When Rocky Marciano...

Any.

There is not one fight where he shows genuine infighting ability. An infighter is sombody whose shoulders practicaly touch his oponents chest. Take Henry Armstrong as the classic example.

Pfffft,yeah.......and Sugar Ray Leonard was a slugger

[Dempsey1238]

Frazier, Marciano, Armstrong, Nelson. THATS INFIGHTING. Tyson was more of a mid fighter.

There are 3 ranges.

Out fighting, Ali, Robinson, SRL, ete.
Mid fighting, Tyson of couse. Dempsey to a extant outside of Gibbions, Carp, Canzi, Ted Kid Lewis. Jack Johnson when not cliching of couse.

Than IN fighting.
Armstrong, Dempsey as he did vs Gibbions, Fraizer, Marciano, Fullmer, Balsio ete.

Mid fighting, Tyson of couse. Dempsey to a extant outside of Gibbions, Carp, Canzi, Ted Kid Lewis. Jack Johnson when not cliching of couse.

Than IN fighting.
Armstrong, Dempsey as he did vs Gibbions, Fraizer, Marciano, Fullmer, Balsio ete.

You name Dempsey both mid and infighting. So tell me now in which fights exactly did Tyson midrange fighting.

[Dempsey1238]

Traver, Spinks, Holmes, All these fights were done in mid range. He never had chest to chest INFIGHTING like Armstrong or Fraizer did. Dempsey did it in ONLY one film fight I have and that was against Tommy Gibbons.

An infighter is sombody whose shoulders practicaly touch his oponents chest.

That's a sign of exhaustion.
An infighter fights within HIS range in which he can land his most powerful punches,means hooks or uppercuts.

[Dempsey1238]

This is footage of Henry Armstrong on Youtube, This is INFIGHTING. As you will see. Tyson never fight that close chest to chest.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

You see a BIG differnts between Tyson's midrange and Armstrong's infighting.

[Dempsey1238]

Originally Posted by KTFO

That's a sign of exhaustion.
An infighter fights within HIS range in which he can land his most powerful punches,means hooks or uppercuts.

Than Armstrong must of been tired by the FIRST round.

Than Armstrong must of been tired by the FIRST round.

Some guys tend to save their stamina by fighting that way. It's a pre-stage of clinching.

[Dempsey1238]

Originally Posted by KTFO

That's a sign of exhaustion.
An infighter fights within HIS range in which he can land his most powerful punches,means hooks or uppercuts.

No thats MID range.

[Dempsey1238]

Originally Posted by KTFO

Some guys tend to save their stamina by fighting that way. It's a pre-stage of clinching.

Armstrong did not clich, He would be chest to chest thowing over 100 punchings a round. This is not John Ruiz or Sammy Argott. This was a wirldwind of a fighter. Armstrong was the TRUE case of infighting.
Marciano when he broke his man down went infighting as he did vs Cockell and Moore and Charles 1. chest to chest. If they get tired up, they rought it up or yank the arms to get out of the clich. Mostly its just chest to chest banging away.

Tyson never fight that close chest to chest.

You see a BIG differnts between Tyson's midrange and Armstrong's infighting.

Again, infighting is the range of a fighter who chooses the range in which he can land his best hooks or uppercuts. It's a matter of angles.

[Dempsey1238]

Thats mid fighting. Tyson was just short of being a infighting. He perfer to be in his mid range to genrated his power. , with his power. IN fighting is chest to chest.

If infighting is chooseing the range, Than SRL was a infighter also when he chooses to to land his hooks ete.

Again for you:

1) Fighting outside: You use jabs all the time, sometimes weak crosses.

2) Fighting midrange: You use the whole arsenal,but hooks or uppercuts land in a different angle and therefore no full power.

3) Infighting: You use the perfect range for the hardest hooks and uppercuts in your arsenal. You try to have the perfect angle of your arm. How you do that is up to you and how you feel comfortable with it.

[Dempsey1238]

Your mid and In are about the SAME though. You just give less power for Mid is all. Archie Moore was midrange fighter with his style. So was Tyson. You are confuses the 2.

[Manassa]

Originally Posted by Marciano Frazier

Ummm... What criteria are you using here? Marciano won either every round or every round but one(some had the second round for Cockell), floored Cockell three times and stopped him in nine. How, exactly, can you beat someone more "definitively" or "effectively" than that? Maybe a 30-second knockout or something of the like, but Turpin took into the 11th. Further, although I haven't seen the fight, the AP account describes it as a "bruising" match, which doesn't sound like a total slaughter.

Please do not 'ummm' me.

Turpin beat Cockell a lot more cleanly and efficiently; he wasted less energy, looked better, and outperformed Cockell on a professional, tidy level. He dispatched a fitter-looking Cockell with far more accurate and economical punches than Rocky delivered.

Besides, I was referring to the finish, since finishing is what we are talking about. Turpin wrecked Cockell in the eleventh round.