Gene Tunney vs Rocky Marciano

The Charles that fought Marciano was a tough , skilled guy but clearly past his prime. His legs were shot. Charles was much better against Joe Louis ... watch the films .. one was Charles as a boxer the other was Charles as much older fighter .. it's like looking at Ali in 67 and then in 73 ...I mean he was fighting life and death with Rex Layne for Gd's sake ...

 

I suspect that Ali would have a tough time with Marciano too mcvey, if Marciano's skin held up under those corkscrew shots.

Just to clarify, I would not compare Moore to Tunney in any way except for intellect. Moore was physically strong and hit very hard and utilized a stragety built around magnifying Marciano's (frequent) mistakes. Tunney would fight him behind a jab, and would devise a strategy from that range, but I can't see him overcoming such a durable, relentless, and physically taxing Marciano for 15 rounds.

Recall that Tunney's HW resume is not very impressive -even in that relatively desolate division. He faced a dissipated Dempsey for 10 rounds bouts and that doesn't indicate to me that he'd have what it takes to beat the Rock. I suspect that Marciano, who broke down 'boxers' in Walcott, LaStarza (whose record may be a bit padded but whose skillset is underrated), and a faded Charles- may prove to be too much heavyweight for him.

 

I think an argument can be made for either man ,and, whoever one picks , no one should be lambasted for their choice ,I haven't really made a pick .
I can see Tunney ,staying one step ahead of Rocky ,stabbing him with jabs , equally, I can see Rocky gradually closing the distance and unloading his heavy artillery in the late stages of the fight.

 

Both sound fair to me.

 

Charles had it all his own way against louis who was too slow and inactive. Obviously ezz looks beter against Louis than against rocky since chales won at least 12 rounds of the louis fight! he won less rounds against rocky.
even so charles does come inside against Louis and had to be wary of the old champs power. he moved to the side or changed direction as louis stalked him rather than backing off in the fleet foot style ali used. Charles wasnt dancing in either the marciano or Louis fight.
I think charles fought a much smarter fight against walace, he drew him in made him pay and was a real box of tricks that night. Sure wallace was no peak Louis but he moved like the old one. Against satterfield he was stuning.
charles had life and death with layne but like hollyfield charles career had a few peaks. As an xchamp he was up for the big fights. wallace, saterfield and marciano were big fights. Against marciano charles was on a good roll, he had a good camp and brought his A-game.

 

Buzzard Charles was only like age 33 in 1954 when he fought Marciano 2X...... I think Charles still had gas in the tank during them two fights... After all, he went 15 "TUFF" rds the first time and split Marciano's nose bad in the rematch before getting caught by a desperate Marciano in round 8..... However, it was that rematch KO loss that clearly took the fight game outta Buzzard Charles..... If there was ever was a time to retire in boxing, that was it.... But Charles fought on until the late 50s and began looking real ugly......

Rocky Marciano did himself the wise choice and retired formally in 1956 before he slipped or dipped too far... Had Marciano hung on, he too would've been beaten in the later part of the 50s...... His time was coming.......

MR.BILL

 

i could not agree more.

 

Look how long it took Rocky to break down LaStarza. How much better is Tunney than LaStarza? Much, much, much better.

 

Tunney better; LaStarza stronger.........
:yep:thumbsup

MR.BILL

 

I think Tunney was plenty strong. Tom Heeney wasn't a great boxer but physically he was very strong and forced better boxers such as Jack Delaney and Jack Sharkey to fight his fight. Tunney dominated him in the clinches.

 

A big point, often understated, is Tunney's strength. Notwithstanding Dempsey's 31years of age, Tunney was still able to pin his arms together in a clinch to nearly shut him down at times.

Even though he was a fully-fledged heavyweight there is that lingering statistic that he came up from light-heavyweight and it does steer people towards the perception of lacking that natural 'umpf', if you will, but Tunney was rock solid against the big boys.

The wave of battle would switch up through the rounds but were it would rest is at best, an interchangeable guess. They were both so tough and insistent that there can be little certainty on the outcome.

Points and bloody.

 

But he was up by then and there were still 4 more rounds. And by broke down do you mean broke his blood vessels? He couldn't even lift his arms anymore.

 

Tunney was okay in the strength department, but he was not known to be very strong or powerful. Tunney's best assets were his speed, reflexes & boxing ability.. No way was Tunney as physically strong as Jack Dempsey or even Rocco Marciano... Tunney was the better boxer with little doubt....

MR.BILL

 

I like tunney, check my earlier posts but he fought roughly the same number of heavyweights as mike spinks, ie not enough to declared a dead cert against the greatest champs.
In my view the beter champions knock out the guy who is seen as the worlds best HW at that time, tunney did not do this. corbet did, Dempsey did, Louis did, ali did, Tyson did, Liston did, ingo did, floyd did, marciano, foreman etc etc He beat a good champion and maybe over the longer distance he may have stoped dempsey. Its a pity he didnt fight sharkey or schmeling.

 

in a 10 round fight tunney could win a decision, in a 15 rounder marciano wears him down and stops him via late round tko.