Rocky Marciano vs. Jim Jeffries

I wouldnt say this. however I will say jeffries is untested vs big fighters who can punch, unlike rock who actually fought them. jeffries doesnt have a single contender over 205lb on his win resume, while marciano does.

bigger yes. faster? feet yes, but I give marciano the edge in handspeed

stronger? no way. dont tell me you believe those fairy tale stories of jeffries sprinting 9 miles with a deer on his back, do you Z? .

I wouldn't say this for sure Z, jeffries never got hit by a man who weighed more than 200lb. his chin is untested vs a big heavyweight. Marciano faced big heavyweights including a top ranked 215lber, unlike jeffries.

I strongly disagree. I felt marciano had a lot more modernized polished coordinated style than jeff, and rock had the better defense.



A big thing you left out, rock was the better puncher

very irrelevant considering guys like nat fleicher tend to be extremley bias. for example he picked bob fitzimmons over joe louis

 

Weight does not determine hitting power at heavyweight. Since Rocky is under 190 lbs, then Jeffries should have an easy time if you think weight is the key here.

Not a chance.

Who is Z? Jeffries track and field stories are told by John L Sullivan who watched Jeffries do road work in 1910. Sullivan was astounded. See the below link

[url]http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9E04E4DD1239E433A2575AC2A9609C946196D6CF&oref=slogin[/url]

Then why did the sports writeer call Marciano the crudest champ of all time?

Why bescuse he took forever to KO chinny guys or built up his KO record on soft touches?

Not only Flesicher. Evernone else Agreed. Rocky was a good champ, but not as great as a few before him.

 

In 1950 the AP did a poll on the best fighters of the first half of the century. Among the heavyweight finishers, Dempsey won easily, Louis was second, Johnson third, and Jeffries fourth. When he AP did their heavyweight poll in 2000, the order of finish was Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, and Johnson. Jeffries was not in the top ten.
My point would be that for all your criticism of Marciano, he did better in his fifty year poll than Jeffries did in his (and there was plenty of film of Marciano available to display his alleged crudeness). Marciano finished behind only Ali among the heavyweights of the second half of the century.

I am not impressed with the sportswriters who call Marciano the crudest champion. There is film. He is no where near as crude as some others, such as Baer, for example.

The fact is Jeffries' power was challenged by Jack London and others in his own day. And why say Marciano took forever to KO this or that guy. Jeffries went a full 25 and a full 20 with Sharkey, he went a full 20 with Ruhlin, he went a full 20 with Choynski, he needed 23 to catch up with an aging Corbett, and he went 15 before being stopped by Johnson. Check how many times Choynski, Ruhlin, and Johnson were stopped. He did ko Fitzsimmons, but check how many times Fitz was stopped.

Marciano did not build up his ko record against soft touches. He knocked out every rated fighter he fought. His ko percentage is the highest in the Hall-of-Fame against other Hall-of-Famers, champions, or rated fighters. He actually struggled more against second raters, possibly because of inexperience, or possibly because of lack of focus.

 

I do not see how one could call marciano crude. When you watch his filmed fights 1951-1952 you see excellent punching technique, he puts his whole torso and body behind those punches, and they are very straight and compact with explosive energy into those shots. watch marciano hitting the bag on youtube, and tell me his punching technique is bad.


I think his defense is quite polished. when he got in the crouch and rolled around from 8 to 3 o clock, slipped ducked, and kept a high guard shuffling his hands back and forth, he looked very well schooled.


Jeffries on the otherhand seemed to be too easy to hit. choynski, fitz, corbett, sharkey all broke his nose and gave him quite tough matches despite being far smaller and weaker.


People mistake off balance for crude, but crude = uncoordinated which is rex layne and luis firpo. not marciano, he was very athletic and put his body in all kinds of positions during a fight few fighters in history could put themselves in.

 

This post right here is probably the best post of the thread.

 

Crude = swing and miss, which Marciano did badly. Marciano wasn’t pretty. He was often off balance, his feet were average, and his guard from a distance was low. Many sports writers wrote this, and more importantly we can see it on film. Rocky's punching range was that of a straw weight. These things are not debabtable.

Who says Jeffries was easy to hit? As his career evolved, he had a decent defense. I'd like to see Marciano take a real chin checker by Fitz, Choynski or Sharkey before calling him bullet proof. Of all the great champions, Rocky probably faced the least amount of punchers. Let me think about this for a moment…..yep, I think its true.

 

The AP poll is the press. I prefer a historian’s poll. In this case the MaCalum survey of a dozen or so hard core aficionado’s. Marciano barely rates here. Jeffires is #1. You can't say you are not impressed with sports writers while citing the AP Poll. Its either or or neither. Rocky was crude. As crude as Baer? In some ways, even more so. In other ways, not so much.

