Why Rocky Maricano is top 3 Heavyweight of all time

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 03 Jul 2006, 13:38

Crease wrote:BTW,

I totoally agree with Rocky Marciano being in the top 3 Heavyweights of All-Time, I personally have him at NO #1.

A guy who gets outboxed by Joe Jersey Walcott ahead of Ali and Louis....

AT BEST you can put him as #3, he never delivered the out-of-this-world performances that Louis delivered against Baer or Schmeling, or that Ali delivered against Liston or Terrell or Williams. I personally have Marciano barely in the top 10. Too short reign, too many question marks about the opposition, too vulnerable.

Btw, Brockton himself has moved Marciano out of the top 3.
http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42513

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 03 Jul 2006, 14:20

And what?

That's just an Internet guys opinion, (granted the man does know a lot about Marciano) HOWEVER.

As for the quality of Rocky's opposition...
JJ WALCOTT: (Theres no shame being outboxed by this man, he's one of the best all-around Heavyweights in History)

E CHARLES: (Well, Marciano beat this man twice, yes twice, once may be lucky, but twice, nuff siad)

A MOORE: (Heres a man who wandered around two division KOing people left, right and centre, Marciano KOd him).

AS for such poor opposition as:
Roland La Starza, Rex Layne, Lee Savold and Freddy Beshore...

My friend, I suggest that you take another look at Marciano's record, these guys were hardly push-overs...

cubedrum · Post by **cubedrum** » 03 Jul 2006, 14:33

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Marciano is just to strong, ad powerful and would have alwasy beat charles. O YEAH IN THE 2ND FIGHT, IF THE FIGHT WERE NOW A DAYS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCIDENTAL ELBOW AND IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO SCORE CARDS AND MARCIANO WAS LEADING THE CARDSS IN ROUNDS 6-1, 5-1-1, 6-1. SO MARCIAMO WOULD HAVE DEFENDED HIS TITEL WIT HA TEHCNICAL DESICION.

[/quote]

You can't look at yesterday's rulings with today's rule set.
If the decision in the first LaStarza fight were rendered under today's rules IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RULED A DRAW!!!!!! The judges scored it 5-4-1 for Marciano, 5-4-1 for LaStarza and 5-5. The referee provided a tiebreaker, though I'm not sure why. Probably boxing politics. The same as the non-disqualification against Floyd Mayweather against Zab even though a third man in the ring is an AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION. Same sceneario as the first Marciano-LaStarza fight. A wildly popular undefeated contender is just worth more money to boxing than a contender who has had a few losses. A draw against LaStarza definitely puts Rocky into the top 10 instead of top 3. As far as the comparisons to Liston go: Sonny often cheated when a fighter was giving him trouble. Machen, Folley and Ali ALL complained of burning eyes in their fights with Liston. He was hugely talented, but Rocky would have got him late, EVEN IN 1960.

Cube

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 03 Jul 2006, 14:33

Crease wrote:And what?

That's just an Internet guys opinion, (granted the man does know a lot about Marciano) HOWEVER.

As for the quality of Rocky's opposition...
JJ WALCOTT: (Theres no shame being outboxed by this man, he's one of the best all-around Heavyweights in History)

E CHARLES: (Well, Marciano beat this man twice, yes twice, once may be lucky, but twice, nuff siad)

A MOORE: (Heres a man who wandered around two division KOing people left, right and centre, Marciano KOd him).

AS for such poor opposition as:
Roland La Starza, Rex Layne, Lee Savold and Freddy Beshore...

My friend, I suggest that you take another look at Marciano's record, these guys were hardly push-overs...

No, but it doesn't put Marciano ahead of Louis or Ali. I'm not saying he was a bum, I am saying though there's no sensbile way how one could put him #1.

(btw, I'm not getting into how old or over-the-hill Walcott, Charles, Moore were - I've done this often enough with Brockotn....

