BoxRec

....i posted an even grander batch of information on the charles walcott fights....III and IV...and I'm too sleepy now to repeat it. will do later. but.....briefly...charles /walcott III should not have been made...made without the charles camp knowing about it until too late. Walcott IV ...charles' body attack was taken away by a referee so biased he called virtually every charles punch below the breastbone low....cheered walcott on during the fight...heard easily over tv...and the judging was awful.....and the press said so.

now dammit let me get some sleep.

charles /walcott III should not have been made.

ur right. marciano should have got the title shot vs charles in 51, not walcott. marciano beat joe louis and rex layne the two top contenders. i will never know why rocky didnt get that title shot vs charles in 51

BoxBuzz wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:
That aint neccassarily so.

But it might be.

I get damn sick and tired of the Non Believers....

Amazing what a few bad nights with Floyd, The Rock and Ezzard can do to an otherwise sterling reputation.

KO power with both hands, one punch or grind you down KO's take your pick, a career that spanned the length of more than two typical careers, More accumulated KO's than three of most of these guys put together COMBINED with first class ring generalship. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, more powerful than a locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet.

Floyd The Rock and Ezzard would have gotten NOWHERE without the kryptonite that Lex Luthor stuffed in their gloves....

Wait hold on.......damn I forgot my Meds....give me a few I'll be OK.

But he still couldn't beat Charles ...

my side of the argument is the only one bringing FACTS to the table. controversial, You have provided nothing but your own ideas and theories on "charles being tired" and "charles taking walcott lightly"


these are ur own theories, lets see some facts. newspaper reports, historians opinions, quotes, articles, etc

Facts (about Marciano's opponents):

- Walcott: almost 39 years old in the first Marciano fight, well into his 40th year in the second; had wanted to retire 1 1/2 years earlier after the Charles loss

- La Starza: lost the next three fights against mediocre opposition (Cockell, Norkus, Mederos), never played a significant role any more

- Charles: blown-up light heavyweight, 2-2 in the two fights before Marciano; 10-12 in the fights thereafter

- Cockell: knocked out in 3 by Valdes and in 2 by Laves after Marciano (who needed 11), thereafter hung up the gloves at the age of 27

- Moore: blown-up light-heavyweight, almost 39 years of age.

I can't help it but Joe Louis', Muhammad Ali's, or Larry Holmes' championship record looks more impressive to me.

pundit wrote:Facts (about Marciano's opponents):

- Walcott: almost 39 years old in the first Marciano fight, well into his 40th year in the second; had wanted to retire 1 1/2 years earlier after the Charles loss

- La Starza: lost the next three fights against mediocre opposition (Cockell, Norkus, Mederos), never played a significant role any more

- Charles: blown-up light heavyweight, 2-2 in the two fights before Marciano; 10-12 in the fights thereafter

- Cockell: knocked out in 3 by Valdes and in 2 by Laves after Marciano (who needed 11), thereafter hung up the gloves at the age of 27

- Moore: blown-up light-heavyweight, almost 39 years of age.

I can't help it but Joe Louis', Muhammad Ali's, or Larry Holmes' championship record looks more impressive to me.

fact: walcott already retired 8 times in his career

my opinion: so how can u take walcotts retirement seriousely?


fact: walcott was coming off the two best back to back victories of his career entering the marciano fight. KO 7 over 29 year old heavyweight champion ezzard charles who hadnt lost in 3 years and W 15 ezzard charles who was coming off 3 wins including a KO over rex layne.



fact: lastarza was COMPLETLEY RUINED by marciano, this is not an opinion this is a fact. lastarza suffered permant physical dmage in 2nd marciano bout breaking bones and blood vessels in his arms requiring 6 different surgeries.


fact/my opinion: charles was robbed in the harold johnson fight making him 3-1 in his last 4 fights prior to facing marciano. also that would make charles 12-1 in his last 13 fights!



my opinion: charles was COMPLETLEY RUINED BY MARCIANO, his record backs this up.



