Rocky Marciano: An Enduring Legacy Into Mythology

[Collins2000]

Louis speed, reflexes were even worse gone by the time he fought Marciano, then they were against Charles

disagree they were better, because he was less rusty when he fought marciano and savold. charles fought louis less than a year from when marciano fought louis

ur still missing my whole point alp, so well leave it as well have to agree to disagree on louis.


god this forum is turning out to be a joke, maybe i should just stick to eastsideboxing, there are open minded knowledgable posters there who arnt such stuck up brits

Nick, don't let us detain you here. The average IQ of both forums would increase should you decide to leave us again.

Are you still fawning over that old fraud Ted Spoon?

[HomicideHenry]

So how to we assess Tommy Morrison's and Shannon Briggs' wins over George Foreman in this context. Or Brian Nielsen's win over Larry Holmes.

I still say the Morrison fight was thrown away, and the Briggs fight was a controversial decision.

As to what Brocky said, I dont agree entirely, but I will say that even a fighter passed his best is still a dangerous opponent, as he/she has alot of experience and can always try and make up for their losses in other ways.

I mean hell look at Ali. He didn't have quite the speed any more after he defeated Frazier for the last time, and still managed to give alot of guys a few hard fights and even beat guys like Earnie Shavers. He was able to improvise.

Look at Jimmy Braddock. Talk about a man coming back from the dead. There have been numerous fighters who have had their obituaries written numerous times, only to have come back.

I can't say, and it never was my point, that Louis was the same man he was as a champion---no he wasn't, but for being the greatest title holder in history, he still had what it took to give ANY man a helluva time in that ring.

Irregardless, on Marciano, he was considered a bum when he fought, and even when he proved the skeptics wrong everyone said 'Well he aint as good as Dempsey or Louis'. I think there will never ever be closure to Marciano's place in history. Too many people emphasise that he was either 'the best' because of the 49-0, or the worst because of beating Louis, Charles, Walcott and Moore when they were not at their 'best'.

In my opinion its not so much who was better on a certain day or even a certain time period, but who was better at that MOMENT. For Marciano, he was better than Walcott for that one moment in the 13th round, and that made all the difference in the world. In a sport as unpredictable as this, who's to really say who could have beaten who, when really a single punch can change the tempo, the course, the direction in a fight?

Again, the myth, the mystery, continues.

[Collins2000]

I can't say, and it never was my point, that Louis was the same man he was as a champion---no he wasn't, but for being the greatest title holder in history, he still had what it took to give ANY man a helluva time in that ring.

He didn't seem to be giving Ezzard Charles 'a helluva time' did he?

[HomicideHenry]

Yeah, but not even a prime HW Ezzard Charles could knock Joe Louis down, let alone knock him out. Out point him yes, but completely embarass him. Hell no.

Joe Louis could still take it, and give someone a decent stretch/run for their money. Went all 15 rounds, and Charles couldn't put away an 'old, passed his prime, shell of his former self' Louis, when Charles was near the peak of his HW powers.

[Ambling Alp]

Alp you totally write off the heavyweights moore beat. did you know he beat clarence henry, a HALL OF FAME HEAVYWEIGHT? thats right hall of fame. anyone i know whos seen henry in his prime cant speak enough of the guy, a very good fighter. al weill ducked clarence henry in 1951. perhaps give moore more credit for soundily beating this guy?

A Hall of Fame Heavyweight? Well in that case he must have been awesome.
Henry isn't in the International Boxing Hall of Fame, so do you mean the World Boxing Hall of Fame? The World Boxing Hall of Fame isn't meant to be taken seriously. It 's a joke.

If beating Clarence is the best you can come up with than you don't have much of a case for Moore being regarded as a great heavyweight.

So now the argument is that Marciano beat Moore who was a great heavyweight because Moore beat Henry who Marciano's management team didn't want to fight? huh?
If Marciano's management team really did "duck" Henry they may have overrated Henry.

