Rocky Marciano: An Enduring Legacy Into Mythology

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 17 Apr 2007, 13:27

Ambling Alp wrote:
HomicideHenry wrote:People talk up and down about how Ali wasn't at his best anymore after being gone for 3yrs, but I NEVER see anyone debate this of Joe Louis. Joe Louis was gone for four years in the US Army, and despite fighting 96 some odd exhibitions, it might as well been against amateurs as it was mainly men in the service.

Joe Louis comes back after 4yrs, and still was the top man in the business and though 'winning' against Joe Walcott in their first fight, which was controversial, Louis gave him an automatic return and knocked him out and retired as champion---only to return and lose to Charles and Marciano, but was still good enough to be ranked the number one contender.

Muhammad Ali fights some ehibitions, including the computer fight with Marciano, does a few plays, lectures at colleges---still in very good shape, comes back and beats #1 contender Quarry, and #2 contender Bonavena who gave Frazier fits and then loses to Frazier, picks up a win or two over halfways decent guys, loses to Norton.

Not to say this takes away from Ali at all, but if you are to make the argument of time being against Ali, you have to look at Joe Louis, who was gone for an even longer time than Ali, and remained the top man until he retired, then unretired and still was good enough to be number one in the world next to the champion.
First of all, when Louis came back after World War II, he didn't have to fight Joe Frazier to be the champion. He did fight Walcott, but Walcott is no Joe Frazier. Even then, he was very lucky that the judges gave him the verdict in their first fight. Louis had 4 fights after WWII and before he retired. He knocked out Mauriello easily, but was unimpressive in the other three.

When Louis came back, it was obvious that he had declined further. He was beaten decisively by Charles. Louis looked horrible in that fight.
Yes Louis was ranked #1 for the year 1950. However, how big of a deal is that when you consider that Lee Savold was #2 and Joey Maxim was #3. You would have to look pretty far to find another year when the top 3 heavyweight rankings were that weak.

Look at what Ali did when he came back. It was pointed out that he lost to Frazier and Norton. It wasn't pointed out that he avenged those losses. Nor was it pointed out that Ali beat a prime George Foreman to win the title. From the time that Ali came back in 1970 to 1975, he was 20-2 (as mentioned both losses were avenged). 14 wins were against fighters in the top 10 or the champion. Ali was the best heavyweight in the world when the heavyweight division was at it's best when he himself was past his best.

True, Ali wasn't as good from 1970-1975 as he was from 1964-1967. Ali from 1970-1975 was much, much better than the post WWII Joe Louis.

Actually this comparison really isn't fair to Louis. He was 32 when he came back and Ali was only 28.

Really, Louis' fights after 1942 and Ali's fights after 1975 shouldn't be given much weight in evaluating their greatness.

However to use Louis performance after WWII as an arguement that he was better than Ali is simply ridiculaus.

I have to agree. Ali's post-exile record (wins over Norton, Foreman, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, Quarry etc) not only far exceed Louis's post WWII record, it's those wins that enable Ali to be remembered as a great HW champion . . much more impressive overall opponent list than he had in the 1960s.

But one can't even make a comparison b/c both cases are different. Louis came back a much older and more shop-worn fighter, than Ali at 28 who also hadn't really been in any ring 'wars' besides (arguably) the Chuvalo fight.

THe big drop off even by watching Louis's fights with Walcott and the Louis that fought Charles and Marciano is very big. Louis's reflexes were pretty much shot to pieces.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 17 Apr 2007, 17:01

First all, I am in no way shape or form implying Louis was better than Ali after his 4yr inactivity for being in the Army. All I was saying was that Louis faced the same sort of problem, and he was still generally recognized as the champion, while Ali was considered "The People's Champion", and then lost to Joe Frazier.

