joe louis vs rocky marciano

easy, marciano gets knocked out in 4. Louis was giving marciano trouble when he was waaay best his best so imagine if he faced him in his prime!

Marciano self spoke: I never would beat Joe in his prime. Louis much better the boxer. In that fight Louis (he already no doubt was worse, than earlier) was ahead on points, but has missed a hard punch... There is nothing to compare.

bigots have been trying to downplay rocky marciano for years the hate needs to stop now fellas! Nobody is downplaying Rocky, it's ALL facts and commonsense.

I don't understand, they always seem to talk shit about the nice guys, and give their full respect to the guys that would probably talk shit to them if they ever crossed paths on the street lol

bigots have been trying to downplay rocky marciano for years the hate needs to stop now fellas!

With both in their primes...I'd have to go with Louis. Joe is the greatest offensive machine in boxing history, Marciano was just a little too hittable to survive Joe's attack. There would, of course, be the chance that Rocky KO's Joe. Louis was vulnerable....got knocked down by lesser fighters. Marciano would be the toughest & hardest-hitting foe that Joe ever faced (Max Baer was not a two-handed killer like Marciano) & there would be serious danger at all times for Louis. But, Louis' awesome jab & super-short, super-powerful shots/combos would damage Rocky....busting him up, hurting him, & eventually taking him out. I agree with you about a lot you wrote. But I honestly believe that a prime Max Schmeling gives (in fact gave) a close to prime Louis more troubles then Rocky Marciano ever could. I'm not saying that Max Schmeling is a better fighter then Rocky but stylewise he fits better for Louis. Hell, he knocked him out some years prior to the Marciano fight. In fact I always believed Marciano is a little bit overhyped due to his unbeaten record. I dont want to question the names on his record but you cant deny that he didnt fight exactly in the best era of HWs. A matchup between a prime Max Schmeling or a prime Max Bear and a prime Marciano wouldn't be that lopsided as its made in the "Best HWs of all Time Rankings". At least thats my opinion.

With both in their primes...I'd have to go with Louis. Joe is the greatest offensive machine in boxing history, Marciano was just a little too hittable to survive Joe's attack. There would, of course, be the chance that Rocky KO's Joe. Louis was vulnerable....got knocked down by lesser fighters. Marciano would be the toughest & hardest-hitting foe that Joe ever faced (Max Baer was not a two-handed killer like Marciano) & there would be serious danger at all times for Louis. But, Louis' awesome jab & super-short, super-powerful shots/combos would damage Rocky....busting him up, hurting him, & eventually taking him out.

rocky never wanted to take the fight but louis begged him over and over cause he needed money so badly. rocky finaly agreed to take it just to help joe out. marciano said he hated seeing his hero on the canvas like that.

On another note, what impresses me most about this fight is the way both boxers treated each other after the match. For those who don't know, Marciano actually went to Louis' dressing room to apologize for knocking him out! Louis was one of Marciano's heroes and he felt tererible that he made the man look so bad. Louis, for this part, gave Marciano full credit for the victory. It's amazing that a man who was so badly beaten and was facing a lifetime of debt could still be so classy so soon after the fight. Full credit to Marciano too for being a gracious winner. I never knew that. Hearing things like this makes champions even greater in my opinion. I can imagine it was hard for Rocky to beat on a guy he probably used to watch when he was a kid. Joe was a very respectful man. Thats made my day hearing that. :D

Louis was old and pretty much washed up by that time, but he still had enough left to defeat six or seven quality heavyweights just prior to facing Marciano, which allowed him to recieve this ranking from Ring Magazine (Aug. '51); C: Jersey Joe Walcott 1: Ezzard Charles 2: Joe Louis 3: Rocky Marciano 4: Clarence Henry 5: Roland LaStarza 6: Bob Baker 7: Rex Layne 8: Cesar Brion 9: Lee Savold 10: Hein Nuehaus Just because it wasn't the same primed Joe Louis, doesn't mean it wasn't an important victory for Marciano over someone who not only was ahead of him in the rankings, but was also the betting favorite going into that fight. It did mean something for Rocky. You've made some good arguments in this thread and I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but wasn't Nat taking payments to fix the Ring ratings at this time? Maybe I'm way off on my history here. Anyway, if I was fixing ratings to get proftable matchups I'd put Joe Louis up that high for sure. Just a thought. On another note, what impresses me most about this fight is the way both boxers treated each other after the match. For those who don't know, Marciano actually went to Louis' dressing room to apologize for knocking him out! Louis was one of Marciano's heroes and he felt tererible that he made the man look so bad. Louis, for this part, gave Marciano full credit for the victory. It's amazing that a man who was so badly beaten and was facing a lifetime of debt could still be so classy so soon after the fight. Full credit to Marciano too for being a gracious winner.

