BoxRec

Would it be as violent as the manhandling you envision your imaginary version of Joe Bugner giving Rock?

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:Lol ali was the fastest heavyweight in the world bar none and foreman, shavers, and norton landed on him rather frequently.

Please tell me you're not insinuating Marciano was faster than ali?

No, Marciano would not be suited to fight the sluggers of the 70's. He'd be giving up nearly half a foot in height, over ten inches in reach and over 30 lbs in weight. That's an uphill battle for any fighter
Even bonavena would give Marciano problems.

As for charles, I know he had been a heavyweight for a while but his natural build and weight was very small and lanky compared to most heavies of the 70's onwards. Very few of Marcianos opponents were huge natural heavies.

As for moore throwing the fight, not my claim, it was proposed by the author of the devil and sonny liston. Apparently the reporter who interviewed him shortly after the fight thought so because moore was balling.

Whenever a poster opens a reply with 'lol' you know a tedious chain of blunders & misunderstandings will follow - as it did here.

Ali was in his 30s and had lost his prime 60s mobility when he boxed Foreman, Norton and Shavers. For Christ's sake, he was a 35 year old man when he fought Shavers. I made no comparison between the prime Ali and Rocky Marciano. All I said was Marciano could catch fleet footed movers, which he did, repeatedly. The tapes are emphatic here. Based on that, we can be confident he could connect on Foreman, Norton and Shavers et al.

To reiterate my point, Marciano pared his body down in order to catch movers. My view is that he would adapt his training to tackle larger fellows who don't move so fast. I doubt he would willingly give up that much in weight to men he knows won't be dancing.

Ultimately, whatever the disparity in dimensions, we have Dempsey/Willard, Bear/Carnera, Louis/Carnera, B.Baer I & II and Simon I & II, Spinks/Cooney, Tyson/Tucker, RJJ/Ruiz, Holyfield & Haye/Valuev and so many more examples of talent & greatness trumping size. Marciano proved a great deal of greatness.

Why you would ignore the tape of Marciano/Moore, or the hundred or so Moore interviews, and suggest the fight was a fix because Nick Tosches said so defeats all logic & reason.

1-I didn't make any blunders, I backed up everything I said with facts. I lold at the idea Marciano was in the same speed range as Ali and would be able to connect on him based on the walcott/ezzard fights. but if you arent saying that then never mind.

2-Ali was still fast as hell even in his 30's against foreman and norton. I'll give you shavers though since he was pretty much done after manilla and running off fumes and fame.

3-yes greatness trumps size, but using your own example Holyfield looked good but ultimately went 2-1-3 (0 k.os) against giants foreman , bowe, and lewis. Not a great record. And in most of the examples you gave the "giant" wasn't very skilled or had the best endurance. Valuev was mediocre at best, Willard was just a big strong guy, baer was a slacker with limited skill, Carnera was trash. When the giant levels the playing field by having good stamina, chin, and skill like the smaller fighter it negates most of the advantages they had.

4-actually, since Marciano lost every round against walcott before pulling a Suzie q out his ass and won a close decision over light heavy charles, the evidence shows he struggled with technical movers. Especially because they were just shy of 40 and had been in many wars.

All evidence suggests he would have his hands full if they were in their prime and his chances would be even slimmer against their bigger, stronger successors holmes, norton, ali, byrd, young, etc.

5-ok, it's not crazy to suggest Marciano could hit shavers, norton, or Foreman. When did I say he'd be too slow to do so?

Regarding foreman, no short swarmer is beating him. Especially a guy who throws caution to the wind and charges like a boar. Foreman was freaking 50 years old eating morrison, moore, and brigg's punches like chocolate whoppers. Foreman was also an expert at congrolling range and forcing smaller guys to fight him at mid range as seen against qawi, cooper, and frazier. Marciano does have a chance against earnie if he is wise enough to take things into the late rounds to tire him out and doesn't just slug it out. Norton had a weak chin but it'd still be a difficult fight due to the gap in height, reach, speed, and technique.

No way in a million years he beats vitali outside a lucky cut or bowe, lewis, etc.

6-I keep seeing this argument but where is the evidence?

Show me an article, interview, anything showing Marciano would adjust his training camp depending on how big or fast the opponent was. So far it seems to just be a hypothetical fanfiction idea that Marciano would be a ripped 200+ fighter while maintaining his speed and stamina.

7-I'll take Tosches word over some guy on the internet unless you have evidence to refute it.

You're simply arguing against too many things I didn't say, and your closer with Tosches undermines your opinion. Tosches is no boxing fan, and was sharing second hand information. You're not going against 'some guy on the internet' by believing Moore took a dive vs Rocky. You're going against the tape, History and the accepted facts. No one can stop the suggestible mind gobbling up silly conspiracy theories.

EDIT. Being asked to prove known reality, i.e. that Moore/Marciano was obviously, visibly on the level, so incensed me that I consulted The Devil & Sonny Liston. The man who tells Tosches that Marciano/Moore was a fix was Truman Gibson. Gibson was involved in over "a 1,000 fights with the IBC" and says he knew of only "three fixes" - the first one being, he claims, Marciano/Moore.

