Rocky Marciano Statue To Be Built By The WBC

[edgarg]

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

I like your letter. Very interesting and well put. I just don't come to the same conclusions as you. When I make a decision to have a firm opinion about a boxer, I just don't look at his opponents, I also look at his opponents opponents, to see how they got to where they wre regarded as being capable of getting into the ring with a world champ.

I'll just take one example. Lee Savold, whom I think you said was hovering around the top 10, but I won't bother checking into his opponents opponents. I did it a few years ago and it was very revealing.

His 10 fights before Rocky were against opponents with records as follows;

8,2,1, 42-13, 46-30-6, 3-1-0, 16-8-7, 78-28-5, 23=11-3, 32-2-0 (Wood****)
35-2-0, (Wood****) 63-2-0. (Joe Louis)

He fought Wood**** the first time Dec.6 1948, lost on a DQ in the 4th rd. the 2nd fight was a year and a half later, which he won on a TKO 4. His next fight, the one before Rocky, was a year later and he was KO'd in 6.

Then he fought Rocky and retired after 6 rds. Permanently

So, here we have a boxer, 37 years old, with a record of 94-37-3, total 147 fights, a 46% KO record. The guy was basically retired, with a very tough career, when he was dug up to fight an "easy touch" like Wood****. This was because the BBB of C thought the had a budding world champion in Wood****, and they made the Savold fight for the "World" title recognised only by England.

He lost the first to Wood**** on a DQ 4. Dec. 1948. His next fight also against Wood****, was a year-and-a-half later, in June 1950. He stopped Wood**** in 4. His next fight was against Joe Louis a year later- he was KO'd in 6. His next and last fight was against Rocky, RTD in 6.

Savold was only a shell and basically retired when the BBB of C got their brilliant idea to build Wood**** up as a legit World Title challenger. As a kid, I actually saw both of those fights. They were terrible almost the worst I'd ever seen, and put paid to Wood****'s aspirations.

In the nearly 4 years before Savold fought Rocky, he'd had a total of 14 rounds fighting in 3 fights. of which he'd lost 2, and was KO'd by Louis in the fight before Rocky.

And he was 37 years old, worn out, and with 37 defeats. To my thinking, it was these negatives which made him an acceptable Rocky opponent.

However I enjoy your letters which make very good reading, and interesting right down to the last word. We can just amicably agree to differ on the subject of Rocky Marciano.

[edgarg]

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?

Yes I understand that making Floyd look good was not your intention, but that's the way it reads. Yes, Rocky should have fought Valdez and Patterson.

[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?

Rocky retired around March or April 1956, and Patterson-Moore was in November 1956.

So it was only a matter of 6-8 months later.

Yes I do give credit to Marciano, the same way I give credit to ANYone who steps into a boxing ring. Also because he trained hard, could take punishment, and, considering his very limited skills, did well out of boxing.

[Slimey Limey]

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.

YOU have excellent memory? Yeah, that's why you refer to all of your "facts" as "I think uhhhmmm" and have a ****load of errors like claiming "Charles knocked Marciano down several times I THINK". Just like you THINK you actually worked for Rocky Marciano himself. And how you THINK you're being objective while not realising you discredited every single fight the Rock had.

You should get off the booze mate and realise you're nothing but a mumbling liar who's boxing knowledge has been rotten away because of all the drinking.

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.


"

Pathetic is you threathening to post sources to blackmale a legend like Marciano. Pathetic is claiming all of his fights were rigged or maffia controlled without any proof to back up your delusional claims. Pathetic is you thinking you're having an objective debate even though you're not about to give the man anything.

Just admit you are a drunk brain damaged looney and we'll ignore your ramblings.

You "THINK", innit mate?

[Ravens Fan]

I like your letter. Very interesting and well put. I just don't come to the same conclusions as you. When I make a decision to have a firm opinion about a boxer, I just don't look at his opponents, I also look at his opponents opponents, to see how they got to where they wre regarded as being capable of getting into the ring with a world champ.

