Ike Ibeabuchi v.s Rocky Marciano

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Bad_Intentions, Jun 27, 2007.


  1. Dubal Speek

    Dubal Speek Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,545
    2
    Apr 27, 2016
    That despite all his muscle, Ike was knocked down by a lesser former light heavy than Marciano? Maybe?
     
  2. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,609
    46,242
    Feb 11, 2005
    I mostly agree but did Grant beat anyone of Tua's or Byrd's level? I don't think Golota qualifies.

    I've had to repeat this so many times on this forum but will once more for your edification... it is not just size but skill combined with size... and for the effective skillset for the larger opponent against the smaller foe does not look like the skillset of two physically evenly matched opponents. So many here who claim to be longtime observers of the sport expect to see the same techniques and tactics from a guy with a 40 pound weight advantage as they see from a guy facing his physical equal. It is pretty appalling folks see but do not learn.
     
  3. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    You dont think Carnera had skill? He outpointed a master boxer in Tommy Laughran.

    Why not pick Carnera over more champions? You need to be consistent in these matters surely.
     
  4. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    Skill set of most of the very large hwts is just horrible. Lewis was an exception in many ways and makes my top five. Fury as an alternative example is a disgrace and joke of a fighter. Although I never heard of Lewis taking PEDS most all others benefited physically from them. Take away these enhancements and you would be seeing much more lanky tall hwts.
     
  5. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    In the 1960s a few lanky heavyweights managed to make an impression. Terrell, Tony Alongi and Mike Dejohn. Under the training, rules and equipment of the day they were unable to capitalise and did well to do as well as they did.

    Hardly any after that. Wepner..John Tate, C00ney. Thats it.

    In the late 1980s something happened. All of a sudden a lot more things must have suited taller heavyweights. I dont know if it was the slower pace, fewer rounds, fatter competition or bigger gloves but a truck load of 6'6" guys broke into the division. ****ey, Williams, Tucker, Mitch Green, Ribalta, Bowe, Lewis. All of a sudden too. Just like that.

    Then there was Mavrovic, Briggs, Klit #1, klit #2, They began to dominate, Fury..Joshua, Wilder...It goes on and on.

    But why? And where we're they all before 1985?
     
  6. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,582
    27,245
    Feb 15, 2006
    Because Carnera did the one thing those proponents of modern fighters can never forgive.

    He lost to a smaller heavyweight.

    That means that his reputation has to be destroyed, otherwise their key argument is undermined.
     
  7. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    Damn right. :good
     
  8. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,609
    46,242
    Feb 11, 2005
    Because Carnera lacked the physical tools, reflexes, balance, speed, fluidity, a natural athleticism, that we see in modern giants. Guys who did possess the above attributes, like Gains, Louis and Haynes, exposed Carnera as middling in athletic ability. He was certainly no Rid**** Bowe, Lewis or K2.

    Again, as we have both noted, true excellent superheavies are rare. But the bar of size in the division, has risen over the decades. That can not be denied nor merely attributed to PED's or bad training or bad diet.
     
  9. Vanboxingfan

    Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,591
    255
    Feb 5, 2005
    So what, we know he beat Byrd and Tua both, far more skilled than many in the time period Marciano fought, so what's your point?

    Do you think only the likes of Lewis and Wlad would have had a chance to raise to the top in the 1950's or can we assume others such as Byrd, Holyfield, Tua and yes, Ike would have also done well in that era?
     
  10. Vanboxingfan

    Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,591
    255
    Feb 5, 2005
    I disagree that Ike was some mere prospect who was a "what if" kind of guy, unless the what if, refers to him being a champion. Beating Byrd and Tua does NOT make you some prospect who's potential is unknown, rather it makes you a very formidable fighter who may or may not have reached the very top but was heading in that direction.
     
  11. Perry

    Perry Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,343
    1,536
    Apr 26, 2015
    PEDS are rarely mentioned but it has been a main reason what were tall and lanky became behemoths. Take Dempsey who was a natural killer, put him on steroids and you would have not only a larger homicidal maniac but a fighter who knew how to fight and possessed all the intrinsic attributes of a great fighter. Today's hwt fighters mostly are big but lack the skill but more so the intrinsic attributes that separate greatness from also rans.
     
  12. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,739
    29,091
    Jun 2, 2006
    Good post!
     
  13. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,739
    29,091
    Jun 2, 2006
    Perceptive points.:good
     
  14. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    8,129
    1,762
    Jul 1, 2015
    Bull**** I don't see any difference in guys like Fury, Wlad, and other modern giants compared to Carnera. Watch Carnera fight and quit going by what other people say about him.
     
  15. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,431
    9,419
    Jul 15, 2008

    Nonsense. Grant beat no one. Ike beat the best Tua ever and Chris Byrd, a former champion .. both Tua and Byrd were fixtures in the top of the heavyweight dvision for a decade. Stick to facts.