BoxRec

this one is for all you historians out there we all know louis fought marciano when he was eons past his prime but how would it go prime for prime joe louis v rocky marciano and why ?

Louis would have stopped Marciano in a fight that would have had the crowd on their feet for most of the early round's by round 10 The Brown Bomber would have taken control of the fight and starts to bust the Rock up the ref steps in to stop the carnage widway through round 14

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:Louis would have stopped Marciano in a fight that would have had the crowd on their feet for most of the early round's by round 10 The Brown Bomber would have taken control of the fight and starts to bust the Rock up the ref steps in to stop the carnage widway through round 14

As long as Joe could withstand Rocky's roughshod, and flagrant rule breaking. I agree that Joe would win any fight that was officiated fairly.

Joe would like score an early KD. And inflict a lot of damage. But barring a cut I see Rocky getting back into the fight and from rounds 4-8 they battle it out fairly evenly. In the end I'd expect Joe's precision punching to win the day. But Marciano has a good chance.

I think Dempsey would have been more effective against a prime Louis, but I still can see Marciano getting the job done. Marciano, when hurt and busted open, fought all the more harder and aggressive. Louis by and large stayed at one tempo in fights. Marciano's work rate only increased as the rounds went on. So, if Rocky wasn't cut early and the fight stopped, I could see him wearing Louis over and either stopping Louis late or even winning a decision. I see something like the Marciano-Charles first fight in a scenario like this.

i don't know why this one keeps getting revived. the answer is joe louis.

jaclem3 wrote:i don't know why this one keeps getting revived. the answer is joe louis.

this is correct what this man said

Its the first time i'v seen this dream match on boxrec

Naw, even during his prime if you had sent Rocky Marciano back in time via time machine to say 1938.
Joe Louis said he didnt like to be crowded and Marciano would have crowded him like no other fighter he had ever faced.
The Rock would have came out and presurred-presurred Joe Louis,constanly coming forward
throwing punches like the blades of whirring Helicopter.
Bobbing and weaving in a broken rhythm.
Louis would have been discouraged just with that that he couldnt really get any clean shots to land on the Rock.
Marciano would hit Louis early and often,then his(Louis's) confidence would slowly start to crumble after each round,
all the while The Rock is still land ing with thunderously hard and brutal deep down pain to his stomach punches.
Then Rock start whacking around the body,the arms then really big haymakers to Louis face and jaw.
Louis starts to panic and opens himself wide to a "Suzy-Q" right on the point of the chin,
and Joe Louis hits the canvas like a sack of potatoes in the 11th round.

You it still would have been interesting what the 1967 Murray Woroner Radio Fantasy Computer Boxing tournament would have been,
if they had re-matched Rocky Marciano with Joe Louis in it.
However for the semi-finals it was James J. Jeffries vrs Rocky Marciano
and Jack Dempsey vrs Joe Louis,
the final was Jack Dempsey vrs Rocky Marciano,with Marciano the winner.
(curiously Dempsey was probably the only former Heavyweight champion
who didnt particpate in any of the discussion on the radio,tournament(who was in it)
Jack Sharkey,Jim J. Braddock,Jersey joe Walcott,even Jess Willard were talking in it giving opinions
perhaps that may have ben a factor of him only coming in second?)

Louis as a 37 year old man, shot and only fighting to pay back taxes still managed to bust up rocky a bit with his jab. The fighting machine that was Louis in 38 would have busted Rocky up good and proper. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Marciano fan but seriously hes a level below. He made 5 defences against older men and even had trouble finishing don cockell off. Louis made like 26 defences and it would have been prob 36-40 without the war Rocky was a great fighter no doubt but was lucky to be around when he was imo. Put him int he 60s and he has problems with Liston, Ali and Frazier. Same with pretty much any other decade. The 50s was weak for heavys. Thats why you had charles and walcott up there when in their late 30s. No new blood good enough.

Caractacus wrote:Naw, even during his prime if you had sent Rocky Marciano back in time via time machine to say 1938.
Joe Louis said he didnt like to be crowded and Marciano would have crowded him like no other fighter he had ever faced.
The Rock would have came out and presurred-presurred Joe Louis,constanly coming forward
throwing punches like the blades of whirring Helicopter.
Bobbing and weaving in a broken rhythm.
Louis would have been discouraged just with that that he couldnt really get any clean shots to land on the Rock.
Marciano would hit Louis early and often,then his(Louis's) confidence would slowly start to crumble after each round,
all the while The Rock is still land ing with thunderously hard and brutal deep down pain to his stomach punches.
Then Rock start whacking around the body,the arms then really big haymakers to Louis face and jaw.
Louis starts to panic and opens himself wide to a "Suzy-Q" right on the point of the chin,
and Joe Louis hits the canvas like a sack of potatoes in the 11th round.

yeah right,as if that was Joe Louis's only comeback fight after retiring as heavyweight champion.
He had about nine fights before he fought Marciano and won them all after his Charles loss.
Did you see Louis bust up Lee Savold? a legitmate contender.
and BTW 37 aint old.
and if WWII had never happened to disrupt everything ,the Rock would have still been the champ in 1951 IMOP.

