A technical survey of Marciano, why he was a great fighter despite his reach

[billeau2]

Here are a few presentations by people who took more than five minutes to look at Marciano before determining an opinion.

A great fighter? Yes

One of the greatest No

A weak champion? No

On Marciano defensive skills

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b0yHvw-vW0

Punching technique

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUuaz_ab5YY

More hoop hoola, hyperbole, but not bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4mfJwd7D90


Now, is the rock beyond reproach? Hardly! None of us are/were. Did he have weaknesses in the ring? Sure!! Most fighters not named Robinson did/do. We can certainly explore those weaknesses. But his reach and physique he turned into an advantage by employing a style of fighting that made them an advantage. And he fought plenty of fighters with reach, and who knew how to use distance...therefore to assume that a great jabber like Holmes would automatically win because of that advantage alone is ridiculous.

Holmes might well win, he might lose, but in no case is there any reason to assume that his jabbing prowess would befudle the rock!

This thread is a repeat of other threads where marciano's actual technical ability is carefully analyzed in accordance to his performance, and not his percieved size, and reach disadvantage. When possible give an example, or show tape, of your point when critiquing the rock. For example, in the seconfd presentation they talk about marciano's hook. It is very distinct: the presenter shows advantages and disadvantages. That is good proof...rather than "well the rock had short arms and was a bantom weight by today's standards!!! yes being sarcastic. lol

Finally. Why this thread? I am not trying to be snide, though it bugs me that ignoramuses speak of things they know not...Heres the thing: marciano is a very interesting fighter because of his percieved attributes:

He is either percieved as invincible or, as an unskilled neanderthal. Neither is true imo.

[billeau2]

To understand marciano one should understand Charley Goldman...One of the Menschs that became a great trainer. Goldman believed that you took natural attributes and made them a benefit, hence the style he taught Rocky. Great trainers are like great cooks in this respect:

You don't cook a brisket like a filet mignon! Rocky became a crouching, bobbing, dervish!

Wiki on Goldman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Goldman

Goldman was a little before the group of trainers that saw everyone from the last of the bare knuckle days, to Tyson's reign. But as a fighter, trainer and philosopher lol, the man was off the hook.

[Elroy The Great]

before i watch the vids.....

rockys size - 5'11'' 190ish lbs 68'' reach
his deadly opponents
****nell - 5'11'' 205 71''
moore - 5'11'' 190 75''
charles - 6' 190 71''
walcott - 6' 190 74''
roland - 6' 190 ? reach
matthews - 6' 180 ? reach
reynolds - 6' 190 69''
buenvino - 6' 200 ? reach
savold - 6'1 200 ? reach
layne - 6'1'' 190 ? reach

holmes (up to the spinks fights)- 6'3'' 220 81''
his murderers row
spinks - 6'2'' 200 76 ''
williams - 6'4'' 215 lets assume his reach is 80''
bey - 6'3'' 230 probably 77''
smith - 6'4'' 230 82''
frazier - 6' 200 76''
witherspoon - 6'4'' 220 78''
cobb - 6'3'' 230 ? reach
cooney - 6'6'' 220 81''
snipes - 6'2'' 220 78''
shavers - 6' 210 79''

10 guys from each resume. as you can see, rocky was not some giant killer. he gave up an inch or 2 in height, weight was maybe 10 lbs against him. many reach stats were not mentioned but i didnt come across too many guys with significant advantages. pure myths, DESTROYED ! im willing to be PROVEN wrong.

holmes would enjoy 4 '' h, THIRTEEN'' r and 30 lbs. not to mention (ok, i will mention) speed and overall technique over rocky.

PRIOR to his ''fight'' with tyson, larry was NEVER troubled by a guy of rockys stature. 5'11'' 68'' reach ?!?!?!? can someone name a larry opponent who fits that mold ?!?!?!?!?!?

while larrys resume isnt much to brag about, it absolutely shlts on rockys. im willing to wager witherspoon and norton would go 49-0 vs the guys rocky fought, WHEN HE FOUGHT THEM. as sad as cooney was, he would run amok with rockys opponents as well. ditto williams and shavers. i dont think rocky beats too many of larrys opponents.

now, on to the videos

[Elroy The Great]

Here are a few presentations by people who took more than five minutes to look at Marciano before determining an opinion.

