View Full Version : Ending The Moore and Walcott myth once and for all


SuzieQ49
05-04-2006, 06:15 PM
im sick and tired of hearing bull**** after bull**** "walcott and moore were washed up old men when marciano beat them "


fact is marciano detractors make the mistake of lumping charles, walcott, moore, louis together as old washed up men. this is a mistake because u have to look at each of there careers differently.



anyway this is the best mythbuster on marciano i have ever read. it was written by ted spoon






"It's not differcult to spot a remark difference in the physical capabilities of Joe louis in '51, but I'd like to know when 'Jersey' Joe or Archie Moore (despite the latter being overmatched) looked fresher, more capable.

There are no laws in boxing opinions, nor is there such an entity who could be logically labelled an 'expert', but casual fans will eat what they're fed, alas myths are recycled for another generation.

If all one hears is Walcott was old then feeling inclined to agree will take its toll like almost an infectious obligation, Ted Spoon has received the same vibe off of both writers, no surprise.

Numerical factors matter only if they prove a factor. I'll be damned if it was age that beat Walcott during that heated battle in Chicago; arguably, probably the best fight the usually negative Walcott fought.

Archie Moore fought one of the most intense defensive fight's you may lay your sceptical eyes on. Again, where are these signs of 'ageing'?"








now that all of you marciano detractors have been owned, lets put an end to this thread and to the marciano myth that walcott and moore were old washed up men. thank you.

tommyhearns804
05-04-2006, 07:00 PM
Lol what a idiot you people are.If Ali was past his prime at 30 then why and how could Moore who was 45 when he fought Marciano and Walcott had to be around 38 or 39 be considered in their primes?Then this moron says some writer said they were still in their primes?Get the **** out of here with that bull****.Of course some white writer will say they were in their primes to make it look like Marciano fought fighters who weren't washed up.
In any case even if Moore was in this 20's and was in the prime of his life the man still had a glass chin.No fighter who ever had a title in any weight class was knocked down as many times as Moore.Go to boxrec.com Moore was knocked out in his prime by other middleweights much easier than Marciano knocked him out.Charley Burley a middleweight knocked Moore down at least 4 times and toyed with him like a child never being hurt like Marciano was .
Moore had over 200 fights by the time he fought Marciano so his body was worned down.He had been knocked out and down countless times as i said.Walcott was knocked out at least 5 times before he faced Marciano.Walcott was 2 and 2 in his last 4 fights before he was facing Marciano.No all of the sudden he faces Marciano and he is this young strong unbeatable force?Yeah only in Marciano nutt huggers dreams.
Again if Ali is past his prime at 30 then both of these guys were waaaaay past their primes.Even in his prime Walcott was a joke.And more was alot better as a middleweight and even then he had a glass chin.Hey Suzie Q instead of typing about a sport you have no clue of maybe you should do what you were put here to do and that is drop to your knees and please men.

Kid Achilles
05-04-2006, 07:14 PM
Once again, Tommyhearns proves himself to be an idiot with an odd fetish for homoeroticism.

Heckler
05-04-2006, 07:25 PM
I do agree, Walcott fought the fight of his life.. Archie obviously wasn't in his physical prime, but was a seasoned light heavy and still a formidable opponent. Joe Louis? I dont take that fight into account for obvious reasons.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-04-2006, 07:58 PM
Walcott was prime

Moore not really at his absolute prime but definitely still a top notch fighter

SuzieQ49
05-04-2006, 08:00 PM
actually archie was in his prime. take a look at his record prior to fighting marciano. he was 45-1 in his last 46 fights. after the marciano fight, moore went 28-2

archie moore was unquestionably at/near his prime vs marciano.


archie moore was a fighter who got better with age


i have film of archie moore in 1940s and let me tell u something, archie moore looks just as good if not better in the early-mid 1950s than he does in 1946-47. hes just as fast execpt better defense and smarter and more experienced.

archie had a long prime 1947-56





Moore who was 45 when he fought Marciano


moore was 38

SABBATH
05-04-2006, 10:07 PM
Once again, Tommyhearns proves himself to be an idiot with an odd fetish for homoeroticism.
Don't discourage him. He keeps the comical element alive on these threads. tommyhearns804 provides the perfect blend of stupidity and humour. Like a zoo monkey that slams his head against his cage before eating his own ****.

