Rocky Marciano: An Enduring Legacy Into Mythology

[Ambling Alp]

In response to some of the recent comments:

-Frazier was certainly better defensively. He used a lot of head movement. Frazier was a better defensively fighter than any heavyweight with that style.
Marciano was easy to hit. He didn't move his head much. He often missed his punches by so much that he left himself wide open. If you watch his fights on film, Walcott,Charles,La Starza, and Moore had little trouble hitting him.
Ali was an extremely accurrate puncher. He would have very little trouble catching Marciano.

-The point about Marciano being so much shorter than Ali so Ali would only be able to hit him with rabbit punches is just silly.

-Ali wasn't "open" for body punches. For Marciano to work the body, he is going to have to get inside first. Marciano would pay a heavy price trying to do that. Ali would tee off on him as he would try to work himself in. Of course Marciano would get in occasionally, but not enough to make much of a difference.

-Frazier wasn't a one-armed fighter. That is a big misconception that some people have of him. His lefthook was so deadly thats all many people talk about. Obviously Frazier's right wasn't as good as Marciano's, but he could do some damage with it.

-No, Marciano left wasn't as hard as Frazier. Marciano had a good left hook, but it wasn't in Frazier class.
Both Marciano and Frazier threw a lot of punches. However, Frazier was more accurrate. He connected more often.

-As for speculating how Marciano would have done against Ali's opponents:
Marciano would most likely lose to Liston, Frazier, and Foreman. Norton and to a lesser extent Quarry,Patterson, and a few others would have given Marciano trouble. Shavers would have a good chance if he landed a bomb before Marciano nailed him. As consistent as Marciano was, if had to fight all of these guys that Ali fought , he may have slipped up once or twice.
Conversely, Marciano could conceiveably win against Liston,Frazier or Foreman but the odds would be against it.

-None of Marciano's opponents would give the 1964-1967 Ali any trouble. Walcott and Charles may have give him some trouble against the 1970-1975 Ali.

-As for as head to head, if we are talking about the 1964-1967 Ali, wins easily. Probably something like 12 rounds to 3. Ali would simply be too fast for him.
Marciano would be more successful against the 1970-1975 Ali. Marciano would be able to hit Ali much more. However, Ali would have less trouble with Marciano than he did with Frazier. He would be able to hit Marciano more often than he hit Frazier. He would also get hit less often against Marciano. This version of Ali would probably win something like 9 rounds to 6.

This isn't meant to be a slam against Marciano. He was a great fighter and was one of the top 10 heavyweights of all time. He just wasn't as good as Ali.

[HomicideHenry]

-No, Marciano left wasn't as hard as Frazier. Marciano had a good left hook, but it wasn't in Frazier class.
Both Marciano and Frazier threw a lot of punches. However, Frazier was more accurrate. He connected more often.

I point out the Harry "Kid" Matthews fight on this one. Two phenomenal left hooks land on the chin of Matthews and he was out like a light bulb inside of three rounds. And Matthews had over seventy fights at that time, and this was before Marciano fought the likes of Walcott, Moore, Charles and Cockell. And Matthews at the time was being pushed as being the next great HW and not Marciano. His left hook was just as good as Frazier's, but Susie Q was like Frazier's left hook---it was more impressive and the most talked about.


As for Frazier's head movement, maybe I am just judging Frazier's head movements on the Ali fights he had---as Joe was easily pegged by Ali and his face swollen and busted. Frazier did look impressive with almost every opponent and hard to hit, but when it came to Ali and Foreman he could be hit, and quite often. So in ways I agree that Marciano would be hit just as much as Frazier---but I personally believe Marciano was the better man when it came to bobbing and weaving, he bent down deeper and made himself a smaller target than Frazier did.


As for the 'rabbit' punches comment, I still stand firm. Ali was known from time to time to hit opponents on the back of the head intentionally or by accident and Marciano with his crouch/swarming style he mostly always got hit on the top and back of his head when opponents were punching downwards at him.


Of course Marciano would have to take two, three or more shots to get on the inside against Ali---but all I was saying was that since Ali fought off his toes to make himself 'taller' and since Ali never was really too good an infighter even in the 1960's I believe he would have been a bigger target and a more easier target at least when it came to body shots, than what people would think. Whether or not Marciano would have hurt Ali with body shots is speculative, but irregardless boxing is a game of points too.


I agree I don't see any of Marciano's opponents giving the 1960's Ali much trouble, let alone beating him. But I do see Walcott giving Ali alot of problems to deal with, if it was the Ali of the 1970's. And I agree as well, outside of the big three: Foreman, Liston and Frazier; Marciano would have no major problems with any of Ali's opponents---other than Foreman, who I don't see Rocky having a chance at all with, I do think in trilogies or anthologies, etc I do see Marciano winning his fair share against the likes of Liston and Frazier---though I must admit it would take a prime Marciano to have that chance.


As for an Ali-Marciano hypothetical, I think there's alot of intangibles to take into consideration. The 1960's Ali was physically the superior fighter and the fastest HW in history, but had the fight taken place in a 16x16 foot ring [much like the 'SuperFight' of 1969] I think Marciano would have a good chance, only because it would have greatly benefited Marciano's ability to cut down the ring making a 16' ring into a 12' to 10' to 8' and so forth. Marciano generally fought alot of his opponents in much smaller rings, compared to Ali who fought in 24x24 foot rings. Still even then Marciano would get busted up by Ali's slashing offense and a TKO is very likely.

As for the Ali of the 1970's the way I see it, it depends on what stage of the 1970's Ali was in. Had it been the Ali who fought Jerry Quarry, Oscar Bonavena, Joe Frazier and Ken Norton the first time around I see Marciano beating Ali. Now the Ali who beat Frazier, Norton the second time and beat Foreman---that in my opinion was the best Ali of the 1970's and if Ali would not use the rope a dope on Marciano as often as he did with Foreman, he could possibly win---but like I said before, you have to set yourself a pace when you are going up against Marciano, you just cant slack off when you are in there with him. The Ali after 1975 would just flat out lose to Marciano and there is no point in arguing that one.

That's the difference between the Ali of the 1960's and 1970's, the younger version was the much busier fighter and had a pace nobody could match, but the 1970's version had to take breaks and relied on taking punishment in part to win his battles. 1960's Ali would more than likely beat Rocky by TKO if not a somewhat wide decision---the 1970's Ali would simply have to work his ass off and not rope a dope a man who could not get tired and who didn't stop punching from bell to bell.

[Ambling Alp]

-Marciano knocked out Harry Kid Mathews with a left hook? So what? Mathews was really just alightheavyweight. Frazier won fights against top heavyweights with his left hook.
-the rabbit punches? Marciano would be bobbing and weaving and Ali would"probably foul out by too many rabbitt punches"? huh? That's not going to happen. He would be able to hit Marciano on the occasions when the fight was on the inside.
Marciano do his bobbing and weaving? He didn't do a lot of this.

-As mentioned before, watch his fights. Walcott,Charles,La Starza and Moore had no trouble hitting him.

Marciano short height is going to help him? Frazier wasn't much taller.
Just who are these small fighters (besides Frazier) that gave Ali trouble?

Ali could fight on the inside. He just didn't do it much because he had such and advantage on the outside. He did work the body but he had a good upper cut and left hook. for example, it was a left that that hurt Bonavena in their fight.
Besides, most of the fight isn't going to be fought inside. Ali is going keep him outside. He would have a huge reach advantage and knew how to use it.

Frazier moved his head much more than Marciano. Frazier was known for bobbing and weaving.

On average Marciano was no more busy or relentless than Frazier. Marciano didn't throw non stop from bell to bell every round. Like everyone else he took short breathers occasionally during a round. There were also times when his opponent was teeing off on him and he wasn't throwing punches.

-As for the 1970-1975 Ali vs Marciano, well I really wasn't counting the Quarry and Bonavena fights. Ali was coming off his 3 and half year layoff and was clearly rusty. Marciano would have a good chance against this version of Ali. Is that really fair? How well would Marciano do fighting Ali after such a long layoff?
I'm skeptical that Marciano would beat the Ali that Frazier beat the first time. Frazier may have fought his best fight and Ali was still competitive.

Ali looked bad in the first Norton fight and Marciano would have beaten him if he fought like that. However this is just 4 of the 22 fights Ali had during this period. With the exception of the Lyle fight, Ali was better than Marciano in the other fights during this period.

-I have no idea why you keep bringing up Foreman and the rope a dope in reference to Ali fighting Marciano. Ali fought a wide range of style and adapted accordingly. He wouldn't just lay on the ropes against Marciano. He would use his jab and throw combinations.
Ali would out land Marciano by at least a 2-1 ratio. Marciano isn't going to win a decison and he isn't going to knock Ali out. He isn't going to win.

[HomicideHenry]

I never said Marciano could knock out Ali.

A decision win for Marciano during certain parts of Ali's career [post 1975, 1970-1971, the first Norton fight] is a very good possibility. Decision wins against Ali at his best in the 1970's, maybe not so good. But I believe in a trilogy he could win at least one of three, just like Frazier done.

Already admitted that the 1960's Ali would be too much for Rocky, losing by a TKO in the later rounds, and if it went to a decision, it would have been a 15 round decision for Ali.

I personally just think of all the top 10 HW's in history, it usually is Marciano who gets the biggest flack against him when it comes to what if bouts against Ali----if Ali fought, let's say Joe Louis, everybody would say it would be close decision win for Ali. If it was Jack Johnson, they would say the same thing. If it was Larry Holmes, they would say the same thing.

But when it comes to Marciano? Well..your comment summed that opinion pretty well:

Ali would out land Marciano by at least a 2-1 ratio. Marciano isn't going to win a decison and he isn't going to knock Ali out. He isn't going to win.

Note- Did you change the post? I coulda swore it originally said 'Marciano isn't going to win anything.'

Anyways...I just think, even after 50+ years, the opinion on Marciano has never changed or bettered. He is still that bum who managed to beat a few old men, or in some peoples minds he was invincible---and well, after 30 so years, Ali only becomes more and more invincible almost to that of a demi-God status being all but Hercules/Superman/The Flash combined. Untouchable, unreachable, too fast, too great, invincible, and all losses he ever had are excusable and can be easily explained and all flaws dismissed.

Bleh...am tired of arguing...Ali's the greatest, Ali would win every round and every second of every moment, Marciano would get dropped a dozen times, face busted open so bad he'd look like a bloody vagina. The end.

Cya pplz laters.

[Ambling Alp]

No, I didn't change the post. If a person edits their post it will say so at the bottom along with the time.

I said that Ali would outland Marciano by a 2-1 ratio mainly because:

1. Ali was a very accurrate puncher
2. Marciano was easy to hit.
3. Marciano wasn't an accurrate puncher.
4. Ali wasn't easy to hit, even in the early 1970's.

No I don't think Marciano was a bum. I think he was one of the top 10 heavyweights of all time. However, when he is compared to the best (Ali) he isn't going to look great. Compare him to 99.99 % of the heavyweights and he would look great.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I would guess that there is a simple explanation why many people think Louis and Johnson would do better than Marciano against Ali:
They consider Johnson and Louis to be a couple of the handful of fighters better than Marciano.
That doesn't mean all of these people think Marciano was a bum, though I'm sure that there is a small percentage that do.

No I don't think that Ali was a god or superman. I do think that he was the greatest heavyweight of all time.
He wasn't perfect, and it's fair to make legitimate criticisms. However, many of the criticisms that he gets aren't legitimate.
Most of the fights that he gets criticized for small bumps in the road when he was the on the way up or mediocre performances when he was past his prime. He shouldn't get criticized for this, especially since other fighters routinely get a free pass on this.

Many of the criticisms concering areas such as his technique and ability have been simply wrong and I am not going to go into them again.

He won a total of 19 decisions in his career. There are many fighters that won many more decisons than that and seldom if ever have any of them questioned.
However, I have seen the majority of Ali's questioned at one time or another. Now, even the first Frazier fight is being called into question. For more than 30 years after the fight I never heard anyone question this. Frazier won at most 4 of the 12 rounds.
Ali certainly gets more than his share of unwarranted criticism.


There are legitimate criticisms:
My biggest would be the first Norton fight. Despite the scoring by the judges, it wasn't even close. Norton did fight a very good fight and should be given credit for it. However, Ali was lethargic, and didn't look good at all.

