Why Rocky Marciano Could Have Defeated "The Greatest&qu
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Yeah it was Seamus, and that's in alot people's logic that Joe Louis was so friggin old that ANY chump could have beaten him when Marciano did, and they use the same logic against Walcott and Charles and of course Moore.
Yeah, I can understand the logic, I really do, when someone says Marciano's career was based on those fights, while Ali, Louis and some others had many great fights...but like I said before in the Rock Marciano: An Enduring Legacy Into Mythology thread had he continued on fighting, I don't think there's really much doubt that Marciano would have defeated Patterson, Jackson, Valdes, Baker, Cooper, and Johansson.
Had he went that far, would he have been ranked higher, or would it be the same old story that his opponents were not good enough? I have never seen a champion in history whose opponents were more torn apart than Rocky Marciano's....but I say look at a prime Larry Holmes opponents, look at Tommy Burns opponents, Mike Tyson's opponents.
No matter how someone can stress the point that Joe Louis was the number one contender for the HW title when he fought Marciano and had knocked out the likes of Rex Layne, Pat Valentino in exhibitions and beat Lee Savold (recognized by the BBBC as champion) and the likes of Bivins and Brion.....Joe Louis was still so old, so weak, so shop worn, practically a human punching bag, etc etc etc.
It's a crock, the same version of Joe Louis who fought Marciano would prolly knock out the same men Mike Tyson fought in the 1980's, if not win decisions and win the WBA trinket.
I will not even go into Charles, because its always the same story, same inevitable end that he had so many losses, was so old (he was only 2yrs older than Marciano)...yet RING magazine wrote once that NOBODY could have fought with Ezzard Charles that night, let alone take the decision, but Marciano did.
Walcott? Wont even go into that either, cus for some reason people would rather believe that Lennox Lewis got better with age, but not Walcott.
Moore? Way I see it, its bigger than the Ali-Foster fight in the sense that Moore was STILL the recognised LHW champion of the world and would hold on to that title until 1962, seven years AFTER the Marciano fight. But Moore was so old, so washed up, that it shouldnt qualify. At least Moore proved he could hang in with the top HW's up until he retired when he was 48 years old than Foster whose jaw had so much glass in it he ought to have been a chandelier.
As far as Marciano not fighting better contenders or equal contenders to Ali, you're more than likely right, but then again if LaStarza could go a combined 21 rounds with Marciano, whose to say he couldnt cruise a decision over Bonavena or Quarry, who weren't the punchers or as fierce as The Rock?
You have to remember, also, Marciano more or less jumped passed the middle part of the division straight to the top men of the era....not too many people really can say that they did that in their careers, going from bums to the likes of Louis, Layne, Matthews, Walcott, Charles, and Moore.
Had he "built" himself up, I dont think there would have been really a need, considering he remained undefeated...but what "middle" contenders during that time could have upset him anyways?
The thing that makes Marciano special, least in my mind, is that throughout his entire career he wasn't supposed to be the guy who won. He was too small, too crude, too short of reach, too old (had a late start), and he kept on winning.
Against Layne he wasnt supposed to win. Against LaStarza he wasnt supposed to win [despite the first decision, Marciano made it clear the second go-around who truly was the better man]. Against Matthews he wasnt supposed to win, or against Louis, or Walcott or Charles...the ONLY two times he was ever the favorite was against Moore and Cockell.
I know boxing isn't based on what if's...but I think had he went on, he would have beaten the Satterfields, the Bakers, the Valdes, the Coopers, the Pattersons and Johansson...the only man from that time I could see beating Marciano would have been Liston, and by that time Marciano would have been 35 or so years old and wouldnt stand much of a chance.
Let's just say, he had the potential, to have been much more than what his place in the HW division's history usually places him in.
Yes, overall Ali's opponents in the end were great contenders, but at the time he fought them, I dont think they were quite at their physical peak. Great fights, yes. Great fighters, overall yes, but not quite at their best.
In ways you remind me of Tommy Morrison, when he said on RINGSIDE's special on Lennox Lewis that Marciano couldn't compete with the gigantic HW's of today, and that HE himself believed that Marciano couldn't have even beaten him
Yeah, I can understand the logic, I really do, when someone says Marciano's career was based on those fights, while Ali, Louis and some others had many great fights...but like I said before in the Rock Marciano: An Enduring Legacy Into Mythology thread had he continued on fighting, I don't think there's really much doubt that Marciano would have defeated Patterson, Jackson, Valdes, Baker, Cooper, and Johansson.
