go 49-0 too. Besides Frazier, I would not favor Rocky to beat those guys, either. I think Liston beats him. Lewis and Holyfield could.
As for his defense, he certainly made an effort at defense, and was probably harder to hit than he looked. But all one needs to do is see his face after his fights to know that he took a good deal of punches.

[Djanders]

Currently, I rank Rocky Marciano #5 on my all-time Heavyweight list. He is seriously under-rated by many modern boxing fans...in my opinion.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Charles was 34, had lost to Valdez

Charles was 32 the first time they fought, not 34. Sure he lost to Valdez, he showed up overweight and overconfident against a huge underdog, and of course when Charles challenged him again and NBA issued a rematch, Valdez declined, rightfully so. Charles still went on to beat 3 top 10 rated contenders in the next year Rex Layne, Bob Satterfield, and Colley Wallace looking spectacular in each performance on film. While Charles was not in his prime anymore, he put up one of his better performances on June 17th 1954 in the first marciano fight in the past 3 years and I doubt any other heavyweight in the world could have taken him that night.

It is not the same as beating a fellow top ten all time Heavyweight in or close to their prime.

Your right. however, what ATG heavyweight champion outside of Muhammad Ali actually beat a fellow top 10 heavyweight in there prime? I would say none

Old Louis, old Charles and blown up Archie were great top contenders. No one denies that Rocky could beat great top contenders

Agreed. Dont forget Layne and Lastarza were undefeated very young hungry fighters when marciano(the underdog) upset them. he beat both young and old, although I would have liked to see him take on either clarence henry or bob baker in 1951-1952 instead of washed up Lee Savold. See Im picky on everybody!

Walcott had escaped the fourth Charles fight with a controversial decision, and though he was still a great champion, he was not a top ten all timer either

I rate Walcott in my top 15, but I agree hes not top 10. I will say Walcott sure looked great knocking out a 29 year old Ezzard Charles not too long before and looked specatular in first Rocky fight.

Moore was a champion, was still a great fighter, but his best weightclass was not Heavyweight.

Yes, although I will say if you want some trivia Archie Moores career record at heavyweight stands at 70-3-2!!! His record against men above 200lb is 22-1 with 19 kayos!! Moores was on a 45-1 run going into the marciano fight!! Not too shabby! Especially if you consider he beat dangerous young top heavyweights like Baker and Valdes and Henry who some critics like to say Marcianos management avoided.

It is a great resume, it puts Rocky top 5-6 all time

Yes I have him at # 5

As for his defense, he certainly made an effort at defense, and was probably harder to hit than he looked. But all one needs to do is see his face after his fights to know that he took a good deal of punches

I think Rocky's defense was outstanding in his crouch. The way he bent his torso and weaved rolled ducked around at athletic unpredictable angles making him very hard to hit with a clean punch, and leaving the other fighter off balance trying to him him and open for a huge counter....rocky rolled weaved ducked punches and he slipped jabs very well with his high gaurd and good parrying techniques, and he blocked the body blows with his elbows. Charlie Goldman taught rocky a very effective crouch defense, and the ability to cut off the ring vs any kind of fighter, and he taught rocky how to become a smaller target "If your small, well make you smaller" and this is very effective when dealing with taller larger heavyweights.



Well, it doesnt look like we disagree on much.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:37 pm
Posts: 16306
Location: Sleepy New England Town As far as I'm concerned it's like the military guys who stormed Anzio and/or Normandy....some were in the right place, right time made it to the other side alive and were very lucky. And the guys who stormed in toward the end, as the enemy was beginning to "weaken" somehow had even better luck than the first wave. (Who'd a guessed it?) He ran through the incoming all the while shooting with intensity at the enemy, staying on the move....and when the dust settled no one had bested him.

Luck more than skill, will more than skill, conditioning more than skill, and the guys on the other side beginning to slow down all added up to a career that was "touched by an angel". A man that won't be beaten can't be beat, and he sort of personified that. I'm not quite saying he was a fluke, but having a pinch of manifest destiny probably didn't hurt none.

