Rocky Marciano: An Enduring Legacy Into Mythology

[HomicideHenry]

Not to break up the Marciano-Frazier jargon, I know later on I'll add my own opinions to it, but....what did u all think of my Marciano hypotheticals against the champs other than Ali?


Note-

"The Greatest, My Own Story" was published in 1976, and Ali states that:

"I can't believe how strong and how hard Rocky can hit, Marciano was a lot harder to hit with a jab than he looked. I can feel how great Marciano must have been just from being in the ring with him when he was 46 years old. I can't even imagine what Rocky must have been like in his prime."

Since, this was written after he had fought the Frazier's, Norton's and Foreman's, it does make you wonder, that Ali does stand firm in his opinion that Rocky Marciano would have been a very tough opponent, had the two met in their primes---and it is being from the opinion of a man who was only 2 years into his exile from boxing.

[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.

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.

Sure. Point is, Foster never beat even a remotely noteworthy heavyweight.

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.

Remember, here, reach is wingspan, in other words, measurement from the end of one hand to the end of the other hand with your arms outstretched. If Frazier and Marciano were to stand back-to-back with their arms outstretched, then, Frazier's hands would extend around and inch farther on either side. In other words, each of Frazier's arms would be maybe an inch longer than Marciano's. This is the sort of difference that would be almost completely irrelevant in any scenario, but particularly when you're dealing with two fighters who hardly ever relied on range or straight/outside punches and instead worked in close, I would consider it to be among the least relevant points one could make in this kind of discussion.

III) Marciano's advantages: "Come on now"? I guess we've decided to toss civil debate.

Yes, who could ever imagine so vulgar and disgusting a slur as "Come on, now," as a preface to an argument! What cruel censorship it represents! Seriously, though, it seemed to me your remarks in that paragraph were overly narrow and limiting, and I thought you probably typed them in haste.

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.

You said "The only thing I can say for Marciano is his right hand is harder, and he's not a slow starter like Joe." I thought(and still think) that this was a narrow and inaccurate statement, and so I responded by expanding on it. I contend that not only did Marciano have a harder right hand than Frazier, he was a harder hitter, period, had a larger two-handed array of power punches than Frazier did, and was(as best their careers evidenced) more durable with(if anything) even better stamina.

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.

I didn't say you said they weren't live underdogs, rather I provided the other side of the picture. Yes, I can conceivably see Frazier beating Walcott and Charles more easily than Marciano did, but since that had already been said, and since I am taking the other side in this exchange, I included the point that they would also, in my estimation, be very live underdogs and have the potential to upset Frazier.

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.

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.

We have one guy whose best power punch is the short left hook, whose most effective work is done with jolting one-at-a-time counter shots, who is a fairly medium-range puncher, and who makes pretty good use of body work, in comparison with another guy whose best power punch is the straight right hand, whose most effective work is done with combinations at range, and who almost never fights on the inside or goes to the body. Yes, I would call that a fairly weak comparison and would not consider it to follow that if the first guy lands often on an opponent, the second guy will, too.
I think you need to review the film of these fights again, with regards to your claims about Walcott and the counter right/jab. Walcott is not scoring cleanly at all with long, peppering jabs or straight right hands. His opening barrage consists almost entirely of hooks, uppercuts and short-to-mid-range right hands. The shot that puts Marciano down is a picture-perfect short left hook. After the surprise flurry to open the first round, Walcott adopts a more passive-aggressive stance that consists, in large part, of standing his ground and looking to counter each of Marciano's bombs with a shorter, more concise counter shot. There are a few stretches where he gets on his bicycle and falls back on the jab, but watch and see how many actually land cleanly- there are hardly any. Walcott's two best punches of the fight were a short left hook in the first round which put Marciano down in the first and a crushing right to the body that knocked the wind out of him and left him somewhat hobbled for the rest of the round in the 11th- these are both punches which Ali hardly ever threw. His strategy largely involves the pot-shot technique, waiting for the other man to make a move, timing him and shooting in a quick, telling counter; this is the strategy which produced all of his knockdowns against Louis, Charles and Marciano. The source of his success is clearly not on the outside with the jab or straight right hand.
As a matter of fact, it's actually in the rematch where we see Walcott adopting a more Ali-esque strategy. In stark contrast to the first fight, where he opened aggressively and then spent most of the fight relying on sharp, driving counters, this time around Walcott comes out backpedaling, staying on his toes and depending mainly on the jab. Again, review the film- he throws around a dozen jabs, none of them landing cleanly, and is unable to keep Marciano off of him.
Ali, on the other hand, lead more often than he countered, and rather than relying on one precise, telling shot at a time, he would use more of a spray tactic, keeping up a high workrate with flurries of jabs and long-range rights that didn't individually have a lot on them, but would come quickly with snap in great frequency and number. This is also where your comparison with Louis' jab falls flat, in my opinion- Ali had a darting, snapping, flicking jab, whereas Louis had more of a forceful, punishing one. Louis was throwing each jab with push and direction behind it, more like a power punch, where Ali was throwing them with little force or timing, focusing instead on the speed and frequency- while Louis' jabs wouldn't be as frequent or swift, his would be the more forceful and accurate.
I don't think Ali's type of offense would be at its most effective against Marciano. As noted above, he was mainly an overhand puncher who hit from the outside with flurries/combinations of punches that weren't each particularly forceful or accurate but which came with great speed, snap and frequency. Against Marciano, a fighter with a crouching defense who kept his chin tucked and his gloves in parrying position as he came in and who specialized in slipping under/around opponents' jabs, I expect the majority of Ali's punches would glance ineffectually off the top of Marciano's head and shoulders as he came in. Marciano's defense was specifically oriented towards dealing with this type of offense.

But for the note, since my views are often misconstrued when I don't state them explicitly enough, I do lean towards Ali to win against Marciano.

[Thunder and Lightning]

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.

