The Birth & Death Anniversary of Rocky Marciano

[HomicideHenry]

Jimmy Ellis

Before meeting Frazier already had 5 losses as a pro, one of which to George Benton; in reality it should have been 6 losses because the "win" over Patterson was so highly controversial.

His best win, overall, was against Jerry Quarry (majority decision) and it was later revealed that Quarry literally fought with a broken back. Context is everything.

Ellis, in the end, had double digits losses. Twice to Frazier. Once to his friend and sparring partner Ali. He also lost to Joe Bugner, Ron Lyle, Earnie Shavers, Boone Kirkman, & drew with Larry Middleton. Early in his career he lost to flawed middleweight Rubin Carter, and that was in his 4th year as a pro.

"Damned Good", you say? I call BS.


Jerry Quarry

Every time he seemed to step up he'd lose. If he did win, he'd lose all momentum in his next outing. Of his 9 losses, two were to Frazier, two were to Ali, one was to Chuvalo (stoppage), one to Ken Norton and one to Eddie Machen.

His best win, arguably, was Floyd Patterson in '67 (four years removed from the title) and fast approaching the downside of his career as he'd retire in '71. I'm more in favor of Quarry's win over Shavers in 1973, but one can argue that the acorn wasn't quite at his peak years as he wouldn't fight for the title until 1977.

The bulk of Quarry's wins were against either journeymen or fringe guys like Jack Bodell. If you look at the win/loss ratio of guys he fought before encountering Machen it comes out to this figure: 161 wins, 104 losses, 14 draws. And you say he was damn good? He may as well have been fighting guys from Stacy Goodson's stable.

Again, context is everything. I'll grant he was a far better guy overall than Ellis, but, was he "damned good" that's a bit iffy. Guys who are damned good don't blow out Mac Foster then lose miserably to a three-year exiled Ali inside of three rounds. Cuts or no cuts. Nor do they get knocked out by a guy (Chuvalo) whose pro career began in 1956, when yours began in 1965, just a short while before 1970 rolled around.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, I will start with your most ridiculous comments. You said that Quarry being damn good is "iffy."
Yesterday, you said "Quarry? Mathis? Young? Shavers? Damned good, but not near great or great."
And you call Quarry inconsistent!

As for Quarry losing when he stepped up, well yes he did lose to Ali and Quarry twice. He wasn't great, he was damned good. He did beat Lyle, Shavers, Mathis, and Patterson.
He had some power, some boxing skills, a great chin. He wasn't great, but he was damned good.

As for Ellis, yes he did have 5 losses before he fought Frazier. You didn't mention that he had zero losses at heavyweight before he fought Frazier, and zero with Angelo Dundee.
Ellis won the WBA tournament by beating Quarry, Bonavena, and Martin. The tournament also had Patterson and Terrell in it.
You bring up losses that Ellis had late in his career after he was washed up. How about all the losses Ezzard Charles had when he was past it? How about all of Walcott's losses when he was younger and didn't have good people in his corner.

Ellis had great boxing skills, and very good speed. He wasn't great, but he was "damn good".

[Cojimar 1946]

People are rated based on what they do in their own time. Rocky Marciano beat all the top contenders of his day and retired undefeated ducking no one. Everybody has their own opinions as to how fights between fighters of different eras would play out but they remain theory and conjecture and can't be tested. It's ridiculous to compare speculation to cold, hard facts.

[Ambling Alp II]

People are rated in different ways. I (and many) rate people by how good they were, because that is what makes sense.
You can be the best of a certain era and not be as good as someone else who was not the best in their era.

Of course it's speculation. Marciano did not fight Frazier nor do they have any common opponents. We can only go by what we know.
Sometimes cold hard facts don't mean a lot. Sometimes they are deceiving. Sometimes they don't tell enough of the story.
We can actually watch their fights and get a pretty good idea of how good fighters are. Crazy idea, isn't it?

[HomicideHenry]

The only thing that I will give is that fighters from earlier eras were better than later eras, because they overcame more and under harsher conditions, and for far less money. Iron sharpens iron, and quite frankly these guys were fighting multiple times per year against equally great opposition.

