BoxRec

I find the conclusions about Ali and Tyson interesting. Tyson wanted to tear people apart from the outset, and struggled when he ran out of ideas; Rock had a chin like a mountain and got stronger as the fight went on. On the other hand Ali like to fight on the back foot, and really only struggled with people who made him come forward. Given that nobody ever knocked him out, I'm having trouble believing Marciano keeps him down, and I do think peak Ali would outland him over the distance, quite likely opening cuts into the bargain.

SamWise72 wrote:On the other hand Ali like to fight on the back foot, and really only struggled with people who made him come forward.

Actually, he struggled most with fighters who kept constant pressure on him.

Il Duce wrote:Matched Correctly,

Rocky Marciano would have done very well with today's current crop.

He still KO'd Archie Moore, who was equal to Ricky in size, and Archie did very
well against the some of the best Heavyweight in 1950's.

Other than the Klitschko's there really isn't anyone out there that I favor over Marciano.

Let's look at some of the heavies who been in some of the bigger fights of the past year or two:

Kevin Johnson= lost a wide decision to Tyson Fury (complete 12 round shut out)

Seth Mitchell= gets kayoed in 2 rounds by a former cruiserweight

Deontay Wilder= destroys Audley Harrison in his first 'test'

David Price= gets kayoed in two rounds by an ancient/fat Tony Thompson

Bermaine Stiverne= struggles to kayo Ray Austin, and goes a full twelve with Arreola

Tomasz Adamek= loses to Klitschko, beats a few journeymen, "wins" a decision over Cunningham, and is scheduled to fight the limited 'prospect' Tony Grano in his next outing

All these guys are considered either gate keepers or the future of the business, and at the end of the day have only shown their limitations or are inconsistant or have such protected records we don't know what they can or cannot do. Kubrat Pulev, David Haye, Tyson Fury and Robert Helenius you can argue are the best of the crop, and the latter hasn't been the same since blowing out his shoulder against journeyman Derek Chisora. It seems anyone these days who has had at least one-two tests or hard fights is automatically a top contender or will make the 'upset' over a 'prospect'.

Rocky Marciano never had it easy. For the most part he was matched tough, and when he wasn't he still was fighting opponents who were physically superior to him and were better boxers than him. Because of this hard road he took, he could absorb punishment unlike any other and was willing to come in and fire back when he was hurt and maimed. Guys today just are not willing to stand there and trade blows, and do whatever it takes to win. Marciano, in any era, would be a danger to any man. Whether he could be champion in that era, is another question. But just how many eras are there where he couldn't have been a champion? Off the top of my head, maybe only one and that was the 1970s when Ali, Foreman, Norton and Frazier were around. And even then, I could see Marciano holding onto the title for a time.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Matched Correctly,

Rocky Marciano would have done very well with today's current crop.

He still KO'd Archie Moore, who was equal to Ricky in size, and Archie did very
well against the some of the best Heavyweight in 1950's.

Other than the Klitschko's there really isn't anyone out there that I favor over Marciano.

Let's look at some of the heavies who been in some of the bigger fights of the past year or two:

Kevin Johnson= lost a wide decision to Tyson Fury (complete 12 round shut out)

Seth Mitchell= gets kayoed in 2 rounds by a former cruiserweight

Deontay Wilder= destroys Audley Harrison in his first 'test'

David Price= gets kayoed in two rounds by an ancient/fat Tony Thompson

Bermaine Stiverne= struggles to kayo Ray Austin, and goes a full twelve with Arreola

Tomasz Adamek= loses to Klitschko, beats a few journeymen, "wins" a decision over Cunningham, and is scheduled to fight the limited 'prospect' Tony Grano in his next outing

All these guys are considered either gate keepers or the future of the business, and at the end of the day have only shown their limitations or are inconsistant or have such protected records we don't know what they can or cannot do. Kubrat Pulev, David Haye, Tyson Fury and Robert Helenius you can argue are the best of the crop, and the latter hasn't been the same since blowing out his shoulder against journeyman Derek Chisora. It seems anyone these days who has had at least one-two tests or hard fights is automatically a top contender or will make the 'upset' over a 'prospect'.

