BoxRec

Ezzard wrote:Nice to see you sticking with your man Razor.

Thanks Ezzard, Coetzee is the best heavyweight we've ever had and he gives anyone in history a good fight.

RazorKO wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:if we compare records we see,

marciano beat jersey joe walcott, ezzard charles(1st fight), archie moore who were all better than gerrie coetzee. and i think coatzee would have loads of trouble with other guys rocky beat like lastarza.


coatzee lost to john tate, mike weaver, renaldo snipes, greg page in his prime. please dont tell me he would beat marciano when greg page and mike weaver knocks coetzee out.

coatzee never beat anyone close to as good as marciano






truth is, were comparing an all time great vs a good heavyweight. this is just like comparing joe frazier to gerrie coetzee, i mean come on!

True Coetzee lost to Weaver and Tate. But the Snipes loss was an alltime low time for boxing - Worst decision Ive sene in history, how can a man be knocked down twice and basically fighting not getting knocked out for the first 7 rounds and still win a decision.

Also Greg Page, Coetzee was in no condtion to fight seeing as he was sedated by his hand operations that he was fighting drugged practically - And he still gave Page a terrific fight. Pinklon Thomas was another robbery where Coetzee did enough to win.

Weaver had nearly as much single shot power as Marciano did. His left hook was way better than Marciano and he had a formibale right hand as well - but it took Weaver 13 rounds to floor an exhastued Coetzee and Coetzee still beat the count. Thats shows a world class chin - probably after Holmes the best chin of the 80's. Marciano hasnt beaten anyone that I think would match up with Coetzee and Coetzee has a hell of a chance in upsetting Rocky.

Well there is no shame in losing to Weaver and Tate... Weaver is one of the biggest punchers ever seen in the division and Tate at one time was being touted as a future great and had very good skills..... Coetzee had the handspeed and power to give Rocky a hell of a lot of troubel and he had a great chin too...

silkov wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:if we compare records we see,

marciano beat jersey joe walcott, ezzard charles(1st fight), archie moore who were all better than gerrie coetzee. and i think coatzee would have loads of trouble with other guys rocky beat like lastarza.


coatzee lost to john tate, mike weaver, renaldo snipes, greg page in his prime. please dont tell me he would beat marciano when greg page and mike weaver knocks coetzee out.

coatzee never beat anyone close to as good as marciano





truth is, were comparing an all time great vs a good heavyweight. this is just like comparing joe frazier to gerrie coetzee, i mean come on!

I'm sorry but as usual you're overrating Rocky Brock. Coetzee may not have ever fought a Marciano but he fought very good fighters such as Thomas, Weaver, Page, Dokes... to say these guys are not as good as Roland Lastarza is just plain wrong. Lastarzas main claim to fame is that he gave Rocky one of his toughest fights... in reality he wasn't anything special as a boxer at all. And Marciano never fought a heavy who punched like Coetzee or for that matter Weaver. Rockys style would be good for Coetzee as he would come stright in at Gerrie who liked to look to land his big punches on the counter... Coetzee was a very underrated boxer with good movement and fast hands and I think his power could well be too much for Rocky...quote]




as usual? i thought i have been very fair with him compared to 6 months ago. i rate marciano 4th heavyweight all time and 6th head to head list and i back up everyone of my ratings with fair anaylsis.



firt of all i never said lastarza was better than coetzees opponents.


i said guys who beat coetzee were not on the level as marciano.

but he fought very good fighters such as Thomas, Weaver, Page, Dokes... to say these guys are not as good as Roland Lastarza is just plain wrong.

i totally agree

Lastarzas main claim to fame is that he gave Rocky one of his toughest fights... in reality he wasn't anything special as a boxer at all.

yes, his main claim is he gave rocky good fights (rocky was green in first fight) but wasnt cleveland williams main claim was his fights with sonny liston?


i diagree he wasnt special as a boxer. watch the tape of marciano II, he was a very good counterpuncher with good speed, and a very intelligent polished boxer who reminded me of eddie machen and billy miske, though except machen had better offense(but roland had things better as well)


fact is, it was latarzas manager that caaused roland not to be more famous. roland was never able to get big fights with big names outside of marciano because jimmy deangelo was not a good manager for him.

