Was Rocky Marciano Unbeatable in the 1950's?

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 12 Sep 2006, 16:43

Marciano's nose was cut in the sixth round. It took him two more rounds to get Charles out of there in the eighth.

Cut or no cut, the fight was not going the distance.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Sep 2006, 19:19

Ezzard wrote:Had Charles had fought Marciano in 1950-51 he would have beaten him. Marciano would always come on strong late on but if Charles' legs had been 4 years younger in their first encounter he'd have won the fight.

disagree. marciano himself was faster and had more fire in his fists in 1951 than in 1954. so charles didnt face a peak marciano either.

the 1950-51 charles would never be able to take the punishment the june 1954 charles managed to take. he would have been battered to defeat in the late rounds. charles was sharper, faster, and had better reflexes in 51 but marciano was also faster , better movemenet, and harder puncher in 1951. the 1951 marciano was a harder puncher than the 1954 marciano, and faster too and less rusty.

the 1951 marciano would take 2 out of 3 vs 1951 charles. marciano just will aways be too much for charles. charles just doesnt have the durability. the june 1954 charles offered things the 1950-51 charles didnt have that enabled him to survive vs marciano in 54.

had charles given marciano a shot in 1951(which he should have), marciano wins.

charles always presents a very tough style matchup for rocky and i can see him outpointing rocky in a 3 fight series......but rocky wins the trilogy

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Sep 2006, 19:21

Now suppose Walcott would have decided to sidestep Marciano rather than trying to beat him to the punch -- isn't it rather plausible that he would have ended the bout and won the decision? If so, how can Marciano be considered "unbeatable"? Walcott could have beaten him - he did not, but he could have.

WHAT IFS. what if conn decided to box and stay away rather than slug it out with louis??? then perhaps conn would win right? logic doesnt work like this

fact is the fight happened. marciano fought the best version of walcott and beat him. the result stands as is.

[/quote]

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Sep 2006, 19:30

evndrbsn wrote:
Jaclem wrote:...so...then a glove couldn't have caused the down-to-the-bone cut vitaly got against lewis.

nonsense...the marciano nose cut was caused by a left hook..coming up at an angle that almost made it an uppercut...
Thank you. I was going to argue it more myself but you put it perfectly. "I have inside sources that say it was an elbow" is bull. I have two eyes and saw the punch on the tape. Marciano himself on the commentary of the Main Events version states it was a punch also. It is a moot point anyway, it doesn't detract from Marciano's legacy. If anything, it makes it better that he was that close to a legitmate loss when he pulled the W out of his ass.

Here is a screenshot of the punch:

http://www.freewebs.com/riddickbowe/mar ... arles2.png

Look at the angle of the shot. Ezzard Charles was one of the most accurate and pinpoint punchers in the history of the game in my opinion. Is it so hard to believe that a hybrid left hook/uppercut sliced open the tip of a cut prone man's nose?

well i agree with what you say......its just the cut was so gruesome.........the nose was completley split in half.....its hard to imagine a punch being able to do that when no other punch in history ever did that to a nose

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Sep 2006, 19:32

pundit wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Had Charles had fought Marciano in 1950-51 he would have beaten him. Marciano would always come on strong late on but if Charles' legs had been 4 years younger in their first encounter he'd have won the fight.
Oh yes. A younger Walcott might have beaten Maricnao, too.

theres no such thing as a younger walcott. a old was was the prime walcott.

a younger walcott was not better than the older walcott

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 12 Sep 2006, 19:37

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
evndrbsn wrote:
Jaclem wrote:...so...then a glove couldn't have caused the down-to-the-bone cut vitaly got against lewis.

nonsense...the marciano nose cut was caused by a left hook..coming up at an angle that almost made it an uppercut...
Thank you. I was going to argue it more myself but you put it perfectly. "I have inside sources that say it was an elbow" is bull. I have two eyes and saw the punch on the tape. Marciano himself on the commentary of the Main Events version states it was a punch also. It is a moot point anyway, it doesn't detract from Marciano's legacy. If anything, it makes it better that he was that close to a legitmate loss when he pulled the W out of his ass.

