BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:you know wut i dont understand. u make a big deal about ages and walcott and moores age, and u talk about how walcott was prime at 34. yet when i say charles was 32 when he fought marciano, then suddenly age doesnt matter anymore and u remark that charles had rapidly declined. so charles is shot at 32, but marciano is in his prime at 32 when he fought moore?
What is so unusual about this? Some fighters deteriorate earler, others later. 40-somethings are old by any measure, however.
rocky never fought a 40 year old fighter. archie moore was 38 when he fought marciano. rocky himself was past 30 when he fought charles and moore.
holyfield fought a 44 year old holmes and 42 year old foreman
I agree with Brockton on most points. And I ain't really knocking Louis' opposition in his championship reign, just pointed out that Schmeling, Conn and Walcott were the best of the bunch---and I also agree, Louis' opposition was better than Holmes', I just pointed to Holmes era as an example of a dry division, as was Louis'.
In all fairness, I can say that Walcott and Charles were definately not passed their best, but they weren't near their absoloute best either; Brockton pointed out that Walcott was at his peak when he faced Louis, iono, myself it's hard to judge considering Walcott was in his near-greatness, while Louis was on the decline, and Louis wasn't as tough as Marciano was---Joe was dropped a couple of times by Walcott and outpointed in their first encounter, and even in the second fight Walcott was ahead on all points until Louis caught him.
Marciano was just simply out-pointed, and though dropped for the first time in his career he got up quick, and they went at it in one of the best fights I have ever seen---Walcott threw a punch, Marciano threw his first, and more inside than Walcott did---he made it there first, was perfectly timed.
I will not bash Marciano, irregardless what Nat or anyone else said about his fight with Archie Moore, he dropped Moore 5 times in one of the most brutal bouts I seen---Moore could hardly defend himself in the later rounds, it was his will alone that kept him getting up off the canvas; and though Moore can say he out-pointed Marciano, in my opinion, everything after the first five rounds was all Marciano---and that is really no surprise, as Marciano took a while to get going and find his niche against the superb fighters.
Brockton, John Henry Lewis was pretty much a shot fighter, he was half blind, and you can't say anything different to the fact that Joe Louis gave Lewis, his friend, a shot at the title, because Lewis needed the money. That man didn't stand a chance, and most everybody at ringside knew that.
I believe out of all the men that were near their primes or was all in their prime that Louis ever fought, out of the group of Carnera, Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling was Max Baer, as it was no less than a year before he himself was Heavyweight champion---Baer just was inconsistant and didn't have the mental toughness.
Carnera and Sharkey in my mind were no where near anything that they used to be, after Carnera lost his title he just petered out, winning some fights against mediocre opposition and losing alot to arguably the same type of fighters. Sharkey was an old man, he was always inconsistant, lacked mental toughness, despite all his skills---he was fat and bald ffs and he barely gave out any offense to Louis, it was a one-sided affair. Sharkey was a man who 'could have been' an ATG, but when the pressure was on, he fizzled out.
Schmeling on the other hand, he was good enough to beat some of the same men that Louis did, but it took him longer to do it---as was the case with Paolino Uzcudun, where Louis bombed the Spaniard out in 4 rounds, while Schmeling could only get a draw and a decision win over him. Schmeling was 31 and it was already deemed that this would be an easy win for Louis; Max was not as quick as he was, nor was he really bombing anyone away, unless you count wins over blown up welterweight turn middlweight Mickey Walker and guys like Steve Hamas and Walter Neusel.
But Schmeling had a keen eye and saw Louis' weakness, and that won him the fight, though Louis learned the error of his ways and when they met again, it was a one-sided blow out. It's arguable whether or not this was both these men's best---as Schmeling said "1936 was my best", as to Louis saying that "1938 was my best".
But I can't deny the facts, everybody knew Schmeling was on the downside, and it was a huge upset when he beat Louis---and I do think maybe Schmeling, if he was given his due shot at Braddock, would have been the first two-time champion---but I stick to my guns that Schmeling was good enough to beat some of the top men of the time, but not the very elite (circa 1936 onwards).
You say that Carnera was near his prime or was all in his prime when he faced Louis, if that be so, then how come in just two short years he lost to a man who was 0-1-1 over a 10 round decision? If Carnera was all in his prime, how could in that short amount of time he be reduced to nothing? But in all fairness, Carnera was nothing really to scream over to begin with, but he couldn't have been too bad of a fighter considering he beat Tommy Loughran (or better yet wrestled/clinced/leaned on) the much smaller man for the majority of the 15 rounds.
