BoxRec

Joe Louis WUD 15 Rocky Marciano. Marciano clearly has the better of the first 4 rounds, and even scores a knockdown, but Louis turns the tide in the 6th and dominates the rest of the bout, scoring a pair of late knockdowns.

Muhammad Ali WUD 15 Larry Holmes. Battle of the jabs is very close, but Ali's footwork is the difference.

louis TKO 6 marciano - i can see allie columbo wanting to stop the fight to save his freind from taking further punishment and rocky saying "dont u dare stop it allie! get out of my way im gonna get this son of a bitch"



marciano once said to his freind eugen slyvester when asked if he thinks he could beat joe louis "ill never lose to a person euey"


interesting quote



ali 15 unanimous holmes

2-2 Marciano Louis

4-0 Ali


@ the Marciano quote on Louis....

I think that's a complete fabrication, why would Marciano say that of Louis, when Louis was his idol and felt bad for having to fight him? If Marciano was racist, why was he friends with Walcott and later made a bond with Ali?

Louis said Marciano hit harder than anyone he ever faced, as did Walcott, Charles say that Marciano hit harder than Louis---Louis to his own admission said he never felt he could beat Marciano at any stage in his career.

It's clearly evident that Louis' toughest fights were against swarmers, and Marciano was quite possibly the greatest swarmer at Heavyweight, who was a titlist. If men like Tony Galento, Buddy Baer could drop Louis and they weren't particuarly impressive---the Rock could put Louis down and out for the count.

It wouldn't be easy, considering it's prime vs prime, but Marciano had the greater punch, thre punches in bunches, was a swarmer, fought from a crouch, was uncanny in his ability to absorb punishment and he just had far greater stamina than anyone before or since.

Louis had rapid fire combinations, but so did Charles, Louis had a punch and his defense was good---but think of it this way:

Nobody knows if Joe Louis could have fought backing up, because not many fighters really pressed Louis, they were sitting ducks. Virtually only Two-Ton Tony Galento was the only man to really do so, and he hurt Louis, but Louis had far superior skills---so that isn't saying much. If a true pressure fighter of substance fought Louis, this would be a completely different story.

Louis, also in my opinion, never really fought a great puncher/brawler either, let me name off some of the men he did fight with that style:

1.) Tony Galento- Limited in skills, had a punch though, but failed against the best of the best

2.) Buddy Baer- Had an even higher KO percentage than Max, but over against 2nd rate opposition. Was more or less a goon with pop to his punches.

3.) Max Baer- He was trying to get back into number one contender status, but Baer was extremely inconsistant, and seemed to lack agression against Louis after the first round, he was pretty much shot, at least mentally by the time he faced Louis.

4.) Primo Carnera- Had alot of knockouts in his career, and his size and strength made him a hard opponent---though most of those KO's were against mediocre opposition. Carnera lacked skills as well, and was proven to be nothing more than a goon.

5.) Joe Walcott- RING magazine rated him at #66 on the ATG punchers. Though he is remembered as a man with great skills, who was an innovator at creating new moves---he had some major pop to his punches. He dropped Louis, dropped Marciano, stopped Charles, flattened puncher Tommy Gomez. So all in all Walcott was possibly Louis' greatest opponent in his championship years, who was a genuine Heavyweight.

*************************************************************

Over-all Joe Louis' greatest opponents came either when he was green and they were over the hill, or when he was on the downside and they were on the up and up. Outside of Walcott, possibly Billy Conn, a man who weighed no more than 168 pounds for their fight, was Louis' hardest opponent.

Marciano on the other hand, over came a late start, short reach, crude skills, jumping over the journeymen and fringe contenders to the top and beat the best men out there possible---you could make an arguement that Charles and Walcott and Moore were older than him---but Charles was only 2yrs older than Marciano, while Walcott fought better in his advancing age (even Joe Louis said this).

You could also make the argument that Louis was well passed his best when he faced Marciano, and while this is somewhat true, Louis was still ranked #1 in the world and had beaten the likes of Jimmy Bivins and other top notch contenders---he still had the power and skill to make it up there, though the speed and reflexes were not as great as they were.

