BoxRec

When people think of Marciano, they think of a man who had literally
no concept of boxing, who would have surely lost to the better skilled
athletes of different eras. They invision a man who was virtually all power
and heart, the likes of which, they admit, has seldom been seen since.

They also give quick retort that nobody was tougher. Not Frazier. Not
anybody, was tougher than Marciano. But these same critics are soon
to point out that Marciano went 49-0 via 43 kayos, almost as if implying
he went undefeated, not by his own merit and commitment, but because
he fought nothing but over the hill has beens.

It is a safe bet that there is probably no other champion in history who
has been as written off and swept under the carpet as much as Marciano
has; though it can also be said maybe there hasn't been any other fighter
in the history of the game who has been as over-rated as he was under-rated.

You know the guys we are talking about. The guys who simply look at the
49-0 and say that he was invincible. The guys who say that he would have
beaten every single heavyweight champion before and since him, including the likes of Muhammad Ali. And not by just a little, but by a brutal one sided affair, a knock out.

But these perceptions are from those who are living in a fantasy relm, the
kind of guys who believe that there is just 'black and white', no shades of
grey and no other color in the spectrum of life. The kind of guys who probably have no wife or girl friend (joking).

Marciano isn't the kind of fighter who fit into the black or white, right or wrong, left or right kind of category. There is a sort of mystique about him, yes, that makes him legendary, else nobody would remember him, unlike other forgotten champions (do you see any fans these days talk about Carnera, Willard, Burns or Hart with enthusiasm?).

I have always thought that somewhere between the two concepts, both good, if not over zealous, and bad, if not down right slanderous, there was the truth. There is the old Irish saying that there are two sides to every story, and twelve versions of every song. If that holds true, then there's six differing degrees of seperation on everything and everyone, including Marciano.

What do we know about Marciano? He hit like hell with both hands. That's one. He was the best conditioned champion ever. That's two. He had an uncanny ability to walk threw his opponents barrage of punches, toughness that seemed to have no measure. That's three.

But what of four, five and six? What are the missing elements, the basic ingredients that made Marciano who he was? What of his tremendous courage in the face of danger? His unwavering belief in himself, that he couldn't be hurt, couldn't lose? Does integrity count for anything these days? The man only knew one gear: full throttle. He never took a backward step, never tied someone up, never stopped punching. Work, work and more work.

If persistance, diligence, and complete faith in one's self, a true constitution, is what makes numbers four, five and six then really the myth that he couldn't be thwarted by any man is either true or was just all in Rocky's mind. It is true, yes, that his style is very much beatable. Men like Jack Dempsey, Jim Jefferies, Tom Sharkey, Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson all had a great measure of success fighting that way, but they have all lost for one reason or another.

One could argue Dempsey was burned out by age 32 when he fought Tunney. Same argument could be said of Jefferies, though his was more of inactivity when he came back after six years to fight a prime Jack Johnson. Tyson's problems were emotional, he didn't believe in himself, or he just bought too much into his own press. Frazier lost only to all-time greats in Ali and Foreman.

Marciano never lost. If we look at the men before and after him, we can judge for certain that Marciano either done everything right or he just got out at the right time before he did start to falter. He was 33 when he retired, same age as Dempsey when he retired. Marciano, though a believer in himself, always trained harder than anyone else, as if he was scared that he could lose, which was Tyson's problem as he believed too highly of himself. Frazier and Sharkey were great physical specimens and dedicated workers, but just simply ran into opponents who were just a little bit better.

But that's the odd part that just don't fit with Rocky. Virtually everyone he fought was superior to him in almost every way but power and conditioning. Charles, Walcott, Moore, LaStarza and even a Joe Louis on the comeback trail were far superior boxers than Marciano, but couldn't side step the man enough to beat him.

Many would argue that Charles was over the hill, though he was just two years older than Rocky. Same is said of Walcott, though many will say he got better with age, while others dismiss this entirely, though these are the same people who say Lewis got better in age, but I guess it's whatever argument you wish to make. People also invision Joe Louis as being a poor man's excuse for a boxer, a shell of a has-been when he fought Marciano, though this is far off considering Louis had beaten contenders Maxim, Brion and Savold and was ranked #1 for a title shot against Ezzard Charles.

And Moore? How old was he anyways? And wasn't he a Light Heavyweight champion mascerading as a Heavyweight? Not necessarily. Moore, though older than Rocky by almost a decade, was possibly the greatest LHW champion, if not fighter of all time, and had such a great success rate against world caliber opposition even into his late 40's at both LHW and HW it's hard to really knock Moore as being just an 'old guy' when he had been the 'old guy' for several years; mind you this was when many considered 30 to be pretty much the 'END' of a career and a job well done in boxing back then.

What of his other opponents? LaStarza? Layne? Matthews? Cockell? Probably at best comparable to the top 15 guys today like Dominick Guinn, Monte Barrett, and the like among those lines. Not exactly world beaters, but decent and good none the less. Mind you, also, many considered that Layne and LaStarza would have been the superstars of the time, and not Marciano, yet Rocky beat them.

So, what's to conclude about his championship reign? He retired undefeated, and certainly fought better guys than Floyd Patterson had done; and it's likely that Marciano beaten better guys than Dempsey did as champion---I can't invision Firpo as limited as he was, Willard, Gibbons, Brennan and Carpentier being able to beat 'old' Charles, Walcott, and Moore, if not the same Joe Louis that Marciano fought.

