Rocky Marciano small heavyweight

[marchegianorock]

The versions of Walcott, Charles and Moore that Marciano beat would all be Cruiserweight legends today.

Crikes, Hopkins can take on mots Cruisers. I think Marciano would unify the titles and reign for a long time if he were around today.

The truth was that the versions of those fighters he fought we all a little old and shop-worn. Marciano rode his luck and then got out before Floyd Patterson bumped him off.

Are you insane? Don't you know anything about the history of Marciano?

Prior to when he retired, believe it or not, an exhibition match between him and Patterson was talked about and was to be live on the Gilette Cavalcade of Sports. Patterson at the time was only a light heavyweight, and no one was interested in doing the match cus the title wasn't on the line anyways. Marciano tried to get fights with Nino Valdes and Mike Baker, but both these men fought eachother in such a dismal performance that BOTH were thrown out of the running to face Marciano (you see back then MERIT got you contention, and not bullshit like today). The last man in line would have been Earl Walls, of Canada, but Walls retired from boxing rather than fight Rocky Marciano. Marciano, being left with no on else but a possible Moore rematch, stepped away from boxing 49-0-0, 43 kayos cus there was no one left to generate any kind of big money or interest. Sure, Marciano listed Patterson as one of his possible successors, but lets get real here when Marciano made the announcement Patterson only had two-three heavyweight fights. Wins over Tommy Jackson didn't mean poo, cus if you know anything at all Marciano used to beat Tommy Jackson so bad in sparring that he once hit the floor from a body shot and vomited. I beleived Valdes at 6.4 ft would had give problems to Marciano. The tallest fighters he faced was Louis at almost 6.2 ft and Rex Layne at 6.1 ft. With honestly i beleive even a young Sonny Liston could had maybe stopped Marciano.

Patterson may have been cute for Marciano in the first few stanzas, but he isnt going to go no eight, ten, twelve, or fifteen rounds with Rocky. It isn't happening. I heard Marciano wanted to fight Johanson but when Patterson ko him he did not wanted to fight Patterson. Maybe Patterson even with a weak chin was to fast for Marciano.

[polecateddy]

Delusional.

(Posted for dramatic effect: I know who Thompson was, barely. He wouldn't last 6 rounds against Marciano, and I'm being charitable due to Marciano usually warming up for a couple of rounds. Thompson spent an awful amount of time on the canvas in his career. One could almost say he was fond of it.)[/quote]

Join the group marked delusional yourself! Carl was an excellent fighter who had a decent run as a champion.[/quote]
I suspect that you are related to Carl Thompson or you are indeed the boxer himself.[/quote]

For the record I am not Carl Thompson, who would have more sense than to argue with an oldie cult.

[kaiserbill]

For the record I am not Carl Thompson, who would have more sense than to argue with an oldie cult.

It's not an oldie cult.

You haven't really anything to say about the fact that Thompson loved the feel of ring canvas, and against quite ordinary fighters who weren't noted for their power either.

[polecateddy]

For the record I am not Carl Thompson, who would have more sense than to argue with an oldie cult.

It's not an oldie cult.

You haven't really anything to say about the fact that Thompson loved the feel of ring canvas, and against quite ordinary fighters who weren't noted for their power either.

You obviously don't know much about the guy, and how he transitioned from kick boxing to boxing, with little/no amateur experience. He learned on the job, and early stoppage defeats were reflective of that. The only true knock-out defeat in his prime was in a shoot-out with noted puncher Sellers.

[Ezzard]

Don’t know how to take this. I’ll just say you’re being honest with your opinions and take it from there.

Carl was an honest to goodness pro, with talent, who achieved a lot by working his balls off to be the best he could…perhaps a bit like Marciano.

I don’t want this thread to collapse into people making fun of Carl Thompson. He was what boxing is all about. Put it all on the line. A good guy for the sport. American fans who don’t know him, check him out, you’ll like him. I promise.

I just can’t see him having any luck with Charles, Walcott, Moore… Sure he’d have his moments against Marciano because they’d go toe to toe and Rocky often needed a round or two to get going…

I just don’t see him beating Marciano. Maybe opening a cut. Maybe landing some solid shots. He'd come out of it with his head held high and Marciano and the fans stateside all respecting him.

[SamWise72]

For my money Johnny Nelson boxes Rocky's ears off. Against Lennox it would basically be the Glen McCory fight all over again!