Caractacus wrote:yeah right,as if that was Joe Louis's only comeback fight after retiring as heavyweight champion.
He had about nine fights before he fought Marciano and won them all after his Charles loss.
Did you see Louis bust up Lee Savold? a legitmate contender.
and BTW 37 aint old.
and if WWII had never happened to disrupt everything ,the Rock would have still been the champ in 1951 IMOP.

Savold was 36 and it was his second to last fight of a career littered with losses - 38. He was ok but not a yardstick to show how much Louis had left. Louis was a shell of his former self. Just check the film. It's not the years anyway it's the mileage. As I said before I like and rate Rocky but by any measure - he's a level below Louis. Rocky's record is like Louis's if he'd have won title and then retired in 1939 after beating John Henry Lewis. Forget about the 21 more defences, the 4 years forced lay off and then the 5 years after that when he fought Rocky. That's the difference between them.

Rocky is one of my favourite fighters ever, but Joe Louis was much better.

cfang wrote:

Caractacus wrote:yeah right,as if that was Joe Louis's only comeback fight after retiring as heavyweight champion.
He had about nine fights before he fought Marciano and won them all after his Charles loss.
Did you see Louis bust up Lee Savold? a legitmate contender.
and BTW 37 aint old.
and if WWII had never happened to disrupt everything ,the Rock would have still been the champ in 1951 IMOP.

Savold was 36 and it was his second to last fight of a career littered with losses - 38. He was ok but not a yardstick to show how much Louis had left. Louis was a shell of his former self. Just check the film. It's not the years anyway it's the mileage. As I said before I like and rate Rocky but by any measure - he's a level below Louis. Rocky's record is like Louis's if he'd have won title and then retired in 1939 after beating John Henry Lewis. Forget about the 21 more defences, the 4 years forced lay off and then the 5 years after that when he fought Rocky. That's the difference between them.

Rocky is one of my favourite fighters ever, but Joe Louis was much better.

Idk about better... the level of competition was virtually the same, and in truth I would argue that Marciano beating the likes of Charles twice and Walcott twice, meant more than Louis beating Baer and Carnera and Sharkey and (dare I say) Schemling because those guys were more skilled and more in their prime (imho) than the men Louis beat who were ex-champions. I mean think about it.... lhw turn hw Braddock? mw turn lhw turn hw Conn?... I cant see those men being more in worth than Archie Moore or even the faded version of Joe Louis.

And let's be honest here.... do you see ANY of the men that Louis beat in his career, beating Marciano? I know some will say "Tommy Farr", but lets get real here. Let's be honest here. There wasnt a man Louis beat, that Marciano couldnt also beat. The closest style-wise that Louis fought to Marciano was Arturo Gudoy and in that first fight it was a split decision win for Louis... the irony is that Marciano, in his early years, was a sparring partner for Gudoy.

The way I figure it, also, is if the Ali of 1969 said that Marciano was hard to hit with a jab (even at 45 years old), and Louis said Marciano was difficult to hit (as most of his punches landed on top of Marciano's head), then even against the prime Louis I see Marciano giving him all sorts of hell. Louis seldom ever had to go long distances, and usually when he did it was against tacticians. Louis didnt have the best of chins. He didn't like to be crowded. Fact of business, I can't see Louis throwing at Marciano anything Marciano couldn't handle... After all, Walcott and Charles both were superior boxers than Louis (skillwise) and were more difficult to hit. Louis just kind of plodded and stood there. From the waist up, yes, he was probably the greatest heavyweight to have ever lived---- but the only men who wents rounds with Marciano were world class movers.

I don't see it looking pretty for either men, but I see Louis catching more and more as time went on and Marciano getting more active and desparate and ferocious. That's why I see something of a late stoppage (passed the 12th round) or Marciano winning a decision. Louis's saving grace would be to bust Marciano wide open and get a stoppage... but then again, every man who almost did that, got stopped in the next round or two by The Rock.

Always respect your views Henry. A past it Louis after 4 years out koed Walcot 4 years before Rocky did. Walcott was 38 when Rocky beat him. Louis was a fraction of the fighter after the war lay off - just like Ali really. I do think the heavys Louis beat were better too. there were certainly a lot more of them. Charles in my view was past his prime when he fought Rocky and Walcott too.

