BoxRec

Anyone dare to say otherwise. The 'Rock' was a famidable force that could adapt to any boxer's style. Patterson would have proved no problem, Liston maybe would have given a good few rounds but the 'Rock' could take anything thrown at him like no boxer before or after. Ali in his youth was open to taking a punch as fellow 'brit' Henry Cooper proved, but Marciano didn't cut (unlike Cooper) and would not have let off the power in the later rounds. Frazier, now that would have wet the appetite. Frazier like Marciano a smaller boxer, relied on his bobbin' and weavin' to get on the inside to open a boxer up, excellently show in Ali v Frazier I and III, even though the later was a loss did not harm Frazier's legacy. It would have been close, probably a points victory. Foreman was a power-house but I think Marciano could have absorbed the punishment long enough (unlike Frazier) to pull off a (Rope-a-dope) K.O as Ali did. Brutal in the ring, a gentleman out of it. Anybody worth mentioning, of course Tyson but lets open the doors of converstion, anybody anything to say???

He's in the top ten but by no stretch pf the imagination was Rocky the 'greatest' ever heavyweight champion. He was limited skills wise, cut easily, fought in a era of scarce talent and had only a brief 3 year reign with just 6 defences. Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill...

He's in the top ten but by no stretch pf the imagination was Rocky the 'greatest' ever heavyweight champion. He was limited skills wise, cut easily, fought in a era of scarce talent and had only a brief 3 year reign with just 6 defences. Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill...

Ditto. Marciano rope a dope Foreman? Worst possible match up for Marciano in history. The Rock would be lucky to make it to the second round and with his face intact.

theone wrote:

He's in the top ten but by no stretch pf the imagination was Rocky the 'greatest' ever heavyweight champion. He was limited skills wise, cut easily, fought in a era of scarce talent and had only a brief 3 year reign with just 6 defences. Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill...

Ditto. Marciano rope a dope Foreman? Worst possible match up for Marciano in history. The Rock would be lucky to make it to the second round and with his face intact.

Yep.

silkov wrote:He's in the top ten but by no stretch pf the imagination was Rocky the 'greatest' ever heavyweight champion. He was limited skills wise, cut easily, fought in a era of scarce talent and had only a brief 3 year reign with just 6 defences. Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill...

i think the biggest myth about marciano is CUTS. yes he did cut, he was not as bad a cutter as henry cooper or quarry


- the charles cut was an elbow and marciano would have won a technicial decision if that fight were held today


- also i might add they used smaller gloves back then so it was easier to cut

Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill

- marciano cleaned out the division and ducked no one or did not leave any challenger that deserved a shot at the title hanging.

- holmes left a couple guys hanging that deserved shots over some of those journeyman that got them instead.

- marciano may have defended the title only 6 times, but he defended his title vs all # 1 or 2 contenders and never took on journeyman like holmes did

- out of holmes 20 title defenses, how many actually deserved a shot?? maybe 8???


- marciano gave rematches on close fights or controversial fights unlike holmes who never gave spoon, norton, or williams rematches.

- marciano was a swarmer who fought in wars. if u were educated like i think u were, u would realize marciano type swarmer fighters DO NOT last as long as others, because they put more energy and strain into everything they do.

look at frazier, had only 36 fights and retired at 32 years of age. classic example.


guys like dempsey ,marciano, frazier they never last long. u cant expect them to have a long title reign because they age faster.

marciano was 33 when he retired and his camp noticed signs of aging before he retired. marciano said it himself "i prob would have had maybe 2 or 3 good fights left."

Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill

then tell me how rocky was able to go undefeated against big men and top prospects in his first 15-20 fights WITHOUT any training from goldman or al weill.



why did weill throw him in there vs the hottest propect, top contender 34-1 rex layne who was considered the future of the division?? why would weill send him in there vs a guy like that who had beaten bob satterfield and jersey joe walcott?


- why would weill have marciano fight all # 1 or 2 contenders in his title defenses??

- why would weill send marciano in there vs guys that were all wrong for his style like speedy great boxers like charles, moore, walcott, lastarza???



surely if he wanted rocky to have easier title defenses, he would have put him in there vs the slower bigger targeted men who rocky could batter into sumbission.









without don king would holmes have had that many title defenses??? holmes really only has 9 or 10 true defenses as the other guys did not deserve title shots



rocky could have easily padded his title reign with softer defenses or fought easier men for his style like baker, walls, heinz nuahas, joe baski, valdes.