My next biggest criticism would be the Lyle fight. For the most part, he looked like he did in the first Norton fight until he stepped it up and stopped Lyle. (Whether the fight should have been stopped or not is another story.)

After that, there simply isn't much. The Frazier fight has long been debated. However, even if you completely throw out the 3 and half year layoff, an honest and knowledgable person would still concede that he gave Joe Frazier a very tough fight. That's nothing to be embarrassed about.

After that, there really isn't much to legitimately criticize Ali about. It's certainly not that difficult to come up with more to criticize any other heavyweight about.
Ali was completely dominaint in 10 title fights in his prime. After a long layoff, he was still the best heavyweight in the best era of heavyweights in the history of the sport. It's no wonder why he gets a lot of praise.

[Ezzard]

When anyone, in any discipline, gets the great or greatest tag then they should come under intense scrutiny. This applies to everyone.

If you rate someone as the greatest HW then the yard stick should be applied rigorously.

Ali held on to the title longer than he should mainly because the powers that be and the promoters could make more money out of him. Also, even in fights I thought he lost towards the end they were rarely conclusive defeats and often arguments could be made that he won them.

The only thing I really don't agree with Alp and Fine on is the left hook...

Fighters with far less ability were able to get to Ali more often than they had any right to if they had a decent left hook. This isn't to say anyone with a decent left can beat him, simply that they had a better chance than if their sunday punch was a right hand.

[HomicideHenry]

I agree on alot of your points Alp. The bumps in Ali's road as a fighter usually happened on his way up or on his way down---same can be said of Marciano [the first LaStarza fight, Ted Lowery] when he was on his way up.

Marciano by and large, before he was champion, was alot more easier to hit than the Marciano who fought LaStarza a second time. Joe Louis could hit him quite a few times, LaStarza gave him hell---but either Marciano was on his way up, or he simply wasn't quite sharpened up as a fighter.

The Marciano who fought Louis was more wild and open, while the Marciano who fought Moore threw more shorter punches, had his bobbing and weaving down to a T and was hard to hit. He blocked his punches with his arms and gloves then. He bobbed and weaved much better then.

The argument you present is that compared to Ali, Marciano isn't good. While that logic is probably true, it must apply for every other HW champion and contender in history---all of them wouldn't beat Ali and none of them would look any good in losing either.

I do agree with Ezzard though, that Ali was kept around much longer than he should have, and the 'powers that be' made sure that in his later years that he would remain in that position. While people praised him for his win over Earnie Shavers, I don't. Ali was very lucky to have managed to psyche Shavers out, because had Shavers known Ali was joking he would have stopped him right then and there in that 2nd round.

But you say he can't be judged before he was champion on his way up, and he cant be judged for his way down---yet others are? Why? That doesnt make sense, considering to truly judge how great a fighter is, you have to see their beginning, their development, their downside and their inevitable end.

Yes Ali at his best probably couldn't lose. But the same can be said of possibly Joe Louis or Jack Johnson. Both those men were all but untouchable in their primes and nobody really came close to throwing them off their pedestal. Who's to say those men ain't the greatest either?

Marciano, despite his flaws, found a style and found a way to win no matter how hard and difficult the situation and no matter how skilled his opponent. Like I said before in 'Sometimes It Ain't Enough', there always has to be some reason how such a small, short reached man was so successful. So they bring up how old his opponents were, or the era he was in wasn't good enough.

But until boxing not only seperates divisions by weight, but by age as well. There will always be guys on their way up or down, who fights men older than themselves. Ali fought Moore, who was older on his way up. Ali fought Patterson, who was older, in his prime. Ali fought Cooper on his way up, who was older. Ali fought Liston, who was older.

Does that mean to take away from Ali's accomplishments? No. They were all terrific wins. As was Marciano's wins over Walcott, Charles and Moore. And those men, like Liston, Cooper, Patterson were all near or in their primes. They just were older. But that doesn't automatically mean they were worse.

Marciano just didn't look as impressive as Ali in his wins. But who does? Not everybody can throw a jab that was timed at four one hundreths of a second like Ali. Not everyone could fight in such an unorthodox way of keeping their hands so low and leaning away from punches, and get away with it so good, as Ali did.

And I agree with Ezzard, also, that Ali was able to get hit with a left hook. Not to say just any left hook artist could land a left hook on him, but Ali was able to get caught to the body with a left hook [which ironically is one of Marciano's better punches]. And Ali was also able to get hit with a left hook to the head or body after throwing an uppercut---as Joe Frazier exposed this.

The thing with Ali is that he was so fast that he never really learned to really defend himself on the inside or to really block---why block, why defend, when you're so fast, right? While that may have worked in the 1960's, it certainly didn't work so well against Frazier in 1971, as the 15th and 11th rounds clearly showed with Ali being caught frequently with shots.

So, in Ali fashion, he had to re-learn and improvise a way to do better, to be a step ahead of the game. He developed the rope a dope. He started to take punches more. He upped the psychology to the hilt. He began to block more.

So in his slowness, and in his ignorance [for not attempting to learn the basics earlier] it actually was to his benefit as he pulled off great wins in the 1970's by having to re-learn and to adapt to a different way to win and to succeed against much tougher opponents than he had to face in the 1960's.

For that, Ali is one of the greatest fighters of all time, and not at just HW. Like Foreman when he came back, he knew he had to learn how to be a better fighter, because he was lacking what he once had, else he would continue to lose against the Norton's, the Frazier's and maybe even the Foreman's.

Also...on Marciano, I am currently in the works of doing a piece for this thread, which is realistic views on hypothetical match-ups between Marciano and the generally recognised HW champions through out history. Seeing how Marciano ranks, truly, among the elite.

From John L. Sullivan to Lennox Lewis, the question still rises:

Where does Rocky Marciano truly stand?

[Ambling Alp]

The minor bumps that Ali had on his way up shouldn't be the main focus when judging his career. You keep bringing up short knockdowns (Banks and Cooper) and one body punch that he took in a fight (Powell) and act as if this is the what should be remembered the most of his career. You talk about it more than his many great fights.

These bumps really were minor. Despite a very carefully managed early career Marciano had some bumps when he was coming up as well. He was lucky that the judges gave him a decison over Lowrey, a guy who had a losing record. He wasn't that much more impressive in the rematch. There were other fights that Marciano didn't look great in. By many accounts, if you could see many of Marciano's fights on tape you could find many moments when he looked wild and clumsy. I don't make a big deal of this because it's not very important. I don't think that it should be the focal point of judging Marciano's career.

Neither should they with anyone else. You could do this with anyone else but don't. Frazier got knocked down by Mike Bruce. Dempsey and Johnson didn't have carefully chosen opponents so they lost some fights when they were still inexperienced. Almost everyone realizes that this isn't that important when rating him.
This is sort of like rating major league baseball players on how they did in the minor leagues.

You are in dream land about this bob and weaving- Marciano simply didn't do it much. He was never hard to hit. Moore hit him many times cleanly, and did Charles,Walcott had no trouble hitting Marciano either. If his bobbing and weaving was so great, why were they able to hit him so often?
And La Starza was able to hit Marciano in their 2nd fight. This was a very competitive fight until the later rounds.

As for the downside of Ali and other fighter's career, of course you want to make a big deal of that because it (unfairly) favors Marciano. Marciano quit when he was 31 and we never saw him age in the ring. You are comparing a prime Marciano to an old Ali. We should compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges.

Ali was knocked down a grand total of 3 times by a left hook in his entire 61 fight career against the best competition that any heavyweight ever faced. All three times he was up immediately. The first time was flash knockdown in his 11th fight. He was never knocked down or hurt with it during his real prime (1964-1967). The last time was by the fighter who had perhaps the best lefthook of any heavyweight who ever lived, and he got up without any trouble. He was never knocked down by a left hook the rest of his career. He was not ever hurt or knocked down by Patterson who had a great lefthook. Or by Liston or anyone else.
Saying that Ali was vulnerable to the left hook is like saying Hank Aaron couldn't hit a curve ball.

Of course you aren't impressed with Ali's fight with Shavers. (Assuming that you have actually seen it since previously you incorrectly said Shavers dropped Ali). You don't have seem to have any concept of hard it would be for a 35 year old man to beat probably the hardest hitting fighter in the history of the sport.

Yes, Patterson and Liston were older than Ali was. However, they were still close to their prime. Fraizer and Foreman were younger than Ali.
I don't think Ali beating Moore is any big deal. I know of no one who does. I don't know why you keep bringing this up.

The reason that people bring up the age and quality of Marciano's opponents is because it's the truth.
Charles had lost 5 fights in the last three years. Marciano beating him isn't a big deal.
Moore and Walcott were two exceptions to the age rule. You would be hard pressed to find many other fighters fighting at that level at that age.
The problem with Moore is that he was a lightheavyweight. He fought some heavyweights in the 1940's and 1950's, but unless it was a title fight,he avoided the best heavyweights. In the late 1940's he didn't fight Walcott or Charles. In the 1950's he didn't fight Liston, Johansson,Machen,Folley, or Williams. Most people don't like to point out these unpleasant facts because everyone (including myself) likes Archie. However the facts are the facts. Moore did of course fight Patterson in a title fight and was knocked out in 5 rounds.
Beating Moore was a nice win for Marciano, that's about it.

Beating Walcott was Marciano's biggest win. It's debateable if Walcott was as good as he had been, but he was close. Marciano should (and is usually) be given some credit for this. That is a more impressive win than most heavyweights can claim. Still, this pales in comparison to beating a Liston, Frazier, or Foreman.

I'm not blaming Marciano for not beating better fighters during his title reign. It's wasn't his fault that the division wasn't that strong. Marciano should be given credit for being consistent and not having an off night like most fighters do.
Marciano certainly had some notable strengths such as had great power, a very good chin, a great workrate etc.
However, when comparing him to Ali or another great heavyweight, I'm not going to ignore Marciano weaknesses or pretend that Marciano's competition was strong.

I said that when compared to Ali, Marciano doesn't look great. Whether speculating on a head to head matchup or comparing their achievements, Marciano clearly doesn't match up. A few others (such as Johnson,Louis,Foreman,Frazier,Holmes) while not as good as Ali, were a little better than Marciano and match up a little better.

Where does Marciano truly stand? I have said many times in the Top 10. Probably around #7 or #8.

[dempseyfire]

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.

I don't think that's exggerating at all. And I'm an Ali fan, but I just call it as I see it. For example, people bring up the Doug Jones fight as controversial or a robbery, but I think it's a crystal clear Ali/Clay win. Just as I think the 3rd Norton fight is a crystal clear victory for Norton.

Was Frazier-Ali II a clear Frazier win? No, but it was as clear for Ali as it was for Fraizer. Neither fighter looked very good, but it is true that it should be scored as a negative when a fighter excessively holds. If Frazier is the aggressor, lands some good body shots, while Ali lands a few jabs and holds excessively whenever Frazier gets in close, I believe that round should be scored for Frazier. Excessively holding should not win you rounds in boxing. In Holyfield-Tyson, yes Evander did hold too much in the first 5 rounds or so of that fight, and I could concievably see rounds 3 and 4 of that fight being scored even, or 3 maybe for Tyson, since he did excessively hold.

[BoxBuzz]

"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.

I don't think that's exggerating at all. And I'm an Ali fan, but I just call it as I see it. For example, people bring up the Doug Jones fight as controversial or a robbery, but I think it's a crystal clear Ali/Clay win. Just as I think the 3rd Norton fight is a crystal clear victory for Norton.

Was Frazier-Ali II a clear Frazier win? No, but it was as clear for Ali as it was for Fraizer. Neither fighter looked very good, but it is true that it should be scored as a negative when a fighter excessively holds. If Frazier is the aggressor, lands some good body shots, while Ali lands a few jabs and holds excessively whenever Frazier gets in close, I believe that round should be scored for Frazier. Excessively holding should not win you rounds in boxing. In Holyfield-Tyson, yes Evander did hold too much in the first 5 rounds or so of that fight, and I could concievably see rounds 3 and 4 of that fight being scored even, or 3 maybe for Tyson, since he did excessively hold.

Good judges often differ on who wins close fights. Ali Norton III falls into that catagory Clay Jones does not.

[Ambling Alp]

I'm in agreement with boxbuzz about the judging of the Ali-Norton fight and Clay-Jones.