No Walcott was no Frazier, but then again, depending on who you talk to, Walcott's finest and best performance was either against Joe Louis the first time or his first fight with Rocky Marciano. That was either a peak or close peak Walcott that Louis fought. So you have to give props to Walcott, for he was at his best.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 17 Apr 2007, 19:52

Yes Louis was ranked #1 for the year 1950. However, how big of a deal is that when you consider that Lee Savold was #2 and Joey Maxim was #3. You would have to look pretty far to find another year when the top 3 heavyweight rankings were that weak.

ya but look at the # 3, # 4, # 5

# 3 Jersey Joe Walcott
# 4 Clarence Henry
# 5 Rex Layne
and marciano, lastarza and baker were also rated in the top 10

so clearly the # 1 and # 2 contenders were really bad choices by the ring magaizine. maxim and savold should have been # 8 and # 9 rather than # 1 and # 2. if you look at the other guys rated in the top 10, louis being # 1 was very solid

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 17 Apr 2007, 20:02

HomicideHenry wrote:First all, I am in no way shape or form implying Louis was better than Ali after his 4yr inactivity for being in the Army. All I was saying was that Louis faced the same sort of problem, and he was still generally recognized as the champion, while Ali was considered "The People's Champion", and then lost to Joe Frazier.

I've only been here like a week and I already respect you as a poster, but I really feel you are using serious double standards against Ali here. A) Yes, Louis came back and was still recognized as the champion, while Ali came back and was not. But that's politics, that's not boxing. B) Ali came back and lost to Frazier, but, Louis came back and should have lost to Walcott. The difference is Ali didn't get the BS decision that Louis got... and Ali's performance wasn't as bad as Louis' against Joe. The difference is also that Louis got an immediate rematch with Walcott, while Ali had to wait three years for his rematch... in the end the results were the same, Ali and Louis won their rematches.

HomicideHenry wrote:No Walcott was no Frazier, but then again, depending on who you talk to, Walcott's finest and best performance was either against Joe Louis the first time or his first fight with Rocky Marciano. That was either a peak or close peak Walcott that Louis fought. So you have to give props to Walcott, for he was at his best.

Frazier's best performance was also against Ali in the first fight... same thing.

I also don't understand why we're still debating Louis rating. Everyone here knows Louis was still a top contender... and everyone knows Rocky Marciano was perfectly able to beat top contenders. The question in my mind is could Rocky have beaten someone who was a great 5-10 all time Heavyweight, and Louis was no longer on that level.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 17 Apr 2007, 22:05

And who would be a top 5 HW exactly? Louis and Ali are generally considered the top two men, but what of the others? Gene Tunney? Jack Dempsey? Who exactly fits the bill as a top 5 HW? In Joe Louis' mind the greatest was Jack Dempsey, in Dempsey's mind it was Jim Jefferies, and to Jefferies it was John L. Sullivan, and so forth.

It is my belief that ANY of the all-time great champions could have beaten eachother on any given night. Marciano would beat Joe Louis, Ali, Frazier, Dempsey, Jefferies, etc just as much as they could beat him. If they all fought eachother a 100 times, I am sure either man would pullout a 25-50, 50-50, 25-75 win-loss ratio among themselves.

I guess the real question is WHO would win the most times, and that in people's minds determines the 'greatest', and that's the problem. To me the greatest mover was Ali, the greatest swarmer was Marciano followed very closely by Jack Dempsey, and the greatest pure boxer was Joe Louis.

No I imagine a prime Joe Louis would probably beat Rocky Marciano, but at the same time a prime Joe Louis would be too willing I think to engage with Marciano---a fight I don't think Louis would win. Nobody survived when they came after Marciano, and with Joe Louis' less than HW chin, I do not know if he could take a prime Marciao's assault---the real trick would be for Rock to get inside, because if Joe Louis didn't want anyone to get close, they just weren't going to, the man would throw 20 lightning fast power shots in a matter of seconds. But Rocky was tough, possibly the toughest. SO its hard to really say.

All I do know is, Rocky when he fought Joe Louis, didn't want to hurt his idol, and said many times afterward to those close to him, "I could have knocked him out sooner, I just couldn't bring myself to do it."

And that was a #1 world ranked contender in former champion in Joe Louis that he was fighting---and really outside of Walcott, Charles and Marciano, I don't see any of the contenders at that time being able to have beaten Joe Louis, despite being not who he once was. And thats saying something, when you really think about it.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 17 Apr 2007, 23:17

No, it really doesn't say much that Marciano beat Louis. Louis was done. Stick a fork in him. He looked horrible against Charles and Marciano. His speed was gone, his reflexes were shot. A lot of fighters could have beaten the Joe Louis that Marciano beat.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 17 Apr 2007, 23:51

Name the men, outside of Charles, Marciano and Walcott, who were around when Joe Louis fought Rocky---who could have beaten him in the way the three I just mentioned did, or worse?