But I guess it's whatever case you wish to make, and who's perception it is coming from.

I'd liken Marciano's championship, in ways, to Holyfield's or even Lewis's. Lewis became a much bigger star when he defeated an 'old' Tyson and 'old' Holyfield. Holyfield, in turn, became a bigger star, though he didn't get much respect as due, from fighting 42 year old George Foreman and Larry 'Old Folks' Holmes.

Was it so much that they were really that old, or was it that they still had a few more good fights left in them? Foreman regained the title at 45, while Holmes got another title shot a few years later against Oliver McCall. But what of Walcott, Charles and Moore?

Walcott seemed to be devestated losing to Marciano, a man he felt he could have beaten with the greatest of ease (and was doing so until he was knocked out in the 13th) and folded in the 1st in the rematch and never fought again. Charles? He stayed a top contender for a few more years, then faded into boxing's oblivion. Moore? He remained LHW champion into the early 1960's and stayed a top HW contender until being knocked out by a young new comer named Cassius Clay when he was 48.

Doesn't seem to spill out too good for 'The Rock' at this point, considering the 'usefullness' of his championship opponents after they had fought him. But these things, as with life, are not Marciano's fault, he played with the cards he was dealt with, as does any champion does.

It does make one wonder, at times, how he would have faired in any other era. It's safe to say when comparing him to the 1960's and 1970's that the only men that Marciano would have possibly lost to were: Liston, Frazier, Foreman and Ali, but it's safe to say Marciano could have beaten the men they defeated, the Quarry's, the Bonavena's, the Bugner's, the Foster's, the Terrell's and so on and so forth; but the four listed prior.

Liston is a fight I myself can see going either way, and the deciding factor would have probably been Liston's psyche, as he was alot like Tyson (least with Muhammad Ali) when it came to being discouraged and pressed beyond his limits, while Marciano was all about pressure, he thrived on it.

Frazier? That's a bit harder to see. Both men were alot alike, with probably power and conditioning going over to Marciano. Frazier was busier, a bit more aggressive, but really only had the left hand. Marciano had power in both hands and like Frazier, didn't give a damn where he hit you. Frazier himself ranked Marciano and Joe Louis as being the top two heavyweights, with himself being number three, seeing as he beaten Muhammad Ali; proclaiming once that the 'rope-a-dope' wouldn't
have worked against Marciano, after viewing the second Marciano-LaStarza fight, where Rocky broke LaStarza's arms. It could really go either way.

Foreman? I can't see it. Though several old-timers such as Sandy Saddler have said that in a hypothetical match up between Foreman and Marciano that, although both men would hit the canvas, much like when Lyle and Foreman fought, it would be Marciano ending up the victor. Foreman once said on RINGSIDE that when he fought Frazier he knew to stay on Joe and not back off because 'like Marciano, you can garuntee that even if they (Frazier and Marciano) got knocked down a hundred times, they would get back up a hundred times and still come after you.' Foreman also said he never seen a man tougher than Marciano. But if the Lyle fought shows anything, that a man always has a punchers chance, who knows; but Marciano would have to throw away the bobbing and weaving, and just come on out swinging, as Frazier showed us, a swarmer had no chance against Foreman.

That just leaves Ali. Quite possibly the most debated, favorited, coveted and dragged out dream fight in all of boxing history. A true fight of skills against wills. As with the 'black and white' argument that I have said previously, I think somewhere in the middle lies the true outcome of this hypothetical fight. There's those who say Marciano would give Ali the beating of his life, then there are those who say it would be so one sided that Ali would cut Marciano open like he did against Henry Cooper, that Marciano would have no chance in hell against the fastest, if not greatest, heavyweight of all time.

I, for one, don't believe in either prediction, as they both border on the ridculous.

If Ali could take Foreman's blows, take Frazier's blows; he could take Marciano's. Same goes with Marciano, Ali simply didn't have the power to have been able to stop Marciano; if he couldn't slow down and stop Frazier, he couldn't stop The Rock. Simple as that. No knockouts in the cards for this fight of fights.

So what are the likely outcomes? A decision by Ali, a decision for Marciano, a draw and quite possibly a technical knock out in Ali's favor due to Marciano's tendency for cuts.

Now one must figure in, what were these men's primes. Most point out rather quickly that Ali's prime was in the 1960's when he derailed Sonny Liston and beat the likes of Chuvalo, Terrell and Patterson, and while that was when he was at his most fastest, Ali had never once fought a man with the swarming style; if George Chuvalo could win a few rounds with body shots, and Ali was able to get hurt with body shots by guys like Charlie Powell, it shows to me that he would not have been ready for all the kind of pressure a Marciano could give him.

If you're still not convinced, imagine Chuvalo's toughness combined with Liston's power, combined with the kind of style that would have nullified all of Ali's attributes, then you start to stray from the idea that Ali could have won with ease, as you done before, even at his fastest. That's what he would be going up against had he fought Marciano at that time.

Further evidence? State all you want that Ali was gone for 3yrs and wasn't as fast as he was, but he came back and was good enough to beat #1 ranked contender Jerry Quarry and Bonavena, who gave Frazier hell twice. Then came 1971, and Ali finally fought a man like Marciano in Joe Frazier.