- charles record before he fought marciano 12-1 in his last 13(throw out the johnson robbery)


"no fighter in the world could have lasted those 15 rounds with ezzard charles let alone with the decision"- Boxing and Wrestling News 1954


"charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his long career"- chicago tribune 1954

"although he was plainly defeated, charles made one of the best showings of his career"- new york times


"charles finest hour because he had showed that he could submerge his imagination and kindly nature and allow the primitive brute that is in every man to rise to the surface" - whitney martin on charles-marciano I


FACT- charles was 32, marciano was 30 2 years younger

FACT- charles was only 185lb vs marciano. when he won the title in 1949, he was 182lb thats only 3lb less than in his first fight with marciao


my opinion: charles was past his prime but still a great fighter when he fought marciano


FACT: cockell WAS NOT knocked out by valdes. it was stopped on a cut eye.

FACT: cockell was 15lb heavier vs valdes than marciano

my opinion: cockell was completley out of shape vs valdes


FACT marciano stopped cockell in 9, NOT 11



Fact: moore was the # 1 heavyweight contender who was 45-1 in his last 46 fights prior to facing marciano coming off wins over valdes, baker, johnson, henry. after facing marciano he went on to dominate the light-H division for the next 6 years and be a top 10 heavyweight contender only losing to ATG's patterson and ali


FACT: moore only 6 years older than marciano.

FACT: liston 10 years or more older than ali




fact: pundit is a hypocrite who rates gene tunney # 6 all time heavyweight

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: fact: pundit is a hypocrite who rates gene tunney # 6 all time heavyweight

#7, and how does this make me a hypocrite?

FACT: Brockton Blockbuster has trouble with his bloodpressure.

u rate gene tunney at # 6 and marciano # 13, even though u critisize rocky's competition and not tunney's HEAVYWEIGHT COMPETITION


tell me, how did tunney beat better HEAVYWEIGHT competition than marciano?

pundit,


answer this for boxrec. how many marciano fights have u seen? which ones exactley?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:u rate gene tunney at # 6 and marciano # 13, even though u critisize rocky's competition and not tunney's HEAVYWEIGHT COMPETITION


tell me, how did tunney beat better HEAVYWEIGHT competition than marciano?

I rate Tunney #7 and Marciano #14 (Demspey is #13).

Tunney's heavyweight competiton was excellent for the time he was there - the champ (Dempsey), the winner of the eliminator (the loser of the eliminator - Shareky - was probably the strongest contender at the time, but he lost), and one of the best contenders (Heeney). Better than Dempsey's competition during his entire reign. Plus, Tunney owned his opponents, won practically all rounds he was in the ring with them. This distinguishes him from Marciano.

As for opposition, the difference between Demspey and Marciano is that Marciano did figth the best opponents around (with the possible exception of Valdes), but these were more often than not old and/or small men. The early/mid 50s were simply not the best period for heavyweight boxing. This is not Marciano's fault; but had the early/mid 50s been better he may not have been champ.

Btw, you rate Dempsey #3 even though he ducked Harry Wills at least for the first 5 years of his title reign - when Wills was in his prime and no obvious other contender was in sight - how do you call this? Certainly not "consistent".

P

Tunney's heavyweight competiton was excellent for the time he was there

what are u talking about. two wins over a far past it dempsey and tunney equal good competition?

- tunney never fought godfrey, gains, max schmeling or jack sharkey. in fact, gene tunney avoided george godfrey.

and one of the best contenders (Heeney)

o please, heeney was no world beater. he only got a title shot cause the tunney camp was avoiding godfrey.

Better than Dempsey's competition during his entire reign

TOM heeney better than tommy gibbons, billy miske? no way

Shareky - was probably the strongest contender at the time, but he lost

tunney NEVER fought sharkey, sharkey might have beat him

Plus, Tunney owned his opponents, won practically all rounds he was in the ring with them. This distinguishes him from Marciano.

marciano OWNED his opponents. he ruined them. after facing rocky they were never the same again. marciano caused permanant damage to them. in rematches marciano dominated the likes of lastarza, walcott, charles, buonvino, lowry, etc. as for rounds, rocky was ahead in rounds in all his fights except walcott I.


