Frazier vs. Marciano

A lot of those early fights were early round blowouts against soft opposition though.

Frazier stepped up in competition almost instantly. One year into his career he fought Oscar Bonavena, the next year he fought Machen, Chuvalo, Jones and by 1968 he was already a heavyweight title holder.

 

There 1st bout was in Camden, Walcott's home town.

Louis was always a force, BUT with only 3 KO's in 9 bouts when he had 52 in his other 61 bouts speaks for itself. A couple friends of mine fought exhibitions against Louis in the early 1950's too. He was far from the punching machine he once was. Agramonte was KO'ed 7 times during his career, he would not laswt 2 rounds with a prime Louis. As far as Savold goes, even Lee's close friends told me that he was just a puching bag at that time in his career.

Your entitled to your opinion, BUT I respectfully disagree with you. Look any thing can happen in a fight as we all know, BUT I just feel that Frazier was just a little better then Rocky was.

 

True

 

If he was such a punching bag, than why did Lee just recently knockout top contender european champ bruce woodcock, and why was savold rated # 2 in the world and recognized heavyweight champion by BBC when he fought louis?

 

When he fought Rocky he wasn't rated anymore. He was rated last in November of 1951 (so that means a few months before that) and he fought Rocky in February 1952.

Savold's manager stopped the bout between the 6th and 7th rounds in that bout with Rocky.

At the end of 1950, he was rated #2, BUT that only shows the weakest in the division at that time:

As selected by The Ring magazine in the February 1951 issue.

Ezzard Charles, Champion

1. Joe Louis
2. Lee Savold
3. Joey Maxim
4. Clarence Henry
5. Bob Baker
6. Rex Layne
7. Jersey Joe Walcott
8. Jack Gardner
9. Lee Oma
10. Rocky Marciano

 

I have to agree with Hascup on this one. In 1951, Joe Louis was long-long past the days where he was scoring back to back early KO's over the likes of Schmeling, Sharkey, Braddock, Baer, Carnera, etc.. To go from basically leaving hall of famers knocked senseless on a regular basis to not even being able to finish fringe contenders and journeyman is a clear indication that his lightening fast combo-punching ability had diminished.

 

Thank You, I am sure we will disagree on something else in the future, BUT that's what makes it all Great.

 

You have to start paying attention better. I never said anything about marciano, I said savold was rated # 2 when he fought louis, and I stand by that statement. In fact, you proved it to me right there. If savold was so washed up when he fought joe louis, then how was he rated # 2 in the world?

Your calling Clarence Henry, Rocky Marciano, Bob Baker, Rex Layne, Jersey Joe Walcott "weak" contenders?

 

What journeyman was louis unable to finish? the only journeyman louis fought in his comeback was andy walker. louis knocked him down 3 times and finished him off in round 10.

Louis also knocked out the # 2 rated heavyweight in the world with 1 punch, left charles and marciano's faces battered to shreds, and he knocked out nino valdez and pat valentino out cold. Im sure you've seen the valentino clip on youtube, its frightening. The man could still hit hard. Raw Power is the last thing to leave a fighter.

This content is protected

Could sonny liston still hit hard in the 1960s? Joe Louis in the 1950s knocked out more rated contenders than him.


George Foreman failed to knockout almost every single rated contender he faced in the 1990s, does that mean he couldn't hit hard anymore?

 

Let's try and decipher it this way. Do you honestly feel that Louis's punching abiltiy ( one-punch or otherwise ), was anything like it was 10-15 years earlier? He went from brutally creaming 6'5" hall of famers to decisioning men who weren't even close in status. Frankly, I don't see how a comparison can even be made. While Joe may have still had power in a single shot, we have to remember that the core of his finishing abilty came in the reflexes and the ability to fire off combinations - not single bombs. He wasn't really that type of a puncher.

 

Do you honestly think Savold should have been rated so high. In his last 12 bouts before he fought Louis, he won only 6 of them (6-4-2). When he fought Louis has rating was down to #4.

 

Its a fact a fighters reflexes will go but a fighter never loses his punch...Dempsey proved vs Sharkey and Louis was still a powerfull puncher until the end. Archie Moore had KO power when he left the ring and Foreman was still punching hard and learned to relax more as he aged.....reflexes and the legs can go but power stays...Holmes and Ali and Foreman still had fights left in there later days...Walcott,Lewis,Liston and Toney(vs Rahman) kept there power

 

Good Post, I agree 100%

 

Although the question was directed at Suzy, I will give my answer by saying no. Based on his career record, I do not see the justification for having a man who only won 6 of his last 12 bouts in a #2 spot, regardless of who those 12 fights were against. I hate to take the discussion down this road, but the stark reality of the fact is that the quality of the heavyweight picture had diminished significantly by 1950. Most of the upper tier fighters were aging men and you had a lot of contenders that in other eras would have likely bore the label of journeyman or at the very best, fringe contender. I don't know why the hell Savold was rated so high, unless it was a promotional stunt to give Louis a win over a top rater so that he could be catipulted back into contention... However, Fixes and conspiracy theories aren't welcomed here at ESB.

 

They always say that the power is the last to go BUT a prime Louis would have KO'ed all these guys he fought in the early 1950's. Do you honestly think that Andy Walker would have lasted 10 rounds with Louis in his prime.

Just because you still have a punch, doesn't mean your going to score KO's. You need reflexes, putting together combination punches and strong legs, and Louis just didn't have those at that time as he once did.