Baer though, is another story altogether. Even after he lost to Braddock, in which Baer clowned more than he should have fought, he fought Joe Louis and lost. The two fight losing streak drove Baer insane, and to prove his abilities, he fought a remarkable 24 times in a period of four months, but in all fairness it was against mediocre opposition, but still almost as incredible as when George Foreman faced the Toronto Five.
He lost to Tommy Farr, who had given Joe Louis one helluva time in Louis' first title defense, but again regained his position as a leading contender by beating Farr, and then he lost to contender Lou Nova. Baer beat a few men, including top contender Tont Galento in a one sided slug fest and even blew away contender Pat Comiskey in a single round, which was voted as KNOCKOUT OF THE YEAR, but retired officially for good when Nova beat him again.
Baer is hard to pin point when he was at his peak and when he was at his worst. Maybe it wasn't that Baer had nothing left, but that Baer just didn't care enough, trained enough, partied too often, screwed too many women and of course, took everything too lightly. For a man who was considered to be the next Dempsey and he would reign for a long time, Baer sure as hell did a 360 on all the boxing writers and publicists.
Marciano on the other hand faced men who were, like Baer and Schmeling, near their primes or was fighting even better in age. The thing that most champions fail to do is beat the very best of their time, and in all fairness to both Louis and Marciano, they did just that. Though Louis' didn't defend his title against the likes of fighters with the skill-level of a Walcott or a Charles or a Moore on a regular basis---Marciano did, with the exception of Don Cockell, who, in fairness to Cockell, was one of the best British Heavyweights of all time, but hardly a Walcott or a Charles type.
Look at it this way, Marciano had originally planned to stay champion for another 4 years (circa 1959)---if he had done so and fought Floyd Patterson and Eddie Machen and eventually Ingemar, among possibly a few other top contenders like Satterfield, and I don't think there is any doubt in people's minds that he would have lost to those men, he would have fought the same amount of HOF fighters that Louis did.
But Marciano retired, but I do believe he still had a few great fights in him, and if I was back in those days and could have helped pick Marciano's fights and promote, I would have set up a Heavyweight tournament with the winner facing Marciano-----just like they did after he retired and Patterson became champ, then who knows, he could have faced the likes of Patterson.
He was far more capable of fighting than people think, he should be given far more greater credit than what he has been given. I think Marciano is so hated in many of the boxing circles because he didn't box, he wasn't a stylist, he wasn't about looking good while winning---he went in there to kick someone's ass and to win at all costs, and I bet it really pissed the heads of the boxing world that a man with 67" reach that just didn't give a damn about 'going by the book' on boxing managed to beat the best stylists they had to offer.
Not to say Marciano was just a brute and came in crackin skulls and had no sense of skill whatsoever---that man was deceptively defensive, he was really hard to hit, even when someone was throwing combinations at him. He blocked alot more shots than people thought. He fought from a crouch and that was hard for most fighters to deal with, because you can't land a solid effective shot on a man bent down---and then you have him come at you, never taking a step back and throwing 10 punches to your one big shot, and each of his punches has KO written all over it, you're in a very dangerous place to be.
Joe Louis did more with his title yes, but Marciano would be no push-over for Joe Louis, or for any champion for that matter---not on a prime vs prime basis, Marciano was one bad SOB.
Look at it this way, Gudoy gave Louis probs and he fought from a crouch. Galento dropped Louis because Galento put the pressure on Louis, with KO written on his fists with every punch he thrown, never taking a step back.
Marciano sure as hell hit harder than Galento, sure as hell was better at crouching than Gudoy, sure as hell was tougher than Louis was himself, and Marciano was deceptively defensive and he never took a step back, and if you threw one punch, Marciano threw 10---each one with KO on it.
Is a no-brainer for me, sure Louis in his prime would last longer than he did when the two actually fought eachother---but it would still be pretty much the same out-come, except with it being a longer fight.
schmeling and carnera were defintley in there primes when they fought louis. carnera was 27 when he fought louis, and schmeling never fought a better fight than the one he did in 1936 vs louis. schmeling was also coming off some dominant victories in 1935. i didnt see any signs of schmeling slowing down!
Everyobody ages differently and fighters even more so. It's a combination of factors... Age, hard fights that have taken their toll and how the individual looks after themselves in between fights.