[HomicideHenry]

I personally would rank Moore up there as being a good HW in the same sense and class as Billy Conn was as a HW, as Foster, as Jones was as a HW.

Good enough to beat top 10 guys, but not quite up there to beat the top men of the division. For Foster, he couldnt beat Ali and Frazier. For Conn he couldnt beat Joe Louis (though he could have in the 1st fight had he not went for a knockout). And Jones, he was good enough to beat a solid top 5 HW in John Ruiz (title or no title, Ruiz was a top 5 HW), but would have more than likely failed against Lennox Lewis and the much bigger men (Klitschko's).

Moore is hard to pin point down as to how good a HW he was. After losing to Patterson, he did manage to beat a few guys to where RING magazine made the case that Moore should have gotten a second shot at Patterson, but Patterson ended up losing to Liston---Moore never got a shot at Liston, but continued to be a top 15-10 HW up until he fought Ali.

Then throw in the fact he was possibly the greatest LHW champion ever. Bumps him up a notch on how credible Moore was, you have to figure 176 and up back then was HW. Marciano was 187 and Patterson wasn't much bigger, so was really just a ten pound difference or so between Moore and the big name HW's.

[Ambling Alp]

Homicide-Brocton and I have debated a lot about Moore. He thinks that Moore was a top 30 heavyweight of all time. I don't think he was anywhere near that.

He was unquestionably one of the best lightheavyweights of all time and arguably the very best.
Sorry if we hijacked your post about Marciano.

[HomicideHenry]

I don't mind, cus hell a good debate starts with the 'credibility' of the men themselves. To determine Marciano's place, you have to look at who he fought and at what point in their career were they at.

Myself, Moore was very good as a HW. Top 30? That's pushing it a bit, though he did beat a good bunch of HW's. I'd say as far as division jumpers are concerned, Moore's two shots at the HW title and him being a viable contender until he fought Ali does make him up inside the top 10 easy, with Fitzsimmons, Spinks, Langford, Armstrong, and a few others being better.

But I do put him up there with Conn, Foster and Jones, as far as their HW credibility was worth---if not maybe a tad bit better.

[Collins2000]

Yeah, but not even a prime HW Ezzard Charles could knock Joe Louis down, let alone knock him out. Out point him yes, but completely embarass him. Hell no.

Joe Louis could still take it, and give someone a decent stretch/run for their money. Went all 15 rounds, and Charles couldn't put away an 'old, passed his prime, shell of his former self' Louis, when Charles was near the peak of his HW powers.

And a prime Larry Holmes couldn't put away Tex Cobb.

By your 'logic' should we infer Cobb gave Holmes 'a helluva time'?

Ease up on the hyperbole, mate.

[HomicideHenry]

Yeah but Cobb was right on up there with the toughest of all time. Was no damn secret that Joe Louis had an iffy chin for a HW champion, so kinda puts it into perspective. Either Joe Louis was able to hold his own against Charles when he was 'shell of his former self, over the hill, an embarassment', or it's that Charles wasn't as agood.

Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.

[dempseyfire]

I would put Moore up there with Billy Conn. Both beat some decent top contenders (Moore beat Henry, Baker, and Valdez . . .Conn beat a young Savold and Pastor).

Both above Bob Foster . . . .Foster did NOTHING at HW except lose.

I view Marciano as a top 10 HW . . his wins vs Moore, Walcott and Charles are solid. Was he beatable despite the 0 . . yes. Has he gotten over-rated by many, including BB . . .YES

Was he just an under-sized bum who got luck? No way.

