Rocky Marciano: An Enduring Legacy Into Mythology

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 31 May 2007, 21:14

Now that's a catchy tune.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 01 Jun 2007, 13:16

Homicidehenry-why you are talking about what you said on another thread (Muhammad Ali: A career broken down") doesn't really make sense to me but anyway;

My biggest overall point is about the other thread is that it's so unbalanced that if someone just went by what is said, they wouldn't have nearly the high opinion of Ali that they should.

I already addressed the major problems with how it's unbalanced in the other thread. (There other smaller problems that I didn't address.)

As for your latest points:
1. You point out that he won the Gold Medal but struggles with a lefthander. I probably wouldn't even mention his amateur career but if I did I wouldn't mention the "trouble (such as it was) with the lefthander.
If you did a "career broken down" of Joe Louis, who you mention that he lost to Max Marek in the amateurs?

2. Ironically one of the rare times when you say indicate something good about Ali and it's about Lamar Clark?

Clark was a phony who built up fighting novices. His record is more padded that Don Steele, Dick Ryan and Brian Nielson.

3. I didn't criticize your comment about Moore. In fact, I probably have less regard for beating him than you do.

4. My problem with Cooper is that you are a broken record with this. When people talk about Holmes, the Snipes knockdown isn't mentioned constantly. Do you talk incessantly about Marciano's fights with Ted Lowry?
As for Doug Jones, no Ali didn't look vulnerable. Jones was a good fighter fought a very good fight but Ali won and deserved the decison. It was the Fight of the Year.

5. I didn't think it was a disgrace that you didn't say much about the 2nd Liston fight. I pretty much ignore it myself.

6. Certainly some of Ali's opponents were better than others. However, you aren't being balanced when you point out mediocre opponents, but don't single out the great fighters he fought.

7. Here you give a more balanced look at Williams. However, in your post "Muhammad Ali: A Career Broken Down" you give a completely unbalanced version. You didn't mention that Williams was still a pretty good fighter.

8. Again in the other thread, you give the impression that Norton should have gotten the decision in the 2nd fight. "Some might argue that Norton was robbed." You didn't mention that most people think Ali won this fight or that you yourself thought Ali won.

9. You are pretty much making the same point as your point # 6 which I already answered.

10. The Superfight. The problem, you seem to be giving the impression that you are using this as some sort of evidence that Marciano would have beaten. (Same with the Jeffries computer fight for that matter.) There is no reason to mention these things whatsover. I also thought it was pointless that you mentioned plays and movies that Ali starred in but didn't think it was worth commenting on.

11. Where do other boxers rank Ali? I didn't comment on this because I didn't think it was worth it. I am willing to listen to what an old fighter thinks of another fighter but I take it with a grain of salt. And once again in this case it's very unbalanced. (What a surprise that Frazier doesn't have him on top. He even has Ali behind himself

) You could also easily find other fighters who thought Ali was the best.

Btw-I wouldn't put too much stock in Bert Sugar's opinion. Bert is a great old guy but he really isn't that knowledgable. He is very biased toward fighters from his era of the 1940's and 1950's. When he did his rankings on a ESPN special, he was asked why he rated Louis over Ali. All he could come up with was that Louis was a 'hero to my generation".

I will give you credit for mentioning that Ring Magazine voted him the number #1 heavyweight and that boxrec ratings has him #1. Once again, though I don't think these things are that important.

To sum things up:
Don't start any more more anti-Ali threads. Actually, it's not necessarily to start a thread on anyone just to rip him.

-Be balanced.

-Try not to say things that are factually incorrect. Do research. If you aren't sure about something, look it up. If you can't find, don't mention it. Or you can ask on this forum does anyone know about this or that.

-Don't criticize Ali for anything that you wouldn't criticize anyone else for.

One thing that is really hard to do is to be objective about someone whom you have a strong opinion about. It's human nature to be overly critical toward fighters who you don't like and to be overly praiseworthy toward the fighters that you like a lot.
ie-Carlos Monzon killed a woman. I still rate him the #1 middleweight of all time. Jake LaMotta was a wifebeater. I still rate him as a great fighter.
On the other hand, everything that I know of Danny Lopez indicates he is a great guy and was fun to watch. However, I realize he had his limitations and I try not to rate him higher than he should be.

