Louis Says Marciano Hit The Hardest

Its always amusing when the Rockista's assume anyone who doesn't buy into the Rocky was a God BS is "butt hurt" and angst ridden because Rocky was 49-0.Why would his record cause me or anyone else stress? It's absurd!
Let's take your fan boy claims one by one.
Johnny Shkor. He had been knocked out inside a round by Walcott in his previous fight. His best win is over Mauriello who got a bad cut and despite his vehement protests the fight was stopped, that was in 47,it happens.
Shkor racked up some wins feeding on the lower strata of heavyweights but when he stepped up the quality of his opposition the losses began to appear.His only 2 other wins of note were over Sid Peaks and Rusty Payne, both very fleetingly ranked in the bottom half of the top ten,both were in and outers ,to class them as top ranked contenders is a blatant attempt to boost Shkor's ,and by definition Marciano's record.
A year before tackling Rocky, Schkor was held to a draw by third rater Angel Sotillo who had lost his last 4 fights.
Schkor hadn't been ranked for 3 years when he faced Marciano,he had won just 3 of his last 11 fights ,and would retire for 4 years after the Marciano fight,to present a victory over him at that stage of his career as noteworthy, or to suggest he was a fringe contender at that moment in time is ludicrous in the extreme.
Schkor had 3 tries at winning the New England heavyweight title and couldn't manage it ,that tells you emphatically his place in the pecking order.


Carmine Vingo.He was a 17 fight string- bean novice. To promote his win over Joe Modzele as anything other than routine is flagrantly dishonest and easily exposed.Modzele,[like Schkor,] began to accumulate the losses whenever he attempted to move up in class,in fact he didnt have to aspire any higher to be defeated as his loss to 17-16-1 fourth rater Walter Hafer ,just prior to facing Vingo demonstrates.After beating Modzele ,Hafer would lose his next 3 win 2 of his next 7 then retire.
Roland Lastarza.The poster boy for cautious matchmaking, the list of contenders he avoided makes Deontay Wilder's management seem positively reckless!
Baker
Charles
Walcott
Sys
Gardner
Williams
Henry
Satterfield
Valdes
Holman
Bivins
Dunlop
Walls
Maxim
Neuhaus
Are just some of the names missing from his resume.
Lastarza really didnt deserve his title shot,he got it on the back of a close win over damaged goods Rex Layne who was never the same after the Rocky fight,who else had he beaten? Moderate cruiser Bucceroni and the second string in Weill's heavyweight stable Brion.
He had recently lost to journeyman lhvy Rocky Jones being floored along the way and in avenging that loss there is some speculation that Jones had the cuffs on to facilitate a title shot for Lastarza,[see Suzie Q.'s posts for more info on that].

Layne was a genuine contender ,powerful [for the50's] but defensively porous, slow both of hand and foot ,and weak in the belly.
When Charley Goldman put his charge Cesar Brion in with Layne, he noticed the Mormon was vulnerable to body shots,he told Rocky,"Cesar wasn't strong enough for him but if you concentrate on his belly he will fold." Marciano duly targeted Layne's midriff and gradually weakened him before applying the finisher.
Walcott was 38 years old,it had taken him 4 tries to finally win the title,and he was never going to hold it long at that stage of his career.Like Charles he would never have smelt the title if a prime Louis had been holding it.

Archie Moore was 38 ,according to him and 40 according to his Mother,[why would she lie?]
He himself admitted that when he finally got his shot at the heavy title his legs were gone.
He had 176 fights worth of mileage on his clock, was at an advanced age and competing a division above his best weight
As he said ,"Rocky just ground me down with bulldogging grit."

Ezzard Charles was an old 33 years old fighter with nearly a hundred fights behind him and he was better at light heavy, he had lost 2 of his last 4 fights.
Joe Louis was an ancient 36 with no right hand left, he badly marked up Marciano with his jab but ,as he said his legs gave out in the 7th and he was then there to be taken.
He was never the same fighter after the War and declared his last great fight was against Mauriello which was in 46,5 years previous to when he faced Marciano.
You wisely didn't mention Cokkel so I won't go there,gimmee defence ,a run out to test the nose injury.
Basically Rocky was in the right place at the right time and took full advantage of it, good for him,he ducked nobody and fought who was around ,the fact that his 4 best wins were over men past their best days was not his fault ,but that does not make it any less of a fact .

These are the facts presented coldly ,dispassionately, without bitterness ,devoid of anger, or angst.

