Marciano could beat anybody!!!

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 12 Apr 2006, 23:14

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:
I think guys like Ali would have given him the most problems...but hell Shavers dropped Ali, as did Henry Cooper, as did Frazier. And Marciano was almost up there, if not more, on the level with Foreman's power.

Shavers never floored Ali

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 12 Apr 2006, 23:16

Marciano is easily, and I can say many will agree with me on this, the most over-rated and most under-rated Heavyweight champion of all time.

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 12 Apr 2006, 23:20

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Marciano is easily, and I can say many will agree with me on this, the most over-rated and most under-rated Heavyweight champion of all time.

100% correct, he can get outboxed, out everything

I also think he always has a chance against anybody cuz of Suzy Q

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 00:11

Controversial wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Crease wrote:BTW,

Is Roland La Starza a "hall of famer"?

I'm sure JJ Walcott and Ezzard Charles are...

Where do you get the "hall of fame" list???

marcianos title defenses

KO 1 jersey joe walcott- hall of famer

TKO 11 roland lastarza

W 15 ezzard charles- hall of famer

KO 8 ezzard charles- hall of famer

TKO 9 don cockell

KO 9 archie moore- hall of famer

Yes they were hall of famers but not at their best when Marciano got to them.

Marciano fought mainly fighters past their best. Walcott was on the decline and even then was good enough to drop and outpoint Marciano for most of the fight. Charles was at the end of his career also, but again gave Marciano fits. And Moore, not a natural heavyweight dropped Marciano and took numerous punches before wilting.

I like Marciano but he is overrated IMO. He was lucky in decisions with Lastarza and Lowry and was fortunate to be around in a pretty low period in the heavyweight division.

Ali would have boxed rings around him, he would have been too quick for him. He would have cut him up or win by a large points margin. Ali had one of the best chins ever, if he could take punches from Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Foreman, Lyle, Norton, Williams etc... he could have taken them from the smaller Marciano.

walcott was in his prime vs marciano. walcott was a fighter who got better with age. his best years were late 40s-early 50s. most ringsiders claim walcotts preformance vs marciano was one of the best of his career. on film, the first marciano fight was one of walcotts best preformances.

going into the marciano fight, walcott was coming off two victories over EZZARD CHARLES. walcott in decline? i should say not.

the first lowry fight was NOT a bad decision. i talked with many people about that fight, lowry did not do enough to deserve the decision. he fought to survive

lucky decision vs lastarza? let me ask u have u ever seen the fight?

charles was past his prime, but still a great fighter and # 1 contender when he fought rocky. charles preformance in the first marciano fight is veiwed by many ringsiders as perhaps the finest of his career

archie moore may have been a light-H, but he was the # 1 heavyweight contender when he fought rocky coming off victories over # 1 rated 6'3 210lb nino valdes, and # 3 rated 6'2 210lb bob baker

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 00:17

i am beginning to think anyone who claims walcott was on the decline when he fought marciano hasnt seen the ezzard charles-walcott III or marciano-walcott I fights

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 13 Apr 2006, 00:48

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i am beginning to think anyone who claims walcott was on the decline when he fought marciano hasnt seen the ezzard charles-walcott III or marciano-walcott I fights

He was on the decline. You do not reach your peak after 22 years of fighting. He was a few months short of his 39th birthday when he fought Marciano and only fought once more before retiring. If he was in his prime at 39 why retire?

Yet he was still good enough to drop and outbox Marciano. What he would have done a few years earlier I dread to think. He got caught with a great punch and that ended the fight. This wasn't the first time Walcott had been stopped, it was the 5th if I remember rightly.

You concede that Charles wasn't the same fighter, so basically Walcott beat a fighter who was past his best.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 13 Apr 2006, 00:57

.[/quote]

lucky decision vs lastarza? let me ask u have u ever seen the fight?

[/quote]

Jesse Abramson, boxing writer for the New York Daily Herald called it a “paper thin and exceedingly odd decision.” And it was “universally condemned around ringside as a miscarriage of justice”, according to newspaper reports.

Even a member of the New England Press Corp, who would be inclined to favor Marciano in the New York bout against LaStarza, said it was a “dubious decision.”

More than 50 years later LaStarza was incredulous of the decision, “I won that fight,” he maintained. In the New York Herald Tribune, Mar 25, 1950, LaStarza said, “The fact is his manager Al Weill was matchmaker for the Garden. I would say that had a lot to do with the decision.”

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 01:23

Controversial wrote:.

lucky decision vs lastarza? let me ask u have u ever seen the fight?