It's great that you are enthusiastic about the sport. Just try to be more objective.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Jun 2007, 13:42

I hope you know that the "superfight" was based on very basic software and run on a computer about as sophisticated as a Think-A-Tron.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 01 Jun 2007, 15:11

The only last thing I want to say about Ali (especially in here, which has nothing to do with Ali and I partly blame myself for talking too much about Ali in this Marciano thread) is that, you know, some people are convinced he lost to Doug Jones. I thought Ali won. I have no qualms about saying Ali lost a fight. I didn't think he beat Young, Norton III, Shavers. He was declining in those fights, and I don't think he loses those fights in his younger years, but the fact remains. He was young for Jones too. Not in perfect shape. But I thought he won. I think the controversy comes mainly from the fact that the fight was in MSG, and the crowd was going nuts for the hometown fighter, and people get carried away. I even think you can make the case Norton won the second fight, I could go either way on that. But even then, Ali had a hand injury. Ali was never really 100% in any of the three Norton fights, people don't point that out. Ali's right hand was still injured even in his next fight against Lubbers. He threw very few right hands against Norton in the second fight, and to me that's really the only thing that made it close. He even said after the fight that his hand was damaged. Pacheco had to give him injections in his hands during those years. When Ali had close/controversial fights, there was usually a reason.

As for the computer fight, I understand that henry was just pointing it out as something Ali was doing at the time, while he was off in those years. I don't think he was using it to attack Ali. Obviously the 'fight' itself means nothing. In fact, according to Sugar, the computer fight in England had Ali winning, because he was more popular there while Marciano was more popular here.

As for Sugar's rating, I heard him say on a radio show that he puts Louis above Ali because of the three year layoff. I suppose he means that if Ali had his best years he would put him ahead. But, even if he had Ali at #1, I still don't think Sugar is all that great an analyst... even if he is an ok (not great) historian.

Now, back to Marciano..

I still wonder how Rocky looks at 35-36. That's old for a fighter, especially then, and with his style he might have burned out by then. Still, Cooper and Johannson are not tall orders. Who knows. What about Marciano-Patterson in those years?

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 02 Jun 2007, 01:20

I Feel Fine wrote:The only last thing I want to say about Ali (especially in here, which has nothing to do with Ali and I partly blame myself for talking too much about Ali in this Marciano thread) is that, you know, some people are convinced he lost to Doug Jones. I thought Ali won. I have no qualms about saying Ali lost a fight. I didn't think he beat Young, Norton III, Shavers. He was declining in those fights, and I don't think he loses those fights in his younger years, but the fact remains. He was young for Jones too. Not in perfect shape. But I thought he won. I think the controversy comes mainly from the fact that the fight was in MSG, and the crowd was going nuts for the hometown fighter, and people get carried away. I even think you can make the case Norton won the second fight, I could go either way on that. But even then, Ali had a hand injury. Ali was never really 100% in any of the three Norton fights, people don't point that out. Ali's right hand was still injured even in his next fight against Lubbers. He threw very few right hands against Norton in the second fight, and to me that's really the only thing that made it close. He even said after the fight that his hand was damaged. Pacheco had to give him injections in his hands during those years. When Ali had close/controversial fights, there was usually a reason.

As for the computer fight, I understand that henry was just pointing it out as something Ali was doing at the time, while he was off in those years. I don't think he was using it to attack Ali.
Obviously the 'fight' itself means nothing. In fact, according to Sugar, the computer fight in England had Ali winning, because he was more popular there while Marciano was more popular here.
Now, I don't think the Marciano-Ali computer fight is very significant either, but just a correction here- this is one of the many inaccuracies Sugar makes in his commentaries, either by mistake or to make a more interesting story. Actually, the computer used for the match did, in fact, predict the Marciano 13th-round knockout victory as shown in the U.S. as being the most likely outcome(again, I don't think this simulation was necessarily at all accurate, and besides which, Ali's career was very incomplete at this point and hence the information being drawn on was also- he hadn't yet shown his tremendous durability or resilience at this point in his career, which I think would be major assets for him against Marciano), but other endings were filmed as well in order to make sure no one knew what the actual result would be and the outcome wouldn't be leaked until the "fight" was shown in theaters- but in some regions of Europe, editors who preferred the other outcome released the version with Ali stopping Marciano on cuts.

I still wonder how Rocky looks at 35-36. That's old for a fighter, especially then, and with his style he might have burned out by then. Still, Cooper and Johannson are not tall orders. Who knows. What about Marciano-Patterson in those years?

Well, Marciano had heart, a punch, and a chin, which are the kind of attributes that hang around even into old age, and he never relied all that much on most of the attributes that tend to decline the most(timing, reflexes, agility), so I think he probably could have continued successfully for a few more years. However, without his incredible stamina(which would no doubt have left him by then) and intensive training regimen(he was beginning to lose his vigor in training camp by the Cockell and Moore fights, which was one of the reasons he thought it was time to retire), he would probably be pretty vulnerable to defeat by an opponent with skill who was capable of extending him into the late rounds. I think he would still have beaten Johansson and Cooper, as the simulation indicates, because those guys weren't terribly slick or durable and he would probably get rid of them in the first half of the fights, but I'd imagine guys like Machen and Patterson would present serious obstacles at that point.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 02 Jun 2007, 01:29

Well whatever. I'm not sure that contradicts what Sugar said. But, as I said, Sugar is an ok, not great, historian, and not a good analyst... I suppose I should have taken my own advice