N.B. Jack Johnson signed to defend against Jeannette twice,Langford twice ,and McVey once, the fact that these fights did not happen was not his fault.This is easily verified by anyone sufficiently interested in learning the truth and really the onus is on them to do so before making uninformed comments on the subject.

ps I've just returned from my 3 rd holiday this year and am going away again in November [Vienna],I'm comfortably off, have a wonderful family and great friends,going to watch the Joshua fight round one of the son in laws tomorrow with a few beers ,and play with a couple of my grandkids. WTF would I have to be bitter about?
You make some pretty weird assumptions ,do you know that?

 

Mcvey is taking people to school on this thread.
Well played Mc.

 

I just pointed out the key to beating Layne which Goldman had spotted, you want to blow that out of all proportion that's your choice.
Quite a few guys would have excellent chances against a prime Louis, Dempsey,Johnson,Holmes,Tunney,Tyson,Liston,Foreman,to name a few.
No the 4 tries shows you that against a faded Louis Walcott still couldn't turn the trick ,.and against Charles he lost twice. Prime weight? Max Baer was at his prime weight when he lost to Braddock how did he do? Charles was at his best at light heavy and past his prime for the Marciano fights this is not debateable.
Satterfield beat Valdes nearly a year after Bor had lost to Charles so that result is irrelevant!
Would you pick Layne to beat ;
Tucker
Tubbs
Ruddock
Morrison
Mercer
Weaver
Dokes
Thomas
Ray
Henry
Williams
Quarry
Lyle
Shavers
Bruno
Bugner
Because I wouldn't!
He was David Bey level imo.


There is a case to be made that both the Walcott and Charles of a few years earlier might have beaten Marciano.Certainly the Walcott who fought Louis in47 & 48 would have been a tougher proposition for Rocky than the 38 years old version who was in front when he was ko'd by him in 52.
I have fun wherever I am,just being "above ground," is a bonus.

 

It isn't widely accepted by anyone who is objective enough to recognize that the complete version of the fight does not exist. 168lbs Billy Conn was in front after 12 rds with Louis,before hubris took over and he went for the ko.
Tunney at 190, was stronger and hit appreciably harder than Conn.Ever heard of the adage "styles make fights?"Tunney had not only an excellent jab and a hard, fast ,accurate right cross, he had the wheels to carry him out of danger of Louis' artillery.

Tyson has a good shot against Louis because of his swarming style ,his two fisted power , his handspeed,and his chin.

Louis' trainer Blackburn said Johnson's style was all wrong for Joe.

Dempsey takes out Louis early imo ,he would overwhelm him before Louis could get going ,imo.If the fight goes past the hallway stage Louis' chances increase dramatically.

Liston can match Louis for jab and power ,where he falls down is in speed, but a prime Sonny had a great chin,and his other fault ,lack of lateral movement would not be a factor against the somewhat predictable feet of the Bomber.

Foreman has at least Louis' power an excellent jab, very good understanding of ring geometry, and a terrific chin.

Holmes has an even better jab than Louis ,enough power in his right to get his attention and make him wary of just marching in, and the reach and speed to tag him first.
Slowish punchers like Buddy Baer and Galento dropped Joe, he would always be vulnerable to the big bangers like Liston,Lewis,Foreman, & Tyson,they would not necessarily beat him,but to dismiss their chances is not being realistic.

 

Want me to name some more contenders who beat Layne?
Bonavena
Mathis
Chuvalo
DeJohn
Williams
Terrell
Folley
Machen
Valdes
Langford
Sharkey
Quarry would clown Layne, he was superior in every department.

 

Joe Louis at 36 before the Ezzard Charles fight.

This content is protected

 

Hang on a second, u think a 38 year old walcott was in his prime and charles was "young" when he fought marciano but you think marciano himself was past his prime at 32?

 

I am not even doing the point by point, because out of the gate, you have revealed that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Shkor also beat Flynn, so that is three contenders. He beat three contenders, and was himself ranked. That is a fine career that shits all over your career choice of being an internet troll. He also has a win against Johnny Allen, who beat Joe Walcott.

We have heard all of your bull****. It is the nature of boxing that young fighters beat old ones, and he beat four ATGs in six fights. These fighters were still the best in the division. They, as well as Dempsey, Frazier, and Ali, all spoke with tremendous admiration of Marciano, THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT BOXING THAN YOU DO. In fact, I am not sure that you know anything at all.

Again, let us let them have the last word:

JERSEY JOE WALCOTT
"Joe could take you out with combinations...Marciano was a one-punch artist. He threw every punch like you throw a baseball, as hard as he could. I have to say, with all respect to Joe, Marciano hit harder."

HARRY "KID" MATHEWS
"He was a great puncher, one of the best of all-time. He just threw one punch after another, and all of them were hard."