But he was lucky in that he never had to face another true HW threat in his prime. His struggles with Charles, Walcott, and Moore (why people say that's Jersey Joe's best performance aludes me . . he looks much better in the two Louis fights) strongly suggest that if Louis had retired earlier and Marciano had been fighting in the late 1940s, that 0 would not be there. Or in many other eras and circumstances (if he'd stayed around a few more years Liston would've knocked him out)

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Louis speed, reflexes were even worse gone by the time he fought Marciano, then they were against Charles

disagree they were better, because he was less rusty when he fought marciano and savold. charles fought louis less than a year from when marciano fought louis

ur still missing my whole point alp, so well leave it as well have to agree to disagree on louis.


god this forum is turning out to be a joke, maybe i should just stick to eastsideboxing, there are open minded knowledgable posters there who arnt such stuck up brits

Nick, don't let us detain you here. The average IQ of both forums would increase should you decide to leave us again.

Are you still fawning over that old fraud Ted Spoon?

you know i used to like u.........

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i think marciano in the late 1940s would have still had the O mark. he would have beaten louis in a very tough fight, beaten charles in a very tough fight, and beaten walcott in a very tough fight. charles might have taken 1 from marciano, but in a trilogy i favor marciano.

(why people say that's Jersey Joe's best performance aludes me . . he looks much better in the two Louis fights)

god if walcott was so much a better fighter in 1947-48 than surely he wouldnt have had so much trouble with joey maxim and elmer ray. surely if walcott was so much better in 1948 than when he fought marciano, then a 1947-48 walcott must easily beat rocky right? since he was beating him in 1952? surely then walcott must destroy easily joey maxim and elmer ray in 1946-47. no wait? he had alot of trouble vs these guys.......hmmm.



disagree.....he had faster legs in the louis fight, but his combinations, agression, letting his hands go, confidence were never better than the marciano fight. walcott simply chose to fight a different fight against marciano than he did against louis, shows you how great walcott is at adapting to styles which is why walcott is IMO top 12 heavyweight of all time.

frankly i think louis I and marciano I were his two clear best film preformances. if i had too choose on i would prob go with the first louis fight since he won that fight and i think this was perhaps walcotts physically peak(legs reflexes sharp and fast and at its finest)


whether or not walcott was in his prime vs marciano is irrelevant, i think its clear marciano beat a great fighter that night sept 1952 and he beat one of the best versions of walcott. he beat the same walcott who just knocked out ezzard charles with 1 punch.


so i have a question for you.........if you think walcott was past his prime vs marciano which you defintley do considering your response, then you think walcott was past his prime when he went 2-2 with charles? if thats so, then a past his prime walcott going 2-2 with charles is pretty good huh?

[dempseyfire]

i think marciano in the late 1940s would have still had the O mark. he would have beaten louis in a very tough fight, beaten charles in a very tough fight, and beaten walcott in a very tough fight. charles might have taken 1 from marciano, but in a trilogy i favor marciano.

(why people say that's Jersey Joe's best performance aludes me . . he looks much better in the two Louis fights)

god if walcott was so much a better fighter in 1947-48 than surely he wouldnt have had so much trouble with joey maxim and elmer ray. surely if walcott was so much better in 1948 than when he fought marciano, then a 1947-48 walcott must easily beat rocky right? since he was beating him in 1952? surely then walcott must destroy easily joey maxim and elmer ray in 1946-47. no wait? he had alot of trouble vs these guys.......hmmm.



disagree.....he had faster legs in the louis fight, but his combinations, agression, letting his hands go, confidence were never better than the marciano fight. walcott simply chose to fight a different fight against marciano than he did against louis, shows you how great walcott is at adapting to styles which is why walcott is IMO top 12 heavyweight of all time.

frankly i think louis I and marciano I were his two clear best film preformances. if i had too choose on i would prob go with the first louis fight since he won that fight and i think this was perhaps walcotts physically peak(legs reflexes sharp and fast and at its finest)


whether or not walcott was in his prime vs marciano is irrelevant, i think its clear marciano beat a great fighter that night sept 1952 and he beat one of the best versions of walcott. he beat the same walcott who just knocked out ezzard charles with 1 punch.


so i have a question for you.........if you think walcott was past his prime vs marciano which you defintley do considering your response, then you think walcott was past his prime when he went 2-2 with charles? if thats so, then a past his prime walcott going 2-2 with charles is pretty good huh?

