Rocky Marciano versus Modern Heavyweights via Punch Count

[polecateddy]

The question of how would smaller great heavyweights do against bigger heavyweights of today is usually not thought through very well. Many people assume that there were no big heavyweights a long time ago. There have been been really big heavyweights for the last 100 years.Many of them fans of today have never heard of. Why? Mostly because the smaller heavyweights beat them and they never became the champion.

There is a reason why you don't see 320 pound quarterbacks in the NFL. Or runningbacks that are 6'6. At a certain point size stops being an advantage. It ultimately becomes a disadvantage.

This argument will just go round in round in circles forever. I think this point was made and discussed about 10 or more pages ago. The general consensus is that yes there may have been your Willards and Carneras back in the day, but they were nothing like the athletic giants such as Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos. Now I will here lengthy posts from old timers saying how brilliant and successful they would have been today too! Lol

[HomicideHenry]

The question of how would smaller great heavyweights do against bigger heavyweights of today is usually not thought through very well. Many people assume that there were no big heavyweights a long time ago. There have been been really big heavyweights for the last 100 years.Many of them fans of today have never heard of. Why? Mostly because the smaller heavyweights beat them and they never became the champion.

There is a reason why you don't see 320 pound quarterbacks in the NFL. Or runningbacks that are 6'6. At a certain point size stops being an advantage. It ultimately becomes a disadvantage.

This argument will just go round in round in circles forever. I think this point was made and discussed about 10 or more pages ago. The general consensus is that yes there may have been your Willards and Carneras back in the day, but they were nothing like the athletic giants such as Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos. Now I will here lengthy posts from old timers saying how brilliant and successful they would have been today too! Lol

You won't hear me making much an argument or debate as to how well the giant men of the olden days were. HOWEVER, I will point out that alot of those big men did fire off alot of punches, unlike guys today. Unfortunately there is indeed a weakness in being tall, and that is punching downward lessens your power and it also throws you off balance, especially if you are a leggy giant type. Notice alot of big men lean forward when they throw the jab downward at smaller opponents---- leaves them open for overhand rights.

[polecateddy]

The question of how would smaller great heavyweights do against bigger heavyweights of today is usually not thought through very well. Many people assume that there were no big heavyweights a long time ago. There have been been really big heavyweights for the last 100 years.Many of them fans of today have never heard of. Why? Mostly because the smaller heavyweights beat them and they never became the champion.

There is a reason why you don't see 320 pound quarterbacks in the NFL. Or runningbacks that are 6'6. At a certain point size stops being an advantage. It ultimately becomes a disadvantage.

This argument will just go round in round in circles forever. I think this point was made and discussed about 10 or more pages ago. The general consensus is that yes there may have been your Willards and Carneras back in the day, but they were nothing like the athletic giants such as Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos. Now I will here lengthy posts from old timers saying how brilliant and successful they would have been today too!
You won't hear me making much an argument or debate as to how well the giant men of the olden days were. HOWEVER, I will point out that alot of those big men did fire off alot of punches, unlike guys today. Unfortunately there is indeed a weakness in being tall, and that is punching downward lessens your power and it also throws you off balance, especially if you are a leggy giant type. Notice alot of big men lean forward when they throw the jab downward at smaller opponents---- leaves them open for overhand rights.

Yes, but the greater reach is a world class fighter is far more formidable. One of the main reasons the Klitschkos are so successful is very have perfected the art of fighting tall. Just how many long range shorts would a 5'10'', 185 pound Rocky have to take to get inside with these guys, especially as its been said he had a very short reach himself and was intent on only throwing short hooks. Guy is going to get plastered and worn down quickly!

[Ambling Alp II]

Perfected the art?? Wow. I mean wow. Well it doesn't hurt when your competition is a complete joke.

Vitali has no defense, that is not perfecting the art. He is also painfully slow. He doesn't have a good jab at all. Marciano would have had no problem getting to that big slow target.

Marciano would just have to get Wladimir once and it would over for glass jaw. Wladimir has no chin and no stamina, which is why he has had to fight at a such a slow pace for the past several years.

Lewis was a great fighter and that is a different story.

Marciano could fight at a fast pace for as many rounds as necessary.

