Q: How can Don Dunphy claim Louis & Marciano were better than Ali??

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by MRBILL, Nov 2, 2011.


Page 7 of 7
  1. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    111
    Oct 9, 2008
    Marciano was the best of the 1950s era of hvy. boxing, despite him hammering older foe's with big names.... He was a star attraction.... I just don't think his toughness would be enough if he was in his prime of 1952 and facing a 1940 Joe Louis or a 1967 Ali.....

    MR.BILL:bbb
     
    MRBILL, Nov 5, 2011
    MRBILL, Nov 5, 2011
    #91
  2. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,731
    3,576
    Jul 10, 2005
    Louis didnt have the best of chins though and I think Marciano could knock Louis out with a well place shot.
     
    Dempsey1238, Nov 5, 2011
    Dempsey1238, Nov 5, 2011
    #92
  3. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    111
    Oct 9, 2008
    I agree Louis' chin had issues, but my point is, a Louis of '40 would not get hit with the punches he did in '51 from a '51 Marciano..... Louis was in-shape in his fight of '51 with Marciano, but at 213 and age 37, his reflexes wer slowed, yet his power was still good.... Marciano won based on his youth / freshness.....

    MR.BILL
     
    MRBILL, Nov 5, 2011
    MRBILL, Nov 5, 2011
    #93
  4. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    400
    Jan 22, 2010
    The Baer era Joe Louis pulverizes Rocky Marciano IMO. Hit much too fast and precise. Would get into Marciano's wild swings with devastating results. O f course Rocky could hit and take a punch, but he was only human. But speed and accuracy kills ,and Louis had the right formula...
     
    burt bienstock, Nov 6, 2011
    burt bienstock, Nov 6, 2011
    #94
  5. BUDW

    BUDW Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,928
    825
    Nov 23, 2007

    I will take your opinion over the younger fellas all day every day.
     
    BUDW, Nov 6, 2011
    BUDW, Nov 6, 2011
    #95
  6. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    400
    Jan 22, 2010
    B,your check is already in the mail :good
     
    burt bienstock, Nov 6, 2011
    burt bienstock, Nov 6, 2011
    #96
  7. fg2227

    fg2227 Guest

    Here here

    burt your a top poster, keep on keeping on.

    I met joe only a few months ago amazing experience Gutted!
     
    fg2227, Nov 6, 2011
    fg2227, Nov 6, 2011
    #97
  8. steve w

    steve w Active Member Full Member

    815
    12
    Jun 5, 2011
    Dunphy was not the only notable historian to not rate Ali in his top ten, Nat Fleischer in rating his top heavies, gave reasons why he thought Ali did not deserve to be there, however, Fleischer died in 1972 and may well have changed his opinion had he witnessed the rest of Ali's career
     
    steve w, Nov 6, 2011
    steve w, Nov 6, 2011
    #98
  9. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    111
    Oct 9, 2008
    Nathaniel Fleischer is way too jurassic to play a factor in 2011.... He's been dead since '72..... But, for the love of Amon-Ra, he was way too partial to dinosaur fighters and rarely ever gave full credit to a fighter post of 1950......

    MR.BILL
     
    MRBILL, Nov 6, 2011
    MRBILL, Nov 6, 2011
    #99
  10. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    111
    Oct 9, 2008
    And, as for Fleischer's Ring magazine, well, I preferred World and International Boxing as well as KO mag. way more than the Ring mag.....:deal:hey

    MR.BILL
     
    MRBILL, Nov 6, 2011
    MRBILL, Nov 6, 2011
    #100
Page 7 of 7