BoxRec

yancey wrote:

Crease wrote:

yancey wrote:I don't think Marciano was "miles and miles" ahead of Quarry. Not at all.

Well we will have to disagree on that one. Quarry would never have achieved what Rocky did in his career if they swapped eras.

yancey wrote:It would have been very interesting to see Rocky at his weight fight Chuvalo, Bonavena, and Quarry.

He would of had a tougher struggle than you might think, though I'm not necessarily saying he loses.

Marciano didn't exactly feast on bums, mate.

Study the won-loss records of many of Rocky's opponents leading up to his first fight with the past-it Walcott. It astounded me when I saw it.

As far as Quarry goes, sure he would have not gone 49-0, he was too inconsistent. But on his A game, he gives Marciano much, much more trouble than your "miles and miles" exaggeration would indicate. Quarry was a more technically proficient fighter than Marciano could think of being. Marciano was the one heavyweight champion that Quarry said consistently he was sure he would beaten. I think Quarry would have been a live dog against Rock.

You have to understand Crease. Yancey's modus operandi is to tear down Marciano to build up Frazier.

BTW, these are my two favorite heavyweights of all time. I have no idea who would win, but I predict it might have been the greatest fight in the history of boxing . . . I see a modern version of Jeffries-Sharkey, a fight which men who saw it and lived to the era of Joe Louis still said was the greatest heavyweight fight of all time.

Crease wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Evolution. Frazier in 3!

You know I have never really grasped way some boxing fans think that this "evolution" argument is important.

It's a really weird thought process, which would eventually lead us to believe that Nikolai Valuev is the biggest, strongest, meanest and GREATEST Heavyweight of all time!

It would also have us believe that the average Heavyweight today would beat the average Heavyweight of the 50s or the 70s - which is another thing I would dispute.

What's going on with that "evolution"?

It means that "the bigger, the better" and "the more close to present times, the bigger fighters, so the better too"?

I like Rocky but look at his opponents. An awful lot were retreads or light heavies with a few pounds packed on. Very few would have lasted more than a couple of rounds against Chuvalo, Bonavena or Quarry. Joe definitely beat way better competition than Rocky did, and some of them might have been good enough to beat the Brockton Blockbuster...on a good day. :)

I agree that Marciano fought some opponents that would have lost easily to Chuvalo, Bonavena and Quarry.
How would Manuel Ramos, Dave Zyglewicz, Terry Daniels, and Ron Stander have done against Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott?

Cap wrote:I like Rocky but look at his opponents. An awful lot were retreads or light heavies with a few pounds packed on. Very few would have lasted more than a couple of rounds against Chuvalo, Bonavena or Quarry. Joe definitely beat way better competition than Rocky did, and some of them might have been good enough to beat the Brockton Blockbuster...on a good day. :)

Of course you are spot on, but be prepared for someone to accuse you of having ulterior motives.

"You have to understand Crease. Yancey's modus operandi is to tear down Marciano to build up Frazier." raylawpc






You have to understand Crease. raylawpc's modus operandi is to project ulterior motives on the posts of others.

He has forever accused me of criticizing Rocky's record in order to somehow build up Frazier.

I guess it is utterly past him to understand that the two are simply not related.

Pitiful.

or....simply erroneous.

BoxBuzz wrote:or....simply erroneous.

Maybe so, and I really prefer to be polite, but he has hammered me with this accusation repeatedly in the past and it gets old.

There is simply no relationship between my views on Marciano and Frazier.

yancey wrote:

Cap wrote:I like Rocky but look at his opponents. An awful lot were retreads or light heavies with a few pounds packed on. Very few would have lasted more than a couple of rounds against Chuvalo, Bonavena or Quarry. Joe definitely beat way better competition than Rocky did, and some of them might have been good enough to beat the Brockton Blockbuster...on a good day. :)

Of course you are spot on, but be prepared for someone to accuse you of having ulterior motives.

Nah, he's not a repeat offender . . .

yancey wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:or....simply erroneous.

Maybe so, and I really prefer to be polite, but he has hammered me with this accusation repeatedly in the past and it gets old.

