Jim Jeffries vs Rocky Marciano...

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

well actually i think tyson would beat marciano. tyson not only had incredible power but incredible hand speed not to mention rocky would have to beat tyson inside. i just htink tyson had more two handed power than rock and his hand speed will provide the difference.

sweet scientist, dont call me kid. the name is NICK . if u want to call me something. if it makes u feel better to personally attack a kid and show him a lack of respect, then im sorry u dont have a lot of slef confidence. u get mad because a kid who has so much to learn gives u hard times in debates.

sweet wrote

not really...but overrated byyou, most definitely..

well my opinion is i rate him properly, so u can have ur opinion, but my opinion is that im not overating him putting him at # 3 all time.

and last but not least, walcott had just won the title with his best preformance over charles and he fught marciano just a year later and if u aks many writers or experts, they will say walcotts fight agianst marciano was one of or his best fight in his career. u think walcott tired yet he managed to win most of the late rounds?? why dont u watch the fight again, walcott didnt tire like u think.
as for charles, and im going to use marcianofrasier's great anaylsis
marcianofrazier wrote :

On the subject of Charles, I do think that Charles' performance against Marciano the first time was one of the best he ever gave. Many writers at the time would agree with me. Charles was generally past his best days. He had lost passion for fighting and was starting to go physically as well. His performances were declining.
HOWEVER, Charles had always been upset he had never been a popular and beloved champion. He viewed his shot at Marciano as his last chance to finally gain the recognition he had always craved, and he gained a hunger, intensity, and fighting passion unlike he had ever had before. This is well-documented, in fact.

Here, this is from page 219 of "The Rock of His Times:"
" In truth, it was his last chance- and everyone knew it. Charles seemed determined to take advantage of it as he trained for the bout at Monticello, several miles away from Marciano's camp at Grossinger's... This, then, was the 'new Charles,' a more focused and passionate fighter who had a fresh, unburdenced mental determination to go along with his established physical skills.

On page 225 of The Rock of His Times:
"As Wilfrid Smith observed, 'Charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his long career[against Marciano].' Charles was the man who rose to greater heights. "

This is what W.J. McGoogan of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch said about the first Marciano-Charles fight:
"He[Charles] fought a wonderful fight, possibly the best of his career of about seventeen years"

I think Charles went downhill for the rematch, though, which can be noted in his weight gain and the more one-sided nature of the fight(besides the freak cut).

i agree with this. and charles also showed heart in this fight surviving the last 5 rounds. he was getting beaten down on the body and the blows effected him and marciano also hit him in the adams apple and charles fought the rest of the fight in a lot of pain EVEYRWHERE. he couldnt even talk anymore.


and archie moores age in that fight hadnt really caught up with him in that fight. i think marciano really wore him down and i thought moore had the style to give marciano fits. he had tough defense and master coutnerpuncher and hard hitter. but marciano was able to wear him down and ge through moores crab style. moore was never the same after this bout, and a lot of u probably agree with me on that. moore looked like a different fighter against patterson than against marciano.

the thing is, yes, marcianos challengers did give him a lot of trouble. but ive been thinking and realzied most of marcianos biggest opponents and fmost famous fights he fought were guys that all had a bad style for him. marciano was at his worst against devensiver fighters/ slick boxers. WALCOTT, CHARLES,LASTARZA both had a great style to beat him and thats why they gave him such good fights, but still marciano maanaged to beat them and not let their tough styles get to him. u put him in against a tall slugger for example: rex layne, and he will be at his best. if he had of fought nino valdez, i have no doubt nino wouldnt have given him any trouble because he wouldnt be able to expose marcianos flaws like ezzard and walcott. thats becuase his style was made for a guy like rocky marciano. rocky would have put him out and beat on him until he put him out. rocky was exposed a lot because he was put in against guys that had styles that were tough for him.

[silkov]

holmes destroyed him, that doesnt mean holmes is better than ali. some fighters dont match up against other fighters as well.

It wasn't that Ali 'didn't match up against Holmes as well'...it was that Ali was 38 years old, hadn't fought in 2 years...and was 13 years past his prime, and 5 years past the last time he could still fight highly effectively...nothing to do with 'not matching up well'...everything to do with being way too damn old to still be in the ring...it also had something to do with a $9,000,000 purse...

