BoxRec

Im 38

evrenb wrote:Im 38

Pascal's an interesting fighter. There's a little bit of something missing isn't there. I remember Paul Smith coming right back at him in that amateur Commonwealth gold medal match. Pascal seemed to almost throw it all away but eeked out the win. Also with Froch he was in it until halfway, but suddenly couldn't cope when Carl started jabbing more. I think he's got a little bit of a Frank Bruno over fondness for weights at the expense of speed endurance. There's a chink in his fighting makeup and the best fighters can exploit that. He's probably someone who would benefit from less protein shakes and weights room work, and more time with Rocky running up mountains with rocks in his backpack or whatever! Lol

Watch the Norbert Ekassi fight to get a picture for what happened to Nelson when he was put under sustained pressure. I like Johnny, and I'm a big fan of fleet footed jabbers, but he was no world champ. Imagine what the likes of Holyfield would have done to him.

I'm 41 btw.

SamWise72 wrote:Watch the Norbert Ekassi fight to get a picture for what happened to Nelson when he was put under sustained pressure. I like Johnny, and I'm a big fan of fleet footed jabbers, but he was no world champ. Imagine what the likes of Holyfield would have done to him.

I'm 41 btw.

That was earlier in his career. Probably from a confidence and mental point of view it didn't all come together until around the time of beating Andries. That said I wouldn't suggest for a second he would do anything other than last the distance against cruiser Holyfield. I think Johnny was an excellent athlete, who maximised his potential. Big at the weight and great skills and defence, if average power.

I've never watched this fight before - Carl Thompson v Akin Tafer for European Championship. This is back in 1994, when Carl was still learning on the job so-to-speak. No amateur experience and converting from kick boxing. It shows how tough Carl was. His chin is very much under-rated on this evidence. Tafer was a very well schooled and competent Euro level cruiser, who is mainly forgotten now. For those without the patience, the finish is just before the 31 minute mark. Carl did it Rocky style!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQbZXs_5mZw

loaded_gloves wrote:Cannot believe one single fool has been allowed to draw out this degrading thread 13 or 14 pages.

Actaully, he's had plenty of help.

Tafer was a good solid fighter, but not a big puncher, his only remotely significant stoppage was Derek Angol. He was on his way to winning that fight comfortably til Carl found the punch. I'm not sure why you can't see that Thompson had the same sort of desperation results against guys who weren't good enough to win an alphabet title that Marciano had against all time greats who had made multiple defences of the only world title there was. Are we suggesting that Akim Tafer > Ezzard Charles? Thompson got stopped by Crawford Ashley, who admittedly was a big puncher, but hardly on the level or Marciano, by Yawe Davis who struggled at European level, by Rochigianni, who never fought for a major world title and only stopped 17 of 42, and by noted non-puncher Johnny Nelson, and he was often on the deck in other fights. Carl wasn't good enough to fight at the top level in a cruiserweight division where most ofthe top guys were bobbing back and forth to heavyweight to make money because the division was seen as a joke. I'm sorry, anyone Crawford Ashley stops, Marciano is gonna stop too.

SamWise72 wrote:Tafer was a good solid fighter, but not a big puncher, his only remotely significant stoppage was Derek Angol. He was on his way to winning that fight comfortably til Carl found the punch. I'm not sure why you can't see that Thompson had the same sort of desperation results against guys who weren't good enough to win an alphabet title that Marciano had against all time greats who had made multiple defences of the only world title there was. Are we suggesting that Akim Tafer > Ezzard Charles? Thompson got stopped by Crawford Ashley, who admittedly was a big puncher, but hardly on the level or Marciano, by Yawe Davis who struggled at European level, by Rochigianni, who never fought for a major world title and only stopped 17 of 42, and by noted non-puncher Johnny Nelson, and he was often on the deck in other fights. Carl wasn't good enough to fight at the top level in a cruiserweight division where most ofthe top guys were bobbing back and forth to heavyweight to make money because the division was seen as a joke. I'm sorry, anyone Crawford Ashley stops, Marciano is gonna stop too.

I suppose what I'm ultimately suggesting is something of a draw. It's impossible to properly gauge Marciano's ability because at his peak he feasted on older, faded fighters. He simply wasn't fighting young, athletic and well-schooled fighters ...just very old well-schooled ones. And he struggled and came through those fights, as did Carl as evidenced by a whole string of fights Carl had from this point onwards. Okay, so we can all make jokes about Nelson and Thompson, usually from what were effectively learning fights before their peaks. All I'm saying is NOBODY can be sure Marciano would have done any better.

The Rocchigiano stoppage was because Carl dislocated his right shoulder in a fight he was winning. The Nelson stoppage was premature and Carl hadn't been off his feet. Nelson was puffed-out but probably was going to win.

