That’s another good point, I feel like Max is a deadlier puncher than Moore and Walcott as well as more accurate and precise with his counter punching. Then again, Rocky basically has plot armor with his will to win so who knows lol
With Max's stamina and defense both being exceptional, you'd expect him to keep the right hand going throughout the fight as he won't be easily worn down by Marciano( check how many crosses and hooks Louis manages to land in '36). Schmeling is also a much better finisher than Walcott and he won't be 39 in this fight. I see both men tiring down the line but Marciano's face will be a mess. Making him 20-2 favorite is ludicrous, but Schmeling had the same odds against Louis and we know how that turned out.
That is the most hilariously accurate thing I've read about Rocky in quite a while. How he won the Walcott 1 and Charles 2 fights is something straight out of a movie or anime.
Marciano clobbers him, Max cant play his counter punch game against Marciano's awkardness and angles. He would have to move, and Max has never had to move for 15 rounds, he just simply isnt that type of outboxer. Much less against pressure like Marciano's. People saying Schmeling beating young Louis means he beats Marciano are absurd. For starters, they FAR different fighters, and Marciano was better than that incomplete version of Louis regardless.
Marciano was never as good or as well regarded as the 1935-36 Louis, who was already getting introduced as one of the greatest heavyweights around. Schmeling was countering lefts and rights from Louis but he can't counter the slower, less accurate Marciano?
Joe and Rocky didn’t really fight all that alike at all, Ali also beat a young Foreman how about a prime Frazier? Etc. I think Marciano would win, not for similar reasoning anymore, I think that Schemling being stuck inside is a tough gig, Marciano knew how to play the same distance games as Max.
Wonderful breakdown and ‘screenplay’ of how you see it playing out. I’d favor Marciano to wear Max down enough to get him late, but I appreciate the time and effort (as well as your points on each man). Tip of the cap to you.
Correct, Louis had fundamental flaws in his attacking style back then and Marciano's superior angles and punch selection is far trickier, combined with the fact that Marciano's chin simply allows him to be more bold than Louis's. For what its worth, Marciano's dart and dash is faster than Louis's as well, though Louis somewhat negates the need for this by having the longer reach. Also Marciano was the superior fighter to that version of Louis. Debatably he was superior to any version of Louis, but most assuredly that version
Did you seriously just say Rocky was trickier than Louis with superior angles and punch selection, or did I read that wrong...?
100% i just said that and it is correct, i have watched all of their filmed fights Joe Louis was primarily a 1-2 merchant (good left hook too); Rocky threw punches that didnt even exist, from every conceivable angle. He is much harder to counter due to this selection; especially in his faster, younger prime like 1952 Marciano, compared to the slower 1955 Marciano.
Then how the hell did the "1-2 merchant" Louis fend off and embarrass Rocky for the first 4 rounds as an old man who was barely throwing the 2 and spammed jabs? How did Walcott, an old shopworn counter puncher, embarrass Rocky and was up on the scorecards before losing via proverbial punchers chance? Lastarza...? Moore? Rocky wasn't clever or tricky, he just overwhelmed you with non stop force. He broke opponents down and was willing to hit people on the arms, elbows, shoulders, whatever was available until they just wilted. He was like a guy leveling up in a video game who put all his XP into power and stamina leaving little room for technique, accuracy, defense, footwork, etc. His opponents, reporters, and even his own trainer said the guy was a wild clumsy savage who lacked subtlety and overwhelmed people most of the time. Louis was the master of angles and a way better technician. Idk what sort of drugs you're snorting to suggest Rocky was better at using angles when the only angle he was effective at was up close and personal winging big shots.
1. Because Louis was very good at the 1-2, more than very good, he was the best ever at it at the heavyweight level. Dunno what this has to do with punch variety and angles making it more difficult to be counterpunched. Other fighters who rely on the 1-2 usually find their death to counterpunchers, such as Lennox and Wladimir 2. Walcott was not necessarily counterpunching Marciano, though counterpunches were involved. He moreso outboxed Marciano for the good portion of the rounds, and came out surprisingly aggressively against Marciano, whom had a game plan to take it light on the early rounds and didnt expect such a savage attack so early. Walcott would not have survived the middle rounds against Marciano had he not accidentally blinded Marciano either, as Marciano had begun winning the late early rounds before the famous substance got into his eye. On a similar note, Walcott befuddled Louis far more than he did Marciano, notably arguably winning their first encounter, so I am not sure what this is supposed to say? It backs up my argument, if anything. 3. LaStarza is nothing even remotely similar to Louis, extremely disingenuous to even suggest such. Nor is he a counter puncher. Moore i mentioned in regards to the slower Marciano being easier to counterpunch despite the awkward variety simply due to Marciano being much slower in 1955 than his physical athletic prime of 51-52. 4. Marciano was very clever and tricky. Both Louis and Moore, whom you described as "embarrassing" Marciano, described Marciano as underratedly hard to hit after their respective fights. Marciano also had one of the highest fight IQs of any heavyweight champion, and was capable of making mid fight adjustments which led to better success. This is also why he was such a great rematcher. I am not sure why he is regarded as a dumb caveman brute, when those types of fighters dont enjoy nearly the success of Marciano (take Max Baer or George Chuvalo, for example). Simply put no one at the top level is that simplistic; and most assuredly not Marciano. Louis was not a master of angles. His punches were very linear and sharp. Louis did not throw looping punches, punches from angles that werent horizontal or vertical, didnt even go to the body that much. Marciano threw every punch extremely well, Louis threw 3 perfectly. That is their dichotomy. And he didnt even have the jab perfected when he fought Schmeling the first time, which is why he kept getting hit by the counter right. Marciano's "getting up close and winging big shots" is literally the definition of punch angle and variety. I am not sure what else to tell you. Marciano was also just far more used to fighting counter punchers than Schmeling. For what its worth, I dont even regard Schmeling to be as good as Walcott. Most of your arguments are either questioning Marciano for beating the greatest counterpunchers of all time, or misunderstanding what I am saying. Simply put, Marciano is the better man to place in front of Schmeling BY FAR than the Louis of 1936. Louis by his own admission did not even train very seriously for that fight.
Max has a real chance for the win here. His track record is excellent against aggressive swarmer fighters. He destroyed - Mickey Walker, Johnny Risko and took two clear wins over Uzcudon. Settling once for a dubious draw that was roundly booed. He also has the best win of the two over prime Louis. I envision a great fight here. 50/50