IN FACT, deangelo tried to convince lastarza to sign with a better more experienced and well connected manager, but lastarza refused because he was loyal to his friend.

- a better manager would have gotten lastarza more name opponents. and i can say this, the big slower sluggers exactley werent standing in the front of the line trying to get fights with a slick stylish boxer like lastarza. walls, baker, valdez would not have matched up well with a guy like lastarza.

And Marciano never fought a heavy who punched like Coetzee or for that matter Weaver

jersey joe walcott (same size as weaver basically) was a hard hitter and possesed KO punches in both hands. i would say he hit equal to weaver defintley. his knockout percentage is A VERY MISLEADING STAT!

archie moore even for the heavy division was a hard hitter and he knocked out BIG top contenders and knocked down valdez when he outpointed him(1st time).


joe louis despite being well past his prime still had power left dont let that fool you. he may have lost his power with his right hand, but he had his jab nearly 100 %, and still had a HARD left hook. he knocked out top contender great chin lee savold before the marciano fight. and louis was big 6'2 215lb.

louis landed a left hook flush on rocky with 5 sec left in first round, DAMM IM LOOKING FOR THE NEWSPAPER QUOTE It talks about how marciano took a huge punch from louis and just stood there which shows u how good his chin was.

watch the sequence, 5 sec left in the round, louis nails rocky with short fast left hook , rocky freezes, then louis hits him again and rocky out of nowhere lands a deadly overhand right as the bell sounds bluckling louis knees. WATCH THE SEQUENCE.



marciano proved he had a great chin, we never even saw him hurt badly in his career, never stumbling across the ring. u saw how flush and hard those walcott and moore punches were yet they were only FLASH KNOCKDOWNS.

Rockys style would be good for Coetzee as he would come stright in at Gerrie who liked to look to land his big punches on the counter... Coetzee was a very underrated boxer with good movement and fast hands and I think his power could well be too much for Rocky..

thats a common misconception. rocky was at his best against the bigger target, slower, sluggers like coetzee who would not last coming into marciano.

marciano would find its a lot easier to hit the bigger slow targets like coetzee then the flashy defensive master boxers like walcott, moore, charles.

I think his power could well be too much for Rocky

power too much for rocky???? rocky had one of the best chins, was never badly hurt and ur saying his power is too much for rocky??

- well his power certainly wasnt too much for greg page, renaldo snipes, mike weaver, john tate, pinklon thomas, george chaplin, james tillis.


- i think rockys power would be too much for coetzee who couldnt take rockys right hand, let alone rockys attrition of punches.

i think ur WAY overating the 80s heavies if u think coetzee could beat marciano.





coetzee did not have the stamina, nor chin for marciano let alone the other attributes.



-

True Coetzee lost to Weaver and Tate. But the Snipes loss was an alltime low time for boxing - Worst decision Ive sene in history, how can a man be knocked down twice and basically fighting not getting knocked out for the first 7 rounds and still win a decision.

Also Greg Page, Coetzee was in no condtion to fight seeing as he was sedated by his hand operations that he was fighting drugged practically - And he still gave Page a terrific fight. Pinklon Thomas was another robbery where Coetzee did enough to win.

Weaver had nearly as much single shot power as Marciano did. His left hook was way better than Marciano and he had a formibale right hand as well - but it took Weaver 13 rounds to floor an exhastued Coetzee and Coetzee still beat the count. Thats shows a world class chin - probably after Holmes the best chin of the 80's. Marciano hasnt beaten anyone that I think would match up with Coetzee and Coetzee has a hell of a chance in upsetting Rocky.

