Marciano's Record

[NogNogTheBear]

Let me start off saying I am not a troll. I was permanently banned from East Side Boxing for asking this, because apparently, with my first post, this was trolling bad enough to get rid of for life. I am really just curious about this, I'm a fan and am wondering:

Did Marchegiano take on the top contenders in his class, or did he duck his way to 49-0? I dont know all that much but I love watching him fight.

[BoxBuzz]

You will be banned for this!

Ok...just kidding. IMHO.....he fought everyone available that was a threat. But it was a remarkably weak division (though by the names you'd never think so) But all those HOF'ers were well past it by the time he notched them. I tend to think he hit VERY hard, was tenacious as hell, AND lucky with his timing within the division. A few of the next crew were probably poised to beat him. Patterson, Machen, Liston, Williams, Foley a rematch with Moore. Any of those may have posed problems. (Ok not sure on my timing recollections here....someone may call me on a few of those names based on aging out on Marciano's behalf. But a few are legit.

[yancey]

You will be banned for this!

Ok...just kidding. IMHO.....he fought everyone available that was a threat. But it was a remarkably weak division (though by the names you'd never think so) But all those HOF'ers were well past it by the time he notched them. I tend to think he hit VERY hard, was tenacious as hell, AND lucky with his timing within the division. A few of the next crew were probably poised to beat him. Patterson, Machen, Liston, Williams, Foley a rematch with Moore. Any of those may have posed problems. (Ok not sure on my timing recollections here....someone may call me on a few of those names based on aging out on Marciano's behalf. But a few are legit.

Spot on.

[baulks]

He reportedly ducked Nino Valdez. Who was the top contender 1953-55, most of his losses came on points. He beat Ezzard Charles in 1953, Charles then went on to fight Marciano twice in 1954, losing UD15 and KO8.

Valdez never got his shot. Charles did because he was a former world champ.

[NogNogTheBear]

Okay, thats exactly what I was looking for. Yeah, i saw lots of big names but they were old at the time. Thank you very much.

[The Second God]

Marciano fought a lot of bigger guys, yes I think I recall hinm ducking some. Management not the fighter is often responsible for that. Management wants a steady paycheck and the fighter has the ego and wants to prove what he can do.

Marciano was top of his class. An old style brawler who could starch you when you thought you had gained an edge. Joe Wolcott who was a much better fighter stylistically than Marciano found that out in the 13th round one time.

Marciano was to a fighter like Wolcott what an engine slowly running out of oil is. He turned the heat up wore him down and then set him up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2-5fq0sGMs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9msELiZ ... re=related

Marciano was one style of fighter. He could be said to represent a school that was in transition. Carmen Basilio, Jake Lamotta and Tony Zale were in that school as well.

After Marcianio we got Patterson. He was different from the older school a product of Cus D'amato's tutelage as was Jose Torres and Mike Tyson. After Patterson we got Ali and a bunch of Ali wannabees.

I prefer the Marcianio style fighting as it is a style that says "I came to fight".


I'm banned for life from the ESB as well. Wear it as a badge of honor.

[BoxBuzz]

Well, we don't mind deity's around here as long as they have humility and conduct themselves in a civil fashion.

[The Second God]

Well, we don't mind deity's around here as long as they have humility and conduct themselves in a civil fashion.

dieties are common place

[Giancarlo]

He reportedly ducked Lou Nova.

That's what makes this place legendary.

[Crease]

In his time Rocky Marciano was not given the credit he was due. He was not appreciated. He was seen as a slow, clumy slugger with no class.

Marciano never took the "easy road" as some of his later critics accused gim of. Because his style was not fashionable, he had to wait, and wait for his shot. Unlike a lot of today's Heavyweights who are just given world title shots for having unbeaten records, (Johnson, Arreola, Chisora) Rocky had to beat practically ALL of the top contenders before Walcott agreed to fight him.