As for holding, you contantly hear excuses from Tyson fans but I haven't heard even them claim that Holyfield held too much. Clinches happen. If the referee thinks that one guy is doing it excessively, he should warn him, and then start deducting points.

In the 2nd Ali-Frazier fight, the referee didn't do this because he didn't think it was excessive. The judges have to score the fight by the punches landed regradless of what they think of what the referee is doing.
So even if you thought Ali was doing too much holding, it's irrelevant in the scoring.

I can't believe that a knowledgeable and objective person scoring this fight, round by round, just going by the punches landed, could think this was a draw.
dempseyfire-Are you actually scoring each round? It doesn't sound like it.
There was no controversy about the scoring of the this fight. As I have mentioned before, more than 30 years when by before I ever heard anyone complain about the decision.


As for Ali-Norton III, this certainly wasn't crystal clear. Ali only showed flashes of what he used to be able to do, but Norton certainly didn't fight his best fight either. There were certainly several rounds that were close.
This was not an easy fight to score. If you gave either guy every close, he would win big becasue there were so many of them.
Norton certainly didn't have 8 strong rounds that couldn't be scored the other way. He would have to do this for the fight to be crystal clear. This fight could have been scored either way. If you gave either guy every close round, he would win easily.

[Marciano Frazier]

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

Not entirely up to date on this conversation, but if you're trying to defend Foster at heavyweight, I'm afraid it's a lost cause. He lost every single time he ever fought a top 50 heavyweight.

Frazier has things that Marciano doesn't have. I think Joe's punches are faster. Joe weighs more. Joe's reach is longer.

Frazier's reach was 2-3 inches longer than Marciano's, which is scarcely a noticeable difference. What's more, they were both overwhelmingly inside punchers, not jabbers or long-range sluggers, so nitpicking about two or three inches in reach is really pretty silly.

The only thing I can say for Marciano is his right hand is harder, and he's not a slow starter like Joe.

Come on, now, I love Frazier to death, and he does have some advantages over Marciano, but Marciano was a harder hitter with better two-handed power, a sturdier chin, if anything even better stamina, and wasn't as slow a starter.

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 could certainly see Walcott or Charles extending Frazier the distance and potentially even making it very close. I would favor Frazier to win by a clear-cut margin, mind you, but with the skill, speed, conditioning and ring intelligence they possessed, they would absolutely be live underdogs.

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

This is a weak comparison. Ali was an almost exclusively long-range head puncher who relied the most on the jab and straight right hand. Walcott was more of a mid-range hitter who attacked both the head and body and whose arsenal, along with a fair jab, largely consisted of a lot of hooks, uppercuts and crosses. Ali usually "peppered" opponents with dozens of long-range straight punches that didn't necessarily have much on each of them, but which accumulated and frequently resulted in cuts/swelling stoppages or opponents being chipped away at until they went down, while Walcott looked to time and counter his opponents with one telling shot at a time, often resulting in sudden, jolting knockdowns(as he scored against Louis, Charles, Marciano). Besides which, aside from a surprising opening barrage and the knockdown, I don't really see where Walcott landed cleanly "so easily" on Marciano.
Ali himself remarked after sharing a ring with Marciano for the computer fight filming that Marciano was surprisingly hard to hit with a jab, and Dundee agreed with that conclusion. Ali would be punching down with long, straight shots that were generally of the flicking/peppering variety at a crouching-style opponent. I tend to think most of Ali's punches would miss or glance off ineffectually.
That said, I don't think Rocky would have the easiest time landing flush on Ali, either, and Ali would probably connect first and more often. I would favor Ali to edge Marciano out in a close, hard-fought match were the two ever to fight in their primes.

[I Feel Fine]

I don't think that's exggerating at all. And I'm an Ali fan, but I just call it as I see it. For example, people bring up the Doug Jones fight as controversial or a robbery, but I think it's a crystal clear Ali/Clay win. Just as I think the 3rd Norton fight is a crystal clear victory for Norton.

Was Frazier-Ali II a clear Frazier win? No, but it was as clear for Ali as it was for Fraizer. Neither fighter looked very good, but it is true that it should be scored as a negative when a fighter excessively holds. If Frazier is the aggressor, lands some good body shots, while Ali lands a few jabs and holds excessively whenever Frazier gets in close, I believe that round should be scored for Frazier. Excessively holding should not win you rounds in boxing. In Holyfield-Tyson, yes Evander did hold too much in the first 5 rounds or so of that fight, and I could concievably see rounds 3 and 4 of that fight being scored even, or 3 maybe for Tyson, since he did excessively hold.

Yeah, I thought the same about his fights with Jones and Norton III.

There was a lot of clinching in the fight, but I don't know that it was to the point where you start taking points away or give rounds to Frazier that it seemed Ali won. How many points could Ali have lost? One point, two points? That could have a big impact on most people's scorecards, but I don't know that you can justify more than one point deduction. If you take off a point Ali would still win a split decision on the official cards.

I haven't seen the fight in a while, I don't really remember what I had, but it probably was Ali by two points. I thought he won pretty clearly, though it was close, and Joe came on late.

Ezzard... as for the left hook thing... even if Ali is open for the left hook more than the right-I guess I could go either way on that, I do think its important to remember that two of those knock downs were when he was still maturing- that only adds to the idea that Frazier is a more dangerous opponent for him than Marciano. Rocky had the better right, but he didn't have the better left hook, even if he had a great left hook, as Hank was saying.

And I'm not saying Ali shouldn't be held to intense scrutiny, but that doesn't mean a win that would be mediocre for Ali should be considered legendary for Louis or Holmes or someone else. People always talk about how close Ali-Norton was, what about Holmes-Norton, Norton could have easily gotten that decision. And Larry was in his prime in that fight, Ali wasn't in his trilogy with Norton.

[The Great John L]

Come on, now, I love Frazier to death, and he does have some advantages over Marciano, but Marciano was a harder hitter with better two-handed power, a sturdier chin, if anything even better stamina, and wasn't as slow a starter.

Please explain why you think Rocky had a sturdier chin than Joe.

[I Feel Fine]

Yeah, I don't agree with that. Joe went down early in a couple of fights... so did Rocky. I don't think Rocky goes past 5 with Foreman, as Joe wasn't able to.

[Marciano Frazier]

Come on, now, I love Frazier to death, and he does have some advantages over Marciano, but Marciano was a harder hitter with better two-handed power, a sturdier chin, if anything even better stamina, and wasn't as slow a starter.

Please explain why you think Rocky had a sturdier chin than Joe.

Sure. Frazier was visibly rocked on a good number of occasions in the early rounds of fights. He took a standing-eight against no-name Mike Bruce and was floored twice by Bonavena- he was green at the time of these incidents, of course, but nothing like that ever happened to Marciano in his early development, and if you're being at all reasonable, you won't argue that Mike Bruce was better than anyone Marciano fought in his early years.
On the other hand, Marciano was never down as an amateur, never down in his first 42 professional fights(very few fighters in history could honestly say that), and was down only twice in his entire career, both for extremely brief flash-counts. Ali, Holmes, Liston, Foreman, etc. have all been floored by lighter-hitting men than Walcott and Charles, so one can hardly build a case against Marciano being as durable as most anyone on the basis of his taking two less-than-three-second counts, both against formidable punchers, in the entirety of his career.
Based on the available facts and film, I think it is reasonably clear-cut that Marciano was more durable than Frazier.

[The Great John L]

Come on, now, I love Frazier to death, and he does have some advantages over Marciano, but Marciano was a harder hitter with better two-handed power, a sturdier chin, if anything even better stamina, and wasn't as slow a starter.

Please explain why you think Rocky had a sturdier chin than Joe.

Sure. Frazier was visibly rocked on a good number of occasions in the early rounds of fights. He took a standing-eight against no-name Mike Bruce and was floored twice by Bonavena- he was green at the time of these incidents, of course, but nothing like that ever happened to Marciano in his early development, and if you're being at all reasonable, you won't argue that Mike Bruce was better than anyone Marciano fought in his early years.
On the other hand, Marciano was never down as an amateur, never down in his first 42 professional fights(very few fighters in history could honestly say that), and was down only twice in his entire career, both for extremely brief flash-counts. Ali, Holmes, Liston, Foreman, etc. have all been floored by lighter-hitting men than Walcott and Charles, so one can hardly build a case against Marciano being as durable as most anyone on the basis of his taking two less-than-three-second counts, both against formidable punchers, in the entirety of his career.
Based on the available facts and film, I think it is reasonably clear-cut that Marciano was more durable than Frazier.

I think you meant to say that Rocky was dropped by Walcott and Moore, rather than Walcott and Charles.

The Bruce fight was Fraziers 2nd pro fight (21yo), and Bonavena was his 12th fight (22yo). I’m sure that if Rocky had fought someone like Bonavena in his 12th fight he very well may have been dropped a few times as well, and I didn’t see the Bruce fight so it’s possible Joe wasn’t even hurt, but it was only his second pro fight. And I’m pretty confident that Foreman could have done pretty much the same thing to Rocky that he did to Frazier.

They are both all time greats, and I am not trying to dent Marciano’s legend, but Frazier stepped up his career very quickly and suffered a couple flash knockdowns against a very hard puncher in Bonavena. Who knows what happened in the Bruce fight, and Foreman was arguably one of the hardest punchers of all time. Again, I see no clear case that Rocky had a better chin than Joe.

[dempseyfire]

I'm in agreement with boxbuzz about the judging of the Ali-Norton fight and Clay-Jones.

As for holding, you contantly hear excuses from Tyson fans but I haven't heard even them claim that Holyfield held too much. Clinches happen. If the referee thinks that one guy is doing it excessively, he should warn him, and then start deducting points.

In the 2nd Ali-Frazier fight, the referee didn't do this because he didn't think it was excessive. The judges have to score the fight by the punches landed regradless of what they think of what the referee is doing.
So even if you thought Ali was doing too much holding, it's irrelevant in the scoring.

I can't believe that a knowledgeable and objective person scoring this fight, round by round, just going by the punches landed, could think this was a draw.
dempseyfire-Are you actually scoring each round? It doesn't sound like it.
There was no controversy about the scoring of the this fight. As I have mentioned before, more than 30 years when by before I ever heard anyone complain about the decision.


As for Ali-Norton III, this certainly wasn't crystal clear. Ali only showed flashes of what he used to be able to do, but Norton certainly didn't fight his best fight either. There were certainly several rounds that were close.
This was not an easy fight to score. If you gave either guy every close, he would win big becasue there were so many of them.
Norton certainly didn't have 8 strong rounds that couldn't be scored the other way. He would have to do this for the fight to be crystal clear. This fight could have been scored either way. If you gave either guy every close round, he would win easily.

You are wrong. It's a ref's disrection to deduct points for excessively holding. Just b/c Perez didn't take away points doesn't mean a judge can't note excessive holding and factor that into the scoring of a round. A boxing match is NOT scored simply by the NUMBER OF PUNCHES landed. This is not amateur boxing. You have to factor in generalship, aggression, accuracy, the effect of the punches etc.

As for Norton-Ali, you are just watching that with a very biased eye. I've seen the fight several times and there are definetely 8 clear rounds for Norton. It seems to some Ali fans, he can wins rounds by rope a doping and clowing and/or just b/c he's dancing but not landing anything effective.

[HomicideHenry]

There is not much evidence to prove whether Frazier had a better chin than Marciano, but Frazier was from time to time shaken up by such guys as Manuel Ramos (via uppercut) during his prime years---it was really only Foreman who had the power to expose Frazier as not unbeatble.

But then again, what power punchers did Frazier face outside of Foreman who was anywhere near Marciano's power? None, actually. George Chuvalo was tough, but wasn't blowing the top contenders away. Jerry Quarry could hit a little, but Quarry didn't quite have that little 'extra' to get him over Frazier, Norton and Ali. Bob Foster was just a blown up light heavyweight who never had much success against bigger men. Mathis and Ellis weren't big hitters either. Bonavena was tough and durable, but he wasn't quite the puncher that Frazier was either.

Foreman really only had to face power once in his career and that was against George Foreman---not to say Marciano was the hitter that George was---but with Frazier starting off slow, Marciano going fast and Rocky had the two fisted power, its probably safe to say Marciano could have knocked Frazier out early. Maybe not as impressive as what Foreman done, but its likely that Marciano could have done it.

