Rocky Marciano's so called punching power

"a fight you haven't seen."

Who has? If anyone has a film, let's see it. Arcel was working Charles' corner. One of the quoted scorecards only has Charles winning five out of ten rounds. Jack Hurley scored it 6-4 for Layne. Still seems like a close fight to me.

My post was mainly quoting Nat Fleischer who was at ringside and I think was a competent and honest judge w/o ties to either fighter.

No doubt Charles could have gotten the decision, as he could have with the 4th Walcott fight and the Johnson fight. But if you fight close, well, it is all subjective.

I think it important to note that it was Charles who fairly went on to get another title chance. He was coming off a loss in a title challenge. This fight didn't really alter the history of the heavyweight division that much.

 

The fact that the Salt Lake Tribune, the local paper reporting on the local fighter, gave it to the visiting fighter leads me to believe Charles deserved the nod.
ps I agree Neuhaus resembles Cokkell.

 

Good point about losing to Jones in the first place. I think a much better point than focusing on generations later hearsay evidence which sounds like a grade-Z movie plot.

 

Valdes finished both Neuhas and Cokell in 3-4 rounds so they do appear pretty close in ability, although Neuhas definitely has the better resume

There is film of Neuhas on youtube. Have you seen it?

 

1. Neuhaus BEAT Bucceroni in case you didn't realize

2. Bucceroni clearly has no defense the way Neuhaus easily lands a big 1-2 on him. Neuhaus had a much better right hand than Cockell. Cokkell had no right hand, he was a converted southpaw with no good use of a right cross. Neuhaus boxes much more fluidly than the stiff cockell.

3. Kinda revealing, The fact that Bucceroni still lost to an out of shape Neuhas with a belly shows how limited Bucceroni was to not be able to beat that caliber of an opponent.

4. Bucceroni got destroyed by Hurricane Jackson. Let's not overrate him now.

5. Bucceroni's left jab feints followed by the right hand was pretty good, but the next minute of the clip shows just how crude bucceroni was on defense. Besides the high guard, he had zero head movement, upper body movement, or blocking ability

 

Yes, he doesn' t impress.

 

Ya neither does Bucceroni, whom lost that fight

 

"Neuhaus BEAT Bucceroni in case you didn't realize."

Yes, I do now and then study records. Neuhaus won the decision in this fight.

"a big one-two"

At what specific time? Neuhaus does maul Bucceroni in the corner, and lands one good right, but most of the punches seem to be blocked. There was a jab, followed a bit later by a right cross, but Bucceroni moved away and also seemed to roll some with the punch. I saw a couple of good jabs by Neuhaus, and that inside right when he had Bucceroni in the corner, otherwise not much, but we only have about 30 seconds of action here.

My take overall is that this was Neuhaus' biggest win (Maxim and Layne were totally on the way out) and more or less, depending on how you take the Brion loss, the worst outcome for Bucceroni.

We are only seeing 30 seconds or so of action (discounting the cuts to the audience and Neuhaus in his corner) but off what I saw, I would score this clip for Bucceroni. The best punch by far is Bucceroni's early right cross. So, just off this extremely limited film clip, Bucceroni looks better. He showed enough agility to move away from a punch, and I don't see the total lack of boxing skill you allege.

As for Neuhaus, whatever else, he doesn't show all that much except being heavy (Bucceroni looks somewhat taller) and reasonably willing. He has a jab but seems limited to being a come forward mauler (this is also after watching him against Valdes and Cavicchi) w/o much of a punch. Neuhaus only scored 15 KO's in 58 fights. As for being overweight, his weight here of 214 was about his average. He looks just as blubbery against Valdes.

"Bucceroni . . . Let's not overrate him."

We sure shouldn't, but it is also true we shouldn't overrate anyone else, and frankly, I think you have a weakness for going to the extremes on fighters. Someone is either a badly underrated terror or no good at all. Bucceroni beat Slade who in turn beat Jackson and Henry (3 of 4 against those two). Baker was 0-4 against Henry and Jackson. Bucceroni beat Harrison who in turn beat Bivins who KO'd Henry, and also beat Bascom who beat Satterfield. All of this boils down to A beat B and B beat C while C beat A, so one can select results to prove a superiority that isn't really obvious off the overall record. (*I will have a separate post on these erratic results)

"Don C . . . had no right hand."

