View Single Post
Old 01-20-2013, 12:59 PM   #991
edward morbius
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,110
vCash: 500
Default Re: Wladimir Klitschko vs. Rocky Marciano

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Are we talking head to head here? Because size (coupled with skill) is very important if we are. I'll concede your point if we are talking legacy. He fought the best around. I just think the best around at that point were better in name than substance, which brings us to...




We are talking road miles versus highway miles here. Walcott was at the end of a 70 fight career fought under trying circumstances and in which he had been KO'd 6 times by its end. He was barely .500 over his 12 fights previous to Marciano. Charles was 95 fights into a career whose ledger was adorned with Hall of Famers and elite talent. He was on the precipice of a very steep decline after a remarkable run. Louis had no business being in the ring by the time Marciano got to him. He had no right hand and no legs. Marciano faced each of these fresh from hitting practice home runs on the New England circuit against ham and eggers.

As far as Waldo, he is still relatively fresh but near the end. Outside of two of the KO's he has suffered, he stays fairly intact. Still, the end is nearer than most suspect. Vitali should have retired a while ago. He looks like shit.




I don't recall anyone, outside of an increasingly unintelligible Holyfield, calling for a Wlad-Holy fight. If I recall correctly, Lewis chose Vitali over Wlad for an opponent. And the Vitali thing, like I stated earlier, I am a bit on the fence about. I understand them not fighting but it is very convenient, also.
"Louis had no business being in the ring"

He was coming off 8 straight wins, and looking at the end of the year ratings for 1951 from the Feb 1952 issue of The Ring, all 8 wins were over top 50 fighters, five over fighters rated at the end of the year (Brion, Agramonte, Bivins) and one over a man who was not only hightly rated, but actually a title claiment (Savold). By modern standards, Louis would have been considered one of the alphabet champions.

Louis never lost to anyone who arguably wasn't at that time the best in the world.

Compared to Louis, how many Klitschko opponents should not have been in the ring with a champion?

Louis had gone back, certainly, and a lot, but he had been the dominant heavyweight for close to 15 years, and was still by ordinary standards a formidable fighter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Walcott

6 ko defeats--over his career, counting the two by Marciano. Three of those ko's came prior to WWII. Only Louis in their second fight had stopped him since 1940. I would think if he had lost it because of being ko'd, or a tough life, he would never have had his post WWII career.

As for taking all this punishment--Walcott was the sort who took a lot of punishment in fights?

As for his record--since 1947 he had lost to Louis (2), Charles (2), and Layne, but the majority thought Walcott deserved the first fight with Louis, and he split four fights with Charles. So he basically pretty much fought on even terms with Louis and Charles.

The only hard to explain loss since 1946 was the upset to Layne, for what it is worth.

Walcott was coming off two victories over Charles, was the incumbent champion, and looked good against Marciano in 1952.

Going into the Marciano fight Walcott had been stopped once in the previous 12 years (by Louis). Going back 12 years from today, Wlad has been stopped twice (by Sanders and Brewster)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles had gone back, and it is a legitimate question how much, but he was still coming off two impressive ko's and was ranked the #1 contender.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by edward morbius; 01-20-2013 at 02:10 PM.
edward morbius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links