[/quote]

Jesse Abramson, boxing writer for the New York Daily Herald called it a “paper thin and exceedingly odd decision.” And it was “universally condemned around ringside as a miscarriage of justice”, according to newspaper reports.

Even a member of the New England Press Corp, who would be inclined to favor Marciano in the New York bout against LaStarza, said it was a “dubious decision.”

More than 50 years later LaStarza was incredulous of the decision, “I won that fight,” he maintained. In the New York Herald Tribune, Mar 25, 1950, LaStarza said, “The fact is his manager Al Weill was matchmaker for the Garden. I would say that had a lot to do with the decision.”[/quote]

bla bla bla, name all the sources u want. i got sources too that say otherwise. just dont go calling it a robbery SINCE U NEVER SEEN THE FIGHT NOR WILL U EVER SEE THE FIGHT.

bottom line: it was a razor close decision that could have gone either way

* marciano was green and not in his prime in this fight

ALSO, marciano knocked down lastarza in the 4th, so if it were under modern scoring, that would have been a 10-8 round

THE REAL fight was the rematch in which a PEAK marciano broke lastarzas arms knocking him out in 11.

i believe i once heard jaclem say he believes marciano won the first lastarza fight

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 01:26

Controversial wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i am beginning to think anyone who claims walcott was on the decline when he fought marciano hasnt seen the ezzard charles-walcott III or marciano-walcott I fights
He was on the decline. You do not reach your peak after 22 years of fighting. He was a few months short of his 39th birthday when he fought Marciano and only fought once more before retiring. If he was in his prime at 39 why retire?

Yet he was still good enough to drop and outbox Marciano. What he would have done a few years earlier I dread to think. He got caught with a great punch and that ended the fight. This wasn't the first time Walcott had been stopped, it was the 5th if I remember rightly.

You concede that Charles wasn't the same fighter, so basically Walcott beat a fighter who was past his best.

walcott was 38 when he fought marciano.

what he would have done a few years earlier?

HMMMM LETS SEE.......... walcott LOST to rex layne in 1950 two years earlier

marciano KNOCKED OUT rex layne

hmmm lets see........

walcot lost to ezzard charles in 1949, WALCOTT BEAT CHARLES TWICE RIGHT BEFORE FACING MARCIANO

marciano fought the same version of walcott who knocked out a 29 year old charles less than 1 year earlier.

let me ask u HAVE U SEEN THE FIGHT? im guessing u have not, because walcott fought perhaps the best fight of his career in the first marciano fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 01:28

controversial,

let me ask you when do u think walcotts prime was?

IMO it was 1947-52. he was never as good a fighter as he was in those years.

"no fight that i ever fought did I feel better or more confident" - jersey joe walcott referring to first marciano fight

are u calling jersey joe a liar? do u know more about jersey joe walcott than himself?

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 13 Apr 2006, 01:56

...indeed it was the left hook and not an elbow that busted marciano's nose.

as for fight I being charles' grearest performance.....i'd like to k ow how many of charles' fight as a light heavy anyone here saw...and i'm inlcuding the sportwriters. the ezzard charles who beat moore three times....who came off the canvas to kayo lloyd marshal....etc etc etc .the peak light heavy ezzard charles would have beaten the ezzard charles of the first marciano fight.

would that ezzard charles have beaten marciano? that is a different supposition and i've gone into it too many times on too many marciano threads.

BUT...THAT WAS NOT EZZARD CHARLES AT HIS GREATEST!!!!

..to toss one to rocky...an earlier post said marciano was knocked down several times..or maybe a few times....and i'm surprised brockton boy didn't leap in at that one and point out he was knocked down only twice. now...as for falling all over himself and going down and into the ropes and stumbling around as if he had been hit...that is a total i do not have...but they were among my favorite moments in my many years of watching boxing.

buzzybox...the rhino would have squeezed out a decision.......mainly by outsmarting him.

The Scranton Assassin · Post by **The Scranton Assassin** » 13 Apr 2006, 03:03

I have seen the footage of Marciano hitting that 300lb bag and it is very impresive, almost scary how far he can move it with a single punch. def. hits harder than Frazier.

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 13 Apr 2006, 08:11

Silkov, wrote than he thinks Ali would've defeated Marciano becuase Ali was "a great cutting pucher", and that The Rock would've been cut to ribbons...

However, take the time to check... http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/1047/Rock.html

Angelo Dundee said,
"Muhammad acquired a lot of respect for Rocky. He said Rocky was a lot harder to hit with a jab than he looked"...

Stories came out of the sessions, that Rocky really hurt Ali with body shots, so that Muhammad climbed out of the ring and demanded extra money to continue...