Put the crack pipe down

I'm sorry but burst your delusions, but it us a fact that a lot of cruisers were better. Just because he was that size doesn't make him automatically the best. And realistically what could Rocky do better than Carl Thompson?

This thread is hurting my brain. I'm Thompson's biggest fan, but Marciano had a bigger right, a much better chin, and a better engine. Carl was down a LOT in his career without ever really operating at the top level at cruiser, and whilst his heart was enormous, his batteries would run down in tough fights. Not saying he had a stamina problem, he didn't, more that Marciano had some of the best stamina in history. Marciano/Thompson would be an absolute war, but it would end by KO to the Rock in about the 5th; he would throw more than Carl every round, and he's going to find his way home against the fairly hittable Thompson relatively early.

I don't however think that he would do so well against the best of the really big guys. He might beat Wlad, specially early Wlad, but no way he beats Vitali, he's going to need to get lucky against Lewis, and I'd say that Holmes outworks him behind the jab and pre retirement Ali outscores him but not "easily". I'd love to see him against Tyson and Holyfield.....

[SteveO]

Yeah, Marciano v Tyson would have been a cracker.

[HomicideHenry]

The people who thrash Marciano for his size, are the same idiots who forget that Jack Dempsey was only 187 pounds and barely 6' tall when he demolished 6'6" 245 pound Jess Willard in Toledo, Ohio. There's an awful lot of heavyweights today who are as big and as limited as big Jess was. I can easily see Dempsey and Marciano wreaking havoc on the division today. The only two men out there who poses a problem are the Klitschko's, but even then I'd say its 60/40. Very live underdogs are Dempsey and Marciano against the Klitschko's.

[Tomasino]

For my money Johnny Nelson boxes Rocky's ears off. Against Lennox it would basically be the Glen McCory fight all over again!

Put the crack pipe down

I'm sorry but burst your delusions, but it us a fact that a lot of cruisers were better. Just because he was that size doesn't make him automatically the best. And realistically what could Rocky do better than Carl Thompson?

you are simply insane

[stevedoc]

For my money Johnny Nelson boxes Rocky's ears off. Against Lennox it would basically be the Glen McCory fight all over again!

so johnny nelson was better than ezzard Charles then ....................interesting

[polecateddy]

Hey look, I'm simply saying that Carl Thompson can do EVERYTHING Marciano could do, only better. My theory is that any boxer from that era would do terribly today. A puncher back then would be basically a non-puncher. Modern training techniques and nutrition are not to be sniffed at - they have radically changed the modern athlete!

[SamWise72]

But......look at it this way. You can't train chin. Therefore, if non punchers today hit as hard as punchers back then, how come knockouts aren't happening in every single fight? Or indeed, any more often than before? Whilst training methods having improved in some ways, do you not also think that fighting more regularly will have had some beneficial effects?

You can watch Ezzard Charles and Johnny Nelson on Youtube; both are boxers more than punchers, so you are seeing what they can do, there's not the subjectivity of punching power. Charles is clearly significantly better (Nelson is underrated on here, and I really like him, but he's not the best Cruiser of all time), yet Charles got sparked by a huge shot from Marciano. Why wouldn't that same shot take out Nelson?

Carl Thompson was massive value for money, and I cheered for him in everything, but even in a relatively weak era he was a level below the very top, and above those at the very top in his era, most people would rate the likes of Holyfield, who most of us think was the best career cruiser of all time (as opposed to a heavyweight from an era when they were smaller). If you wanted to argue that Holy would beat Marciano, I think you'd get quite a lot of airtime here, but you're talking about a guy who straddled European level with being a fringe contender in the world rankings.

I accept your "training methods have improved", but I raise you:

You can't train chins, and knockouts are no more common
Earlier fighters fought far more often, so had more experience to draw on
There was only one world title, and many times more fighters (the more fighters there are, the more likely a really stellar talent is to emerge)

On that basis, I don't say that old fighters are automatically better, but that it's perfectly reasonable to compare across the eras, and that your contention that a puncher then would be a non-puncher now is nonsense.

[polecateddy]

But......look at it this way. You can't train chin. Therefore, if non punchers today hit as hard as punchers back then, how come knockouts aren't happening in every single fight? Or indeed, any more often than before? Whilst training methods having improved in some ways, do you not also think that fighting more regularly will have had some beneficial effects?

