Contemporary Evaluations of Marciano

HATER!!!

 

The "giants of the twenties had better sparring partners than either Rocky Marciano or Ezzard Charles" was perhaps a little to much but otherwise solid write-up.

 

Certainly over exaggerated negatively but Marciano was not perceived as a great fighter in his own era, he was seen as a poor facsimile of Dempsey . Walcott and Charles were thought of as average ,"fill in"champions ,champions by default if you will.
Charles in particular was considered a boring,overly cautious fighter.

 

And you take anyone seriously comparing them to sparring partners of terrible 20s era fighters? Shall we go back and see what contemporaries said of Lewis, Holmes, Louis, Ali, Frazier? You’re as usual being absurd. No champion at the time that they’re in is looked upon as one of the best. They never are. With maybe an exception to Tyson.

 

"the giants of the twenties had better sparring partners than Ezzard Charles"

"Charles, one of the weakest heavyweight champs of all time"

https://www.google.com/search?q=igh...id-huawei-rev1&prmd=isvn#imgrc=SDQ_1GXEcPVj0M

 

No-one is ever perceived as great in their own era. Everyone's stock goes up in the aftermath.

 

I agree that comparing them to sparring partners of the greats of the 20's is extremely exaggerated and quite typical of the way current fighters are often denigrated and past ones excessively lauded, but they're not beyond recognising that Rocky had good traits, just that technique wasn't one of them.

This thing with Rocky's "underrated skill" and "subtle craftmanship" or whatever, seems to be a revisionist view as far as I can see.

 

Marciano was a custom built fighter. He didn’t fight in the same sense anyone else really did. Mistaking unorthodox for unskilled was a mistake many of his contemporaries made from the flat of their backs.

 

Our own late, great poster John Garfield saw Rocky live, in training as well, and said that his technique was god awful, but that he had that great equaliser.

 

I don't see much in terms subtle traps when it comes to Rocky. He wears out and overpowers his opponents mostly, even though he did con Walcott nicely in their first fight. But It's not like he had "Toney'd" him for the previous almost 13 rds.

 

Very enjoyable reading, thanks for posting. While some of the comments are definitely a tad over the top the core of the argument is very solid. For me it confirms what I see on tape , in the first fight with Walcott ,Joe was quoted once that Rocky was easy to hit and he went out and dropped him in the first round and tried to finish him but failed, kudos to Rocky for surviving , but as Emanuel Steward said , the guy was clumsy and awkward but tough. On ability he simply cannot be rated near the top 10 heavyweights of all time

 

There are three types of great heavyweight champion.

1. Those whose greatness is immediately obvious.
2. Those whose greatness is apparent only in hindsight.
3. Those whose greatness gradually dawns on people over the course of their title reign.

Rocky Marciano is a category 3 case.