Had he went that far, would he have been ranked higher, or would it be the same old story that his opponents were not good enough? I have never seen a champion in history whose opponents were more torn apart than Rocky Marciano's....but I say look at a prime Larry Holmes opponents, look at Tommy Burns opponents, Mike Tyson's opponents.
No matter how someone can stress the point that Joe Louis was the number one contender for the HW title when he fought Marciano and had knocked out the likes of Rex Layne, Pat Valentino in exhibitions and beat Lee Savold (recognized by the BBBC as champion) and the likes of Bivins and Brion.....Joe Louis was still so old, so weak, so shop worn, practically a human punching bag, etc etc etc.
It's a crock, the same version of Joe Louis who fought Marciano would prolly knock out the same men Mike Tyson fought in the 1980's, if not win decisions and win the WBA trinket.
I will not even go into Charles, because its always the same story, same inevitable end that he had so many losses, was so old (he was only 2yrs older than Marciano)...yet RING magazine wrote once that NOBODY could have fought with Ezzard Charles that night, let alone take the decision, but Marciano did.
Walcott? Wont even go into that either, cus for some reason people would rather believe that Lennox Lewis got better with age, but not Walcott.
Moore? Way I see it, its bigger than the Ali-Foster fight in the sense that Moore was STILL the recognised LHW champion of the world and would hold on to that title until 1962, seven years AFTER the Marciano fight. But Moore was so old, so washed up, that it shouldnt qualify. At least Moore proved he could hang in with the top HW's up until he retired when he was 48 years old than Foster whose jaw had so much glass in it he ought to have been a chandelier.
As far as Marciano not fighting better contenders or equal contenders to Ali, you're more than likely right, but then again if LaStarza could go a combined 21 rounds with Marciano, whose to say he couldnt cruise a decision over Bonavena or Quarry, who weren't the punchers or as fierce as The Rock?
You have to remember, also, Marciano more or less jumped passed the middle part of the division straight to the top men of the era....not too many people really can say that they did that in their careers, going from bums to the likes of Louis, Layne, Matthews, Walcott, Charles, and Moore.
Had he "built" himself up, I dont think there would have been really a need, considering he remained undefeated...but what "middle" contenders during that time could have upset him anyways?
The thing that makes Marciano special, least in my mind, is that throughout his entire career he wasn't supposed to be the guy who won. He was too small, too crude, too short of reach, too old (had a late start), and he kept on winning.
Against Layne he wasnt supposed to win. Against LaStarza he wasnt supposed to win [despite the first decision, Marciano made it clear the second go-around who truly was the better man]. Against Matthews he wasnt supposed to win, or against Louis, or Walcott or Charles...the ONLY two times he was ever the favorite was against Moore and Cockell.
I know boxing isn't based on what if's...but I think had he went on, he would have beaten the Satterfields, the Bakers, the Valdes, the Coopers, the Pattersons and Johansson...the only man from that time I could see beating Marciano would have been Liston, and by that time Marciano would have been 35 or so years old and wouldnt stand much of a chance.
Let's just say, he had the potential, to have been much more than what his place in the HW division's history usually places him in.
Yes, overall Ali's opponents in the end were great contenders, but at the time he fought them, I dont think they were quite at their physical peak. Great fights, yes. Great fighters, overall yes, but not quite at their best.
Oh and Seamus....if Vitali quit against Byrd, does that mean that the former MW turn HW is a harder puncher than Marciano or that Vitali simply is a piece of garbage? Charles had far greater skills than Vitali, Ibeabuchi, Tua COMBINED...faded, maybe, but I recall the words of Cus D'Amato that a former champion (in this case Charles) is the most dangerous opponent to ever face, as they always have a chance to recapture what was once theirs.Yep Rocky would destroy Ike, Tua and Vitali with the Suzie Q, but he couldn't KO a faded Ezzard Charles in 15 with it.
In ways you remind me of Tommy Morrison, when he said on RINGSIDE's special on Lennox Lewis that Marciano couldn't compete with the gigantic HW's of today, and that HE himself believed that Marciano couldn't have even beaten him
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
BoxBuzz, you more than anyone knows I wouldnt dismiss the great Eddie Machen.
I had you personally do computer simulation on a post prime Marciano vs prime Machen back during the ROCKY MARCIANO: AN ENDURING LEGACY INTO MYTHOLOGY thread, and the results were a Marciano victory.
I just simply forgot to name Machen I mean come on, there were so many contenders at the time like Earl Walls, Bob Cleroux, as well Cooper, Johansson, Patterson, Jackson, Baker, Valdes, Satterfield, and yesss even Eddie Machen.
