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

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


  1. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Active Member Full Member

    1,229
    1,136
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 15, 2018
    You would think Louis would all things considered. Charles was an underrated HW. Walcott was a solid fighter and would be really good in any era but his chin would always let him down. It def wasn’t a strong era but it was def stronger then the previous decades. 50s would provide a lot of solid talent for the decade. That you really could put up against most decades.
     
  2. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    23,136
    2,692
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    Answer the question. Would the same guys who pick Andre Ward to beat Marciano pick Moore to beat Ward? Yes or no.
     
  3. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    23,136
    2,692
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    not in a strictly technical boxing sense. For actual boxing skill set, not on who can beat who, boxing skill set, which heavyweight champions had a better all round boxing repertoire than Charles or Walcott?

    Physical tools was not the point I made. The question is if marcianos balance and skill could be exploited wouldn’t a skilful fighter address this? Physical strength dosnt come into any part of this point.

    bigger men with dozens of jabs could not box like Charles or Walcott. On a strictly skill basis why would a big plodder exploit the boxing fundamentals of Rocky Marciano better than a Charles, a Walcott, a Moore or even the 9 fight contender version of old Joe Louis?

    Again this is an unusual point to make when assessing boxing ability alone. Size certainly does matter in the weight classes below Jack Dempsey sized heavyweights. However, without the absence of men sized like Jack Dempsey and Bob Satterfeild and Archie Moore And so many other examples that obliterated giants the size factor in itself becomes just a factor. It’s not a cast iron “no chance”. It probably isn’t even close to being the number one argument.

    For sure the man to beat Marciano would be bigger, but this is not the point. And certainly not the only point.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
    70sFan865 and dinovelvet like this.
  4. Pat M

    Pat M Active Member Full Member

    649
    1,190
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 20, 2017
    The Charles and Walcott I've seen against Marciano look ordinary at best. Walcott moves with the speed of a glacier and does a lot of wasted foot movement, Charles is not impressive either. I don't care if others want to believe that RM was the best ever, the video tells me all I need to know about him and his opponents. I'd pick most of the good heavyweights since 1970 to beat RM. And I wouldn't stop at heavyweights, there are plenty of Cruiserweights, Light Heavys, and 168s too.

    In the Marciano era, boxing was essentially the U.S. and Britain, maybe WW2 and the Korean War had diminished the talent available, or maybe it was some other factor, but from the video available, there wasn't much talent at heavyweight.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
    Seamus likes this.
  5. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Active Member Full Member

    1,229
    1,136
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 15, 2018
    Idk about that. Men from that era went on to compete in the late 50s thru early 60s. The 40s were a **** era but 50s has plenty of great fighters Marciano, Liston, Patterson, Walcott, Charles, Zorra, Cleveland, Ingo, Archie, Harold Johnson, were all good to great pros and I’d take that top ten against most decades.
     
    choklab likes this.
  6. Cecil

    Cecil Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,213
    1,869
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 22, 2015
    Pat, can I just say and I’m not trying to be funny here are you a top trainer, who earns his living in the trade?
    Do you think you could have gone into Dempsey’s, Tunney’s, Marciano’s, Walcott’s and Charles’s camps and advised these greats and their trainers where they were going wrong?
    Could you have taken the fighter and trainer to one side and shown them how to improve their technique?
    Like I say i’m not being facetious here.
     
    choklab likes this.
  7. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    23,136
    2,692
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    oh I think that is a harsh minority view. The fights involving Marciano with Charles and Walcott stand up as excellent fights. Without knowing the guys in them, these films stands up as great fights. Exceptional even. Great fights make great fighters.

    Walcott effectively shifted weight from one foot to the other in order to pivot from the hip of either side. That is not wasted footwork. He lay traps with that walk away right hand. I don’t think too many see glacier speed or wasted movement watching a Jersey Joe Walcott fight.

    you are entitled to think so of course. But what areas would you like to see improvement in Charles boxing technique? His timing? poise, stance, footwork, defence, punch selection? And in relation to what particular heavyweights?

    would you care to list the non heavyweights that would beat Marciano?

    Ah, so this is not just a writing off of Marciano, but the whole era he fought in? I can see now why you cannot entertain Marciano as a great fighter when you cannot rate the golden age of boxing as a time that produced talented fighters.
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
    dinovelvet likes this.
  8. Pat M

    Pat M Active Member Full Member

    649
    1,190
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jun 20, 2017
    You have the wrong idea, I've never earned my living in boxing. Boxing, as a business doesn't interest me. I've trained amateur and pro fighters and consider myself to be good with fundamentals and technique. My interest in boxing is almost entirely at the gym level.

    I've never taken a dime from one of our fighters and don't plan to. I have told them that I don't have the connections, or the desire to make the connections, to move them and that I'd have no objection to them going to a trainer/manager who could do more for them. When they have a fight scheduled I corner for them, but with the day before weigh in and the "hurry up and wait" of the next day, that's two days that I don't look forward to. Other than when my fighters are fighting, I'd rather be somewhere else.

    Good fundamentals/technique are no secret. Some trainers don't teach them and some fighters don't care to learn them. All I know about the fighters you mentioned is what I've seen on video. If you consider them "great" fighters, that's your opinion. To me, there has been a quantum leap at heavyweight since the 60s and especially the 70s and later. The boxers are bigger, stronger, and have better fundamentals/technique and IMO, the improvement continues. Whether the improvement is the result of PEDs, better athletes in the sport or whatever...
     
    Cecil likes this.
  9. Cecil

    Cecil Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,213
    1,869
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 22, 2015
    Thanks for the reply.
    Disagree with some of it but eloquently put.
     
    Pat M likes this.
  10. Bah Lance

    Bah Lance Member Full Member

    251
    232
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 29, 2019

    Why are there past prime 50s era heavies like Chuvalo and Patterson rated in the 70s? Hell, Patterson climbed all the way to the top 5 as late as 72.

    Only US and UK? There was a Swedish Champion. How many non US and UK fighters won the HW title in the 70s?
     
    reznick, choklab and young griffo like this.
  11. Bah Lance

    Bah Lance Member Full Member

    251
    232
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Apr 29, 2019
    The 40s was crap? The 50s is dominated by 40s fighters.
     
  12. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Active Member Full Member

    1,373
    1,238
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 30, 2019
    This is something I've been waiting for a long time. Pat M just said that Ezzard freaking Charles looks unimpressive.
     
    choklab likes this.
  13. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Not here for the fairy tales Full Member

    15,358
    5,258
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 30, 2014
    Which top 70s era heavyweights did they beat?
     
    Pat M likes this.
  14. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Not here for the fairy tales Full Member

    15,358
    5,258
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 30, 2014
    What exactly do you mean by this? Can you be more specific? What skills and abilities did Walcott and Charles have that later bigger fighters lack? What exactly did they do that later fighters couldn't do?

    Do you really not understand how a prime big man might be better able than those guys to deal with Marciano's power and physicality, and to hit him without being hit? A big, well-schooled boxer doesn't need to be some kind of magical wizard to avoid being hit by a slow lead haymaker or pressed against the ropes or to hit a much smaller, slow-moving opponent in the head, or to counter a missed punch that's caused their much smaller opponent to stumble.

    And by the way, who's talking about big plodders (whoever you mean by that)? And why would we only compare them on a "strictly skills basis" (whatever that means to you)?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2019
  15. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Active Member Full Member

    1,229
    1,136
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 15, 2018
    Not really out of the ten best HWs of the 50s I think only three were fighting in the 40s Marciano, Walcott, and. Charles...the latter two were only relevant in the very early 50s
     


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement