BoxRec

Walcott wasn't close?

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

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..

Very reasonable post.

Rocky's size is indeed part of the reason why I see him as having a tougher go against '60s second tier heavies like Chuvalo and Bonavena than some people seem to think.

Cap wrote: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.

:??

I'm not sure were you are getting that from? I've spent years researching the Heavyweight scene of that time and from what I have read - the public were excited about the Walcott vs Charles series of fights, particularly the last two when Joe Louis made his comeback. And they were perceived as "the big three" - nobody really predicted that Rocky would rise in to the title frame.

The Walcott vs Charles quadrology was seen as the height of the sport in the Heavyweight Division.

Cap wrote: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.

Charles is recognised as the Greatest Light Heavyweight of all time - so it was no mean feat. Additionally, Archie Moore is definitely a top five all-time Light Heavy and Harry Matthews is a HOFer.

You can try to discredit those fighters for being Light Heavyweights - but there is no doubting their pedigree.

Cap wrote: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?

Suppose that would depend on how you rated their opponents and what way they matched up...

Cap wrote: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?

This is reasonable in my estimation. However Yancey is exploiting this reasonable assessment, in order to make himself look less a zealot. He is hiding under this blanket of reasonability. And Cap....you just gave him all the cover he needs. lol.

I do agree.

I didn't find that post all the reasonable.

There had been some talk about the competition that both fighters fought. I thought I would make a top list of the best 10 opponents that each beat. I am taking into consideration the stage of their careers when Frazier and Marciano beat them. So for example, Joe Louis is not going to be #1 for Marciano.

Frazier Marciano
1. Ali (rusty, still a huge win) 1. Walcott (old, but still at a very high level)
2. Quarry 2. Charles (declining, but still a lot left)
3. Ellis (a bit rusty after 17 month layoff) 3. Moore (old, but the exception to the rule)
4. Bonavena 4. Louis (well past his best, but still dangerous)
5. Bugner 5. Layne
6. Mathis 6. La Starza
7. Machen (getting old but still had something left) 7. Cockell
8. Chuvalo (declining as a fighter) 8. Matthews (really more of a light heavy)
9. Jones (career falling apart) 9. Savold
10. Stander 10. Reynolds

It actually looks pretty close. If you take #1 vs #1 and #2 vs # 2 and so on, there would probably be a lot of very competitive fights. I would lean towards Frazier having beat better competition, but it's pretty close.

We can quibble about someone being a spot or higher or lower, but that's not the point. The point is that the level of the competition that they beat is closer than what many people might think.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I didn't find that post all the reasonable.

I'm sure BoxBuzz will be around sooner or later to analyze your words and project an ulterior motive behind them.

It is a service he provides free of charge.

Ambling Alp II wrote: Frazier Marciano
1. Ali (rusty, still a huge win) 1. Walcott (old, but still at a very high level)
2. Quarry 2. Charles (declining, but still a lot left)
3. Ellis (a bit rusty after 17 month layoff) 3. Moore (old, but the exception to the rule)
4. Bonavena 4. Louis (well past his best, but still dangerous)
5. Bugner 5. Layne
6. Mathis 6. La Starza
7. Machen (getting old but still had something left) 7. Cockell
8. Chuvalo (declining as a fighter) 8. Matthews (really more of a light heavy)
9. Jones (career falling apart) 9. Savold
10. Stander 10. Reynolds

Fair play to you mate, that was a brave effort. (And I don't mean that sarcastically.)

Crease wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote: Frazier Marciano
1. Ali (rusty, still a huge win) 1. Walcott (old, but still at a very high level)
2. Quarry 2. Charles (declining, but still a lot left)
3. Ellis (a bit rusty after 17 month layoff) 3. Moore (old, but the exception to the rule)
4. Bonavena 4. Louis (well past his best, but still dangerous)
5. Bugner 5. Layne
6. Mathis 6. La Starza
7. Machen (getting old but still had something left) 7. Cockell
8. Chuvalo (declining as a fighter) 8. Matthews (really more of a light heavy)
9. Jones (career falling apart) 9. Savold
10. Stander 10. Reynolds

Fair play to you mate, that was a brave effort. (And I don't mean that sarcastically.)

Might have been brave, but the conclusion he made was a stretch.

Frazier's competition was greater.

The Names on Marciano's list are more impressive.....but the timing takes some of the gravitas from the list.

Yancey, you'll be happy to know that I ran this by Il Duce for his approval and he is on board.