I still don't think we know how Marciano ages. Anything could have happened to him. Frazier didn't improve with age. But, as I said earlier, if he's going to beat anyone at 35-36, Johannson and Cooper seem like the best candidates... they are not tall orders.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 02 Jun 2007, 02:14

I Feel Fine wrote:Well whatever. I'm not sure that contradicts what Sugar said. But, as I said, Sugar is an ok, not great, historian, and not a good analyst... I suppose I should have taken my own advice

Sugar made it sound as though the producers had just invented the outcome to make whomever was more popular win. In reality, the computer fight as it was shown in most places(notably the U.S.) did reflect the simulator's predicted most-likely result, a Marciano 13th-round KO. It's simply that multiple outcomes were filmed to keep the ultimate result a secret, and in some places, the Ali-cuts-stoppage version was released as well. And again, because I will no doubt be accused of being a mindless worshipper for this and most any post I make which reflects positively on Marciano(not saying that you were suggesting that, just that it is often done towards just about anyone who supports or defends Marciano or anything related to him), I'm not saying in any way that this computer fight would therefore reflect the actual outcome of a fight between Marciano and Ali- I don't have much faith on the ability of present-day computers to predict fights, let alone those of the late 1960s.

I still don't think we know how Marciano ages.

Didn't say we do, just giving my best guess. Every hypothetical-situation discussion we have on this forum is based on educated guesswork.

Anything could have happened to him. Frazier didn't improve with age.

I didn't say he would improve with age- I said he'd get worse, and in a similar way to Frazier, too(losing conditioning and long-term stamina). I merely suggested that, given his heart, chin and power, which would probably stay with him into old age, he could probably have been successful for a few more years after his actual retirement, similar to the simulator being used here(which I would bet is considerably more accurate than the "Superfight" simulator was, by the way) had it happening.

But, as I said earlier, if he's going to beat anyone at 35-36, Johannson and Cooper seem like the best candidates... they are not tall orders.

I think you're selling Johansson short here, and you're not alone, either. He seems very underappreciated and underrated. I'd like to remind everyone that Johansson annihilated an undefeated and #1-ranked Eddie Machen in one round and left him out so cold he looked as though he may have been dead, and mopped the floor with a prime Patterson in three rounds, far worse than anyone outside Liston ever could. His only losses were the Patterson rematches, and even then, he did have Patterson down twice and nearly out in the first round of their third fight, and this being with the three-knockdown rule in effect.
I really find it pretty bizarre to look through the "top 100 heavyweights" thread and see how many people have Johansson outside the top 40 and have Machen ahead of him- Johansson had a better resume than Machen, Johansson had a better record than Machen, Johansson was champion, while Machen wasn't, and Johansson easily mopped the floor with Machen himself in one round, but Machen still somehow ranks higher?! If you're going to rank Machen ahead of Johansson, why even bother having fights in boxing?
Anyway, getting back to the point: although I think Johansson is very underrated and underappreciated, I don't think he would have a particularly difficult style for Marciano, since he wasn't too immensely elusive or durable and had a limited offensive arsenal. I think Marciano-probably even an aged Marciano- would most likely finish him off in the first six or seven rounds. Cooper probably goes sooner.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 02 Jun 2007, 15:27

I didn't say Johannson sucked, either. But in the Pantheon of Heavyweight champions he's not Louis or Ali, or Holmes or Holyfield, or Charles or Patterson. Marciano could hurt him, Johannson would have trouble hurting Marciano, and generally speaking that's the story of the fight. I think that's impacted by Marciano's age, but he might still beat him. If its Liston he's facing then its another story. I'm not even sure prime Marciano could beat Liston.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 02 Jun 2007, 15:29

I Feel Fine wrote:I didn't say Johannson sucked, either. But in the Pantheon of Heavyweight champions he's not Louis or Ali, or Holmes or Holyfield, or Charles or Patterson. Marciano could hurt him, Johannson would have trouble hurting Marciano, and generally speaking that's the story of the fight. I think that's impacted by Marciano's age, but he might still beat him. If its Liston he's facing then its another story. I'm not even sure prime Marciano could beat Liston.

