BoxRec

Rocky Marciano never fought any great fighters in their prime.

enjoysboxing wrote:Rocky Marciano never fought any great fighters in their prime.

He cleaned out his division. The Cincinatti Cobra was close to his prime. Some thought Walcott fought the best fight or one of the best fights of his life against Rocky.

Rocky M. was tremendous . Just would have liked to see him fight some fighters with knockout power in their prime.

ThatOne wrote:

enjoysboxing wrote:Rocky Marciano never fought any great fighters in their prime.

He cleaned out his division. The Cincinatti Cobra was close to his prime. Some thought Walcott fought the best fight or one of the best fights of his life against Rocky.

Agree about Walcott he peaked late , and he gave it EVERYTHING that night and still lost. Thats why in the rematch he was a beaten man b4 he stepped inda ring. The only guy he beat that was shot was Louis.
U see alot of these kids that post on here always think Rocky was too small and that he would never be able to beat xy and z cos thay would hav reach and w8 over him.. It's all BS!
Listen to me wen I tell u that Rocky was one of da greatest HWs of all time. H2H no mater wat! The guy was as strong as any1 else, his deffense was good and his stamina was unmatched. And he would NEVER giv up!
He also had an iron chin. A heart of a lion. And gr8 punching power.

gambler49 wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

enjoysboxing wrote:Rocky Marciano never fought any great fighters in their prime.

He cleaned out his division. The Cincinatti Cobra was close to his prime. Some thought Walcott fought the best fight or one of the best fights of his life against Rocky.

Agree about Walcott he peaked late , and he gave it EVERYTHING that night and still lost. Thats why in the rematch he was a beaten man b4 he stepped inda ring. The only guy he beat that was shot was Louis.
U see alot of these kids that post on here always think Rocky was too small and that he would never be able to beat xy and z cos thay would hav reach and w8 over him.. It's all BS!
Listen to me wen I tell u that Rocky was one of da greatest HWs of all time. H2H no mater wat! The guy was as strong as any1 else, his deffense was good and his stamina was unmatched. And he would NEVER giv up!
He also had an iron chin. A heart of a lion. And gr8 punching power.

I come out somewhere in the middle of the debate.

Pros

Cleaned out his division

Consistly beat bigger fighters

Great chin and stamina



Cons


Short title reign


Retired young


Reigned in an era where the talent wasn't at it's greatest.

gambler49 wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

enjoysboxing wrote:
Listen to me wen I tell u that Rocky was one of da greatest HWs of all time. H2H no mater wat! The guy was as strong as any1 else, his deffense was good and his stamina was unmatched. And he would NEVER giv up!
He also had an iron chin. A heart of a lion. And gr8 punching power.

Im a big fan but I think too many rose tinted glasses are worn when it comes to discussing Rockys career.

PROS
------
Good two handed power
Fitness and stamina
Work rate
Great chin
Will to win

CONS
------
Prone to cuts
Small
Fairly slow
Clumsy
Could be outboxed
Dirty fighter
Fought in poor era

The fact remains that the vast majority of Marcianos opponents were average at best. Too many poor journeymen or fighters at the end of their careers. Remember he was 42-0 before he fought for the title, you won't find too many names on his record upto that stage.

His punch power was good, overrated by many and not the one punch ko artist many think he was. His game was to wear you down and batter you into submission, which of course worked more often than not. However the fact remains the heavyweight division was quite poor after WW2, no way would Marciano have been so successful if he fought in the 1960s.

A top 5 heavyweight on his achievements however on match ups with other heavyweights I think he would have been defeated a good few times.

enjoysboxing wrote:Rocky Marciano never fought any great fighters in their prime.

Archie Moore was in his prime when he fought Rocky.

Walcott was in his prime - like Hopkins, he seemed to get stronger the more seasoned he became.

Ezzard Charles lost to Rocky and he is consistently ranked among the top 5 Light Heavyweights of all time!!!

Rocky beat ALL the top contenders before getting his title shot... (and that is unheard of these days)
He beat: BeShore, Savold, Layne and Matthews.
Oh and LaStarza.

enjoysboxing wrote:Just would have liked to see him fight some fighters with knockout power in their prime.

I suggest you research the 1950s Heavyweight boxing scene a little more throughly.

Crease wrote:

enjoysboxing wrote:Rocky Marciano never fought any great fighters in their prime.

Archie Moore was in his prime when he fought Rocky.

Walcott was in his prime - like Hopkins, he seemed to get stronger the more seasoned he became.