You can watch Ezzard Charles and Johnny Nelson on Youtube; both are boxers more than punchers, so you are seeing what they can do, there's not the subjectivity of punching power. Charles is clearly significantly better (Nelson is underrated on here, and I really like him, but he's not the best Cruiser of all time), yet Charles got sparked by a huge shot from Marciano. Why wouldn't that same shot take out Nelson?

Carl Thompson was massive value for money, and I cheered for him in everything, but even in a relatively weak era he was a level below the very top, and above those at the very top in his era, most people would rate the likes of Holyfield, who most of us think was the best career cruiser of all time (as opposed to a heavyweight from an era when they were smaller). If you wanted to argue that Holy would beat Marciano, I think you'd get quite a lot of airtime here, but you're talking about a guy who straddled European level with being a fringe contender in the world rankings.

I accept your "training methods have improved", but I raise you:

You can't train chins, and knockouts are no more common
Earlier fighters fought far more often, so had more experience to draw on
There was only one world title, and many times more fighters (the more fighters there are, the more likely a really stellar talent is to emerge)

On that basis, I don't say that old fighters are automatically better, but that it's perfectly reasonable to compare across the eras, and that your contention that a puncher then would be a non-puncher now is nonsense.

Well if neck muscles are stronger and bone density has improved with better nutrition, then I would say chins today are actually better. And lets not forget that fighters today in the main have better skills and defensive subtlety than they are given credit for my the oldie fans. Whether that's just progression or the advent of crystal clear footage of live fights and training sessions, that trainers and boxers today can use the gauge improvement. I know this will fall on very deaf ears, but look at it another way: who can say the amateur game has come on leaps and bounds since the Louis era? Why should we regard the pro's as being any different really, if only for the sake of misguided nostalgia?!

[SamWise72]

Why do you say the amateur game has come on? I don't have any expertise in Louis era amateurs, so I don't have an opinion on it. (neck muscles have a very small effect on chin; if it were not so, Khan and Price would be able to train themselves out of being chinny).

[Ezzard]

Bobby Charlton was one of England’s best ever footballers. He wasn’t as fit as the players are today. He didn’t have the same science behind him. He couldn’t run as fast, or for as long, or jump as high…as they do now. I wouldn’t argue with this.

(1) Bobby could take a corner with either foot. Something you never see an English player do now.
(2) If Bobby was playing now he’d have the benefit of all that same science. He would be the best English player in 2013. He wouldn’t play with boots from the 1960s. He would be subject to all the same tests, nutrition, etc… as everyone else is today. He probably wouldn’t have that comb-over either…

[polecateddy]

Bobby Charlton was one of England’s best ever footballers. He wasn’t as fit as the players are today. He didn’t have the same science behind him. He couldn’t run as fast, or for as long, or jump as high…as they do now. I wouldn’t argue with this.

(1) Bobby could take a corner with either foot. Something you never see an English player do now.
(2) If Bobby was playing now he’d have the benefit of all that same science. He would be the best English player in 2013. He wouldn’t play with boots from the 1960s. He would be subject to all the same tests, nutrition, etc… as everyone else is today. He probably wouldn’t have that comb-over either…

Yeah, but the argument is these oldie boxers are better just as they were then. That's the point that niggles me. They just aren't! Not the way they trained, the lack of proper nutrition and sports science. It's bollocks!

[SamWise72]

I personally am not of the "older fighters are all better" school of thought. I think there have been fighters in my lifetime who belong in the absolute top tier; Leonard, Hagler, Holyfield, Lewis, Holmes, Jones, Mayweather, all of these for my view can be legitimately considered alongside the likes of Greb, Charles, Robinson, Ali and Armstrong.

I will have fun debating all day long which belong higher and lower, but I absolutely don't believe that improved nutrition automatically trumps talent, or that more frequent fights and being at the top of a much taller tree count for nothing. And I certainly don't believe that Johnny Nelson and Carl Thompson belong alongside Ezzard Charles or Rocky Marciano. Johnny Nelson would indeed box Marciano's ears off for a while, and so would plenty of others, but I find it very unlikely he'd be standing at the end, and the idea that someone who was a big puncher in the 50's would only equal a light puncher now is, to my mind, every bit as ludicrous as saying that nobody now can hold a candle to the fighters from back in the day.

[SamWise72]

A good example of how training doesn't trump talent is the number of flabby heavyweights who have absolutely mullered much fitter and better conditioned fighters who just weren't as good. Watch a few fights of Greg Page wobbling around and boxing the ears off Adonis like opponents as an example.

