BoxRec

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

The Second God wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
I never said Rocky couldn't beat Frazier. Every word you've said applies to marciano too. I can't imagine Rocky avoiding the left Hook and I can't imagine Frazier backing down.

How is Marciano going to approach this? It is clear he was able to be hit. It is clear his fighting style was a head on style. How is he going to stand up to someone who does not go backward and carries a wrecking ball in his left hand?

Certainly he would get hit but he wouldn't just be getting hit. Rocky I think hustled a bit more than Frazier. It seems to me his style was a bit quicker. He was also a swarmer. So you've got two swarmers meeting head on. One punches harder than the other. I think that is Rocky. So were waiting to see a knock out and I go with Marciano.

I think Rocky had greater one punch power than Frazier. That should figure into a brief encounter between the two.

Frazier was definitely quicker, that isn't even debatable. As for the encounter being brief I can only

I like Frazier by either late stoppage or tight decision. In a fight of similar styles that would certainly be a war of attrition I'll take the guy who I think is better. Rock might have a bit of a one shot edge. I don't think any fighter in history could stop Frazier with one shot, so it isn't a big selling point for me. Joe was quicker and I think he had a better chin.

Wow. I would think Frazier would be more susceptible to a shoot out between the two. They both had great hearts. Frazier the quintessential left hooker. Second perhaps to Louis. He was vulnerable and did get hit. In the history of getting hit by heavy punchers Frazier loses. Rocky was quite a heavy puncher. We agree to disagree.

I remember those computerized fights in 67 and Marcianio beat Ali. But that was fun and games, in the ring with Frazier / Marciano I don't see it easy for either man, but I go with Rocky over Frazier.

I've seen Frazier against Bonevena,Foreman, Ali and maybe others. I've seen a number of the old fights of Marcianio, whether a fighter was a smart boxer or a brawler Rocky overcame any trouble he had with them. Frazier did not bring that trait to the ring with him.

Really, any man can win this fight, but my choice is Marciano.

Joe Frazier was vulnerable? He didn't have the will to overcome trouble?

"In the history of getting hit by Heavy punchers Frazier loses." What is that even supposed to mean.

Agree to disagree? Damn straight, that post was pure lunacy.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Joe Frazier was vulnerable? He didn't have the will to overcome trouble?

"In the history of getting hit by Heavy punchers Frazier loses." What is that even supposed to mean.

Agree to disagree? Damn straight, that post was pure lunacy.

Against Foreman a superior puncher he left that trait at home, and he left it home twice against Ali.

Yeah, because Marciano wouldn't get steamrolled by Foreman, right? LOL.

I've always said this is a great, great, tight fight. I've never heard anyone say either man ends it in four rounds...until now. LOL. That's the great thing about Boxing on the Net. You can never quite say, "now I've heard it all," there will always, always be one more mad hatter out there

Here's something to chew on Mr Deity 2nd Class......

Watch the first round of Frazier Quarry 1. Now place Marciano as a stand in for Quarry. I'm thinkin' The Rock comes out in second place in that round the same way Frazier does. AND I am of the opinion that Quarry would parlay that first round into a win over the Rock. Something Quarry couldn't do with Frazier. Frazier walked away thinkin...."That was a battle, now here comes the war". I'm not sure the Rock comes out of that skirmish with his skirt still on straight. I get this impression from how many times I watched that fight and the Marciano and Moore fight. And I happen to think Quarry would have beaten Moore as well.

That's just how flippin' deep the HW division was during that moment in time. Marciano's reign was during a time of has beens and up and comers who were not ready for prime time. Believe me I'm not trying to make the Rock out to be less than he is, I"m just of the opinion that the talent pool of the 60's and 70's was freakishly strong.


Now I know that's just an opinion. But it's one I firmly believe.

So if Rocky can't be Quarry, I can't come up with a way he beats Frazier.

I just bet you can't.

Frazier would take out Rocky somewhere around the 9th or 10th.

I think the ref pulls Joe off or Rocky can't answer a bell in that time frame.

Frazier would be in charge from roughly the third round on, backing Marciano up.

Study Marciano's record.

Tomato cans 'r us.

It IS the truth, sorry.

Can you imagine the flack Frazier would have gotten for fighting three straight guys with LOSING records in 1967???

Frazier was fightings guys like Bonavena and Chuvalo early on, while Rocky fought someone with a 3-13-3 record in 1951!

Freaking ridiculous.

p.s. Quarry would have had a very viable chance to beat Marciano, most likely by decision, especially at 10 rounds.

Are you saying the fight is stopped because Marciano is in a concussive state, unable to defend himself?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Yeah, because Marciano wouldn't get steamrolled by Foreman, right? LOL.

I've always said this is a great, great, tight fight. I've never heard anyone say either man ends it in four rounds...until now. LOL. That's the great thing about Boxing on the Net. You can never quite say, "now I've heard it all," there will always, always be one more mad hatter out there

I thought about the Quarry fight and felt Marciano was superior to him. I don't think you're mad to disagree with me. It's like arguing about God.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Are you saying the fight is stopped because Marciano is in a concussive state, unable to defend himself?

