Wlad is 2 inches taller than Vingo, and 55+lbs heavier,Wlad's reach is 81" , what was Vingo's reach? Then there is the little matter of experience and class. ps Vingo was still two days short of his 20th birthday. Vingo's head hit the canvas very hard ,no doubt he was already ko'd on the way down,but it's more than possible the collision with the floor contributed to his brain injury.imo It's about time for Humphrey Jackson to be trotted out again I suppose.lol
I agree. Vingo wasn’t Wlad. He was supposedly a nice prospect idk never watched him fight. But let’s be real Wlad is a top 15 fighter ever. Aren’t many people around like Wlad. Only point was he had no problem reaching the chin and he knocked a lot of these bigger guys out with upper cuts and his left. People always talk about his Susie q but his left was almost as deadly. Those two punches I think Wlad would have a hard time with. Can Wlad hold on for a victory? Maybe. He’s a great fighter. I just happen to give the edge to Marciano.
How many defensively skilled 6 foot six guys did he face? How do you effectively uppercut a man seven and a half inches taller than you?
I don't see being 5'10"with a 68" reach and weighing185lbs as an asset,in the heavyweight division , neither do I think Marciano was what I would term skilled ,and you wont find him referred to as such in any contemporary reports of his fights. Being 6'6", weighing240lbs,with an 81" reach, plus having a great jab ,left hook, and right cross I do see as assets.Id sooner watch Marciano 's fights any day of the week,but that's because they were, for the most part knockdown drag out brawls.Nearly all of Wlad's were pretty one sided, boring but hardly competitive. What does that indicate?
How does a 5”10 guy with no skills or reach become HW champ? Marciano did a lot of things that zero HWs do today. He was unorthodox and could be led into a brawl. Wlad fought imo the weakest Hw era ever. His best wins are Byrd, Povetkin, and Haye...not exactly a who’s who of Hw fighters.
I didn't say he had "no skills" I said he wasn't," what I would call skilled." How was he successful? 1.He came up in an era of comparatively small heavies. 2.The best men of his time were themselves past their prime. 3.It was not a very deep division ,witnessed by the fact that the best men were prime years earlier, and in one case pre war. 4.There were no superheavyweights of size and skill around then. 5.He faced comparatively few top punchers. 6.Two of his fights would likely have been stopped in his opponents favour, had they taken place today. 7.He had the advantage of having his real manager,[ not his official one] doubling as the matchmaker for the premier arena in the country MSG. 8 He may have been the benificiary of two verdicts that might justly have gone against him. 9.In this era of global title defences his style and questionable tactics might not have gone unpunished with neutral /foreign referees.eg. He would surely have been slung out for fouling and lost his title,had he fought Cokkell in the UK.Would he also be able to demand a 16foot ring as he did for the Cokkell fight,I don't know if that champs prerogative still applies. 7&8 Apply in part to todays fight game,and to some extent no 9 is still a factor. Anyway that is my take on it.
I love Rock (hence the screen name)...but no. This isn't a video game. Giving up 60 pounds, a foot of reach, and almost 8 inches in height against a historic level puncher with agility and a very conservative style that limits risk to go with it? It wouldn't be pretty. It wouldn't be exciting. It would be an exercise in futility akin to watching a bull chase a matador that happens to be bigger than the bull is.
Probably right about 9. Completely wrong about the cuts stoppage that never happened. You weren’t there and don’t know the severity as compared with today’s stoppages. He never did have a fight stopped on cuts. Also I believe wrong on the decisions. He won them fair and the Lowry fight nothing is mentioned in biographies of the fight being that close where it would be deemed controversial. Crowd booed because some say no KO some say bad decision. I’ll stick w the judges or refs as they have the best views. Lastarza same thing.
Nope I'm right about the two cuts stoppages.I have the quotes from the two referees for both the fights he was in danger of being stopped in ie Simmons and Charles 2. The two controversial verdicts. The Lastarza fight Jessie Abramson of the New York Daily Herald called the decision "paper thin and exceedingly odd." According to newspaper reports, it was condemned around ringside as a miscarriage of justice. The Lowry fight. Michael J. Thomas of the Providence Journal wrote, "Marciano did not win the fight. This reporter gave it to Lowry, six rounds to four.” The crowd of 3,696 booed the decision and some wondered if Lowry had thrown the fight. "There were some questions as to whether Lowry, who had come close to knocking out Marciano in the second, third and fourth rounds, deliberately bogged down in his attack after the fourth stanza," Thomas wrote. "Lowry stopped using his uppercut after the fourth. He went into a shell and only occasionally landed power shots. He seemed to be carrying Marciano." In his book Rocky Marciano: The Rock of His Times, Russell Sullivan wrote the following: "It was Lowry, not Marciano, who was on the verge of scoring an early knockout, stinging Marciano with two terrific rights in the first round and then rocking him with two mighty uppercuts in the second. By the fourth, a staggered Marciano seemed just one punch away from being knocked out. But then, inexplicably, Lowry stopped fighting and retreated into a shell despite warnings from the referee to open up and a cascade of boos from the crowd. To many, it appeared that Lowry was deliberately carrying Marciano. Was foul play afoot? Was Lowry getting paid to lose? Or was he merely tiring? Whatever the reason, a revived Marciano managed to rally in the late rounds even though many of his punches missed their mark or lacked force. On the basis of his aggressiveness and constant punching, Marciano won a unanimous decision from the judges. Most observers felt, however, that Lowry should have won." You seem to be in denial about these ,it doesn't matter ,they are a matter of public record and as such, cannot be so denied.
How can something be paper thin and a miscarriage of justice? I get what the papers wrote...reporters write a lot of things I disagree with. Alvarez v GGG comes to mind in recent memory. If one reads those headlines seventy years later they may also think it was a miscarriage of justice but Alvarez won both close fights imo. I suppose it depends who you ask but the most important people with the best seats thought he won and if the crowd was split how can you claim otherwise? Every fighter has close fights on their record.
They were there ,you weren't! But WTF would they know right ? I get that you would agree with it if the roles were reversed.I'm wasting no more time on this, I'm out, and already regretting I took your posts here seriously!