HomicideHenry wrote:

cfang wrote:

Caractacus wrote:yeah right,as if that was Joe Louis's only comeback fight after retiring as heavyweight champion.
He had about nine fights before he fought Marciano and won them all after his Charles loss.
Did you see Louis bust up Lee Savold? a legitmate contender.
and BTW 37 aint old.
and if WWII had never happened to disrupt everything ,the Rock would have still been the champ in 1951 IMOP.

Savold was 36 and it was his second to last fight of a career littered with losses - 38. He was ok but not a yardstick to show how much Louis had left. Louis was a shell of his former self. Just check the film. It's not the years anyway it's the mileage. As I said before I like and rate Rocky but by any measure - he's a level below Louis. Rocky's record is like Louis's if he'd have won title and then retired in 1939 after beating John Henry Lewis. Forget about the 21 more defences, the 4 years forced lay off and then the 5 years after that when he fought Rocky. That's the difference between them.

Rocky is one of my favourite fighters ever, but Joe Louis was much better.

Idk about better... the level of competition was virtually the same, and in truth I would argue that Marciano beating the likes of Charles twice and Walcott twice, meant more than Louis beating Baer and Carnera and Sharkey and (dare I say) Schemling because those guys were more skilled and more in their prime (imho) than the men Louis beat who were ex-champions. I mean think about it.... lhw turn hw Braddock? mw turn lhw turn hw Conn?... I cant see those men being more in worth than Archie Moore or even the faded version of Joe Louis.

And let's be honest here.... do you see ANY of the men that Louis beat in his career, beating Marciano? I know some will say "Tommy Farr", but lets get real here. Let's be honest here. There wasnt a man Louis beat, that Marciano couldnt also beat. The closest style-wise that Louis fought to Marciano was Arturo Gudoy and in that first fight it was a split decision win for Louis... the irony is that Marciano, in his early years, was a sparring partner for Gudoy.

The way I figure it, also, is if the Ali of 1969 said that Marciano was hard to hit with a jab (even at 45 years old), and Louis said Marciano was difficult to hit (as most of his punches landed on top of Marciano's head), then even against the prime Louis I see Marciano giving him all sorts of hell. Louis seldom ever had to go long distances, and usually when he did it was against tacticians. Louis didnt have the best of chins. He didn't like to be crowded. Fact of business, I can't see Louis throwing at Marciano anything Marciano couldn't handle... After all, Walcott and Charles both were superior boxers than Louis (skillwise) and were more difficult to hit. Louis just kind of plodded and stood there. From the waist up, yes, he was probably the greatest heavyweight to have ever lived---- but the only men who wents rounds with Marciano were world class movers.

I don't see it looking pretty for either men, but I see Louis catching more and more as time went on and Marciano getting more active and desparate and ferocious. That's why I see something of a late stoppage (passed the 12th round) or Marciano winning a decision. Louis's saving grace would be to bust Marciano wide open and get a stoppage... but then again, every man who almost did that, got stopped in the next round or two by The Rock.

cfang wrote:Always respect your views Henry. A past it Louis after 4 years out koed Walcot 4 years before Rocky did. Walcott was 38 when Rocky beat him. Louis was a fraction of the fighter after the war lay off - just like Ali really. I do think the heavys Louis beat were better too. there were certainly a lot more of them. Charles in my view was past his prime when he fought Rocky and Walcott too.

Louis was given a gift decision over Walcott the first time... Which was (at the time) considered remarkable, as Louis was thought to be invincible and up until that point Walcott was thought to be nothing more than a fringe contender/journeyman... In the rematch, it was more of the same with Walcott winning every round (until Louis landed the proverbial lucky punch). Louis, then retired from the ring. He knew he was lucky.

Only bankruptcy, and him managing to kayo Pat Valentino in an exhibition bout, convinced him to come back for keeps. The result? A not so shabby comeback, even though he lost every round to new champion Ezzard Charles and of course lost to Marciano by kayo. What alot of people fail to remember is that Louis WAS the number one contender to Walcott. He just wanted the extra money and Rocky was the only guy out there who could command a great purse. It was a calculated mistake.

Walcott, imho, like Lennox Lewis and Vladimir Klitschko only got better in age. When he fought Marciano, he looked brilliant. Almost flawless. The perfect fight. Until Marciano caught him in the 13th round. He looked far and away better than the Walcott who fought Louis, the night he fought Marciano. Problem is, when you look at the data.... virtually everybody who fought Marciano, was never the same again. It was like Walcott aged ten years overnight. The rematch, he looked like a grandpa.

Ezzard Charles, I have shown many times on this forum, was not shot. People have this perception that he was when he fought Rocky, and its not true. Look at the records, look at the films. Prior to Marciano, Charles had ten losses.... one early on in his career, two were to Bivins and Marshall, one to Elmer Ray (a man many thought Louis avoided) and he lost twice to Walcott and once to Rex Layne. HOWEVER.... that doesnt tell the story.... cus after losing to Walcott and Layne, he went 11-2-0 avenging his loss to Layne, defeated Bivins, and Cesar Brion. He dropped decisions to Valdes and Johnson, but he also kayoed Satterfield.