In most cases the boxing brain is still there. In their second fight you can almost see Holmes' mind knowing what to do next but his reflexes are letting him down and he can't find/land that final punch.
A guy at 34 is going to have more stamina than the same guy at 38, everything else being equal. the same guy will also have more stamina at 28 than he will at 34, all things being equal. Reflexes and speed also dull at different rates but generally an athletes peak tends to be between 26 and 30. The big guys generally last longer and peak later but that's partly due to the way in which HWs fight. The samller guys tend to peak earlier and have a shorter career.
We can say Walcott's or Schmeling's best performance was against Louis (you might say that this was their peak performance) but this doesn't mean that we can't imagine/speculate upon how Walcott would have fared had he been 30.
You can't really bring in Hopkins as a comparison as fighters are much more looked after than they used to be. they fight less rounds, less fights and are more aware of how they can maintain their ohysical gifts.
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:you know wut i dont understand. u make a big deal about ages and walcott and moores age, and u talk about how walcott was prime at 34. yet when i say charles was 32 when he fought marciano, then suddenly age doesnt matter anymore and u remark that charles had rapidly declined. so charles is shot at 32, but marciano is in his prime at 32 when he fought moore?
What is so unusual about this? Some fighters deteriorate earler, others later. 40-somethings are old by any measure, however.
rocky never fought a 40 year old fighter. archie moore was 38 when he fought marciano. rocky himself was past 30 when he fought charles and moore.
holyfield fought a 44 year old holmes and 42 year old foreman
If we believe Moore himself, he was 41 at the time of the Marciano fight. His mum said he was 38.
Walcott was close to 39 the second time he fought Marciano. And previous to gaining the title from Charles, Walcott had several times considered retirement, because he thought there was no fight left in him. In view of this it seems rather heroic to assume that the 1952/53 Walcott was "prime".
As for Charles being allegedly near-prime when fighting Marciano, here is a nice quote from Archie Moore:
"Ezzard Charles does not get enough respect. He would have beaten Marciano in his prime".
Finally, Joe Louis wasn't prime anymore in 1947. He was nothing but a shadow of his former self by the time he met Marciano.
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:schmeling and carnera were defintley in there primes when they fought louis. carnera was 27 when he fought louis, and schmeling never fought a better fight than the one he did in 1936 vs louis. schmeling was also coming off some dominant victories in 1935. i didnt see any signs of schmeling slowing down!
On this one I agree with Brockton. I suggest to read Schmeling's autobiography. He describes himself there how he temporarily lost it in 1934, but pulled it back together thereafter, convincingly beating both Hamas and Uzcudun (btw, the previous "draw" was a robbery).
At least the 1936 Schmeling was prime or near-prime. 1938 is a matter of debate, but if you see what Schmeling did in the next fight with Adolf Heuser -- a very solid heavyweight with lots of international experience -- he can't have deteriorated too much.
I would argue that Schmelling, Baer, Carnera and Pastor were in their primes when they fought Louis. The same would seem to be true ogf many of the guys Louis fought. Sharkey was past his prime.
i agree, only sharkey was past his prime. in fact, sharkey was virtually shot.
* funny how u listen to schmeling when he says he was as good as ever in 1936, but u dont listen to walcott when he said he was as good as ever going into the first rocky fight.
u say schmelings win over heuser in 37 means he didnt deteriotate that much. i agree. well wut about walcotts 2 wins over ATG ezzard charles right before fighting rocky? they dont mean anything?
but i agree with all ur points on louis competition. funny how ur not big on marciano. but ur big on joe louis. most joe louis nuthugers like myself are all high on marciano. perhaps u feel marcianos a threat to joes legacy and feel the need to put him down to make joe louis higher.
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i agree, only sharkey was past his prime. in fact, sharkey was virtually shot.
* funny how u listen to schmeling when he says he was as good as ever in 1936, but u dont listen to walcott when he said he was as good as ever going into the first rocky fight.
Walcott considered Rocky a bum.
u say schmelings win over heuser in 37 means he didnt deteriotate that much. i agree. well wut about walcotts 2 wins over ATG ezzard charles right before fighting rocky? they dont mean anything?
Schmeling-Heuser was in 1939.
Walcott's 2 wins over Charles came when Charles was already spiralling downwards.
but i agree with all ur points on louis competition. funny how ur not big on marciano. but ur big on joe louis. most joe louis nuthugers like myself are all high on marciano. perhaps u feel marcianos a threat to joes legacy and feel the need to put him down to make joe louis higher.
