BoxRec

That's because Ali does not have to rely on his win with Moore to validate his career!!!

Ali has two fights with Liston, three fights with Frazier, three fights with Norton, Foreman, two fights with Patterson, Quarry, Terrell, Ellis, Bonavena, Chuvalo, two fights with Cooper, Williams, Folley, Lyle, Shavers, Foster, Mathis...and several others to validate his career.

It would very silly to try to criticize Ali for his fight with Moore when his resume is loaded with great opponents like no other heavyweight in history. Now if Moore was one of the three best fighters that Ali ever faced, then yeah...he would deserve criticism, but his record is so validated without Moore that it's really senseless to even mention it!!!!

I agree. With Ali's success, even if you take away the Moore fight, it wouldnt take anything away from him. But, all must consider Rocky didn't even want to fight Moore. He wanted to retire, but Moore called him out. All the fight proved was that not even the LHW champion of the world, considered by most to be the greatest LHW of all time, couldn't beat Marciano. All I was trying to say was Moore was still in his element against Marciano, while he was at the end of his rope against Ali; yet people never mock Ali for fighting him.

I would have loved to have seen Rocky go on to the 50-0 or more, but with all things considered (Al Weil, lack of serious money making fights, his own boredom with the sport, wanting to be with his family) I can't exactly say that I can blame Marciano. But I can also say, that I don't see anyone coming near to beating him had he continued on, that is, until he would have (hypothetically) against Sonny Liston.

By that time Rocky would have been too old and despite his great dedication in training he wouldn't have been as dangerous as he once was. I think he could have beaten Valdes, Satterfield, Baker, Cooper, Patterson, possible rematch with Moore, and Johansson, among others.

Yes, it is harder to make the case for Marciano as being on the level, because his career as HW champion was cut short and the lack of great matches. But is there really any doubt that had he gone on, that he would have been champion for a few more years beating the Pattersons, the Jacksons etc ? And had he done so, would people say he was better? Or would we still be here arguing that a man of 187 pounds with the shortest arms in HW history was over-rated?

Never was and never will be someone who can ko'ed Rocky

Red Medicine wrote:

bollox wrote:I'm not so sure Foreman would have KO'd Marciano. Marciano had a better chin than George and his power was comparable

See, this is why I stay far, far away from this forum. A 5'10, 185-pound cruiserweight hits harder and takes a better punch than a 6'3, 230-pound heavyweight? Why? Is it because he happened to be fighting in the 1940s instead of the 1970s-80s?

Vicious would be right at home in this delusional environment.

Didn't blown up Crusierweight Holyfield have a better chin than 240 lb Lewis?

I know what you are trying to say but just branding everyone as delusional is just a way of not engaging with the subject matter or thinking about it in any depth.

Make your point and argue your case but don't just hide behind a perception you may have of the forum. Most people here don't want the old greats to be forgotten and will bring their names up and their achievements, but few will make themsleves look like an ass just to back up some partisan paradigm that may or may not fit their world view of the sport.

Most people here like it if you take them on as long as you make a proper argument and back it up.

Decagon wrote:These days, it isn't as popular for heavyweights to enter the ring "body beautiful," and most heavyweights focus on other areas of training, like strength, sparring and stamina.

Some of our current HW greats train for stamina!!??!!

Martin Sosa Cameron wrote:Never was and never will be someone who can ko'ed Rocky

Sonny Liston

Red Medicine wrote:[Vitali Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
Samuel Peter

Apart from being big, WTF have these guys achieved in their career to suggest they can knock Marciano out? Who have any of them ever beat that is even 2 leagues below Marciano? And I'm not even Rockys biggest fan on here

Red Medicine wrote: Vitali Klitschko
Wladimir Klitschko
Samuel Peter

You forgot Ike Ibeabuchi

I always get a kick out of when people say size alone is the biggest factor concerning the old fighters and the new; that a bigger man could beat a smaller man no questions asked.

Sure the weight classes were different then, but the main difference, in my mind, is that in those days if a man was 200 pounds he was a finely tuned 200 pounds, if they were over their regular fighting weight they trained like mad to hit their normal weight or below it.

