For the people insisting Rocky was "hard to hit" and had "underrated cleverness"

Thanks for the info, this was the technique I was referring to that both Toney and Marciano do - @cross_trainer this is the clip 44 seconds in against Ruiz, Toney dips this way throughout and very often at heavyweight because he’s too short to take it on the shoulder.

This content is protected

 

@cross_trainer just added the clip to the post…

 

Actually, most do.

They put an asterisk by every Tyson loss as if it didn’t happen. “He had sex in Tokyo.” “Evander butted him.” “He didn’t really lose, he got DQ’d. Could happen to anybody.” “He was old” x3.

They also ignore flogs like Bonecrusher and act as if Tony Tucker was a hall of famer just for standing upright, etc.

Most on here evaluate the best version of a guy. I think, and Louis expressed the same, that Rocky was a better fighter later. He wasn’t perfect, I don’t think he beats quite a few guys I can name, but he was better than who he fought each time he fought them, and while older some of those guys were great fighters (Ezz, Walcott, Moore).

This version of Joe was on a nice run beating some decent opposition before running into Rocky. No, it wasn’t the prime version of Louis but as Joe himself noted, it wasn’t the best Marciano would be either.

 

Guys often say bad things about the guys they lose to. We have posted the quotes many times where opponents said he was awkward and hard to hit. It's because he fought out of a very low crouch, using his lack of height to an advantage.

 

Louis was coming off a decent winning streak was he not?

But yeah: compared to his heyday he was significantly diminished, I will agree with that.

 

If it's me the snark is always just bubbling under the surface, in case anybody is confused

 

I like Marciano. He's just an anomaly in that I wouldn't pick him to beat a lot of the guys that he did beat (on paper) but in the ring, when its the 13th and the other dude is all lumps, I have to wonder how I could have been so wrong. Marciano simply doesn't LOOK like he ought to have been a world champion, nevermind an ATG.

 

Under 200 pounds you have
Dempsey
Louis
Patterson
Spinks
Holyfield
Moorer
Roy Jones
James Toney
Andre Ward
Artur Beterbiev
Dmitri Bivol

Seems like a pretty formidable group. How many of them do you have him beating?

 

"I couldn't avoid Louis' jabs I just had to take them."Marciano.

 

His crudeness was part of what made him awkward and difficult, you might be able to hurt him a bit but he's gonna hurt you a lot worse

 

I find the three points you made somewhat lacking in scope if not strawman-ish. Can't one have a solid opinion of Marciano whilst acknowledging a period of noticeable improvement like Louis did? Foreman improved immensely in a relatively short periods of time under proper tutelage, though granted, I don't consider Marciano to be anywhere near the natural George was.

 

Because you did not. Unless the forum outright cut a part of your post. This is the sole part you've posted bar quotation and video.


-Louis flat out said Rocky was easy to hit
-He said when he fought Rocky, he was crude and had to learn how to actually bob, weave, and punch with better accuracy.
-He also stated he was gunshy and had trouble letting his hands go (for all the people in denial).
[..]
Here's another refresher on how crude Rocky looked. This happened a lot in the fight and Louis made him look pretty bad despite being a gunshy old man.


Not a mention of Louis calling him a vastly improved fighter just a year later, other than the indication (when he fought Rocky) that it's this particular version of Rocky being described.

The very quote you provided is a great source of possible debate. So many facets and nuances of the game to consider. Louis notes his metamorphosis a year later into his career, but on the other hand there are, if I remember correctly, sources calling Rocky the opposite of a natural, who had to make up with hard work, conditioning, and a punch. Is it feasible to become this much better or did his subsequent opposition flatter him? It also naturally leads to investigation of Walcott's opinions of Rocky from their bouts. You could also point that his career would end four years later as undermining the clever and hard to hit fighter people are trying to portray him as (which is a relatively difficult claim to establish, much more difficult than him being difficult to hit clean and flush) ever being a consistently appearing version against at least a solid majority of styles of actual world level fighters.

The thread is titled as if it's meant to provide strong counterpoint to people claiming Marciano was hard to hit and had underrated cleverness, but immediately fails to provide substance and depth expected from such a confident choice of words.

And it may not be directly called a debating forum, but it definitely becomes one when you start a thread in this manner. If debating doesn't let you blow off some steam, don't. At least not after a tedious day.

 

Marciano found away to win. What worked for him.
Those are the most important results.
Also , one must take into account to be
fair to Marciano how fast Louis was.
Even the version that faced him had
better hand speed than most heavy's
in history.
While some overrate Marciano because he
retired undefeated, and he fits the agenda.
Let's not underrate him either .
After all, he did ko Louis.

 

As good a breakdown of Rocky as you'll find. Judge for yourself.

This content is protected