All of Marcianos opponents ..

Bockser · Post by **Bockser** » 16 Jul 2003, 06:26

Larry Holmes didn't have a record like Marciano's, true. But Holmes was in his 49th winning fight and his opponent was given a very stupid decision.

So, basically:

Technically, Marciano was the only one.
Realistically, Holmes was also.

And what about all the fighters who surpassed Marciano's record but kept going and didn't lose?

I personally think Marciano was not underrated, he was a great fighter. But his record is, in some cases irrelevent.

bull · Post by **bull** » 16 Jul 2003, 07:32

Hi,

First of all Larry Holmes never was undisputed heavyweight champion.
He was the best of champions in his time but never was on the top of boxing. He is only WBC and later only IBF world champion.
When he try to be on the top and unifice two belts he was 3 consecutive times defeated.When he get his 49 th win he was already 48-3(34ko )I think. And get 49th win in his 52th pro fight.
Do you think that Holmes never win controversial before two losses by Spinks? Who even on avarage league hevyweight surpassed 49-0(43 ko) record? As far I know Brian Nielsen was 49-0 and then loss by ko, but this is on other class, even not for WBO.

If LarryHolmes was greatest than Rocky Marciano, he never continue his career go to fight versus new generation lions, pensioner league(belt) and Butterbean.
He continue becouse anything is missing.
And this one is Rocky Marciano.

Tyson KTFO 3 Times · Post by **Tyson KTFO 3 Times** » 16 Jul 2003, 10:56

Larry Holmes was twice the fighter marciano ever was. Fact.

as someone said, Realistically holmes went 49 and was undisputed champ as he had either beaten the other champs or beaten people who had beate the champs.

Marciano was a tough rugged dirty. fighter, but to call him an all time great i think is unwise.

Btw, wasn't there controversy over one of marcianos early wins, and also was the fight against lastarza controverial?

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 17 Jul 2003, 00:38

I'm sorry, but all of you Marciano doubters must be crazy, plain and simple...

Marciano was one of the hardest punchers ever, and he never failed to land that right hand.

His Walcott KO was impressive, came from behind to KO one of the toughest sons of bitches ever to enter the ring.

His Ezzard Charles fight was equally impressive... I will exert from a previous post of mine and add on, because it will come in handy here...

How does a pretty good looking guy (and damned good fighter!!)...

End up looking like Joan Rivers....

If Marciano isn't any good?

There's not one reason Marciano shouldn't be in anyones top ten list, I don't care if you hate him or not. He's more deserving than many fighters who make almost everyones top ten list.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 17 Jul 2003, 02:25

contro...don't know why it took me this long to get to your thread. I just read the original post itself and it belongs up there with Milton and Shakespeare as great literature

there will be some who will disagree with the point you made, but I'm sure you expected that.

I had to speed past them to enter this, but I didn't stop to read any, as there is nothing to add to your original commentary.

bull · Post by **bull** » 17 Jul 2003, 03:11

Hi,

"All of Marcianos opponents"," Was Rocky Marciano over-rated?"

What a pointless topics.

Rocky Marciano is sport icon.

Bockser · Post by **Bockser** » 17 Jul 2003, 08:52

terap wrote:Jersey Joe Walcott said Marciano hit the hardest and was the toughest of any of the fighters he fought in his career.

Joe Louis said Marciano was a great puncher.

But what did Walcott and Joe Louis know about the topic?

Obviously not much according the "authorities" posting here.

That is true and a good post. Joe Louis said, "He didn't have much regard for the book, but it wasn't a book he was hitting me with, it was a whole library of bonecrushers".

Sorry, when I said "was not underrated" it was a mistake of writing. I meant to say "was not overrated". Marciano was so tough and determined. He had one of the hardest right hands ever in heavyweight history too.

See this page: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Aren ... cky21.html

So I suppose the authorities here know more than George Foreman, Marvin Hagler and Joe Frazier too.

True post.

Very good, Bull.

49-0

But wait.

This has to be the worst thread I've seen on any boxing site.

And that is saying something.

Give it up, Bull,

and let these geniuses stew in their own bile and ignorance.

What the hell is this? You are defending bull? You are calling people ignorant? This is not sportsmanlike.

bull wrote:Hi,

First of all Larry Holmes never was undisputed heavyweight champion.
He was the best of champions in his time but never was on the top of boxing. He is only WBC and later only IBF world champion.
When he try to be on the top and unifice two belts he was 3 consecutive times defeated.When he get his 49 th win he was already 48-3(34ko )I think. And get 49th win in his 52th pro fight.

This has got to be the stupidest load of bullshit I've ever read. What the hell are you talking about. You had a little credit before this but now you've blown it.

tolstoy · Post by **tolstoy** » 17 Jul 2003, 09:16

I am taking nothing away from Rocky Marciano. He defeated every boxer he has ever faced, sometimes with some great difficulty, sometimes not, but he always came through. Rocky was strong and as tough as they come.

Additionally, he retired when he was 32, before someone younger and stronger got to him, and for making such a decision whilst at the top he deserves a lot of credit. If only some of his successors had the same good judgment.

Now, I think it’s time to qualify what I’ve just said. 49-0 is a statistically impressive record but there is a distinct lack of quality on it. The same three names come up all the time in response:

1) Joe Louis, in my opinion the best heavyweight of all time, was a faded 37 year old fighter when he lost to Marciano.

2) Jersey Joe Walcott was an old man of 38 when he lost to Marciano even the first time around but still managed to floor him..