Today the HW's train mostly on strength. They are big bangers, but the majority of them start sucking wind after 4 rounds and they dont throw punches as often and most are timid to start throwing bombs because they know the guy they are fighting will punch back.

Not saying the HW's of today are bad or not athletes, but they surely don't dedicate to the life of a boxer as the guys in the old times did. They dont fight regulary, they only train for one big fight a year for the most part, etc.

If the guys of today could simply hit their normal weight I think we would see a helluva lot more action and more activity. I remember once someone once posed the Q if there ever could be a successful HW under 220 pounds. I take Corrie Sanders as an example, for he was 225 pounds, and though he was somewhat tall himself, he could still blow out Wladimir Klitscko and gave Vitali prolly the toughest fight of his career and they were much taller and heavier.

I think a guy like Marciano could adapt to the division of today, but I am not sure if he would be as successful, only in the aspect that the fights are 12 rounds now and fights get called off on a sneeze anymore. Take for instance the Moore fight; had that happened today, Moore most certainly would have been deemed unfit to continue after the 6th round.

Height and weight are good assets only for those who know how to use them properly. Marciano did the old saying of 'make a small man a midget' when he fought. He got extremely low, making himself a smaller target and then pounce on his opponent with non-stop blows.

The trouble with big men is that they get so used to fighting tall, using the jab keeping their opponent at bay, they become too used to that style. They become ineffective in infighting, they can't fight backing up etc. Lennox Lewis was same way, as was Jess Willard (not to say Lewis and Willard are comparable but is an example).

Size alone means dick!!! It has never been a deciding factor unless the smaller fighter is just not that good. An old and worn down Holyfield still held his own with a Lennox Lewis that was at the absolute peak of his career. Size means virtually nothing, especially with bunch of patsies today who cannot even fight fight rounds without oxygen! It's nothing to do with size in the debate of Marciano against some of the others that have been mentioned, but instead styles. There has always been big heavyweights who could handle themselves just fine, just as well as any of the fat heavyweights of the past ten years. Marciano was dropped by fighters who were not exactly the hardest-hitting heavyweights, so it should be pretty common sense that a truly big-hitter would get the job done. Afterall, Marciano never did face any huge punching heavyweight in his career. He fought some really good punchers, but none were considered knockout artists and when you have a fighter that is just as durable as Marciano who has way, way better skills, a punch to match and stamina that is pretty close to Marciano who throws short-compact punches, well the odss of stopping Marciano are very, very likely! Now had Marciano fought the Bob Satterfields, the Nino Valdes', the Earl Walls' and the Tommy Gomez' of the boxing world and had stood up under that kind of power then the arguement that Marciano was almost indestructible would carry a lot of weight, but considering that he never faced any monster hitters and was downed by less than stellar heavyweight hitters then I would put money that he could be stopped!

Barry, you claim "size doesn't mean anything"... I agree size is not as important as some of Valuev supporters think it to be, but after all it is not for nothing that we still have different divisions.

People seem to forget that Marciano was 5'10 (similar to Tua) and for most of his fight he was below 190 (not even cruiser according to today's standards). If size really means nothing than why even RJJ bulked up almost 20 pounds to fight the "weakest link" in Ruiz (although he didn't need to, according to the rules)?

I said Foreman would be almost sure pick to KO Marciano, but there are a lot more. I think even Wlad (as much as I don't like his style) would be able to do it.

BTW, I am not sure Sanders-Klitschko is a good example (if you want to defend Marciano's case). Sanders was 6'4 after all! (and he was fast-handed southpaw - which is quite important as it turned out to be difficult for both Klitschkos).

Tommy Gomez? Bob Satterfield? Are you fuckin kiddin me? lol

Satterfield would throw everything he had in the first round or two and then be burnt out ffs. Tommy Gomez? Built up his record on creme puffs and could never square off against the top HW's. Walcott blew him away inside of three rounds.

It can be argued that Marciano never fought a fighter much like himself full of power and all, but there are many other HW champions who were bangers and never quite fought guys who were on the level with them.