- coetzee hasnt beaten anyone close to as good as rocky, and loss to less tier fighters than rocky.

His left hook was way better than Marciano

it wasnt WAY better, rocky had a very good left hook and was a 2 fisted KO puncher

Also Greg Page, Coetzee was in no condtion to fight seeing as he was sedated by his hand operations that he was fighting drugged practically

more exuses for his losses


whats the exuse for his loss to tate and weaver???

but it took Weaver 13 rounds to floor an exhastued Coetzee and Coetzee still beat the count

exausted coetzee. and u think coetzee could keep up with the pace of marciano who would set a much more blistering pace than weaver?



marciano beat 3 better fighters than coetzee

Coetzee had the handspeed and power to give Rocky a hell of a lot of troubel and he had a great chin too...

rocky faced guys with more handspeed, plus he was always able to punch with guys. he nullifed there handspeed with his punch rate.

Coetzee had the handspeed and power to give Rocky a hell of a lot of troubel and he had a great chin too...

rocky faced guys with more handspeed, plus he was always able to punch with guys. he nullifed there handspeed with his punch rate.


and though rocky didnt have very good handspeed, he certainly didnt have slow handspeed, and when he wanted to at times showed very fast punches and they got there quicker due to his shorter reach.

I have a picture of James J. Corbett sparring with Gene Tunney, or posing to spar, and Corbett looked alot more than half an inch taller than Tunney.

Also the book has Corbett stood by Dempsey, and once again the books say there was less than half an inch difference in heigth but Corbett even though he is an old man at the time is still a good few inches taller.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Coetzee had the handspeed and power to give Rocky a hell of a lot of troubel and he had a great chin too...

rocky faced guys with more handspeed, plus he was always able to punch with guys. he nullifed there handspeed with his punch rate.


and though rocky didnt have very good handspeed, he certainly didnt have slow handspeed, and when he wanted to at times showed very fast punches and they got there quicker due to his shorter reach.

He Punched with Walcott and Charles and Moore who were all past their best and under 200... Coetzee was far bigger and stronger, hit harder than any of those three and had handspeed to match that of Charles and Walcott. Wheres your evidence that Coetzee would have lacked the stamina to last with Rocky?.... Rocky managed to outlast Walcott and Charles who were both in their 30s and past their peaks, going 15 with the younger, heavier and stronger Coetzee would have been another thing entirely.....
Rocky was most vulnerble early in a fight while Coetzee would often come out bombing early... if Coetzee caught Rocky the way Walcott and Moore did then its likely Rocky wouldn't be let off the hook even if he did get up....

silkov wrote:Coetzee ... had handspeed to match that of Charles and Walcott.

I don't think too many people would agree with this statement.

Of course, he probably did hit harder than either Walcott or Charles, but it's pretty hard to envision Coetzee being able to survive and outlast a fighter like Marciano over a 15 Rd distance.

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Coetzee ... had handspeed to match that of Charles and Walcott.

I don't think too many people would agree with this statement.

Of course, he probably did hit harder than either Walcott or Charles, but it's pretty hard to envision Coetzee being able to survive and outlast a fighter like Marciano over a 15 Rd distance.

Depends on whether they've seen Coetzee fight... he had very fast hands for such a big guy. Rocky never had to go 15 with a fighter as strong as Coetzee.... look at the mess he was in after going that distance with Charles, Coetzee was stronger, younger and had a better punch so would have done more damage than Charles...

silkov wrote:Depends on whether they've seen Coetzee fight... he had very fast hands for such a big guy. Rocky never had to go 15 with a fighter as strong as Coetzee.... look at the mess he was in after going that distance with Charles, Coetzee was stronger, younger and had a better punch so would have done more damage than Charles...