3) Ezzard Charles was a more youthful 33 but despite being a great fighter he had an erratic record, frequently losing to nobodies. He was frequently found wanting when fighting at the very highest level as is evidenced by his holding the world title for less than a year and never regaining it.

His place in boxing legend, aside from his ability, comes from his prolific fight record and his longevity rather than his successes.

For me, Marciano is overrated and it’s down to his unbeaten record and little more. He defended his title only 6 times in 3 years.

I agree with you Controversial and before the Ali critics and boxing old school pounce upon me for blasphemy, Muhammad Ali is also overrated, even more so.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 17 Jul 2003, 12:57

bull wrote:Hi,
Everytime when someone do it great attainment many people doubt.

Rocky Marciano simply beat all of them.
Club fighters,journeymans,contenters and whorld champions.And never loss.
Everybody world champion meet "old" and not "in his prime" boxers, but no everytime win.And Joe Louis("old" Max knocked out him),and Ali was two times defeated 'in his prime", and Mike Tyson...all without exception.
This is valid for all sports not only in boxing.

The sport is game where persons are not "old" and"youngs" , but winners and losers.
Where is Marciano quilt that he is 9 years younger than Walcott. Joe is №1 in this moment and Rocky meet and bet him.
Or Joe Louis that is 12 younger than Braddock.Or Ali 10 than Liston. Or Tyson 15 than Holmes.Or Parterson 19 than Moore.Or Dempsey 13 thah Willard.Or Lenox and Evander are crap, becouse they fight two times for the most prize title in individual sports(undisputed hevyweight boxing chapionchip) ,when they are both over 35.

This is the name of the game.

If someone hate Rocky Marciano, the reason is in him, no in Marciano.

You are totally missing the point.

The point is Marciano ONLY beat 'great fighters' when they were 'no longer great'. It isn't a hard concept to understand. You cannot call someone an all-time great on the strength of beating up washed up fighters. Marciano never fought any young hungry world class fighters when he was world champion. FACT.

And you cannot compare fighters ages from the 1950s with fighters today. A 37 year old heavyweight today isn't the same as a 37 year old heavyweight from the 1950s. Life expectancy is much longer today. Training regimes and body conditioning is leaps ahead today than it was in the 1950s. And fighters today are not knocked about the way fighters were back in those days. Joe Louis and Walcott were both having their 71st fights when they fought Marciano. Charles was having his 98th fight. Moore was having his 174th fight.

So to say that Lewis is comparable to Walcott because he is in his late 30s is madness.

It's funny that not one Marciano fan has yet to give any decent argument in defence of Marciano. I will say it again, Marciano was a good fighter, a hard puncher, and was as tough and as fit as they come but to call him an all-time great on the strength of beating up old men is stretching it a bit far.

bull · Post by **bull** » 18 Jul 2003, 04:58

Hi,

You right for some points, but not at all.You was the man who start this topic, but never say the truth and the whole truth.

Yes, the diffirents between today and boxers from the past are visibly.
Betther methods,steroids,complete food...bether life.And this is reason for biggest weight and hight. Today boxer are better than boxers from past and football players,bodybuilders,wrestlers(greko-rome style no WWF),auto-drivers,basketball players... all.

But!
Very wrong thinking is that 37 years old man is not =37 y. today.
Are you think thath today young boxers are kids or juniours?
Maybe Holmes was destroyed by one kid!
1950' still are not aniquity age.
Whait for some few centurys and this be argument.

When you don't have substantial reasons you frame up droll reasons.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 18 Jul 2003, 06:25

bull wrote:Hi,

You right for some points, but not at all.You was the man who start this topic, but never say the truth and the whole truth.

Yes, the diffirents between today and boxers from the past are visibly.
Betther methods,steroids,complete food...bether life.And this is reason for biggest weight and hight. Today boxer are better than boxers from past and football players,bodybuilders,wrestlers(greko-rome style no WWF),auto-drivers,basketball players... all.

But!
Very wrong thinking is that 37 years old man is not =37 y. today.
Are you think thath today young boxers are kids or juniours?
Maybe Holmes was destroyed by one kid!
1950' still are not aniquity age.
Whait for some few centurys and this be argument.

When you don't have substantial reasons you frame up droll reasons.

Bull, I'm not quite following your message. First you say that todays sportsmen are bigger, fitter and better than sportsmen in the 1950s but then you contradict yourself and say there is NO differance between a 37 year old fighter from today than one from the 1950s? Make your mind up.

And yes I started this thread but you say I never say the truth? What exactly have I lied about? Everything I stated about Louis, Walcott and Charles is fact.

Joe Louis - Was 37 years old. A shadow of his former self. Balding, flabby and career heaviest. Only made a comeback because he was broke.

Jersey Joe Walcott - Was 38 and 39 when he fought Marciano in the two fights. They were the last two fights of his career and he was not the same fighter he once was. Floored Marciano and was winning on all scorecards before being KO'ed in the first fight.

Ezzard Charles - Had lost 2 of his previous 4 fights. After losing to Marciano only won 10 of his remaining 23 fights. A fighter clearly on the decline yet gave Marciano heaps of trouble in both fights.

These are FACTS. I have not made anything up. And these three are said to be the best fighters Marciano fought.

john garfield · Post by **john garfield** » 19 Jul 2003, 02:50

I responded once to this Marciano thread and then I just monitored others that came in.

I feel like John Wayne in “Mclintock,,” when the bad guy says to Wayne: “you’re not gonna hit me are you?” “No! I’m not gonna hit you…The hell I’m not—BANG.

