If Rocky Marciano would of..........

[RockyMarcianofan00]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

did smasher not get enough hugs when he was a child?