King Koyle
05-05-2006, 09:24 AM
Don't discourage him. He keeps the comical element alive on these threads. tommyhearns804 provides the perfect blend of stupidity and humour. Like a zoo monkey that slams his head against his cage before eating his own ****.


LOL,thats true!I don't even know what he wrote,but im sure it's his usual trademark stupidity.

Dempsey 1919
05-24-2006, 02:07 AM
actually archie was in his prime. take a look at his record prior to fighting marciano. he was 45-1 in his last 46 fights. after the marciano fight, moore went 28-2

archie moore was unquestionably at/near his prime vs marciano.


archie moore was a fighter who got better with age


i have film of archie moore in 1940s and let me tell u something, archie moore looks just as good if not better in the early-mid 1950s than he does in 1946-47. hes just as fast execpt better defense and smarter and more experienced.

archie had a long prime 1947-56








moore was 38

who's prime at 42, lol!

RockyMarcianofan00
05-24-2006, 04:03 AM
totally remote for the most part to this topic but

Archie Moore has got to be one of the Most underrated fighters ever3
He had to wait 17 years to get a shot at the title, some fighters don't even fight that long. He won it too. He was probably won of the greatest Light Heavyweights to ever live and a very good heavyweight.

He was a journeyman, he's probably the only fighter to have fought from James J. Braddock's time (though he was LHW at the time) all the way to Muhammad Ali's time.

he went
W 187 (132 ko's) | L 23 | D 11 | Total 222

Doesn't seem to impressive until you relize that he boxed for over 30 years, all he needed to do was lose once a year, missing 7 years to rack up them losses.
He also has more KO's then any boxer in history - anyweight class
132 KO'S - thats insane, he's knocked out more people then most fighters have fights. think about it most fighters don't even have 132 fights and yet Archie Moore Ko'd 132.

Archie Moore was a great fighter
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c49/IrishInsomniac00/other%20boxing%20pictures/thArchie-Moore--C10104813.jpg

Fought 1935-1963
His last fight was after Muhammad Ali. It was against Mike DiBiase (who was 0-0-0) and he was 47.
Only guy i know of who fought later was George Foreman (49)

RockyMarcianofan00
05-24-2006, 04:07 AM
who's prime at 42, lol!
Archie Moore was CrAzY Incredible

though i think he did better at LHW not to disagree and say he wasn't prime because i don't know. I don't know if he was prime as a LHW or he just made it look easy

Southpaw Stinger
05-24-2006, 06:26 AM
Prime has nothing to do with age. Fight style, mental toughness and stability + experience and fitness all contribute to prime.

A young fighter in his physical prime might not have the skills and experience to be called in his absolute prime. An older fighter who might be passed his physical best but more importantly is; experienced, focussed, determined and skilled can be known as in his prime.

Heckler
05-24-2006, 06:42 AM
A fighters prime is when he is at the peak of his powers. Moore aged very well, the skill level and experience he developed in his later years offset the fact he was no longer in his physical prime.

SABBATH
05-24-2006, 12:46 PM
A fighters prime is when he is at the peak of his powers. Moore aged very well, the skill level and experience he developed in his later years offset the fact he was no longer in his physical prime.For most fighters, physical skills (timing, reflexes, speed, endurance) begin to decrease often at the same rate as their ring smarts, experience and overall generalship increases. During this period champions usually have good results and are often considered in their prime at this stage in their career (usually when they have been champ for a couple of years). Larry Holmes would be a good example of this probably peaking at 30-31 years old as would Lennox Lewis.

In some rare cases (Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott being such cases) their ring smarts etc...increases at a more rapid pace than their physical tools diminish. That's why they have good success late in their careers.

When Foreman came back in the 80's, he wasn't the same physically, but he had improved dramatically in smarts, generalship, mental toughness etc...that is why he was able to capture his previous glory.