Rocky Marciano never had it easy. For the most part he was matched tough, and when he wasn't he still was fighting opponents who were physically superior to him and were better boxers than him. Because of this hard road he took, he could absorb punishment unlike any other and was willing to come in and fire back when he was hurt and maimed. Guys today just are not willing to stand there and trade blows, and do whatever it takes to win. Marciano, in any era, would be a danger to any man. Whether he could be champion in that era, is another question. But just how many eras are there where he couldn't have been a champion? Off the top of my head, maybe only one and that was the 1970s when Ali, Foreman, Norton and Frazier were around. And even then, I could see Marciano holding onto the title for a time.

You could make a very long list of cruiser champions over the years who would have handled Rocky, never mind the big boys.

polecateddy wrote:
You could make a very long list of cruiser champions over the years who would have handled Rocky, never mind the big boys.

No, you couldn't. You could make an argument for Holyfield, and it would be one hell of a fight, but that's about it. Feel free to list some for us to laugh at though :)

SamWise72 wrote:

polecateddy wrote:
You could make a very long list of cruiser champions over the years who would have handled Rocky, never mind the big boys.

No, you couldn't. You could make an argument for Holyfield, and it would be one hell of a fight, but that's about it. Feel free to list some for us to laugh at though :)

Come on, how fearsome could Rocky be if a Welsh pudding could go 9 rounds with him. Lets start with Anacet Wamba, who would have far too much class for the little bleeder!

Anaclet Wamba was a really good fighter, but all round not better than Jersey Joe Walcott or Ezzard Charles. It's interesting that you're choosing to pick one of Marciano's weaker performances; if we judge Holyfield on the Cooper fight, how does the world look?

Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher weighing over 200 pounds, other than the faded Louis. He was decked by Moore and Walcott, who both weighed well under 200 pounds. Marciano was barely 5'10'' tall and 185 pounds. He would be out of his depth against so many bigger fighters that followed!

polecateddy wrote:Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher weighing over 200 pounds, other than the faded Louis. He was decked by Moore and Walcott, who both weighed well under 200 pounds. Marciano was barely 5'10'' tall and 185 pounds. He would be out of his depth against so many bigger fighters that followed!

Size and weight isn't the be all and end all though, if it were any basketball player could be heavyweight champ. Remember a 185lb Henry Cooper flattened a 207lb Ali, a feat that Shavers, Foreman, Liston, Lyle, Williams and other big punchers couldn't manage. Cooper would've had a good chance of stopping Ali if the bell hadn't rung. By all accounts Cooper wore weights at the weigh in and was reported to be only 12st 12lbs so if a big puncher lands flush the weights are irrelevant.

Controversial wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher weighing over 200 pounds, other than the faded Louis. He was decked by Moore and Walcott, who both weighed well under 200 pounds. Marciano was barely 5'10'' tall and 185 pounds. He would be out of his depth against so many bigger fighters that followed!

Size and weight isn't the be all and end all though, if it were any basketball player could be heavyweight champ. Remember a 185lb Henry Cooper flattened a 207lb Ali, a feat that Shavers, Foreman, Liston, Lyle, Williams and other big punchers couldn't manage. Cooper would've had a good chance of stopping Ali if the bell hadn't rung. By all accounts Cooper wore weights at the weigh in and was reported to be only 12st 12lbs so if a big puncher lands flush the weights are irrelevant.

I get it, Marciano who is smaller than me is the perfect fighter to topple the Klitchkos back to back. Thank you for educating me.

polecateddy wrote:

Controversial wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher weighing over 200 pounds, other than the faded Louis. He was decked by Moore and Walcott, who both weighed well under 200 pounds. Marciano was barely 5'10'' tall and 185 pounds. He would be out of his depth against so many bigger fighters that followed!