I just have to get my innings in here. Controversial you make out a very logical case for resigning Marciano to less than the pinnacle of greatness. Your subsequent posts demonstrate that you’re knowledgeable about the sport and Marciano. I doubt whether you ever saw him live, though.

The impression of Marciano over the years—and growing-- is that he’s nothing more than a glorified gamer.

I consider myself blessed because I saw him train at the CYO gym in New York, Stillmans, briefly, Grossinger’s in the Catskill Mountains, and all of his fights in New York, Phiadelphia and Hartford.

To say he was unimpressive is an understatement: he looked 10 years older than his age; welterweights had longer arms; he had no footwork or balance; his punches were ponderous and telegraphed, and all of them looping shots.

Everybody he sparred with looked smoother and better in every way. They were the ones that looked like they had promise in comparison. Marciano looked like nothing more than a durable ham-&-egger.

But that little imp, magician, Charley Goldman, his trainer, like Schmeling said about Louis before their first fight: “I see something;” he recognized Marciano’s leverage and never tried to change him, make him a better boxer. He kept pounding into his head to bend even lower, and spring out of a crouch. Goldman honed what there was and made the most of it.

My case for Rocky’s greatness is not to repeat what’s already been acknowledged: his heart, his toughness, his power, his condition, and least of all, his record or who he fought. It’s all very pallid when you see it on paper.

What Marciano is transcends all of that,…and I have seen them all in person from the 40’s to the present day, heavyweight to flyweight. What you won’t see on paper was: He was “The Little Engine That Could,” The U.S. Hockey team that beat the Russians in the Olympics; but probably most descriptive, and apt, was a poster I saw hanging on an engineer’s wall. It was a picture of a hummingbird flying, and underneath it was this caption: “It’s aerodynamically impossible for a hummingbird to fly.”

If you were in a burning car, there’s nobody in the world you’d want swinging a sledgehammer to get you out than Marciano.

The 50’s was a toxic waste of corruption, Marciano was protected ,Weill was in bed with the very worst elements, and Rocky was on speaking terms with mob guys.

But as a fighting man, you can throw all the charts and data out the window; the Marciano that I saw up close could morph into a giant and is as deserving to be considered one of the greatest as anyone who’s put on gloves.

John garfield

john garfield · Post by **john garfield** » 19 Jul 2003, 02:54

I responded once to this Marciano thread and then I just monitored others that came in.

I feel like John Wayne in “Mclintock,,” when the bad guy says to Wayne: “you’re not gonna hit me are you?” “No! I’m not gonna hit you…The hell I’m not—BANG.

I just have to get my innings in here. Controversial you make out a very logical case for resigning Marciano to less than the pinnacle of greatness. Your subsequent posts demonstrate that you’re knowledgeable about the sport and Marciano. I doubt whether you ever saw him live, though.

The impression of Marciano over the years—and growing-- is that he’s nothing more than a glorified gamer.

I consider myself blessed because I saw him train at the CYO gym in New York, Stillmans, briefly, Grossinger’s in the Catskill Mountains, and all of his fights in New York, Phiadelphia and Hartford.

To say he was unimpressive is an understatement: he looked 10 years older than his age; welterweights had longer arms; he had no footwork or balance; his punches were ponderous and telegraphed, and all of them looping shots.

Everybody he sparred with looked smoother and better in every way. They were the ones that looked like they had promise in comparison. Marciano looked like nothing more than a durable ham-&-egger.

But that little imp, magician, Charley Goldman, his trainer, like Schmeling said about Louis before their first fight: “I see something;” he recognized Marciano’s leverage and never tried to change him, make him a better boxer. He kept pounding into his head to bend even lower, and spring out of a crouch. Goldman honed what there was and made the most of it.

My case for Rocky’s greatness is not to repeat what’s already been acknowledged: his heart, his toughness, his power, his condition, and least of all, his record or who he fought. It’s all very pallid when you see it on paper.

What Marciano is transcends all of that,…and I have seen them all in person from the 40’s to the present day, heavyweight to flyweight. What you won’t see on paper was: He was “The Little Engine That Could,” The U.S. Hockey team that beat the Russians in the Olympics; but probably most descriptive, and apt, was a poster I saw hanging on an engineer’s wall. It was a picture of a hummingbird flying, and underneath it was this caption: “It’s aerodynamically impossible for a hummingbird to fly.”

If you were in a burning car, there’s nobody in the world you’d want swinging a sledgehammer to get you out than Marciano.

The 50’s was a toxic waste of corruption, Marciano was protected ,Weill was in bed with the very worst elements, and Rocky was on speaking terms with mob guys.

But as a fighting man, you can throw all the charts and data out the window; the Marciano that I saw up close could morph into a giant and is as deserving to be considered one of the greatest as anyone who’s put on gloves.

John garfield

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 19 Jul 2003, 10:44

john garfield wrote:I responded once to this Marciano thread and then I just monitored others that came in.

I feel like John Wayne in “Mclintock,,” when the bad guy says to Wayne: “you’re not gonna hit me are you?” “No! I’m not gonna hit you…The hell I’m not—BANG.

I just have to get my innings in here. Controversial you make out a very logical case for resigning Marciano to less than the pinnacle of greatness. Your subsequent posts demonstrate that you’re knowledgeable about the sport and Marciano. I doubt whether you ever saw him live, though.

The impression of Marciano over the years—and growing-- is that he’s nothing more than a glorified gamer.

