Marciano v Cokkell Not In B & W.By D Brown

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Tonto62, Sep 5, 2019.



  1. Tonto62

    Tonto62 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,715
    1,401
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 26, 2011
    It isn't just age its wear and tear mileage on their clocks Charles was having his 96 and 97th fights.FFS! Charles had been badly kod byWalcott and outpointed by him, in their previous 2 fights he was the winner.
    Matt McGrain is a very knowledgeable poster who never stoops to devious manipulation of stats to make his case, you compulsively do so.
    Bottom Line Lastarza was damaged goods as his subsequent record after Marciano ,makes abundantly clear! He had elbow problems which limited his punch output .
    Marciano had administered a severe and drawn out beating to him and he was never the same fighter afterwards!
    All the obfuscation and spin you attempt will not alter that fact one iota!
     
    Cecil and Seamus like this.
  2. Bah Lance

    Bah Lance Member Full Member

    216
    192
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 29, 2019
    But that still isn't the case.

    Moore cleaned out the 50s crop of younger HW contenders in Henry, Valdes, and Baker.

    Charles beat Layne, Wallace, Holman and Brion.

    Satterfield beat Big Cat, Valdes, and Holman.

    Bivins even bested DeJohn in his last fight.

    Johnson beat Machen despite being 5 years older.

    Maxim beat Patterson, the most successful late 50s fighter.

    It just seems 40s fighters had a great deal of success in their twilight.

    I personally find late 50s to be a fairly weak period
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019 at 8:58 AM
    George Crowcroft likes this.
  3. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Active Member Full Member

    1,054
    954
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 15, 2018
    Besides Charles Walcott Rocky and Moore who only fought HW in the 50s I believe. The rest I wouldn’t consider top ten of the decade. Liston, Harold Johnson, Machen, Zorra, Cleveland, Patterson, Ingo were all better then the others at hW. Maxim was a hell of a fighter but I don’t believe he had many fights at HW (please correct me if wrong not sure). And I would consider Satterfeild Marciano and Moore as mainly 50s HWs anyway with very little HW action in the 40s.
     
  4. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    22,835
    2,416
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    And the record demonstrates that Charles always had close contests that could have went either way before he was champion. Bivins, Maxim, Ray, Fitzpatrick. He fought that often.

    The only difference was, After he was champion when it was close, Charles didn’t always get the benefit of the doubt in the opponents hometown. Not unusual to his pre title days.

    Don’t forget, Apart from the one knockout loss to Walcott (a guy he already beat twice) that’s the only time any one beat Charles beyond any dispute at heavyweight. His next fight with Walcott was another close affair that could have went either way. So no decline.

    And don’t start with this 96 fights lark. Charles was not your average 96 fight veteran. He had three years out! In the first 6 years of his career he had only fought for theee of them! So he was absent for as long as he had boxed. As a replenished bigger fighter he started again. Charles Then went 41-1 up to losing the title. That’s not a hard paper round. And this is not untrue, or spin, check it out. It all stands up.

    ... losing on points to A respectable rated contender in a competitive fight right after losing to Marciano is not a terrible loss. But sure, Lastarza then had tough fights with Mederos and Norkus where he was unable to win.

    How about the fact that Cokkell was legitimately a deserving #2 ring magazine rated challenger?
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019 at 11:37 AM
  5. Bah Lance

    Bah Lance Member Full Member

    216
    192
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 29, 2019
    *Charles, Walcott, Bivins, and Louis were all rated HWs in the 40s who all reached top 10 status at various points in the 1950s.

    *Maxim was rated as a top 10 HW by RING in 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, and 50. Maxim defeated the most dominate HW of the late 50s in Patterson.

    *Men rated at LHW in the 40s... Moore, Satterfield, Bivins, Charles, and Johnson all had undeniable success against rated HWs from the 50s.

    *40s LHW Bob Satterfiled is 10 years older than Cleveland Williams and bombed him out. Yet you rate Cleveland Williams as a top 50s fighter? Who did he beat? Why are men that are more than decade apart considered generational peers on your scale?

    *Harold Johnson was never rated as a HW in the 50s, yet you count him as a top 50s HW while excluding the 40s LHWs who also frequently fought above 175? That doesn't make any sense.

    If you have to keep shifting the goal posts around like this and struggling with consistent criteria, you need to just back off your stance of the 40s being crap and the 50s being great. The 50s was dominated by 40s HWs and Light Heavies. It wasn't until these guys got too old, that we saw new blood have any success.

    I'm not huge for Decade vs Decade match ups over the loose criteria of what makes a fighter belong to a specific decade. But if the 40s was so bad, Walcott and Charles capturing the title would not have happened. Maxim upsetting Patterson wouldn't have happened. Louis, Charles, and Moore reaching #1 wouldn't have happened,...etc.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019 at 12:44 PM
  6. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Ridin' the rails Full Member

    3,045
    4,065
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 25, 2015
    How did a colour video thread turn into this?