For the young persons on these threads that believe Moore and Walcott peaked physically in their late 30's or early 40's I would say wait until you are at that age and compare yourself to how you were in your early 20's. Then you will truly and fully understand how the body responds athletically to the aging process.

K-DOGG
05-24-2006, 12:55 PM
For most fighters, physical skills (timing, reflexes, speed, endurance) begin to decrease often at the same rate as their ring smarts, experience and overall generalship increases. During this period champions usually have good results and are often considered in their prime at this stage in their career (usually when they have been champ for a couple of years). Larry Holmes would be a good example of this probably peaking at 30-31 years old as would Lennox Lewis.

In some rare cases (Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott being such cases) their ring smarts etc...increases at a more rapid pace than their physical tools diminish. That's why they have good success late in their careers.

When Foreman came back in the 80's, he wasn't the same physically, but he had improved dramatically in smarts, generalship, mental toughness etc...that is why he was able to capture his previous glory.

For the young persons on these threads that believe Moore and Walcott peaked physically in their late 30's or early 40's I would say wait until you are at that age and compare yourself to how you were in your early 20's. Then you will truly and fully understand how the body responds athletically to the aging process.

Damn. If that doesn't sum up the whole "prime-peak" thing, I don't know what does. You've got a gift, Sabbath...and I ain't just blowin' smoke.

Props, dog.

SuzieQ49
05-24-2006, 01:44 PM
moore was 38, not 42



walcott looked pretty damm chizzled and in excellent shape in his mid 30s, i didnt notice any decrease in his reflexes eitehr


archie moore rexlexes and speed were as good as ever in his mid 30s,



* i have film of archie moore in 1946 and 1947 and let me tell u. archie in 1954 vs harold johnson looked just as fast as the archie in 1946-47. that tells me archie was still at his physical best in 1954

SuzieQ49
05-24-2006, 01:45 PM
who's prime at 42, lol!


achie was 38 when he fought marciano, thats a lot different than 42.

archie was past his prime at 42 In 1959, but i think he was still at/near his prime in 1955 at age 38

phallus
05-24-2006, 02:12 PM
i believe jersey joe walcott was in his prime at 37, when he was champ, earlier in his career he was considered a prospect who never lived up to the expectations, so he quit boxing for a few years, the jersey joe that came back was far better than the younger one, beating great fighters like ezzard charles.
ancient archie moore was an amazing man, the greatest lt hw of all time, he didn't seem to age like normal people

SABBATH
05-24-2006, 02:14 PM
Damn. If that doesn't sum up the whole "prime-peak" thing, I don't know what does. You've got a gift, Sabbath...and I ain't just blowin' smoke.

Props, dog.
Back at ya dog and remember "The older we get, the better we were!" ;)

K-DOGG
05-24-2006, 02:33 PM
Back at ya dog and remember "The older we get, the better we were!" ;)


Ain't that the truth! :D

SABBATH
05-24-2006, 03:37 PM
walcott looked pretty damm chizzled and in excellent shape in his mid 30s, i didnt notice any decrease in his reflexes eitehr
Looking damn chisled and in excellent shape is in now way an indication that a fighter is in his prime. If that were the case I would say Bernard Hokins would have to be in his prime. It's boxing not a bodybuilding contest.

Reflexes are gauged by the time it takes to recieve an optical stimulis (see a punch coming) process the information in the brain (identify then decide what to do) then to react (counterpunch, duck, block etc...). In boxing you cannot gauge reflexes by film. Reflexes are measured in hundredths of a second.

