Rocky Marciano vs. Bruce Seldon

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Unforgiven, Feb 25, 2010.


  1. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Who do you think would win this one ?
     
  2. lefthook31

    lefthook31 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    20,862
    138
    Jul 6, 2007
    Cmon man. :lol: Seldon had a good snapping jab and decent skills, but he could not take any type of pressure. He almost folded up against Joe Hipp after turning his face into minch meat. Marciano KO mid to early rounds.
     
  3. Rubber Warrior

    Rubber Warrior Resident ESB Soothsayer Full Member

    912
    1
    Jul 19, 2004
    The big question I have is would Seldon suddenly bounce up and run at Marciano after that first knockdown only to be floored again.....or would he stay down for the count?
     
  4. PetethePrince

    PetethePrince Slick & Redheaded Full Member

    28,760
    84
    May 30, 2009
    Unforgiven is trying to make a point I think. Should we listen?
     
  5. KOTF

    KOTF Bingooo Full Member

    13,448
    26
    Jun 2, 2009
    Seldon, because he's 229 pounds, Marciano is only 188 lbs, super HW's would KILL the undersized, old-school HW's of yesteryear, DUH!

    Seriously, Maricano KO 2 if Seldon running tactics work out for one round. The next thread should be the 230 lb. 2009 Juan Carlos Gomez vs. 190 lb. 1960 Floyd Patterson.
     
  6. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    I think Marciano would end it in 1 round.

    Some people here are giving Frank Bruno a good chance against Marciano, and some are outright picking Bruno to KO Rocky quick. So, I think it's valid that Bruce Seldon gets his chance too. Seldon's a mere notch below Bruno in all fairness.
     
  7. lefthook31

    lefthook31 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    20,862
    138
    Jul 6, 2007
    :lol: Size does have merit in some cases but not in the case of Seldon. Someone like Frank Bruno who was discussed in a previous thread, and was 245 plus pounds, 6'3" 6'4, punched hard and could take a few rounds of battle would fit more realistically into the arguement of size as opposed to a guy like Seldon.
     
  8. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,430
    9,414
    Jul 15, 2008
    Seldon is a far cry from Bruno ...
     
  9. lefthook31

    lefthook31 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    20,862
    138
    Jul 6, 2007
    I was typing while you were posting, but as I said, as the size height and weight increases, I think it becomes more of a realistic factor. Bruno wasnt the greatest fighter but he showed a bit more grit than Seldon did, meaning there would be more chances for him to land something, and he hurt Tyson in both fights. I would still pick Rock over both if I was a betting man.
     
  10. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,728
    29,078
    Jun 2, 2006
    Oh Please :patsch
     
  11. djanders

    djanders Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,065
    6,932
    Feb 21, 2009
    Here again I'm picking Marciano because I'm a senile old man who only worships at the altar of the old-timers, and because it makes me think I'm young again with the stars in my eyes, and because I refuse to understand that bigger and more modern is always better, and because I don't understand the finer points of boxing the way you young fellows do. :p
     
  12. Dempsey1238

    Dempsey1238 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    12,719
    3,559
    Jul 10, 2005
    I like the reglion of Marciano, Shame to all non belivers.
     
  13. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    No, he's not. He's a bit below.

    No one has yet to explain this Frank Bruno revisionism that seems so popular around here.
    Bruno's record is built on has-beens and third-raters, often over-the-hill out-of-shape third-raters.

    I was one of Bruno's biggest supporters, followed his WHOLE CAREER since the ABA finals in 1980, and during the 80s and 90s defended him from critics who said he had "no chance" against the top American heavies.
    But somehow it's got to the point where he's being given far too much credit beyond his actual capabilities. I dont get it.

    Having said that, I dont in any way mean to smear Bruno with the most cowardly acts of Seldon's career. Bruno folded like a cheap suit at times, but he was a damn sight braver than Seldon proved against Tyson. I think overall Bruno was a bit better, and never disgraced himself, but they are in the same ballpark.
     
  14. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Bruno and Seldon were about the same weight. Very similar in build (Herculean). Bruno was maybe 2 inches taller, and they both had long arms.
    The point I would make is that good 5'10 swarmers are quite capable of taking on 6'3 or 6'4 fighters, esp. fairly static ones.
    (Of course, some protest that Marciano never did fight a 6'4, 220+ pound ranked fighter, and declare he cant beat one ......)

    Bruno has a better chance than Seldon. It's a case of very slim rather than none, though.

    Me too.
     
  15. lefthook31

    lefthook31 Obsessed with Boxing banned

    20,862
    138
    Jul 6, 2007
    Bruno was more competitive in his higher profile fights than Seldon was by a fairly large margin. Seldon was completely embarassed by Bowe and Tyson and beaten by Mcall who lost to Bruno barely.