I'm getting tired of people calling Johansson a "one trick pony" and slow and not skilled, Ingemar was a good fighter he didn't telegraph his punches or swing with his right look at the Patterson and Machen fights if you don't belive me he threw his right hand fast and on target.

Ingemars left jab may not have been a good punch but he used it to the best of his ability against Patterson he used it for two rounds looking at Pattersons defence and when he noticed Patterson droping his left in his guard Johansson nailed him with the "Hammer of Thor", Johansson also had good foot speed and reflexes but all that is forgotten because his best weapon was the right hand.

Ingemar Johansson may not be in the top 10 or even top 20 but he was a good fighter and in my opinion very underrated.

[Marciano Frazier]

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.

I'm getting tired of people calling Johansson a "one trick pony" and slow and not skilled, Ingemar was a good fighter he didn't telegraph his punches or swing with his right look at the Patterson and Machen fights if you don't belive me he threw his right hand fast and on target.

Ingemars left jab may not have been a good punch but he used it to the best of his ability against Patterson he used it for two rounds looking at Pattersons defence and when he noticed Patterson droping his left in his guard Johansson nailed him with the "Hammer of Thor", Johansson also had good foot speed and reflexes but all that is forgotten because his best weapon was the right hand.

Ingemar Johansson may not be in the top 10 or even top 20 but he was a good fighter and in my opinion very underrated.

Agreed. I think most of H.H.'s assessments in that post are very good, but he sells Johansson way short. It is certainly not true that Johansson had "no skill to speak of." Pop in a tape of one of his major fights, and you'll see he has sound footwork, keeps a high guard and is adept at parrying punches with his gloves. Far from "telegraphing" his right and constantly swinging with it, he often holds back and keeps it tucked until he sees an opportune moment to bring it to bare(see the first Patterson fight, in which he barely threw the right hand at all for the first two rounds until Patterson was lulled into complacency, then exploded in the third), and when he does it is a reasonably direct and accurate punch.

Granted, none of this would have made a huge difference in a fight with Marciano, in my estimation- Johansson wouldn't be able to keep Marciano off with his pawing jab, wouldn't be able to hang with Marciano in a slugfest, and wouldn't be able to stand up to Marciano's consistent pressure or punching power. He would have a distant puncher's chance, but that would be about it. I like Marciano by knockout in 4-5 rounds.
But, again, Johansson is all-around a very underappreciated and underrated fighter.

[Marciano Frazier]

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.

I'm getting tired of people calling Johansson a "one trick pony" and slow and not skilled, Ingemar was a good fighter he didn't telegraph his punches or swing with his right look at the Patterson and Machen fights if you don't belive me he threw his right hand fast and on target.

Ingemars left jab may not have been a good punch but he used it to the best of his ability against Patterson he used it for two rounds looking at Pattersons defence and when he noticed Patterson droping his left in his guard Johansson nailed him with the "Hammer of Thor", Johansson also had good foot speed and reflexes but all that is forgotten because his best weapon was the right hand.

Ingemar Johansson may not be in the top 10 or even top 20 but he was a good fighter and in my opinion very underrated.

Agreed. I think most of H.H.'s assessments in that post are very good, but he sells Johansson way short. It is certainly not true that Johansson had "no skill to speak of." Pop in a tape of one of his major fights, and you'll see he has sound footwork, keeps a high guard and is adept at parrying punches with his gloves. Far from "telegraphing" his right and constantly swinging with it, he often holds back and keeps it tucked until he sees an opportune moment to bring it to bare(see the first Patterson fight, in which he barely threw the right hand at all for the first two rounds until Patterson was lulled into complacency, then exploded in the third), and when he does it is a reasonably direct and accurate punch.

Granted, none of this would have made a huge difference in a fight with Marciano, in my estimation- Johansson wouldn't be able to keep Marciano off with his pawing jab, wouldn't be able to hang with Marciano in a slugfest, and wouldn't be able to stand up to Marciano's consistent pressure or punching power. He would have a distant puncher's chance, but that would be about it. I like Marciano by knockout in 4-5 rounds.
But, again, Johansson is all-around a very underappreciated and underrated fighter.

[I Feel Fine]

Something tells me this is going to be a very long post.

Sure. Point is, Foster never beat even a remotely noteworthy heavyweight.

Point is, I already said that.

Remember, here, reach is wingspan, in other words, measurement from the end of one hand to the end of the other hand with your arms outstretched. If Frazier and Marciano were to stand back-to-back with their arms outstretched, then, Frazier's hands would extend around and inch farther on either side. In other words, each of Frazier's arms would be maybe an inch longer than Marciano's. This is the sort of difference that would be almost completely irrelevant in any scenario, but particularly when you're dealing with two fighters who hardly ever relied on range or straight/outside punches and instead worked in close, I would consider it to be among the least relevant points one could make in this kind of discussion.

Well I'm glad it got your vote. Again, I didn't make a big deal out of it, and it was a brief comment. Still, an inch reach never hurt anybody.

it seemed to me your remarks in that paragraph were overly narrow and limiting, and I thought you probably typed them in haste.

Now we're being presumptuous, too... good qualities.

You said "The only thing I can say for Marciano is his right hand is harder, and he's not a slow starter like Joe." I thought(and still think) that this was a narrow and inaccurate statement, and so I responded by expanding on it. I contend that not only did Marciano have a harder right hand than Frazier, he was a harder hitter, period, had a larger two-handed array of power punches than Frazier did, and was(as best their careers evidenced) more durable with(if anything) even better stamina.

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.

Well, it is my opinion that Rocky hits harder with the right hand, not the left, and that unlike Frazier he was consistent for 15 rounds; he didn't need 5-6 to warm up like Joe did. I count those as Rocky's only significant advantages over Frazier. I don't agree that he had better stamina, or a better chin. I'm so sorry if you disagree, but that doesn't make my comments "narrow" and "limited." You hardly "expanded" on it, as you say, you added a couple of your own opinions and then you, again, repeated back to me something I already said; that Rocky wasn't a slow starter.