- rocky even fought archie moore who himself had totally cleaned up all the top contenders in heavyweight division

fought in a era of scarce talent

ur talking besides ezzard charles, jersey joe walcott, archie moore, harold johnson right??









but why are u so sure it was scarce talent?? did u ever study in depth about the contenders?? fact is, the historians did not bother to study the 50s in depth so they dismiss some guys with poorer records as weak





one of the reasons was boxing wasnt followed by closely as in 20s, where it was hugely popular and historians loved to praise that time. but in rockys era the contenders were hardly looked at .Marciano's era is just recent enough that boxing historians don't spend hours and hours paging through magazines and newspapers from the time and learning about the various contenders of the era, but just long enough ago that there aren't many fans who were actually around at the time and who actually followed the era. This way, it's in a pocket so that everyone assumes that the top fighters of the time, Marciano, Charles, Walcott, and Moore(there were many other major fighters but these are just the marquis names) were only on top because there were no good contenders, which just isn't true. Charles, Walcott, and Moore were all older than Marciano, so that it's looked at as if there were no good contenders and the only good champions were all old and small and therefore Maricano never beat anyone. This is just a huge misconception that comes from the fact that there is almost no one currently alive who is very knowledgeable about this particular era.

The historians are all studying the 1920's and 30's or earlier, and the fans are mainly from the generation that grew up with the Alis, Fraziers and Foremans or sooner, so that the '70s contenders and '20s contenders as well at that are highly regarded by their followers and those are thought of as strong eras, but the contenders who came from the '50s are just names on Marciano's record as far as just about anyone is concerned. I think people do tend to look at the 20's in a more favorable light than other eras. This is not to say I'm some completely objective sage, there tend to be double-standards that I think come just from perspective on the era and not necessarily blind hate at all. If a contender from the 20's has a mediocre record, then the opinion is that the guy only had a mediocre record because he fought such good opposition, but if a contender from the 50's has a mediocre record, then clearly he was a bum and was only a contender because the era was so weak.
See what I'm saying? The way it's looked at is completely different and leads to double standards

see everyone, now that is a real marciano "nuthugger" who doesnt face with reality. he actually makes a couple good points, but his follow up reasons are not good.

- foreman would knock out rocky IMO but it is not based on the foreman-frazier fight that clueless boxing fans use as there reason.


rocky was defintley not the best

silkov when u reply, please dont take what im saying about holmes the wrong way. im simply explaining to u all great champions like ur favorite have flaws in there careers.


but i agree with u rocky was defintley in the top 10, where u put him from there doesnt matter but u cant make a case for putting him higher than 3.


i rate marciano 4th all time heavyweight, and 6th on a head to head list.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:He's in the top ten but by no stretch pf the imagination was Rocky the 'greatest' ever heavyweight champion. He was limited skills wise, cut easily, fought in a era of scarce talent and had only a brief 3 year reign with just 6 defences. Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill...

i think the biggest myth about marciano is CUTS. yes he did cut, he was not as bad a cutter as henry cooper or quarry


- the charles cut was an elbow and marciano would have won a technicial decision if that fight were held today


- also i might add they used smaller gloves back then so it was easier to cut

Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill

- marciano cleaned out the division and ducked no one or did not leave any challenger that deserved a shot at the title hanging.

- holmes left a couple guys hanging that deserved shots over some of those journeyman that got them instead.

- marciano may have defended the title only 6 times, but he defended his title vs all # 1 or 2 contenders and never took on journeyman like holmes did

- out of holmes 20 title defenses, how many actually deserved a shot?? maybe 8???


- marciano gave rematches on close fights or controversial fights unlike holmes who never gave spoon, norton, or williams rematches.

- marciano was a swarmer who fought in wars. if u were educated like i think u were, u would realize marciano type swarmer fighters DO NOT last as long as others, because they put more energy and strain into everything they do.

look at frazier, had only 36 fights and retired at 32 years of age. classic example.


guys like dempsey ,marciano, frazier they never last long. u cant expect them to have a long title reign because they age faster.

marciano was 33 when he retired and his camp noticed signs of aging before he retired. marciano said it himself "i prob would have had maybe 2 or 3 good fights left."

Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill

then tell me how rocky was able to go undefeated against big men and top prospects in his first 15-20 fights WITHOUT any training from goldman or al weill.



why did weill throw him in there vs the hottest propect, top contender 34-1 rex layne who was considered the future of the division?? why would weill send him in there vs a guy like that who had beaten bob satterfield and jersey joe walcott?