Size and weight isn't the be all and end all though, if it were any basketball player could be heavyweight champ. Remember a 185lb Henry Cooper flattened a 207lb Ali, a feat that Shavers, Foreman, Liston, Lyle, Williams and other big punchers couldn't manage. Cooper would've had a good chance of stopping Ali if the bell hadn't rung. By all accounts Cooper wore weights at the weigh in and was reported to be only 12st 12lbs so if a big puncher lands flush the weights are irrelevant.

I get it, Marciano who is smaller than me is the perfect fighter to topple the Klitchkos back to back. Thank you for educating me.

Yes being the same size as any athlete automatically makes you equal to them, ha. You do realise 6 foot tall Chris Byrd beat Vitali and went 12 rounds with Wladimir back to back and Byrd only weighed 169lbs in his debut and in his last fights dropped to light-heavy and cruiser? Sort of blows your size wins everytime argument out the water.

Byrd had a sophisticated strength/weight training regime, and bulked up far bigger than Marciano. Chris was also 6'1'' and not blooming 5'10''!

Notice how the unbeatable Valuev is recognised as the greatest heavyweight champ of all time? Notice how back in the day, everyone knew that Carnera could take all comers? Also note how Ezzard Charles and Evander Holyfield were utter flops at heavyweight, unable to compete with bigger men?

Size has an influence, but it isn't the be all and end all. Marciano beat who there was to beat, including the two greatest light heavyweights of all time in Moore and Charles. Joe Louis, who I would have beating Marciano in his prime, annihilated the 6'5 Carnera. David Haye and Holyfield, both natural cruisers, beat Valuev.

For my money, at heavyweight, Marciano definitely loses to Ali, Louis, Holmes, Lewis, Vitali. He has wars with Tyson and Holyfield that I can't really predict the results of. Against Wlad, he'll be soundly outboxed, but if he can get through, he definitely hits as hard as Ross Purrity, it's just that against the best version of Wlad, he's going to have to have to fight him 8 times to land that punch once. I think he has wars with the likes of Frazier, Liston and Foreman, with the edge going to Foreman, and the other two I'm less sure.

At cruiser, he and Holyfield would have a battle, and people like Wamba, Nelson etc would give him tough fights, but I think he'd find his way through, specially over 15 rounds.

polecateddy wrote:Byrd had a sophisticated strength/weight training regime, and bulked up far bigger than Marciano. Chris was also 6'1'' and not blooming 5'10''!

Adding bulk doesn't make you a better fighter, or make your chin any better or necessarily make you punch any harder. At heavy it's more the effect of someone clinching, leaning on you, pushing you away that wears you down which is why weight can be a factor. Even adding height can be irrelevant, it depends on the fighters style and sometimes being shorter is a benefit, it never done Tyson much harm and there are many reports of him being around 5'9"/5'10".

Byrd wasn't a big heavyweight, in fact he looked fairly soft and couldn't really punch either. Carrying flab is of no benefit to anyone, Marciano didn't carry unnecessary bulk, who knows how he would have done with modern training methods, maybe he could have added another 18+lbs without affecting his style. Frazier fought best at around 205lbs and was under 6 foot, I couldn't see many of today's heavies keeping Frazier off them.

I do think size matters. The reason why I don’t have the likes of Marciano, Charles, Walcott higher in H2H fights with the modern greats is down to size. I think all three of them were better fighters than Foreman but Foreman’s size, coupled with his other abilities, make me swing in his favour.

Guys like Valuev and Carnera only really had size on their side. Size got them near the top of the pile…they overachieved according to their ability. If they’d have been average size HWs with the same skillset they’d have got nowhere.

I don’t agree with Polecat that Marciano wouldn’t be a great Cruiser today…he would…no doubt at all…but I can’t believe he would cut through the heavies like the proverbial hot knife.