It goes without saying that a fighter with two fisted power is going to have a larger-array of power punches. Right uppercut, right cross; Frazier did not throw these often, and didn't seem to have much behind them... though he did throw a couple of right hands that did seem to surprise and stun Ali. As for the left hook, well, no, I don't agree that Rocky hit harder with his left hook, "period", I believe that Rocky had a very good left hook, maybe even close to the level of Frazier's left hook... but I don't believe, for example, that Frazier couldn't knock out Matthews with a hard left hook or two, as Rocky did.

I don't agree that Marciano has better stamina than Frazier did, certainly not a lot more stamina. They were both capable of throwing a lot of punches consistently throughout a fight. I think it would be valid to say Rocky had better stamina in the sense that he was busier in the early rounds, unlike Frazier, and that while Frazier would be busy and active and at his best for 2/3 of a fight, Rocky was for the whole fight... but we already touched on that. My point is that, in Frazier's good rounds, for the last 2/3 of a fight, Frazier does not let up, and can throw as much in those rounds as Rocky can, if not more. If Frazier got a little gassed in some of the later rounds against Ali, well, Marciano never fought Ali. Maybe if Frazier is fighting Archie Moore and an old Joe Louis he doesn't get quite as gassed as he did there. He didn't get tired against Quarry or Bonavena.

I forgot to mention the chin part in my post, I was going to refer to your other post in response to John L. But that'll take up a lot of space here, so I'll do that in my next post.

I didn't say you said they weren't live underdogs, rather I provided the other side of the picture. Yes, I can conceivably see Frazier beating Walcott and Charles more easily than Marciano did, but since that had already been said, and since I am taking the other side in this exchange, I included the point that they would also, in my estimation, be very live underdogs and have the potential to upset Frazier.

Yes, they could potentially have beaten Frazier, as they could have potentially beaten Marciano... they both came close in their fights with Rocky.

We have one guy whose best power punch is the short left hook, whose most effective work is.......

And the condescension continues.

Lets get a few things straight, before we go into some of your points:

I) I did not say that Walcott and Ali had the same style. I said, in comparison to Rocky's other opponents, Walcott is closest. It's like comparing Rocky and Frazier, Rocky and Frazier were different in many ways, but there are a lot of similarities and you can see some parallels. Still, no one is going to confuse Rocky for Frazier in terms of style.

II) I think you need to stop being presumptuous. I reviewed five or six rounds of Walcott-Marciano before my last response.

III) Marciano-Walcott II, on the other hand, is the one Marciano title fight that I haven't seen, outside of clips of the knockout punch. So I won't go there. Not much to go on, either, as its a one round fight.

IV) I didn't compare Louis and Ali's jabs. I said that Marciano was being hit by Louis' jab and admitted it himself, in response to your comments about Rocky being very difficult to hit with a jab. What I did say was that I believed Ali, with his longer reach, with his faster jab would be able to land his jab on Marciano more than Louis could. I didn't say anything about them having the same type of jab.

Now, to your little critique. Again, I don't know what happened in Marciano-Walcott II, as long a fight as that was, so I won't touch on that, but in terms of the first fight, Walcott most certainly was effective with his jab. Now, it is true that Walcott landed his best shots from mid-range, which was not the way Ali fought-and I never said that it was- but as to Walcott's jab, though it didn't always land cleanly; when he used his jab Rocky threw less, got inside less. I would say there were times where Walcott's jab didn't land well, but, for the most part, when he used his jab consistently he was able to land many jabs, and he was able to keep Rocky outside with his jab. You're suggesting that Walcott would throw the jab and miss everything, which is untrue. He might miss one, land one, miss one, then land a couple, etc. Point is, when he used it consistently, he was able to land enough of them, and he was able to keep Marciano outside with it, and Marciano's offense was limited when Walcott used movement and worked his jab, and it was effective. And as for Ali, he would probably be more effective with his jab than Walcott was. Ali was two inches taller than Walcott, with a longer reach, faster hands, and he would use the jab more often than Walcott, and Ali's jab would likely land more consistently than Walcott's. But Walcott's jab was relatively effective against Marciano. He held Marciano at bay with it in a few of those rounds.

And sometimes Frazier was a bit hard to hit with the jab, at least in comparison to some of Ali's other opponents, that doesn't mean Ali didn't land it. When you say that Ali's offense would not be at its most effective against Marciano, I think that could be true, and his offense wasn't at its most effective against Frazier. That doesn't mean it wasn't effective. And Marciano never met someone that big, that fast or that good, who could take punches like Ali. If Ali's offensive abilities might be limited by some of Marciano's qualities, one could say the same for Marciano, he would also have many difficulties with Ali, as you admit yourself. And its not as if Ali never met big punchers before, or good short fighters, or fighters with good stamina. I still think the case could be made that Frazier could possibly be tougher for Ali than Marciano could be.

But back to the Walcott comparison, I think the source of this is that in regards to Walcott's ability to land on Marciano, I used the word "easily" in the first post that you were addressing, and that I shouldn't have said. Walcott did land on Marciano, but not particularly easily. So I will take that one back. That is one thing I shouldn't have said.

[HomicideHenry]

Not to knock Johansson, but outside of being possibly a top 5 European HW of all time, Johansson never did much impress me. His fights with Patterson are the stuff of legend, yes, because it was so fun to watch, but Johansson wasn't that great a fighter, I dont care what anyone says. Even Eddie Machen said that Johansson was rather timid and would 'jump back six feet whenever I cocked my hand'---if you let him get off first, he was deadly---but Johansson wasn't anything great in terms of overall ability.

[Marciano Frazier]

it seemed to me your remarks in that paragraph were overly narrow and limiting, and I thought you probably typed them in haste.

Now we're being presumptuous, too... good qualities.

Let's not go down the "pointless-hostility-and-insults" track here.

