View Full Version : If Rocky Marciano would of..........


vargas
03-06-2006, 01:42 PM
if Rocky Marciano would of lived up to today you think he would of had more stardom and been more recognized as a legend than ali.
maybe he even would of been more liked than ali

whatdahieu
03-06-2006, 02:07 PM
the thing about marciano is that he never really "shook things up" so to speak, he was a great fighter, although crude, he always had a huge heart and cut easily but his unrelentless pressure and hi determination was superub, the only thing is outside of boxing he never really did anything extordinary but a key this is that he was white, and i think being white would really appeal to the public, so i think he and ali would be regarded the same in the aspect they were so different, black/white, humble/flashy, boxer/brawler, so i think they would appeal to two different segments of society and they'd be equal if they were around the same time period, hard to imagine if either one would eclipse the other but remember ali was political so in that sense ppl would be be more emotional about ali be it love or hate him.

Zab06
03-06-2006, 02:08 PM
I don't know about Rocky..Jack Dempsey I don't know about a following either but he would be badass.

SuzieQ49
03-06-2006, 02:14 PM
one thing about marciano is people call him crude, but if u watch marciano on film, he is very natural athletic and isnt uncoordinated and his techniques is polished in the way he throws punches, in the way he moves, etc. fact is, hes just very wild.

i think marciano is more "wild" than "crude". crude is when the fighter is herky jerky and looks uncoordinated and very girly like.

marciano wasnt that way, he was just very wild and innacurate(especially early career).


i hope i got my point across in the right way, does anyone understand what im trying to say?


i used to call him crude, but I am not so sure anymore. marciano at his his peak wasnt crude, he was just very wild and innacurate at times. goldman really polished him up.


rocky was not a herky jerky, throws girly like punches, uncoordinated fighter

smasher
03-06-2006, 02:43 PM
i hope i got my point across in the right way, does anyone understand what im trying to say?

He had a tendency to sometimes club with his punches.

Heckler
03-06-2006, 03:26 PM
Sorry Rocky was inaccurate and relatively crude, yet effective. Rocky Marciano although a GREAT i believe is a bit overrated. Because of his undefeated record. But what GREATS did he beat, Louis doesn't count, Walcott doesn't make it on a top 10 list, ezzard charles doesn't often either. The best fighter he fought was an aging Charles. Not his fault, he had a huge heart and fought anyone that was game enough. But if you swapped Joe Fraziers position with Marcianos. Marciano would most probably have loses to Ali and Foreman. Joe Frazier would be undefeated.

smasher
03-06-2006, 03:38 PM
Sorry Rocky was inaccurate and relatively crude, yet effective. Rocky Marciano although a GREAT i believe is a bit overrated. Because of his undefeated record. But what GREATS did he beat, Louis doesn't count, Walcott doesn't make it on a top 10 list, ezzard charles doesn't often either. The best fighter he fought was an aging Charles. Not his fault, he had a huge heart and fought anyone that was game enough. But if you swapped Joe Fraziers position with Marcianos. Marciano would most probably have loses to Ali and Foreman. Joe Frazier would be undefeated.

Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson at least go 49-0 against ROCKY'S competition

Southpaw Stinger
03-06-2006, 03:41 PM
Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson at least go 49-0 against ROCKY'S competition

Definatly.

Dempsey 1919
03-06-2006, 03:45 PM
Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson at least go 49-0 against ROCKY'S competition

evan holyfield, lewis, bowe, patterson, and johnson as well.

Yaman
03-06-2006, 04:09 PM
How do you know that? You have supernatural powers? Its stupid to act like someone who predicts things that never happened. Some of you are taking this boxing fantasy way too far.

Rocky Marciano
Only champion without flaws.
Only Champion to retire undefeated.
Highest KO% ever.

Just want to point out how great he was before you guys start insulting him again.

Dempsey 1919
03-06-2006, 04:17 PM
How do you know that? You have supernatural powers? Its stupid to act like someone who predicts things that never happened. Some of you are taking this boxing fantasy way too far.

Rocky Marciano
Only champion without flaws.
Only Champion to retire undefeated.
Highest KO% ever.

Just want to point out how great he was before you guys start insulting him again.

care to elaborate on this?

Yaman
03-06-2006, 04:26 PM
care to elaborate on this?


Why do you think he stayed undefeated and looked in shape every fight ? He trained and fought every second of his fights, showing some determenation never seen before or after. So many champions have looked out of shape because they didn't train or weren't foccused. Also, they fought on when they weren't in their primes annymore and got beat up. Rocky had the perfect career.

Southpaw Stinger
03-06-2006, 04:28 PM
Why do you think he stayed undefeated

Because he had a short career fighting nobody's.

Yaman
03-06-2006, 04:32 PM
Because he had a short career fighting nobody's.


He trained and was more dedicated than your boys Ali and Foreman. Ali has been out of shape a lot of times in the ring, and Foreman, he should've retired early. I give him more credit.

Dempsey 1919
03-06-2006, 04:34 PM
Why do you think he stayed undefeated?

because he fought bums. watcott, charles, an old joe louis, and moore is nothing special. all of these guys besides joe louis lost like a gazillion times before they fought marciano in the first place.

Southpaw Stinger
03-06-2006, 04:36 PM
Foreman, he should've retired early.

He did but he came back to life like ET and kicked everyones ass. And maybe Marciano did train harder but he was slow in the ring and struggled against guys that would be eaten alive by my so called boys Ali and Foreman.

He also had many faults in the ring and only fought with one simple style.

Dempsey 1919
03-06-2006, 04:36 PM
He trained and was more dedicated than your boys Ali and Foreman. Ali has been out of shape a lot of times in the ring, and Foreman, he should've retired early. I give him more credit.

but when ali was focused, nothing could stop him. i don't know why there is this misconception that ali didn't like to train. ask people like larry holmes how dedicated ali was in training? besides marciano, nobody trained as hard as ali for a fight. the guy was a gym rat.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-06-2006, 04:37 PM
Marciano's career was longer then fraziers by more then 10 fights so its not like he had the shortest career, Marciano was great and would have been better if he had fought in Ali's time because there was more avalible, just as there's more avalible today then back then. Marciano's not really crude he had a tendency to look awkward when he missed. His style was great, defense straight to offense, and punch that could bring men 200Lbs+ down. Its funny how ppl say well if tyson used those gloves or frazier or whoever used them would have done just as much damage, if i'm not mistaken they've used 10 oz gloves as a standard since after the 20's.

He mixed it up, could bring nearly any hw ever down with a few combinations (not really a dramatization),KO power in either hand

people don't regard him as the greatest, which is fine it may be because he was very humble and not flashy but the point is he was a great fighter and you can't take 49-0 away from him

and unlike other hw he never needed like 6 months to train he was always conditioned, 2 months before a fight he'd kick it up and do double everything to be ready so, 49-0, highes ko rate, hell of a punch,trained religiously, humble, not much more you could ask of a hw champion

the traveler
03-06-2006, 05:06 PM
Highest ko rate, yes, but it sure wouldn't have been the highest ko rate if he fought as many fights as George Foreman did.

Dempsey 1919
03-06-2006, 05:09 PM
Highest ko rate, yes, but it sure wouldn't have been the highest ko rate if he fought as many fights as George Foreman did.

yeah, foreman had a 92 or 93% ko rate before he came back in 1987.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-06-2006, 05:13 PM
1st thats only like 4% and 2nd Like tunney and what should be jefferies (if he didn't fight johnson) he perfected retiring on top, he probably had about 5-8 good fights left but he didn't want retire on his stool just like Ali didn't.

Southpaw Stinger
03-06-2006, 05:17 PM
yeah, foreman had a 92 or 93% ko rate before he came back in 1987.

Thats true.

SuzieQ49
03-06-2006, 05:38 PM
Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson at least go 49-0 against ROCKY'S competition



im glad this was brought up. i totally disagree with this.




the ultimate question is...........


how would these guys do against marcianos competition having to GO THROUGH THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES MARCIANO WENT THROUGHT ENTERING HIS FIGHTS?


not many, if any.



frazier? no he wouldnt. he was burnt out after 36 fights. I dont think he makes it to 49-0 without burning out or showing up overweight and getting upset. having to go through the circumstances marciano went through early on, and all the wars.......frazier would never last.


liston? nope. he lost to marty marshall when he was young. having to go through the same circmustances rocky went through early in his career, liston would lose a fight or 2.


mike tyson- NOPE, he couldnt make it to 40-0 without getting upset by buster douglas a much lesser fighter than charles and walcott. i see tyson getting upset at least 1 along the way due to showing up out of shape.


as u see i could go on and on, but most of these guys didnt have what it takes to be able to go 49-0 against marcianos competition UNDER THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES MARCIANO WENT THROUGH ENTERING HIS FIGHTS. that included very early in marcianos career when he was thrown in against top prospects to pad there records. marciano didnt even have goldman start training him until after his 10th pro fight. its amazing rock escaped outta there 10-0 considering in most of those 10 fights he was the underdog entering it.

SuzieQ49
03-06-2006, 05:41 PM
ut what GREATS did he beat

he beat 3 great ezzard charles, archie moore, and jersey joe walcott?



what greats did holmes beat?

what greats did liston beat outside of patterson?

what greats did jack johnson beat?


what greats did lennox lewis beat(holyfield was long gone and he deserved the 2nd fight)?


what greats did mike tyson beat?


what greats did jack dempsey beat?


what greats did frazier beat outside of ali?







I can critzize everyone like the way u are doing with marciano

smasher
03-06-2006, 06:27 PM
frazier?...frazier would never last.


liston? nope. he lost to marty marshall when he was young. having to go through the same circmustances rocky went through early in his career, liston would lose a fight or 2.


mike tyson- NOPE, he couldnt make it to 40-0 without getting upset by buster douglas a much lesser fighter than charles and walcott. i see tyson getting upset at least 1 along the way due to showing up out of shape.


its amazing rock escaped outta there 10-0 considering in most of those 10 fights he was the underdog entering it.

Frazier only lost to two fighters his entire career. Ali who is #1 or #2 all-time (whom Frazier also beat) and Foreman arguably the strongest heavyweight puncher ever and an all-time top 10 havyweight champion. So that leaves one opponent (Foreman) that Frazier fought who he didn't beat. So the question then becomes, What later Marciano opponent would have beaten Frazier?

Liston losing to Marshall was only his 8th fight and Marshall was more experienced than Liston at the time and a far cry from a prelim fighter. Marshall would fight many world class name opponents in his career. None of Marciano's first 10 opponents ever amounted to anything resembling a world class fighter. Liston suffered an injury (broken jaw)early in the fight which no doubt affected his performance. Liston later avenged this loss. So the question then becomes, What early Marciano opponent would have beaten Liston ?

Buster Douglas overall reach, size and strength was a major factor which contributed to Tyson losing and it was the only fight Tyson lost until Holyfield. So the question then becomes, What later Marciano opponent would have beaten Tyson?

One reason Marciano was such an underdog in his early fights was because of how bad he looked. Sam Silverman co-promoter for Marciano's early fights described Marciano as "this kid's got nothing. He can punch alright but I've never seen a fighter as clumsy. The kid doesn't know what he's doing out there."

What about Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Foreman, Holmes.....

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES MARCIANO WENT THROUGH ENTERING HIS FIGHTS?