I think Walcott was basically on the decline through the Charles fights (as was Ezzard) and by the time of the 4th Charles fight (the most boring of all 4 of their fights), clearly past his best.

I don't know why you're bringing up Elmer Ray and Joey Maxim . . .if I think he beats Marciano in 1947, that doesn't equate to him beating Maxin and Ray. Two different fighters and a different package all together. Styles make fights. And yes I know from newspaper reports Ray was a 'pressure fighter' but that doesn't mean he's Marciano lite, just like just b/c two fighters are "movers" or "counter-punchers" that doesn't mean they can't be entirely different opponents bringing totally different skill-sets to the table.

We've been through this before. I do feel Walcott of 1952 was still a great fighter but definetely not the fighter he had been 4-5 years before. Fighters at 38 just aren't the same physically as they were at 34 (and you're whole "aggression, confidence, combinations" were better argument is your own dreamworld argument and has no backing whatsoever).

What's clear from the film is that a 38 year old Walcott (and 38 in that time-period living through the depression was like 45 nowadays) goes toe to toe with Rocky thinking he can knock the young crude slugger out. Despite early success the plan backfires and by the middle rounds Walcott is visibly very tired. He has some late rallies but you can't go toe to toe with a young granite jawed slugger 10 years your junior and prevail. That's just basic logic.

A younger Walcott doesn't tire as quickly and uses more lateral movement, and wins a decision.

[Collins2000]

disagree they were better, because he was less rusty when he fought marciano and savold. charles fought louis less than a year from when marciano fought louis

ur still missing my whole point alp, so well leave it as well have to agree to disagree on louis.


god this forum is turning out to be a joke, maybe i should just stick to eastsideboxing, there are open minded knowledgable posters there who arnt such stuck up brits

Nick, don't let us detain you here. The average IQ of both forums would increase should you decide to leave us again.

Are you still fawning over that old fraud Ted Spoon?

you know i used to like u.........

Hahahahaahahhaa, as if I care...

You became boring about the 3rd time round, Nick.

All piss and wind, son.

[Collins2000]

Yeah but Cobb was right on up there with the toughest of all time. Was no damn secret that Joe Louis had an iffy chin for a HW champion, so kinda puts it into perspective. Either Joe Louis was able to hold his own against Charles when he was 'shell of his former self, over the hill, an embarassment', or it's that Charles wasn't as agood.

Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.

You studying to be a politician or something, mate?

You said an old Louis was able to give anyone 'a helluva time'.

I gave you an example of an occasion when an old Louis didn't give someone 'a helluva time'.

Just accept you were wrong and move on. Or don't. It matters not one iota to me as I've already got your card marked.

[granberry]

The Marciano-Walcott first fight was one the greatest heavyweight championship fights

and one of the great fights in the history of boxing.

Walcott went all out to keep his title,

and he would have beaten many heavyweight in the history of boxing that night.

Too bad the boxing "expert" of a previous post here wasn't around to give Walcott his "expert" advice before the Marciano-Walcott first fight.

I'm sure Walcott would have won the fight following such "expert" advice.


I ran into Walcott in Atlantic City while we were both waiting to go into the room where the Jerry Martin-Dale Grant fight was held.

I talked to him for a while there while we waited and also after the fight card.

Poor deluded Walcott didn't seem to think Marciano was a "crude slugger."

To bad Dempseyfire wasn't around to set him straight.

Walcott said Marciano was hardest hitter he fought.

He also said Marciano was the "toughest" fighter he fought, meaning that he had the best chin of anyone he fought.

Walcott said that "many times" in their first fight he hit Marciano hard enough to knock anyone out.

I mentioned to him that I knew Wesley Mouzon, who had told me about working out in the same gym with Walcott in the 1940's. We talked for a good while about other things. He was sensitive about his place in boxing history and we disagreed about that.