Machen been ducked for years by Patterson, it's only logical, it would have been Machen, rather than Patterson, who would have gotten the 'shot' at Marciano first, had "The Rock" continued on fighting.
So, excuse me for not writing a name down, I apologise, I'm only human after all.
I had you personally do computer simulation on a post prime Marciano vs prime Machen back during the ROCKY MARCIANO: AN ENDURING LEGACY INTO MYTHOLOGY thread, and the results were a Marciano victory.
I just simply forgot to name Machen I mean come on, there were so many contenders at the time like Earl Walls, Bob Cleroux, as well Cooper, Johansson, Patterson, Jackson, Baker, Valdes, Satterfield, and yesss even Eddie Machen.
Machen been ducked for years by Patterson, it's only logical, it would have been Machen, rather than Patterson, who would have gotten the 'shot' at Marciano first, had "The Rock" continued on fighting.
So, excuse me for not writing a name down, I apologise, I'm only human after all.
Marciano was slower punching out of the crouch than Frazier and with his little arms that crouch wouldn't do him much good against a fighter Ali's height and speed.#1- Marciano crouched lower than Frazier; Marciano could have just as easily dupliacted the strategy team Frazier done---plus would have received less shots back, as this would have made Marciano far more difficult to hit.
I don't understand the point of this paragraph. obviously 8 weeks was all Frazier needed for that fight. the way he fought in that heat, and not to mention all his other fights, stamina was not an issue with Frazier. What evidence is there that Marciano had better stamina?#4- Conditioning. The LONGEST Joe Frazier ever trained was 8 weeks, for the Thrilla in Manila. Marciano on the other hand, usually trained 4-6 months for much lesser opponents than Ali. It is therefore possible and logical that he would have trained not only his hardest, but longest [maybe 8-10 months] against "The Greatest".
It wasn't Frazier's conditioning that didn't allow him to finish Ali off when he had him hurt; it was Ali.#5- Though this in part goes back to conditioning, had Marciano got Ali hurt in the 4th, 12th and 15th rounds like Joe done, Rocky certainly would have upped the pace, being all the more aggressive, more punches, etc---Joe was just simply not conditioned enough to have done so, to take that sort of initiative.
Both Ali and Frazier were both alot bigger and stronger than Charles and would wear on Marciano alot more than Charles did.Again, conditioning plays a role, Marciano NEVER tired! In his first fight
with Ezzard Charles, there was only ONE clinch in 15 rounds, a tactic that was forced by Ezzard Charles! If Ali was tired against Frazier, and Frazier tired against Ali, it's possible Marciano wouldn't have been tired against either man.
Power. Marciano's punching prowess was clearly beyond Frazier's and it never dissipated. He hit just as hard as he did in the first as he would in the last; he could lose every single round, bloody beyond repair, and somehow be able to pull the KO out of his ass to win the fight. If Frazier could hurt this version of Ali, drop him for several "no counts" and an official count in the 15th, it's logical to assume Marciano not only could do the same---but more often!
Clearly beyond Fraziers? Not only is Marciano overated, his power is even more so. Much of the legend of Marcianos superhuman power comes from his admittingly awe inspiring 13 rd. ko of Walcott.
All of Marciano's other big wins came after he landed ALOT of flush shots against his opponent. You yourself stated that Marciano went 15 rounds with only 1 clinch with Ezzard Charles. Can you imagine Charles pulling that off against Foreman, or Tyson?
No disrespect to Marciano, but i couldn't imagine Walcott, Moore or Charles giving Frazier much trouble even in their prime, let alone in the stage of their career they were in when they fought Marciano.#11- No disrespect to Joe Frazier, but if you take away the Ali fights, his greatest wins were over Buster Mathis, Jimmy Ellis, Jerry Quarry, George Chuvalo, Bob Foster and Oscar Bonavena. Is there any doubt that Marciano couldn't beat the same men Frazier did? Compare Mathis and Ellis to Walcott and Charles, Foster to Moore...you can't, not really, considering Walcott and Charles even at that stage of their careers probably could have defeated Ellis and Mathis, Foster was a great LHW but nowhere near Moore's ability and toughness in the HW ranks. Marciano, in essence, would be Frazier's equal, if not superior.
My prediction- Marciano losses by clear cut decision, and bleeding profusely throughout.Ali loses via decision to Rocky Marciano; Marciano seals the victory by not only being the aggressor throughout, but winning 8 rounds to Ali's 6 with 1 round even. Marciano manages to drop Ali twice in the last round, the first a no count, the second a count of 5. Marciano has two deep gashes around his eyes and swollen badly, the fight almost halted in the 14th due to them.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Maybe in the second fight he was against Walcott, but in the first fight many didn't think Rocky had much of a chance but a puncher's chance.