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jul 2006, 17:33

cubedrum wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:Marciano is just to strong, ad powerful and would have alwasy beat charles. O YEAH IN THE 2ND FIGHT, IF THE FIGHT WERE NOW A DAYS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCIDENTAL ELBOW AND IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO SCORE CARDS AND MARCIANO WAS LEADING THE CARDSS IN ROUNDS 6-1, 5-1-1, 6-1. SO MARCIAMO WOULD HAVE DEFENDED HIS TITEL WIT HA TEHCNICAL DESICION.

You can't look at yesterday's rulings with today's rule set.
If the decision in the first LaStarza fight were rendered under today's rules IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RULED A DRAW!!!!!! The judges scored it 5-4-1 for Marciano, 5-4-1 for LaStarza and 5-5. The referee provided a tiebreaker, though I'm not sure why. Probably boxing politics. The same as the non-disqualification against Floyd Mayweather against Zab even though a third man in the ring is an AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION. Same sceneario as the first Marciano-LaStarza fight. A wildly popular undefeated contender is just worth more money to boxing than a contender who has had a few losses. A draw against LaStarza definitely puts Rocky into the top 10 instead of top 3. As far as the comparisons to Liston go: Sonny often cheated when a fighter was giving him trouble. Machen, Folley and Ali ALL complained of burning eyes in their fights with Liston. He was hugely talented, but Rocky would have got him late, EVEN IN 1960.

Cube[/quote]

actually ur wrong bud, if the fight had been under todays rules marciano would have won since he scored a knockdown in the 4th round and that would be a 10-8 round

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jul 2006, 17:36

pundit, no rocky marciano is not the greatest heavyweight of all time. louis or ali were.

i rate rocky 5th greatest heavyweight of all time

he never delivered the out-of-this-world performances that Louis delivered against Baer or Schmeling, or that Ali delivered against Liston or Terrell

have u seen the archie moore fight? marciano dominated him the entire fight knocking him down 4 times

did u see the ezzard charles II fight? rocky wins ever round and knocks charles down 3 times before knocking him out

did u see the rex layne and roland lastarza II fights? very dominant

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jul 2006, 17:40

rocky beat very solid quality competitino IMO

walcott 2x , charles 2x, old louis, moore, layne , lastarza 2x, mathews thats a solid crop

rocky also beat them all convinsignly and uncontroversially(if not the first time, then 2nd time around)

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jul 2006, 18:59

Decagon wrote:More like:

old walcott 2x , old charles 2x, old louis, old moore, layne , lastarza 1x

thats very wrong and u know it

jersey joe walcott and archie moore were both at the top of there game entering the first marciano fight despite there advanced ages. both were at/near there best.

just take a look at the wins moore and walcott were coming off of entering the marciano fight, DAMM IMPRESSIVE

moore had just beat

# 1 ranked 6'3 215lb nino valdes
# 2 ranked 6'2 210lb bob baker
ATG hall of fame light-H harold johnson
# 4 ranked hall of famer clarence henry

walcott had just beat

ATG hall of fame heavyweight champ ezzard charles 2x

going by film, i think its clear walcott fought the fight of his life vs marciano, the best since his preformance vs joe louis in 1947. moore also fought one heck of a preformanc dropping rock and putting on an incredible display of defense.

charles wasnt old, he was 32. he was past his prime, but showed up in excellent shape and put on a career preformance in that first fight, a preformance that would have toppled many champions. it wasnt a peak charles, but marciano beat a damm good version of charles.

when i mean "old" im implying how far gone they are. louis was far gone. the others were not.

i think its clear moore, walcott, charles, were all still great fighters when they fought marciano the first time around

"lastarza 1x" please, marciano beat lastarza twice and you know it and u have no proof of film to prove me wrong. as far as im concerened, the first fight could go both ways. some people felt lastarza, others felt marciano. it was a VERY CLOSE FIGHT. no way a robbery. i might also add marciano knocked lastarza down and if it were under todays scorring, marciano would have got a 10-8 round.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jul 2006, 19:15

the domination of rex layne was quite a preformance by marciano. layne was a 23 year old top contender who had flew into the heavyweight rankings by beating the likes of jersey joe walcott(huge upset), bob satterfield, cesar brion, underated henry hall. layne was aggresive strongboy who packed a very heavy right hand. he had the youthness, strength, power, durability that convinced many experts including nat fleischer that layne was going to be the next heavyweight champion. it was layne, not marciano, who was viewed as the better white hope and the 9-5 favorite in the fight

marciano dominated layne each round, beating the shit out of layne on the inside, and totally outslugging and outphysicaling the bigger layne around. then marciano knocked rex layne out COLD with one punch. remember this was the durable layne who had taken bob satterfields best punches and come back to win. one right hand sent rex laynes front teeth flying into the crowd and knocking him out cold. considering layne took satterfields best punches and one marciano punch put him out cold, its a testament to marcianos power.