*************************************************************

You could match it up any way you want, but Marciano had an edge, his strengths were Louis' weaknesses and vice versa. As much as I like Joe Louis, I believe he is over-rated, and Marciano is the most under-rated.

I will quote Nat Fliescher, who said this of Marciano, when he faced and defeated Ezzard Charles for the first time:

"There is nobody who could have went the 15 round distance, let alone win it, against Charles that night."

Just like John L. Sullivan when he used to holler "I can lick any son of a bitch in the house!" Nat Fliescher, meant the whole house, the whole wide world, and everybody before---when those two faced off with eachother.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:
I will quote Nat Fliescher, who said this of Marciano, when he faced and defeated Ezzard Charles for the first time:

"There is nobody who could have went the 15 round distance, let alone win it, against Charles that night."

Nat Fleischer was an educated man.

He never used broken English.

Try rewriting your "quote" in proper English.

LOL

.

u know what....nvm...i aint even gonna comment on this tournament anymore...cus nobody will even talk right or comment on anything remotely relating to these "fights".

Louis UD15
Ali UD 15 (close)

3-2 Louis (Marciano vs Louis)

5-0 Ali (Ali vs Holmes)


Just might need to use the computer to help determine the winner of the Marciano-Louis bout. 8)

I will quote Nat Fliescher, who said this of Marciano, when he faced and defeated Ezzard Charles for the first time:

"There is nobody who could have went the 15 round distance, let alone win it, against Charles that night."

u misquoted him


heres the real quote

Boxing and Wrestling, November 1954, said of their first meeting,

"It was also generally agreed that no fighter in the world other than Marciano could have lasted 15 rounds against the Ezzard Charles of the night of June 17, let alone with the decision."

It was also generally agreed that no fighter in the world other than Marciano could have lasted 15 rounds against the Ezzard Charles of the night of June 17, let alone with the decision."

It was definitlely quite an overstatement back then and its utter nonsense today. Ali, Liston, Foreman,Frazier,Holmes,Tyson,Lewis, and a few other since then would not have only survived 15 rounds with Charles that night, they all probably would have stopped him before making it that far.

I don't believe it to be an over-statement for that time. Charles was always ever dangerous, and he had beaten Louis and Walcott among other HOF fighters, and with Walcott out of the picture, Charles was pretty much THE man at Heavyweight, and really, if anyone had a chance to have been the first to regain the Heavyweight crown, it would have been Charles. He was so full of talent and was so quick, and I'd say his fight with Marciano was one of his very best performances---15 rounds full-tilt action, that only had one clinch in it's entirity.

As far as today goes, maybe not, but even Ali himself said that Charles and Walcott would have gave him problems, sure Ali would have beaten them, but it wouldn't have been easy. As far as Frazier goes, he was arguably the best pressure fighter of the 1970's, and Ali always had problems with men like that---and as far as Foreman is concerned, if someone could get passed the early rounds with Foreman, you had a chance, he lacked stamina and endurance, he never paced himself. Men like Holmes and Lewis would be more the type to go the distance, as they were boxing men, not knockout artists---and Tyson, well, like with Foreman, if you could survive the early rounds you had one helluva chance.

Joe Louis accomplished more than Marciano did. His resume is more impressive and his title reign was much longer than Marcianos with far more successful defenses. Marciano simply did not accomplish enough to be rated as highly as Louis. Marciano may be underrated but it is difficult o overrate Louis given his accomplishments.

What do you mean by "Charles was the man at heavyweight"? He was champion for a while but by 1954 he was clearly no longer the worlds best heavyweight.

#1- Joe Louis' title defenses were by and large against a great deal of men who absoloutely stood no chance at winning---outside of Max Schmeling (who was on the decline), Billy Conn (a blown up Middleweight turn Light Heavyweight), and Jersey Joe Walcott---none of his opponents had the stuff, with arguably Tommy Farr as one of his better opponents.

