The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

I do know that. It is very well documented that Tony Tubbs arrived in Japan and did nothing in camp so his trainer walked out on him. He couldn’t have done himself justice in that state against anyone.

you are using prime 1973 Norton here. I’m talking about the version who struggled to beat Jimmy Young decisively.

But he was fading. No way Norton was as good as he had been in 1973.

you are talking about a 1973 version of Noron here. Larry fought the guy who was no better than Young and that’s the guy going against Walcott coming off his win over Charles or the Charles comping off his win over Satterfirld or the Moore coming off his win over Valdez.

These are different fights than you WANT them to be

 

You guys need to realise Marciano went 49-0 and beat Joe Louis.

 

Nino lost 4 in a row from 5"10 175 lb. Harold Johnson at the end of 1952 and lost 3 in 1953 to Archie Moore, Billy Gilliam, Bob Baker.

A month after Gilliam beat Valdes Charles beat Gilliam UD, Gilliam was Ko'd by Coley Wallace after Charles who was on a 9-fight win streak (beating Bivins, Layne, Brion, Reynolds) lost to Valdez and a disputed decision to Harold Johnson

Bob Baker who beat Valdes in 1953 was KO'd in 1 by Bob Satterfield in 1 rd. 2 months later and by Archie Moore in 9 rds. in 1954.

Bob S was Ko'd in 2 rds. by a renewed Ezz Charles in electric fashion in 1953 and Charles KO'd Coley Wallace in 1953

In the meantime, Valdes was given a chance to fight for the title against Marciano but was beaten by Archie Moore (who already beat Valdes in 53 and Archie was on a 20-fight win streak and also stopped Baker) Moore beat Valdes again in 1955 for the elimination to fight Marciano - Moore won

Valdes was given another chance 5 months after losing to Moore again in a fight against the 5"10 183 lb. Bob Satterfield - Valdes dropped for a 9 count in the last rd. and lost UD losing badly to Satterfield thus not marketable at that time

there were a lot of moving pieces, but I think anyone who knows anything about boxing knows Marciano fought the deserving men and Nino was given his chance 2 times.

 

That's just not true. Valdes was never promised a title shot. Not for beating Moore or anyone else.

 

Fantastic breakdown. People seem to want to forget these things because they don’t jive with their own agenda.

 

I mean you don't know for a fact the Tubbs who fought Tyson couldn't beat another elite fighter. Especially shopworn 38 year old men who are more than 20 lbs lighter than him with chin issues.

The Norton who nearly beat a prime Holmes and gave him a difficult fight could potentially beat any of Rocky's opponents, end of discussion. Old versions of Charles, Louis, Walcott, and Moore, would not be favored to beat a prime Holmes and might not even make it to the 15th round like Norton did.

The Louis Rocky beat wasn't as good as he had been when he cleared 25 title defenses

The Charles Rocky beat wasn't as good as he had been when he was at light heavyweight, his natural weight, years prior.

Do you really want to play this game and act as if Norton was old and spent when he faced Holmes while ignoring the condition of Rocky's opponents...?

You WANT Rocky's resume full of shopworn old men to be seen as stellar and elite, while trashing Holmes and Tyson for their opponents who weren't nearly as worn out. It's the most hypocritical thing I've seen in the history of boxing discussions.

 

"You want Rocky's resume full of shopworn old men to be seen as stellar and elite"

The difference here is that Marciano's defenders can point out that his best opponents were stellar and elite--Moore, Charles, and Louis, because of their overall careers and then debate how much they had left. When it came to greatness, they had been there and done that.

His critics have the problem that they are pumping for men who were never stellar or elite, like Gerry Cooney. Cooney was a hype job. What tough fight did he ever win? One is entitled to think he would do this or that in an earlier era, but it is only opinion. Based not on anything he ever did but on what you believe he could have done.

The problem with terms like "shopworn" and "mileage" is that they overlook that machines only wear out, but boxers can learn skills. The "Moore at 27" thread has a film of Moore against Richards in 1940, and that site also has the film of the Moore-Olson fight in 1955. The Moore of 1940 was an unpolished middleweight mauler. The Moore of 1955 was a big light-heavyweight and a master boxer.

 

Against Tyson the first round nothing happened. It was light sparring. Embarrassed for the promoters Tyson didn't open up to save from taking Tubs out too early.


And it was also light sparring in round two right up until the moment Tyson opened up with his first real punch.


Tubbs wobbled from it then teetered across the ring out of the way until a grazing blow had him plopped down in a giant heap onto the canvas.


