71 Ali vs Marciano

[SuzieQ49]

Dempsey is a better boxer in the important aspects than Marciano, he had the more powerful punch, was faster and tougher.

Dempsey "tougher" than Marciano I won't even bother to respond to you anymore.

[Ali_]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Why should Rocky be rated over Dempsey?


1. Rocky clearly beat better competition

The primary reason for Rocky normally ranking lower than other heavyweights (frequently below Jack Dempsey himself) isnt because of his weight, but because of the stock of his competition. Rocky didn't fight anyone noteworthy in their prime. After Rocky's fight against LaStarza (a fight that many thought he lost) Rockys next opponents was Eldridge Eatman who was coming off a 9-8 record. Tiger Lowry (60-54-9 at the time, retired 66-67) went all the way with Rocky, Kid Mitchell and Art Henri to follow all had losing records as well.


2. Rocky doesn't have near prime losses KO 1 to Flynn or L 4 to Willie Meehan on his resume


Your second point harks on the rebuttal I used for the first.

Rocky didn't fight anyone of notice in their prime. Dempsey did on while on his campaign. Flynn gets a lucky punch in and KO's Dempsey first round. Less than a month later, Dempsey is fighting again and who is it? Fat Boy Meehan, less than a month after a KO, Dempsey fights a guy with a winning record at 90 plus bouts- The result? A lost in a decision (I wonder why?). Dempsey turns right around and beats Meehan and later fittingly knocks out Flynn in no less than the 1st round on his way to becoming the the heavyweight champion.


3. Rocky defended his title against all # 1 or # 2 rated contenders, while Dempsey never fought the 2 best contenders of his whole era(tunney, wills)


Im not sure what you are getting at with your third point. Jack Dempsey came out of a three year retirement to fight and lose against Tunney twice, in 2 of his last three fights of his career. When we look at Rocky Marciano however..
If not for SuzieQ lucky punch in the 13th round Rocky was on his way to being out boxed by a 38 year old man as all judges had Walcott comfortably ahead. He goes on to defend his title against Ezzard Charles x2 (33 and goes the distance) Archie Moore (38 and knocks Rocky down in the fourth). Are these the #1 and #2 contenders you are talking about?

So Rocky accomplished more, he was much more proven against the best of his era, he was the better champion, he had less bad losses on his resume, and bigger wins on his resume.

This doesn't hold up well in an educated argument of boxing.
'If' Rocky Marciano lost one fight anywhere, we wouldn't bring him up as an All Time Great. Jack Dempsey lost 8 and is constantly recognized as one of the best. Rockys competition wasn't to shelf, Jacks was.
Rocky Marciano is over-rated as a heavyweight because of his goose-egg and Im not mad at him for it. But that doesn't make him a better boxer or heavyweight champion than Jack Dempsey.

In 1971, Nat Fleischer, perhaps boxing's most famous historian and also editor and founder of Ring magazine, named Marciano as the all-time 10th greatest Heavyweight Champion. Nat Fleischer wrote that in terms of boxing ability Marciano was "crude, wild swinging, awkward, and missed heavily. In his bout with Light Heavyweight Champion Archie Moore, for example, he missed almost two-thirds of the fifty odd punches he tossed when he had Archie against the ropes, a perfect target for the kill."
John Durant[disambiguation needed ] author of The Heavyweight Champions wrote in 1971 (pg. 123) “Critics do not rate Rocky with the great ones, like Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, and Louis. He never faced top-fighters like they did. It was not Rocky’s fault, of course, that there was not much talent when he was fighting. He fought them all and that is what a champion is supposed to do.”
In December 1962, a Ring magazine poll of 40 boxing experts had Jack Dempsey rated the #1 Heavyweight of all time, with Joe Louis 2nd, Jack Johnson 3rd and Marciano 7th. Charley Rose, a historian, and John McCallum's Survey of Old Timers (survey of a group of historians and writers), rated Marciano at #8 and #9 of greatest heavyweights of all time.
In 1998, Ring named Marciano as the 6th greatest Heavyweight Champion ever. In 2002, Ring numbered Marciano at #12 on the list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years. In 2003, Ring rated Marciano #14 on the list of 100 greatest punchers of all time. In 2005, Marciano was named the fifth greatest heavyweight of all time by the International Boxing Research Organization.[18] A 1977 ranking by Ring listed Marciano as the greatest Italian American fighter. In 2007, on ESPN.com's list of the 50 Greatest Boxers of All Time, Marciano was ranked #14

Just a rough fighter, cant take anything from him he is a rough fighter, Id hate to meet him in an alley...or a dark corner...
No style, no class...Im just telling you truth because you (Cosell) are trying to play him (Marciano) off as the greatest fighter of all times and he doesnt even rank with the lesser boxers of the gymnasium! He was rough and he was strong, but look what kind of punches are they (that Rocky is throwing)? Wild punches, look at em, no class no skill, hitting on top of the head..He cant whoop a great fighter who's right, he whooped an old man."

