Rocky Marciano Statue To Be Built By The WBC

[edgarg]

The great a

Moore's performance against Durelle was terrific, although Durelle was an big underdog, and no one expected him to do anything. It looks as if Moore didn't either. I have both of tose fights, and saw them on TV live, at the time they were fought.

If that 1st fight was made today, the ref would have stepped in to stop it ar some point. I think......

[Jim Jeffries]

Well, Patterson had had more than a couple of fights. I just checked with boxrec, and he'd had about 30, of which he'd won 20 by KO, including a long KO list of 13,up to Rocky's Ring interview. Although as you say he was a lt.heavy, he'd fought several respectable heavyweights whilst still being outweighed.

He was like a "wildfire" ,blazingly fast, reputed to have been the fastest punching heavyweight in history.

And, 9 months later, he fought and half killed Archie Moore for the vacated title.

So no credit to Rocky for beating Moore, but you're doling it out to Patterson for beating him 14 months later?

And you think Floyd "half killed" Archie, who would go on to fight 30 more times, losing only twice, one of which was to Ali?

[edgarg]

Did you have a problem with Muhammed Ali fighting Archie Moore eight years later?

Archie was old in 1963 when he fought Ali, but he was still close to his prime in 1955. Current example: Vitali may be age 38 but is obviously still very good.

I find it difficult to understand why any boxing enthusiast would discredit and bash a great boxer like Rocky Marciano.

Archie Moore was expected to beat Cassius by nobody, not even himself. As you can see, he put up very little resistance.

My problem with much of the stuff going around today of fights and fighters of those times, is that I was around, and deeply involved in boxing. I also have an excellent memory, and have read everything written by first class boxing writers at the very time the articles were written.

By now, everything about those guys has been "glamorized" or evolved into legend, or even classed as legit history.

But mostly it just "ain't so".

Something I haven't mentioned, because I more or less forgot about it. It is that I have NO opinion as to the merits or otherwise of Rocky deserving a statue. He was always regarded as Brockton's favourite son, and it's their business if the want to do it, not ours.

[edgarg]

So no credit to Rocky for beating Moore, but you're doling it out to Patterson for beating him 14 months later?

And you think Floyd "half killed" Archie, who would go on to fight 30 more times, losing only twice, one of which was to Ali?

Your comments actually only show just how good Floyd was then. He treated Archie as if he were a beast led to be slaughtered. Archie was allowed to show absolutely nothing of what he had when he faced Marciano, and those others after Marciano.

Patterson utterly demolished him, made him look really old, in a way I'd never seen Moore look beore, even against Durelle.

I don't see anything wrong with my opinions, although many might, and are entitled to disagree. It's just a memory test and an intellectual exercise after all...............

[Ravens Fan]

It's easy to see that you can write a great letter, but you are either obfuscating the REAL qualities that count in matchups, or else don't know much about boxing. However that's no crime.

Sorry to disappoint you, but ****ell was NOT British World Heavyweight Champion, He was English, and at one time also British Empire Lt heavyweight champ. He suffered from glandular problems and food gorging, and his weight ballooned up to well over 200-220 lbs. He was an average good fighter, with a shaky jaw who was always [well...nearly always] being KD, even though he'win. It was his heart that was a world champion. ****ell used to sometimes have as many as a dozen fights a year or thereabouts, and by the time he fought Rocky, was on the verge of retirement. That qualified him as a Rocky opponent. He may have had another fight or two, but was actually finished. I met ****ell in London, and he was a nice guy.

The term BBBof C, which seems to have misled you, stands for British Boxing Board of Control. Lee Savold was as worn as an old shoe, and had many tough fights. By losing to, and beating, Bruce Wood**** he "qualified as a Rocky opponent, basically dragged out of a well earned retirement. Wood****, was one of those china chinned British horizontal heavyweights. I actually saw both of those fights.

I can't remember enough of your letter to do it full justice, but, facts are facts. Truth is truth, not what you want it to be.