[Ezzard]

Bobby Charlton was one of England’s best ever footballers. He wasn’t as fit as the players are today. He didn’t have the same science behind him. He couldn’t run as fast, or for as long, or jump as high…as they do now. I wouldn’t argue with this.

(1) Bobby could take a corner with either foot. Something you never see an English player do now.
(2) If Bobby was playing now he’d have the benefit of all that same science. He would be the best English player in 2013. He wouldn’t play with boots from the 1960s. He would be subject to all the same tests, nutrition, etc… as everyone else is today. He probably wouldn’t have that comb-over either…

Yeah, but the argument is these oldie boxers are better just as they were then. That's the point that niggles me. They just aren't! Not the way they trained, the lack of proper nutrition and sports science. It's bollocks!

Its impossible to do a like for like... I'd say most improvements are juice boosts...legal or otherwise.

The main problem that contemporary fighters face is that they aren’t matched as hard. So old-timers offer more evidence.

[dempseyfire]

But......look at it this way. You can't train chin. Therefore, if non punchers today hit as hard as punchers back then, how come knockouts aren't happening in every single fight? Or indeed, any more often than before? Whilst training methods having improved in some ways, do you not also think that fighting more regularly will have had some beneficial effects?

You can watch Ezzard Charles and Johnny Nelson on Youtube; both are boxers more than punchers, so you are seeing what they can do, there's not the subjectivity of punching power. Charles is clearly significantly better (Nelson is underrated on here, and I really like him, but he's not the best Cruiser of all time), yet Charles got sparked by a huge shot from Marciano. Why wouldn't that same shot take out Nelson?

Carl Thompson was massive value for money, and I cheered for him in everything, but even in a relatively weak era he was a level below the very top, and above those at the very top in his era, most people would rate the likes of Holyfield, who most of us think was the best career cruiser of all time (as opposed to a heavyweight from an era when they were smaller). If you wanted to argue that Holy would beat Marciano, I think you'd get quite a lot of airtime here, but you're talking about a guy who straddled European level with being a fringe contender in the world rankings.

I accept your "training methods have improved", but I raise you:

You can't train chins, and knockouts are no more common
Earlier fighters fought far more often, so had more experience to draw on
There was only one world title, and many times more fighters (the more fighters there are, the more likely a really stellar talent is to emerge)

On that basis, I don't say that old fighters are automatically better, but that it's perfectly reasonable to compare across the eras, and that your contention that a puncher then would be a non-puncher now is nonsense.

Well if neck muscles are stronger and bone density has improved with better nutrition, then I would say chins today are actually better. And lets not forget that fighters today in the main have better skills and defensive subtlety than they are given credit for my the oldie fans. Whether that's just progression or the advent of crystal clear footage of live fights and training sessions, that trainers and boxers today can use the gauge improvement. I know this will fall on very deaf ears, but look at it another way: who can say the amateur game has come on leaps and bounds since the Louis era? Why should we regard the pro's as being any different really, if only for the sake of misguided nostalgia?!

PCT, I don't know why you troll these threads; you have no idea what you are talking about. AM boxing has come leaps and bounds? According to what? AM boxing has seriously declined, especially since the advent of that awful int. scoring system in the 90s.
Fighters in older eras were BETTER trained. Look at how the top trainers in the modern era trained their fighters-Steward, Roach etc. All the same old school methods and techniques that fighters in the past used, plus the fact that fighters were working manual labor jabs when not fighting from a young age, building strength current fighters simply never develop. The adherence to roadwork was also much deeper ingrained.
I think of David Tua before the Byrd fight, and McCline pursuing 'state of the art; oxygen tanks and fitness guru wizards, and their stamina was even worse than it'd been before that. Getting fit for boxing is not complicated; you do it by basic cardio (running) and strength/plyometric drills trainers have known about since the early 1900s, but mostly by fighting a lot (something current fighters don't do), which trains your body to react and breathe appropriately for a fight, which no amount of time with some ex-Balco guy can replicate.
But really the proof is in the pudding, by and large I see much higher workrates over longer period of time in fights from the 20s-80s than fighters in the last two decades.

Marciano . . the guy was one of the fittest fighters of all time. He ran 6 miles a day, 365 days a year. EVERY DAY of his boxing career. Now most HWs between fights put on about 50 lbs of fat and barely get half of it off by fight-time. I'd love to know these great training secrets boxers can do now that apparently he missed out on . . . .