I consider myself blessed because I saw him train at the CYO gym in New York, Stillmans, briefly, Grossinger’s in the Catskill Mountains, and all of his fights in New York, Phiadelphia and Hartford.

To say he was unimpressive is an understatement: he looked 10 years older than his age; welterweights had longer arms; he had no footwork or balance; his punches were ponderous and telegraphed, and all of them looping shots.

Everybody he sparred with looked smoother and better in every way. They were the ones that looked like they had promise in comparison. Marciano looked like nothing more than a durable ham-&-egger.

But that little imp, magician, Charley Goldman, his trainer, like Schmeling said about Louis before their first fight: “I see something;” he recognized Marciano’s leverage and never tried to change him, make him a better boxer. He kept pounding into his head to bend even lower, and spring out of a crouch. Goldman honed what there was and made the most of it.

My case for Rocky’s greatness is not to repeat what’s already been acknowledged: his heart, his toughness, his power, his condition, and least of all, his record or who he fought. It’s all very pallid when you see it on paper.

What Marciano is transcends all of that,…and I have seen them all in person from the 40’s to the present day, heavyweight to flyweight. What you won’t see on paper was: He was “The Little Engine That Could,” The U.S. Hockey team that beat the Russians in the Olympics; but probably most descriptive, and apt, was a poster I saw hanging on an engineer’s wall. It was a picture of a hummingbird flying, and underneath it was this caption: “It’s aerodynamically impossible for a hummingbird to fly.”

If you were in a burning car, there’s nobody in the world you’d want swinging a sledgehammer to get you out than Marciano.

The 50’s was a toxic waste of corruption, Marciano was protected ,Weill was in bed with the very worst elements, and Rocky was on speaking terms with mob guys.

But as a fighting man, you can throw all the charts and data out the window; the Marciano that I saw up close could morph into a giant and is as deserving to be considered one of the greatest as anyone who’s put on gloves.

John garfield

Hi John,

Great post, I am not going to disagree with anything you said. Believe it or not I am a fan of Marciano and I have never said he couldn't punch or wasn't fit or as strong as an ox. Your correct I never saw Marciano in the flesh and my opinion is purely based on what I have seen and read about him. Reading about Marciano when I was about 12 years old is what got me into boxing and the things I read about him made him a hero to me. I would read stories how he would punch fighters arms until they couldn't lift them anymore, how he would never stop punching and his right hand 'Suzy Q' which flattenend most fighters who taseted it. I was hooked and became a huge boxing fan as a result.

However my post wasn't intended to take anything away from Marciano. He was unbeaten and heavyweight champion. But as I became more knowledgable I soon realised that maybe or that glitters is not gold. He fought in a very poor era of heavyweight boxing, on a par with the 1980s. (Coetzee, Tate, Weaver etc... era). And I realised that the 'greats' he beat were not as 'great' as they once were. And in fact when you study his record, as I have believe me, you realise that he fought many very average club fighters and guys at the end of their careers.

I still think Marciano is great, but I am more realistic in my views on him than I once were. I used to think he could beat anyone but now I don't. That is my opinion and the purpose of my post was to show that he built a great record against not so great fighters.

pvdh62 · Post by **pvdh62** » 20 Jul 2003, 20:33

Amen mr. Controversial. And respect to mr.Garfield. All has been said by these two wise man about this topic IMO.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 29 Jul 2003, 13:27

Controversial wrote:
terap wrote:Jersey Joe Walcott said Marciano hit the hardest and was the toughest of any of the fighters he fought in his career.

Joe Louis said Marciano was a great puncher.

But what did Walcott and Joe Louis know about the topic?

Obviously not much according the "authorities" posting here.

No-ones denying Marciano could punch hard, Ali at one time said the hardest single punch he was hit with was by Henry Cooper, that doesn't mean anything. The fact remains, yes Marciano was undeafted, but he fought in a very poor era, against many second-rate fighters and fighters past their best.

Louis, Savold, Walcott all had Marciano as there last opponent because they all retired. Cockell only had two more KO defeats then retired. Charles was not the same fighter he used to be, yet gave Marciano two hard fights. There the facts my friend...

Controversial: You like to talk about Marciano's opponents retiring after he beat them. But it wasn't just the old ones that did. Carmine Vingo was a young prospect at the time Rocky beat him, and he was nearly killed and could never fight again. Marciano was so devastating that he sent many of his opponents into retirement with his savage battering. Even the young ones. They're the facts my friend...
Oh, and Walcott was NOT past his prime. He was a known late bloomer. You can visibly see the difference between Walcott in his first fight with Marciano and Walcott in his 2nd fight with Marciano- he was destroyed after having been through a war like that and being brutally KO'd. You're listing what happened to Marciano's opponents AFTER they fought Marciano- but fighters were never the same again after they faced the Rock. They never did as well. LaStarza's arms were crushed by Marciano's punches, his arm bones were smashed, and there were chunks of bone broken off of them that he had to have SIX SURGERIES to get removed. No one who fought Marciano was the same fighter in their fights afterward.
And Joe Louis had nothing but positive to say about Marciano. He thought Rocky was amazing, and excellent. So did Walcott(after fighting Marciano), and Charles... oh, and Moore. Oh, and just about everyone Marciano ever fought said he was great. But I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable on Marciano, and have a much better idea of how good he was than Joe Louis.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 29 Jul 2003, 13:33

john garfield wrote:I responded once to this Marciano thread and then I just monitored others that came in.

I feel like John Wayne in ?Mclintock,,? when the bad guy says to Wayne: ?you?re not gonna hit me are you?? ?No! I?m not gonna hit you?The hell I?m not?BANG.