I can't see Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins, Cesar Brion and the other dead panned contenders taking Louis on like that, beating him with 'ease'.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Apr 2007, 00:09

HomicideHenry wrote:I guess the real question is WHO would win the most times, and that in people's minds determines the 'greatest', and that's the problem.

I of course agree with that, to me that almost goes without saying. Any one of them could beat the other on a given night, but I would say its a question of who would win in the most fights... which is something we can only speculate on.

As to who the top 10 greatest Heavyweights are I think that's an open question. I do think that most boxing fans would have around the same 10 names in most of their lists, generally, even if they would be rated in different orders.

Anyway, I think we're going in circles on this Marciano-Louis fight. Again, I agree that Louis was still a top contender, and that he was still capable of destroying many Heavyweights... I did not say otherwise... he abused Savold for example. If you ask me can Rocky Marciano beat #1 contenders then I will tell you yes all day. But, even if its a good win for Rocky, its neither one of the great achievement in boxing history nor does it have much bearing on how Rocky would do against other great Heavyweights in history, or even against Louis at his best. I agree with ambling when he says that a lot of Heavyweights could have beaten Louis at that point. I mean, when defending Ezzard Charles as a champion in the past I've freely said that Charles beat a Louis that was still capable of beating 99% of the Heavyweights in the world at the time. But I would never say that what Charles did was a great all time Heavyweight achievement or that other fighters couldn't have done it... and to me its clear that prime Louis would beat Charles. And I would say the same for Rocky, I think it was a good win for Rocky in that Louis was still a top Heavyweight, and I think in that sense its fallacious to compare it to fights like Holmes-Ali, but it is what it is, a win over a contender, not a win over a still great champion. Louis still gave Rocky a relatively competitive fight, and watching that fight I just wonder how Louis would have done throwing more punches with more speed and probably more power, with the reflexes of a younger fighter... I think it would be Marciano getting beat by better boxer with an equally great punch. And though I think Louis would win the fight on the outside, I also don't think that its beyond prime Louis to fight Marciano on the inside on occasion, so long as he knows what he has in front of him.

But that's just my opinion. I don't think I'm saying anything too outrageous here.

PS... am I the only one here who types out a post, presses submit, then for some reason has to log back in and loses the entire post? That's happened to me twice trying to post this... and happened to me a coulpe of times yesterday.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Apr 2007, 00:18

HomicideHenry wrote:Name the men, outside of Charles, Marciano and Walcott, who were around when Joe Louis fought Rocky---who could have beaten him in the way the three I just mentioned did, or worse?

I can't see Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins, Cesar Brion and the other dead panned contenders taking Louis on like that, beating him with 'ease'.

I think the disconnect here is that you're judging this by the standards of boxing in 1951 and we're judging this by the standards of overall Heavyweight history. In terms of that era it was a big win for Marciano, but in terms of overall Heavyweight history its just an okay win.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 18 Apr 2007, 00:21

I agree, Louis wasn't the Louis that was champion. There's no denying that, and even myself said, Louis would more than likely have the edge over Rocky had they met in their figurative primes---but all I said was a prime Joe Louis would have been far too willing, in my opinion, to engage with Marciano, and I think that would be his down fall.

Nobody could last brawling with Rocky, nobody could last taking the fight to Marciano. Not Joe Louis, I don't believe he could. Now, had they had a rematch? Joe Louis I believe would have won, considering he was all but death in rematches---but then again, so was Marciano. It's really a 50-50, in my opinion.

I say, we agree on all things being said, but we (me and Alp neways) agree to disagree on where Joe's place was in that time frame. No he wasn't THE Joe Louis who splattered Schmeling, but he, in my mind, would have had no problems with anyone else BUT Walcott, Charles and Marciano.

