BoxRec

HomicideHenry wrote: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:

Marciano threw about 100 punches in the 15th round against Charles, considering most were hooks it goes to show just how well conditioned he was.

HomicideHenry wrote:

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.

Oh, for sure. I wasn't denigrating the win in any way.

A lot of people slate Rocky for beating and "old" or "blown up" Moore, but the truth is rather more than that. He's gone on quite a remarkable run at heavyweight in his effort to try and secure a fight against Marciano.

polecateddy wrote:

Controversial wrote:

polecateddy wrote: Sellers was a huge natural puncher. Far harder than Marciano.

So who did Sellers prove his power against? I see a string of KO wins over nobodies and every time he fought anyone half decent he was knocked out, normally in the first few rounds.

Perhaps if you actually watched him rather than simply looking up his Boxrec record it may assist. He may not have had much of a chin, but trust me the guy was one of those natural big punchers. He was also the only fighter to have Johnny Nelson on the deck during his respectable WBO reign.

Haha, oh how ironic. You claim you know little about Ezzard Charles, an ATG fighter and possibly the greatest LHW in history, and you pull me up for not watching any Ezra Sellers fights, lol. So Sellers could dig, so can umpteen other HWs and CWs whats your point?

loaded_gloves wrote:

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.

Again the Haye win needs to be put in context. Carl was getting old and slower by that stage, having turned pro don't forget very late. He soaked up a lot of punishment, and it was a remarkable win in the circumstances.

polecateddy wrote:
Again the Haye win needs to be put in context. Carl was getting old and slower by that stage, having turned pro don't forget very late. He soaked up a lot of punishment, and it was a remarkable win in the circumstances.

Also Haye punched himself out and was knackered, he fought the wrong fight against someone so experienced. Thompson was getting battered upto that point and Haye should've won.

Also people seem to be suggesting Nelson wasn't an elite cruiserweight. From memory during his reign perhaps only Juan Carlos Gomez was more highly regarded. And Nelson beat the deposed former world number one, Dominguez. Nelson was effectively at least the world number two cruiser for his reign. Thompson also highly ranked but vulnerable to rangy boxers.

BarryWashington wrote:Love how PCT ignores every thing that counters his bull shiiit.

Err, that's an accurate assessment of their world standing at their respective peaks moron!

polecateddy wrote:Also people seem to be suggesting Nelson wasn't an elite cruiserweight. From memory during his reign perhaps only Juan Carlos Gomez was more highly regarded. And Nelson beat the deposed former world number one, Dominguez. Nelson was effectively at least the world number two cruiser for his reign. Thompson also highly ranked but vulnerable to rangy boxers.

You should get your repeat prescription promto Ted, this isn't pretty.

Tomasino wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Also people seem to be suggesting Nelson wasn't an elite cruiserweight. From memory during his reign perhaps only Juan Carlos Gomez was more highly regarded. And Nelson beat the deposed former world number one, Dominguez. Nelson was effectively at least the world number two cruiser for his reign. Thompson also highly ranked but vulnerable to rangy boxers.

You should get your repeat prescription promto Ted, this isn't pretty.

Okay moron, tell me their world ranking then when active?

He was never number two.

The historical Ring rankings are around, he was never rated/elevated above the 3-4 position.

orbtastic wrote:He was never number two.

The historical Ring rankings are around, he was never rated/elevated above the 3-4 position.

What about Boxing News and Boxing Monthly rankings ...you know actual decent publications! :) Here Johnny is at number 2 corr blimey!

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content ... atings.htm

polecateddy wrote:

orbtastic wrote:He was never number two.

The historical Ring rankings are around, he was never rated/elevated above the 3-4 position.

What about Boxing News and Boxing Monthly rankings ...you know actual decent publications! :) Here Johnny is at number 2 corr blimey!

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content ... atings.htm

Boxing Monthly and Boxing News are both British-based magazines, with a long history of ranking British fighters inordinately high in their 'world rankings'.

At one point around 98/99 they had Herbie Hide beneath only Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield, after his important wins over unranked Damon Reed and Willi Fisher. It's hilarious the people they rated him over.

Just to put Eddy's 'argument' into context for everyone.

loaded_gloves wrote:

polecateddy wrote:

orbtastic wrote:He was never number two.

The historical Ring rankings are around, he was never rated/elevated above the 3-4 position.

What about Boxing News and Boxing Monthly rankings ...you know actual decent publications! :) Here Johnny is at number 2 corr blimey!

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content ... atings.htm

Boxing Monthly and Boxing News are both British-based magazines, with a long history of ranking British fighters inordinately high in their 'world rankings'.

At one point around 98/99 they had Herbie Hide beneath only Lennox Lewis and Evander Holyfield, after his important wins over unranked Damon Reed and Willi Fisher. It's hilarious the people they rated him over.


Just to put Eddy's 'argument' into context for everyone.

The Boxing Monthly rankings are all still online. Find that ranking cos it seems a bit high for Herbie. You're just bulling on!

Their ratings are sometimes a little biased.

Hide was never rated higher than sixth by them.

orbtastic wrote:Their ratings are sometimes a little biased.

Hide was never rated higher than sixth by them.

There you go - post Fisher and Reed ranked 8th. He'd only lost one by that stage and had blasted Tucker out don't forget. Boxing News isn't as biased as you Yanks are against UK fighters;

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content ... atings.htm

Yet five months later he's elevated up 2 spots without doing anything:

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content ... atings.htm

orbtastic wrote:Yet five months later he's elevated up 2 spots without doing anything:

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content ... atings.htm

Fair enough, that is overly generous. I don't think he would have beaten Rahman or Akinwande. But Bryd and Golota would be interesting.

polecateddy wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Yet five months later he's elevated up 2 spots without doing anything:

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content ... atings.htm

Fair enough, that is overly generous. I don't think he would have beaten Rahman or Akinwande. But Bryd and Golota would be interesting.