SuzieQ49
03-06-2006, 07:25 PM
Frazier only lost to two fighters his entire career. Ali who is #1 or #2 all-time (whom Frazier also beat) and Foreman arguably the strongest heavyweight puncher ever and an all-time top 10 havyweight champion. So that leaves one opponent (Foreman) that Frazier fought who he didn't beat. So the question then becomes, What later Marciano opponent would have beaten Frazier?



would frazier be able to get through marcianos first 10 fights under the same circumstances marciano went through, and escape without a loss?

marciano had virtually no amatuer experience, and wasnt even being trained by goldman then. he was thrown into big prospects like 26-0 eddie ross and 15-1 bobby quinn using marciano to pad there record. would frazier be able to escape there without a loss going through the same circumstances marciano went through entering the fights? marciano had barely any amatuer experience and he was without goldman


frazier nearly lost to oscar bonavena in 66. yet frazier had tons of amatuer experience. what makes you think going under the same circumstances marciano was going through entering his fights, he would be able to get past roland lastarza in 1950? marciano was very inexerpeicned against world class fighters when he took on lastarza. frazier had more experience when he took on bonavena.

frazier also was burnt out after the ali superfight. at just 29 years old he was past his prime. fraziers weight balooned to 215lb and he became slower and more vunerable.

theres a good chance frazier (going under the same circumstances marciano went through entering his fights) would lose to one of rocky's early opponents or lose to lastarza. if frazier somehow survives, theres a good chance he will burn out before he gets to 49-0 and his weight will baloon 10lb and he could lose to a walcott or charles.






Liston losing to Marshall was only his 8th fight and Marshall was more experienced than Liston at the time. Liston suffered an injury (broken jaw)early in the fight which no doubt affected his performance. Liston later avenged this loss. So the question then becomes, What early Marciano opponent would have beaten Liston ?

I believe sonny had more amatuer experience and had a trainer in his first 10 fights.

rocky very early his career took on a much much more experienced top notch journeyman tiger ted lowry who was just as good as marshall.

lowry's style was almost reminsisant to marty marshalls. both were clowns. so what happen to liston against marshall would happen vs lowry automatically since liston lost to marshall. different fight scenario but you get the picture.

would liston be able to get by bobby quinn or eddie ross? rocky in his 4th fight took on 15-1 bobby quinn(record incomplete). quinn was considered the huge favorite and used rocky as a stepping stone. rocky had no experience vs a fighter of quinns caliber and had to train for this fight on his own. rocky in his 5th fight took on 26-0(23) eddie ross.(Ross record isnt complete on boxrec). promoter Sam Silverman threw rocky in there vs a 26-0 fighter because he was angry rocky had upset quinn, so he threw rocky in vs big prospect eddie ross to add a W to eddie's record. liston in his 4th fight won by a split decision over a 5-1 fighter. might liston get upset by quinn or ross??


after that, i dont see liston losing since he was able to adapt quickly without needing big time amatuer experience.




Buster Douglas overall reach, size and strength was a major factor which contributed to Tyson losing and it was the only fight Tyson lost until Holyfield. So the question then becomes, What later Marciano opponent would have beaten Tyson?

tyson was not the same when rooney left him. tyson was no longer the unpredicatable, deadly offensive and defensive machine he was of 86-1988. tyson was out of shape, and mentally unstable when he took on douglas and he didnt have his same defense, didnt attack the body anymore. he was suffering mentally and physically. to a master boxer like charles or walcott, they could easily upset tyson.


tyson had loads of amatuer experience and was being INCREDIBLE WELL TRAINED FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS. marciano had virtually no amatuer experience and wasnt even being trained by charley goldman until after his pro career started.

i defintley see tyson losing to one of marciano's early opponents, if he goes through the same circumstances marciano went through entering the fights.

in tysons 20th fight, he nearly lost to james tillis.

marciano 20th fight, he had a very close one with tiger ted lowry. and tyson at that stage of his career was much more experienced and had a lot more training when he went up against tillis.









One reason Marciano was such an underdog in his early fights was because of how bad he looked. Sam Silverman co-promoter for Marciano's early fights described Marciano as "this kid's got nothing. He can punch alright but I've never seen a fighter as clumsy. The kid doesn't know what he's doing out there."


EXACTLEY! rocky had virtually no amatuer experience and no training at all from goldmanm, yet somehow he managed to escape the early part of his career without a loss even though he was being used as a to pad other guys records.

had it not been for rockys right hand, he would have never made it out of there. I can only imagine how bad marciano looked then. from what i hear, he had no defense and he would just go in and throw 1000 punches missing 900 and then almost tearing the other guys head off with the 100 that landed. he would take huge punches in his earlier fights, and would go all out aggresive and wild never worrying about counterpunches or getting tired. and he would land his suzy Q and then just like that the fight is over. one thing im really impressed about rocky's early fights, is him not even being knocked down once. he had no defense then, he took flush punches every fight until goldman started to polish him up.






even sam silverman is amazed years later how rocky went undefeated his whole career
"what people dont realize is rocky could have lost anyone of his early fights."





fact is you can say certain greats would go 49-0 against marcianos competition, but thats you saying theu would beat marcianos opponents all on there best night. hell i could say with anyons competition.

smasher
03-06-2006, 08:33 PM
This is undoubtedly the dumbest argument I have ever heard.

Let me get this right. Marciano had no amateur record and was a poor fighter early in his career. Got it.

Now what does that have to do with the fact that the afformentioned former champions would beat Marciano's competition? If anything it shows that Marciano's competition was weak based on the fact that an unschooled amateur with little formal training could beat them.

What if Frazier, Liston and Tyson didn't fight amateur? I don't know and I don't care. They did and they would have torn through Marciano's competition including Roland Lastarza and Ted Lowry, give me a break.

Marciano fought Lastarza in his 26th fight. Frazier fought Foster in his 26th fight. In Frazier's next fight he beat Muhammad Ali. Are you suggesting this Frazier loses to Lastarza? If you are, you need to get the **** off this forum and return to where you came from.

If Frazier had fought Marciano's opponents, HE WOULDN'T BE BURNED OUT BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT HAVE WENT THROUGH 15 ROUNDS OF HELL WITH ALI.

Even the 31 year old Frazier of Thrilla in Manilla doesn't lose to the 185 lb 33 year old Charles or the 38 year old Walcott, we both know that. Christ, Charles lost 15 of 25 fights starting with the Marciano fights, he was not the same fighter he was.


Stop building up Marciano's early opponents. Ross was a light-heavyweight and his so-called record of 26-0 comes from the mouth of promoter Silverman. I've never seen his 26 so-called fights documented anywhere. Ross amounted to nothing in his career.

Quinn also amounted to nothing in his career. Comparing these two fighters to Bonevena and Marshall is outlandish and biased.

Frazier beat Bonevena in his 12th fight. Bonevena was an experienced world ranked fighter at the time who had beaten Chuvalo as well as been in with Zora Folley among others. No need to list what Bonevena did after the Frazier fight. Who did Marciano fight in his 12th fight? Gilley Ferron. 1-2 with both losses by KO. An incomplete boxrec record you say? Show me otherwise, if not shut up, that's his record. Either way Frazier isn't losing to Gilley Ferron.

As for the Tyson argument, I'm sorry but a 38 year old Walcott or 33 year old 185 lb Charles isn't beating a 24 year old Tyson, even the one that fought Douglas.

Marciano beat Moore just after turning 32 years of age then got the hell out of Dodge. If he had fought on to the age that the other fighters I mentioned did, Marciano sure as hell wouldn't have retired undefeated.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-06-2006, 09:04 PM
Marciano v Lastarza one would have been a ko in rocky's favor but the fight before he fought carmine vingo, he knocked vingo into a coma, so he didn't train for that fight, he was in the hospital or the chapel, 2 weeks in the gym

he was also was holding back severely because he didn't want to hurt another person by the next fight he was fine and in the rematch you can see what happened in the first picture of my signature

Heckler
03-06-2006, 09:16 PM
How do you know that? You have supernatural powers? Its stupid to act like someone who predicts things that never happened. Some of you are taking this boxing fantasy way too far.

Rocky Marciano
Only champion without flaws.
Only Champion to retire undefeated.
Highest KO% ever.

Just want to point out how great he was before you guys start insulting him again.

Only champion without flaws? WHAT THE ****? His defence was far from perfect, he had no boxing ability at all... again WHAT THE ****. Highest KO ratio against crap competition, undefeated against crap competition. Statistics are all fine and good but you must identify the circumstances in which they occured.

He was a great, a top 10, if not a top 5 but he is far from flawless and the UNDEFEATED thing is blown out of proportion.

Heckler
03-06-2006, 09:21 PM
would frazier be able to get through marcianos first 10 fights under the same circumstances marciano went through, and escape without a loss?

marciano had virtually no amatuer experience, and wasnt even being trained by goldman then. he was thrown into big prospects like 26-0 eddie ross and 15-1 bobby quinn using marciano to pad there record. would frazier be able to escape there without a loss going through the same circumstances marciano went through entering the fights? marciano had barely any amatuer experience and he was without goldman


frazier nearly lost to oscar bonavena in 66. yet frazier had tons of amatuer experience. what makes you think going under the same circumstances marciano was going through entering his fights, he would be able to get past roland lastarza in 1950? marciano was very inexerpeicned against world class fighters when he took on lastarza. frazier had more experience when he took on bonavena.

frazier also was burnt out after the ali superfight. at just 29 years old he was past his prime. fraziers weight balooned to 215lb and he became slower and more vunerable.

theres a good chance frazier (going under the same circumstances marciano went through entering his fights) would lose to one of rocky's early opponents or lose to lastarza. if frazier somehow survives, theres a good chance he will burn out before he gets to 49-0 and his weight will baloon 10lb and he could lose to a walcott or charles.







I believe sonny had more amatuer experience and had a trainer in his first 10 fights.

rocky very early his career took on a much much more experienced top notch journeyman tiger ted lowry who was just as good as marshall.

lowry's style was almost reminsisant to marty marshalls. both were clowns. so what happen to liston against marshall would happen vs lowry automatically since liston lost to marshall. different fight scenario but you get the picture.

would liston be able to get by bobby quinn or eddie ross? rocky in his 4th fight took on 15-1 bobby quinn(record incomplete). quinn was considered the huge favorite and used rocky as a stepping stone. rocky had no experience vs a fighter of quinns caliber and had to train for this fight on his own. rocky in his 5th fight took on 26-0(23) eddie ross.(Ross record isnt complete on boxrec). promoter Sam Silverman threw rocky in there vs a 26-0 fighter because he was angry rocky had upset quinn, so he threw rocky in vs big prospect eddie ross to add a W to eddie's record. liston in his 4th fight won by a split decision over a 5-1 fighter. might liston get upset by quinn or ross??


after that, i dont see liston losing since he was able to adapt quickly without needing big time amatuer experience.





tyson was not the same when rooney left him. tyson was no longer the unpredicatable, deadly offensive and defensive machine he was of 86-1988. tyson was out of shape, and mentally unstable when he took on douglas and he didnt have his same defense, didnt attack the body anymore. he was suffering mentally and physically. to a master boxer like charles or walcott, they could easily upset tyson.


tyson had loads of amatuer experience and was being INCREDIBLE WELL TRAINED FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS. marciano had virtually no amatuer experience and wasnt even being trained by charley goldman until after his pro career started.

i defintley see tyson losing to one of marciano's early opponents, if he goes through the same circumstances marciano went through entering the fights.

in tysons 20th fight, he nearly lost to james tillis.

marciano 20th fight, he had a very close one with tiger ted lowry. and tyson at that stage of his career was much more experienced and had a lot more training when he went up against tillis.











EXACTLEY! rocky had virtually no amatuer experience and no training at all from goldmanm, yet somehow he managed to escape the early part of his career without a loss even though he was being used as a to pad other guys records.

had it not been for rockys right hand, he would have never made it out of there. I can only imagine how bad marciano looked then. from what i hear, he had no defense and he would just go in and throw 1000 punches missing 900 and then almost tearing the other guys head off with the 100 that landed. he would take huge punches in his earlier fights, and would go all out aggresive and wild never worrying about counterpunches or getting tired. and he would land his suzy Q and then just like that the fight is over. one thing im really impressed about rocky's early fights, is him not even being knocked down once. he had no defense then, he took flush punches every fight until goldman started to polish him up.






even sam silverman is amazed years later how rocky went undefeated his whole career
"what people dont realize is rocky could have lost anyone of his early fights."





fact is you can say certain greats would go 49-0 against marcianos competition, but thats you saying theu would beat marcianos opponents all on there best night. hell i could say with anyons competition.