a dominating preformance over a top dangerous contender like that is a very good mark on his legacy.

layne was at his peak entering the marciano fight remember, he was full of fire and confidence. this was not the fat out of shape unconfident shopworn layne of the mid 1950s.

add to the fact marciano ruined layne(he was never the same again) adds more to this mark of victory.

ruining fighters is a great mark on ur legacy that some ignore. if u ruined a certain fighter, thats better than just dominating them. its like ur taking there life away.

sorry if i sound like im overating this victory. im just trying to give more credit to this victory since it seems people always talk of rocks victories over moore,walcott charles but never dangerous contenders like layne, mathews, lastarza who MARCIANO DOMINATED

people talk about liston destroying top contenders, give marciano his due for destroying a young dangerous top contender

cubedrum · Post by **cubedrum** » 03 Jul 2006, 20:06

actually ur wrong bud, if the fight had been under todays rules marciano would have won since he scored a knockdown in the 4th round and that would be a 10-8 round

I did some research and Brockton is correct. When NY adopted the 10 point must system in the 80's they dumped a supplementary points system used only in the event of draws. The "Col. Egan supplementary points system". Referee Goldstein didn't render the decision, a 2-point system was referred to in the event of a draw in NY in those days. So I admit my error. Even though the concept of "2 point rounds only count in the event of a draw" is pretty shitty, though admittedly it would ultimately penalize a banger like Marciano.

Now then...... Rocky barely won a decision over a guy who peaked out at #4 in the Ring magazine annual rankings.

A factor that should be looked at is that Rocky also saved himself the inevitable decline that happens to all fighters by retiring at 32 (only 3 weeks after his 32nd birthday). Here's the records of some great heavies, had they retired at 32.

Muhammad Ali - 43-2-0
Sonny Liston - 35-1-0
Joe Louis - 56-1-0
Larry Holmes - 38-0-0
Mike Tyson - 45-2-0
Joe Frazier - 32-2-0
Lennox Lewis - 30-1-0

This doesn't really prove anything except that 32 is a great age to get out of the boxing biz. I think the reason Marciano's ultimate place in history is so hotly debated by everyone is because of his limited time as a boxer. The picture wasn't really complete the way it is for most of the other top heavies.

It's like trying to rate Sandy Koufax. He retired WAY younger than most ballplayers, so his accomplishments at his peak are all we have to put his career into a historical context. Was he the greatest left handed pitcher in the history of baseball? Maybe but the data is more limited than say Lefty Grove or Warren Spahn. Had Koufax not retired young he would have hurt those magnificent statistics SAME AS ROCKY!!!

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 03 Jul 2006, 20:52

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:pundit, no rocky marciano is not the greatest heavyweight of all time. louis or ali were.

i rate rocky 5th greatest heavyweight of all time

he never delivered the out-of-this-world performances that Louis delivered against Baer or Schmeling, or that Ali delivered against Liston or Terrell
have u seen the archie moore fight? marciano dominated him the entire fight knocking him down 4 times

did u see the ezzard charles II fight? rocky wins ever round and knocks charles down 3 times before knocking him out

did u see the rex layne and roland lastarza II fights? very dominant

Fine, but Louis and Ali look absolutely untouchable in their best fights. I'd say there is still some difference.

I won't enter another "how old was Walcott"-debate with you..... Not only have we been through this soundly, Decagon happily steps into the ring for me anyway...