[Marciano Frazier]

Please explain why you think Rocky had a sturdier chin than Joe.

Sure. Frazier was visibly rocked on a good number of occasions in the early rounds of fights. He took a standing-eight against no-name Mike Bruce and was floored twice by Bonavena- he was green at the time of these incidents, of course, but nothing like that ever happened to Marciano in his early development, and if you're being at all reasonable, you won't argue that Mike Bruce was better than anyone Marciano fought in his early years.
On the other hand, Marciano was never down as an amateur, never down in his first 42 professional fights(very few fighters in history could honestly say that), and was down only twice in his entire career, both for extremely brief flash-counts. Ali, Holmes, Liston, Foreman, etc. have all been floored by lighter-hitting men than Walcott and Charles, so one can hardly build a case against Marciano being as durable as most anyone on the basis of his taking two less-than-three-second counts, both against formidable punchers, in the entirety of his career.
Based on the available facts and film, I think it is reasonably clear-cut that Marciano was more durable than Frazier.

I think you meant to say that Rocky was dropped by Walcott and Moore, rather than Walcott and Charles.

Yes, a word slip there.

The Bruce fight was Fraziers 2nd pro fight (21yo), and Bonavena was his 12th fight (22yo). I’m sure that if Rocky had fought someone like Bonavena in his 12th fight he very well may have been dropped a few times as well, and I didn’t see the Bruce fight so it’s possible Joe wasn’t even hurt, but it was only his second pro fight. [/quote]
Generally, you don't give someone a standing eight-count when they haven't gone down unless they're obviously hurt. Again, Frazier was very green at this time and it should hardly be a serious reflection on his durability at his peak, but again, such an incident never happened to Marciano in his own early development, thus suggesting he may have been the more durable man.

And I’m pretty confident that Foreman could have done pretty much the same thing to Rocky that he did to Frazier.

Notice I never mentioned Foreman.

They are both all time greats, and I am not trying to dent Marciano’s legend, but Frazier stepped up his career very quickly and suffered a couple flash knockdowns against a very hard puncher in Bonavena.

Um, those were not "flash knockdowns" at all. Marciano against Moore or Ali against Wepner, those are flash knockdowns. Frazier was in serious trouble against Bonavena.

Who knows what happened in the Bruce fight, and Foreman was arguably one of the hardest punchers of all time. Again, I see no clear case that Rocky had a better chin than Joe.

We may not "know" what happened against Bruce, but we don't, strictly speaking, "know" anything here. The fact that Frazier took a standing-eight suggests he was hurt. And again, as you did not address, Frazier does appear visibly rocked on several occasions during his prime and near-prime years, as against Ali in the early rounds of their second and third fights, against Ramos in the first round, etc. Marciano, on the other hand, was never knocked down as an amateur, never down in his first 42 professional fights, and down only twice- for a grand total of five seconds- in his entire career, and never really appears to be seriously hurt at any time in any of his filmed fights. Obviously we can't be positive about it, or most anything else in comparing fighters from different eras, but based on the facts and film available, I don't really see how you could reasonably not conclude that Marciano seemed to be more durable than Frazier.

[Ambling Alp]

dempseyfire-
I didn't say that the judges score fights by the number of punches of landed.
I said that they judge fights by the punches landed. Of course how hard they are and how clean they are obviously have to factored in as well.
A judge isn't supposed to factor in if they think one fighter would be more effective if the referee would be officiating in another way.

-You judged the 2nd Frazier fight a draw.
-You think there 8 clear rounds for Norton in their 3rd fight.

-"It seems to some Ali fans, he can win rounds by rope a doping and clowning and/or just b/c he's dancing but not landing anything effective."

Earlier you you said that you were a fan of of Ali. You really sound like one now.

[The Great John L]

We may not "know" what happened against Bruce, but we don't, strictly speaking, "know" anything here. The fact that Frazier took a standing-eight suggests he was hurt. And again, as you did not address, Frazier does appear visibly rocked on several occasions during his prime and near-prime years, as against Ali in the early rounds of their second and third fights, against Ramos in the first round, etc. Marciano, on the other hand, was never knocked down as an amateur, never down in his first 42 professional fights, and down only twice- for a grand total of five seconds- in his entire career, and never really appears to be seriously hurt at any time in any of his filmed fights. Obviously we can't be positive about it, or most anything else in comparing fighters from different eras, but based on the facts and film available, I don't really see how you could reasonably not conclude that Marciano seemed to be more durable than Frazier.

Frazier was 22 years old and in his 12th fight when he was dropped twice by Ringo, and as you noted I should not have used the term flash knock down, but he was not hurt to the point of getting stopped. At least in my opinion. But the issue is more the fact that he fought Ringo that early in his career, as opposed to Marciano who probably fought only one fighter in his entire career that punched as hard as Bonavena, and that was ancient Joe Louis.

Unfortunately, many of Rocky’s early fights are not on film, so it is possible that he may have also gotten “rocked” in some of those fights and they is simply lost to the ages. Either way, we have both reached different opinions on this topic, and I, unlike you, have no problem seeing how that is possible. This is hardly like comparing Wlad’s chin to Chuvalo’s chin, so the only thing I find unreasonable is how anybody could say with any conviction that one fighter clearly had a better chin than the other.

[HomicideHenry]

John L. Sullivan-

It is somewhat unfair to have a hypothetical on a Sullivan match-up with the Brockton Blockbuster, considering the bulk of Sullivan's career was under the London Prize Ring rules and that his greatest victory was against Jake Kilrain under the same rules. But Sullivan did reign for a rather long time as the American champion under the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Both men with great endurance, strength and toughness. Both men were the most ferocious of the period of time they fought in.

Sullivan, though, was somewhat inconsistant as he would have a brilliant performance in one fight and two dull bouts, while Marciano's kayo percentage only increased as time went on [of his 6 decision wins, 5 of which happened before he was champion]. The Marquis of Queensbury Sullivan simply wasn't the Sullivan of the London Prize Ring Rules, who would have given Rocky the hardest time.

Prediction? I see a kayo victory inside of 8 rounds for Marciano. If Sullivan could go 21 with Corbett when he wasn't in the best of shape---I can't see Sullivan even at his best under the Marquis of Queensbury going half that time with Marciano.

James J. Corbett-

This would be a fight I could see possibly going the distance under the 15 round format, as Corbett fought Jefferies, who fought alot like Rocky. Corbett was arguably the fastest man up until the time of Johnson and later Ali in HW history and was a superb technician with fairly decent power.

Corbett, I don't think was as tough as required, though, against the likes of someone with Marciano's power. Fitzsimmons stopped Corbett with a body shot, and Jefferies also knocked out Corbett. And body shots were simply Marciano's forte.

It would be a bit longer than the Sullivan fight, but in the end Marciano catches up to Gentleman Jim and knocks him out around the 11th or 12th round.

Bob Fitzsimmons-

Very hard puncher. Very great body puncher. ATG pound for pound fighter. Very tough. Boxing's first triple crown champion who competively fought on until he was in his 50's.

The Welshman would have been a very difficult task for Rocky for the first few rounds, as Fitzsimmons slashing offense certainly would have cut him deep and down to the bone. Much like he done against Jefferies---but Fitzsimmons, for all his punching prowess, wasn't a buller and nor did he have the power to.

He would eventually be worn down by Marciano's clubbing shots, ripping body attack, and like against Jefferies, been caught with a solid shot sooner or later and would have been knocked out.

Marciano by KO in 10th, that is if Marciano wouldn't get too cut up by then. Else it be a TKO win for Fitzsimmons.

James J. Jefferies-

Both men were undefeated as champions [Jefferies would later make a come back and lose]. Both men had lots of stamina and endurance. Both men fought in the same style and both had tremendous punching power and were all but impossible to hurt.

Jefferies, despite the misconceptions, was actually quite fast for a big man and quit the athletic specimen for that era, not just in boxing, but in all around sport. He was bigger than Marciano, and his normal weight without training was anywhere from 240-280. He himself had to lose 100 pounds for his comeback against Jack Johnson.

This would have been quite the brutal affair. No ring science, thats for sure...when I think of it, it seems every advantage should go to Jefferies and he should be the obvious winner. But then again, Jefferies struggled greatly with Tom Sharkey, who was (no offense) a poor man's Marciano and Jefferies would later say "my toughest opponent", and they both went the distance each time they fought.

I see Marciano winning a 15 round decision, though a close one.

Marvin Hart-

Hart was quite a good boxer, very scientific and fast. Dismissed by critics and historians as never being a 'real' champion, he was accomplished enough to beat a young Jack Johnson and go the distance with Burns.

But, I don't think beating a few good LHW's and beating a pre-prime Jack Johnson makes him a threat to Marciano. Not only does Rocky win, he wins by knock out inside of 6 rounds.

Tommy Burns-

Burns possessed a great amount of power for being a man of 5'7" and starting off as a MW. But he was strong enough, skilled enough and tough enough to beat the best MW's, LHW's and HW's of his time. Burns is often disregarded, though quite unfairly, for his loss to Jack Johnson; he can be said to have been the first true 'world' champion.

I see this being a bit of a problem for Rocky for a short while, but eventually I see Marciano winning by a late round KO. Possibly the 10th or 11th. I only say late, as considering Burns took the most hellacious shots from a prime Jack Johnson for 14 rounds---and Marciano was a much harder hitter than Johnson.

Jack Johnson-

Johnson is arguably the greatest HW in history. He was considered by many to be so. Even the great Jim Jefferies said he could never have beaten Johnson at his best. Johnson was a superb tactician, but he also could slug it out with the best of them as well.

His title reign was extraordinary for the time, though his opponents by and large have been questionable as to how good they really were; he only defended the title once to a black man, who wasn't even a top black contender. Johnson could take punishment.

Johnson, though, probably wasn't as fast as Ali, and frankly never fought a man like Marciano. Nobody he fought really had the power or the stamina or the ferocity that Rocky had---unless if Johnson's bout with Jefferies is counted, though he was retired 6 years.

Johnson wasn't impregnable, though, as he was dropped momentarily by Stanley Ketchell, had his ribs broken by Burns and was clubbed down by Willard, who was more or less a lumbering oaf [Johnson, though, won the first 20 rounds rather easily].

It would be a close fight, but I'd lean towards Johnson, least for the time being...

Jess Willard-

Willard is HW boxing's forgotten body puncher. Though tall and he had a deadly uppercut, Willard was a good body puncher. Despite beating Johnson, if truth is told, Willard was often called 'just another no-decision demon'.

He might have been the 'great white hope', but if Jack Dempsey destroyed him in under four rounds, I don't see how Marciano, who was compared to Dempsey, couldn't have duplicated the feat---the only difference being, Rocky would do it in 6 or 8 rounds---as he didn't have the speed that Dempsey had.

Jack Dempsey-

In my opinion, this would be the GREATEST fight of all time in HW history. The division's two greatest swarmers going at eachother in a 15 round contest. If the fight went the distance, despite whoever won, they would probably need six months in a hospital to recooperate.

Dempsey was the more aggressive fighter. Dempsey had a better knowledge of ring science, and Dempsey had the faster hands. Marciano was the more powerful puncher, had the better stamina and possibly was the more tougher of the two men.

Despite it all, I think neither man would have backed off eachother. Ring science, whether Dempsey possessed it or not, wouldn't have mattered in this particular fight. Marciano didn't know how to do such things, and would have kept at Dempsey, so the Manassa Mauler would have had no choice but to brawl.

I do see Marciano winning a decision though, based on one thing: Dempsey had to knock down alot of his opponents several times before they were declared unable to continue, while this wasn't the case for Rocky. Dempsey was also knocked down by somewhat unknown fighters such as Luis Firpo [before fighting Dempsey, Firpo was more or less just another goon fighting for peanuts in Argentina], while Rocky was only dropped twice in his career by better skilled opponents than the Firpo's and Carpentier's that Dempsey fought, who had knocked Dempsey down.

I see Marciano winning 15 round decision, after dropping Dempsey at least 3 or 4 times, while Marciano himself was dropped once or twice.

Gene Tunney-

Tunney was arguably the #2 greatest LHW of all time. Tunney was possibly the best pure boxer of the heavyweight classes, but his experience as a HW was nowhere near as impressive as his LHW credentials. He also had a hard time with an over the hill Jack Dempsey in their second fight---and if that isn't enough, despite what history has told you---Hary Greb who never stopped punching [much like Marciano] won three of the five fights he had with Tunney, though he didn't get two of those decisions.

