Rocky Marciano vs Harold Johnson 1954 What Happens?

I disagree. Johnson may had a slighty tighter defense, and more ring savvy, but he was out of his physical prime by that time. Despite me thinking the scoring was extremely controversial, Johnson of the mid 1950s would never have had such a close fight with Willie Pastrano. Johnson's peak fight imo was his fight with Ezzard Charles in 53. He looked great against Moore in 54 for 13 rounds. He also won a big fight as the underdog against # 3 rated Clarence Henry in 1952.

 

Ezzard Charles? Archie Moore? Jimmy Bivins? Johnson won decisions over all 3. All three were slicker faster trickier and more skilled than Pastrano. Certainly Moore and Charles were. Henry Hall was another who was quite the slickster.

I'm not too high on Pastrano. He lost to a lot of very average fighters throughout his career. Roy Harris? Joe Erskine? Wayne Thornton, jesse Bowdry, Chic Calderwood, Alonzo Johnson, Brian London. Are u kidding me?

Let me be clear, I do think Harold won the fight against Pastrano. But I also think it was very close. Harold was 33 when he fought Pastrano. He had been boxing for 17 years. You really think he was in his prime still? I never took Johnson as a fighter like Walcott(who aged like fine wine). I always thought Johnson was an ATG young fighter, who lost some of his speed and reflexes in the 1960s when he hit his 30s, but still outboxed many of his top opponents using his improved ring savvy, always amazing left jab, and sound boxing skills.

This had more to do with Archie's greatness than Johnson's shortcomings. Archie is the all time knockout artist, and one of the best mouse trappers of all time for good reasons. Don't forget Johnson was rampaging through the heavyweight division at the time too. He upset # 3 Clarence Henry, # 2 rated Ezzard Charles, and shutout future # 1 rated Nino Valdes. Also scored a devastating one punch knockout over lightheavyweight contender paul andrews.

 

Handspeed wise, it's not even close. Charles and Moore had faster hands by a wide margin. Also both had much slicker upperbody movement. Both MUCH BETTER fighters in general. Pastrano had fast feet, but this worked against a flatfooted 33 year old Johnson. I doubt it would work against a younger more mobile johnson. Still, a bad decision in my opinion. Even Angelo Dundee admitted johnson got robbed in his book.

Were talking about a fighter who lost too
Roy Harris Joe Erskine Wayne Thornton, jesse Bowdry, Chic Calderwood, Alonzo Johnson, Brian London. Are u kidding me? :-(

 

he fought better competition in the 1950s, that's why. Paul Andrews was a big puncher, certainly a much more dangerous fighter than Jesse Bowdry, Von Clay, or Gustav Sholz.

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8a9CYH5EVSY&feature=related[/ame]
Charles upperbody movement so slick and natural. I could also argue Charles demonstrated better footwork in this fight than pastrano. The way charles glides so smooth and effortless.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmBHz6vDwuA[/ame]
Archie's upperbody movement is off the charts. the way he bends his torso at all different angles, the way he rolls with his punches, the way he slips dips ducks punches...such brilliance. Pastrano never was this effective with his upperbody movement, which is why he lost to so many B level fighters.

 

Wins in the 50s Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Clarence Henry, Nino Valdes, Jimmy Bivins are better than wins in the 60s over Eddie Machen, Doug Jones, Eddie Cotton, Henry Hank, Gustov Sholz. True or False?


Take a look at the difference in Johnson's speed, legs, reflexes in the mid 1950s compared to the mid 1960s. Johnson was like most fighters. He primed at ages 24-27. Johnson was always a fighter who relied on fast reflexes to go with strict textbook boxing skills. by mid 1960s, he lost his speed and reflexes. That is why he had trouble catching up to Pastrano at age 33.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGEaBuH5ywY[/ame]