Marciano arrived in the upper echylons of Heavyweight division by beating the hard-hitting Rex Layne (who had beaten Walcott a year previous)... Rocky then juggernauted his way through other top contenders like Freddie Beshore and Lee Savold.

An interesting point of fact regarding the Marciano vs Louis fight... Despite public belief, Rocky DID NOT want to fight Louis, as Joe had been his childhood hero. But Weill convinced Rocky that if he was ever going to be taken seriously, he had to fight Louis, who was on a succesful comeback trail. And so, the fight occurred and Rocky KO'd him.

Even beating the great Joe Louis was not enough to get a title shot. The new champion Walcott refused to accept Rocky as a legitimate contender saying that he was "crude". And so Rocky fought on throughout 1952 KOing Buonvino and Bertie Reynolds. Then Marciano faced the number one contender, Harry "Kid" Matthews, who had not lost a fight in over 9 years.
Rocky knocked him out too. And became the legitimate number one contender.
He grafted the hard way and finally, Walcott couldn't resue him a title shot.

The public's distain toward Rocky was fulled by Walcott, who (like Charles and Louis before him) was seen as a "good guy" and a tremendously skilled boxer. Walcott belittled Rocky as a fighter and publically announced that he would rretre if Marciano beat him.
After a gruelling and spectacular fight, Rocky knocked him out.

Marciano was olbiged to give Walcott a rematch because that was a condition in the contract, which Walcott (having retired after the fight) decided to activate.
(http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1952/ ... return-to/)
Walcott lasted one round.

In his title reign Marciano give LaStarza a world title shot, because 3 years previous LaSatarza had narrowly lost to The Rock... And the second time round Marciano stopped him.

Rocky then fought the former champion, Ezzard Charkes twice... Charles had been on somehwat of a good run, beating 2 top contenders on his way to getting title shots. Rocky beat him in both fights.

Rocky had planned to retire in 1955, after defeating Cockell. But the mouthy Light Heavyweight Champion, Archie Moore insulted Rocky publicly and, guranteed everyone that he would knock Rocky out. And so, Rocky fought him, and knocked him out.

There has been specualtion about Nino Valdes and why Rocky never fought him. The truth is Valdes was a terribly inconsistent fighter.
Hell, during Rocky's title reign he couldn't even be described as a top contender, haivng lost to Archie Moore twice and losing consistently to other top contenders, Bob Satterfield and Bob Baker.

Rocky avoiding Valdes? Absolute nonsence, every time Valdes had a shot to get into world title contention he blew it.
As well as the above examples that I have already given, during them time Rocky retired, Valdes also lost to Folley and Machen.
He was never getting a world title shot, when the other contenders were beating him consistently.
(In that regard he was a bit like Lee Savold).

To be blunt, the same argument could be made in the cases of Satterfield and Baker, and how Rocky apparently "avoided" them too.

The truth is if Marciano had've fought Satterfield and Babker, the public would have been accusing Marciano of avoiding Charles.
And at the time, there was a a media contingent who believed that Cahrles would be too classy for Marciano.

I hope this answers your question. It is easy to look back at any fighters career and ask: "Well why didn't he fight Mr. ABC during this time"...

As well as any Heavyweight in history, Rocky had to work for his shot and he did beat more top contenders that pratically everyone else.
(and I'm talking when he was a contender, not as a champion as his title reign was relatively short).

The reason he retired was because he suffered from chronic back-pain and Rocky's wife had been nagging him to quite for some time (since the return fight against Walcott).
She repeatedly reassured him "that he had nothing to prove anymore".
As has been verified by Peter Marciano.

[The Second God]

I loved him. He fought a lot of much bigger and stronger men.

He did have a hard time winning against Charles and Wolcott both. Moore had him down and almost out early. Those three were in my estimation much better boxers than Marcianio. But the SOB would win. When you fought him you had to bring your lunch it would likely be an all day affair. He was like a wrecking ball. There's that classic picture of him with blood all over his face his nose literally split in half and his trainer having tried to paste it shut with vaseline between rounds. And he wins that fight with Charles.