Who gives a **** about how inexperienced rocky was ETC. We are comparing Ability. Take someone of Joe Fraziers (and others) prime ability, compare it to Rocky's prime ability and then think about how they would perform with this ability in rockys era. Simple, dont try to gloss over the fact that Rocky's competition was crap.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-06-2006, 09:23 PM
Only champion without flaws? WHAT THE ****? His defence was far from perfect, he had no boxing ability at all... again WHAT THE ****. Highest KO ratio against crap competition, undefeated against crap competition. Statistics are all fine and good but you must identify the circumstances in which they occured.

He was a great, a top 10, if not a top 5 but he is far from flawless and the UNDEFEATED thing is blown out of proportion.
i'll admit he did have his flaws, he did have a good defense though, and actually in a sense a better one then ali because ali depended on his footwork he really didn't need to perry much so in that sense Marciano was ok. he had ok handspeed which is a flaw he wasn't really fast with his hands or his feet. those are really his big flaws beside that he was pretty well rounded

crap competition or not you can't mess with 49-0

El Cholo
03-06-2006, 10:01 PM
Marciano would never have acheived the status of Ali because he never had the loud personality and was never controversial.
He wasnt as flash or as handsome (women loved Ali).


As for Marciano having a good defence. I watched the first Walcott fight recently, and he was hit alot.
He was awkward, bit didnt have a great defence

I see some like Ali cutting him to shreds and tying him up on the inside.
An old Walcott took alot of his shots.
I dont see how Rocky could have hit Ali.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-06-2006, 10:06 PM
Marciano would never have acheived the status of Ali because he never had the loud personality and was never controversial.
He wasnt as flash or as handsome (women loved Ali).


As for Marciano having a good defence. I watched the first Walcott fight recently, and he was hit alot.
He was awkward, bit didnt have a great defence

I see some like Ali cutting him to shreds and tying him up on the inside.
An old Walcott took alot of his shots.
I dont see how Rocky could have hit Ali.
2 things you go to remember, Marciano fought on the inside so sometimes it looks like he's getting hit and he's perrying, sometimes he's in there and getting though

the other thing is Marciano couldn't see for liike 4 rounds and he was keeping Walcott close so he didn't get jabbed to death, so he took a hell of a beating until the 10th when his eyes cleared up

SuzieQ49
03-06-2006, 10:18 PM
Even the Frazier of Thrilla in Manilla doesn't lose to the 185 lb 33 year old Charles or the 38 year old Walcott, we both know that. Christ.


I disagree. the thrilla of manilla frazier was well well past his prime. he looked slow, his reflexes were shot, he was overweight, he was nothing compared to the vintage frazier.


walcott on the other hand was a fighter who got better with age. despite his age being considered "old", walcott was at or near his best when he fought marciano.

walcotts prime years were 1947-52. he was never as good as a fighter as in those years.


entering the marciano fight, walcott was coming off 2 wins over ezzard charles. walcotts confidence was at its peak.

in the 1st marciano fight, walcott fought one of the best fights of his career. outside of the 1st louis fight, it was perhaps walcotts best fight.


"walcott had the legs of a 20 year old, he was having the best fight of his career."

"it did not seem possible that the aging walcott legs could carry joe on the long journey he traveled before going down for the count."- new york times

"no fight that I fought did I ever feel better or more confident"- jersey joe walcott


even a modern anaylist max kellerman admits "walcott was in his prime when he fought marciano."


would walcott beat manilla frazier?


well walcott was in his prime in 52, frazier was far from it at manilla. I would certainly say yes. I think walcott gives a prime frazier a tough fight, so i would certainly say walcott beats a well past his prime frazier.


walcott 15 unanimous manilla frazier




as for ezzard charles, he was 32 when he fought marciano. get your facts straight.

I do think charles was a bit past his prime, but I also believe charles was still a great fighter when he fought marciano, and charles fought possibly the best fight of his career in the 1st marciano fight. it took a great champion to defeat charles that night.


charles was only 32, but he had slipped a little since he won the title in 49.

Ezzard charles entering the 1st marciano fight was the # 1 contender. since he lost his last title fight vs walcott in 52, he had gone 11-3. HOWEVER THIS STAT IS MISLEADING.........

charles was robbed in the layne and harold johnson fights(watch the tape).

so really charles record since his last title fight from walcott to marciano title fight is 13-1. impressive huh?

- the valdes loss was a case of a out of shape(193lb) overconfident charles taking a unkown journeyman at the time nino valdes lightly, and nino scored a huge upset over ezzard. nino proved he was a lot better than his record indicated, and went on to become a # 1 contender himself.


so you say charles lost 13 of 23 fights after facing marciano...........

well i will tell u charles was 13-1 and the # 1 contender by ring Magazine june 1954 entering the first marciano fight

charles was coming off a 2 round knockout over top contender bob satterfield. charles knocked satterfield out cold with one left hook in the 2nd.




charles, 32, in that first fight offered perhaps the best fight of his career. It was ezzards last chance and he knew it. So he trained harder than became more motivated than he had since he held the title. as charles said "this is a chance of a lifetime".

watch the tape, charles looks great in the early rounds using his experience, speed, boxing skills, to outbox marciano. however, marciano was a tank and he started to wear charles down. After hitting charles in the adams apple with a punch(perfectly legal), charles started to slow down and become flatfooted. still charles showed a side of him he never had before, the heart of a champion. charles survived those last 5 rounds taking huge punishment, and somehow managed to stay on his feet in the process. charles even showed great inside fighting skills and slugged it out with the stronger champion at times. How charles stayed up on his feet, we will never know. perhaps it was the fact that he had longed for his respect, but had never gotten it from the public and this was his chance to prove it. the workrate charles put up in that fight was incredible, but because of it he also suffered horrible punishment and if u look at charles face in the 15th round, u will understand why i say that.

marciano later commented "what can I say, it was my toughest fight." marciano even after retirment would go on to say charles was the toughest fighter he ever faced.


"no fighter in the world could have lasted those 15 rounds with charles that night let alone with the decision"- Boxing and Wrestling News 1954 on first marciano-charles fight

"charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his career"- wilfred smith chicago tribune covering marciano-charles I

"although he was plainly defeated, charles made one of the best showings of his career."- New York times covering 1st marciano-charles fight



would a 32 year old charles beat joe frazier of manilla?

yes. the charles of the 1st marciano fight was a great fighter, and it took a great champion to beat him. frazier was well past his prime in manilla and slow and his reflexes were gone. I think charles would outpoint frazier of manilla. I think even a prime frazier would have trouble with ezzard charles.

Ezzard Charles 15 unanimous Frazier of manilla




Charles lost 15 of 25 fights starting with the Marciano fights, he was not the same fighter he was


you are misguidied my freind. charles was ruined by the marciano fights. This explains why charles went into that horrible slump. if you look at marcianos record, you will find rocky has a history of ruining fighters meaning after they fought rocky, they were never the same again.

charles was never the same after that 15 round gruelling war he fought with marciano. in the rematch, marciano dominated charles winning nearly every round and giving charles a horrible beating. outside of the freak cut, marciano dominated the rematch. these 2 horrible beatings charles took ruined charles. its safe to say CHARLES AGED DRAMATICALLY AFTER THE MARCIANO FIGHTS.


if u dont believe me, watch tape of charles post marciano and you will agree with me.

SuzieQ49
03-06-2006, 10:40 PM
heckler,

if u call great fighters like walcott, charles, moore and top dangerous contenders like lastarza, louis, layne crap competition, than u need to think about taking up another sport.

who did larry holmes beat that was better than walcott or charles?




Only champion without flaws? WHAT THE ****? His defence was far from perfect, he had no boxing ability at all... again WHAT THE ****.


I think you need to learn how to analysize boxing before you make comments like that.

if marciano had no skill, he would have never have been able to beat master boxing greats like charles, walcott, moore let alone go undefeated.


marciano did have skill...........


In Rocky's fights he clearly cuts off the ring and feints his way inside. He slips and parries jabs, and uses head movement when fighting at mid range. He keeps his gloves high at long range, feeling and gradually working his way in. He knew how to alternate between body and head, and knew how to neutralize a man in a clinch. He was a smart fighter. Rocky's awkwardness was actually one of Marciano's strengths. Many found his unorthodox way of fighting very difficult to cope with inconceivable angles. He was a very hard man to fight. On the inside, Rocky would constantly be moving his head, up and down, rolling around, side to side, backwards and forwards, and he'd come in with hard punches from all kinds of weird angles.


"he doesnt let you fight your fight"- Ezzard charles




"He was a really good defensive fighter too, which is something a lot of people didnt realize. I found out that when we did the computer fight, muhammad had a hard time reaching rocky with his jab. Rocky had his own technique with his leg. it looked like he was standing still, but he was actually sliding away from the punch."- angelo dundee

"rocky is the only fight I know thats able to punch out of a slip"- angelo dundee


charley goldman always talked about how underated marcianos defense is, and how it got very polished by the end of his career.



"he fools you. He doesnt get his as much as you think"- roland lastazrza probably the best defensive heavyweight of that era

walcott said "marciano was easy to hit, but hard to get at with an effective punch".



fighters like moore, walcott,lastarza, charles all said marciano was hard to get at with a clean shot. these guys are very accurate master boxers, so i trust they know what there talking about.

SuzieQ49
03-06-2006, 11:06 PM
to tell u the truth, its ridiculous having to make these same posts over and over again. I am sick of making these same arguments over and over again to the same clueless individuals who say critzize rocky's competition without doing any research on the matter.


only rocky gets critizized this much. you never see these kinds of attacks made about joe frazier, larry holmes, jack johnson, lennox lewis, sonny liston, etc like u see in every marciano thread.

rocky may not be underated, and rocky may not be overated.........


but as far as I am concerned, rocky is the most critizied heavyweight champion of all time.


I dont rate rocky high because hes 49-0. anyone who bases there ranking soely on marciano being 49-0 is overating marciano.


its almost as if because he was 49-0, critics always try to make people admit he was not perfect. well let me be the first man to admit, marciano was not perfect, only his record is. but like every champion, marciano had flaws in his career.

I rate marciano 5th greatest heavyweight of all time, There are reasons why I dont rate marciano higher or lower than that.

smasher
03-06-2006, 11:18 PM
to tell u the truth, its ridiculous having to make these same posts over and over again. I am sick of making these same arguments over and over again to the same clueless individuals who say critzize rocky's competition without doing any research on the matter.


only rocky gets critizized this much. you never see these kinds of attacks made about joe frazier, larry holmes, jack johnson, lennox lewis, sonny liston, etc like u see in every marciano thread.

rocky may not be underated, and rocky may not be overated.........


but as far as I am concerned, rocky is the most critizied heavyweight champion of all time.


I dont rate rocky high because hes 49-0. anyone who bases there ranking soely on marciano being 49-0 is overating marciano.


its almost as if because he was 49-0, critics always try to make people admit he was not perfect. well let me be the first man to admit, marciano was not perfect, only his record is. but like every champion, marciano had flaws in his career.

I rate marciano 5th greatest heavyweight of all time, There are reasons why I dont rate marciano higher or lower than that.

The only reason you don't hear these criticisms of these fighters is because they don't have biased fans that try to elevate Marciano's competition to make his accomplishments sound greater than they are.

If you think prime Charles beats a 1971 Joe Frazier you're out of your mind.

SuzieQ49
03-06-2006, 11:57 PM
The only reason you don't hear these criticisms of these fighters is because they don't have biased fans that try to elevate Marciano's competition to make his accomplishments sound greater than they are.

If you think prime Charles beats a 1971 Joe Frazier you're out of your mind.


first of all, I never said that. I do think prime frazier beats charles, but I think charles gives him a tough fight until joe puts him away.


I do however think charles beat the manilla well past his prime version of joe frazier




- i also think prime for prime, rocky marciano beats joe frazier

smasher
03-07-2006, 12:58 AM
HOW I DEBATE ONLINE WITH SMASHER IN 7 EASY STEPS by SuzyQ49

STEP 1: Make embellished and exaggerated statements regarding old-time fighters by over stating their accomplishments and those of their opponents.

STEP 2: Read SMASHER'S response.

