Who is the biggest person Rocky Marciano fought?

Shkor--He wasn't rated when he fought Marciano.

I said ever-rated

hhascup posted once that Shkor was rated after he stopped Mauriello in 1947. That is what I was referring to.

"quality of the men"

This is certainly true, except perhaps for Louis which is what the thread debate has often been about.

*I think I agree totally with you if I properly understand your point. Beating really big guys prior to 1960 rarely proved much of anything because most of them were not very good. Relatively big fellows like Jeffries and Johnson who were good never or rarely fought anyone their own size or bigger who were also near their prime when they fought them.

Just the way history is.

**Just as an aside, Dunkhorst wasn't much besides being big, but it is still somewhat impressive in a p4p sense that Fitz could slaughter him and knock him out cold.

***I would also disagree that Marciano didn't do well against Shkor. Off all I've read, Marciano won every round except for an even fourth (although cut, apparently from a butt), knocked Shkor down in the fifth, and dropped him three times for nine counts in the sixth with the ref stopping the slaughter. Sounds like a real drubbing to me. Walcott taking Shkor out in the first proves he saw an opening and could punch. No one knocked out everyone faster than anyone else did. How did Walcott and Marciano do relatively against Layne?

 

this is very true, Dempsey had a few freaks of the day and Louis did as well, Marciano obviously fought men 6'5 and 6"4 and a few 220,240,250 but the best big men of his times were ko'd or beaten by Moore and Charles and LaStarza, Johnson and the best overall fighters at the top were the average size guys and # 1 contenders that Marciano fought. Baker was KO'd by Moore and Satterfield and Valdez beaten by Moore 2x, Marciano wanted to fight Valdez in his 50 fight but Valdez who was 6"3 215 lost pretty badly and almost KO'd by the 5"10 Bob Satterfield which took him out of the picture as a money fight.

I think as the Olympic boxing became more popular and the amateur fighter gained experience, Patterson at middleweight,Ali,Frazier and Foreman a bit more of the big sized guys got better training and carefully planned careers but in those days they used to say " the bigger you are the harder you fall"

Lennox, Klitschko's, and Manny Stewart and Olympic boxing did a lot to change that change that thought process but it was issue in Marciano Johnson or Jeffries day quality was valued over quantity or size

 

-Oscar was rated #4 when Patterson beat him. Fringe fighters are not top 5 and top 10 regulars as I pointed out, especially in what is regarded as a stacked era. Patterson was top 10 when he fought Bonavena and inherited his top 5 spot after edging him.

-I can see the argument but the way I see it is that Morrison was on a hot run of gimmes and Shavers had just lost to Stallings, Quarry, and the disputed draw to Young. Bivins was mixing it up with top guys on a regular basis as a tough gate keeper and pulling off the occasional upset.

-He was rated from 48-51, so seems genuine to me. But you don't seem to think a top rated Bonavena was a genuine contender either.

-Bowe has the best claim and Tyson had just came back and beat Bruno in early 96 for Lewis' lost WBC title.

-Exactly, but you can compare when they were both 30-37. I don't see Lyle carrying 220 better than Louis 213. And already mentioned Louis had great performances as high as 208 in his 20s.

 

Lee Savold. It's a beauty.

It's on tape but you don't watch tape.

My observation is not unique. The announcer from the fight: "Louis still has that great left hook and a piledriver jab."

 

Fair enough. I won't argue any further in terms of how a 37 year old Louis stacks up to the four guys you originally mentioned ( Povetkin, Berbick, Mercer, Lyle. ) I think he beats some of them at that age while ( possibly ) losing to some of them. Same goes for Marciano in his prime, though to a lesser extent. I still think that Lyle and Mercer when at their best would have given rocky fits due to styles, durability, power, heart, and whatever additional size they would have.. Would he beat them? Maybe. Would he drop a loss to one or both of them? possibly. The only thing I'd be comfortable betting money on is that those two guys would make him work for his money and perhaps even force him to rise off the canvas at some point. Lyle and Mercer didn't always look pretty on a given night and weren't always consistent.. But when they brought their "A" game, they were serious business in the ring..

Visibly Louis didn't look bad at 213. But he was also noticably slowed at that stage, which was huge given that his game relied largely on throwing fast combos and being able to rush in once his foe was hurt, before he recovered. Of course there are more factors involved in the loss of speed than just having some extra weight with age being one of them. And looking at two or three photos of old film depending on the angle or the flexed stance that a fighter is in does not always give an accurate picture of how fit a fighter is. Appearance can also be decieving. I will say that Lyle showed up against Gerry Cooney at age 40 weighing right around 211 and honestly looked better than anyone I've ever seen at that age with the possible exception of Evander Holyfield. Didn't do him much good...At 216-220 he looked pretty good and needless to say was quite comfortable fighting at that weight. I don't think Foreman or Shavers had any doubt about him struggling with those numbers.