That's what I loved about him, like Carmen Basilio, the word quit was not in his vocabulary.

He would not be unbeaten if there were a 12 round championship rule when he fought Wolcott. Wolcott would have won that fight. It is documented he was ahead on the cards before the 13th round began.

That is not to disparage Rocky. He won because he wouldn't quit. That's why I like him.

[Crease]

Moore had him down and almost out early.

With all due respect, that is just not true. Moore did knock Rocky down in the second round.
But Rocky was down for 4 seconds... He wasn't hurt, if anything he was knocked off-balance (because he was flat-footed) same as what happened to him in his title fight against Walcott.

There's that classic picture of him with blood all over his face his nose literally split in half and his trainer having tried to paste it shut with vaseline between rounds. And he wins that fight with Charles.

Indeed, he had to win that fight in the ninth round, because he had been told that hsi nose was bleeding too heavily, he had to KO Cahrles in the 9th, or that fight was going to be stopped at the end of the round.
When you think about that, it's a bit special.

He would not be unbeaten if there were a 12 round championship rule when he fought Wolcott. Wolcott would have won that fight. It is documented he was ahead on the cards before the 13th round began.

You don't really believe that do you? That's a little revisionist...
Don't you think if Rocky knew it was a 12-rounder he would have "went in for the kill" as it were, a round earlier?
I certianly do.

[The Second God]

Moore had him down and almost out early.

With all due respect, that is just not true. Moore did knock Rocky down in the second round.
But Rocky was down for 4 seconds... He wasn't hurt, if anything he was knocked off-balance (because he was flat-footed) same as what happened to him in his title fight against Walcott.

There's that classic picture of him with blood all over his face his nose literally split in half and his trainer having tried to paste it shut with vaseline between rounds. And he wins that fight with Charles.

Indeed, he had to win that fight in the ninth round, because he had been told that hsi nose was bleeding too heavily, he had to KO Cahrles in the 9th, or that fight was going to be stopped at the end of the round.
When you think about that, it's a bit special.

He would not be unbeaten if there were a 12 round championship rule when he fought Wolcott. Wolcott would have won that fight. It is documented he was ahead on the cards before the 13th round began.

You don't really believe that do you? That's a little revisionist...
Don't you think if Rocky knew it was a 12-rounder he would have "went in for the kill" as it were, a round earlier?
I certianly do.

It is not revisionist and in no way was Rocky in control of that fight. I've read that the official scorecards had Rocky behind at the end of the 12th. Is that true or is it not true?

If he was behind on the scorecards and the fight ended in 12 he would not be unbeaten. I am in favor of a 15 round title distance.

[Crease]

It is not revisionist

I apologise if I have offended you, but it is revisionist, because you are looking back now and asking "what if" questions. Now, this can be fun (but really, it is rather pointless) and it certainly is revionist.

If you wish, I can throw a few more out there for you:
For example, the majority of boxing analysts who watched the Clay vs Jones fight (1963) believed that Jones won the fight. And most give it to Jones by two clear rounds.
And the people who scored that fight include Bert Sugar and Al Bernstein.

in no way was Rocky in control of that fight. I've read that the official scorecards had Rocky behind at the end of the 12th. Is that true or is it not true?

First off, yes it is true that Walcott was way ahead on the scorecards, as can be seen:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news/bearden2309.php
Referee Taggert
Walcott leading by a score of 7-4-1

Judge Tomacso
Walcott leading by 7-5

Judge Clayton
Walcott in the lead 8-4

In addition, you speak of Marciano "not controlling the fight", and yes while it is true that Walcott was winning the rounds, he wasn't hurting Marciano. Whereas, Rocky was catching up on Walcott more and more frequently, closing him down toward the later r rounds.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Roculd have finished the fight a round earlier... Look at the Charles fight, Roacky had 1 round to win and he did it, I think it would have been the same with Walcott,. Plus also take into consideration that Charles was a natural Light Heavyweight, and Walcott wasn't.
So if Rocky could cath up with Ezzard, isn't it logical he could catch Walcott.