There is simply no relationship between my views on Marciano and Frazier.

Well you are a promoter of all that is Smokin' Joe. You gonna deny it? So you're a suspect like it or not. Like I am regarding Archie Moore.

yancey wrote:Study the won-loss records of many of Rocky's opponents leading up to his first fight with the past-it Walcott. It astounded me when I saw it.

I wouldn't draw too much emphasis on that statistic sir, we all know that stats can be misleading. And I would prefer not to get in to a statistically-based debate with you.

But let's talk about Marciano's opponents then. And let's just focus in to the years of 1950-51 - the two years before he won the World Heavyweight Title:
March 1950: Beat Roland La Starza (ranked 4th in The Ring Magazine the following year)
July 1951: Beat Rex Layne (ranked 6th in The Ring Magazine in 1950 - & would later be ranked 2nd in The 1952 Ring Magazine)
October 1951: Beat Joe Louis (ranked 6th in the 1951 Ring Magazine)
February 1952: Beat Lee Savold (ranked 2nd in the 1950 Ring Magazine)

I was also astonished to see that Harry Matthews wasn't ranked in in The Ring's top 10 because he went something like 40 fights unbeaten.
And there's also an argument to say that Freddie Beshore was an outside contender in terms of the World Title frame.

I used The Ring's Annual Rankings as a resource, as can be seen here:
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_R ... ght--1950s

Just off topic quickly, the reason I use The Ring Magazine is because find it useful in acquiring information of the boxing public's perception and reception of the fights as they happen - and to gage what they think of the Heavyweight division of their day.

With that in mind, Rocky (arguably) beat four or five of the top contenders before he got his title shot...........
Think of that for a minute, imagine a Heavyweight today beating half of the top 10 guys before he gets his fight against Wlad Klitchsko............
It's a pretty remarkable achievement in itself.

In conclusion, Rocky beat the guys of his time. He did it the hard way.

yancey wrote:Marciano was the one heavyweight champion that Quarry said consistently he was sure he would beaten.

That does not surprise me. It's the same thing as Larry Holmes' famous statement about Marciano "not being able to carry my jockstrap".

It's just the same old under-appreciation of a great champion because he was of a different (or unpopular) style.

yancey wrote:I think Quarry would have been a live dog against Rock.

Your entitled to your opinion. I believe that it would have turned in to a slugfest and that Quarry would find himself hopelessly outgunned!

Duch wrote:What's going on with that "evolution"?

It means that "the bigger, the better" and "the more close to present times, the bigger fighters, so the better too"?

It's a one dimensional way of thinking. And it's based on the belief that boxing comes down to physicality.
When, in reality there's much, much more to the sport than that:

But let me ask you these two questions (and if you won't answer - I would dare any other advocate of this "evolution" argument to answer):

Duch wrote:What's going on with that "evolution"? It means that "the bigger, the better"

So is Nikolai Valuev the biggest and best Heavyweight of all time?
(Seeing as he's the tallest & heaviest)

Duch wrote:"the more close to present times, the bigger fighters, so the better too"?

I have only two points to make to this:

1. Does this mean that today's Heavyweight Division is the best in the history of boxing?

2. Does this mean that the average Heavyweight today (the 2010s) would beat the average Heavyweight of any previous decade?

Cap wrote:Very few would have lasted more than a couple of rounds against Chuvalo, Bonavena or Quarry.

Ambling Alp II wrote:How would Manuel Ramos, Dave Zyglewicz, Terry Daniels, and Ron Stander have done against Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott?

Gentlemen, it's easy to discredit the great fighters of the past by naming some of the bums that they have beat on their way up - you can do that with all the greats - Ali, Louis, Robinson, Armstrong - they all beat poorer guys when coming up.

But it doesn't really mean anything, does it? - They are all guilty of it.

I wonder why should I answer. I only asked what means that term, lol

Crease wrote: With that in mind, Rocky (arguably) beat four or five of the top contenders before he got his title shot...........
Think of that for a minute, imagine a Heavyweight today beating half of the top 10 guys before he gets his fight against Wlad Klitchsko............
It's a pretty remarkable achievement in itself.

