Rocky Marciano vs Larry Holmes, with poll

I first watched this fight in1966 when I bought it so I think I'm up to speed with it. Savold was a washed up fighter who had won just half of his last dozen fights.
Louis was kept away from punchers on his comeback only taking the Marciano fight because he got nearly all the $$$ ,and he knew Walcott wouldn't fight him again.
If you want a detailed analysis of it and the Marciano fight , you can do know better than read AJ Leibling's," The Sweet Science"
Eight months after this fight Savold was tossed like a bone to Marciano.
Marciano was sloppily awful, but in fairness to him he was just over a bout of flu.
Here is the reaction from Savold's manager and the Boxing Commissioner after Savold was rescued by his corner.
"Like Wednesday night when to all intent and purposes he ended the career of the veteran Lee Savold. It is no exaggeration to say that Marciano slaughtered Savold. The 35-year-old Englewood, N. J., fighter was a blood-soaked hulk when his manager, Bill Daly, asked Referee Pete Tomasso to stop the uneven match at the end of the sixth round.

"The will was there but not the body," said Daly. "I'm going to advise Lee to retire from the ring tomorrow."

John (Ox) DaGrosa, Pennsylvania state athletic commissioner, said he was going to suspend Savold indefinitely and ask him to retire."
ps "Squire Bill Daly ," was not known for either his compassion ,or his probity.It's commonly believed that the 2nd Woodcock fight was a fix.

 

Me too, I also enjoy this aspect.

 

Yes you are correct, you cracked it. that would definitely be the way for Larry to beat Rocky. I have always said I can make a case for Larry to win, it’s just 15 round is a very long time against a guy with the punch Larry had a hard time to see coming. The overhand right. Ernie. Tyson. Renaldo. Even David Bey. They all tagged Larry with it.

I can see both winning. They are tremendous fighters together. I am a fan of both guys.

 

Yes a good read. You asked what Louis did to be #2 and as i said he beat the #3 which was basically what Norton did. The AAP report was extremely glowing. Savolds only blemish in his previous 6 fights was a DQ from an alleged low blow which was immediately avenged. I'd assume Woodcock was top 10.

 

Louis beat the no 3 Savold and Norton beat the no 3 Young that is the only similarity imo Savold was thoroughly washed up , and was retired for his own protection .Young was not, 2 years later I watched him floor and embarrass the British Champion John L Gardner.

 

Yes but a rating is a rating. Beating the #3 always does something for you. Savold had beaten a contender his previous fight i believe.

 

I want to see that fight. Was it any good?

 

On paper, Holmes.

In the ring? Marciano is a live underdog.

 

I already agreed Norton had slow feet and that Rocky would close the distance faster.

I'm saying Rocky was not faster of hand than Norton and that Norton would be able to reach Holmes faster due to height and reach. This is common sense.

Well Rocky would not be able to land more than he received against a mobile big man with a razor sharp jab. Those didn't exist in his era. He got a black eye from the corpse of Louis who didn't have much left but his jab and had to mix in fouls and rough house tactics to beat Lastarza.

You think Holmes isn't going to be able to land a significant number of jabs on Rocky who frequently ended fights with black eyes, cuts, and welts against fighters who didn't have 50% of Holmes skill? What about the uppercut, framing, clinch, and reset? Rocky would need to walk through a mine field just to get to his preferred range.

I give Rocky a 35% chance at best to win. Never said Holmes would always easily win every single time.

It's the styles, Rocky's tendency to have facial damage, plus the size difference. Recipe for disaster. Rocky's non stop pressure, stamina, and power keeps him in the game tho. He might be able to win 1 in a best of 3 and he'd have a decent punchers chance.

I feel like you're completely undermining how much of a factor Norton's size played.

Frazier is a better overall fighter than Lyle, yet Lyle was far more successful and came awfully close to beating Foreman compared to Frazier who got steam rolled both attempts. Par of the reason for this is that Foreman could frame, pivot, and keep Frazier off of him whenever he attempted to get close and work inside. He had a much harder time controlling Lyle who had very similar height and reach to Foreman.

Similarly, Holmes could only get away with dancing and keeping Norton at the end of his jab for so long before he had to stand and fight. Unless you're literally 2-3x faster than you're opponent with a big gap in skill, you're simply not going to be able to consistently outmaneuver a similarly sized opponent and keep them at Bay. It's basic anatomy. If Norton sees a jab coming he knows he can simply stick his own jab out and more often than not, his will land as well because the height and reach are similar. It's why he was effective against Ali.

Rocky cannot jab with Holmes, he cannot beat him to the punch or Parry the jab to land a big shot because he is both shorter and slower. He could try to time it to land an overhand right but even this would be difficult since he has such short arms and holmes would definitely be waiting for it. Shavers was a little shorter than Holmes, but he had very long arms and could land looping overhand rights over the jab.

