The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

So the boxers Holmes and Tyson beat were "bums" but you think Rocky had an amazing career.

Rocky's opponents would be humiliated if they fought prime Holmes or Tyson and you know it.

 

I think Holmes and Tyson prob win them all. But that’s why they’re great. As is Marciano. But they’re top wins don’t look as good and u should know that just by looking at the names. I wouldn’t even sleep on Walcott as he’s better than Norton who gave Larry all he can handle and Buster.

 

The difference is, Rocky would not be undefeated if he fought Holmes or Tyson's opponents. Rocky also wouldn't have these "amazing defensive statistics" you love to bring up either.

Point being, Rocky's defensive stats don't mean much when 90% of his resume are bums/journeymen any decent fighter could've beaten, and the rest are shopworn old men or hype jobs.

 

Both Walcott & Norton were past their best when beaten by Marciano & Holmes, but gave a turn-back-the-clock type performance (Walcott especially).

I’d rank Walcott a little higher than Norton on their best days but at that point in their careers? Who knows. Much of a muchness.

 

How can you Rocky fans accept this quote where Moore suggests Rocky was just a mindless slugger throwing heavy punch after heavy punch, and then at the same time claim he was some well rounded boxer with excellent defense...?

 

Take it in context though and look at the most recent opponents a challenger beat before fighting the champion.

Marcianos guys were beating better guys more recently than the majority of challengers Larry and Tyson got.

how relevant were the men Spinks and Tubbs, Biggs, Thomas last fought before fighting Tyson? Anyone is only as good as their last fight.

Same question about Larry. Even the best of them. Cooney, Witherspoon, snipes,Williams, Weaver. Never mind the lesser guys. Those challengers were not climbing the ranks and beating legit men were they?

Charles had to knock off Wallace and Satterfield. Walcott beat Charles. Roland had to beat Layne and Dan Bucceroni. Moore had Valdez and Baker. Even old man Joe Louis had Bivins, Brion and Savold.

All Rockys men were proven at that time against the current competition and that goes a long way.

 

Lmao u r unhinged. On the doll show us where Rocky touched u

 

I've never tried to quantify the measurement.
There is a difference between saying the hardest punch I have ever taken was thrown by X,and the hardest
puncher I ever fought was Y.
Lastarza said I've been hit by harder punchers than Marciano but never with so many consistantly hard punches.
Looking at Lastarza's record,its hard to pick whom he might be referring to.

Marciano's conditioning seems to have allowed him to be hitting just as hard and often in the closing stages of a fight as in the early rounds.

If he had possessed the accuracy of a Joe Louis he might have scored several more one punch ko's. Both men were looking for the ko from the get go ,but in entirely different ways.
Louis methodically worked his way into punching range behind his jab ,putting his opponents on the back foot as they were well aware of the murder he carried in his fists,Joe was patiently seeking openings for his blistering combinations.
Marciano also put his foes on the back foot, his lack of reach and overall stature dictated his come forward tactics, he had no choice but to close the range and engage inside.
Rocky didn't operate behind a jab , to attempt to do so with his short arms would have been stupid.Marciano came at you in a half crouch ,leaning to his right,weaving under your shots throwing hard punches incessantly as soon as he was in range, many of the punches did not land in vital areas,but they were ,as Tyson said ,"thrown with bad intentions," and he was capable of throwing them all night.
There have been several of squat bangers in the heavyweight division,but not that many have had the success Marciano achieved,there are a couple of reasons for this,most of them were not willing to take the return fire necessary to land your own shots,and those that were generally lacked the stamina/conditioning/heart to keep it up.
Joe Frazier was one of the exceptions.
Galento had awful footwork,he had the power to get you in trouble but seldom the quickness to finish good men.
Tua showed it it a few fights,but after sampling a couple of Lennox Lewis' rights,opted for survival.
Marciano would not have done that ,he would have swarmed forward trying for the ko with all that was in him ,and imo ,been carried out on his shield.

 

U people like to pick n choose ur quotes. Let’s not take the ones where corners and opponents tell u he’s harder to hit than he looks. No just pic n choose what u like discard what u don’t. Let’s just ignore film and stats taken to while we r at it. The films there geniuses go find us film where Rocky is constantly getting lit up w punches. It doesn’t exist. A street brawler like Galento or wilder don’t make their career w out getting knocked out. Eventually they run into higher competition which knocks them out. If four HOF ers couldn’t do it in 6 fights and only were able to hit him at a 22 percent clip I’d say that’s pretty good. But u keep thinking whatever crazy thoughts runs through that head

 

Okay .let's match;
Lastarza
Cockell
Layne
Bucceroni
Wallace
Satterfield
Brion
Savold
Against
Cooney
Witherspoon
Shaver
Snipes
Weaver
Berbick
Norton
Round Robin Which era has the most wins?

 

Why not use the best contenders of the early 50s? No Archie Moore, Nino Valdez, Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Harold Johnson. Go and match them

 

Because Marciano never fought 6 of the 8 I named and Holmes fought all those I named.
Marciano did not fight
Valdez
Baker
Henry
Johnson
So what relevance would they have to this round robin?
BTW all of them were better than ;
Lastarza
Cockell
Brion
Wallace
Bucceroni

 

Marciano didn’t fight Bucceroni Brion or Wallace why list them? And if u just wanted to sue Marciano opponents u could have used Charles Walcott Moore Louis. Ur asking to compare worse fighters he didn’t even fight.

 

So you want to ignore the entire career and only look at the last fight of their best opponents?

How about the much more significant statistics: Holmes and Tyson beat way more prime 20 year olds who had less wear and tear, less losses, and had more impressive athleticism (power, speed, chin, footwork)...? Oh, you don't want to talk about that, do you?

 

YOU are the one picking and choosing!

YOU are the one who ignores quotes like the one where Moorer said he was a mindless slugger! There are over a dozen quotes where Rocky's opponents, journalists, etc describe him as a "street fighter", a "bull with boxing gloves", etc. They were all lying and wanted to tarnish his reputation? How about his own ****ing brother who said he was an aggressive come forward slugger who lacked defense and finesse, was Peter Marciano biased against him too...?!?

YOU are the one using some weird statistics taken from only 9 of Rocky's fights to prove he has excellent defense!

I can think of over 20 boxers can have a 22% defensive rating against a bunch of old, washed up, light heavyweights...!

Maybe YOU have been delusional this whole time, ever thought of that...? Have you even considered the possibility...?

This weekend I'm going to give you my own personal punch stats for 5 of Rocky's fights. I can't wait for you to tell me how I don't know what I'm looking at.