Sure he held that title for 11 years, but for of those years was in the army, and if you take away the men I just listed, who else is left, but a bunch of men who prolly could have given the top #30 men of today a good fight, but were not champsionship material.

#2- I said Charles was THE man at Heavyweight, because outside of Jersey Joe Walcott, who else could be so dominate a fighter? The only man who could have came close was Roland LaStarza, but Marciano broke his arms and knocked him silly in 11 rounds (mind you I am referring to the time and rankings when Marciano was champion).

It is a testament to Louis's greatness that the best contenders of his era stood virtually no chance of beating him. Although Louis did not fight many black heavyweights he did fight the most deserving challengers while he was champion. A champion cannot be expected to do any more than that. One can criticize the opponnents of many champions but a man who fights the best available contenders is making the most of what is available.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:#1- Joe Louis' title defenses were by and large against a great deal of men who absoloutely stood no chance at winning---outside of Max Schmeling (who was on the decline), Billy Conn (a blown up Middleweight turn Light Heavyweight), and Jersey Joe Walcott---none of his opponents had the stuff, with arguably Tommy Farr as one of his better opponents.

On his way up he totally demolished Baer, Sharkey, Uzcudun.

Marciano KO9

Ali UD12

Louis by lopsided UD over a very bloody and demoralized Marciano
(it's a totally absurd idea that Marciano could have endangered prime Louis. Marciano was ouboxed by Walcott for most of their first fight)

Ali by narrow UD.

theone wrote:

It was also generally agreed that no fighter in the world other than Marciano could have lasted 15 rounds against the Ezzard Charles of the night of June 17, let alone with the decision."

It was definitlely quite an overstatement back then and its utter nonsense today. Ali, Liston, Foreman,Frazier,Holmes,Tyson,Lewis, and a few other since then would not have only survived 15 rounds with Charles that night, they all probably would have stopped him before making it that far.

the one he misquoted


heres the real quote



Boxing and Wrestling, November 1954, said of their first meeting,

"It was also generally agreed that no fighter in the world other than Marciano could have lasted 15 rounds against the Ezzard Charles of the night of June 17, let alone with the decision."




now the one, wut the quote says is no fighter IN THE WORLD(meaning 1954) would last the distance with charles that night.


the quote is talking about heavyweights PRESENT IN 1954, not foreman, ali etc



so that quote does make sense

(it's a totally absurd idea that Marciano could have endangered prime Louis.

yea ur right, i mean marciano defintley can't endanger a prime louis. but galento, farr, schmeling, godoy can right???


diddnt arturo godoy fight out of a low crouch? its not like marciano fought like that



i mean if crouching fighter arturo godoy can take louis to a split decision, NO WAY CAN MARCIANO ENDANGER LOUIS!



if schmeling can knock out louis, no way marciano has a chance to knockout louis

4-3 Louis (Marciano vs Louis)

7-0 Ali (Ali vs Holmes)

***********************************************************

Yes it's a testament to Louis that he virtually beat every man put in front of him, but in my opinion those men weren't of great variety, and Louis did miss out on fighting possibly more deserving men, such as Turkey Thompson as an example.

The records show that he beat Walcott twice, but every boxing fan with half a brain knows that was highway robbery in the first fight.

As far as you saying that nobody could beat Louis, that's absurd. Look at it another way, do you seriously think guys like Johnny Paycheck or Tami Mauriello could challenge for the title nowadays? Or how about Buddy Baer or even Tony Galento? The era when Joe Louis fought was a good time, but it was certainly not world class either.

Louis fought the best of the bunch either on his way up and they were on their way down, or when he was on the downside and men were on their way up. Sure he looks invincible and unstoppable on film these days, but one could also make an argument about Mike Tyson.

Was Tyson really invincible in his "prime" or was it because the only challengers were guys like Trevor Berbick and Tony Tubbs, among other walking dead men?

See what I mean?

***********************************************************

Marciano on the other hand skipped the middle part of the division, and went straight for the top men, and beat the best until there was virtually nobody left who could generate enough money and interest, let alone make a great fight of it.

