Who is the biggest person Rocky Marciano fought?

The woodkock, Oma, Savold, mills and lesnevich fights were of huge international importance in big stadium fights. The winners of these showdowns featured in the ring ratings. Lesnevich was even reigning world lightheavyweight champion when woodkock knocked Gus out. Mauriello got a shot at Louis off the back of beating wood**** and lesnevich would then beat mauriello two further times. Wood**** won and defended the European title (then considered half of the boxing world) a rating in itself -as well as beating both Oma and Savold who were world rated. This was before losing to Savold in that ridiculous "title fight". Savold benefited from this with a higher ranking around the time he met Louis. He was a good contender in his own right.

 

Savold "had accumulated over 30 losses"

boxrec lists over 40, actually. His record over there in 150 fights is 101-42-6 with 1 NC. He was stopped 10 times. He scored 72 KO's. (other sources have slightly different totals. There seems to be doubt if the "Savoldi" fights box rec adds to his record was Lee Savold)

This probably looks awful to younger fans weaned on modern Lamar Clark records made up almost totally of set-ups, but it was rather typical of that era when a contender fought mainly other good men, and boxing might have been much deeper in top fighters (I know this is a controversial point).

The high number of defeats for Savold reflects a lot of fights and tough competition and is not unusual. Here are some others to compare with, calculated to 149 decisions:

Jimmy Braddock 51-26-7 w 22 KO's = 89 victories 45 losses 10 draws 46 KO's -5 ND

Jack Sharkey 38-14-3 w 13 KO's = 103 victories 38 defeats 8 draws 35 KO's-11 KO by's

Leon Spinks 26-17-3 w 14 KO's = 85 victories 54 defeats 10 draws 46 KO's-26 KO by's

Marvin Hart 32-10-5 w 20 KO's = 102 victories 32 defeats 16 draws 64 KO's-13 KO by's

*In fairness, each of these men had a big win much more impressive than Savold ever had, but they are all lineal champions, and I have often seen Sharkey put in the top 25 or so, despite his very erratic record.

Here's another one.

Jimmy Young 34-19-2 w 11 KO's = 89 victories 52 defeats 5 draws w 30 KO's

Jimmy Young does not actually have as strong a won-lost record as Savold, but he defeated Ron Lyle twice. My only comment would be Lyle losing twice to Young would be like Louis losing twice to Lee Savold.

 

Good work.:good A record dosnt always tell the story. Those guys fought one another over and over. It was a job to them. If you were at that level it was not about staying unbeaten to look good on tv against nobody's in order to get a shot because those wins did not count. it was about taking on men as good as you and eventually stringing enough wins together that actually meant something to earn a shot.

 

Appreciate the work and the insite. I realize that records are misleading and that men of that period were often thrown to the wolves and fought under non ideal circumstances resulting in big numbers in the loss column. Part of my point though was that after losing being in well over a hundred fights and losing close to 40 against tough foes, Savold was ringworn and had been exposed more than his fair share of times. I think he was diminished.

 

-Louis' double jab looks quicker than any punches Lyle was putting together. Their foot speed is also comparable. Shavers is only marginally more active than Savold, in large part because Lyle was easy to trap on the ropes.

-I brought up Ball to counter your implication that Louis/Marciano was similar to Lyle/Cooney. Lyle and Louis may have both looked good physically, but one was still beating decent fighters dominatley, the other one was getting knocked out by nobodies.

-The announcer could have been mistaken.

-And after Woodkock, Oma won 14 straight climbing to the top of the rankings. Naturally the last man to beat him is going to get a rub if he stays on a hot streak. Milis was the LHW Champion at this time, beating him in a super fight was a big deal. In those times, HWs did get credit for beating rated LHWs and vice versa. As I've stated before, the two divisions were not so exclusive then. Beating the reigning LHW Champion is going to move a HW up the rankings. Beating #1 LHW Matthews is what helped push Maricano to his title shot. Wood**** was top 5 and Savold blew him out, he deserved his spot. Coming off the Satterfield and Walcott wins, Layne probably should have been rated above both of them, but they were all top tier at this point.

 

Oma wasnt rated when Wod**** beat him he had won just 3 of his last 10 ,writing in the Daily Mirror headlined it "Oma ,Coma ,Aroma".
Wood**** only beat Savold by a dsq.

 

I don't dispute Lyle was bigger, but only ever by an inch and a few pounds.

Yes, Louis has the better jab and footwork in these clips.

 

Louis was 6' 1.5", Lyle 6" 3".

 

And 216-220 was a more natural weight for him as he was fairly muscular at that weight and carried it well for most of his career. Louis was not a usual 213 lbs.

 

- we must be looking at two different fights because I see two far more lively and fit opponents trading punches left and right in 1975 where as the other fight featured two noticeably deteriorated men in the ring. Ask fight fans witch match they'd prefer to view.

- It was similar. You had a young slugger who battered an aged puncher. Louis might well have been a better fighter at age 37 than Lyle was at 40 when he met Cooney, but he was similarly diminished. Some of the men Lyle was winning against like Scott Ledoux, Stan Ward and Joe Bugner weren't what I'd call out of the league of the men Louis was beating. Its true he got knocked out by a big shot from Lynn Ball, but then I'm not making a case for Lyle being better than Louis at that stage.. The argument was who was better between a prime Lyle and an aged Louis - an argument you presented yourself.