[andeeholden]

This is a great, informative and educational thread from someone who clearly knows their stuff in HomicideHenry

You don't learn this kinda stuff in Boxing News/Monthly

[polecateddy]

This is a great, informative and educational thread from someone who clearly knows their stuff in HomicideHenry

You don't learn this kinda stuff in Boxing News/Monthly

Yeah, the guy really knows his compu boxer stats! And I totally agree with him that at featherweight, Paul Ingle was a much impressive fighter than Floyd Mayweather ever was at super-feather. The stats don't lie! Lol

[HomicideHenry]

This is a great, informative and educational thread from someone who clearly knows their stuff in HomicideHenry

You don't learn this kinda stuff in Boxing News/Monthly

I never wanted to stop learning new things. It has taken me almost two decades to know what little bit that I do know in boxing. Boxing, in the beginning for me, was a way to connect with my father because we didn't quite get along or have much to say to one another. Marciano, Dempsey and Sullivan were just a few of many names who helped build a bridge between father and son. That being said, I am proud of this thread as much as I am of the John L. Sullivan thread that I did some time ago. Gives a greater insight to how special a fighter Marciano was.

This is a great, informative and educational thread from someone who clearly knows their stuff in HomicideHenry

You don't learn this kinda stuff in Boxing News/Monthly

Yeah, the guy really knows his compu boxer stats! And I totally agree with him that at featherweight, Paul Ingle was a much impressive fighter than Floyd Mayweather ever was at super-feather. The stats don't lie! Lol

It is amazing isn't it that a man over forty pounds heavier than Mayweather threw higher punch stats and a man much smaller than the Klitschko's by nearly a foot in height and 80 pounds in weight was more dominate and respected than they are.

[polecateddy]

Yes, he was also throwing down against aged and faded fighters. People seem to be blinded by the names of Walcott (last two fights of his career), Moore (ancient and a light heavy), Charles (worn-out and at the tail end of career). I mean I remember Ricky Hatton beating up Tsyzu. Doesn't mean he could have done the same to the 25 year old version!

[andeeholden]

This is a great, informative and educational thread from someone who clearly knows their stuff in HomicideHenry

You don't learn this kinda stuff in Boxing News/Monthly

I never wanted to stop learning new things. It has taken me almost two decades to know what little bit that I do know in boxing. Boxing, in the beginning for me, was a way to connect with my father because we didn't quite get along or have much to say to one another. Marciano, Dempsey and Sullivan were just a few of many names who helped build a bridge between father and son. That being said, I am proud of this thread as much as I am of the John L. Sullivan thread that I did some time ago. Gives a greater insight to how special a fighter Marciano was.

I will have a look at your thread on John L. Sullivan also! Although the minimal knowledge I do have comes from the current scene and largely the British based fighters, I find myself captivated when reading and learning about fighters in years gone by. Which is why I find your posts very interesting, you have clearly spent lots of time researching and learning about Marciano and others, and in time I would love to have the knowledge you have!

[HomicideHenry]

Yes, he was also throwing down against aged and faded fighters. People seem to be blinded by the names of Walcott (last two fights of his career), Moore (ancient and a light heavy), Charles (worn-out and at the tail end of career). I mean I remember Ricky Hatton beating up Tsyzu. Doesn't mean he could have done the same to the 25 year old version!

I proved on the thread that all three of those men that you mentioned were not washed up, as many have been misinformed. What is strange is that fighters these days are often fighting into their late 30's and late 40's and are still dominate. Bernard Hopkins being the most famous example. Lennox Lewis fought on until he was 40. Vladimir Klitschko is 38 years old, and Vitali is 40 or 42 years old. Age it seems these days means very little. So why hold it against Moore, Walcott and Charles who showed no signs of slowing up until AFTER Marciano destroyed them?

Walcott was getting better with age, and was an innovator of tactics and moves. He was fighting the best fight of his career against Marciano until he was kayoed.

Charles, despite what many have said over the years, was on a great win streak and was still considered a threat. He proved it twice against Marciano, though he came up short. Marciano's incredible work rate and punching power was the determining factor in both fights and Charles, as a result, was never the same.

Moore, would reign as light heavyweight champion for almost a decade after his fight with Marciano and was still battling it out with the top heavyweights of his time. Moore was not just an old, light heavyweight. This man defied age and size completely. His longevity in both weight classes and his success at both shows this to be true. Only his great defense was able to keep him from being physically wrecked my Marciano.

