Marciano v Cokkell Not In B & W.By D Brown

I can’t decide if Rockys opponents expected him to move into position before punching -and it was This that caught them out, or if it was Rocky himself instinctively knowing where the next opening was going to be after he hit them. Because when Rocky was pouring it on there seemed to be a rhythm to what he was doing. He just kept landing and nobody, the good and the great, could ever seem to get out of the way of his caveman swinging blows when he got going.

If you hit that hard with both hands, land that many blows and can keep it up for 15 rounds it makes a very hard fighter to beat. He got hit but he still hit his opponents more times than they hit him.

 

Or bounce off the ropes into a slow clumsy punch like Vitali against Sanders.

 

Harry Matthews--well there are two ways of looking at Matthews. He fought 19 years, and lost to five men, one when he was still 17 to a man with well over 100 fights and a strong winning record. The other four were to Eddie Booker, Jack Chase, Rocky Marciano, and Don C. The first three men also defeated Archie Moore. These aren't exactly bad losses. And Matthews fought Booker and Chase still short of his 21st birthday.

At 19 Matthew defeated former world champion Al Hostak. He was rated at one time or another at middleweight, light-heavyweight, and heavyweight. He defeated fighters who were highly rated in all three divisions. After losing to Don C, he still went on a winning streak against some fighters with good stat records. His record is thin on victories over top men, but there are some, and I think one would have a hard time finding many who fought 19 years and were never upset by a second rater and only lost to fighters as good as the ones who bested Matthews.

Lastarza was still on the top of his game as a technical boxer. Because of this The fight with Cokkell never brewed up into the kind of war that could have exposed any susceptibility to battle fatigue.

However, no doubt, The combination of Fighting Marciano, Cokkell, Norkus And Mederos back to back probably did send Lastarza over the top. But They were all good fighters. And Cokkell was the first of them after Marciano.

the film of Roland vs big Don shows a fighter who still believes in himself with the confidence of having already been in with the best. The film certainly is not showing a walking corpse. It simply won’t stand up that Roland was shot as a fighter. The film does not show this.

This content is protected

 

I think you have become rather confused on this matter. The film is not showing a poor fighter, stumbling and misjudging distance or reacting badly from light punches so this “damaged goods” line line of thought is far too inconclusive it cannot be applied here. Roland was in superb physical shape and still able to maintain a strategic boxing chess match with Big Don. So it is unfortunate you have not grasped this yet even though the evidence is there. Your interpretation must be out of bonk. Very unfortunate. Perhaps you are too set on bogus reports and lazy views you have decided are more established than the actual evidence?

 

Very few filmed rounds where Rocky is not landing more than his opponent. Certainly not over the full course of the fight.

 

Rockys feet and legs seem to be in good alignment to each other and he was always in position where he was cocked and loaded to deliver punches. That tells me he had pretty good footwork as boxing is all about feet not hands. You have to have good feet to have good hands.
If slick and elusive guys couldn't keep him off them , that also tells you something.

 

Coaches thought not to throw a knocking at the door type jab from a half way out extended arm that didn't retract to the chin either , but you think such a jab was the greatest of all time. What's going on there

 

I'm no technical expert, people on here have forgotten more than I know, but I don't get the criticism by some of the technical deficiencies of some great fighters.
What does it matter if Rocky Marciano's feet aren't perfectly aligned or he was off balance now and then, the fact is he got the job done.
In some ways it makes the likes of Rocky easier to like because he wasn't perfect, that's apart from the physical disadvantages he had.
I think there's been many technically proficient fighters who have never made the grade.
It's about more than technique.

 

Very sound observation.

 

I think these things matter for a few reasons. First, Marciano's technical deficiencies and flaws are relevant for how he would far in tougher heavyweight eras, or against prime ATG heavyweights who were bigger, faster, and more skilled than him. That's really the subtext behind most Marciano arguments online.

It's perfectly fine if you feel that Marciano's obvious flaws and deficiencies make him a more likable fighter. Doesn't work like that for me, but I get it. It makes him even more of an underdog story, I guess. The problem is that a bunch of guys in forums like this try to reimagine those obvious flaws and deficiencies as strengths and virtues. They convince themselves that he's actually a fast, defensively skilled technician who fought with excellent balance and superb footwork. It's that type of nonsense that ends up provoking most of the technical criticisms of Marciano.

 

Well I don't think he's a technical genius, he's probably a bit smarter than what people think though.
He fought bigger,faster and more skilled men in his own era, and did pretty well.

 

[QUOTE="mrkoolkevin, post: 20050430, member: 105493"
It's perfectly fine if you feel that Marciano's obvious flaws and deficiencies make him a more likable fighter. Doesn't work like that for me, but I get it. It makes him even more of an underdog story, I guess. The problem is that a bunch of guys in forums like this try to reimagine those obvious flaws and deficiencies as strengths and virtues. They convince themselves that he's actually a fast, defensively skilled technician who fought with excellent balance and superb footwork. It's that type of nonsense that ends up provoking most of the technical criticisms of Marciano.[/QUOTE]
It's a vicious circle though.

Most of those looking for hidden depths to Marciano's game do so because of the constant disparaging, snide remarks and at best back handed compliments he receives from another bunch of posters who clearly don't rate him and belittle him and his opposition at every opportunity. I mean the guy was the world heavyweight champion who retired undefeated, he must have had some strengths and virtues, surely?

I'd be curious to see some other (later) champions be put under the same microscope that Marciano is from a technical aspect. It would be interesting to see the flaws that get unearthed there.