And I have pretty much the same opinion, as I'd also favour Louis in a prime vs. prime matchup. But all I'm saying in the rest of my post(s), is that Marciano should get some credit for defeating a fighter, who although past his prime, still possessed enough skills to defeat some of the better heavyweights contenders of that time (which earned him a very high ranking in Ring Magazine). Joe Louis wasn't in his prime when he faced Marciano, but he was still proven to be one of the better heavyweights of that time period. Forget for a minute the fact that the name of Marciano's opponent was Joe Louis, wouldn't a victory over both the world's number two ranked contender and a fighter whose is the favourite to defeat you, always mean something to any fighter throughout the history of boxing? You better believe that it ALWAYS means something, so why should this win by Marciano be any different? Like I said earlier in the thread, that victory by Marciano does mean something. True, i guess your right. I just don't like people thinking that Rocky beat a prime Joe Louis because thats so far from the truth but alot of people who don't know alot abot Joe will be inclined to think Rocky beat Joe and thats it. I hate the fact that Joe got forced back into the ring. It says very good things for his reputation if he was a consistant force when he returned. That man in his prime just may have beaten any heavyweight of any era. I always rate Ali the top in my all time list but Joe is a close second.

yeah i'll watch fight soon so i can make my won opioion..anyway i herd same thing...that louis looked like crap..and even worst in other fights before marciano

are you kidding me? your "good source" is from a Marciano Biography, yeah thats not bias at all. Thats just flat out laughable that you posted that. As far as Louis beating some "the better heavyweights contenders of that time" leading up to Marciano thats pure 100% bullshit. The list of guys Louis beat between his loss to Charles to his fight With Marciano Jimmy Bivins César Brión 2x Lee Savold Omelio Agramonte 2x Andy Walker Freddie Beshore now lets look at this list. Jimmy Bivins- is by far the best name on this list and he was on his downside aswell. Bivins was coming off a loss going into his fight with Louis. Cesar Brion- Nothing more than a jouneyman at best Lee Savold- The British Heavyweight champion, yeah that really means somthing huh. Omelio Agramonte- Had lost 3 of his last 5 going into his fight with Louis. Freddie Beshore- Had lost 5 of his last 6 coming into his fight with Louis. Andy Walker- A Journeyman at best so to answer your question "who's laughing now?" that would be ME Alright, if you don't want to acknowledge that source, fine. Here's a different kind of source...one that can't be denied; Why don't you watch back-to-back, Joe Louis versus both Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano, and then see if you can tell the difference in Louis' fighting shape and abilities, with your own two eyes? You should be able to tell, because it's quite obvious that Louis was in much, much better shape and more capable of giving his best performance, for his fight with Marciano, than he was for Charles. Do you want a couple of copies of those fights, so you can judge them for yourself? As far as the rest of your post, I see your research has been limited to a trip over to boxrec or some other record keeping site. That's pretty weak, if you ask me. Here, try these on for size; I've already included the reatings for Aug. '51, but here's a couple more, with a six month seperation in between each of 'em; -Aug. '50- C: Vacant due to Louis' retirement 1: Ezzard Charles (tie) 1: Lee Savold (tie) 3: Jersey Joe Walcott 4: Joey Maxim 5: Bob Baker 6: Joe Baksi 7: Rex Layne 8: Lee Oma 9: Freddie Beshore 10: Bruce Woodcock -Feb, '51- C: Ezzard Charles 1: Joe Louis 2: Jersey Joe Walcott 3: Lee Savold 4: Joe Baksi 5: Joey Maxim 6: Colion Chaney 7: Clarence Henry 8: Omelio Agramonte 9: Bob Baker 10: Rex Layne -Aug. '51- (again) C: Jersey Joe Walcott 1: Ezzard Charles 2: Joe Louis 3: Rocky Marciano 4: Clarence Henry 5: Roland LaStarza 6: Bob Baker 7: Rex Layne 8: Cesar Brion 9: Lee Savold 10: Hein Neuhaus "Jimmy Bivens is by far the best name on that list"-Jose- Maybe he was the most famous name that Joe Louis defeated on his winning streak leading up to the Marciano fight, but obviously by taking a gander at the rankings, he was not considered the best heavyweight that Louis beat during that streak. With the exception of Walker and Bivens, every other fighter you've mentioned (Brion, Agramonte, Beshore, and especially Savold) were considered top 10 heavyweights at around the time Louis defeated them (that's six quality wins, and if you want to count Bivens, by all means go for it and I'll count that as seven). Unlike today, the contenders from that time actually fought against each other. A question... How the hell can a fighter be classified as the "British Heavyweight champion" when he's not even British? Savold was an American, and after Louis retired, two seperate sanctioning bodies disagreed on who was to be the world heavyweight champion (the NBA and the BBBC). Much like we have today with the alphabet boys. Charles defeated Walcott to become the NBA's world champion. Whereas, Savold defeated Woodcock to become the BBBC's world champion. As evidence by Ring's ranking of both Charles and Savold being tied for the top spot, they must've given those titles equal significance. That title picture was all cleared up though, when the linear heavyweight champion Joe Louis, came back from retirement and lost to, and thus giving the linear world title claim to Ezzard Charles. I repeat...do you want a copy of Louis fights with both Charles and Marciano, so you can judge his shape with your own eyes? I'm serious. If so let me know, and I'll guarantee you'll see a much better version of Joe Louis in the Marciano fight. Or you can try to come up with something a little bit more factual than, "You're biased", which would also includes something more than a trip over to some boxing record's site, which hardly ever tells you the true and whole story.