Generally agreed. I think that even an older Marciano would at least have a strong chance at beating Johansson, but that he would have to be at his absolute best in order to beat Liston.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jun 2007, 12:44

"top 100 heavyweights" thread and see how many people have Johansson outside the top 40 and have Machen ahead of him- Johansson had a better resume than Machen, Johansson had a better record than Machen, Johansson was champion, while Machen wasn't, and Johansson easily mopped the floor with Machen himself in one round, but Machen still somehow ranks higher?!

johannsen doesnt have the better resume than machen simply because johannsen didnt fight any american fighters outside of machen and patterson. he didnt take on tons of top 10 ranked fighters of that era like machen did, machens far more proven vs the field and depth of top level. machens wins over Nino Valdez 2x, Hurricane Jackson, Jerry Quarry, Mike Dejohn 2x, Wayne Betha, Pat Mcmurty, John Holman, Young Jack Johnson, doug jones, Johnny Summerlin, plus his 2 draws with cleveland williams and zora folley are arguebably equal to ingos 2 victories over machen and patterson.

in a way the paterson and machen victories were sneaky and cheap since both floyd and eddie had no idea about ingos right hand since he kept it a secret and he suprised them both. eddie very well could have taken ingo in a rematch

Eddie seemed far more veratile at dealing with wide variety of styles than ingo, who seemed very one dimensional. eddie was the better boxer. if u knew about ingos right hand, then u had a much better chance of beating him.

also take into consideration feather fisted brian london knocked johannsen out cold in there fight.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 03 Jun 2007, 18:38

2. Ironically one of the rare times when you say indicate something good about Ali and it's about Lamar Clark? Clark was a phony who built up fighting novices. His record is more padded that Don Steele, Dick Ryan and Brian Nielson.

I personally cannot say that Clark's opponents were all bums. Yes I have seen his record on this site and it does appear that way, but you have to agree that this site isn't exactly 100% fool proof and I doubt that they would have every single Oklahoma based fighters record. Clark was ranked rather high (near the top 10 I believe, as on Tony Burton's bio it is mentioned his greatest success as a boxer was losing to #10 ranked Clark).

I mean take Jem Roche for instance, his record was and still isnt even complete on this site---wasn't until me and Steve-O gave information that it made Roche look more formidable opponent for Tommy Burns, though I must admit, I didn't have all of Roche's fights and dates as his record has more than 30 fights and all I had was around 15 or so to offer.

But even if it is true, that his opponents were mostly bums, knocking out 45 men straight and even six on a night, five on another is still tremendous punching power, no matter what level of opposition you are facing. The only man I can think of who out did Clark on that level was Bob Fitzsimmons beating 7 men in 8 fights (fought one of the 7 twice) all in a days time.

Plus 'padded record' or not Clark was a 'veteran' of over 45 bouts to Ali's 3 or 4 fights, and Ali still knocked him out. That is still tremendous feat for just a young turn out, Olympic champion or not.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 03 Jun 2007, 19:07

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
"top 100 heavyweights" thread and see how many people have Johansson outside the top 40 and have Machen ahead of him- Johansson had a better resume than Machen, Johansson had a better record than Machen, Johansson was champion, while Machen wasn't, and Johansson easily mopped the floor with Machen himself in one round, but Machen still somehow ranks higher?!

johannsen doesnt have the better resume than machen simply because johannsen didnt fight any american fighters outside of machen and patterson. he didnt take on tons of top 10 ranked fighters of that era like machen did, machens far more proven vs the field and depth of top level. machens wins over Nino Valdez 2x, Hurricane Jackson, Jerry Quarry, Mike Dejohn 2x, Wayne Betha, Pat Mcmurty, John Holman, Young Jack Johnson, doug jones, Johnny Summerlin, plus his 2 draws with cleveland williams and zora folley are arguebably equal to ingos 2 victories over machen and patterson.

Machen beat more American fighters, but being American doesn't automatically make you great. Especially if you're an over-the-hill John Holman or Young Jack Johnson. Johansson absolutely cleaned out the European scene with dominant wins over Cooper, Cavicchi, Erskine, Hoff, London, Neuhaus, etc.- most every conceivable noteworthy European opponent out there. And he absolutely annihilated Machen and Patterson in his wins over them.

in a way the paterson and machen victories were sneaky and cheap since both floyd and eddie had no idea about ingos right hand since he kept it a secret and he suprised them both.

Is that not sound boxing strategy and ring intelligence? George Foreman deliberately held back on a lot of his power punches throughout the Moorer fight until Moorer started becoming less cautious, then took him out. It's the same theory. Playing possum, lulling your opponent into complacency, etc. are legitimate strategies which an intelligent fighter can utilize.

Eddie seemed far more veratile at dealing with wide variety of styles than ingo, who seemed very one dimensional. eddie was the better boxer. if u knew about ingos right hand, then u had a much better chance of beating him.

When exactly did Machen have more success against a particular style of opponent than Johansson? As I recall, aside from Johansson bludgeoning Machen himself all around the ring and leaving him stone-cold out in one round, Machen took a savage beating and lost every round against Patterson- Johansson blitzed Patterson the first time and nearly had him again in their third fight. I don't see much of anything but speculation to support your position.

also take into consideration feather fisted brian london knocked johannsen out cold in there fight.