I quote Walcott when he said:
"If I cant beat this bum, then take my name out of the record books forever!"
And theone, you do realise this is against the Ali of March 8th, 1971? You're more or less saying that even with Ali at his worst championship level he would beat Marciano one sidedly?
Talk about rose tinted glasses in this forum.
In any case, I too, also drop my opinion that the new format fornicating sucks.
I quote Walcott when he said:
"If I cant beat this bum, then take my name out of the record books forever!"
And theone, you do realise this is against the Ali of March 8th, 1971? You're more or less saying that even with Ali at his worst championship level he would beat Marciano one sidedly?
Talk about rose tinted glasses in this forum.
In any case, I too, also drop my opinion that the new format fornicating sucks.
-
Controversial
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 9175
- Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29
I can't see Marciano beating Ali. He would give him a tough fight but Ali would beat him on points or very late stoppage probably to cuts. Marciano did punch hard but he normally took several rounds to break down his opponents. How many punches did it take to stop Moore and Cockell? Yes he ko'ed JJW with one punch but JJW didn't have the punch resistence or speed Ali had.
Marciano does get overated IMO. He was a good fighter but fought in a weak era against fighters past their best.
Marciano does get overated IMO. He was a good fighter but fought in a weak era against fighters past their best.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Homocide- Jaclem just pointed out that Marciano was the favorite going against Walcott the first time. Walcott wasn't that highly regarded. Read what other people say.
Yes Marciano would have been the favorite against almost all of Ali's opponents throughout his career. Foreman,Frazier, Liston (Holmes if you want to count that fight) would have been the exceptions.
However, the point that Homicide doesn't seem to understand is that Ali fought many very good fighters who couldn't be taken lightly. If Marciano had to have fought Quarry twice, Patterson twice, Norton three times, Bonavena, Ellis,Lyle,Terrell he would have lost at least a couple of times somewhere along the line.
If Marciano had to fight Shavers when he was 35 he may have lost.
To who Marciano would have lost is hard to say but it's safe to say he would have a lot of hard fights here and would have lost a few.
If Marciano had to fight Ali's opponents under the circumstances that Ali did,(taking into consideration age, the 3 and a half year layoff) Marciano would have lost at least 10 fights.
If Ali would have fought Marciano opponents, (at the age that Marciano was when he fought them and no 3 and a half year layoff), Ali would have gone undeated, as would have a handful of other fighters.
Tyson and Holmes opponents get do criticzed often as well. It's pretty much taken for granted that except for a few exceptions (Holmes did beat Shavers twice and Norton) that they did not fight exceptional competition and seldom does anyone say that they did.
However, Marciano's fans will bring up Louis,Charles, Walcott,and Moore and try to say that these are big wins.
Yes Louis was the number #1 contender. Someone had to be. However, light heavyweight Joey Maxim and journeyman Lee Savold were #2 and #3. Louis was way, way past it.
Holmes and Tyson beat several #1 contenders as well and most people don't think anything of it.
Charles was past, Walcott was old, and Moore was old and a lightheavyweight. Many other heavyweight championsw would have beaten these guys.
If Marciano was at his best better than Ali when Ali was well below his best? Yes. So what? Why do you keep bring this up? It's meaningless.
Yes Marciano would have been the favorite against almost all of Ali's opponents throughout his career. Foreman,Frazier, Liston (Holmes if you want to count that fight) would have been the exceptions.
However, the point that Homicide doesn't seem to understand is that Ali fought many very good fighters who couldn't be taken lightly. If Marciano had to have fought Quarry twice, Patterson twice, Norton three times, Bonavena, Ellis,Lyle,Terrell he would have lost at least a couple of times somewhere along the line.
If Marciano had to fight Shavers when he was 35 he may have lost.
To who Marciano would have lost is hard to say but it's safe to say he would have a lot of hard fights here and would have lost a few.
If Marciano had to fight Ali's opponents under the circumstances that Ali did,(taking into consideration age, the 3 and a half year layoff) Marciano would have lost at least 10 fights.
If Ali would have fought Marciano opponents, (at the age that Marciano was when he fought them and no 3 and a half year layoff), Ali would have gone undeated, as would have a handful of other fighters.
Tyson and Holmes opponents get do criticzed often as well. It's pretty much taken for granted that except for a few exceptions (Holmes did beat Shavers twice and Norton) that they did not fight exceptional competition and seldom does anyone say that they did.