I’d love to be proved wrong.

I’d love just the chance to be proved wrong.

I think he'd be a massively exciting heavyweight contender, probably a beltholder, but not "the man". Imagine Tua but in shape and with more determination.

Ezzard wrote:Guys like Valuev and Carnera only really had size on their side. Size got them near the top of the pile…they overachieved according to their ability. If they’d have been average size HWs with the same skillset they’d have got nowhere.

I agree with the sentiment about their size allowing them some success, however Carnera was light years more skilled and athletic than Valuev, or any current over-sized HW not named Klitschko.

While he was far from a great fighter, Canera had good foot movement and hand speed even compared to most smaller HWs. Just watch some of his fights in their entirety, and not just the highlights of when he got KOd.

Ezzard wrote:I do think size matters. The reason why I don’t have the likes of Marciano, Charles, Walcott higher in H2H fights with the modern greats is down to size. I think all three of them were better fighters than Foreman but Foreman’s size, coupled with his other abilities, make me swing in his favour.
Guys like Valuev and Carnera only really had size on their side. Size got them near the top of the pile…they overachieved according to their ability. If they’d have been average size HWs with the same skillset they’d have got nowhere.

I don’t agree with Polecat that Marciano wouldn’t be a great Cruiser today…he would…no doubt at all…but I can’t believe he would cut through the heavies like the proverbial hot knife.

I’d love to be proved wrong.

I’d love just the chance to be proved wrong.

That's just it though. George Foreman in his prime was not a giant heavyweight. He simply wasn't. There were many men far heavier and taller than him in the 1970s. Foreman was 6'3" and 215 pounds at his peak. The older, slower, more methodical Foreman of the 1990's was the only "Big" Foreman there was. Same height and weight as Muhammad Ali essentially. Today Foreman would be considered small, but size wouldn't mean one iota. Power and toughness cannot be trained for, otherwise someone like Paul Anderson or Jumbo Cummings would have been the heavyweight champion of the world with their tremendous muscle mass and brute strength. You either have it naturally or you don't, and when you combine that with conditioning you are a force to be reckoned with.

It's alot like Carnera. So much time has went on, that in the mind's of many people they just invision him as this big, lumbering, giant who gets taller and bigger as time goes on. Truth is Carnera is AVERAGE for a heavyweight today. And yet I have no doubt that a Marciano or Dempsey would have beaten Carnera, and I actually invision Carnera being a top contender today in the wake of so many plodding, slow, low volume punching giants there is in the division.

As for Polecaddy, Marciano was 5'11.5" just shy of 6'0". Same height as Mike Tyson. Only drawback to Marciano was his short reach, but it was also what helped maximize his punching power, because of those short arms, when he threw hooks as fast and as hard as he did it traveled at such a velocity it doubled his power. Everyone who ever sparred with Marciano said that four of Joe Louis' punches were equal to only one of Marciano's. Velocity, combined with putting nearly 200 pounds of body weight behind each shot, in addition to great conditioning made Marciano a murderous puncher. I don't care how big someone is, when all that hits you flush on the chin it still feels like a 200 pound boulder landed flush on your chin.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I do think size matters. The reason why I don’t have the likes of Marciano, Charles, Walcott higher in H2H fights with the modern greats is down to size. I think all three of them were better fighters than Foreman but Foreman’s size, coupled with his other abilities, make me swing in his favour.
Guys like Valuev and Carnera only really had size on their side. Size got them near the top of the pile…they overachieved according to their ability. If they’d have been average size HWs with the same skillset they’d have got nowhere.

I don’t agree with Polecat that Marciano wouldn’t be a great Cruiser today…he would…no doubt at all…but I can’t believe he would cut through the heavies like the proverbial hot knife.

I’d love to be proved wrong.

I’d love just the chance to be proved wrong.