STEP 3: Attempt to use my poor deductive reasoning and analytical thought process and instead dig myself into a hole.

STEP 4: Read SMASHER'S attack.

STEP 5: Pour over my dad's collection of books, and magazines and waste at least an hour re-gurgitating other people's quotes and opinions, while hoping no one notices I am ignoring SMASHER'S valid and analytical retort. If possible criticize and jump on SMASHER if he accidentally is a year off of a fighter's age. This will ask as a smoke screen and will appear that I am shooting down SMASHER when in actual fact I am ignoring his attack for which I have no answers.

STEP 6: Read SMASHER'S response.

STEP 7: Make a quick check of www.coxscorner.tripod.com to make sure Monte doesn't have new article I might plagiarize. Refer to SMASHER once again as a 'misguided frend' while criticizing individuals for not doing their research. Say good night to Mom and Dad, put on my Rocky Marciano jammies, kiss my Joe Louis teddy bear then go to bed and think of who I'm going to ask to the spring prom.

SuzieQ49
03-07-2006, 01:02 AM
did smasher not get enough hugs when he was a child?



http://www.greetingsisland.com/images/thoughts-and-wishes/Everone-needs-a-hug.gif

smasher
03-07-2006, 01:12 AM
HOW I DEBATE ONLINE WITH SMASHER IN 7 EASY STEPS by SuzyQ49

STEP 1: Make embellished and exaggerated statements regarding old-time fighters by over stating their accomplishments and those of their opponents.

STEP 2: Read SMASHER'S response.

STEP 3: Attempt to use my poor deductive reasoning and analytical thought process and instead dig myself into a hole.

STEP 4: Read SMASHER'S attack.

STEP 5: Pour over my dad's collection of books, and magazines and waste at least an hour re-gurgitating other people's quotes and opinions, while hoping no one notices I am ignoring SMASHER'S valid and analytical retort. If possible criticize and jump on SMASHER if he accidentally is a year off of a fighter's age. This will ask as a smoke screen and will appear that I am shooting down SMASHER when in actual fact I am ignoring his attack for which I have no answers.

STEP 6: Read SMASHER'S response.

STEP 7: Make a quick check of www.coxscorner.tripod.com to make sure Monte doesn't have new article I might plagiarize. Refer to SMASHER once again as a 'misguided frend' while criticizing individuals for not doing their research. Say good night to Mom and Dad, put on my Rocky Marciano jammies, kiss my Joe Louis teddy bear then go to bed and think of who I'm going to ask to the spring prom.

STEP 8: Get back out of bed, post SMASHER a warm and fuzzy peace offering so he will continue to debate and teach me.

El Cholo
03-07-2006, 02:16 AM
2 things you go to remember, Marciano fought on the inside so sometimes it looks like he's getting hit and he's perrying, sometimes he's in there and getting though

the other thing is Marciano couldn't see for liike 4 rounds and he was keeping Walcott close so he didn't get jabbed to death, so he took a hell of a beating until the 10th when his eyes cleared up

Yes, it is true he had trouble seeing.
But in many rounds he was caught cleanly with jabs and punches on the inside.
Since i had been reading alot here how he had a good defence, i thought i should watch him.
He was very akward, and tough, but bullying, messy, and relentless.
I like him as a fighter. But i dont believe he could have beaten many of the great heavyweights.

Dempsey 1919
03-07-2006, 02:21 AM
STEP 8: Get back out of bed, post SMASHER a warm and fuzzy peace offering so he will continue to debate and teach me.

wow, you and suzieq49 really have it in for each other, don't you? :D

SuzieQ49
03-07-2006, 02:48 AM
smasher you my friend are a box rec hunter................u been around a long time in boxing.............but ur still a boxrec hunter.


u deny walcott was in his prime when he fought marciano. yet u offer no good reasons as to why other than age. u say walcott was "battleworn" but walcott didnt have any tough fights in his early years, and had a long 3 year rest 41-44 retirment and walcott didnt even have his first war until the elmer ray and joe louis fights in 46-47.


if walcott wasnt in his prime vs marciano, then when was walcotts prime?


did walcott show any signs of aging in marciano fight that would leave u to believe he was "far past his prime"???

was walcott noticeably slower? did he come in heavier? was his reflexes diminished? what showed u on film he was past his prime?


I noticed in other threads you said walcott beat a decling charles, yet in another post you say charles was in his prime in the 2nd walcott fight.


well the 2nd and 3rd walcott fights were just 4 months apart? so its safe to say charles was also in his prime in the 3rd walcott fight where walcott knocked him out in 7. just 1 year later marciano would beat walcott.

walcott also outpointed charles(who was coming off 3 victories over top fighters including knock out over layne), just 4 months before losing to rocky marciano.



so if walcott was in his prime for these 2nd, 3rd, 4th charles fights, how was he not in his prime in the 1st marciano fight which took place in a one year span between these 3 charles fights?

walcott actually looked better in marciano fight than in charles fights IMO, he was more aggresive and let his hands go more. though u could argue he looked just as good in 3rd charles fight.



then you say because charles was 15-25 after facing marciano, he was far past his prime.


however, if you look at the other side of things, i could say entering the marciano title fight, charles 16-4 since losing the title in 51

in fact, if u were smart you would realize the layne and harold johnson fights were robberies. so really, since charles lost the title to walcott in 51, charles had gone 18-2 with 9 victories over top 10 contenders. charles record now is much more impressive huh?

watch the harold johnson fight. i scored it 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even in favor of ezzard charles. harold johnson was at the peak of his career, coming off a SHUTOUT win over nino valdes. even in 1961, harold johnson far past his prime beat eddie machen, a top 50 heavy of all time.





also u have commeneted about the many historians, ringsiders claiming charles fought perhaps the best fight of his career in first marciano fight? doesnt that add claim to rockys win?





did u ever bother to wonder going by these stats, that perhaps marciano ruined charles as a fighter? it does happen in gruelling fights, especially against a marciano type.

you ever wonder if this was reminisant of qawi-holyfield I?? were qawi was never the same after that gruelling 15 rounder?


if you take a look at marcianos record, you will find he has a history of ruining fighters. meaning when fighters fought rocky, they were never the same after.


Rex Layne 34-1 # 2 ranked contender entering marciano fight- layne went 16-17 after losing to marciano.
ever wonder if rocky ruined layne as a fighter and his confidence?

(This guy joe, who saw a lot of the 50s heavyweights like layne live, gave me a nice descritption of layne as a fighter. if u ever want it, just ask)

roland lastarza - 53-3 # 2 ranked heavy contender entering fight. lastarza went 5-9 after losing to marciano

ever wonder if the broken arms/blood vessels rocky gave lastarza and permant damage ruined lastarza in 53?

joe louis - 68-2 # 1 ranked contender. 8-1 leading up to marciano fight, louis retired after marciano fight.


jersey joe walcott - # 1 ranked contender coming off 2 wins over ezzard charles and a great preformance against marciano. however for the rematch, walcott lost in 1 easy round and after fighting marciano in a very poor preformance heretired.

ever wonder if rocky ruined walcott in that first fight?


ezzard charles - # 1 contender. in reality, 18-2 entering marciano fight since title loss to walcott in 51. lost 15 of his next 25 fights after facing rocky. he was beaten easily in the rematch vs rocky after putting up 15 gruelling rounds in june 1954.

ever wonder if that first fight ruined charles as a fighter?

carmine vingo 27-3 entering marciano fight, due to permant damage was never allowed to fight again.

lee savold - due to the marciano beating, he was forced to retire from boxing.

harry kid mathews 81-3 when he fought marciano, undefeated since 1943. afterward, mathews would go 9-3-1.

ever wonder if rocky ruined mathews?


don ****ell 65-11 # 2 ranked heavy contender when he fought marciano. afterward he had 1 more fight 15lb heavier and way out of shape, then retired. he retired AS british heavy champ, rather than keep defending.
u think the beating and splitting blood between rounds during marciano fight he took lead to this early retirement?

i could name many other fighters but i think u get the point


so are all these coincidences? or did rocky have the type of style that would ruin fighters?


in the charles case, i think its clear rocky ruined charles. if u dont believe me, go watch charles in 1st marciano fight and then go watch charles post marciano fights. u will see a much different fighter.

it took a great champion to beat charles in june 1954, rocky beat a damm good version of ezz that night.

SuzieQ49
03-07-2006, 02:50 AM
el cholo,


keep studying marciano. hes a guy you really need to watch closely, like carlos monzon or you will miss how effective there style really was.




Yes, it is true he had trouble seeing.

no u dont understand, HE COULDNT SEE

smasher
03-07-2006, 06:34 AM
smasher you my friend are a box rec hunter................u been around a long time in boxing.............but ur still a boxrec hunter.

I noticed in other threads you said walcott beat a decling charles, yet in another post you say charles was in his prime in the 2nd walcott fight.

in fact, if u were smart

also u have commeneted about the many historians, ringsiders claiming charles fought perhaps the best fight of his career in first marciano fight? doesnt that add claim to rockys win?

(This guy joe, who saw a lot of the 50s heavyweights like layne live, gave me a nice descritption of layne as a fighter.

STEP 9: Get out of bed at 1:48 AM. Insult SMASHER as a boxrec hunter, check his profile (realize he is much older than me and has likely seen many more fights than I have) then acknowledge he has been around a long time but stick to my original insult of him being a boxrec hunter.

STEP 10: Show a genuine interest in SMASHER'S views by reading all of his previous threads even though I claim he is a misguided boxec hunter then misquote him.

STEP 11: Insult SMASHER again by implying that he's not smart even though I have no knowledge of his formal education, IQ, or type of employment.

STEP 12: Misquote SMASHER once again then ask him direct questions hoping he will answer me so I can talk with him again when I'm feeling lonely in the middle of the night.

STEP 13: Invent fictitious characters and give them names like 'Joe' who will add credibilty to my biased arguments.

Yaman
03-07-2006, 09:37 AM
did smasher not get enough hugs when he was a child?



http://www.greetingsisland.com/images/thoughts-and-wishes/Everone-needs-a-hug.gif

No, nobody wanted this dickhead as their son.

Yaman
03-07-2006, 09:38 AM
Only champion without flaws? WHAT THE ****? His defence was far from perfect, he had no boxing ability at all... again WHAT THE ****. Highest KO ratio against crap competition, undefeated against crap competition. Statistics are all fine and good but you must identify the circumstances in which they occured.

He was a great, a top 10, if not a top 5 but he is far from flawless and the UNDEFEATED thing is blown out of proportion.

no flaws as in ALWAYS BEING IN SHAPE READY TO FIGHT. Almost every HW champion have not been ready to fight atleast once in their career.

Southpaw Stinger
03-07-2006, 12:02 PM
ALWAYS BEING IN SHAPE READY TO FIGHT

I believe he wasn't in the best of shape for the ****ell fight I believe.

oldgringo
03-07-2006, 01:02 PM
Gotta love the Marciano debates.

Dempsey 1919
03-07-2006, 04:25 PM
Gotta love the Marciano debates.

they get old sometimes.

Yogi
03-07-2006, 04:29 PM
they get old sometimes.

Marciano, Ali, Foreman, Liston, Frazier, Tyson, etc...this whole forum has gotten old with a bunch of recycled conversations on nothing but Heavyweights.

*yawns*

RockyMarcianofan00
03-07-2006, 06:05 PM
STEP 9: Get out of bed at 1:48 AM. Insult SMASHER as a boxrec hunter, check his profile (realize he is much older than me and has likely seen many more fights than I have) then acknowledge he has been around a long time but stick to my original insult of him being a boxrec hunter.

STEP 10: Show a genuine interest in SMASHER'S views by reading all of his previous threads even though I claim he is a misguided boxec hunter then misquote him.

STEP 11: Insult SMASHER again by implying that he's not smart even though I have no knowledge of his formal education, IQ, or type of employment.

STEP 12: Misquote SMASHER once again then ask him direct questions hoping he will answer me so I can talk with him again when I'm feeling lonely in the middle of the night.