However, Marciano's fans will bring up Louis,Charles, Walcott,and Moore and try to say that these are big wins.
Yes Louis was the number #1 contender. Someone had to be. However, light heavyweight Joey Maxim and journeyman Lee Savold were #2 and #3. Louis was way, way past it.
Holmes and Tyson beat several #1 contenders as well and most people don't think anything of it.
Charles was past, Walcott was old, and Moore was old and a lightheavyweight. Many other heavyweight championsw would have beaten these guys.
If Marciano was at his best better than Ali when Ali was well below his best? Yes. So what? Why do you keep bring this up? It's meaningless.
..the posted odds on marciano/walcott varied....one quoted was 8/5 marciano....another 6/5...and there were others...and all had marciano the favorite...as did most of the sportswriters.
..the ali with shaking hands as he lit the torch at the olympics and i was afraid he migh burn the the whole place down would have beaten marciano....
..the ali with shaking hands as he lit the torch at the olympics and i was afraid he migh burn the the whole place down would have beaten marciano....
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
Yeah, the swapping era's thing that Alp touched on is important I think in this whole Ali-Marciano thing. When judging who was better between the two, aside from the question of who would win (and I think most people would say Ali) the level of opposition they had to deal with was very different. To expand on that point alp was making, which of course is all hypothetical, the chances of Ali going undefeated in Rocky's era are exceptionally good. Barring very odd circumstances Ali likely would have done it, and because Ali was more active than Marciano Ali might have gone undefeated and had even more wins and title defenses than Rocky had.
Hell, you could make the case Ali would have gone undefeated in his own era if he hadn't been exiled.
The chances of Rocky going undefeated in Ali's era, however, are not good at all. I would give him near impossible odds. I don't think he could get passed Liston without losing at least once. If he managed that, he would have to survive another 10 years without a loss just to get to Foreman, which would be very difficult and as alp points out the chances that he might have gotten upset once or twice are very good. He would also have to deal with Frazier, and if Rocky is coming off a 3 1/2 year layoff in this hypothetical swapping of era's then Frazier is the clear favorite. And if Rocky does manage to make it to Foreman undefeated, which is pretty much impossible in itself, his chances of beating Foreman at that stage are even more impossible and I would pick Foreman to freaking annihilate him. On top of George, Rocky would also have Lyle, Young, Norton and Shavers to look forward to, at the ages of 33, 34 and 35.
Again, impossible. Could never happen, Rocky would have had as many losses as Ali at best. Ali in Rocky's era could not only have gone undefeated, he likely would have stretched himself into Patterson's era and gone undefeated for a long time there as well. Ali faced two era's of Heavyweight history, the latter of which was arguably the best in Heavyweight history, while Rocky had to face one of the weaker era's.
Hell, you could make the case Ali would have gone undefeated in his own era if he hadn't been exiled.
The chances of Rocky going undefeated in Ali's era, however, are not good at all. I would give him near impossible odds. I don't think he could get passed Liston without losing at least once. If he managed that, he would have to survive another 10 years without a loss just to get to Foreman, which would be very difficult and as alp points out the chances that he might have gotten upset once or twice are very good. He would also have to deal with Frazier, and if Rocky is coming off a 3 1/2 year layoff in this hypothetical swapping of era's then Frazier is the clear favorite. And if Rocky does manage to make it to Foreman undefeated, which is pretty much impossible in itself, his chances of beating Foreman at that stage are even more impossible and I would pick Foreman to freaking annihilate him. On top of George, Rocky would also have Lyle, Young, Norton and Shavers to look forward to, at the ages of 33, 34 and 35.
Again, impossible. Could never happen, Rocky would have had as many losses as Ali at best. Ali in Rocky's era could not only have gone undefeated, he likely would have stretched himself into Patterson's era and gone undefeated for a long time there as well. Ali faced two era's of Heavyweight history, the latter of which was arguably the best in Heavyweight history, while Rocky had to face one of the weaker era's.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Whoa, whoa whoa...hold on a minute, YOU are telling me that YOU dont believe Rocky Marciano WOULDNT have even been a contender during the 1970's for Ali's title? Or Frazier's? Or Foreman's?..this is "fantasy" match in the purest sense of the word....at that period of time marciano wouldn't even have been a contender....
This has got to be the most biased post I have read yet so far against Marciano, and arguably the most biased anti-Marciano site I have ever been to. That piece of garbage just oozed out of your mouth is the most vile, disgusting, off color, produce of hatred I have ever seen said to an ATG fighter of any weight class or any era.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
Is that any more biased than your statement that "1970-1973 Ali was pretty crappy to say the least"?