I'll just take one example. Lee Savold, whom I think you said was hovering around the top 10, but I won't bother checking into his opponents opponents. I did it a few years ago and it was very revealing.

His 10 fights before Rocky were against opponents with records as follows;

8,2,1, 42-13, 46-30-6, 3-1-0, 16-8-7, 78-28-5, 23=11-3, 32-2-0 (Wood****)
35-2-0, (Wood****) 63-2-0. (Joe Louis)

He fought Wood**** the first time Dec.6 1948, lost on a DQ in the 4th rd. the 2nd fight was a year and a half later, which he won on a TKO 4. His next fight, the one before Rocky, was a year later and he was KO'd in 6.

Then he fought Rocky and retired after 6 rds. Permanently

So, here we have a boxer, 37 years old, with a record of 94-37-3, total 147 fights, a 46% KO record. The guy was basically retired, with a very tough career, when he was dug up to fight an "easy touch" like Wood****. This was because the BBB of C thought the had a budding world champion in Wood****, and they made the Savold fight for the "World" title recognised only by England.

He lost the first to Wood**** on a DQ 4. Dec. 1948. His next fight also against Wood****, was a year-and-a-half later, in June 1950. He stopped Wood**** in 4. His next fight was against Joe Louis a year later- he was KO'd in 6. His next and last fight was against Rocky, RTD in 6.

Savold was only a shell and basically retired when the BBB of C got their brilliant idea to build Wood**** up as a legit World Title challenger. As a kid, I actually saw both of those fights. They were terrible almost the worst I'd ever seen, and put paid to Wood****'s aspirations.

In the nearly 4 years before Savold fought Rocky, he'd had a total of 14 rounds fighting in 3 fights. of which he'd lost 2, and was KO'd by Louis in the fight before Rocky.

And he was 37 years old, worn out, and with 37 defeats. To my thinking, it was these negatives which made him an acceptable Rocky opponent.

However I enjoy your letters which make very good reading, and interesting right down to the last word. We can just amicably agree to differ on the subject of Rocky Marciano.

Obviously you are well educated when it comes to boxing and I also enjoyed reading your post. However, I have to say that I believe your post about Savold would be valid if it was he who Marciano fought and gave a rematch to instead of Walcott or Charles for the title. But,the fact is in 1950 Savold was ranked as high as #2. And in someones opinion he must have been a contender at the time if he was ranked so high by Ring Magazine. So, I don't understand what the big deal is that Marciano fought him on his way to a title shot. I will also say it again it was not like Rocky won the title and defended it against Savold and beat him bad and then gave him a rematch. Rocky beat Savold on the way to the title and never fought him again. With that said and with all the good information you have written. I have to be honest and say that I am a little confused and wonder why you have focused so much attention on Savold?

[TheGreatA]

Obviously you are well educated when it comes to boxing and I also enjoyed reading your post. However, I have to say that I believe your post about Savold would be valid if it was he who Marciano fought and gave a rematch to instead of Walcott or Charles for the title. But,the fact is in 1950 Savold was ranked as high as #2. And in someones opinion he must have been a contender at the time if he was ranked so high by Ring Magazine. So, I don't understand what the big deal is that Marciano fought him on his way to a title shot. I will also say it again it was not like Rocky won the title and defended it against Savold and beat him bad and then gave him a rematch. Rocky beat Savold on the way to the title and never fought him again. With that said and with all the good information you have written. I have to be honest and say that I am a little confused and wonder why you have focused so much attention on Savold?

Savold was ranked number 2 in 1950 because of BBBofC's bright idea of making the Wood****-Savold match-up a "world title" fight. Wood**** was not supposed to lose to the washed up Savold but he did. Britain had to recognize Savold as the "champ" but after he was knocked out by an old Joe Louis, who had previously been beaten by the real world champion Ezzard Charles, he was dropped off the rankings I think and Britain began to recognize Charles as the champion.

He was shot when he fought Marciano but it's not like anyone brings him up as a career-defining win for Rocky. As you said, just another win on his way to getting a title shot.