Actually, this is a myth. You will often hear about how Johansson was out cold and "won the fight flat on his back," but watch the film and you'll see this is a tall tale, much like the "Ali-Cooper break between the fourth and fifth was three-and-a-half minutes long" story. Johansson was well ahead on points in the last five seconds of a match, probably starting to let his guard down in anticipation of the final bell as you often see fighters do. London seized the opportunity, clocked him by surprise and did put him down, but in fact Johansson was quite conscious and was up at four as the bell rang.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 03 Jun 2007, 22:04

I just want to put my view on the NCR-315 computer [based out of the NCR company of Dayton, Ohio] that Murray Woroner used in the 1967 "All-Time Heavyweight Championship Tournament" and in the 1969 [though released in 1970 in theatres and later ABC's Wide Wolrd of Sports] on the Ali-Marciano debacle.

These computers, though not the more advanced hardware that we have today, certainly were capable of making a decent simulation. After all, NASA used these very same computers in the space race to the moon against the Russians.

Computers are only 'smart' and only 'know' what they are told. Like Einstein once said "Computers are fast but stupid, while humans are slow and brilliant."

I use the fight between Joe Frazier and Bob Foster as a great example of this, considering Woroner used the NCR for that particular bout. The computer predicted that Foster would win by knock out in six rounds over Joe Frazier.

Now what Woroner and the NCR company didn't take into consideration, or as serious as they should have, was the great disparity between a light heavyweight (champion or not) and a heavyweight (champion or not).

Sure Foster had tremendous power, but it was still Light Heavyweight power. Sure Foster had more defenses than Joe Frazier, but they were Light Heavyweight defenses. All Woroner and NCR seen was that statistically Foster was the harder puncher and 'better' champion, in terms of defenses.

Come fight night, Frazier knocks out Foster in the 2nd round of a scheduled 15. Not surprising considering that Foster had been knocked out by heavyweight Charles Polite years before, who was far from anything great as a fighter.

This is the reason why simulation is a very delicate process, computers can't be blamed for what isn't expressed by the programmers. Or possibly, the 'value' of a certain formula [let's say 'toughness'] is exaggerated. This is true, I believe in the 1967 tournament as it had Joe Louis beat Jess Willard in 14 rounds by KO, when if it actually did happen, it would probably be much like the Louis-Carnera fight. Woroner and NCR exaggerated Willard's courage and toughness.

What could be said of the Marciano-Ali fight?

Marciano statistically was the hardest hitting Heavyweight champion up until that time, and was really the only Heavyweight champion to retire undefeated (Jefferies did, but his comeback failed, and Tunney had lost before he was ever champion). Marciano's toughness and ferocity can be argued, but generally when people think Rocky they think he has second to none toughness and a brutal fighter. Always in superb conditioning and had a busy work rate. The only real weakness that was ever expressed in the simulation was Marciano's tendency to cut (outside of his shorter reach and size).

Ali was the fastest Heavyweight champion up until that time (and still is), was undefeated at 29-0 at the time with nine title defenses, was an amateur great, highly unorthodox style worked for him, superb use of lateral foot movement made him all but untouchable. His toughness was a big question mark at that time, being as nobody rarely seen him get hit and prove he could take a punch until the 1970's when he was slower. The 'experts' at the time had seen him be dropped by Cooper and Banks, making them think his chin wasn't impregnable---but they gave him props because he did beat some hard punchers like Liston.

The simulation still showed that Rocky was a bloody pulp and the fight was almost stopped at one point due to it. Somehow Rocky manages to turn up the heat and gets the KO in the 13th round, with the threat of losing by TKO himself hanging over him. The fight up until that time was a draw.

I guess what I am saying is, based on what people knew at the time, it was a decent enough simulation. Had people at that time seen him against Frazier, Norton and Foreman, they would have realised Ali had just as big a heart as Marciano did and just how tough he was.

The information just wasn't there, and what people seen was either exaggerated or downplayed or excused.

Now had they did the simulation knowing what they would know in a few more years...very well could have been a TKO 14th or 15th win for Ali, or a decison win for Ali. But I personally think the fight, stoppage or not, would have been close the whole time through.

Also, I do think the computer, though not as advanced as the modern day computers, was right in the sense that it would have taken a man in the form and style of Marciano to have beaten Ali---as Joe Frazier was the first man to beat Ali, and gave Ali hell all three times they fought.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Jun 2007, 09:06

Frazier didn't give Ali "hell in all 3 fights". Ali won the 2nd fight relatively comfortably.

You are entitled to your opinion that Marciano had the style to give Ali a tough fight. I think that Ali would have had little trouble hitting Marciano who wasn't as good defensively as Frazier and wouldn't have had as much trouble beating Maricano.

Bob Foster did not get knocked out by Charlie Polite. Foster knocked Polite out in three rounds.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Jun 2007, 12:39

Ambling Alp wrote:Frazier didn't give Ali "hell in all 3 fights". Ali won the 2nd fight relatively comfortably.

You are entitled to your opinion that Marciano had the style to give Ali a tough fight. I think that Ali would have had little trouble hitting Marciano who wasn't as good defensively as Frazier and wouldn't have had as much trouble beating Maricano.