STEP 13: Invent fictitious characters and give them names like 'Joe' who will add credibilty to my biased arguments.
you still haven't explained yourself to suzieq so he's gunna keep posting and your going to keep dodging with these steps

RockyMarcianofan00
03-07-2006, 06:07 PM
they get old sometimes.
Got that right, nobody's ever going to agree so they do get old but sometimes i enjoy talking about him

the only thing thats dead to me is threads like Ali v Marciano

those threads are dead....forever :D

Southpaw Stinger
03-07-2006, 06:24 PM
Got that right, nobody's ever going to agree so they do get old but sometimes i enjoy talking about him

the only thing thats dead to me is threads like Ali v Marciano

those threads are dead....forever

R.I.P Ali vs Marciano thread!

smasher
03-07-2006, 06:31 PM
you still haven't explained yourself to suzieq so he's gunna keep posting and your going to keep dodging with these steps

I've explained myself repeatedly. The problem with SuzieQ49 is that when he gets shot down he changes the topic. It went from Tiger Lowry probably beating Liston and Frazier losing to Lastarza to suddenly Charles and Walcott were at or near their prime when they fought Marciano. If he wants to debate a topic, then stay on it and justify the analytical statements. That way we can go back and forth, no problem. Debating with a teenager who was spoon fed and brainwashed his boxing opinions by his Daddy who conveniently changes topics when he gets painted into a corner is a wate of my time really. Like Yogi says, let's get onto something else, this is the same old ****...

SuzieQ49
03-07-2006, 06:42 PM
I have posted enough on this topic. If smasher would like to debate any of my posts i already made, then go ahead.



my point is walcott and moore were at/or near there best when they fought rocky, and charles was past his prime but was still a great fighter who fought one of the best fights of his career vs rock

RockyMarcianofan00
03-07-2006, 06:43 PM
I've explained myself repeatedly. The problem with SuzieQ49 is that when he gets shot down he changes the topic. It went from Tiger Lowry probably beating Liston and Frazier losing to Lastarza to suddenly Charles and Walcott were at or near their prime when they fought Marciano. If he wants to debate a topic, then stay on it and justify the analytical statements. That way we can go back and forth, no problem. Debating with a teenager who was spoon fed and brainwashed his boxing opinions by his Daddy who conveniently changes topics when he gets painted into a corner is a wate of my time really. Like Yogi says, let's get onto something else, this is the same old ****...

they were, at least Walcott was for sure, i'm not sure Charles was but he wasn't at the low of his career either

Frazier could beat LaStarza though, just like Rocky did in the rematch

SuzieQ49
03-07-2006, 06:48 PM
liston lost to marty marshall, so what makes u think he can go 49-0 against rockys competion under the same circumstances rocku went through entering his fights?

liston lost early in his career to a journeyman, so he very well could do the same if he was fighting marcianos competition under the same circumstances marciano went through entering the fights. if marty marshall beat a green liston, then so could tiger ted lowry




smasher i will not debate you if you keep up with the unwanted personel attacks, i dont see why you need to bring my dad into this or try to belittle me?

does doing that make you feel better?

Dempsey 1919
03-07-2006, 07:12 PM
liston lost to marty marshall, so what makes u think he can go 49-0 against rockys competion under the same circumstances rocku went through entering his fights?

liston lost early in his career to a journeyman, so he very well could do the same if he was fighting marcianos competition under the same circumstances marciano went through entering the fights. if marty marshall beat a green liston, then so could tiger ted lowry




smasher i will not debate you if you keep up with the unwanted personel attacks, i dont see why you need to bring my dad into this or try to belittle me?

does doing that make you feel better?

no way liston loses to any marciano opponent period. liston, foreman, and tyoson would ko all of marciano opponents in the first round! :cool:

RockyMarcianofan00
03-07-2006, 07:50 PM
no way liston loses to any marciano opponent period. liston, foreman, and tyoson would ko all of marciano opponents in the first round! :cool:

whats in bold is mostly true probably 90% true

no way even Foreman could take Jersey Joe out in one round
don't get me wrong he'd 90% chance of winning but in one round, i think Jersey Joe could saunter into 4 rounds maybe, but one no

among others

Dempsey 1919
03-07-2006, 07:55 PM
whats in bold is mostly true probably 90% true

no way even Foreman could take Jersey Joe out in one round
don't get me wrong he'd 90% chance of winning but in one round, i think Jersey Joe could saunter into 4 rounds maybe, but one no

among others

marciano ko'd walcott in one round, so foreman would kill him in one round!

RockyMarcianofan00
03-07-2006, 08:06 PM
marciano ko'd walcott in one round, so foreman would kill him in one round!
i'm talking Prime Walcott
I still think Foreman and walcott would at least go into 2
i'm not saying it would go to 7 plus that was just an example

Dempsey 1919
03-07-2006, 08:15 PM
i'm talking Prime Walcott
I still think Foreman and walcott would at least go into 2
i'm not saying it would go to 7 plus that was just an example

i doubt it. walcott's chin wouldn't survive.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-07-2006, 08:19 PM
i doubt it. walcott's chin wouldn't survive.
ahh you see what i'm getting at

Dempsey 1919
03-07-2006, 08:24 PM
ahh you see what i'm getting at

what? :confused:

RockyMarcianofan00
03-07-2006, 08:26 PM
what? :confused:
that those guys would most likely beat most of Marciano's opponents, but at least some of them would make it past 1

Dempsey 1919
03-07-2006, 08:28 PM
that those guys would most likely beat most of Marciano's opponents, but at least some of them would make it past 1

not with liston, foreman, or tyson.

RockyMarcianofan00
03-07-2006, 08:31 PM
not with liston, foreman, or tyson.

I could see ppl getting by each of them

the least would be foreman

the most would be liston, maybe not though liston had alot of frko's against bums he would be used to it

Tyson would have a few

Dempsey 1919
03-07-2006, 08:32 PM
I could see ppl getting by each of them

the least would be foreman

the most would be liston, maybe not though liston had alot of frko's against bums he would be used to it

Tyson would have a few

i don't. :D

RockyMarcianofan00
03-07-2006, 08:33 PM
i don't. :D
open your eyes then :eek:

lol

SuzieQ49
03-08-2006, 12:22 AM
no way liston loses to any marciano opponent period. liston, foreman, and tyoson would ko all of marciano opponents in the first round!


liston lost to marty marshall. tiger ted lowry was as good as marty marshall.


tyson lost to buster douglas, who was not as good as marcianos best opponents.


foreman lost to jimmy young, what makes u think he wont get upset by charles or walcott?


none of these guys could beat all of marcianos opponents if they went through the same circumstances marciano went through entering the fights!



liston, foreman, tyson on there BEST night goes 49-0 against marcianos comp.

however, if they have to go 49-0 against marcianos comp under the same circumstances marciano went through then no.

you have to take into factor off nights, inconsistency, out of shape, how they fight early in there career, burning out, getting upset, that sort of thing.

Dempsey 1919
03-08-2006, 03:38 AM
liston lost to marty marshall. tiger ted lowry was as good as marty marshall.


tyson lost to buster douglas, who was not as good as marcianos best opponents.


foreman lost to jimmy young, what makes u think he wont get upset by charles or walcott?


none of these guys could beat all of marcianos opponents if they went through the same circumstances marciano went through entering the fights!



liston, foreman, tyson on there BEST night goes 49-0 against marcianos comp.

however, if they have to go 49-0 against marcianos comp under the same circumstances marciano went through then no.

you have to take into factor off nights, inconsistency, out of shape, how they fight early in there career, burning out, getting upset, that sort of thing.

how about the fact that these guys are jokes compared to tyson, foreman, and liston. no way they lose to them, period.

SuzieQ49
03-08-2006, 04:38 AM
how about the fact that these guys are jokes compared to tyson, foreman, and liston. no way they lose to them, period.

forget it, u dont understand the point im trying to make.


marty marshall is a joke compared to rocky marciano, yet marshall beat sonny liston.


tiger ted lowry was better than marty marshall

smasher
03-08-2006, 05:35 AM
liston lost to marty marshall. tiger ted lowry was as good as marty marshall.


none of these guys could beat all of marcianos opponents if they went through the same circumstances marciano went through entering the fights!

Picking a 38 year old Walcott and a 32 (1 month shy of 33) year old Charles over a 31 year old Frazier on the basis of Frazier looking slow, with shot reflexes, overweight and well past his prime, nothing compared to a vintage Frazier is an insult to both Joe and Ali who had to dig very deep to beat Frazier, deeper I may add than either Walcott or Charles ever had to dig to win a fight. Frazier only weighed 10 lbs more than he did in the FOTC. I wouldn't call that overweight. When Frazier dominated and stopped Quarry and Ellis in his fights preceeding Manilla he certainly didn't look like a slow fighter with shot reflexes. Frazier was past his peak but if he looked slow and shot in Manilla it was in large part due to Ali who likely fought the guttiest performance of his career that day.

Now, SuzyQ49. Before answering to the following questions please put down your copy of ROCK MARCIANO BIOGRAPHY OF A FIRST SON By Everett M. Skehan. It's plainly obvious that your so-called research amounts to continuous verbatim rip-offs and outright plagarism from this book. I want your opinions.

Liston lost to Marshall in just his 8th fight while Marciano fought Lowry in his 21st and 30th fights. You are taking these fights out of context. Marciano was a more experienced professional fighter by the time he fought Lowry than Liston was when he fought Marshall.

And on what basis are you concluding that Lowry was as good as Marshall? Marshall defeated and later floored one of the top ten greatest heavyweights of all time. Who was the best fighter Lowry defeated? Would Marciano beat Lowry in his 8th fight? If not maybe Marshall beats Marciano.

You keep referring to Marciano's circumstances. That's not the argument here. If Marciano was an unschooled amateur early in his career that doesn't change the calibre of his opposition. Nor does it change the fact that Liston, Tyson and Frazier were not unschooled amateurs and were better ability wise than Marciano was at the beginning of his career and thus would have beaten Marciano's early competition. After all if an unschooled amateur with little formal training could beat them, does it not make sense that Liston, Frazier and Tyson who were not unschooled amateurs would have also?

Why have you stayed clear of Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Foreman, and Holmes the other fighters I mentioned earlier in this thread? Selective debating or does Carmine Vingo KO Ali and Don ****ell outpoint Louis?

What is more likely to happen. Getting struck by lightning twice or SuzieQ49 saying anything unflattering about a Marciano or Louis opponent?

Try honestly answering these questions without the usual bias, slanted replies and topic changing.

SuzieQ49
03-13-2006, 06:41 PM
walcott was in his prime at 38 when he beat charles and gave marciano a helluva fight!


ill take a prime walcott over a well past his prime frazier




32 year old charles fought perhaps the greatest fight of his career vs marciano. charles was still a great fighter when he fought marciano in there 1st fight. 2nd fight was a onesided massacre besides the freak cut.

charles was still plenty dangerous leading up to the marciano title fight. watch the coley wallace and satterfield fights, charles looked great!


ill take a 32 year old charles of the 1st marciano fight over a well past it joe frazier of the manilla fight. frazier was never the same after 1971.


frazier of manilla was a lot more past it than charles of 1st marciano. just watch the minilla fight, you can easily notice how gone that version of frazier is.



slow, with shot reflexes, overweight and well past his prime, nothing compared to a vintage Frazier is an insult to both Joe and Ali who had to dig very deep to beat Frazier

NO, it shows how great both warriors are. ali was well well past it as well. the thrilla and manilla is about two well past there prime fighters giving it all they had and spilling out all there guts and glory to win. the fact both were able to display that much heart, stamina, and will makes the achievement incredible considering how far gone each fighter was.


the manilla ali was nothing compared to peak ali

manilla frazier was nothing compared to peak frazier



Frazier was past his peak but if he looked slow and shot in Manilla it was in large part due to Ali who likely fought the guttiest performance of his career that day.

no frazier was long gone, its very noticeable. ali was also well past it.

frazier in fact, was never the same after FOTC in 1971


Now, SuzyQ49. Before answering to the following questions please put down your copy of ROCK MARCIANO BIOGRAPHY OF A FIRST SON By Everett M. Skehan. It's plainly obvious that your so-called research amounts to continuous verbatim rip-offs and outright plagarism from this book. I want your opinions.


of course u decide to throw out personel attacks, because you can't win arguements by talking rationally.

you are a boxrec hunter



I do give my opinions, fact is anything i say, u accuse of plagirism.

so with u, its impossible to have opinions



Liston lost to Marshall in just his 8th fight while Marciano fought Lowry in his 21st and 30th fights. You are taking these fights out of context. Marciano was a more experienced professional fighter by the time he fought Lowry than Liston was when he fought Marshall.


marciano had just training with goldman when he fought lowry the 1st time. goldman had only been in his corner for about
5-7 fights at that point. marciano had been training only for a couple months with goldman when he took on a highly experienced journeyman like lowry

liston had been training for over a year with his trainer and was far more prepared entering the marshall fight than marciano was entering the lowry fight.