Ali loses a 15 round decision. From that time on Ali smartens up and tries to find an answer to Frazier's attack, being able to beat him twice in returns; though as you notice, each fight was a blood and guts, bone crackin', mind blowing experience.

The best Ali was the Ali who fought Frazier, Norton, and Foreman. He maintained alot of the speed that he had when he was younger, could improvise to any man's style, and proved he could take a punch better than damn near anyone. 1970-1975 was the best Ali, as time and time again he defied the odds and silenced the critics.

Marciano? The only man who he fought that could be compared to Ali was Jersey Joe Walcott. I only say this, being as Joe Walcott was an innovator, not an imitator of moves. He was tricky, hard to hit and was deceiving. You never knew if he was walking away or was going to hit you.

The fastest man Marciano ever fought? Ezzard Charles. Now combine the two fighters, and you would have almost an identical clone of Muhammad Ali, plus more speed; minus Charles and Walcott's punching power and infighting ability.

Marciano beat both Walcott and Charles, three of the four fights by kayo, one by decision and a wide one at that. Ali beat Frazier two out of three times, though the last fight, had it gone another round, surely would have seen someone be knocked out, possibly Ali as he collapsed on the floor after being named the winner and said 'Frazier just quit before I did.'

Alot of the old-timers such as Jake LaMotta and Abe Attell said that the two greatest champions were Louis and Marciano, and that if Ali couldn't beat Frazier all three times, who felt that Frazier wasn't as good as Marciano; makes one believe that had Ali and Marciano fought, least to LaMotta and Attell and others, that Marciano would win two out of three.

While this perception may be off, is it at all wrong either? Even if so, who's to say 'The Rock' couldn't win at least 1 out of 3, like Joe did? It's my belief that any of the all-time greats could have beaten one another at least once or twice. If Dempsey fought Louis a hundred times, who's to say Dempsey couldn't win 75 of the 100? Louis didn't fair too good with swarmers and Dempsey is right up there in the greatest swarmers of all time, but Louis was death in rematches, so would 25 out of 100 be more apt?

With all being said, what are the predictions? Marciano keep moving forward, Ali trying to stay at a further range. Marciano aiming for shots to the body and Ali's arms, Ali trying to land his jab around Marciano's eyes. Ali throwing lightning fast combinations, Marciano blocking the blows with his arms and bobbing and weaving under them---still taking 1, 2, 3, 4 shots to get in his one.

The early rounds showcase the best of each, with Ali still in the lead. Marciano pushing Ali to the ropes, knowing his best chance, as with Frazier's, is to get his man in a place where he can't escape so easily. Marciano's punches are like kissing an express train, breaking Ali from the inside out; all those months of hitting the 300 pound punching bag, running 10 miles a day, throwing stones and swimming miles a day paid off for sure in the punching department.

But Ali isn't shaken up. He's been there before, facing Foreman and Frazier. He knows that relm all too well, the black lights of unconsciousness is a world all too familiar. This time around, it's like facing a Frazier with the power of Foreman, but Ali saves face, stands strong and continues to whip punch after punch.

By round 10 Marciano is already showing the wear and tear that Charles and Walcott put his face through. But like with Walcott and Charles, he presses harder while in defeat and in pain. Ali is surprised at times how this man can take and keep taking, always getting a second and third wind. But Ali is no slouch either, he has hidden reserves of strength and endurance; he's shown this when he fought Ken Norton and others.

Punch after punch, both men show amazing will power. Neither men backing up, or showing signs of slowing down. Ali from time to time 'rope-a-dopes' but Marciano poounds away at the arms and slips in body shots almost non-stop. Ali may be stationary but he can take it, and though Marciano is punching, he never ceases to tire; unlike LaStarza, Ali is not wavering.

Both men survive round 13, the hard luck number; but by 14 Marciano's face is beyond repair. It just can't go on into the 15th. Ali wins by technical knockout. The score cards at the time of the stoppage all came up to a draw. That is more than likely the true outcome of a 'one time only' fight between the 1970-1975 Ali and the prime Marciano.

But what of the ring? Marciano usually fought inside a 16x16 foot ring. He done so against Cockell and a few others. Would this have benefited Marciano tremendously had him and Ali fought in that small a ring? Marciano surely would have been able to cut off the ring and get to Ali easier. Ali fought usually in 24x24 foot rings, making Frazier and others work harder to get to him.

Maybe it isn't so much the men themselves but the equipment that would make the difference? If so, Marciano wins inside a 16x16 ring and Ali wins in a bigger ring. There's really alot of intangibles
to take into consideration.

But what of other champions? I can honestly see Marciano beating all but Ali, Foreman, Liston and Frazier. Carnera? An over-sized creme puff. Willard? A goon who beat an old Jack Johnson. Burns? Hart? No chance. Baer? Can't see that either. Sharkey? Nope. Schmeling. Nada. Patterson? Please! Johansson? Are you kidding me?