- why would weill have marciano fight all # 1 or 2 contenders in his title defenses??

- why would weill send marciano in there vs guys that were all wrong for his style like speedy great boxers like charles, moore, walcott, lastarza???



surely if he wanted rocky to have easier title defenses, he would have put him in there vs the slower bigger targeted men who rocky could batter into sumbission.









without don king would holmes have had that many title defenses??? holmes really only has 9 or 10 true defenses as the other guys did not deserve title shots



rocky could have easily padded his title reign with softer defenses or fought easier men for his style like baker, walls, heinz nuahas, joe baski, valdes.

- rocky even fought archie moore who himself had totally cleaned up all the top contenders in heavyweight division

Oh come on Brock, this is a thread saying Rocky is the 'greatest' I am simply saying he wasn't and he wasn't!. The biggest myth really is Marcianos invincibility, he could be dropped, hurt, cut up.... he was hardly invincible!. Name me a fight where he wasn't cut?.... even old Joe Louis cut him up bad and if his fights had taken place in 60s or after its likely he would have lost to Charles in both their fights on cuts.... especially in their second fight. Fighting Valdez certainly wouldn;t have padded Rockys reign, Nino was a very dangerous fighter whom Weill wouldn't let near Rocky.

'Rocket'Rigby wrote:the 'Rock' could take anything idn't cut (unlike Cooper)

He did, rocky was cut several times in his career quite severly in the second Carles fight

All I can say is thank god for the never ending vigilance and infinite patience of our "truth squad" How many times will you guys be willing to bring good information to the concious of those who tread anew to our little boxing corner of the earth?

Salute to you all.....and to your credit your education becomes more succint and full of remarkable subtle nuance with each review.

I do want to say that it is the "truth" as each of you see it. But your articulations continue to evolve!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:He's in the top ten but by no stretch pf the imagination was Rocky the 'greatest' ever heavyweight champion. He was limited skills wise, cut easily, fought in a era of scarce talent and had only a brief 3 year reign with just 6 defences. Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill...

i think the biggest myth about marciano is CUTS. yes he did cut, he was not as bad a cutter as henry cooper or quarry


- the charles cut was an elbow and marciano would have won a technicial decision if that fight were held today

Damnit!!! Marciano had his nose split by a left hook, not an elbow!!! Watch the tape again.

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:He's in the top ten but by no stretch pf the imagination was Rocky the 'greatest' ever heavyweight champion. He was limited skills wise, cut easily, fought in a era of scarce talent and had only a brief 3 year reign with just 6 defences. Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill...

i think the biggest myth about marciano is CUTS. yes he did cut, he was not as bad a cutter as henry cooper or quarry


- the charles cut was an elbow and marciano would have won a technicial decision if that fight were held today

Damnit!!! Marciano had his nose split by a left hook, not an elbow!!! Watch the tape again.

hmmmmmm, this is very interesting. I always thought it was a punch...

So, if it WASN'T an elbow where does that leave Brocky's credentials as he bases his views of Marciano on what he has SEEN.

So who else thinks it was an elbow????

Fighting Valdez certainly wouldn;t have padded Rockys reign, Nino was a very dangerous fighter whom Weill wouldn't let near Rocky

part of that statement is wrong



rocky was scheduled to fight nino valdez. al well planned for rocky to meet cockell first, then nino valdes. then valdez decided to take a fight with moore and then suddenly that fight became dubbed "eliminator ".


valdes had his shot vs marciano but lost to moore. valdes blew his shot, and trust me if valdes won he would have got it but he didnt.



valdes wasnt a big attraction nor was the public craving a marciano-valdes bout, and valdes certainly had too spotty record to get a shot.


some say "yeah the moore fight was in 55, but valdes should have got it in 53."



valdes lost 4 times in 53! fact is, valdes was losing regulary to much and the same with bob baker or earl walls.



was weill worried about valdes??? of course just like he was worried about some other challengers rocky fought. but the fight was going to happen, but archie moore spoiled the plans by outclassing nino over 15 rounds.



valdes lost to guys like bob satterfield, bob baker, billy gilliam. what makes him better than the rest of the crop?




also, valdes would have been one of rockys easiest defenses. a big targeted slower slugger was made for marciano and nino would not have lasted long.