Okay - so I was 2 off, but it's something that's always astonished me and it totally undermines Boxing Monthly rankings. (and I loved BM in its day btw)

Herbie Hide beat one, one, ONE, top 10 ranked fighter, the 10-1 Michael Bentt who was suffering blackouts in training and seemed to be damaged goods.

To rank Herbie Hide at all in the top 10 in 1997, 98, 99 is totally unjustified. Rank him on what?

Controversial wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote: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:

Marciano threw about 100 punches in the 15th round against Charles, considering most were hooks it goes to show just how well conditioned he was.

Exactly. Marciano in today's standards is considered a man who started off 'fast' in fights. This wasn't exactly the case, because 40-50 punches a round was considered 'light action' in the first round with Moore. That is considered average today. The fact that Marciano's work rate/volume of punches only elevated as the rounds went on is remarkable. The fight commentator was certain Marciano was going to get tired, but it didn't happen. And as you pointed out it was mainly hooks.

orbtastic wrote: Oh, for sure. I wasn't denigrating the win in any way.

A lot of people slate Rocky for beating and "old" or "blown up" Moore, but the truth is rather more than that. He's gone on quite a remarkable run at heavyweight in his effort to try and secure a fight against Marciano.

What alot of people don't understand is just how incredible a heavyweight Moore himself was. This was a man who decisioned Valdes (#1 contender), kayoed Mike Baker in short order, as well as Mike DeJohn and several others with credability. Such was Moore's reputation as a boxer at heavyweight that when he fought Floyd Patterson for the vacant crown he was an 8 to 5 favorite over Patterson. The knockout loss to Patterson was unbelievable to many in the boxing world, as rumors of a dive was spread around for a time. Mind you, good a heavyweight as Marciano was, being sometimes called a new Dempsey, he wasnt considered a truly great fighter until he kayoed Moore. Archie's age was a non-factor in his career. After all Moore spent the first 14 years of his career gunning for the middleweight title and he was ducked. People knew his age, but it was something of a joke to people when they referred to him as an old man, etc. because Moore was just that special of a fighter. Had Moore been in the heavyweight business when say Walcott and Charles were champions, Moore very well could have been a two-division champion. Jesus bless.

The tricks that a 42 year old Moore would play on today's diseased heavyweight crop. Those skills, that know-how, that wit, is utterly extinct.

These dreadnaughts would exhuast themselves trying to land something clean on him.

loaded_gloves wrote:The tricks that a 42 year old Moore would play on today's diseased heavyweight crop. Those skills, that know-how, that wit, is utterly extinct.

These dreadnaughts would exhuast themselves trying to land something clean on him.

I agree with you 100%, and if nobody believes that, then I can tell you Moore could take tremendous punches. If the Marciano knockout loss isn't sufficient, Moore fought Nino Valdes and Mike Baker who were rather heavy and tall for the era I believe averaging out 6'3"-6'4" and 230-240 pounds. That's about close to today's heavyweights in size, and Moore easily handled them. Moore was a master craftsman in the ring, who only lost to the best men of his era's. Charles, Burley, and Marciano.

Though I dont think Moore could have beaten a Klitschko, I do believe he would have done far better than David Haye and Eddie Chambers and Tomasz Adamek done against the brothers. He was a throw back in alot of ways to men like Jack Johnson and James Corbett, where accuracy, timing, precision, and momentum were more important than power, size, reach, modernism, and technique. That is how Moore's ability to knock out men through three weight classes (today Moore would have went through five weight classes) stayed true. He is the ultimate record keeper. His knowledge of the game also helped develope George Foreman and Muhammad Ali into the champions that they would become.

There will never be another Archie Moore, no matter how damn hard Bernard Hopkins tries. Jesus bless.

polecateddy wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Also people seem to be suggesting Nelson wasn't an elite cruiserweight. From memory during his reign perhaps only Juan Carlos Gomez was more highly regarded. And Nelson beat the deposed former world number one, Dominguez. Nelson was effectively at least the world number two cruiser for his reign. Thompson also highly ranked but vulnerable to rangy boxers.

You should get your repeat prescription promto Ted, this isn't pretty.

Okay moron, tell me their world ranking then when active?

I don't give a flying eff. Your whole argument and posts on this thread are miles out. It's absurd.

Oh you're all off again. Punch-rate seen as significant for a 5'10, 185 pound man. I'm Adamek's punch-rate was quite high against old Golota. According to your logic Adamek would have done even better against Vitali if he had simply stayed at his walking around weight for a light-heavy. I mean if Marciano can be a 185 pound superman, then why not Adamek too!

polecateddy wrote:Oh you're all off again. Punch-rate seen as significant for a 5'10, 185 pound man. I'm Adamek's punch-rate was quite high against old Golota. According to your logic Adamek would have done even better against Vitali if he had simply stayed at his walking around weight for a light-heavy. I mean if Marciano can be a 185 pound superman, then why not Adamek too!

Adamek's style was more that of a boxer-counter puncher rather than a brawler. As evident in the Klitschko fight, Adamek simply couldn't trade with Vitali like he could Walker, McBride, etc. And as I said before, let's see Adamek throw pure power punch hooks all night long rather than jabs and doing alot of side stepping and see how fast he would tire out. But since that wasnt his style, we will never see him be able to do so.

Only just caught up on this one, enjoyed watching Carl Thompson, and endured watching Johnny Nelson but they'd get battered by Marciano. Lets not clown around, Nelson would shit himself. And I never considered that Ezra Sellers was a far harder puncher than Marciano, or that Ezzard Charles wasn't very good, I've learnt something today....