Marciano vs. Ali

I think Dempsey1238 was actually responding to you using Ezzard Charles' 25 career losses against him. More than half of those losses were when Charles was over-the-hill or completely shot. So your defense of Ali's loss to Leon Spinks could come across a blatant use of double standards.

 

Ali, by decision. Marcianos crude style would potentially give him fits, though.

 

Muhammad Ali, even in his brilliant prime, would have a lot of difficulty beating Rocky Marciano.

I see this as a 50-50 fight.
I dont really understand why Marciano's greatness is still questioned by so many to this day.

 

I like Marciano by a late strong finish (could be a KO) Ali had trouble with shorter guys but Marciano had the pace to make Ali work, Like Joe Frazier said, Ali could not rope a dope Marciano, Ali staets fast but Marciano picks up the pace quick and Ali has trouble landing the jab without committing him self and getting countered, Rocky finds his way inside in the middle rounds with Ali resting on the ropes and by the 11th Ali tiring and clowning, Marciano continues to punch the arms,body and Rockys hook is landing, theu exchange frquently but Ali is tired and Marciano does not let up...Angelo does not let Ali answer the bell for the 14th round...Marciano TKo 14 Ali

 

I don't think Ali would rope-a-dope. He only did it when he was in decline and older. But most thought doing rope-a-dope against Foreman was suicide. So to say Marciano would win cuz Ali use rope-a-dope is uncertain but he has a much better chance. I think peak Ali would dance and tie him up and not be on the ropes. This is what he did to Frazier in their second fight. Ali didn't have the conditioning to keep it up in their first after coming back from a big lay-off. Ali did well in the early rounds until his lack of conditioning caught up and he was a sitting target on the ropes. Peak Ali never did that - he was always a moving target. Watch the 15th round of the Terrell fight and see him still dancing and throwing combos from all angles.

 

Ali by decision.

 

Charles fought on when he was VERY sick and ill and way past his prime. There was no commsion that would have stop Charles from going on like Ali.

Before the Marciano fights, Charles record was something like 80 and 8 defeats. After the fights, Charles would gain nearly 20 losses.

 

Of course you can't reasonably count the Spinks loss against Ali, because Ali was a shot fighter. But the same thing goes for for more than half of Charles' 25 losses. If Ali had kept going after Berbick and fought on with Parkinson's syndrome for the next few years until his win-loss average was worse than Charles' final win-loss average, would Ali no longer be the GOAT? Yes, you are being a boxrec ranger when you claim that Charles couldn't beat Ali because of how many times he lost.

 

I pick Lloyd Marshall and Jimmy Bivins to beat Ezzard Charles at light heavyweight.

 

:good Very Good Point

 

When I was a kid, I purchased a magazine issue devoted to Marciano's life and career. It included the compulsory speculation of how Rocky would have done against all the other great heavyweights up to the early 1980's. About facing a peak Joe Louis, the statement was something like, "Louis's jab may have sliced up Marciano en route to winning a late stoppage on cuts, but it would have been no cinch." The producers of this issue had Marciano beating all the other HW champions, until they came to Ali. Then, they asserted something remarkable for writers of a memorial publication devoted to Rock:

"Murray Woroner's staged computer fight may have had Rocky winning by knockout, but the Muhammad Ali of the 'float like a butterfly, sting like a bee' era would have carved up Marciano on the way to a late round stoppage on cuts, or a lopsided decision win." (Or words to that effect.)

That assessment has stuck in my mind ever since, as an extraordinarily confident statement for a special issue of that nature. (I've probably got it buried among my archival possessions deep in storage now.) I viewed Woroner's film twice in it's entirety, and the visual of the two of them in the ring together made it hard for me to accept a Marciano kayo as a realistic outcome. (Although I was delighted that was the conclusion depicted in the wake of Rocky's untimely passing.)

Jersey Joe Walcott was beating Marciano pretty handily, and would have finished the task in their first match, had he not had his left eye blinded from a gush of blood jarred loose from a cut of his by a jab he delivered just before Marciano's kayo. (Of course Ali was only cut by Bob Foster.)

Although Ali has personally expressed reservations about whether or not he would have beaten Rocky (perhaps out of respect and affection for his memory), I think we would have seen a result very similar to Ali/Chuvalo I. Marciano definitely goes the distance without any difficulty, but he wouldn't catch Ali enough in 15 rounds to have a real chance at winning. (Nor would Ali have played any games with an opponent of Rocky's caliber.)

I have enormous respect for what Marciano was able to achieve. He made the most of the ability he had. But this a matter of height, reach, mobility, and speed. Over 15 rounds, Ali would get the job done, on his toes all the way through.

 

Big difference in offence comparing Marciano and Chuvalo, George could take It but did not have the punch intake or punching power of Marciano, and Ali was fortunate not to have had to face Walcotts left hook, that may have been a much rougher fight for Ali than we think

 

The problem for Marciano would have been getting to Ali in the first place. Rocky didn't have Joe Frazier's speed in closing. Ali would have known that getting hit by Marciano was to be avoided, regardless of whether or not Rocky connected with a scoring blow. What Chuvalo and Terrell proved was that Ali could successfully evade Marciano over the 15 round distance.

 

The comparison is more than a little misleading. If we are generous and remove the last 4 years from Charles career (during which time he had 12 fights and lost 8) we still have 17 losses and a draw to account for during a 15 year career (1940-1955).

The losses are scattered amply throughout his career, some early (1941, 1942), some mid (1947), some late ('51, 52, 53, 54 etc). There are several instance of back to back losses (e.g 1943 Bivins and Marshall; 1952 Walcott and Layne; 1953 Valdes and Johnson).

Not sure how this can be seen as anywhere near equivalent to Ali who never lost in his prime, and only lost to 2 men in his second coming, and then faltered in the last couple of years with a diagnosed degenerative disease that effects muscular coordination? All in a 20 year pro career, not 15.

Lets be reasonable fellas.