Jimmy Ellis Circa 1969 V Rocky Marciano Circa 1952

ThatOne · Post by **ThatOne** » 28 Dec 2009, 18:45

Who Wins And Why

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 28 Dec 2009, 18:58

Hard to make an argument for someone who couldn't make five rounds with Frazier getting the best of Marciano...

ThatOne · Post by **ThatOne** » 28 Dec 2009, 19:05

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Hard to make an argument for someone who couldn't make five rounds with Frazier getting the best of Marciano...

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 28 Dec 2009, 19:06

^^^That mean you're agreeing with me, or what?

ThatOne · Post by **ThatOne** » 28 Dec 2009, 19:19

Goodnight, Irene wrote:^^^That mean you're agreeing with me, or what?

I'm thinkin about it.

IMHO, Frazier>>>>> Marciano. Frazier was a bigger stronger Marciano and Tyson was a bigger, stronger Frazier. What Tyson lacked was heart which Rocky and Joe had in spades.

And Tyson was a mid range fighter. He needed space to throw his bombs.

Adamj1987 · Post by **Adamj1987** » 28 Dec 2009, 19:21

frazier was miles better than marceano and ellis was as skilled as charles and walcott id go with ellis keeping composed and winning on a UD

ThatOne · Post by **ThatOne** » 28 Dec 2009, 19:32

Adamj1987 wrote:frazier was miles better than marceano and ellis was as skilled as charles and walcott id go with ellis keeping composed and winning on a UD

You will probably be in the minority but I have seen that same, exact argument.

Adamj1987 · Post by **Adamj1987** » 28 Dec 2009, 19:36

ThatOne wrote:
Adamj1987 wrote:frazier was miles better than marceano and ellis was as skilled as charles and walcott id go with ellis keeping composed and winning on a UD

You will probably be in the minority but I have seen that same, exact argument.

ive no doubt i will. i think marceanos legend has been built ip over the years and tink ezzard charles was the only top guy he fought near there primes but charles wasnt the same beast after he cuased the fatel injuries to 1 opponant. the only way the rock would KO ellis is if he don cockell'ed him

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 28 Dec 2009, 20:37

ThatOne wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:^^^That mean you're agreeing with me, or what?
I'm thinkin about it.

IMHO, Frazier>>>>> Marciano. Frazier was a bigger stronger Marciano and Tyson was a bigger, stronger Frazier. What Tyson lacked was heart which Rocky and Joe had in spades.

And Tyson was a mid range fighter. He needed space to throw his bombs.

No. Marciano/Tyson/Frazier were not just bigger versions of each other. All three fighters had unique attributes and advantages/disadvantages over each other.

Frazier lacked the two-fisted power Rocky had and a different style coming in which although it used more head movement, I actually think Rocky at his best in the crouch may have been more awkard to time and hit cleanly. Marciano also had slightly superior stamina and power to Frazier in the late rounds of a fight.

Ellis as skilled as Charles and Walcott??? No.

ThatOne · Post by **ThatOne** » 28 Dec 2009, 20:42

dempseyfire wrote:
ThatOne wrote:
Goodnight, Irene wrote:^^^That mean you're agreeing with me, or what?
I'm thinkin about it.

IMHO, Frazier>>>>> Marciano. Frazier was a bigger stronger Marciano and Tyson was a bigger, stronger Frazier. What Tyson lacked was heart which Rocky and Joe had in spades.

And Tyson was a mid range fighter. He needed space to throw his bombs.
No. Marciano/Tyson/Frazier were not just bigger versions of each other. All three fighters had unique attributes and advantages/disadvantages over each other.

Frazier lacked the two-fisted power Rocky had and a different style coming in which although it used more head movement, I actually think Rocky at his best in the crouch may have been more awkard to time and hit cleanly. Marciano also had slightly superior stamina and power to Frazier in the late rounds of a fight.

Ellis as skilled as Charles and Walcott??? No.

Frazier was faster than Rocky and Tyson was faster than Frazier and Tyson threw better combinations than both of them and Frazier owned the best left hook of the three of them. But what they had in commmon is they came right at you. IMHO, Frazier beats all.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 28 Dec 2009, 22:13

ThatOne wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:
ThatOne wrote: I'm thinkin about it.

IMHO, Frazier>>>>> Marciano. Frazier was a bigger stronger Marciano and Tyson was a bigger, stronger Frazier. What Tyson lacked was heart which Rocky and Joe had in spades.

And Tyson was a mid range fighter. He needed space to throw his bombs.
No. Marciano/Tyson/Frazier were not just bigger versions of each other. All three fighters had unique attributes and advantages/disadvantages over each other.

Frazier lacked the two-fisted power Rocky had and a different style coming in which although it used more head movement, I actually think Rocky at his best in the crouch may have been more awkard to time and hit cleanly. Marciano also had slightly superior stamina and power to Frazier in the late rounds of a fight.

Ellis as skilled as Charles and Walcott??? No.

Frazier was faster than Rocky and Tyson was faster than Frazier and Tyson threw better combinations than both of them and Frazier owned the best left hook of the three of them. But what they had in commmon is they came right at you. IMHO, Frazier beats all.

How often did Tyson throw these combinations vs top comp? Tyson had surely the flashiest combos on film but does that mean it was better than Rocky's 4 punch dig to the ribs than head? Hrd to truly know.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 28 Dec 2009, 23:02

Adamj1987 wrote:frazier was miles better than marceano and ellis was as skilled as charles and walcott id go with ellis keeping composed and winning on a UD

I disagree strongly on every count, & cannot envision Ellis lasting the distance --- let alone outpointing Marciano as he does it. There's no legitimate argument I can see which puts Frazier, "miles" ahead of Marciano, & Ellis had neither the skill or the talent of Charles & Walcott.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 28 Dec 2009, 23:04

"I'm thinkin about it.

IMHO, Frazier>>>>> Marciano. Frazier was a bigger stronger Marciano and Tyson was a bigger, stronger Frazier. What Tyson lacked was heart which Rocky and Joe had in spades.

And Tyson was a mid range fighter. He needed space to throw his bombs." - ThatOne

Marciano is ever-so-slightly better than Frazier in my book, but if you reasonably disagree, you can't say Frazier was so much better, as to get Ellis out in four rounds, but Marciano couldn't in fifteen. No way is there that much distance between Marciano & Frazier --- as I said, I even make the case Marciano was a little superior. Either way, it's hardly much of a difference --- not nearly enough of one for Ellis to triumph, anyway.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 29 Dec 2009, 12:38

james ellis is getting a lot of unwarranted praise on this site of late.
sorry, just dont rate ellis too high.
marciano would beat joe in a explosive war and the rock would be all over ellis for 6 or 7 rounds before jimmy crumbles.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 29 Dec 2009, 14:07

Someone sees this as an Ellis KO? Identify yourself immediatelly and seek counseling!

I think he'd do marginally better than he did against Frazier but not much.