Rocky Marciano's so called punching power

No i want you to use your own criteria you hypocrite! You said "valdes had 10 losses and a low ko%" as if that disqualifies him as a valid opponent but you could say the same thing about walcott genius! Its called being consistent#

 

I never said he didn’t deserve his shot. I was mocking people’s hype job of an obvious b level fighter. As if using Rocky not fighting Valdes is a besmirch upon his record or character. It’s a joke. It’s the strangest argument I’ve ever seen. I’ve never seen anyone get on any fighter for this kind of thing. It just goes to show how desperate some are to take Rocky down a few pegs.

 

Uh, you do understand that he won by knockout, right? Knocking out the other man is not getting the crap beat out of you. It is the opposite.

Nor did he lose every round. The scores were 4-7, 5-7, 4-8. Walcott was doing and excellent job, yes...until he got the crap beat out of him for real.

Joe Walcott was is an ATG himself. Great fighter who used up the last of what he had to fend off the young lion for 13 rounds.

 

Very strange to see something like this coming from you!

 

I'm not interested in your opinion, I knew more than you about Marciano 50years ago come back when you know WTF you're talking about.

 

You as a good poster deserve a reply, the **** ant above does not. Many fighters have lots of defeats these cannot reflect on their power all they may do is imply how efficient they were at delivering that power.You can be a monster hitter and so unskilled you cannot utilise it .Iron Hague?
The only way you can get some kind of indication of a fighters power is add up how many of his wins were by stoppage.There are many very hard hitters with average to low ko percentages. How would you quantify a guy who fought on too long or one who fought at different weights where his power might not be exceptional compared to when he was at his optimum weight ?
Some examples of misleading ko data
Ike Williams 43%
Lloyd Marshall 36%
Yvon Durelle 43%
Curtis Sheppard38%
Archie Moore said the last 3 hit him harder than Marciano.
Lew Jenkins 43%
Sam Langford 50%
Long careers ,fighting past prime drastically reduce impressive percentages to ordinary.
That's why I base the ko % on the wins.

 

"I couldn't avoid his jabs I just had to take them "Marciano after the Louis fight.

This content is protected

We should be charging you for the education!

 

Walcott did beat up Marciano at points in their fight but I wouldn’t say film shows Rocky losing “nearly every round”. It was always competitive. Walcott was winning rounds but losing the fight because Rocky was on him the whole time. In fact the blinding of Rocky with the substance that got into his eyes did change the momentum of the fight right when Rocky seemed to be catching up in rounds. Without that who knows if Walcott could have got a lead in rounds or been finished sooner?

Walcott also beat up Joe Louis in parts of their fight so too. So what?

Film of Walcott v Marciano shows Walcott was a great fighter fighting a great fight. Jersey Joe was an infinitely greater fighter than Nino Valdes and Earl Walls for goodness sake.

 

I completely disagree.

You can get the crap beat out of u and then make a comeback and win a miraculous ko. As i said, lyle and foreman both looked like they could go at any second. Frazier made ali pee blood, bruised his body, blackened his eye, etc until ali rallied and forced a corner stoppage. Even more recently joshua was running out of steam against klitschko and was dropped but came back and took care of business.

I dont understand why people are taking offense to this, it makes rocky look better. He desperately needed a highlight reel signature win for his legacy and this fight was perfect. We really got to see what he was made of and how much heart he had. Thought all of this was common knowledge/consensus?

None of this had anything whatsoever to do with my original post btw.

 

Im not even really picking a side, i just thought it was strange of u to pick apart valdez record of 10 losses and a low ko% but many rocky fans rave about walcott.

It was a bit of a double standard. Obviously im not trying to say valdez as a boxer (legacy wise) is even close to walcott. Im simply pointing out the fact u cant overlook walcotts similarly high number of losses and low ko% when he fought rocky then use that as proof valdez was only "B-level" and not as great as people think.

This goes to show why u cant ONLY look at stats to criticize someone in sports. In this case, discrediting someone for a low ko% and high number of losses. Many lebron james fans do this and its dishonest and leads to lots of backpeddling and retracted statements once proper context is used.

 

Yes you are correct, Walcott proved he had enough in his locker to draw the best out of Marciano, and without that kind of performance it would be difficult to assume Rocky had so much durability, heart and energy and to be able to knock great fighters clean out in the championship rounds. So I absolutely agree with you.

By that token, you cannot be surprised with the kind of response you got from this kind of post:

Do you see what I mean? On one hand you are saying the Walcott fight showed what a great fighter Rock was and earlier you are saying Earl Walls and Nino Valdes cannot be dismissed because Walcott had more losses and not so great a KO percentage. And even with those stats he “beat the crap” (your words) out of Rocky.

 

There is no contradiction.

Gazelle punch facetiously made light of valdez low ko% and having ten losses as if that discredits the argument the other side made that he was a noteworthy contender and better than don cckell. He even called valdez "b level" and made lots of comments downplaying his achievements.

I was simply pointing out that making fun of valdez because (on paper) his stats look poor but then overlooking walcotts similarly poort stats (again, on paper) is dishonest and hypocritical.

Obviously both walcott and valdez could punch and many of their losses were to the best elite fighters of the era.

As for my statement, its objectively true by your own admission rocky was getting thrashed and losing the fight before he came back and won. Only great fighters can comeback from a knockdown and trailing on the scorecards.

Nothing in my statement was to prove valdez was just as good as walcott or cant be dismissed because both him and walcott had relatively poor stats. The entire point was to show u cant only look at stats to dismiss an athlete becaus numbers can be misleading.

 

Marciano was an all time great pound for pound puncher. He had an exceptional chin, stamina, heart and fighting brain. He is a top ten pound for pound heavyweight champion or sure.

 

Walls was rated top 5 two years in a row from 1953-1954....when was cockell ever rated that highly two years in a row? Answer is he wasn’t


Walls didn’t just beat Layne. He knocked out top 10 tommy Harrison in 1 round and outpointed jimmy slade. Throw in his two knockouts over Layne which are better wins than anything in Cockells resume

Fat boy don...slow plodder who couldn’t punch couldn’t take a punch...his style made in order for Walls

 

There is NOTHING wrong with being a B level fighter! Anyone who walks in that ring deserves respect. Valdes had a good punch wasn’t mocking his KO percentage was merely pointing out to some who hyped him up as a “big time” puncher whom Rocky ducked. I consider a B fighter someone who generally beats most fighters but can’t hang w the B pluses or A fighters. Which historically speaking was the case for Valdes. He could beat other B fighters or occasionally lose to them but he wasn’t beating the best.