-marciano won nearly every round of the moore fight

- marciano won every round of the charles rematch

- marciano was ahead on points in the lastarza rematch

- marciano was well ahead on points vs louis

- charles only won 5 rounds out of 15 in the first marciano fight


- also, marciano was never down for 14 seconds like tunney was with dempsey



- tunney beating dempsey was like marciano beating louis. except marciano knocked louis out and tunney was nearly knocked out by dempsey


FACT: marciano fought far more heavyweights than gene tunney


QUESTION: HOW MANY FIGHTERS DID TUNNEY FACE THAT WERE OVER 200LB?

As for opposition, the difference between Demspey and Marciano is that Marciano did figth the best opponents around (with the possible exception of Valdes)

how did we switch to dempsey vs marciano? o btw, nino valdes WAS NOT the best around. not even close. lastarza, moore, charles, walcott, louis were all better.

, but these were more often than not old and/or small men.

ur a hypocrite. u critisize rocky for beating old small men but not tunney?



in fact tunney made a career out of beating on old small men.......


-tunney beat on an old small dempsey and was still practically knocked out by old small dempsey if not for the long count

- little 175lb tommy gibbons 34 years old far past his prime. tunney was his last fight.

- beat on 175lb georges carpentier, a man who had already been fighting for 16 long years

- harry greb was only 165lb . tunney out weighed him by more than 10lb yet still lost to greb twice out of 5. can u imagine rocky marciano losing to a 162lb man?

tunney NEVER fought a man over 205lb

so please if ur going to critisize marciano, then critisize tunney as well


- btw, nino valdes lost to 38 year old small archie moore so a victory over moore means moore thana victory over valdes. so these young big men ur complaining about marciano not fighting WERE LOSING to the old small men. valdes also lost to 185lb bob satterfield and 178lb harold johnson.



i think its clear marciano beat better heavyweight competition than tunney. wins over ezzard charles 2x, jersey joe walcott 2x, joe louis, archie moore, roland lastarza are better wins than jack dempsey 2x, and tom heeney.

This is not Marciano's fault; but had the early/mid 50s been better he may not have been champ.

early to mid 1950s were good

they were filled with great fighters like ezzard charles, archie moore, jersey joe walcott , rocky marciano, floyd patterson, and other dangerous top contenders like harold johnson, old joe louis, bob baker, clarence henry, roland lastarza, rex layne, nino valdes, earl walls




u critisize dempsey for not fighting wills, but u never critisizize tunney for never fighting george godfrey? ur a hypocrite

godfrey was an outstanding top heavyweight contender who stood a huge 6'3 225lb. tunney never fought a big man, let alone a skilled big man. tunney avoided godfrey.


TUNNEY SPURNS GODFREY MATCH

"plans for a battle between geney tunney, former american lightheavyweight champion, and george godfrey, negro heavyweight, as the feature attraction on the annuel christmas boxing carnival in madison square garden on dec 18, today were abandoned. it was announced by the officials of the fund. billy gibson manager of gene tunney declinded the prooffered match. according the the fund officials, gibson asserted harry wills is the only negro heavyweight tunney will box." los angeles times nov. 4 1925



" Tunney wanted nothing to do with Godfrey--plain and simple--too tough a fight."- boxing historian kevin smith







-did tunney fight the best heavyweigts of his era? i would say no. sharkey and godfrey were better than a 1927 dempsey IMO. plus tunney had a very controversial win vs dempsey where he was down for 14 seconds. marciano won all his major fights uncontroversially.

that just about covers that....

on boxrec marciano is probably a top 5 most critiszied fighter. every thread about marciano or every fantasy matchup involving marciano, people are always critisizing marciano and finding a way to degrade this seemingly inoffensive man. its always "he beat up on old small men" and the people that crtisize rock of his usualy havnt done there research nor have they seen the films. u never hear any other fighter get as much critisized as rock. i never here foreman, frazier, dempsey, louis, liston, johnson get critisized like rocky does.