Here is a screenshot of the punch:

**LOOK ABOVE FOR PICTURE**

Look at the angle of the shot. Ezzard Charles was one of the most accurate and pinpoint punchers in the history of the game in my opinion. Is it so hard to believe that a hybrid left hook/uppercut sliced open the tip of a cut prone man's nose?

well i agree with what you say......its just the cut was so gruesome.........the nose was completley split in half.....its hard to imagine a punch being able to do that when no other punch in history ever did that to a nose

The nose wasn't completely split in half, it was split on the left corner. It still was pretty bad. It probably got progressively worse as Charles targeted the cut with his slicing shots.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 12 Sep 2006, 19:59

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
pundit wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Had Charles had fought Marciano in 1950-51 he would have beaten him. Marciano would always come on strong late on but if Charles' legs had been 4 years younger in their first encounter he'd have won the fight.
Oh yes. A younger Walcott might have beaten Maricnao, too.

theres no such thing as a younger walcott. a old was was the prime walcott.

a younger walcott was not better than the older walcott

The 1947 Walcott was best.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 13 Sep 2006, 01:26

..brockton buddy...dammit....you're back in school now...so don't blame us if you flunk out of all your subjects because you spent too much time here and not enough on studying.

..as for the split nose being the only time such a cut from a punch never happened before in history..this presumes that you..or any of us...have seen every fight on every card in all of the history of boxing. hey...even i don't come close to that. well...close....but not REAL close.

now...get back to your books!!!

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Sep 2006, 04:17

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Had Charles had fought Marciano in 1950-51 he would have beaten him. Marciano would always come on strong late on but if Charles' legs had been 4 years younger in their first encounter he'd have won the fight.

disagree. marciano himself was faster and had more fire in his fists in 1951 than in 1954. so charles didnt face a peak marciano either.

the 1950-51 charles would never be able to take the punishment the june 1954 charles managed to take. he would have been battered to defeat in the late rounds. charles was sharper, faster, and had better reflexes in 51 but marciano was also faster , better movemenet, and harder puncher in 1951. the 1951 marciano was a harder puncher than the 1954 marciano, and faster too and less rusty.

the 1951 marciano would take 2 out of 3 vs 1951 charles. marciano just will aways be too much for charles. charles just doesnt have the durability. the june 1954 charles offered things the 1950-51 charles didnt have that enabled him to survive vs marciano in 54.

had charles given marciano a shot in 1951(which he should have), marciano wins.

charles always presents a very tough style matchup for rocky and i can see him outpointing rocky in a 3 fight series......but rocky wins the trilogy

BB,

I wouldn't expect any other reply, but you are wrong

. Charles technical ability, improved reflexes and speed would offset Rocky's. The harder, slugging Marciano would have been bread and butter for Charles. The swarmer was much more difficult.

Yes, Rocky could have landed the goodnight punch but my guess is that he wouldn't.

He might have Charles down late. He might have him hanging on, but all Charles needs from those 4 years is an extra 6 minutes in his legs to keep away. It would still be a great fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Sep 2006, 17:13

pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
pundit wrote: Oh yes. A younger Walcott might have beaten Maricnao, too.

theres no such thing as a younger walcott. a old was was the prime walcott.

a younger walcott was not better than the older walcott
The 1947 Walcott was best.

if you think the 1947 walcott beats marciano, then surely you must think the 1947 walcott beats charles too right?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Sep 2006, 17:19

Ezzard wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Ezzard wrote:Had Charles had fought Marciano in 1950-51 he would have beaten him. Marciano would always come on strong late on but if Charles' legs had been 4 years younger in their first encounter he'd have won the fight.

disagree. marciano himself was faster and had more fire in his fists in 1951 than in 1954. so charles didnt face a peak marciano either.

the 1950-51 charles would never be able to take the punishment the june 1954 charles managed to take. he would have been battered to defeat in the late rounds. charles was sharper, faster, and had better reflexes in 51 but marciano was also faster , better movemenet, and harder puncher in 1951. the 1951 marciano was a harder puncher than the 1954 marciano, and faster too and less rusty.

the 1951 marciano would take 2 out of 3 vs 1951 charles. marciano just will aways be too much for charles. charles just doesnt have the durability. the june 1954 charles offered things the 1950-51 charles didnt have that enabled him to survive vs marciano in 54.

had charles given marciano a shot in 1951(which he should have), marciano wins.

charles always presents a very tough style matchup for rocky and i can see him outpointing rocky in a 3 fight series......but rocky wins the trilogy
BB,

I wouldn't expect any other reply, but you are wrong . Charles technical ability, improved reflexes and speed would offset Rocky's. The harder, slugging Marciano would have been bread and butter for Charles. The swarmer was much more difficult.

