Rocky Marciano has a very good case for #1...

Your claim that Ali was in his prime against Banks and Cooper is nonsense.Cooper himself said that when he fought Ali the second time he was startled by his marked improvement at in fighting and his strength.At the time of both those fights Ali was still maturing ,mentally and physically,the Banks fight was only his 10th pro fight, At 20, NO WAY WAS HE IN HIS PRIME.

 

Carmelo Modica, I like your enthusiasm, but ur not doing rock any favors with your arguements. Vingo 220? lastarza his best win? wtf????

 

I side with you mcvey

 

good for u. i'm sure frazier, holmes and foreman would be scared. funny that walcott picked ali as the best heavy tho :yep

 

Louis said Walcott would beat Ali

 

and he also picked a shot Cleveland Williams to win and plenty others that lost to ali

 

Carmelo, you never answered my response to you.

How would you compare Ali's first career (pre-exile) to Marciano's whole career? Ali was after all 29-0-0 with 23 KO's, and had convincing wins over Liston, Patterson, Terrell and Folley among others.

 

I'll chime in, even though this was intended for Carmelo.

I think that if Ali had never returned from exhile, his resume from the 1960's would have sized up well with Marciano's. He was an olympic gold medalist who won all of his 29 fights, and compiled a very respectable 9 title defenses, making him 10-0 in world title bouts, as opposed to Marciano's 7-0. While Rocky may have fought a few more guys who were #1 ranked, I think Clay had some substantial wins over Liston, patterson, Folley, Terrel, Chuvalo and a few others. We also have to remember that Ali was only something like 22 years old when he won the title, and went into exhile around age 25. For him to have accompished what he did so young, is surely note worthy of comparison to any great champion, even without his extended career in the 1970's...

 

It's close, but I disagree.

 

This is a good post. Some of you guys are professional boxing fans, that's great.

 

The Marshall fight came in his seventh pro bout, long before he had reached world class status. I believe that it is possible for fans and experts to view a man as unbeatable, despite having knowledge of a previous loss that occurred at a different stage in the man's career.

Liston was reported as being 32 years of age, but due to shoty record keeping, may have been more like 35. But, saying that he was near 40 is stretching things a bit..

But, you make no concensions for the fact that Ali was some 22 years old, had 19 fights, and untterly destroyed the man who nobody could beat?

Glass chin or not, Patterson was a two time world champion with impressive skills, good power, and the heart to get up off the canvas when hurt. He was stll a very good win for Ali, and would have been a good win Marciano ass well.

I think using the expression " not even remotely ", is getting carried away, and certainly not giving that first list of fighters much justice. Liston in his early to mid thirties, was still quite a bit younger than some of the biggest names that Marciano fought. Plus he was coming off the best set of wins of his career from the Patterson fights. Marciano showed that he had the tendency to get floored early by fighters, as seen in the Walcott and Moore fights. Therefore, the possibility of even an aging Sonny giving him some trouble, is not out of the question.

The general pattern that I'm seeing in some of your posts, is that you seem to be creating excuses for Ali's best opponents losing, and then taking these conclusions to make Marciano's opposition look better. Ex. Liston was old, patterson had no chin, Foreman was no good against boxers, Frazier did not have the stamina for all time greats, etc. This is flaud logic, as every single one of the aformentioned names were all time greats, and most were either at or near their primes. By the way, I disagree with your claim that Frazier had stamina problems. He went a combined 31 rounds with Ali, and even beat him once. When did he ever completely gas in a fight?

 

Ha, ha, ha, ha. Man, you're great! You get pissed that people doesn't give Marciano's victory over 38 year old Walcott it's due, but discount Ali's victory over Liston. Liston had totally cleaned out the division over the previous 5 years, what had Walcott done that compares to that? He didn't have a loss in the previous 10, Walcott had plenty.

And I think most would have Patterson and Charles as pretty equal at HW, only Patterson was younger the first time he faced Ali than Charles was when he faced Marciano. (Granted Floyd had back problems, but he was taking a beating before that became an issue). And Terrell and Folley had both been top contenders for years when Ali beat them, in which way was LaStarza, Mattews and Layne that much better?

You would not "even remotely compare" Liston (32), Patterson (30), and Earnie Terrell, to Charles (almost 33), LaStarza, Walcott (38 years old), Matthews and Layne? You really are a riot. Keep it up!

 

Lastarza not only didnt fight every single boxer of his generation he fought VERY FEW rated ones,as I demonstrated ,to say he would have been Champion without Marciano is a long stretch,and thats why I challenged your statement.You said Ali was in his prime when he was floored by Banks and Cooper I pointed out that against Banks he was 20 years old and in his 10 th fight ,and that Cooper remarked on Ali's physical improvement and ring smarts in their second fight,NO response from you on that .MARCIANO WAS DOWN FOR 3 AGAINST WALCOTT AND 2 AGAINST MOORE.You denigrate Patterson yet even when he retired at 37 he was younger than Moore and Walcott when they fought Rocky.Floyd was knocked down plenty of times ,But how many people kept him on the floor for 10? Terrell was the no1 challenger when he was outclassed by Ali ,indeed he owned a version of the crown,and beat the likes of Chuvalo,Foster,Williams ,Machen and Jones.Many people felt Terrell would be a very stern test for Ali ,The Ring magazine carried articles boosting up his long left jab and his 6 6 height ,and pondering how Ali would deal with it,he was certainly in his prime ,which is more than can be said for Louis and Charles.Lastarza would not live with Liston ,imo.Mathews was really a LH,I don't see anything about them that makes them superior to Ali's opponents.Marciano faced big heavyweights ,but not big RATED heavyweights.

 

Actually its not that close.......

if you watch the film you will see Walcott has far better footwork, much better mobility, much faster foot and handspeed, much better jab, more scientific and tricky, better chin, harder puncher with both fists, much stronger physically, and he had better infighting ability.

Truth be told i rate walcott higher than most, but film doesnt lie and i think walcott has the clear edge h2h


if you question as to whose the harder puncher all you need to do is pop in the louis fights. it took schmeling nearly a hundred right hands to put louis down, Walcott needed only ONE right hand to knock him down each of the three times. louis said walcott was the harder puncher.

 

actually patterson had a crippling back injury when he faced ali in 66. he shouldnt even have been granted a boxing liscense. patterson from the first bell could be seen hunched over in tremendous pain