I've seen many of Coetzee's fights including seeing him stop Dokes live at the Richfield Coliseum. While he had decent handspeed, I consider it a stretch to say that he had very fast hands. He was also not the most polished technician either, certainly not in the league of even a past their prime Charles, Walcott or Moore. Certainly you would agree that Charles was a better technician than Coetzee and was much better at delivering punches in combination than the rather stiff and sometimes clumsy Coetzee?

silkov wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

silkov wrote:Coetzee ... had handspeed to match that of Charles and Walcott.

I don't think too many people would agree with this statement.

Of course, he probably did hit harder than either Walcott or Charles, but it's pretty hard to envision Coetzee being able to survive and outlast a fighter like Marciano over a 15 Rd distance.

Depends on whether they've seen Coetzee fight... he had very fast hands for such a big guy. Rocky never had to go 15 with a fighter as strong as Coetzee.... look at the mess he was in after going that distance with Charles, Coetzee was stronger, younger and had a better punch so would have done more damage than Charles...

I agree, Coetzee carries a better punch than all 3 and also can take a great shot. Gerrie would of been the most dangerous fighter Rocky would of faced if Coetzee fought in Rocky's era and would of given Rocky a very hard time. Coetzee did have stamina problems, but in the Dokes fight he was in great shape and he you didnt see the fatigue on him as you did in his previous title fights. If Coetzee was in that shape, look for a great and competitive fight.

i can't believe we're even debating this......marciano is an all-time great.....a LEGEND. He beat guys that were also all-time greats (walcott, charles, old but still dangerous louis, etc).....coatzee, well her didn't exactly beat any greats, beat a few decent fighters, but he is not even in rockys league. rocky beats the living hell outta coatzee. by round 15 rocky= coatzee=

josh576 wrote:i can't believe we're even debating this......marciano is an all-time great.....a LEGEND. He beat guys that were also all-time greats (walcott, charles, old but still dangerous louis, etc).....coatzee, well her didn't exactly beat any greats, beat a few decent fighters, but he is not even in rockys league. rocky beats the living hell outta coatzee. by round 15 rocky= coatzee=

The best fighters Rocky beat were all past their best by some years, Coetzee fought in one of the most talented eras that the Heavyweight division has seen and fought fluid boxers like Page, Dokes and Thomas and tremendous punchers like Weaver, Snipes... Coetzee to my mind fought the better opposition to Marciano so why is he not in Rockys league?.... Rocky never fought a heavyweight as strong and powerful as Coetzee and thats a fact... aside from Charles, Walcott, Moore (a light-heavy) and a washed up Louis, Rocky Marcianos opposition was fairly limited to be honest...

seriously though, beating weaver, dokes, thomas, page, and every other 80s heavyweight really doesnt matter. Guys like this were the reason the 80s heavyweight crop was so atrocious. I think Holmes pretty much exploited this. And Coatzee wasn't even better than half of those that i listed. I dunno maybe im missing something here, but i dont really think that any of these guys hold a candle to marciano or walcott, charles, moore.

He Punched with Walcott and Charles and Moore who were all past their best

i disagree about walcott and moore. they were both at or near there best. walcott just a couple months ago beat ezzard charles, and moore had recently knocked out harold johnson.


ezzard was past his prime, but in that 1st fight he was a much better charles than the one who recentley lost to johnson and valdez. marciano beat a damm good version of charles that night and a near best heavyweight version of charles. Charles hadnt looked that good since the night he knocked out rex layne in 52.

Rocky managed to outlast Walcott and Charles who were both in their 30s and past their peaks, going 15 with the younger, heavier and stronger Coetzee would have been another thing entirely

walcott didnt even become a contender till 33, and heavyweight champion till 37, so ur arguement about walcott in his 30s goes down the drain.

- charles displayed incredible courage, stamina, toughness in that fight and only reason he slowed down was because he got punched in the adams apple and couldnt breathe, and he got worn down.

- moore defintley didnt slow down, he got worn down!

post fight interview repoter "archie did ur legs give out on you"

archie "noo no, he him me quite a few times".