In conclusion, Rocky beat the guys of his time. He did it the hard way.

Agreed. Rarely have we seen a heavyweight champion regularly and consistently beat the very best of his era. Of the six men he defended his belt against most of them were #1, while perhaps one or two of them were #2. And that doesn't even factor all the top raters he faced to even get his shot in the first place, as you stated. I have Marciano at my #3 all time, closely behind Ali at #1 and Louis at #2. His opponents may not stack up well to that of certain champions from other periods, but he met the one criteria that is universal for being an ATG... He beat everyone that there was to be beat. As an added bonus, he never lost and to this day still holds the highest knockout percentage of any HW champion.. That's enough for me.

Crease wrote:

Cap wrote:Very few would have lasted more than a couple of rounds against Chuvalo, Bonavena or Quarry.

Ambling Alp II wrote:How would Manuel Ramos, Dave Zyglewicz, Terry Daniels, and Ron Stander have done against Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott?

Gentlemen, it's easy to discredit the great fighters of the past by naming some of the bums that they have beat on their way up - you can do that with all the greats - Ali, Louis, Robinson, Armstrong - they all beat poorer guys when coming up.

But it doesn't really mean anything, does it? - They are all guilty of it.

"They are all guilty of it." Crease




Some much more so than others.

Just to say that Marciano was a great champion who fought everyone in his era. Walcott and Charles were still fantastic fighters when he fought them and better than the opposition of other champions who get rated above him.

My issue with Rocky in head-to-head is simply that for a guy who relied on power and durability he was small and not the quickest. I do not prescribe to the evolution argument/joke...which seems to suggest that people started evolving over a decade rather than thousands of years etc...

But nobody weighing 185 has been consistently scoring one punch knockdowns over behemoths since Dempsey and Langford. Which gives you an idea of how good those guys really were.

BoxBuzz wrote:

yancey wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:or....simply erroneous.

Maybe so, and I really prefer to be polite, but he has hammered me with this accusation repeatedly in the past and it gets old.

There is simply no relationship between my views on Marciano and Frazier.

Well you are a promoter of all that is Smokin' Joe. You gonna deny it? So you're a suspect like it or not. Like I am regarding Archie Moore.

"Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized"

Benjamin Haydon



Yes, I'm a big Frazier fan, but I would like to think my opinions expressed here are pretty objective. I generally have Frazier 5th or 6th in the all-time Top 10 and I don't think that is way out of line.

I never studied Marciano much until someone (Controversial, possibly?) initiated a major thread here a few years ago. I then went to the record book as he suggested and studied the won/loss records of his opponents. I then went to youtube and saw the Cockell fight and clips of others and all this made me go whoa! when it came to Rocky.

I sincerely think Rocky came along at the right time. I don't think he beats the best version of Walcott and very possibly Charles and I think he has a bigger struggle with the likes of Quarry, Chuvalo, and Bonavena than what others seem to think.

And none of this has one iota with someone's looney notion that I'm simply trying to build up Frazier by tearing down Rocky.

yancey wrote:
Yes, I'm a big Frazier fan, but I would like to think my opinions expressed here are pretty objective. I generally have Frazier 5th or 6th in the all-time Top 10 and I don't think that is way out of line.

I never studied Marciano much until someone (Controversial, possibly?) initiated a major thread here a few years ago. I then went to the record book as he suggested and studied the won/loss records of his opponents. I then went to youtube and saw the Cockell fight and clips of others and all this made me go whoa! when it came to Rocky.

I sincerely think Rocky came along at the right time. I don't think he beats the best version of Walcott and very possibly Charles and I think he has a bigger struggle with the likes of Quarry, Chuvalo, and Bonavena than what others seem to think.

And none of this has one iota with someone's looney notion that I'm simply trying to build up Frazier by tearing down Rocky.