Is Jaclem any more biased against Marciano than you are against Ali? Has he started 6 anti-Marciano threads to match the anti-Ali threads that you started?
Ali wasn't at his absolute best and Frazier fought a great fight. Still, Ali gave Frazier a lot of trouble in a very competitive fight. However since Marciano was much easier to hit than Frazier it is probable that Ali would have beaten Marciano (had Marciano been his opponent that night instead of Frazier), even though Ali wasn't at his best.
Is Jaclem any more biased against Marciano than you are against Ali? Has he started 6 anti-Marciano threads to match the anti-Ali threads that you started?
Ali wasn't at his absolute best and Frazier fought a great fight. Still, Ali gave Frazier a lot of trouble in a very competitive fight. However since Marciano was much easier to hit than Frazier it is probable that Ali would have beaten Marciano (had Marciano been his opponent that night instead of Frazier), even though Ali wasn't at his best.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
I disagree, I think its relevant. Firstly I obviously understand the point of the thread, unlike jcs apparently. But I think this question of swapping era's is important as far as our perceptions go. Our perception of Marciano is exaggerated by who he was fighting. I touched on this in the "enduring legacy into myth" thread. Marciano's KO of Walcott and his KO of Charles in the rematch were huge moments, and they helped foster the 'mythology' around Marciano. Marciano was able to pull off two miracles against his two best opponents. But Walcott was the oldest Heavyweight champion in history to that point, and Charles was a former Middleweight with a lot of wear and tear. Marciano's ability to pull off miracles would have declined the better his opposition would have gotten. Marciano's overall dominance would have declined the better his opposition would have gotten. So its relevant in terms of our perception of Marciano, and that's relevant in judging how he would do in a head to head fight with Ali.HomicideHenry wrote:But that isnt the point. This thread was whether or not the Rocky Marciano of his prime could beat the Ali that Joe Frazier (who was also at his peak) fought on March 8th, 1971.
And again, I would say Marciano could have a very good chance of winning in 71 on that night. But I think context is important, and regardless of if he wins or not I think Marciano would have a tougher time than Frazier did against Ali.
Any one who watched films of Ali fight knows the man bailed out high and always moved to his left. Doing so makes you very easy to hit with a good right hand. Marciano could cut of the ring and had one of the best right hands in boxing. Granted Ali was the bigger faster man, and he had a splended sense of range and timing. But in the end I don't think he had the power to stop Marciano, and he would give up a lot of his reach advantage because he jabbed off his front foot, while marciano kept his weight back on his right foot. Basic fundementals folks. Would have been a great fight to watch though. Both men had alot of heart. Its just a case of styles make a fight. In this case Marcianos style and power would probobly make up for his physical inequities....at any rate the joe frazier comparrison doesn't make much sense as frazier fought out of a short rythm taking many steps to get to you, and marciano fought out of a long rythm stepping large when he punched. Also I have to agree that no ones opponents take as much bashing as marciano's. I think Tyson had far worse opponents and alot of the guys Ali fought weren't world beaters either. Yea Walcot lewis and Charles were old, but so were zora foley, archie moore, Sonny liston, Cleveland williams, and even frazier by the time Ali finally beat him....Just some food for thought.
Frazier in shape was 20 lbs heavier than Marciano, he had a way better resume and proved he could withstand the shots of bigger punchers than anyone Marciano ever fought. To assume the Rock could do what Smokin Joe could do is absurd (I could just see La Starza going 11 or Cockell going 9 with Frazier) If Walcott cut up Marciano, what would Ali have done to him. Ali by a lopsided decision or stoppage on cuts after the 10th.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
I'll admit that out of the big three: Frazier, Liston and Foreman, Marciano would have a great chance at losing against them, he would probably not even be the favorite in those fights. I believe, also, it would take a prime Marciano to have been able to take on Liston, Frazier and especially Foreman.
BUT....I absoloutely disagree with Jaclem when he said Rocky Marciano wouldn't have even been a contender in the 1970's.
Name one fighter outside of those three [actually two as Liston only fought one fight in the 1970's] who would have been both the favorite and would more than likely defeat Rocky?
I dont believe Quarry could have. I dont believe that Norton could have either. I dont believe Mac Foster, Bob Foster, Joe Bugner could have either. Not Wepner, not Henry Clark, not Ellis, not Mathis. Especially not Dunne, Coopman, Evangelista, Ali Lewis or Ruddi Lubbers.