He said he would only be remembered for the picture of his face distorted by a Marciano right hand. That picture and the wide circulation it got really bothered him.

I told him he would be remembered for winning the title with a single punch knockout over Ezzard Charles, for knocking Joe Louis down in TWO title fights, and for fighting one of the great fights in heavyweight title history against Marciano.

I'm glad I got to tell him that, even though he still said he "didn't know" if what I said was true.

He had a massive head and overall build, but I think he probably had lost some inches in height because of his age.


If only someone with the boxing mentality (LOL) of Dempseyfire had been around in his fighting days to advise Walcott.

Just think what Walcott missed out on.

[dempseyfire]

The Marciano-Walcott first fight was one the greatest heavyweight championship fights

and one of the great fights in the history of boxing.

Walcott went all out to keep his title,

and he would have beaten many heavyweight in the history of boxing that night.

Too bad the boxing "expert" of a previous post here wasn't around to give Walcott his "expert" advice before the Marciano-Walcott first fight.

I'm sure Walcott would have won the fight following such "expert" advice.


I ran into Walcott in Atlantic City while we were both waiting to go into the room where the Jerry Martin-Dale Grant fight was held.

I talked to him for a while there while we waited and also after the fight card.

Poor deluded Walcott didn't seem to think Marciano was a "crude slugger."

To bad Dempseyfire wasn't around to set him straight.

Walcott said Marciano was hardest hitter he fought.

He also said Marciano was the "toughest" fighter he fought, meaning that he had the best chin of anyone he fought.

Walcott said that "many times" in their first fight he hit Marciano hard enough to knock anyone out.

I mentioned to him that I knew Wesley Mouzon, who had told me about working out in the same gym with Walcott in the 1940's. We talked for a good while about other things. He was sensitive about his place in boxing history and we disagreed about that.

He said he would only be remembered for the picture of his face distorted by a Marciano right hand. That picture and the wide circulation it got really bothered him.

I told him he would be remembered for winning the title with a single punch knockout over Ezzard Charles, for knocking Joe Louis down in TWO title fights, and for fighting one of the great fights in heavyweight title history against Marciano.

I'm glad I got to tell him that, even though he still said he "didn't know" if what I said was true.

He had a massive head and overall build, but I think he probably had lost some inches in height because of his age.


If only someone with the boxing mentality (LOL) of Dempseyfire had been around in his fighting days to advise Walcott.

Just think what Walcott missed out on.

I wasn't talking to you. Stop stalking me around these threads.

If you could read (which by now is evidently not the case) you'd see I didn't say anything about any 'advice' to anyone. I was simply saying what a younger Walcott would have been able to do as opposed to an older Walcott. But why am I responding to you? It's clear you are a just grumpy old codger.

[granberry]

What a pity that fighters like Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Jimmy Barry, George Dixon, Tommy Loughran, Jack Britton, Johnny Dundee etc etc etc

didn't have the benefit of modern boxing "expertise."

I especially liked it when Tommy Hearns and his genius trainer Emmanuel Steward demonstrated they didn't know enough to step to the side where Ray Leonard had a completely closed eye in their first fight, where Leonard would have been unable to see Hearns and at his opponent's mercy.

Something that a preliminary fighter would have known without being told a few decades earlier.

And of course that was one of the "greatest fights of all time."

What a display of modern boxing "expertise" by Hearns and Steward.

[dempseyfire]

What a pity that fighters like Joe Gans, Benny Leonard, Jimmy Barry, George Dixon, Tommy Loughran, Jack Britton, Johnny Dundee etc etc etc

didn't have the benefit of modern boxing "expertise."

I especially liked it when Tommy Hearns and his genius trainer Emmanuel Steward demonstrated they didn't know enough to step to the side where Ray Leonard had a completely closed eye in their first fight, where Leonard would have been unable to see Hearns and at his opponent's mercy.

