Once again, it's time to throw a curveball at one of the standard matchups... Marciano vs Frazier will be 15 rounds under early 60s rules. The twist: All of the poll options will include whether or not you, the voter, have boxing experience. Specifically, whether you've had at least one amateur or professional match. The last time we did this with Wlad vs Louis, we had a pretty interesting result. Votes ended in nearly a dead heat, with roughly equal numbers of boxers vs non-boxers on each side. (https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...vs-joe-louis-with-a-major-twist.677008/page-2) Now it's time to do it again. As before, I've included a safety option for anyone who votes before they realize what the poll options are. I'll also put my money where my mouth is and go first.
I did take Tai Chi so I am somewhat of an expert on mortal combat and I’ve got to say I like my chances against both of them on the cobbles.
I thought Tai Chi was for mortal wombats. I’ll throw my hat in the ring. I’m really tired of these know nothing, arm chair critics of whom I actually number. We have NO clue but we need to spout our rubbish anyway because we crave attention. Nice idea. Not saying this match up doesn’t fill the bill, but I guess the goal is to think of matches that will more likely polarise opinions between the arm chairers and the hands on guys. I just watched a vid of Joe swimming which leads me to think he’s definitely “got this”.
Problem is the usual problem with Marciano. He doesn't look like he should be beating the guys that he beat. Frazier seems technically better but I think the raw physicality is with Marciano. I'm guessing most of the boxing guys will go with Frazier, and I can understand why. I think that slugging with Marciano is a fools errand but if you had to pick a guy at around his size to do it, it would probably be Frazier. Picking Marciano with the caveat that it'd be a crapshoot in real life.
I like your argument. I picked Frazier and still do. However, Rocky was one of those fighters who could belie and transcend the “on paper” hypothetical projections allowed for him.
Curiously, the biggest discrepancy so far is the very large proportion of non-boxers (myself included!) voting for Frazier. Joe also holds the edge in boxing voters, but not as drastically.
I'll throw a few considerations out there on either side: * Frazier is a heavier man by something like 20 pounds, and also faster. Both are useful assets in a fight between sluggers who like to push their opponents back. * Marciano moved in a less predictable way than Frazier (although he lacked Frazier's perpetual motion), and had two-handed power. * Frazier had trouble with Bonavena, who shared some characteristics with Marciano. Marciano, to my knowledge, never faced anyone that similar to Frazier. * Marciano is shorter and has the shorter arms, which might, oddly, help him on the inside against Frazier, in what will probably be a fight in the pocket like the early parts of Frazier/Quarry. * A lot of Marciano's arsenal was useful at closing the distance against taller opponents. Which isn't really needed here. * Marciano cuts easily. It's been pointed out against this in previous threads that Frazier tended to swell up, though swelling may not be as likely to end a fight. * Marciano probably hits harder, but Frazier stopped a lot of contenders during his rise to the top. If you take their records before Frazier's first loss, both look like pretty good punchers. * Marciano may have an edge in durability, but it isn't really huge, since he never faced anybody like Foreman. * Marciano's stamina may be slightly overplayed. Frazier is probably the cardio king here, although the difference isn't vast. Marciano will be pushing around more of Frazier's weight than vice versa, though, so to the extent it matters, I might go with Frazier having the stamina edge as the fight goes on.
Indeed. Bunch of nuisances, all of us. Just look at the results so far. Very measured 4 to 3 lead for Frazier among boxing people. Lopsided 13 to 2 walkover for Frazier among the arm chairers. Myself included. Ugh. I ask you...
Lest my extensive boxing knowledge and acuity mislead , I will repeat that I too am part of the placebo group, having never been injected with legit boxing experience, just fed otherwise on a high dosage sugar pill diet of arm chair viewing with consequential inflated opinions. You’ve picked a good match up in so far as revealing a measure of discrepancy. Is it happenstance or something something us couch spuds are missing? 49-0 is no mean feat with a strong aura of invincibility that, while difficult, has to be divorced from objective assessment. Your analysis is good. Perhaps those selecting Rocky are also allowing him more for intangibles like heart, durability, tenacity will to win etc - again, 49-0 rings loud. Interesting you referenced Bonavena. There was an article in an old boxing mag. which I think was written not long after Joe’s first fight with Bonavena, comparing Frazier to Rocky. Perhaps written a bit later, I can’t recall for sure. I think it basically had their attributes even except for CHIN, which, particularly in light of the KDs suffered v Ringo, the article described as possibly being Joe’s fatal flaw. I don’t agree but interesting to know that was the thinking of some parties at the time. It will be interesting to read the opinions of those who selected Rocky.
Currently still quite close among boxing people, as the last one with Klitschko and Louis was. This one I didn't (primarily) pick as a common flashpoint, unlike, say, Louis/Klitschko arguably was. More like a matchup often seen as a pick-'em fight.
@Pugguy does raise an interesting question, though: For all those people who HAVE boxed, what are you seeing in this matchup? What are your reasons for believing your pick would win? The couch-bound among us are intrigued.
