The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

I'm done with Jason, Chok, and Gazelle on the subject of Rocky. Permanently. Everything goes in one ear and out the other or worse: words get completely misconstrued and reworded completely even after you clarify things in plain English.

And no, it has nothing to do with me not accepting someone disagreeing with me. They are genuinely terrible communicators when it comes to Rocky for whatever reason and several people have noticed the same thing.

 

In what way was Joe Walcott dominant?

He went 10-9 in his last 19 fights, 1-6 in title fights and was stopped in three of those. (His mob buddies made sure he kept getting title shots even when he failed to win the championship … if he hadn’t beaten Ezz, he probably would have gotten four or five more cracks at him given how he was dominated in the previous one and still was able to step to the front of the pack yet again to finally win it).


He had a nice little run in 1945-46 but most of those guys he beat weren’t world-class, and he lost to an 11-15 guy in that stretch.

That’s below the standard for which you criticize old, second-career Foreman and Holmes and more inconsistent than Holyfield, given he padded his record more during that stretch than Holy did.

Good for Joe on finally winning a belt but he was hardly dominant.

 

Who cares? Archie Moore fought George Abinet 6-15 in his 205 fight he must have really took the easy road.
All seriousness some boxers r just warm ups. Rocky was learning as we went. Heck Marciano didn’t even look fully refined till his last fight. His prime was prob Matthews to Charles 2. But style wise he still continues to look smoother and smoother till his last fight. He didn’t box as a youth and have 300 amateur fights.
I think we all agree as far as strength of schedule goes Rocky’s was lighter then most. You r correct there. But his top wins imo r as good as any which is where we disagree. I think the micro analyzing of every opponent he ever faced with a scrutiny no fighter can live up to is a bit much. If we did that w Liston or Holmes or Foreman or Tyson you’d find their best wins r no better then Rocky’s and their opponents were also flawed. Some were older some younger but the top wins were all decent. Actually very few have so many wins against HOF fighters. Which may not be important to you but I think it’s important in determining quality.

 

Rocky’s era was not dominated by shop worn old guys. It was dominated by Rocky. Archie’s prob the best contender of the time. Followed by the likes of Harold Johnson, Layne, Nino, Baker. Charles and Walcott were the beginning of the end of the 40s era. Charles went on to fight a little longer winning some and losing some. But they didn’t dominate Rocky’s era. Archie Moore dominated under Rocky beating out everyone he didn’t Nino, Baker, Henry, Johnson. While Marciano took out the other half he didn’t in Chalres, Walcott, Louis, Layne.

side note Holyfield was consistent till he wasn’t. he was for a time the dominating force of the HWs. I don’t think that’s ever been a question.

 

I think you did an excellent job of summing up the era. The dominant heavyweights were Louis in the 1940's and then Marciano in the early 1950's. Old Walcott was only a one year champion and hardly dominant, as a critical poster pointed out above.

 

I think it fair to criticize both Marciano and Foreman for fighting set-ups when they were established contenders.

However, this does not detract from their top victories.

 

Took you long enough.

 

Answer the question or make a Poll.

 

Come again ?

Holyfield beat Paycheck Douglas, not Holyfields fault, went 12 with fossil Foreman, was almost stopped by journeyman Cooper, went another 12 with fossil Holmes, got plenty of flak from the press of his Fossil performances and then got matched with a green Bowe who best him from pillar to post, literally.

Holyfield came to fight, was in shape, did not carry a lot of baggage and despite being the PED King of the decade was never ever dominant.

Marciano was dominant in his era, that is a fact.

 

Who was better in Holys reign? Lewis and Bowe weren’t even started out yet when he was the only one left. Not saying he was an all time dominant champ but he was the best for a period of time. Of course he struggled w all time greats…they’re all time greats.

 

Agreed. That’s the context here. Pointing out the exact same process being applied to just about everyone not just Rocky.