- As mentioned on two or three occasions before, Lee Savold was 36 years old, off for a year, had only one fight in 18 months, 36 career losses, 10 by stoppage, was in the last two bouts of his career, and was a common wealth level fighter. Beating Bruce Woodc-ck a year earlier was nothing that should make him comparable to prime Lyle and prime shavers even if it meant something in his own time. Woodc-cks's win over Oma was a victory over a man who had won 4 of his last 13 fights ( little bit worse than Lyle winning 7 of his last eight going in against Cooney ) regardless of what he went on to do in hindsight. Mills was small for a heavyweight and had 100 fights of mileage behind him.. These might have been good wins in their day, but if forced to pick Lyle or Shavers over Savold, Woodc-ck, Oma, Mills or an aged Louis, I'd take the former two.

CONCLUSION - Lyle and Mercer in their respective primes would have my vote to either beat a 37 year old Louis or at least be even money with him. They would have my vote to give fits to Marciano or even upset him by virtue of their chins, power, styles, heart, and additional size advantage.... I'm sticking with this position...

 

-Nah. Lyle and Shavers don't look any more fit and lively than these supposedly older detoriated men. For entertainment value, both are good scraps. Lyle/Shavers is more back and forth as neither were as technically sound as Savold and Louis.

-That's one very vague similarity. At more detail: Louis was 37 years old and on a dominant win streak against respectable top 10 and fringe opponents. Lyle was 40 years old and coming off a knockout loss to a nobody.

-You are reaching back a few years for Bugner and Ward. LeDoux had Lyle down and won on one scorecard. Close SD. Louis dominated all of his 1951 opponents of that level.

-The argument wasn't Savold being better than Lyle or Shavers, It was if Savold deserved his ranking and he did.

Common-wealth level fighter? Savold was a legit contender. He finished in the RING TOP 10 at least 8 times. He was hot /cold but beat many contenders like Lou Nova, Lem Franklin, Joe Baski, and Bruce Woodkock. He was a cagey spoiler with great power, holding the Garden's quickest HW KO record until Cooney/Norton funny enough. He was a John Ruiz who could punch and take a good shot. And yes, he was inactive for a 18 months when he came back to knockout Woodkock, so I doubt 12 months off leading to Louis was a big deal.

-That's fine. You would lose some money though.

 

That difference is just an inch and some change.

 

They were NOTICEABLY more fit than either of those guys were, and one of them is commonly regarded as the hardest puncher of all time. They had much higher output in that fight and traded knockdowns. Louis had more experience but had been basically reduced to a one handed fighter. Savold didn't show anything that would place him in a technical genius category for me.

-

You make it sound as though he cleaned out an entire division. He beat all but two opponents who were ranked at that time. Lee Savold who I've already given numerous reason on numerous occasions for why his rating belied his actual quality and Caesar Brion who took him the distance in two tough fights. Louis was on a good winning streak for an old man but he wasn't dominating at all.

Yes I acknowledged that, but he also scored two journeyman KO's in the year in between and I've already stated that Louis was a bit better than Lyle at that age. I just don't think the difference was collosal especially given that Lyle had an extra three years on Louis.

-

Not all of Louis's wins in that time were dominant as mentioned before and Ledoux was ranked as well. He fought Lyle fairly close to the same time that he beat ranked Marty Monroe and drew with a recent champ in Norton.

Being ranked #2 in 1950 was rather generous. The man he beat to earn that rating was a paper champion built fabricated by the BBBC to produce a world titlist. Being ranked highly on paper doesn't convince me that these guys were any better than lower ranked contenders in a far stronger era.

I was referring to Woodkock. If I accidentally said Savold then my appologies.

Except a lot of the things your referencing came years earlier. and being that he was in the last two fights of a 137 bout career says a lot about what ability he may have had. Fighters didn't make much back then, so they didn't just pack it in if they still had a lot left in the tank.

Thanks for the edit. I guess just leaving it at a truce to agree to disagree wasn't enough. If the bet was Lyle and Shaves to beat a 37 year old Louis and to at least put rock on the deck once, then I'd be good for about $1,000

 

-Don't see it. Lyle and Shavers weren't technical geniuses either. That's an odd jump to make.

-Made no such claim.

-If there wasn't a difference, Louis would have got Balled by somebody.

-Brion was game but soundly beaten both times, he was battered badly in the second match in particular.

-Woodkock seems to be a solid contender who benefited from good backing and timing to get that high in the rankings. Doesn't mean he wasn't undeserving but certainly not a genuine top man of his era. Oma , Millis, and Gus are good wins. Mauriello, Baski, Savold are acceptable losses. He strikes me as "chinny."

-Two bad beatings from Louis and Maricano, probably took alot out of that tank. Staying on his feet from an onslaught against Rocky, tells me he still had some toughness in him even after Louis. Remember the whole point wasn't that Louis beat a great fighter in Savold, but one shot KOed a tough durable survivor who also had enough power to test his whiskers in return.

-You would be out of 1,000. Louis still had the power to chin check Shavers. Lyle and Louis is interesting. We can point to his heroics against Ali or Foreman, but he was also outboxed a few times.

 

The difference is an inch and a half ,and prime Louis was noticeably lighter than prime Lyle.