- walcott, charles, moore all had better stamina than coetzee. fact is, moore,walcott, charles, had never gone up against a human punchig machine made out of iron that would hit you all over the body and make u want to quit!

walcott, charles, moore were proven good 15 round fighters. in fact walcott dominated the 12th and it looked like walcott was getting stronger, not marciano.

under 200...

whats ur point? all 3 of them beat very much larger men. moore had recnently outpointed valdez and knocked out baker.

whats the difference between 200lb and 197lb walcott?

walcott was a chizzled 197lb who looked a lot bigger than 200lb, but once again why the question?

all 3 of them were master boxers and there size made them faster and harder to hit.


all 3 of them would beat coetzee.

Rocky was most vulnerble early in a fight while Coetzee would often come out bombing early

another common miconception,

marciano had almost 30 knockouts before 5 rounds.

- only reason marciano started out late in some of his ladder fights was ring rust, because had was comming off big layoffs and had a little ring rust unlike his earlier years.

- but look at his record, he was not a slow starter like joe frazier!

Rocky never had to go 15 with a fighter as strong as Coetzee.... look at the mess he was in after going that distance with Charles, Coetzee was stronger, younger and had a better punch so would have done more damage than Charles...

coetzee would not hit marciano as much like charles did. coetzee was not a pin point accurate, master boxer, great handpseed like charles and his slower less accurate punches would hardly connect as much as charles did.


marciano was as strong as coetzee, marciano was stronger than most 220lb me. he was exceptionally strong, and pushed around 215lb louis all over the ring.

moore, charles, who faced BIG strong men said marciano was far and away the strongest men they ever faced.

joe louis said "it hurt to bump into him".





let me say this, coetzee never had to go though 15 rounds of pain and suffering with a fighter like marciano.

The best fighters Rocky beat were all past their best by some years, Coetzee fought in one of the most talented eras that the Heavyweight division has seen and fought fluid boxers like Page, Dokes and Thomas and tremendous punchers like Weaver, Snipes... Coetzee to my mind fought the better opposition to Marciano so why is he not in Rockys league?.... Rocky never fought a heavyweight as strong and powerful as Coetzee and thats a fact... aside from Charles, Walcott, Moore (a light-heavy) and a washed up Louis, Rocky Marcianos opposition was fairly limited to be honest...

wat basis do u have that moore and walcott were past there primes?

aside from Charles, Walcott, Moore (a light-heavy) and a washed up Louis, Rocky Marcianos opposition was fairly limited to be honest..

ur underating roland la starza whom i feel was the best of the top contenders he beat. i rate him top 20 best heavies never to win title

other top contenders he beat rex layne, harry kid mathews, don cockell, were all good fighters.


i might add in marcianos early career, he was though of as a club fighter and thrown in the ring in only his 4th bout with guys like 26-0 eddie ross. goldman was not training marciano yet and thats all rocky had was a suzie Q.

so i think people shouldnt dismiss marciano beating his early opponents, when marciano was not supposed to beat them and wasnt training with goldman till he was about 15-0! rocky was thrown into the ring with much bigger men as well.



i see u said "moore(light-), well moore weighed in moore than marciano did for there bout.

i also might add moore was a very good heavyweight who school all the young big heavyweight top contenders that u so admirely think of.


i might add i think moore would have beat coetzee

josh good solid points all around.


its not like were comparing holmes vs marciano, were talking about gerrie coetzee!



you think he could keep up with rocky marciano for 15 rounds, yet he couldnt keep up with mike weaver.

Coetzee fought in one of the most talented eras that the Heavyweight division has seen

see thats where i disagree.


where i will admit they had a lot more depth than other eras, they simply had one great fighter then a truck full of good fighters.

- other eras didnt have as much depth, but they had more than 1 great fighter.


- the fact that the title changed so much should show u the toughness of that era.


i also might add that the early 80s heavies often showed up out of shape an fat, and were incosistent and some became drug addicts.