No. I can't even see the more modern guys like Holyfield, Bowe, Moorer, Mercer, Morrison, Klitschko's, Briggs, Maskaev being able to do it either. Maybe Lennox, but outside of the Mercer and Vitali fight, it can be argued that Lewis never faced real adversity. Holmes? Hell, it's hard for me sometimes to invision Ali besting Holmes, but if Tyson could stop Holmes, if Holmes could be dropped by power hitters like Shavers (who had no stamina) and be given hell from Witherspoon and Williams, there could be a punchers chance.

Conclusion? Marciano fits inside the top 10 HW's of all time. Make a case for the champions who could or could not beat Marciano---but if the truth is that Marciano couldn't beat Ali, Louis, Frazier, Liston and Foreman that places Marciano comfortably at number 6. But, I don't believe that it's impossible for Marciano to not be able to beat those five listed---anything is possible. There is always a chance, even if it's a punchers chance.

Maybe a verse out of Zechariah 4:6 sums Marciano up:

'Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, saith the Lord.'

One thing is for certain, though, this thread won't put to rest the bashing and over zealous praise, debate and controversy of the man known as Rocky Marciano, if not more appropriately apt, his place in history, among the all-time greats.

The Myth Continues...

Well, I am convinced. Good post. I see him beating Frazier by kayo 2 out 3, but otherwise it was good. I could see Lewis "Tuaing" him though. Lewis had no qualms stinking a place out from time to time. Neither did Ali, who to me is one of the most boring fighters in history, but he had trouble with swarmers.

You know that ZERO of his has a life of it's own don't it? It trumps so many things and opens the gate for the Myth. And he will have it forever....... I'm not here to take his career to task, but the story of those 49 fights has some limitations though some fans will not admit to that.......but not matter what anyone says or does.. that ZERO will eternally hover, obscure and bloviate. I really don't mind so much the sport needs some mythology.

However I sure hope Valuev does not get the chance to park his ZERO next to Marciano's upon completion of his career.

BoxBuzz wrote:You know that ZERO of his has a life of it's own don't it? It trumps so many things and opens the gate for the Myth. And he will have it forever....... I'm not here to take his career to task, but the story of those 49 fights has some limitations though some fans will not admit to that.......but not matter what anyone says or does.. that ZERO will eternally hover, obscure and bloviate. I really don't mind so much the sport needs some mythology.

However I sure hope Valuev does not get the chance to park his ZERO next to Marciano's upon completion of his career.

How did Ottke's zero sit with you I never understood why people thought Rocky was overrated. I read a biography about him and he got absolutely zero credit during his time. He was seen as a dirty, clubbing guy who was overachieving. I sure there have been several bios, but the one read had me laughing out loud because of the stories of Rocky's legendary cheapness. He would get thousands to be a motivational speaker and show up before the event in a tee shirt and jeans and the organizers would have to buy him a suit.

this post was waaayyy to long for me to read. i dont feel like defending marciano right now so please marciano detractors save it for another day

^^^then why bother to post?

HomicideHenry wrote:^^^then why bother to post?

Because HE'S BACK!!!!

I liked homicide post, much of it was interesting. He says at the beginning that he doesn't take the exteme poisitons of Marciano being invincible or as bad as some of Marciano's detractors say he is. however, as the post goes on, it's clear that Homicide leans closer to the people who rate Marciano near the top than those who don't. for the most part he is realistic, but there are a few things I don't go along with:

-Louis beating contenders such as Maxim, Brion, and Savold as proof that Marciano's win over Louis meant something. First, Louis never beat Maxim, and beating Brion and Savold is not much to brag about. Louis was way, way over the hill when he fought Marciano. He looked awful when he fought Charles. this win means absolutley nothing.
This has been gone over many times, but the wins over charles and Moore aren't really that impressive. Chalres had lost 5 times in the previous 3 years. Moore never beat anyone that impressive at heavyweight.
In Marciano's defense, he didn't fight the best available. You can only fight the best guys available at the time.

Louis didn't fare well with swarmers? Such as who?

I agree that Marciano may have been competitive with ali from 1970-1975. however, that isn't when ali was a this best. that would have been from 1964-1967. Marciano wouldn't have been competitive with that Ali.

Homicide was realistic in saying that Marciano would have have trouble with Frazier, Foreman, Liston, Louis. I think he would have had a chance in these fights but would have had less than 50-50 chance. there are other fighters before such as (most notably Johnson) that he may have lost to as well.

I don't like that holmes was brushed off because of being knocked out by Tyson (I hope he doesn't think Holmes was anywhere near his best by then) and that Holmes got knocked down by Shavers and had trouble with Witherspoon and Williams. you could just as easily rip Marciano for getting knocked down by Walcott and Moore and for having trouble with Lowry and La Starza. You have to look at a fighters whole record.

Other fightwers such as Holyfield, Lewis and Tyson a little to easily in the post as well.
Against Marciano, Ali would be fighting a fighter with Frazier's style and Foremans power? Come on. there is now way that Marciano had Foreman's power.

Boxbuzz is right that some people do seem to be obsessed with Marciano's undefeated record. If Marciano wouldn't have got decision decision against Lowry or La Starza, and would have been 48-1 or 47-2, he wouldn't rated nearly as highly by many people who think he was invincible. Some people don't seem to realize that in boxing win-loss records can be very deceiving.