And....I think u mustn't of signed in right or summin, cus I've had that problem before in the past with being logged out and having to log back in. Perhaps click on the 'Remember Me' box so u can sign in always?

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 18 Apr 2007, 00:32

HomicideHenry wrote:
Name the men, outside of Charles, Marciano and Walcott, who were around when Joe Louis fought Rocky---who could have beaten him in the way the three I just mentioned did, or worse?

I can't see Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins, Cesar Brion and the other dead panned contenders taking Louis on like that, beating him with 'ease'.

I think the disconnect here is that you're judging this by the standards of boxing in 1951 and we're judging this by the standards of overall Heavyweight history. In terms of that era it was a big win for Marciano, but in terms of overall Heavyweight history its just an okay win.

This be true, I agree, but I cannot really over state the measure of Joe Louis. Everybody has made the story into Joe needing money, that he was this sad, pathetic, shell not even an echo of who he once was, and that Marciano absoloutely destroyed him with the simplest of ease.

This is far from the truth. This man before making his official comeback fought numerous contenders to the HW crown in exhibition bouts, knocking out quite a few of them, before even facing the Cesar Brion's, the Lee Savold's and Jimmy Bivins's of the world. This man was far from some helpless fighter that people portray him out to be.

The same Joe Louis, I'll go this far as to say, who fought Charles, who fought Rocky and all these other men, would have been "a" champion had he fought in the 80's when the Tubbs's, the Tate's and Coetzee's roamed the boxing scene. Maybe in this era of ours as well, iono.

That might be a stretch, but there's no damn doubt in my mind that Louis would have been a top contender in almost any other era, even as he was going against Rocky Marciano.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Apr 2007, 00:36

HomicideHenry wrote:
HomicideHenry wrote:
Name the men, outside of Charles, Marciano and Walcott, who were around when Joe Louis fought Rocky---who could have beaten him in the way the three I just mentioned did, or worse?

I can't see Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins, Cesar Brion and the other dead panned contenders taking Louis on like that, beating him with 'ease'.

I think the disconnect here is that you're judging this by the standards of boxing in 1951 and we're judging this by the standards of overall Heavyweight history. In terms of that era it was a big win for Marciano, but in terms of overall Heavyweight history its just an okay win.
This be true, I agree, but I cannot really over state the measure of Joe Louis. Everybody has made the story into Joe needing money, that he was this sad, pathetic, shell not even an echo of who he once was, and that Marciano absoloutely destroyed him with the simplest of ease.

This is far from the truth. This man before making his official comeback fought numerous contenders to the HW crown in exhibition bouts, knocking out quite a few of them, before even facing the Cesar Brion's, the Lee Savold's and Jimmy Bivins's of the world. This man was far from some helpless fighter that people portray him out to be.

The same Joe Louis, I'll go this far as to say, who fought Charles, who fought Rocky and all these other men, would have been "a" champion had he fought in the 80's when the Tubbs's, the Tate's and Coetzee's roamed the boxing scene. Maybe in this era of ours as well, iono.

That might be a stretch, but there's no damn doubt in my mind that Louis would have been a top contender in almost any other era, even as he was going against Rocky Marciano.

And I agree with that. As I said earlier, I think Louis was still a top contender, and I think it's fallacious to compare the fight to fights like Holmes-Ali. I'm not sure about Louis being champion today and in the 80's, though. It might be possible for him to win a paper title... I guess. Who knows.

As for signing in... that's what I found confusing, I pressed that button for it to remember me or whatever and it still kept logging me out and I would lose my posts and have to re-type them. Not sure what happened.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 18 Apr 2007, 00:48

Iono my opinion is different, I'll bring up a short list of men he fought while on his exhibition tour before and after he retired, which shows Louis was able to either hang in there with the best of the time and/or knock them out:

Elmer "Violent" Ray- 3 times they fought
Nino Valdes- 3 times they fought
Pat Valentino- knocks Valentino out in the 8th (video is on YouTube)
Rex Layne

That's some of the more well known men Louis faced and 'bested' in exhibition bouts, then throw in the 'official' bouts with Freddie Beshore, Cesar Brion, Jimmy Bivins, and the losses to Charles and Marciano, that's a damn hard record to try and talk down. And I'd say that Ray and Valdes would be contenders today, if not champions.

