Marciano's Body Frame could easily be Tua and Tyson

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by SuzieQ49, Apr 8, 2009.


  1. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,650
    Dec 31, 2009
    what does this mean? Jefferies only fought the best once he lost to Johnson? Is that a way of implying marciano and Louis did not fight the best of their times or is it a way of saying Joe Louis and Marciano had poor competition? They both certainly beat the best around. Maybe opposition looked poor because they were so good? I think both maxes, Braddock, Carnera, nova, Conn, farr, Galento, Mauriello, Godoy and Walcoot have as much contender credentials as the best in any era. You can only knock Marcianos best men on size.

    next-to highest level compared to whom? Guys who struggled more?

    Technical analysis is required to extend Marcianos victories over later champions? Why not Joe Louis too? Didn't he fight at next-to top level as well? What kind of technical analysis is required here? A long in depth plan of how things might work out in a fight between Marciano versus a later champion just for some jerk to say "he's too small"?

    I just dont think it is irrational to say Rocky was small, but don't count him out entirely because he would give anyone a tough fight.
     
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,819
    47,706
    Mar 21, 2007
    I'm not saying either. I said what I said. It's not complicated and does not require interpretation; nor should it require further explanation.

    Compared to anyone who fought the highest level of competition.

    Yes, Joe Louis too. Why can't you understand what I am saying to you? It's all very straightforwards.
     
  3. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,650
    Dec 31, 2009
    Exactly.

    The last ten years have changed everything. Artificial weight is more "functional" than it ever used to be. Carrying as much as possible is on trend now, and only the tallest can carry the most. so we have a new behemoth era going on right now. Drugs cheats like Fury, Ortiz and the guys who beat Price..

    A natural 200 pounder will build up just to get out of the cruiserweight division. But obviously there is only so far they can go with this now we have the SHW behemoth era.

    In a historical sense the best HW fighters in history have all been within the modern hydrated cruiserweight. Well under SHW. Look at Orlin Norris! As a heavyweight he was comparable to many of the weights David Tua came in at whilst moonlighting between fights as a 187 pounder in the cruisers. He's roughly the same sized guy as Marciano.

    So could Marciano ever be a modern SHW? Absolutely not. But he could be everything in size that Orlin Norris was as a heavyweight. Why not?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2016
  4. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,650
    Dec 31, 2009
    So who are your examples of heavyweights operating at this extra high level alien to Louis and Marciano?

    There can't be many HW champions that beat an extra level, obtaining "highest level of competition" that overshadows Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano?
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,819
    47,706
    Mar 21, 2007
    I've already given you one. It seemed to confuse you. But I'll add Evander Holyfield, Max Schmeling, Ken Norton, Joe Frazier, George Foreman.

    Very few.
     
  6. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,650
    Dec 31, 2009
    Holyfeild fought in a great era because he had great fights. sure Evander was a great ATG fighter himself but he fought two guys older than anybody Marciano ever fought and lost during his prime to Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis and Michael Moorer. Now assessing levels Bowe was untested. Tyson was past prime. He beat Douglas when it really mattered and gave away a lot of weight, way more weight (than Marciano, Liston or Foreman ever gave away) so Evander is a great fighter and I like him..But he kind of lost as many key fights as he won and the guys he beat like Bowe and Moorer were kind of great because he lost to them. If the level is high on account of him beating guys he lost to how was George Foreman and Larry Holmes able to be relevent?

    great fighter for sure. Why is his level greater though? The 1930s was a competitive era, so much so that nobody stood out. He lost to Hamas. He beat Hamas back. Who else did Hamas bother? Did Max fight everybody he could have? He did not fight Carnera or Braddock. He was not fancied to beat Joe Louis. Uzcundun was a good fighter, Snarky too. I just dont see this level being over and above Moore, Charles and Walcott?.

    Ken fought great fighters Holmes, Ali, Foreman. He's 1-5 with them. That's a great level of fighters right there. It could be argued that Ali as a fighter on a comeback was not the same fighter as he was in the 1960s. Everyone from the 1970s is measured against this version of Ali.