And on what basis are you concluding that Lowry was as good as Marshall? Marshall defeated and later floored one of the top ten greatest heavyweights of all time. Who was the best fighter Lowry defeated? Would Marciano beat Lowry in his 8th fight? If not maybe Marshall beats Marciano.


liston was far more trained by his 8th fight than marciano was in his 8th fight. goldman hadnt even begun training marciano yet in his 8th fight.



NOW REMEMBER WERE TALKING ENTERING THE 1ST LISTON FIGHT::

entering the first liston fight, marshall was an 18-5-2 journeyman who had NEVER beaten a contender in his life.

the best fighter marshall ever beat before he fought liston was 16-8 wesbury bascom.



tiger ted entering the 1st marciano fight was 57-48 and far more experienced than marshall. ted was also rated higher entering the marciano fight than marshall was entering the 1st liston fight.

BEFORE the 1st marciano fight, lowry beat billy blackjack fox a ranked light-H, and he drew with top 10 ranked heavyweight lee savold


so not only was tiger ted lowry more experienced and higher rated entering the marciano fight than marshall entering liston fight, tiger also beat better fighters than marshall beat before the first marciano and liston fights.


therefore, entering the 1st liston and marciano fights, tiger ted lowry was considered the better fighter than marshall.

incidently, lowry was basically a carbon copy of marshall. both fought with the same style and both were clowns and cuties.



you cant compare liston and marcianos 8th fight, becuause liston had far more training than marciano did entering there 8th fights.



also what makes u think liston could get by 26-0 eddie ross and 15-1 bobby quinn in his 3rd and 4th fights if liston in his 4th fight barely squeaked a split decision over a 5-1 fighter?





You keep referring to Marciano's circumstances. That's not the argument here. If Marciano was an unschooled amateur early in his career that doesn't change the calibre of his opposition. Nor does it change the fact that Liston, Tyson and Frazier were not unschooled amateurs and were better ability wise than Marciano was at the beginning of his career and thus would have beaten Marciano's early competition. After all if an unschooled amateur with little formal training could beat them, does it not make sense that Liston, Frazier and Tyson who were not unschooled amateurs would have also?
[/B]


better ability? what makes u say that? how did a non trained, unschooled frazir, liston, tyson have more ability than rocky? please explain

After all if an unschooled amateur with little formal training could beat them, does it not make sense that Liston, Frazier and Tyson who were not unschooled amateurs would have also?

liston in his 4th fight barely squeaked a split decision over a 5-1 fighter. marciano in his 4th fight beat a 26-0 fighter. so as u see, liston was very vunerable.


even with a ton of experience in amatuers and lots of world class training, frazier still was dropped early in his career by michael bruce and practically lost to bonavena.


frazier was more experienced and far more schooled entering bonavena fight than marciano was entering first lastarza fight. i also think lastarza was better than bonavena. theres a good chance lastarza would beat a green frazier if bonavena could.










What is more likely to happen. Getting struck by lightning twice or SuzieQ49 saying anything unflattering about a Marciano or Louis opponent?


once again u refer to personel attacks. making stupid jokes like these isnt going to make ur argument any better or make people like u any better.






funny how any post u make rearding marciano, its usually derogatory or against marciano. its clear u dont think highly of him at all. im guessing he is not in ur top 10.

smasher
03-13-2006, 08:40 PM
Dear SuzieQ49,

So, Little Nicky Gamble has decided to bring up the same old redundant arguments that I have directly dealt with since this tedious thread began.

Firstly, don't criticize me for personal attacks when you continously refer to me as a boxrec hunter, despite the fact that you are the one on their forum posting as brocktonblockbuster and then proceed to quote records, ages, prior fights blah blah blah, as if I am to believe these facts are miraculously stored away in your 18 year old brainwashed pea brain.

Your opinions have nothing to do with analytical breakdowns of fighting styles, simple logic, or relative competition instead chooosing to compare opponents records and rankings. Big deal. A 2nd rated fighter today wouldn't crack the top 10 in the 70's. ****, the champions of today wouldn't crack the top 10. Rankings are relative to the quality at the time and despite what Daddy has told you, Marciano's era was one of the weaker ones.

In one sentance you refer to Liston as far more trained than Marciano early in his career then later refer to Liston as untrained and unschooled and question how he could have had more ability than Marciano, then it's once again back to Liston had far more training than Marciano. My ****in' head is already spinning and your just getting started.

Light-heavyweight Bobby Ross was 26-0 was he? Name the 26 opponents he allegedly fought. That's a bogus inflated record and you know it. Where is the record of his 26 opponents, or are you only going by the 'word' of the promoter.

Bobby Quinn was 15-1 was he? Name the 15 opponents he allegedly fought. Another bogus record inflated by a promoter out to sell tickets. You've never seen these guys fight so stop referring to them. They never amounted to anything. I guess Peter McNeely or Butterbean would have starched Liston because their early records were more impressive than Liston's early opposition. Holy ****, I may have just planted another seed in your impressionable mind.

Yeah Lastarza was better than Bonevena. Based on what? Lastarza was cut, beaten and later floored by 12-8-2 light-heavyweight Rocky Jones. But Jones had dynamite in his mitts. He packed a wallop! 7 KO's in 28 career fights! Wow! And these fights were within a year before Lastarza fought Marciano for the title. I'll take Bonevena's wins over Zora Folley, George Chuvalo, Leotis Martin and Manuel Ramos as well as tough close and competitive fights with Ali and Frazier over anything Lastarza ever accomplished.

Once again you dodged the Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Foreman, Holmes scenario.

Your silence speaks volumes.

Now go to bed you have high school wrestling practice in the morning.

SuzieQ49
03-13-2006, 10:50 PM
Your opinions have nothing to do with analytical breakdowns of fighting styles


yes I do,


however its you my friend who has that problem. your a boxechunter


u use lastarzas loss to rocky jones against him, but u fail to mention in the rematch lastarza virtually shutout rocky jones.

bonavena had trouble with speedy master boxers like lastarza. see the ellis fight. I think lastarza would outbox bonavena and win a close decision. lastarza was possibly the best defensive heavyweight fighter of that era, and his counterpunching skills will give bonavena fits.



folley was past his prime when he fought oscar, chuvalo and martin were good wins.


bonavena might have nearly beat frazier in the 1st fight, but lastarza did the same with marciano.


lastarza in his prime beat everyone he faced EXCEPT rocky marciano.

the reason why lastarza had such few fights against top contenders outside of marciano was because of many different reasons but it all related back to his manager jimmy fats deangelo. if u ever want to hear the whole story, just ask.


I think lastarza is the better fight on film. he has better all around boxing skills and defense than bonavena. lastarza has better movement and his faster than bonavena. bonavena is stronger and more powerful, but his flaws play right into lastarzas strengths.



boxrec editors told me theres a very strong chance EDDIE ross is 26-0, and they just havnt found his other fights yet.

ross reported coming into the marciano fight 26-0(23) in fact promoter sam silverman confirmed it. ross record is simply incomplete



Once again you dodged the Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Foreman, Holmes scenario.



what do u want to know?





in ur opinion marcianos era was one of the weaker ones, in my opinion it isnt.

smasher
03-13-2006, 11:40 PM
your a boxechunter


boxrec editors told me theres a very strong chance EDDIE ross is 26-0, and they just havnt found his other fights yet.




I'm the boxrec hunter and your the guy on their forums and speaking with the editors. Anyway, a very strong chance Eddie ROSS is 26-0 does not mean he is. Go with what is documented unless prove otherwise.

The rest of the debate centres around I think/you think. Seeing how you call yourself SuzieQ49 and BrocktonBlockbuster any discussion with you regarding Rocky Marciano will undoubtedly reveal your strong bias. I've yet to hear you say anything less than complimentary regarding anything about Marciano or his opponents so any further discussion regarding this topic is a waste of time. Like Marciano, this thread is dead.

SuzieQ49
03-14-2006, 12:25 AM
i rate marciano 5th greatest heavyweight of all time, so obviousely i think he had flaws to his career. if i rate marciano 5th, how am i strong biased?

the IBRO rated marciano 5th greatest heavyweight, are they bias?


fact is, i never have to talk badly about marcianos opponents because his era is always being persecuted and being critizized because people dont know dip**** about the era or marcianos opponents.

marciano= most critisized heavyweight of all time by far




if u read other posts, u would see one of my biggest critisims agaisnt marciano in terms of accomplishments is he did not beat a good range of quanity. compared to other heavyweight champs, he did not beat a solid list of depth. of

Da Iceman
03-14-2006, 08:36 AM
and people act like thats his fault.

Tysonisgod
05-20-2006, 12:38 PM
He beat the best that was there for him, why stay in the game untill a young guy cums up the ranks n beats you, if u stay in there to long u get hurt, look at Ali, he got beat by a Leon Spinks Larry Holmes and Berbick, Holyfeild lost to Larry Holmes, a former middleweight champ ok hes amazin skills but still, Foreman squeezed past some bums, Rocky is unbeatin, never done b4, never done again no1 will get 49-0 n if they do, it wont matter cos rocky beat old school fighters in old school times

StaynerCoins
05-20-2006, 04:26 PM
I see some like Ali cutting him to shreds and tying him up on the inside.
An old Walcott took alot of his shots.
I dont see how Rocky could have hit Ali.

Not only did Rocky hit Ali, he KOed Ali in the 13th round. Granted, this was a computer fight, but if they had fought, I'm sure it would end the same way.

Southpaw Stinger
05-20-2006, 04:29 PM
Not only did Rocky hit Ali, he KOed Ali in the 13th round. Granted, this was a computer fight, but if they had fought, I'm sure it would end the same way.

You know there were two endings filmed for that fight, one where Ali won for the Brittish and Europeon audiences and one where Marciano won for the USA audiences (as Ali was unpopular in USA at the time)

The computer that decided the outcome was used to try to predict the winner of real boxing matches - to which it failed miserably.

Dempsey1238
05-20-2006, 04:45 PM
Something to think about before you guys just claim, that anyfighter would clean house on Marciano's era. Other poster said it this way when Fraizer vs Marciano's oppentions. And I sort of agree with him.

Joe Frazier vs Rocky Marcianos opposition

In this scenario our young Joe Frazier dose not enjoy the benefits of a long amateur career culminating in an olympic gold medal. He is thrown into the professional ranks after only twelve amateur fights. Worse still, by his third profissional fight his sheister manager starts matching him up with people who have records 15-25 wins to give his boys an easy victory. It is not unlikley that our young Joe Fraziers quest to tie the magic 49,0 ends when he picks up a loss in his first twenty fights.

Eventually he starts to rise through the ranks and his potential is recognised. His next big test is when he takes his first step up in competiton against the unbeaten Roland LaStraza. Would the Frazier who fought Oscar Bonavena be ready for LaStraza yet? Hard to say. Whether he gets past this hurdle or not he will be hitting the big time by now.

Once in the mix with the top contenders Frazier will find this era of small slick fighters particularly well suited to his swarming style. Rex Layne would be a bad stylistc match for him but I am sure he would prevail. He will certainly go on to win the title one way or another. Having fought Walcott twice, Charles twice Moore once and LaStraza twice it is possible that one of them edges him to take a decision at some point in the timeline.