I certianly don't feel that there is a Marciano threat to Louis' legacy. There is also no Trevor Berbick threat to Ali's legacy.
Btw, maybe we shouldn't overstate our differences. There is no disagreement about the fact that Marciano is an ATG (as are Charles, Moore, Walcott). I just have difficulties ranking Marciano in my top 5, given lingering doubts about the quality of his opposition, and the fact that several of his victories were by a hair's width (Susie Q vs. Walcott, the narrowest of margins against Charles I, a strategic mistake by Charles in the refight). I have him around #10 though.
Walcott said Marciano was the "toughest" fighter he fought and that Martciano was the "hardest puncher" he fought.
What would Walcott say about someone like punkit who feels free to make up "quotes" and attribute them to him ?
I understand that 5-year olds haven't had a chance yet to read all that much.
"They should take my name out of all record books if I cannot beat this bum"
Jersey Joe Walcott before the first Rocky fight (1952), cited in "Kings of the Ring: The History of Heavyweight Boxing" by Gavin Evans
Walcott said Marciano was the "toughest" fighter he fought and that Martciano was the "hardest puncher" he fought.
What would Walcott say about someone like punkit who feels free to make up "quotes" and attribute them to him ?
I understand that 5-year olds haven't had a chance yet to read all that much.
"They should take my name out of all record books if I cannot beat this bum"
Jersey Joe Walcott before the first Rocky fight (1952), cited in "Kings of the Ring: The History of Heavyweight Boxing" by Gavin Evans
After his entire career was over Walcott said Marciano was the "toughest" fighter he fought and that Marciano was the "hardest puncher" he fought.
That is of great significance.
Walcott also said Louis "was the best finisher" of a hurt fighter and that Charles was the" most "under-rated."
Those quotes are of great significance.
Your "quote" is of a pr comment before a fight and is of zero significance.
I pity you and your dependence on second hand information from books written by "authorities" who show they never had a fight with their own sister.
granberry wrote:
Walcott said Marciano was the "toughest" fighter he fought and that Martciano was the "hardest puncher" he fought.
What would Walcott say about someone like punkit who feels free to make up "quotes" and attribute them to him ?
I understand that 5-year olds haven't had a chance yet to read all that much.
"They should take my name out of all record books if I cannot beat this bum"
Jersey Joe Walcott before the first Rocky fight (1952), cited in "Kings of the Ring: The History of Heavyweight Boxing" by Gavin Evans
After his entire career was over Walcott said Marciano was the "toughest" fighter he fought and that Marciano was the "hardest puncher" he fought.
That is of great significance.
Walcott also said Louis "was the best finisher" of a hurt fighter and that Charles was the" most "under-rated."
Those quotes are of great significance.
Your "quote" is of a pr comment before a fight and is of zero significance.
I pity you and your dependence on second hand information from books written by "authorities" who show they never had a fight with their own sister.
solid post granberry. u owned pundit on that one.
pundit, walcotts quote means NOTHING considered he called marciano a bum " before they fought".
WHATS SIGNIFIGANT IS WUT WALCOTT SAYS ABOUT MARCIANO AFTER THE FIGHT. did walcott call marciano a "bum" after the fight??
listen to grandberry on this one
almost all rockys opponents though very little of rocky before they fought him, but after they fought him they CHANGED THERE OPINION
Walcott's 2 wins over Charles came when Charles was already spiralling downwards.
ur telling me charles was spinning downwards in there 1951 title fight?
OK LETS GO OVER THE FACTS
going into the walcott III 1951 fight
- charles was heavyweight champion
- charles WAS UNDEFEATED FOR THE LAST 4 FUCKIN YEARS!
- charles was coming off of wins over joe louis and jersey joe walcott 2x
- charles was 29 years old
HOW THE HELL ARE U GOING TO TELL ME A 29 YEAR OLD UNDEFEATED FOR THE LAST 4 YEARS EZZARD CHARLES WAS SPIRLING DOWNWARDS WHEN HE LOST TO WALCOTT IN 1951?
charles had decisevly beaten walcott just 4 months prior to there 3rd fight which walcott won. was that charles in decline too when he soundily whipped walcott? u expect people to believe in a matter of 4 months charles suddenly became aged???
since losing the title to walcott in 1951, charles in his 3 next fights would DEMOLISH AND KNOCKOUT top contender rex layne and beat hall of famer joey maxim. still no signs of decline.