Oh my god. You cant be serious? Gerrie Coetzee. Are yo just trying to rile people up by saying this foolishness? OK Lewis has been KO'd by McCall and Rahman, Rahman is a much better fighter than Coatzee and McCall IMO is as well. See if you look at the David Tua fight where Lewis faught a cautious fight and won a wide decesion you would see that that theory of Coatzee catching Lewis is absurd, to beat Lewis he would have to get very very very very very lucky. As for Marciano... how can anyone seriously think Coatzee has a chance against Rocky. Gerrie was KO'd by Greg Page who 4 months before he KO's Gerrie lost to David Bey who finished his career at 18-14, so Page was coming off a loss and Coetzee just won the WBA title, so by saying Coetzee could beat Marciano your also saying Page could and also saying 18-14 David Bey could which if you actually think this you should find the nearest toilet and drown yourself. I am not gonna even argue about Waloctt, Moore, and Charles being on Rocky's resume, because I would be wasting my time. This fact that this is a question is astonishing and whoever thinks this should stop posting this absolute nonsense. I am really pissed that I had to write this long post to debate whether Gerrie Coetzee, GERRIE fornicating COETZEE, could beat Rocky Marciano or Lennox Lewis, we have a top 5 HW and top 10 HW of all-time and some of you arguing that would lose to this guy, absolutely rediculous.

I do appreciate Razor bringing Coetzee up and giving us all a chance to reconsider him. I think he would catch Rocky coming in with that bionic right ahnd of his but i can't see him beating Rocky. The relentless punching and pace of the fight would eb too much for Gerrie and I think Rocky wears him down and puts him away some time after 10. Coetzee would have his moments in the fight that is for sure.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

He Punched with Walcott and Charles and Moore who were all past their best

i disagree about walcott and moore. they were both at or near there best. walcott just a couple months ago beat ezzard charles, and moore had recently knocked out harold johnson.


ezzard was past his prime, but in that 1st fight he was a much better charles than the one who recentley lost to johnson and valdez. marciano beat a damm good version of charles that night and a near best heavyweight version of charles. Charles hadnt looked that good since the night he knocked out rex layne in 52.

Rocky managed to outlast Walcott and Charles who were both in their 30s and past their peaks, going 15 with the younger, heavier and stronger Coetzee would have been another thing entirely

walcott didnt even become a contender till 33, and heavyweight champion till 37, so ur arguement about walcott in his 30s goes down the drain.

- charles displayed incredible courage, stamina, toughness in that fight and only reason he slowed down was because he got punched in the adams apple and couldnt breathe, and he got worn down.

- moore defintley didnt slow down, he got worn down!

post fight interview repoter "archie did ur legs give out on you"

archie "noo no, he him me quite a few times".


- walcott, charles, moore all had better stamina than coetzee. fact is, moore,walcott, charles, had never gone up against a human punchig machine made out of iron that would hit you all over the body and make u want to quit!

walcott, charles, moore were proven good 15 round fighters. in fact walcott dominated the 12th and it looked like walcott was getting stronger, not marciano.

under 200...

whats ur point? all 3 of them beat very much larger men. moore had recnently outpointed valdez and knocked out baker.

whats the difference between 200lb and 197lb walcott?

walcott was a chizzled 197lb who looked a lot bigger than 200lb, but once again why the question?

all 3 of them were master boxers and there size made them faster and harder to hit.


all 3 of them would beat coetzee.

Rocky was most vulnerble early in a fight while Coetzee would often come out bombing early

another common miconception,

marciano had almost 30 knockouts before 5 rounds.

- only reason marciano started out late in some of his ladder fights was ring rust, because had was comming off big layoffs and had a little ring rust unlike his earlier years.

- but look at his record, he was not a slow starter like joe frazier!

