I love what you're writing because I love Joe. But TiM was NOT the same Joe of FOTC and before. He, like Ali, was solidly into his decline. TiM was two old (for boxers) champions, both of who were especially inspired (mostly by aggravation at the other) to give everything they had left. They both showed flashes of greatness, of their old styles (Joe even smoked a little, which had already become a rare thing by then). It was a great fight because they were who they were, and they really just didn't like each other. Watch Joe's fights from around the same time...do ANY of those fights look like prime Frazier? TiM Joe would have been stopped by a prime Holmes, slammed to the floor with an uppercut and then taken out with a hail of rights, classic Holmes style. Now, if you're talking 1969-1971 Joe Frazier, we're talking something very different. Larry just might have lost (though I doubt it). FOTC Joe stops Larry within 15.
Louis’s quote could be relative. Relative to fighters who are really good boxers, Rocky was a crude brawler. Relative to Rocky being a world class fighter, he was a crude brawler. What it doesn’t mean is that Rocky lacks all boxing finesse and technique. Some people over exaggerate with their interpretations, and take it as if Rocky was a street fighter completely devoid of technique who just blindly swung about. Something that has never existed in the top level of the sport ever. And something we can see with our very own eyes that isn’t case. Ali and Marciano had some freedom in their light sparring film. Not every single second was scripted, just certain parts. It’s enough for Ali to gauge Rocky’s boxing. Or, are you saying that Ali didn’t know the difference? A little script writing fooled Ali into thinking that Rocky was a great fighter? Muhammad Ali, the Goat, didn’t know any better? Does that seem believable or reasonable to you?
You compared him to literally the two greatest finishers of all time. That does nothing to lower his status as a puncher. You’re doubling down on the “fastest to KO” metric, even though I’ve shown that Marciano had roughly twice the amount of fastest KOs versus Lewis. Again, I ask, is Lewis an overrated puncher who lacked one punch power? You are using that metric as your supporting reasoning, and I’m showing you why it’s a flawed way to construct the argument. What about Foreman, Dempsey, Wlad, and Liston? You listed off some of Foreman’s KO victims, but did you count the amount of fighters he stopped the fastest? What about the B tier punchers whose place you seem to want Rocky to take? How does he stack up against them? Because he already has almost twice the amount of fastest victims than Lewis.
Another thing to consider, Marciano didn’t 1 punch KO everyone in the early rounds, but he did win every fight he ever had. And power was clearly one of his biggest assets. So perhaps, and this may shock you, he was smart with how he used and expended his power.
I'm saying if you wish to give credence to quotes, Louis' on Marciano should hold more gravitas than that of Ali who was basically play acting with a 46 years old man. Don't go down that Choclab road .PLEASE!
Yes i mentioned some of the fighters foreman stopped the fastest. He stopped wepner the fastest and that was his 4th professional fight! No one beat his time over frazier or Chuvalo who were 2 of the toughest heavies who ever lived! What durable tough opponent did marciano beat in record time? Lennox Lewis was often overly cautious and didnt look for the knockout unless his corner yelled at him. Do i need to remind you that the soft spoken Emmanuel Stewart was swearing at Lewis to get him to finish off a shot mike Tyson? Lewis has impressive early kos over Rahman, Briggs, Golota, Ruddock, etc who were all young prime durable fighters. Your comparison is flawed because rocky threw NON STOP POWER PUNCHES and still took longer to stop shopworn older fighters. His contemporaries had less raw talent and faced younger versions of the same common opponents and yet several of these contemporaries had better/earlier stoppages. What part or this are you not understanding? I brought up guys like Louis, Tyson, Foreman, Liston, Dempsey, etc because he was an aggressive come forward guy like them. Lennox Lewis was a guy who liked to fight on the outside and use his jab and reach, holding whenever an opponent forced inside or using an uppercut.m so why bring him up? The majority of lennox's oppoents were also much bigger, younger, and more durable than rocky opposition and he still had an impressive ko% despite his cautious style. Rocky's stats are pretty bad and his opposition was even worse. Having a bunch of names on your resume who were easily KO'd by multiple other fighters and needing multiple rounds of volume to get the job done are 2 of the biggest glaring signs of inflated numbers and someones power being overrated. He was a swarmer, a grinder, and a sloppy one, but that doesnt mean he wasnt a great fighter. I dont know why this is such a hard pill to swallow and so offensive when people in this thread defending rocky agree with it! I notice you didnt respond to me pointing out all the fouls rocky commited or that his ko over walcott being 13 rounds of grinding+a foul is tbe exact opposite of a 1 punch ko. Are you conceding these points? No, his stamina workrate and chin were his biggest assets. Otherwise he wouldn't need to take so many shopworn older opponents into deep waters to take them out. No one said rocky was dumb or didnt use his abilities to their fullest.
