-
-
I think . . . Let me repeat . . . I think Louis was promised by the NBA if he got by Marciano he would get shot at the (Walcott) title. Rocky had to win a few more times to finally get his shot.
I suspect people had seen enough of Walcott-Charles for a generation. They just had a trilogy and the game was short on contenders.
Marciano had already ruined Rex Layne, as a contender (who held a 10 round UD over Walcott).
So they were going to give Louis one more go, but no.Comment
-
Its funny that everyone seems to forget how many times in the heavyweight division, there was not a lot of fellow great fighters around... Yet its so common to take a fighter in the division and critique his competition as though it is atypically weak. This has been done with virtually every heavyweight champ one can speak of with the exception of the 70's when Ali ruled the roost.
Who did Liston beat that is worth talking about? How about JJ? who did he beat that is worth talking about? Or Dempsey? Or Louis? What fellow ATG did Louis have to do battle with to establish greatness? Tyson?
at the end of the day one can qualify subjectively the weakness/strength of any fighter's competition based on their bias and little else.
Marg gave you some excellent arguments that do not depend so much on perception, but rather, on physics. There are advantages to fighting with other attributes that are classically considered a disadvantage... it aint only Marciano either... Hank Armstrong had a similar situation in many respects. The assumption is, a biggr man could just walk in and tie up someone smaller.
As far as any theories about Marciano's opponents, there is film... One can watch typical opponents at the time and what they were able to do in the ring. Easy! Heres a hint: they were doing a lot. Many more things than fighters often do today.
Comment
-
Liston beat the following ranked fighters to get his 2 years overdue title shot.
Valdes no 2
Harris no7
Folley no1
DeJohn no10
Machen no5
Hunter no6
He also beat the following men who had been recently /or would be rated in the top ten before too long.
Bethea
Williams
Summerlin
Besmanoff
Nobody who knows anything about boxing would suggest he did not earn his shot,it's generally recognized he would have won the title earlier if given his deserved chance,in which case Valdes,Folly,Machen,Harris ,DeJohn would have been successful title defences.
Jack Johnson had beaten a who's who of the heavyweight division which included all the black fighters Jeffries refused to defend his title against.
Denver Ed Martin x2
Klon***e Haines
Joe Kennedy
Frank Childs
George Gardner
Fred Russell
Sam McVey x3
Bob Armstrong
Sandy Ferguson x4
Joe Butler
Joe Jeannette x5
Black Bill
Jim Flynn
Bob Fitzsimmons
Peter Felix
Jim Jeffords
Sam Langford
No challenger deserved a title shot more than Johnson ,who was 30 years old when he finally got his.
In 1918 the year before his title challenge and going into1919.
Jack Dempsey fought 26 times before half killing Willard. 24 wins 1 loss a 4rounder with Meehan and a draw with Miske.
He scored 22 kos in those 24 wins 17 in the 21st rd.His 5 fights previous to his title challenger were 1 rd ko wins.
Among those he had beaten in his title run were;
Levinsky
Morris
Smith
Miske
Keller
Pelkey
Fulton
Norton
Flynn
Brennan
Louis and Tyson do not need me posting their pre-title resumes.
I never said Marciano's resume was weak or that he did not deserve a title shot.I do believe the 50s was an average decade as far as heavyweights go ,and I think that is generally accepted.
When your best opponents are ;
Moore 39/41 depending on whether you believe him or his Mother.
Louis 37
Walcott 37&38
Charles 33 with a ton of mileage on his clock.
That speaks for itself.
All four of them were great fighters in their time but coming to the end of their time,such is the nature of boxing, the up and comers feast on the over the toppers.
Marciano's footwork gets a lot of play here,maybe those who think it was great should watch him swing and miss by feet and fall on his face?
.
Please don't attempt to patronise me with your sarcastic remarks, I've been watching Marciano and his opponents on film for over 50 years.Last edited by Ivich; 04-28-2022, 05:56 AM.Comment
-
When Walcott upset the odds and beat Charles, Louis was pissed as he says in his book, I knew Walcott wouldn't go anywhere near me.
Marciano did ruin Layne, just as he ruined Lastarza ,Charles, and ****ell none were much good afterwards.That's the signature of a grinding attrition puncher.Last edited by Ivich; 04-28-2022, 05:49 AM.Comment
-
yeah "ranked" "voted Rings best ever" yada yada... all relative merits that have no objective standing. Ranked, who gets into the HOF etc are all relative... Gatti is in the hall and some truly amazing fighters are not... Im talking objectively. If I asked ten people to name an opponent Ali fought, who were from the relative generation threshhold... they could name at least one. Who can name a great fighter Liston beat? AND KEEP in MIND, I am Liston's biggest fan! I rank him on the short list as being perhaps the greatest heavyweight ever.
