Rocky Marciano v George Foreman

Part of the argument against Marciano seems to be that his accomplishments should not be held in such high regard because he fought in a poor era without the competition seen in other eras. However, if you look at Foreman's era you see plenty of indications that the era was not especially strong
For example Leon Spinks became heavyweight champion and a well-past it Ali held the title for years despite looking rather unimpressive from 1975-1978. In addition, an ancient Floyd Patterson (a near contemporary of Marciano) defeated a prime Bonavena and arguably beat a prime Jimmy Ellis.

I think the people who think highly of Foreman's era may simply be baby-boomers who overrate their own era.

 

First of all, ali admitted on camera he should have lost the 3rd fight with norton. Manilla was a classic, one of the best title fights of all time. Foreman retired, he beat lyle and wepner by stoppage, and he beat shavers (a close competitive fight but hardly a robbery, similar to mayweather vs cotto). Ali had seen better days (obviously) but after regaining the title from foreman he still pulled off a few decent and even great performances against decent b level guys.

Certainly better than defending the belt against 40 year olds with a dozen losses.

Leon spinx won the belt over a parkinsons ridden ali who was nearly 40 and shopworn. The sanctioning bodies ordered him to fight norton and he refused, thinking he could get an easy win over the fading legend ali. He got his ass kicked by an old man in his last great hurrah. Norton was granted the true belt and ali retired, then holmes became the man. Spinx was brutally stopped every time he stepped up against holmes, coatzer, ribalta, even dwight qawi!

To use spinx temporary success against a fading old belt holder as proof of a weak era is intellectually dishonest, and, hilarious given the context (defending rockys era).

Patterson wasnt some shopworn old bum though. The first 2x hw champ, he won fight of the year against highly rated multi title challenger george chuvalo. He koed cooper faster than ali did. He beat machen and yes he beat ringo, but ringo was never more than a gatekeeper. So he was fairly consistent for a past his prime former champ, and he still had decent power, hand speed, ring iq, etc. But the fact of the matter is, he came up short against the top dogs (quarry, ellis) and was completely outclassed by the #1 guy (ali). Had he won these fights, obviously it would make the era look pretty bad but he didnt. He had success against c and b level fighters but couldnt manage to pull off the win against the very best of the late 60's/early 70's.

 

That sums up the topic i made a month ago

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ns-attempt-to-downplay-liston-foreman.599545/

 

But these fights could have went either way. They really could. The official decision only shows the vote was for the future rather than the past, which has always been the case in boxing.

Floyd did not come up short if the verdicts could have went either way.

 

Coopman and Dunn were better than Charles and Moore? GTFO!!!!!

 

Ali was actually only 36 but I agree he was shop worn.

 

Glass City logic and a few other Maricano critics:

30-36=nearly 40 (unless you are Ezzard Charles, he turned 40 at 29)
36-39=40

Except for Maricano, he was always 26 and in his prime.

And any weight gained after 19 is artificial useless mass that doesn't count..unless you are George Foreman or David Tua.

 

Did i say that? I said defending your belt against prime, in shape athletes looks better on your reord than shopworn old fightets no matter how skilled they are. Obviously moore and charles are far more skilled than coopman and dunn.

Could have, shoud have, would have. If i had slanted eyes id be asian.

Even if he had beaten quarry or ellis, neither of those guys were the BEST of that era. Ali flattened patterson twice and so would frazier. Foreman demolishes him in 40 seconds. Norton would likely stop him in under 7 rounds or win a wide ud. I bet even bugner beats him and he was B level at best.

In no way, shape or form would patterson getting the nod in the heavyweight tournament prove that the 70's was a "weak era". The fact youre even entetaining the idea the 70's was weaker than rockys proves youre either extremely bored, a troll, dishonest, or youre just plain stupid.

Or all of the above, which seems to be the case given all the people laughing at you. You insist on commenting on EVERY thread involving liston, foreman, size comparisons, nutrition, classic vs modern, etc. And your opinion NEVER CHANGES no matter how many people point out the horrible flaws in your logic. You will lie, shift goal posts, or fillibuster the opposition for 20 pages until they get sick of you and you never budge an inch. Even if someone manages to corner you with facts, you hide behind cliches like "its my opinion" or "we will have to agree to disagree". You constantly use sneak dissing, passive aggression, accuse the opposition of being biased/unreasonable or just straight up insult them but complain when it happens to you! Its like arguing with a woman.

You need a new hobby and you clearly have serious underlying issues if you believe half the nonsense you write.

 

Ali was 36 going on 60 at that point. His odometer had spun around a few times.

 

Enough double speak.

#1 contenders Charles and Moore are far better defenses than Coopman and Dunn on any level. That's the bottom line. To suggest otherwise, no matter how carefully worded, is madness.

You can talk about "prime" or "in shape" all day but Charles at 32/33 and Moore at 37/38 would wreck Coopman & Dunn in the same night. They are better defenses on paper and in the ring to anybody that hasn't been driven mad by bias.


Should be noted these "prime in shape athletes" Dunn and Coopman were 31 and near 30 when they faced Ali. So they were only 1-2 years removed from "old" Charles when he first faced Marciano. And Marciano himself was older than either man when he faced Moore, in fact the Rock was the same age as "old shop worn" Charles. And would retire right after facing Moore, which per Seamus proves you "were shot to pieces", just like Joe Louis.

Dunn was so fit and fresh, he had been KOed 8 times in his short career prior to facing Ali. Charles in his long "shop worn" career had only been stopped 2 times in 90+ fights before facing Maricano. But I know, ....here's a song for you and rest on this side of the argument:

This content is protected

 

Great stuff. All true.

 

It should be noted LaStarza and Cokell were both younger than Dunn and Coop and gasp...actually high rated contenders, but he isnt saying anything good about those defenses.

You can criticize the greats, but when it comes to this outright biased attempts at deconstructing one particular history while trying to preserve the status quo of others....these guys just fall on their faces. It can't be done in a sane consistent way...because its hypocritical and illogical from the start.

 

Yes, I think they were all great eras to be honest. I never really supported the idea that some are really weaker than others. It’s just that some eras are more fashionable than others. Some of the youngsters decide to write off huge swathes of history. You can’t do that.

The 1970s was exciting. It’s a good era. But the more you look into it they were all good eras. Not just the 1970s.

The 60s, 30s and 80s really get talked down a lot. But there’s film out there that shows each era has great fighters and great fights.

Without Marciano in the 50s it’s a good era too. Walcott, Charles, Moore, Louis, Patterson, Ingo. Then you have Baker, Henry, Valdes, Satterfeild, Jackson, Layne, Machen, folley. What’s not to like? Something for everyone.

If you like boxing there is no bad. Just popular or unpopular.

It’s very unpopular to insist you can’t easily write off any great fighter in his prime. It’s just not in vogue. You don’t even have to pick him. All you have to do is make a case. But It’s not allowed.

 

Is this thread still going?

What about a guy above 195 pounds?

 

Think Foreman would really struggle with Marciano in the later rounds.

Foreman would probably have to get Marciano out of there early which is possible, but going for the knock out is never easy especially against someone as game and tough as Rocky not to mention he was no easy target.

The work rate and bombs Marciano landed late in fights, I could see him knocking Foreman out who would be right there For Rocky to bomb away on.