Something that a preliminary fighter would have known without being told a few decades earlier.

And of course that was one of the "greatest fights of all time."

What a display of modern boxing "expertise" by Hearns and Steward.

The funny thing here is that, for the most part, we'd probably be in agreement about the old timers (19teens through the 50s) being overall a more superior breed than their more 'modern' counterparts, although there have clearly been a number all time great fighters who've fought in the past 30 years.

Do you like any fighters in the past 30 years, or were they all bums who cheated?

[HomicideHenry]

I might be wrong but either granberry or someone stated that Walcott said that Marciano would be a tough fight for him?

Dunno where u heard that one, Walcott actually boasted and bragged and shrugged off Marciano saying it would be his 'easiest' fight, and for 12 rounds he was proving that against Rocky, til Marciano threw the right hand bomb inside of Walcott's own hook and ended the fight.

[Controversial]

I might be wrong but either granberry or someone stated that Walcott said that Marciano would be a tough fight for him?

Dunno where u heard that one, Walcott actually boasted and bragged and shrugged off Marciano saying it would be his 'easiest' fight, and for 12 rounds he was proving that against Rocky, til Marciano threw the right hand bomb inside of Walcott's own hook and ended the fight.

"If I can't beat this bum, take my name out of the record books."

[HomicideHenry]

^^^Exactly!

The exact quote 8)

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

What's clear from the film is that a 38 year old Walcott (and 38 in that time-period living through the depression was like 45 nowadays) goes toe to toe with Rocky thinking he can knock the young crude slugger out. Despite early success the plan backfires and by the middle rounds Walcott is visibly very tired. He has some late rallies but you can't go toe to toe with a young granite jawed slugger 10 years your junior and prevail. That's just basic logic.

.

that part i strongly disagree with. walcott isnt tired at all, hes in incredible shape. walcotts best rounds were the 11th and 12th where he really took it too marciano. the press was saying it was WALCOTT not marciano who was the fresher fighter entering the 13th.

A younger Walcott doesn't tire as quickly and uses more lateral movement, and wins a decision

walcott didnt tire, marciano simply nailed one of the best punches ever.


2ndly, i have no problem with ur prediction that 1947 walcott beats marciano. walcott is prob a top 10 heavyweight of all time, and the 1947 walcott would beat most champions through history. after all he beat the great joe louis. no shame there in marciano losing to a peak walcott. walcott is the most underated heavyweight of all time.

[dempseyfire]

What's clear from the film is that a 38 year old Walcott (and 38 in that time-period living through the depression was like 45 nowadays) goes toe to toe with Rocky thinking he can knock the young crude slugger out. Despite early success the plan backfires and by the middle rounds Walcott is visibly very tired. He has some late rallies but you can't go toe to toe with a young granite jawed slugger 10 years your junior and prevail. That's just basic logic.

.

that part i strongly disagree with. walcott isnt tired at all, hes in incredible shape. walcotts best rounds were the 11th and 12th where he really took it too marciano. the press was saying it was WALCOTT not marciano who was the fresher fighter entering the 13th.

A younger Walcott doesn't tire as quickly and uses more lateral movement, and wins a decision

walcott didnt tire, marciano simply nailed one of the best punches ever.


2ndly, i have no problem with ur prediction that 1947 walcott beats marciano. walcott is prob a top 10 heavyweight of all time, and the 1947 walcott would beat most champions through history. after all he beat the great joe louis. no shame there in marciano losing to a peak walcott. walcott is the most underated heavyweight of all time.

He didn't tire WHAT? He was Superman?

Ever heard of a 2nd wind? Yes Walcott had some sucess in 11-12 but from rounds 4-9 if you can't see that Joe was visibly tired you are blind.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have better stamina approaching 40 then you have in yout early 30s. You are clutching at straws here. Marciano over Jersey Joe was a great win, but don't stretch the state of Walcott to make it seem better than it was.