A 1,000 fights with Frankie Carbo & Blinky Palermo - the infamous fight-fixing gangsters - and he knew of "only three fixes."

And one of them was a fight in which Archie Moore was beaten half to death in front of 60,000 people.

To those of us who are capable of joining the dots, what that tells us is that Gibson was either lying to Tosches' face, or Carbo and Blinky kept him in the dark as far as the business side of things. It's one or the other, but to call Gibson an unreliable witness would be an understatement. Case dismissed.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Would it be as violent as the manhandling you envision your imaginary version of Joe Bugner giving Rock?

You're misrepresenting what I said about that fight, bud.

At no time did I imply that Bugner would "manhandle" Rocky.

What I did say was that Bugner would come out tentative, slowly come to realize he could hang with Rocky and was his physical superior, and would pull away for a points victory. (or late TKO on cuts)

And you know something?

If this fight could magically happen, I bet a guy like yourself would be secretly apprehensive that I may just be right.

yancey wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Would it be as violent as the manhandling you envision your imaginary version of Joe Bugner giving Rock?

You're misrepresenting what I said about that fight, bud.

At no time did I imply that Bugner would "manhandle" Rocky.

What I did say was that Bugner would come out tentative, slowly come to realize he could hang with Rocky and was his physical superior, and would pull away for a points victory. (or late TKO on cuts)

And you know something?

If this fight could magically happen, I bet a guy like yourself would be secretly apprehensive that I may just be right.

I would be sweating less than Marciano would be, fighting a man who could lose to Jack Bodell and Larry Middleton et al, and require a gift to get by the dilapidated Henry Cooper.

Larry Middleton had broken Bugner's jaw early in that fight(around round three) BTW.

Tuan_Jim wrote:You're simply arguing against too many things I didn't say, and your closer with Tosches undermines your opinion. Tosches is no boxing fan, and was sharing second hand information. You're not going against 'some guy on the internet' by believing Moore took a dive vs Rocky. You're going against the tape, History and the accepted facts. No one can stop the suggestible mind gobbling up silly conspiracy theories.

EDIT. Being asked to prove known reality, i.e. that Moore/Marciano was obviously, visibly on the level, so incensed me that I consulted The Devil & Sonny Liston. The man who tells Tosches that Marciano/Moore was a fix was Truman Gibson. Gibson was involved in over "a 1,000 fights with the IBC" and says he knew of only "three fixes" - the first one being, he claims, Marciano/Moore.

A 1,000 fights with Frankie Carbo & Blinky Palermo - the infamous fight-fixing gangsters - and he knew of "only three fixes."

And one of them was a fight in which Archie Moore was beaten half to death in front of 60,000 people.

To those of us who are capable of joining the dots, what that tells us is that Gibson was either lying to Tosches' face, or Carbo and Blinky kept him in the dark as far as the business side of things. It's one or the other, but to call Gibson an unreliable witness would be an understatement. Case dismissed.

If they kept him in the dark about other fixed matches that doesn't automatically mean the ones they mentioned weren't fixes.

Good job picking only one thing in my post and ignoring the rest. Concession accepted.

Cygnus475 wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:You're simply arguing against too many things I didn't say, and your closer with Tosches undermines your opinion. Tosches is no boxing fan, and was sharing second hand information. You're not going against 'some guy on the internet' by believing Moore took a dive vs Rocky. You're going against the tape, History and the accepted facts. No one can stop the suggestible mind gobbling up silly conspiracy theories.

EDIT. Being asked to prove known reality, i.e. that Moore/Marciano was obviously, visibly on the level, so incensed me that I consulted The Devil & Sonny Liston. The man who tells Tosches that Marciano/Moore was a fix was Truman Gibson. Gibson was involved in over "a 1,000 fights with the IBC" and says he knew of only "three fixes" - the first one being, he claims, Marciano/Moore.

A 1,000 fights with Frankie Carbo & Blinky Palermo - the infamous fight-fixing gangsters - and he knew of "only three fixes."

And one of them was a fight in which Archie Moore was beaten half to death in front of 60,000 people.

To those of us who are capable of joining the dots, what that tells us is that Gibson was either lying to Tosches' face, or Carbo and Blinky kept him in the dark as far as the business side of things. It's one or the other, but to call Gibson an unreliable witness would be an understatement. Case dismissed.

If they kept him in the dark about other fixed matches that doesn't automatically mean the ones they mentioned weren't fixes.

Good job picking only one thing in my post and ignoring the rest. Concession accepted.

Concession of what? You were arguing points I hadn't made. Were you arguing with yourself?

Ultimately you think Marciano/Moore is a fix, for reasons beyond facile. You would disprove your own theory by simply watching the easily available fight. You prefer to believe in conspiracy theories, and as such have cast yourself as a simpleton not to be taken seriously.

Cygnus475 wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:Lol ali was the fastest heavyweight in the world bar none and foreman, shavers, and norton landed on him rather frequently.

Please tell me you're not insinuating Marciano was faster than ali?

No, Marciano would not be suited to fight the sluggers of the 70's. He'd be giving up nearly half a foot in height, over ten inches in reach and over 30 lbs in weight. That's an uphill battle for any fighter
Even bonavena would give Marciano problems.