However, one thing that Marciano should be given credit for is that he was very consistent. Some ATG's that he would have lost to 2 out of 3 or even 3 out of 3 may have lost somewhere along the line had even if they had fought Marciano's competition. Some of Marciano's performances were better than others, but Marciano never he really had an "off night" and he deserves credit for that.

Louis beating contenders such as Maxim, Brion, and Savold as proof that Marciano's win over Louis meant something. First, Louis never beat Maxim, and beating Brion and Savold is not much to brag about. Louis was way, way over the hill when he fought Marciano. He looked awful when he fought Charles. this win means absolutley nothing.
This has been gone over many times, but the wins over charles and Moore aren't really that impressive. Chalres had lost 5 times in the previous 3 years. Moore never beat anyone that impressive at heavyweight.
In Marciano's defense, he didn't fight the best available. You can only fight the best guys available at the time.

The Marciano fight with Louis was almost on even terms for the first four or five rounds, Joe was still tricky. Savold was recognized by the BBBC as the Heavyweight champion, that is until Louis beat him and then they started to recognize Ezzard Charles. Joe had previously beaten the likes of Pat Valentino in an exhibition by a terrific kayo, beat Brion and Bivins twice. So to say Louis was way way way over the hill when he fought Marciano is ridiculous, Louis was still holding his own and was to face Ezzard Charles again, but Charles opted for Walcott for the upteenth time.

Louis didn't fare well with swarmers? Such as who?

Aruturo Gudoy fought out of a crouch and Louis had difficulty with him; though Louis was death in rematches and faired better against Gudoy in the second bout. Galento in ways was a pressure fighter as he constantly came forward brawling and Louis hit the deck. Louis had problems with movers (Conn and Farr as example) and with men of the swarming style.

Against Marciano, Ali would be fighting a fighter with Frazier's style and Foremans power? Come on. there is now way that Marciano had Foreman's power.

Maybe not, but no other undisputed champion at HW hit near as hard as Foreman as Rocky did. George in his prime had a 90+ percent kayo percentage, while Marciano had an 88% kayo percentage. You have to figure in also that Marciano was much smaller than Foreman, so George would have that extra leverage in height to keep people at bay, while Marciano had to work harder to get to his opponents.

George chopped wood, Marciano threw heavy stones. George used a 250 pound punching bag, Marciano used a 300 pound punching bag. George did roadwork (in his later years) using a harness to pull a car behind him, Marciano ran 10 miles a day, walked an additional 5 miles uphill, and also swam several miles in a pool, as well as throwing thousands of punches in the water.

I think Foreman's success was due largely because of his size, he could keep opponents off him, measuring them off and then blasting them out; Rocky had near the power of George, if not the same, but he had a 67" reach, he had to bull people, work harder to get to his opponent to get the shots in.

I hope you get the jist of what I am saying.

However, one thing that Marciano should be given credit for is that he was very consistent. Some ATG's that he would have lost to 2 out of 3 or even 3 out of 3 may have lost somewhere along the line had even if they had fought Marciano's competition. Some of Marciano's performances were better than others, but Marciano never he really had an "off night" and he deserves credit for that.

I agree 100% with that. And I do agree that Rocky would have had trouble, if not lost to guys like Holmes, Johnson, Ali, Louis in their primes; but I generally believe that any of the top ATG HW's could have lost to one another. Had Marciano fought Johnson a hundred times, I am sure Rocky probably could have won 25 of the 100. But that's speculative.

And while I do sound like I am with the 'he's unbeatable' crowd, that's not true. This is about as realistic an article as you can get. Rocky's style was very beatable, he was prone to cuts, he had alot going against him physically and skillfully; he was far from perfect and far from being invincible.

Louis, Ali, Frazier, Liston, Foreman, Johnson, Holmes would have beaten him. That's a fact. But don't count out Marciano, cus he could beat the same men, nobody can beat the same man over and over again always. It's just not rational, just not realistic, to say a man of Rocky's caliber could never have beaten any of them. That's just biased.

And again...the myth continues.

In short, I'm with the crowd that believes Marciano never beat a great heavyweight, and it's an undeniable fact that if we had 12 rd World Title bouts in 1952, than Marciano clearly loses a decision to Old Joe Walcott (possibly older than his listed age) in his second to last fight.

I agree, had it been a 12 round fight, Marciano would have lost to Joe Walcott, as 'old' Joe Walcott (sarcasm) was fighting his greatest fight against Rocky. He had fought the likes of Louis, Charles, Ray and others, but never had such a performance as he did against Marciano, who was behind on all score cards.

BUT, it also makes me wonder, since they made 12 round fights as the rule these days, that had the fights been 15 would they have been the same outcome? What if the first Tarver-Jones fight had been 15? What of Sturm-De La Hoya? The list really goes on and on. What would be a win for a man at fighting a 12 round fight, might very well be different if it was 15.

And let's not get into the 20-45 round bouts of boxing's past, nobody in the last 20 years or more could have went those distances; Marciano really is the only HW in the last half century that I can honestly say could have, as many those around him said he trained like the 'bare knuckle champions', where there was the possibility the fight could go on for hours, much like the Sullivan-Kilrain fight.

Seamus wrote:In short, I'm with the crowd that believes Marciano never beat a great heavyweight, and it's an undeniable fact that if we had 12 rd World Title bouts in 1952, than Marciano clearly loses a decision to Old Joe Walcott (possibly older than his listed age) in his second to last fight.