~The Greatest Boxer Ali commenting on Rocky Marciano in a title defense against Ezzard Charles in the presence of the reputable Howard Cosell.

[Ali_]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Dempsey "tougher" than Marciano I won't even bother to respond to you anymore.

..only because to not respond is convenient when you are being proven wrong.
Dempsey is a tougher fighter than Marciano.
Is Dempsey 'rougher' than Marciano? No. Tougher? Yes.

[Seamus]

All these polls of cigar smoking codgers mean little to me. Those folks had no perspective and were too often mired in glory day admiration. Their critical judgement in such matters is highly suspect.

Now that we have far greater perspective on the career of both fighters, it is patently obvious that Marciano was significantly better than Dempsey. No embarrassing losses to ham and eggers. No color line. Fought all number 1 contenders. Didn't sit on the title for years at a time. Was emphatic in his victories.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Ali_

In 1971, Nat Fleischer, perhaps boxing's most famous historian and also editor and founder of Ring magazine, named Marciano as the all-time 10th greatest Heavyweight Champion. Nat Fleischer wrote that in terms of boxing ability Marciano was "crude, wild swinging, awkward, and missed heavily. In his bout with Light Heavyweight Champion Archie Moore, for example, he missed almost two-thirds of the fifty odd punches he tossed when he had Archie against the ropes, a perfect target for the kill."
John Durant[disambiguation needed ] author of The Heavyweight Champions wrote in 1971 (pg. 123) “Critics do not rate Rocky with the great ones, like Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, and Louis. He never faced top-fighters like they did. It was not Rocky’s fault, of course, that there was not much talent when he was fighting. He fought them all and that is what a champion is supposed to do.”
In December 1962, a Ring magazine poll of 40 boxing experts had Jack Dempsey rated the #1 Heavyweight of all time, with Joe Louis 2nd, Jack Johnson 3rd and Marciano 7th. Charley Rose, a historian, and John McCallum's Survey of Old Timers (survey of a group of historians and writers), rated Marciano at #8 and #9 of greatest heavyweights of all time.
In 1998, Ring named Marciano as the 6th greatest Heavyweight Champion ever. In 2002, Ring numbered Marciano at #12 on the list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years. In 2003, Ring rated Marciano #14 on the list of 100 greatest punchers of all time. In 2005, Marciano was named the fifth greatest heavyweight of all time by the International Boxing Research Organization.[18] A 1977 ranking by Ring listed Marciano as the greatest Italian American fighter. In 2007, on ESPN.com's list of the 50 Greatest Boxers of All Time, Marciano was ranked #14

~The Greatest Boxer Ali commenting on Rocky Marciano in a title defense against Ezzard Charles in the presence of the reputable Howard Cosell.

Fleisher is very famous but rarely seems to make much sense.

It's pretty obvious Marciano's opposition was 2 or 3 levels above Dempsey/Jeffries opposition and maybe better than Louis opposition. Dempsey and JEffries have very weak opposition and neither have beat anyone in the league of a Walcott, Charles, Moore or Louis

As a technical pressure fighter he's a few levels above Dempsey because Dempsey had no jab and often a defence that you can penetrate with your eyes closed. Marciano had a much better defence than Dempsey, was fitter, a better bodypuncher, much harder hitter, stronger and better at breaking opponents down

Dempsey was an ideal opponent for a skilled boxers to outbox, Charles, Walcott and Moore would all beat Dempsey by wide decisions

Ali went onto rate Marciano very highly for the record, above Frazier for one

[SuzieQ49]

Ali...Is your real name Monte Cox?

[he grant]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Gives us a glimpse of what the two fighters in the ring look like


[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

This is about as legit as Rocky's hair piece ... I mean, seriously ...

[TG1]

I've watched virtually everything there is to see on both men and it's a mismatch.

None of the men Marciano defended against come close to a '71 Ali and Marciano would be cut to ribbons. The only men to trouble Ali, in working order, would be a prime Tyson, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis or Bowe.

The great champions giving away 30+lbs in weight, against Alli, are out of their depth and nostalgia isn't a sufficient enough excuse to say otherwise.

Johnson, Louis, Marciano etc? Toast!

[laxpdx]

I believe a 60's Ali at his athletic peak would prevail, but not post-layoff... Ali from '71 onward relied more on the ropes, while Marciano was a far more damaging puncher than Frazier, and would keep coming...and coming...and coming. The sheer roughness of Marciano helps him take a points win, while Ali is more bruised up than he was after FOTC.

[Ali_]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

Fleisher is very famous but rarely seems to make much sense.

