Who is the biggest person Rocky Marciano fought?

"But I think it fair to surmise that he had lost a lot of punch resistance by the time he met Marciano."

How many others, including the champion Charles, had Louis down in his 1950 to 1951 comeback? Throughout his career, Louis was often knocked down, but he was hard to keep down.

With Marciano one could argue it was age, but Marciano's KO record against everyone else is so outstanding that one could also argue that Marciano probably just hit harder and more effectively than anyone Louis had previously fought.

 

-Mercer was the more durable of the three overall, but also the least capable overall boxer. Lyle and Louis you are splitting hairs.

-And Louis beat a decent crowding fighter in Brion leading up to Marcinao. Brion probably a step below Bonavenva and level above Kirkman, all three way below Rocky. Not sure on that, plenty of articles on it. Holyfield was outboxed by Mercer's jab, he had to turn slugger to beat him, loading up on short left hooks over the jab.

-We are discussing the 1951 Joe Louis and he was a solid well built 213. This isn't middle aged old man flab...

[url]http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/roky3-1170101.jpg[/url]

-Louis lost more than Lyle or Mercer ever had. And at 51 he is roughly on even terms with them in the skill department.

 

So, according to the Marcianista's...

1) All of today's heavies are 20 pounds overweight.

2) The Joe Louis who fought Marciano represents a modern sized heavy, even though he was 10-15 pounds over his prime fighting weight.

 

Regardless of how Joe Louis looked to the eye, he wasn't anywhere near his best at that weight or at that age. Lyle and Norton looked beautiful going into their fights with Gerry Cooney. 1 minute into those fights however, they didn't look so beautiful. And I wouldn't put Louis on the level of Lyle or Mercer in terms of the KIND of fight we'd be talking about. Mercer and Lyle were also naturally bigger men than Louis which widens the size gap even further between them and Marciano. The punches that Mercer killed tommy Morrison with and the ones that Lyle sent Foreman to the deck with would have devastating effects on Marciano.. Lyle survived the artillary of Earnie Shavers and took Foreman's best while returning fire. Mercer took the shots of Morrison, Cooper, Lewis, Holyfield, and Witherspoon.. None ever stopped him.. These are bad fights for Rocky. Could he win? possibly? but to think this is a cake walk and based on using Louis as the middle man comparison is not a logic that I agree with nor even see the relevance in.

 

He was stopped by Schmelling alright, floored by Max Baer's brother who steamrolled him thru the ropes but who was put to sleep with one of those right hands which had him spinning to the floor later, Tony Gallento knocked him down but lasted a little more than that, Billy Conn hurt him with that left hook in the Polo Gardens in NYC but was stopped in the very same 13th round in 1941. Then of course, Jersey Joe Walcott had him down twice in their first controversial match in MSG and another time in the Yankee Stadium but he was stopped in the rematch and Ezzard Charles closed his eye with a lot of left hooks in their Sept 27, 1950 match but Marciano's blows were simply murderous and Louis went thru the ropes slowly as Rocky battered him with more right hands. In my opinion, a prime Louis (1937-1946) would also have problems with punch resistance against this guy, even more after 1946.

 

-No kidding but the argument is what the comparable worth of this version of Joe Louis is.

-Eh...Lye was KOed by Lynn Ball prior to Cooney and barely scrapped by LeDoux. Norton was coming off back to back bad performances agaisnt Cobb and LeDoux. Louis was coming off lopsided wins against Bivins, Brion, and Savold.

-They are the same height and weight range. The Louis we are talking about filled out and cut at 213. I can only see this argument if Louis was artifically beefed up like Spinks or carrying middle aged flab. The man standing before Maricano was 213 lbs of lean muscle.

-Nobody said it would be a cakewalk. Marciano beating a good, skilled 6'2" 213 lb fighter of comparable attributes is relevant. Too much emphasis on the 199 lb all time great Champion Joe Louis was, and not the simply good contender he was when facing Marciano.

 

"The Joe Louis who fought Marciano represents a modern sized heavy,"

I'm not certain who is supposed to be saying this. I'm not. Louis was obviously not 6' 6" and 250 lbs. What I am saying is that he was a big man for his era.

There were 47 heavies rated in the Ring Magazine yearly rankings in the 1950's. Of these, 7 went 210 or above in shape--Louis, Bob Baker, Jack Gardner, Karol Sys, Heinz Neuhaus, Nino Valdes, and possibly Mike DeJohn, although he usually fought lighter. None of these men probably went 220 in top shape. I think Neuhaus was the biggest.

Louis was at the top level of elite heavies (judging elite by getting into the ratings) in size (210 to 220) of that era.

Against the champions of the fifties, Louis would have had about a 15 lb. weight pull against Walcott and Johansson, and about a 25 to 30 lb. pull against Charles, Marciano, and Patterson.

