Marciano vs Frazier

They would win. And that Martin beat a 50 year old Liston. It was one big right that did it really. Rubin Carter beat him as a middleweight. He actually wasn't a great middleweight. As a heavyweight he had a descent streak and a few really close decisions. Personally, he lost to Patterson in my eyes. I think Charles handles him being far technically superior and Walcott was too tricky, hit harder, and was more durable.

That's interesting, I'd love to see if I can find that. I've heard him say Foreman hit the hardest. He described Foreman as a truck going 50 mph while Frazier was a Pontiac going 80 mph. Never heard him ever talk about the other two.

 

And you say Frazier gets underrated here? GTFO

 

Some argue the Moore fight.

What are you saying here? Cockell wasn't much of an opponent and Rocky never got up to even fighting him. Cockell was just in survival mode wobbling around the ring after 3-4 rounds. And this is Rocky's worst performance.

 

Let's talk the style matchup. Whenever I get to it it's all about "Rocky in weak era no competetion blah." I'm not digressing on this subject.

He was arguably hurt less than any other HW in history. Is this pure blasphemy or simply just true?

Bert Sugar ranks Charles at #7 at heavyweight. Ironically he says Marciano's era was weak though :nut. He also says Jersey Joe is underappreciated. Where do you rank Charles and Jersey Joe as fighters and heavyweights?

I don't get what you're saying here. Are you compare Ingo to Rocky or comparing their failures as Marciano's ultimate boost in history?

How much larger is Frazier when compared to Jersey Joe or Joe Louis? He's smaller than Louis and a few pounds heavier than a Jersey Joe in his prime. Mind you, Jersey Joe was ripped to shreds.


Although I don't agree entirely with Beatle. He makes great points that people ignore. Everyone focuses on trying to detract on Marciano. His opponent, their age, the 50's, the 70's, etc. Yet Janitor made good points about him fighting everyone, and Beatle made good points that he wasn't a mindless swarmer. He was a great tachitician and a stalking slugger. I'm talking more so of the Marciano from 50-52/53. The champion Marciano was more of a swarmer but he was still smart defensively, just more aggressive. People here say "MARCIANO doesn't move his head." Frazier hits harder than Marciano. Frazier has better stamina. Frazier is much bigger.

Seriously, if I believed all of these things I would think it's a cake walk. Last but not least, a lot of people question Marciano's durability/chin. Jersey Joe dropped him for a count of 3. He was a small heavyweight (Because Frazier & Bonavena in their prime weighed 5 more pounds). Moore dropped him for a count of 2. Moore is an ATG puncher, but people seem to focus on the size and weight. And for anyone that knows that fight knows Marciano was off balance coming in and got caught. He might have been a little hurt, but he shows better recovery than Frazier if he was. I don't know if you can call it a flash knockdown. I really think Marciano was suprised he was down... he lost a little focus and got overzealous.

Moore told Foreman that Marciano hit so hard he felt like he had rocks being thrown at him afterwards. People will talk about the 49-0 about Marciano's size, his big flaws, and the weakness of his resume. It's a shame, and what's really funny is the proof of success from Ellis, Patterson, and Quarry who weren't big Heavyweights. One was a product of the 50's and the other was a middleweight. All of a sudden nobody examines that side of the late 60's early 70's success because it doesn't help validate their bias. Shame.

 

Alright.

 

Ah thanks. Yeah that Ramos mix-up could change things up a bit (At least my frame of that view).