Marciano's Thoughts on Sonny Liston

It is only your opinion that it was the weakest era in heavyweight history, and that can only ever be a subjective opinion.

Some people think that Holmes fought in the weakest era in heavyweight history and their opinion would carry as much weight as yours.

Given the subjectivity of comparing one era to another, we cannot ignore the fact that Marciano did a better job of rounding up the best contenders of his era, and had less omisions on his resume. We also cannot ignore the fact that Marciano's title oponents were ranked more highly.

 

the rankings of his title oponents when he fough them were:

Walcott #1
LaStarza #1
Charles #1
Charles #1
Cockel #2
Moore #1

That is prety darn near picture perfect and should not be overlooked in discussions of the quality of his opposition.

What other champion in history so consistently defended against the most highly ranked contenders?

 

Exactly. I can see Louis and Ali being argued as stronger Champions because of their longevity against consistent opposition, but not someone as controversial and criticized as Holmes, especially as crudely and conclusively as "couldn't carry my jockstrap.." Larry was bitter and spoke without thinking...what's Nay-Sayer's excuse?

 

Valdes lost 4 fights in 1953, Billy Gilliam,Harold Johnson,Bob Baker and Archie Moore. Valdes had a good 1954 but won a highly disputed decision to Archie McBride (most felt he was clearly beaten). Valdez got another chance in an elimination in a bout vs Moore in and lost again in 1955. Who do you think should have gotten the shot Moore the winner, or the loser Valdez. Marciano gave Valdez another chance to be his # 50 and 44th KO victim but Valdez was dominated by Bob Satterfield so badly and dropped for a 9 count in the final rd. At that point there were no other contenders available and Marciano retired undefeated. I guess you did not know that Valdez lost to Moore 2 times in 2 years.

 

Bummy, I'm trying to be reasonably nice in responses and you keep up with jerk off cracks.

Mongoose: You really simply have no interest in full stories, preferring to base your hollow arguments on fragments. Your points on Holmes are so weak they are not worth response. As far as Rocky's opposition, if you consider 38 year old Walcott, Not top 100 heavyweight/ 185 pound LaStarza, badly deteriorated Charles, blown up light heavy/not all time top 150 ranked Cockell and old man Moore a great level of oppositon so be it. I do not.

 

Those fighters are a lot better than you are making them about to be. They were all ranked #1 or #2 before Rocky destroyed them. In regards to the blown up light heavy tag, 2/3 of the heavyweight division pre-1970 was blown up light heavies, always was. We didn't get to a solid top ten of monsters until relatively recently.

And compared to that ****-pile of opponents that Liston claims, the Rock's era was ATG.

 

And exactly how many of these fighters were undefeated?

Lastarza never beat anyone of note.

Cockel never beat anyone of note.

Walcott was *39* years old.

Charles was an old man and a former middleweight.

Moore was an even older man and a light heavy.

 

You've got to be ****ing kidding me?

Rankings mean shi'ite. Those rankings were probably auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Ray ****ing Austin was ranked #1 when Klitschko blazed him in 2 rounds. Should we now heap loads of glory on Klitschko because he defeated the so-called #1 contender in such an impressive fashion?

Spare me...

 

Walcott was at his best in the last years of his career. Fact. He is conservatively considered a top20 all time heavyweight. Charles is one of the greatest fighters who ever entered the ring. He had some top flight heavyweight pelts coming into the Marciano flight. Moore, also a late bloomer, is also one of the greatest fighters to ever enter the ring, arguably the greatest KO artist the sport has ever seen. Also, the 1950's were the peak of the sport's popularity. Are you contending there was zero recruitment of talent? Let me guess, all the real talent was in pro football or basketball, that no one cared about at the time.

And this contention that everybody was a blown up light heavy is preposterous. What the hell were 2/3 of the best opponents of Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey and Louis? That's the way heavyweight boxing was pre-1980's. Even beyond that time we get the occasional Mike Spinks, Chris Byrd, or Roy Jones. That argument just screams ignorance.

And the likes of Scott Frank, Leroy Jones, Lorenzo Zanon and coked up Leon Spinks were highly rated.

I can tell you who Holmes was avoiding. Do you care to tell me who Marciano was avoiding?

 

Agreeing with your points concerning Walcott, Charles, and Moore.

That said, Walcott and Charles were shop worn and Moore's record @ HW wouldn't be enough to get him into the HOF. Or am I being unreasonable?

Well, he certainly didn't avoid the ole men and no hopers - that's for sure.

He probably should have defened his title against Valdez, but I digress...

 

What great heavyweight champ actually fights another great at coinciding peaks?