Ahh Boxy Buzz, I can smell the stench of this post all the way here in Boston, Ma. I don't like the sound of it. A fighter with that kind of record, statistics, and filmed performances doesnt get lucky at being at the right place at the right time....hes just an All time great fighter with a very effective fighting style who destroyed all the top fighters in his path. No more, No less. For someone who ended your favorite fighters best winning streak of his career by dominating him, I figure you might have a tad bit higher opinion.

[I Feel Fine]

Yes, I was wrong about the age. Chalres was less than a month away from 33 going into the first fight and was 33 in the rematch, which amazingly was only three months after the first fight. I don't know how fighters back then did it, fighting such tough fights so close together. But 33 is a bit old for a fighter. I won't comment on Charles' condition in the Valdez fight, as I admittedly have not seen it. Just seems like a bad loss for Ezzard. I purposely did not note his loss to Harold Johnson, since that was in Johnson's hometown and was controversial.
Charles is one of the greatest fighters of all time. Charles was a top ten pound for pound all time fighter in my opinion, and as a pound for pound great I would rate him ahead of Ali or Louis (though obviously I rate them higher as Heavyweights). I just think that he had too much mileage at this stage. A great pair of wins, but I do wonder how a younger Charles does. Walcott was also a great fighter, but I think he was fortunate in his wins over Charles. Charles had beaten him twice and perhaps took him lightly the third time. Charles ducked most every big left hook Walcott had thrown at him for two and a half fights before Walcott finally landed the big one. The fourth fight was controversial, as I said, perhaps Walcott getting the edge in the scoring because he now held the belt. Maybe not a robbery, but it was disputed by many ringside observers. I have only seen select rounds of the fight, so I could not say.
Moore, as I said, was a great Heavyweight contender. But I get the sense that Joe Louis or Ali (against a prime Archie) or Frazier would not have too much trouble taking care of him. Patterson crushed him a year later for the vacant belt, whatever the circumstances. Still, it was one of Rocky's more dominant showings, however, despite the knockdown.
I would compare Rocky's defense to someone like Frazier; Ali said after their first fight that Frazier was much harder to hit than he expected. Still, Ali did not miss too many against Joe, who got hit a lot in most of his big fights. Rocky was the same way; he may not have been Tex Cobb, but he did take plenty of punches. I doubt that too many of the great Heavyweights would have missed many against Rocky.
As I said, Rocky was a great fighter. He was not an Ali or a Louis, but still top 5-6. An interesting thing about Rocky is that he started boxing in his early 20s, which is no benefit. Ali, for instance, started boxing at around 12.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Fine Points IFF

[Ezzard]

Nice to see Brockton posting (BTW Charles was a better HW than Walcott - just thought I'd get that in)...

I can't put Marciano in my top 5. He has underrated skill but still not top drawer. He has formidable power, stamina, endurance and mental strength and those things made him great. He came back to win fights he was losing and for this he deserves plaudits.

Like Jaclem said his strength and stamina made up for his best opponents superior skill. And catching them slightly over the brow of the hill really boosted his advantages. Even so his record and all-round ability is good enough to get him on the great list.

Up until the shadow of Liston I'd have given Rocky a chance with any of the greats. He wouldn't always be favourite but he showed enough to have a good chance against any of them. The thing is once you get to Liston the HWs just get bigger and bigger. A small man (like Tunney) who relies on fleet footwork, defence and skill can still execute their game plan. But a guy like Marciano who (despite not being as easy to hit as it first looks) relies on wearing a guy down, looking for the KO and standing in the eye of the storm and firing back... I seriously can't see him lasting against Liston, Foreman, Lewis...

When I make those lists Rocky usually sits a place or two above or below 10th...

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

BTW Charles was a better HW than Walcott - just thought I'd get that in)...