The only two men who would stand a chance is SHavers and Young, though Shavers proved he could be beaten early [the Quarry KO in the 1st] so thats more a speculative argument of who would have gotten off with the first punch, so to speak.
But let's say for sake of argument that Young and Shavers, and hell, lets throw in Norton too, would be the favorite and have a great chance at beating Marciano....put them behind Frazier and Foreman...Marciano is ranked at #6 in the 1970's.
Now its logical to me, that Marciano would have still gotten a title shot. I dont think its likely he would have had the 49-0, but I think in trilogies against the Norton's, Frazier's, etc he would have won at best 2 out of 3.
The only man, in my mind, that Marciano couldnt beat at all is George Foreman. Marciano has a much greater chance at beating Ali than Foreman, especially the Ali of 1975 and beyond.
Maybe some disagree with me on my rating Marciano at #6 had he competed in the 1970's, but whatever. Thats my opinion, and like assholes, everybody gots em.
BUT....I absoloutely disagree with Jaclem when he said Rocky Marciano wouldn't have even been a contender in the 1970's.
Name one fighter outside of those three [actually two as Liston only fought one fight in the 1970's] who would have been both the favorite and would more than likely defeat Rocky?
I dont believe Quarry could have. I dont believe that Norton could have either. I dont believe Mac Foster, Bob Foster, Joe Bugner could have either. Not Wepner, not Henry Clark, not Ellis, not Mathis. Especially not Dunne, Coopman, Evangelista, Ali Lewis or Ruddi Lubbers.
The only two men who would stand a chance is SHavers and Young, though Shavers proved he could be beaten early [the Quarry KO in the 1st] so thats more a speculative argument of who would have gotten off with the first punch, so to speak.
But let's say for sake of argument that Young and Shavers, and hell, lets throw in Norton too, would be the favorite and have a great chance at beating Marciano....put them behind Frazier and Foreman...Marciano is ranked at #6 in the 1970's.
Now its logical to me, that Marciano would have still gotten a title shot. I dont think its likely he would have had the 49-0, but I think in trilogies against the Norton's, Frazier's, etc he would have won at best 2 out of 3.
The only man, in my mind, that Marciano couldnt beat at all is George Foreman. Marciano has a much greater chance at beating Ali than Foreman, especially the Ali of 1975 and beyond.
Maybe some disagree with me on my rating Marciano at #6 had he competed in the 1970's, but whatever. Thats my opinion, and like assholes, everybody gots em.
-
Ambling Alp
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 3627
- Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31
I agree that Marciano would have been a Top 10 contender in the 1970's.
Some people are at one extreme and think that Marciano wasn't any good at all.
Others go to the other Paul Bunyan extreme and go on and on about the cute training stories, his undentable chin (which was never really proven against a great puncher), he never got tired, and the Suzie Q and all that crap.
The truth is that Marciano wasn't nearly as good as Ali, or as good as Foreman or Frazier. However, he was very consistent and still one of the Top 10 heavyweights of all time.
Some people are at one extreme and think that Marciano wasn't any good at all.
Others go to the other Paul Bunyan extreme and go on and on about the cute training stories, his undentable chin (which was never really proven against a great puncher), he never got tired, and the Suzie Q and all that crap.
The truth is that Marciano wasn't nearly as good as Ali, or as good as Foreman or Frazier. However, he was very consistent and still one of the Top 10 heavyweights of all time.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
The thing with Marciano is, least with me, is that somewhere between the two extremes [one, that he was invincible, and two, that he was completely horrible] is the truth. The 49-0 has taken a life all its own, alot like how Babe Ruth's 174 home runs was/is, and I am sure it greatly pisses alot of people off that so many HW's throughout the ages since him have tried and failed to break it, or come so close to doing so, only to come up short.
It's not that Marciano was unbeatable, he had a style that was very much beatable, and its not that he had more power, more toughness, etc than any other HW that made him go the 49-0, he had alot going against him.
I think Sonny Liston, said it best, really: "This man [Marciano] was truly one of the greats, he refused to accept defeat."
The only way I ever been able to describe Marciano is that, his style, his size, was beatable, but the man, the very heart, essence and spirit of the man was unbreakable, unshakable. I think in alot of ways it was his own determination and self belief in himself that got him through to victory.
I back that theory up with a little known fight Marciano had when he was only 3-0 as a professional and he was thrown, literally, into the wolves against a man who was a talented amateur and a good HW prospect with some 15 fights. His friends told him what he was up against, and Marciano calmly said "Don't you ever tell me how great my opponents are, I have to believe I can win every time out."
And of course, Marciano won.