EZZARD CHARLES:
"Rocky numbs you all over. Wherever he hits you, he hurts you; on the arms, the shoulders, the neck and the head."

JOE LOUIS
"It hurt to bump into him....He hits harder than Max Schmeling...this kid is tough enough to beat anyone."

and

"The Rock didn't know too much about the boxing book, but it wasn't a book he hit me with. It was a whole library of bone crushers."

ARCHIE MOORE
(When asked which punch hurt him most)
"Man they all hurt."

and

"After a fight with Marciano, it felt like you had been beat all over the upper body with a blackjack or hit with rocks....He could hurt you, sure, but it was the quantity of his punches. He just had more stamina than anyone else in those days. He was like a bull with gloves."

ROLAND LASTARZA
"I would throw a hard punch, then he would throw a hard punch. The difference was that Rocky would throw 10 more. He just never stopped throwing punches."

PHIL MUSCATO
"Dan, I can still feel his punches. He kept punching me in the upper arms until I could no longer hold them up to defend or throw punches".

BERNIE REYNOLDS
"He had amazing strength. Any time Marciano hit you, he could hurt you. He didn't do much flicking; every punch was a knockout punch."

 

I consider a fighter to be in his "prime" during a year(s) when he has either

A) his greatest signature performance against a top notch elite opponent (usually no more than 1 or 2). The rest of their opponents are mediocre or average in comparison.

B) he looks absolutely phenomenal against several "good" but not necessarily "great" opponents.

C) he is dominant for many years against both good and great opponents. A couple losses here and there dont detract from his incredible resume.

These definitions are regardless of age, prior losses, or personal/medical issues. You are free to disagree of course but ill gibe some examples:

-Tyson Fury had an otherwise lackluster career against european level guys until he shocked the world by upsetting wladmir klitschko. To this day people rave about this one particular performance against a skilled reigning champ on the verge of beating Joe Louis' title defense record. This places him in the category "A". By my view, Fury's prime was 2014-2015. We wont know if hes back to that level or surpassed it until he fights wilder. If he loses or never gets back that form, i think most historians would agree with ne putting him in category A.

-Another example of A would be Buster Douglas. Other than Tyson, his career was nothing to rave about.

-For category B, you have guys like Ali during the late 60's. Liston was a great win, but his other title defenses /unifications were "good" but not great. Ali looked invincible, but the fact he was facing guys like past his best Zora Folley, injured Cleveland Williams, chuvalo, terrel, etc might have had something to do with it.

-Joe Louis had his infamous bum of the month tour with only a handful of guys that were an actual threat to him, but he looked damned good fighting them with his incredible speed, timing, ring iq, etc. No major signature wins in this time frame but this is also when he was at his best performance wise, so his prime would be "B".

-For C, id have to say guys like 70's Ali who defied the odds and came off a layoff beating men younger than him to regain the title in tough era. Lennox Lewis had his two hiccups with rahman and mccall, but managed to avenge those losses and for the most part dominated the late 90's and became undisputed. Floyd Mayweather, Andre ward, sugar ray robinson, and other greats probably fit this category depending on what time frame of their career u look at.

So based on this criteria, when could rockys "prime" possibly be? It certainy wasnt when he was fighting guys like lowry who had 40+ losses. Guys like vingo and lastarza were his first big step ups in competition, but they werent nearly championship level fighters.

What about 1951 when he fought rex layne? Layne was actually favored to win, and was bigger than rocky and made a name for himself as a big tough puncher with only 1 loss and plenty of experience. Rocky beat ex champ louis that same year, and then fought for the title shortly after. 1953 was his signature win over walcott in a phenomenal come fom behind ko. He rematched lastarza, then beat charles back to back then finally moore. He was on fire with a string of good or great wins from 1951-1955 against the best, ranked opponents of his weight class so thay was obviously his "prime". He was the champion during this time frame and no other point in his career. Id put him in category "C".

Moore was easily his best opponent or 2nd best after walcott. Therefore, i dont see how you cant include the Moore fight in his prime. To me it makes no sense that his top 1-2 best win came when he past it, eso
espially when his other signature win (walcott 1953) was only TWO YEARS prior to the Moore fight and he was the champion the whole time.

Im not denying that he had back problems, but for him to be doing road work, cutting his weight below 190 in his 30's, sparring, hitting the heavybag, and demolishing world ranked oponents, how bad was it? On film, and based on his performance and quality of opposition, there doesnt appear to be any drop in his skill, stamima, power, etc. I dont buy that his back pain was so crippling that he was suddenly well past his prime only 2 years after possibly his best win. Was there a significant injury or spinal/muscle damage?