tommyhearns804
05-24-2006, 07:30 PM
Archie Moore was 42 or older.Moore lied about his age.Number 2 no fighter was ever in his prime into there 40's again if Ali was past his prime at 30 then Moore and Walcott was past their primes.Moore also had way over 200 fights in his career.The wear and tear on his body was really high so even in his 30's he wouldnt of been as fresh as a fighter who had lets say 40 fights by the time they were 30.
Walcott beat Charles and your point is?Charles was at the tell end of his career as well.Not to mention Charles like Moore was both naturally middleweights.Both Of them spent at least 7 years weighing between 155 and 160.So Walcott beating a man who was naturally 30 pounds smaller than him proves what?
As i said even if Moore was 25 when he fought Marciano it wouldnt mean anything.Moore was knocked out in his 20's by guys his own weight class which again was middleweight alot easier than Marciano knocked him out.Both Walcott and Charles were knocked out several times before they fought Marciano alot quicker than Marciano could do.
Were Walcott,Charles, or Moore 230 pound heavyweights?So at best you could say Marciano was good at knocking out guys who were either past their primes or 30 pounds smaller than he was.Which still doesnt make him the greatest heavyweight or all time or at heavyweight period.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-24-2006, 08:00 PM
Archie Moore was 42 or older.Moore lied about his age.Number 2 no fighter was ever in his prime into there 40's again if Ali was past his prime at 30 then Moore and Walcott was past their primes.Moore also had way over 200 fights in his career.The wear and tear on his body was really high so even in his 30's he wouldnt of been as fresh as a fighter who had lets say 40 fights by the time they were 30.
Walcott beat Charles and your point is?Charles was at the tell end of his career as well.Not to mention Charles like Moore was both naturally middleweights.Both Of them spent at least 7 years weighing between 155 and 160.So Walcott beating a man who was naturally 30 pounds smaller than him proves what?
As i said even if Moore was 25 when he fought Marciano it wouldnt mean anything.Moore was knocked out in his 20's by guys his own weight class which again was middleweight alot easier than Marciano knocked him out.Both Walcott and Charles were knocked out several times before they fought Marciano alot quicker than Marciano could do.
Were Walcott,Charles, or Moore 230 pound heavyweights?So at best you could say Marciano was good at knocking out guys who were either past their primes or 30 pounds smaller than he was.Which still doesnt make him the greatest heavyweight or all time or at heavyweight period.
Well then lets think about this one then
your defense is that Marciano couldn't be an all time great because guys lighter then him knocked out his opponents faster. Well then lets look at some facts off the top of my head. Towards the end of Marciano's career he stopped training as hard as he had previously. As he put it "the smell of the gym just wasn't as appealing as it was before. When this happens you know its time to retire" (or something like that). So yes if Marciano was well condtioned but not well trained then he's going to struggle alittle more against Archie Moore.
Continuing with this its widely known that Marciano's boxing skill was sub-par so a very popular method against Marciano was to try and box him and keep him away. If he can't get inside on you that obscures him. I think a Journeyman who had over 200 fights prime or not would have some idea of how to keep somebody away from him. Even so This would catch up with him.
as for the whole KO thing, yes it took Marciano 9 rounds to KO Moore. Lets review Moore's other KO's
Moore was KO'd three other times
Jimmy Bivins KO'd him in 6 - I'd like to point out that moore was outweighed by about 20 pounds for this bout so natrually he's going to have a disadvantage. This is also if i'm not mistaken right around the time Moore went up in weight so of course he's going to need time to adjust

His next KO loss came courtesy of Ezzard Charles. Ezzard Charles was also probably one of the greatest LHW's of all time. Charles KO Moore 8- thats not so far off Rocky's KO (9). According to what i read Moore almost had Charles KO'd when Charles landed a spectacular combination that floored Moore. So thats not so bad. They were about the same weight and it took a near prime Charles about as long as a declining Marciano to KO him.

Next KO loss was via Leonard Marrow KO1. In my reading i do remember reading somewhere that Archie was having some sort of problem before the fight but i can't find that piece at the moment. Anyway The guy was the LHW champ of California so you do have to assume he has some sort of skill, Most of all though anybody can land a lucky shot and KO somebody or wobble them and set them up for a KO. The great thing about boxing is one punch can change the whole fight. its Plausible for A featherweight to KO a Heavyweight. All somebody has to do is land a good punch cleanly in the Right place and your out.

