Rocky Marciano small heavyweight

[Controversial]

If there is argument about how modern cruiserweights would fare against Marciano, it's not irrelevant to compare footage of Marciano and modern cruiserweights. If Marciano is significantly better than the fighters in question, this should be discernible in bout footage. If it's not, the assertion that the modern cruiserweights in the footage are at least comparable to Marciano, which I assume would be dismissed by most in this thread, isn't baseless. In fact, if assessments of how Marciano compares to certain fighters aren't based on what's discernible from bouts, what are they based on?

If you can find video of Cooper showing the same speed and explosive and precise combination punching that Tyson regularly showed, I'd like to see it.

Depends on your definition of better, sometimes the will to win, stamina, toughness and never giving up count for more than a good jab and movement.

If there is argument about how modern cruiserweights would fare against Marciano, it's not irrelevant to compare footage of Marciano and modern cruiserweights. If Marciano is significantly better than the fighters in question, this should be discernible in bout footage. If it's not, the assertion that the modern cruiserweights in the footage are at least comparable to Marciano, which I assume would be dismissed by most in this thread, isn't baseless. In fact, if assessments of how Marciano compares to certain fighters aren't based on what's discernible from bouts, what are they based on?

If you can find video of Cooper showing the same speed and explosive and precise combination punching that Tyson regularly showed, I'd like to see it.

I've already put up Lebedev v G Jones for comparison with Marciano v Moore. To my naked eye Lebedev appeared faster, more skilled and had more movement and a better work rate.

And it a very fair point being raised here - was Rocky flattered by the level of opposition. There's four main names on his record, who are on the face of it impressive. But delve a bit deeper and you can see Jersey Joe Walcott was having the last two fights of his career. He was 38 the first time he fought Rocky and 39 on the next occasion. Ezzard Charles had lost 2 of his last 4 fights going in with Rocky. He was 33/34 and his best days were behind him. Joe Louis was clearly past it, that's never in dispute. And Archie Moore was in his early forties. And he may have been ageless, but he was also a light-heavy. There is no evidence on his record that he could have coped with the young, modern, motivated heavyweight or cruiserweight champion. What is record consists of is the classic younger, up and coming fighter notching up 'names' of faded fighters and champions past their best. In modern terms this is more the process a young fighter goes through BEFORE he becomes a world champion. It strikes me that Rocky was fortunate with his timing, and that he lacked credible challengers from his own generation.

Yes I agree there are arguments to say Marciano was fortunate with his timing however Charles, Moore and Walcott were still very good fighters, Charles often rated as the greatest LHW in history by many. On the flip side who are the best wins on the Klitschko's resumes, how many ATGs have they beaten? Its unfair to compare eras because times have changed, there is no denying that and todays HW scene is far poorer in my opinion and why the Klitschko's are dominant, not because they are particularly good fighters.

The argument however wasn't comparing opponents it was how much fitter modern HWs are and how being bigger equates to success. Yes todays HWs are monsters in comparison but that doesn't mean they are any better and it certainly doesn't mean they are any fitter.

[bollox]

He wouldn't do well at all. Can you imagine Vitali or Lewis hitting, him it’d be good night! I'm a firm believer that nostalgia plays a big part in past greats ability, when compared to modern fighters, especially when discussing fighters from 50 or more years ago.

Exactly! Marciano was a great fighter but no way does he beat the Klitschko's. At some point size plays in as a factor. The Klitschko's have size and boxing ability.

Vlad would be KO'd by Marcianoi, of that I have no doubt. Although Vitali is another story altogether

[polecateddy]

If there is argument about how modern cruiserweights would fare against Marciano, it's not irrelevant to compare footage of Marciano and modern cruiserweights. If Marciano is significantly better than the fighters in question, this should be discernible in bout footage. If it's not, the assertion that the modern cruiserweights in the footage are at least comparable to Marciano, which I assume would be dismissed by most in this thread, isn't baseless. In fact, if assessments of how Marciano compares to certain fighters aren't based on what's discernible from bouts, what are they based on?