Guys today may be physically larger, and possibly more athletic... But... If they were fighting with 6-8oz gloves, fifteen-twenty rounds, etc I think MOST wouldn't even be boxers... They'd be football players, basketball players, pro wrestlers, etc.

In alot of ways it's apples and oranges. How can we honestly say fighters today who are getting millions of dollars wearing pillows on their hands, fighting maybe once a year, where referees stop fights on a sneeze, are really as great as someone like Jack Dempsey?

Rocky Marciano, for example, defended the title 6 times in 2 years. That's pretty hyperactive for a champion. He fought 5 times in 1952. 7 times in 1951. 6 times in 1950. 13 times in 1949. 11 times in 1948. How often do we see such activity in any weight class today? Seldom ever.

Joe Frazier, also, did the bulk of his fights in a relatively short time. 4xs in his debut year, was followed by 9xs the following year. Between 1968-1972, five years, he fought ten times essentially as champion. 23 fights 7 years, equalling out to an average of 3.2 fights per year. From 1973-1976 he fought 7 times. You don't see these kinds of numbers that often today.

But the real "tale of the tape" is not in the numbers as much as it is in the quality of the numbers. Frazier's 10 fights essentially as champion (NYSAC onwards to 1972) were comparatively weak. Terry Daniels? Ron Stander? Manuel Ramos? Dave Zyglewicz? Bob Foster? Half of the defenses are either nonentities or soft touches.

We can argue the worth of Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis and Mathis as well as Ali later, but.... 5 out of 6 of Rocky Marciano's defenses were against the #1 contender (Cockell was #2 rated) and that's a bit more substantive than Frazier's numbers. It seems Joe wanted to remain champion as long as possible, hence the easy defenses blended in with the harder challenges.

[Ambling Alp II]

Marciano did not defend the title 6 times in 2 years, he did in almost exactly 3.

I am not arguing that Marciano did not fight the best of his time. He pretty much did.
Also not arguing that Frazier didn't make some title defenses against stiffs. He did.

That doesn't mean Marciano beat better competition than Frazier.
Throw out the meaningless wins for each guy.
Look at the quality wins. Frazier's trumps Marciano's.

And for you to say earlier that Frazier was not a great fighter is ludicrous.

[HomicideHenry]

He was a NEAR GREAT in my view. That's why I don't have him in the top ten. I have him just outside, maybe #12 behind #11 Lennox Lewis. Again when we're this high up in world-class levels it's really splitting hairs.

Marciano, outside of Moore & Walcott & Charles, did have solid wins against the comebacking Joe Louis (who was rated #1 and didn't have to fight Marciano he was in line for a third fight with Walcott) as well as Roland LaStarza, Rex Layne and Lee Savold.

I'd compare LaStarza to Ellis (or even Mathis) in terms of style & worth, because Roland was a very nimble guy like Ellis. So good was he that he arguably beat Rocky the first go around--- and this has parallels to because Ellis in the amateurs beat Ali (or the fact Mathis beat Frazier in the amateurs).

I'd compare Layne to Quarry in terms of style & worth, because Layne was troublesome to so many people holding wins over Charles & Walcott, etc... Which is comparable to Quarry having wins over Patterson.

I'd compare Savold to Bonavena in terms of style & worth, because Savold was always 'on the cusp' just like Ringo, being champions in their own right & having wins against a wide array of contenders... When Marciano met Savold he was just two years removed from Savold's world title claim against Woodcock, which is somewhat comparable to Bonavena being two years removed from his arguable win over Frazier back in '66.

I'd compare Joe Louis to George Chuvalo... Both men were top contenders, but both men were also considered "passed their best"... Mind you by the time Frazier met Chuvalo, George was already approaching 11 years as a professional... The amazing bit is that Chuvalo would fight on until 1978 hovering around the fringe of contendership; one can argue that Louis, too, could have fought on for longer beating lower ranked men.