Yes, Rocky could have landed the goodnight punch but my guess is that he wouldn't.

He might have Charles down late. He might have him hanging on, but all Charles needs from those 4 years is an extra 6 minutes in his legs to keep away. It would still be a great fight.

i dont think the harder slugging marciano would be bread and butter for charles simply because charles didnt have the durability to survive 15 rounds of marcianos punches. marciano would tear into charles in the late rounds and charles wouldnt be able to take the punishment.

charles loved to fight on the inside, he didnt stay away as much. this will cost him vs marciano and will allow marciano to break down charles. the 1951-52 marciano also posseses the big threat to knock charles out with 1-2 punches.

i just dont think charles is durable enough to last vs the calibre punching of a marciano.

marciano at his peak was a puncher swarmer, these types are made to destroy classical boxers like ezzard. ezzard doesnt have the fire power
to keep marciano off of him.

i most certainly think in 1950 charles would have beat marciano, but marciano had come into his own by 1951 and i think he would beat charles then.......and if not then he would certainly win the rematch from charles

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Sep 2006, 17:20

charles should have given marciano a title shot in 1951 but he didnt.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Sep 2006, 17:26

Decagon wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:fact is the fight happened. marciano fought the best version of walcott and beat him. the result stands as is.
So, the "best version" of Walcott won 10 out of 19 fights? Perhaps he isn't one of the 30 greatest heavyweights of all time, after all.

walcott was really 11-8 in his last 19 fights(not counting the louis robbery) but 6 of those 8 losses were to HALL OF FAMERS and the 2 other losses were to top ranked contenders.

* out of those 8 losses, 4 were avenged

in walcotts last 32 fights, he was 23-8 with 15 of those wins coming against top 10 ranked contenders and 5 of those wins coming against hall of famers.

check out the percentage. 15 of those 23 wins came against top 10 ranked heavyweights!!

and finally dont forget......walcott was heavyweight champion when marciano beat him and when you look at who walcott beat to win the title......its an impressive win.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Sep 2006, 17:27

walcott had a long ass prime. 3 of his best preformances came in a 5 year span louis I, marciano I, and charles III.

walcott really came into his own in 1946 and then declined after the marciano fight in 52

btw decagon, i rate walcott top 15 heavy of all time.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 13 Sep 2006, 18:05

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott had a long ass prime. 3 of his best preformances came in a 5 year span louis I, marciano I, and charles III.

walcott really came into his own in 1946 and then declined after the marciano fight in 52

btw decagon, i rate walcott top 15 heavy of all time.

Why not top 5?

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 14 Sep 2006, 02:06

..quotes within quotes within quotes.....by now i'm not sure whose posts i'm reading.....the novel frankenstein at one point has five flashbacks within flashbacks...which this thread now reminds me of.

there was no point in 1951 when marciano would have been in line for a title shot at charles. ezzard lost his title to walcott in july of that year (in a match that should not have been made.....but i've written about that before)

a few days before that marciano came into his own with his kayo over rex layne....but the walcott fight had been signed before that.

if walcott had not beaten charles, the next title fight for ezzard was the planned rematch with the number one constender....tah dah....joe louis.
it was after marciano beat louis that rocky became the too contender..and by that time, of course, walcott was the champion.

walcott froze the title for a year after he won it from charles. for comparison, check out ezzard's record after he won the vacant title by beating walcott. ezzard's foes may not have been future hall of famers, but his title was on the line every time. walcott remained undefeated after he won it from charles....which is easy to do if you don't engage in a fisticuffs contest.

now an opinion as to who is better than who of the mentioned names here, is ..opinion....and there have been good arguments for each . but....the information i've stated here is fact and a matter of record. it won't change any minds but it does clarify some issues,

brockton..get back to your studies!!!!

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 14 Sep 2006, 23:06

Walcott was top 15 in his own era but I don't think he was likely top 15 all time.