It is true, he was the greatest conditioned HW champion in history, and it is true, also, he was one of the greatest punchers, but in all honesty, Marciano trained that way, harder than anyone else, because he had to believe he was in better shape, in better condition, than his opponents....else Marciano was going to be a sitting duck.
If he didnt have that full belief, or something was out of whack within himself, he did terribly in fights; take his fight with Carmine Vingo, the win hurt him alot because he ended Vingo's career. In ways, you can compare it to Baer's win over Cambell, and how Baer was never really quite the same again. A few months later, Marciano fights LaStarza, and does miserably, the Vingo fight still fresh in his mind.
Or how he was sick and still fought Lee Savold anways, and did a somewhat lackluster performance, though he bloodied Savold's face beyond repair....or how he was told Don Cockell would be a push over, so he barely trained at all, and Cockell gave him a good fight, was one of Marciano's 'worst' fights.
For Marciano, it wasn't so much about skill, muscle, power, speed...it was a game of wills, who would crack first, who would break down first.
He would have faired well in the bare-knuckle days, I believe, because thats what it was all about back then; the measure of the man.
But no, Marciano wasnt invincible, or even close to it. Despite what Lou Duva, Peter Marciano, and others wish to say, they are wearing the rose tinted glasses, believing in a mythology all its own, just like how some regard Ali as being able to win every single moment of every single round, and was untouchable, unreachable, etc.
The difference is, Ali is closer to the 'myths' about himself, than Marciano is to his own.
It's not that Marciano was unbeatable, he had a style that was very much beatable, and its not that he had more power, more toughness, etc than any other HW that made him go the 49-0, he had alot going against him.
I think Sonny Liston, said it best, really: "This man [Marciano] was truly one of the greats, he refused to accept defeat."
The only way I ever been able to describe Marciano is that, his style, his size, was beatable, but the man, the very heart, essence and spirit of the man was unbreakable, unshakable. I think in alot of ways it was his own determination and self belief in himself that got him through to victory.
I back that theory up with a little known fight Marciano had when he was only 3-0 as a professional and he was thrown, literally, into the wolves against a man who was a talented amateur and a good HW prospect with some 15 fights. His friends told him what he was up against, and Marciano calmly said "Don't you ever tell me how great my opponents are, I have to believe I can win every time out."
And of course, Marciano won.
It is true, he was the greatest conditioned HW champion in history, and it is true, also, he was one of the greatest punchers, but in all honesty, Marciano trained that way, harder than anyone else, because he had to believe he was in better shape, in better condition, than his opponents....else Marciano was going to be a sitting duck.
If he didnt have that full belief, or something was out of whack within himself, he did terribly in fights; take his fight with Carmine Vingo, the win hurt him alot because he ended Vingo's career. In ways, you can compare it to Baer's win over Cambell, and how Baer was never really quite the same again. A few months later, Marciano fights LaStarza, and does miserably, the Vingo fight still fresh in his mind.
Or how he was sick and still fought Lee Savold anways, and did a somewhat lackluster performance, though he bloodied Savold's face beyond repair....or how he was told Don Cockell would be a push over, so he barely trained at all, and Cockell gave him a good fight, was one of Marciano's 'worst' fights.
For Marciano, it wasn't so much about skill, muscle, power, speed...it was a game of wills, who would crack first, who would break down first.
He would have faired well in the bare-knuckle days, I believe, because thats what it was all about back then; the measure of the man.
But no, Marciano wasnt invincible, or even close to it. Despite what Lou Duva, Peter Marciano, and others wish to say, they are wearing the rose tinted glasses, believing in a mythology all its own, just like how some regard Ali as being able to win every single moment of every single round, and was untouchable, unreachable, etc.
The difference is, Ali is closer to the 'myths' about himself, than Marciano is to his own.
-
I Feel Fine
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2097
- Joined: 10 Apr 2007, 16:48
What myths? Some people make Ali sound like a slightly better version of Chris Byrd. The only myths about Ali as far as I'm concerned are the ones that say he lost to Doug Jones, that Henry Cooper KO'd him, that Zora Folley gave him a boxing lesson, that he could have never beaten Frazier in 71, that he was in his prime when he fought Young...HomicideHenry wrote:But no, Marciano wasnt invincible, or even close to it. Despite what Lou Duva, Peter Marciano, and others wish to say, they are wearing the rose tinted glasses, believing in a mythology all its own, just like how some regard Ali as being able to win every single moment of every single round, and was untouchable, unreachable, etc.
The difference is, Ali is closer to the 'myths' about himself, than Marciano is to his own.