[Cojimar 1946]

To my knowledge in sports where performance is measured there aren't any records that still stand prior to 1983. Are you of the opinion that no athletes prior to 1980 were great because if you base greatness purely on actual performance they surely would not seem to qualify.

Jesse Owens for example couldn't even qualify for the Olympics today.

[Controversial]

Time moves on. What was great yesterday isn't always seen as great now . Typewriters were great for their time however not in todays technological era. The same goes for many sportsmen. Its unfair to compare HWs from different eras I think. Marciano was the best of his time, he beat everyone he fought, that doesn't mean he was unbeatable though. If you delve into his record then there are arguments to be made that he fortunate in the timings of his fights, Louis for sure was a shadow of his former self and Walcott and Charles had both seen better days. However the Rock will always be a favourite of mine.

[Sidney Carton]

To my knowledge in sports where performance is measured there aren't any records that still stand prior to 1983.

Ty Cobb's .367 lifetime batting average for his 24-season big league career,

Paul Anderson's 1,200 full squat.

Joe Louis' 23 knockouts in 27 heavyweight title fights.

That's just off the top of my head.

[Sidney Carton]

Time moves on. What was great yesterday isn't always seen as great now . Typewriters were great for their time however not in todays technological era. The same goes for many sportsmen.

BEAUTIFUL example of boxrec 'logic.'

Has the human body changed in today's "technological era" ?

Not for the better.

Harry Greb had 41 fights in the year 1919.

Most of today's heroes don't have that many fights in their entire careers.

HOW MANY fights of twenty or more rounds did Joe Gans have?

HOW MANY fights of twenty-five or more rounds did Joe Gans have?

Today's heroes fight 12 rounds in their so called "title" fights.

[Controversial]

Time moves on. What was great yesterday isn't always seen as great now . Typewriters were great for their time however not in todays technological era. The same goes for many sportsmen.

BEAUTIFUL example of boxrec 'logic.'

Has the human body changed in today's "technological era" ?

Not for the better.

Harry Greb had 41 fights in the year 1919.

Most of today's heroes don't have that many fights in their entire careers.

HOW MANY fights of twenty or more rounds did Joe Gans have?

HOW MANY fights of twenty-five or more rounds did Joe Gans have?

Today's heroes fight 12 rounds in their so called "title" fights.

I think you are misinterpreting me. All I meant was something from the past is still great because you have to judge them at the time they were around, not compare them to another era. No doubt boxers were bought up tougher in those times.

[Controversial]

To my knowledge in sports where performance is measured there aren't any records that still stand prior to 1983.

Ty Cobb's .367 lifetime batting average for his 24-season big league career,

Paul Anderson's 1,200 full squat.

Joe Louis' 23 knockouts in 27 heavyweight title fights.

That's just off the top of my head.

To be fair I think he meant athletic world records.

[Ambling Alp II]

[Sidney Carton]

To my knowledge in sports where performance is measured there aren't any records that still stand prior to 1983.

Ty Cobb's .367 lifetime batting average for his 24-season big league career,

Paul Anderson's 1,200 full squat.

Joe Louis' 23 knockouts in 27 heavyweight title fights.

That's just off the top of my head.

To be fair I think he meant athletic world records.

That's a winner.

Lifting weights is not 'athletic'?

What area does it fall in?

Spiritual? Political? Economics? Social justice?

[Cojimar 1946]

Apparently the world record in squat is 1,268 pounds, though it varies based on the type of equipment used.

[Cojimar 1946]

Also, many feats attributed to Paul Anderson seem to lack evidence. For example, the supposed 1,200 pound squat does not appear to have ever been witnessed by anyone and thus I am inclined not to accept it without proof in the way of video or eyewitness testimony.

[Controversial]

Ty Cobb's .367 lifetime batting average for his 24-season big league career,

Paul Anderson's 1,200 full squat.

Joe Louis' 23 knockouts in 27 heavyweight title fights.

That's just off the top of my head.

To be fair I think he meant athletic world records.

That's a winner.

Lifting weights is not 'athletic'?

What area does it fall in?

Spiritual? Political? Economics? Social justice?

