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

[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.

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]

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.

[butterfly1964]

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?

[SuzieQ49]

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]

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]

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.

[BKM-]

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

No, nobody wanted this ****head as their son.

[BKM-]

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]

ALWAYS BEING IN SHAPE READY TO FIGHT

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

[oldgringo]

Gotta love the Marciano debates.