Frazier got some benefit becasue of timing as well. Ali, Machen, Chuvalo, Ellis, and Jones were not at their best when Frazier beat them.

Take a hard look at #1 vs # 1 and # 2 vs #2 and so on.

How much better was that version of Ali compared to Walcott?
Who was better, Quarry or Charles? I think Charles even at that stage a hair better.
Moore or Ellis? Ordinarily I would give Ellis a slight edge, but Ellis was coming off a long layoff so I will go with Moore.
Bonavena or or that version of Joe Louis? Pretty close.
Bugner or Layne? I will go with Bugner, but Layne was close.
Mathis or La Starza? I guess Mathis, but certainly arguable.
An aging Machen or Cockell? Probably Machen, but not a huge difference.
Chuvalo or Matthews? Chuvalo was better, though he was clearly past his best by this time.
Doug Jones or Savold? Jones was better, but his career was in the middle of a tailspin by this point.
Stander or Reynolds? I guess Stander was better , but at this point, what does it matter. Stander would have been no porblem for Marciano.

If you actually take a hard look, you can see that is extremely close.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Frazier got some benefit becasue of timing as well. Ali, Machen, Chuvalo, Ellis, and Jones were not at their best when Frazier beat them.

Take a hard look at #1 vs # 1 and # 2 vs #2 and so on.

How much better was that version of Ali compared to Walcott?
Who was better, Quarry or Charles? I think Charles even at that stage a hair better.
Moore or Ellis? Ordinarily I would give Ellis a slight edge, but Ellis was coming off a long layoff so I will go with Moore.
Bonavena or or that version of Joe Louis? Pretty close.
Bugner or Layne? I will go with Bugner, but Layne was close.
Mathis or La Starza? I guess Mathis, but certainly arguable.
An aging Machen or Cockell? Probably Machen, but not a huge difference.
Chuvalo or Matthews? Chuvalo was better, though he was clearly past his best by this time.
Doug Jones or Savold? Jones was better, but his career was in the middle of a tailspin by this point.
Stander or Reynolds? I guess Stander was better , but at this point, what does it matter. Stander would have been no porblem for Marciano.

If you actually take a hard look, you can see that is extremely close.

Machen could have been in a freaking wheel chair and still have beaten Cockell.

Chuvalo wasn't "clearly past his best" when he fought Frazier just 16 months after he gave Ali all he wanted for 15 rounds.

Jimmy Ellis would have been too much for Moore.

But whatever.

Ambling Alp II wrote:There had been some talk about the competition that both fighters fought. I thought I would make a top list of the best 10 opponents that each beat. I am taking into consideration the stage of their careers when Frazier and Marciano beat them. So for example, Joe Louis is not going to be #1 for Marciano.

Frazier Marciano
1. Ali (rusty, still a huge win) 1. Walcott (old, but still at a very high level)
2. Quarry 2. Charles (declining, but still a lot left)
3. Ellis (a bit rusty after 17 month layoff) 3. Moore (old, but the exception to the rule)
4. Bonavena 4. Louis (well past his best, but still dangerous)
5. Bugner 5. Layne
6. Mathis 6. La Starza
7. Machen (getting old but still had something left) 7. Cockell
8. Chuvalo (declining as a fighter) 8. Matthews (really more of a light heavy)
9. Jones (career falling apart) 9. Savold
10. Stander 10. Reynolds

It actually looks pretty close. If you take #1 vs #1 and #2 vs # 2 and so on, there would probably be a lot of very competitive fights. I would lean towards Frazier having beat better competition, but it's pretty close.

We can quibble about someone being a spot or higher or lower, but that's not the point. The point is that the level of the competition that they beat is closer than what many people might think.

Shouldn't guys you fight twice be on the list twice??? What do you think?

I guess you could. They each beat 3 guys twice, so it's kind of a wash. How much credit do you give Frazier for struggling to beat Bonavena when neither had quite reached their prime? Likewise for Marciano and LaStarza.

Really would not change much.

Has anyone ever heard that a lot of ringsiders felt that Lastarza deserved the decision in the first fight with Rocky?

Heard it. Think it was a rumour that gathered some cred after Holmes lost to Spinks. Then it sort of got squashed again. Haven't seen the fight. But people I trust tell me Rocky deserved the decision.

yancey wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Frazier got some benefit becasue of timing as well. Ali, Machen, Chuvalo, Ellis, and Jones were not at their best when Frazier beat them.

Take a hard look at #1 vs # 1 and # 2 vs #2 and so on.