As for charles, I know he had been a heavyweight for a while but his natural build and weight was very small and lanky compared to most heavies of the 70's onwards. Very few of Marcianos opponents were huge natural heavies.

As for moore throwing the fight, not my claim, it was proposed by the author of the devil and sonny liston. Apparently the reporter who interviewed him shortly after the fight thought so because moore was balling.

Whenever a poster opens a reply with 'lol' you know a tedious chain of blunders & misunderstandings will follow - as it did here.

Ali was in his 30s and had lost his prime 60s mobility when he boxed Foreman, Norton and Shavers. For Christ's sake, he was a 35 year old man when he fought Shavers. I made no comparison between the prime Ali and Rocky Marciano. All I said was Marciano could catch fleet footed movers, which he did, repeatedly. The tapes are emphatic here. Based on that, we can be confident he could connect on Foreman, Norton and Shavers et al.

To reiterate my point, Marciano pared his body down in order to catch movers. My view is that he would adapt his training to tackle larger fellows who don't move so fast. I doubt he would willingly give up that much in weight to men he knows won't be dancing.

Ultimately, whatever the disparity in dimensions, we have Dempsey/Willard, Bear/Carnera, Louis/Carnera, B.Baer I & II and Simon I & II, Spinks/Cooney, Tyson/Tucker, RJJ/Ruiz, Holyfield & Haye/Valuev and so many more examples of talent & greatness trumping size. Marciano proved a great deal of greatness.

Why you would ignore the tape of Marciano/Moore, or the hundred or so Moore interviews, and suggest the fight was a fix because Nick Tosches said so defeats all logic & reason.

1-I didn't make any blunders, I backed up everything I said with facts. I lold at the idea Marciano was in the same speed range as Ali and would be able to connect on him based on the walcott/ezzard fights. but if you arent saying that then never mind.

2-Ali was still fast as hell even in his 30's against foreman and norton. I'll give you shavers though since he was pretty much done after manilla and running off fumes and fame.

3-yes greatness trumps size, but using your own example Holyfield looked good but ultimately went 2-1-3 (0 k.os) against giants foreman , bowe, and lewis. Not a great record. And in most of the examples you gave the "giant" wasn't very skilled or had the best endurance. Valuev was mediocre at best, Willard was just a big strong guy, baer was a slacker with limited skill, Carnera was trash. When the giant levels the playing field by having good stamina, chin, and skill like the smaller fighter it negates most of the advantages they had.

4-actually, since Marciano lost every round against walcott before pulling a Suzie q out his ass and won a close decision over light heavy charles, the evidence shows he struggled with technical movers. Especially because they were just shy of 40 and had been in many wars.

All evidence suggests he would have his hands full if they were in their prime and his chances would be even slimmer against their bigger, stronger successors holmes, norton, ali, byrd, young, etc.

5-ok, it's not crazy to suggest Marciano could hit shavers, norton, or Foreman. When did I say he'd be too slow to do so?

Regarding foreman, no short swarmer is beating him. Especially a guy who throws caution to the wind and charges like a boar. Foreman was freaking 50 years old eating morrison, moore, and brigg's punches like chocolate whoppers. Foreman was also an expert at congrolling range and forcing smaller guys to fight him at mid range as seen against qawi, cooper, and frazier. Marciano does have a chance against earnie if he is wise enough to take things into the late rounds to tire him out and doesn't just slug it out. Norton had a weak chin but it'd still be a difficult fight due to the gap in height, reach, speed, and technique.

No way in a million years he beats vitali outside a lucky cut or bowe, lewis, etc.

6-I keep seeing this argument but where is the evidence?

Show me an article, interview, anything showing Marciano would adjust his training camp depending on how big or fast the opponent was. So far it seems to just be a hypothetical fanfiction idea that Marciano would be a ripped 200+ fighter while maintaining his speed and stamina.

7-I'll take Tosches word over some guy on the internet unless you have evidence to refute it.

I don't think Marciano would beat Foreman,Have to strongly disagree with some of this.

3. you are cherry pciking holyfield's record against bigger opponents. Some of the fights mentioned are pretty irrelevant; Foreman was past it when he fought him and he was past it when he fought Lewis. He beat several other fighters bigger than himself; Douglas, Thomas, Mercer, washed up Holmes etc.
At a certain point, size stops being and advantage and a later point it becomes a disadvantage.

4. Marciano did not lose every round against Walcott before the KO. It was a very close fight. He won at least 5 rounds.
No way Marciano beats Vitali? Vitali was a statue with no defense. Marciano would chop him down.
No way he is going to lose to Chris Byrd either.

Not a soul in this thread has suggested Marciano would 'beat' Foreman.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Not a soul in this thread has suggested Marciano would 'beat' Foreman.

True. No way Rocky beats foreman. An awful match up for him.

cfang wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Not a soul in this thread has suggested Marciano would 'beat' Foreman.

True. No way Rocky beats foreman. An awful match up for him.

Difficult to imagine a worse opponent for Marciano. But Foreman would have to ship a few.

Concession of what? You were arguing points I hadn't made. Were you arguing with yourself?

Are you an idiot or can you not remember your own post?