His amateur career was relatively short. He didn't turn pro until roughly right around the age of 24, which was considered quite late in those days. And last but not least, he was only 5'10", and 185 lbs. That being said, its not unreasonable to have doubts about him in quite a few head to head match ups. Legacy wise, ( and not head to head ) however his resume is tough to beat. Its true that he fought in a less than stellar era, but there have been many champions who have, and yet virtually none of them dominated the way that Rocky did, yet still managed to retire unbeaten.. Would he have accomplished this same feat had his prime stretched from 1969-1974 or perhaps 1988-1993? My answer is no. probably not. But then, you can say none of the actual participants of those eras got away without being exposed either..

Crease wrote:

Cap wrote:Very few would have lasted more than a couple of rounds against Chuvalo, Bonavena or Quarry.

Ambling Alp II wrote:How would Manuel Ramos, Dave Zyglewicz, Terry Daniels, and Ron Stander have done against Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott?

Gentlemen, it's easy to discredit the great fighters of the past by naming some of the bums that they have beat on their way up - you can do that with all the greats - Ali, Louis, Robinson, Armstrong - they all beat poorer guys when coming up.

But it doesn't really mean anything, does it? - They are all guilty of it.

That was my point; you should not judge fighters by wins over their weaker opponents. (Though the fighters mentioned were not opponents on their way up; they were opponents when Frazier and Marciano were close to their oprime.)


I think Marciano beat the best fighters available. It was not a particularly deep era, but you can only fight the opponents available. He could have retired a little bit later and possibly had some more big fights. However, right after his last fight in 1955, their did not seem to be any big challenges.
There was a ton of quality opponents available for Frazier to fight; some he fought and some he didn't.

Overall, the opponents that Frazier fought were better than Marciano's, but the gap is closer than some people realize. Frazier and Marciano should be rated very close to each and they did have roughly similar styles. Which all indicates that it would have been a very competitive fight.

Marciano had some health issues after his last fight with Moore in 1955, which unless I am mistaken had something to do with back pain? I stand to be corrected on that, but in any event a fight with Nino Valdez around 1954, as well as a 1956 meeting with Floyd Patterson and perhaps Willie Pastrano would have added a bit more substance to his resume. But frankly, I don't think it was necessary. None of those men were favored to beat him and the strength of his legacy lied within his being undefeated and already beating the best around...

Ambling Alp II wrote:I agree that Marciano fought some opponents that would have lost easily to Chuvalo, Bonavena and Quarry.
How would Manuel Ramos, Dave Zyglewicz, Terry Daniels, and Ron Stander have done against Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott?

yancey wrote:[

"Fortunately for serious minds, a bias recognized is a bias sterilized"

Benjamin Haydon



Yes, I'm a big Frazier fan, but I would like to think my opinions expressed here are pretty objective. I generally have Frazier 5th or 6th in the all-time Top 10 and I don't think that is way out of line.

I never studied Marciano much until someone (Controversial, possibly?) initiated a major thread here a few years ago. I then went to the record book as he suggested and studied the won/loss records of his opponents. I then went to youtube and saw the Cockell fight and clips of others and all this made me go whoa! when it came to Rocky.

I sincerely think Rocky came along at the right time. I don't think he beats the best version of Walcott and very possibly Charles and I think he has a bigger struggle with the likes of Quarry, Chuvalo, and Bonavena than what others seem to think.

And none of this has one iota with someone's looney notion that I'm simply trying to build up Frazier by tearing down Rocky.

So you are proud of your objectivity, and sensitive about the accusation.

If you are open for feedback, I'm not sure I see the transparent objectivity when it comes to your favorite fighter.
But if you are satisfied you have sterilized bias and subjective responses then good for you! Satisfaction is a good feeling.

On those occasions when I detect even mild reactivity, I'll make a note that you are satisfied that such is not the case.

Marciano arrived on the scene at a low point in heavyweight boxing history. Read contemporary accounts of the sport. Many experts of the day complained about Charles and Walcott fighting each other over and over with no real good contenders on the horizon. These dry spells happen. Rocky comes along and cleans up on pudgy light heavyweights, retread heavies and what nots. He was head and shoulders over most of them. Only Charles was close and he was another blown-up light heavy.

Take Rocky's ten best opponents and put them up against Frazier's ten best. Do any of Marciano's opponents come out on top?