Top post the cogent points of which will be ignored. Without his conditioning Rocky would have been a smaller version of Tua, and probably not as successful.
The fact that this passes for a stylistic analysis in your eyes, rather underlines the problem. A stylistic analysis, is a breakdown of who two fighters styles will interact with each other! A good breakdown of Holmes's style, combined with no effort whatsoever to break down Marciano's. is not a stylistic analysis! It is merely acting as a cheerleader for Holmes. At no point in that post, is the fact that Marciano was a pressure fighter, even mentioned! Like him or hate him, that is obviously the most important factor here! The only discussion of Marciano's style, questions whether he could end the fight with a single overhand right, which is basically implying that he was nothing more than a smaller Ingemar Johansen, and could only win with a lucky punch!
Yes absolutely. Where we differ, is in the fact that I don't see that as a weakness! No elite swarmer ever tried! Holmes was well past his best when Tyson beat him. Lets say that it is a younger Holmes, and Tyson doesn't manage it in the first few rounds? It is all Marciano from there!
Pure personal conjecture. Marciano was down on all the scorecards against a 38 years old Walcott going into the 13th round.Why wouldn't a bigger, younger, faster,more durable, prime version of Holmes improve on Walcott's performance?
Layne and Lastarza certainly weren’t shop worn and they were good fighters. Lastarza was never even knocked down prior. What fouls are you referring too? And who cares? Most of the greats committed some form of fouls at one time or another. Some were dirtier then others. How are Marciano’s stats bad? This is the delusion that annoys normal people when discussing Marciano. He has some of the best stats in boxing history. Only knock on his record is it’s a short one on prime fighters. It’s not the shortest in that regard but it’s fair criticism. Because x fighter knocks someone out at a different time then x fighter should have zero baring on anything. Fighters have great nights or bad nights based on a numerous amount of factors. Training, health, corners, mind set, styles, location, point in their careers, dedication, heart, etc. The possibilities are endless as to why one fighter with no power can KO a guy but another guy with a lot of power couldn’t on that night. These arguments are dopey and have no baring on reality. If they do as you say admit Tyson must not have been as strong as Holyfield becaise Holy knocked out Douglas in 3!
Now you're just being pedantic. What he wrote was a stylistic breakdown of larry holmes' style. What i wrote in half a dozen posts explains why it wouldn't be so easy for even a great swarmer to wear down Holmes. You ignored them. I mentioned Holmes reach and height because they are absolutely relevant factors but they weren't the only factors i mentioned. You used a premise of swarmers needing to be able to get past a jab to be successful as "proof" that rocky would get past holmes' jab. Only someone who has never been in a fight or who has never seen Holmes jab would make such a bold claim. Not all jabs are created equal. Holmes signifcant reach advantage IN ADDITION to him having possibly the greatest jab in the division means that it isn't a foregone You continue to use straw mans like im comparing rocky to Johanson. That was simply 1 instance of me responding to someone who claimed rocky could land a suzie a since shavers and snipes were able to land big right hands. I dont appreciate you being facetious and trying to control the narrative like ive never seen rocky fight or that I haven't already explained the pros and cons of the teo fighterd stats and styles. The style itself isnt a weakness, its the fact that swarming is marcianos ONLY option and that holmes has other options besides simply sticking and moving om the outside that creates multiple weaknesses for marciano. But you kero insisting that Holmes simply must be put in the category of "outside mover" which is just as much of a silly strawman as claiming "all rocky does is charge forward and looks to land a right hand". It is simply not true. We cannot make progress if you cant admit holmes was a multi dimensional fighter who had more than one approach. What was that line you used about "i can't believe im having to explain this to supposedly knowledgeable boxing fans"...? Disagree. Holmes was past his best but he wasnt "well past" it which implies washed up which isnt true as he had much success later as a 42 year old man against a prime Mercer. Maybe the REASON no elite swarmer tried to simply overwhelm Holmes with volume is because their coach understood that it wouldn't work!