If you can find video of Cooper showing the same speed and explosive and precise combination punching that Tyson regularly showed, I'd like to see it.

Depends on your definition of better, sometimes the will to win, stamina, toughness and never giving up count for more than a good jab and movement.

If there is argument about how modern cruiserweights would fare against Marciano, it's not irrelevant to compare footage of Marciano and modern cruiserweights. If Marciano is significantly better than the fighters in question, this should be discernible in bout footage. If it's not, the assertion that the modern cruiserweights in the footage are at least comparable to Marciano, which I assume would be dismissed by most in this thread, isn't baseless. In fact, if assessments of how Marciano compares to certain fighters aren't based on what's discernible from bouts, what are they based on?

If you can find video of Cooper showing the same speed and explosive and precise combination punching that Tyson regularly showed, I'd like to see it.

I've already put up Lebedev v G Jones for comparison with Marciano v Moore. To my naked eye Lebedev appeared faster, more skilled and had more movement and a better work rate.

And it a very fair point being raised here - was Rocky flattered by the level of opposition. There's four main names on his record, who are on the face of it impressive. But delve a bit deeper and you can see Jersey Joe Walcott was having the last two fights of his career. He was 38 the first time he fought Rocky and 39 on the next occasion. Ezzard Charles had lost 2 of his last 4 fights going in with Rocky. He was 33/34 and his best days were behind him. Joe Louis was clearly past it, that's never in dispute. And Archie Moore was in his early forties. And he may have been ageless, but he was also a light-heavy. There is no evidence on his record that he could have coped with the young, modern, motivated heavyweight or cruiserweight champion. What is record consists of is the classic younger, up and coming fighter notching up 'names' of faded fighters and champions past their best. In modern terms this is more the process a young fighter goes through BEFORE he becomes a world champion. It strikes me that Rocky was fortunate with his timing, and that he lacked credible challengers from his own generation.

Yes I agree there are arguments to say Marciano was fortunate with his timing however Charles, Moore and Walcott were still very good fighters, Charles often rated as the greatest LHW in history by many. On the flip side who are the best wins on the Klitschko's resumes, how many ATGs have they beaten? Its unfair to compare eras because times have changed, there is no denying that and todays HW scene is far poorer in my opinion and why the Klitschko's are dominant, not because they are particularly good fighters.

The argument however wasn't comparing opponents it was how much fitter modern HWs are and how being bigger equates to success. Yes todays HWs are monsters in comparison but that doesn't mean they are any better and it certainly doesn't mean they are any fitter.

Yeah but who would seriously pick Marciano to overcome the size and power deficit against say Lennox Lewis, even if he could hit a heavy bang continuously for longer or whatever. I would standby Marciano being lucky with his timing. He never had to face Floyd Patterson, or have to knock back a younger, worthy challenger like say Ingemar Johansson. His reign was all about using his youth and admittedly over-the-top training routines to beat a succession of decent but faded names. Despite all the negativity some of my suggestions have raised, it can't really be doubted that Marciano was fortunate there was lack of great competition from his own generation or younger.

[polecateddy]

He wouldn't do well at all. Can you imagine Vitali or Lewis hitting, him it’d be good night! I'm a firm believer that nostalgia plays a big part in past greats ability, when compared to modern fighters, especially when discussing fighters from 50 or more years ago.

Exactly! Marciano was a great fighter but no way does he beat the Klitschko's. At some point size plays in as a factor. The Klitschko's have size and boxing ability.

Vlad would be KO'd by Marcianoi, of that I have no doubt. Although Vitali is another story altogether

...at least spell their names right.

[bollox]

Typo on Marciano, please accept my humble apologies. Which other names are not spelt to your liking?

[polecateddy]

Marciano would have beat Patterson and Johansson

Wow, the oracle has spoken.

[SamWise72]

Yeah but who would seriously pick Marciano to overcome the size and power deficit against say Lennox Lewis, even if he could hit a heavy bang continuously for longer or whatever. I would standby Marciano being lucky with his timing. He never had to face Floyd Patterson, or have to knock back a younger, worthy challenger like say Ingemar Johansson. His reign was all about using his youth and admittedly over-the-top training routines to beat a succession of decent but faded names. Despite all the negativity some of my suggestions have raised, it can't really be doubted that Marciano was fortunate there was lack of great competition from his own generation or younger.