[The Second God]

It is not revisionist

I apologise if I have offended you, but it is revisionist, because you are looking back now and asking "what if" questions. Now, this can be fun (but really, it is rather pointless) and it certainly is revionist.

If you wish, I can throw a few more out there for you:
For example, the majority of boxing analysts who watched the Clay vs Jones fight (1963) believed that Jones won the fight. And most give it to Jones by two clear rounds.
And the people who scored that fight include Bert Sugar and Al Bernstein.

in no way was Rocky in control of that fight. I've read that the official scorecards had Rocky behind at the end of the 12th. Is that true or is it not true?

First off, yes it is true that Walcott was way ahead on the scorecards, as can be seen:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news/bearden2309.php
Referee Taggert
Walcott leading by a score of 7-4-1

Judge Tomacso
Walcott leading by 7-5

Judge Clayton
Walcott in the lead 8-4

In addition, you speak of Marciano "not controlling the fight", and yes while it is true that Walcott was winning the rounds, he wasn't hurting Marciano. Whereas, Rocky was catching up on Walcott more and more frequently, closing him down toward the later r rounds.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Roculd have finished the fight a round earlier... Look at the Charles fight, Roacky had 1 round to win and he did it, I think it would have been the same with Walcott,. Plus also take into consideration that Charles was a natural Light Heavyweight, and Walcott wasn't.
So if Rocky could cath up with Ezzard, isn't it logical he could catch Walcott.

I respected Rocky and Wolcott Charles and Moore. Rocky is one of my favorites, and if it is revisionist to say what if I don't know. We do know that if they met today and the fight went 12 rounds Wolcott would be the winner.

My point is more of a critique of the 12 round championship distance.

[raylawpc]

It is not revisionist

I apologise if I have offended you, but it is revisionist, because you are looking back now and asking "what if" questions. Now, this can be fun (but really, it is rather pointless) and it certainly is revionist.

If you wish, I can throw a few more out there for you:
For example, the majority of boxing analysts who watched the Clay vs Jones fight (1963) believed that Jones won the fight. And most give it to Jones by two clear rounds.
And the people who scored that fight include Bert Sugar and Al Bernstein.

in no way was Rocky in control of that fight. I've read that the official scorecards had Rocky behind at the end of the 12th. Is that true or is it not true?

First off, yes it is true that Walcott was way ahead on the scorecards, as can be seen:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news/bearden2309.php
Referee Taggert
Walcott leading by a score of 7-4-1

Judge Tomacso
Walcott leading by 7-5

Judge Clayton
Walcott in the lead 8-4

In addition, you speak of Marciano "not controlling the fight", and yes while it is true that Walcott was winning the rounds, he wasn't hurting Marciano. Whereas, Rocky was catching up on Walcott more and more frequently, closing him down toward the later r rounds.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Roculd have finished the fight a round earlier... Look at the Charles fight, Roacky had 1 round to win and he did it, I think it would have been the same with Walcott,. Plus also take into consideration that Charles was a natural Light Heavyweight, and Walcott wasn't.
So if Rocky could cath up with Ezzard, isn't it logical he could catch Walcott.

I respected Rocky and Wolcott Charles and Moore. Rocky is one of my favorites, and if it is revisionist to say what if I don't know. We do know that if they met today and the fight went 12 rounds Wolcott would be the winner.

My point is more of a critique of the 12 round championship distance.

Or, they would have fought at a faster clip, and the Rock would have stopped him in 10 . . .

[The Second God]

I apologise if I have offended you, but it is revisionist, because you are looking back now and asking "what if" questions. Now, this can be fun (but really, it is rather pointless) and it certainly is revionist.

If you wish, I can throw a few more out there for you:
For example, the majority of boxing analysts who watched the Clay vs Jones fight (1963) believed that Jones won the fight. And most give it to Jones by two clear rounds.
And the people who scored that fight include Bert Sugar and Al Bernstein.