Nearly every single Rocky fight I watch he has eaten shots at least once or was willing to slug it out.

That would be his only chance in this fight.

What part of Norton uses a crab guard and rocky doesn't, that Norton had the better jab, and parried far more than Rocky do you not understand?

Norton already had a high pace and had superb stamina. It's just that against Holmes he had trouble in the early rounds due to the lateral movement just like the 2nd Ali fight.

Norton did not have the chin to make his offense his defense. I'm honestly surprised that I have to even point this out.

 

Anyone can clip highlights to make someone look like a defensive wizard.

I already did a thorough break down of Louis vs Marciano and how Marciano was both wildly inaccurate and got hit a lot.

He was wild and got hit a lot against Moore.

Got hit plenty against Walcott.

Punched extremely wildly against cokkel swinging for the fences with little regard for what was coming back at him.

Got hit plenty against Charles.

I've seen nearly every fight on YouTube. He was not a defensive wizard and was not hard to hit. Every ranked/name opponent he fought landed plenty of flush shots. One of these days I'm going to do a break down of the stats since you seem to just turn a blind eye whenever dozens of posters have told you what they see with their own eyes.

 

You aren’t watching the same fights as me. Nor the people over at compubox whom do this for a living.

you could hit marciano with one shot but once again show me the video of him getting peppered with combos? Besides round one of Walcott (which he was extremely nervous for) you can’t find one. He rarely ever gets hit with more then one punch at a time. Watch the fights closely and you can see the punches more clearly missing him. He was far above average defensively and opponents like Archie Moore even stated so after the fact. They didn’t realize he would be so hard to hit cleanly. He was still not refined come Louis so he did get hit with a few more then normal but considering Louis had one of the best and fastest jabs ever it’s still not a knock on him. That being said if you actually watch the fight Marciano controls it start to finish. Meaning he controlled the pace, distance, etc. he literally had zero problems getting past the jab and landing even if he ate a few along the way.

I have my own eyes that apparently work far better then your stubborn ones. Don’t let emotions get in the way of properly breaking down a fight.

 

Excellent and knowlegeable post!

 

Show us him facing a class prime 6'3"

100% pure hero worship!

 

The jab probably will not be as instrumental against a crowding mauler. We saw this when Larry fought that kind of opponent. even if he brutalised them, the jab was not as key for him as it was against talker guys fighting at arms length.

And seasoned, experienced Guys who fought more regularly weighed less in Rockys time. They were not around in Larrys time. Challengers were bigger but much less experienced. Still guys as big as 1980s heavyweights like Bob Baker, Nino Valdes would lose to the smaller guys.

of course Larry in his prime is a better man than any of the guys Rocky fought..but in terms of actual technical ability I don’t think you can say Larry had 50% more skill than Charles or Moore. Even As an overall proposition I think 50% more is too high. Charles and Moore were very scientific. Among the best technicians in the divisions history.

This is how Larry can win. Using Jack Johnson tactics.

Thats pretty fair actually. I am obliged to agree on that ratio within 3 fights.

I see what you are saying here, but it is just as likely two other factors were at play. One, Foreman simply had Joe’s number. Two, Frazier was out of his depth since the hospitalisation and lower class of opponent since TFOTC.

And yet Foreman had absolutely no problem with the same sized Ken Norton. It was his easiest fight. This proves size is not a fast solution at all time great level doesn’t it? For Ron Lyle there is a Ken Norton demolition to use as an example.

This is correct but at that level, and we are talking the best guys for their style of fighting, it depends on the distance that is being used. Rocky was the best at forcing his range on the other man. The room to extend longer blows is neutralised. But as you correctly say, Larry still had the antidote for that strategy too with his frame, uppercut and clinch game. But it all puts Larry at risk for what Rocky can do to him at that range. It’s not a done deal.

Norton was suited to Ali. And that’s why it was a different fight. Here is where the dimensions work better for Norton from that stance. A different fighter.

Rocky would not want to jab with Holmes.

And this is why Rocky would never operate at a no mans land for him that is suitable for Larry. This is not Tyson against Douglas. Trapped at arms length buying feints. Rocky is hustling inside like Bonavena and Frazier.

Rocky expertly closes distance in a number of ways. Larry can still beat him but we can’t rule out difficulty in landing due to reach at this all time level. Rocky was adept at Luring in an opponent by leaning away or by mauling up close. He could crowd anyone. The lower centre of gravity offset better fighters.

yes. Shavers was shorter than Larry and he landed his overhand right on Larrys chin as did Nick Wells and Mike Tyson. I don’t think the long arms had so much to do with it. A world class fighter pulls the trigger at the right distance. Marciano is not coming out of a fight and saying “I just need longer arms” his whole style was developed by Goldman to bypass reach.

Norton’s pace and stamina could never match Rocky Marciano.

 

Nick Wells was a southpaw! lol