Examples: Chuck Wepner- Sonny Liston TKO'd Chuck Wepner in 10 rounds. And yet Ali was able to KO Liston in one prior to this fight. Five years Later it took Ali 15 rounds to TKO Wepner. It shows you that anything can happen

Another one of my favorites is the fact that Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali, George Foreman beat Joe Frazier. Technically this means that Foreman should beat Ali, yet Ali KO'd Foreman for the first time in George's Career. The night before had you placed a bet on that out come i garuntee they would have laughed at you.

The fact is Just because it takes longer for one fighter to KO another fighter doesn't mean that that fighter isn't as good. The reason Wepner was able to go the 15 rounds with Ali was because he took it seriously enough to train harder then he did for any time before. Does that make Liston better then Ali, no but with what your saying it does.

Dempsey 1919
05-24-2006, 10:00 PM
Well then lets think about this one then
your defense is that Marciano couldn't be an all time great because guys lighter then him knocked out his opponents faster. Well then lets look at some facts off the top of my head. Towards the end of Marciano's career he stopped training as hard as he had previously. As he put it "the smell of the gym just wasn't as appealing as it was before. When this happens you know its time to retire" (or something like that). So yes if Marciano was well condtioned but not well trained then he's going to struggle alittle more against Archie Moore.
Continuing with this its widely known that Marciano's boxing skill was sub-par so a very popular method against Marciano was to try and box him and keep him away. If he can't get inside on you that obscures him. I think a Journeyman who had over 200 fights prime or not would have some idea of how to keep somebody away from him. Even so This would catch up with him.
as for the whole KO thing, yes it took Marciano 9 rounds to KO Moore. Lets review Moore's other KO's
Moore was KO'd three other times
Jimmy Bivins KO'd him in 6 - I'd like to point out that moore was outweighed by about 20 pounds for this bout so natrually he's going to have a disadvantage. This is also if i'm not mistaken right around the time Moore went up in weight so of course he's going to need time to adjust

His next KO loss came courtesy of Ezzard Charles. Ezzard Charles was also probably one of the greatest LHW's of all time. Charles KO Moore 8- thats not so far off Rocky's KO (9). According to what i read Moore almost had Charles KO'd when Charles landed a spectacular combination that floored Moore. So thats not so bad. They were about the same weight and it took a near prime Charles about as long as a declining Marciano to KO him.

Next KO loss was via Leonard Marrow KO1. In my reading i do remember reading somewhere that Archie was having some sort of problem before the fight but i can't find that piece at the moment. Anyway The guy was the LHW champ of California so you do have to assume he has some sort of skill, Most of all though anybody can land a lucky shot and KO somebody or wobble them and set them up for a KO. The great thing about boxing is one punch can change the whole fight. its Plausible for A featherweight to KO a Heavyweight. All somebody has to do is land a good punch cleanly in the Right place and your out.

Examples: Chuck Wepner- Sonny Liston TKO'd Chuck Wepner in 10 rounds. And yet Ali was able to KO Liston in one prior to this fight. Five years Later it took Ali 15 rounds to TKO Wepner. It shows you that anything can happen

Another one of my favorites is the fact that Joe Frazier beat Muhammad Ali, George Foreman beat Joe Frazier. Technically this means that Foreman should beat Ali, yet Ali KO'd Foreman for the first time in George's Career. The night before had you placed a bet on that out come i garuntee they would have laughed at you.

The fact is Just because it takes longer for one fighter to KO another fighter doesn't mean that that fighter isn't as good. The reason Wepner was able to go the 15 rounds with Ali was because he took it seriously enough to train harder then he did for any time before. Does that make Liston better then Ali, no but with what your saying it does.

well said, rocky'fan00, well said.

RockyMarcianofan00
05-24-2006, 11:04 PM
well said, rocky'fan00, well said.
I try :D
I had to really think to put that together

tommyhearns804
05-25-2006, 02:37 AM
This forums racism is getting highly annoying but anyway read this again.




22.10.03 - By Robert Bennett - I gave great respect for the achievements of Rocky Marciano. A champion can do no more then defeat the fighters placed in front of him, and make sure those fighters are the best available. Rocky Marciano did that, and regardless of the relative strength or weakness of a division in any era, a man that can do that is worthy of praise. How much praise is due however, is the question I pose.