A great fighter? Yes

One of the greatest No

A weak champion? No

On Marciano defensive skills

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b0yHvw-vW0

Punching technique

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUuaz_ab5YY

More hoop hoola, hyperbole, but not bad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4mfJwd7D90


Now, is the rock beyond reproach? Hardly! None of us are/were. Did he have weaknesses in the ring? Sure!! Most fighters not named Robinson did/do. We can certainly explore those weaknesses. But his reach and physique he turned into an advantage by employing a style of fighting that made them an advantage. And he fought plenty of fighters with reach, and who knew how to use distance...therefore to assume that a great jabber like Holmes would automatically win because of that advantage alone is ridiculous.

Holmes might well win, he might lose, but in no case is there any reason to assume that his jabbing prowess would befudle the rock!

This thread is a repeat of other threads where marciano's actual technical ability is carefully analyzed in accordance to his performance, and not his percieved size, and reach disadvantage. When possible give an example, or show tape, of your point when critiquing the rock. For example, in the seconfd presentation they talk about marciano's hook. It is very distinct: the presenter shows advantages and disadvantages. That is good proof...rather than "well the rock had short arms and was a bantom weight by today's standards!!! yes being sarcastic. lol

Finally. Why this thread? I am not trying to be snide, though it bugs me that ignoramuses speak of things they know not...Heres the thing: marciano is a very interesting fighter because of his percieved attributes:

He is either percieved as invincible or, as an unskilled neanderthal. Neither is true imo.

rocky was great vs who he fought and for his time. like mike tyson was before he fought a legit guy. rockys time at the top was brief, just like tysons. so yes, he was a ''weak'' champ.


1st off, rocky fought guys way past their prime (actual age, number of fights, both). would it be otherworldly for him to slip a punch every now and then ?!?!?!? fnck, even margarito was able to avoid punches sometimes. by those standards, you must assume may was easy to hit BECAUSE he got hit ?!?!?!?!?!?

NO ONE HAS 100 CONNECT % !!!!!!!
EVERYONE MISSES !!!!!!!

i didnt see rocky do ANYTHING defensively special in that clip. wow, he dipped below a guys waist. im willing to wager my existence here that rockys opponents connect rates were high. a few seconds of defensive ''wizardry'' does not cancel out the whole of a fight.

in closing, its NOT ridiculous to assume a guy of larrys size and skill set would DOMINATE guys like rocky. rocky never been with guys like larry.

as with those other clips, the TS didnt go into WHO rocky was hitting. what was HIS career connect % ?!?!?!? would rocky have an edge in stamina ?!?!?!? would anyone give rocky more than a punchers chance vs larry ?!?!?!?

and finally, that final clip !!!!! ''5 guys who wouldnt beat gerry cooney'' !!!!

all of the wizardry and punch technique exposed !!!!

back to wild swinging, missing and getting hit.

useless thread.

[Elroy The Great]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV7mbqDIl5U

rip if rocky ever fought larry.

dont get me wrong. rocky was an absolutely likable gentleman and fighter. i just dont fall in line with how great he is. we ALL should examine a guys resume and judge it HONESTLY !

its easy to look like a world beater if youre only fighting bums and geezers.

[Elroy The Great]

judge the resume
vs rockys -
larrys
morrisons
mercers
shavers
ruiz
k2
tua
holy
foreman
cooney
norton
cobb

[billeau2]

How to make a point on this thread:

"I didn't see Rocky do anything special." WRONG

"Here is tape of _____ here is a trainer, a description of an event, an article, etc showing that Rocky was in fact weaker defensively, that supports my opinion."

[Elroy The Great]

how to not quote and avoid a post (#6) in this thread

''rocky was great because he wasnt hit with every punch that thrown at him''

[ShoulderRoll]

Here are the videos in question. I find them interesting as a peek into the mind of Charlie Goldman, I have so much respect for the old time trainers and their methods.

With that said I still don't think Marciano is a top 10 all-time heavyweight. Or that he would have beat prime Larry Holmes.

[Anthony342]

Nobody really is. Some might have lower end of top 10, but usually top 15-20. And who picked him to beat Holmes? No post I've read here. The point was Larry would still win, but it wouldn't be a complete walk in the park. Rocky would have a puncher's chance at best and land some hard shots, but would lose a wide UD or get stopped late on a cut.

The only points made were that he's better than some people think and shouldn't completely crap on the guy's legacy. He fought in a weak era, but dominated it. If he could step into a time machine and fight his opponents when they were younger, he would have.