Tunney, had he faced a prime Dempsey, would have been knocked out and carried out of the ring on a stretcher. I could see the same fate happen to him with Marciano---I give Rocky the win by either a late kayo or a clear cut decision win.

Max Schmeling-

Max Schmeling is one of the more under-rated of HW champions. A fine European fighter who burst onto the HW ranks with fine skill, power and poise. Never a man to waste punches, Schmeling was a very methodical fighter who studied his opponents down to a 'T' before ever entering the ring with them. He was as tough as he was skilled. His greatest victory was a 12th round TKO over Joe Louis, who at that time had defeated former champions Primo Carnera and Max Baer, all by kayo. He also lost a controversial decision in a rematch with Jack Sharkey, who fouled Schmeling in their first encounter. Unfortunately is remembered as being more of a politcal figure for Nazi Germany during the height of WW2, when he in fact wasn't even a Nazi and had helped several Jews escape from Nazi forces.

Schmeling's jab, combined with his good hand speed would prove to be a problem to Marciano in the beginning. Schmeling would probably end up cutting Marciano over the eyes. But, Schmeling could be knocked out. Max Baer, who was a wild swinging brawler, had annihilated Schmeling in 10 rounds, and Louis in a rematch stopped Schmeling in a single round. Rocky was quite ferocious and when he knew he had someone double checking themselves or in trouble, that is when he would up the pace and throw bombs on top of the head, neck, back, arms, body---anything in reach.

I see Schmeling winning a few rounds, but would eventually fade down the road, and be stopped by Rocky in 11 or 12 rounds, that is if Rocky's corner could control his cut eyes enough to keep him in the running with the "Black Uhlan of The Rhine".


Jack Sharkey-

The Boston Gob is yet another of the more under-rated HW's in history. He had solid skills and could punch a little, and when he was in the right mind set, he was a hard man to try and over come. Sharkey's main problem was that he was inconsistant, being one of the more infamous 'hot and cold' fighters the division ever known. Be outstanding one fight, and lackluster the next. Sharkey was one of the more fragile fighters, in a mental sense; to put him into a more modern perspective he would have break downs like Oliver McCall and Andrew Golota, being irrational in the ring before, during and after a fight.

I think, outside of all this, Sharkey would probably lose to Marciano because of one reason: his fight with Jack Dempsey. Dempsey was passed his best, and he hit Sharkey with alot of body shots (which is also Marciano's forte), some low, some right. Sharkey protested to the referee while trying to back away from The Manassa Mauler, and got knocked out with a single shot in the 7th. Dempsey's rational was Sharkey shouldn't have turned his head away, because it was a great opprotunity for a clean shot. This, too, would be Marciano's rationale. Rocky never stopped punching and he took whatever shot he could in punching distance. If a worn out, over the hill Dempsey could stop him, then a prime Marciano could as well.

Primo Carnera-

Carnera was at one time the tallest and heaviest HW champion in history, having an 85" reach and weighing around 270 pounds. The former circus strongman, ironically, didn't quite pack the power one would have expected, but with his decent skill and weight advantage it usually made up the difference for him. His greatest win, outside of his surprising kayo over Jack Sharkey, was a decision win over Tommy Laughran (a former LHW champion) and a kayo over Ernie Schaaf, who died after his fight with Carnera, supposedly from previous brain injuries and meningitis.

Carnera, for all his size and popularity for being the first 'giant' champion of the division (sometimes being exaggerated to as much as 6'8"), did not posess the toughness one might suspect. Then throw in the possibilities that alot of his fights were rigged, then you wonder if Carnera really was as good as claimed or was presented as being. Marciano would have some problems at first getting inside Carnera's reach, and would have to worry about the much larger man leaning on him in order to tire him out. Marciano, for sure, hit harder than Max Baer and was made of much tougher stuff than Sharkey---Carnera would lose by KO inside 8 rounds, maybe 9.


Max Baer-

Baer is one of those great what if's in boxing. A man who could have been more than what he actually done in the ring. He disliked training, he particuarly didn't like being champion with the cat calls of "Kill! Kill Kill!" were achoed throughout the crowds, and he was the perpetual clown. But whenever he landed his over hand right, 200 pound men dropped. And when he was in the frame of mind to beat his opponent, he was the most dangerous man to face. He crushed Schmeling in 10, dropped the giant Carnera 11 times in 11 rounds, killed a man in his early boxing years, would eventually drop the tough Tommy Farr and brutalise the tough bar room brawler Tony Galento into a bloody pulp. Not to mention his kayo of British champion Ben Foord. Baer also fought 24 men in a period of 4 months, though albeit they were mediocre opposition.

Baer only knew one way to fight: swing without abandon. Marciano only knew how to keep coming after an opponent and keep on banging away. This would have been one of the classic brawl for alls. Baer's height would have given him an advantage, but he was much sloppier than Rocky, as alot of his shots often missed and he never knew how to really pace himself in the ring. Marciano could throw as many punches as he'd want and rarely get tired, combine this with a tremendous work rate and his power and toughness. I see this fight being alot like the Foreman-Lyle fight. Rocky might hit the deck once or twice, but he'll drop Baer two or three times himself, ending the bout in around 6 rounds. As crazy as these guys would go at eachother, there's no logic in it going the distance.

James J. Braddock-

James Braddock was a great LHW and had there not have been the Depression, there is a possibility he could have gotten another title shot at Tommy Loughran. But Braddock, unfortunately, had a downward spiral from being one of the great prospects of his time to the bottom of boxing's basement. Often fighting on a last minute notice with injured hands, he started a losing streak that even Reggie Strickland and Donnie Penelton would have been proud of. But Braddock is a rare example of a man peaking twice in his life time. Foreman peaked again in his late 30's and mid 40's winning the title, and Schmeling peaked again in 1936 by beating Joe Louis. What Braddock done was simply the greatest under dog nostaligic story in boxing history. He beat prospect Corn Griffin in 2 rounds, then defeated future LHW champion John Henry Lewis, who previously beat Braddock years before. Then he defeated Art Lasky and that put him into the number one contender slot against champion Max Baer, who was being touted as invincible.

Now, it is debatable, but though Braddock won a 15 round decision over Baer, the fight in all actuality was rather dull and slow. According to Baer, he felt he could have knocked Braddock out at any time, but when he pulled out all the stops in the 15th, Braddock managed to survive and it was all too late. Nonetheless it was deemed the greatest upset since Corbett defeated Sullivan back in 1892. Braddock was very tough, never knocked out until he met Joe Louis, and was very skilled beating such men as Tommy Farr (in his last bout) and going the distance with Tommy Loughran, beating Lasky and splitting wins against a prime John Henry Lewis.

This would have been one of Marciano's tougher opponents. Movers/tacticians of the highest order always gave Marciano a bit of trouble. But in all admission, Braddock is not Walcott, not Charles. Though he would have won a few rounds, maybe even busted Rocky up around the eyes, Marciano would have thrown everything but an Iron Maiden at Braddock, unlike Baer did. Marciano would have knocked Braddock out in around the 12th-13th rounds, with the fight being all but a draw up until the stoppage.

Joe Louis-

When Marciano met Joe Louis in the ring, he wasn't the Louis of old. He wasn't as fast and he wasn't as dangerous. But his jab was still rather sneaky and his combinations were still lethal. And he was good enough to be ranked #1 in the world and was going to face Ezzard Charles for a second time, that is if Charles hadn't opted to fight Joe Walcott for the upteenth time. The fight was competitive early on, even Marciano would say years later that Louis at times handled him like he was a child. But those closest to Rocky would also say that Rocky didn't engage with Louis as much as he would anyone else, because Louis was his idol and he didn't want to hurt him. Whatever the case may be, the Louis fight was one of the 'bigger' wins for Marciano, as he blew away Louis in the 8th round, and reportedly cried in the dressing room afterward and even apologised to Joe Louis.

Joe Louis, himself, said he didn't personally believe that he culd have beaten Marciano, because Louis' major weakness was being crowded and Marciano, as far as he was concerned, was the best at doing that. This does somewhat sound logical, considering Louis had problems in his prime against the likes of Arturo Gudoy who fought from out of a crouch and against sluggers Tony Galento who kept coming after Louis with non stop power shots----but then again, from the waist up, Louis was arguably the greatest HW fighter in history, with fists that could slice a man's face into ribbons and at the speed of lightning damn near. He also knew the art of boxing, to hit without being hit himself, using a snappy left jab that knocked back his opponents head.

The only real draw back with Louis was he tended to be mechanical at times and that he had a somewhat poor chin for a HW champion. But this weakness, was what also made him such a good defensive fighter in the ring. The only thing that makes me believe that Louis might lose, is that a prime Louis would have been all the more willing to have an exchange with Marciano, and brawling wasn't really Louis' strongest point, as it left him open and to be dropped. But, if Joe Louis could go 8 with Marciano after his best years were behind him, then Joe Louis could go 15 with Marciano. I believe the fight would be close, I believe both men would at one point or time hit the canvas, Rocky would be cut, Joe would be tired...but Louis would win a split decision, that is if Rocky didn't already lose by TKO. In a trilogy, Louis would probably beat Marciano two out of three times, as Louis was 'death' in rematches.

Ezzard Charles-

Ezzard Charles was a great middleweight, the greatest LHW in history, and is sadly one of the more under-rated HW champions in history. As an amatuer he originally started off as a welterweight, and won numerous amateur titles. He was quite fast and he had very good power, and of course, was quite skilled. He beat Charley Burley as a MW, which is something phenomenal in and of its self, and as a LHW beat Archie Moore three times. As a HW he had the vast misfortune of following Joe Louis, and was completely under valued at the time, if not despised after beating a come backing Joe Louis in what many called to be the 'true' HW championship match. Charles, though, won some rather controversial decisions over Jersey Joe Walcott and would also lose to Walcott twice, once by kayo. Charles' prime is one that is very hard to judge by, because after the last Walcott fight he became rather inconsistant, winning some and losing some. By the time he met Marciano, he was somewhat on the downside and despite the myths, his fights with Marciano weren't even close at all on the score cards.

But despite all this, Charles was Rocky's toughest opponent [least according to Marciano]. A prime Charles, as a HW, was somewhere between the Joe Louis fight and the last Walcott fight. He was sharper, quicker and had more in the tank. In a trilogy, though, I still see Marciano winning two out of three, though much closer fights than they did when they fought, probably split decisions, if not splitting it three ways: a win for Rocky, win for Ezzard and a draw.


Jersey Joe Walcott-

In ways, Walcott's fight career can be all but compared to Ezzard Charles, as his career achievements include Charles and Louis. He 'lost' a decision to Louis, rematches Louis and winning on all points until being stopped in the 11th round. But then again, Louis after the war wasn't the same Louis as before. Walcott 'lost' a few matches with Charles, in what many sports writers thought he won, and then at 37 wins the title by KO in 7th of Charles and then wins a clear cut decision over Charles. Walcott, when brought up, is always considered 'too old' and ranked rather low on the HW order, which is unfair, considering Walcott was a top contender for many, many years. Walcott was not just a great fighter, but an innovator. Always creating new moves and always improvising new ways to bedazzle his opponents in the ring in the face of danger. In ways, it is a fair assumption to say he was the 1950's version of Ali (minus the speed) as he was a very hard man to catch.

His slashing offense, combined with power and his unorthodox moves such as the 'Walcott Waltz' made him one of the more skilled and defensive HW's in history. No matter how you look at it, Walcott certainly was a very hard opponent for any man and for 12 rounds was fighting his greatest fight with Marciano until being knocked out in the 13th round by a counter punch right hand, thrown inside Walcott's own. Walcott, also, was a man who got better with age. Louis, in viewing his fights, after himself facing Walcott and retiring afterwards, always said that he felt Walcott only got better and better.

His prime years? Very hard to tell, but somewhere around the first Louis fight and the first Marciano fight, is a fair assumption, though he was a terrific fighter even before fighting Louis [yes I admit he had his down points before Louis, but Walcott was also doing a full time job as a garbage man and had been sick off and on a few years, so he wasn't always going to be in tip top shape as some of his fights were on a few days notice, much like Jim Braddock].