Ezzard Charles lost to Rocky and he is consistently ranked among the top 5 Light Heavyweights of all time!!!

Rocky beat ALL the top contenders before getting his title shot... (and that is unheard of these days)
He beat: BeShore, Savold, Layne and Matthews.
Oh and LaStarza.

Ezzard being a lwh moving up in weight must be factored in. And his decision in his first fight with LaStarza was hotly contested.

The Old Mongoose was 39 or 42 when Rocky beat him.

You compared Jersey Joe with BHop who fought well into his old age but age even affected him; Joe Calzaghe could never have beat a prime BHop, imho.

I neither underestimate or overestimate Rocky but he has to be looked at with the same critical eye that all the ATGS are looked at with.

Controversial wrote:

gambler49 wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

Im a big fan but I think too many rose tinted glasses are worn when it comes to discussing Rockys career.

PROS
------
Good two handed power
Fitness and stamina
Work rate
Great chin
Will to win

CONS
------
Prone to cuts
Small
Fairly slow
Clumsy
Could be outboxed
Dirty fighter
Fought in poor era

The fact remains that the vast majority of Marcianos opponents were average at best. Too many poor journeymen or fighters at the end of their careers. Remember he was 42-0 before he fought for the title, you won't find too many names on his record upto that stage.

His punch power was good, overrated by many and not the one punch ko artist many think he was. His game was to wear you down and batter you into submission, which of course worked more often than not. However the fact remains the heavyweight division was quite poor after WW2, no way would Marciano have been so successful if he fought in the 1960s.

A top 5 heavyweight on his achievements however on match ups with other heavyweights I think he would have been defeated a good few times.

Do yiou think he was intentionally dirty or just awkward?

Marciano admitted to being intentionally dirty.

Anyway, Walcott peaked late, but not that late. He was past his best when he fought Marciano, though found some great form.

enjoysboxing wrote:Rocky Marciano never fought any great fighters in their prime.

Was that his fault? Who would you have seen him fight?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Marciano admitted to being intentionally dirty.

When did he admit that? Can you attribute that statement?

Controversial wrote:

gambler49 wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

Im a big fan but I think too many rose tinted glasses are worn when it comes to discussing Rockys career.

PROS
------
Good two handed power
Fitness and stamina
Work rate
Great chin
Will to win

CONS
------
Prone to cuts
Small
Fairly slow
Clumsy
Could be outboxed
Dirty fighter
Fought in poor era

The fact remains that the vast majority of Marcianos opponents were average at best. Too many poor journeymen or fighters at the end of their careers. Remember he was 42-0 before he fought for the title, you won't find too many names on his record upto that stage.

His punch power was good, overrated by many and not the one punch ko artist many think he was. His game was to wear you down and batter you into submission, which of course worked more often than not. However the fact remains the heavyweight division was quite poor after WW2, no way would Marciano have been so successful if he fought in the 1960s.

A top 5 heavyweight on his achievements however on match ups with other heavyweights I think he would have been defeated a good few times.

Prone to cuts - I only remeber him being cut in 1 world title fight
Small - True
Fairly slow - True
Clumsy - False
Could be outboxed - But not for too many rounds thats for sure!
Dirty fighter - U say that like it's a bad thing!
Fought in poor era - False... It was a strong era.

Controversial wrote:

gambler49 wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

Im a big fan but I think too many rose tinted glasses are worn when it comes to discussing Rockys career.

PROS
------
Good two handed power
Fitness and stamina
Work rate
Great chin
Will to win

CONS
------
Prone to cuts
Small
Fairly slow
Clumsy
Could be outboxed
Dirty fighter
Fought in poor era

The fact remains that the vast majority of Marcianos opponents were average at best. Too many poor journeymen or fighters at the end of their careers. Remember he was 42-0 before he fought for the title, you won't find too many names on his record upto that stage.

His punch power was good, overrated by many and not the one punch ko artist many think he was. His game was to wear you down and batter you into submission, which of course worked more often than not. However the fact remains the heavyweight division was quite poor after WW2, no way would Marciano have been so successful if he fought in the 1960s.

A top 5 heavyweight on his achievements however on match ups with other heavyweights I think he would have been defeated a good few times.

Excellent post.

gambler49 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

gambler49 wrote:

Im a big fan but I think too many rose tinted glasses are worn when it comes to discussing Rockys career.