How much better was that version of Ali compared to Walcott?
Who was better, Quarry or Charles? I think Charles even at that stage a hair better.
Moore or Ellis? Ordinarily I would give Ellis a slight edge, but Ellis was coming off a long layoff so I will go with Moore.
Bonavena or or that version of Joe Louis? Pretty close.
Bugner or Layne? I will go with Bugner, but Layne was close.
Mathis or La Starza? I guess Mathis, but certainly arguable.
An aging Machen or Cockell? Probably Machen, but not a huge difference.
Chuvalo or Matthews? Chuvalo was better, though he was clearly past his best by this time.
Doug Jones or Savold? Jones was better, but his career was in the middle of a tailspin by this point.
Stander or Reynolds? I guess Stander was better , but at this point, what does it matter. Stander would have been no porblem for Marciano.

If you actually take a hard look, you can see that is extremely close.

Machen could have been in a freaking wheel chair and still have beaten Cockell.

Chuvalo wasn't "clearly past his best" when he fought Frazier just 16 months after he gave Ali all he wanted for 15 rounds.

Jimmy Ellis would have been too much for Moore.

But whatever.

First I wasn't talking head to head. I was talking about who was better. 2nd, that version of Machen would have had trouble beating Cockell. Not that Cockell was that great, but Machen was getting old and was losing his speed.

Moore would have had a serious chance against a rusty Jimmy Ellis.

Chuvalo took a lot of punisment when Ali whipped him. He also had a tough fight against Bonavena after the Ali fight. He had 14 fights between Ali and Frazier. His style meant he took a lot of punishment. He already had twice the fights that Frazier had in his whole career by the time they fought and had taken more punishment than Frazier took in his entire career. Yet somehow Frazier was past his prime by 1973 and Chuvalo wasn't when he fought Frazier. but whatever .

Ezzard wrote:Heard it. Think it was a rumour that gathered some cred after Holmes lost to Spinks. Then it sort of got squashed again. Haven't seen the fight. But people I trust tell me Rocky deserved the decision.

I don't believe there is any footage available of the first fight, which is partly why I asked.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I guess you could. They each beat 3 guys twice, so it's kind of a wash. How much credit do you give Frazier for struggling to beat Bonavena when neither had quite reached their prime? Likewise for Marciano and LaStarza.

Really would not change much.

Charles and Jersey Joe are put as Rocky's one and two though...

I don't think there's much in it.

I do think Marciano gets a raw deal these days. I think his record (forget the undefeated thing) is underrated these days.

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I guess you could. They each beat 3 guys twice, so it's kind of a wash. How much credit do you give Frazier for struggling to beat Bonavena when neither had quite reached their prime? Likewise for Marciano and LaStarza.

Really would not change much.

Charles and Jersey Joe are put as Rocky's one and two though...

I don't think there's much in it.

I do think Marciano gets a raw deal these days. I think his record (forget the undefeated thing) is underrated these days.

Why? Is it so simple to be undefeated?

People start frothing at the mouth. And it gets in the way of the fact that he actually beat a lot of very good fighters.

Duch wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I guess you could. They each beat 3 guys twice, so it's kind of a wash. How much credit do you give Frazier for struggling to beat Bonavena when neither had quite reached their prime? Likewise for Marciano and LaStarza.

Really would not change much.

Charles and Jersey Joe are put as Rocky's one and two though...

I don't think there's much in it.

I do think Marciano gets a raw deal these days. I think his record (forget the undefeated thing) is underrated these days.

Why? Is it so simple to be undefeated?

This can be a problem question.....because one answer is "Sven Ottke".

BoxBuzz wrote:

Duch wrote: Why? Is it so simple to be undefeated?

This can be a problem question.....because one answer is "Sven Ottke".

I'm sorry, but anyone who has ever fought knows that going undefeated is extremely difficult and a significant achievement . . . even for Sven Ottke.

Frazier deserves tremendous credit for taking on Bonavena after a dozen or so fights. Not that I expect much less from agenda boy than to invent things to suit his opinions. He should be getting credit for fighting near even with the epic version of Ali in Manila.

raylawpc wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Duch wrote: Why? Is it so simple to be undefeated?

This can be a problem question.....because one answer is "Sven Ottke".

I'm sorry, but anyone who has ever fought know that going undefeated is extremely difficult and a significant achievement . . . even for Sven Ottke.

I actually agree, but couldn't resist the cheap shot for a laugh.