George Foreman Vs Rocky Maricano

There's nothing wrong with picks for the favourite but why get so nasty if a good case is made for the underdog?

There is plenty of room to make a case for Rocky Marciano despite the question of styles and size because Foreman fought wide open, was inexperienced as a challenger and gassed out as a champion.

You attacked the points I made in a rather aggressive way yourself just because you disagreed with me.

 

For about the hundredth time I am not a troll. My points are not terrible at all. Even if I say so myself. All I am doing is putting forward a case why Marciano has a good chance. That's all. You keep trying to read too much into it.

Saying Foreman getting past better fighters on the way up would have allowed him to achieve his fullest potential before his second career would be more of a reason to assume dominance over marciano is not terrible.

Fights George had every chance of winning by the way with Quarry and Bonnavena could have lifted him a level, given him rounds so that he could have been more of a sure thing as a champion. What's wrong with that? Getting past guys with right hand power would show me something. Bonavena trained by Charlie Goldman. These are fair points I think.

Foreman did fight like an ape. He did not pace himself.

Taking out a faded Frazier who was not in his best shape, had no right hand and less punch resistance is in my opinion a bit terrible to use as a comparison with marciano. Swarmer yes. Prime no.

 

Post Foreman Frazier still had enough left in the tank to walk through Quarry (not exactly a featherfist) and go life and death with Ali again, before once again losing his punch resistance against Foreman.

Btw I'm amazed that Frazier surviving 4.5 rounds with Foreman in the rematch (whilst still taking a pounding) is being put forward as a successful template for Marciano to follow...

It's debatable whether Marciano's chin was better than Frazier's. Who were the big heavyweight punchers that Rocky survived that you can point to as proof of his ability to survive Foreman? No Listons, Tysons, Dempseys, Louis' (when he still had a punch). Is there even a Frazier or Lyle?

If Walcott and Moore had him down and hurt, and even Keene Simmons had him hurt, then I don't like Rocky's chances of surviving Foreman. If Foreman lands half as much leather as Walcott was doing throughout the first fight, then again I don't like Rocky's chances.

Probably because Frazier is the closest thing to Marciano that Foreman faced. The comparison is a natural. But because it's so damaging to Rocky's case, people want to ignore that and bring up fights when Foreman was a novice or nearly 40.

The only fighter who ever successfully toughed it out against Foreman was Ali. Rocky was tough, but not Ali tough. Peralta was stopped (and fought nothing like Rocky anyway). Qawi was stopped. Johnson was stopped. You talk as if all Rocky has to do is survive 6 or 7 rounds (a big ask in itself), and the fight is virtually in the bag, as if Foreman will just collapse after a certain point. And how will Rocky's stamina hold up after 7 rounds of going toe to toe with a foe he's conceding 30lbs of muscle to? It's always the smaller guy who pays the heavier price.

 

Frankie Carbo had a piece of Marciano through Al Weill , there is absolutely no evidence that this in any way altered or changed any of Marciano's results.There was plenty of speculation that Lastarza got a raw deal in the first Marciano fight ,and some thought Lowery deserved at least a draw.

 

Who began the personal insults ? Who started calling people wankers?


If you can't take it don't give it , it's really that simple.

 

I think Foreman fights and pounds away every step of the way, but he's just so open. Sure Rocky can get taken out, there is little room for error but his level of focus is more absolute. A glancing blow is not going to do it and Rocky will be fighting back with two hands. and his chin is better than Fraziers. It just is.

Walcott was a huge banger. Moore was hospitalizing rated heavyweights as late as 1962. Charles iced rated heavyweights. Big ones, small ones he was a clean puncher.

Frazier was a great fighter but he was wrong for Foreman because he was not his best. Square footed, one handed. Joe dropped onto the uppercut and was pushed back with so much ease only because his feet were squared up. His stance was susceptible for both the push and the uppercut and his rhythm, his weaving could be read. Could be predicted.

You could not predict Marcianos next move or what hand he used. Rocky had an ugly awkward way of fighting that confused real artists of boxing. Foreman was crude even by Rockys standard.

 

Walcott was a huge banger? He aint on any list I 've seen.:huh

 

You did. I did.

That applies to you. You are the one who started this, only to backtrack with all this "why name calling" crap.

 

I would never pretend this is easy for Rocky. It is not. But it is not easy for George. Style wise there are much easier fights for George. Tommy Burns, Leon Spinks, Floyd Patterson among guys who are smaller and many more taller champions who might not quite cope with Foremans intensity like Braddock, Sharkey and many others that I would regard more suited to George.

Foreman had heavy hands but he was not a clean sharp shooter. A dangerous, aggressive clubber for sure, but he was not fast. Harder or not the clean sharp punch gets the job done just the same and is harder to anticipate so surviving expert punchers like Walcotts, Moore and Charles' s actually goes a long way. Foremans dimensions in itself were not alien to Rocky either.

The style advantage you talk about is based on Frazier not Marciano. Yes in 1973 Foreman had an enormous style advantage over a 1973 Joe Frazier seeing as Frazier would duck onto a right uppercut because he had a different stance, had a diminished punch resistance and presented one weapon on one side. He was not Marciano.

The other advantages you count against Marciano must be measured with Foremans susceptibility to right hands, unsustainable pace and the fact lesser fighters to Marciano and Frazier who came forward at least reached the part of a fight where George began to tire and engage him in close range fighting. There is no pushing Rocky away with his side on crouch even if he hurts Rocky.

I accept that you recognise Rocky as the greater fighter on resume but I accept that with more seasoning George should have been better than Rocky. He was not because he was unable to realise this little more seasoning that I think he could have done with as a champion. I think it would have allowed Foreman to surpass Rockys resume. Instead he was unprepared for longer fights and spent a decade getting over his first loss, a loss he could have got before he fought for the title.

 

A highlight reel of stunning championship knockouts always includes Walcott knocking Charles cold. It's because he was a banger.

 

Grow up son.You're pathetic.

 

He's gone from being" a huge banger" to ,"a banger" .what's next? He was a fair puncher? He kod Charles once in four fights,a Charles who at 182 lbs was conceding 12 lbs to him.