You claimed Marciano adjusted his training camp and weight depending on how big his opponent was. All I asked for was proof.

You claimed Marciano was good at catching fleet footed fighters, I challenged that notion and you ignored every point I made.

You claimed Marciano would be able to connect on shavers, foreman, etc (which I never actually disagreed with). Can I ask what the point of making this claim is if you don't think he could beat them??? Pretty sure Michael Spinks could "connect" on joe Louis but he wouldn't have a 3% chance of beating him so why bring it up?

And again, YOU made claims about greatness and skill beating size. I disputed that...and then you have the nerve to tell me you never made any of these claims and I'm just arguing with myself...? Lol, if you don't want to argue fine, I'm not mad at all, it's just to say something in plain English for everyone to see and not edit your posts then say that you never said it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:
Whenever a poster opens a reply with 'lol' you know a tedious chain of blunders & misunderstandings will follow - as it did here.

Ali was in his 30s and had lost his prime 60s mobility when he boxed Foreman, Norton and Shavers. For Christ's sake, he was a 35 year old man when he fought Shavers. I made no comparison between the prime Ali and Rocky Marciano. All I said was Marciano could catch fleet footed movers, which he did, repeatedly. The tapes are emphatic here. Based on that, we can be confident he could connect on Foreman, Norton and Shavers et al.

To reiterate my point, Marciano pared his body down in order to catch movers. My view is that he would adapt his training to tackle larger fellows who don't move so fast. I doubt he would willingly give up that much in weight to men he knows won't be dancing.

Ultimately, whatever the disparity in dimensions, we have Dempsey/Willard, Bear/Carnera, Louis/Carnera, B.Baer I & II and Simon I & II, Spinks/Cooney, Tyson/Tucker, RJJ/Ruiz, Holyfield & Haye/Valuev and so many more examples of talent & greatness trumping size. Marciano proved a great deal of greatness.

Why you would ignore the tape of Marciano/Moore, or the hundred or so Moore interviews, and suggest the fight was a fix because Nick Tosches said so defeats all logic & reason.

1-I didn't make any blunders, I backed up everything I said with facts. I lold at the idea Marciano was in the same speed range as Ali and would be able to connect on him based on the walcott/ezzard fights. but if you arent saying that then never mind.

2-Ali was still fast as hell even in his 30's against foreman and norton. I'll give you shavers though since he was pretty much done after manilla and running off fumes and fame.

3-yes greatness trumps size, but using your own example Holyfield looked good but ultimately went 2-1-3 (0 k.os) against giants foreman , bowe, and lewis. Not a great record. And in most of the examples you gave the "giant" wasn't very skilled or had the best endurance. Valuev was mediocre at best, Willard was just a big strong guy, baer was a slacker with limited skill, Carnera was trash. When the giant levels the playing field by having good stamina, chin, and skill like the smaller fighter it negates most of the advantages they had.

4-actually, since Marciano lost every round against walcott before pulling a Suzie q out his ass and won a close decision over light heavy charles, the evidence shows he struggled with technical movers. Especially because they were just shy of 40 and had been in many wars.

All evidence suggests he would have his hands full if they were in their prime and his chances would be even slimmer against their bigger, stronger successors holmes, norton, ali, byrd, young, etc.

5-ok, it's not crazy to suggest Marciano could hit shavers, norton, or Foreman. When did I say he'd be too slow to do so?

Regarding foreman, no short swarmer is beating him. Especially a guy who throws caution to the wind and charges like a boar. Foreman was freaking 50 years old eating morrison, moore, and brigg's punches like chocolate whoppers. Foreman was also an expert at congrolling range and forcing smaller guys to fight him at mid range as seen against qawi, cooper, and frazier. Marciano does have a chance against earnie if he is wise enough to take things into the late rounds to tire him out and doesn't just slug it out. Norton had a weak chin but it'd still be a difficult fight due to the gap in height, reach, speed, and technique.

No way in a million years he beats vitali outside a lucky cut or bowe, lewis, etc.

6-I keep seeing this argument but where is the evidence?

Show me an article, interview, anything showing Marciano would adjust his training camp depending on how big or fast the opponent was. So far it seems to just be a hypothetical fanfiction idea that Marciano would be a ripped 200+ fighter while maintaining his speed and stamina.

7-I'll take Tosches word over some guy on the internet unless you have evidence to refute it.

I don't think Marciano would beat Foreman,Have to strongly disagree with some of this.

3. you are cherry pciking holyfield's record against bigger opponents. Some of the fights mentioned are pretty irrelevant; Foreman was past it when he fought him and he was past it when he fought Lewis. He beat several other fighters bigger than himself; Douglas, Thomas, Mercer, washed up Holmes etc.
At a certain point, size stops being and advantage and a later point it becomes a disadvantage.

4. Marciano did not lose every round against Walcott before the KO. It was a very close fight. He won at least 5 rounds.
No way Marciano beats Vitali? Vitali was a statue with no defense. Marciano would chop him down.
No way he is going to lose to Chris Byrd either.

3-bull, Foreman wasn't past it. A washed up fighter doesn't lose the most important fight of his career then goes on to beat good contenders and scores an upset over a strong young champion at an even more advanced age. You are diminishing holyfields victory with this revisionist nonsense.