And on a final note, here are some highlights of Marciano v Ezzard Charles. I'm sorry but I'm not seeing anything particularly amazing or special from either fighter. Both look totally ordinary!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeGFJI_ctVE

It's obvious way too many people are talking about fights they haven't seen.

Neither the first Rocchi fight or the Ashley fight were KO losses.

polecateddy wrote:

evrenb wrote:I do think there are some good points to polecats argument...something has to be said about the progression of science and genetic development etc but I think he is coming across very disrespectful against the rock. Remember you are comparing respecable fighters of today ( the cat being one of my favs) against a legend...one of the most loved in history...i think you are also dismissive of his ability and competition....the competition level..the boxing gene pool was a lot deeper and competitive than now....if you shot footage of say carl froch or more applicable corrie sanders using 50's film I think you wouldnt be singing the praises of the ability of these either...as boxing goes rockys fitness, endurance, determination and intestinal fortitude are second to none and seem to be overlooked...b hop isnt the most fantastic looking fighter you have seen ever is he. You watch film of him and then jean pascal and I bet you would say pascal is the better fighter...better physique, faster hand speed..looks fitter..decent puncher...but did he beat b hop?...boxing is sweet science...more to it than plain ole science...

Just as a complete aside, is there anyone under the age of say 40 yrs passionately advocating Rocky Marciano's chances as being a world cruiserweight and/or heavyweight champion here today? Meaning (off the top of my head) that he would have to beat fighters such as the Klitschkos, Povetkin, Huck, G Jones, etc over 12 rounds. I'm just curious how old some of you posters are :) ...I'm 38 by the way, and was a boxing fan way before internet forums were invented. And from the UK and Australia, (i.e. not a stupid Yank :)

I'm 35 and British. My opinions on this thread are based in what I know about boxing, namely that I disagree with most of your points on this thread.

Ironically, I put it to you that if anything, your age and nationality are making you biased towards the British fighters you grew up with. Ironic because your question above implied bias
from older, American posters.

In answer to your question - I think both Klits would beat Marciano.

Against the rest you've named I would pick Marciano to win.

Why are these fantasy fights happening over 12 rounds and not 15 anyway?

Oswald wrote:

polecateddy wrote:

evrenb wrote:I do think there are some good points to polecats argument...something has to be said about the progression of science and genetic development etc but I think he is coming across very disrespectful against the rock. Remember you are comparing respecable fighters of today ( the cat being one of my favs) against a legend...one of the most loved in history...i think you are also dismissive of his ability and competition....the competition level..the boxing gene pool was a lot deeper and competitive than now....if you shot footage of say carl froch or more applicable corrie sanders using 50's film I think you wouldnt be singing the praises of the ability of these either...as boxing goes rockys fitness, endurance, determination and intestinal fortitude are second to none and seem to be overlooked...b hop isnt the most fantastic looking fighter you have seen ever is he. You watch film of him and then jean pascal and I bet you would say pascal is the better fighter...better physique, faster hand speed..looks fitter..decent puncher...but did he beat b hop?...boxing is sweet science...more to it than plain ole science...

Just as a complete aside, is there anyone under the age of say 40 yrs passionately advocating Rocky Marciano's chances as being a world cruiserweight and/or heavyweight champion here today? Meaning (off the top of my head) that he would have to beat fighters such as the Klitschkos, Povetkin, Huck, G Jones, etc over 12 rounds. I'm just curious how old some of you posters are :) ...I'm 38 by the way, and was a boxing fan way before internet forums were invented. And from the UK and Australia, (i.e. not a stupid Yank :)

I'm 35 and British. My opinions on this thread are based in what I know about boxing, namely that I disagree with most of your points on this thread.

Ironically, I put it to you that if anything, your age and nationality are making you biased towards the British fighters you grew up with. Ironic because your question above implied bias
from older, American posters.

In answer to your question - I think both Klits would beat Marciano.

Against the rest you've named I would pick Marciano to win.

Why are these fantasy fights happening over 12 rounds and not 15 anyway?

Because apparently the premise is that 5'10'', 185 pound Marciano can come in and dominate the cruisers - bar maybe Holyfield - and terrorise the majority of the heavyweight ranks. Have you watched that You Tube clip of Marciano and Ezzard Charles? Talk about rose-tinted glasses you lot!

It's ok, we get the point - You don't rate Marciano, you're just coming at it from a totally bizarre angle. Likewise those arguing against you are really, really skewing their "facts" to try and undermine it.