PROS
------
Good two handed power
Fitness and stamina
Work rate
Great chin
Will to win

CONS
------
Prone to cuts
Small
Fairly slow
Clumsy
Could be outboxed
Dirty fighter
Fought in poor era

The fact remains that the vast majority of Marcianos opponents were average at best. Too many poor journeymen or fighters at the end of their careers. Remember he was 42-0 before he fought for the title, you won't find too many names on his record upto that stage.

His punch power was good, overrated by many and not the one punch ko artist many think he was. His game was to wear you down and batter you into submission, which of course worked more often than not. However the fact remains the heavyweight division was quite poor after WW2, no way would Marciano have been so successful if he fought in the 1960s.

A top 5 heavyweight on his achievements however on match ups with other heavyweights I think he would have been defeated a good few times.

Prone to cuts - I only remeber him being cut in 1 world title fight
Small - True
Fairly slow - True
Clumsy - False
Could be outboxed - But not for too many rounds thats for sure!
Dirty fighter - U say that like it's a bad thing!
Fought in poor era - False... It was a strong era.

"Dirty fighter - U say that like it's a bad thing!"

It is.

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Marciano admitted to being intentionally dirty.

When did he admit that? Can you attribute that statement?

Well, it wasn't an outright admission. His response to being accused of that was, "This is Boxing, not Chess." I take that as a de facto concession of the point, though. What do you think?

Being dirty is only an issue when you get caught.

The difference between Marciano’s competition and that of other greats who get criticised is that Marciano fought everyone in his era who earned their shot. He didn’t miss a name. So the criticism is a bit unfair.

I wouldn’t have him in the top 5 but I think he fought everyone available to him. Like other swarmer types his peak was never going to be short.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Marciano admitted to being intentionally dirty.

When did he admit that? Can you attribute that statement?

Well, it wasn't an outright admission. His response to being accused of that was, "This is Boxing, not Chess." I take that as a de facto concession of the point, though. What do you think?

Sounds like a de facto concession of the point to me.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Marciano admitted to being intentionally dirty.

When did he admit that? Can you attribute that statement?

Well, it wasn't an outright admission. His response to being accused of that was, "This is Boxing, not Chess." I take that as a de facto concession of the point, though. What do you think?

No. 1 - That's not an attribution.

No. 2 - He's right. Boxing isn't chess. When you are fighting someone, occasionally low blows, rabbit punches, etc. are thrown. But that is not an admission of being "intentionally dirty." We don't have the context of that comment to be sure what Rocky's really meant.

Ezzard wrote:The difference between Marciano’s competition and that of other greats who get criticised is that Marciano fought everyone in his era who earned their shot. He didn’t miss a name. So the criticism is a bit unfair.

raylawpc wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

raylawpc wrote: When did he admit that? Can you attribute that statement?

Well, it wasn't an outright admission. His response to being accused of that was, "This is Boxing, not Chess." I take that as a de facto concession of the point, though. What do you think?

No. 1 - That's not an attribution.

No. 2 - He's right. Boxing isn't chess. When you are fighting someone, occasionally low blows, rabbit punches, etc. are thrown. But that is not an admission of being "intentionally dirty." We don't have the context of that comment to be sure what Rocky's really meant.

Suit yourself. I take it as an admission to playing dirty.

gambler49 wrote:
Prone to cuts - I only remeber him being cut in 1 world title fight
Small - True
Fairly slow - True
Clumsy - False
Could be outboxed - But not for too many rounds thats for sure!
Dirty fighter - U say that like it's a bad thing!
Fought in poor era - False... It was a strong era.

Walcott had him cut and he was close to being stopped on a cut against Charles. There are pictures of him against other fighters where he had puffy eyes.

Dirty fighting isn't a good thing for me, Marciano got away with murder, elbows, low blows, headbutts, forearm smashes, hitting after the bell, when fighters where on the floor etc...etc.. his fight against Cockell was atrocious and he didn't get one warning.

I don't agree that the 50's were a strong era in the heavyweights. Most of Marcianos opponents were poor just look at opponents 32, 33, 34, 35 and 40. All through Marcianos career he fought fighters on losing streaks or fighters that retired soon after.

40) Gino Buonvino was 24-14-8 (last ever fight)
35) Willis Applegate was 11-14-2 (lost 10 round decision to Marciano)
34) Art Henri was 13-15-1 (went 9 rounds with Marciano)
33) Harold Mitchell was 3-13-3
32) Keene Simmons was 8-8-1

Awful opposition for someone with 30+ fights.

Charles and Walcott were still decent fighters but Marciano got them at the right time.

Another excellent post from Controversial.

The Cockell fight made me a little sad for both men.

Marciano-Cockell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QWAbm_zAMY