Goodnight, Irene wrote:
He said it might look like that fight --- not that Marciano resembled Ellis.
Are you his spokesman?
Wasn't being rude, & perhaps you interpreted right, for all I know. Just saying this much --- going by what he said, regardless of what he may've meant, he didn't compare Marciano to Ellis.
I didn't think you were rude - just pulling your chain a bit. Hence, the
I want to hear from the two who voted for Marciano.
Not likely, though. Interesting that more than twice as many people are banking on Foreman to actually lay Marciano out, rather than stop him, with multiple knockdowns or a corner stoppage.
..irene...don't distinguish between KOs and TKOs....so my vote for a kayo could consider the other possibilities...eye cuts, corner...whatever.....my vote means that marciano would not be able to finish the fight...and i don't think it would last long.
jaclem2 wrote:..irene...don't distinguish between KOs and TKOs....so my vote for a kayo could consider the other possibilities...eye cuts, corner...whatever.....my vote means that marciano would not be able to finish the fight...and i don't think it would last long.
You don't consider a man, for instance, retiring on his stool, or protesting a contestable cut stoppage, to be distinguishable in his defeat from a guy levelled for a ten-count?
..irene..first, my post on the KO TKO sentence should have started with the word "I" instead of "don't"....a declarative sentence, not an imperative one.
Okay...i've written on this many times over the years, using the KO to mean "Knocked out of time"...its original meaning, not knocked unconscious .it meant he was not able to come to the center of the ring for whatever reason.
responding specifically to your question.....DeLaHoya was knocked out in the sense he couldn't get up before the ten count, yet he was never out cold....he was downed by a body punch. now, pick out your favorite near massacre where a guy was stopped by eye cuts or just had the ref stopped because he was no longer able to defend himself. This would be a TKO by some, yet he would be the most damaged of the two.
in each case, neither was able to continue.
James Corbett was Knocked out (of time)....though like delahoya he was felled by a"solar plexus" punch and couldn't get his breath, so he was "knocked out"...even though he was conscious.
a big trouble with the TKOs is often a fighter is on the canvas and completely out of it and the referee stops counting because he knows the guy won't recover...or he wants his corner not to have to wait for the ten seconds so they can revive him and perhaps get a doctor to come in. thus, what is really a KO by the out cold definition is called a TKO.
irene - i go by the original definition meaning "knocked out of time".....when the fighter cannot come to the center of the ring for whatever reason.
okay..delahoya was "knocked out" by bernard hopkins by the common definition these days because he couldn't get back up....out of breath by a body punch...but never unconscious.
still the ten count was given, so there was nothing "technical" about it.
Same with corbett kayoed by fitzsimmons....."solar plexus" punch...not out cold by any means.
Now think of your favorite slaughter in which the referee stopped the fight because of a one-sided beating or a bad cut around the eye or some other reason - to save the guy from further punishment. . this would now be called a TKO...yet who was most badly beaten....this guy or the two mentioned above.
Another problem with the "TKO" is ...especially in the past several years..when a fighter is down and obviously out of it and isn't going to be able to get up by ten the referee often just waves off the count and calls him out...usually so the guys corner can come and and tend to him , get him to a corner and maybe call in the doctor. This deprives the winner of his knockout and instead just gets credit for a TKO...according to modern record keeping.
delahoy was "knocked out" by hopkins.....quarry was TKOd by Frazier. of the two losers, who took the biggest beating?
Everyone interprets it differently, I guess. Myself, I still refer to TKO's as KO's only in the context of a fighters' record (eg. such-&-such has 40 KO's). However, I still distinguish the individual fights as KO's or TKO's.
..irene..fair enough, my friend. i think no matter what the designation, one still should learn the details about the actual fight to know what happened.
I don't look at this as a size thing, I look at it as a style thing. As much as I liked Rocky, this is a very bad style match-up for him. That, along with Foreman's freakish power, equals a TKO win for Big George...in my opinion.
Djanders wrote:I don't look at this as a size thing, I look at it as a style thing. As much as I liked Rocky, this is a very bad style match-up for him. That, along with Foreman's freakish power, equals a TKO win for Big George...in my opinion.
I guess you would fancy Foreman against Jeffries, then? A significantly bigger, physically stronger & more athletically-gifted fighter than Marciano, but in much the same vein, & with several key attributes of similar quality?
jezzamundo wrote:I find it hard to see a case for Marciano in this one. Rocky is perhaps a little more durable than Frazier, but he never had to withstand the kind of attack than Foreman dealt out on his opponents. I say Foreman by TKO, around the 5th round. Marciano has a slim chance if he can take the fight into the late rounds.
A little more durable than Frazier?
Puhleeeeeeeez.
I'd like to see Marciano taking the shots Frazier did in Jamaica and getting back up 6 times and on his feet at the end.
Cant help but agree. Im sure the origional poster didnt mean it but it actually comes out as a very controversial statement.
Frazier showed incredible durability thoughout his career , the Ali trilogy, kingston 1972, Bonavena etc.