I didnt say layne and lastarza were shopworn when they first fought rocky. Walcott, Louis, moore and savold absolutely were. What fouls am i referring to? They've been mentioned and posted 4x now: "Life magazine reported: "Trying to knock the challenger out with one punch, the 29-year-old Marciano was over-eager and awkward. He lunged, butted, hit below the belt, on the break and after the bell. Once, he swung so wildly that he missed and slipped clumsily to the canvas. Outboxing the champion and avoiding his blows, LaStarza managed to win four of the first six rounds. In the seventh, Marciano changed his tactics, started aiming at LaStarza's body as well as his head in an attempt to wear the challenger down. He succeeded." Who cares?!? It matters because you are using lastarza as evidence of marcianos so called punching power over a decent opponent. This may be a shocker to you but headbutting, hitting after the bell, and using low blows might weaken an opponent to the point that it may make them easier to stop in the first place! That's why they're illegal. Sure other heavyweights fouled. But the conversation is about how good was Rocky's power, and how effective of a puncher he was. Rocky flagrantly hit a down opponent in Walcott, an older fighter who he needed 13 rounds to finish. Lastarza and walcott were essily 2 of rock's biggest wins. Joshua wasnt using headbutts or low blows to beat klitschko or whyte, his 2 biggest wins. Tyson could be dirty sometimes but for the most part his kid were clean and brutal like someone flipped a light switch (spinx, Tubbs, etc). It matters because the fact it took him longer to ko worse versions of the same opponent means his power is overrated. Its not that complicated. Let's say there are 3 basketball teams, A B and C. Let's say A were the champions who won the title over B in the finals by blowout (4-0). A few years go by and a new team C faces off against B. If C struggles and just barely manages to win game 7 (4-3), you'd say even though team C won, they werent as effective at beating team B as team A. This is is one of the silliest counters I've seen in quite a while. First of all, rocky did not have an "off night" when he fought an old ass Walcott. That was his first title shot and he trained his ass off. I actually read his biography and about some of his training camps. He still took longer to beat an older Walcott than several other fighters. This absolutely matters when discussing rockys punching power compared to other champions or even guys in his own era. Obviously he had power, but it was his sheer volume, stamina, and workrate that were the biggest factors in his KOs (not to mention his own sloppiness and crudeness making it take longer). Otherwise i wouldn't be able to list MULTIPLE examples of other fighters scoring quicker knockouts. Its that simple. The last part about douglas vs holyfield and Tyson is nonsense. Douglas trained and fought like he was possessed for Tyson. Against holyfield he lost all thag burning motivation and spent several months partying and gaining 50 lbs.
Marciano knocked out opponents and ended all his fights at an average of 4.9 rounds...only six men in HW history can’t top that. Only six. So what you’re saying is only six men or less in the history of the HW division possess power? See how absurd this argument is? It’s insanely absurd that this must be argued . Attrition punchers don’t KO opponents in 4.9 rounds. As far as the fouls go he def got dirty when frustrated as did many fighters should have no baring on his power as he certainly wasn’t dirty every fight. His competition is a fair point as he only faced about 16 or 15 solid opponents and only 8 or so were prime (at least according to boxing by the numbers). But when many fighters are broken down you can see they faced far fewer prime opponents then you would imagine.edit* by prime fighters meaning 8 fighters in ten round fights
Actually Marciano did claim to have an off night when facing Walcott as he stated he trained to long for the fight and missed his peak. He didn’t have so much trouble the second time around.m which no one seems to want to mention