on another note, Lee Savold cannot possibly taken seriously as legit top guy. He was 36 years old, had fought once in 18 months, had accumulated over 30 losses and was in the last couple fights of his career. So why was he ranked so highly? I think the BBBC trying to make a champion out of Bruce Wood**** and failing to do so may have had something to do with that, but I honestly don't know. Louis beating Savold was nowhere near on the level of Old Holmes beating Mercer or even Foreman beating Rodriguez, but probably "similar" to Foreman beating Cooney.. I don't just judge fighters on how they're ranked given that angle is somewhat scewed for various reasons. Bonavena was tough and had a high rating in the early seventies. But despite that rating he was regularly losing to the elite and even a few guys who weren't elite.. Make of it what you will.

 

Just on Savold

He had just stopped the British Empire and former European champion (who had never lost the title), who was rated #5 contender by The Ring in the 1949 yearly ratings and I believe was ranked higher by the NBA. That should put Savold pretty high in the rankings.

I don't know how high Savold should have been rated, but he was rated #3 in the 1948 yearly Ring ratings, #6 in 1949, and #2 in 1950.

"was in the last couple of fights of his career"

How would they know that?

And those two last defeats were to Louis and Marciano, after all the two best heavies of the 1930 to 1960 era, neither of whom was ever beaten by any mere contender.

Savold always had a lot of defeats on his record, as he lost so often back in the thirties. One possible reason for the respect he got in the ratings was that he had more or less fought them all. As I posted earlier, hhascup calculated that he fought 55 fights over his career with fighters rated at one time or another (winning twenty-eight). Holy cats! That is up there in Moore/Robinson territory in total number of fights against ever rated opponents.

 

In 1992 Pierre Coetzer was ranked #1 by I believe the IBF in his title elimination bout with Riddick Bowe and had a pretty looking record of 39-2-0-27 or somewhere thereabouts. Ask anyone on here if they agree with that rating. My guess is that not many will support it...Therefore the BBBC and the NBA and yes even the ring magazine rating Savold so highly leaves me with reservations. If a fighter today appeared once in 18 months and had accumulated 36 career losses, even if every single loss was against an all time great, we'd be in uproar about him being ranked #3, #5, #10 whatever Oh wait, we actually do that now anyways!!!! Savold's rating was generous and I'm inclined to think even farcical..

 

-Slower in contrast to his younger self, but comparable in speed to Lyle if not a shade quicker. And his comeback game was different than his prime, as he relied more on jabbing guys to death.

-As pointed out, Lyle had already been knocked out by a nobody in Lynn Ball. Louis was convincingly beating better fighters than Ball at this stage.

-He beat Bruce Woodkock, who was ranked so highly because he beat Oma and Milis. BTW, Savold was 35 according to the fight announcer.

 

The Eye Test between 51 Louis and Lyle. They look pretty comparable to me, draw your own conclusions.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vEbGsGufT8[/url]

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3SrDfSDcmE[/url]

 

Maxim was a LHW who fought at HW sometimes... in a time when HWs were usually goes who could make LHW.

Jimmy Bivins was one of the best fighters that never won a world title, he was also a LHW who fought at HW sometimes.

Jersey Joe Walcott was 6' and close to 200 solid Lbs. at his HW best.

Ezzard Charles was one of the best fighters ever but even at his HW best, he could have made LHW.

I am a fan of these guys but it's hard to imagine one of them putting a beat down on Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, W. or V. Klitschko. It's even hard to imagine one of them doing much vs. Mike Tyson who was way smaller than those 4.... but still bigger than Maxim, Bivins, Walcott, and Charles.

 

Lyle was clearly bigger. Louis was clearly greater.

Hadn't seen the Lyle vs. Shavers fight in a while. Lyle really fvcked him up!

 

After watching that footage I'm not convinced that Louis was quicker than Lyle at all at that stage and Lyle looks clearly the more muscular and cut of the two.. He was also in with a much more lively and active opponent.

Which illustrates my point that looking pretty in old age isn't the end all be all. Sure Louis may have looked better at 37 than Lyle did at 38. But the argument is comparing prime Lyle to aged Louis. Right? I believe that's what you were hell bent on doing.

Savold's listed date of birth on boxrec is 3-22-1915. He fought Louis on 6-15-1951. So unless I'm mistaken, he celebrated his 36th birthday roughly 3 months prior to meeting Louis. Savold's win over Wood**** came 12 months earlier and was the only fight he had seen in 18 months. Lee Oma had won 4 of his last 13 fights prior to facing Wood****. Freddie Mills had a 100 fights of mileage behind him was in the last two fights of his career and was a lightheavyweight. You sure Wood**** and Savold earned those "high" ratings?

 

Earnie ran out of steam but he landed a hell of a hook on Lyle. Louis was faded but still a few classes above Lyle IMO