BoxRec

..... or do they show the film in slow motion??
Max Baer had dazzling handspeed compared to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnKwEw763zU

the cameras are not the smooth almost video style that we are used to today...so there is some play in the "real time" aspect of this.

But so are the films of Carnera...so if your calling these slower then at least you are comparing apples to apples......but there is some slop in the camera technology.

I've often commented on how slow and wide Marcianos punches were... the thing about him was that he was so strong and relentless but if you compare him to Joe Frazier, Frazier was by far the faster sharper puncher and this is one of the reasons why I've always thought that Frazier would beat Marciano quite handily, though the die hard Rocky fans would never agree with this!....

The "slop" is mostly due to the way Marciano fought. Archies movements look smooth enough., as does Charles and Walcott in thier fight films aganist Marciano.

No matter how matter times I watch Marciano, and Dempsey also, I still cant figure out why knowledgable experts, whose opinions I repect for the most part always rank them so high when debating head to head matches.

I guess one of the reasons is because of how entertaining they were. I sometimes wonder if the fact that they're white heavyweight greats has anything to do with it.

theone wrote:The "slop" is mostly due to the way Marciano fought. Archies movements look smooth enough., as does Charles and Walcott in thier fight films aganist Marciano.

No matter how matter times I watch Marciano, and Dempsey also, I still cant figure out why knowledgable experts, whose opinions I repect for the most part always rank them so high when debating head to head matches.

I guess one of the reasons is because of how entertaining they were. I sometimes wonder if the fact that they're white heavyweight greats has anything to do with it.

I think colour has a lot to do with it... I'm not saying that the people who like Marciano and Dempsey are racist... but they identify with them more because of their colour and to be honest, for some people it is a racial thing... imagine if Joe Frazier had been white... he certainly would have got a lot more credit than he has done... would people remember Jerry Quarry so fondly if he had been black?... certainly much of the mythes that surround Dempsey and Marciano have to do with their colour... it may be an uncomfortable point for many people but I think its one that should be discussed...

Its funny you mentioned Quarry. I'm hispanic and part of what turned me into a Quarry fan was the appeal of a white heavyweight who could compete with the best heavyweights in the world. His toughness, heart and style kept me a fan.
I can imagine how white fans felt!

pundit wrote:..... or do they show the film in slow motion??
Max Baer had dazzling handspeed compared to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnKwEw763zU

3 points id like to make.....


1. funny how these slow telegprahed punches were finding there mark on one of the greatest master boxers and defensive masterminds of all time

2. max baer was much more crude and much more unskilled than marciano


3. marciano changed his style at this point. goldman changed marcianos style for defensive reasons and marciano became more of a grind u down swarmer in 54-55. marciano began to throw more arm punches in 1955 and he had lost some power in his punch. he wasnt getting his full body into his punch anymore. marciano had lost some handspeed by this stage. however it did enable him to throw a higher volume of punches. the peak 1951-52 slugger version of marciano was faster and had more power in his punches. this marciano got his full weight into every punch




one final point: marciano would beat the ever loving shit out of baer if they ever fought.

marciano did not throw wide punches. max baer threw wide punches. check out the first round of the carnera fight where max misses with 4 ridiculous wide loops leaving himself wide open. baer was crude, marciano wasnt.


marciano-walcott I- was that KO punch a wide loop? to me it look like one of the most perfect short crips KO punches i have ever seen. max baer never had a punch like that.

i said it once ill say it again. the 51-52 marcianos punches were faster, more powerful, sharper. this marciano got his full body into each punch.


check out the harry kid mathews double left hook KO, marcianos double left hooks looked like ray robinson thats how short crisp fast they were.

funny how marciano had such slow handspeed yet he was easy able to keep up with very quick handed fighters charles, walcott, moore and the "much faster handspeed" max baer couldnt keep up with guys like uzcuden, loughran, les kennedy, johnny risko

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:funny how marciano had such slow handspeed yet he was easy able to keep up with very quick handed fighters charles, walcott, moore

Old, small, over-the-hill.....

As for Marciano, I'm only describing what I'm seeing. On this clip Moore looks FAR smaller than Marciano and, frankly, out of shape. And Marciano looks like a fellow from a local strongman competition who has learned a little bit of bobbing. Still, ----- one ----- punch ------ at ----- a ----- time.....

Old, small, over-the-hill.....

you sound very uninformed with that statement. ,lastarza, charles, walcott, moore had excellent handspeed. even old joe louis still had good handspeed.