Had Marciano Walcott rather than Joe Louis, and Walcott fought Marciano rather than Charles for the upteenth time, Walcott would have easily won. But then again, Rocky wasn't yet even champion and he needed the Louis fight to be ranked in the top 10, as he would later fight Harry Kid Matthews and others to officially be in the title eliminator. To put it short, I think the Walcott of the Charles fights was the best Walcott---and had a prime Marciano fought him then, it is very possible Walcott would have beaten him by decision, and by wide margins---but as Marciano proved with Walcott, all it takes is one solid shot to get Walcott out of there. So, in honesty, I think the first Walcott fight is the right example, the best showing, for this hypothetical.


Floyd Patterson-

Patterson is one of the few examples, actually the only HW example, of a man being better after he was champion. Patterson possibly had the second fastest hands in history and was a good LHW before heading into the HW ranks. At one time a Marciano-Patterson exhibition match actually was talked about, but public interest was so small that it never happened, considering Patterson wasn't even a ranked HW contender and Marciano was the HW champion. After Marciano vacated the title, Patterson went on to win it, and there was rumors for a time that a Marciano-Patterson fight would happen. It didn't.

Patterson for all his skill, was a very soft chinned HW champion, but with alot of determination (he could climb up off the floor to win) and he had some good power. After losing to Sonny Liston, however, he greatly improved and bested such men as George Chuvalo, drew Jerry Quarry and was robbed out of a WBA title against Buster Mathis, which should have made him the first 3x HW champion in history. He certainly was the far better fighter then; public opinion, though, believes that just because Patterson was champion, he was in his prime and therefore better...so this hypothetical will be judged by the Patterson who beat Archie Moore for the title, lost it to Ingemar Johansson to win it back and then lost to Sonny Liston.

Patterson's speed, slashing offense, peek a boo defense and his constant 'in and out' movements, would have been a bit of a struggle for Marciano. Patterson would have possibly cut Marciano open, had him slightly shook up and would have won a few rounds over him. But Marciano, one who always upped the pace, would have eventually caught up to Patterson, drop him, catch him again and drop him again---just like Johansson did. Patterson would be game, but would get dropped one more time and it would have been called off. I see a KO in 6 rounds for Marciano, possibly 8.

Ingemar Johansson-

This is the fight that Marciano personally wanted to have happen in 1959, after Johansson knocked out the respectable Floyd Patterson. Marciano felt that Johansson was too much of a braggart and that he was 'amateurish'. Combine that with the fact Johansson wasn't an American, well you have something. Marciano at the time hadn't boxed in a little over four years and had ballooned to around 240 pounds. Patterson got the best of Johansson in their rematch, but the big Swede still said that Patterson was lucky and that nobody could stand up to his right hand "The Hammer of Thor" and his "Ingo's Bingos" (combinations). So a contract was written up, that if Johansson regained the title, his first defense would be against Marciano, who would be using the 'championship emeritus' clause to get back into title contention. Unfortunately, Johansson lost and Marciano, who had been in the process of training for a month, decided that a Johansson-Marciano match with no belt at stake (which meant no major money) wasn't worth coming back for.

Johansson was a silver medalist in the Olympics and was quite the European champion, knocking out guys like Joe Erskine and Henry Cooper cold. His one punch power also got him a win over contender Eddie Machen, whom Patterson been ducking for a few years. Irregardless, outside of those accomplishments, Johansson was more or less a one trick pony. All he had was his right hand, and had relatively no skill to really speak of. He was tough and he had that right hand bomb. But that was about it. That and his size, which would have benfited him against a man like Marciano.

But had the two fought prime against prime...it would have been a very short night. Marciano pounced on every concievable opening available to him, and Johansson always swung his right hand, literally telegraphing it. He wasn't much for blocking and he certainly wasn't able to use the jab all that well either. Marciano would have hit him harder than Patterson did, Marciano certainly would have taken the few good shots Ingo could land and Marciano just wouldn't have stopped blasting him with body and head shots. Ingo would get up, visibly shaken, but be floored again. A solid KO victory for Marciano inside of three rounds.

Sonny Liston-

Liston was an animal. Liston was all but invincible. He destroyed Cleveland Williams. He defeated Eddie Machen. He tore through the HW division with the simplest of ease, using a jab that could knock a man clean out of his shoes and the most god awful of punches. Many of his opponents already were scared to fight him, even before the opening bell. Liston put fear into the hearts and minds of the most skilled and determined men of the late 1950's and early 1960's. Many remember him, sadly, for his two fights with a young kid by the name of Cassius Clay, but take away those two fights---and it is possible had that young man never existed, Liston could have been the HW champion of the world up until 1968, when he finally lost to Leotis Martin when he was in his early 40's.

If Marciano was going to have a chance with this brutal butcher, it would have to be Marciano at his absoloute best. The only thing that might have determined this fight indefinately was Liston's psyche. If he didn't hurt his man, didn't have his man scared out of his wits, Liston was gonna think a bit too hard. Conditioning might come into play, as Liston rarely had to go more than a few rounds to dispatch of his opponents---while Marciano undoubtedly trained the hardest of any HW champion in history, as if every fight he was fighting was scheduled for 20 rounds or 40 rounds [just like a bare knuckle fighter], so that he wouldn't tire and never slow down in pace.

For Marciano to win, he would have to get into Liston's reach [which was longer than Cassius Clay's] and have to take some bombs along the way. While Liston was a lethal puncher, he was quite skilled. Marciano could only hope to be at his best when it came to bobbing and weaving and blocking those monstrous shots with his arms and gloves.

I think also, emotions would come into play here. Marciano personally hated Sonny Liston, and many stories arose that the former champion had visisted Liston's camp and challenged Liston right then and there in the gym, because supposedly Liston told a reporter that he hit harder than Marciano. We all have seen Liston nervous or thinking too much against Clay---and we have seen Marciano get on the viscous side [Carmine Vingo, Roland LaStarza in a rematch, Charles in the rematch, Archie Moore]. When Marciano had more than enough reason to prove himself to make sure there is no doubts, he is beyond a holy terror.

In my opinion, this fight is a 50-50 call. In a trilogy, I can see both men winning one and possibly a split for Liston as well. Rocky was a great fighter, but Liston may have just had the edge over all to be a little to good for Rocky, as Rocky never really fought someone with that much combined power and skill, with that much physical gifts [the long reach]. But I do believe he would have given Liston fits, and win rounds as well. If Liston could quit against Clay in seven rounds because he couldn't put him away, it is a possibility that the Brockton Blockbuster could make Liston double think if he could really beat a man who "never known fear and in my prime, I could have fought with anybody alive."

Joe Frazier-

If anyone on this list has been compared the most with Rocky Marciano, it was Joe Frazier. An Olympic Gold Medalist, who was arguably the greatest left hooker in HW history, Frazier beat the likes of: Muhammad Ali, Oscar Boavena, Bob Foster, Jerry Quarry, George Chuvalo, Buster Mathis...the list goes on and on as a 'Who's Who' of the greatest era in HW history (the 1970's). Frazier, unfortunately, after the second Ali fight headed down on a down hill slide and though he would face Ali again, and Foreman again, he was all but legally blind in both eyes and was burnt out. His comeback in 1980 was a disaster with him getting a very generous draw against former ex-con muscle man Floyd "Jumbo" Cummings.

Frazier could cut off the ring just about as good as Marciano. Frazier worked the body just as good as Marciano could. Frazier possibly was just as tough as Marciano was. Frazier, arguably, had just as great a punch ratio per round as Marciano had [Marciano averaged 80-85 punches a round, sometimes doing over 100]. Frazier also was just as good a bobber and weaver as Marciano.

But...Frazier was only a left hook artist. Whether people want to admit that or not, Joe Frazier was just a pressure fighter who threw every punch in the book as a diversion to set up the big left. Frazier was a tad bit more aggressive than Rocky, which might have been a weakness in ways, as being more aggressive, generally leaves you open to shots. Frazier was also a slow starter, while Marciano started off at a good pace and only got more difficult as time went on. And...while Frazier was a very athletic guy, the longest he ever trained for a single fight was eight weeks for the 'Thrilla in Manila' with Ali for the third time. Eight weeks was nothing to Marciano, as he would sometimes train 3-4 months even before he had a fight scheduled for him, then throw in about 5-6 months of extra training when he did. If it was Ali that Marciano was to fight, it is not too crazy a thought to think Marciano would have trained as much as 8-10 months for a super fight with Ali.

If Frazier was to beat Ali, he would have had to have trained himself up to go at a pace to equal Marciano's. He couldn't slow down and he couldn't by any means stop at any given time against Marciano. If Marciano was to win, it would be in the early rounds where he can catch Frazier totally off guard and bombared him with power shots, when Frazier wasn't ready to move up to that kind of pace [since he was a slow starter]. If Frazier was to win, it would be in the later rounds---but even then Marciano had unbelievable power and conditioning even late on [kayo of Walcott in the 13th proved that] or it would be on points.

Call me crazy, but I think Marciano would pull off a win over Frazier either by early KO, like George Foreman did to him, or it would be a close decision.


George Foreman-

Undoubtedly the hardest hitting HW champion in history in his prime (1970's). He was big and powerful, and though he had a good jab, Foreman was in no way or shape a boxer. He was a bully, he was a mauler and a brute. He would hit people when they were down, low blow them, push them down, taunt them. The man was a monster. He was undefeated in over 45 fights, defeating the likes of Chuck Wepner, George Chuvalo, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Jose Roman, all in short order. Many wondered who or if anything could stop George Foreman. Enter Muhammad Ali. Foreman was totally exposed for the brute he was, that he never paced himself, that he was just a wild swinging man who could be broken down mentally if someone actually fought back or made him think that he couldn't beat them. Foreman burns out from pounding Ali for 7 rounds, and then in the 8th is knocked out. Truly one of the greatest upsets in boxing history, let alone HW history.

In his comeback in the 1980's up until 1997, Foreman was reborn as a saavy tactician who used his jab as his primary weapon, and of course, less viscous and less of a rule breaker, and he learned to pace himself. A complete and total transformation inside and outside of the ring. Foreman would go on to give Holyfield trouble in 1991, and then in 1994 win the HW title at the age of 45 after losing nine rounds to Michael Moorer, only to knock him out late in the 10th. Foreman would go on to hold the 'lineal' title [his actual titles were stripped because he refused to face mandatory challengers] up until 1997, when he lost to the unheralded Shannon Briggs by a controversial decision.

Two tremendous stories, two different careers. Might as well say two different fighters. The old George Foreman I think Marciano could have beaten by a decision, seeing as how Evander Holyfield [who worked hard in the gym, alot of heart, good power, stamina, great work rate] managed to out point Foreman rather easily in the later rounds. Whether he could have knocked out George at that stage is another question, as Holyfield couldn't and Moorer couldn't either. But I see Rocky beating that version of George Foreman by a decision.

The young George? I can't. While Foreman wasn't as good as when he was older scientifically, the young George was more viscous and more powerful, faster, and certainly had the attitude "what the referee don't see or deduct from me, I'll do." Watching how he picked apart Joe Frazier inside of two rounds and then five rounds in their rematch years later...I can't see Rocky standing a chance...but then again Ron Lyle was almost lucky with that same George, and Marciano certainly was a harder hitter than Lyle. If Marciano has a chance, it is a punchers chance, but if he was to fight Foreman...it would have to be a straight up brawl, no bobbing and weaving, no sense in protecting yourself...just a straight up brawl for all. Any other way, Marciano won't last more than six rounds.


Leon Spinks-

Neon Leon was an Olympic Gold Medalist. Neon Leon also beat Muhammad Ali in only his 8th professional fight. Neon Leon also lost to Muhammad Ali in the return. Neon Leon also lost to Larry Holmes (KO 3rd). He also lost to Gerrie Coetzee (KO 1st). He also won and lost a minor Cruiserweight title. Neon Leon was a party animal. Neon Leon also wrecked a bunch of cars. Neon Leon hated to train. Neon Leon faded away into the status of boxing's worst HW champion. Neon Leon was also a brawler...

And he'd have a snow balls chance in hell, to last 30 seconds with Rocky Marciano. The End.