I disagree

Walcott is in my top 12. I believe he has a better case than Ezzard. Walcotts run 1945-1947 where he cleaned out 8 different Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders(Tommy Gomez, Hatcetman Sheppard, Joey Maxim 2x, Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Lee Q Murray, Joe Baksi, Lee Oma)... is as good a run as any HW champion ever had. During this time Walcott beat the 3 BEST heavyweights of the mid 1940s duration era Jimmy Bivins Elmer Ray and Lee Q Murray. If you count the first Louis fight as a win(which you should), then that enhances his legacy further. Walcott should have been the first heavyweight champion to lose and regain the title. Other things that help Walcott: Walcott beat more big punchers than any heavyweight champion except Lennox and Ali. Tommy Gomez, Hatchetman Sheppard, Lee Q Murray, and Elmer Ray were the biggest punchers of the 1940s and Walcott went 6-1 against them!) Walcott's performances against big heavyweights 6' + 200lb + was quite good and defeated talented rated big men. 6'2 213lb Joe Louis, 6'6 220lb Undefeated Hein Ten Hoff, 6'1 218lb # 6 rated Joe Baksi, 6'3 207lb Lee Q Murray # 3 rated, and tough fringe contenders 6'5 220lb Johnny Skhor 6'0 200lb Lorenzo Pack(100% knockout percentage) and 6'3 208lb Ollie Tandberg were all qualified big heavyweights Walcott either dominated/or competed very well against during his prime years. In fact counting the Louis I fight as a win, Walcotts career record against heavyweights 200lb + was 13-3!


Walcott also holds victories over 5 different hall of famers(Louis I, Bivins, Johnson, Charles, Maxim) and has beaten over a dozen Ring Magazine rated fighters during his career. Walcott proved his abilities vs fighters of all different sizes and styles.

I think what best helps walcott is that he beat top hall of famers coming off there career best win streaks........

1946 W 10 Jimmy Bivins- Bivins was 26 years old # 1 ring magazine contender and duration champion. Bivins was undefeated for the last 4 years and 40 plus fights, and Walcott ended this incredible winning streak.

1950 KO 3 Harold Johnson- Johnson was 28-1 22 year old future star trying to avenge his fathers knockout loss. Walcott floored johnson in the 2nd round with one big shot, and johnson didnt hurt his back till after he fell to the canvas during the knockdown.

1947 W 10 Elmer Ray- Herb Goldman rated Elmer Ray # 17 greatest Heavyweight of all time. Ray was coming off a 62-1 win streak going into the walcott bout and was Top rated contender by Ring Magazine, and had not lost a fight in 4 years...Walcott knocked ray down 3 times and avenged a loss to him ending Ray's incredible hot streak.

1951 KO 7 Ezzard Charles- Charles was Heavyweight Champion 8 succesful title defenses, Charles had not been defeated in 4 years since a close decision loss to Ray(which he avenged) and charles had been undefeated in over 20 fights since and at 29 years old was on the best win streak of his career.. Walcott flattened Charles with the perfect knockout punch ending charles long winning streak. First time ezzard had ever been knocked out for the 10 count.


1947 W 15 ?? Joe Louis- Louis was world heavyweight champion and had been undefeated for the past TWELVE years and 23 title defenses. If Walcott had justly got the decision, not only would this have gone down as one of the best performances ever, but would have ended the greatest title streak of all time!

And of Course he gets credit for being 2 rounds away from nearly ended Rocky Marcianos 42-0 perfect streak ahead on all 3 cards at age 38

Beating Hot fighters on there career best win streaks is the hardest thing to do in boxing, Walcott did it multiple times vs GREAT fighters.



Head to Head:

Walcott IMO does better against the rest of the field than charles did. Walcott has the tools to defeat very good big men while charles does not. Charles always struggled with tall jabbers, Joe Louis and Nino Valdes busted up his face horribly with jabs...walcotts superior head movement however allowed him to handle tall jabbers much better. Walcott had the best footwork of all time, his amazing feints cute moves and upperbody movement made him a handful for any heavyweight puncher to hit cleanly, his chin during his prime proved very tolerable to big shots as walcott came out alive facing more punchers than anyone in heavyweight history(outside of ali and lennox) and was only knocked out by ATGs louis and marciano and it took them 23 and 13 rounds. Walcotts jab was one of the finest things we have ever seen, it was sharp fast and accurate...he even threw triple jab combinations that looked damm near unstoppable. He could jab with the best of the big jabbers and showed it on film vs 6'6 Hoff. Walcotts shuffle where he would fake walking away then come back with a counter trap is one of the best traps in boxing history, and multiple hall of famers walked into it. Walcott was very strong, Willie Reddish called Walcott and Liston the two strongest heavyweights of all time, and Walcott controlled strong men like Marciano and Ray well in clinches. Walcott could hit VERY hard with each hand, knock you out with one punch. Rated # 66 on Ring Magazine top 100 punchers of all time. It took Walcott just ONE punch to either floor/ or knockout top men like Joe Louis 3x, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim. His boxing skills were designed around cleverness and craftiness, but his textbook skills were oustanding too always keeping high gaurd, chin tucked, elbows in, threw straight punches etc. Despite his smallish size 6'0 195lb Walcott proved his ability vs all different styles he could fight aggresivley, or he could box. I think for reasons stated above, Walcott has the best chance out of all the 200lb boxers in history to defeat the ATG big heavyweights(holmes, lennox, bowe, foreman, liston, etc) and his style at his best ranks better head to head vs the rest of the heavyweight field than charles. Walcott has the Jab, Strength, Punching Power that Charles doesn't have to beat the best of the big men. Charles was much greater fighter p4p though at 175lb.



Walcott # 12 Charles # 16

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

But a guy like Marciano who (despite not being as easy to hit as it first looks) relies on wearing a guy down, looking for the KO and standing in the eye of the storm and firing back... I seriously can't see him lasting against Liston, Foreman, Lewis...

Yet a 185lb guy like Jack Dempsey can? I know I know what your gonna say. "But dempsey had amazing skill speed bla bla bla". I think this is where we would disagree. Though it would be hard to see The rock defeating Liston or Foreman due to styles reasoning, there is no reason why Rocky can't defeat great heavyweights of the modern era like Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Evander Holyfield, hell even Riddick Bowe, and give Ali a run for his money not to mention some of the talented alphabet soup big 80s HW champions that I would favor rocky over. I also think if Rocky came around in the 1990s he would enter the ring with modern benefits supplements nutrition at around 205lb making it a much more fair matchup between He and Lennox, and lennox vs that version would be a toss up IMO.

[Ezzard]

But a guy like Marciano who (despite not being as easy to hit as it first looks) relies on wearing a guy down, looking for the KO and standing in the eye of the storm and firing back... I seriously can't see him lasting against Liston, Foreman, Lewis...

Yet a 185lb guy like Jack Dempsey can? I know I know what your gonna say. "But dempsey had amazing skill speed bla bla bla". I think this is where we would disagree. Though it would be hard to see The rock defeating Liston or Foreman due to styles reasoning, there is no reason why Rocky can't defeat great heavyweights of the modern era like Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Evander Holyfield, hell even Riddick Bowe, and give Ali a run for his money not to mention some of the talented alphabet soup big 80s HW champions that I would favor rocky over. I also think if Rocky came around in the 1990s he would enter the ring with modern benefits supplements nutrition at around 205lb making it a much more fair matchup between He and Lennox, and lennox vs that version would be a toss up IMO.

It's a fair argument.

[harrygreb]

wagner's works all start off slow and take a ridiculously long time to build up to anything. just right for some guy to pick him off in the early stanzas. by the middle rounds things are looking distinctly bad for wagner. he swings from key to key trying to find a rhythm. all the time his opponent is growing in confidence - "who said this bum was a killin' machine?" then in the last few rounds things start to change...wagner's intensity begins to impose itself on proceedings. he is revealed to have awesome power, waves of utter beauty threaten to overwhelm the listener, gathering storms of emotion are increased and repeated. this music and wagners punches are loaded with hooks! as he reaches the last few bars his foe is exhausted by this non-stop assault on the head and heart. he is rescued by the referee/conductor as he is draped over the chords...a broken man. and wagner is once again victorious. its WAGNERS RING. he is still undefeated.
(i did hear that rocky was a fan)

[jaclem2]

harryg - - bravo, my friend!!!bravo!!