You said "The only thing I can say for Marciano is his right hand is harder, and he's not a slow starter like Joe." I thought(and still think) that this was a narrow and inaccurate statement, and so I responded by expanding on it. I contend that not only did Marciano have a harder right hand than Frazier, he was a harder hitter, period, had a larger two-handed array of power punches than Frazier did, and was(as best their careers evidenced) more durable with(if anything) even better stamina.

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.

Well, it is my opinion that Rocky hits harder with the right hand, not the left, and that unlike Frazier he was consistent for 15 rounds; he didn't need 5-6 to warm up like Joe did. I count those as Rocky's only significant advantages over Frazier. I don't agree that he had better stamina, or a better chin. I'm so sorry if you disagree, but that doesn't make my comments "narrow" and "limited."

Yes it does, if I'm right. Besides which, let us look at this in context: you had just made an extended list of advantages for Frazier in which you went into small and trivial points like a slight reach advantage over Marciano(when, as I've discussed previously, this is hardly relevant) when you wrote that the "only thing" you saw for Marciano was "better right hand power" and not being a slow starter- that is to say, from the context, I didn't get the impression you were only talking about "significant" advantages, but rather advantages in general. And in that instance, it is very hard to argue that Marciano doesn't even have very slight advantages equivalent to the kind you listed for Frazier in the previous paragraph.

It goes without saying that a fighter with two fisted power is going to have a larger-array of power punches.

You didn't say that Marciano had two-fisted power, but rather you said he had "better right hand power." You may have meant to imply he had two-fisted power, but the statement you made does not actually indicate that- it would be equally true, for example, that Ingemar Johansson had "better right hand power" than Frazier, but it certainly wouldn't then "go without saying" that he had two-fisted power and a large array of power punches.

As for the left hook, well, no, I don't agree that Rocky hit harder with his left hook, "period", I believe that Rocky had a very good left hook, maybe even close to the level of Frazier's left hook... but I don't believe, for example, that Frazier couldn't knock out Matthews with a hard left hook or two, as Rocky did.

You're misunderstanding me here. I didn't say that Marciano had a harder left hook than Frazier, but rather that he was a "harder hitter, period," which, I suppose, was a little bit ambiguous on my part as well, since it could be taken to indicate that Marciano hit harder than Frazier with each and every specific type of punch. What I meant, though, was not that Marciano hit harder than Frazier with some specific type of punch or set of punches, but rather that he just plain hit harder. If each guy threw and landed the very hardest punch he was capable of throwing, Marciano's would do the more damage; Marciano's SuzieQ overhand right was more powerful than anything Frazier threw. This is evidenced by the way that Marciano was capable of nailing an elite-level opponent with a single right to the jaw and immediately and decisively ending a fight. Marciano had high-level one-punch knockout power, and Frazier did not.

I don't agree that Marciano has better stamina than Frazier did, certainly not a lot more stamina. They were both capable of throwing a lot of punches consistently throughout a fight. I think it would be valid to say Rocky had better stamina in the sense that he was busier in the early rounds, unlike Frazier, and that while Frazier would be busy and active and at his best for 2/3 of a fight, Rocky was for the whole fight... but we already touched on that. My point is that, in Frazier's good rounds, for the last 2/3 of a fight, Frazier does not let up, and can throw as much in those rounds as Rocky can, if not more. If Frazier got a little gassed in some of the later rounds against Ali, well, Marciano never fought Ali. Maybe if Frazier is fighting Archie Moore and an old Joe Louis he doesn't get quite as gassed as he did there. He didn't get tired against Quarry or Bonavena.

It isn't the Louis or Moore fight which really shows the degree of stamina Marciano had. Rather it's the first Charles fight. This fight went 15 rounds of grueling action without the two fighters ever having to be broken from a clinch, and Marciano was still going like a buzzsaw and exceeded 90 punches thrown in the 15th round!
Now, Frazier was an exceptionally hardworking and dedicated champion. The kind of "blood, sweat and tears" work ethic he had is seldom seen in boxing anymore. However, his training programs were neither as long or as rigorous as Marciano's. The longest training-camp stay of Frazier's entire career was eight weeks, for the Thrilla in Manila; Marciano more than once spent significantly longer, and for opponents not nearly so formidable as Ali. What's more, even when he wasn't in camp preparing for a fight, Marciano trained as hard as most fighters do when they are; according to his uncle, Charlie Piccento, Marciano ran "every morning even if he doesn’t have a fight…five or six miles. Been doing it for six years, every day. Even does six or seven miles on Christmas morning."
What's more, although Frazier does throw a comparable punch output to Marciano, I think you'll agree on examination of the film that a higher percentage of Frazier's punches are just "stay-busy" shots he's throwing to maintain the pace and pressure, and isn't really committing to- Marciano throws just about every shot with real force on it, which is always more tiring(and is a major reason why power punchers who throw everything hard tend to slow down as a fight progresses, ala Shavers and Foreman).
The point of all this is that, although both of these men showed incredible stamina at the absolute pinnacle of the sport, when it all comes down to it, Marciano probably had even better stamina than Frazier did, based on the evidences I discussed above.

I didn't say you said they weren't live underdogs, rather I provided the other side of the picture. Yes, I can conceivably see Frazier beating Walcott and Charles more easily than Marciano did, but since that had already been said, and since I am taking the other side in this exchange, I included the point that they would also, in my estimation, be very live underdogs and have the potential to upset Frazier.

Yes, they could potentially have beaten Frazier, as they could have potentially beaten Marciano... they both came close in their fights with Rocky.

Agreed, although it should be noted that Charles was only close to "beating" Marciano because of a bizarre stroke of luck(and even that freakish one-in-a-million injury was likely caused by an elbow) and other than that, Marciano beat him decisively both times.

We have one guy whose best power punch is the short left hook, whose most effective work is.......

And the condescension continues.