Douglass was obese and had no passion after the Tyson fight. How on earth does this fight count but Foreman doesnt???

I honestly forgot about mercer. That brings him to 3-1-3 and everyone knows he lost to lewis twice so not the most stellar record. Size is only a disadvantage if u don't know how to use it and lack speed, athleticism, skill, stamina, etc. Bowe, lewis, wladmir, Tony tucker, etc have all that and more.

4-5 rounds to 8? After a 40 year old walcott knocked him down and put on a boxing clinic? This convinces you Marciano was good against fast technicians...?

Vitali is not a "statue with no defense" he could be pretty explosive in spurts as seen in the brigg's and lewis fights. He also did a decent job controlling range, I'm not saying he wins every time but vitali is absurdly tall for an athlete with a granite chin And decent power, Marciano isn't going to just effortlessly win like he's a tomato can.

What does Chris Byrd have to do with anything? I haven't seen too many of his fights so I won't argue against this.

Cygnus475 wrote:

Concession of what? You were arguing points I hadn't made. Were you arguing with yourself?

Are you an idiot or can you not remember your own post?

You claimed Marciano adjusted his training camp and weight depending on how big his opponent was. All I asked for was proof.

You claimed Marciano was good at catching fleet footed fighters, I challenged that notion and you ignored every point I made.

You claimed Marciano would be able to connect on shavers, foreman, etc (which I never actually disagreed with). Can I ask what the point of making this claim is if you don't think he could beat them??? Pretty sure Michael Spinks could "connect" on joe Louis but he wouldn't have a 3% chance of beating him so why bring it up?

And again, YOU made claims about greatness and skill beating size. I disputed that...and then you have the nerve to tell me you never made any of these claims and I'm just arguing with myself...? Lol, if you don't want to argue fine, I'm not mad at all, it's just to say something in plain English for everyone to see and not edit your posts then say that you never said it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:
1-I didn't make any blunders, I backed up everything I said with facts. I lold at the idea Marciano was in the same speed range as Ali and would be able to connect on him based on the walcott/ezzard fights. but if you arent saying that then never mind.

2-Ali was still fast as hell even in his 30's against foreman and norton. I'll give you shavers though since he was pretty much done after manilla and running off fumes and fame.

3-yes greatness trumps size, but using your own example Holyfield looked good but ultimately went 2-1-3 (0 k.os) against giants foreman , bowe, and lewis. Not a great record. And in most of the examples you gave the "giant" wasn't very skilled or had the best endurance. Valuev was mediocre at best, Willard was just a big strong guy, baer was a slacker with limited skill, Carnera was trash. When the giant levels the playing field by having good stamina, chin, and skill like the smaller fighter it negates most of the advantages they had.

4-actually, since Marciano lost every round against walcott before pulling a Suzie q out his ass and won a close decision over light heavy charles, the evidence shows he struggled with technical movers. Especially because they were just shy of 40 and had been in many wars.

All evidence suggests he would have his hands full if they were in their prime and his chances would be even slimmer against their bigger, stronger successors holmes, norton, ali, byrd, young, etc.

5-ok, it's not crazy to suggest Marciano could hit shavers, norton, or Foreman. When did I say he'd be too slow to do so?

Regarding foreman, no short swarmer is beating him. Especially a guy who throws caution to the wind and charges like a boar. Foreman was freaking 50 years old eating morrison, moore, and brigg's punches like chocolate whoppers. Foreman was also an expert at congrolling range and forcing smaller guys to fight him at mid range as seen against qawi, cooper, and frazier. Marciano does have a chance against earnie if he is wise enough to take things into the late rounds to tire him out and doesn't just slug it out. Norton had a weak chin but it'd still be a difficult fight due to the gap in height, reach, speed, and technique.

No way in a million years he beats vitali outside a lucky cut or bowe, lewis, etc.

6-I keep seeing this argument but where is the evidence?

Show me an article, interview, anything showing Marciano would adjust his training camp depending on how big or fast the opponent was. So far it seems to just be a hypothetical fanfiction idea that Marciano would be a ripped 200+ fighter while maintaining his speed and stamina.

7-I'll take Tosches word over some guy on the internet unless you have evidence to refute it.

I don't think Marciano would beat Foreman,Have to strongly disagree with some of this.

3. you are cherry pciking holyfield's record against bigger opponents. Some of the fights mentioned are pretty irrelevant; Foreman was past it when he fought him and he was past it when he fought Lewis. He beat several other fighters bigger than himself; Douglas, Thomas, Mercer, washed up Holmes etc.
At a certain point, size stops being and advantage and a later point it becomes a disadvantage.

4. Marciano did not lose every round against Walcott before the KO. It was a very close fight. He won at least 5 rounds.
No way Marciano beats Vitali? Vitali was a statue with no defense. Marciano would chop him down.
No way he is going to lose to Chris Byrd either.

3-bull, Foreman wasn't past it. A washed up fighter doesn't lose the most important fight of his career then goes on to beat good contenders and scores an upset over a strong young champion at an even more advanced age. You are diminishing holyfields victory with this revisionist nonsense.

