Rocky Marciano vs Joe Frazier

why weren't his jab & right hand a factor in those two fights?

 

Frazier is only overrated when people say that he'd destroy Vitali, Lewis or some of the other multidimensional, modern superheavies. That's not the case with this fight however. Smokin Joe was better than Marciano at pretty much everything. This wouldn't be competitive in my opinion.

 

Waiiiaaaaiiit a minute there.

I pick Frazier too.

But if you are a decent observer of the fight scene & fair-minded-not mired in emotional bias-it is clearly wrong to say Frazier was better at pretty much everything.

1) Rocky had greater 2 handed power.

2) Rocky had more usage of & effective punches from other shots-the overhand right, uppercut, & used both hands more.

3) He was less predictable, very unusual lines of attack coming from anywhere.

4) He has at least as good, maybe slightly better chin-just fought lesser punchers on average, so hard to be sure.

5) Due to less movement had a bit better endurance than even Frazier.

Still, due to significantly greater speed, accuracy, WITH the swarming & volume + Marciano cutting sometimes, I pick Frazier in a war.

 

H E.
I thought Ali had a good left hook to go with his right cross ,I'd guess Bonavena would agree too. .Holmes didn't really utilise the hook. He was jab, cross, or uppercut.

Frazier threw a short rising right hand to the body but lets not pretend it was a significantly powerful shot it wasn't that much more of a factor than Henry Cooper's right hand.
Marciano has the undeniable advantage in two- handed power here.

 

Frazier has speed advantages of hand and foot, and threw a higher volume of punches,he also has about 20 lbs on Rocky.

Rocky cut,Frazier used to swell up facially,not much difference there imo.
I take Marciano because he has two handed power and, imo better power in his money punch, I also think he had a better chin.
Frazier could do well landing his bread and butter hook which unlike Rocky he could throw in a sequence of shots.
Marciano used to throw Suzie Q ,recoil it and begin again Frazier was able to hook in clusters.
Marciano utilised the uppercut in some fights, this might be a factor as Frazier bobs down.
Marciano's stance ,always leaning to his right ,puts him in right in the danger zone of Frazier's hook.Joe wouldn't have to throw it in a looping fashion ,as he sometitmes did to catch the much taller Ali. Still I go for Rocky by late stoppage in a knock down drag out , career shortening war.

 

Yet again Frazier gets different treatment to Ali. Joe favoured the left hook because it WORKED! He had a decent jab but he rarely used it; when he did it was for range finding and as a way to get inside. How would he fare in a battle of jabs with Ali?

Ali was VERY limited if you look at him: Jab, right hand, little flurry. McVey rightly points out the great left hook Ali got Bonavena with, but that was a rarity. His hook was generally a minor part of a combination, along with a nice left uppercut. His right uppercut was average. Guess what? Ali concentrated on his jab and right hand and did very well with it!

Frazier uses what he's got to the best advantage and is "one dimensional"!

 

good post, I see it about the same...hard to crawl out of the rubble of this one being fresh as a rose .....career shortening indeed :good

 

That's the thing.. Call a spade a spade. I mean really, to pretend that Joe wasn't a one handed fighter is like pretending Golota was mentally actually stable and making excuses for his behavior. Joe was just that, and no it's not like most every fighter. Most every fighter throws more variety of punches than Joe did. It's really that simple.

 

it is not so simple as a comparison to a fighter whose mental problems interfered with his fight outcomes repeatedly, quitting in the ring, having a panic attack before a bout, losing fights he was winning due to low blows...That is black & white, either effecting success or not.

How much you fight with one hand & variety of punches is a matter of degree & absolultely is arguable in several ways. What level of favoring 1 hand & variety of punches used qualifies for the term. Also how much a guy actually used the other arm. Someone could say Frazier did not beat you with the right so was 1 handed, another could say nah, he threw it often enough, mostly in close, & was nothing like a say ****ey, whose right wing seemed almost decorative.

Frazier would not have been so high volume a fighter without using the right a reasonable amount. though he strongly favored the left.

Marciano at least occasionally threw high volume as Frazier generally did, witness in his last fight against Moore. Don't think you could count on either having a work rate advantage, though Frazier might, nor would you count on his starting slow.
We are talking peak & their best strategies here.

I think Rocky cutting is more likely to stop a fight as opposed to Frazier swelling.

I am unsure if Rocky had a better chin, Rocky never fought the level of bombers that Frazier did.

Combining significantly greater speed &accuracy with volume I give Frazier the edge. Length would not tell here, but weight might be an advantage.

 

That's the thing though, he was limited, period. He was still an excellent fighter and even a great one in his prime. That doesn't mean we need to make excuses for the fake that he was a one handed fighter, and more one handed than most fighters. That doesn't mean he wasn't more effective than others who use more punch variety. He was. However, he was limited in many ways by his one handed approach and that is all I've claimed. I call a spade a spade.

 

No, he really wasn't!

 

It's true .. Joe could not walk on water like Rocky could ..

 

Apparently not, because he lost his 0!

 

I always grasped the concept like you do the ABCs that a fighter can be great & limited. You meant "fact" not "fake", but it is not a fact-it remains a matter of argument, not an uncontestable objective fact, how much use & effectiveness of the non-dominant hand qualifies as "one handed".

It is always a matter of interpretation unless a fighter lterally never uses, or does not have, another arm.

That being said, ****ey clearly qualifies to me, Frazier it depends upon what standard of volume & effectiveness you demand of a fighter to call him one-winged.

More one handed than most does not necessarily qualify for the term, just as several inches taller or shorter than average does not necessitate a term like midget or giant. Folks like me are not remotely reluctant to tell it like it is, but may not agree-or like me say it is close enough that it depends how you define an ambiguous term with no objective single definition-whether he is called one handed or not.

Sure he was limited in some (many? debatable) ways by using the left less.
But it is a dramatic understatement to say he was more effective than others who use more punch variety. Even absent his Olympic Gold, most have him top 10 in effectiveness & career, & almost all at least top 15. So he was more effective than 99. an indeterminate # of 9'sof pro fighters.

Ali had somewhat more limitations & is considered near or at the very top in effectiveness & head to head comparisons. Because of the strengths he had, & the way he compensated to limit the harm from all his deficiencies or even made them work for his. Deficiencies in parrying, blocking, inside fighting, no great KO punch, ill advised defense such a leaning away from punches...& whatever else I forget.

It is a wonder he could even beat Humpty Dumpty!
We will agree that ability is not just adding up #s of skills, dominance in some areas & compensation can make you better than almost anyone occasionally.

 

Vitali and Lewis multidimensional ?
Only two Atgs beat Frazier(Ali and Foreman)
Byrd beat Vitali.Mccall and Rahman destroyed Lewis.
These (Byrd,Mccall or Rahman are far away from Ali or Foreman.)