Cheers, P

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jul 2006, 21:31

A factor that should be looked at is that Rocky also saved himself the inevitable decline that happens to all fighters by retiring at 32 (only 3 weeks after his 32nd birthday).

rocky retired in april 1956, thats 8 months after his 32nd birthday. rocky was almost 33 when he retired

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jul 2006, 21:34

it wasnt age that beat walcott in that first marciano fight, trust me man. age had nothing to do with it, don't go there

cubedrum · Post by **cubedrum** » 03 Jul 2006, 22:14

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
A factor that should be looked at is that Rocky also saved himself the inevitable decline that happens to all fighters by retiring at 32 (only 3 weeks after his 32nd birthday).

rocky retired in april 1956, thats 8 months after his 32nd birthday. rocky was almost 33 when he retired

*sigh* OK fine he announced it then, but his last fight was 3 weeks after his 32nd. When you don't fight ever again, you're retired man. The announcement is a formality.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jul 2006, 22:54

cubedrum wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
A factor that should be looked at is that Rocky also saved himself the inevitable decline that happens to all fighters by retiring at 32 (only 3 weeks after his 32nd birthday).

rocky retired in april 1956, thats 8 months after his 32nd birthday. rocky was almost 33 when he retired
*sigh* OK fine he announced it then, but his last fight was 3 weeks after his 32nd. When you don't fight ever again, you're retired man. The announcement is a formality.

yes but marciano still considered fighting after the moore fight. he was actually signed to fight nino valdes early in 1956 but valdes lost to bob baker and satterfield thus eliminating that match.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 04 Jul 2006, 00:33

Myself I have Marciano tied with Ali for the #2 spot.

For even Joe Louis to say that even at his best he don't believe he could have beaten Rocky, is saying something---considering most people ranked Louis as the #1 Puncher and #1 ATG Heavyweight.

Myself Marciano could have did more, but really, what else was out there? I don't believe he retired because he was tired, or anything to do with his health, but simply management---as Marciano had wanted to continue on as champion for at least another 4 or 5 years, and had considered comebacks.

I think the quality of his opponents during his championship reign were better than Louis'---the Brown Bomber's best opponents was in my mind Walcott, Conn and Schmeling---while Marciano faced Moore, Walcott and Charles, and of course beating Louis, even though he was passed best, but that was before he became champion.

But Louis held the title for almost 12yrs and had 25 title defenses, though four of those years he was in the Army giving exhibitions (96 total). And his historical meaning is just as big if not bigger than his career---Louis was almost mythical in his place on the world's stage, he was bigger than life.

But do I think a prime Joe Louis (1938 in my opinion with his 1st round blow out of Schmeling) could beat a prime Marciano? I'd have to take Louis' word for it, and nobody was as blunt or as honest as Louis.

Myself the rankings are:

#1- Joe Louis
#2- Marciano/Ali
#3- Jack Johnson

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 04 Jul 2006, 11:59

Plus, Louis also beat Max Baer, (another great boxer).

When talking about the topic of Rocky Marciano...
Joe Louis also said of him,
"It hurt to bump into him....He hits harder than Max Schmeling...this kid is tough enough to beat anyone!"

Louis alos commented on Rocky's punching technique,
"The Rock didn't know too much about the boxing book, but it wasn't a book he hit me with. It was a whole library of bone crushers."

Jersey Joe Walcott was asked who hit harder, Prime Louis or Prime Marciano? He replied
"Joe could take you out with combinations...Marciano was a one-punch artist. He threw every punch like you throw a baseball, as hard as he could. I have to say, with all respect to Joe, Marciano hit harder."

Ezzard Charles described the effect of Marciano's punches...
"Rocky numbs you all over. Wherever he hits you, he hurts you; on the arms, the shoulders, the neck and the head."

Archie Moore also discusses Rocky's powerful blows.

"Man they all hurt... After a fight with Marciano, it felt like you had been beat all over the upper body with a blackjack or hit with rocks... He could hurt you, sure, but it was the quantity of his punches. He just had more stamina than anyone else in those days. He was like a bull with gloves."

Roland LaStarza, talked about Rocky's stamina
"I would throw a hard punch, then he would throw a hard punch. The difference was that Rocky would throw 10 more. He just never stopped throwing punches."

