The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

Because Choc lab did! Keep up!
He did fight Wallace in the Ams,and lost.

 

It would be a lot more even than you want to think. These are not the best prepared versions of any of them.

Williams coming off life and death with the irrelevant quick Tillis. Fat Tubbs coming from wishy washy undercard fights. Snipes coming off the floor and actual loss to Coetzee that was incorrectly called a points win. Michael spinks coming off semi retired Cooney and a lay off. Bruno coming off joe bugner and a postponement.

These men were not climbing the ranks or beating other contenders.

Thomas and weaver were good fighters on their best day but Weaver coming off a win over 4-6 Oliver Philips might not be the best weaver. Thomas coming off a win over 26-11 Danny Sutton is not the same as Thomas coming off a win over Witherspoon.

people need to start looking at current form.

compare Holmes coming off losses to spinks and actual retirement to a later comeback upon where he was able to work up to a win over Mercer for context.

 

We are matching them when they fought.Holmes and Marciano . Now will you answer the question or will you do,as you usuallly do and duck it?

 

I’ve already answered it. Since Marcianos men were in better form and having beaten more actual contenders in their last fights they were better prepared, man for man, than the majority of Larry and Tysons guys.

Walcott, Charles, Moore, Lastarza, Louis, Layne were more active and earning their status whereas (for Holmes) Snipes, Williams, weaver less so. (I don’t even need to stoop to Zannon, Scott Frank and Evangelista). I’m talking current form.

For Tyson. Thomas, Tubbs, Spinks, Biggs and the retired Holmes much Less so. You’re only as good as your last fight. So Those versions were barely 50% value and severely reduced operators.

 

Marciano showed occasionally, for example against Walcott and Moore, that when hurt he could turn defensive and display good defensive skills.

He also showed that he often threw defense to the winds when on the attack.

Like Dempsey when he threw defense to the winds against Firpo. Whatever defensive skills Jack had, he wasn't using them.

A fighter throwing defense to the winds at times is relevant in judging him.

*a question with Marciano, and Dempsey, is how much did their attack negate the other fighter's offense. Neither man was easy to knock out.

 

Why am I even talking to you? Stupid me!

 

The dumbest thing about Chok's argument is pretending Rocky's victims weren't heavily shopworn when he fought them, but acting as if Tyson and Holmes' opponents were these decrepit old journeymen.

The double standards, cherry picking, and goal post shifting is so baffling it's almost praiseworthy...!

 

I think I'm done on this thread,when he got involved would have been a good time to stop.

 

"shopworn"

Define shopworn in boxing terms.

The term means "worn or marred"

How does this apply to boxing champions who are holding titles? Or to other boxers who are doing well?

Was the 45 year old George Foreman "shopworn" when he beat Moorer. If not, why not?

Was the 42 year old Larry Holmes "shopworn" when he beat Mercer. if not, why not?

What about the nearly 38 year old Lewis who beat Vitali?

If there any precise boxing meaning of shopworn or is it just a term pulled up when just quoting age doesn't wash as a means of criticizing successful experienced fighters.

Boxing history is full of old guys beating the younger guys.

 

Shopworn is a boxer who been through the ringer with a very long career lasting at least 10-15+ years and/or several dozen tough fights. They have had wars with multiple skilled contenders, usually have been KOd multiple times with multiple losses, tons of wear and tear from over a decade of road work, sparring, skipping rope, hitting the bag, dieting, etc. Basically, it means their bodies have been worn down from a very long grueling career and they don't have much left in the tank.

That perfectly describes Rocky's best opponents if you have a smidgen of honesty. They were already pretty shopworn and had very long and tough careers before he fought them. Just because they still had enough skill and wits to beat some contenders doesn't change the fact their bodies were worn out. Walcott and Louis retired immediately after Rocky beat them. Charles had nearly 100 fights, was suffering the effects of the ALS disease, and wasn't even a natural heavyweight. Moore was anywhere from 38-42 and his legs were gone according to the man himself. All 4 of them had diminished reflexes and explosiveness compared to their prime selves.