Where in that text are you seeing condescension? If I were speaking in condescension, I would: A. dismiss your opinions offhand without bothering to debate your arguments, B. take the ad hominem route and argue that your opinions were founded on bias or prejudice, C. declare myself more qualified or intelligent than you, and/or D. attack your knowledgeability or intelligence. I have not done any of those things, but rather I've taken your opinions point by point, described where I disagree, presented opinions of my own and presented arguments drawing on facts and anecdotal evidence to support those opinions- generally, that's how one engages in discourse with an equal, rather than condescending to them.

I) I did not say that Walcott and Ali had the same style. I said, in comparison to Rocky's other opponents, Walcott is closest. It's like comparing Rocky and Frazier, Rocky and Frazier were different in many ways, but there are a lot of similarities and you can see some parallels. Still, no one is going to confuse Rocky for Frazier in terms of style.

Actually, I think LaStarza or Charles could be argued to have styles closer to Ali's than Walcott. May go into that a little later.
I never claimed you said that Walcott and Ali had the same style, but rather I argued that your assertion that if Walcott could land on Marciano "so easily"(which is an exaggeration), Ali could, too, was a flawed and invalid argument and that, in fact, Walcott's success in the fight(as evidenced by the film) came mainly from types of punches and modes of fighting Ali hardly ever used to effect.

III) Marciano-Walcott II, on the other hand, is the one Marciano title fight that I haven't seen, outside of clips of the knockout punch. So I won't go there. Not much to go on, either, as its a one round fight.

You can see the complete fight on YouTube. This time around, Walcott seems to enter the ring with the intent of staying away and fighting a stick-and-move style. He fights defensively and throws about a dozen jabs, but never connects cleanly or seems able to keep Marciano off of him, and then the knockout comes when Marciano slips a jab, comes in and throws a hook that sets Walcott up before dropping him with an uppercut.

IV) I didn't compare Louis and Ali's jabs. I said that Marciano was being hit by Louis' jab and admitted it himself, in response to your comments about Rocky being very difficult to hit with a jab. What I did say was that I believed Ali, with his longer reach, with his faster jab would be able to land his jab on Marciano more than Louis could. I didn't say anything about them having the same type of jab.

Yes, but my point was, again, that Louis landing jabs wouldn't necessarily mean it followed that Ali would land them, since this is, afterall, a discussion about Marciano vs. Ali. Besides which, I think if you examine the film closely, or already have done so(now am I non-presumptuous enough?), you will/did find it apparent that even Louis isn't landing the jab cleanly with any regularity at any time in the fight. Even still, Louis does have the most success of anyone with the jab against Marciano. In the third through fifth rounds, you can see he's throwing off Marciano's offense by drilling the jab down the middle as Rocky's coming in and staving off his rushes and swings.

Now, it is true that Walcott landed his best shots from mid-range, which was not the way Ali fought-and I never said that it was- but as to Walcott's jab, though it didn't always land cleanly; when he used his jab Rocky threw less, got inside less. I would say there were times where Walcott's jab didn't land well, but, for the most part, when he used his jab consistently he was able to land many jabs, and he was able to keep Rocky outside with his jab.

I suppose he lands many in the sense that they make contact with his body, but the jabs that actually connect with Marciano's face are very few and far between. For the most part, he's slipping them, he's parrying them, and they're glancing off his shoulders and the hard part of his head.

You're suggesting that Walcott would throw the jab and miss everything, which is untrue. He might miss one, land one, miss one, then land a couple, etc. Point is, when he used it consistently, he was able to land enough of them, and he was able to keep Marciano outside with it, and Marciano's offense was limited when Walcott used movement and worked his jab, and it was effective.

Remember, here, that in the 7th-8th rounds, Marciano was suffering from severely impaired vision due to cut ointments in his eyes. Aside from a few stretches in that area, I don't believe there are any significant stretches which Walcott controls from the outside with the jab. He has some momentary success moving on the outside, but there aren't any rounds where Marciano just can't get inside. Without his infighting and midrange skills, I have little doubt Walcott would not have made it nearly so far or been ahead before the knockout.

And as for Ali, he would probably be more effective with his jab than Walcott was. Ali was two inches taller than Walcott, with a longer reach, faster hands, and he would use the jab more often than Walcott, and Ali's jab would likely land more consistently than Walcott's. But Walcott's jab was relatively effective against Marciano. He held Marciano at bay with it in a few of those rounds.

Which? Aside from the 7th-8th, I don't see where Walcott is "holding Marciano at bay" with the jab- the first three rounds, almost all his success comes from relatively short and mid-distance punching. Marciano seems to be turning the tide in the fourth through sixth and does some punishing body work, but is set back by the cut ointments in his eyes and spends most of the seventh and eighth rounds sort of poking around with his own rather short jab to try and get a feel for where Walcott is, and yes, Walcott has success with the jab in those rounds- but it is a special circumstance and hardly reflects on any hypothetical situation here. The ninth through 11th rounds, they're exchanging at close and midrange again, and Walcott's success is coming from middle distance potshotting. I'll review the 12th round again, because I believe it may exemplify a bit of what you're talking about- but, again, Walcott's best success comes almost entirely from pot-shotting and countering inside the long-range, and his jabs and straight rights don't land nearly so well as a whole throughout the fight. One can see a similar outcome in the rematch, where Walcott is trying specifically to utilize a stick-and-move gameplan and it completely fails.

And sometimes Frazier was a bit hard to hit with the jab, at least in comparison to some of Ali's other opponents, that doesn't mean Ali didn't land it. When you say that Ali's offense would not be at its most effective against Marciano, I think that could be true, and his offense wasn't at its most effective against Frazier. That doesn't mean it wasn't effective. And Marciano never met someone that big, that fast or that good, who could take punches like Ali. If Ali's offensive abilities might be limited by some of Marciano's qualities, one could say the same for Marciano, he would also have many difficulties with Ali, as you admit yourself. And its not as if Ali never met big punchers before, or good short fighters, or fighters with good stamina. I still think the case could be made that Frazier could possibly be tougher for Ali than Marciano could be.