Rocky never had to go 15 with a fighter as strong as Coetzee.... look at the mess he was in after going that distance with Charles, Coetzee was stronger, younger and had a better punch so would have done more damage than Charles...

coetzee would not hit marciano as much like charles did. coetzee was not a pin point accurate, master boxer, great handpseed like charles and his slower less accurate punches would hardly connect as much as charles did.


marciano was as strong as coetzee, marciano was stronger than most 220lb me. he was exceptionally strong, and pushed around 215lb louis all over the ring.

moore, charles, who faced BIG strong men said marciano was far and away the strongest men they ever faced.

joe louis said "it hurt to bump into him".





let me say this, coetzee never had to go though 15 rounds of pain and suffering with a fighter like marciano.

The best fighters Rocky beat were all past their best by some years, Coetzee fought in one of the most talented eras that the Heavyweight division has seen and fought fluid boxers like Page, Dokes and Thomas and tremendous punchers like Weaver, Snipes... Coetzee to my mind fought the better opposition to Marciano so why is he not in Rockys league?.... Rocky never fought a heavyweight as strong and powerful as Coetzee and thats a fact... aside from Charles, Walcott, Moore (a light-heavy) and a washed up Louis, Rocky Marcianos opposition was fairly limited to be honest...

wat basis do u have that moore and walcott were past there primes?

aside from Charles, Walcott, Moore (a light-heavy) and a washed up Louis, Rocky Marcianos opposition was fairly limited to be honest..

ur underating roland la starza whom i feel was the best of the top contenders he beat. i rate him top 20 best heavies never to win title

other top contenders he beat rex layne, harry kid mathews, don cockell, were all good fighters.


i might add in marcianos early career, he was though of as a club fighter and thrown in the ring in only his 4th bout with guys like 26-0 eddie ross. goldman was not training marciano yet and thats all rocky had was a suzie Q.

so i think people shouldnt dismiss marciano beating his early opponents, when marciano was not supposed to beat them and wasnt training with goldman till he was about 15-0! rocky was thrown into the ring with much bigger men as well.



i see u said "moore(light-), well moore weighed in moore than marciano did for there bout.

i also might add moore was a very good heavyweight who school all the young big heavyweight top contenders that u so admirely think of.


i might add i think moore would have beat coetzee

Ofcourse Walcott, Moore and Charles were past their best... going into his fight with Rocky Charles was considered washed up on his recent performances, the fact that he gave Rocky such a great fight doesn't change the fact that he was well past his best. Watch film of Charles in 46 or '47 and then watch him against Rocky and you will see a much slower more flatfooted fighter. Ray Arcel actually went so far to say that he thought that Charles was already in the early stages of his illness when he fought Rocky. As for Walcott he was 38+... you can't say he was in his prime, it was age that caught up with him when he fought Marciano as much as anything else, Rocky was just too young and strong.
Moore was 41 when he fought Marciano?.... great though he was you can't make a case that he was in his prime anymore... fighters who are in their 30s and have been fighting 15+ or 20+ years are just not going to be in their primes anymore, this is common sense... had Rocky taken on either the Charles, Walcott or Moore of 5 years previously I very much doubt he would have beaten any of them. The truth is that Marciano got these guys at the right times... none of them were at their peaks anymore...

i think its plain to see your bias against marciano,silkov.you just give no credit at all yet heap praise on a very ordinary coetzee.i think noone can have a serious marciano discussion with you as you are just plain blind.walcott was in the best form of his life so yes was in his prime.37 year old walcott beats a 26 year old walcott.charles was past his best but archie moore defended his light heavy title for years after losing to rocky.hardly a shot fighter.

Watch film of Charles in 46 or '47 and then watch him against Rocky and you will see a much slower more flatfooted fighter

yes i agre charles was not in his prime unlike moore,walcott. but that was a peak 175 LIGHTHEAVYWEIGHT charles ur talking about NOT THE heavyweight charles. the charles of the 1st marciano fight was a lot better than the charles who recentley lost to valdez and johnson! that was one of the best HEAVYWEIGHT versions of charles marciano beat in the 1st fight.


nat fleischer(who doesnt think too highly of rock) said ,"It was also generally agreed that no fighter in the world other than Marciano could have lasted 15 rounds against the Ezzard Charles of the night of June 17, let alone with the decision."