Douglass was obese and had no passion after the Tyson fight. How on earth does this fight count but Foreman doesnt???

I honestly forgot about mercer. That brings him to 3-1-3 and everyone knows he lost to lewis twice so not the most stellar record. Size is only a disadvantage if u don't know how to use it and lack speed, athleticism, skill, stamina, etc. Bowe, lewis, wladmir, Tony tucker, etc have all that and more.

4-5 rounds to 8? After a 40 year old walcott knocked him down and put on a boxing clinic? This convinces you Marciano was good against fast technicians...?

Vitali is not a "statue with no defense" he could be pretty explosive in spurts as seen in the brigg's and lewis fights. He also did a decent job controlling range, I'm not saying he wins every time but vitali is absurdly tall for an athlete with a granite chin And decent power, Marciano isn't going to just effortlessly win like he's a tomato can.

What does Chris Byrd have to do with anything? I haven't seen too many of his fights so I won't argue against this.

Foreman was not past his best when he fought Holyfield, he was way, way past his best. For his age, he was great, but this was not the Foreman of the 1970s. He lost to Morrison, looked much worse against Moorer than Marciano did against Walcott. He should not have got the decision against the great Axel Schulz.
That was not a huge accomplishment for Holyfield to beat him.

No not everyone knows Holyfield lost twice to Lewis. Holyfield should have got the decision in the rematch.
Before you said Marciano didn't win against Walcott before the knockout. I was pointing out that he won some.
As for Byrd, you mentioned that he would have a slimmer chance against Byrd.

No Vitali did not have a good jab nor was he explosive. He didn't have to power to stop Marciano or anywhere near the boxing ability to win a decision. We don't know if he had a granite chin he was not really tested. We just know it was better than his glass jaw brother.

btw-You said Walcott was 40 when Marciano the first time. He was 38 the first time. Foreman was 42 when he fought Holyfield.

Cygnus475 wrote: Are you an idiot or can you not remember your own post?

You claimed Marciano adjusted his training camp and weight depending on how big his opponent was. All I asked for was proof.

You claimed Marciano was good at catching fleet footed fighters, I challenged that notion and you ignored every point I made.

You claimed Marciano would be able to connect on shavers, foreman, etc (which I never actually disagreed with). Can I ask what the point of making this claim is if you don't think he could beat them??? Pretty sure Michael Spinks could "connect" on joe Louis but he wouldn't have a 3% chance of beating him so why bring it up?

And again, YOU made claims about greatness and skill beating size. I disputed that...and then you have the nerve to tell me you never made any of these claims and I'm just arguing with myself...? Lol, if you don't want to argue fine, I'm not mad at all, it's just to say something in plain English for everyone to see and not edit your posts then say that you never said it.

Am I seriously expected to go poring through all my old boxing books, biogs and mags to unearth specific facts from everything I have read in my life about Marciano for a man who believes Marciano/Moore was a fix - simply because some octogenarian crook told Nick Tosches it was, a half century after the fact and with both Marciano and Moore conveniently dead? The fight itself is unequivocal but you refuse to watch it, same way you clearly have never watched Marciano/Walcott but have opinions on it that (again) clash with reality. Your logic is so incoherent, leaping around everywhere in order to make your points, i.e. a win over Walcott is dismissed because he was 37, Lewis' win over Holyfield is upheld even though Holyfield was 37, Holyfield's win over Foreman really counts even though Foreman was 41 and obese, beating Ezzard Charles is diminished because was "just shy of 40" when in fact he was 32. "All evidence suggests Marciano would have slim chances vs Byrd" - followed by, unbelievably: "I haven't seen much of Byrd".

The above demonstrates painfully what little understanding you have of the subject, which is why I won't be making any effort to answer your unanswerable gibberish. My advice to you would be to skim less stats and watch more fights.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Not a soul in this thread has suggested Marciano would 'beat' Foreman.

well,I think Marciano could have beatin George Foreman.
By getting inside early and wacking him in the body and maybe breaking a few of Foreman's ribs
then when Foreman bends forward wincing in pain Marciano lands a "Suzie Q." right on the point
of Foreman's chin therefore KO'ing him.

Caractacus wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Not a soul in this thread has suggested Marciano would 'beat' Foreman.

well,I think Marciano could have beatin George Foreman.
By getting inside early and wacking him in the body and maybe breaking a few of Foreman's ribs
then when Foreman bends forward wincing in pain Marciano lands a "Suzie Q." right on the point
of Foreman's chin therefore KO'ing him.