Sharkey was a tough Son of a gun, and Jeffries fought him once green and another time injured. He floored him both times. By contrast Marciano took Ted Lowry, a journeyman the distance twice and GASP, probably lost one of the fights on a fair card. I see a huge difference here. Ruhlin was saved by the bell from a KO in the first fight, and TKO’d when it mattered in a title match. Choynski probably KO's Marciano if Marciano had 7 or so total amateur fights, which is basicaly what Jeffries had when he fought Choynski. Corbett was 33. Not exactly aging. Aging would be Walcott who was 38. Who stopped Fitz in his prime years besides Jeffries?

Marciano did build up his record vs quite a few soft touches. His managers took their time with him, and pulled the reigns back when he won disputed decision vs Ronald Lastarza. Check who he fought after this match, and you’ll see it is a step down for sure. A quick glace at Marciano's record shows he fought many fighters who were .500 or below when they meet him. These are the soft touches.

 

"Rocky probably faced the least amount of punchers. Let me think about this for a moment . . . yep, I think it's true."

I don't. You have to begin by dismissing Louis, only the man Ring picked as the #1 puncher of all time. He had gone back, but was still a dangerous puncher. And Archie Moore. Just the man with the most knockouts of anyone in boxing history, and also knockouts of big heavies such as Baker, Lavorante, and Lovell. And then there's Charles-check his ko's on youtube of Valentino, Oma, Layne, and Satterfield. Lee Savold--I know you didn't think of him, but he ko'd Ford Smith, Maurice Strickland, Lou Brooks, Buddy Knox, Ted Wint, Lou Nova, Nate Bolden, Lem Franklin, Eddie Blunt, Johnny Flynn, Kid Riviera, Dulio Spagnola, Buddy Walker, and Bruce Woodcock. Layne could punch also. And so could Matthews. And I still haven't mentioned Walcott.

 

In the October, 1950 issue of Ring, Nat Fleischer had this to say about Layne:
"Layne looms as the outstanding prospect west of the Mississippi. He is a hard hitter...Layne has what it takes to be developed into the next world heavyweight king. He can hit and has an abundance of courage."

 

"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down.

But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of **** and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right." - John Garfield

 

Sharkey wasn't tough enough to avoid getting knocked out by Fitz, basically twice.

Ruhlin got to his feet at 7 and clinched to the end of the round. I guess in a sense he was saved by the bell, but he had been way ahead on points and some observers thought he got careless late. He had the fight won with thirty seconds to go when he had Jeffries against the ropes and went for a knockout. Jeff caught him coming in with a left, pulling out a draw.

Lowry barely lasted the 10 rounds in the second fight. Would he have lasted twenty? LaStarza needed a round to be given to him on a foul to make his first fight with Marciano close, and LaStarza was also saved by the bell in that fight. He, in fact, was still down at 7 when the bell rang. And, of course, LaStarza was knocked out in a rematch.
Lowry, by the way, was a spoiler who could last.

I have read up on and posted on Jeff's early record. He may have had a considerable number of fights, whether considered amateur, semi-pro, or professional, before his "official" career began. He told Eddie Muller in an interview that he had been fighting since 1891. I doubt if either he or Ruhlin were as inexperienced as the official records say. The SF Examiner, in its report on the Dan Long fight on 7-3-1896, noted that Jeff fought like a "veteran".

I think a point of view that either man has a weak jaw and would lose on that basis is really thin. Both could take it. Marciano showed more consistant and impressive punching power.

The point about building up a record on bad fighters--but as Marciano did better than Jeffries, or for that matter, anyone else, against top men, your argument is not convincing.

 

I think the pace that Marciano would set would be the key, both men had solid chins and stamina but Rocky was the harder puncher of the 2 and threw more punches, I see Jeffries hanging tough for the 1st 8-10 rounds but Rockys punches would take there toll and I think his power would be too much for Jeff and Jeff would get stopped about the 11th or 12th round

 

Thanks for the smile.

Now for my explanation.

It takes a great deal of strength in the lower extremeties to jump at great heights. Activities like jumping and sprinting come from the part of the body known as the posterior chain. It basically involves the backside of the body which includes the Hamstring muscles, Calve muscles, gluteal muscles and lower back muscles. Without these muscle groups, most athletes would basically be ****. Most of your best olympic sprinters and high jumpers have a well developed posterior chain. It was because of Jeffries unusual athletic background for his period ( and probably good genes ), that he was able to develop these areas so effectively which led to his having strong legs.

 

good info woddy. except that with all those athletic gifts, it appears jeffries did not translate that athleticism into the ring, as he was unable to physically dominate supermiddleweights, and struggled with them in life or death fights.