I don't give a tinker's flute for the ages of Rocky's opponents. How I judge a Rocky win over someone, depends on (to some degree) age, but mostly records, who THEIR opponents were that made up their records, and how many tough fights they had had.
You may have noticed that Rocky fought a guy named Ross, who had a sparkling record, a great opponent to beat you might say, but.........look at Ross's own record of opponents. From memory I think that in his first 14 fights, 10 had had NO fights, another 3 had won ONE fight [one guy was 1-13) and the last of the 14 HIS record was 15-27. When you look at these stiffs opponents you arrive at the conclusion to "forget about it". Many oif Rocky's "opponents" had similiar records.

It matters little that there were a few great fighters in Rocky's resume; except for Archie Moore, they were so worn out and sick, they should have been in nursing homes. Louis had been in and out of sanitariums, used to lock himself in his apartment and hide under the table, Ezzard Charles, a natural lt. heavy was not that old, in today's terms but in those days with well over a hundred fights, some of which were very tough, was as spent -in boxing terms- as an half empty long opened bottle of 7up.
He died from Lou Gehrigs disease at a young age, acerbated by the heavy punishment he took against bigger, stronger men. I think that in his 4 fights before Rocky, he'd lost 2, one being against Harold Johnson, whom he outweighed by about 10lbs. I think Harold beat him several times. Harold is one of the best "forgotten lt. heavyweights ever. But then, so was Ezzard Charles. It all depends on what period in the careers they fought, and how worn out either was. And I'm telling you that Ezz was finished in CAPITALS, when he gave Rocky those 2 very tough fights.

What I AM saying, and can prove, if anyone has the patience and interest in bothering to read, is that Rocky didn't fight a really live, at his peak heavyweight in his whole career.

I will be honest I feel as if I have a fair amount of boxing knowledge. However, I was not around during the 1950's and can only form my opinion by looking at old fight films and by reading the record books. And I will also be honest I had no idea what obfuscating meant and I had to look it up. At first I thought it might have been something I did in my pants while on a drunkin binge. I will also apologize and it was a typo when I added World Champ to ****ell. As you correctly pointed out he was only the British champ. However, he was, whether he was bloated or not, the British Heavyweight champ, and you made it sound as if he only fought at Light heavy before moving up to challenge Rocky. Now on to more of my babbling.

These are facts. First you make sound like Charles had fought well over the Century mark when he fought Marciano. The fact is Ezzard Charles had only been stopped twice in the 96 fights before he fought Rocky and he was stopped four times in his last 23 fight after he fought Rocky. So, maybe it was Rocky who broke him. And if I remember correctly it was pretty common for fighters to fight well over the century mark back in the day and many were pretty successful at it. As far as Ezzard's lose to Johnson you said it yourself that Johnson was a great fighter. And he lost to a fighter that was seven years younger and only 2" shorter and he even had a 1" reach advantage over Charles. So, do you really believe that the seven pound weight advantage made a difference? Not only that but the fact is that Johnson had little power so he must have been a great boxer and no surprise he out boxed Charles to a split decision victory.

As far as question of how many "live bodies" Rocky fought I thought of no other place to look but at the rankings of the time. I went back and looked at Ring Magazines top ten from the early 1950's and guess what I found? Except for ****ell all five of Rocky's opponents in title fights were rated in the top five by Ring magazine. I will say that this is far from any kind of a scientific examination because for one I don't know how often Ring updated their rankings in the 1950's. And I could only find the top ten listed by years. As far as how Ring does it now, I know that they update their top ten on a weekly basis. With that said this is the best I could come up with as far as the rankings of Rocky's opponents at the time of their particular fight. Moore was rated #1, as was Walcott, Charles was #3 and LaStarza was rated #4. I will have to admit that ****ell is a bit of a mystery. Because he was ranked as high as #2 in 1954 but was not in the top ten in 1955 even though he had not lost a fight since 1952 and was the British Commonwealth champion. Maybe the rankings came out after Rocky beat him? Although they were not title fights you could also toss in Savold and Layne who were bouncing around the top ten at the time of their fights with Rocky.

One other point you made was about how padded Marciano's early record was. Well I will ask one question how many fighters don't pad their record early on? And that is part of the reason I only looked at Rocky's last fourteen opponents in my first post. Because I have no life, and have the time to do it, I will compare Rocky's early career to one of the great Heavyweight champs of my life time Larry Holmes.