The full list of exhibitions can be found:

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jlouis.htm

and here is the Pat Valentino exhibition (Joe knocks him through the ropes and busts open his mouth):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3gEciMGusA

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 18 Apr 2007, 09:00

I Feel Fine wrote:
HomicideHenry wrote:Name the men, outside of Charles, Marciano and Walcott, who were around when Joe Louis fought Rocky---who could have beaten him in the way the three I just mentioned did, or worse?

I can't see Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins, Cesar Brion and the other dead panned contenders taking Louis on like that, beating him with 'ease'.
I think the disconnect here is that you're judging this by the standards of boxing in 1951 and we're judging this by the standards of overall Heavyweight history. In terms of that era it was a big win for Marciano, but in terms of overall Heavyweight history its just an okay win.

This is what I am trying to say. There wasn't much depth in the heavyweight division at the time. That only a few guys were better than Louis at this stage in his career speaks volumes about how weak the division was at the time.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 18 Apr 2007, 09:49

HomicideHenry wrote:And I do agree with what your saying to an extent, but in my opinion, had Ali not been off for three years and faced the Joe Frazier of the 60's, he would have lost, just as much as he did in 1971. Frazier was near or at his peak then, the Ali fight was just his defining moment.

Henry

Ali had the style for longevity and Frazier had a style for a short career. Ali would beat more great fighters from history than Frazier. BUT I agree that Frazier at his best would beat Ali. Joe had everything to cause Ali trouble, the stamina, the bob and weave, the durability, the psychology, the body punching and, most of all, the left hook.

There would always be little between them but the older Joe gets so the odds swing in Ali's favour.

Watching The FOTC in 2007 you could argue that the foight could have been stopped. I think it's the 11th when Ali takes tremendous punishment.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Apr 2007, 10:28

HomicideHenry wrote:
HomicideHenry wrote:
Name the men, outside of Charles, Marciano and Walcott, who were around when Joe Louis fought Rocky---who could have beaten him in the way the three I just mentioned did, or worse?

I can't see Lee Savold, Jimmy Bivins, Cesar Brion and the other dead panned contenders taking Louis on like that, beating him with 'ease'.

I think the disconnect here is that you're judging this by the standards of boxing in 1951 and we're judging this by the standards of overall Heavyweight history. In terms of that era it was a big win for Marciano, but in terms of overall Heavyweight history its just an okay win.
This be true, I agree, but I cannot really over state the measure of Joe Louis. Everybody has made the story into Joe needing money, that he was this sad, pathetic, shell not even an echo of who he once was, and that Marciano absoloutely destroyed him with the simplest of ease.

This is far from the truth. This man before making his official comeback fought numerous contenders to the HW crown in exhibition bouts, knocking out quite a few of them, before even facing the Cesar Brion's, the Lee Savold's and Jimmy Bivins's of the world. This man was far from some helpless fighter that people portray him out to be.

The same Joe Louis, I'll go this far as to say, who fought Charles, who fought Rocky and all these other men, would have been "a" champion had he fought in the 80's when the Tubbs's, the Tate's and Coetzee's roamed the boxing scene. Maybe in this era of ours as well, iono.

That might be a stretch, but there's no damn doubt in my mind that Louis would have been a top contender in almost any other era, even as he was going against Rocky Marciano.

No-one EVER survived brawling with Louis in his prime either . . Marciano had life and death struggles with guys in their mid-late 30s . . in a toe to toe brawl the younger man naturally has the advantages.

If Rocky faces a 1940 Joe Louis it's a tough fight but in the end I have no doubt Louis cuts him to ribbons. Way too fast, way too good of a counter-puncher, punch placement, power etc.

Louis was still an ok fighter but you have to remember in your mid-late 30s a fighter can age literally over several months. The Louis who fought Marciano was even a shade of the Louis who fought those post-1st retirement exhibitions. Just look at the difference between Louis vs Marciano and Louis vs Valentino. Big difference. Look at Holyfield vs Moorer II and then Holyfield-Bean/Lewis I.