Larry Holmes-

Larry Holmes went 48-0 in his first 48 bouts. Larry Holmes also had 20 successful title defenses in a seven year riegn, though albiet the majority of those defenses were against some of the worst title challengers in history, in what was the worst era in HW history. Holmes was also an outstanding amateur who just failed to qualify for the Olympics, and later became a sparring partner for Muhammad Ali. Unfortunately for Holmes, after beating Ken Norton for the WBC title back in 1979, Ali retired and Holmes had the bad luck of following possibly the greatest HW in history, and certainly the most popular.

Holmes had a terrific jab and good height, but it was his lack of killer attitude and public persona that made him rather unpopular. It didn't help matters either whe he fought Ali in 1980 and gave him the beating of a life time before Ali's corner threw in the towel. It also didnt help Holmes much considering he didnt unify the titles because he wanted so much money in order to do so, and it also didn't help him when he kept defending the title against guys like Scott Frank and Marvis Frazier. And it certainly didnt help him when he lost his cool and said "Marciano couldn't hold my jock strap!" when reporters kept asking him how he felt to be all but matching The Rock's undefeated streak.

Holmes would lose to Michael Spinks, rematch him and 'lost' a decision again to him. Holmes, feeling robbed both times, retired. He came back one year later and lost by kayo to undisputed champ Mike Tyson in the 4th. He retired again. Comes back three years later and manages to pull off six wins (one over Ray Mercer) and then lost to Evander Holyfield by decision. Holmes continued on fighting making seven more wins, then lost to Oliver McCall also by decision. Holmes retires. He came back off and on up until 2004, fighting men either from his own era in 'legend' matches or against unheralded opponents such as Butterbean.

After looking at it all, Holmes place among the greats is assured. His longetivity, skill and toughness, combined with the accomplishments he done in a career spanning forty years, makes him at least #10 among the greats, possibly even higher. Holmes was a solid boxer, but wasn't as fast as Ali. Holmes could punch, but he certainly didn't have punching power that was to be feared. Holmes was tricky, but he could be dropped. Holmes could turn on the flash, but that was rare.

There is no question in my mind Marciano, despite his misgivings, could beat the very same men Holmes did, and probably beat Spinks whom Holmes lost to. But by then Holmes was on the downside, though he 'peaked' into his 40's getting two title shots against Holyfield and McCall. But by the same admission, Holmes would more than likely beat Charles and Moore, probably edge by Walcott and easily beat everybody else Marciano fought.

This would be a close, close fight. The way I see it, Holmes would be facing a combination of Tex Cobb's toughness, Gerry Cooney's determination and Tyson's style when going up against Marciano, whose power prolly just slightly edges Tyson's. Marciano's problem would be his tendency to cut, his size and his short reach. All in all, would be a competitive fight, and I see Marciano pulling out a split decision over Holmes after dropping him one or two times in the later rounds.

Michael Spinks-

Spinks, like Tunney, was a more accomplished LHW than he was a HW. "The Spinks Jinx" had tremendous power at that weight, but in my opinion, it never really carried over into the HW division. His 'herky jerky' defense of twisting himself into all kinds of odd angles to avoid getting hit worked for him, but as a HW Spinks never exactly fought someone all in their prime or at their best. He edged Holmes twice (the last a controversial decision), fought unranked Gerry Cooney and won by kayo after the fight being somewhat close [which caused him to be stripped of the IBF belt, as Cooney wasn't the mandatory] and before that he had fought unheard of Steffen Tangstad and won by TKO in the 4th. Outside of fighting a faded Larry Holmes twice, Spinks only 'real' opponent at HW was against a prime Mike Tyson, whom blasted Spinks in just 91 seconds of the first round.

Truth is, Spinks was getting older and started to hate training and simply avoided mandatories when he became HW champion. He would be too reluctant, too scared and too unwilling to really engage with Marciano. His power wouldn't have worked on Rocky, his body was wearing down and he just simply couldn't do the 'herky jerkiness' of the LHW times by the time he fought Tyson. Marciano would win by KO in either one or two rounds. Spinks just couldn't take it.

Mike Tyson-

In comparing him to Joe Frazier, Larry Merchant once said, in retrospect: "Frazier was a mile wide and a foot deep, while Tyson was a mile wide and an inch deep." Tyson, for all his ability, was all but a oerfect mixture of defense, speed and power, but it was the inside of Mike Tyson that wasn't quite up to par. He proved that against Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield, and Lennox Lewis that he could take tremendous punishment, but the true fact of the matter is: if someone could take Tyson's shots and punch back at him, he was going to more than likely lose.

Tyson, also, was somewhat inconsistant in his performances. having a spectacular knockout over one opponent, such as Trevor Berbick, and then a lacklister bout against the mediocre Bonecrusher Smith. Then throw in Tyson jumping ship over to Don King, after dropping Mike Jacobs and Bill Cayton (the original team Tyson) and his turbulent marriage to Robin Givens, Tyson began to train less and less, stopped the head movements and defense and all but became a head puncher who fouled alot (elbows to Bruno in their first fight is a prime example).

Also, truth be told, Tyson never really faced adversity or a genuine test in his prime years. Not until facing the likes of Holyfield and Lewis, did Tyson really face someone with a remote chance of winning---some might argue Razor Ruddock was legit, but you must admit, he was far from great. And truth be told, again, had it been anyone else who beat the mixed bag of HW pretenders that Tyson did, nobody would have cared---it was just simply the way Tyson won that made him marketable and made him look like "the baddest man on the planet".

In short, Tyson let his opponents get to him. He let the outside world, his marriage, his relationship with King push aside his boxing instinct. He simply let outside forces get the better of him. And in truth, this was always how Tyson was, even as an amateur. He had mental break downs, would cry, throw tantrums, etc.

Rocky Marciano on the other hand all but seperated himself from the world, his family, friends, reporters, when he was in training, and despite what his opponents did to him, Marciano kept coming forward and kept on punching---he stayed focused and he stuck to his game plan. He never stopped being ferocious and never ever came close to saying the words "I quit!"

I see this fight happening alot like the first Holyfield fight. Tyson comes out fast and hits Marciano flush, but Marciano shakes it off and fires back one of his own bombs and continues to come on---Tyson sees off the bat, Marciano isn't easy to intimidate and not easy to knock out or to hurt---Tyson breaks down inside as the fight progresses, even though Marciano is looking rather rough himself from Tyson's blows, but he keeps coming and continues to up the pace---Tyson shuts down, his confidence blown, he resorts to fouling Marciano, but Rocky again shakes the dirty tactics off and fires more at Tyson---Marciano drops Tyson for the count in the 12th and final round.

Buster Douglas-

Douglas, like Baer, had the potential to be more than just a one time HW champion who lost in his first defense. He was a fighter, yes, but certainly not an athlete. His heart and desire was never really into the sport, except for his one fight spectacular showdown with Mike Tyson, where he won by KO in the 10th, after winning everyone of the previous nine rounds except for the 8th when he was dropped by Tyson. Douglas had solid skills, a great punch and his height was great assests---but it was his emotions that played apart in some of his biggest fights, were he unfortunately lost the majority of them. He was winning every round against Tony Tucker for the vacant IBF title, only to quit in the 11th on his stool. Fights such as that, made Douglas one of the least marketable and dependable fighters in history.

After beating Tyson, Douglas lost by KO in the 3 round against Evander Holyfield who was only three or four fights into his HW debut and a former undisputed Cruiserweight champion. Douglas, in the fight, was considerably over weight and seemed to be only interested in the money. His fight with Tyson was possibly the biggest upset in the sports history, at least in modern times, but it was the death of his mother who pushed him to win...

Unfortunately people don't die twice...and I see Douglas either getting knocked out in the later rounds or eventually retiring on his stool against Marciano, as The Rock's constant pressure, strength, toughness and determination would have eventually broken down Douglas's guard, if not his mentality first. But, if Douglas came into the mind set of wanting to win, it could be a different out come altogether---Douglas could very well edge Marciano on points, just like he was doing to Tyson---but I don't see Marciano getting knocked out in 10 rounds or 11 rounds, it would go the distance---only for the fact the Tyson that Douglas fought, wasn't in shape, wasn't focused, wasn't expecting the 42-1 under dog to actually give him trouble and simply had become a head hunter in the ring, lacking skill and defense.

Evander Holyfield-

Of all the modern HW's from Holmes onward, there is really only one man who I can see giving Marciano a full out war and a genuine struggle. That man? Evander Holyfield. As an amateur Holyfield was an accomplished boxer, and was robbed in the Olympics of the gold medal on an outrageous 'foul' call. Holyfield started off at 175, but bulked up and quickly shifted to the Cruiserweight division where he would shortly unify the WBA/WBC/IBF belts before his 19th pro bout. He then made the jump to Heavyweight and in just his 3rd fight in the new weight class showed the world a taste of what was to come knocking out former champion Mike Dokes in 10 rounds in one of the best fights of 1989.
Three fights later, he fought Buster Douglas for the HW title and knocked him out in the 3rd round to become the undisputed HW champion of the world. He racked up three defenses against come backing former champions George Foreman and Larry Holmes and contender Bert Cooper. He lost to Riddick Bowe in his next fight, destroys Alex Stewart and then regains his title in a rematch with Bowe, only to lose it the next time out to Michael Moorer, who had just jumped from light heavyweight. Holyfield would then beat Ray Mercer, lost to Bowe by knockout, beat Bobby Cysz and then defeated Mike Tyson for the WBA title in the biggest upset of 1996.

The rematch proved disasterous with Tyson biting Holyfield and being disqualified in the 3rd, but Holyfield would again fight Michael Moorer and regain the IBF title. He then defended against Vaughn Bean only to have a draw against Lennox Lewis that was quite controversial. The rematch proved better for Lewis. After that point it seemed to be the end of Holyfield, struggling three times with the unheralded John Ruiz and managed to beat Hasim Rahman. He lost to Chris Byrd for the vacated IBF title, losing on wide margins. Holyfield would then lose to Cruiserweight champion James Toney who was making his HW debut by TKO in the 9th, and then Holyfield lost to mediocre Larry Donald by margins of 119-109. Holyfield was banned from the ring shortly thereafter, only to come back and pull off three straight wins against journeyman Jeremy Bates, 2x world title challenger Fres Oquendo and journeyman Vinny Madalone.

What Holyfield proved in his career, which consists of being in 23 title fights and winning portions of the world HW title four times, was that despite being a smaller HW that his determination, power, toughness, conditioning, and tremendous work rate made him arguably the greatest Cruiserweight champion of all time, as well as the best HW of the 1990's, facing and defeating virtually every major star out there.

The thing with Holyfield was, it never seemed to be enough for the sport and the fans. When he turned HW he was deemed just a blown up Cruiserweight. When he defeated Douglas it wasnt because Holyfield did such a tremendous job in the ring, it was because Douglas was a fat ass. Then throw in how he couldn't put away the 42 year old Foreman and Holmes, and how Bert Cooper (a late substitute) dropped Holyfield---and then the losses to Bowe and to a over blown light heavyweight with a china chin (Moorer). Least that is how the public perceived it.
Holyfield, like Marciano, never completely got the due respect he deserved. But despite the critics and despite the skeptics, Holyfield keeps coming back and keeps surprising us. His longetivity is right up there with Foreman and Holmes.

Marciano would have a helluva time with Holyfield. Fact of business, Holyfield is all but a Marciano clone in the sense of having power, tremendous heart, determination, toughness, being the best conditioned of his day and having a great work rate. Both these men were rarely ever in a dull fight---but one wonders if Foreman only let loose a little bit more or was a little less heavy or younger, would Holyfield have still been standing? Holyfield still says to this day Foreman was his hardest hitting opponent. One also wonders if Tyson had a stronger will, would Holyfield have survived? One also wonders, when looking back on how bad Bowe turned out, that if Holyfield could get stopped in his prime by Bowe---could Marciano do it to?

Speculation is just that, speculation. Holyfield wins 12 round decision, close, over Marciano.

Lennox Lewis-

3x's the HW champion. The greatest HW to ever come out of Great Britain. The best big man since Larry Holmes. Defeated virtually every man of his era. The list goes on like a VH1 special called "I KTFO THE 90's", Tommy Morrison, Frank Bruno, Oliver McCall, Ray Mercer, Shannon Briggs, Evander Holyfield, Gary Mason, Razor Ruddock; and later, though a bit too late, against Mike Tyson. Outside of Bowe, Moorer, Foreman, and Holmes it can be said that Lewis was either a close second to Holyfield or he arguably was the best of the 1990's.

