Joe Frazier vs. Rocky Marciano

The guy who fights like he has down-syndrome? It's not right to judge him he's fighting that and his opponent.

 

And the next step is.....


Comparing their winning percentages

 

That also comes into play and that is why I still rate Rocky in my top 10. Almost all the historians agree with that, BUT some people just take that into consideration and nothing else.

 

This is a tough one. Another thing is they both were slow starters and got stronger as the rounds progressed. I definitely think Frazier would take advantage of Rocky's wild swinging style. And we all have to realize that Rocky cuts very easy as well. I say Frazier wins on cuts by round 6-7.

 

Okay.

Some other comparisons:

Title reign:
Marciano: 5 years, 6 title defences, all against the #1 contender except for one, which was against the #2 contender. Never lost the title.
Frazier: 4 years (depending on your definition), 4 title defences, one against the #1 contender (Ali), one against a ranked contender, Foster, and the other two, i don't know off the top of my head whether they were ranked, but i doubt Daniels or Stander were thought that highly off. Lost the title by second round TKO.

Edge: Marciano

Who has the better record against Hall-of-Famers? I won't bother going over the numbers, so i'll just skip to:

Edge: Marciano

Who has the higher knock out percentage?

Edge: Marciano (he even set a record for knocking out every single ranked opponent he ever fought - never matched in 100 years of boxing in every weight class)

Who was decked more often?

Edge: Marciano

Who fought better opposition?

Edge: Frazier

Who has the better single win?

Edge: Frazier


I'm scratching my head to think of categories, career-wise, where Frazier did better than Marciano. Rocky's legacy is that good.

 

This can also be misleading as well. The Hall of Famers that Rocky beat weren't in their prime years. Frazier would have beaten all of them as well.

Rocky fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 26th bout when he won a close split decision against LaStarza. He fought another 10 bouts before he fought another top 10 contender when he stopped Rex Layne. When he fought Moore that was only the 11th time Rocky ever fought a boxer that was rated in the top 10 when he fought them.

The most important comparisons that you made, Frazier was better on both.

Who fought better opposition?

Edge: Frazier

Who has the better single win?

Edge: Frazier

The comparison that a lot of Rocky supporters go by is his undefeated record. They say he never lost and that is why he is #1.

If we go by that, as well, as Title reign, Who was decked more often? Sugar Ray Robinson wouldn't nearly be rated as Great as he is. Again these things should count, BUT there a lot more important comparisons then just that.

 

Almost nobody says Rocky is #1. At least not here, maybe Lou Duva does.

 

When you get to the who fought better opposition question the answer makes all the previous points irrelevant.

Still, it's a pick em fight ... in my book the question is if Rocky could hang in there with Frazier after a few rounds if he does not get Joe out of there early. It's a shitload different waring with Frazier than swapping punches with an old Charles or anyone else he ever fought. We know Joe could go to war round after round against big men in their primes in the trenches. The closest I have seen Rocky do is against Walcott who fought perhaps the most aggressive fight of his career that we have on tape but Joe was 37 and did not keep it up round after round at seventy or eighty punches per ...I just have not seen anything that sells me 100% that the twenty pound lighter cut prone Rocky holds up ... I also have not seen anything that tells me he does not. If he does he wins.

 

Henry,


Here are the Ring Magazine ratings of the hall of famers at the time they fought rocky


Joe Louis- # 2 rated Heavyweight Contender by Ring Magazine. BBBC Heavyweight Champion after victory over Savold

Jersey Joe Walcott- Reigning Heavyweight Champion 1952. 1953 # 1 rated heavyweight contender.

Ezzard Charles- # 1 rated heavyweight contender june 1954. # 1 rated heavyweight contender sept 1954


Archie Moore- # 1 rated heavyweight contender 1955



So even if you argue all of these men were past there primes when they fought Rocky, you cannot argue the point all of them were either champions/top contenders and presented dangerous fights to any champion(including frazier)

 

If they fought in Frazier's time do you really think they would be rated that high? I will say that Rocky did fight almost everyone that was rated #1 during his time except Valdez. Also if some of the boxers from the early 1970's fought in Rocky's time, they would most likely be rated above them as well.

I have a church meeting so I will be back in a few hours.

 

Rocky ducked no one that I can think of ... the question is how does this crew measure up ? Obviously a debate that goes round and round ...

I'll go this far: I'll rate the Walcott, the Charles and the Moore Rocky fought as tough as any three contenders Dempsey fought or that Louis fought in their reign. Evan at those ages. They all brought their A games to fight Rocky. They might not have been the best they ever were but all were tough as nails and highly skilled and up for the bouts.

I simply see Rocky getting in trouble in the much larger generations where his strengths were nullified by bigger men while his lack of top speed limited him ... prior to the 1960's he is likely top five in my book.

 

I like Marciano here. He has the edge in durability and two fisted power, Can't see Frazier beating him toe to toe, honestly.

 

Good Points HE.


MuchMoore, you and I always have the same opinions!

 

This is really my view. Rocky's power seems more ruining. He's two-fisted, I think he can take more and I just feel he's more durable. Stylistically, I think the fights favors Rocky. When a guy fight toe to toe (Due to his style) with Rocky he got concussed or obliterated. This isn't mythology, this is what we see on film. I feel in some sense that Rocky might have ruined fighters that could've proven to be so much better later on... whether more physically, or perhaps somewhat mentally. Layne was a near 200 pound guy that was touted as the next great HW by Dempsey and touted as the next Dempsey. He lost teeth and went to sleep when he fought Rocky. I'll take the 51-52 Rock that has loads of power, uses his low-center of gravity and digs to the body. He may not pitch a thousand punches, but he can turn it on if he wants. A calculated slugger.

 

"Frazier would've beaten them all" - but he never proved that. I think it's speculative to make a statement like that and just sweep Rocky's career off the table asif it's nothing. Tyson would've also easily beaten Douglas if they never fought. Or Holyfield. Ali would've never lost to a Norton-level boxer, and Holmes would've easily dispatched that lightheavyweight, right? We're talking about a set of career fights that are interconnected here. Not simply a prime vs prime Frazier vs Walcott, Frazier vs Louis, etc, etc one by one.
It's not just the fact that Marciano beat those men so badly, but that he managed to be so consistent in it, career-wise.

Absolutely no one here is saying "he's #1 because he is undefeated". That's a straw-man argument.


I also don't understand why you consider "who has the single biggest win" such an important criterium. Do you rank Douglas and Schmeling in your top10? Because they have bigger single wins than most conventional top10 ranked heavyweights.

Some goes for the "who fought better opposition" argument. I would say it's more important who beat the better opposition and who took fewer losses in the process. You can only fight (and beat) the best of your time.