It's pretty obvious Marciano's opposition was 2 or 3 levels above Dempsey/Jeffries opposition and maybe better than Louis opposition. Dempsey and JEffries have very weak opposition and neither have beat anyone in the league of a Walcott, Charles, Moore or Louis

As a technical pressure fighter he's a few levels above Dempsey because Dempsey had no jab and often a defence that you can penetrate with your eyes closed. Marciano had a much better defence than Dempsey, was fitter, a better bodypuncher, much harder hitter, stronger and better at breaking opponents down

Dempsey was an ideal opponent for a skilled boxers to outbox, Charles, Walcott and Moore would all beat Dempsey by wide decisions

Ali went onto rate Marciano very highly for the record, above Frazier for one

All the names you mentioned were shot fighters, and this isn't simply assertion. Its known. Marciano fights any of them 10-5 years prior he gets beat badly.

I've heard that quote where Ali talks about Marciano, out of respect he puts down Frazier to hold Marciano up simply because of old-timey respect.
All jokes aside, Marciano cant come close to Frazier. Lets not even head in that direction.

[Ali_]

Originally Posted by laxpdx

I believe a 60's Ali at his athletic peak would prevail, but not post-layoff... Ali from '71 onward relied more on the ropes, while Marciano was a far more damaging puncher than Frazier, and would keep coming...and coming...and coming. The sheer roughness of Marciano helps him take a points win, while Ali is more bruised up than he was after FOTC.

???
This post is quite curious.

Maricano a far more damaging fighter than Joe Frazier? What?
Joe Frazier is the fighter that continuously brought the heat. In the FOTC no one could have continued to come forward on Ali besides Frazier.
Marciano? He had no where near the style-points, sheer physical strength,defensive technique, fakes or feints that Frazier had just to be able to fight the fight he fought that night, and Frazier still ended up looking worse than Ali did. Marciano would have gotten murdered by FOTC Ali, Frazier was rumored to have died. Marciano would have.

I cant believe you would want to give FOTC status to Marciano. That guy was never in a hellacious fight in entire career. Marciano wouldn't have been able to be a sparring partner for FOTC Frazier, and yet you want to give him FOTC status despite the fact that Marciano never had such a great fight in his entire career.

[ETM]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

As a technical pressure fighter he's a few levels above Dempsey because Dempsey had no jab and often a defence that you can penetrate with your eyes closed. Marciano had a much better defence than Dempsey, was fitter, a better bodypuncher, much harder hitter, stronger and better at breaking opponents down

Its an interesting comparison. Dempsey or Marciano?

I think its fair to say that Marciano was the better champion and probably the greater heavyweight. I dont know if he was the better fighter at his peak though.

Id give Rocky the edge in conditioning and cutting the ring and applying constant pressure even into the mid and late rounds. Rocky fought the more Skillful contenders in Moore, Charles etc.

I dont agree that Marciano hit harder than Jack Dempsey though. Jack Dempsey fought some big boys. Yeah they were Oafs but in the heavyweight division there is something to be said for size and power. Brute strength cant be ignored. Guys like Firpo and Willard, Morris, Fulton were big powerful heavies and Dempsey hurt all of them. Jack Dempsey hurt everyone he ever hit.

I think Dempsey was the better puncher.

[hookfromhell]

Marciano was a beast. So many great posts. I gotta go with
Ali. Great height, weight, handspeed advantage. If Ali took
Foremans best shots and beat him, he would find a way to
beat Marciano. Two of my favorite fighters. 15 rounder?
Ali tries to keep the fight in the center, of the ring, uses
his weight in the clinches, and gets battered along the ropes
but surprises Rocky with speedy counters off the ropes ala
Foreman fight. Ali close but unanimous decision

[he grant]

Originally Posted by TG1

I've watched virtually everything there is to see on both men and it's a mismatch.

None of the men Marciano defended against come close to a '71 Ali and Marciano would be cut to ribbons. The only men to trouble Ali, in working order, would be a prime Tyson, Holmes, Holyfield, Lewis or Bowe.

The great champions giving away 30+lbs in weight, against Alli, are out of their depth and nostalgia isn't a sufficient enough excuse to say otherwise.

Johnson, Louis, Marciano etc? Toast!

Dude this is extreme .. if Marciano's skin held up, a huge if, it is an interesting fight as Rocky is a murderous puncher with either hand for 15 rounds and could handle Ali's power ... that much is sure .. I do believe Ali has the size, speed , reach, chin and strength to win but lets get real ... if Chuvalo gave him a battle in 66 you don;t think the far better Marciano can do the same ?

[redrooster]

The Rock, tho much smaller would be too relentless. He would take most of Ali's blows on the gloves N elbowz. The rest he would duck under. The Rock's size disadvantage would actually be an advantage!

In addition, the Rock would not fear Ali's flurries

PLUS,, Ali does not use body blows!

PLUS,, has more stamina & hitz harder!

Marciano's competition cannot match Ali's but nevertheless, poundz N pummelz his way to a UD.