Sonny Liston VS Rocky Marciano

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Dec 2005, 12:46

Layne was yet another fighter that Marciano ruined? At 23, he nothing left after Marciano got through with him? I don't buy that BB. Layne was a decent fighter, but he was never really that great.

Layne also had two draws against ordinary fighters before he fought Walcott, yet he was able to beat Walcott. I agree that Walcott probably would have won a rematch, but the fact remains that he lost to Layne and truly great fighters don't lose to guys like that.
I just don't think you are being realistic about Walcott. Top 15 of all time is simply too high.

layne was ruined at 23. its a known fact. its happened to many other fighters.

take a look at laynes record 34-1 entering marciano bout with a victory over jersey joe walcott BEFORE walcott won the title and thats no little accomplishment. he also toook bob satterfields best punches to comeback and brutally KO satterfield. layne also decisioned contenders cesar brion and turkey thompson. layne was highly touted and rocky's brutal ko over him took the life out of layne. TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE, layne in the bout following the knockout loss to rocky suffered another brutal KO loss to ezzard charles.

if u want prove layne was washed up after marciano and charles I fight, it was proven when layne was knocked down and decisioned by 9-6 club fighter!

layne actually said himself "i was never the same after the marciano fight." he knew it himself

the fact is rocky was simply not though of well by the reporters. he was viewed at the time as a lucky club fighter. layne on the otherhand was veiewed as the future champion and was being compared with hometown hero jack dempsey by some.

- read the newspaper articles pre marciano fight, layne was highly thought of.

- THEN read the newspaper after the marciano fight, they suddenly say layne was nothing and was no world beater. why??? because he lost to a crude club fighter like rocky. U see, the 50s contenders just werent studied immensely and really reviewed bvy historians like the contenders of the 20s were. U see because if they did, they would have realized layne was a different fighter after the back to back marciano and charles KO losses instead of writing layne off as nothing. The reporters didnt mention the fact layne would go 16-17 in the rest of his career after rocky.

fact is watch l tape of layne after marciano and charles I losses, hes a different fighter. u can see it on film.

- Is it just a coincidence layne was 34-1 with wins over good to great fighters on his resume, had a good chin and hit like a truck, and was highly touted by the papers and boxing experts in the world then suddenly after the marciano loss, he looses alot to fringe contenders and is totally dismissed by the papers as a never was. fact is, he was not the same fighter he was pre marciano and reports back that up.

marciano throughout his career had a history of ruining his opponents so this in case wasnt an odd exception.

"Rocky was a destroyer, he ruined people. None of his opponents, bar Moore, were ever the same again. He beat them up, rearranged their bone structure and knocked them out. He was perhaps the most devastating and destructive champion of all time. "- james sadler

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=4488&more=1

look at marcianos opponents records before and after they fought rocky. u will see firsthand rocky had a history of ruining people.

- layne was not a great fighter, but he was certainly a good fighter who is underated because of his final record. watch the tape of layne-walcott, u will be impressed by layne

theone · Post by **theone** » 11 Dec 2005, 13:01

"Rocky was a destroyer, he ruined people. None of his opponents, bar Moore, were ever the same again. He beat them up, rearranged their bone structure and knocked them out. He was perhaps the most devastating and destructive champion of all time. "- james sadler

This is hilarious. Talk about laying it on thick.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Dec 2005, 13:14

theone wrote:

"Rocky was a destroyer, he ruined people. None of his opponents, bar Moore, were ever the same again. He beat them up, rearranged their bone structure and knocked them out. He was perhaps the most devastating and destructive champion of all time. "- james sadler
This is hilarious. Talk about laying it on thick.

ok prove that statement wrong, i would like to see you try to prove marciano DID NOT ruin opponents.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Dec 2005, 13:33

amblin app

by no means am i saying layne was a world beater. I didnt think too much of him myself. i thought roland lastarza was the much better fighter,

theone · Post by **theone** » 11 Dec 2005, 13:36

ok prove that statement wrong, i would like to see you try to prove marciano DID NOT ruin opponents.

I'm sure he he ruined his share of opponents. But "rearranging bone structures" and "most devastating and destructive champion of all time" seems to overstate things quite a bit. The Rock fought 5 fighters in 6 title defenses. The fights against the underwhelming Cockell and the second fight against a Walcott who looked as though he just wanted to get it over with, were not demanding. The first fight with Charles was competitive and tight. The Rock had to turn it on down the stretch to get the decision. He had too work hard to finally put LaStraza away and was himself disapointed with his preformance.His fight with Moore was just him throwing wild clubbing punches until the Ol Mongoose could no longer take them. The Rock looked exhausted after that one.
At the Championship level the only moment he looked truly destructive was when he caught Walcott with that perfect right hand that won the title for him. All the other times he look like a very tough but limited fighter with a big punch who would relentlessly keep coming until he beat his man.
Louis in his prime, looked alot more destructive and devastating than the Rock. So did Tyson before Douglas. No one ever looked or was more destructive than Foreman when he beat Frazier and in his subsequent two defenses. God knows what he would have done if Ali were not around.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 11 Dec 2005, 15:43

the one, i agree with what u said.

the only comment i said to prove wrong was that he "ruined opponents" which he clearly did and he had a style that made him ruin guys.

what is the exact defintition of destruction??

cause i mean no one broke bones like louis, dempsey, marciano did, but i will say they did use smaller gloves(especiialy dempsey).

how small were marciano gloves compared to today

the think the author of the article when he meant destruction, he meant he broke boned and did long term damage in peoples bodies physically, NOT that he went out there and just blew away opponents.

the one,

did u ever see the marciano-layne knockout?? i thought it was a great highlight knockout, u see the way layne did a delayed reaction then all of a sudden out cold?

i love those type of knockouts, i love the tyson-berbick one and frazier-mathis delayed knockouts THOSE ARE THE BEST!

'Rocket'Rigby · Post by **'Rocket'Rigby** » 15 Dec 2005, 11:52

Marciano would have lasted the fight, that's not to be argued, whether or not Liston would have is another matter. Good comparison, but Marciano has the edge on hunger and aggression. Skill between these two would be limited, but standing toe-to-toe Marciano probably could have put him on the canvas taking a win on points by U.D.