Lol, is that supposed to be an insult. If my aunt had nuts, she'd be my uncle. Deal with this little fact, it was a 15 round fight.

Same was said when Dempsey fought Willard, and believe me, 'White Hope' Willard would more than likely beat Valuev and Klitschko today.

And Dempsey tore Willard a new asshole. Size means nothing, if you know how to fight against it. And must note, Marciano naturally weighed 220 pounds, but trained down to 187 pounds and he had beaten physically bigger and more skilled men throughout his entire career.

Marciano fought two men over 240 pounds that I am aware of while he was starting out and knocked them out rather easily, he also fought somewhat tall men. Carmine Vingo I believe was 6'4" or near it and Rocky damn near killed him (literally).

this win means absolutley nothing.

how could the joe louis win not count on rockys record? louis even at 37 was a dangerous top contender with a great jab, solid boxing skills, and dangerous power and he had size 6'2 215lb. even the 1951 joe louis was a skilled powerful big man who would have beat many other contenders during history. we all know louis was way past his prime, and everything reflexes, speed, power had diminshed......but they were once so great that even a vastly diminished louis power,speed, reflexes were still better than the average contender.

for instance i feel louis even in 1951 was still better than the likes of nino valdez, bob baker both big top contenders during marcianos reign. think of i this way, marciano was the only other fighter ever to knock out louis, in 70 pro fights and louis hasnt been knocked down since his comeback...marciano not only knocked out joe louis he knocked him out cold! NO ONE did that to louis, i dont care how old.

louis did horrible damage to both a prime charles and prime marcianos face.......and only two ATGs in there primes were able to beat louis in his comeback.


do you give credit to holyfield for beating holmes and foreman? than give credit to marciano for beating louis.



alp the win over ezzard charles who fought one of his best fights of his career in june 1954 isnt anything special? charles really got himself back into trim shape at 185lb and there first fight went down as a classic grueller. marciano beat a great fighter that night IMO who was clearly the best heavyweight in the world outside of marciano. sure charles was not peak anymore, but how many heavwyeight champions in history beat another great fighter at his absolute peak? hardly any.

you say charles lost 3 times in the past 5 years, but the harold johnson and rex layne losses were robberies so really comming into the marciano fight charles was 13-1 in his last 14 fights.


moore never beat anyone good at heavyweight? do the names bob baker, clarence henry, nino valdez, jimmy bivins spring to mind? oh thats right you don think much of them.

*not to mention other solid names like alejandro lavorante, willie bean, hatchetman sheppard, james J parker, embrell davidson, rusty payne

In short, I'm with the crowd that believes Marciano never beat a great heavyweight

he beat jersey joe walcott, walcott was great

This has been talked about many times before, but no I don't think Marciano's win over Louis is a big deal at all. (Nor do I think Holyfield's wins over Foreman or Holmes were either. I don't know anyone that does.)

Virtually all the evidence shows that Louis was way past his best. He had declined considerably after he came back from WWII. By the time he fought Marciano he had slipped considerably further.
The win over Lee Savold isn't that impressive. He may have been the BBBC champion, but he really was pretty much a journeyman.
Louis was completely dominated by Charles, a year before he fought Marciano. As mentioned he was 37 years old (which except for a few exceptions is over the hill) and had 70 fights when Marciano fought him. It was obvious that there was a lot of wear and tear. In Louis' first 61 fights of his career, he scored 51 knockouts. In the 9 leading up to the Marciano fight, he only had 3.

Louis was way slower, and his reflexes were almost gone by the Marciano fight. He couldn't throw as many punches. He couldn't followup when he did land a good punch. This was obvious in the Marciano fight. The Louis that Charles and Marciano beat wasn't remotely the fighter that he had once been.

You can claim that Charles should have gotten the decision against Johnson and Layne, but Charles should have been able to win these fights convincingly. Charles had also lost to Valdes once and Walcott twice. Winning a tough decison against a guy who lost 5 times in the last 3 years shouldn't be considered that big of a deal for Marciano.

We have talked a lot about Moore's heavyweight career in the past. The bottom line is that Brocton is impressed with the heavyweights that he beat and I'm not at all.

Also don't think the Godoy and Galento fights is strong proof that Lous had trouble with swarmers. Despite it being a split decision, most people think Louis won the first Godoy fight fairly easily. As mentioned Louis knocked Godoy out in the rematch. Galento did score a knockdown against Louis, but Louis came back and knocked him out easily.

Ambling Alp wrote:This has been talked about many times before, but no I don't think Marciano's win over Louis is a big deal at all. (Nor do I think Holyfield's wins over Foreman or Holmes were either. I don't know anyone that does.)

Virtually all the evidence shows that Louis was way past his best. He had declined considerably after he came back from WWII. By the time he fought Marciano he had slipped considerably further.

The win over Lee Savold isn't that impressive. He may have been the BBBC champion, but he really was pretty much a journeyman.
Louis was completely dominated by Charles, a year before he fought Marciano. As mentioned he was 37 years old (which except for a few exceptions is over the hill) and had 70 fights when Marciano fought him. It was obvious that there was a lot of wear and tear. In Louis' first 61 fights of his career, he scored 51 knockouts. In the 9 leading up to the Marciano fight, he only had 3.