On this clip Moore looks FAR smaller than Marciano and, frankly, out of shape.

http://fighter-online.com/WE02APR04/ima ... -Moore.jpg



im sorry take a look at that build again. ur telling me moore looks out of shape?


IMO the 1955 heavyweight version of archie moore was as good as any of holmes title reign opponents if not better. i rate moore # 33 greatest heavyweight of all time

And Marciano looks like a fellow from a local strongman competition who has learned a little bit of bobbing. Still, ----- one ----- punch ------ at ----- a ----- time.....

ur right! marciano is only a slow,unskilled, crude clubfighter. no better!!!!!!


- really pundit ur just a marciano hater. its so clear. everyone else sees greatness in marciano except you......i suggest you either wipe that bias smirk off ur face and actually listen wut i try to tell u about marciano........or you can continue to make these threads and show the forum wut a total idiot you are. your choice??

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

pundit wrote:..... or do they show the film in slow motion??
Max Baer had dazzling handspeed compared to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnKwEw763zU

3 points id like to make.....


1. funny how these slow telegprahed punches were finding there mark on one of the greatest master boxers and defensive masterminds of all time

2. max baer was much more crude and much more unskilled than marciano


3. marciano changed his style at this point. goldman changed marcianos style for defensive reasons and marciano became more of a grind u down swarmer in 54-55. marciano began to throw more arm punches in 1955 and he had lost some power in his punch. he wasnt getting his full body into his punch anymore. marciano had lost some handspeed by this stage. however it did enable him to throw a higher volume of punches. the peak 1951-52 slugger version of marciano was faster and had more power in his punches. this marciano got his full weight into every punch




one final point: marciano would beat the ever loving shit out of baer if they ever fought.

Walcott was hardly the greatest defensive master of all time... he was a cutie, more than anything else, Charles was very good but faded and flatfooted when he fought Rocky and Moore was a great Light-heavy who was 42 and overweight when he fought Marcinao... you're constantly overrate Marcianos opposition Brock... I agree that he would have beaten Baer had they fought though...

Charles was very good but faded and flatfooted when he fought Rocky

i didnt notice charles being flatfooted in the early rounds of marciano I. would u like to explain to me how charles was flatfooted in marciano I even though rounds 1 and 4 on film do not support this?? perhaps you have only watched rounds 10 and 15 after charles had been beaten to a pulp and was no flatfooted because he had all his physical and mental energy completley sucked out of him?

nd Moore was a great Light-heavy who was 42 and overweight when he fought Marcinao

moore wad 38 silkov, get his age right please.


overweight???



http://fighter-online.com/WE02APR04/ima ... -Moore.jpg


how is this overweight? moore doesnt have an ounce of fat on him. silk, i think u been watchin too much moore vs clay.


moore was in excellent shape when he fought marciano. moore was a huge light-h.......HUGE........so moore coming in at 185lb vs marciano helped him more than hurt him. had moore came in at 175lb he would have been more drained and giving up 13lb vs rocky. moore retained all his physical gifts at 185lb except he was bigger and stronger so in essence marciano beat the best possible version of archie moore he could ever hope to face. ill take the 1955 HW version of moore over all of holmes title reign opponents with the possible exception of tim witherspoon.


marcianos dominated over a top 35 heavyweight of all time like archie moore is very impressive, dont u agree?

silkov wrote:I've often commented on how slow and wide Marcianos punches were... the thing about him was that he was so strong and relentless but if you compare him to Joe Frazier, Frazier was by far the faster sharper puncher and this is one of the reasons why I've always thought that Frazier would beat Marciano quite handily, though the die hard Rocky fans would never agree with this!....

this is where silky shows his bias........


mike tyson was by far the faster sharper puncher than marciano yet silkov picks marciano to beat tyson. in fact tyson was the faster, sharper, more powerful puncher than frazier too. yet silk picks marciano to beat tyson! it cant go both ways silk.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

silkov wrote:I've often commented on how slow and wide Marcianos punches were... the thing about him was that he was so strong and relentless but if you compare him to Joe Frazier, Frazier was by far the faster sharper puncher and this is one of the reasons why I've always thought that Frazier would beat Marciano quite handily, though the die hard Rocky fans would never agree with this!....

this is where silky shows his bias........


mike tyson was by far the faster sharper puncher than marciano yet silkov picks marciano to beat tyson. in fact tyson was the faster, sharper, more powerful puncher than frazier too. yet silk picks marciano to beat tyson! it cant go both ways silk.