Whilst I would pick Marciano over Patterson, whose chin was never the best, and over Johansson, whose career was that big hammer he landed, I think you have a fair point about quality of opposition. I don't agree about the "before you win the title" thing, many fighters today never face anyone of note before they fight for a "title", still less two ATGs. Look at the K brothers; between them, one has fought Lennox Lewis, and lost, in Lewis's very last fight. I'd call wins against 2 ATG light heavyweights, even at the very end of their careers, are more impressive. Marciano is not Lewis, Ali or Holyfield in terms of his opposition, but he's still up there with most.

[polecateddy]

Yeah but who would seriously pick Marciano to overcome the size and power deficit against say Lennox Lewis, even if he could hit a heavy bang continuously for longer or whatever. I would standby Marciano being lucky with his timing. He never had to face Floyd Patterson, or have to knock back a younger, worthy challenger like say Ingemar Johansson. His reign was all about using his youth and admittedly over-the-top training routines to beat a succession of decent but faded names. Despite all the negativity some of my suggestions have raised, it can't really be doubted that Marciano was fortunate there was lack of great competition from his own generation or younger.

Whilst I would pick Marciano over Patterson, whose chin was never the best, and over Johansson, whose career was that big hammer he landed, I think you have a fair point about quality of opposition. I don't agree about the "before you win the title" thing, many fighters today never face anyone of note before they fight for a "title", still less two ATGs. Look at the K brothers; between them, one has fought Lennox Lewis, and lost, in Lewis's very last fight. I'd call wins against 2 ATG light heavyweights, even at the very end of their careers, are more impressive. Marciano is not Lewis, Ali or Holyfield in terms of his opposition, but he's still up there with most.

Okay, not ATG, but you have to admit that generally across all weight divisions it is relatively commonplace for a world title contender to get to pick off 2-3 former champions well past their best as part of their hype and development. My point is Marciano was fortunate enough to have his title reign (and legacy) built on this very process. And what in fact is missing, is the usual subsequent run of fighting top fighters of his own generation and the one coming up behind it. Not his fault of course, but it goes back to the point made earlier - how can his actual ability be properly assessed if he only feasted on older and/or faded fighters. It's a bit like Lennox Lewis knocking out old Mike Weaver on the way up. It was a nice learning fight, but there is no way to properly assess Lennox's ability from beating up a veteran. And Rocky struggled to beat the veterans on his record, so why does everyone want to go overboard on his ability. 49-0, but only the last 6 or so fights of that record were significant.

[Oswald]

You are shifting the goalposts somewhat here, PCT.

The majority of your posts so far have been about his size and the superiority in fitness of modern fighters. In fact the title of the thread is about his size.

To repeat: very few people have said that Marciano could/would beat the Klits or Lennox, who are skilled as well as large.

The bone of contention is that you've said he would be schooled by CAT and Johnny Nelson and just about any other "modern" fighter at cruiser or heavy.

What this comes down to is that you seem to think that "modern" fighters are automatically better than fighters of yesteryear, yet you have unfortunately failed to provide any evidence to back this up.

[polecateddy]

You are shifting the goalposts somewhat here, PCT.

The majority of your posts so far have been about his size and the superiority in fitness of modern fighters. In fact the title of the thread is about his size.

To repeat: very few people have said that Marciano could/would beat the Klits or Lennox, who are skilled as well as large.

The bone of contention is that you've said he would be schooled by CAT and Johnny Nelson and just about any other "modern" fighter at cruiser or heavy.

What this comes down to is that you seem to think that "modern" fighters are automatically better than fighters of yesteryear, yet you have unfortunately failed to provide any evidence to back this up.

I'm standing by what I said. Johnny and Carl would have beaten The Rock.