YEAH, I still say Rocky was the greatest!!!

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 04 Jul 2006, 12:20

You can also vouche for Marciano's ring ability after he became champion, Roland LaStarza said the major difference in their second fight was that Marciano was far more harder to hit---Rocky was deceptive in that way---all the boxing experts and fans said he had little skill, but when the fighters who fought Marciano were asked how easy it was to hit Marciano, they looked at the writers like this emote

Marciano was far more better than people ever gave him credit for.

Myself I only place Louis at #1 because he did more with the title than any other titlist at any weight---plus his wins over 7 hall of fame fighters and almost Formanesque comeback, key word ALMOST, made him a great fighter, and arguably the best puncher from the waist up in the history of the division.

But Louis wasn't perfect---far from it---he had a questionable chin, and I don't care what anyone says---it's true. If "The Cinderella Man" could drop Louis, and Braddock wasn't known for his kayo prowess, then that shows something, it's almost as bad as when Foreman was dropped by Jimmy Young, whose kayo percentage was in the mid 20%.

Louis himself said that even at his best, he don't believe he could have beaten Marciano---and I believe him---because if Galento, Buddy Baer, Schmeling, Braddock could drop Louis like a stone---and mind you I ain't really knocking Schmeling or Braddock, but by and large they were tacticians not punchers---but Galento was far from being a great fighter and his record was compiled of grade C fighters, as was Baer's.

Louis was death in rematches though, but I believe if Marciano was matched with most HW champions---including Louis---he would stop them sooner or later, or wear them out enough to land enough shots to get the decision.

So...in terms of doing more with the title, Louis did---though in my opinion he fought better opposition before and after he was champion---but in terms of prime vs prime---Marciano will always be #1 to me.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 04 Jul 2006, 13:52

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:Myself I have Marciano tied with Ali for the #2 spot.

For even Joe Louis to say that even at his best he don't believe he could have beaten Rocky, is saying something---considering most people ranked Louis as the #1 Puncher and #1 ATG Heavyweight.

It would be great news to me that he had said that Reference, please.

I think the quality of his opponents during his championship reign were better than Louis'---the Brown Bomber's best opponents was in my mind Walcott, Conn and Schmeling---while Marciano faced Moore, Walcott and Charles, and of course beating Louis, even though he was passed best, but that was before he became champion.

Louis' opponents were in their prime, Marciano's were old men. And - Louis dominated them in a way Marciano could only dream of. Btw, add at least Baer and Sharkey to Louis' list.

But do I think a prime Joe Louis (1938 in my opinion with his 1st round blow out of Schmeling) could beat a prime Marciano?

He would have with ease.

I for my part have a hard time putting Marciano in the top 10. There are plentiful boxers in history who would have beaten him; in fact Walcott would have hadn't he gone careless for one moment in their fight. All the other guys Marciano beat were blown-up light-heavyweights (Moore, Charles) and/or beyond their porimes (Charles) or nothing special (Cockell, LaStarza).

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 04 Jul 2006, 13:54

Crease wrote:Plus, Louis also beat Max Baer, (another great boxer).

When talking about the topic of Rocky Marciano...
Joe Louis also said of him,
"It hurt to bump into him....He hits harder than Max Schmeling...this kid is tough enough to beat anyone!"

Louis alos commented on Rocky's punching technique,
"The Rock didn't know too much about the boxing book, but it wasn't a book he hit me with. It was a whole library of bone crushers."

Jersey Joe Walcott was asked who hit harder, Prime Louis or Prime Marciano? He replied
"Joe could take you out with combinations...Marciano was a one-punch artist. He threw every punch like you throw a baseball, as hard as he could. I have to say, with all respect to Joe, Marciano hit harder."

Ezzard Charles described the effect of Marciano's punches...
"Rocky numbs you all over. Wherever he hits you, he hurts you; on the arms, the shoulders, the neck and the head."

Archie Moore also discusses Rocky's powerful blows.

"Man they all hurt... After a fight with Marciano, it felt like you had been beat all over the upper body with a blackjack or hit with rocks... He could hurt you, sure, but it was the quantity of his punches. He just had more stamina than anyone else in those days. He was like a bull with gloves."