It's not bias Brock its just opinion... you're the most biased person on this board when it comes to certain fighters... I just dont think Tyson would have the heart to beat Marciano or Frazier.... though I'd give Tyson a better chance against Marciano. And where do you get the idea that Tyson was a faster sharper puncher than Frazier?... watch Frazier at his peak man, and Fraziers performances far outweight Tysons in terms of the opposition that he encountered... everytime Tyson came up against someone of ability who could still fight he fell to peices can you imagine Tyson beating Ali like Frazier did and putting in the performace that Frazier did in Manila?... he certainly never showed anything close to that in his career... fighting is not just about how hard you punch or how fast but whats inside of you, your strength of heart and mind and Tyson falls down on these points everytime....

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Old, small, over-the-hill.....

you sound very uninformed with that statement. ,lastarza, charles, walcott, moore had excellent handspeed. even old joe louis still had good handspeed.

On this clip Moore looks FAR smaller than Marciano and, frankly, out of shape.

http://fighter-online.com/WE02APR04/ima ... -Moore.jpg



im sorry take a look at that build again. ur telling me moore looks out of shape?


IMO the 1955 heavyweight version of archie moore was as good as any of holmes title reign opponents if not better. i rate moore # 33 greatest heavyweight of all time

And Marciano looks like a fellow from a local strongman competition who has learned a little bit of bobbing. Still, ----- one ----- punch ------ at ----- a ----- time.....

ur right! marciano is only a slow,unskilled, crude clubfighter. no better!!!!!!


- really pundit ur just a marciano hater. its so clear. everyone else sees greatness in marciano except you......i suggest you either wipe that bias smirk off ur face and actually listen wut i try to tell u about marciano........or you can continue to make these threads and show the forum wut a total idiot you are. your choice??

Thats just a photo Brock, if you've got film of the fight then you'll see that Moore does look very flabby, furthermore Archie himself said after the fight that he made the mistake of coming in too heavy.... and he should know I think...

asdf

DaveV17 wrote:If you want to see slow and telegraphed, watch Foreman vs. Lyle. All fighters have their good and bad points, but the more I watch the old fights, the more I believe that the heavyweight division's talent level stays about the same.

The biggest diference, IMO, is the size of the fighters. Guys like Davarryl Williamson who are considered too small today would have benn huge in the 60s and 70s.

I like Marciano but I just can not convince myself that he could survive with the prime Mike Tyson. I just watched Rocky fight Jersey Joe and Archie Moore and if that had been the 21 year old Mike Tyson in there with him, I don't think Rocky would have been 49-0. I watched Ali vs. Doug Jones a few nights ago. Jones had great technique and skill, gave Ali a lot of problems, but if he fought today at exactly that size and with that physical development, I would not bet on him against any of the contenders.

They were hardly slow punches though!... and both of them were out on their feet at certain points and yet still throwing punches that would have knocked most heavies stone cold out...

silky.........archie did not come in to heavy. thats bullshit. i have read where moore said that but moore said a lot of other bullshit things.if archie thought weighing in at 175lb would benfit him more, then he would have at the time vs marciano. archies smart enough to know wuts best for him so he thought he would be better coming in at 185lb vs rock. archie is just bitter about the marciano loss so he makes exuses. fact is marciano beat the best possible heavyweight version of archie moore he could hope to face and archie knows it. marciano dominated him. moore was on a huge run 45-1. marciano ruined archies streak. archie was very bitter. he trained hard and wanted the heavyweight crown badly. marciano beat the shit out of him. so wut does archie do? he makes exuses. he even tried to claim the refferee robbed moore of victory when film shows archies theory about the refereee to be bullshit. how could u take archies word silkov when he makes up so much lies and bullshit stories? cant u see hes very bitter about the marciano loss?

u want a counter arguement to moores weight theory.......

"probably my best fighting weight was 185lb. would feel comfortable, could move fast enough and could hit hard enough at that weight."- Archie Moore

so if u take archies word seriousely.....make sure u take this one serioisely too.




u must understand silkov. archie was a huge light-h! he was well over 200lb naturally. so moore had to train himself just to come in at 185lb like he did vs rocky. had moore come in at 175lb vs rocky......he would have been weight drained. archie had to kill himself to get down to 175lb. archie coming in at 185lb left him much stronger, more powerful and more energy. think about it......ur stronger and have more energy when ur not drained. also had archie came in at 175lb he would have been giving up 13lb vs marciano. moore would have been destroyed easier and quicker had he come in vs marciano at 175lb.archie moore certainly had no trouble fighting at 185lb when he destroyed top contender big skilled bob baker in 9 one sided rounds just months before he fought marciano.