I just have to get my innings in here. Controversial you make out a very logical case for resigning Marciano to less than the pinnacle of greatness. Your subsequent posts demonstrate that you?re knowledgeable about the sport and Marciano. I doubt whether you ever saw him live, though.

The impression of Marciano over the years?and growing-- is that he?s nothing more than a glorified gamer.

I consider myself blessed because I saw him train at the CYO gym in New York, Stillmans, briefly, Grossinger?s in the Catskill Mountains, and all of his fights in New York, Phiadelphia and Hartford.

To say he was unimpressive is an understatement: he looked 10 years older than his age; welterweights had longer arms; he had no footwork or balance; his punches were ponderous and telegraphed, and all of them looping shots.

Everybody he sparred with looked smoother and better in every way. They were the ones that looked like they had promise in comparison. Marciano looked like nothing more than a durable ham-&-egger.

But that little imp, magician, Charley Goldman, his trainer, like Schmeling said about Louis before their first fight: ?I see something;? he recognized Marciano?s leverage and never tried to change him, make him a better boxer. He kept pounding into his head to bend even lower, and spring out of a crouch. Goldman honed what there was and made the most of it.

My case for Rocky?s greatness is not to repeat what?s already been acknowledged: his heart, his toughness, his power, his condition, and least of all, his record or who he fought. It?s all very pallid when you see it on paper.

What Marciano is transcends all of that,?and I have seen them all in person from the 40?s to the present day, heavyweight to flyweight. What you won?t see on paper was: He was ?The Little Engine That Could,? The U.S. Hockey team that beat the Russians in the Olympics; but probably most descriptive, and apt, was a poster I saw hanging on an engineer?s wall. It was a picture of a hummingbird flying, and underneath it was this caption: ?It?s aerodynamically impossible for a hummingbird to fly.?

If you were in a burning car, there?s nobody in the world you?d want swinging a sledgehammer to get you out than Marciano.

The 50?s was a toxic waste of corruption, Marciano was protected ,Weill was in bed with the very worst elements, and Rocky was on speaking terms with mob guys.

But as a fighting man, you can throw all the charts and data out the window; the Marciano that I saw up close could morph into a giant and is as deserving to be considered one of the greatest as anyone who?s put on gloves.

John garfield

"The 50?s was a toxic waste of corruption, Marciano was protected ,Weill was in bed with the very worst elements, and Rocky was on speaking terms with mob guys."
Marciano wasn't protected. He was thrown in REAL hard early. Look at his opponents up above, who Controversial has been so kindly trashing. First, Controversial, that's the Boxrec record. Their record is incomplete. Eddie Ross wasn't 15-0. He was actually 26-0 with 23 KOs, as it says he was reported to be on the boxrec record. Ross was undefeated and Marciano was supposed to be cannonfodder for him. When have you ever heard of a 'protected' fighter being thrown in with an undefeated fighter of 26 bouts after he's only had 4? Marciano had to fight really hard and really tough in order to get to where he went.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 29 Jul 2003, 13:37

tolstoy wrote:I am taking nothing away from Rocky Marciano. He defeated every boxer he has ever faced, sometimes with some great difficulty, sometimes not, but he always came through. Rocky was strong and as tough as they come.

Additionally, he retired when he was 32, before someone younger and stronger got to him, and for making such a decision whilst at the top he deserves a lot of credit. If only some of his successors had the same good judgment.

Now, I think it?s time to qualify what I?ve just said. 49-0 is a statistically impressive record but there is a distinct lack of quality on it. The same three names come up all the time in response:

1) Joe Louis, in my opinion the best heavyweight of all time, was a faded 37 year old fighter when he lost to Marciano.

2) Jersey Joe Walcott was an old man of 38 when he lost to Marciano even the first time around but still managed to floor him..

3) Ezzard Charles was a more youthful 33 but despite being a great fighter he had an erratic record, frequently losing to nobodies. He was frequently found wanting when fighting at the very highest level as is evidenced by his holding the world title for less than a year and never regaining it.

His place in boxing legend, aside from his ability, comes from his prolific fight record and his longevity rather than his successes.

For me, Marciano is overrated and it?s down to his unbeaten record and little more. He defended his title only 6 times in 3 years.

I agree with you Controversial and before the Ali critics and boxing old school pounce upon me for blasphemy, Muhammad Ali is also overrated, even more so.

"2) Jersey Joe Walcott was an old man of 38 when he lost to Marciano even the first time around but still managed to floor him.. "
Walcott was a late bloomer of 38.
"3) Ezzard Charles was a more youthful 33 but despite being a great fighter he had an erratic record, frequently losing to nobodies. He was frequently found wanting when fighting at the very highest level as is evidenced by his holding the world title for less than a year and never regaining it."
He didn't do poorly at the highest level at all. The fact that he held the title for less than a year is due to his activity, not lack of success at the highest level. Charles SUCCESSFULLY defended the heavyweight title 8 TIMES.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 31 Jul 2003, 11:15

LaStarza's arms were crushed by Marciano's punches, his arm bones were smashed, and there were chunks of bone broken off of them that he had to have SIX SURGERIES to get removed. No one who fought Marciano was the same fighter in their fights afterward.