First off, yes it is true that Walcott was way ahead on the scorecards, as can be seen:
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news/bearden2309.php
Referee Taggert
Walcott leading by a score of 7-4-1

Judge Tomacso
Walcott leading by 7-5

Judge Clayton
Walcott in the lead 8-4

In addition, you speak of Marciano "not controlling the fight", and yes while it is true that Walcott was winning the rounds, he wasn't hurting Marciano. Whereas, Rocky was catching up on Walcott more and more frequently, closing him down toward the later r rounds.

Personally, I am of the opinion that Roculd have finished the fight a round earlier... Look at the Charles fight, Roacky had 1 round to win and he did it, I think it would have been the same with Walcott,. Plus also take into consideration that Charles was a natural Light Heavyweight, and Walcott wasn't.
So if Rocky could cath up with Ezzard, isn't it logical he could catch Walcott.

I respected Rocky and Wolcott Charles and Moore. Rocky is one of my favorites, and if it is revisionist to say what if I don't know. We do know that if they met today and the fight went 12 rounds Wolcott would be the winner.

My point is more of a critique of the 12 round championship distance.

Or, they would have fought at a faster clip, and the Rock would have stopped him in 10 . . .

That is quite possible, but that is revisionist. lol.

We know they fought 13 rounds almost. That includes the entire 12th round.

It would be really interesting if indeed this had been a 12 round fight and Rocky was able to catch up with Wolcott at will at any time. I am not sure he was that good.

[raylawpc]

I respected Rocky and Wolcott Charles and Moore. Rocky is one of my favorites, and if it is revisionist to say what if I don't know. We do know that if they met today and the fight went 12 rounds Wolcott would be the winner.

My point is more of a critique of the 12 round championship distance.

Or, they would have fought at a faster clip, and the Rock would have stopped him in 10 . . .

That is quite possible, but that is revisionist. lol.

We know they fought 13 rounds almost. That includes the entire 12th round.

It would be really interesting if indeed this had been a 12 round fight and Rocky was able to catch up with Wolcott at will at any time. I am not sure he was that good.

Well, who can say? Personally, I never had a fight go more than three rounds (because I boxed amateur only), but a friend of mine engaged in three 15-round fights (two went the distance) and he said that (1) the last three rounds were very tough and, (2) you paced yourself better in a 15-rounder because you wanted something in the tank for those last three rounds.

I am not sure that I buy the "Rocky-ground-him-down" premise. Walcott looked good in the 11th and 12th rounds and, if I recall, won both on the officials' scorecards. (He also looked good in the seventh, eighth and ninth too - but Rocky had been blinded by a foreign substance, so its hard to criticize Rocky or give Walcott too much credit . . .) But going into the 13th, Walcott looked in command of the fight. Then, Rocky knocked him out with a hellacious (and well set-up) right hand to win the fight. Could he have done it earlier in a 12-round fight? Who the heck knows? But Rocky always found a way to win.

[The Second God]

Or, they would have fought at a faster clip, and the Rock would have stopped him in 10 . . .

That is quite possible, but that is revisionist. lol.

We know they fought 13 rounds almost. That includes the entire 12th round.

It would be really interesting if indeed this had been a 12 round fight and Rocky was able to catch up with Wolcott at will at any time. I am not sure he was that good.

Well, who can say? Personally, I never had a fight go more than three rounds (because I boxed amateur only), but a friend of mine engaged in three 15-round fights (two went the distance) and he said that (1) the last three rounds were very tough and, (2) you paced yourself better in a 15-rounder because you wanted something in the tank for those last three rounds.

I am not sure that I buy the "Rocky-ground-him-down" premise. Walcott looked good in the 11th and 12th rounds and, if I recall, won both on the officials' scorecards. (He also looked good in the seventh, eighth and ninth too - but Rocky had been blinded by a foreign substance, so its hard to criticize Rocky or give Walcott too much credit . . .) But going into the 13th, Walcott looked in command of the fight. Then, Rocky knocked him out with a hellacious (and well set-up) right hand to win the fight. Could he have done it earlier in a 12-round fight? Who the heck knows? But Rocky always found a way to win.

