give each of Rocky Marciano's title opponents a letter grade

pretty fair, but Cockell IS a B+ fighter typically speaking given that he was a L-HW who suffered with a deadly (it actually killed him), health condition.

 

I also think Don's given short shrift when considering he got to Marciano through Matthews 3X, and LaStarza to reach his shot at Rocky. Cockell-LaStarza is on youtube for anybody to evaluate before cavalierly dismissing Don.

He took on Matthews three times and won them all, decking him thrice to pull out the decision in Kid's own Seattle that first time. Harry retired after seven rounds with a back injury to end their third go (again in Seattle), but it remains a fact that Don was only the third to stop Matthews after Booker in '43, and Rocky himself. (Of course Marciano-Matthews is also on youtube, and Harry looks to be handling Rocky fairly easily for as long as it lasts, until Marciano's newly perfected left hook suddenly slams the door shut.)

Also, he had the stamina to knock out Mark Hart in 14 for the British MW Title, and had won twice over the championship distance as a HW. In that respect at least, he was actually a better qualified challenger than LaStarza, who only went beyond ten rounds in his career when Rocky stopped him in 11 to soften him up for Don.

Roland gets a B, while Cockell gets a full letter grade less? I think that discrepancy requires more careful examination. Yes, LaStarza pushed Marciano to the brink when they first met in March 1950, but he'd also been defeated once in each of the two years prior to their title rematch. Don was on a winning streak of ten going into Kezar Stadium, including Matthews 3X, LaStarza, retiring a grizzled, comebacking Farr in seven, and decisioning Johnny Williams and big 1948 Olympic Bronze Medalist Johnny Arthur over 15 (proving he didn't need a weight advantage to win at HW). Cockell was undefeated as a heavyweight when Rocky repelled his challenge, and had not lost in the three years since Randy Turpin (and that damned fatal glandular disease) permanently shoved Don out of the LHW ranks.

Cockell stood up better under that withering assault than the more heavily hyped and red hot Moore later would. No, he didn't snatch a flash knockdown on Marciano, but he didn't go down five times himself either.

 

Valdes never fought Marciano.

 

vs Jersey Joe Walcott 1952 : Grade: A

vs Jersey Joe Walcott 1953: Grade: B-

vs Roland Lastarza 1953: Grade: B

vs Ezzard Charles 1954 Grade: A

vs Ezzard Charles 2 1954 : Grade: B

vs Don Cockell 1955: Grade: B

vs Archie Moore 1955: Grade: A

 

Well Marciano Matthews only lasted 2 rounds, so I not sure if handly is the right word, if all of Marciano's fights were 1 round, a good number of losses would have been on his record. Besides you cant judge the Matthews fight on Rocky's boxing abilty in this one, because Rocky warms up by the 4th round or so. In this one, Rocky landed his stuff in the 2nd round and that was that.

 

vs Jersey Joe Walcott 1952 : Grade: B

vs Jersey Joe Walcott 1953: Grade: C-

vs Roland Lastarza 1953: Grade: B-

vs Ezzard Charles 1954 Grade: B+

vs Ezzard Charles 2 1954 : Grade: B

vs Don Cockell 1955: Grade: D

vs Archie Moore 1955: Grade: C+

 

Cant belive the low rankings here.

Walcott, Moore and Charles are in the HOF, so they all should get A's, they were great fighters, and coming into the Marciano fights, not many people could have deal with the versions Marciano face for the most part.

Roland gets a B. A top contender(Number 1 really) but a step below the above mention.

Cockell I was going to give a C, but reading of the post, I might add C+.

 

This content is protected

(1) 38/39 years of age.
(2) LH Champion. Not a true HW. So we are marking him as a HW, right?
but given the era was more of a LH/CW era...I guess we have to judge it on a curve.
(3) Over 150 fights. Talk about wear and tear? How about the amount of losses. how about the many wars he fought. How about how many times he was down in his career and even lost by KO ? Ezzard Charles took him out quicker years before by the way...although at that time, Charles was incredible. Still in his prime.

This content is protected

(1) Around 38 years old ?
I remember Bert Sugar said he was known more as a "Journeyman" during that time. Good journeyman though.
(2) I don't rate him higher than Charles at HW although he did brutally Knock out Charles (prior to Ezzard facing Rocky)...so that's bonus points.
however...
(3) Walcott had many losses on his record. Charles losses are excusable I guess given Charles was still a very good fighter at the time. But it does say something to lose to a fighter that is more of a LH.
And, Joe lost to a Past Prime Joe Louis by KO and in quicker fashion than Rocky was able to do. not to mention he was knocked out by other guys. Which yes, could be for several reasons. but more than one time...I don't know. It does say he can be knocked out.