Yet if we go to other divisions there are many match ups where ATG fighters have competition on the same level... Because more people are that weight, more competition, etc. So not to be dismissive, but your not addressing the point made about Marciano's competition. Your comments about whom he fought and their merits are imo not based on any objective criteria... I stand by that.Comment
-
For sure, and the 70's was also Ali spouting off and creating rivalry's while taking advantage of the much more ******* 70's television. We got to see first hand Ali and Frazier arguing and fighting with eachother. Would they be as famous without that? and would they rank as high? Ali was in his comeback in the 70's, and in losing to Frazier and Norton, he showed he had lost a step like many fighters on the comeback trail.Comment
-
I never mentioned the HOF.I think it's a popularity contest.We also are not talking about the other divisions. Can we just keep to the subject ,you know the one where you thought you would haul me over the coals about Marciano ,the guy you say I need to watch more of. What fights of his and his opponents do you think you have seen that I haven't?
Great fighters? Many would say Floyd Patterson was a great fighter At the least I would say he was on another level to Harry Mathews whom Marchegiano calsl an ATG!
I'd say Machen,Folley,Williams,Patterson were superior to.Lastarza,Mathews,Layne,Reynolds, and the version of Louis that Marciano fought
I'm objective on Marciano ,in as much as I know what he was and also what he wasn't.
He was a fighter who rounded himself into absolute top condition, training with a dedication unheard of among today's heavyweights.
He was a fighter who never entertained the possibility of defeat,even when he was badly cut or had vision problems because of bad corner work.
He was a fighter who threw punches with his full power for an entire fight.
He was a fighter with a very good, but not all time great chin.
He was a fighter with fantastic determination ,will to win, and heart.
He was also, because of his short reach and stature,a fighter obliged to be the aggressor in his fights.
To apply constant pressure,and get inside.
Because he was not the most accurate of punchers he compensated for that by throwing a lot more than most heavyweights do.
****ell, Moore ,Charles , and Lastarza,all said they were hit harder in other fights.,But ****ell and Lastarza both said, but never with so many punches.His punch rate was extremely good.
He was a fighter prone to cuts, two of his fights were in danger of being stopped because of them, and he was cut in all his major fights except the 2nd Walcott one and the ****ell one.In which Walcott quit and ****ell was a gimmee opponent.
Because he wasn't particularly accurate with his punches he often hit low.
Because he came forward in a crouch he sometimes butted opponents.
He also hit after the bell and, on one occasion when his opponent was on the floor.
Because he put everything into his punches he was often off balance when he missed punches ,falling over on two occasions.
He was a fighter fortunate to come into his prime when the best men in the division were past theirs,nothing new there it happens all the time.
He was a fighter not hard to tag with a jab but difficult to nail with a real big shot.
He was a fighter to whom todays bragging and hype **** would have been anathema,a fighter who referred to his opponents with courtesy and conducted himself as a champion should.With dignity and poise.
Not to be dismissive but I don't think you can teach me anything about Marciano. There are however loads of other fighters I'd like to know more about.
Unfortunately I don't think this is the place where I will be learning more about them.
NInety percent of posts are about heavyweights and many of those posting seem more interested in ****ing off other posters and typing babytalk than having any kind of meaningful exchange of views and knowledge.
At Wembley last Saturday I was struck by how casuals now dominate boxing ,the seats for the supporting bouts were largely empty,though a couple of the fights were better than the main event.I doubt more than15% of those there could name another fighter on the bill , outside of the two principals. That is the state of boxing today .and its reflected in some of the internet boxing forums ,of which this is a sterling example.
Nothing personal Pal ,Marciano is the most polarizing of the heavyweight champions* ,its just my opinion.
* Tyson Fury may yet overtake him.Last edited by Ivich; 04-30-2022, 05:46 AM.Comment
-
This is a bit a punctuation mess. I don't mean that as a personal criticism, I'm just saying it's a bit hard to follow you.
Well, let's be clear, most of my post doesn't care what you think. So I'm not real sure how to respond to your opinions other than to say Starship and Billue do not agree with everything and were still able to derive the point. Most here do not see Harry as a great, but if you're not mature enough to recognize others do and why then you're not ever going to get the point and you are making a poor attempt at understanding.
I didn't say Rex Layne was anything but the man in the way...I am confused. More so than with Harry because no one is saying or has said anything but Rex was a man Marciano had to beat, he was heavier than Marciano, younger than Marciano, and favored to Marciano. Again, you've totally missed the point making it kind of difficult to give you a proper response.
I gave a fairly detailed explanation as to why saying "But dey big doe" is not an answer for anything and you need to qualify it with what exactly they do with their size that has you believe they'd tie Rocky up faster than Charles and the like did. You going in on Wlad says quite, quite, quite a lot about your understanding of the physics of boxing. Not doing anything Wlad ever displayed in his career he wouldn't. Rocky is made to expose tracks and Wlad's a track fighter.
You ducked the mechanics of it all and basically said nuh-huh Wlad would do it......
Charles mileage....yes...only ever in Marciano's career is the only time one will ever read about two peers, one having a full career worth of experience over the other, like as if that was a deficit for him. Marciano is the only man in boxing history people spin a lack of experience and length of career into a unfair advantage in his favor. Only one, all the weights, period.