[harrygreb]

i'm pleased with it

[Wildhawke11]

Rocky Marciano - a Champion both In and Out of the Ring
By Danny *Wildhawke* Cahalin


If winning fights is *ALL* that matters then the only one Heavyweight in the picture has to be Rocky Marciano. 49 fights -- 49 wins -- 43 by KO. Of course we all know statistics on paper don't give the full story. Ali most feel holds that Crown, and arguable was the best.

I would love to have seen a fight between Marciano and Holmes, both at there peak. On paper it looks like a Holmes victory. Most would say "Yes Larry is to big and has a great jab"! Till i whispered in the Rocks ear "Hey Champ this is the guy who said you were not fit enough to carry his jock strap".

That's all Marciano would need to put Holmes through more pain then any fighter has had to take to earn a win. Not sure then who my money would be on. Ohhhhh hell put my money on the guy who never gave up, and walked through fire and brimstone to land his own blows. In a lot of ways he was a bit like the fighter in the Rocky Films, if you were going to beat him you had to be prepared to die to win. Once in that square jungle with the Rock. It was pain, pain and more pain to follow. Talk about the film *Jaws*. This guy could just as easy have been named *The Great White Shark*.

Many fighters who took on the Rock worked out he was clumsy, slow and had there game plan all worked out. "I will keep him away with my strong jab, or tie him up when close, or make him miss with my boxing skills". Boy was they in for a shock and a hard nights work. The reality was, once the fight started, they found out that he was not so slow, had power in EVERY blow he threw, and it was a total different ball game trying to fight the Rock then watching this squat figure from the safety of a ringside seat and dreaming they could take him. No matter how much you hit him, or were ahead on points against this guy, he never stopped coming at you. He was losing against Joe Walcott going into the 13th round but once again the Rock did it as the old song goes ------ I Did It My Way ------

You know why people loved the Rock, it was because they could associate themselves with him, he did not look like our stereo type picture of a fighter, more like the average Joe in the street, short of build, craggy features, he was one of us. If you know what i mean. He had not the speed of Clay, the accuracy of Joe Louis, or the film star look of say a young Billy Conn, but he had the biggest Heart in the World - it is true, i have heard guys say he would rather die then give up. That was our Rocky.

Unlike some he never disrespected any other fighter he took on, he just did the job in his own way, and went out with a true unbeaten 49 record win to show for his efforts. What more can a man do to then be the best of his era. They might knock you Rocky and criticise you in any way they like, but one thing no one can ever take away from you. It's that great unbeaten record you took to your grave.

You want the honest truth why i admire Rocky Marciano so much. Its because unlike Sugar Ray Leonard or even Ali himself and many others, Rocky never had a glittering amateur career behind him or came out of the amateur ranks with a gold medal hung around his neck and a million dollar syndicate ready and willing to back him. He had to do it the hard way. No one really wanted to know this crude slugger and very few even gave him a chance of even making it as a pro fighter. He never even put on a pair of boxing gloves till late in life by boxing standards and in almost every fight he had they said he will lose this one for sure. But the Rock proved them all wrong by sheer hard work and dedication aided of course by his incredible stamina, heart and punch power.

One of the fittest fighters Joe Frazier used to train for 8 weeks solid before an upcoming fight. Rock trained for over 4 months solid and led a spartan type life to make sure he could go the full 15 rounds if he needed to do so. He even had a special 300lb bag made to work out on so that he could practice his punching power on. The idea of course being that he could hurt and move men weighting over 200 lbs around when he got them in the ring for real, and unlike Forman type punchers he could do this for a full 15 rounds.

He led a spartan type life style for these four months or so, with only one thought on his mind the fight to come. He could very easy have come into the ring carrying another 10 lb or so but that was not his way he trained down so that he did not have one lb of surplus fat on his body, when he stepped into the ring. I often wonder how the modern HW would have coped if Rock was their trainer. They might hate him but by heavens he would get them in the best shape of there lives.

But maybe i admire most of all unlike some fighters he never disrespected any man he ever stepped in the ring with. To my mind I agree he might not be the Top HW but very few fighters who do make the Top 20 would relish the thought of having this 185 lb of sheer fury coming at them for a full 15 rounds. Yes, they might beat him but it would be a trip to hell and back for them to do it. So the guy who never quit and gave 100% in every fight he took part in gets my vote to get into that elite group of Top 10 All Time HWs.