One time at training camp, Marciano hit one guy so hard he took his head off. After they took the body away Rocky started his gym work. He got real angry that he could only manage three million sit ups, instead of his usual 4 million, and he punched the wall. Big mistake. The wall fell down destroying the camp. 'Damn' Rocky thought because as the wall fell the police were parked outside. Rocky ran for it, the cops only had cars and couldn't keep up but luckily for them Rocky took a wrong turn and went down a deadend. The cops blocked his exit. They didn't want to risk scrapping with the Rock as they didn't think 50 men against 1 would be enough to arrest him. But Rocky had an idea, he sprinted past them and ran across the river. Damn he was good.......

I jest of course. Face it bud you cannot say Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano. How could he be. Who did he fight after Marciano, umm no one. So how was he in his prime at 39 years of age after 70 fights?.

Louis was WAY past his best, I cant see how you can say otherwise and Charles was not the fighter he used to be BEFORE he fought Marciano and still gave Rocky fits.

Moore was a light-heavyweight, 42 years old and have well over a 100 fights.

No one, even today, can turn the clock back. As you get older you loose speed, your reactions, your fitness, everything gets a little slower and harder to do. Walcott, Louis and Moore are not exceptions. But they fought Marciano when they were past it and people seem to think thet thats like fighting them in their primes. It doesn't even come close.

Controversial · Post by **Controversial** » 31 Jul 2003, 11:26

Marciano Frazier wrote:
Controversial wrote:
terap wrote:Jersey Joe Walcott said Marciano hit the hardest and was the toughest of any of the fighters he fought in his career.

Joe Louis said Marciano was a great puncher.

But what did Walcott and Joe Louis know about the topic?

Obviously not much according the "authorities" posting here.

No-ones denying Marciano could punch hard, Ali at one time said the hardest single punch he was hit with was by Henry Cooper, that doesn't mean anything. The fact remains, yes Marciano was undeafted, but he fought in a very poor era, against many second-rate fighters and fighters past their best.

Louis, Savold, Walcott all had Marciano as there last opponent because they all retired. Cockell only had two more KO defeats then retired. Charles was not the same fighter he used to be, yet gave Marciano two hard fights. There the facts my friend...
Controversial: You like to talk about Marciano's opponents retiring after he beat them. But it wasn't just the old ones that did. Carmine Vingo was a young prospect at the time Rocky beat him, and he was nearly killed and could never fight again. Marciano was so devastating that he sent many of his opponents into retirement with his savage battering. Even the young ones. They're the facts my friend...
Oh, and Walcott was NOT past his prime. He was a known late bloomer. You can visibly see the difference between Walcott in his first fight with Marciano and Walcott in his 2nd fight with Marciano- he was destroyed after having been through a war like that and being brutally KO'd. You're listing what happened to Marciano's opponents AFTER they fought Marciano- but fighters were never the same again after they faced the Rock. They never did as well. LaStarza's arms were crushed by Marciano's punches, his arm bones were smashed, and there were chunks of bone broken off of them that he had to have SIX SURGERIES to get removed. No one who fought Marciano was the same fighter in their fights afterward.
And Joe Louis had nothing but positive to say about Marciano. He thought Rocky was amazing, and excellent. So did Walcott(after fighting Marciano), and Charles... oh, and Moore. Oh, and just about everyone Marciano ever fought said he was great. But I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable on Marciano, and have a much better idea of how good he was than Joe Louis.

Another thing. Yes I say that most retired after fighting Marciano but what you forget is that most of them were on LOSING streaks when they fought Marciano anyway. Ross was 26-0 (23 kos). But who did he fight because I cannot find ONE decent fighter on his record. So he was unbeaten, so what, your only as good as the people you beat and if the people you beat are crap then what does that prove? Carmin Vingo was a prospect, thats all, and was beaten by Rocky. That doesn't mean he was going to become anything. We will never know but if Ross and Vingo are the only two NAMES you can come up with, if I was you I wouldn't have bothered posting

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 31 Jul 2003, 14:57

Controversial wrote:LaStarza's arms were crushed by Marciano's punches, his arm bones were smashed, and there were chunks of bone broken off of them that he had to have SIX SURGERIES to get removed. No one who fought Marciano was the same fighter in their fights afterward.

One time at training camp, Marciano hit one guy so hard he took his head off. After they took the body away Rocky started his gym work. He got real angry that he could only manage three million sit ups, instead of his usual 4 million, and he punched the wall. Big mistake. The wall fell down destroying the camp. 'Damn' Rocky thought because as the wall fell the police were parked outside. Rocky ran for it, the cops only had cars and couldn't keep up but luckily for them Rocky took a wrong turn and went down a deadend. The cops blocked his exit. They didn't want to risk scrapping with the Rock as they didn't think 50 men against 1 would be enough to arrest him. But Rocky had an idea, he sprinted past them and ran across the river. Damn he was good.......

I jest of course. Face it bud you cannot say Walcott was in his prime when he fought Marciano. How could he be. Who did he fight after Marciano, umm no one. So how was he in his prime at 39 years of age after 70 fights?.

Louis was WAY past his best, I cant see how you can say otherwise and Charles was not the fighter he used to be BEFORE he fought Marciano and still gave Rocky fits.

Moore was a light-heavyweight, 42 years old and have well over a 100 fights.

No one, even today, can turn the clock back. As you get older you loose speed, your reactions, your fitness, everything gets a little slower and harder to do. Walcott, Louis and Moore are not exceptions. But they fought Marciano when they were past it and people seem to think thet thats like fighting them in their primes. It doesn't even come close.