He was undefeated, and even the fights he had that were close, he avenged. When he faced Roland LaStarza it was extremely close, so Marciano trained especially hard for the rematch and he out-gunned LaStarza from the start and made sure nobody could say LaStarza was the better man.

He faced Charles and it went the distance, though he won that fight, a rematch was inevitable---Marciano suffered a split nose and went straight for the knock out and brutalised Charles, literally tore him apart, so he wouldn't lose.

Marciano never lost, and in rematches he was death, cus the second go-around he made sure there would be NO question to the out-come, or of his abilities.

Course, one could say the same about Joe Louis, but again, Louis wasn't exactly facing Walcott and Charles type of fighters on a regular basis; men with skills and experience at world class competition.

Call me a blasphemer, but in my opinion Louis fought better opponents before and after he was champion. As champion his two best opponents were over-the-hill Schmeling (who beat Louis prior), Billy Conn (a blown up Middleweight turn Light Heavyweight) and Walcott---who beat Louis the first time but didn't get the decision, and who out-pointed Louis in their rematch until Louis caught him.

That, out of 25 title defenses, is the best that Louis fought. Marciano fought Walcott, Charles and Moore for his title---guys in my opinion who would have gave Louis, prime or not, one helluva time, if not pulled the victory.

I ain't doubting Louis' abilities, but he did not face great opponents by and large.

************************************************************

4-3 Louis (Marciano vs Louis)

7-0 Ali (Ali vs Holmes)

IrishRufusMurphy wrote: I ain't doubting Louis' abilities, but he did not face great opponents by and large.

Didn't you just say he fought great opponents before he became champ - Baer, Sharlkey, Uzcudun? Btw, why do you think Schnmeling was over the hill in 1938?

Besides, Louis fought prime Walcott and Charles, while Marciano fought old Walcott and over-the-hill Charles (this will get me into trouble with Brockton, but these are simply facts).

Here are the HOFers Louis' beat: Schmeling, Sharkey, Braddock, Baer, JH Lewis, Conn, Walcott, Bivins. Here are Marcinao's: Walcott, Charles, Louis, Moore. 8:4. Looks pretty clear to me.

I don't call you a "blasphemer", but it doesn't make much sense what you write.

I meant in his championship reign, he did not fight great opponents by and large, but he did face better opposition, in my mind, before and after he was champion.

As far as saying Walcott was in his prime, I disagree, as Walcott got better in time, he fought the best fight of his entire career when he faced Marciano, until he was caught by Rocky's right. And Ezzard Charles was only two years older than Marciano---not so much a big span of age.

And Max Schmeling was considered on the down-side even when he faced Louis the first time. You ever seen the odds on that fight? Was 2-1 that Schmeling wouldn't be on his feet after the 7th, if he even made it that far. 10-1 that Louis would win. 4-1 that Louis would win by kayo.

He was getting older, and being in your 30's back then was not good.

John Henry Lewis? lol He was half blind and Joe was being a good friend by giving him a shot at some dough. Sharkey? He was way over-the-hill and over weight and had to be paid extra money to face Louis else he wouldn't do it. lol

Carnera? Was just a big goon who landed either a lucky punch or won the title by Sharkey taking a dive. Baer? Was hardly aggressive after the first round and was mentally fragile, as well as inconsistant.

As I said before, Louis fought better fighters before and after he was champion, but during his reign he faced only WALCOTT, CONN and SCHMELING---and those were his top opponents, in the eleven years he reigned, four of which while he was in the Army.

Sure Louis did more with the title, but I'm sure Larry Holmes reigned only as long as he did when you had LeDoux, Evangelista and other bums fighting for the title.

I didn't say that.

I am comparing the MAJORITY of Louis' opponents in his championship reign, to the majority of Larry Holmes opponents in his reign.

NOT to Louis' best opponents.

I listed the three because they were the BEST out of the 25 title defenses that he made---the rest, I said was not great by any means---most of those men were on par with the majority of Holmes opponents, excluding Shavers and Norton.