However you slice it, I think it's fair to say that a guy that while probably not an ATG top ten is probably not far off, is going to beat two guys that are fringe top 20 ATG in a division that has only been established for less than 30 years.

orbtastic wrote:It's ok, we get the point - You don't rate Marciano, you're just coming at it from a totally bizarre angle. Likewise those arguing against you are really, really skewing their "facts" to try and undermine it.

However you slice it, I think it's fair to say that a guy that while probably not an ATG top ten is probably not far off, is going to beat two guys that are fringe top 20 ATG in a division that has only been established for less than 30 years.

Maybe on paper yeah, but then you actually watch the fights and think ...not so sure that's true at all!

orbtastic wrote:However you slice it, I think it's fair to say that a guy that while probably not an ATG top ten is probably not far off, is going to beat two guys that are fringe top 20 ATG in a division that has only been established for less than 30 years.

I think you're being generous to Thompson and Nelson.

The Great John L wrote:

orbtastic wrote:However you slice it, I think it's fair to say that a guy that while probably not an ATG top ten is probably not far off, is going to beat two guys that are fringe top 20 ATG in a division that has only been established for less than 30 years.

I think you're being generous to Thompson and Nelson.

I don't think so, actually.

Both are criminally underrated, Nelson gets a regular shoeing in the British section.

I would rate Thompson slightly higher than Nelson, overall despite Nelson's win over CAT and his lack of quality opponents on his win ledger.

I mean, saying CAT was KO'd countless times is definitely stretching the truth. It also conveniently forgets that even past his best he was good enough to beat Haye who even the most dismissive hater would grudgingly put in an ATG top ten list at cruiser.

I been thinking on this some more, and I come back to the same man as a prime example of how/why all this nutrition and modern technique theory is almost marginally helpful. Think of the career and surprising comeback of James J. Braddock. Here was a man who was a natural light heavyweight, who often fought hurt and seldom had anything to eat and was working on the docks to feed and support his family. He didnt have the time or the money to train effectively either.

He gets a shot at Corn Griffin, and surprisingly wins on a knockout. Griffin had been in Carnera's training camp and was a natural heavyweight and certainly was able to rest between fights and train properly and eat properly. If that wasnt enough, Braddock defeats John Henry Lewis in a rematch and then defeats Art Lasky. Even with the few hundred bucks Joe Gould was able to wrangle up for Braddock to train rather than work on the docks, he was still older, slower, and less off than the men he was fighting. Yet he still won. Forget the Baer win, because that may very well of been the biggest quit job in the world---- but the fact remains here was a man who was just a great boxer who didnt have proper nutrition or effective training and still came out on top.

How can you explain that when nutrition and training was pretty much out the door? Because by all standards he was too small, too old, too worn down, and was basically living hand over fist in the slums of New Jersey not far from the Hooverville's. Desire, skills, determination, faith, and true grit carried him a long ways. Probably the most miraculous comeback in boxing history. Jesus bless.

orbtastic wrote:It's obvious way too many people are talking about fights they haven't seen.

Neither the first Rocchi fight or the Ashley fight were KO losses.

That's fair criticism, I haven't seen either of those fights. However, I did see Carl on the floor, and in trouble, a lot in his career, and not against elite opponents, because he didn't fight many of those (I'd see Nelson, Eubank and Haye as his best opponents, and the only one of those to be a genuinely top class cruiser was very early in his career, though I think that was a magnificent win). I like Nelson as a fighter, and I enjoyed watching him at his best, but the only times he stepped up to genuine world class, he lost or got gift decisions.

I'd say his chin is a little better than some are suggesting, he ate shots, that's what he did. Soaked it up and came back from the brink time after time. He's like a slightly cruder, slower, clumsier but bigger (obviously!) version of MSM.

orbtastic wrote:I would rate Thompson slightly higher than Nelson, overall despite Nelson's win over CAT and his lack of quality opponents on his win ledger.

I mean, saying CAT was KO'd countless times is definitely stretching the truth. It also conveniently forgets that even past his best he was good enough to beat Haye who even the most dismissive hater would grudgingly put in an ATG top ten list at cruiser.

How can they be underrated when they had their shots, many times, and always lost? You could combine their collective forays into genuine top level on one hand and still they lost them all! So how can they be underrated?

They simply are what they are. Men who couldn't beat the best so went the stay-at-home WBO route, which is meaningless historically.

Also, 'all-time great cruiserweight'? Is a term 'all-time' really applicable to a division that is all of thirty years old? And was Haye one of its best ever when he was 10-0 and hadn't gone beyond four rounds? Really? I could name 10 crusierweights who would beat a 10-0 David Haye, even despite the infancy of the division.

Many times? Always lost? You don't half like to over-exaggerate to try and hammer your point home.