(Frank Woroner himself said Ali took such a battering that he refused to continue until he was guaranteed an additional two thousand dollars.)

One observer says Rocky doubled Ali up with a body shot after Ali kept jabbing the wig off Rocky's head. Dundee admitted to the wig episode, but never told of the hard body shot that it led to.

Ferdie Pacheco, however, the ring doctor in the film, claims Ali was dropped by a real body shot. The undeniable fact is, Rocky entered the ring ready to make a real fight of it if need be. Even Dundee said he had to be calmed down after the wig incident.

So, Ali himself admitted that becuase of his low coruching style, he was difficult to jab...

cut Marciano up indeed...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 13 Apr 2006, 08:33

Jaclem wrote:..to toss one to rocky...an earlier post said marciano was knocked down several times..or maybe a few times....and i'm surprised brockton boy didn't leap in at that one and point out he was knocked down only twice.

I think I’m the one who made that statement. The reason BB didn’t leap in at that point is because it was an accurate statement -- two is several.

Jaclem wrote: now...as for falling all over himself and going down and into the ropes and stumbling around as if he had been hit...that is a total i do not have...but they were among my favorite moments in my many years of watching boxing.

Now that’s funny!!!

theone · Post by **theone** » 13 Apr 2006, 08:48

I think I’m the one who made that statement. The reason BB didn’t leap in at that point is because it was an accurate statement -- two is several.

Actually two is not several. The accurate definition of several is being of a number more than two or three, but not many. Besides that, I dont believe too many people would use the word several to describe two.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 09:15

charles was not in his prime vs marciano. however IMO he was a still a great fighter in the first marciano fight and it would take a great champion to topple him that night.

i have films of charles 46-49, including lloyd marshall II and this is his absolute prime

-charles was a special fighter. so was marciano

my father once told me some of the reporters were donwplaying rocky and laughing at his "lack of skill" and ezzard charles said to them, "you know something, marcianos a lot better than u people think."

I always considered this a genuine and sincere comment because charles was a very shy person, it was hard to bring out his true emotions. this was a big compliment to rocky.

peter marciano told me rocky said "walcott was my toughest fight, but ezzard charles was the toughest fighter i ever faced."

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 13 Apr 2006, 10:01

theone wrote:
I think I’m the one who made that statement. The reason BB didn’t leap in at that point is because it was an accurate statement -- two is several.
Actually two is not several. The accurate definition of several is being of a number more than two or three, but not many. Besides that, I dont believe too many people would use the word several to describe two.

Depends on where you look for the definition.

Websters has: "more than one", which I think is a more common use of the word. I used ina general statement to imply that I'm not really sure how many, but I'm certain that it's more than one.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 11:09

I would just like to put an end to the nino valdes myth.......

after studying him on film recentley i believe he was a very good fighter, he was like a poor mans riddick bowe.

however lets dispell the valdes myth regarding marciano.........

after watching the valdes vs satterfield fight the other day, lets be thankful for ninos sake that he did not meet rocky in the ring because he would not have lasted long. ALL OF NINO'S FLAWS AND WEAKNESSES WERE ROCKYS STRENGTHS.

-i have never been as sure as now when i say valdes was absolutley tailor made for rocky marciano. heres why..........

- satterfield got into a low crouch during the fight and nino had huge problems with it, he could not hit satterfield in that crouch! and when he missed it let him way off balance and open for big punches. rocky was also similiar size to satterfield and fought out of a crouch cross armed defense. now imagine if rocky gets in his his crouch imagine how much he will make valdes pay when valdes misses. rocky was more ackward and harder to hit than satterfield.

- valdes was highly susceptibly to an overhand right. valdes constantly after jabbing would not bring his left back high enough. also satterfield from the crouch was able to throw big roundhouse rights off ninos head because nino would be off balance trying to bend down and reach satterfield with his jab. NOW IMAGINE what rocky's overhand right will do to nino.

- valdes is very slow so marciano will not be giving up a speed advantage at all. also marcianos volume of non stop punches will spell nightmares for nino since valdes will not be able to keep up with rockys punchrate.

- valdes was a big target and much easier to hit than lastarza,charles, walcott, etc. marciano will have no trouble hitting valdes throughout the fight, he will use valdes as punching bag.

i could go on and on but basically valdes is tailor made for rocky

my opinion: valdes would not have lasted very long, maybe 5 rounds and i see a rocky suzie Q ending matters.

i think others like bob baker match up better against rocky, but not nino valdes.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 11:16

my question to everyone is

who was the hardest hitter marciano ever faced??

joe louis, jersey joe walcott, archie moore??

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 13 Apr 2006, 17:27

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:controversial,

let me ask you when do u think walcotts prime was?