Geeze! do you get the feeling that a lot of these young 'experts' haven't even seen a fight!. Perhaps these guys have all been sharing the same Marciano Biography that one of them brought from a second hand bookstore!.... 8)

[Cojimar 1945]

With regards to Holmes I think one could argue against rating him too highly because of all the fighters of his era which he never faced such as George Foreman, Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, Joe Bugner, Greg Page, Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee, etc.

[silkov]

With regards to Holmes I think one could argue against rating him too highly because of all the fighters of his era which he never faced such as George Foreman, Ron Lyle, Jimmy Young, Joe Bugner, Greg Page, Michael Dokes, Gerrie Coetzee, etc.

Come on, Holmes fought Norton, Weaver, Berbick, Snipes, Spinks, Witherspoon, Cooney, Williams.... Norton beat Young, Weaver beat Coetzee, Dokes (in second fight) Berbick Beat Thomas, Witherspoon beat Page etc...... Holmes proved himself the best of his era and fought all the top names.... he deserves his place at the top with Ali, jOHNSON, Louis etc......

[Cojimar 1945]

Holmes did face a number of good fighters but he certainly did not wipe the slate clean like Ali did. There were numerous top heavyweights fighting at the same time Holmes was whom he never faced. I think matchups between Holmes and fighters like Young, Foreman, Lyle and Bugner would have been very interesting but tragically he never fought these guys.

[silkov]

Holmes did face a number of good fighters but he certainly did not wipe the slate clean like Ali did. There were numerous top heavyweights fighting at the same time Holmes was whom he never faced. I think matchups between Holmes and fighters like Young, Foreman, Lyle and Bugner would have been very interesting but tragically he never fought these guys.

Holmes would not have been trobled by Bugner or Lyle, good though they were and Foreman never wanted to fight him, Young would probably have been the hardest fight there for him but he was dropping out of contention as Holmes was on the rise which is why they never met. Holmes certainly cleaned up imo... the only guys who rival him for the way he met all challengers are Ali and Louis. Holmes was a bit more picky over who he fought after about 83/84 when he was on the slide but he still met Bonecrusher, Williams, Bey and Mike Spinks... no easy touches there.
Holmes tried to get a fight with Coetzee but they could never agree on purses I think. I would have like to see Holmes vs Dokes or Page but am sure he would have been able to handle them even in 83/84.

[6 Pack]

Well, this thread is no longer about Jeffries-Marciano, but in a fight that would be extremely hard to call, if I had to pick a winner, I would go with the Rock.

Both had power, both had stamina, both had heart and toughness, and both retired undefeated champions (Rocky Stayed retired).

But ROcky fought in a time when boxing had progressed. Jeffries was not much removed from teh bareknuckle days. I am sure the sports writers of that day, reporting the fights, thought the boxing was top notch, but they did not have the advantage of seeing how far boxing would go some 50 years later.

Still, Jeffries would give the Rock hell, if for no other reason because the Rock would come forward on him. Other Champs like Walcott or Patterson might box jeffries and dance around him, but Rocky would play right into Jeffries' strengths.

IN a war, I pick the Rock.

[Ambling Alp]

Back to original thread, Jeffries vs Marciano.

I do think that Jeffries fought slighter better competition, but that is certainly debatable. Possibly the biggest advantage Jeffries would have is stamina. He went atleast 17 rounds on 6 occasions. Marciano had only 2 fights in his career that were over 11 rounds, so I don't see how people can say he had great stamina.
Both were hard punchers, although it seems that Marciano would have a slight edge. Both men had good chins, Marciano was only knocked down twice and Jeffries was never knocked down except for his comeback fight against Johnson. It's doubtful either man would be knocked out unless it was after several rounds in a war.
What may have been Marciano's biggest strength was his relentless aggression. He simply threw a lot of punches. He would be able to simply outwork Jeffries.
If we are talking about a fight or 20 rounds or more (which weren't uncommon in Jeffries' day) then Jeffries might be able to outlast Marciano.

But assuming we are talking about a 12 or 15 round fight, I see Marciano pulling out a tough decision.

[6 Pack]

Jeffries was dropped before Johnson.