With this logic, you might as well diss on Ali for never fighting a man near his own speed. With this logic you might as well diss on Willard never fighting a man near his own size (same could be said of Valuev). With this logic you could also diss on numerous other fighters for either not facing guys who were punchers like they were, as fast or as skilled as they were.

Do we hold it against Earnie Shavers that he never fought a guy who hit as hard as he did? No.

Yes Marciano fought guys with reputations as punchers, but not certainly all-timers or world class. To hold this against Marciano must be done for others as well; Dempsey never fought a man with his kayo ratio. You could make the case for Willard but most his fights were no-decisions. You could make the case for Firpo, but before fighting Dempsey nobody knew who the hell he was.

Styles are what make fights. I like to say that Marciano's style was very beatable, but the man wasn't. I don't see anyone, unless it was George Foreman, who could have sincerly knocked out a prime Rocky. If anyone else fought him, including Earnie Shavers, the only way they could win, is by a late round TKO stoppage.

I think maybe his legacy would have been complete had he have fought Nino Valdes. He was 6'6' (i could be wrong) and had very solid skills and packed a damned good punch. It would have shown that Marciano could have beaten a much taller, world ranked, hard puncher. But even then I think everyone would still say that Marciano was over-rated and would pick apart at him because he never fought a Liston, Frazier, Foreman; which is totally unfair.

You can only go by how someone won, how they dominated their era.

Barry, you claim "size doesn't mean anything"...

Actually, what he wrote was "size alone means dick!!!" And he's absolutely right. But with Tyson , his size alone would not be his only advantage. Tyson was also tougher of chin, skin and much much faster. Tyson also punched harder. Can you imagine Rocky's opponents taking the same amount of punches from Tyson as they did from Marciano? If you can than your delusional.
Trust your own eyes. Watch tapes of a prime Tyson and a prime Marciano in action. Just look at the difference, especially in speed. Marciano looks like a crud brawler by comparison.
No matter how many times I watch Marciano fights, I cant figure out why THAT much of a fuss is made over him.

No matter how many times I watch Marciano fights, I cant figure out why THAT much of a fuss is made over him.

yeah i get you.. I have the same trouble with Muhammad ALi... evey time I watch his fights I wish he would just f*cking lose.. or you know.. not the same thing but ... well :x

Jones would have got chinned if he stayed at heavyweight, just like he did by Tarver and Johnson. The truth is that RJJ's reflexes slowed a bit with age, and he didnt have the chin to take the punches. When Ali's reflexes slowed, he revealed a great chin and recuperative powers that got him through his later fights

>>>It can be argued that Marciano never fought a fighter much like himself full of power and all<<<

No...it can be stated with absolute certainty that Marciano never faced any heavyweight that would have been considered a true heavyweight punchers...except maybe Rex Layne, who hit hard, but who was even more crude than Marciano!!!


>>>Satterfield would throw everything he had in the first round or two and then be burnt out ffs. Tommy Gomez? Built up his record on creme puffs and could never square off against the top HW's. Walcott blew him away inside of three rounds<<<

Well Irish, you just showed what you know...or excuse me...what you don't know..LOL, which isn't a surprise to many of us!!! Pick up some 40s and 50s mags and do some reading...looking at records here on the database alone, as you obviously do, is not going to tell you about those fighters. If you knew anything you would have read about Gomez not only stopping, but knocking cold tough heavyweights who had never touched down before, but if it isn't in the record here then you just simply will never know about such...right.

Satterfield...burnt out after only one, or two rounds...would seem to me that someone burnt out after one, or two rounds would never had scored the number of later round knockouts that Satterfield did...which brings me to this question...just how many fights have you seen, or even about of Satterfield, or Gomez...do you have the balls to admit...because I have clips for all of Satterfield's fights and most of Gomez, so you won't be able to make any shit up, so tell me...just what do you know about Gomez and Satterfield and exactly where did you learn it from...can you answer that, or will you just ignore it because you can't...I'm guessing the latter!!!