I agree with this paragraph.

But back to the Walcott comparison, I think the source of this is that in regards to Walcott's ability to land on Marciano, I used the word "easily" in the first post that you were addressing, and that I shouldn't have said. Walcott did land on Marciano, but not particularly easily. So I will take that one back. That is one thing I shouldn't have said.

Good. It is nice to see more people recognize that Marciano wasn't Rocky Balboa.

[I Feel Fine]

Let's not go down the "pointless-hostility-and-insults" track here.

Well, I was just responding to a couple of your comments. You were talking to me like I just started watching boxing yesterday. But, yes, we should get off this.

Yes it does, if I'm right. Besides which, let us look at this in context: you had just made an extended list of advantages for Frazier in which you went into small and trivial points like a slight reach advantage over Marciano(when, as I've discussed previously, this is hardly relevant) when you wrote that the "only thing" you saw for Marciano was "better right hand power" and not being a slow starter- that is to say, from the context, I didn't get the impression you were only talking about "significant" advantages, but rather advantages in general. And in that instance, it is very hard to argue that Marciano doesn't even have very slight advantages equivalent to the kind you listed for Frazier in the previous paragraph.

Well, I was emphasizing major advantages. I think I had mentioned Frazier's weight advantage over Marciano, and that's probably where the reach came in, I was probably trying to present Joe as a bigger man than Rocky.

You didn't say that Marciano had two-fisted power...

I suppose, was a little bit ambiguous on my part as well, since it could be taken to indicate that Marciano hit harder than Frazier with each and every specific type of punch...

Perhaps we're in agreement then. I would say Rocky's right was harder than Frazier's left, Frazier's left was harder than Rocky's left, but Rocky's left was harder than Frazier's right. It sounds like you're saying the same thing.

It isn't the Louis or Moore fight which really shows the degree of stamina Marciano had. Rather it's the first Charles fight. This fight went 15 rounds of grueling action without the two fighters ever having to be broken from a clinch, and Marciano was still going like a buzzsaw and exceeded 90 punches thrown in the 15th round!
Now, Frazier was an exceptionally hardworking and dedicated champion. The kind of "blood, sweat and tears" work ethic he had is seldom seen in boxing anymore. However, his training programs were neither as long or as rigorous as Marciano's. The longest training-camp stay of Frazier's entire career was eight weeks, for the Thrilla in Manila; Marciano more than once spent significantly longer, and for opponents not nearly so formidable as Ali. What's more, even when he wasn't in camp preparing for a fight, Marciano trained as hard as most fighters do when they are; according to his uncle, Charlie Piccento, Marciano ran "every morning even if he doesn’t have a fight…five or six miles. Been doing it for six years, every day. Even does six or seven miles on Christmas morning."

In terms of opponents I was just saying that Frazier was fighting young guys his size, while many of Marciano's opponents were older or smaller. I could have just as easily named Charles. But yes, Charles was probably Rocky's best display of stamina, though he did actually throw many, many punches against Moore, even if it wasn't a 15 rounder.

Anyway, I don't know anything about Frazier's training methods so I won't dispute that. Marciano's training methods are legendary and I don't think anyone would argue that point. I agree that Frazier would throw a lot of punches to keep the pace, to keep on his opponent, and would mix in hard shots. Having watched some of Marciano's fight with Cockell the other week (it was probably the first time I had ever seen it and I didn't even know that I had film of it) it was impressive watching Rocky swing for the fences every time, even in the late rounds, and he was throwing more than one punch at a time. So I won't disagree with this per se. But what I will say is that they are comparable, and you're not going to find many fighters who are as busy in fights as Joe Frazier. Joe Frazier could throw a lot of hard shots through the course of 15, and few Heavyweight champions could do that like he could. Frazier was a machine, as was Marciano.

Actually, I think LaStarza or Charles could be argued to have styles closer to Ali's than Walcott. May go into that a little later.
I never claimed you said that Walcott and Ali had the same style, but rather I argued that your assertion that if Walcott could land on Marciano "so easily"(which is an exaggeration), Ali could, too, was a flawed and invalid argument and that, in fact, Walcott's success in the fight(as evidenced by the film) came mainly from types of punches and modes of fighting Ali hardly ever used to effect.

The problem I had with LaStarza and Charles as comparable opponents was that they're smaller than Walcott, and I wanted to take into account that Ali is not just a boxer, but a very tall boxer with a very long reach, and even Walcott comes pretty short of fully demonstrating that, though he was clearly bigger than Rocky. Again, I wasn't using it as a perfect comparison, just as a general comparison. More on the Walcott comparison in a moment.

Yes, but my point was, again, that Louis landing jabs wouldn't necessarily mean it followed that Ali would land them, since this is, afterall, a discussion about Marciano vs. Ali. Besides which, I think if you examine the film closely, or already have done so(now am I non-presumptuous enough?), you will/did find it apparent that even Louis isn't landing the jab cleanly with any regularity at any time in the fight. Even still, Louis does have the most success of anyone with the jab against Marciano. In the third through fifth rounds, you can see he's throwing off Marciano's offense by drilling the jab down the middle as Rocky's coming in and staving off his rushes and swings.

Well, again, I think what I was emphasizing was that Rocky did have fights where he wasn't impossible to hit with a jab. Whether this means Ali would then have success with his own jab is open to speculation, but I was throwing that out as an example. I didn't necessarily say that it followed that Ali would have success with it if Louis did, in fact I was emphasizing the opposite, that Ali would have success with his jab regardless of what Louis or Walcott did, because I felt Ali would have more success with his jab than they could, since I believe that with his greater reach and height and movement that Ali could land the jab more effectively. My main point was that Marciano was not impregnable to any jab, as I felt you were trying to say.

Now as to the whole Walcott-Marciano I comparison, and more specifically to the question of whether or not Walcott was landing his jab and what rounds he was landing it, etc...