If you are talking to me, no.

I'm saying Rocky's face after 9 rounds with Joe makes George Chuvalo's face look handsome, after he spent 9 minutes and 16 seconds in the company of Frazier in '67.

Take a gander at Chuvalo's face after that fight, fornicating gruesome.

Rocky wouldn't be punched senseless (like Dempsey would have been against Frazier ) but he would have been down two or three times and in a very bad state when the show was over.

Some of you must have......

the courage to change.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I just bet you can't.

OK....you called my bluff, I CAN, but I choose not to. So hold on to your dough.

How many fighters managed to rearrange Rocky's face? And who could rearrange a face better than Joe?

No matter, this would be one of the most brutal fights imaginable. Maybe nobody actually "wins", but Frazier ends up with the nod. IMHO.

The Second God wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Joe Frazier was vulnerable? He didn't have the will to overcome trouble?

"In the history of getting hit by Heavy punchers Frazier loses." What is that even supposed to mean.

Agree to disagree? Damn straight, that post was pure lunacy.

Against Foreman a superior puncher he left that trait at home, and he left it home twice against Ali.

yancey wrote:Frazier would take out Rocky somewhere around the 9th or 10th.

I think the ref pulls Joe off or Rocky can't answer a bell in that time frame.

Frazier would be in charge from roughly the third round on, backing Marciano up.

Study Marciano's record.

Tomato cans 'r us.

It IS the truth, sorry.

.

Delusional.

Remember Marion Connor? Didn't think so...

This is a fella Frazier fought less than 800 days before his fight vs Ellis for the title. The guy weighed in at 180lbs dripping wet, and had lost 9 out of 36 fights. He had lost his previous fight before fighting Frazier. Tomato can? There are others.

I only go on facts, and the fact is there is nothing, nothing at all in Marciano's fight history to remotely suggest that he would not answer the bell. The person being backed up from the 3rd or 4th round onwards would, IMHO, be Frazier. Both fighters were slow starters.

I admire Frazier immensely, but cannot see past a Marciano stoppage by round 11.

God, this would be unforgettable, mesmeric stuff. Im in the camp which has it a gruelling distance fight, maybe an 11th-hour stoppage at most, and touch-and-go all the way.

Only thing I feel strongly about is objecting to those who see this as easy work for either man. The hell it would be! It surely would be among their greatest personal triumphs, given how grimly committed and indefatigable they would doubtless find their adversary.

I honestly see this as two old battle-tested junkyard dogs fighting over the last bone in the scrap heap.

I have no doubt it would be epic. But I feel as if some of these posts should be reported. Frazier not having the will to overcome trouble would top that list. I've heard Joe's defense slighted and there are always those that take the Foreman clubbings as some sort of a message that he can't take a punch. But I don't think I've ever seen his will and desire questioned before Second Clod rode in here on his unicorn.

kaiserbill wrote:

yancey wrote:Frazier would take out Rocky somewhere around the 9th or 10th.

I think the ref pulls Joe off or Rocky can't answer a bell in that time frame.

Frazier would be in charge from roughly the third round on, backing Marciano up.

Study Marciano's record.

Tomato cans 'r us.

It IS the truth, sorry.

.

Delusional.

Remember Marion Connor? Didn't think so...

This is a fella Frazier fought less than 800 days before his fight vs Ellis for the title. The guy weighed in at 180lbs dripping wet, and had lost 9 out of 36 fights. He had lost his previous fight before fighting Frazier. Tomato can? There are others.

I only go on facts, and the fact is there is nothing, nothing at all in Marciano's fight history to remotely suggest that he would not answer the bell. The person being backed up from the 3rd or 4th round onwards would, IMHO, be Frazier. Both fighters were slow starters.

I admire Frazier immensely, but cannot see past a Marciano stoppage by round 11.

"Delusional"

"I only go on facts"



Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, I remember Conner. That fight happened in '67, Boston Garden.

I guess going by days sounds more impressive to you and bolsters your incredibly weak argument, but 800 days = 2 years plus.

Frazier was also fighting the likes of Bonavena, Jones, and Chuvalo in that time period, he was entitled to a breather.

I'll take your word for it that Conner lost 9 out of 36, which still makes him a winner.

Contrast that with Rock taking on three straight fighters with losing records (one of them 3-13-3!) less than two years (sorry, 500 days ) before fighting Walcott.

Oh, well.

Whilst I would pick Joe too I think Marciano’s competition is better than is being stated.

Walcott was the champion at the time and so despite his age he was still a formidable opponent. Ezzard Charles was past his best, but once again he was still a class above many if not all of the other heavies of that time. Marciano got him at the right time but it was still an excellent win. Archie was old but he was the best challenger out there.

Frazier’s competition was better but Rocky’s weren’t all bad.

Ezzard wrote:Whilst I would pick Joe too I think Marciano’s competition is better than is being stated.

Walcott was the champion at the time and so despite his age he was still a formidable opponent. Ezzard Charles was past his best, but once again he was still a class above many if not all of the other heavies of that time. Marciano got him at the right time but it was still an excellent win. Archie was old but he was the best challenger out there.