I agree, Charles' experience over Marciano is indeed significant.
Did I say big men can't be faster or can't be faster and output the same energy at the same rate? Let me be clear, this is medical fact. It is impossible. There's no reason to try to argue it. If you're eyes tell you I am wrong you are suffer cognitive dissonance. It is fact, that's why most big men are slow. The ones who are not slow are able to be exposed to workrate. Period and end of, go crack a book, ask a doctor, whatever you need to not fight the existence of metabolic rate.
How many round did ****ell win? If ****ell weighed 300 pounds? What about the difference in ****ell's approach and Charles's approach? Nothing? Crickets? Haven't got a thought on that? I'm sorry if I sound like a **** at the moment but at this point I feel like you're chatting with yourself and I'm just here for it.
Was Reynolds younger than Marciano? Yes, yes he was. So what are you talking about?
Let me take a break from your post a second and hang on this a minute longer to explain something. Context, it matters.
If you say Rocky only fought old people, then I list guys younger than Marciano, your response should then have something to do with age. Why are we talking about Bernie as a talent or good win? That's rhetorical bud.
Continued or didn't - another missed point
You're a lot older than I am, I wouldn't even be born for another 20 years or so. I've mentioned cognitive dissonance already...so...don't really have much to say about how long you've kept the same opinion about the same fighter and his filmed fights.
Yes, super god Manny, like the only HW trainer anyone talks about, put up his style, fighters, and era over Marciano....cool story Old-Gin. I came to Marciano through a backwards path. My interest in boxing is only through my interest in history. It just so happens if one were to get bored with the history of politicians and geopolitical events from the perspective of politicians throughout history, one will find boxing is a good vehicle for a more common man perspective. There are other things most people do throughout history but things like playing cards or even the history of pants are far more broken up and less coherent than boxing history. Boxing history gives you a common man perspective more or less unbroken from the ancient eras through today where the only real dark and difficult to fill in histories lie were all hard to find European histories lie; in the Dark Ages. Literally. This is primary interest and the truth is the only reason I ever speak to mechanics in boxing at all, ever, is because I happen to be a prosthetist. It is my job to understand the physics of the human body. My interest however is the long story boxing tells and in that story Rocky Marciano most certainly stands out for his mechanics. If you do not see it that is not Marciano or Goldman's fault. Do you really think Charlie Goldman or Rocky Marciano invented the crouch? His phantom overhead? What the kids are calling "gazelle punch"? I mean, do you really believe any fighter on film actually invented any form of effective unarmed combat? The answer in boxing's case is a very clear no. A lot of what Marciano does goes back as far as Greece. He fights like a Spartan fights and that's no hyperbole. During the Bare Knuckle years Broughton became the golden star of what boxing should be because he did what Figg and his other pupils failed to do. Broughton looked to the Greeks for inspiration and through the influence of ancient Greece formed the core of modern boxing, including many of the techniques on display by Marciano. I'd be willing to bet if it were possible for me to corner Goldman in an interview about Marciano's crouch to overhead bit he'd give credit to Tommy Ryan at least because Tommy was known for the same thing. So, like or hate it, makes no difference, if you can't see what made Rocky Marciano special look again. He's the single most special HW to ever strap them on actually. Or to say that differently Rocky Marciano is the most successful HW to ever be so devoid of everything guys like Emmanuel Steward exalted as good boxing.
Nino got beat by Archie who didn't retire anytime soon after losing to Marciano nor fade for the top positions of the HW division anytime soon after losing to Marciano.
Everyone always thought Marciano would struggle more. Today they make excuses and even in your post all it really amounts your belief that if only more of what failed to spot him was applied. If you read the post you quoted last it does explain I do not see Rocky as an unbeatable god, just simply most misunderstand what made him good and so misunderstand how to beat him. I do not believe more of what failed would trouble Marciano any more, I think the opposite. More of what failed just gives Marciano more room for destruction. The way to beat Marciano is to do to Marciano what he does to everyone. Funny footwork that favors power at the drop of a dime. You can say Ezzard had a punch-out with Marciano, and by boxing standards that's true. He also lost and most of what Rock is doing is to favor power. Ezzard was larger and was out gunned by the smaller man. Do you believe in magic muscles or real physics? Marciano can't actually hit harder than Ezzard but he did. Because you don't box Marciano. You don't box him aggressively or defensively. The best any boxing standard has for Marciano's feet is square, fight him square. It's not the right thing to do in boxing but it'd give Rocky a hard time. Simple, don't do what everyone else did and failed. Actually look at him and say okay but what if he had to deal with that but from a bigger man. That's how the bigger guy beats Marciano. Marciano has no backfoot, not really. Not a boxing backfoot. His backfoot is an ancient pygmachia backfoot made for killing, no hyperbole. He's using a big man's style from an ancient period as a small man's style in a modern period and it's kind of funny how boxing still can't deal with that.
Comment
Tweet
Comment