its my opinion that moore coming in vs marciano at 185lb instead of 175lb benifitted archie more than hurt him. at 175lb archie would have been drained, smaller, weaker and marciano would have finished him faster. marciano in essence beat a bigger stronger version of the 175lb moore. moore retained all his physical gifts at 185lb that he had at 175lb

Thats just a photo Brock, if you've got film of the fight then you'll see that Moore does look very flabby

o so now a photo doesnt count?

i do have the film. archie did not look flabby. he looked bulk and in shape. and sharp. much sharper than the moore in the patterson fight.
clearly this photo shows archie was in excellent physical condition at 185lb. i see no signs of flab. if archie thought weighing in at 175lb would benfit him more, then he would have at the time.

furthermore Archie himself said after the fight that he made the mistake of coming in too heavy.... and he should know I think...

archie said alot of things. he was a manipulater and a bullshiter. why take his word so seriousely? cant u see he was bitter about the fact he got his asss badly kicked by marciano.

foreman-lyle is a good example of slow teleghraphed punches. both were dead tired too......no stamina. no punch rate. foreman looked horrible in the lyle fight.

http://fighter-online.com/WE02APR04/ima ... -Moore.jpg



im waiting for someone to explain to me how archie was flabby when he fought marciano? wheres the flab?

you're constantly overrate Marcianos opposition Brock.

i may overate his competition, but u defintley underate marcianos competition silkov.


i critisize rocky on some parts of his opposition. i critsize marciano for not fighting clarence henry pre title who i felt was the best contender out there. weill ducked clarence henry and took on a washed up savold instead. i also would have liked to see marciano take on a baker, valdez or walls in 54-55 but it didnt happen. there are flaws in every champions competition

in this thread im saying marciano dominated a top 35 heavyweight of all time archie moore. do u agree with this?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

you're constantly overrate Marcianos opposition Brock.

i may overate his competition, but u defintley underate marcianos competition silkov.


i critisize rocky on some parts of his opposition. i critsize marciano for not fighting clarence henry pre title who i felt was the best contender out there. weill ducked clarence henry and took on a washed up savold instead. i also would have liked to see marciano take on a baker, valdez or walls in 54-55 but it didnt happen. there are flaws in every champions competition

in this thread im saying marciano dominated a top 35 heavyweight of all time archie moore. do u agree with this?

I wouldnt call Moore a top 35 heavyweight of all time no, he was a great light-heavyweight who did well against some quality heavies of his time but top 35 amongst all the heavies is far too high I think... I dont think I underrate Marcianos opposition... the fact is that he was carefully managed and if you compare his career competition to Johnson, Louis, Ali Frazier and Holmes, ...Marcianos opposition comes out the lowest. Having said all that I still rate Rocky as a top ten all time heavy and above Dempsey/Tyson/Holifield/Lewis, among others... so I don't see myself as a hater or someone who underrates Rocky, I'm just more open to his flaws than you are...

Let's clear a few things up.

- Marciano was not at his peak against Moore. If you watch the Louis, Matthews, Layne or Walcott fights, you'll see Marciano is visibly faster than the '55 version. The sort of gruelling schedule he put himself through will slow anyone down after a while.

- Moore was an excellent heavyweight. In the build up to the Marciano fight he beat all sorts of good heavyweights... Henry, Valdes, Baker, and some of the smaller skilled ones like Bivins and Johnson. Moore was on the same level as Quarry or Langford at heavyweight.

- Although Marciano was faster around '51 and '52, his handspeed was never his greatest asset, and neither was his technique. However - he threw so many punches with so much force behind them, his whole attack was debilitating and damaging without needing to be full of finesse.

- Moore was in great shape against Rocky. He looked lean, sharp and on-the-ball. His counterpunching was as good as ever, and we know he could still hit hard at heavyweight. Marciano just plain wore Archie out and battered him.

- If you want slow & sloppy, check out some of Foreman's fights, especially the early ones. Paez, Pirez and others, these men were 'nobodies' yet George was having to swing and swing and swing to try and knock them out, but he could only manage an ugly stoppage. He looked terrible.

- As Brockton says, Moore was a bit of a fibber. He never liked losing to a fighter as apparently crude as Rocky, and he was full of excuses. I mean, he said the referee gave Marciano a long count, when he clearly didn't at all. Moore was comfortable in the 180-190lbs range.