>>>Do we hold it against Earnie Shavers that he never fought a guy who hit as hard as he did? No<<<

Was Shavers ever considered a great heavyweight? Was Shavers knocked out multiple times against a lot lesser puncher...hell a very hard puncher would have crippled Shavers!

>>>Yes Marciano fought guys with reputations as punchers, but not certainly all-timers or world class.<<<

Really??? Name them!!!

>>>You can only go by how someone won, how they dominated their era.<<<

You obviously don't! Instead of facing the likes of Bob Baker, Tommy Jackson, Nino Valdes, Earl Walls, Ingo Johannson and many others, Marciano chose to fight old Ezzard Charles twice, Don Cockell, Harold Matthews and Archie Moore...all of whom where most successful as light heavyweights...hell, Marciano never did really put the title on the line against any true heavyweight...unless you want to count his rematch with ancient Walcott! Face it...Marciano had one of the weakest reigns in history, which it was not due to lack of talent because the talent was certainly there...Marciano just never faced it...hell he didn't even fight the best light heavyweight of that time...Harold Johnson!!

I tried to lay off, but any idiot that would attempt to criticize Ali because of his bout with Moore, well that person has a hell of a lot to learn about the history...LOL!!!

"Why does Ali not get criticized for fighting Moore"
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

As I said, you need to take up reading...LOL!!!

And yet again, for the record...Valdes was 6' 3" not 6' 6". I know people like you like to try to make up all kinds of crap when it comes to Marciano, but the problem is that there are those of us out there that can call it for what it is...made up bullshit!!!

Someone said it earlier, but this forum is truly going to pieces as idiots pile in by the dozens!

But what I am most interested in is where your knowledge of Satterfield and Tommy Gomez...I remind you here at the end because I don't want you to try to ignore it...clue me in on what makes you an expert to claim that Sattertfield and Gomez, two of the hardest hitting fighters in history, were joke when it comes to knocking out people...again I ask...can you do that?

Irish---Also...It's pretty comical that you claim Tommy Gomez has a career made up of cream-puffs...take a look down Marciano's record...but then again...I suppose you probably think the cream-puffs that Marciano fought were P4P, All-time greats...sorry, cream-puffs...LOL!!!


Also...yet again, so that you don't forget to answer. What exactly do you know about Gomez and Satterfield and where did you learn it, what kind of sources is what I am interested in...was their biographies, or what?

-Rex Layne and Harry Kid Matthews were two guys with reputations for punching prowess, they surely had alot more kayos than Marciano. And Archie Moore, though he wasn't a one punch kayo artist, he does hold more kayos than any other man in history. Yes, Matthews and Layne weren't 'world class' but many truly believed that Layne would not only beat Marciano but knock him out and would be a world champion.

-Gomez fought mostly out of the Florida area, built alot of fights on wins over less than stellar opposition. Sure Gomez had a helluva punch, that is certain, nobody gets that many kayos without having power, despite how weak the opposition. BUT Gomez had a weak chin. He did have the power and decent skills to fight the top men, just didn't have the toughness. Whenever he'd get up to that stage of fighting the top best men, he failed every single time. Walcott blew him away in 3 rounds. Gomez on average blew guys away in three rounds, so if he was going to get you out it would be in that amount of time.

-Bob Satterfield by all accounts was a helluva puncher. Viscous as hell. BUT...he faded away after the first few rounds, most of his kayos as you see were early, but if someone could extend him the distance he had a big failure rate. His greatest win was a kayo over Cleveland Williams. Take into consideration of his 25 losses, 13 came by KO, thats over 50% of his losses. He threw so many punches early in a fight that he would burn himself out and would hit the ground as soon as he go caught with a punch.

The thing I also find so hilarious is that many say that Charles was over the hill and no good when he fought Marciano twice; yet Bob Satterfield failed to beat the Ezzard Charles of 1954 to get a shot at Marciano. Charles weathered Satterfield's barrage of punches in the 1st (Satterfield always came out swinging; burning himself out in later rounds because he never did pace himself) and then blasted out Satterfield in the 2nd.