    Only Marciano...
     
    Tonto62 and George Crowcroft like this.
  7. Tonto62

    Tonto62 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,715
    1,401
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 26, 2011
    It's quite unbelievable isn't it.
     
  8. Tonto62

    Tonto62 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,715
    1,401
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 26, 2011
     
  9. Tonto62

    Tonto62 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,715
    1,401
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 26, 2011
    Charles having a period out of the ring does not make 76fights any less does it!
    Charles lost to Ray in New York . Ray was from Florida.
    He lost to Cuban Valdes in Miami.
    Brockton's Marciano in New York.
    Stop with this home town decision ****!
     
  10. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Not here for the fairy tales Full Member

    14,773
    4,767
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 30, 2014
    No--I think the kind of guy who would be most expected to exploit Marciano's technical flaws would be someone who moved a lot more, jabbed more, and fought from range more than Charles and Walcott did against Marciano. Not sure how much of it was overconfidence, poor strategy, or just aging men trying to preserve their energy, but neither man used his footwork and jab to maintain distance like he should have. However much they stepped and postured between exchanges, they mostly stood flat-footed when they punched and it was very easy for Marciano to close the gap just by effortlessly stepping forward at a normal pace.

    I guess it depends on how you define boxing skills, but them being "beautiful" and "stylish" than bigger fighters doesn't mean that they necessarily had superior skills.
     
  11. roughdiamond

    roughdiamond Ridin' the rails Full Member

    3,045
    4,065
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 25, 2015
    To play devils advocate, I do think from watching the Ezzard - Rocky film (d brown version) that Ezzard was purposefully exchanging digs to the body in order to slow Marciano down and work as a technician later, almost as if he was more worried about the pressure of Rocky rather than the power. I agree with the jabbing statement, but I do think Marciano's pressure, power and chin allowed him to negate a pure jabbing strategy. And while Ezzard was swift of foot at peak, he wasn't a Pastrano or even a Spinks, and didn't box that way. He had a 'classical' way of positioning and movement.

    I do agree that Charles looks aged, but not old and ancient, and the excess weight would slow his already classical footwork style.
     
  12. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Active Member Full Member

    1,054
    954
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 15, 2018
    I agree with your Cleveland Williams stance seems over rated to me. But Maxim was more known for LHW and Patterson as great as he was was probably the third beatbox HW of the decade behind Marciano and Liston. But I see your point. Most of the guys I named most important fights and primes were 50s in the HW division. Wasn’t insulting the 40s which boxing obviously suffered because of ww2 was just saying you had better HWs fighting in the 50s then the 40s. Had ww2 not occurred probably wouldn’t be much of a difference. I agree w much of what u said
     
  13. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Active Member Full Member

    1,054
    954
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 15, 2018
    Also Harold Johnson has one of the best records at HW in regards to competition beat ever...wins over EC, Nino, Slade, Marshal, Machen, Satterfield, etc
     
    choklab and Bah Lance like this.
  14. Bah Lance

    Bah Lance Member Full Member

    216
    192
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 29, 2019
    *As I pointed out Maxim was a top rated HW contender for most of his career. He was rated #3 and challenged Charles for the HW title twice as late as 51.

    *The point about Patterson. It doesn't look well for the 50s when the dominate Champion for half of the decade got edged by a declined contender from the 40s on his way up. At the very least, it shows how cagey the 40s fighters were in that they could be so successful against the new blood.

    *I understand the argument about WW2 but it boils down to proving a negative which doesn't logically work. The facts are that the War did see the titles frozen but at last led to the breakdown of the color line, actually expanding the talent pool. Guys like Walcott and Charles may have never got a chance if not for the War.
     
    choklab and Gazelle Punch like this.
  15. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    22,835
    2,416
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    Not necessarily. Ali said it was hard to jab Marciano.

    Young fans subscribe to the modern interpretation of good boxing only being fighting from range, sticking and moving and controlling distance..which often requires longer arms- but the more advanced definition of great boxing is that of efficient economy. Being first, Having the right punch ready for each opening. Being good enough to outbox somebody without a physical advantage.

    Getting up on your toes and running around works but it’s not always best practice. It is flashy, tv friendly and reliant on reflexes. But true aficionados appreciate the more clever art of boxing in the traditional sense over the dancing, leaning back and long range reaching.

    yes they did effectively use footwork to jab and use distance. They beat Marciano to the punch and gave ground only to walk him onto counter punches because they had an exceptional control of distance.

    right. they stood flat footed because they had a greater control of distance and could use full leverage on their punches. The hit and move tactic prevents full blooded blows landing until the victim has first been slowed. Had they ran around and around picking Marciano off they would eventually have to go flat footed to go in for the kill. But why run around trying to tire out somebody as tireless as Marciano if you can land full blooded blows from the beginning?

    I think it is self evident that Charles and Walcott has superior boxing skills than most heavyweight champions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2019 at 10:52 AM
    Gazelle Punch likes this.