Suzy Q that punch was called. Apparently she was a knock out. lol The 13th through 15th rounds were regarded as the championship rounds and yes I recall reading how fighters had to pace themselves to have something in the tank at the end.


Rocky always got the job done. He hardly ever looked pretty doing it. He was a workingman's fighter who never should have taken up flying.

[Crease]

I am not sure that I buy the "Rocky-ground-him-down" premise.

Well, that's fair enough... But as I said earlier if Rocky could catch up with a natural light heavyweight like Ezzard Charles in a crticial round, then I believe he could've done it against Walcott.

Even if it was the 12th round of a 12 rounder.

[The Second God]

I am not sure that I buy the "Rocky-ground-him-down" premise.

Well, that's fair enough... But as I said earlier if Rocky could catch up with a natural light heavyweight like Ezzard Charles in a crticial round, then I believe he could've done it against Walcott.

Even if it was the 12th round of a 12 rounder.

Disagreements are what make people either think, or dig trenches.

[raylawpc]

I am not sure that I buy the "Rocky-ground-him-down" premise.

Well, that's fair enough... But as I said earlier if Rocky could catch up with a natural light heavyweight like Ezzard Charles in a crticial round, then I believe he could've done it against Walcott.

Even if it was the 12th round of a 12 rounder.

Personally, I think the fact Rocky won the way that he did (coming back with a one punch KO against a rejuvenated Walcott, rather than grinding down an old man), made the win more impressive.

Walcott fought the fight of his life - and yet Rocky still managed to win!

[Ambling Alp]

People are obessessed with Marciano. If he would have went 48-1, that probably would be the case; neither for his detractors or his supporters.

As for the original post, Marciano did not fight the best competition of any heavyweight. However, he beat the best of his time. When you retire with the title, there is always going to be someene coming after that who some people think is better.

I do think Walcott was still a very good fighter when they fought the first time. That is an underrated win. The 2nd time Walcott rolled over like a dog.
Marciano did not fight Valdes, Satterfield or Baker. So what? All three lost many times to lesser fighters. All three are overrated. Marciano would have whipped all three.

Marciano had weaknesses; he was easy to hit and was not an accurrate puncher. However, he threw so many punches that he was able to connect often enough. He was fortunate to get the decision in at least three fights when he was young and on the way up. However, he was a very consistent fighter which is often overlooked. how many guys could have fought the exact opponents and went undefeated? A few, but not many.

He was not the best heavyweight of all-time, but he is in the Top 10.

[yancey]

People are obessessed with Marciano. If he would have went 48-1, that probably would be the case; neither for his detractors or his supporters.

As for the original post, Marciano did not fight the best competition of any heavyweight. However, he beat the best of his time. When you retire with the title, there is always going to be someene coming after that who some people think is better.

I do think Walcott was still a very good fighter when they fought the first time. That is an underrated win. The 2nd time Walcott rolled over like a dog.
Marciano did not fight Valdes, Satterfield or Baker. So what? All three lost many times to lesser fighters. All three are overrated. Marciano would have whipped all three.

Marciano had weaknesses; he was easy to hit and was not an accurrate puncher. However, he threw so many punches that he was able to connect often enough. He was fortunate to get the decision in at least three fights when he was young and on the way up. However, he was a very consistent fighter which is often overlooked. how many guys could have fought the exact opponents and went undefeated? A few, but not many.

He was not the best heavyweight of all-time, but he is in the Top 10.

"how many guys could have fought the exact opponents and went undefeated"


More than a few.

Marciano is overrated.

He is somewhere in the the top 20 all-time.

[BoxBuzz]

yancey is right, You can place the Rock anywhere in the top 20 you care to, but anyone who rates him above Frazier is off course without a compass.