And a good reason he was the number 1 contender was that he was Joe Louis. He hadn't even compliled a resume to back up his number 1 ranking. Just like how Tyson came back and was the number 1 contender after beating McNeeley and Mathis (and yes I know an old Savold and Bivins are better wins than that but my point remains)

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Apr 2007, 14:18

i think louis of valentino fight was the same as louis of the marciano fight.

Then he looked terrible against Walcott

no he didnt, he still was very dangerous in 1947. walcott just made him look terrible

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 18 Apr 2007, 14:22

i think louis aged dramatically from the walcott fights to the charles fight

dempseyfire joe louis knocked out nino valdez in 1 round right around the time he fought marciano.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 18 Apr 2007, 15:09

Ezzard wrote:
Henry

Ali had the style for longevity and Frazier had a style for a short career. Ali would beat more great fighters from history than Frazier. BUT I agree that Frazier at his best would beat Ali. Joe had everything to cause Ali trouble, the stamina, the bob and weave, the durability, the psychology, the body punching and, most of all, the left hook.

There would always be little between them but the older Joe gets so the odds swing in Ali's favour.

Watching The FOTC in 2007 you could argue that the foight could have been stopped. I think it's the 11th when Ali takes tremendous punishment.

I disagree on all counts, honestly. I don't believe prime Frazier beats prime Ali. I think they had both had gone down hill a bit in their 2nd and 3rd fights but they were still the best fighters of their division, with Foreman, and Frazier put on one of the best performances of his career in the 3rd fight. I also don't think too many refs would stop the first fight in the 11th either, and if they did there would be controversy... I think Ali and Frazier would deserve at least as much respect from a ref as Morales or Barrera would get in a big fight.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 May 2007, 21:01

Sorry guys for being gone for so long, had some family issues.

Anyways...big thanks to BoxBuzz that did the Bob Baker vs. Rocky Marciano simulation, which determined that Marciano would win by kayo in the 7th. I suppose the next fight in the career simulation for Rocky (50-0 and beyond, til when he would hypothetically 'lose'), would be a fight against the likes of Tommy Hurricane Jackson; since Marciano determined that the top three contenders were Archie Moore, Jackson and Patterson (Baker and Valdes was eliminated in r/l from a lackluster bout between the two in 1955).

I also chose Jackson because the first Jackson-Patterson fight was a controversial win for Patterson and the fact that Jackson had been a former sparring partner of Marciano's (lore goes Marciano hit Jackson so hard in the gut 'Hurricane' hit the floor and vomited).

Whether that is true or not is not certain, but personal prediction, I see Marciano winning by kayo in 13 rounds, had he fought Jackson---who was more or less at his peak at that time, while Marciano would hit 33 years of age, the limit most of the famous swarmers (Dempsey most notably) faded out against the best movers.

Marciano Frazier · Post by **Marciano Frazier** » 12 May 2007, 15:13

HomicideHenry wrote:Sorry guys for being gone for so long, had some family issues.

Anyways...big thanks to BoxBuzz that did the Bob Baker vs. Rocky Marciano simulation, which determined that Marciano would win by kayo in the 7th. I suppose the next fight in the career simulation for Rocky (50-0 and beyond, til when he would hypothetically 'lose'), would be a fight against the likes of Tommy Hurricane Jackson; since Marciano determined that the top three contenders were Archie Moore, Jackson and Patterson (Baker and Valdes was eliminated in r/l from a lackluster bout between the two in 1955).

[I also chose Jackson because the first Jackson-Patterson fight was a controversial win for Patterson and the fact that

Jackson had been a former sparring partner of Marciano's (lore goes Marciano hit Jackson so hard in the gut 'Hurricane' hit the floor and vomited).

Whether that is true or not is not certain,
It is featured in Everett M. Skehan's Marciano biography, and there were contemporary sportswriters who intended to slap down the idea of a Marciano-Jackson fight on this basis. In fact, Al Weill also tried to put Marciano in with Bob Baker in 1955, but the press reaction was so hostile(at this point, Moore had decisively beaten Baker, Valdes, Henry, and about a pile of other noteworthy heavyweights and had been vocally campaigning for a title shot for a long time, and the demand for said fight became overwhelming).

but personal prediction, I see Marciano winning by kayo in 13 rounds, had he fought Jackson---who was more or less at his peak at that time, while Marciano would hit 33 years of age, the limit most of the famous swarmers (Dempsey most notably) faded out against the best movers.