As for your mocking first paragraph, everything I said in the above quoted paragraph was true. Marciano smashed chunks of bone off of LaStarza's arms and damaged blood vessels in his arms, and he required six surgeries to have his arms repaired. Marciano was always very damaging to his opponents.
Next, about Walcott. Pay attention to my post. Walcott was fighting one of his best fights in the first fight. By the second, he had clearly deteriorated, especially after going through a huge war like the first one and then being brutally KO'd. Look at Walcott in the first Marciano fight, and then in the second. There is a clear difference. He looks softer, he looks clumsier, his jab is different, and he looks afraid. And then he gets KO'd in one by the guy he took 13 rounds a few months ago. But you think he hadn't deteriorated after the first fight? I'm saying that Walcott was in one of his best fights in the first one. But by the second Marciano fight, after going through the first one, he was gone. As for his age, as I already pointed out, Hopkins is 37, but is considered to be in his prime right now. Everyone is different. Some people are late bloomers.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 31 Jul 2003, 15:02

Controversial wrote:
Marciano Frazier wrote:
Controversial wrote:
No-ones denying Marciano could punch hard, Ali at one time said the hardest single punch he was hit with was by Henry Cooper, that doesn't mean anything. The fact remains, yes Marciano was undeafted, but he fought in a very poor era, against many second-rate fighters and fighters past their best.

Louis, Savold, Walcott all had Marciano as there last opponent because they all retired. Cockell only had two more KO defeats then retired. Charles was not the same fighter he used to be, yet gave Marciano two hard fights. There the facts my friend...
Controversial: You like to talk about Marciano's opponents retiring after he beat them. But it wasn't just the old ones that did. Carmine Vingo was a young prospect at the time Rocky beat him, and he was nearly killed and could never fight again. Marciano was so devastating that he sent many of his opponents into retirement with his savage battering. Even the young ones. They're the facts my friend...
Oh, and Walcott was NOT past his prime. He was a known late bloomer. You can visibly see the difference between Walcott in his first fight with Marciano and Walcott in his 2nd fight with Marciano- he was destroyed after having been through a war like that and being brutally KO'd. You're listing what happened to Marciano's opponents AFTER they fought Marciano- but fighters were never the same again after they faced the Rock. They never did as well. LaStarza's arms were crushed by Marciano's punches, his arm bones were smashed, and there were chunks of bone broken off of them that he had to have SIX SURGERIES to get removed. No one who fought Marciano was the same fighter in their fights afterward.
And Joe Louis had nothing but positive to say about Marciano. He thought Rocky was amazing, and excellent. So did Walcott(after fighting Marciano), and Charles... oh, and Moore. Oh, and just about everyone Marciano ever fought said he was great. But I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable on Marciano, and have a much better idea of how good he was than Joe Louis.
Another thing. Yes I say that most retired after fighting Marciano but what you forget is that most of them were on LOSING streaks when they fought Marciano anyway. Ross was 26-0 (23 kos). But who did he fight because I cannot find ONE decent fighter on his record. So he was unbeaten, so what, your only as good as the people you beat and if the people you beat are crap then what does that prove? Carmin Vingo was a prospect, thats all, and was beaten by Rocky. That doesn't mean he was going to become anything. We will never know but if Ross and Vingo are the only two NAMES you can come up with, if I was you I wouldn't have bothered posting

You think Vingo and Ross were the only two I could come up with? What about Roland LaStarza, Rex Layne, Harry Matthews, and Bobby Quinn? Marciano defeated many good young fighters in his career.
And I NEVER said that Louis was in his prime. He was past his best, clearly. But he was still a top-notch fighter even as an old man, and was still a legit. contender.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 31 Jul 2003, 15:08

Controversial wrote:
bull wrote:Hi,
Everytime when someone do it great attainment many people doubt.

Rocky Marciano simply beat all of them.
Club fighters,journeymans,contenters and whorld champions.And never loss.
Everybody world champion meet "old" and not "in his prime" boxers, but no everytime win.And Joe Louis("old" Max knocked out him),and Ali was two times defeated 'in his prime", and Mike Tyson...all without exception.
This is valid for all sports not only in boxing.

The sport is game where persons are not "old" and"youngs" , but winners and losers.
Where is Marciano quilt that he is 9 years younger than Walcott. Joe is ?1 in this moment and Rocky meet and bet him.
Or Joe Louis that is 12 younger than Braddock.Or Ali 10 than Liston. Or Tyson 15 than Holmes.Or Parterson 19 than Moore.Or Dempsey 13 thah Willard.Or Lenox and Evander are crap, becouse they fight two times for the most prize title in individual sports(undisputed hevyweight boxing chapionchip) ,when they are both over 35.

This is the name of the game.

If someone hate Rocky Marciano, the reason is in him, no in Marciano.
You are totally missing the point.

The point is Marciano ONLY beat 'great fighters' when they were 'no longer great'. It isn't a hard concept to understand. You cannot call someone an all-time great on the strength of beating up washed up fighters. Marciano never fought any young hungry world class fighters when he was world champion. FACT.

And you cannot compare fighters ages from the 1950s with fighters today. A 37 year old heavyweight today isn't the same as a 37 year old heavyweight from the 1950s. Life expectancy is much longer today. Training regimes and body conditioning is leaps ahead today than it was in the 1950s. And fighters today are not knocked about the way fighters were back in those days. Joe Louis and Walcott were both having their 71st fights when they fought Marciano. Charles was having his 98th fight. Moore was having his 174th fight.

So to say that Lewis is comparable to Walcott because he is in his late 30s is madness.

It's funny that not one Marciano fan has yet to give any decent argument in defence of Marciano. I will say it again, Marciano was a good fighter, a hard puncher, and was as tough and as fit as they come but to call him an all-time great on the strength of beating up old men is stretching it a bit far.