Yes, he does. He clearly had a right hand off the films of Farr and Bacilieri. He threw a right cross from the shoulder. For me, Don C looks like a more fundamentally sound boxer than Neuhaus with quicker hands. I certainly don't want to overrate him, but I see no reason to consider him inferior to Neuhaus. Don C had the higher winning percentage and much the higher KO percentage (38 in 81 fights). Also, Neuhaus never won a fight outside of Germany, losing all four times he left his homeland. Don C fought outside England 4 times and managed three wins, plus a respectable losing performance against Marciano.

"Neuhaus definitely has the better resume"

Not definitely. The three biggest names (Maxim, Layne, Bucceroni) would never win another fight. I think Maxim and Layne were probably just going for a couple of final paychecks. Both were way over their best fighting weights. The rest is also questionable. Ten Hoff and Sys were 33 and 38. Cooper (a draw) was on a 5 loss in 6 fights run and hadn't emerged yet. London was green. Neuhaus' "wins" over Cavicchi and Bygraves were on fouls. I think the most impressive win on his resume is probably Bucceroni, but I don't see rating that one above Don C beating LaStarza who was the higher rated fighter and had badly beaten Bucceroni with several knockdowns in their last fight. For me, the three wins over Matthews give Don C the edge. Matthews wasn't losing to other fighters except Marciano. Overall, Don C had 13 wins over fighters who appear in The Ring's annual ratings. Neuhaus had 8.

But just to be clear. Valdes should rate above either of them. I note though that Valdes beat a supposedly focused Neuhaus, while who knows with Don C, who was 13 lbs. heavier at 218 than he had been for Marciano 3 months earlier. If the issue is purely Valdes versus Don C in 1955, I go with Valdes as being the better contender. His problem though is why was he considered a better contender than Moore or Baker? In that sense his rating is arbitrary.

 

How many of those Cokkell stopped were heavyweights?

 

The difficulty with judging fighters is that humans don't always perform at the same level. So many factors come in. I remember watching a pennant race years ago and rooting for one team. My team had a Hall-of-Fame pitcher going against a journeyman with a losing record. But my team lost with the great pitcher being bombed out early. It happens in every sport. Lots of causes--

1-----Home field advantage--I have read a study that in the major American sports (baseball, football, basketball) the home team wins from 54% to 58% of the time. Same officials, so just having the home folks rooting you on really helps. Must be worse in boxing when you actually fight in another country and are a stranger in a strange land. I am talking about just the advantage of competing at home. Homer officials is a side issue.

2-----Injuries and age and focus. I noticed that many times a fighter who loses a big one then begins to lose the little ones.

3-----Things we can't put a finger on but cause shaky performances. Personal problems and what have you.

4-----Kryptonite opponents. Styles make fights. D Tiger was really hard to beat if you stood and traded, but was vulnerable to jab and movers.

What it boils down to is that you have a range of performances from every fighter. Rating on a scale of 100, fighter A would average let's say 78. His best performance would be 88. His worst 68. Fighter B averages only 60. His best performance would be 70. His worst 50. Fighter A on his best night might beat a champion. Fighter B on his worst night might lose to an average fighter. But 70 is above 68. On his very best night the ordinary B might edge out a victory over the much better A.

This really doesn't impact this thread, I suppose, except that one should use caution in drawing too strong of a conclusion from one bad fight.

 

It appears six. Three over 200 lbs. Weights aren't given for most of his early fights, but I would assume these were not at heavyweight. Don C had 13 fights after the Turpin fight, his last at light-heavy. A couple of these KO's were when he was still a light-heavy.

I certainly wouldn't claim him as a big puncher, but than neither is Neuhaus, which is my point, only it appears off the film that Don C is more the boxer and Neuhaus more a mauler type.

*I wouldn't assume though that it is easier to knock out a good light-heavyweight than a mediocre heavyweight, and certainly there are plenty of big guys with weak chins.

 

Would you assume stoppages over both light heavyweights and middle weights should not be factored into a ko percentage when assessing a heavyweights punching power?
As to your other remark, Bob Foster ko'd plenty of good light heavyweights but struggled to produce that form over mediocre heavyweights.

 

Was it easier to KO Billy Conn than Primo Carnera? Or Buddy Baer? What did Louis say?

I think the evidence of bigger men being able to take punches better is mixed.

Also the difference in weight between a heavyweight and a light-heavyweight in the old days was often not that much. Does 10 to 15 lbs. for men that size make that overwhelming a difference?