Yes, I knew about the ointment in Marciano's eyes but I wasn't sure about which rounds that was in. Marciano seemed to know where Walcott was, and I didn't see him blinking or anything, sort of like Ali against Liston, so I assumed he was good in those rounds. Watching it again now it seems, going by the way Marciano looks and going by what the commentator is saying, that Marciano got the ointment in his eye in the 8th round. Walcott seemed to use his jab more in the 7th, where he had a decent round. Again, I agree he didn't land all his jabs, but generally he seemed to land enough to win the round and Rocky didn't land quite as often. Though, that's assuming that Rocky could see in the 7th, you say he couldn't. He couldn't see in much of the 8th round apparently, but Walcott used his jab a tin less in that round anyway, though he did use it in parts of the round. Walcott also apparently had trouble seeing himself, since he had a cut. Walcott landed the jab well in the first part of the 11th round, where Marciano's eyes I assume were clear, and Walcott didn't seem to miss many, he was pretty effective. As for the 12th round, Walcott used the jab at times and did ok with it, but I wouldn't say he particularly controlled Marciano with it. He was able to land a good amount though, he was pretty accurate with it, and again, Rocky could see at that point.

And going back to the "type of jab" question, as I touched on earlier, Ali's jab was faster than Walcott's, I might even say stiffer than Walcott's. And Walcott used the jab differently, Walcott would mostly throw one at a time while Ali would often double up on his jab, and that could help him with Rocky as well. And I mentioned Ali's reach, Ali had a much longer reach than Walcott. So, if Walcott had success in some of those rounds with his jabbing and moving, though the 8th may have been because of the ointment, I think it could be argued that Ali could also have success, with his better, longer jab than the one Walcott had, and with his superior leg speed. Walcott used good movement in those rounds, but Ali was much faster, especially in his prime, and would be able to keep the distance better, though Walcott did a decent job of that.

Perhaps its just speculation, but I think you can see in parts of Walcott-Marciano, when Walcott does commit to his jab, how Ali could take on Marciano and how he could approach a fight with him. Again, I'm not saying Ali and Walcott fight the same way, but you can see certain elements of Walcott's approach to the fight with Marciano and how they could be comparable to how Ali would probably fight Marciano. I think comparisons can be drawn, not perfect comparisons, but I think they are there.

And as for the second fight, I will watch it on youtube, but who knows how good Walcott was at that stage? It was a year later and I've heard some say that Walcott sat down against Marciano, that he could have gotten up from the knock down but decided not to, perhaps taking the last payday and going home. I'm not saying this is true or not, but I have heard this. Maybe Walcott just had a different mindset, maybe he didn't, who knows. Plus it was one round. But again, I haven't seen it yet, so if I see anything that I feel is noteworthy I will mention it.

[HomicideHenry]

-I can't name anybody who was smaller than Rocky, whom Marciano would have faced?

You say that Marciano fought opponents smaller than himself, while Frazier fought men his own size or bigger. At just under 5'11" and weighing 185 with a 68" reach, I can't really name anybody that Marciano faced that was smaller than himself. Archie Moore was just as tall, if not taller and weighed practically the same as him. Walcott, Charles were also taller and heavier. Carmine Vingo was 6'4" and weighed the same as Rocky. More or less, what I am saying, Rocky if anything, is guilty of fighting bigger men than himself, while guys like Ali and Frazier and Foreman fought men either lighter or shorter than themselves---as far as the age thing is concerned, while this be true, its a given that ALL fighters either on the way up or when they are at their peak, fight men who are older than themselves.

Until boxing not only seperates divisions by weight, but by age as well, this will always be the case.



-Walcott-Marciano 2 was a major flop, as many were expecting a see-saw cliff hanger like the first fight. Whether Walcott was simply burnt out or not from the first fight, can be argued, but in my personal opinion, Marciano expected Walcott to be as hard a fight as he was in the first go around, so he trained harder than ever---while Walcott simply realized he couldn't duplicate his greatest performance in the ring, was caught with the left hook and then dropped with the uppercut.

Now whether he could have gotten up or not is debatable, but it did seem that Walcott could have, as he immediately gotten up off the canvas after the ten count was ordered. It simply could have been a fact that, Walcott just wasn't into it, knew it was going to be hell after getting dropped in the first, when in the last fight it was him who dropped Marciano---and he just gave in.

I think all that combined with him now being almost 39 years of age, was just too much. He couldn't get himself in good enough shape, his mind just wasn't into it, while Marciano was at his peak ability and expecting a blood and guts war. Had he got up, Marciano would have stopped him inside the following round.

Is it a good win for Marciano? Well, it proved the first fight was no fluke, that Marciano still had that one punch KO power, least one punch knock down power (if you believe Walcott could have gotten up). Was Walcott at his best? No. But was it because of his age? Possibly, but I think it was more a mental issue. Walcott was sincerly hurt and disappointed that this 'bum' beat him in the first place, and he just couldn't get himself into focus and into good enough shape.

But that's just me.

[I Feel Fine]

Well we've been over the question of Rocky's opposition, no reason to go into it again. But thanks for the info on Marciano-Walcott II. I didn't get a chance to look at the fight yet, but I'll do that tomorrow.

[HomicideHenry]

No problem, its one of those fights that is worth a 'look see', but hardly the stuff that captures the imagination.

And, all I was expressing was, not the level of Rocky's opposition, but the point that there is no opponent that he ever faced that was smaller than himself, which contradicts your hypothesis that he did. Ali fought many men smaller, Foreman fought many men smaller, Jack Johnson fought many men smaller---outside of Marciano, Tommy Burns possibly holds the distinction of fighting nobody shorter/lighter than himself.

[Friedie]

Max Schmeling-
His greatest victory was a 12th round TKO over Joe Louis...

No...that was a clear Knockout.