As for Walcott he was 38+... you can't say he was in his prime, it was age that caught up with him when he fought Marciano as much as anything else, Rocky was just too young and strong.

silkov,

i would think an intelligent guy like u wouldnt post such a ridiculous uninformative post like that. too say walcott lost because age caught up with him, even though walcott DOMINATED THE 11TH AND 12TH rounds and it was HE , not marciano who was veiwed as the stronger one entering the 13th.



Jersey Joe Walcott was not past it. He put on arguably a career best performance against Marciano - he was still very much in his prime, despite his age. He was a late bloomer, simple as. You couldn't tell me that two years ago Bernard Hopkins was past it. Tell me, what makes you think Walcott was over the hill when he fought Marciano? Was he noticeably slower than he had been in many of his previous fights? Softer? Heavier? Weaker? Did he lack stamina in comparison with his youth? I believe the answers to all these questions are emphatic NOs. That's because Walcott was a late bloomer, the same mold as a guy like Bernard Hopkins, and in fact was not far past his best if at all when he fought Marciano the first time around



The Ring issue said after the first fight , "It wasn't so much old age that beat Jersey Joe. It wasn't a decrepit old man who faced the Brockton Block Buster. Walcott put up one of the best fights of his long career, a most remarkable one. Had he not been up against the ropes when the mighty crash felled him, he might have carried on to win the nod of the three officials. It was a miscalculation of a trick he often had used to good advantage that cost him the fight. With back against the ropes, he shifted his body in an effort to baffle his opponent, and that movement brought him in direct line for the
right that put him away."


- how was it that jersey joe was past his prime, if he had just won the heavyweight title with an incredible KO over 29 year old charles and a couple months before facing rocky, defended his title over charles?

so walcott coming off the two best wins of his career AND HIS CONFIDENCE AT ITS PEAK is suddenly past his prime??


once again, u say old age caught up with walcott but facts say otherwise

Moore was 41 when he fought Marciano?.... great though he was you can't make a case that he was in his prime anymore... fighters who are in their 30s and have been fighting 15+ or 20+ years are just not going to be in their primes anymore, this is common sense.

Even though moore was 45-1 in his last 46 fights prior to facing marciano! moore had recentley knocked out HOF top 10 lightH harold johnson, and beaten the likes of joey maxim, nino valdez, bob baker, bobo olsen, etc. yet somehow a man who was coming off the best wins of his career, would go on to rule the light-H division for the next SIX years was somehow past his prime for marciano? Many historians, fans and sportswriters alike consider Ancient Archie's performance against Marciano as the one of the greatest defensive displays in history!


Tell me, what makes you think moore was over the hill when he fought Marciano? Was he noticeably slower than he had been in many of his previous fights? Softer? Heavier? Weaker? Did he lack stamina in comparison with his youth?






I could say if holmes fought a younger norton, norton would have easily beat him. in fact norton may have beat him even at that advanced age. see how easy it is to turn things around.

john L, i didnt know u were such a big marciano supporter or though it seems!


u seem to love those VERY STRONG ANG TOUGH guys with a big punch who "could lick any son of a bitch in the house"

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:john L, i didnt know u were such a big marciano supporter or though it seems!


u seem to love those VERY STRONG ANG TOUGH guys with a big punch who "could lick any son of a bitch in the house"

Not really a Marciano supporter... but Coetzee?? I was actually a Coetzee fan, and even though I live in the Akron area (hometown of Dokes) I was actually rather pleased to see Coetzee bump him off in Richfield. But having seen many of his fights, his faults are rather obvious, and in no way would I call him a fast HW.

Now if these guys were arguing Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes beating the Rock, I'd really have no argument with that, although I think Rocky rates higher than LL.