Marciano was better then Joe Frazier

The size difference is not much. Marciano 5'10, Frazier 5'11". Neither was the kind of guy who utilized reach, and Frazier's "almost 20 pounds" comes from the fact that he would come in pudgy, whereas Marciano trained the weight off. Marciano walked around over 200 pounds and easily could have trained up rather than down. As I said on my own analysis, a "slight" advantage.

The much more compelling argument is that Frazier proved it against bigger boys.

 

maybe so.

Hey, it's hardly like saying that.. uhm.. maybe, Cooney was better than Frazier. Or Wilder was better than Frazier.

 

The pros who were around both men all agreed Marciano was better. I think he was to. Better power better chin better style

 

The Frazier that beat Ali in the first fight would've beaten any version of Marciano. It would've been a gruelling fight, though. Rocky had an excellent chin, but all of his best wins were against light heavyweights, albeit very, very good ones. He had immense talent, but I think he falls short because of the thinness of his resume. Aside from an ancient Louis, there's no HW he beat that makes me think he would've beaten Ali, Frazier or Foreman. Prime Louis knocks him out.

 

Marciano has names on his resume that are great boxers like Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles. We're they better heavyweights than Jerry Quarry or Jimmy Ellis? Archie and Ezzard made their names as legends mostly on what they did in the lighter weight classes.
They were certainly skilled and experienced but also shopworn when Marciano faced them.

 

Rocky was a very great heavyweight, but I don't see him surviving the FOTC Muhammad Ali. Much less beating him.

 

I think this would be a great fight. I would lean towards FOTC Frazier but I think it could really go either way.

 

Marciano, stronger, more powerful with two fisted power and harder punching.

 

Frazier not only proved it against bigger HWs. He was much more dominant against a much better, younger, dangerous and durable group of smaller HWs. He has elusive power feats like Chinvalo and Machen. Frazier was a threat in the most dangerous era. Marciano was only a threat because he was fighting in the least dangerous era.



Out of Louis, Ezzard Charles, Walcott and Archie Moore, 42 year old Archie Moore was the one closest to their prime. Louis had lost his power, Charles his quickness. Walcott was only champ because he kept getting title shots. Marciano was Walcotts last fights. Savold while a BBBC champ who at times was ranked in the top 5 wasn't one of the top 20 HWs of his era. Marciano was Savolds last fight.

Its hard to explain how much of a problem having a 68 inch reach at HW is. I made a list of the reaches of HW contenders. Its wildly incomplete because a lot of fighters reach isn't available. But theres 36 HW contenders with a shorter reach then Fraziers. Theres lots of low 70s but just 4 below 70 and just 1 with a shorter reach then Marciano. Mickey Walker. 68 inches is a short reach at WW. Almost all small HWs have something in the 70s.

 

For me Frazier on a technical level was much better, the way he bobbed and weaved to get inside and timed his punches. He was much quicker and more athletic. The best left hook in heavyweight history too. And ofcourse the best win in boxing history.

Marciano's crouch worked in his time to a degree, but he still took too much punishment IMO. There's a reason no boxing trainer taught the crouch and it got abandoned as a style.

For me Marciano isn't that proven. He only fought at the world level for about 4 years and only really fought the top guys for 3 years, Walcott onwards. Valdes was number 1 contender when he won the title, but instead of fighting him he fought LaStarza and Charles who had just lost to Valdes. I imagine Charles being an ex champion was a bigger ticket seller than Valdes, but people would like to see Rocky go in with a 6'3 puncher, I'm sure. I think his management probably decided to steer clear of bigger younger men like Valdes and Baker. Marciano probably beats them as Moore and Harold Johnson did, but styles do make fights, so we'd have more of an idea how he matches up to bigger men if he takes them on. Joe Louis was probably the biggest man he faced and outboxed him fairly easily in the early rounds before Rocky caught up to him. Still that was a Louis that had lost all of his snap in his punches and looked a complete shadow of the younger version.

I will note I don't think I agree his competition overall was poor. The technical skill level of Charles, Walcott and Moore was probably the highest out of any Heavyweight Champions challenger's before the 50s. Charles was certainly past his best though. Walcott probably deserved to be champion after the first Louis fight too, so I don't want to denegrate his level.

It's kind of strange there weren't any top HWs in their 20s during this period. It could be WW2 took out young men who could have potentially gone on to box in this era.

On the topic of reaches, Tyson's 71 inch reach was tiny for his era. But his fighting small and getting inside quickly gave him big advantage on the inside and mid range because he had all the leverage at that distance. I don't think Marciano would be a heavyweight in later eras, they would probably try and get him down to light heavyweight if he fought in the 80s onwards, perhaps cruserweight.

 

I’ll take Frazier over Marciano for the reasons already mentioned

 

To be blunt, I see FOTC Ali as still a h2h MONSTER.

Let's face it, Joe got his head beat in for that victory. There are moments in that fight...I don't think Tyson or Lewis could have stood Ali's assault.

 

So much wrong in one paragraph….others were taught the crouch and lean after most notably Qawi comes to mind.

Marciano didn’t take a lot of punishment he was rarely hit cleanly and compubox numbers have his defense far superior to Frazier’s.

there were plenty of good fighters in their 20s during the era. Layne, Nino, Baker, Lastarza, Henry etc. Archie cleared the field mostly that Rocky didn’t and Marciano cleared Archie.

 

So much wrong in one paragraph….others were taught the crouch and lean after most notably

Archie and Charles > Quarry and Ellis

Archie And Charles had amazing HW resumes. Charles prob known more for his HW wins and Archie was like 64-4 only losing to HOF three of which when he was over 38. He notched wins against all the young prime guys at the time in Nino, Baker, Henry, Satterfield, Bivins, Harold Johnson etc. Quarry snd Ellis were good fighters and it’s worthy of debate but i think Charles and Archie were better.

 

Possible answers:

A) No
B) Hell No
C) Definitely Not
D) As probable as Trump being the best president in America's history

You're not a match for Joe Frazier when you're getting dropped by grandpas.
Still 49-0 though, I'll give him that.