Frazier’s competition was better but Rocky’s weren’t all bad.

Okay, you name three well known names, all of them past it.

Fine.

What doesn't escape the scrutiny (unless someone is truly delusional ) is that the opponent list is full of tomato cans.

I'm no ring historian, but someone that is and who I respect figures that up to 40 of the 49 fights fit that scenario.



Oh, well.

yancey wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Whilst I would pick Joe too I think Marciano’s competition is better than is being stated.

Walcott was the champion at the time and so despite his age he was still a formidable opponent. Ezzard Charles was past his best, but once again he was still a class above many if not all of the other heavies of that time. Marciano got him at the right time but it was still an excellent win. Archie was old but he was the best challenger out there.

Frazier’s competition was better but Rocky’s weren’t all bad.

Okay, you name three well known names, all of them past it.

Fine.

What doesn't escape the scrutiny (unless someone is truly delusional ) is that the opponent list is full of tomato cans.

I'm no ring historian, but someone that is and who I respect figures that up to 40 of the 49 fights fit that scenario.



Oh, well.

Okay, yes he had a lot of soft touches early in his career (usual practice these days).

But past there best they might have been but their Autumns would have seen them title holders in the 80s... People say Holmes never fought Page or Coetzee. My bet is Walcott and Charles in their first fights with Marciano would have beaten them both.

They were roughly similar types of fighters. Howeever, I frazier had two advantages that would probably be the difference.
1. Of the two, Frazier had the better defense. He moved his head and was harder to hit. Marciano was not difficult to hit.
2. Probably the most underrated facet of boxing: accurracy. Frazier was the more accurrate puncher. Marciano was wild and not an accurrate puncher.

Put those two things together and Frazier will hit Marciano much more often than Marciano hits Frazier. It would be exciting for a while, but Frazier should win this.

Having said, that, Marciano was a great fighter. He would not get nearly the criticism that he gets if he didn't get a decision early in his career and finished his career 48-1.

As for the level of competition, yes there were certainly some tomato cans. However, he did beat 11 top 10 ranked contenders/champions. Frazier for example, only beat 9. Liston beat 8. The division was tougher in Liston and Frazier's era, but still Marciano's list of victimns is comparable.

I would rate the Walcott that fought Marciano the first time higher than say Page or Coatzee. However, in the rematch Walcott's performance was horrible.

Hard to say about charles. He certainly lookeed he was washed up going into the Marciano fight. However, he gave Marciano a lot of trouble. Marciano backers like to say that Marciano beat a great fighter who had one last great performance in him. His detractors like to say that Marciano had a lot of trouble against a washed up opponent.

You know, it seems every time I comment on a Rocky thread, my computer goes haywire.

So....

I'm now convinced.

I've seen the light.

Rocky was the greatest.

He knocks out Frazier in 1, Liston in 2, and Ali in 3.

King-Kong in 4.

He is now #1 on my ATG list.

Rocky's opposition was similar to, or better than the majority of HW champs. Besides Walcott, Charles, Moore and Louis, he also beat Lastarza, Matthews, Savold and Cockell, as well as a number of tough journeymen types. In no way is this comparable to Ali's resume, but it really isn't that far off from most other HW champs, and he did beat every one of them, and a number of the better ones multiple times.

You can argue all day that the best on his resume were past their primes, but you can also nit pick just about any other HW champs resume as well.

I'd have this a pick 'em fight. If they fought 10 times, they'd probably each win half, although I favor Rocky in the initial encounter, as Joe would be ill prepared for the power, as he was in Kingston and the first Bonavena fight. Both of these guys were true warriors and deserve nothing but respect.

The Great John L wrote:
I'd have this a pick 'em fight. If they fought 10 times, they'd probably each win one

8 draws?

Since everyone is disparaging Rocky's record, let's compare the records of the guys he fought leading up to his dramatic come from behind KO of Walcott to the fights leading up to the title winning fight of another ATG HW that almost everybody on here puts in their top 5, many in their top 3.

Rocky's 9 fights prior to Walcott.

81-3-5
51-9-1
24-14-8
93-37-3
66-2-0
30-13-1
34-1-2
11-14-2
13-15-1

A few soft touches, but their records certainly indicate a lot of experience.

The other ATGs 9 fights leading up to his first title fight.

4-16-0
48-15-13
15-5-1
3-21-1
1-14-1
18-7-1
20-40-0
11-8-1
1-2-0

Hmmm. This certainly looks more like a protected fighter.

To be fair to the mystery ATG that you are referring to, before those 9 fights leading up to his first title shot, he also had wins over guys with these records:

82-6-8 (He beat this opponent earlier as well, in his first year as a pro)
59-15-2
22-1

Both he and Marciano had a lot of fights before getting a title shot. (He had 37, Marciano had 42) Both were very unpolished when starting their pro careers and needed a lot of experience. They fought a lot of tomato cans but also also had some decent opponents.

Of course win/loss records can very deceiving in boxing. Nevertheless, it is a valid point that Marciano didn't fight as bad of competition as some people seem to believe.