[barry]

Jack Munroe dropped Jeffries for a quicj count in an exhibition bout, it was mearly a flash knockdown though!

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

silkov wrote

Come on, Holmes fought Norton, Weaver, Berbick, Snipes, Spinks, Witherspoon, Cooney, Williams.... Norton beat Young, Weaver beat Coetzee, Dokes (in second fight) Berbick Beat Thomas, Witherspoon beat Page etc...... Holmes proved himself the best of his era and fought

yeah. its funny how no one critizes holmes for having so much trouble and almost losing to a 34 nearly 35 year old norton. u would prob say o norton was still in his prime for that fight and a champion, he gave great larry holmes a battle to death. then when walcott gives marciano a battle to death, u say o walcott was 37 and old and past his prime. well didnt walcott just win the title with his best preformance so maybe u think he fought his best that night and marciano just happened to win. maybe instead of using that against marciano u should use it in favor of marciano. i never hear u say holmes lost to an aging norton. NEVER.
not trying to bring marcianos comp into this, just trying to counter ur debates on holmes facing tough competetion. holmes gets decked by a 35 year old shavers, and u praise holmes for getting up from such a hard punch, thats one of ur best arguements. and it doesnt come to ur mind that shavers is 35 and maybes hes old or past his prime?? i dont think so. but then u use that agaisnt marciano about 42 year old archie moore decking marciano when u feel to realize this, arhcie moore didnt have thee power of shavers, but he has the most knockouts in history, and is the best finisher all time. so while u say he got decked by moore, u should commend marciano for not letting the best finisher ever finish marciano after the knockdown. marciano surviving that round should get him props. and i do belive both shavers and moore prime or no prime got themselves ready for that fight and got themselves into the best shape and mindset since it would be their last chance and marciano and holmes self destrutced them and both shavers and moore were not the same after that fight.
again, im not trying to start a debate against holmes or bring marciano into this, im simply stating watch carefully how u use ur arguements against a fighter. and i do believe jsut liek walcott, norton fought his best fight that night, and he left everying in that match, thats why he wasnt the same after. im just trying to use ur arguements against other fighters as an arguement against ur fighter so we can show both ways



as for the other holmes fights, he did beat weaver and berbick, but weaver hurt him many times when holmes was at the top of his game. he beat berbick convingsly, but defintely didnt win every round. he then an an overhyped mismatch knocked out gerry cooney. and then he gave tex cobb a beating for 15 rounds and he still looked much in his prime. then right after that because witherspoon nearly beat him, u say hes out of his prime. perhaps he unerestimated witherspoon or maybe he really had many flaws and wouldnt beat most of the all time greats. remeber this, holmes was experienced verteran whilke witherspoon was still inexperienced having only 15 fights and fighting one notible contender befoe he faced holmes. renaldo snipes who wasnt that good, never was good enough to win one of the alphabet titles nearly knocks holmes out. being lazy or not, u should let thatt happen to u against a guy like snipes.

now dont get me wrong, i rate holmes high. just because im pointing outsome flaws and argueing agaisnt hi opposition doesnt mean i think hes overated. in fact, i could make a good arguement in favor of holmes.

and i have no doubt he would have beaten page, thomas, goatzee, dokes etc. holmes defintely didnt duck page a man who he would have easily beat. but think of it this way, holmes did have trouble with a lot of those type of fighters, so i gotta say i wish he unified the title and beat all those guys just to see what would happen or to prove his all time greatness. instead of fighting a lorenzo zanon, fight a micheal dokes. and perhaps even if he beat them all, many of them could have given him many problems.
did holmes really deserve decisions over witherspoon or carl williams????

remember nothing personel, im just trying to give u a good debate so we can argue. not all of this info i believe, im simply acting as a critic.