I wouldn't call Jackson a "mover." It is true Jackson held Patterson to a close decision in 1956, but this was a 21-year-old Patterson with very little experience at heavyweight. In his next fight after losing the split decision to Patterson, Jackson himself got a highly disputed split decision against Baker.
I like Marciano by KO within 10 rounds.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 14 May 2007, 17:23

Btw, I have yet to get ahold of a copy of Mr. Skehan's book on Rocky, I did look through libraries, but the nearest copy was in another state. Is there any reprint's of the book? Just curious as I want to purchase a copy of it.

Hopefully BoxBuzz will do the next simulation for me, Marciano-Jackson, seeing as Rocky just did the 50-0 in the last simulation (doing a career simulation, to see how long he could have gone before losing) against Bob Baker winning by KO in 7th [though I think the real result would have been a kayo in 9 or 10 rounds].

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 15 May 2007, 10:06

I Feel Fine wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
Henry

Ali had the style for longevity and Frazier had a style for a short career. Ali would beat more great fighters from history than Frazier. BUT I agree that Frazier at his best would beat Ali. Joe had everything to cause Ali trouble, the stamina, the bob and weave, the durability, the psychology, the body punching and, most of all, the left hook.

There would always be little between them but the older Joe gets so the odds swing in Ali's favour.

Watching The FOTC in 2007 you could argue that the foight could have been stopped. I think it's the 11th when Ali takes tremendous punishment.
I disagree on all counts, honestly. I don't believe prime Frazier beats prime Ali. I think they had both had gone down hill a bit in their 2nd and 3rd fights but they were still the best fighters of their division, with Foreman, and Frazier put on one of the best performances of his career in the 3rd fight. I also don't think too many refs would stop the first fight in the 11th either, and if they did there would be controversy... I think Ali and Frazier would deserve at least as much respect from a ref as Morales or Barrera would get in a big fight.

Frazier, due to his diabetes and fighting style, was always going to have a shorter career than a mover like Ali. They were both past it in the 2nd and 3rd fights but Frazier moreso (watch Manilla and then Frazier vs Quarry I, Ellis I, Mathis, Machen . . .he had become MUCH slower and his reflexes had eroded a bit . . .Ali as well but the difference isn't as dramatic).
And their rematch I would score a draw if anything Frazier deserved the nod, and their rubber match was life and death.

At their very best, a brutal fight but I see Frazier coming out on top.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 15 May 2007, 10:27

I Feel Fine wrote:
Ezzard wrote:
Henry

Ali had the style for longevity and Frazier had a style for a short career. Ali would beat more great fighters from history than Frazier. BUT I agree that Frazier at his best would beat Ali. Joe had everything to cause Ali trouble, the stamina, the bob and weave, the durability, the psychology, the body punching and, most of all, the left hook.

There would always be little between them but the older Joe gets so the odds swing in Ali's favour.

Watching The FOTC in 2007 you could argue that the foight could have been stopped. I think it's the 11th when Ali takes tremendous punishment.
I disagree on all counts, honestly. I don't believe prime Frazier beats prime Ali. I think they had both had gone down hill a bit in their 2nd and 3rd fights but they were still the best fighters of their division, with Foreman, and Frazier put on one of the best performances of his career in the 3rd fight. I also don't think too many refs would stop the first fight in the 11th either, and if they did there would be controversy... I think Ali and Frazier would deserve at least as much respect from a ref as Morales or Barrera would get in a big fight.

There's no doubt that everyone uses the 'prime' argument to defend their favourite fighters. It gets banded about way too much. BUT the first fight was a prime Frazier and an Ali who was still in the bracket of prime. He most certainly was not faded.

I think Frazier won the first more clearly than he is given credit for.

As for stopping the fight I said 'could' not 'would' and Ali was taking a lot more than Ron Lyle was when he got stopped.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 15 May 2007, 19:56

Rocky introduces Tommy to Suzie Q and it's a short date.

http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... highlight=