Referee Arthur Mercante said Tubs had been weazing like an old man after the first 40 seconds or so of the first round. It was walking pace. Tubbs was in no shape to fight.

Norton vs Larry was a great fight. It really was. But Larry had a bad arm in this fight and the result must therefore flatter Kenny somewhat because Norton was nowhere near as good in his next few fights….where Ken looked not much better against Ledoux and Cobb than he had looked against Jimmy Young before the Holmes fight.

Louis didn’t have to be as good as he had been when he cleared 25 title defences. He just needed to be more of a live opponent than most of Tysons challengers. Which he was. Recent wins over guys who mattered. Most of the opponents Larry and Tyson beat in title fights had never won a major fight. What major fight had Tyrell Biggs won in the run up to his challenge? Witherspoon? Zanon? At least Old comeback Louis was beating contenders.

Charles was ring magazine “fighter of the month” in march 1954 for his two sensational wins over Satterfield and Wallace. They don’t hand out “fighter of the month” awards to shopworn used up fighters. Not then. Not now. Why do you think it was that Ring Magazine awarded Charles?

Did Tyson or Holmes sign to fight anyone while they had been awarded “fighter of the month”?

I have already won because what I am saying is true. Compared to title challengers who had not won major fights in the run up, Moore, Walcott and Charles were better prepared against Rocky than the majority of Larry or Tysons opponents and I believe these 3, Walcott, Charles and Moore, beat any man Larry or Tyson beat in title fights.

Holmes and Larry’s men, in comparison to the best 3 Rocky fought, were badly prepared. As good as they were at their best as individuals, on the night they were reduced because of factors of activity and competition that favoured the champion. The younger ones had never won major fights. The older ones dug up or inactive. Years away from decent competition. That’s not trashing on Larry and Mikes opponents that’s how it was. They didn’t fight many that had recently won against someone who mattered. It’s documented that way because it is what happened. Just ask yourself “what win gave them that fight”. There are a very select few that were in shape that had won proper fights. But I doubt you can name them because you can’t look past how good Walcott Charles and Moore still were.

 

HOW IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING WHAT THE ACTUAL ****

I don't come to this website for a week and it went from 30 pages to 50 pages holy moses

 

Correction: Rocky's opponents had "been there, done that" when they were younger and less shopworn than when they faced him. That's the elephant in the room you guys keep ignoring.

 

Rocky Marciano is a deity to some people.

 

I was planning on reading it at some point, but I might just give up. By the time I catch up it'll be 100 pages ;_;

 

Your opinion on whether or not Tubbs could or couldn't beat anyone else that night is just that: your opinion.

I can name over 50 boxers who I think would've beaten the Joe Louis that Rocky beat if you want to go there.

None of Rocky's opponents go 15 with prime Holmes. None.

38 year old, gunshy Joe Louis who just spammed jabs all night was more of a live opponent than prime Berbick, Ruddock, or Bruno...? Are you sure about that?

The HW division was clearly in shambles if a 32 year old light heavyweight with 95 fights is winning fighter of the month. Charles had suffered a brutal KO loss to Charles and was suffering from an incurable disease.

Fighter of the month or not, when Charles fought Rocky, he wasn't as good as he was in his prime as a light heavy.

If you think Norton was more shopworn against Holmes than Charles, Moorer, Louis, or Walcott were against Rocky, you need to stop smoking crack. Rocky's opponents had been in 2x as many fights as Norton, had longer careers, were biologically older, had even more losses, had been in more divisions, fought more often each year, had more grueling training camps, and had even more brutal KO losses than Norton.

The only thing you've won is "most delusional poster of the month" and having the distinction of not understanding how biological works.

No one is looking past his good Rocky's opponents were. You are the one looking past the wear and tear they had when he fought them.

Type all the long winded paragraphs you want. It won't change the fact Tyson and Holmes fought way more young, prime, athletic contenders and champions. And trying to pretend their opponents were more shopworn than Rocky's is what Gen Z kids would call "huffing copium". In other words, a very desperate and shallow attempt to cope with reality.

 

I certainly don't plan to stick around that long.

3 of the people keeping this thread alive have held the exact same opinions for at least 5 years and I'm not even remotely exaggerating. They will sometimes even repeat the same talking points word for word without any new insights. Doesn't matter whether you debate these issues politely, or rudely, with logic or emotion, with evidence or pure reason. Rocky is their god and he is above any sort of criticism whether it's legacy or h2h discussions.