    Joe Frazier, if he fought Patterson and Liston then retired after defeating Ali the first time probably goes down as a G.O.AT champion. that would be a thorough cleaning of the house. However, as for comparing levels, was Bonavena or Quarry that much greater statistically than Layne? Ellis up there with Walcott? To get a guide on where he was at the time of fighting, providing he never fought again after losing, would A comebacking (albeit undefeated) Ali really that much better regarded than Charles? It seems like hindsight is required to develop this Frazier era into above this next-to best level that you talk about.

    Nobody says Frazier or Ali were old champions when Ali was at the same stage of his career as Charles was when George lost to him. It makes Ali look terrific but George went off to have life and death with Ron Lyle a big man without the credentials of a Rex Layne. Again the names are great. The fights were great. Many feel this era was the best decade, but was it simply that Ali (a 1960s guy) had slowed enough to be competative with this younger bunch in the 1970s? Still a fabulous time for great fights.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2016
  7. Giacomino

    Giacomino Member Full Member

    326
    151
    Oct 15, 2016
    Tyson apparently l never lifted weights in his prime. I don't think he worked with weights to any extent at all until prison.
     
  8. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,650
    Dec 31, 2009
    So few it's almost negligible. If you bring size into it, if you bring youth into it then it must be measured against experience and recent results.
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,819
    47,706
    Mar 21, 2007
    I'm not responding to, or even reading all of this choklab. It's like you're blazing. You said, "Rocky fought at the highest level." I said he didn't. I then provided you with a list of fighters that did. You now want to pick apart those fighter's resumes.

    It matters because you want to extend the consistency that Rocky fought his actual opponents at to the level above; that is, apply his impressive performances against borderline greats to genuine greats.

    There have been quite a few greater heavyweights than the Charles that Marciano beat and than Walcott. Those who faced them fought at a higher level of competition. There is no existing argument against this point and it is the only one that matters as far as I am concerned.
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,819
    47,706
    Mar 21, 2007
    No, it's not "negligible". It's a real thing that exists. Hasim Rahman has fought at a higher level than Rocky Maricano if it comes to it - you cannot ignore, relegate or dismiss those fighters who fought better fighters than Marciano because it suits you to achieve a minor point on a boxing forum in support of your obsession of Rocky Marciano.

    There is a level of opposition that exists above that which Marciano fought. Therefore, he did not fight at the highest level. Castillo did. Kid Gavilan did. Joe Gans did. Joe Frazier did. Rocky Marciano did not.
     
  11. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,528
    27,115
    Feb 15, 2006
    I happen to think that you are right here, but it is also a dangerous assumption to make.

    You see he was fighting the best opposition available, and our opinion that other eras were stronger is subjective.
    If we matched the best heavyweights from Marciano's era against the best from the 70s, it would only take a couple of key upsets, and the idea of the 70s being the golden era would be on trial for its life.
     
    choklab likes this.
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,819
    47,706
    Mar 21, 2007
    Of course, there is no certitude here, to the final nth. But I'm happy that the absolute pinnacle of HW competition is not defined by an ageing Charles and Joe Walcott. Fine fighters to be sure, but i'm happy that there are better heavyweights, by class.

    Therefore I'm happy that a higher level of competition exists.

    Now, can I prove that beyond all hope of argument? No. But if Walcott and Charles are the two single best champions/challengers respectively, in history, barring Marciano himself...well, just no.
     
  13. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,528
    27,115
    Feb 15, 2006
    They wouldn't have to be the best; they would only have to be closer to it than we think.

    Let’s say Ezzard Charles found a way to beat Muhammad Ali, or Joe Walcott took George Foreman into deep waters and drowned him.

    Then where does that leave us?

    Even the most dominant champions loose to, or go life and death with this sort of fighter.

    The line between strong eras and weak eras is a fine one at best.
     
    choklab likes this.
  14. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,571
    Jan 30, 2014
    Spot on.
     
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,819
    47,706
    Mar 21, 2007
    You are having a different discussion with me than the one I am having above. You are arguing that Charels and Walcott could be better than we think and capable of undermining the 1970s heavyweights. Fine. But a completely different discussion.