[HomicideHenry]

Been a while since this thread has been talked on and the like, but I guess the question I have for most everybody is, in your opinion, outside of George Foreman, who was the hardest hitting HW champion? In my mind, it was Marciano, followed by Liston, and then followed by the likes of Jefferies, Dempsey, Tyson.

['Rocket'Rigby]

Been a while since this thread has been talked on and the like, but I guess the question I have for most everybody is, in your opinion, outside of George Foreman, who was the hardest hitting HW champion? In my mind, it was Marciano, followed by Liston, and then followed by the likes of Jefferies, Dempsey, Tyson.

I certainly rank Marciano up there, he could certainly throw a punch and he had the art of it down to a masterpiece. I fancy Liston to be just above Marciano, maybe just for the raw venom that you saw with Liston's punches. I rate Louis, Dempsey, Tyson and Baer after that.

[HomicideHenry]

Here's one of my fave Marciano pictures, of him against Carmine Vingo, the look on Vingo's face says it all. Deespite being 6'4" and much bigger than Rocky, the power of The Brockton Blockbuster is evident. Vingo would end up in the hospital in a coma for a few weeks following the fight and would never box again. Evidentially, Vingo is still partially paralyzed from the beating.



Also, here is a rare picture of Marciano and Dempsey during the 1967 NCR tournament, as the men were "matched" together in the final, holding the All-Time Championship title belt. Marciano, clearly, was overweight and was hovering around the 240 pound mark or more by this time. By the time he "fought" Ali in 1969 in their Super-Fight Marciano dropped to around 190 pounds for filming.

[I Feel Fine]

No problem, its one of those fights that is worth a 'look see', but hardly the stuff that captures the imagination.

And, all I was expressing was, not the level of Rocky's opposition, but the point that there is no opponent that he ever faced that was smaller than himself, which contradicts your hypothesis that he did. Ali fought many men smaller, Foreman fought many men smaller, Jack Johnson fought many men smaller---outside of Marciano, Tommy Burns possibly holds the distinction of fighting nobody shorter/lighter than himself.

If you want to get technical, Marciano weighed two pounds more than Charles in the first fight. There are plenty of other fights where he is listed as heavier than an opponent. Moore and Charles started out at Middleweight and Light Heavyweight, Marciano started out at Heavyweight and was clearly more natural to the weight class. Marciano did fight smaller men. Perhaps you're emphasizing height, but height is less relevant, unless Foster was bigger than Frazier, or Hearns bigger than Tyson.

It sort of goes without saying that Ali and Foreman fought smaller men. If Ali and 70's Foreman only fought men their size their only opponents would have been each other, Wepner, Norton and a handful of others.

[HomicideHenry]

Technically you may be right, but when I meant Marciano was smaller, I was meaning overall in comparison (reach, height, weight, etc). Even Archie Moore weighed more than Marciano in their fight, and he started out as a Middleweight. Almost everyone Rocky fought were either taller, heavier or had a longer reach, in one way he may hold the "advantage" but he was out gunned in the others.

[I Feel Fine]

According to boxrec Marciano had half a pound on Moore... so they were virtually the same weight for that fight.

As far as the height and reach, Moore and Charles had the advantages there, but so did Foster and Ellis against Frazier, and I would call Frazier the bigger man in those fights. To me Rocky was the bigger man against Moore and Charles, even though they were rangier. To me they were more natural to the Light Heavyweight division, while Rocky was a real Heavyweight.

Its sort of like if Moore hypothetically fought Hearns. Hearns might weigh as much, and he might be taller than Archie and have the reach, but I would look at Archie as the real Light Heavyweight in there.

[dagosd2000]

Marciano started his career with a KO of Lee Epperson and with an unusual move went gack to the amateurs and lost 3 times. Even though I respect Rocky as a great champ,I've never thought of htm as being 49 and 0. In between that record he was 11 and 3 as an amateur and then resumed his pro career. I know the die hard Marciano fans rationalize this.

[I Feel Fine]

I'm not a hardcore Marciano fan but I hardly see the significance of that. No one has claimed that he never lost a fight, but he is undefeated in professional bouts. If Rocky lost a sparring session or an exhbition would that have any bearing on his professional boxing record? No.

[Controversial]

Marciano started his career with a KO of Lee Epperson and with an unusual move went gack to the amateurs and lost 3 times. Even though I respect Rocky as a great champ,I've never thought of htm as being 49 and 0. In between that record he was 11 and 3 as an amateur and then resumed his pro career. I know the die hard Marciano fans rationalize this.

There's a huge difference in amateur and pro boxing. Would those who beat Marciano in the amateurs beat him in the pro ranks? No is the answer.

There are plenty of fighters who were great amateurs but poor pros (eg. Leon Spinks) and poor amateurs but great heavyweights (eg. Larry Holmes).

[HomicideHenry]

Marciano was 12-4 I believe as an amateur, but even then, he was still up for Olympic try outs. Had he not broken his hand in the last amateur bout he had, he would have went into those try outs, and who knows, could have ended up being an Olmpic medal winner.

[funso banjo baby]

what does 'an enduring legacy into mythology ' actually mean...the grammer is a bit skewed

[HomicideHenry]

An Enduring Legacy Into Mythology, to me means simply that throughout the years Marciano has become one of two things: more hyped than he ever was almost to mythical proportions, or being branded as being one of the worst heavyweight champions in history, that he was terrible, had no concept of boxing, easy to hit, that any of the 'better' champs would have cut him to ribbons, etc.

The 49-0 has taken a life of it's own in alot of respects, and alot of people can't see passed the fact that he was the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history. That's what the die hard Marciano fans can't let go of, and its the same number the skeptics try to tear down saying that almost any champion could have went undefeated in Marciano's era.

He's the most over-rated, yet the most under-valued and under-rated, heavyweight champion in history. That's why Marciano is so controversial, that's why he is such an enigma, such a mystery. He's slipping further and further into the boundaries of both obscurity by the skeptics, and into mythology by the hardcore.