Bob Foster did not get knocked out by Charlie Polite. Foster knocked Polite out in three rounds.

"comfortably"

I scored that fight a draw, and if the fight was so comfortable Ali wouldn't have had to excessively hold like an octopus so much it makes Klitschko-Peter look an 100 meter dash.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Jun 2007, 12:45

You scored the 2nd Ali-Frazier a draw?
Are you serious?

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Jun 2007, 12:55

Ambling Alp wrote:You scored the 2nd Ali-Frazier a draw?
Are you serious?

A draw does seem a bit generous for Joe, but it was a close fight. And calling it a “comfortable” win doesn’t seem quite right either. There were many rounds where Ali looked anything but comfortable in there with Joe. In fact, with a more assertive ref, it could have been a completely different outcome.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 04 Jun 2007, 14:12

dempseyfire wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:Frazier didn't give Ali "hell in all 3 fights". Ali won the 2nd fight relatively comfortably.

You are entitled to your opinion that Marciano had the style to give Ali a tough fight. I think that Ali would have had little trouble hitting Marciano who wasn't as good defensively as Frazier and wouldn't have had as much trouble beating Maricano.

Bob Foster did not get knocked out by Charlie Polite. Foster knocked Polite out in three rounds.
"comfortably"

I scored that fight a draw, and if the fight was so comfortable Ali wouldn't have had to excessively hold like an octopus so much it makes Klitschko-Peter look an 100 meter dash.

That's a lot of exaggerating. It was a close fight. A draw? No. More holding than Wlad-Peter? I don't think so. Again, I didn't see Ali doing anything I haven't seen a lot of other fighters do before. Things are always macro analyzed when its Ali. I could just list the number of performances that are considered great where fighters held as much or more than Ali did.

Holyfield's performance against Tyson is an immortal performance... he held a as much as Ali did.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Jun 2007, 14:22

Ali certainly looked completely relaxed to me. Frazier did little damage. He landed a couple of good lefthooks that had no effect on Ali.

It would be generous to give Frazier more than 4 rounds. This wasn't a lopsided fight, but there should be no question that Ali won it. It really wasn't that close. Until recently, it never occurred to me that anyone would question this decision. However, I guess I should know by now that all of Ali's wins are questioned.

I have never understood this holding complaint. It's not like every clinch is iniated soley by Ali. Watch almost any Lennox Lewis fight and he holds a lot more than Ali in this fight.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 04 Jun 2007, 18:49

Frazier didn't give Ali "hell in all 3 fights". Ali won the 2nd fight relatively comfortably.

You are entitled to your opinion that Marciano had the style to give Ali a tough fight. I think that Ali would have had little trouble hitting Marciano who wasn't as good defensively as Frazier and wouldn't have had as much trouble beating Maricano.

Bob Foster did not get knocked out by Charlie Polite. Foster knocked Polite out in three rounds.

I personally don't see how Frazier was better defensively than Rocky. Frazier was a tad bit more aggressive than Marciano, which might have made him a harder opponent for Ali, but it left him open for many shots. Rocky was deceptively defensive, where as one shot might have landed out of a flurry of punches---as he blocked most his blows with his arms and the majority, if they did land, was on top of his head.

I think Marciano would have been a tough opponent for Ali. His work rate alone makes him formidable, he averaged 80-85 punches thrown a round and it wasn't uncommon for him to exceed 100 punches in a round. He worked at a middleweight pace, and he never stopped moving forward and he never stopped throwing bombs. Every punch was hard and for the kayo.

I do agree considering Marciano's short reach [68"] and height [almost 5'11"] he would have had great difficulties at times to get an affective attack going on---but Ali would constantly have to be on the move, because Marciano would just keep on coming with the shots.

Yes Ali would be Marciano's toughest opponent, but then again Marciano certainly would have been just as hard a test for Ali. Personally, I can see Ali beating all of Marciano's opponents of his era, and I can see Marciano beating all of Ali's opponents [with the lone exception of George Foreman].

I can't see Quarry beating Rocky. I can't see Norton doing it. I can't see Bob Foster doing it. I can't see Henry Cooper doing it. Or Ernie Terrell. Or Zora Folley. Just as much as I can't see Archie Moore beating Ali. Or Rex Layne. Or Don Cockell. Or Ted Lowery. Or Roland LaStarza.

I think you get the jist of what I am saying.

As far as Ali winning the 2nd fight comfortably, I dunno about that. It was close, and while not as exciting as their first and last bouts, it certainly is a far more thrilling fight than what today's lugs can produce. I don't think a draw or even a split decision is 'too generous'.

And hey, Frazier was pretty much the lone exception out of all of Ali's opponents [except Ken Norton] to give him that much trouble, hurt him that often, and go virtually the distance every time out. Frazier had the right style, right amount of power and right amount of toughness and determination and ferocity to do it.

