Marciano vs. Norton

I never really knew a whole lot about Big Mac Foster..... I know Ali worked him over in '72 pretty well....... By the time, I was watching fights like "Ali-Young" on the tube in '76, Big Mac Foster was pretty much outta the picture....

However, yes, I am a 70s freak...... All my heavyweights performed then and the tube had the best TV shows of all-time.... Boxing was free on Wide World of Sports except for certain "Ali" fights...:nut

"Columbo, Kung Fu, Starsky & Hutch, Baretta, McCloud, Rockford Files, Emergency, Quincy, Night Gallery, Barney Miller, Sanford and Son, McMillan and Wife & Streets of San Francisco" is what I liked to watch....
:good
Of course my Rock bands were really young and rockin' out back then, too.... Today, I still listen to all the Dinosaur bands from the 60s and 70s............

I like the "Retro" era.....:yep

MR.BILL:bbb

 

Suzie Q brought up some good points while dissecting my previous post but I still maintain that rocky would have a very tough time with the more modern bigger and skilled HW's of the later years. As for the fact that there were big heavies such as Baker,Valdez etc. during Rocky's time raises the question, why didn't Rocky fight them? Regardless of rank it would've been interesting to see how Rocky would've done against these more modern sized HW's wouldn't it? I may be wrong but wasn't Valdez a ranked contender at the time Marciano was champ? If so then why didn't Marciano take him on? Or Baker or some of the other big boys? Maybe Al Weil knew better. The man was shrewd after all and certainly wouldn't risk losing his greatest asset. Pure speculation but it does make you wonder. And while Rocky was good at slipping a jab, could he slip a good consistent jab from a skilled HW with an 80"reach. Ali, Holmes, Norton all had good jabs and a reach that long plus they utilized it to a greater extent than Rocky's opposition did. I've yet to see on film Rocky slipping 3 or 4 good hard fast jabs in a row from a skilled big tall HW the size of Ali or Holmes or Norton. Slipping an occasional jab from a 6' 185-190lb 74" (Or thereabout) opponent is a quite a bit different ball of wax than slipping Ali's much faster jab or Holmes' ramrod jab or Norton's vastly underrated jab. Tyson didn't have a long reach but his upper body movement was light years faster than Rocky's was, in his prime anyway as were his handspeed and combination punching. This enabled him to close the gap quickly and land blisteringly fast combinations on his taller opponents.I'm not saying that Rocky would have no chance against these men but I think his overall dimensions and relative lack of speed would certainly make it difficult. Rocky would be absorbing a lot of shots from these men while trying to close the gap. And these punches would come faster than what he was accustomed to dealing with. The overall quality of good big men generally improved from the 50's to the 70's. There were no Ali's or Holmes' or Norton's or Foreman's in the 50's (Or Frazier's either. Can't leave out Smokin' Joe). That's not a rap on Marciano who is certainly an all time great. It's just an honest assesment of the times.

 

I dont know Doug Jones did pretty good vs Ali and Doug was not Ezzard Charles or JJWalcott...I think it boils down to talent power,conditioning and will...A great big man( How many were there in the last 100 yrs ?) can beat a Great small man but some small men like Marciano,Sam Langford are not short in power or the other virtues I listed above, yes they were freaks of nature. Marciano was one of the hardest punching heavyweights dispite his size....There were no Charles, Walcotts, Moores in the 70's had there been the may have not been Nortons or Foremans and Frazier and Ali would have had there hands full.

 

:roll::bbb

 

Off topic.... But I just recorded the new 2007 remake of "Halloween." Rocker 'Robert Zombie' did a fine job with the Michael Myers tale........... Good stuff..... I crave brutality and gore........ Cheers.....

MR.BILLdeal:bbb:rasta:admin:good:scaredas:

 

Rocky Marciano fought # 2 rated 6'2 214lb Joe Louis. Same size as Baker and Valdez. Is Louis not a good enough opponent for you? Louis was just as big and rated just as high as those guys, except a better fighter.

You want an explanation on Marciano-Valdez?

This content is protected

Ive seen him slip 3 jabs in a row vs a 6'2 214lb # 2 rated contender, some guy named joe louis. Louis had a fantastic jab.