[silkov]

silkov wrote

Come on, Holmes fought Norton, Weaver, Berbick, Snipes, Spinks, Witherspoon, Cooney, Williams.... Norton beat Young, Weaver beat Coetzee, Dokes (in second fight) Berbick Beat Thomas, Witherspoon beat Page etc...... Holmes proved himself the best of his era and fought

yeah. its funny how no one critizes holmes for having so much trouble and almost losing to a 34 nearly 35 year old norton. u would prob say o norton was still in his prime for that fight and a champion, he gave great larry holmes a battle to death. then when walcott gives marciano a battle to death, u say o walcott was 37 and old and past his prime. well didnt walcott just win the title with his best preformance so maybe u think he fought his best that night and marciano just happened to win. maybe instead of using that against marciano u should use it in favor of marciano. i never hear u say holmes lost to an aging norton. NEVER.
not trying to bring marcianos comp into this, just trying to counter ur debates on holmes facing tough competetion. holmes gets decked by a 35 year old shavers, and u praise holmes for getting up from such a hard punch, thats one of ur best arguements. and it doesnt come to ur mind that shavers is 35 and maybes hes old or past his prime?? i dont think so. but then u use that agaisnt marciano about 42 year old archie moore decking marciano when u feel to realize this, arhcie moore didnt have thee power of shavers, but he has the most knockouts in history, and is the best finisher all time. so while u say he got decked by moore, u should commend marciano for not letting the best finisher ever finish marciano after the knockdown. marciano surviving that round should get him props. and i do belive both shavers and moore prime or no prime got themselves ready for that fight and got themselves into the best shape and mindset since it would be their last chance and marciano and holmes self destrutced them and both shavers and moore were not the same after that fight.
again, im not trying to start a debate against holmes or bring marciano into this, im simply stating watch carefully how u use ur arguements against a fighter. and i do believe jsut liek walcott, norton fought his best fight that night, and he left everying in that match, thats why he wasnt the same after. im just trying to use ur arguements against other fighters as an arguement against ur fighter so we can show both ways



as for the other holmes fights, he did beat weaver and berbick, but weaver hurt him many times when holmes was at the top of his game. he beat berbick convingsly, but defintely didnt win every round. he then an an overhyped mismatch knocked out gerry cooney. and then he gave tex cobb a beating for 15 rounds and he still looked much in his prime. then right after that because witherspoon nearly beat him, u say hes out of his prime. perhaps he unerestimated witherspoon or maybe he really had many flaws and wouldnt beat most of the all time greats. remeber this, holmes was experienced verteran whilke witherspoon was still inexperienced having only 15 fights and fighting one notible contender befoe he faced holmes. renaldo snipes who wasnt that good, never was good enough to win one of the alphabet titles nearly knocks holmes out. being lazy or not, u should let thatt happen to u against a guy like snipes.

now dont get me wrong, i rate holmes high. just because im pointing outsome flaws and argueing agaisnt hi opposition doesnt mean i think hes overated. in fact, i could make a good arguement in favor of holmes.

and i have no doubt he would have beaten page, thomas, goatzee, dokes etc. holmes defintely didnt duck page a man who he would have easily beat. but think of it this way, holmes did have trouble with a lot of those type of fighters, so i gotta say i wish he unified the title and beat all those guys just to see what would happen or to prove his all time greatness. instead of fighting a lorenzo zanon, fight a micheal dokes. and perhaps even if he beat them all, many of them could have given him many problems.
did holmes really deserve decisions over witherspoon or carl williams????

remember nothing personel, im just trying to give u a good debate so we can argue. not all of this info i believe, im simply acting as a critic.

Is Marciano your daddy???........ 8)

[silkov]

silkov wrote

Come on, Holmes fought Norton, Weaver, Berbick, Snipes, Spinks, Witherspoon, Cooney, Williams.... Norton beat Young, Weaver beat Coetzee, Dokes (in second fight) Berbick Beat Thomas, Witherspoon beat Page etc...... Holmes proved himself the best of his era and fought