He said there are no records that stand prior to 1983 in sports that are measured, if you check the track and field event world records for men and women the oldest standing record is from 1983 (womens 800m). So I assume he meant track and field events, not powerlifting, boxing or baseball.

[Sidney Carton]

the supposed 1,200 pound squat does not appear to have ever been witnessed by anyone and thus I am inclined not to accept it without proof in the way of video or eyewitness testimony.

Mr Sour Grapes is full of it.

He makes it up as he goes along.

[Cojimar 1946]

The lift is generally not accepted nowadays due to lack of evidence and the same is true of his claim to have backlifted over 6,000 pounds. His performance in the Olympics is well documented and is not indicative of a man capable of pulling off such supposedly stupendous feats.

[Sidney Carton]

The lift is generally not accepted nowadays due to lack of evidence and the same is true of his claim to have backlifted over 6,000 pounds. His performance in the Olympics is well documented and is not indicative of a man capable of pulling off such supposedly stupendous feats.

Cojimar pouring on the sour grapes crap is documented here on boxrec.

The sicko make-nothing technique is too obvious when types like Cojimar let all their unhappiness hang out.

Cojimar is spewing out the exact talking points emanating from sicko Joe Weider, who hated genuine strongmen as he churned out his retinue of steriod filled 'bodybuilders.'


In shows in April 1957 at the Mapes Casino in Reno, Nevada. Paul Anderson squatted with 1160 pounds of silver dollars three times a day, which was accurately weighed.


Tommy Kono and Norb Schemensky witnessed a number of Anderson's training lifts.

The Cojimar's of this world would not even know who they are.

Quotes about Anderson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ande ... al_records

Chuck Ahrens (Muscle Beach strongman of the 1950s)
"I could do 310 in a standing one arm side press with a dumbbell, Paul could do it for reps with ease."[21]

Ed Coan (powerlifting record breaker)
"Though I never met him personally until the Strength Symposium in Florida, I saw films of him lifting in his heyday, with such absolute ease it was astonishing. Using his strength to benefit others is something that should make all powerlifters proud. What a great benefactor to mankind.
"
Jon Cole (powerlifter of the early 1970s)
"My love and respect for Paul runs deep. His ability to lift enormous weights in limited movements surpasses all. Those who attempt to discredit him shame our sport."

Bill Kazmaier (3-time World's Strongest Man)
"He's the king of strength. His backlift was unbelievable. But more amazing was his total commitment as a Christian."

Don Reinhoudt (one of the strongest powerlifters of all time)
"Paul was an inspiration to me. Some of his feats may never be surpassed."

Oliver Sacks (neurologist and Muscle Beach powerlifter)
"A lot of lifters gathered at Sydney's on Santa Monica Beach near the base of the Pier. Here, as they got pissed [drunk], their stories became more and more fantastic. One heard of deltoids like watermelons and squats of a thousand pounds. This last turned out to be a solid fact for the incredible Paul Anderson. He was squatting with almost twice as much as anyone else's maximum."[22]

[Cojimar 1946]

Then why didn't he perform more impressively at the Olympics? His Olympic records have been surpassed by a huge margin

[Cojimar 1946]

In Olympic events there are no records prior to 1983 that still stand today not one

[Sidney Carton]

Then why didn't he perform more impressively at the Olympics? His Olympic records have been surpassed by a huge margin

Cojimar, whose posts parrot steroid king Joe Weider's slime,

is so ignorant of what he posts in his attempts to tear down,

that he pretends not to know

that Paul Anderson competed at the Melbourne Olympics with a 104 degree fever and a severe inner ear infection and still won.

Anyone who knows anything about Paul Anderson knows that.

Except of course Weider lackey cojimar.

WHICH is it cojimar---deliberately deceptive--or just totally ignorant of what you post?

[Cojimar 1946]

Even if Paul Anderson did perform the feats you seen to think he did a single exception wouldn't undermine the fact that athletes prior to the 80s generally can't compete with those today. You would need way more than Paul Anderson. What about Michael Phelps, Brian Shaw, Usain Bolt etc