Not Johnson Jeffries
Not Dempsey Tunney
Not Louis Schmeling
Not Liston Clay/Ali
Not even Ali Frazier though that is getting closer
Not Frazier Foreman
Not Foreman Holmes
Not Holmes Tyson
Not Tyson Holyfield
Not Lewis Tyson

Get my point? There's never the perfect scenario. Marciano's was pretty damn good.

And just to set matters straight, I aint' the guy who's gonna say Marciano really competes with well skilled modern 220+ pound fighters. But I do respect the hell out of his skills and career, and especially his status as a pound for pounder.

 

Hmmmm....

Frazier's victory over Ali and Foreman's victory over Frazier easily trumps anything Marciano ever did. Hell, there's probably an argument to be made for Tunney's victory over Dempsey too.

Ok, answer me this;

Did he know how to throw a jab?

Honestly.

I've never heard of a P4P fighter being described as "crude" by his contemporaries. However, as I understand it, many boxing writers in Marciano's day didn't think much of his alleged "P4P" boxing skills.

It doesn't add up.

 

Seamus, how many times do I have to spell out to this group I agree the opposition was pretty tough in spite of their all being past their best. I have just been placing them in perspective as no where near the line up that Ali, Holmes, Holyfield, Tyson or Frazier fought. Rockynuts try to position all these guys as if they were at their best fighting Rocky while all were great names past the top of their games. I do not view the Walcott, Charles or Moore that Rocky fought to be any better than the 42 year old Foreman or Holmes that Holyfield fought. I rate the Joe Louis that Rocky fought to be worse.

Joe Louis was in his prime at age 24 - 25 without question. At 37 he was not close. Giving Joe Walcot every benefit of the doubt for his challenging odyssey, excusing his multiple decisive loses along the way, he was clearly better at 34 when he first fought Louis than at 38 when he fought Rocky. Charles was in his prime at 175 but as a heavyweight when he fought Louis, years earlier than his fight with Rocky. Giving Moore the Walcott treatment, he was better years earlier when he first won the title v.s. Maxim than fighting Rocky in his forties. You can site his record at heavy and I respond that Big George had a terrific one during his second career as well. Does that mean he was a huge victory to gage Evander by ? Of course not . Walcott/Charles/Moore/Louis were still tough, crafty, dangerous and pretty good, without question. Still great and worthy of judging Rocky as a top five all time heavyweight champion, no way.

Boxing is a young man's game. It is the rarest of exceptions who can still participate at a championship level deep into their thirties or pushing forty or over forty. Hopkins is a generational fluke and still no one is calling the young fighters he is defeating (Taylor/Pavlik/Calzeghe) all time greats. Only in the case of Marciano is a fighter worshiped by some to the degree that level of opposition and physical handicaps are seen through such fantasy driven rose colored glasses.

 

:good:goodnone of the magazine articles of the time when he was champ say how formidable he was.they all marvel at his fitness and durability but none ever said he was the best of all time the way experts did about louis,ali,liston and foreman.
marciano was a tough,durable champ for his time but is too small and limited to compete with the very best

 

No, my points on Holmes are valid and factual. You don't have a response because you are either ignorant of the subject matter and or to lazy to educate yourself. It would also threaten your shaky insecurities.

From my cities' newspaper after Page's death:

May 20, 1983 -- Page, the No. 1-ranked World Boxing Council contender, defeats Renaldo Snipes, the No. 2 contender, in Las Vegas, seemingly setting up a title fight with WBC champ Larry Holmes.
December 1983 -- Holmes says he won't fight Page, who is now also the World Boxing Association's No. 1 ranked contender, in early 1984 as agreed. Holmes claims his promised $2.55 million purse is not enough. The move costs Holmes his WBC title and clears the way for a WBC title shot for Page.


''I know I could get maybe $5 million for Page, but I signed an agreement and I was stuck,'' he said. ''I had to take the $2.5 million or go to court.''

Instead, at the W.B.C. convention in Las Vegas earlier this month, Larry Holmes resigned as its champion. Immediately recognized by the new I.B.F. as its champion, he is now talking about defending the I.B.F. title against John Tate, briefly the W.B.A. champion but no longer a respected contender.

''I'm taking offers,'' Larry Holmes said. ''They're offering me more for Tate than I would have gotten for Page.


Do you deny this?


You are probably the only one who wouldn't have Walcott as a top 100 heavyweight, he's generally top 20 or much higher. I guess you know more than the rest of us. I'm sure your opinion has nothing to do with Walcott's incredible accomplishments or proven talent, just your contempt for Marciano blinding you to true greatness.

LaStarza was over 190, you dope. Again, your inability to even get simple facts correct is very telling.