yeah. its funny how no one critizes holmes for having so much trouble and almost losing to a 34 nearly 35 year old norton. u would prob say o norton was still in his prime for that fight and a champion, he gave great larry holmes a battle to death. then when walcott gives marciano a battle to death, u say o walcott was 37 and old and past his prime. well didnt walcott just win the title with his best preformance so maybe u think he fought his best that night and marciano just happened to win. maybe instead of using that against marciano u should use it in favor of marciano. i never hear u say holmes lost to an aging norton. NEVER.
not trying to bring marcianos comp into this, just trying to counter ur debates on holmes facing tough competetion. holmes gets decked by a 35 year old shavers, and u praise holmes for getting up from such a hard punch, thats one of ur best arguements. and it doesnt come to ur mind that shavers is 35 and maybes hes old or past his prime?? i dont think so. but then u use that agaisnt marciano about 42 year old archie moore decking marciano when u feel to realize this, arhcie moore didnt have thee power of shavers, but he has the most knockouts in history, and is the best finisher all time. so while u say he got decked by moore, u should commend marciano for not letting the best finisher ever finish marciano after the knockdown. marciano surviving that round should get him props. and i do belive both shavers and moore prime or no prime got themselves ready for that fight and got themselves into the best shape and mindset since it would be their last chance and marciano and holmes self destrutced them and both shavers and moore were not the same after that fight.
again, im not trying to start a debate against holmes or bring marciano into this, im simply stating watch carefully how u use ur arguements against a fighter. and i do believe jsut liek walcott, norton fought his best fight that night, and he left everying in that match, thats why he wasnt the same after. im just trying to use ur arguements against other fighters as an arguement against ur fighter so we can show both ways



as for the other holmes fights, he did beat weaver and berbick, but weaver hurt him many times when holmes was at the top of his game. he beat berbick convingsly, but defintely didnt win every round. he then an an overhyped mismatch knocked out gerry cooney. and then he gave tex cobb a beating for 15 rounds and he still looked much in his prime. then right after that because witherspoon nearly beat him, u say hes out of his prime. perhaps he unerestimated witherspoon or maybe he really had many flaws and wouldnt beat most of the all time greats. remeber this, holmes was experienced verteran whilke witherspoon was still inexperienced having only 15 fights and fighting one notible contender befoe he faced holmes. renaldo snipes who wasnt that good, never was good enough to win one of the alphabet titles nearly knocks holmes out. being lazy or not, u should let thatt happen to u against a guy like snipes.

now dont get me wrong, i rate holmes high. just because im pointing outsome flaws and argueing agaisnt hi opposition doesnt mean i think hes overated. in fact, i could make a good arguement in favor of holmes.

and i have no doubt he would have beaten page, thomas, goatzee, dokes etc. holmes defintely didnt duck page a man who he would have easily beat. but think of it this way, holmes did have trouble with a lot of those type of fighters, so i gotta say i wish he unified the title and beat all those guys just to see what would happen or to prove his all time greatness. instead of fighting a lorenzo zanon, fight a micheal dokes. and perhaps even if he beat them all, many of them could have given him many problems.
did holmes really deserve decisions over witherspoon or carl williams????

remember nothing personel, im just trying to give u a good debate so we can argue. not all of this info i believe, im simply acting as a critic.

Seriously though you are making an interesting point. If you look at the evidence of the time though it was generally accepted when Charles fought Marciano that Ezzard was on the slide... he'd lost twice in a row to Walcott (once by Ko) and also dropped decisions to Harold Johnson, Rex Layne and Nino Valdez.... he wasn't expected to give Marciano that much trouble. On the other hand Norton was on a roll when he fought Holmes, he was still in top form and coming off a great win over Jimmy Young.
If you watch Norton vs Holmes then say Norton vs Ali 1 or 2 you will be very hard pressed to see any deterioration in Norton... on the other hand if you watch a fight of Charles from the late 40s and then look at him against Marciano you'll see that he was a much slower more static fighter.
When he fought Marcino Charles had to slug it out whereas if he was the charles of the late 40s he would have boxed much more.
It's not just an age question, some fighters age better than others and its also about mileage on the clock... Charles at 33 had had over twice as many fights as Norton at that age and he always fought in the top flight.
Also I have read a book in which Ray Arcel Charles trainer said that he believes that Charles was already suffering from the early stages of Multiple Scerosis at that stage of his career and had problems with his coordination and balance and stiffness of legs etc...

[Sweet Scientist]

Jack Munroe dropped Jeffries for a quicj count in an exhibition bout, it was mearly a flash knockdown though!

Should it count if it was an 'exhibition bout'? That's just a step above sparring, wouldn't you say?

[barry]

I don't count it, but many look at it as such...but Jeffries showed just how much of a fluke it actually was when they fought for real. I don't recall right off hand, but I'm thinking that it was also a sucker-punch and being that they were more, or less sparring of course Jeffries had his guard up, but not really!