Louis was way slower, and his reflexes were almost gone by the Marciano fight. He couldn't throw as many punches. He couldn't followup when he did land a good punch. This was obvious in the Marciano fight. The Louis that Charles and Marciano beat wasn't remotely the fighter that he had once been.

I totally agree. Marciano gets way too much credit for beating Louis, who was on the decline 3 years earlier. You only had to look at Louis to see he was past it. As you pointed out his KO punch had all but gone, only three KO's in his comeback trail, one on a cut, one to the past it Savold and a last round stoppage to Walker who went on to lose 11 straight fights before retiring, hardly a fearsome line-up of stoppage wins.

Savold wasn't a good fight IMO and remember the last two fights of his 137 fight career were to Louis and Marciano. Savold had 36 and 37 defeats to his name by then and was 35 years old. He had also been stopped several times in his career. Not a great 'name' anymore, thats if he ever was a good name.

As for Brion and Bivins, they were hardly great fighters, definetely fall into the average catogery. Claiming decision wins over these two doesn't make Louis the fearsome fighter he once was.

ur totally nitpicking right there. i could do the same to any other fighter.

I totally agree. Marciano gets way too much credit for beating Louis, who was on the decline 3 years earlier.

no he doesnt get enought credit for beating a old but dangerous big man with skills and top notch jab

As you pointed out his KO punch had all but gone, only three KO's in his comeback trail, one on a cut, one to the past it Savold and a last round stoppage to Walker

he only had 3 KOs on his comeback trail cause he was facing mostly contenders and he fought 4 fights against slick defensive survival fighters like agramonte and brion.

louis could have easily fought 24 ham and eggers like foreman did when he came back and rock up 24 ko victories in a row.


savold wasnt that past it when he fought louis. he was 33, but he was in shape 190lb and he was coming off a 4th round stoppage of top rated bruce woodcock and was BBC champion. habve u seen this fight? it was a good fight. savold was incredibly durable, had only been counted out once in the past 10 years(by huge punching ray) and louis knocked him out with ONE left hook. shows you how hard louis could punch. a prime rocky marciano hit savold with flush punches and couldnt put a older fatter worse savold down. louis could still hit very hard in 1951, with one punch, he simply lacked the combinations and reflexes he once had in his prime to finish off everone. but in terms of raw one punch power, it was still there. look at a peak charles and peak marcianos faces afer fighting louis, they were horribly puffed up.

andy walker coming into the louis fight didnt have a bad record, till louis knocked him out in 10. it was after the louis fight he went downhill. besides he STILL knocked out andy walker. who cares wut round



louis also knocked omelio agramonte down and nearly out with 1 right hand in there fight. have u ever seen this fight? agramonte was a very skilled fast sharp cutie, a solid contender who had a very difficult style to deal with. ever seen agramonte-louis fight? awesome fight to watch


did you also know that joe louis knocked out nino valdez in an exhibitoon fight in 1 round? thats right the same # 1 contender nino valdez of the 1950s.

raw power is the last thing to go, louis at 215lb still had heavy fists and still had better than average handspeed compared to most even at 37.




marcano deserves credit for beating a dangerous top contender big man with skills, even if he was old. same way tunney deserves credit for beating dempsey, holyfield deserves credit for beating holmes.


if marciano beat bob baker or nino valdes, would you give him more credit than you would for beating a 1951 joe louis who was most likely better than both of them? just because baker and valdez were younger?



the version of joe louis was only beaten by prime ATGs charles and marciano, and even then he left huge marks on there faces and gave them decent fights

Claiming decision wins over these two doesn't make Louis the fearsome fighter he once was.

ur missing the point, NO ONE is trying to prove louis in 1950 was as fearsome as he once was. all anyone is saying is even though he was farpast his p rime, he was still dangerous and a good fighter.


think of it this way, if someone is once the greatest puncher of all time, then even far past there prime there STILL at least a very good puncher. get it??

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Claiming decision wins over these two doesn't make Louis the fearsome fighter he once was.

ur missing the point, NO ONE is trying to prove louis in 1950 was as fearsome as he once was. all anyone is saying is even though he was farpast his p rime, he was still dangerous and a good fighter.


think of it this way, if someone is once the greatest puncher of all time, then even far past there prime there STILL at least a very good puncher. get it??

So how to we assess Tommy Morrison's and Shannon Briggs' wins over George Foreman in this context. Or Brian Nielsen's win over Larry Holmes.

Morrison must be great becasue he beat Foreman. Foreman was all time great puncher, so even though he was way past his best, a win over him is a big deal. Get it?

Who gives Holyfield credit for beating Holmes?
Louis had better than average handspeed when he fought Marciano? You're kidding right?
Is knocking out Valdes supposed to mean something? Even Eddie Machen who wasn't much of a puncher did that, as did other guys.
Louis speed, reflexes were even worse gone by the time he fought Marciano, then they were against Charles. He simply couldn't pull the trigger anymore, couldn't followup in a good punch. It's all on film.

Ambling Alp wrote:Morrison must be great becasue he beat Foreman. Foreman was all time great puncher, so even though he was way past his best, a win over him is a big deal. Get it?