Maybe its time now to start judging the smaller old time Heavyweights such as Marciano, Dempsey, Tunney etc etc on a Pound for Pound basis but then still rank them say for example at number 4 in The All Time Great Heavy List rather then say would Jack Dempsey have beaten say Lewis. Or the next 290 lb fighter that is sure to come along one day. In the year 2075 they might well be saying how could little Ali have beaten our present 350lb World Champ.

On a last note some think to ponder on my fellow boxing lovers, Marciano I feel would be on most peoples Top 10 or Top 20 All Time Great list. How you achieve that be it by boxing skills, or by sheer will determination and punch power matters not, the bottom line is you did it. Take a step back from do we favour one fighter or the other for a moment, and give this some thought.

From the days of John L. Sullivan right up to today's HW Champs cast your mind back and just think of the thousands and thousands of young men that have had the courage to complete in perhaps the worlds toughest sport. Now to even make the Top 100 let alone the Top 20 is a pretty remarkable effort. Sometimes i think we lose sight of this fact and to quickly condemn a fighter because he does not make our elite Top 20 bracket.

Be it the fury of Tyson or Dempsey.
Or the power of a Foreman or Marciano.
Or the silky skills of Ali, Charles, Wallcott or Billy Conn.
They have all thrilled us throughout the ages and made our humdrum lives just a little brighter, and in fact why even at this moment in time we still talk about them.

So lets forget for a moment our differences and just thank the Heavens that guys like Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Louis and the like existed, for without them we might never have our game Title Bout, or even be here discussing a sport we adore.


The above is something i wrote a few years back on another forum when i was a tester on the game Title Bout . It saves me writing out another long post

[harrygreb]

your passion for our sport and rocky is a wonderful thing but i would have thought such a lengthy post on this subject would include the name CHARLIE GOLDMAN without whom rocky would certainly been on the wrong end of more decisions than he won.

[Wildhawke11]

[quote="harrygreb"]your passion for our sport and rocky is a wonderful thing but i would have thought such a lengthy post on this subject would include the name CHARLIE GOLDMAN without whom rocky would certainly been on the wrong end of more decisions than he won.[/quote


I was tempted to say "Who in Hell is Charley Goldman" and leave it at that, but you might have thought i was being serious. So i will just answer "I was just writing at the time a small tribute to Rocky and not a book"

[HomicideHenry]

Though the critics and skeptics will never admit it, Marciano had better defense near the end of his career than people thought. From afar, it looked like he got hit with every shot thrown at him, but if you slow down the films today, you can see that for the most part these blows grazed him.

As for his ability to throw a punch, he wasn't great at the dynamics, for his punching prowess came more from his amazing stamina, power and work rate, as he broke men down with constant pressure, rather than by one punch ability...but his left hook is often over-looked, as was his uppercut. Just take a look at the double left hook he landed on Kid Matthews, its a thing of beauty.

Marciano wasn't pretty, neither was Dempsey. It was come hell or high water, sooner or later, it was inevitable, that they would come out on top, and were going to destroy you. As much as people hold Dempsey up to such a higher regard, saying his speed would have made the difference, I also can say on Marciano's behalf, that I never seen Dempsey throw as many punches as The Rock did or seem to never get tired in the ring.

Frazier, to me, wasnt so glamorous either. Yet he's considered shoulders and heads above Marciano and Dempsey, all because of his trilogy with Ali. But, imo, Marciano could have beaten the same Ali that Frazier did in 1971. Dempsey could have too. Frazier may have appeared to have been busier in the ring, but his work rate wasnt comparable to Marciano's, nor did he have Dempsey's speed.

And honestly, I think either one would have defeated the same men that Frazier did. Foster, Doyle, Mathis, Ellis, all would have been victims of either Dempsey or Marciano.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Did my eyes deceive me, or did someone just write Frazier's workrate not only isn't the equal of Marciano's, but that it, "doesn't compare!?"

I know who looks & feels the busier man on film, that's for sure. It ain't Marciano.