Marciano's Body Frame could easily be Tua and Tyson

Larry Merchant claiming someone is bigger than we think and Peter M talking about his bro are not the cornerstones of credulity .

 

Things I learned on this thread:

It is better to be smaller in a fight. Size is a major deficit .

It is better to have less reach. Liston, Lewis, Hearns... they had accomplished in spite of their reach.

It is better to be slower. Peter McNeeley should have been champ.

 

The body is a pretty dynamic tool. Some are better st using theirs than others. Just ask all the guys with great physiques who couldn't scratch the surface.

 

Give me an example of someone who had all three of these wonderful attributes and made a dent in the modern heavyweight division?

 

He was unique, an outlier.

 

Yes, he was a once in a century physical freak. Of course he was.

 

Please
Somethings gotta explain his success.
If you watch footage of him, it's seems painfully obvious to me.

He didn't have the toughest era to deal with. Sure.
That might explain his ability making a dent in the division.
It kind of explains his ability to be top contender.
It hardly explain his ability to win a title.
And it sure as hell doesn't explain the fact that he reigned for 3 years, 6 defenses, and a high KO percentage.

 

The things that explain his success and why his success is revered perhaps more than it should be: weak contenders, old contenders and a short stay at the top.

1) Weak contenders. He basically beat some fighters at the very end of their line to get to or remain at the top (Louis, Walcott, Charles), or fighters who just weren't that good (Layne, Lastarza, Matthews). Louis didn't want to be fighting, shouldn't have been fighting and had only one hand in their fight. Walcott promptly retired after their first fight tho he later made an appearance in the ring for a paycheck. Charles went sub-500 for the remainder of his career after Marciano. Of the fighters who weren't that good, I can't see Layne, Lastarza or Matthews cracking the top 10 of even the worst year of the worst of the 2000's. Layne's greatest victory was a single card decision from his fan boy Dempsey (who called 7 rounds even?). He was a doughboy at 200 pounds. Lastarza was a regional fighter who's greatest victory was over... uh, Rex Layne. Matthews, according to the great Archie Moore, was nothing but a hype job from day one, an undersized guy from the far west who racked up a pretty record against nobodies.

2) Old contenders. Walcott, Charles, Louis, Moore. His greatest scalps. Average age: 107.

3) Short stay at the top. He basically played Capture the Flag. Got to the peak, was anointed by white fans hungry for a white champ and retired before that bubble could be burst. I'm not saying the Rock was purposely fulfilling this myth. He assuredly thought he could beat anyone put before him. But he did fulfill it... and he was gone as quickly as he arrived. He didn't really face anyone of note, beyond regional stars, until his 35th fight in 1951 and shut it down 4 years later. I'm not for castigating a guy who does his work quickly and shines bright but he didn't exactly face a wide variety of talents or styles in that stretch. If he hangs on too long, he finds out his limitations... or what you have labeled his advantages.

 

There's no question it wasn't a very strong era.
But he reigned supreme and fought then est.

Do you really think at any time in the last 100 years, the boxing scene was so dried up, that average fighters were at the top of it's most prominent division? Like some kind of virus hit all the boxing gyms, the amateur clubs, and amateur tournaments?

I think that in boxing, a 5+ defense in a multi year lineal reign puts you in a certain class.

You're not going to take an average 10 top fighter from the 2000's and walk Marciano down.
I think you're underestimating the small bulldozer.

Who are the best punchers of all time who fought around 185lb? Langford, Rocky, Dempsey?
You think any of them are out of their league against big guys?
I sure as hell don't

 

This is HERESY!

 

I think Langford would be up against it today ,Fulton demonstrated what a tall guy with a top jab could do to him.
Rocky I can't see having much success either, he was too slow afoot and not hard to hit with the jab.

Dempsey is a lot more mobile ,elusive,and quicker into range than Rocky and he is at least proven against big guys.

 

I don't know as much about Langford as I'd like to.
Was his KO over Godfrey on the up and up?