Yes, I think the term "all time" can be used to discuss a division ~30 years old, plenty of people are doing it with super middle, super bantam and all the other "new" divisions that were popularised around the same time. Even light middle, light welter and some of the other non trad 8 divisions that were fleetingly around before the late 70s. You always seem ATG attached to Ricardo Lopez' name, so why not?

No, you're intentionally misconstruing the point again to try and "win" some argument you've fabricated in your head. This guy's got you all tied up in knots you're shooting off all sorts of knee jerk comments.

Was Haye an "ATG" when CAT beat him? No, of course not, he was still relatively green. Is it CAT's career best win? Possibly so, yes. Are you ignoring it in an attempt to downplay the achievements of CAT? Absolutely. Are you then ironically but conveniently ignoring some of the more salient points about age and career trajectories that PCT is making in order to utterly dismiss his slightly ludicrous overall point? Absolutely.

Is Haye an ATG at Cruiser? I'd say so, yes. The best? No way. One of the best, probably top ten, yes.

Just as a complete aside, is there anyone under the age of say 40 yrs passionately advocating Rocky Marciano's chances as being a world cruiserweight and/or heavyweight champion here today? Meaning (off the top of my head) that he would have to beat fighters such as the Klitschkos, Povetkin, Huck, G Jones, etc over 12 rounds. I'm just curious how old some of you posters are :) ...I'm 38 by the way, and was a boxing fan way before internet forums were invented. And from the UK and Australia, (i.e. not a stupid Yank :)

I'm 35 and British. My opinions on this thread are based in what I know about boxing, namely that I disagree with most of your points on this thread.

Ironically, I put it to you that if anything, your age and nationality are making you biased towards the British fighters you grew up with. Ironic because your question above implied bias
from older, American posters.

In answer to your question - I think both Klits would beat Marciano.

Against the rest you've named I would pick Marciano to win.

Why are these fantasy fights happening over 12 rounds and not 15 anyway?

Because apparently the premise is that 5'10'', 185 pound Marciano can come in and dominate the cruisers - bar maybe Holyfield - and terrorise the majority of the heavyweight ranks. Have you watched that You Tube clip of Marciano and Ezzard Charles? Talk about rose-tinted glasses you lot![/quote]

This sentence sums up your position.

Have I watched a YouTube clip of a fight?

How about watching other fights that Marciano had. And other fights that Ezzard Charles had. And other fights their opponents had.

You ask the question like people on here never seen any of these people fight but I certainly have and I'm sure other posters have too. Tons of them. I'm guessing you only watch boxing from the mid eighties onwards. That you even ask that question makes me ever more sure that you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Your position is: "Modern is better, it just is. I can't explain why or provide any evidence to back up my point. Nor can I answer any of your questions satisfactorily but I'm not budging."

You're a clown. I'm done with this thread.

Just for laughs I watched Marciano/Moore and thought I would try my best to count the punches Marciano thrown per round. I didnt have the best quality version available to me, but I may be off a bit on my figures but this is what I have found:

Round One: Marciano throws 49 punches in total; this was considered 'light action' which is ironic considering this would be the average amount thrown in a championship match today with "superior" athletes as Polecateddy wants to point out

Round Two: 47 punches were thrown by Marciano and he was dropped momentarily by Moore in this round

Round Three: 61 punches were thrown by Marciano

Round Four: 114 punches were thrown by Marciano

Round Five: 68 punches were thrown by Marciano

Round Six: 27 punches were thrown by Marciano before he knocked down Moore; by punch number 104 there was another knockdown; by the end of the round Rocky threw 111 punches total

Round Seven: 40 punches were thrown by Marciano before Moore slipped, and by rounds end Marciano thrown 85 punches in total

Round Eight: 97 punches were thrown by Marciano before he knocked Moore down; the bell saves Moore from a knockout loss

Round Nine: 59 punches were thrown by Marciano before Moore was knocked out

Total Punches Thrown in Nine Rounds: 691, just by Marciano alone. In total between both men we are probably looking at something in the ball park of 1,500 punches give or take.

Jesus bless.

They're not feather duster punches either..good post..

Oddly enough I was reading something yesterday or the day before which stated he missed 2/3rds of the punches he threw when Moore was on the ropes.

orbtastic wrote:Oddly enough I was reading something yesterday or the day before which stated he missed 2/3rds of the punches he threw when Moore was on the ropes.

Mind you I said punches thrown, not punches landed. However, the majority of the punches that "missed" were on Moore's arms or grazed Moore's chin and head. If you look at the rounds in which Marciano threw over 100 punches a round, you could almost time it to every 2-3 seconds Marciano was throwing something at Moore.