[Bigdaddy_Vh]

hope the WBC doesnt offer this up as a prize for an interim-catchweight fight in the future...

[edgarg]

YOU have excellent memory? Yeah, that's why you refer to all of your "facts" as "I think uhhhmmm" and have a ****load of errors like claiming "Charles knocked Marciano down several times I THINK". Just like you THINK you actually worked for Rocky Marciano himself. And how you THINK you're being objective while not realising you discredited every single fight the Rock had.

You should get off the booze mate and realise you're nothing but a mumbling liar who's boxing knowledge has been rotten away because of all the drinking.



Pathetic is you threathening to post sources to blackmale a legend like Marciano. Pathetic is claiming all of his fights were rigged or maffia controlled without any proof to back up your delusional claims. Pathetic is you thinking you're having an objective debate even though you're not about to give the man anything.

Just admit you are a drunk brain damaged looney and we'll ignore your ramblings.

You "THINK", innit mate?

I think....NO, I KNOW that you are a sick guy, I only use the word "think" when I'm not certain, and am open to polite correction, since I don't go running to boxrec you and others may do. I also KNOW that you are a liar, sound like a drunk or drug taker, and I couldn't care less.

I've likely forgotten more about boxing than you will ever know. In what deluded sewer- like dream did you dredge up the "fact" that I worked with or knew Rocky?? Where have I said so?? Again, a good example to show that you are a liar, and there's a very old saying, and a true one, which is

"A liar is worse than a thief". I won't read your half-illiterate posts again.

Perhaps I shouldn't have called you "half-illiterate, because that would imply that you are also "half-literate", and I don't believe you are.

Let's just say that I was wrong, and should have called you a foul mouthed, ignorant, uncivilzed, pimple-bottomed [or should that be "pimple-faced, it's hard to tell] lout.

I'll think about it, and if I come to the conclusion that I shoukld have......then I WILL.

Goodbye.

[edgarg]

Savold was ranked number 2 in 1950 because of BBBofC's bright idea of making the Wood****-Savold match-up a "world title" fight. Wood**** was not supposed to lose to the washed up Savold but he did. Britain had to recognize Savold as the "champ" but after he was knocked out by an old Joe Louis, who had previously been beaten by the real world champion Ezzard Charles, he was dropped off the rankings I think and Britain began to recognize Charles as the champion.

He was shot when he fought Marciano but it's not like anyone brings him up as a career-defining win for Rocky. As you said, just another win on his way to getting a title shot.

No, I didn't intend that he should be regarded as a career-defining win. I was just showing, the way I showed about Ross, with his 17-0 record, that he wasn't fit to fight anybody who could fight. That his worn out state, and multiple losses made him a perfect candidate to build up Rocky's record, even at the late stage of 2-3 fights before he became champion.

A pathetic imbecile called SLIMEY has latched onto me as an outlet for his poorly directed venom, who accuses me of "blackmailing" Rocky, who has been dead for dozens of years, and whom I never came into contact with.

I hope that neither you nor anyone else thinks that this is so. Since I have nothing against Rocky, I can be as candid as I feel. This exchange of views and viewpoints is an interesting one, to me anyway.

[GJC]

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.

This was the bit of your post I was referrring to

As a matter of fact I have a 1952 Ring, with an interview by Nat Loubet with Rocky. Nat at that time was one of the leading boxing reporters and journalists in the country, and later became RING publisher.

One of the things that Rocky said was that he was still learning and has quite a few good fights to come yet. Floyd Patterson was mentioned either later in the article or on another page. He was tearing tearing through the Heavyweight ranks like a wildfire. His manager referred to as the "eccetric" Cus D'Amato hated the Mafia or any control over him or any of his fighters, and Patterson was looked on at the next Champ, even though he'd had only about, maybe, 20 fights. It was the way he was winning. He was also an OLympic Gold Medal winner at middleweight.

To get to the finale of this little story, 6 days later, after the RING interview was published, where Rocky said he would be fighting for a few years yet, Rocky announced his retirement, citing his wife's disapproval of him fighting.