people just can't deal with rocky's 49-0 and rocky did not leave many holes in his career at all so people nitpick at rocky's record over the littlest things. things that they dont accuse other champions. there whole arguement is "he beat up on past there prime men". well ok lets say they are "past his prime". my response is even at that stage of there career, there still better than most heayvweight contenders in history




the most common misconception among marciano detractors is too try to lump charles, walcott, moore, louis together as washed up old men. this couldnt be further from the truth.

in fact,

IMO walcott and moore both 38, the oldest of that group, are the ones who were closest to there prime when they fought rocky


while charles and joe louis, who were 32 and 37, were the furthest away from there prime even though they were both younger than jersey joe and moore


another thing is people like to critisize JUST age. well then ok, fine u want to play like that ........

- rocky was 30 when he fought charles, only 2 years younger, hardly in a different age bracket

- rocky was 32 when he fought 38 year old moore only 6 years younger than moore........

yet

louis was 8 years younger than schmeling
ali was 10 years youngeer than liston
dempsey was 8 years younger than tommy gibbons
holmes was 6 years younger than norton



-but when there careers are brought up, u never hear people say louis beat a past his prime schmeling, holmes beat a past his prime norton, dempsey beat a past his prime gibbons, or ali beat a past his prime liston. only with marciano do u hear this.



- like i said, everyone primes differently. however if u want to atttack rocky unfairly for the ages of his opponents, i will throw this arguement right back at you.

now heres my critisicm of rocky marciano


A. Depth- he did not beat a long line of solid depth as other great champions did. he fought a couple ham and eggers in 1952 old savold, reynolds, that he could have substitued for a clarence henry or bob baker. this is my # 1 major critisim of rocky marciano.

B. Size and Skill- well rocky knew how to use his size and reach, he will have trouble with a lot of the other champions who were bigger, powerful and skilled. also rocky did not have hardly any pure boxing skill and his defense though underated was not elite like many other top heavy champions. rocky made his own unique style but he had to overcome several adversities and some of the far more skilled champions in history might be too much for rock. rocky had very small limitations 67" reach 5'11 185lb.


C. competition- while it rates up there, he did not have the quantity in his competition some of the other great champs had. i would have liked to see rocky take on more contenders pre title and during title.

-he missed out on fighting some very solid fighters like clarence henry, bob baker, nino valdes, earl walls, etc.

- also rocky's competition is not loaded with a lot of punchers. so his chin isnt tested against an all time heavyweight puncher

- rocky only faced one world class heavyweight over 200lb, joe louis.


- rocky was a swarmer and swarmers dont last long, but i thought he could have had a couple more title defenses during that 52-56 period

sockdollanger wrote:that just about covers that....

I guess not.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: -but when there careers are brought up, u never hear people say louis beat a past his prime schmeling, holmes beat a past his prime norton, dempsey beat a past his prime gibbons, or ali beat a past his prime liston. only with marciano do u hear this.

No, actually I read posts about them all the time, and in general agree.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: what are u talking about. two wins over a far past it dempsey and tunney equal good competition?

- tunney never fought godfrey, gains, max schmeling or jack sharkey. in fact, gene tunney avoided george godfrey.

Schmeling wasn't even on the radar screen n the US when Tunney retired. And Tunney would have fought Sharkey had Sharkey won his eliminator against Dempsey. You can hardly blame Tunney for Sharkey being dumb enough to take his hands down.

marciano OWNED his opponents. he ruined them. after facing rocky they were never the same again. marciano caused permanant damage to them. in rematches marciano dominated the likes of lastarza, walcott, charles, buonvino, lowry, etc. as for rounds, rocky was ahead in rounds in all his fights except walcott I.

What I meant is that Rocky lost many rounds in titlefights. He wore his opponents down rather than outboxing them - and the fact that many of his opponents were relatively old certainly didn't make this harder.