Well I guess when you're talking all time great boxing champions anything can happen and Rocky had the power to take out anyone but the most likely scenario here is that Rocky gets badly hurt. I still cant see in a million years that Bugner beats Rocky though and I think Rocky would have found a way to give serious problems for any heavyweight in history - bar probably foreman :)

Restructuring boxing's current scene going to be more valuable conversation than this actually. [Joe Bugner who lost to Jack Bodell & Larry Middleton (WILL double check that)...I remember he beat Bepi Ros/ Frazier match a FANTASTIC for him! Ali FIRST too! I LIKE JOE BUGNER but beside Rocky m. he is pip squeak IN HISTORY/ even though HE IS BIG!]. I mean...SURE HAVE IT AS TOPIC but eventually you must exhaust ever angle. Even with two equal rated people at top we can't know. God gave them their UNIQUE TIME in history. Can't duplicate it.
Have at but their be more profitable directions to go when you do get to "dead end".
John Wilkinson pro-am w-l-d 25(0/11)-27(3/3)-1 (KO's/Rsc pro designate 1ST; Rsc/ret) pro lic. MA PA RI CT CAN been in the RING against three (3) boxers they gain live world title matches past our. ARMY V Corp.
FIVE PAGES HERE,yet most folk in this WORLD are going to laugh at proposal Joe Bugner Vs Rock Marciano.
& the topic WILL have to twist.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Cygnus475 wrote:

Concession of what? You were arguing points I hadn't made. Were you arguing with yourself?

Are you an idiot or can you not remember your own post?

You claimed Marciano adjusted his training camp and weight depending on how big his opponent was. All I asked for was proof.

You claimed Marciano was good at catching fleet footed fighters, I challenged that notion and you ignored every point I made.

You claimed Marciano would be able to connect on shavers, foreman, etc (which I never actually disagreed with). Can I ask what the point of making this claim is if you don't think he could beat them??? Pretty sure Michael Spinks could "connect" on joe Louis but he wouldn't have a 3% chance of beating him so why bring it up?

And again, YOU made claims about greatness and skill beating size. I disputed that...and then you have the nerve to tell me you never made any of these claims and I'm just arguing with myself...? Lol, if you don't want to argue fine, I'm not mad at all, it's just to say something in plain English for everyone to see and not edit your posts then say that you never said it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
I don't think Marciano would beat Foreman,Have to strongly disagree with some of this.

3. you are cherry pciking holyfield's record against bigger opponents. Some of the fights mentioned are pretty irrelevant; Foreman was past it when he fought him and he was past it when he fought Lewis. He beat several other fighters bigger than himself; Douglas, Thomas, Mercer, washed up Holmes etc.
At a certain point, size stops being and advantage and a later point it becomes a disadvantage.

4. Marciano did not lose every round against Walcott before the KO. It was a very close fight. He won at least 5 rounds.
No way Marciano beats Vitali? Vitali was a statue with no defense. Marciano would chop him down.
No way he is going to lose to Chris Byrd either.

3-bull, Foreman wasn't past it. A washed up fighter doesn't lose the most important fight of his career then goes on to beat good contenders and scores an upset over a strong young champion at an even more advanced age. You are diminishing holyfields victory with this revisionist nonsense.

Douglass was obese and had no passion after the Tyson fight. How on earth does this fight count but Foreman doesnt???

I honestly forgot about mercer. That brings him to 3-1-3 and everyone knows he lost to lewis twice so not the most stellar record. Size is only a disadvantage if u don't know how to use it and lack speed, athleticism, skill, stamina, etc. Bowe, lewis, wladmir, Tony tucker, etc have all that and more.

4-5 rounds to 8? After a 40 year old walcott knocked him down and put on a boxing clinic? This convinces you Marciano was good against fast technicians...?

Vitali is not a "statue with no defense" he could be pretty explosive in spurts as seen in the brigg's and lewis fights. He also did a decent job controlling range, I'm not saying he wins every time but vitali is absurdly tall for an athlete with a granite chin And decent power, Marciano isn't going to just effortlessly win like he's a tomato can.

What does Chris Byrd have to do with anything? I haven't seen too many of his fights so I won't argue against this.

Foreman was not past his best when he fought Holyfield, he was way, way past his best. For his age, he was great, but this was not the Foreman of the 1970s. He lost to Morrison, looked much worse against Moorer than Marciano did against Walcott. He should not have got the decision against the great Axel Schulz.
That was not a huge accomplishment for Holyfield to beat him.

No not everyone knows Holyfield lost twice to Lewis. Holyfield should have got the decision in the rematch.
Before you said Marciano didn't win against Walcott before the knockout. I was pointing out that he won some.
As for Byrd, you mentioned that he would have a slimmer chance against Byrd.

No Vitali did not have a good jab nor was he explosive. He didn't have to power to stop Marciano or anywhere near the boxing ability to win a decision. We don't know if he had a granite chin he was not really tested. We just know it was better than his glass jaw brother.

btw-You said Walcott was 40 when Marciano the first time. He was 38 the first time. Foreman was 42 when he fought Holyfield.

Let me clarify something for you.

Foreman was actually a better fighter in his comeback. He had hypertension problems in his youth and didn't know how to relax or pace himself. He mastered his jab and use it far more frequently and had cardio for all 12 rounds. He lost youthful explosiveness and speed but everything else was better, including physical strength.

You can't have it both ways. Walcot is regared as this amazing win for Marciano and that he was better as an old man than when he was younger then you turn around and say foreman was completely washed up in his comeback. It's silly, and it makes all the heavies of the 90's look absolutely terrible that they couldn't flatten him.

And that's a strange claim that he looked worse than rocky when rocky was the younger man and was dropped in the first round whole Foreman patiently stalked and blasted out a much younger champion without going down.

Yes Marciano may have won some but by YOUR scorecard that is horrible to be 8-5 and knocked down against a 40 year shop worn fighter. Again, that doesn't convince me he would do well against a prime fleet footed heavy with size advantages.