Louis was still a dangerous fighter no doubt, and Jimmy Bivins is an often forgotten name but was a helluva fighter. But looking from the very first minute of round one one can tell that this is a far cry from the Louis who pounded the Baer brothers into oblivion. It was still a good win for Marciano, but of course the win needs to be put into context. I also never say Lewis's victory over Tyson was a great victory, b/c Mike was shot to pieces. The betting is a bad way to gauge, b/c a fighter can carry such name value and mystisque (like Tyson) that they will almost never be the underdog . . .

"Louis banged his sparring partners around the ring at Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, with power and authority. A few days before the fight, the aging Brown Bomber decked sparring partner Holly Smith. It was a confident Louis who told reporters he expected to KO Rocky" -from Everett M. Skehan's bio on Marciano Hahaha...who's laughing now? are you kidding me? your "good source" is from a Marciano Biography, yeah thats not bias at all. Thats just flat out laughable that you posted that. As far as Louis beating some "the better heavyweights contenders of that time" leading up to Marciano thats pure 100% bullshit. The list of guys Louis beat between his loss to Charles to his fight With Marciano Jimmy Bivins César Brión 2x Lee Savold Omelio Agramonte 2x Andy Walker Freddie Beshore now lets look at this list. Jimmy Bivins- is by far the best name on this list and he was on his downside aswell. Bivins was coming off a loss going into his fight with Louis. Cesar Brion- Nothing more than a jouneyman at best Lee Savold- The British Heavyweight champion, yeah that really means somthing huh. Omelio Agramonte- Had lost 3 of his last 5 going into his fight with Louis. Freddie Beshore- Had lost 5 of his last 6 coming into his fight with Louis. Andy Walker- A Journeyman at best so to answer your question "who's laughing now?" that would be ME

hahaha Looks like someones a Rocky fan "Louis banged his sparring partners around the ring at Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, with power and authority. A few days before the fight, the aging Brown Bomber decked sparring partner Holly Smith. It was a confident Louis who told reporters he expected to KO Rocky" -from Everett M. Skehan's bio on Marciano Hahaha...who's laughing now?