His back to back matches with Marciano were brutal and beautifully magnificent in its workrate, tempo.... It is probably the single greatest "boxer vs brawler" match that I have ever seen on film... Following Marciano? Charles' record went bad BIG TIME... He managed 10 wins and 13 losses. Look at every opponent Marciano fought, and more times than not they were never the same again.

I guess the point is... if Walcott and Charles were "old and washed up" when Marciano fought them.... then the same criticism must be used against Louis, as one could say Walcott was a "nobody" when Louis fought him... He was, after all, just a garbage man who often times was fighting hurt and was avoided by alot of people, and seldom got the fights he needed... Sort of like James Braddock... One could argue virtually every fighter of worth was too old, or too small, when Louis fought them. The point, more or less is... Louis and Marciano are virtually equal in worth when it came to opponents.

Think about it....

Primo Carnera? An old, washed up, alcoholic.
Max Baer? An old, washed up, one-armed fighter.
Jack Sharkey? An even older, washed up, fighter who hadn't boxed in years.
Max Schmeling? An old, washed up, fighter who exposed Louis--- only to be annihilated in the rematch.
John Henry Lewis? An old, washed up, former LHW with one eye.
Billy Conn? An in his prime fighter with all-time great skills, but in reality was 165 pounds who was kicking Louis's ass in the first match, only to be kayoed in the rematch (one of the worst fights ever) because he was now a shellshocked, inactive, 165 pounder.

Walcott and Charles, in my view, were closer to their primes than the men Louis fought. And they were physically bigger than Marciano, and were superior boxers. I'd say each is worth three of the men I listed. So therefore, Marciano is equal to Louis in terms of opponents. I'd argue that Archie Moore was more legit than most of the men that Louis defended the title against. Not taking anything away from Louis, I'm not, but to say he was better because he fought better quality of men... not so.

You know,One usually hears from the dissers about Marciano just fighting "Old Men"
but which future Hall of famers excatly did Joe Louis (in his prime)defend the title against from
about 1937 to 1941?
Billy Conn? and who else?

Max Schmeling and John Henry Lewis.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Max Schmeling and John Henry Lewis.

And both were old or had something wrong with them physically or were originally light heavyweights.

HomicideHenry wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Max Schmeling and John Henry Lewis.

And both were old or had something wrong with them physically or were originally light heavyweights.

Yes and there were 5 heavy champs prior to Louis. Louis beat all of them by KO and they were all younger than Charles and Walcott were. Louis also didnt need months of intense monk like training to wear down title opponents, he ripped through them - 26 of them. We can go on all day i guess lol.

yeah,and how old were all of those former heavyweight champions when Louis fought them?
also
So how come Joe Louis's managers and promoter avoided fighters like
LeRoy Haynes,Tiger Jack Fox,Eddie Blunt and Ray"Violent"ray?
answer that one .

cfang wrote:

HomicideHenry wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Max Schmeling and John Henry Lewis.

And both were old or had something wrong with them physically or were originally light heavyweights.

Yes and there were 5 heavy champs prior to Louis. Louis beat all of them by KO and they were all younger than Charles and Walcott were. Louis also didnt need months of intense monk like training to wear down title opponents, he ripped through them - 26 of them. We can go on all day i guess lol.

Yeah.... and Carnera was a full blown alcoholic who had his kidney removed.... Baer was passed it, and was fighting one armed because he had novacaine numb his entire right arm making it useless.... Sharkey hadnt fought in years... Etc etc etc... And why would Louis need months and months, when 99% of his title opponents were garbage?.... Marciano at least had excuses for hard training camps, because everybody he fought was bigger than he was.

Sort of like what discussed on another thread. You can say some of these things about Louis. If you do, you have to do the same with Marciano.

Walcott and Moore were a lot older than when they fought Marciano than Schmeling was when he fought Louis.
Yes Schmeling started his career out as a light heavy. So what? He had been a heavyweight for a long time when Louis fought him.
Jersey Joe Walcott once weighed 158 pounds for a fight early in his career.

Macriano won dubious decisons over Ted Lowry who was a stiff.
He won a dubious decision over La Starza.

We can do this with anyone.
We have to be as fair as we can be and look at the whole picture.

ClivePatrickLyons wrote:Louis would have stopped Marciano in a fight that would have had the crowd on their feet for most of the early round's by round 10 The Brown Bomber would have taken control of the fight and starts to bust the Rock up the ref steps in to stop the carnage widway through round 14

Check this fight out.
This was Joe Louis's 9th title defense(February 1940)
Now just imagine if this particular boxer(who had a somewhat similar boxing style) had actually been Rocky Marciano
for comparative purposes.

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