[SamWise72]

In this, you are so wrong that it's not even funny. He would have terrorised Nelson, who would have gone totally into his shell on all but his best night, and been dropped hard even on his best night. Thompson would have gone to war, and it would have been hugely exciting while it lasted (most Thompson fights were!), but Thompson isn't keeping down a man that Moore couldn't, and Carl's chin was not world class enough to survive maybe the hardest punching 185 lber of all time (as we've established, it wasn't good enough to survive Ezra Sellers).

[loaded_gloves]

Does that mean Ezra Sellers and James Warring and Adilson Rodriguez and Yawe Davis and Chris Eubank would also have KOd the Rock?

Cannot believe one single fool has been allowed to draw out this degrading thread 13 or 14 pages.

[Controversial]

He never had to face Floyd Patterson, or have to knock back a younger, worthy challenger like say Ingemar Johansson. His reign was all about using his youth and admittedly over-the-top training routines to beat a succession of decent but faded names.

Personally I think Marciano would have beaten both Patterson and Johansson. Any fighters career can be broken down and made to look worse than what it was. Holmes fought several inexperienced guys in his title reign and was eventually beaten by a LHW. Ali and Louis fought their fair share of average title challengers, Ali looking awful in a few of them and many think lucky to be given the nod in a few fights.

[loaded_gloves]

His dismissal of Marciano's career success at world level is offensive, given the uniform failure at world level, European level and even journeymen level of Thompson and Nelson.

But what would you expect of a man ignorant of Ezzard Charles and fluent in WBO champions who fight in sports centres against journeymen in 'title' fights?

Kill this thread.

[polecateddy]

His dismissal of Marciano's career success at world level is offensive, given the uniform failure at world level, European level and even journeymen level of Thompson and Nelson.

But what would you expect of a man ignorant of Ezzard Charles and fluent in WBO champions who fight in sports centres against journeymen in 'title' fights?

Kill this thread.

You very crude in your assessment. Carl learned on the job after a limited amateur career. He was a kick boxer originally. Both Nelson and Thompson only came into their own as WBO champions. Sellers was a huge natural puncher. Far harder than Marciano. I simply pointed out Ezzard had lost 2 of his last 4 when facing Marciano and was past his best. It also says a lot that in significant fights, that Ali beating up aged Archie is rarely seen as significant as any kind of heavyweight benchmark.

[p4p1]

The whole point about Marciano not proving himself by beating an ex champ before his title shot is kind of floored in a couple of ways. 1 there is more champs to choose from now across more weights. 2. He did beat Joe Louis on his way up before he got a title shot. What other ex champion was he supposed to beat on his way up.

[polecateddy]

The whole point about Marciano not proving himself by beating an ex champ before his title shot is kind of floored in a couple of ways. 1 there is more champs to choose from now across more weights. 2. He did beat Joe Louis on his way up before he got a title shot. What other ex champion was he supposed to beat on his way up.

You seem to have read my post arse backwards. I said credible challengers from his generation and younger after he won the title, like most champs have to do. I said you can't properly assess his actual ability just from beating up faded fighters. Just as Lennox Lewis beating say Mike Weaver on his way up doesn't tell you a great deal either. So therefore nobody can concretely say Rocky Marciano would beat up young, fresh cruiser champs because he never beat any fresh, hungry and young fighters during his reign, just faded ex-champs and fighters past their peak.

[Controversial]

Sellers was a huge natural puncher. Far harder than Marciano.

So who did Sellers prove his power against? I see a string of KO wins over nobodies and every time he fought anyone half decent he was knocked out, normally in the first few rounds.

[polecateddy]

Sellers was a huge natural puncher. Far harder than Marciano.

So who did Sellers prove his power against? I see a string of KO wins over nobodies and every time he fought anyone half decent he was knocked out, normally in the first few rounds.

Perhaps if you actually watched him rather than simply looking up his Boxrec record it may assist. He may not have had much of a chin, but trust me the guy was one of those natural big punchers. He was also the only fighter to have Johnny Nelson on the deck during his respectable WBO reign.

[loaded_gloves]

Lol. Sellers couldn't stop a shot Alex Stewart, and he had the almighty Johnny Nelson on the floor.