IMO it was 1947-52. he was never as good a fighter as he was in those years.

"no fight that i ever fought did I feel better or more confident" - jersey joe walcott referring to first marciano fight

are u calling jersey joe a liar? do u know more about jersey joe walcott than himself?

Walcotts prime was from around the 1945-1948 period. He beat Oma, Bivins, Curtis Shepherd and Baksi and others. He dropped highly debatable decisions to Maxin and Elmer Ray but beat them both in the returns. He then lost a highly controversial decision to Louis, most thought he soundly beat him.

He fought a fading Charles, who was having had something like 6 fights in 8 months when Walcott was given his shot. Charles thought this to be an easy fight against someone he had soundly beaten before but was caught with a bid left hook and lost the title.

He didn't fight Marciano until 5 years later....he was not in his prime anymore.

Walcott may have said he never felt more confident when challenging Marciano............I also recall Ali saying Leon Spinks would dominate the heavyweight division for years

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 17:46

Controversial wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:controversial,

let me ask you when do u think walcotts prime was?

IMO it was 1947-52. he was never as good a fighter as he was in those years.

"no fight that i ever fought did I feel better or more confident" - jersey joe walcott referring to first marciano fight

are u calling jersey joe a liar? do u know more about jersey joe walcott than himself?
Walcotts prime was from around the 1945-1948 period. He beat Oma, Bivins, Curtis Shepherd and Baksi and others. He dropped highly debatable decisions to Maxin and Elmer Ray but beat them both in the returns. He then lost a highly controversial decision to Louis, most thought he soundly beat him.

He fought a fading Charles, who was having had something like 6 fights in 8 months when Walcott was given his shot. Charles thought this to be an easy fight against someone he had soundly beaten before but was caught with a bid left hook and lost the title.

He didn't fight Marciano until 5 years later....he was not in his prime anymore.

Walcott may have said he never felt more confident when challenging Marciano............I also recall Ali saying Leon Spinks would dominate the heavyweight division for years

are u honestly comparing wins over joe baski, sheppard, to wins over ezzard charles in 1951-52

i disagree, why do u think walcott lost to ray and maxim and 1946 THEN BEAT THEM IN 47? cause he was starting to get better. those losses were not controversial, they could have gone either way. fact is, even in the bouts walcott won from maxim, they were close split decisions. maxim was HARDLY IN THE CLASS OF A MARCIANO. elmer ray was great, but he was no marciano and he beat walcott.

u honestly believe a 1946 walcott who lost to joey maxim is better than the 1952 walcott who nearly beat marciano?

how did walcott fight a fading charles? charles was 29 years old and hadnt lost in 3 years! walcott also dominated charles before knocking him out. this fight was taken place only 5 months after charles beat walcott so walcott was facing the same charles.

film doesnt lie controversial, go watch charles III and marciano I, walcott was VERY MUCH AT HIS BEST.

i disagree, walcotts best years were from 1947-52. film backs this up, and so do newspaper reports.

almost everyringsider present at the marciano I fight said this was one of walcotts best fights of his career, if not his best.

"walcott had the legs of a 20 year old. he was having the best fight of his career"- promoter sam silverman ringside at marciano-walcott I

there is no way ur going to convince me a prime walcott had 3 life and death matches with joey maxim, yet a "past his prime" walcott beat ezzard charles twice and nearly beat rocky marciano.

i have done in depth studying on walcotts career and have talked to many people who were around at the time, and i have come to the conclusion walcotts prime was 1947-52 and that walcotts peak was louis I and marciano I

walcotts two best fights on film are

louis I
marciano I

He fought a fading Charles, who was having had something like 6 fights in 8 months when Walcott was given his shot. Charles thought this to be an easy fight against someone he had soundly beaten before but was caught with a bid left hook and lost the title.

He didn't fight Marciano until 5 years later....he was not in his prime anymore.

3 of the 4 charles fights took place less than 1 year away from marciano fight

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 17:47

Decagon wrote:If Walcott was in his prime in 1952, how come he'd already retired four times?

ok ur right

1938 24 year old walcott KO 1 marciano

* film doesnt lie decagon. i suggest go watching walcott vs charles III and walcott vs marciano I and tell me if walcott was over the hill.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 17:50

Decagon wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i am beginning to think anyone who claims walcott was on the decline when he fought marciano hasnt seen the ezzard charles-walcott III or marciano-walcott I fights
Or maybe they've seen Charles-Walcott IV.