That Marciano "ruined" otherwise top-notch figthers is at least in part a matter of interpretation, btw - another interpretation is that they weren't that good in the first place.

-marciano won nearly every round of the moore fight

Moore was 38.

- marciano won every round of the charles rematch

But not in the first match, and anyway Charles was beyond his peak, as you yourself admit.

- marciano was ahead on points in the lastarza rematch

He lost the early rounds, won the later ones. But this is different from Tunney, who in his titlefights won the early AND the late rounds.

- marciano was well ahead on points vs louis

Louis was old and slow.

- charles only won 5 rounds out of 15 in the first marciano fight

Exactly. And Walcott won the majority of rounds in his first Marciano fight.

- also, marciano was never down for 14 seconds like tunney was with dempsey

You know what? Almost everything we discuss is a matter of views. But this one isn't. Here you give knowingly a false impression, and this pisses me off. You know as well as I do - and as Jack Dempsey did - that was simply smart, used used the time he was given to get up, but that he could easily have gotten up earlier had he needed to. Dempsey cried fould right after the match, but later admitted tue above openly.

FACT: marciano fought far more heavyweights than gene tunney

Of course. Tunney was essentially a light-heavyweight who stepped up to heavy at the end of his career, and took the division with surprising ease.

-tunney beat on an old small dempsey and was still practically knocked out by old small dempsey if not for the long count

- little 175lb tommy gibbons 34 years old far past his prime. tunney was his last fight.

- beat on 175lb georges carpentier, a man who had already been fighting for 16 long years

- harry greb was only 165lb . tunney out weighed him by more than 10lb yet still lost to greb twice out of 5. can u imagine rocky marciano losing to a 162lb man?

This is pointless. Tunney was a light-heavyweight for most of his career and you list his light-heavyweight opponents. Of course they weren't heavier than 175 lbs.

Again, the main reason why I rank Tunney above Marciano is because Tunney outclassed his opponents, won almost every round he was in the ring with them. Marcinao didn't. I admit without hesitation that Tunney's as much as Marciano's period wasn't the strongest in the history of heavyweight boxing (where one of our differences of view comes in - you rate the eary 50s higher than I do). The leading fighters of the early 20s - Dempsey and Wills - were deteriorating, the next generation of heavyweights hadn't yet come through.

u critisize dempsey for not fighting wills, but u never critisizize tunney for never fighting george godfrey? ur a hypocrite

Tunney made ONE defense besides his shot at Dempsey and the mandatory refight (after Dempsey had beaten Sharkey). In this ONE fight he took on Heeney - the guy who had just beaten Risko and drawn with Sharkey - and not Godfrey - the guy who had lost to both Risko and Sharkey. Looked at it differenlty, Heeney is my #6 heavyweight of the 1920s, Godfrey my #5. Taking on the #6 rather than the #5 is a relatively small blip in my book.

Now, you critizise Tunney for taking the #6 over the #5, but you grant Dempsey a blank cheque for avoding THE main contender - Harry Wills - for AT LEAST 5 years; rank him the #3 all time only behind Ali and Louis, while banning his conqueror to #22. How do you call that?

The main trouble with assessing Gene Tunney as a heavyweight is that his career at that weight was so (disappointingly) short. Within that short period he achieved and did pretty much everything though one could ask for.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
-but when there careers are brought up, u never hear people say louis beat a past his prime schmeling, holmes beat a past his prime norton, dempsey beat a past his prime gibbons, or ali beat a past his prime liston. only with marciano do u hear this.

Well, but Louis beat a prime Baer, for example; and Ali a prime Foreman. And Holmes dominated many fighters in their primes during his reign, even though they were not of the same league as Foreman, of course.

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
-but when there careers are brought up, u never hear people say louis beat a past his prime schmeling, holmes beat a past his prime norton, dempsey beat a past his prime gibbons, or ali beat a past his prime liston. only with marciano do u hear this.

Well, but Louis beat a prime Baer, for example; and Ali a prime Foreman. And Holmes dominated many fighters in their primes during his reign, even though they were not of the same league as Foreman, of course.

so did marciano. outside of charles and louis, all his world class fighters he faced were at/near there primes.