The irony that Teddy calls Nelson's WBO, sub-B level, Sheffield sports centre non-reign 'respectable' and yet dismisses Rocky Marciano's elite level, undisputed heavyweight championship reign reminds you of everything you already know.

The man knows more about Ezra Sellers than he does Ezzard Charles.

Truly this is a very 'special' type of boxing fan.

[orbtastic]

...because he was a cruiserweight fighting at heavyweight. Sellers was clearly a puncher, he had one-hit power.

I don't really see how that really adds or takes away to any aspect of this "discussion".

[SamWise72]

Sellers was a big puncher, Marciano was a big puncher. To call Sellers a much bigger puncher than Marciano is nonsense. Johnny Nelson did come into his own as a WBO champion, but the opponents he fought were European level more than anything, and after the wheels came off against the real cruiser elite in the early part of his career, he didn't seek those top level fights again. But yes, naturally he would box the ears off someone who stopped men who had been great champs in the days where there was only one champ, and many many more fighters. Why wouldn't he?

[evrenb]

I do think there are some good points to polecats argument...something has to be said about the progression of science and genetic development etc but I think he is coming across very disrespectful against the rock. Remember you are comparing respecable fighters of today ( the cat being one of my favs) against a legend...one of the most loved in history...i think you are also dismissive of his ability and competition....the competition level..the boxing gene pool was a lot deeper and competitive than now....if you shot footage of say carl froch or more applicable corrie sanders using 50's film I think you wouldnt be singing the praises of the ability of these either...as boxing goes rockys fitness, endurance, determination and intestinal fortitude are second to none and seem to be overlooked...b hop isnt the most fantastic looking fighter you have seen ever is he. You watch film of him and then jean pascal and I bet you would say pascal is the better fighter...better physique, faster hand speed..looks fitter..decent puncher...but did he beat b hop?...boxing is sweet science...more to it than plain ole science...

[polecateddy]

Sellers was a big puncher, Marciano was a big puncher. To call Sellers a much bigger puncher than Marciano is nonsense. Johnny Nelson did come into his own as a WBO champion, but the opponents he fought were European level more than anything, and after the wheels came off against the real cruiser elite in the early part of his career, he didn't seek those top level fights again. But yes, naturally he would box the ears off someone who stopped men who had been great champs in the days where there was only one champ, and many many more fighters. Why wouldn't he?

Well Nelson did draw against G Jones at the tail end of his reign. It was a gift draw admittedly, but a better result than Lebedev managed. Lebedev being the closed to a modern day version of The Rock I can make out. I'm not totally disrespecting Rocky Marciano, but he is flattered by the level of his aged, worn opponents.

[polecateddy]

I do think there are some good points to polecats argument...something has to be said about the progression of science and genetic development etc but I think he is coming across very disrespectful against the rock. Remember you are comparing respecable fighters of today ( the cat being one of my favs) against a legend...one of the most loved in history...i think you are also dismissive of his ability and competition....the competition level..the boxing gene pool was a lot deeper and competitive than now....if you shot footage of say carl froch or more applicable corrie sanders using 50's film I think you wouldnt be singing the praises of the ability of these either...as boxing goes rockys fitness, endurance, determination and intestinal fortitude are second to none and seem to be overlooked...b hop isnt the most fantastic looking fighter you have seen ever is he. You watch film of him and then jean pascal and I bet you would say pascal is the better fighter...better physique, faster hand speed..looks fitter..decent puncher...but did he beat b hop?...boxing is sweet science...more to it than plain ole science...

Just as a complete aside, is there anyone under the age of say 40 yrs passionately advocating Rocky Marciano's chances as being a world cruiserweight and/or heavyweight champion here today? Meaning (off the top of my head) that he would have to beat fighters such as the Klitschkos, Povetkin, Huck, G Jones, etc over 12 rounds. I'm just curious how old some of you posters are :) ...I'm 38 by the way, and was a boxing fan way before internet forums were invented. And from the UK and Australia, (i.e. not a stupid Yank :)