[SamWise72]

And regarding the greater skill you think you see, why is it that Mayweather, regarded by most as the most accomplished defensive fighter of the era, is considered a throwback in his style?

[HomicideHenry]

I find Marciano to be single handedly the most underated and most overated heavyweight of all time, and therein lies the problem. He's so vastly underated because people discredit him for size or for ability and yet he remained undefeated against physically superior opponents who were all superior to him in ability. He should never of had a reason to of kept winning, other than that he had a will that could not be denied. It is beause of this will and burning desire to win, that he is overated. 49-0-0 with 43 kayos in a time where but one title existed, in a time where it was harder to get ranked, in a time where television wasn't the driving force in the sport, etc. He seems, in a way, to be the last link in the chain between the way it was and the way it would become. However, I do see alot of similarities between him and Muhammad Ali at least in a figurative, if not completely literal sense. Two guys who came from nothing, from the poorest of economic backgrounds, figureheads of racism and inequality, who through powerful self belief and all around conditioning became champions of the world and at their best could not be denied. Both men's styles were unorthodox, their training camps were unorthodox, their strengths and weaknesses in many ways mirrored eachothers, and their lives seemed to be a catalyst for one another. Had it not been for Marciano, there may well of never been a Muhammad Ali, and without Muhammad Ali the post fight Marciano probably wouldn't of had such a growing star in his retirement years as Ali was often the focus of many Q&A segments for The Rock.

One thing in their career stands out the most to me, though, and that is their championship fights. When Marciano fought Walcott in their first battle, and when Ali fought Liston in their first battle, both men during their perspective fights fought completely blind due to substances getting into their eyes. And the results were very much the same, they overcame the obstacle and adversity and went on to win. Both Ali and Marciano had a kind of bravery and courage that one cannot seem to understand. I think because of this, in part, it is a factor in why Ali felt of all the past/present champions in history that Marciano would have been his toughest opponent had they ever fought. You would have had to of killed both men in order for them to of quit. That mindset surely never left Marciano when he lost over fifty pounds when he stepped into that Miami gym to film the Superfight, because as a former athlete he couldn't go into filming as if it were a film, that if the punches suddenly became real that he would be able to fight for his life against the greatest boxer on the planet. It surely never left Ali either when he came back against Holmes and later Berbick in the 1980s.

If you were to go decade by decade from 1900 to the present, there is maybe but a handful of men you could argue have a chance of beating Marciano at his best. The same can be said of Muhammad Ali. Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis, Dempsey, Johnson, Frazier and the Klitschko's spring to mind. Even then, however, a good majority of observers would probably peg Marciano over Holyfield and Frazier, especially at the cruiserweight limit of today (210). Johnson and Dempsey are close calls, but in a series who knows Marciano probably comes out on top. Holmes, Foreman, Lewis and the Klitschko's are a bigger question mark. But one thing is for certain, regardless of winner, all those men would know Marciano was in the fight from beginning to end.

[SamWise72]

Anybody that has to win by hitting harder or working harder, you have a serious question mark. The only people you can see beating him reliably are those who could both outbox him and survive the likely big right crosses too; Ali, Holmes, Lewis (though he'd get stopped a couple of times in ten). Ironically, Greg Page would probably stand a better chance than Holyfield. Not many fights you can say that about!

[Controversial]

It's always a hard argument. Yes Marciano was small, no way would he be a heavyweight in this era, bulking up to 15 stone would take away the very things that made him formidable. He had the sheer strength, will to win, stamina and toughness to give many bigger fighters of modern times hell. Styles make fights and I think he would have given Ali huge problems, Tyson on the other hand would have destroyed him in my opinion.

Marciano never really tired in fights and never took a step back and threw ridiculous amount of punches for a heavyweight. The issue I have with modern fighters is they are simply matched carefully and often top 10 fighters or title challengers without ever really fighting anyone of note. Plus the money today must take their hunger away. Older fighters normally had so many fights because they needed to eat, today some fighters have one fight and they are multi-millionaires. Even Audley Harrison signed a million pound deal before even throwing a punch as a pro, says it all really.

On the flip side Marciano fought some great fighters that were simply not that great anymore.

[IKSRTFO]

Size advantages today would only mean so much. Marciano could go 15 rounds and then some. Name any heavyweight today you think could do that?