Moore was 38.

45-1 in his last 46 fights. # 1 rated heavyweight contender by RING MAGAZINE coming off wins over nino valdes, bob baker, clarence henry, harold johnson.

going by moores record, he was not over the hill.


-archie was a late bloomer, a fighter who got better with age. archie was near his prime when he fought marciano.


-go watch the film, moore had the reflxes of a 25 year old

But not in the first match, and anyway Charles was beyond his peak, as you yourself admit.

however he was still a great figther and the # 1 heavyweight contender who put on a career preformance vs marciano

Louis was old and slow.

just like jack dempsey. except louis was bigger and stronger than jack dempsey. also louis didnt put marciano down for a 14 count like jack dempsey did with tunney.

Exactly. And Walcott won the majority of rounds in his first Marciano fight.

walcott was at/near his prime for the first marciano fight. also be fair to marciano. HE LOST 3 ROUNDS DUE TO BLINDNESS! what happens if u take those 3 rounds away? the fight is DEAD EVEN.

The main trouble with assessing Gene Tunney as a heavyweight is that his career at that weight was so (disappointingly) short. Within that short period he achieved and did pretty much everything though one could ask for.

no way near enough. ur saying tunney beating a old small dempsey 2x and tom heeney is a big accomplishment than beating old joe louis, ezzard charles 2x, jersey joe walcott 2x and archie moore?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: no way near enough. ur saying tunney beating a old small dempsey 2x and tom heeney is a big accomplishment than beating old joe louis, ezzard charles 2x, jersey joe walcott 2x and archie moore?

No I don't. As said earlier, I've no trouble with Marciano's competition. He fought the best who where there; you can't ask more.

I rank Tunney higher than Marciano though because of the way how they won their fights. In Tunney's titlefights there was never any doubt, not even for a minute, who was the better man in the ring.

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: no way near enough. ur saying tunney beating a old small dempsey 2x and tom heeney is a big accomplishment than beating old joe louis, ezzard charles 2x, jersey joe walcott 2x and archie moore?

No I don't. As said earlier, I've no trouble with Marciano's competition. He fought the best who where there; you can't ask more.

I rank Tunney higher than Marciano though because of the way how they won their fights. In Tunney's titlefights there was never any doubt, not even for a minute, who was the better man in the ring.

i horribly disagree

tunney was aided by an extremely partisan ref in the famous Dempsey rematch where he was knocked down for 14 seconds vs dempsey. this was a very controversial win for gene. even if the ref had counted correctly and gene beat the count, dempsey would have had the 5 extra seconds to swarm all over him and knock him out



marciano on the other hand dominated his opponents. HE KNOCKED THEM OUT. he brutalized them. HE GAVE THEM REMATCHES AND DOMINATED THEM IN REMATCHES LIKE JOE LOUIS.


u rate larry holmes high but how well did he win his fights?


basically a dead even fight with ken norton


close controversial split over tim witherspoon


close controversial dec over carl williams


close fight with mike weaver



i mean holmes never gave any of these guys rematches?

pundit stop avoiding this question


how many marciano fights have u seen? which ones?

pundit u dont realize something about ezzard charles. he fought one of the best preformances of his career vs marciano in there first fight. newspaper reports back this up and so does film. so what does this mean? IT ADDS to marcianos win over charles considering marciano still decisevley beat a charles who was in awesome shape.

the preformance charles put on vs marciano would have toppled many other champions.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:pundit stop avoiding this question


how many marciano fights have u seen? which ones?

I've no reporting duties to you - anyway, I've seen several Marciano fights, including against (old and slow) Louis, (old) Walcott, and (fatman) Cockell. Not though (in full length) those against (beyond peak) Charles and (old) Moore.

Your view of the secdon Dempsey-Tunney fight doesn't make sense. Tunney would have had no trouble to survive the round, even if Dempsey would have gotten 5 seconds more. And Tunney won all the others.