 

I love this thread / piece.......

MR.BILL:hey:good:bbb

 

I saw the "Main Event" version in which Rocco stated that some ******* entered his dressing room upon the ring entrance claiming that Don "The ****" Cockell was a bum, and then Rocco Marciano claimed that statement ****ed with his head / focus... Maybe it was true, but, I smelled some bull**** there.... I agree with many that R.M. was slipping by 1955, and Marciano knew it, as well.....:hey

Rocky Marciano was wise to retire in 1956........:hey

MR.BILLbbb

Note:

I have been scoffed at for claiming that Floyd Patterson "MIGHT" have done in Marciano in late '56 or 1957, had Marciano carried onward with boxing...... Just a thought........
yikes

 

There was talk of having Patterson/Marciano fight actually. At the time it was to be scheduled as an exhibition only, two or three rounds, and be broadcast on Tuesday Night Fights. But, nobody bought it, was no interest, unless it was a real fight, if not for the championship. Patterson at the time, I think, had just had a handful of fights at HW.

After his retirement Marciano was asked by a group of school children how he would fair against the new champ Floyd Patterson. Marciano's answer was both humble and blunt:

"If I said I could beat him, you would think I was bragging. If I said I couldn't, then I would be lying."

For a man who easily hammered Tommy Jackson in training camp, who would later give Patterson trouble in the ring, I think in my honest to God opinion, Marciano would have eventually gotten to Floyd and would have knocked him out, probably in 10-12 rounds.

 

This is how I see it too. Vingo wasn't a puncher at all. Case closed here.

Satterfield could hit, but his competition level was much higher.

 

Archie Moore was a good boxer and had a reach of at least 76". Thus he and could employ a strategy of boxing a bigger fighter like Valdez from the outside far better than Marciano could. It is obvious Marciano did not select Valdez for reasons, and I think part of it was Valdes size and style, easy win over Charles, and perhaps lack of drawing power.

Valdez was big for this time. He had some skills, but was also a bit soft hearted at times, and tended to shy away from the rougher parts of boxing. I tend to think Marciano would defeat Valdes the same way Sattefield did on film. Then again, Rocky appeared to be slipping on film vs Cockell and Moore, and was behind on points vs a good boxer in LaStarza until round 6 when a mix of fouls, and legal blows started to limited LaStarza mobility and activity.

So perhaps Valdes would be have a chance of either looking good or pulling off the upset vs the 1954 Marciano, or 1955 Marciano.

 

Two questions:

Who says Marciano would have remained unbeaten if he fought say 1965 - 1975 ?

Who says Marciano remains unbeaten if he fought 1988 - 1998 ?

I say he has a completely different career ....

 

I remember Joe Frazier beating Terry Daniels and Ron Stander all over the ring and he was critisized for not KOing them quicker or more impressive and theses guys were not top 20 contenders...Cockel fought to survive but he got hammered...it was not an impressive fight for Marciano but those fight are hard to get up for. As far as Valdez Marciano wanted to fight him but Valdez lost 2 times to Archie Moore, lost to Baker,Johnson,Moore and Billy Gilliam in 53 4 in a row, then had a decent 54, although most felt he lost the fight to Archie McBride ...Moore deserved the title shot over Valdez and was the tougher of the 2...then Marciano wanted to end his career with his 50th win but Valdez was soundly beaten by 180 lb Bob Satterfield and dropped for a 9 count in the 10th rd...making him unmarketable for a title shot...Satterfeild was already destoyed in 2 rds by Ezzard Charles

 

Frazier had his knees buckled by Stander. I never saw the Daniels match, but I did read that Frazier did not look good here.

If you look at Valdez winning streak and record prior to the 2nd match with Charles, there is no doubt he deserved that title shot.

I agree that Vladez did tail off after Moore beat him, but surely he was more worthy than the 2nd match with Charles, or the Cockell defense in that time line.

 

Frazier did not have his kneesbuckled against Stander ... I have the fight, have watched it many times and Frazier crushed him in a one sided affair .. where exactly did Ron buckle Joe's knees ?