Marciano is often ranked inside the top ten heavyweights of all time by various fans and writers, but one must wonder on what basis he is ranked. A record of 49-0 is impressive indeed but his record was only allowed to run to such extents because he was shut out of the title picture for so long. I rather imagine many a fighter in history would have also taken his record into the forties and fifties without loss if he wasn't fighting the cream of the division.

His first victory over a legitimate contender did not come until his 25th fight against Carmine Vingo. By the time he reached 40-0, Marciano had only four legitimate contenders on his resume, and one of those was the sad swansong of the great Joe Louis. Another was Roland LaStarza, who is famous for losing the barest of decisions to Marciano in a fight many observers felt he should have won. The other two fighters were Vingo of course, and Rex Layne, neither of which rate barely a mention in historical circles.

In stark comparison, Evander Holyfield was thrust into the top of the sport by his twelth fight, and remained undefeated until his 29th fight. The staggering difference is that by the time of his first defeat, Holyfield had faced and defeated at least fifteen contenders who were as good or better then the four Marciano had defeated by forty fights, and yet Holyfield himself struggles for recognition inside the top ten because unlike Marciano, he does not have the benefit of an undefeated record aiding his abilities in the eyes of many observers. As for Marciano's magical '0', that only remained because of the relatively short period of time that Marciano spent fighting at the top of the division. Count them eight fights, a heavyweight title eliminator and seven title fights. There are literally dozens of heavyweights who have remained active at the top for longer than that.

Whether intentional or not, Marciano was protected in much the same way that a Joe Mesi now is. Whether Mesi is a genuine talent is yet to be proven, but it is amazing that Marciano's record does not draw as much criticism as todays protected prospects. It is taboo, almost blasphemous to criticise the quality and depth of the names on Rocky's winlist, because of the mythical status that has been heaped upon his 'world record' 49-0.

Seven successful title fights is commendable, but when broken down not as impressive as many of his contemporaries. His two biggest name victims during his title reign were two victories each over Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. Charles was done as a top level fighter, as evidenced by the two decisions he dropped in the year before his first Marciano fight, and a little after a year after the second fight, had dropped a further four fights. As for Walcott, 23 years and 70 fights after his pro debut, many would have you believe that he remained a force to be reckoned with. No one is denying that Walcott was cagey and skillful, even in his advanced age, but putting him on a pedestal to lift the significance of Rocky's wins over him is a joke. No champion in history enjoyed the sort of longetivity attributed to Walcott, and Marciano was in danger of being defeated by both Walcott and Charles at some stage.

The trouble Marciano had with fighters like Walcott, Charles and LaStarza leads me to believe that a fighter like Roy Jones Jr would have taken him to school, as would the defensive marvel James Toney. Larry Holmes would have cut him up with his piston jab and stopped him. And due to both size and skill, Foreman, Lewis, Bowe and Vitali Klitschko would have decimated him. And to those that have fantasised about it, Marciano would have been no match for Muhammad Ali. Rocky struggled against far lesser fighters than Ali, and would not have been able to deal with the combination of speed, skill, power and smarts that felled more great heavyweights than any fighter before or after him.

Rocky Marciano, skilled and powerful, but vastly overrated in a historical sense.


Maybe you racist rejects can grasp that.

Dempsey 1919
05-25-2006, 02:39 AM
This forums racism is getting highly annoying but anyway read this again.




22.10.03 - By Robert Bennett - I gave great respect for the achievements of Rocky Marciano. A champion can do no more then defeat the fighters placed in front of him, and make sure those fighters are the best available. Rocky Marciano did that, and regardless of the relative strength or weakness of a division in any era, a man that can do that is worthy of praise. How much praise is due however, is the question I pose.

Marciano is often ranked inside the top ten heavyweights of all time by various fans and writers, but one must wonder on what basis he is ranked. A record of 49-0 is impressive indeed but his record was only allowed to run to such extents because he was shut out of the title picture for so long. I rather imagine many a fighter in history would have also taken his record into the forties and fifties without loss if he wasn't fighting the cream of the division.

