Frazier vs. Marciano

That's what it sounds like to me.

 

Doesn't speak very highly of Marciano.

Let's be honest, the heavyweight division was extrmely weak during this period. Somebody mentioned names like Bob Baker, Rex Layne, and Clarence Henry. Baker lost 15 of 68 fights in a 10-year career. Layne lost 17 in a 70 fight career 7-year career (6 of those losses by knockout!). Henry lost 6 of 42 in a 6-year career. There's a reason why journeymen like Jersey Joe Walcott and Lee Savold and light heavyweights like Joey Maxim could make it to the top of the heavyweight ranks.

 

Layne only had 2 defeats when he fought the Rock. Marciano just ruin him imo.

 

In all fairness i agree with your crticisms but the records of fighters have to be taken into consideration. In those days men turned pro with very limited amatuer careers or none at all. In addition, they often fought under unfavorable circumstances which sometimes included holding full time jobs while training for fights.

Therefore, some additional losses are allowable. MY REASONING for claiming that heavyweight boxing was weak during the early 50's, is that I think the war probably took a lot of quality candidates away from the sport both in America and in Europe. Additionally, racial discrimination prevented a lot of young black athletes during the 30's and 40's from emerging as potentially good fighters in the 50's. Such factions as World war II, the great depression and racial discrimination had a huge aftermath effect on the 1950's. The further we ventured away from these periods, the more the talent started to comeback as seen by the 1960's and 70's.

If any of that makes sense.

 

I agree BUT almost every fighter had very limited amateur careers or none at all, so there is the same boat.

 

Walcott may have been considered a Journeyman when he was taking bouts on short notice ,wthout benefit of regular sparring and decent food but to describe him thusly after he hooked up with Felix Bochichio , is wide of the mark.

 

Walcott was one of the better heavyweights of that time, BUT name another top heavyweight that had a record of 10-9 in their last 19 bouts that fought for the title.

By the way, here's a picture of the Monument we put up for Walcott in Camden, N.J.

http://www.trufanboxing.com/origin11.jpg

 

Fair enough.

Still, no one else ever jumped two weight classes to dominate the heavies, and considering that these heavies basically did lose consistently and badly to the very top men, Frazier, Ali, Foreman, later Norton--I think it is fair to raise this issue.

 

I agree with you about the lack of amateur experience. However, that excuses the fact but does change it.

On your historical point, more so the war and less so discrimination. It's well documented that the war was really tough on boxing. Divisional rankings during the war and after were often appeared to be rather rag-tag collection of fighters from several divisions.

Discrimination actually made it more likely that that black boxers would emerge as the leading talent since they would use the sport as a way to get out of their circumstances. We saw similar things when different immigrant groups were dominant at points in boxing history.

 

More like exposed him.

 

Fair enough.

But Marciano had as many pro fights BEFORE he fought Louis as Frazier had in his entire career. And it is really not a provable point. Did Frazier take more punishment against Ali in the FOTC than Louis did against Schmeling in their first fight--yet Louis did not seen to suffer any ill effects at all. Possibly Frazier would have gone back just as fast if he had never fought Ali. We just don't know.

 

No, we don't know, BUT Frazier wasn't the same fighter after the 1st bout with Ali. Frazier was 27 when he fought Ali and Louis was only 22 when he fought Schmeling, maybe that had something to do with it.

 

Name me other heavyweights who fought 20 fighters of which almost every single one of them was ranked in the top20, when they won the title? You could count Lennox Lewis and Muhammad Ali when both of them regained the title for a third time, and perhaps a few obscure other ones, but i'm willing to bet that very few mixed it up with top ranked heavyweights as frequently as Walcott did back then.... which kind of blurs the stats as i'm sure you will admit.

Nice monument, by the way. :good

 

"Louis biggest asset, punching power, was gone."

Louis had certainly gone back and certainly was not the puncher he had been. Off the Savold film, though, he could still punch. He just wasn't a young Joe Louis any more. I agree with you on that.

I have never, and I don't think anyone else has either, argued that Louis had not gone back a long way. This does not exactly mean he was a pushover. He was a top contender who could beat rated men and he lost only to the best in the world.

As for Walcott--my point is that if you compare Walcott as an opponent to a fighter from a different era, it is not exactly fair to in this case Louis to bring in a peak Dempsey of say 24 and argue he would have done better than Louis did at 33 as if that is a valid comparision. As for age not showing exactly how well a man can still fight--I agree.
By the way, so did Joe Louis. Ted Carroll quoting Joe Louis, RING MAGAZINE, July, 1952, page 18.

"You can never tell about this age stuff. Some fellows are younger at 40 than others are at 25. Look at Tami Mauriello. He was all through at 25. I see in the paper where Charley Fusari says he is washed up at 28. Lotta guys were just going good at that age.
"This age stuff is a lot of hooey to me. Jersey Joe's taken good care of himself and he's still okay at 40."

 

Yes, I agree, especially when he landed just right, BUT it still wasn't the way he use to land them.