That's just it though. George Foreman in his prime was not a giant heavyweight. He simply wasn't. There were many men far heavier and taller than him in the 1970s. Foreman was 6'3" and 215 pounds at his peak. The older, slower, more methodical Foreman of the 1990's was the only "Big" Foreman there was. Same height and weight as Muhammad Ali essentially. Today Foreman would be considered small, but size wouldn't mean one iota. Power and toughness cannot be trained for, otherwise someone like Paul Anderson or Jumbo Cummings would have been the heavyweight champion of the world with their tremendous muscle mass and brute strength. You either have it naturally or you don't, and when you combine that with conditioning you are a force to be reckoned with.

It's alot like Carnera. So much time has went on, that in the mind's of many people they just invision him as this big, lumbering, giant who gets taller and bigger as time goes on. Truth is Carnera is AVERAGE for a heavyweight today. And yet I have no doubt that a Marciano or Dempsey would have beaten Carnera, and I actually invision Carnera being a top contender today in the wake of so many plodding, slow, low volume punching giants there is in the division.

As for Polecaddy, Marciano was 5'11.5" just shy of 6'0". Same height as Mike Tyson. Only drawback to Marciano was his short reach, but it was also what helped maximize his punching power, because of those short arms, when he threw hooks as fast and as hard as he did it traveled at such a velocity it doubled his power. Everyone who ever sparred with Marciano said that four of Joe Louis' punches were equal to only one of Marciano's. Velocity, combined with putting nearly 200 pounds of body weight behind each shot, in addition to great conditioning made Marciano a murderous puncher. I don't care how big someone is, when all that hits you flush on the chin it still feels like a 200 pound boulder landed flush on your chin.

He was 5'10'' and 185 pounds at his peak. Sorry, but that's too small. And at that size and weight, with like you say short arms, you're going to get punished by a Klitschko. Good Marciano v Tyson piece;
http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rockiron.html

polecateddy wrote:Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher weighing over 200 pounds, other than the faded Louis. He was decked by Moore and Walcott, who both weighed well under 200 pounds. Marciano was barely 5'10'' tall and 185 pounds. He would be out of his depth against so many bigger fighters that followed!

I love how your posts are a copy and paste from another website, hahaha. Nothing like having a mind or opinion of your own.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rockiron.html

Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher who weighed over 200 pounds except a faded, old Joe Louis in his last fight. The two strongest and sharpest hitters that Marciano faced Jersy Joe Walcott and light-heavyweight champion Archie Moore both put Rocky on the deck. Walcott and Moore weighed well under 200 pounds. Tyson, bigger, faster, stronger, and with more explosive accurate punches busts up the rock like an iron hammer smashing up gravel. Tyson's quick start ends things before Marciano has a chance to warm up and test Tyson's will. Iron Mike over Rocky by early rounds knockout.

Controversial wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher weighing over 200 pounds, other than the faded Louis. He was decked by Moore and Walcott, who both weighed well under 200 pounds. Marciano was barely 5'10'' tall and 185 pounds. He would be out of his depth against so many bigger fighters that followed!

I love how your posts are a copy and paste from another website, hahaha. Nothing like having a mind or opinion of your own.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rockiron.html

Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher who weighed over 200 pounds except a faded, old Joe Louis in his last fight. The two strongest and sharpest hitters that Marciano faced Jersy Joe Walcott and light-heavyweight champion Archie Moore both put Rocky on the deck. Walcott and Moore weighed well under 200 pounds. Tyson, bigger, faster, stronger, and with more explosive accurate punches busts up the rock like an iron hammer smashing up gravel. Tyson's quick start ends things before Marciano has a chance to warm up and test Tyson's will. Iron Mike over Rocky by early rounds knockout.

I put the link on my post moron. And it's all info I already knew.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I do think size matters. The reason why I don’t have the likes of Marciano, Charles, Walcott higher in H2H fights with the modern greats is down to size. I think all three of them were better fighters than Foreman but Foreman’s size, coupled with his other abilities, make me swing in his favour.
Guys like Valuev and Carnera only really had size on their side. Size got them near the top of the pile…they overachieved according to their ability. If they’d have been average size HWs with the same skillset they’d have got nowhere.