Sweet Scientist · Post by **Sweet Scientist** » 15 Sep 2006, 00:24

So he was the best in the '50's...Good Thing...as he would not have been the best in the '20's...or '30's...or '40's...or '60's...or '70's...or '80's...or '90's...and, of course...would have also had his hands full around the turn of the century against Jack Johnson & friends...The 1950's---perfect timing for Marciano and an undefeated legacy...sometimes...timing is everything!

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 15 Sep 2006, 23:37

You know...Marciano himself felt that his "prime" fight was when he faced Rex Layne and it wouldn't be until 1956 that he retired...for a man who was nearing the end of the road for most fighters of his style, he was still unfuckingbelievable...blasting out Moore, Charles, Walcott, Matthews, Layne, Louis, Cockell, going undefeated with a 88% kayo ratio.

Sure his trainer somewhat took away Marciano's one punch power by changing his style, but the man's conditioning and training was above and beyond anyone of those times and of today. I think based on that factor alone, he could have remained champion for a few more years, even though he was showing some signs of deterioration...but personally, I don't believe it was so much physical as it was mental.

Marciano was starting to lose an edge in his thought process, he wanted to be more at home, he started to dislike the order of training and of course, Al Weil as well. He quit to his own accord, in my opinion, not because he thought that he was going to some day lose, but because he didn't want it as badly as he did before, and he quit because he did not want to bring disgrace to his family name and to the title and to the sport that made him.

His style was beatable, but the man wasn't, unless he let himself get beaten. It seems that no man but his own self, ended his career. Marciano ended Marciano. I think he could have defeated every man in the 1956-1959 time frame, including up and coming Sonny Liston, but then again, the man didn't want to fight any more, and where there is no more heart and desire for what you love, there is nothing...he would have lost.

But I sure as hell would have loved to have seen him at least have went the "Golden Fifty".

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Sep 2006, 15:46

The 1940s, with Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles and a prime Walcott would be too much for Marciano.

o i see.........a 37 year old swarmer like elmer ray can beat a "prime" walcott but rocky marciano can't?

marciano beat a near peak jersey joe walcott. walcott would never be able to put up a better fight vs marciano than he did in sept 1952.

the only version of walcott you can make a case that was better than the sept 1952 walcott is the walcott of louis I. but thats the only exception.

walcott of sept 1952 was the 2nd best version of walcott there ever was and marciano knocked him out. part of the reason walcott did so well was he let his hands go and threw combinations like he never had before and he clinched at the perfect times. basically he fought the perfect fight.

marciano in the 1940s only loses to joe louis IMO. you can make a strong case a prime charles beats marciano.........but i think marciano takes 2 out of 3 vs a 1948 ezzard charles

however the marciano-walcott fight stands as it is.......marciano KO 13 walcott. no need to ruin it. the fight happened when both were at/near there best

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 16 Sep 2006, 15:47

Marciano threw two or three punches at a time, and Holyfield threw four or five when he was at his best.

i disagree check out marciano-walcott I, marciano threw 4-5 punches combinations the whole fight. marciano really put together some awesome combos in this fight

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 16 Sep 2006, 16:16

I can't wait until my computer testing proves to be accurate...then I could say that the predictions made by the computer in 'fantasy' fights would be accurate enough to say who would really win.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 16 Sep 2006, 21:37

Sweet Scientist wrote:So he was the best in the '50's...Good Thing...as he would not have been the best in the '20's...or '30's...or '40's...or '60's...or '70's...or '80's...or '90's...and, of course...would have also had his hands full around the turn of the century against Jack Johnson & friends...The 1950's---perfect timing for Marciano and an undefeated legacy...sometimes...timing is everything!

Good one

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Sep 2006, 03:16

pundit is a marciano and dempsey hater and a tunney and wills nuthugger

marciano KO 8 charles
marciano KO 1 walcott

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 18 Sep 2006, 01:38

All I can say is...if I hear another damn word about how Dempsey ducked Wills because he was black, and how Vitali Klitschko is an ATG when he never did prove anything but that he was a quitter....I'll just about scream lol

Was Rocky Marciano Unbeatable in the 1950's?

Was Rocky Unbeatable in 1950's?

Walcott