Unhand my lapel McVey,...you're overreacting again...obviously I'm referring to the over the top efforts to downgrade Marciano to the level of being merely a short armed, untalented overachiever on this forum...chiefly by other posters...and I'm not referring to Steward's quote at all...
Liston had never been beaten up like he was vs Ali fight 1. In a very tough fight a dog shows themselves as being a dog. Walcott was involved in many tough fights....he never quit. I see no evidence he quit here. What evidence is there in this clip that says Walcott quit? You can hear the punch and it was a crushing blow.
"religiosity" Considering he has been dead for almost 50 years, this is true. "believe Marciano would be a champion heavyweight in the modern ring." Rather silly and non-historical way to look at it though. I have no idea if Lincoln were living today if Abe could be president, let alone a great president. It is irrelevant to his freeing the slaves and preserving the Union in his own time. Folks only live in their own time. Marciano was big enough and good enough to run the table at heavyweight against the best of his own time. For me, that makes him a great heavyweight.
Liston was beaten up ? Have you seen the score cards I posted? He was more beaten up by Williams who broke his nose.If he was a dog why didn't he quit when Marshall broke his jaw early in their first fight ? Crushing blow? OMG It was a decent shot that's it. Do you know I find it extremely irritating when posters call pro boxers bums and dogs ,usually they are the same ones who have never been in a ring!
That he was short armed and an overachiever I would say is correct.Personally I think the term over- achiever is a commendation and I would include Holyfield and Frazier in that bracket.
My reading of the AP report is that the writer considers it a clean KO. "knocked heels a-flying by a brutal Marciano right uppercut." Walcott is described as "glassy-eyed" and "He had a vacant stare on his face and if, as he claims, he was looking at his corner for advise to climb to his feet, it didn't appear that way to many observers." Also, this writer points out Walcott is simply wrong in his memory of getting to his knees. My take is this indicates Walcott was simply being knocked out, and so confused about what happened. Walcott said he didn't hear the count but the referee was clearly shouting it in his ear. The camera actually gives us a perfect ringside view (there is a better copy on you tube, by the way), so I wonder why we are supposed to fall back on "ringside" observers.
I cannot endorse the second part of this statement enough. It's rather like saying that 9 times out of 10 fighter A would have beaten fighter B when A lost their only fight. It is irrelevant to judging their actual place on an ATG.
I do not dispute his greatness as a fighter. I also do not think that greatness is necessarily transferable across eras. And let's also remember that Rocky also lucky to run the table. A couple close, if not dubious, decisions went his way, excessive fouling was overlooked and he was allowed to continue when many refs would have stopped the action against Charles. Luck is a component to greatness so this is not a detraction but it does put the "running the table" notion in context.
"ringside" "A J Leibling" In my copy of The Sweet Science, Liebling says this, "Even then it was not clear to us in the balcony that the fight was over." That is "ringside"--Liebling states that Marciano's back was to him and that he didn't see the KO punch. Actually this ringside argument is bizarre, at least to an American. I don't know what they do in Britain or the rest of the world, but in American football and baseball we have something called instant replay. If the coach challenges an official's call on the field, the officials study the play on a replay screen. No one overrules the officials. They overrule themselves if the tape proves they got it wrong, even if they were eyewitnesses within feet of the play. The officials reverse calls almost every game. Film is actually the best evidence, and the film of the Marciano-Walcott fight is excellent and shows clearly what happened. Marciano hits Walcott with a "whistling right uppercut to the jaw" to quote UPI and Walcott simply doesn't respond to the referee's shouted count. My take is the AP description of "staring vacantly" is reasonable. Bottom line--everything is consistent with Walcott simply being knocked out.
You're supposed to do WETF you want to. Your take is your take ,it wasn't that of those who were a few feet away but WTF.
Fair enough, but it is also fair to point out that Marciano was not the only ATG contender who was "lucky" a few times, and the "dubious" decisions were "righted" with decisive wins in rematches. I can't see disputing that Marciano proved himself better than everyone he fought, which is not true of quite a few of the other ATG heavyweight contenders.
What Ever The F*ck. Literally meaning you can interpret things as you choose, we are all free agents ,and the majority of us over 21, I presume. Did I say Liebling was ringside ? If I did, I was wrong,and I have the book too. Robinson was and so were the reporters of the AP and UPI
I posted "fair enough" Isn't that fair enough? I guess I am not supposed to give any of my takes on arguments made. Everyone is free to point out where I go wrong, but being criticized for just making a comment seems a bit much.
