How DQ Losses Should Marciano have had?

He would do okay in mexico. Dirty yes to a degree, a lot was just his style. By this I mean the way he would come in to land his right hand because of his short reach. head butts deliberate or not would always happen. Tough officials might have made a difference I do not think he got away with more in his own backyard than other american boxers. In England yes he would have to cut a lot of stuff out not sure about the outcomes of his fights.

That said he nearly lost to Charles, Walcott who were not really above the other contenders in the early 50's. Walcott lost 7 out of his last 14, against good oppentents. Charles had lost four or five times since losing the title to Walcott.

People like Rocky because of his style and pulling fights out of the bag when in danger. Do not think he would of continue to stay undefeated if he had fought another 7 world title fights. Styles make fights Rocky outside of Walcott was in with right type of fighter.
Patterson based on the Moore fights I favour to win. A younger version of Walcott on another night I would favour to win. The big Finn or eddie Machen all I think would have been great fights, not sure who wins. Liston I think would have destroyed him.

 

No dirtier than Saddler, no more of a rule bender than Ali. I won't say he was the cleanest fighter, but the times bread rougher, tougher fighters. I don't believe Marciano ever had much ill will except for in the LaStarza fight after LaStarza said Marciano was punch-drunk from taking too many punches. Marciano hated the thought of it, and always hated seeing fighters in that condition. That put him in a little rage.

 

The bold is obviously ridiculous.

He didn't nearly lose to Charles, and those were the both either the champion or #1 contender at the time he fought them. Walcott also did an awesome job cleaning out the era in the late 40's and almost beat Joe Louis. Is Joe Louis a bum too?

Patterson beating Marciano is hilarious, especially considering your "Marciano had style advantages all along argument." Thanks for the laugh.

 

Holyfield, Tyson, etc.

The list goes on. It seems that people who do almost anything to get to the top do what they can to keep being on the top. They earned it with hard work and no what it takes to be that guy. Maybe an odd analogy, but possibly comparable in some way to CEO's that are frugal to get to be millionaires. Some say there cheapness is classless considering their position/class and others say that walk over people and that their cheapness mentality got them to where they are.

The one to thing to wonder is why a lot of these champions have a subconscious conflict with winning and honor. Marciano may have had it worse than any other champion because he was the most determined champion... he wanted to win more than anyone (Hence 49-0). He kicked a guy in the groan in his first amateur fight when he was losing before the chance of losing in that environment. He told his brother Sonny after when Sonny asked why he did it "Because there's nothing worse than losing Sonny."

Gentlemen HW champs like Floyd, Corbett, Tunney are rarer breed.

To talk currently, Wlad's holding is atrocious and really bothers me. It's like worse than any holding I've ever seen and the it's completely fine because he's the champ in Germany. And against the caliber of fighters he does it with... makes it worse for me. I could really continue rambling on.

 

The referee decides how he's gonna enforce the rules.

Period.

If he wasn't DQed, he just wasn't.

 

PetethePrince of course you know more than the boxing writers of the time. You of such superior knowledge, nice to know arrogrance is alive and well.

 

If you're that boxing writer, then yes.

"Marciano nearly lost to Charles."

Nearly? How did Charles nearly win that fight. By surviving the 15th round? I didn't see any of the boxing writers write that or dispute the decision. And yes, I've done seen what plenty of the writers wrote about that fight.

 

He does, which seems to make it all the worse. The problem is he has zero confidence inside. You said it, Manny programmed him. His holding in the Sam Peters match was awful. People will tell you Peters started holding, but that was after the jab, hold, jab fest. Peter was burned out and beaten, he then obliged. Obviously Peter has zero inside game but he should have some chance. Instead, Sam tries to do his best Frazier impression to get inside and then Wlad goes octupus... then re-set. Steward believes in this philosophy. Watch the Tyson-Lewis fight where the ref forces Lewis to push or fight more. I believe in that, otherwise the smaller in-fighter has no chance. Steward thought that ref was picking on Lewis, as if there's nothing against the rules because what is a big man supposed to do he's supposed to tie the little man down. I can't imagine having Futch/Frazier team transported to this era and them being infuriated by the holding tactics Wlad would do. Would make Ali-Frazier II look like a picnic.

I don't see how Ali's holding is comparable unless we're talking post-Manilla. Ali really held, but I have a soft spot to forgive the really faded Ali. We aren't talking a champion at the peak of his powers. Watch Wlad's last 3 or so fights and then watch Ali-Frazier II I guarantee Wlad clinched more. That Peters fight was like 3 clinches ever 10 seconds. As for the ropes, I only remember him doing so against Young but what an ugly fight that was. I don't think I'll re-watch that fight ever again.

 

Except it was perfectly within the rules. Walcott was not down.
I could say other things in Marciano's defence, but it's absolutely academic, since Walcott wasn't even down.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9msELiZKyU[/ame]