Marciano fought creme puffs? In his early fights he was thrown to the wolves against guys who were undefeated prospects and he still blown them away. He skipped passed the 'middle' of the division to go against the top guys. No not every fight was 'great' but virtually the majority of his opponents were name opponents.

>>>Marciano fought creme puffs? In his early fights he was thrown to the wolves against guys who were undefeated prospects and he still blown them away.<<<


AHAAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!

Hell, even Goldman and Marciano's manager stated many times that they matched Marciano easy simply because he was a piss-poor boxer! They fed him cream-puffs until Marciano was able to adapt a style that was very successful, but "thrown to the wolves.." that's about as clueless a statement as I have ever heard.

Also, after three requests, you failed to mention where you learned about Gomez and Satterfield! You just posted typical nonsense that people who are not well versed on the topic might post...you never gave any definitive sources...why not...don't know what you ar4e talking about? Gomez had a good chin...took eight bullets during one ambush in WWII and came back to be very successful. Just tell me...where did you learn all about Gomez and Satterfield to form the opinion you have...surely you have done more than just look at their records in the database, but that is what it sounds like you have done! But then again you think that Light Heavyweight Harry Matthews was a big hitting heavyweight...LOL!!!

As to having a large number of knockouts...hell, Buck Smith has 118...do you consider him to be a all-time knockout specialist simply due to his number on knockouts...LOL!!

Come on, stop trying to bypass the question...where did you learn what you have learned about Satterfield and Gomez...was it their biographies...did you see many of their fights...what? If you cannot answer then it's pretty obvious that you simply have no clue as to what you are talking about and are just yapping incoherent nonsense that you simply cannot back up with any intangible sources!!!

Also---exactly where did you come up with the bgullshit that "many thought that Layne would knockout Marciano?" I do not recall ever reading any articles where the writer stated that Layne would not only beat Marciano, but he would probably knock him out...where did that nonsense come from? Layne was primarily picked because he was even more crude than Marciano and really had little chance of winning...who are those many that though otherwise?

Ezzard Charles was not over the hill...are you kidding? Charles record from 1954, when he fought Marciano, until he retired was 11-15-0 (5 KO)...yeah...real sterling record there for a fighter not over the hill...LOL...11-15...are you that daft? Let's not forget that Charles had lost to both Harold Johnson and Nino Valdes the year prior to facing Marciano, but the old, worn out Charles was somehow the better prospect...get real!!!


>>>No not every fight was 'great' but virtually the majority of his opponents were name opponents<<<

You need to take off your "Rocky Goggles" and really look into that era of boxing because as you have demonstrated...you have a lot to learn about in that era!

And being that you like to mention Satterfield losing to Walcott...guess what, so did Marciano opponent Ezzard Charles...in fact, Walcott owned Charles, but I suppose that Charles was for that period over the hill, but when he faced Marciano he was at the top again...LOL!!!

Sources:

-RING MAGAZINE 100 GREATEST PUNCHERS OF ALL-TIME

Ranks Bob Satterfield at #58 and states under 'Beyond The Punch' section:

'Satterfield threw so many hard punches early in a fight that he often burned himself out early and then collapsed as soon as he caught something back. But for those first few rounds he was hell.'

And in the 'When The Punch Wasn't Enough' section:

'Satterfield might have gotten a shot at heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano had he been able to get passed former champion Ezzard Charles in their January 1954 showdown in Illinois. Instead, Charles weathered Satterfield's first round assault and stretched him in the second.'

So if Charles was shot in 1954 how comes Satterfield couldn't stop an old over the hill Charles? Btw, the record from 1954 onward is somewhat deceiving. You must remember that Charles made a few comebacks and those losses were when he wasn't even ranked due to being inactive for so long.

Also in the 100 GREATEST PUNCHERS OF ALL TIME, Tommy Gomez is ranked at #72. This is what was said about him:

Beyond The Punch section:

'Gomez seemed to have all the tools but could never get over the hump to the next level. Whenever he'd step up against higher-caliber competition, he'd lose.'

When The Punch Wasn't Enough section:

'Gomez was tough and willing but way over his head against suture heavyweight king Jersey Joe Walcott when they met in New York in August 1946. Walcott stopped him in the third.'

