Marciano vs LaStarza II

Marciano Walcott 1, lost count of rabbit punchings and head butts. (Both sides, it was not just Marciano, Walcott landed a untold number of rabbit punchings.)
Marciano Charles II, cant judge on fight 1, but Marciano hit Charles all over in fight 2, head butts, rabbit punchings, in fact one of the 6 ko blows that send Charles down for the final time was a rabbit punch, though Charles did cut the nose with a elbow, so it was about even.

Cockell of couse.

Marciano vs Moore, spotted a few head butts, nothing major like fights said before.

The fame shot of the elbow on Joe Louis.

 

I would disagree with you that LaStarza looks that bad. He was obviously an excellent boxer. You have a point that he may not have had enough firepower to keep Marciano off. Marciano was indeed pretty far ahead at the time of the knockout. He had won 7 rounds on one card and six on a second despite losing a round on a foul. By the way, I have seen the entire fight on tape and I think the foul was accidental and not flagrant. Like Liston against Machen, Marciano was going to the body to slow down an elusive target.

LaStarza overtraining is a weak argument. LaStarza was 2 lbs lighter than in the first fight. Marciano 2 lbs heavier. They weighed about equal and I wouldn't be surprised if LaStarza had a slight weight pull by the time of the fight. When you get this close in weight a pound here or there can be altered by a glass of water or two, or normal bodily functions.

 

I think Marciano would have won the 11th which meant that LaStarza would have had to sweep every round on two cards to get a split decision. That seems pretty far ahead to me. Marciano would have won through 10 at least by a split decision. We don't know how a supplemental point system would have gone for the third judge, but it might well have been a unanimous decision as Marciano had LaStarza in trouble a couple of times and was never in trouble himself.

I don't see how being ahead after ten against an excellent boxer who had beaten every other fighter he had faced, and then stopping the man for the first time in his career in the 11th can actually be spun as a poor performance.

If LaStarza lost because he was fouled, did Hopkins lose because he was fouled?

 

I think you're picking straws here Mendoza. Care to say "i just watched Witherspoon and Holmes was down 5-1 after six rounds and received a close decision that could've gone both ways, while refusing to give the green Witherspoon a very deserved rematch" ?

Or how about Ali being 3-3 with Foley after 6 rounds? Louis against Conn? Even great fighters are human and are susceptible to lose a couple of rounds. What matters is how they dealt with the adverse circumstance. :good

 

Marciano rarely looked good at all times through a full fight, but he always won, and usually by brutal KO.
LaStarza 2 was no different.

 

Ali often gave rounds away though Chris I think Folley won those rounds by default really as Ali did little but skip away .Ali liked Zora,if that had been Terrell in there Ali would have gone to work imo.

 

What do you mean "did not need to". He sure as hell needed to! He barely won the fight and refused to give a rematch. How does that compare to Marciano knocking out Lastarza after losing a few rounds?

Actually, i don't want to turn this into a Holmes debate, i'm just saying that you can make this sort of criticism about every champ.

Yes, but this is what Marciano did. He never looked good. But every opponent said the same: he hurt hard like hell and tired you out.

What's more, can you provide me a puncher that looked good against a "boxer"?

Did Foreman look good against Ali and Young? Did Liston look good against Machen and Ali? Did Louis look good against Conn? Did Tyson look good against Douglas? Did Tua look good against Byrd?

Marciano got the job done like he always did. That's what matters here.

 

That's what i'm saying: it's pointless to look at a part of one fight and say "Look! He's behind on the cards before he knocked his opponent into next week!".

 

I saw both fights. Holmes and Witherspoon ended in a very close and contested decision. Marciano pulled ahead and knocked out LaStarza.

As for Holmes being a clean fighter, give me a break. Holmes jabbed with his glove open and thumbed opponent after opponent. Check how many fighters--Shavers, Leroy Jones, etc, had to have eye surgery after fighting Holmes. I don't like bringing this sort of thing up because boxing is a rough sport, but Rocky wasn't the only rough fighter out there. Also, I don't think Marciano's borderline punches did much of anything and both men hit on the break in the film I watched. Was Marciano actually penalized for hitting on the break? Rules were relaxed in those days. It was protect yourself at all times.

 

I agree Chris, Marciano fought a fighter with a 53-3 record who beat every man he faced except for Marciano, I seen a lot of hard Marciano punches to the head and Body that took there toll on Roland and in this fight Rocky wanted to punish Roland for talking smack about there 1st fight , Dr. Z (Mendoza) has a critical eye when it comes to Marciano but overlooks a lot of things when it comes to Holmes,Jeffries, other than that he is a knowledgable poster especially when it comes to the upcoming EURO heavy's....I guess some guys have a thing for some fighters both good and bad

 

And yet Jeff had more problems with say Tom Sharkey who had no were near the boxing abilty of Roland LaStarza. LaSarza was not great, BUT he was good. I think on a good night LaStarza could give Louis a run for his money, LaStarza had plenty of movement to give Louis trouble, like Conn and Pastor did.