[polecateddy]

Yes, he was also throwing down against aged and faded fighters. People seem to be blinded by the names of Walcott (last two fights of his career), Moore (ancient and a light heavy), Charles (worn-out and at the tail end of career). I mean I remember Ricky Hatton beating up Tsyzu. Doesn't mean he could have done the same to the 25 year old version!

I proved on the thread that all three of those men that you mentioned were not washed up, as many have been misinformed. What is strange is that fighters these days are often fighting into their late 30's and late 40's and are still dominate. Bernard Hopkins being the most famous example. Lennox Lewis fought on until he was 40. Vladimir Klitschko is 38 years old, and Vitali is 40 or 42 years old. Age it seems these days means very little. So why hold it against Moore, Walcott and Charles who showed no signs of slowing up until AFTER Marciano destroyed them?

Walcott was getting better with age, and was an innovator of tactics and moves. He was fighting the best fight of his career against Marciano until he was kayoed.

Charles, despite what many have said over the years, was on a great win streak and was still considered a threat. He proved it twice against Marciano, though he came up short. Marciano's incredible work rate and punching power was the determining factor in both fights and Charles, as a result, was never the same.

Moore, would reign as light heavyweight champion for almost a decade after his fight with Marciano and was still battling it out with the top heavyweights of his time. Moore was not just an old, light heavyweight. This man defied age and size completely. His longevity in both weight classes and his success at both shows this to be true. Only his great defense was able to keep him from being physically wrecked my Marciano.

Will anyone ever get their rose-tinted glasses off. Charles was 2-2 going into the first Rocky fight. Walcott may have done well in the the first fight, but he was at the end of his career and never fought anyone afterwards. Moore was still a light-heavy in his forties. Hopkins may be showing fights can be won at that age, but neither he nor Vitali are as potent as there were in their 20s and 30s. Vitali in particular has lost his punch.

[Ambling Alp II]

The Walcott that Marciano beat for the title was far better than anyone either of the Klitschko's ever beat.

[polecateddy]

The Walcott that Marciano beat for the title was far better than anyone either of the Klitschko's ever beat.

Really! Lol

[HomicideHenry]

The Walcott that Marciano beat for the title was far better than anyone either of the Klitschko's ever beat.

Really! Lol

I concur with Alp. Let's look at the facts here.... Walcott split wins with one of the greatest fighters p4p in history (Charles), was robbed against Louis in their first fight, was so great he was outright ducked for years and was labelled a bum because he simply couldnt get fights against anyone who was any good because they were all afraid of him. Walcott defeated alot of great heavyweights. Both Klitschko's have never beaten a HOF caliber opponent let alone one that was remotely given a chance at beating them.

[polecateddy]

The Walcott that Marciano beat for the title was far better than anyone either of the Klitschko's ever beat.

Really! Lol

I concur with Alp. Let's look at the facts here.... Walcott split wins with one of the greatest fighters p4p in history (Charles), was robbed against Louis in their first fight, was so great he was outright ducked for years and was labelled a bum because he simply couldnt get fights against anyone who was any good because they were all afraid of him. Walcott defeated alot of great heavyweights. Both Klitschko's have never beaten a HOF caliber opponent let alone one that was remotely given a chance at beating them.

Maybe Walcott on achievement. But on ability a lot of the Klitschcko's opponents would have beaten Walcott, especially the old version ripe for retirement Rocky beat.

[dempseyfire]

Why is this still going on?

Walcott forgot more about boxing than any Klitschko opponent ever knew (the only guy who'd be in the same league is puffed-up feather-dusting light heavyweight Chris Byrd). He had speed and knockout power. At 195 lbs he was absolutely ripped and in far better condition than Ibragimov, Peter, Chagaev, Brock, Chambers etc. Based on ability by any measurement Walcott was a better opponent than anyone Wlad has ever faced.

[Senya13]

Calculating the averages based on given punch stats...

Rocky Marciano versus Harry "Kid" Matthews (1952)
89 total punches / 5 mins fight duration * 3 min_round = 53 punches/round

Marciano versus Walcott II
42 punches/round

Marciano versus LaStarza II
64 punches/round

Rocky Marciano versus Ezzard Charles
64 punches/round

Marciano versus Charles II
34 punches/round

Rocky Marciano versus Don Cockell
76 punches/round

Average for six fights listed: 56 punches/round

Is that really so high?