Tommy Gomez' greatest knockout? 1st round kayo over journeyman Tony Musto in April of 1943.


Don't like Ring magazine? Ok, here's another source:

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Arena/1047/Rock.html

Btw, its a Rocky Marciano site, so if you think it'll be too biased then just don't bother considering you're a Brockton Blockbuster basher. But myself I think it is a very accurate portrayal of Marciano and gives information of him from his amateur days to his death and of course his opponents and his fights.

Also, as far as the 'creme puffs' thing, take a look at BoxRec's database or do some more research on just how good some of Rocky's first opponents were. In his 3rd and 4th fight he was thrown in against undefeated prospects. One of those guys I believe was 15-0, yet Rocky knocked him out in the 3rd round.

I cant say every fight Marciano had early on was against better opposition than himself, some were weak, but then again, I don't think there was alot of people actually willing to face Rocky. Most of his opponents were running away from him, they didn't want to be hit by him.

I do know that Charlie Goldman originally thought that Rocky would go nowhere in boxing, because he was off balance, sloppy and just plain crude. But Goldman said he never seen someone so determined or as hard of hitting as Marciano was. You have to figure also that Rocky never had a trainer up until his 10th or 15th fight, then he hooked up with Charlie Goldman.

Some might argue because Goldman made Marciano fight a bit differently than he did, that he lost the power that he once had; he still hit tremendously, but was slightly diminished. Marciano always thought his peak was against Layne, some think Joe Louis, most will say the Walcott fight.

No the mid-late 1950's wasn't that great an era but it wasn't entirely garbage either. Guys like a young Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Eddie Machen, Tommy Jackson and others were around but had yet to really define themselves. Throw in division jumpers like Moore and then former champions Louis, Charles, Walcott and European fighters and champions like Don Cockell and Henry Cooper...is a pretty decent era.

Yes it's true that the mid 1950's, Liston, Machen and Patterson had not reached their best. Most of the rest of the comments about the mid 1950's is not accurrate:

Joe Louis last fight was in 1951. He was not part of the mid 1950's.
Ezzard Charles was declining by the mid 1950's.
Jersey Joe Walcott won his last fight in 1952.
Don Cockell simply wasn't very good.
Henry Cooper didn't have his first fight until 1954 and wasn't even the British champion until 1954. He wasn't a factor in the mid 1950's either.

The mid 1950's was a below average period in the heavyweight division.

barry wrote:Layne was primarily picked because he was even more crude than Marciano and really had little chance of winning...who are those many that though otherwise?

UP, July 12:

Rex Layne and his “heart punch” were favored at 9-5 to tag Rocky Marciano with his first defeat tonight in their 10-round heavyweight contenders’ fight at Madison Square Garden.

[…]

Because of the Walcott and Satterfield victories and because most of his opponents have been tough fellows, the larruper from Lewiston, Utah was favored over stocky, swarthy Marciano of Brockton, Mass., who was carefully nursed through 35 consecutive victories as a professional.

AP, July 12:

And the men who make the betting odds figure it’ll be Layne. He is the 8 ½ to 5 choice.

[…]

But the experts like Layne because of the caliber of opponents he has met. They like the way the chunky, aggressive youngster out-gamed aging Jersey Joe Walcott and came off the floor to stop hard-hitting Bob Satterfield.

Fitchburg (Mass.) Sentinel, July 12:

Just like I gave you Joe Louis against Lee Savold and Bob Murphy against Jake LaMotta, I now offer you Rex Layne over Rocky Marciano tonight. My feeling is that it will be short, by that I mean about five rounds.

Layne has proven to me that he can hit, but also that he can take a punch. I honestly cannot say the same for Rocky, who I know is no defensive genius and who I have my doubts about in the ability-to-stay department. What I mean is that Layne has been in there with some pretty good hitters and won. Who has Marciano ever fought that can punch?

[…]

The only fighter of any repute – that’s a new word I picked up – Marciano has fought is Roland LaStarza, strictly a boxer and definitely not a hitter. And as it was, Rocky had his troubles with the Bronx kid. If LaStarza had more experience he might have outsmarted Marciano and won that fight. I was there.

