Molten Lava Vitriol For Rocky Marciano

Louis, objectively, looks bad on film. He was unable to pull the trigger, had diminished reflexes, timing, accuracy, etc. Gone were the blistering combinations and the eye of the tiger. Louis himself admits his legs were gone and that he was barely hanging on as a pro.

If you're honest you'll call a spade a spade. He was a shot journeyman coasting with his jab, ring generalship, technique, and experience. He had become a cagey boxer and was no longer a boxer puncher. The guy was allergic to throwing right hands in the Rocky fight as if throwing them would burn down an orphanage. The guy didn't age gracefully at all and looked like a balding 58 year old FedEx manager.

 

He wasn't a journeyman, because he was beating contenders. Savold was recognized by the British as champ when Louis beat him.

The problem is that you are all putting your subjective judgements over reality. #2 in the world when Marciano beat him. Simple fact.

 

*****, I've been around boxing longer than you've been alive. I've been participating, reading about and researching this sport for decades.

I don't know everything, but I know quite a lot.

Louis was shot as sht.

 

Then you would know that Louis was #2 when Marciano beat him.

The quality of your "research" is manifestly poor.

 

As Heinz wrote the next day...

"The Marciano faction (Rocky's real name is Marchegiano) points to late 1951 knockout of Joe Louis in the eight round as the highlight of the Brockton Blockbuster's career... This kayo victory isn't all it is supposed to be, however, because the Brown Bomber no longer could bomb at the time."

If Louis could have even entered the ring again, he would have. He owed tens of thousands to the IRS and had no other way of making that kind of money. But he didn't. Because he couldn't. Louis was below the level of Ali versus Berbick.

Dude, you are out of your depth.

 

You are out of your depth. Louis was 2 in the world. Now you know.

 

Shot is a subjective term, some may interpret it as relating to how far Louis was past his best by the time of the Marciano fight, whilst others may interpret it as how good Joe was at that time relative to other contenders.

Louis was a million miles past his best when he fought Marciano.

Having beaten Cesar Brion (who lost an SD to Rex Layne and beat Ted Lowry in his next 2 fights and who was still ranked #7 by Ring magazine after Louis beat him) and the #2 ranked Lee Savold, as well as a past prime Jimmy Bivins, in the 4 months before his loss to Rocky, Louis, who was ranked #2 in the world, was almost certainly still one of the best 10 HWs in the world when he lost to Rocky, and possibly one of the best 5.

Which says a lot about how incredibly good Louis was at his best.

 

And how bad the division was at the time.

 

Perhaps, though I've noticed I don't put as much stock into an era being fundamentally stronger or weaker than others, as some posters do.

Sure, it's possible for 2 or 3 truly all time great, I.e. typically generational talents, to co-exist in the same era, but generally I find it difficult to believe that the 5th to 20th best fighters in the world over the course of a few years, are massively stronger or weaker than other eras, relative to the evolution of boxing.

The early 50's had 2 x consensus top 10 all time HWs (admittedly Louis was no longer anywhere near that standard) and another couple who are typically rated in or around the top 20 of all time right until this very day, as well as numerous other contender types.

Were the top 5 as strong as they were at times in the 70's? No.

Was every fighter, whether the 6th, 10th, 13th, etc. best in the world, massively weaker than their counterparts in other eras, relative to the evolution of boxing? Unlikely, imo.

 

I never blamed Marciano.

Now tell me why Charles got the shot over Valdes who had beaten him, was now Ring ranked no1,and was on an 11 fight winning streak including beating;
Charles no1
Williams
Neuhaus no8
Sys
Jackson

Whereas Charles had lost 2 of his last 4 fights and had beaten only 1 ranked fighter since losing to Valdes ,the often stopped Satterfield no9.

As has been said.
You are in denial.

 

He got the fight because he was ranked #1. How many times does it need to be said? You can disagree with the ranking, you can't disagree with the fact that he was ranked.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

 

At least you have abandoned the excuse that Valdes lost his ranking before Charles got his title shot and that's why he never got a chance,so that's some kind of progress I suppose.
You keep ducking my question so there is no point continuing.

 

Me and @Seamus are devoted acolytes of Billy Miske