 

it’s pretending to say Ezzard Charles blasted out name opponents before he fought Rocky? It’s pretending to say Archie Moore beat big Nino Valdez and Stopped Bob Baker to get his title shot? It’s pretending to say Lastarza beat Dan Bucceroni and Rex Layne? It’s pretending to say Joe Louis beat cesar Brion and Savold to establish the top contender spot? These examples show that they were “ready” to fight and do themselves justice against Marciano, you can’t say otherwise.

There is no pretending in saying Larry Holmes was dug up out of retirement against Tyson having lost his last two fights. There is no pretending in saying spinks himself feasted on nothing but a retired Gerry Cooney and one unqualified European in the years since Tyson amassed a 20 odd fight career and collected 3 belts. Or that Tubbs trainer walked out on him in the week of his fight with Tyson saying Tubbs was in “no condition to fight”. These are correct.

Tyson and Holmes in their championship years both beat everyone Marciano fought. But I recon in thr condition they were in against Rocky, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles and Walcott go unbeaten against any challenger to Tyson or Holmes.

 

Lots of good points here. Two of the best:

"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."

and

"Marciano . . . seems to be hitting as hard and often in the closing stages of a fight as in the early stages."

This seems to be what separates the men from the boys in boxing. Can the fighter carry his power into the late rounds. No matter how lethal a puncher anyone is, they all run into opponents who can survive the early rounds. They have to be able to stay lethal, and early punching power does not necessarily translate into late punching power.

 

By the above definition of shopworn, Moore was shopworn all the way through the 1950's. So was Sugar Ray Robinson and Joe Brown and Sandy Saddler.

What value is there in saying Moore was shopworn but Tony Anthony was not? What value is there in saying Robinson was shopworn but Bobo Olson was not? Winning is a real thing. Claiming a fighter is shopworn is only an opinion and of no value unless it connects to winning and losing.

Competing against the best is what keeps a competitor sharp. Not having tough fights because of layoffs or simple ducking might lead to a more rapid decline.

*The bottom line for me is that I think "shopworn" is meaningless in boxing terms and tells us nothing about how a man is fighting at a given time. It appears to me a way to prop up men who overall have had few fights and even fewer fights against top opposition, when comparing them with fighters who have fought and beaten them all.

 

Last post on this thread.
You have read Heller's interview with Moore.
In it he mentions he had no legs for the Marciano fight,isnt that an example of being shop worn?
Wouldnt a 41 years old man who had 177 fights on his clock in his 20 years career ,[nearly9 fights a year ] be shopworn? Compare Moore's movement at 41 ,with his movement in his Australian fights.
Wouldn't a 33 years old man,[ Charles], be shopworn if he had crammed 97 fights,[7 1/2 fights a year Charles didnt fight in45 , ] into his 14 year career? It's not just the fights ,its the sparring, the training,the roadwork.

 

If activity keeps people sharp then why did Rocky only fight 7 title fights in his whole career? Rocky existed in an age where many top level boxers had twice as many fights as he did. Archie Moore, a much greater fighter than Rocky, had more than four times as many. Archie Moore was a such a real man that he fought Ali in reality, not in a fixed computer simulation to sell tickets to the Columbus Day crowd. He fought Floyd Patterson as well, I'm not sure Marciano would accept such a fight as Floyd could have smoked him.

Marciano fought 7 title fights and in those he fought 0 prime all time greats, and in some of those fights it was apparent that if those men were in form, they would have likely won. He really fought 0 great heavyweights when they were great. Rocky was a great fighter, just not a top 10 heavyweight for me, or at least not near the top 5.

I have waxed poetic on this subject several times and there is a 'Marciano's opponents suck' omnibus somewhere in my post history, so I'll save the text.

I'll point out that he didn't even beat La Starza in the ring, but only via technicality. Rocky was declared winner by the referee after a draw was rendered by the judges. Rocky's real record is 48-0-1 in my mind. The only reason this isn't mentioned more is that Marciano scored a KD and would have won on the ten point must system.