There's another incident like that which happened to George Dixon, but it is rarely mentioned today...in the middle 1890s the Kentucky Rosebud knocked Dixon out cold in and exhibition, which I think was the only time that Dixon was ever knocked out...he was stopped, but never put out other than in that exhibition. I'd say that it happened a lot though when champions were having a lot of exhibitions...some lesser fighter trying to take advantage of the opportunity to get one by on a champion that surely would not be giving their very best, which was almost certain what the Munroe-Jeffries exh, was like!

[6 Pack]

Jack Munroe dropped Jeffries for a quicj count in an exhibition bout, it was mearly a flash knockdown though!

Should it count if it was an 'exhibition bout'? That's just a step above sparring, wouldn't you say?

It resulted in a KO. It was more than just sparring.

But it doesn't count on his record. But Jeffries could be dropped.

[Sweet Scientist]

It resulted in a KO. It was more than just sparring.

You're saying he was KO'd? Jim Jeffries was KO'd by Munroe in an exhibiton bout?

[6 Pack]

No munroe got KOed.

[pound per pound]

No munroe got KOed.

Jeffries was on tour. His manager would often offer any local fighter $500.00 if they could last four rounds with Jeffries. Jeffries walk around weight was about 250 pounds. He wa snot in shape but often made easy money for such appearances. A fighter named Munroe too the challenge. Munroe ran for the first two rounds, and caught Jeffries with a sneaky right hand, which put Jeffries down for a moment. Jeffries got up angry, and then knocked Munore down three times, but Munroe hung on and lasted the four rounds, collecting the $500.00 in cash.

Munroe and his people claimed victory, even though Munroe would have lost a decision or been Ko’d in a real fight. This was only an exhibition. This lead to a show down between the two in a real fight, where Jeffries badly Ko’d Munroe. The real result was Jeffries Ko 1, as Munroe did not beat the count and was carried into his corner by his cornerman.

Interestingly enough Munore appeared to have some ability, as he went the distance with Jack Johnson, Tom Sharkey and others.

Here’s a web story on the exhibiton match, and the real fight


http://www.antekprizering.com/jeffriesm ... tarch.html

Nothing doing, Jim. I don't want to see anyone killed."
-Referee Eddie Graney

It all started innocently enough, an exhibition contest between the reigning Heavyweight Champion of the World and former Heavyweight Champion, Robert Fitzsimmons who were touring together in the Mid West . As part of the show, Jeffries issued the standard challenge to the crowd, offering $500 to any man who could stay four rounds with him. An employee of the local Anaconda mine named Jack Munroe came forward. Although out weighed by some forty pounds Munroe prove quick and evasive, to the degree that he clearly out pointed the Champion in the first two rounds. An angry Jeffries came out for round three and managed to knock Munroe down three times, but come the end of the appointed four rounds Jack Munroe was still standing and had won the challenge and $500 of the Champion's money. But then, the trouble began in earnest, local referee Duncan McDonald allowed that not only was Jack Munroe entitled to the $500, but that he had in fact won the fight! Jeffries was incensed and what folllowed was two years of press build-up, two cancelled fight dates, a knockout of Peter Maher and a fight to draw with Jack Sharkey featuring the miner Munroe and finally...
James J. Jeffries
vs.
Jack Munroe
World's Heavyweight Championship

" Never before had I gone into a ring disliking an opponent or determined to knock him out and hurt him if posssible."-James J. Jeffries

"The first blow I swung at him was the hardest I ever let go in my life, and one that missed..." I swung with all my power, and with such great force that when I missed his jaw I threw myself entirely off my feet and went sprawling on hands and knees."

Jeffries regained his feet and dropped Munroe with the next punch, as Munroe arose and clinched he said "Let me make a showing, Jim." Jeffries responded, " Like hell I will." Munroe was saved by the bell. At the beginning of the round two Jeffries rushed in viciously..."In a couple of seconds he was reeling around the ring like a drunken man. After one minute I stepped clear and was measuring him to time the knockout punch when Graney stepped between us and put up a hand to stop me."
"Nothing doing, Jim." he (Graney) said " I don't want to see anyone killed."1