Rocky outbeats Frazier in conditioning. Rocky had just as impressive a left hand as Frazier's. Rocky hit harder than Frazier. Rocky fought the same as Joe Frazier. Rocky worked at a more busier rate than Frazier [the volume of his punches].

Rocky just had a short reach, was shorter than Joe, and had the tendency to cut. Does that alone make the difference in an Ali-Marciano hypothetical? Ali had trouble with men smaller than him generally, and with Marciano's bobbing and weaving, he'd be a very, very difficult target to hit so 'easily' as you think it to be.

Have you ever seen the height differentials between the two men? If Marciano bobbed down Ali would only end up hitting him in the back of the head and probably be fouled out by too many rabbit shots. That would be a risk Ali would have to take---cus Marciano was not even 5'11" and ducked down to make himself half his size---while Ali fought off his toes making him 'taller'.

In my opinion that would just leave Ali open for body shots, which was Marciano's forte.

Can I say Marciano would win? No I can't. Do I think he could? If it was a trilogy I could see Marciano winning at least one of the three, maybe two of the three just like Frazier [who won 1 out of 3 against Ali]. Do I think Marciano has a great chance at losing? Yes, but didn't everybody Ali faced have a great chance at losing?

Like I said before at the beginning of this thread, somewhere between the two ideals that Ali would slash Marciano to bits and easily decision him without breaking a sweat, and Marciano beating Ali so badly to the body and head that he wins by KO easily----somewhere is the truth.

And...my apologies, I stand corrected. You're right, Foster never lost to Polite. Though he did lose to much smaller HW's such as Doug Jones and feather puncher Erie Terrell by knock out.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 04 Jun 2007, 20:33

Well Foster was 10-0 when he fought Jones. He did as well as you can expect against Terrell, Terrell was so much bigger. Terrell looked like Valuev next to Foster

Frazier has things that Marciano doesn't have. I think Joe's punches are faster. Joe weighs more. Joe's reach is longer. Joe throws about as many punches. Joe is as good or better at body punching. Joe cuts off the ring as well. The only thing I can say for Marciano is his right hand is harder, and he's not a slow starter like Joe.

But I find it hard to believe that Frazier doesn't KO old Louis, Walcott, Charles, Moore... I suspect he might beat them easier than Marciano did. I don't think Marciano does any better against Joe's opponents. Not worse, but not better.

I don't think Ali has any problems hitting Marciano if Walcott could hit him so easily.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 05 Jun 2007, 00:57

I agree that Joe's left hook was faster than Marciano's right or left hand, but then again Joe Frazier was just that, a left hand puncher, though he is quite arguably the most successful 'one handed' fighter in boxing history. Every punch but the left hook was merely a diversion to set up the left hook.

Marciano, despite much criticism, actually was a fast starter, as the majority of his opponents early on were knocked out in just a few rounds. Like Marciano figured, "Why waltz ten rounds with an opponent, if you can knock him out in one?"

Terrell was 6'6" compared to Ali's 6'3". Much longer reach as well. Ali easily handled him. Reach and height can be good assets to a fighter, but the big men usually are always the big men and never fight any other way than a big man; Valuev was one of the few exceptions I have ever seen of someone having the greatest diversity in height and range over an opponent, yet could fight just as good on the inside. Most bigger men can't. That has been proven in the career of Jack Dempsey who perferred fighting much bigger men, because they were a much larger target to hit.

I never said Frazier couldn't have beaten Walcott, Charles, Moore, etc. I said I could never invision Ali losing to Marciano's opponents, just as much as I can't see Marciano losing to the majority of Ali's opponents [the only one I can't see Rocky beating is Foreman; if Frazier couldn't there is a tremendous possibility Marciano couldn't either].

Frazier was a great body puncher, yes, but then again I haven't ever really heard the stories of Joe's prowess in that area as I have with Marciano. Joe could weaken a man with body shots and then knock him out but Rocky would hit the arms, the body until bones either broke or their guard was dropped so it opened up for Susie Q or the left hook, like he done against Roland LaStarza in the second fight.

Like I said before, I do believe Ali would be Marciano's toughest opponent, and would have a little trouble communicating his shots from time to time because of Ali's amazing speed and lateral foot movements; but you have to realise with the Walcott fight for a majority of rounds Marciano fought blind, just like Ali did against Sonny Liston, due to some sort of liniment getting into his eyes---and Walcott is extremely under rated, and often the most dismissed of HW challengers and champions; that man was an innovator of moves, not an imitator, he was cagey and he was very tricky.

Walcott would pose even problems for Ali. Not to say Ali would lose to Walcott, but out of all the past champions, it is Walcott's unusual style and phenomenal skill that would make him a test for Ali. Much like Ali himself, with his great improvising abilities and foot work.