This content is protected

: Great LH. Great Fighter.
Around 33 years of age. Some would argue reasonably that he was past his peak by this point. His biggest loss in recent years came by brutal KO from Walcott. Great shot.

This content is protected

shouldn't even be on this list.

This content is protected

. Tough to judge. Decent fighter. Good boxer. I wish I could see more of him to tell you the truth. I don't know.


It's hard to grade. If I were grading for that time period specifically and not comparing them to previous eras or eras after....I would have different grades then if I were to compare them.

I once asked a former Pro Fighter, now Pro trainer, about fighting fighters that were defeated and even KO'd prior. And he said something to the effect...Yes, it absolutely helps you believe you can do the same to them what has happened before. So even if you are down, you believe you can still do what has been done before. You know they can be hurt.
I thought that interesting.

Also along with what Patterson's trainer said about how these older guys wear down.



Charles: Great LH. At his peak, "A,"...but by the time Marciano fought him...I don't know. I'm not sure how to rank these guys.



All that said...of course, Rocky beating them is still good. He never let up even when behind. He never lacked focus to win. He always came in shape to win no matter who his opposition was.
That says a lot and is admirable.

But to grade his opponents at the time he faced them....I don't know. Of course all our "grading" comes from "Fans" that more than likely have never boxed on the Pro level.

Their "Name" value is high however...specifically "Archie Moore" and "Ezzard Charles."

BUT

This content is protected

To old and past their best.
At their best,

This content is protected

and

This content is protected

get an "

This content is protected

" but just weren't "A's" by the time they fought Marciano.

Rocky vs. Charles was a great fight.

I like this H.L. of the fight as well...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IksKG80ER9o&hd=1[/ame]

 

win or lose these guys ARE All A or B fighters,

the only thing that takes anything from them is past peak lesser performances, but this also can show you just how Great they were/are based on how well they conducted themselves in said matches...

close fights, good showings, did they put their opponent down though still losing and in the case of Moore, Cockell and Mathews they were all L-HWs, so that is credit enough to be allowable considerations against the Rock.

man we're talking the sports greatest period and these fighters didn't get to the Top on a couple of dozen easy streets!

 

***Just on Cockell

Perhaps someone here knows much more than I do, but

He is listed as dying of cancer.

Why are so many saying he died of a disease he suffered from in the fifties. Surviving 30 years with cancer in those years just doesn't seem likely.

Anyone have the facts on this?

**glandular disease, water retention, etc--He is listed as dying of throat cancer. I have no idea if there is a connection. 28 years is a long time, more than half his life, in fact.

 

Glandular Disease, water retention, fat build up and systems breaking down, he suffered for literal years with the disease untill his body couldn't fight off the inevitable "terminal" illnesses brought on because of his disorder!

 

on rating them

Walcott--A
Charles--A
Moore--A

LaStarza--A in the sense he was the #1 contender. B as an opponent, as I think he was a notch below the three above.

Cockell--A- in the sense that he was not the #1 contender, but only rated #2, still he was clearly a worthy contender. B as an opponent, at about the same level as LaStarza. I think because of styles LaStarza had the better chance against Marciano, but he and Cockell were in the same ballpark as far as careers go.

 

I think Suzie'Q49 summed it up with his marking of Larry Holmes in '88 when he fought Tyson

That's how I see it. Although I look at his grading of Marciano's competition and it confuses me how some of those opponents that are past prime fighters, even smaller than Holmes, with more wear and tear and all been KO'd...get an "A" yet Larry gets a "B" ???


For me:

Larry is a future HOF. Only lost twice at that point when he fought Tyson. And Larry was a legit 200+ natural HW who was 6'3 and a great boxer with some good pop. Best Jab arguably in HW history.

HOWEVER, Larry was, and I repeat, 38 years old and past his prime when he fought Tyson. True, everyone ages different and 38 years old for Larry might be better than fighters in previous generations...but Larry's age is still 38 years old and he had shown that he wasn't as good as he was during his peak years.

True, Tyson destroyed him and was the first and only fighter to knock Larry out...but again...38 years old, and past his prime.

And True, I understand who Larry fought afterwards, but, again...38 years old and past his prime will not get a letter grade of "A" when he fought Tyson.

Larry is however a letter grade "A" for legacy and in his prime.