Who gives Holyfield credit for beating Holmes?
Louis had better than average handspeed when he fought Marciano? You're kidding right?
Is knocking out Valdes supposed to mean something? Even Eddie Machen who wasn't much of a puncher did that, as did other guys.
Louis speed, reflexes were even worse gone by the time he fought Marciano, then they were against Charles. He simply couldn't pull the trigger anymore, couldn't followup in a good punch. It's all on film.

Not on the film that Brockton watches. Or maybe it's because he has those rose-tinted glasses on that he sees this fantastic, almost peak superb destructive fighting machine that he think Louis was at that point.

Come on, he has to say that to build his hero Marciano up.

He does the same with Jersey Joe who apparently was at his absolute peak when he fought Marciano and no doubt would have beaten any other fighter in history that night apart from poor old delusional Brockton's hero.

Louis speed, reflexes were even worse gone by the time he fought Marciano, then they were against Charles

disagree they were better, because he was less rusty when he fought marciano and savold. charles fought louis less than a year from when marciano fought louis

ur still missing my whole point alp, so well leave it as well have to agree to disagree on louis.


god this forum is turning out to be a joke, maybe i should just stick to eastsideboxing, there are open minded knowledgable posters there who arnt such stuck up brits

Alp you totally write off the heavyweights moore beat. did you know he beat clarence henry, a HALL OF FAME HEAVYWEIGHT? thats right hall of fame. anyone i know whos seen henry in his prime cant speak enough of the guy, a very good fighter. al weill ducked clarence henry in 1951. perhaps give moore more credit for soundily beating this guy?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:ur totally nitpicking right there. i could do the same to any other fighter.

no he doesnt get enought credit for beating a old but dangerous big man with skills and top notch jab

he only had 3 KOs on his comeback trail cause he was facing mostly contenders and he fought 4 fights against slick defensive survival fighters like agramonte and brion.

louis could have easily fought 24 ham and eggers like foreman did when he came back and rock up 24 ko victories in a row.

savold wasnt that past it when he fought louis. he was 33, but he was in shape 190lb and he was coming off a 4th round stoppage of top rated bruce woodcock and was BBC champion. habve u seen this fight? it was a good fight. savold was incredibly durable, had only been counted out once in the past 10 years(by huge punching ray) and louis knocked him out with ONE left hook. shows you how hard louis could punch. a prime rocky marciano hit savold with flush punches and couldnt put a older fatter worse savold down. louis could still hit very hard in 1951, with one punch, he simply lacked the combinations and reflexes he once had in his prime to finish off everone. but in terms of raw one punch power, it was still there. look at a peak charles and peak marcianos faces afer fighting louis, they were horribly puffed up.

andy walker coming into the louis fight didnt have a bad record, till louis knocked him out in 10. it was after the louis fight he went downhill. besides he STILL knocked out andy walker. who cares wut round

louis also knocked omelio agramonte down and nearly out with 1 right hand in there fight. have u ever seen this fight? agramonte was a very skilled fast sharp cutie, a solid contender who had a very difficult style to deal with. ever seen agramonte-louis fight? awesome fight to watch

did you also know that joe louis knocked out nino valdez in an exhibitoon fight in 1 round? thats right the same # 1 contender nino valdez of the 1950s.

raw power is the last thing to go, louis at 215lb still had heavy fists and still had better than average handspeed compared to most even at 37.

marcano deserves credit for beating a dangerous top contender big man with skills, even if he was old. same way tunney deserves credit for beating dempsey, holyfield deserves credit for beating holmes.

if marciano beat bob baker or nino valdes, would you give him more credit than you would for beating a 1951 joe louis who was most likely better than both of them? just because baker and valdez were younger?

the version of joe louis was only beaten by prime ATGs charles and marciano, and even then he left huge marks on there faces and gave them decent fights

I'm not nit-picking. Before Louis retired he had 51 kos in 60 wins. On his comeback trail he had just 3 kos in 8 wins. In fact 6 of those 8 wins went 10 rounds. He had nearly as many points wins in his comback than he had in his entire first career. If that isn't a sign of Louis demise I don't know what is.

And remember his first comback fight he was completely outboxed by Charles, two judges giving Louis only 2 of the 15 rounds.

I maybe didn't word my other post too well. What I was getting at was Louis had lost the attributes that made him such a deadly fighter. His speed, deadly accurate and fantastic comination punching had all but deserted him. Yes he could still pack a punch but it was the previous attributes that made him dangerous.

Savold was 35 not 32. He was ko'ed 4 or 5 years earlier by Ray and had been ko'ed a few times before that, usually early. Savold wasn't a great fighter anyway and was at the end of a 18 year (140 fight career) when he fought Louis. His career was littered with defeats (38 in all) and really doesn't stand out in anyones mind as anything other than average. His weight is irrelevent, that doesn't mean anything. Look at Holyfield, he's in better shape than fighters 20 years his junior yet isn't anywhere near the fighter he once was. What if Tyson came back weighing 215lbs do you think that would mean anything?

The question you need to ask yourself is would the Marciano-Louis result have been the same if Louis was in his prime? I don't think so. Yes Marciano beat him but a shadow in my opinion.

Does Berbick get credit for beating Ali? Does Tyson get credit for beating Holmes? No is the answer, some do for Tyson but many don't. Yet when Marcianos name comes up Louis's name is always thown in as being a great win.