Rocky Marciano v George Foreman

No of course he wasn't prime but he was good enough to win the worlds heavyweight championship at 45 that was my point and I think you know that lol

 

Mate you haven't a point,in fact your are," pointless."

 

Well I do not understand what confuses you so much. There is no reason to explain to me what it is you think I didn’t understand. I did answer you precisely about the “double standard” you were trying to accuse me of. Here it is The whole kit and kaboodle..

That answers you as thoroughly as possible dosnt it? Here I am explaining to you about this “double standard” but you must have missed it..


Then Kentucky Cobra (who understood my answer as well I did) said that he didn’t understand what the issue was because he didn’t think anybody could dispute Frazier was not himself. He mentioned that Charles put up one of his best efforts then wrote this :

Which just goes to show for all my twisted logic and outlandish “bias” it winds up being kind of the exact same thing as what I said. But don’t hold back on calling anyone else an idiot...

But You often say you don’t bother reading my posts and I guess that’s true. Maybe you missed my post?

 

Get over yourself....mate lol

 

At least i can understand and follow the most simple of notions.

 

Well I am confused. I don’t know what you want from me.

I confer as was status on Charles despite losses but insist Frazier is not comparable to Marciano despite winning?

I answered that. Do you want me to answer it again?

Charles dropping close fights to Elmer Ray before he was champion was just the same as dropping close fights after being champion to guys like Layne. Ray and Layne were the same level and at both periods Charles beat them back more emphaticly in rematches. It was a theme throughout his career at top level. Where as Frazier beating Stander and Daniels, actual wins (not requiring split decision losses like Charles has) do show a decline because those guys were a lower level and joe did not look that good. Even beating faded guys like Ellis and Quarry flatter to deceive because they were not current guys on the up at that time. No matter where they were rated it’s not the same as Charles. Quarry was nearly knocked out weeks earlier. Ellis had not won any of his last 5 fights. These were safe wins over familiar foes.

 

and so are everyone else’s. I base mine on the way I see them. I’m not just picking fighters out of the air. I know their records and know their film.

It could. I don’t doubt that. I decide however having seen the Johnson fight that it could have went either way. It was in Johnson’s hometown. I would favour Charles to win a rematch but Johnson was great. No shame losing to Johnson anyway? Same with Valdes. No shame losing to Valdes. Charles fought the wrong fight and most favour him to win a rematch.

you chose that this is what it is. It must appear that way. Why can’t it just be I am irritated by the absolute certainty that Marciano has to be smashed into little pieces by Foreman from people who barely name two contenders from Marcianos era? I don’t like seeing any great champion written off so easily. None are written off so easily as Marciano. None. It is especially galling when it’s based a lot of the time on Frazier’s fate. Coming as it did after his best win, hospitalisation.

But was that loss a loss? It was disputed. The first time it was set more than 10 rounds Charles knocked Layne out in round 11. There was no round 11 in the next two fights but Charles knocked Layne down in at least one of them. So they went the distance.

and some dispute that Walcott won the last one. There is controversy about that.

yes I know. But there was no shame in the losses and some controversy over them. Some.

well I’m sorry you feel that way. I am free to decide that Frazier went above and beyond what he was capable of beating Ali, could never reproduce that. I am free to conclude there was a long recovery period after that because there was. And that he was never the same fighter again, because he wasn’t. When it comes to Charles I am free to assume he was less far away than he ever had been (less far away than Frazier) between losing his title to Walcott and challenging Rocky. He had some duds but he fought a lot.

you sound like you are shouting. And it’s so uncalled for. I merely have an opinion different to you.

 

Yep....

 

This thread has turned into Morales vs Barrera. A very stubborn to the death type battle.

I actually agree with Chocklab that Frazier was never the same after the FOC, it was only the fact that Ali didnt train properly and was too busy enjoying the Marcos hospitality and Ms Porshe that enabled Joe to do so well in the Thrilla.

Then again nobody could argue that Charles wasnt WAY past his prime when he fought Rocky or that the elderly Walcott was one of the most beatable heavyweight champions in history. Just look at his record.

If Ali had been in the same shape as say the Foreman fight I think he would have stopped Joe around round 10 in a much easier fight.

Ali was struggling after three rounds as far as his aerobic fitness in Manilla.

Then again I also believe the Foreman who destroyed Norton and Frazier would also destroy Marciano.

Cheers All.

 

Some historians will always knock Rocky it's only natural they can't get over his unbeaten record. He wasn't unbeatable obviously nobody is and people like to point this out.....a lot

 

And there it is. Bravo.

 

Charles and Walcott were both operating at an exceptional technical level for heavyweights. If you bother to watch their fights it’s like cat and mouse, very technical. The one fight where Charles lost by knockout was not some one sided thing where he was ground down and could not take it anymore. It’s not that He became so jaded and worn down he wound up losing to some old timer, watch the fight!

In truth, There was nothing in it. A chess match. Suddenly Charles bought a feint and it was all was over. That’s all it was. It took Walcott three times to outmanoeuvre him for that one second. Having lost the first two fights.

The rematch was controversial. Walcott changed tactics but some felt Charles had the upper hand.

This series of fights was more strategic than anything. The physical and ability element didn’t come in it so much in the fighting sense because the two countered each other on a more technical level.

But I’m basing my opinions on knowledge not fancy. It would only be disgraceful if I only knew one side. I know inside outside and upside down on these fighters. It dosnt make me right it dosnt make me wrong. But it qualifies more than those who decide only on one side?

There’s kids out here who clearly know nothing of the older fighters era just writing them off entirely on a whim. It goes unchallenged too often. Largely because of fashion. Time after time they say “I will have to watch that fight”...because they never saw it. They already decided without watching. This is where the bias is.

I’m backing up my theories with my own train of thought. I’m not just picking theory out of thin air. I am free to decide just as you are free to disagree.

You are basing this on bias and agenda because you see my stance as unfashionable. You look for things that are not there or only half there.