His first victory over a legitimate contender did not come until his 25th fight against Carmine Vingo. By the time he reached 40-0, Marciano had only four legitimate contenders on his resume, and one of those was the sad swansong of the great Joe Louis. Another was Roland LaStarza, who is famous for losing the barest of decisions to Marciano in a fight many observers felt he should have won. The other two fighters were Vingo of course, and Rex Layne, neither of which rate barely a mention in historical circles.

In stark comparison, Evander Holyfield was thrust into the top of the sport by his twelth fight, and remained undefeated until his 29th fight. The staggering difference is that by the time of his first defeat, Holyfield had faced and defeated at least fifteen contenders who were as good or better then the four Marciano had defeated by forty fights, and yet Holyfield himself struggles for recognition inside the top ten because unlike Marciano, he does not have the benefit of an undefeated record aiding his abilities in the eyes of many observers. As for Marciano's magical '0', that only remained because of the relatively short period of time that Marciano spent fighting at the top of the division. Count them eight fights, a heavyweight title eliminator and seven title fights. There are literally dozens of heavyweights who have remained active at the top for longer than that.

Whether intentional or not, Marciano was protected in much the same way that a Joe Mesi now is. Whether Mesi is a genuine talent is yet to be proven, but it is amazing that Marciano's record does not draw as much criticism as todays protected prospects. It is taboo, almost blasphemous to criticise the quality and depth of the names on Rocky's winlist, because of the mythical status that has been heaped upon his 'world record' 49-0.

Seven successful title fights is commendable, but when broken down not as impressive as many of his contemporaries. His two biggest name victims during his title reign were two victories each over Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. Charles was done as a top level fighter, as evidenced by the two decisions he dropped in the year before his first Marciano fight, and a little after a year after the second fight, had dropped a further four fights. As for Walcott, 23 years and 70 fights after his pro debut, many would have you believe that he remained a force to be reckoned with. No one is denying that Walcott was cagey and skillful, even in his advanced age, but putting him on a pedestal to lift the significance of Rocky's wins over him is a joke. No champion in history enjoyed the sort of longetivity attributed to Walcott, and Marciano was in danger of being defeated by both Walcott and Charles at some stage.

The trouble Marciano had with fighters like Walcott, Charles and LaStarza leads me to believe that a fighter like Roy Jones Jr would have taken him to school, as would the defensive marvel James Toney. Larry Holmes would have cut him up with his piston jab and stopped him. And due to both size and skill, Foreman, Lewis, Bowe and Vitali Klitschko would have decimated him. And to those that have fantasised about it, Marciano would have been no match for Muhammad Ali. Rocky struggled against far lesser fighters than Ali, and would not have been able to deal with the combination of speed, skill, power and smarts that felled more great heavyweights than any fighter before or after him.

Rocky Marciano, skilled and powerful, but vastly overrated in a historical sense.


Maybe you racist rejects can grasp that.

rocky was overrated, but still a good fighter.

K-DOGG
05-25-2006, 11:11 AM
This forums racism is getting highly annoying but anyway read this again.




22.10.03 - By Robert Bennett - I gave great respect for the achievements of Rocky Marciano. A champion can do no more then defeat the fighters placed in front of him, and make sure those fighters are the best available. Rocky Marciano did that, and regardless of the relative strength or weakness of a division in any era, a man that can do that is worthy of praise. How much praise is due however, is the question I pose.

Marciano is often ranked inside the top ten heavyweights of all time by various fans and writers, but one must wonder on what basis he is ranked. A record of 49-0 is impressive indeed but his record was only allowed to run to such extents because he was shut out of the title picture for so long. I rather imagine many a fighter in history would have also taken his record into the forties and fifties without loss if he wasn't fighting the cream of the division.

His first victory over a legitimate contender did not come until his 25th fight against Carmine Vingo. By the time he reached 40-0, Marciano had only four legitimate contenders on his resume, and one of those was the sad swansong of the great Joe Louis. Another was Roland LaStarza, who is famous for losing the barest of decisions to Marciano in a fight many observers felt he should have won. The other two fighters were Vingo of course, and Rex Layne, neither of which rate barely a mention in historical circles.