after the walcott title fight in 1952, charles went 14-1 in his next 15 fights and suffered only one real loss to nino valdes, where charles showed up way out of shape and overconfident. the layne and johnson losses were both huge robberies. i scored the johnson-charles fight by 3 points in favor of charles. charles even knocked johnson down. harold johnson is an ATG hall of famer master boxer too. charles then went on to give ATG heavyweight marciano a gruelling 15 rounder.
really pundit please give me a source that charles was in bad decline when walcott beat him in 1951
Very interesting and very much heated discussions on Marciano's opponents, but this has always been a long running debate, even when Marciano was in his championship years....so we're going to put that behind for a quick second and focus on the tournament.
So far it has been 7-0 for Ali against Larry Holmes...
So far it has been 4-3 for Louis against Rocky Marciano...
Ali will move on into the final round...Marciano and Louis will be determined by the computer! 8) will give those results in a quick bit.
This, as I thought it would be, was going to be a tough fight no matter how you look at it. In the first set up, Louis won. In the second, Marciano won.....and the man to go into the final round in this tournament.....
Just like 1969 all over again Rocky Marciano won over Joe Louis in a very tough fight, winning best two out of three...
the MAIN EVENT of the MODERN DAY ALL-TIME HEAVYWEIGHT tournament is....
ROCKY MARCIANO vs MUHAMMAD ALI 2
Please do not give votes without a great deal of explaining your views on each man, their strengths and weaknesses; if this bout is scored close together, the computer will judge, this time, on a best THREE out of FIVE...the winner will be proclaimed the ALL-TIME HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION of BoxRec.com
What many people fail to realise is, though critics can say the computer fight was nothing more than visual junk food---it was almost identical to Ali's actual match with Joe Frazier in 1970.
Frazier's style was similar to Marciano's, but 'Smokin Joe' was more aggressive in his assaults, but that left him more open to be hit, and more often, than Marciano---Frazier also was known solely as having left hand power, as to which Marciano had two fisted power.
Though Marciano-Ali was more or less an exhibition, Frazier-Ali was for real, no punches to be pulled and no director to yell 'Cut!'
There was less than a years difference between the computer fight and the Frazier bout, so Ali was pretty much in the shape he was; though he did pull wins over Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena---and like the computer fight, Frazier came back from terrific punishment to not only knock Ali down but to win the fight!
Coincidence?
Angello Dundee by admission said that Ali's greatest weakness was his lack of infighting ability---a man like Marciano would have been Ali's greatest test, and there is little question to doubt that Frazier was Ali's toughest foe, who was similar to Marciano.
By all accounts, writers and historians alike, as well as a majority of fans and former fighters, rank Marciano over Frazier. No disrespect to Frazier, he was, other than Ali, the best HW of the 1970's, the greatest era the division ever had.
Now if you take into consideration these things, that computer predicted Marciano would win, and though Ali screamed hoax---he could not back up in real life, as he lost to a prime Joe Frazier, a man who was an easier target to hit than Marciano.
So I think it is safe to say that a prime Marciano, if he faced the Ali of the night he fought Frazier the first time, would have won.
The computer result wasn't too far-fetched, since the Frazier bout solidified that a Marciano-like fighter in his prime could beat Ali, though it would be a very tough fight.
Note- The ending of the computer fight was that Marciano landed a sneaky left hook after a series of body blows; the same thing happened in the Frazier bout in the 15th round, though Ali managed to survive, only to lose the decision to Frazier.
Wow, I didn't think there was a bigger Marciano fan than Brockton ! Not that that's a bad thing.
Ali WUD 15 Marciano. Ali wins something like 13-2 on rounds simply because he has much quicker hands, feet, longer reach, and far better defense. I see Marciano making constant but futile efforts to cut off the ring on Ali, while being fed a steady diet of jabs, counters and combinations until he's bloodied, wobbly, but still standing at the bell.
Seamus wrote:Wow, I didn't think there was a bigger Marciano fan than Brockton ! Not that that's a bad thing.
Ali WUD 15 Marciano. Ali wins something like 13-2 on rounds simply because he has much quicker hands, feet, longer reach, and far better defense. I see Marciano making constant but futile efforts to cut off the ring on Ali, while being fed a steady diet of jabs, counters and combinations until he's bloodied, wobbly, but still standing at the bell.
Rocky Marciano won over Joe Louis in a very tough fight, winning best two out of three...