Rocky Marciano -vs- Floyd Patterson

Floyd was more active on his feet than Walcott. I dont think Floyds getting ko'd by Abe Simon. Yes Walcott was elusive but wasn't consistantly so as his countless losses point out

Patterson offered a much tougher proporsition, with greater stamina, speed, movement, power and less defensive and negative.

 

Going FORWARD that is. Cus train Patterson like a lesser version of Mike Tyson. Useing the same peak a boo style. Marciano wonts need to find Patterson. Patterson would be there to hit. Ingo didnt have ANY problems finding the mark in fights 1 and 3. The reason he lost fight 3 was because of his glass chin. Good thing Patterson had a better chin than Ingo. Both guys were down.

 

"I dont think Floyds getting ko'd by Abe Simon."

walcott was nowhere near his prime when he fought simon, he shouldnt have even been granted a boxing liscense to fight simon under the conditions he was in!

 

look here, a peak 1951 rocky marciano knocks out patterson. your telling people that patterson will be able to outmuscle and outbrawl rocky marciano??? cause thats pattersons style. pattersons handspeed is the only thing that could give marciano fits, and even then marcianos workrate, strength, power will negate floyds speed. look wut happened when ingo hit floyd, imagine wut will happen when marciano hits floyd?

or is somehow ingo a better puncher than marciano?

 

Thats speculative, every man has a defeat after a loss, Walcotts bodyweight didnt fluctuate very much for a supposed 'starved' man. He also fought twice in the 2 months prior so he had money coming in from those fights to buy food

 

Floyds handspeed and his punches getting there before Rockys is exactly how I see him giving Rocky problems and knocking him down. Floyd is an excellent boxer but yes he would probably engage and it would depend how strategic he was when he engaged in if he could pull off the upset. I expect each fighter to hit the floor and have a Floyd-Ingo or Hamed-Kelly type war.

Ingo was a damn good puncher and pretty underrated. He ko'ed a common opponent faster than Liston

In a 3 fight series prime for prime I would expect it to go 2-1 Maricano.

Welcome back its been a while since we argued

 

in a 3 fith series I like the Rock in all 3 of em. Marciano would not flop around like Ingo did.

 

I don't think this would be a cakewalk for Marciano although I do think he would win. Floyd's handspeed would be troublesome for Rocky as would his in and out hopping type footwork. If you stand in front of Rocky and are of similar size then you're asking for trouble because sooner or later he will catch up to you. Patterson's best chance I feel would be to utilize his superior hand speed early and try to cut Rocky above his eye or eyes and try to force a stoppage on cuts. With Rocky's tendency to cut this is a distinct possibility. Floyd doesnt want to go into the trenches with Rocky for obvious reasons and Rocky carried his power late into a fight so Floyd would always have to be wary of this so I think his best chance lay in an early to mid round stoppage on cuts and get the hell out of there while he can with all his faculties intact.

 

Whom did Patterson defeat who was even in the same ballpark in size as the 6' 4" 260 lb Simon. I think the biggest rated fighter Patterson defeated was the 208 lb Chuvalo. We have to take a lot on faith to assume Patterson beats Simon.

And I don't think Patterson's movement is nearly as good as Walcott's.

 

Who did Abe Simon beat that was any good other than Walcot though? Chuvalo is more proven at a higher level. Both are limited

 

You actually gave Patterson a chance.:yep

 

Men Simon defeated besides Walcott:

1. Roscoe Toles (rated five times between 1937 & 1942, peaking at #4 contender in 1942)
2. Gunnar Barlund (#3 contender in 1936, #8 contender in 1939)
3. Al Hart (#9 contender in 1944)
also drew with Turkey Thompson, rated six times in forties, peaking at #3 in 1949.

I wouldn't say Chuvalo wasn't proven against better opponents on the whole, but Simon was 50 lbs heavier and 3 inches taller. He would have been a pretty big bite to chew for a man who never defeated a rated fighter over 208 or even a trial horse over 213 (Charley Powell). This proved true for Walcott, also.

 

Thats hardly the stuff of legends is it, look at who he lost too in his prime. 14-11 Jim Thompson, 14-9 195lb Willie Reddish, amongst others

Simply picking Simon because hes BIG against an all time on the basis that Walcott got complacent and got clocked doesn't sound like good logic.

Do you think Ross Purrity would beat Patterson too? Hes even bigger and beat Wlad - in a very good fight if you get to see it.

 

Simon on film looks pretty pathetic ,clumsy,slow a pawing jab,and devoid of real power,he could take it thats about it.I think Patterson would cream him.

 

You can't get away from the fact that size matters. Purity did beat Wlad and also knocked out Gonzalez. I don't see Patterson being an obvious victor over him, no. Patterson never proved he could beat most of the bigger men of his own era, except Chuvalo, and that was a close and very tough fight. Chuvalo is 40 lbs lighter and two inches, at least, shorter than Purrity.

Patterson and Walcott--When Patterson came out of the amateurs, he was taken under the wing of a major trainer. He could train full time and he had the best facilities and sparring partners, etc. Men like Walcott, and also Johnson and Dempsey, had to fight under entirely different conditions. I don't know if Walcott was starving, but he probably had to take many fights under extremely short notice and without proper preparation. Johnson, Dempsey, and Walcott all looked ordinary for years, until they turned it around and proved their talent. Look at how much Dempsey improved under Kearn's guidance in a short time. Patterson was not as erratic in his early years, but any comparision with Walcott is apples to oranges.