Today? He would be small. It is like that in all sports. I remember Bill Russell (slightly under 6' 10") was considered a very tall center when he broke into the NBA. Leo Nomellini (6' 3" 260 lbs.) was considered a huge tackle in the NFL.

Size standards have changed.

But all athletes compete within the size standards of their own eras, not those of decades or the better part of a century later.

 

Which in the 70's or the 90's would have been fringe level at best, assuming he was still fighting at age 37.

The point was that looking cut with a few extra pounds in old age does not always equal top level ability nor that having those few extra pounds in beneficial. Savold was 36 years old with an ungodly number of fights behind him and numerous losses. I doubt he was much better than Cobb, Ledoux, or Ball by that point regardless of his rating or the BBBC's efforts to make a champion out of him.

I've covered this. And there's no question in my mind that Lyle and Mercer were naturally bigger men, with a different fight game than Louis and who if in their primes would make for a different fight.

He was a decent contender when he fought Marciano. But the notion of weather he was or wasn't has never been what I was basing my argument on to begin with.

 

I think Mongoose is correct. Joe Louis had deteriorated only to the level of simular sized Lyle or a berbick or a Mercer.

If Lyle, Mercer, berbick are considered decent heavyweights then so was 1951 Joe Louis.

 

Prime Berbick beat peak versions of Tate, Page, Thomas and took Holmes 15 rounds.

Prime Lyle KO'd Earnie Shavers and gave Foreman one of the best heayweight fights ever

Prime Mercer hammered Morrison and fought peak Lewis to a near draw

All three of them were naturally bigger men than Louis and probably more durable than that 37 year old version. None of those three would fight Marciano the same way that Louis did either, or at least Lyle and Mercer wouldn't as those would be slugfests.

 

-Wow, can't agree with that at all. The fringe fighters of the 70s and 90s were guys like Wepner, Middleton, Bugner, Seldon, Axel, Stewart..you really think 51 Louis was that bad? He was well above the fringe of his own time for certain.

-The point of Louis' physique was that he wasn't carrying middle aged flab or artifical bulk, he was solid at 213.

-Yet Savold only had one stoppage loss to Elmer Ray in a 10 year run leading up to the Louis fight.

-What was unnatural about Louis' weight in 51? Just weighing less when he was younger, doesn't mean his 213 was any less than Lyle and Mercer's 215. They are all carrying their weight in muscle on similar frames, even identical listed wingspans.

 

I'll clear my afternoon at work so that we can spend the next few hours on this.

Fringe guys of those eras were also Morrison, McCall, Damani, Foster, old Ellis Old Patterson, and Shavers before he acheived a higher rating.. I think Louis at 37 falls into this category.

So did Norton at age 37 and at 225 rather than 215. So did Jeffries against Johnson. I think the extra weight proved to be a limiting factor on speed and stamina, and at any rate we can also see by his performances in 1951 that his punching ability diminished anyway, which McVey covered earlier.

And was 36 years old, with 137 fights of mileage and in the second to last fight of his career. He had also been stopped 8 times in his life prior to meeting Louis and had only won about half of his last 15 fights. He had only seen one fight in 18 months going into that bout. Common, if this were the type of opponent that George Foreman had used to get a title shot against Evander Holyfield ( and in fact some of them fit that description ) would you even bother mentioning it?

-

Mercer and Lyle had bigger frames. And weighed that much or more for most of their careers, with exception of perhaps their early prospect days. For Louis the bulk of his chamioship and pre championship days he was between 199-207. Old age was why that weight was there...

 

-Of those, Old Patterson is the best comparision but he was a genuine contender and top 10 regular until his retirement. Wouldn't call him fringe.

-He wasn't slower than Lyle or Mercer. Still had above good power in the left jab and hook.He went 10 rounds multiple times and lasted 15 with Charles, and displayed some late power against Argamonte. So he could go the distance no problem.

-Still one stoppage in the last 10 years, Savold was durable and cagey and didn't show any signs of losing that until Louis put him to sleep with a left hook. He only took a year off after the Wood**** "title" fight which is an acceptable lay off. It's a good knockout.

-Really? Mercer only gained weight in fat. Lyle and Louis had similar builds and frames.

Ron Lyle age: 33-37 214-220.

Joe Louis age: 33-37 207-218

This difference is not as huge as you are making out.

 

Much is being made of Marciano not having met this type of fighter, or at least not having done so to everybody’s liking.

Would people make the same criticisms of an ATG who had never fought a clever technical boxer, and if not why not?

 

I don't think they were naturally any bigger or much more durable than1951 Joe Louis. In many respects 51 Louis was not as likely to lose some of the fights berbick, Lyle and Mercer lost in their primes.

Wasn't Berbick wiped out by Bernard Mercado and beaten by S.T Gordon?

Mercer was out hustled by Jesse Ferguson, was schooled by old Holmes.

Lyle lost to Jimmy young and was stopped by Ali and Lynn ball.