Roland LaStarza, talked about Rocky's stamina
"I would throw a hard punch, then he would throw a hard punch. The difference was that Rocky would throw 10 more. He just never stopped throwing punches."

YEAH, I still say Rocky was the greatest!!!

ONLY because he had a hard punch?

You seem to confuse something here. Boxing is no strong-man competition. It consists of a little more than that.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jul 2006, 14:03

Louis' opponents were in their prime, Marciano's were old men.

walcott and moore were at/near there primes, check there records prior to facing marciano. these were guys who at 38 were still at the top of the there game despite there advanged age. moore and walcott were late bloomers, they were better fighters in there 30s than 20s.

charles was past his prime, but he was only 32, and fought one of the best preformances of his career in the first fight, a preformance that would have toppled many champions. i say to u that the charles of june 1954 was just as good as any opponent louis ever beat

louis was far past it, but still a very dangerous contender

lastarza nothing special? he was one of the best defensive heavyweight fighters of that decade. he was also in his prime 22, 25 years old both when marciano beat him

was max schmeling in his prime when joe louis beat him? i think so, BUT WAIT wasnt max 32 when he lost to joe??? same as ezzard charles when he lost to marciano. so if u think max was in his prime when joe beat him, then u must give the same respect to marciano with beating 32 year old ezz

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jul 2006, 14:08

Btw, add at least Baer and Sharkey to Louis' list

sharkey was shot when louis beat him

* pundit,

marciano did dominate his opponents

- he won every round of the charles rematch knocking him down 3 times and then finishing him off

- marciano DOMINATED archie moore winning nearly every round and knocking him down 5 times in the process

THESE ARE DOMINATING PREFORMANCES VS GREAT FIGHTERS!

- marciano dominated rex layne knocking him out cold in 6 rounds

- marciano dominated harry kid mathews knocking him out with just 2 left hooks early in the fight

- marciano dominated roland lastarza in the late rounds breaking blood vessels in lastarzas arms and finishing him off in 11 in a fight marciano was ahead on the scorecards

as u see marciano did dominate

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jul 2006, 14:09

louis did say marciano would beat him anyday, but i dont agree with him.

louis would kayo rocky prime for prime

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jul 2006, 14:13

pundit, ur first problem is u rely too much on age.

read this passage by the excellent poster Ted Spoon ...............

"Exhibit A:

"It wasn't Rocky's fault, but he didn't have the best competition. He took on all comers, but a lot of them were old fighters who had seen better days — like Joe Louis, Jersey Joe and Archie Moore"

It's not differcult to spot a remark difference in the physical capabilities of Joe in '51, but I'd like to know when 'Jersey' Joe or Archie Moore (despite the latter being overmatched) looked fresher, more capable.

There are no laws in boxing opinions, nor is there such an entity who could be logically labelled an 'expert', but casual fans will eat what they're fed, alas myths are recycled for another generation.

If all one hears is Walcott was old then feeling inclined to agree will take its toll like almost an infectious obligation, Ted Spoon has received the same vibe off of both writers, no surprise.

Numerical factors matter only if they prove a factor. I'll be damned if it was age that beat Walcott during that heated battle in Chicago; arguably, probably the best fight the usually negative Walcott fought.

Archie Moore fought one of the most intense defensive fight's you may lay your sceptical eyes on. Again, where are these signs of 'ageing'?"

please pundit, i would love to see u refuse this excellent passage

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 04 Jul 2006, 16:38

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: - he won every round of the charles rematch knocking him down 3 times

Charles was way, way beyond his prime.

- marciano DOMINATED archie moore winning nearly every round and knocking him down 5 times in the process

...... and Moore was a goddamn blown-up light-heavyweight. A great blown-up light-heavyweight, but a blown-up light-heavyweight.

As for Walcott, Walcott was of course old but he fought great in their first bout - and he was winning clearly until Susie Q saved the day for Rocky.

Don't get me wrong, these are no poor wins. But they don't make you an Ali or a Louis.

Cheers, P

PS: I suggest we continue only if one of us comes up with something really new.