But I am not saying Don C was a killer puncher. I am just comparing him to Neuhaus.

 

“Matthewswasn't losing to other fighters except Marciano”

That’s because he was being fed a steady diet of 3rd eaters and tomato cans, and he wasn’t even fighting all that much.

It seems you love to give credit to fighters with really good records who clean up on all the bums, while discredit the fighters who have 3-4 losses while fighting top contenders every other month.

“Not definitely”

You make fun of Maxim and Layne for never winning another fight again. What about lastarza? After the cockell loss, he lost his next two fights in dominating fashion to Julio Mederos and Charley Norkus. He went 4-4 the rest of his career, with his best win a split decision over 5-12 tomato can al Anderson. Sounds like a shot fighter to me, but you seem to like giving cockell credit here

“3 wins over Matthews”

Matthews never defeated another contender again. Was he on his way down? Certainly looks like it.


Neuhaus beat Sys coming off a draw with a prime Archie Moore. Sys also knocked out Aaron Wilson whom twice beat cockell at heavyweight

He beat Bucceroni in his prime (Bucceroni beat slade whom knocked out cockell)

He beat a London whom just one year later would defeat pastrano and Erskine

He knocked out Williams, while cockell only eekeed out a decision over him

He beat Bygraves who knocked out Cooper and Lave ( knocked out cockell) that same year



Cockell was only 22-6 at heavyweight. He got knocked out 4 times. Aaron Wilson knocked him out with 1 punch. Slade a feather fisted powder puncher, knocked him out.

Wins over a shot lastarza and Matthews dont compared to wins over bygraves, Cooper, London, Bucceroni, cavvichi, Sys...much deeper resume

“

But just to be clear. Valdes should rate above either of them. I note though that Valdes beat a supposedly focused Neuhaus, while who knows with Don C, who was 13 lbs. heavier at 218 than he had been for Marciano 3 months earlier”

Cockell was already a fat doughboy against Marciano. Did the 13lb even matter?

“Yes, he does. He clearly had a right hand off the films of Farr and Bacilieri. He threw a right cross from the shoulder. For me, Don C looks like a more fundamentally sound boxer than Neuhaus with quicker hands. I certainly don't want to overrate him, but I see no reason to consider him inferior to Neuhaus. “

Cockell looks awful on film. There was no power behind any of his punches, he pushed his right hand, he was a slow plodder with no footwork, and he had a weak chin. Cokell boxed very stiff while Neuhaus actually looked a bit fluid in there.

“We sure shouldn't, but it is also true we shouldn't overrate anyone else, and frankly, I think you have a weakness for going to the extremes on fighters. Someone is either a badly underrated terror or no good at all. Bucceroni beat Slade who in turn beat Jackson and Henry (3 of 4 against those two). Baker was 0-4 against Henry and Jackson. Bucceroni beat Harrison who in turn beat Bivins who KO'd Henry, and also beat Bascom who beat Satterfield. All of this boils down to A beat B and B beat C while C beat A, so one can select results to prove a superiority that isn't really obvious off the overall record. (*I will have a separate post on these erratic results)
“

Are you forgetting Jackson utterly annihilated Bucceroni? The fight is on YouTube, see for yourself. It wasn’t competitive.

Slade beat heney after Henry’s severe eye injury

Baker beat slade twice

Bucceroni got knocked out by light heavyweight Irish Murphy and lost to Cesar Brion whom baker easily handled

Bivins knocked out Henry in suspicious circumstances in Henry’s 10th pro fight, in the rematch a more experienced Henry mopped the floor with Bivins

“We are only seeing 30 seconds or so of action (discounting the cuts to the audience and Neuhaus in his corner) but off what I saw, I would score this clip for Bucceroni. The best punch by far is Bucceroni's early right cross. So, just off this extremely limited film clip, Bucceroni looks better. ”

You’re taking 30 seconds off film and forming an opinion that Bucceroni looks better? This is chokelab Level logic right here

Neuhaus won the decision. 30 seconds means nothing.

I think Bucceroni looks awful. It’s clear his defense is crude beyond existence. Their is no rolling with the punches, he leaves his chin wide open, he doesn’t know how to block, and he doesn’t move his head. His punching technique looks horrible against hoff, he swings like a bar room brawler.

In a weak 1950s era, Bucceroni is only 3rd tier at best. Got the crap kicked out of him by hurricane Jackson

 

I take your point.