And I have it on good source, that Joe Louis looked very good in training for that fight with Marciano, as he dropped more than a few of his sparring partners in impressive fashion. hahaha Looks like someones a Rocky fan

If Joe would have been more in his prime what you just wrote tells me that he would have beat Rocky very convincingly. Joe was past his best and he still gave Rocky trouble. And I have pretty much the same opinion, as I'd also favour Louis in a prime vs. prime matchup. But all I'm saying in the rest of my post(s), is that Marciano should get some credit for defeating a fighter, who although past his prime, still possessed enough skills to defeat some of the better heavyweights contenders of that time (which earned him a very high ranking in Ring Magazine). Joe Louis wasn't in his prime when he faced Marciano, but he was still proven to be one of the better heavyweights of that time period. Forget for a minute the fact that the name of Marciano's opponent was Joe Louis, wouldn't a victory over both the world's number two ranked contender and a fighter whose is the favourite to defeat you, always mean something to any fighter throughout the history of boxing? You better believe that it ALWAYS means something, so why should this win by Marciano be any different? Like I said earlier in the thread, that victory by Marciano does mean something.

Now onto the fight... The comparision between this fight and Holmes/Ali is completely and utterly ridiculous. Ali was not at all competitive in his fight with Holmes, whereas Louis was competitive for the first five rounds of his fight with Marciano. As a matter of fact, he was pretty even on the judges cards going into the last couple of rounds rounds (scoring at the time of the knockout was; 4-2-1,4-3, and 5-2, all for Marciano). Louis' jab was effective in keeping Marciano off him in the early rounds, and when Rocky did get in range, Joe was also proving to be effective with his right uppercut. And the proof that Louis still had some pop to his punches were evident on Marciano's face (bloody nose and a cut over his eye). It was only in the last couple of rounds that Marciano took complete control of the fight, and Louis started looking like an 'decrepit old man', that so many write him off as being. If Joe would have been more in his prime what you just wrote tells me that he would have beat Rocky very convincingly. Joe was past his best and he still gave Rocky trouble.

It's just that i cannot credit Rocky for beating a over the hill Joe. It's always easy to look back on the history of boxing with hindsight, but instead, why don't you go back to before the fight happened and judge it that way? Now I'm not saying that was a primed Joe Louis or even close to it, but shouldn't defeating a fighter whose both ranked in front of you and who is made the betting favorite going into the fight, garner a little bit of credit? Afterall, the fighter he defeated was deemed to be the better fighter of the two, going into the fight. No, Joe Louis wasn't the same great fighter that he was 10 years before, but he was still good enough to defeat some of the better heavyweights of that day (including a couple recent victories over fighters that are named in that ranking I've given). And I have it on good source, that Joe Louis looked very good in training for that fight with Marciano, as he dropped more than a few of his sparring partners in impressive fashion. Now onto the fight... The comparision between this fight and Holmes/Ali is completely and utterly ridiculous. Ali was not at all competitive in his fight with Holmes, whereas Louis was competitive for the first five rounds of his fight with Marciano. As a matter of fact, he was pretty even on the judges cards going into the last couple of rounds rounds (scoring at the time of the knockout was; 4-2-1,4-3, and 5-2, all for Marciano). Louis' jab was effective in keeping Marciano off him in the early rounds, and when Rocky did get in range, Joe was also proving to be effective with his right uppercut. And the proof that Louis still had some pop to his punches were evident on Marciano's face (bloody nose and a cut over his eye). It was only in the last couple of rounds that Marciano took complete control of the fight, and Louis started looking like an 'decrepit old man', that so many write him off as being. I find it funny how Lennox Lewis gets a fair amount of credit for beating Mike Tyson, because going into it many thought Tyson had a chance (as they did with Louis). Yet the Tyson that Lewis defeated, was not only far past his prime, but he hadn't defeated a ranked contender in more than a few years (unlike Louis before Marciano). Not to mention, Joe Louis was actually quite competitive in his fight with Marciano, whereas Tyson was not at all competive with Lewis. Interesting how some revisionists looks at past history.