[Oswald]

I concur with Alp. Let's look at the facts here.... Walcott split wins with one of the greatest fighters p4p in history (Charles), was robbed against Louis in their first fight, was so great he was outright ducked for years and was labelled a bum because he simply couldnt get fights against anyone who was any good because they were all afraid of him. Walcott defeated alot of great heavyweights. Both Klitschko's have never beaten a HOF caliber opponent let alone one that was remotely given a chance at beating them.

Maybe Walcott on achievement. But on ability a lot of the Klitschcko's opponents would have beaten Walcott, especially the old version ripe for retirement Rocky beat.

I agree, Tony Thompson schools Walcott

[HomicideHenry]

Calculating the averages based on given punch stats...

Rocky Marciano versus Harry "Kid" Matthews (1952)
89 total punches / 5 mins fight duration * 3 min_round = 53 punches/round

Marciano versus Walcott II
42 punches/round

Marciano versus LaStarza II
64 punches/round

Rocky Marciano versus Ezzard Charles
64 punches/round

Marciano versus Charles II
34 punches/round

Rocky Marciano versus Don Cockell
76 punches/round

Average for six fights listed: 56 punches/round

Is that really so high?

I think averages doesn't quite tell the whole story though. Marciano's work rate increased as the rounds went on. That is a testament to his fitness, which is what started this thread to begin with. A man who in the final round of his fight with Charles throwing nearly 100 punches is tremendous (in their first match up). The fact that your averages does show Marciano throwing between the high 50's and high 70's on average in his fights, does show that he would still be throwing a much higher level of punches than the current heavyweight crop. Factor in that these men were not anywhere near as washed up or as old or as shop worn as the years of myths, lies, and misconceptions and are all-time greats in their own right (Walcott, Charles and Moore) it goes to show that the stats are all the more impressive---- because the stats I have shown for Tyson, Holyfield, Foreman, etc. where they were exceptionally high were against men who were not altogether that good or were old and well passed it.

[Senya13]

Averages are averages. They show that on average Marciano had a usual punch rate, more or less. Taking examples that are anomaly (a word has been used in this thread already) to his average workrate and claiming he'd be throwing those many punches vs everyone today is silly, to say it mildly. There's nothing suggesting that would be true. Just as the usual misconception that every Marciano punch was like a hit of a sledgehammer. I don't care what his opponents said, they often used metaphoras and exaggerations, excusing their losses or not looking good against somebody. As has been pointed out if that was true, then why were his opponents still there, round after round, opponents who were worn down, knocked down or knocked out by other fighters, who were supposedly weaker punchers than Marciano.

[Ezzard]

I guess Rocky was pacing himself for 15 rounds and not 12...so you have to factor that in.

But essentially it seems that Senya is right.

I have no idea if these numbers for Rocky are average for heavyweights today but Senya is the kind of chap who would know and would do his research.

[Senya13]

I didn't claim I know modern heavyweights average punch stats. But earlier in this thread there were punch stats posted for V. Klitschko and not-too-old heavyweight Holyfield, and they were similar. Looking at old notes I have from compubox, in 2003 "the heavyweight average is 19 jabs per round and 46 total punches per round".

[Controversial]

I agree punch numbers are in a way irrelevant as your opponent often has a bearing on how often you hit them. However I think the point was to highlight the fitness of Marciano after claims on another thread that modern HWs were much fitter than him, something I still disagree with.

[Senya13]

opponent often has a bearing on how often you hit them

Very true. I recall when I was following Roy Jones Jr years ago, I looked up the average punch stats that his opponents had against everyone else but him, and they were 2-3 times higher than they managed to throw against Jones. Thus, even though he didn't throw that many punches himself at LHW and wasn't throwing many jabs, he still managed to outpunch almost all of them. 1) He made them miss too often for them to waste their energy hitting the air; 2) they were too busy defending themselves. That's why I never accepted the argument that this or that all-time great lhw is going to just outwork him. You just can't use their average workrate as the reference point of what they would be throwing in a fight with him. Divide that by two and you are much closer to what you would actually have seen had that fight taken place.

[loaded_gloves]

Perfected the art?? Wow. I mean wow. Well it doesn't hurt when your competition is a complete joke.

Exactly.

'Perfected the art'. Laughable.

if their performances against Sanders, Lewis, Brewster, Puritty, and Peter look like perfection to you, consider an eyeball transplant.

Vitali Klitschko's awkward, ungainly style is as crude as the crudest heavyweight captured on film.

Can't believe this troll has sucked you all into this lunatic merry-go-round for over a month now.