No, Holyfield got a lucky draw because the promoters knew a rematch would be lucrative due to them being the top 2 heavies with big names. The rematch shouldn't have happened in the first place and he didn't convince me the second time either.

Vitali hadn't been dropped even once in over 30 fights despite tangling with monster sluggers like peter, briggs, lewis, and that south African fighter. Id day his chin was tested pretty well. At least 2 of those names I would bet everything I own hit harder than the 187 pound 67' reach marciano. I am absolutely convinced marcianos only snowball chance in hell would be a cut stoppage. He ain't winning a decision against a guy with nearly a foot in height, ten inches in reach, and more than 50 lbs of weight advantages.

Tuan_Jim wrote:]Am I seriously expected to go poring through all my old boxing books, biogs and mags to unearth specific facts from everything I have read in my life about Marciano for a man who believes Marciano/Moore was a fix - simply because some octogenarian crook told Nick Tosches it was, a half century after the fact and with both Marciano and Moore conveniently dead? The fight itself is unequivocal but you refuse to watch it, same way you clearly have never watched Marciano/Walcott but have opinions on it that (again) clash with reality. Your logic is so incoherent, leaping around everywhere in order to make your points, i.e. a win over Walcott is dismissed because he was 37, Lewis' win over Holyfield is upheld even though Holyfield was 37, Holyfield's win over Foreman really counts even though Foreman was 41 and obese, beating Ezzard Charles is diminished because was "just shy of 40" when in fact he was 32. "All evidence suggests Marciano would have slim chances vs Byrd" - followed by, unbelievably: "I haven't seen much of Byrd".

The above demonstrates painfully what little understanding you have of the subject, which is why I won't be making any effort to answer your unanswerable gibberish. My advice to you would be to skim less stats and watch more fights.

First of all,

1-Yes, if you make a claim then the burden of proof is on YOU. So far I am the only person who has cited sources. Until you provide some evidence Marciano adjusted his camp depending on the size if his opponent, I will diamiss this claim as revisionist fanboy history.

2-forget about the fix allegation, you're obviously not gonna change your mind.

3-I have watched Marciano vs walcott. I even read the man's bloody biography and can give intimidate details about his life. He was losing bad and managed to pull off a miraculous comeback. That's not my opinion, that's how every freaking writer at the time saw it.

I never "dismissed" his win either, it was a highlight k.o and he deserves all credit. You clearly didn't read my post and chose to only focus on the negative. I went to great lengths praising the man and defended him for fighting all the available best contenders and ex champs. He carred the belt with dignity.

My point, which seems to go over your head, is that if he struggled (and he DID struggle even if you watch the fight in slow motion with 3D goggles) with a near 40 shop worn walcott and Charles then I'm not exactly convinced he would beat the much bigger and faster Ali or holmes.

Lewis and Holyfield were both in their 30's and past their best so it cancels itself out. Marciano was like a decade younger than his biggest wins. Context matters.

Foreman was not obese. He would frequently chop wood, pull jeeps, and shadow box with dumbells and was actually toned like a sumo wrestler or lineman. Name one boxer in the history of the sport who was 40, obese, and past his prime who managed to hang with the top contenders of his division. You cant, because its impossible to beat elite boxers while being obese and going 12 rounds, especially if you're a freaking grandpa. It's common sense.

I haven't seen much of byrd, but I've seen enough to know he was very hard to hit cleanly and was similar to Jimmy young. Again you focus on one thing and ignore everything else while not forming any sort of logical argument. All I'm seeing is a text wall of pure emotion and fanboy ranting.

^ ^ ahh...Foreman 1 Vs Foreman 2. First "seem to me" the much much much more into his element!!! YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD LEND TRUE INSIGHT TO IT....IF A WRITER COULD INTERVIEW GEORGE deeply concerning that very comparison. And STAY ON SUBJECT CATEGORY!

Caractacus wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:Not a soul in this thread has suggested Marciano would 'beat' Foreman.

well,I think Marciano could have beatin George Foreman.
By getting inside early and wacking him in the body and maybe breaking a few of Foreman's ribs
then when Foreman bends forward wincing in pain Marciano lands a "Suzie Q." right on the point
of Foreman's chin therefore KO'ing him.[/quote

ImranSarwar wrote:^ ^ ahh...Foreman 1 Vs Foreman 2. First "seem to me" the much much much more into his element!!! YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD LEND TRUE INSIGHT TO IT....IF A WRITER COULD INTERVIEW GEORGE deeply concerning that very comparison. And STAY ON SUBJECT CATEGORY!

I think Foreman discusses the differences between the young fighter and the old fighter at length in By George - though I don't want to have to dredge up all the passages in order to 'prove' it.

Cygnus475 wrote: 2-forget about the fix allegation, you're obviously not gonna change your mind.

Forget that you believe THIS is a fix? How can I forget it? Your basic intelligence is in question. Anyone who can watch this fight and believe it was fixed is obviously mad. Anyone who would call it a fix without even bothering to watch it is an idiot. Which one are you, O wise "some guy on the internet"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pPfPUQopfg