Layne was most definitely a universal favorite.

^^^thanks El Intocable


And if you notice what said, I said mid-50's to late 50's. @ Alp

The only thing that I was wrong at was Joe Louis, but then again, if you simply look at the 1950's as a whole, the entire decade was a rather talented division for HW. Not the best, but far from the worse.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:^^^thanks El Intocable


And if you notice what said, I said mid-50's to late 50's. @ Alp

The only thing that I was wrong at was Joe Louis, but then again, if you simply look at the 1950's as a whole, the entire decade was a rather talented division for HW. Not the best, but far from the worse.

Easily done, Rupert. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhhhahhhahha.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:^^^thanks El Intocable


And if you notice what said, I said mid-50's to late 50's. @ Alp

The only thing that I was wrong at was Joe Louis, but then again, if you simply look at the 1950's as a whole, the entire decade was a rather talented division for HW. Not the best, but far from the worse.

Sorry, I read that wrong. the mid 1950's was fairly weak, but the late 1950's was a decent period for heavyweights. . Overall the decade was ok.

However, you are making more than one mistake in saying all these guys were factors in the mid-late 1950's.
Walcott last win was in 1952, his last fight 1953. He really shouldn't be included in the mid-late 1950's.
Charles was declining.
Cockell wasn't very good.
I suppose you could count Cooper, but he really was just on his way up in the 1950's.

lol, you're a good man Collins even though we dont mix well

I must say on Joe Louis that he was not the 'over the hill shell of his former self' that many have tried to say he was when he made his comeback. Yes he failed against Ezzard Charles, possibly the most under rated fighter of all times, and against Marciano---but Louis defeated Lee Savold, who was considered by the BBBC (British Board of Boxing Control) as the HW champion. To put it into a more modern perspective, it would be like if Joe Louis defeated an alphabet champion today.

Then throw in wins over Brion (2) and Bivins (2) who were both top notch fighters of that time, you get a sense that Joe Louis was truly a solid top 10 HW even at that time. No he didn't have the reflexes to get away from punches like he did in his prime, but even Marciano would tell you that Louis still had a fast, accurate, deadly left jab and a crushing right hand.

Don't believe that statement? Do you disagree because you feel that its not an accurate testimony to Joe Louis' ability at that time because it came from Marciano? Take a look at Joe Louis' exhibition with top notch contender Pat Valentino---8 rounds it went and Valentino, in his prime, couldn't escape Louis' jab and right left combinations.

As a matter of fact Joe Louis was ranked #1 when he faced Marciano and didn't even have to fight the Rock to get a shot at Charles. Charles opted to fight Jersey Joe Walcott for the upteenth time. The Marciano fight, in short, was to keep Joe busy/active and to help witth his debts. Now I will be realistic, I don't think even if Joe hadn't of fought Marciano, I don't think he would have beaten a prime Charles---but the rematch, had it have happened, would have been certainly closer than the first fight that they had.

Was it because Joe Louis was over the hill that Rocky didn't want to fight him? Yes and no. Marciano felt that Joe wouldn't become champion again, but didn't feel Joe was so bad that he couldn't beat the majority of everyone else out there. Marciano didn't want to fight Joe Louis simply because Joe Louis was his idol, his hero. Marciano was once quoted as saying 'I remember watching the Walcott-Louis fight, I had only one pro fight 10 months before, it never occured to me that I would fight both Louis and Walcott.'

Louis' assement of Marciano? Louis felt that he wouldn't have ever beaten Marciano at any stage of his career; but Louis felt that Jack Dempsey was the greatest HW champion of all time. Louis almost seemed hurt by comments of his peers when (during the 1967 computer tournament) he said when he fought Marciano---and they said 'Joe you was passed your best, we mean how do you think you would have faired in your prime?'---to which Louis said 'I don't know, but Marciano is much better than people realise and has the ability to beat anybody.'*

*Remembering from memory, the comment was made during the 'Baer-Marciano' dream fight on the SUPERFIGHT dvd