I don’t agree with Polecat that Marciano wouldn’t be a great Cruiser today…he would…no doubt at all…but I can’t believe he would cut through the heavies like the proverbial hot knife.

I’d love to be proved wrong.

I’d love just the chance to be proved wrong.

That's just it though. George Foreman in his prime was not a giant heavyweight. He simply wasn't. There were many men far heavier and taller than him in the 1970s. Foreman was 6'3" and 215 pounds at his peak. The older, slower, more methodical Foreman of the 1990's was the only "Big" Foreman there was. Same height and weight as Muhammad Ali essentially. Today Foreman would be considered small, but size wouldn't mean one iota. Power and toughness cannot be trained for, otherwise someone like Paul Anderson or Jumbo Cummings would have been the heavyweight champion of the world with their tremendous muscle mass and brute strength. You either have it naturally or you don't, and when you combine that with conditioning you are a force to be reckoned with.

It's alot like Carnera. So much time has went on, that in the mind's of many people they just invision him as this big, lumbering, giant who gets taller and bigger as time goes on. Truth is Carnera is AVERAGE for a heavyweight today. And yet I have no doubt that a Marciano or Dempsey would have beaten Carnera, and I actually invision Carnera being a top contender today in the wake of so many plodding, slow, low volume punching giants there is in the division.

As for Polecaddy, Marciano was 5'11.5" just shy of 6'0". Same height as Mike Tyson. Only drawback to Marciano was his short reach, but it was also what helped maximize his punching power, because of those short arms, when he threw hooks as fast and as hard as he did it traveled at such a velocity it doubled his power. Everyone who ever sparred with Marciano said that four of Joe Louis' punches were equal to only one of Marciano's. Velocity, combined with putting nearly 200 pounds of body weight behind each shot, in addition to great conditioning made Marciano a murderous puncher. I don't care how big someone is, when all that hits you flush on the chin it still feels like a 200 pound boulder landed flush on your chin.

He was a giant compared to Rocky.

And when Foreman hit you it felt like a 220 pound boulder.

Marciano and Dempsey could beat a lot of the big average heavies, yes. But the big good ones....

The reality is that a lot of today's light heavies at their walking around weight could beat those guys. In history there must be over a 100 boxers who would have beaten them!

polecateddy wrote:

Controversial wrote:

polecateddy wrote:Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher weighing over 200 pounds, other than the faded Louis. He was decked by Moore and Walcott, who both weighed well under 200 pounds. Marciano was barely 5'10'' tall and 185 pounds. He would be out of his depth against so many bigger fighters that followed!

I love how your posts are a copy and paste from another website, hahaha. Nothing like having a mind or opinion of your own.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rockiron.html

Marciano never faced a strong heavyweight puncher who weighed over 200 pounds except a faded, old Joe Louis in his last fight. The two strongest and sharpest hitters that Marciano faced Jersy Joe Walcott and light-heavyweight champion Archie Moore both put Rocky on the deck. Walcott and Moore weighed well under 200 pounds. Tyson, bigger, faster, stronger, and with more explosive accurate punches busts up the rock like an iron hammer smashing up gravel. Tyson's quick start ends things before Marciano has a chance to warm up and test Tyson's will. Iron Mike over Rocky by early rounds knockout.

I put the link on my post moron. And it's all info I already knew.

Yes how dumb of you. Posting YOUR words of wisdom and then later posting a link to a website clearly showing you simply copied and pasted someone else's opinion as your own argument. Massive fail and very sad.

I found that webpage shortly before I posted it above ...long, long after all this Marciano stuff started. And come to think of it I actually had a letter published in Boxing News towards the end of Johnny Nelson's reign, that in fact Johnny would have beaten Rocky Marciano. That was in the ballpark of 13 years ago!