 

Godfrey was a novice, he had been coached by Langford when he started out. Clay Moyle's excellent biography of Langford says this."Sam knocked out his former pupil in the second round of their Novemebr 17th meeting.
A Langford left to the mouth drove George's lower lip into his upper teeth and cut him severely.
Sam inflicted enough damage in this contest that Godfrey claimed it was the worst trimming he ever received,and that for a week afterwar,he was forced to liveonly on such food as could be taken through a straw.In later years Godfrey was quoted as saying that Sam did more damage to him with that one punch than any other fighter he ever faced".

 

i found this a long time ago, i cant remember who posted it but i agree with this..

Ah, well, I think Marciano is a hard one to put into perspective. People look at his record, at his size and at his resume and critizise it. Saying he would have never wnt 49-0 in another era, he would be too small and that his best opponents were all past it old men. While there is some truth in all of it, it´s also all wrong. At the same time.

Marciano would never have went 49-0 in another era. Yes, very likely - although I think swap him with Dempsey or Tyson in the 80s or Wlad now and it is possible. But does it matter? Can you rank a fighter on what he perhaps would have done in another era? Really? Doesn´t make it more sense to look at what a fighter did in his era and compare it to what other fighterd did in their eras? Marciano went 49-0, every one of his defences during his reign was against the number one contender bar one which was against the number two. Which other champion can say this of himself? I can´t think of one. This alone makes his resume very good. Well, if his record of 49-0 wasn´t that special why wasn´t it equalized by anyone? Holmes nearly got it but got beaten by a blown up lhw. Well, Marciano beat his "blown up lhws" up and both were much, much better hws than Spinks. Alone the fact that no other hw in any other era was able to repeat his feat of going 49-0 makes it big.

Marciano was a small hw, he could never have competed with the big hws from the 60s/70s on. Yes, very likely that he would have lost to someone like Liston, Ali, Foreman, Holmes or Lewis. But again, does it matter? Do you people rank fighters on some fantasy matches? Or do you rank them on what they actually did? Well, Marciano was small. Most of the fighters he beat were bigger than him. Marciano made an advantage out of his size. He was the hw that mastered fighting small to perfection. He made himself even smaller than he was to avoid the punches of his opponents, to make them punch down and thus taking away some of their snap and precision, making their punches longer and easier to see. I don´t see how this could lower his standing amongst the atgs. It should enhance it. When people talk about Fitz, Greb, Armstrong and so on they are astonished about their feat of beating bigger guys. When they talk about Rocky, they say he was too small to compete against bigger guys. Compare that to Lewis who was bigger than nearly all of his opponents. This is used to enhance his standing amongst the great hws. But beating up smaller fighters should actually lower it. When people talk about Monzon and Hopkins they critizise them for fighting smaller fighters. But with Lewis it enhances his status. Double standards.

Marciano´s best opponents were all past their best and old. That´s although true to an extent. It was discussed over and over alrady on here. Aside of Louis all of them put on a superb performance against Marciano the first time they fought. Walcott and Charles were as good as they ever were at hw despite age. And Moore put on a great effort, knocking the champ down before getting grinded down and came of the best streak of his career. Remember Louis was ranked above Marciano when they fought and came of a serious winning streak, including a KO over Walcott. So, why is Marciano getting sh*t for taking care of business? Why do people look at the age of his opponents instead of looking at the actual fights and circumstances of those fights? Not even talking that Marciano wasn´t really a young champ himself. Compare that to Holmes who only rarely (less than Marciano at least) get´s sh*t for struggling more with older (and worse) fighters like Norton or Shavers or young, inexperienced ones like Witherspoon. Why is that? Or what about Lewis? His best wins are over older, past their prime opponents like Holyfield or Tyson. I don´t see people critizising this very often - apart from some Tyson fans. Why is that?

I think when it comes to Marciano people just tend to see only negatives everywhere. Why is that? I´m not a fan of Rocky. But you got to recognize that what he did was special, that he is amongst the greatest hws ever. Personally, I only rate Ali, Louis and Jack Johnson above him. And I think he deserves very much to rank there.

 

I find this totally more realistic than the SMW scenario.

If he was to alter his fighting weight adding bulk seems the more sensible method.

He would be a CW today I think. A slightly more bulked version than he was as a fighter.

He would probably have 1 or 2 HW fights to test the added weight and if successful he'd likely have a good stab at the division.