Let me make it REALLY clear, so I won't have to argue this over and over again with you all. So here is a list of Joe Louis' title defenses, and Larry Holmes---the names in BOLD are the best of the bunch.

Joe Louis' Defenses (not in any particular order)

Jersey Joe Walcott (2x's)
Billy Conn (2x's)
Max Schmeling
Tony Galento
Johnny Paycheck
Arturo Godoy (2x's)
Abe Simon (2x's)
Buddy Baer (2x's)
Tami Mauriello
Lou Nova
Tony Musto
Gus Dorazio
Red Burman
Bob Pastor
Jack Roper
John Henry Lewis- was half blind and shot
Tommy Farr
Harry Thomas
Nathan Mann

Larry Holmes Title Defenses (in no particular order):

Carl Williams
Bonecrusher Smith
David Bey
Marvis Frazier
Tim Witherspoon
Scott Frank
Tex Cobb
Lucien Rodriguez
Gerry Cooney
Renaldo Snipes
Leon Spinks
Trevor Berbick
Muhammad Ali- Ali was completely shot
Scott LeDoux
Leroy Jones
Lorenzo Zanon
Earnie Shavers
Mike Weaver
Ossie Ocassio
Alfredo Evangelista


For Louis, his best was Schmeling, Conn and Walcott. For Holmes, his best was Cooney, Shavers, Witherspoon, Weaver and Bonecrusher.

The rest of those men, for both Louis and Holmes, was guys who were not really championship material or where completely shot fighters. I did not include Ali and Spinks as Holmes 'best' because Ali was completely shot and Spinks after his loss to Ali was just a no-hope loser, and never was the same again.

I hope this clears up the air some. Was only comparing Louis' reign as champion, to the likes of Holmes era.

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I meant in his championship reign, he did not fight great opponents by and large, but he did face better opposition, in my mind, before and after he was champion.

OK, that's a fair comment. One shouldn't overlook though that Louis served during WWII and that his title was frozen in this period.

As far as saying Walcott was in his prime, I disagree, as Walcott got better in time, he fought the best fight of his entire career when he faced Marciano, until he was caught by Rocky's right. And Ezzard Charles was only two years older than Marciano---not so much a big span of age.

I've discusssed this one with Brockton till the cows come home, so I'm bit reluctant to engage in it again. Fact is: Walcott was very old for a prizefighter by the time he fought Marciano, and Charles deteriorated early and rapidly.

And Max Schmeling was considered on the down-side even when he faced Louis the first time. You ever seen the odds on that fight? Was 2-1 that Schmeling wouldn't be on his feet after the 7th, if he even made it that far. 10-1 that Louis would win. 4-1 that Louis would win by kayo.

Schmeling fell into a hole in 1933/34, and Louis came from most impressive wins over Baer, Uzcudun, Carnera. No wonder he has 10-1 favorite. But Schmeling got himself out of that hole. He's the rare example of a fighter who peaked twice, in 1929-32 and again in 1936-38.

He was getting older, and being in your 30's back then was not good.

In his next fight after Louis II he knocked out his great German rival Adolf Heuser in one round. He was still very good.

John Henry Lewis? lol He was half blind and Joe was being a good friend by giving him a shot at some dough. Sharkey? He was way over-the-hill and over weight and had to be paid extra money to face Louis else he wouldn't do it. lol

I listed the HOFers on Louis' and Marciano's records. This is statistics, no more, no less.

Sure JHL and Sharkey were over the hill, but so were Louis and Charles by the time Marciano fought them, and Walcott and Moore were very old.

Carnera? Was just a big goon who landed either a lucky punch or won the title by Sharkey taking a dive. Baer? Was hardly aggressive after the first round and was mentally fragile, as well as inconsistant.

It remains disputed whether Sharkey took a dive. Baer at his best was awesome, and at the time of the fight considered the best heavyweight in the world who had given his title away to Braddock only because of sloppiness and lack of preparation.

Cheers, P