But back to Joe. Yes he cut off the ring, but so did Marciano, that is what swarmers like Frazier, Marciano, Tyson and Dempsey do. Joe yes has a longer reach and weighs more---but what if Rocky fought in the 1970's or even today, he would probably have weighed around 200. Myself I really don't see why because Frazier weighs more he is better than Marciano? If Joe Louis is considered the #2 HW champion in history, then obviously his 198 pounds doesn't really matter when it comes to that ranking.

If we went by size alone, Valuev would be considered the greatest of all time. But like I told you all before, because many of you said he was just too big, that a smaller HW with good power and knowledgable in body punching would beat him---Ruslan Chagaev did just that and he is 220 compared to the 245+ pound giants of today and 6' in height, and I just bet if he came in at 215, he would have a much better work rate.

I guess the best way to determine how well Marciano would have done against the likes of Ali is to figure out how well Marciano would have done against "The Black Marciano" Joe Frazier.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 05 Jun 2007, 02:33

Btw, back on the Ingo-Marciano hypothetical, I came across an article [actually a mentioning of a 1959 article] on Marciano in Argosy magazine entitled "I Can Beat Ingo". I was wondering if anyone could find the full article, it's supposed to also come with pictures.

I think it would be a good thing to see, as the whole 'come back' has been merely a forgotten piece of history and is often dismissed or never brought up in the life and career of Rocky. I think it could possibly give an insight to the life and mind set of a man who "never knew fear, and in my [his] prime could have fought with anybody alive."

I know my request will probably be forgotten, considering we're on an all out war of words and opinions on how good Marciano really was and if he could have been as good as Joe Frazier, but just thought I'd mention it.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 05 Jun 2007, 03:02

I don't necessarily disagree with any on that.

In terms of Terrell-Foster, I was just saying that I think its understandable that a Light Heavyweight would get beat by such a bigger man. Foster did his best, I think, and he wasn't the force he would be in later years either. But even then, Foster didn't seem like he could handle Heavyweight, he seemed to have the least success there of a lot of the great Light Heavyweights who fought at Heavyweight.

I know you didn't say anything about Frazier beating Walcott, Charles, Moore, etc. I was just making a point, I feel that Joe was as good as Marciano, and I feel that if they swapped era's they would have done about the same as each other, and in fact I think Joe might have done even better in Rocky's than Rocky did in his. I think he could have handled Walcott, Charles, Moore and older Louis' styles.

Of Ali's opponents I think Liston might beat him, I would make him a slight favorite. I think Foreman could beat him. I think Frazier might beat him if he doesn't get KO'd early or dropped a lot early. I agree Marciano was not a slow starter, I said the opposite, I think one thing that Rocky does have over Joe is Rocky was good from 1-15, while Joe needed some rounds to warm up.

Is that really true about Marciano-LaStarza? I've only seen the fight once, and I've heard the stories about Marciano breaking LaStarza's arms, but watching the fight I honestly didn't see Marciano landing any real consistent shots on the arms. Maybe I should watch it again, as I said, I only saw it once.

I think Frazier was really good at cutting off the ring, so was Rocky. I wouldn't say one was better than the other. And I think that Joe weighing more might help him, it seems that fighters who weigh more are a bit stronger. Not saying its a big advantage, but I would think it would be some kind of advantage.

As I said earlier, I'm sure Ali-Marciano would be a tough fight, though I would favor Ali. Same with Ali-Walcott.

I googled the "I Can Beat Ingo" article. I found a website that was supposed to have it, but when I got in the website I couldn't find it. Maybe I'll try again tomorrow.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 05 Jun 2007, 03:31

I agree with you on almost all your points. I do think had the two men switched eras, they both would have done as good as the other. And I do think both men are all but identical---but I give Marciano the edge in stamina, work rate and power in both hands, and of course being a good starter compared to Joe.

I think the main difference with Frazier and Marciano is how they went in their fights. Rocky started off strong and continued to pick up the pace as time when on. Joe started slow, but would pick up the pace, drop back again and then come back.

I don't think Joe could take Marciano too lightly. If he was to have a genuine chance at beating Rocky, he would have to set himself at a pace and keep at that pace the entire time. You can't just stop or slow down for too long against Marciano, because he never stopped coming at you and he never stopped throwing bombs.

As for the LaStarza fight, I do bring up Joe Frazier again, as after viewing the fight for himself he proclaimed that the rope a dope wouldn't have worked on Marciano, because he broke LaStarza's blood vessels and chipped his bones in his arms and elbows. On the 'SuperFight' dvd it does go into some detail about that particular fight---saying how LaStarza swore on his life that he urinated blood after the fight because Marciano was just killing his body.

And on Terell-Foster, that was the point I was trying to make. Even then, Foster just never showed that he had the ability to take on better HW's. Didn't matter how hard they hit or not, he just plain got knocked out.

And thanks for googling the article. I might try and search it some more later on. I am really curious as to finding it and showing everybody.