Will Frazier tie the magic 49,0? Personaly he is one of the few fighters that I could see doing it but there are a lot of pitfalls along the way early in his career on the way up and late in it also.

The thing is, you can NEVER be sure 100 percent that Tyson, Ali or Fraizer would tie the magic 49-0 record had they fought in Marciano's era.

K-DOGG
05-20-2006, 05:20 PM
if Rocky Marciano would of lived up to today you think he would of had more stardom and been more recognized as a legend than ali.
maybe he even would of been more liked than ali

Hard to say; but I don't think his fame would be quite the same....mainly due to his personality. Ali was boisterous; he made you notice him and he never did anything small. The Vietnam stand really got him going, the battle against the government and all that stuff...then he beats George Foreman when everyone was worried about him getting killed.

Ali was larger than life, while Rocky was a working man's hero. That's not to say Rocky wouldn't have his own stardom; but I can't see it being quite as extreme as Ali's turned out to be.

True story: while Ali and Rocky were filming the "Superfight" Rock and Muhammad had several discussions on how the two of them could team up to do something positive in light of all the chaos of that time. Rocky had a good heart...a real solid guy.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-20-2006, 05:41 PM
You know there were two endings filmed for that fight, one where Ali won for the Brittish and Europeon audiences and one where Marciano won for the USA audiences (as Ali was unpopular in USA at the time)

The computer that decided the outcome was used to try to predict the winner of real boxing matches - to which it failed miserably.
quite the opposite i'm sry to say
I've seen the super fight and they did a whole documentary on both fighters and the film itself

its true there were two endings but the fact is that in europe they never showed the whole fight, they stopped it mid 11th round.

in the mid 11th the doctor checked marciano's cuts and in europe they stopped and said Ali won when in actuallity there was still another two rounds to he fight.

Yogi
05-20-2006, 06:14 PM
Using a very modern boxing simulation(Title Bout) and running a Ali/Marciano fight on it, the simulation resulted in Ali taking a majority decision over Marciano after 15 rounds by scores of; 145-141, 145-141, and 143-143.

No knockdowns, and Marciano did recieve a small cut above his right eye, but it was irrelevant...Four of the rounds Marciano won came after the halfway point.

Dempsey1238
05-20-2006, 06:30 PM
of couse its GUESS work even for the computer/

I recall a guy doing a computer system for the heavyweight title fights, and BOY we had Dempsey loseing the title to Carp,

And Marciano not winning the title until 1954,(And Charles got the first 3 wins over Rocky)

And Ali not winning the title AT all in the 1960's.

It was pretty odd. The computer must have been smoking something lol.

K-DOGG
05-20-2006, 06:36 PM
I honestly can't see any computer, no matter how much technology advances, ever...EVER being able to predict the outcome two great warriors going at it..without them ever having met before. The human mind and will to win are a wonderful thing. Computers may or may not be able to predict the outcome of two teams facing off; but NEVER two individuals. There is an infinite number of things that go into a fight between two men....and pure logic and statistical calculations can never understand what a gutcheck is, what a rally is, what will to win is...Never.

King Koyle
05-22-2006, 01:08 PM
Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson at least go 49-0 against ROCKY'S competition

Ali had his troubles with several journeymen.This isn't a given.

King Koyle
05-22-2006, 01:11 PM
Something to think about before you guys just claim, that anyfighter would clean house on Marciano's era. Other poster said it this way when Fraizer vs Marciano's oppentions. And I sort of agree with him.

Joe Frazier vs Rocky Marcianos opposition

In this scenario our young Joe Frazier dose not enjoy the benefits of a long amateur career culminating in an olympic gold medal. He is thrown into the professional ranks after only twelve amateur fights. Worse still, by his third profissional fight his sheister manager starts matching him up with people who have records 15-25 wins to give his boys an easy victory. It is not unlikley that our young Joe Fraziers quest to tie the magic 49,0 ends when he picks up a loss in his first twenty fights.

Eventually he starts to rise through the ranks and his potential is recognised. His next big test is when he takes his first step up in competiton against the unbeaten Roland LaStraza. Would the Frazier who fought Oscar Bonavena be ready for LaStraza yet? Hard to say. Whether he gets past this hurdle or not he will be hitting the big time by now.

Once in the mix with the top contenders Frazier will find this era of small slick fighters particularly well suited to his swarming style. Rex Layne would be a bad stylistc match for him but I am sure he would prevail. He will certainly go on to win the title one way or another. Having fought Walcott twice, Charles twice Moore once and LaStraza twice it is possible that one of them edges him to take a decision at some point in the timeline.

Will Frazier tie the magic 49,0? Personaly he is one of the few fighters that I could see doing it but there are a lot of pitfalls along the way early in his career on the way up and late in it also.

The thing is, you can NEVER be sure 100 percent that Tyson, Ali or Fraizer would tie the magic 49-0 record had they fought in Marciano's era.

Very well said!Karma to you.

hemichromis
05-22-2006, 03:56 PM
marciano was a damn good fighter but due to the lack of strong opposition at that time we cannot judge him in the same way we can ali foreman and frazier who were dominant in the golden age of boxing. this does not mean he was worse than those three it just means he hadn;t been tested to the same extent

RockyMarcianofan00
05-22-2006, 05:18 PM
Something to think about before you guys just claim, that anyfighter would clean house on Marciano's era. Other poster said it this way when Fraizer vs Marciano's oppentions. And I sort of agree with him.

Joe Frazier vs Rocky Marcianos opposition

In this scenario our young Joe Frazier dose not enjoy the benefits of a long amateur career culminating in an olympic gold medal. He is thrown into the professional ranks after only twelve amateur fights. Worse still, by his third profissional fight his sheister manager starts matching him up with people who have records 15-25 wins to give his boys an easy victory. It is not unlikley that our young Joe Fraziers quest to tie the magic 49,0 ends when he picks up a loss in his first twenty fights.

Eventually he starts to rise through the ranks and his potential is recognised. His next big test is when he takes his first step up in competiton against the unbeaten Roland LaStraza. Would the Frazier who fought Oscar Bonavena be ready for LaStraza yet? Hard to say. Whether he gets past this hurdle or not he will be hitting the big time by now.

Once in the mix with the top contenders Frazier will find this era of small slick fighters particularly well suited to his swarming style. Rex Layne would be a bad stylistc match for him but I am sure he would prevail. He will certainly go on to win the title one way or another. Having fought Walcott twice, Charles twice Moore once and LaStraza twice it is possible that one of them edges him to take a decision at some point in the timeline.

Will Frazier tie the magic 49,0? Personaly he is one of the few fighters that I could see doing it but there are a lot of pitfalls along the way early in his career on the way up and late in it also.

The thing is, you can NEVER be sure 100 percent that Tyson, Ali or Fraizer would tie the magic 49-0 record had they fought in Marciano's era.
good K :D

Dempsey1238
05-22-2006, 05:30 PM
wasnt me, other poster on other fourm,

He had Fraizer vs Louis, Johnson's and others comp.

Not to say Fraizer would not go unbeating, but there are a lot of pitfalls(As he said)Could Fraizer go 49-0?? Of couse. But there is always the chance he might get upset here or there. Or being too green vs the likes of Eddie Ross(25-0 vs the Rock's 3-0)

If they could get though being short change our put in with GUYS over there level, they can get to the 49.

Ali could do it, but he was prone of being upset here or there(As with the case of Norton and Spinks)

I think Tyson would go to 35 and 0 or something and have that ONE night were he is upset.

Foreman?? I would think he COULD do it, but if he can get out of the early going with the Eddie Ross's(When Foreman was 2-0 or something) Than he could do it. I think Larzaza and Walcott, would be his biggest test. Charles has a shot also if he can wear out Foreman.


If we take the BEST of each fighter, sure they could beat anyone the Rock beat, but this is a Career, they are HUMAN, they may get in the fight out of shape(As Tyson did) or overlook something(As Ali did vs Norton) or the guy makes it to the 7 round to ko Foreman.

Anyman can beat anyman, when they get in the ring. Yes it was a bit of luck for Marciano to go 49-0(As in Marciano knocking down Larzarza in round 4, or the ko punch on Walcott)

Its possible, but you guys are making it seem much easier than it was.

Yaman
05-22-2006, 06:41 PM
wasnt me, other poster on other fourm,

He had Fraizer vs Louis, Johnson's and others comp.

Not to say Fraizer would not go unbeating, but there are a lot of pitfalls(As he said)Could Fraizer go 49-0?? Of couse. But there is always the chance he might get upset here or there. Or being too green vs the likes of Eddie Ross(25-0 vs the Rock's 3-0)

If they could get though being short change our put in with GUYS over there level, they can get to the 49.

Ali could do it, but he was prone of being upset here or there(As with the case of Norton and Spinks)

I think Tyson would go to 35 and 0 or something and have that ONE night were he is upset.

Foreman?? I would think he COULD do it, but if he can get out of the early going with the Eddie Ross's(When Foreman was 2-0 or something) Than he could do it. I think Larzaza and Walcott, would be his biggest test. Charles has a shot also if he can wear out Foreman.


If we take the BEST of each fighter, sure they could beat anyone the Rock beat, but this is a Career, they are HUMAN, they may get in the fight out of shape(As Tyson did) or overlook something(As Ali did vs Norton) or the guy makes it to the 7 round to ko Foreman.

Anyman can beat anyman, when they get in the ring. Yes it was a bit of luck for Marciano to go 49-0(As in Marciano knocking down Larzarza in round 4, or the ko punch on Walcott)

Its possible, but you guys are making it seem much easier than it was.

Can you even say it better than this?
Very well said man. Especially about careers. People are delusional, they think they would be at their best for every single fight..49 fights. It comes down to Rocky being the most focused.

ferocity
05-22-2006, 06:54 PM
if Rocky Marciano would of lived up to today you think he would of had more stardom and been more recognized as a legend than ali.
maybe he even would of been more liked than ali

since nobody answered your answer in the first 2 1/2 pages -i didn't read the rest- i'd say possably close ali is known almost all over the word. im sure rocky would have been very popular in states.

jack dempsey was still very popular after he retired from boxing.

tommyhearns804
05-22-2006, 09:13 PM
If Rocky Marciano had more skill then maybe he wouldn't of been a worthless overatted piece of trash.

SuzieQ49
05-23-2006, 09:47 AM
due to the lack of strong opposition?

walcot, moore, charles, and old louis isnt strong oppositiion?

Dempsey 1919
05-23-2006, 03:01 PM
due to the lack of strong opposition?

walcot, moore, charles, and old louis isnt strong oppositiion?

nope. :boxing:

hemichromis
05-23-2006, 03:20 PM
If Rocky Marciano had more skill then maybe he wouldn't of been a worthless overatted piece of trash.

dont be ridiculous marciano is one of the top ten of all time and would whoop hearns ass!!!

Southpaw Stinger
05-23-2006, 03:25 PM
dont be ridiculous marciano is one of the top ten of all time and would whoop hearns ass!!!

hehe no doubt about that!

StaynerCoins
06-06-2006, 04:17 PM
You know there were two endings filmed for that fight, one where Ali won for the Brittish and Europeon audiences and one where Marciano won for the USA audiences (as Ali was unpopular in USA at the time)

The computer that decided the outcome was used to try to predict the winner of real boxing matches - to which it failed miserably.

The DVD only shows the Marciano victory over Ali. The cover says it also includes an alternate ending, but if you choose to view the alternate ending, it is again the Marciano victory over Ali. So, they made a mistake in not including the Ali victory.

King Koyle
06-07-2006, 01:35 PM
Tommyhearns continues to make everyone else look good. :D

Dempsey 1919
06-07-2006, 05:31 PM
Tommyhearns continues to make everyone else look good. :D

Yeah, he sure does.

