Rocky thought his performance was bad as well. Kellerman, and modern press would call it much differently. Have you seen the fight? It's a great performance. Rocky's athleticism is top notch.
Savold was 35 years old and washed up, he had been brutalized by Louis in a one sided slaughter.I've seen the fight several times and I'm not impressed. Marciano was missing left hooks by several feet!
Nah he never missed by a couple feet. And when he did miss, he did it effectively by applying pressure before and after the punch.
Watch the 1st round. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyB-yQ_RjRo You really need to take those rose coloured glasses off and put some prescription ones on.:yep
Wow. I saw absolutely nothing special about any of that sequence. It's completely humdrum. He missed some very unremarkable punches, including a poorly thrown overhand right, and then stalked his harmless opponent head first. You are lionizing a bunch of very basic tactics executed with flawed fundamentals.
Marciano fought to the level of his opposition. But when his opposition got better, he got better, meaner, and tougher, which is why 21 year old Floyd Patterson would have been in a lot of trouble against Rocky
I agree. In this sequence he misses but in doing so closes the distance that much that he's right up into a space where he's almost too close to get hit himself- yet still in a perfect position to land his punch. So many fighters miss a punch like that and pay for it. Usually missing a haymaker leaves a guy stranded and exposed. They lose distance. Rocky looks exposed but he's really not. He is able to acheive the forward direction when the missed punch contains a momentum going in the opposite direction. This is odd. Missing appears to create the right distance for Rocky. It's not creating the problem you expect. And he's not paying for missing. Everybody misses punches. There never was a fighter who never missed. But missing and getting something out of missing must be a rare attributes. It seemed making Rocky pay for missing might be something marcianos opponents found more disappointing to achieve than they expected.
I was talking about the Roland Lastarza knockdown not the savold ssequence. Mr Kool, if you cannot fathom the footing being more than "humdrum" you have not studied it closely enough.
Marciano fans are hilarious. He throws some shoddy lunging haymakers and you want to exalt him because his opponent didn't punch him when he was exposed and off balance? You and choklab must be under the same spell. Would love to see Marciano try those against someone like Tony Tucker even.
I studied the footwork just fine. Reznick just picked the wrong clips to glorify (in his defense, he doesn't seem to fully understand some of the basics of punching leverage and footwork). Your imaginative, detailed commentaries are quite enjoyable but comically overstated (no offense).
People have discussed this in other threads. The crux of it is that Marciano and Norris are two very, very different boxers with different styles and skills. And Tucker wasn't prime. Etc. My point though wasn't that Marciano couldn't beat Tucker but that those tactics you guys are romanticizing wouldn't work well at all against a more talented modern heavy with a decent jab and footwork.
This thread is not about comparing Marciano to modern day heavyweights, it's showing appreciation for what is rezniks favourite Marciano moments. He has excellently demonstrated this with other heavyweights. It's by no way an invitation to poke fun or attack Marciano anymore. Than the other champions he has featured. Get over it. The lastarza finish shows remarkable instinct. Rocky was not good in a conventional sense but he was incredibly good in an effective sense.