 

Oh why is this? You dont want to broaden your knowledge? You already knew Charles most recent spectacular wins meant as ex champ he was voted fighter of the month ahead of his challenge to Marciano? You already knew the details of Charles break from boxing during the war years? You already knew Charles fought mostly HW boxers upon return from the war and that the “myth of his LH prime” ignore the fact he was never a LH who only fought Light heavyweights since he was always fighting and campaigning amongst heavyweights.

Doesn’t it do one some good to listen to an alternative line of thought?

Not true. I was merely showing clear evidence of Charles strong ability during Marcianos championship reign. A clip of the champion Marciano being introduced to ex champ charles at one of Ezzard wins. Sensational.

This is strictly your opinion..and it’s based really on a belief that new is good and old is bad. The new veterans always have to be better than the old veterans and not on the actual circumstances.

well let’s look at the facts. Charles was absent during the war two years. he had barely been around much longer than 2 years before it. He started over. Fresh.
charles 2nd career was only 8 years long until his 1955 decline. he was knocking out world class guys throughout each of the 8 years, it wasnt until his 9th year (after the hammering from marciano) that he tipped over the top. The ludicrous tough matching and schedule in 1955 utterly ruined his health.


I cannot accept he was "past it" untill that 1955 point since many of the guys he beat in the 36 months after losing his title were as strong if not better than many of the heavyweights he fought earlier. no way was barone and beshore better than layne and satterfield for example. he only lost to johnson on a split yet harold was beter than erv sarlin and joe matisi who lasted the distance with charles prior to winning the title. fadded fighters dont beat beter contenders easier than the weaker ones they struggled with earlier.

When charles fought Marciano he wasnt winning fights with flashes of greatness. he was knocking rated guys out till 54’ and had only been active for 8 years till that point. hardly a shop worn former champ on the downward slope..

The begining of a decline is a fighter who drops a class level since he can no longer knock out fighters at his previous level. a fadded fighter past his prime is one step further. this is a guy who can barley "hold his own" on the fringes of his previous level and is humiliated if he steps up. ezzard charles was neither of these guys between losing the title and chalenging marciano. He was voted by Ring Magazine as “fighter of the month” for knocking out 2 contenders!

 

Wasting ur time w that one…he has no concept that some men share the same fighting styles or that getting hit w less punches on average means your defense is good…say that last one again slowly…and then try to fathom someone not understanding it. Wasting ur time but good points that will be ignored. He doesn’t care how much the shop worn fighters were winning or how they looked on film. They were old and useless. So the wins should be discounted. Doesn’t matter if every fighter to ever live fought old and young. Rocky’s were somehow older and more useless HOF fighters than the rest. 90 year old Ken Norton equals amazing win Charles equals worthless. Once u just bend to the narrative they will stop

 

…it’s a crazy logic of the Millennial age. Anything other than what they think is wrong. Nobody is allowed to disagree.

 

There r plenty of fair criticisms of Marciano
Strength of schedule as a whole. Is on the lighter side. Top heavy imo
He never fought a prime big man…this criticism I understand I don’t think it matters at all. I trained guys and saw with my own eyes men of similar skill combat and every smaller guy in the 180-190 range could hold their own against the 220 plus guys. We have countless documented fights of smaller men over coming bigger ones. Countless. But I get the critic because the only decent guy over 210 was Louis. They want proof they won’t get.
His chin was never tested against a monster puncher…ok sort of. I mean he did fight men w decent KO records who were extremely accurate good punchers but he didn’t fight that one monster puncher who never really knocked out anyone of significance but Is treated as some type of killer like a Wilder or Shavers or Williams. Fair critic I think nonetheless.
What’s not fair is ignoring all the good young prime fighters he beat even if it’s a small list (most guys have a small list here). And belittling HOF fighters w great careers in order to try and make a point of bringing someone down. I for example would not put down Holmes and Foreman and Douglas or Tyson or Dokes to bring down Holyfield. I wouldn’t slam Lewis record for beating a shop worm Holyfield or a to young Michael Grant.