In stark comparison, Evander Holyfield was thrust into the top of the sport by his twelth fight, and remained undefeated until his 29th fight. The staggering difference is that by the time of his first defeat, Holyfield had faced and defeated at least fifteen contenders who were as good or better then the four Marciano had defeated by forty fights, and yet Holyfield himself struggles for recognition inside the top ten because unlike Marciano, he does not have the benefit of an undefeated record aiding his abilities in the eyes of many observers. As for Marciano's magical '0', that only remained because of the relatively short period of time that Marciano spent fighting at the top of the division. Count them eight fights, a heavyweight title eliminator and seven title fights. There are literally dozens of heavyweights who have remained active at the top for longer than that.

Whether intentional or not, Marciano was protected in much the same way that a Joe Mesi now is. Whether Mesi is a genuine talent is yet to be proven, but it is amazing that Marciano's record does not draw as much criticism as todays protected prospects. It is taboo, almost blasphemous to criticise the quality and depth of the names on Rocky's winlist, because of the mythical status that has been heaped upon his 'world record' 49-0.

Seven successful title fights is commendable, but when broken down not as impressive as many of his contemporaries. His two biggest name victims during his title reign were two victories each over Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. Charles was done as a top level fighter, as evidenced by the two decisions he dropped in the year before his first Marciano fight, and a little after a year after the second fight, had dropped a further four fights. As for Walcott, 23 years and 70 fights after his pro debut, many would have you believe that he remained a force to be reckoned with. No one is denying that Walcott was cagey and skillful, even in his advanced age, but putting him on a pedestal to lift the significance of Rocky's wins over him is a joke. No champion in history enjoyed the sort of longetivity attributed to Walcott, and Marciano was in danger of being defeated by both Walcott and Charles at some stage.

The trouble Marciano had with fighters like Walcott, Charles and LaStarza leads me to believe that a fighter like Roy Jones Jr would have taken him to school, as would the defensive marvel James Toney. Larry Holmes would have cut him up with his piston jab and stopped him. And due to both size and skill, Foreman, Lewis, Bowe and Vitali Klitschko would have decimated him. And to those that have fantasised about it, Marciano would have been no match for Muhammad Ali. Rocky struggled against far lesser fighters than Ali, and would not have been able to deal with the combination of speed, skill, power and smarts that felled more great heavyweights than any fighter before or after him.

Rocky Marciano, skilled and powerful, but vastly overrated in a historical sense.


Maybe you racist rejects can grasp that.

Dude, you need more bran in your diet or something. So much angst.

Incidently, what 15 fighters did Holyfield fight at heavyweight who were vastly superior to the 4 fighters you give Rocky credit for beating?

RockyMarcianofan00
05-25-2006, 04:11 PM
i respond to this thusly

I submit to you that there are probably only 2 fighters that would have been able to go 49-0 in Rocky's shoes. Granted many prime fighters would have been able to beat Rocky's competition. Duh, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson,George Foreman, probably Evander Holyfeild, Ali, and holmes. These are all guys that prime could have went 49-0. Then again lets back track, Muahmmad Ali had an amateur record of 100-1 i believe, and many of these other fighters had well over 10 amateur fights maybe into the 20's 30's etc. These amateur fights allowed them to shape there styles into the styles of great champions. Rocky Marciano had 12 amateur fights.

rocky went 8-4 in his amateur career and only about a year or two after starting boxing he was already professional. I tell you now i'm pretty confident had those fighters had 12 amateur fights and were thrown in the ring with the same competition they would not have gone 49-0.

I remember hearing Butterfly say that Ali fought like marciano in the beginning and yet over the 101 amateur fights he shaped it into dancing and speed. Had Ali only had 12 fights i'm sure he would not have made it as far as he did. So before you start critisising Marciano look at what he over came.

Also i'd like to point out that He trained harder then anyother fighter ever and worked hard to get to the top.