Okay, 1st. You say Marciano never faced a young, hungry fighter when he was champion. Who exactly was Roland LaStarza, then? LaStarza was 54-3, had won 9 out of his last 10, and had been undefeated when he fought Marciano the first time.
Next, the comparison of Lewis and Walcott is to point out that they both had late primes. And if you're going to say that Walcott must've been way past it because he was in his last fights, I guess Lewis must've been way past it when he had what many consider to have been his peak performances against Rahman and Tyson, because clearly he's going to have about one more fight here and then retire. So he must've already been past his prime when he had his best fights. Using age or area of career is NOT a good way to guage someone's prime. Watch any tape of Marciano's first fight with Walcott. Walcott is fast, with a hard, driving jab, is clearly in excellent physical condition, doesn't visibly get tired even going into the late rounds, throws lots of punches, and is throwing shots with excellent punching form. Walcott was clearly on top of his game for his first fight with Marciano.

john garfield · Post by **john garfield** » 31 Jul 2003, 15:14

MF,

I've read your posts on various boards about Marciano vs Tyson and, clearly, you've followed Rocky's career very closely and think the world of him.

If you've read any of my posts about Rocky,you know what my sentiments are about him and why.

Like myself, did you have the chance to see him live? or is he just a hero you've admired?

john garfield

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 31 Jul 2003, 15:51

john garfield wrote:MF,

I've read your posts on various boards about Marciano vs Tyson and, clearly, you've followed Rocky's career very closely and think the world of him.

If you've read any of my posts about Rocky,you know what my sentiments are about him and why.

Like myself, did you have the chance to see him live? or is he just a hero you've admired?

john garfield

I'm afraid I never saw Marciano in person.
I just always admired Marciano for his 'never gonna stop, never say die, I'm going to do it no matter what it takes' sort of attitude. No matter what, Marciano would never stop, because he was determined to never be poor again. He never gave up, never accepted defeat. And not only that, Marciano was a nice person outside the ring. Guys like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Joe Louis, and Jersey Joe Walcott all had nothing but good to say about Marciano, even though he was the guy who beat the snot out of them and knocked them out. Walcott said himself that Marciano was a man of courage inside the ring, but outside it, he was kind and gentle. Louis: "Everything I remember about him is good." Lou Duva, Muhammad Ali, everyone who knew him had great things to say about him. He never talked trash, was nothing but respectful to his opponents, always trained the hardest he could, and always fought his heart out.

He came from poverty to become what he was. Even when no one believed in him, and trainers he tried to get would tell him he'd get killed, he was persistent and never gave up. Even during his career, when he was about to fight someone, he had many, many critics, who said exactly what people who don't like him say now- that he was undefeated, but only because he hadn't fought anyone yet, that he was going to lose when he faced this fellow, that he was too small, he was too off-balance, he had no skill, etc. And then, he'd get in the ring with that fellow, and knock them out, and all of a sudden that guy they were hyping up as so great wasn't that good anymore. The journalists and writers all said that Rex Layne was an incredibly hard puncher and had emerged as the clear best prospect of the times. Layne was a heavy favorite to knock Marciano out. Then, when they got in the ring, Marciano not only beat Layne, he KO'd him with one right hand that sent his teeth flying across the ring. Layne was never the same again. After Marciano beat Layne, of course, Layne was no longer an excellent prospect destined for greatness. The journalists suddenly started changing their minds, and it was somebody else. Even after Marciano won the title, his critics said he'd just landed a lucky punch on an old man. It's amazing, the way everyone has been saying these same things about Marciano for decades now. He gets criticized far more harshly than any other HW champ, and anything negative about him is looked at hard under a magnifying glass, and magnified very intensely. Because while you can bring down Dempsey for losing to Willie Meehan, or Ali for his struggles with Norton, or Foreman for losing to Young, or Liston for losing to Marshall, or Tyson for losing to Douglas, or Louis for losing to Schmeling, you can't bring down Rocky like that. Not one bit. So then, they take any fights in which he struggled but won, and again attack it intensely. Dempsey struggled with Firpo, was knocked clear out of the ring and nearly counted out, but climbed back in and won, but you never hear him criticized about that. But if Marciano goes down for a flash 2-count knockdown against Moore and gets up to brutally KO him, dozens of hungry critics jump on it. Dempsey is commended for his heart when he beats the skilless, crazily slow slugger Firpo after being knocked into the audience, but Marciano is attacked for being dropped for 2 seconds by the hardest hitting light heavyweight of all time and getting up to KO him. There are so many double standards, where people take any accomplishment Marciano made and twist it around to look at it in the most negative possible light.

Then, there are the others, who recognize the futility of this, so instead spread rumors about how all of his fights were fixes or he actually lost an early fight under another name and it was covered up by the mafia. Of course, he did fight a match under an alias, but he won it. The loss they were thinking of was actually an amateur fight that happened at a nearby time.

Once again, I don't think Marciano was the greatest. Some people magnify Marciano's accomplishments more than they should. He never lost, but did he fight everyone ever? No. So never losing says nothing about whether he could've been beaten. He never fought Ali or Foreman or Liston, etc., so his undefeated record hardly means he couldn't've lost to them, like some people interpret it. I just can't stand how incredibly hard on him some people are, and unreasonably so.

All of Marcianos opponents ..

Marciano

Marciano

Re: Marciano

Re: Marciano

Marciano

Re: Marciano