Lewis' problem was that he was inconsistant, being dominant in one fight and then struggling in another or simply just looking inept against men he shouldn't have. Lewis also was one of the more over-confident fighters in history, rarely believing that he could lose and believing that he was a true HW because at 6'5" and 245 he had that "pedigree", as he once said in an interview.

It was kind of hard to argue with him, seeing as nobody really came close to over throwing him when he was in the mindset to rage war on his opponent. His 85" jab combined with a cannon ball of a right hand made him one helluva hoss to do business with. But, despite his success, Lewis was full of flaws: he carried his left hand too low, he was a bad infighter, his chin was a liability and of course, his ego. While some might point out that his fight with Ray Mercer was proof that he could take a punch, while this may be so, many observers thought that Mercer should have gotten the nod and not Lewis.

Truth may also lie in the fact that outside of Holyfield and Mercer, Lewis never really fought a solid opponent. Morrison had a glass jaw and was built on beating journeyman. Briggs hated to train and had no desire or determination. McCall was an unknown before he upset Lewis, and later proved to be emotionally unstable. Golota was also a nutcase and a mental midget who would give in under the pressure. Rahman was another unheralded fighter until he upset Lewis and has proved nothing since except being possibly the worst 'hot and cold' fighter in years. Bruno was also a glass jawed fighter who did have skill and a punch, but he too, had emotional problems. And by the time he fought Holyfield he was on the downside but still couldn't put him away and Tyson? Forget it, it wasn't even an echo of the Tyson of the 1980's, let alone the mid 1990's.

Had Lewis fought Marciano, it really would only go one of two ways: Lewis would 'Tua' him all night in a complete snore for all, or Marciano would catch Lewis early and explode on him, knocking him out somewhere between 4-5 rounds, you might find this perception illogical and maybe even laughable considering Marciano was 5'11" but truth be told Tyson himself was around 5'10" and even at his faded condition he was able to make Lewis' legs turn into rubber in the 1st round, but unfortunately wasn't able to follow it up.
Hey, maybe I am just being too harsh on Lewis, like "The Lion" himself said: "History will judge me more kindly than my critics", and Lewis is right. Who knows, maybe in twenty years Lewis will be placed inside the top 10 HW's of all time, just like Larry Holmes, who was dismissed for years and years. But myself, I can see it only going two ways---either Lewis would 'Tua' Marciano the whole time and stay cautious and it end up a bore, or Marciano would catch Lewis early and end it quick.

More Than Likely Losses for Marciano:
Sonny Liston, Joe Louis, George Foreman, Jack Johnson, Evander Holyfield

More Than Likely Wins for Marciano:
Leon Spinks, Michael Spinks, Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns, Jim Jefferies, Jim Corbett, John L. Sullivan, Gene Tunney, Buster Douglas, Mike Tyson, Max Baer, Ingemar Johansson, Jess Willard, Primo Carnera, Jack Sharkey, Floyd Patterson

Possibility For Marciano Upset:
Larry Holmes, Joe Frazier, Jack Dempsey, Max Schmeling, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott


Note- This list excluded Muhammad Ali aka Cassius Clay for the sole purpose that we, as a forum, have been in discussing a hypothetical match-up between Marciano-Ali probably more than any single dream match in this site's history, and still are. The debate still continues, and while public opinion usually goes for Ali, there is a small majority who think Marciano would have won maybe one out of three like Frazier did, or believe Marciano could have been just as difficult an opponent for Ali as any other that the "Greatest" ever fought, win, lose, or draw.

[I Feel Fine]

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

Not entirely up to date on this conversation, but if you're trying to defend Foster at heavyweight, I'm afraid it's a lost cause. He lost every single time he ever fought a top 50 heavyweight.

Frazier has things that Marciano doesn't have. I think Joe's punches are faster. Joe weighs more. Joe's reach is longer.

Frazier's reach was 2-3 inches longer than Marciano's, which is scarcely a noticeable difference. What's more, they were both overwhelmingly inside punchers, not jabbers or long-range sluggers, so nitpicking about two or three inches in reach is really pretty silly.

The only thing I can say for Marciano is his right hand is harder, and he's not a slow starter like Joe.

Come on, now, I love Frazier to death, and he does have some advantages over Marciano, but Marciano was a harder hitter with better two-handed power, a sturdier chin, if anything even better stamina, and wasn't as slow a starter.

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 could certainly see Walcott or Charles extending Frazier the distance and potentially even making it very close. I would favor Frazier to win by a clear-cut margin, mind you, but with the skill, speed, conditioning and ring intelligence they possessed, they would absolutely be live underdogs.

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

This is a weak comparison. Ali was an almost exclusively long-range head puncher who relied the most on the jab and straight right hand. Walcott was more of a mid-range hitter who attacked both the head and body and whose arsenal, along with a fair jab, largely consisted of a lot of hooks, uppercuts and crosses. Ali usually "peppered" opponents with dozens of long-range straight punches that didn't necessarily have much on each of them, but which accumulated and frequently resulted in cuts/swelling stoppages or opponents being chipped away at until they went down, while Walcott looked to time and counter his opponents with one telling shot at a time, often resulting in sudden, jolting knockdowns(as he scored against Louis, Charles, Marciano). Besides which, aside from a surprising opening barrage and the knockdown, I don't really see where Walcott landed cleanly "so easily" on Marciano.
Ali himself remarked after sharing a ring with Marciano for the computer fight filming that Marciano was surprisingly hard to hit with a jab, and Dundee agreed with that conclusion. Ali would be punching down with long, straight shots that were generally of the flicking/peppering variety at a crouching-style opponent. I tend to think most of Ali's punches would miss or glance off ineffectually.
That said, I don't think Rocky would have the easiest time landing flush on Ali, either, and Ali would probably connect first and more often. I would favor Ali to edge Marciano out in a close, hard-fought match were the two ever to fight in their primes.

Funny, I didn't even notice this until now.

I) Foster: Yes, you aren't up to date. I already said Foster seemed to have perhaps the least success of any dominant Light Heavyweight who moved up. I was only pointing out that against Jones, he was still only 10-0 which is an important detail. Terrell had a huge size advantage, it looked almost like man against boy.

II) Frazier's reach: Where do you see me nitpicking? I think this detail does matter, but I didn't make a big deal out of Frazier's longer reach. Still, 2-3 inches reach doesn't hurt Joe in landing his left hook.

III) Marciano's advantages: "Come on now"? I guess we've decided to toss civil debate. That aside, either you weren't reading my post or were trying to be a stickler. I said Rocky had two fisted power and that Joe didn't. I said Rocky was a fast starter, and Joe wasn't. Not sure why you're lecturing me on those advantages for Rocky, if I already mentioned them myself. but I disagree about Rocky's chin, and I don't think the difference in their stamina is that great. More on the chin question later.

IV) Frazier vs. Walcott/Charles: Again, you're being a stickler. I didn't say they weren't live underdogs, I said Frazier could conceivably beat them more convincingly than Marciano did, which you seem to agree with, and that generally speaking I think they would do about equally well if they swapped eras... though I can see Joe having an easier time with some of Rocky's opponents.

V) Ali in comparison to Walcott vs. Marciano: Weak comparison?... well, no. What other Marciano opponent would be closest in comparison to Ali in terms of how they fought Rocky... Savold? Cockell? I'm sure you'd like those comparisons, anyway. Walcott fought well from the outside. Walcott had a good size advantage over Marciano, and Ali was bigger than Walcott. Walcott was able to land his jab on Rocky, he had success when he used it. Tell it to Marciano's face that Rocky didn't take too many punches from Joe. Walcott landed his counter right somewhat effectively, Ali could certainly do that. Even if you wanted to make the argument that Walcott did have difficulty landing on Marciano, which I think is at least somewhat untrue, he was landing enough to be ahead of Marciano 13 rounds in. Marciano's chances of landing a Hail Mary on Ali aren't what they are against Walcott... I think that's one thing Joe Frazier would agree with when it comes to Ali.

I just don't care about what Ali noticed about Marciano before the computer fight. An actual fight just isn't the same as an exhibition, let alone a fake exhibition, even if the guy hadn't fought since Ali was around 10 years old. Rocky didn't seem to feel that he was impossible to hit with a jab, he said he felt that Joe Louis was going to take his face off with his jab. Walcott's jab worked okay against Marciano. Ali's jab is quicker than those two, and he's taller with a longer reach than Walcott and Louis which helps. I doubt Marciano was any harder to hit with a jab than Frazier, not necessarily easier, but not harder.

[Marciano Frazier]

We may not "know" what happened against Bruce, but we don't, strictly speaking, "know" anything here. The fact that Frazier took a standing-eight suggests he was hurt. And again, as you did not address, Frazier does appear visibly rocked on several occasions during his prime and near-prime years, as against Ali in the early rounds of their second and third fights, against Ramos in the first round, etc. Marciano, on the other hand, was never knocked down as an amateur, never down in his first 42 professional fights, and down only twice- for a grand total of five seconds- in his entire career, and never really appears to be seriously hurt at any time in any of his filmed fights. Obviously we can't be positive about it, or most anything else in comparing fighters from different eras, but based on the facts and film available, I don't really see how you could reasonably not conclude that Marciano seemed to be more durable than Frazier.

Frazier was 22 years old and in his 12th fight when he was dropped twice by Ringo,

Yes, you've already said this repeatedly, and I both know it and take it into account. Have you not seen me repeatedly say "although he was green" or something similar when discussing this incident? In fact, if you look through past discussions I've been involved in, you may notice that when people have attacked Frazier's durability on the basis of this incident, I have regularly used that point to his defense. But the point I'm making here is that, even though he was not yet fully mature and the incident is very understandable, it still has to count as a mark against Frazier when comparing him with a fighter like Marciano, who never suffered such an incident at any stage of his life in boxing, either as an amateur, as an early professional, or as a world-elite.

and as you noted I should not have used the term flash knock down, but he was not hurt to the point of getting stopped. At least in my opinion. But the issue is more the fact that he fought Ringo that early in his career, as opposed to Marciano who probably fought only one fighter in his entire career that punched as hard as Bonavena, and that was ancient Joe Louis.

What, exactly, makes you think Bonavena hit harder than, say, Walcott or Moore? Walcott and Moore certainly knocked out a lot more top fighters than Bonavena ever did. Bonavena never flattened an elite-level fighter with one shot like Walcott did to Charles or broke ribs, left opposition unconscious, etc. like Moore did a number of times.

Unfortunately, many of Rocky’s early fights are not on film, so it is possible that he may have also gotten “rocked” in some of those fights and they is simply lost to the ages.

Again, you're not really getting it here. I'm not talking about their early fights with regards to their being "rocked"- I'm talking about their championship careers as are visible on film. Flip on tapes of Frazier against Ramos, Ali, etc., and you can see him appearing visibly shaken in the early rounds, and against guys who hit no harder than some of Marciano's opponents. Marciano never, or virtually never, appears to be wobbled by his opponents' punches to the extent that Frazier does. Hence, one can logically conclude that Marciano seems more durable.

This is hardly like comparing Wlad’s chin to Chuvalo’s chin, so the only thing I find unreasonable is how anybody could say with any conviction that one fighter clearly had a better chin than the other.

I didn't say that Marciano necessarily "clearly" had a better chin than Frazier with "conviction." I'm not positive he was more durable, since there is no direct way to compare, what with these two having fought in different eras against entirely different opposition, but based on any objective comparison of their careers as we know them, it seems to me that Marciano would have to be considered the more durable: he was floored and rocked considerably less often in his amateur career, as a novice, and as an elite-level fighter, and he seems to stand up better to punishment against the same level of puncher on film. How many ways can you really interpret that? I concede it is possible that the general opposition in Frazier's era hit harder than in Marciano's era, or that Frazier just so happened circumstantially to be caught right to get his bell rung a lot more often than Marciano, but the probable conclusion, based on the available evidence, is that Marciano was more durable than Frazier was. We are presently participating in a discussion of the ability of past fighters from different eras in comparison with each other- which is objectively an entirely unknowable thing based entirely on incomplete evidence and indirect comparisons- and so I am making a hypothetical reconstruction which, while not by any means proven or overwhelmingly certain to be true, is the probable conclusion given a weighing of the evidence.