I Underate Rocky Marciano!

the 50s were a pretty weak era. Ezzard Charles didn't even look like a Heavyweight. By the time Marciano came to fight these fighters they were past their best e.g. Charles, Walcott, Louis. Moore was light heavy and Patterson destroyed him. Cockell was rubbish but Marciano made him look good. Ali woulda done him quicker than Big Cat Williams and you thought he was bad - Cockell was worse. Marciano's main stregth was his high work rate and tremendous will power to win. But he did miss with an awful lot of punches. A great fighter would make him pay for them misses. Marciano was great cuz of his will to win and that can count for a lot so he's hard to assess but he never beat anyone great at their peak.

 

You repeat yourself. The same **** you come with like always. Charles didn´t look like a HW? Damn, should he have been looked like Briggs or what? Some idiots like you ( unfortunately not few here on ESB) still don´t get it, that at a sport like boxing the "look" or the muscles aren´t the most important thing, they´re far away from being the most important things in boxing actually. Moore, Charles, Walcott were all past their primes? That´s right, they weren´t in their prime, but if you watch some of their tapes in their prime (which you 99,9 % don´t have) you will see if you´re honest that it isn´t a big difference there, all 3 were in a very good shape, especially Charles and Walcott. And I don´t know why you´re coming with the Cockell- fight, Marciano wasn´t near at his best there, that was also one of the factors why he decided to retire, I thaught that was clear. And Patterson destroyed Moore? Woah, how logical. Ali struggled with Cooper and was very lucky in this bout, the journeyman Rischer surprised everybody and easily outboxed Cooper in 64 in the UK and made him miss a lot with his movement. You get my point? You can be a hater, I have no problems with that, but come in future better with logical arguments or facts not with your "common sense", it would be better...

 

You are trying to over simplify a complicated point. To make a sweeping general comment, may mean you get pulled up on it, my friend.

Like another one there: What is a logical answer? Sometimes what we talk about is so far out there, that it will defy logic, thus a logical answer may be impossible.

 

Btw, sorry for the harsh post of me, you meant it decidedly also a bit with humor, but those examples you brought weren´t good, I hope you agree with me, because LaMar for example fought only butchers, cab drivers, gay porn actors, etc., everytime he fought a fighter who could fight just a little bit he lost via KO. Marciano fought world class opponents and many, many ranked fighters, that´s a big difference.

 

Of course there is a huge difference; that was my point. Marciano was a special fighter, but the '0' should just be one factor, but sadly is not, for many it is all he is, which is wrong IMO.

 

That is of course definitely wrong, if someone say Marciano is great or even the greatest because he never lost and his 0. Without a question.

 

I have Marciano number one. His fight with Walcott: Everything went against him, he got knocked down early, then blinded by something in eyes during middle rounds, yet survived to win on a one punch ko. He also had abilty to take a person out with one shot from either hand, early or late in fight, something very few can do. How many guys can come up with a one shot knockout after 12 tough rounds (or eleven now, since title fights were shortened.

Charles fought one of greatest fights of his life in bout one, Marciano still managed to win, Moore came up with great performance, despite some claiming he was too old (he did hold light-heavy title several more years) yet Marciano dominated from round 3 on.

He beat guys who may have been champs if he was not around (Layne, La Starza) and beat them so bad they were never as good. He damged guys.

He was good athletic, not a clumsey oaf, as some say, and had smart boxing sense. Also, an overlooked asset, reflexes. He did not fall for hand, shoulder, or other types of fients, but could give great ones himself.
Strong chin, strong body, stamina, fit, very strong of mind, to the point of a nutcase (sorry, but he was a bit off in the head to fight with noise split open)

He also had a manager who interfered in his affairs inside and outside ring.
Al Wiel was NOT acornerman, but for title fights started getting involved, sometime shampering guys like Charlie Goldman and cut man Freddie Brown, and Wiell would aslo sometimes argue with refs. Marciano dd not let this distract him, and was not let self be drawn into any of it, as others might.

Wiell also interfered in training camps, and insulted Marciano, and Marciano's father once. If wiel had stayed to managing himm instead, Marciano may have had anothef fight or two. I must be fair, it is possible he could have continued and lost about, but considering he had cleaned out competition, he could have stayed on till 1957 if he wanted This last part is jus topinion of course.

Finally, sorry for spelling manager's name 4 different ways atsch I just was unsure of spelling.

 

Marciano was a great all around athlete. He was a great highschool football player. In baseball he was good enough to get a tryout with I think it was the Chicago Cubs. His hitting was up to major leauge standards. The only reason he did not choose baseball was because, ironically, his throw to second base was not strong enough for the major leagues. He was a catcher. He had arguably the greatest straight right in history but not a strong throwing arm. I find that amazing but its true.

 

The 1950's was one of boxing strongest eras. There were way more pros competing, and way more fights taking place.


Marciano rarley got hit off his miisses, not because he was up against non-great--Charles, Walcott, Moore, Lastarza ???? He was always balanced, and in postition to react after a miss.

 

Lets start with the raw numbers.

Six sucesfull title defences puts him in the company of Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Lewis. Now consider that all but one of those were against the No1 contender and that was Cockle (No2 contender). So no fat whatsoever on his title reign making it better on paper than the other guys I mentioned. That alone should ensure him a place in the top 7 or 8 even if he had stayed on and lost to Eddie Machen.

Now lets consider that he beat 6 lineal champions and one title claimant. We can debate the state of each fighter he beat but Walcott and Charles are typicaly considered to be top 20 all time heavyweights largley on the basis of what they did in that era. How many champions have actualy beaten sombody seen as a top 20 all time heavyweight at or around the time?

Moore is a top 5 all time light heavyweight and a case can be made for calling him a top 30 heavyweight.

Add it all up and you have a body of work that is hard to ignore.

 

But look at the heavys today,most are fat(,or have to much muscle(briggs),only wlad looks the buisness,size and height if used propely can be a advantage,but we have all seen huge men get beat by the more skilled man.Seriously if charles,walcott or the rock suddenly came along now,they would beat the majority of men out there no question of that in my mind

 

We can debate it until the cows come home but crucialy nobody did.

As Rocky would say:

"Ah well now its me yal have to prove it to kid".