I looked at Holmes record because supposedly there is a rumor going around that Rocky could not carry Larry's jock strap. I looked at the first twenty one opponents of both men. Larry fought ten opponents with a winning record and the combined record of the first twenty one was 176-129. Or some where close to that, because remember I am no math whizz. Rocky fought twelve opponents with a winning record and the combined record of his first twenty one opponents was 157-96. Just in case anyone cares I did not count the draws, because remember I am lazy. So I may not be any kind of an expert but if Rocky was padding his record it also looks as if Larry was also doing a fair amount of padding himself. And if you want to take it a step further in Holme's twenty title defenses he fought seven challengers with the following records 18-1-1, 10-2-2, 15-0, 14-1, 14-0, 16-0. I may be wrong but I have to ask. Does it look like there is some padding going on? And the best record out of those seven was Scott Frank at 20-0. Now I might not remember Marciano fighting but I have vivid memories of Scott Frank. And the only reason he should have been in the same venue where a Heavyweight Championship was being fought was is if he was sitting back sipping a beer after he paid to get in.

My last question is how do you define greatness? Again I will look at Larry Holmes. Here is a fighter who's career was defined by beating a washed up Ali and a never was in Cooney and by losing to Spinks. In between you can toss in his opponents that I stated earlier along with fighters such as Tex Cobb and Marvin Frazier(non-title). With that said he is still considered and all time great by many. My question is, is he considered great because of number of his fights as compared to the quality of his opposition? And then you have Marciano that came no where close to cleaning up the heavyweight division during his title reign of six fights. And sure he could have fought other fighters but you can make a never ending list of who should have fought who.

And in closing I will say that both Charles and Walcott gave Rocky all he could handle in their first fights. And what does Rocky do? He did not wait around and give some undeserving bums a chance at the title as Walcott and Charles slipped into history. No, he did the complete opposite and gave them both a rematch right away. You see I believe that there is more to making a champ great then numbers and wins and loses and knockouts. And whether you agree with me or not to me that is part of what made "The Brockton Blockbuster" the great champion that he was.

On a side note, I really bashed him but I have nothing against Larry Holmes and actually believe he was a better champ then I ever gave him credit for when he was fighting. Maybe it was because he had the misfortune of having to follow Ali.

[Ravens Fan]

Sorry i double posted and i am not sure how i even did it.

[Jim Jeffries]

Your comments actually only show just how good Floyd was then. He treated Archie as if he were a beast led to be slaughtered. Archie was allowed to show absolutely nothing of what he had when he faced Marciano, and those others after Marciano.

Patterson utterly demolished him, made him look really old, in a way I'd never seen Moore look beore, even against Durelle.

I don't see anything wrong with my opinions, although many might, and are entitled to disagree. It's just a memory test and an intellectual exercise after all...............

They show nothing of the sort, but that is neither here nor there.

Do you honestly think there is not a single win on Rocky's resume worth giving him credit for?

Is there anyone that you think he should've fought? (besides this LHW that you're ranting on about)

Is there any credit to be given to Rocky at all, considering that he was a short, small HW with an incredibly short reach, not particularly athletic or quick?

[Ravens Fan]

Sorry i triple posted and don't even know how i did.

[edgarg]

edgarg is a typical example of a lonely **** that dedicated his entire life on discrediting Marciano. Even going as far as claiming he worked with Rocky himself and tells all these other lies not to mention errors in his "facts".
Why don't you go get a real job you old washed up never-been.

I was wondering when I could legitmately refer to "SLIMY LIMEY" as just "SLIME".

That time has now arrived, and I'm sure your ******, foul tongue is benefiting from getting a little "airing".

Tou are a typical example of what's so wrong about boxing fans (from the noun "fanatic"), and although you may not have noticed, the discussion about Marciano is not a dispute, merely a pleasant discussion of different opinions. We respect each other and each other's opinions, whilst not neccessarily agreeing with them.

If we all agreed, there'd be no reason for discussion, and boxing scene could close up.

So, please, if you insist on referring to my letters, keep your garbage mouth closed. Of course I can't prevent you from being as coarse and vulgar as you wish.

It's a bit pathetic.


"

[Mr. Philadel]

so now I hope Philly removes that statue of "Rocky" Balboa......a fictional fighter.......and replace it with a REAL fighter like B.Hop or Smokin' Joe!!