Marciano's overlooked defensive techniques (video)

fists of fury: When judging head-to-head matchups I envisage the fighters in question being in the same era, with the same nutrition, training methods, facilities and methods etc and then judge accordingly what the outcome would likely be.

Of course you can never be absolutely sure but by viewing film, reading articles and analysing info and stuff you can make a fair logical stab at predicting how things might plan out. One of the main topics of debate on this forum (and others) for most people is how would 'X' do against 'Y'? etc. Of course discussing fights/fighters both past and present is interesting too, but for me and others this is equally fascinating. Maybe you just view things in a different light.

 

But this is where things get hazy.

How would Tyson (or whomever) fight in 1953? He certainly would not have the same nutritional value he had in 1993. What difference would the lack of drugs make (assuming he did 'roids, and in the 90's he almost certainly did)? How would the extra 3 rounds in a championship fight influence his style? Would it? Would his 'blitzkrieg' mindset change at all? What difference would the different size gloves make?
You can reverse things for Marciano.
What if he had today's nutrition, drugs and training supplements to rely on? Would he still only weigh 185 lbs? (No chance.) To what degree would the shorter 12 rounds distance affect his style and mindset? How would his strength, muscle mass, speed and stamina be altered by steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs today?

How can anyone possibly tell?

And thus by not being absolutely sure, how can we use H2H as any criteria at all? We may be 100% accurate, 50% accurate or completely off-base with our assessments. It's all subjective, and not subject to any solid, scientific evaluation. It's just a guessing game, albeit where common sense has it's place.
Surely it's better to simply look at what was (style, title defences, quality of opponents, length of reign, significance of reign etc.) and make a sort of p4p comparison?
At least we're looking at solid statistics and what we can see on film, as opposed to a bunch of 'what if's.'

I dig it too mate, but I do it for fun and I don't take it all that seriously. This is especially true the futher and further apart in history the two fighters fought. There are far too many variables and unknown quantities to consider for these debates to be written in stone.

 

Thanks for the effort and for sharing this. Respect.

maybe the coolest boxing video i've ever seen. Really substantiates alot of what i said in this post a few weeks ago.

 

His boxing skills as a whole are under ratted.

 

All Rocky's moves were done against some of the slickest boxers in history, it can't be easy to slip a Louis jab or confuse Walcott. Also all of Rocky's moves were done to put him in a position to counter, I have watched Rocky a lot and already knew how good his anticipation and countering was. great video.

 

Great video Chris.:thumbsup

 

This is verry true.

Whatever your opinion of Marcianos style, he did his own perculiar thing like a maestro.

 

Walcott ,after fighting Rocky said he was harder to hit than he looked ,but lets not go overboard here ,he was no Jack Johnson defensively,he trained for up to 6 months for a fight in order to be in shape to take the punishment he knew he would have to absorb.Im guessing the first clip is just after Walcott has floored Rocky ,and he is going for broke ,fighting a little wild,Rocky,s defence consisted of crouching down ,leaning over to his right ,right glove uo near his face ,he stopped quite a few shots that way but,he was no Willie Pep,better than say a Chuvalo,and probably Jeffries,but his style allways made for a short career.