Abe Attell
06-08-2006, 09:43 PM
Marciano's career was longer then fraziers by more then 10 fights so its not like he had the shortest career, Marciano was great and would have been better if he had fought in Ali's time because there was more avalible, just as there's more avalible today then back then. Marciano's not really crude he had a tendency to look awkward when he missed. His style was great, defense straight to offense, and punch that could bring men 200Lbs+ down. Its funny how ppl say well if tyson used those gloves or frazier or whoever used them would have done just as much damage, if i'm not mistaken they've used 10 oz gloves as a standard since after the 20's.

He mixed it up, could bring nearly any hw ever down with a few combinations (not really a dramatization),KO power in either hand

people don't regard him as the greatest, which is fine it may be because he was very humble and not flashy but the point is he was a great fighter and you can't take 49-0 away from him

and unlike other hw he never needed like 6 months to train he was always conditioned, 2 months before a fight he'd kick it up and do double everything to be ready so, 49-0, highes ko rate, hell of a punch,trained religiously, humble, not much more you could ask of a hw champion

Marciano never had to face Ali and Foreman

Abe Attell
06-08-2006, 09:46 PM
If Rocky Marciano had more skill then maybe he wouldn't of been a worthless overatted piece of trash.


If you really look at Marciano, he did pretty well for a guy that picked up boxing late and had few amatuer fights.

Great fighters usually have the time and fights to mature into "great" fighters, Marciano learned in the pros, kind of like Hasim Rahman.

Brockton Lip
06-08-2006, 11:26 PM
Marciano never had to face Ali and Foreman

lol. They never had to face Marciano.

Abe Attell
06-11-2006, 11:19 PM
lol. They never had to face Marciano.


Did you ever hear of Joe Frazier, pretty dam close, but at least Joe was better at making you miss punches...I couldn't imagine what Foreman would do to Marciano, knowing that the Rock left himself opened a lot...those punches that Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Walcott, and others landed, it would not compare to George's power.

For Ali, just watch the Liston fight, all he has to do is move around, and use his speed of hand. Marciano was no Tyson when it came to closing the distance; where Tyson was fast like
RB (football), Marciano was more of a plodder, not to fast on the feet.

RockyMarcianofan00
06-11-2006, 11:28 PM
Did you ever hear of Joe Frazier, pretty dam close, but at least Joe was better at making you miss punches...I couldn't imagine what Foreman would do to Marciano, knowing that the Rock left himself opened a lot...those punches that Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Walcott, and others landed, it would not compare to George's power.

For Ali, just watch the Liston fight, all he has to do is move around, and use his speed of hand. Marciano was no Tyson when it came to closing the distance; where Tyson was fast like
RB (football), Marciano was more of a plodder, not to fast on the feet.
IMO Rocky's the best inside fighter, and also Rocky had an easier time getting inside on somebody. Whereas Liston was the one at the disadvantage style wise Marciano being a swarmer/slugger would have the advantage, plus Marciano's best punch was the one Ali was most sespetible to, Right Hook (I believe it was).

micky_knox
06-12-2006, 08:19 AM
if Rocky Marciano would of lived up to today you think he would of had more stardom and been more recognized as a legend than ali.
maybe he even would of been more liked than ali
he would have as much stardom as ali.
he would have been well liked because he was a nice guy........
hes been dead a long time now and people still love him

Dempsey 1919
06-12-2006, 03:55 PM
IMO Rocky's the best inside fighter, and also Rocky had an easier time getting inside on somebody. Whereas Liston was the one at the disadvantage style wise Marciano being a swarmer/slugger would have the advantage, plus Marciano's best punch was the one Ali was most sespetible to, Right Hook (I believe it was).

Actually, it was a left hook, and ali could block a right hand pretty easily, that's why marciano would have a tough time hitting him.

Hard Boiled HK
06-12-2006, 04:43 PM
he beat 3 great ezzard charles, archie moore, and jersey joe walcott?

Marciano fought the once-retired 37 years old Joe Louis, the twice-retired 38 year old Joe Walcott, 42 year old Archie Moore, and the washed-up 34 year old Ezzard Charles. In other words, he beat them when they were way past their game, and are not considered "strong oppositions" when Marciano fought them.

Edit: Ali fought a 27 year old Joe Fraizer and a 25 year old George Foreman.

In comparison, who faced stronger oppositions?

Brockton Lip
06-12-2006, 10:21 PM
Marciano fought the once-retired 37 years old Joe Louis, the twice-retired 38 year old Joe Walcott, 42 year old Archie Moore, and the washed-up 34 year old Ezzard Charles. In other words, he beat them when they were way past their game, and are not considered "strong oppositions" when Marciano fought them.

Edit: Ali fought a 27 year old Joe Fraizer and a 25 year old George Foreman.

In comparison, who faced stronger oppositions?

This post is stupid.
I won't even give reasons for the first half of your post; I don't need to. But I will post now, using your logic:
Frazier beat Ali and when he lost, he was half blind already.
Foreman was slow, stupid, and predictable.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

RockyMarcianofan00
06-12-2006, 11:13 PM
Marciano fought the once-retired 37 years old Joe Louis, the twice-retired 38 year old Joe Walcott, 42 year old Archie Moore, and the washed-up 34 year old Ezzard Charles. In other words, he beat them when they were way past their game, and are not considered "strong oppositions" when Marciano fought them.

Edit: Ali fought a 27 year old Joe Fraizer and a 25 year old George Foreman.

In comparison, who faced stronger oppositions?
Jersey Joe Walcott was prime in the title fight with Marciano, not only was he in the best condition of his life but that was the best fight of his life.

Joe Louis though once retired and just a shell of his former self was still a very dangerous contender. He only lost I think 2 or 3 times during his comeback.

I'm not gunna say Archie Moore was prime because Archie Moore's best years were as a Light Heavyweight but just like Joe Louis, Moore was a very dangerous contender who could easily KO you. Even at his age he was still very strong and capable of KO'ing a fighter.

RockyMarcianofan00
06-12-2006, 11:15 PM
Actually, it was a left hook, and ali could block a right hand pretty easily, that's why marciano would have a tough time hitting him.
Like I said I don't remember which punch was Marciano's "best punch" :rolleyes:

He was famous for having a great right hand (suzie Q) but I think his "best punch" was the hook. I do know whatever punch was Marciano's best was Ali's hardest to block. Bert Sugar told me on a documentary on the Super Fight DVD. :D

Hard Boiled HK
06-12-2006, 11:18 PM
This post is stupid.
I won't even give reasons for the first half of your post; I don't need to. But I will post now, using your logic:
Frazier beat Ali and when he lost, he was half blind already.
Foreman was slow, stupid, and predictable.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Why won't you give reasons for the first half of my post?

Frazier was already half blind already when he fought Ali the second time around? Let's not exaggerate here. If he was half blind by the 2nd fight his eyes must be much worse when he fought Ali the 3rd time around. The beating he gave Ali was one of the worst ever. If he can do that while being at least half blind, then he must be the greatest ever. The Frazier of the Ali fights are much better than those old men Marciano fought.

You are saying George Foreman is "slow, stupid, and predictable." First of all, based on what evidence can you call him stupid? And second, according to your statement about Foreman, you are saying he is not one of the greatest boxers of all time. Any boxing historian consider Foreman one of the top ten greatest HW boxer of all time. Now, how can one of the greatest be "slow, stupid, and predictable"?

Hard Boiled HK
06-12-2006, 11:25 PM
Jersey Joe Walcott was prime in the title fight with Marciano, not only was he in the best condition of his life but that was the best fight of his life.

Joe Louis though once retired and just a shell of his former self was still a very dangerous contender. He only lost I think 2 or 3 times during his comeback.

I'm not gunna say Archie Moore was prime because Archie Moore's best years were as a Light Heavyweight but just like Joe Louis, Moore was a very dangerous contender who could easily KO you. Even at his age he was still very strong and capable of KO'ing a fighter.

At least you gave an explaination and did not lie about Archie Moore being in his prime when he fought Rocky Marcinano.

BTW, you don't think George Foreman is "slow, stupid, and predictable", do you?

RockyMarcianofan00
06-12-2006, 11:28 PM
At least you gave an explaination and did not lie about Archie Moore being in his prime when he fought Rocky Marcinano.

BTW, you don't think George Foreman is "slow, stupid, and predictable", do you?
Foreman is actually pretty predictable because he doesn't have KO Power in both hands, he has hard punching power in both hands but his KO punch is his right hand so everything tended to revolve around that.

So an expiernced Journeyman could probably pick off his punches, problem is, ok great you know what punches he's going to throw but your still going to get hit and KO'd by them.

Hard Boiled HK
06-12-2006, 11:44 PM
Fair enough. But honestly, do you really think a 37 years old Joe Louis, a 38 year old Joe Walcott, and a 42 year old Archie Moore are more dangerous than a 25 year old George Foreman and a 27 year old Joe Frazier?

Dempsey 1919
06-13-2006, 12:19 AM
Like I said I don't remember which punch was Marciano's "best punch" :rolleyes:

He was famous for having a great right hand (suzie Q) but I think his "best punch" was the hook. I do know whatever punch was Marciano's best was Ali's hardest to block. Bert Sugar told me on a documentary on the Super Fight DVD. :D

Look, all I know is that Ali is most vulnerable to a left hook, and he is least vulnerable to a right cross. You might know what was Rocky's best punch more than me, so I won't argue that. But from what I hear, Marciano's best punch was his right hand (suzie q), and Ali is extremely hard to hit with right hands.

Brockton Lip
06-13-2006, 12:52 AM
Why won't you give reasons for the first half of my post?
lol, because its been said so many times. But Marcianofan pretty much posted what I would have.

You are saying George Foreman is "slow, stupid, and predictable." First of all, based on what evidence can you call him stupid?
He fell for the rope-a-dope (Ali said something like: Hes a dope if he follows me to the ropes!) tactic and punched himself out.

And second, according to your statement about Foreman, you are saying he is not one of the greatest boxers of all time. Any boxing historian consider Foreman one of the top ten greatest HW boxer of all time. Now, how can one of the greatest be "slow, stupid, and predictable"?
I was exaggerating and using your logic from when you implied Marciano didn't fight strong opposition. I do think he is one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. He is slow, and in his physical prime he was predictable and not the most intelligent fighter out there. But his power and good chin/heart made him great.

Southpaw Stinger
06-13-2006, 07:47 AM
Look, all I know is that Ali is most vulnerable to a left hook, and he is least vulnerable to a right cross. You might know what was Rocky's best punch more than me, so I won't argue that. But from what I hear, Marciano's best punch was his right hand (suzie q), and Ali is extremely hard to hit with right hands.

very true. Cooper and Frazier had some of the meanest left hooks of all time and they sent Ali to the canvas. Liston, Foreman, Shavers and Quarry couldn't put Ali down with their rights, and Foreman, Liston and Shavers had the hardest rights in history!

hellfire508
06-13-2006, 09:06 AM
Foreman is actually pretty predictable because he doesn't have KO Power in both hands, he has hard punching power in both hands but his KO punch is his right hand so everything tended to revolve around that.

So an expiernced Journeyman could probably pick off his punches, problem is, ok great you know what punches he's going to throw but your still going to get hit and KO'd by them.

I disagree. Foreman definately had KO power in both hands. And it's not as simple as picking off his punches, those punches went THROUGH your guard. I think people need to watch more of Foreman. They watch his fight with Ali, in which he was made to look bad because of the way Ali fought, and think he was a lumbering wild swinger. At times, he certainly was wild. However, he had an excellent jab, and could box fairly well.

Heckler
06-13-2006, 10:34 AM
Foreman is actually pretty predictable because he doesn't have KO Power in both hands, he has hard punching power in both hands but his KO punch is his right hand so everything tended to revolve around that.

So an expiernced Journeyman could probably pick off his punches, problem is, ok great you know what punches he's going to throw but your still going to get hit and KO'd by them.

Ah no, he has Ko power in both hands and his left hook was probably the better punch. Left hook and his uppercut.

Marcianos best punch was definately the short right cross. His left hook was more of a heavy, bludgeoning blow. Ali was very hard to tag with a right hand.

Southpaw Stinger
06-13-2006, 12:31 PM
Foreman is actually pretty predictable because he doesn't have KO Power in both hands

Foreman definatly has KO in both hands.