u like to make a big deal of that fight. both those fighters were much better than a pinklon thomas on that night off night or not. i rewatched walcott charles IV and both fighters are the same fighters in the 2nd and 3rd fights which took place less than 1 YEAR earlier. same reflexes, just as fast. difference is, charles was a bit more cautious and walcott was more aggresive.

once again film doesnt lie.........

go watch walcott vs charles III and walcott vs marciano I and tell me walcott was over the hill.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Apr 2006, 17:54

if walcott was past his prime vs charles and marciano, THEN WALCOTT DID NOT HAVE A PRIME.

cause there is no way ur going to convince me the walcott who lost to elmer ray, joey maxim, and fought a dead even fight with jimmy bivins is better than the walcott who decaptitated 29 year old ezzard charles and nearly beat rocky marciano.

if walcott was really in his prime then then u got to suspect elmer ray, jimmy bivins, joey maxim would all beat rocky marciano and ezzard charles.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 13 Apr 2006, 18:02

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Controversial wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:controversial,

let me ask you when do u think walcotts prime was?

IMO it was 1947-52. he was never as good a fighter as he was in those years.

"no fight that i ever fought did I feel better or more confident" - jersey joe walcott referring to first marciano fight

are u calling jersey joe a liar? do u know more about jersey joe walcott than himself?
Walcotts prime was from around the 1945-1948 period. He beat Oma, Bivins, Curtis Shepherd and Baksi and others. He dropped highly debatable decisions to Maxin and Elmer Ray but beat them both in the returns. He then lost a highly controversial decision to Louis, most thought he soundly beat him.

He fought a fading Charles, who was having had something like 6 fights in 8 months when Walcott was given his shot. Charles thought this to be an easy fight against someone he had soundly beaten before but was caught with a bid left hook and lost the title.

He didn't fight Marciano until 5 years later....he was not in his prime anymore.

Walcott may have said he never felt more confident when challenging Marciano............I also recall Ali saying Leon Spinks would dominate the heavyweight division for years

are u honestly comparing wins over joe baski, sheppard, to wins over ezzard charles in 1951-52

i disagree, why do u think walcott lost to ray and maxim and 1946 THEN BEAT THEM IN 47? cause he was starting to get better. those losses were not controversial, they could have gone either way. fact is, even in the bouts walcott won from maxim, they were close split decisions. maxim was HARDLY IN THE CLASS OF A MARCIANO. elmer ray was great, but he was no marciano and he beat walcott.

u honestly believe a 1946 walcott who lost to joey maxim is better than the 1952 walcott who nearly beat marciano?

how did walcott fight a fading charles? charles was 29 years old and hadnt lost in 3 years! walcott also dominated charles before knocking him out. this fight was taken place only 5 months after charles beat walcott so walcott was facing the same charles.

film doesnt lie controversial, go watch charles III and marciano I, walcott was VERY MUCH AT HIS BEST.

i disagree, walcotts best years were from 1947-52. film backs this up, and so do newspaper reports.

almost everyringsider present at the marciano I fight said this was one of walcotts best fights of his career, if not his best.

"walcott had the legs of a 20 year old. he was having the best fight of his career"- promoter sam silverman ringside at marciano-walcott I

there is no way ur going to convince me a prime walcott had 3 life and death matches with joey maxim, yet a "past his prime" walcott beat ezzard charles twice and nearly beat rocky marciano.

i have done in depth studying on walcotts career and have talked to many people who were around at the time, and i have come to the conclusion walcotts prime was 1947-52 and that walcotts peak was louis I and marciano I

walcotts two best fights on film are

louis I
marciano I

He fought a fading Charles, who was having had something like 6 fights in 8 months when Walcott was given his shot. Charles thought this to be an easy fight against someone he had soundly beaten before but was caught with a bid left hook and lost the title.

He didn't fight Marciano until 5 years later....he was not in his prime anymore.

3 of the 4 charles fights took place less than 1 year away from marciano fight

Ezzard Charles was on the decline when Walcott beat him. He had an exhaustive run of fights, 6 in 8 months and Walcott was thought to be an easy fight, due to the fact that Charles easily beat him before.

The Walcott defeats to Maxin and Ray were controversial. Many thought Walcott won. Maxim and Ray were good fighters and Walcott beat them both in the rematches.

Marciano beat a past Walcott, face it. He wasn't the same fighter as he used to be. You can try and make him sound great all you want but it doesn't hold up. Even so he was still good enough to box rings around Marciano and deck him, that says more about Marciano than it does Walcott.

Someone else posted that Walcott had retired several times, why was that? He retired in 1947, 5 years before fighting Marciano. Are you telling me he actually beat father time and got fitter, faster, stronger and quick in his reactions at 38.............come on give me a break.