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:He's in the top ten but by no stretch pf the imagination was Rocky the 'greatest' ever heavyweight champion. He was limited skills wise, cut easily, fought in a era of scarce talent and had only a brief 3 year reign with just 6 defences. Much of Marcinaos success must be attributed to the management skills of Al Weill...

i think the biggest myth about marciano is CUTS. yes he did cut, he was not as bad a cutter as henry cooper or quarry


- the charles cut was an elbow and marciano would have won a technicial decision if that fight were held today

Damnit!!! Marciano had his nose split by a left hook, not an elbow!!! Watch the tape again.

that is another myth about marciano



"charles was lower than myself, we turned around to pull away and it was the elbow that did it." - rocky marciano in the "rock of his times"


i think marciano should know what charles hit him with

Had Marciano fought into 56, I think the best matchup would have been against Eddie Machen. Don't think anyone was pushing for him to get a title shot though.

Oh come on Brock, this is a thread saying Rocky is the 'greatest' I am simply saying he wasn't and he wasn't!. The biggest myth really is Marcianos invincibility, he could be dropped, hurt, cut up.... he was hardly invincible!. Name me a fight where he wasn't cut?.... even old Joe Louis cut him up bad and if his fights had taken place in 60s or after its likely he would have lost to Charles in both their fights on cuts.... especially in their second fight

ur right he was definetley not the greatest. and he wasnt invincible either, who ever said that?



if the 2nd charls fight were held by todays rules, marciano would have won a technical decision due to an accidental elbow.

Seamus wrote:Had Marciano fought into 56, I think the best matchup would have been against Eddie Machen. Don't think anyone was pushing for him to get a title shot though.

well in 57, not 56. eddie machen was still a little green and the match wouldnt have gone off until about 57. machen didnt even burst into the contender scene until he beat a washed up nino valdes in late 56.


the best bet would have been floyd patterson or archie moore rematch. but cus d amato in 56 said "floyd is a year away", so that match wouldnt even have gone off until prob 57. its been said by some patterson freinds that the portective Cus wanted to either way till rocky slowed down or till he retired and by no means was he going to send him in there vs a live marciano. but, i am not sure if the pattersons freinds comment was legit true.



moore was considered by the press, heads and shoulders above the other contenders and defintley the one to be the next heavy champion when rock retires.




so it seems the best bet was tommy jackson, floyd patterson, or even a bob baker in 1956. machen would have happened in 57

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

evndrbsn wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
i think the biggest myth about marciano is CUTS. yes he did cut, he was not as bad a cutter as henry cooper or quarry


- the charles cut was an elbow and marciano would have won a technicial decision if that fight were held today

Damnit!!! Marciano had his nose split by a left hook, not an elbow!!! Watch the tape again.

that is another myth about marciano



"charles was lower than myself, we turned around to pull away and it was the elbow that did it." - rocky marciano in the "rock of his times"


i think marciano should know what charles hit him with

It was a punch! It clearly shows it in the fight. If Marciano said what you say he said, then he contradicted himself in the commentary for the fight. Regardless of whether he said it was an elbow or not, it doesn't matter. Replays clearly show a half left hook/half left uppercut clipping Marciano on the nose. Immediately afterwards, Marciano started pawing at his nose.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Oh come on Brock, this is a thread saying Rocky is the 'greatest' I am simply saying he wasn't and he wasn't!. The biggest myth really is Marcianos invincibility, he could be dropped, hurt, cut up.... he was hardly invincible!. Name me a fight where he wasn't cut?.... even old Joe Louis cut him up bad and if his fights had taken place in 60s or after its likely he would have lost to Charles in both their fights on cuts.... especially in their second fight

ur right he was definetley not the greatest. and he wasnt invincible either, who ever said that?



if the 2nd charls fight were held by todays rules, marciano would have won a technical decision due to an accidental elbow.

Not true. The referee ruled the nose was split via a punch, so even if the fight was held today he would have lost by technical knockout if the bout was ended due to the injury.

Moot point anyway because Marciano KO'd Charles before the ref could halt the bout in Ezzard's favor.

no punch could split a nose like that, it was an elbow

This thread looks like deja vu all over again...

The Great John L wrote:This thread looks like deja vu all over again...

i knew right when the poster started this thread what was going to happen.


i was like o man >>> :x





but seriosely, ive noticed lately marciano has gotten more respect or given his fair shake on this forum. i wonder why.

Just what I needed another Marciano debate

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:no punch could split a nose like that, it was an elbow

Apparently Charles' left hook could.