Rocky Marciano vs Max Schmeling

Glass City: Stallone could have used you for a screenplay writer. You think in his style.

 

The reason they would damn near kill him is say what you want about Marciano, he had a heart and balls to spare and he'd keep trying to get up off the deck and go after against people like Liston, Foreman, etc., until he was finally left unconscious and twitching like Ingo in a pool of his own blood.

 

Certainly. Although I do think Foreman clearly outpoints Marciano on career achievements too.

 

1) This is simply untrue. Louis was not just a 1-2 merchant. He did not simply operate using 1 angle. I don't know which fights you were watching but they couldn't be Louis'. A 1-2 merchant would be fighters such as Pinklon Thomas or Gennady Golovkin.

Does this look like a 1-2 merchant to you? Does Louis lack mastery of angle or other dimensions in this footage? The fact you compared Louis to Lennox and Wladmir is hilarious.

This content is protected

Louis used at least 4 left uppercuts, probably a dozen right uppercuts, and multiple left hooks. When he was up close, he shifted his weight to the front and used close range pivoting and weight shifting to maintain power in his short hooks and uppers. At mid-range he stood more upright and used more of his shoulder and back strength. When he had Schmeling on the ropes, he used feints and changed levels and angles to throw Schmeling off before firing.

Louis vs Baer:

This content is protected

Louis shows more versatility and mastery of angles in round 1 than 90% of the fighters in today's top 10. He starts off calmly sticking and moving with slow but methodical lateral movement and crisp jabs to feel things out. Then just 15 seconds into the round, Louis throws a sharp left uppercut. He changed angles and shuffles back to avoid Max's bombs. Louis used framing to line his man up for close range hooks. At 41:00, Louis changes angles with head movement and throws a beautiful Tyson-esque combo: right cross, duck and slip, right uppercut, left hook right hand, takes a step back for safety. Just beautiful combination punching.

I repeat, did you ever watch a Joe Louis fight?

2) You didn't address what I said at all. How did an old Walcott get ahead on the cards forcing Rocky to need a KO to win if Rocky was this amazingly versatile and well rounded fighter good at many angles? Rocky didn't really change too much, he just finally managed to wear down the old Walcott with pressure and then landed a picture perfect right hand the old man didn't see coming.

3) When the hell did I say Lastarza was just like Louis? I'm asking why Rocky went life and death with Lastarza, arguably getting outboxed, if he was this skilled technician good at using angles? You do know in rematch Rocky didn't make any of these clever little adjustments you keep insinuating and basically just overwhelmed Lastarza sith sheer force (while sprinkling in a few could for good measure)...? At no point in either fight was it reported Rocky outboxed or out thought Lastarza.

4) Rocky himself said he only knew one way to fight. His opponents said he only knew one way to fight. His trainer said this. The footage showed this. Why are you blatantly lying when people have eyes...?

Yes, Rocky did sometimes make adjustments during fights and made hai awkward style work for him. He was not some brilliant technician, he just overwhelmed 90% of his opponents with volume punching and right tactics. I watched every Rocky fight available on YouTube, read his biography, and read what ring side reporters said. You are selling snake oil.

5) Louis did not use angles and didn't throw any looping punches? This is a flat out lie, or you never watched a Louis fight in your life as I showed above in point 1). For someone whose been on this forum this long, this is downright embarrassing. Louis was one of the best users of angles of all time and didn't simply hide behind a jab and 1-2 all night. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Louis was a BRILLIANT combination puncher who shifted weight, used angles, changed levels, pivoted, etc. He was a versatile machine gun who could box at mid range and fire off combos up close.

@mcvey
@swagdelfadeel
@JohnThomas1

Apparently Louis did NOT use angles, spammed the 1-2, and lacked variety in his punches. Rocky was apparently even more versatile and trickier than Louis. Heaven help us all.

 

That's one hell of a compliment, thank you. I was always interested in doing fight choreography and action scene writing.

 

youre taking that statement too literally. Louis very obviously doesnt have the punch variety of Marciano.

every single one of them

I did answer that. Go reread my comment instead of randomly white knighting Louis even though youre preaching to the choir

LaStarza isnt a counterpuncher. I said Marciano's punch variety makes him more difficult for counter punchers. Also didnt Louis get horrifically outboxed by Billy Conn? What is the point of bringing this up?? Marciano is just clearly a worse matchup for Schmeling than Louis was, and youre acting like im slandering Louis

I never said Marciano was a brilliant technician. Marciano was notoriously humble and his pr team sold the image of a bootstraps italian boy who only came forward and slugged it out. This is a misrepresentation of the more subtle niches of Marciano's style which allowed him to be flexible and harder to hit that one would expect. His reputation that his manager and himself put out even helped this effect. Literally everyone who fought Marciano said he was underratedly hard to hit. It is quite obvious that you should take these into account the most.

I never said Louis never used angles. Louis absolutely did not throw looping punches though and i stand by that. Louis just never had any awkward angle punches, like a Smash for example. You seem to be slightly overrating Louis' footwork, by the way. Stop purposefully misrepresenting my comments, and being oddly hostile about it

 

Whatever flaws Louis had in his game in 36, he was nevertheless a more.complete fighter than any version of Marciano. He had immensely better fundamentals and defensive and offensive systems.
He destroyed Baer and Carnera, ended Uzcudun, knocked out Ramage twice, demolished Retzlaff and took out Levinsky in one. There is no question that young Louis was above and beyond any version of Marciano, to say otherwise is complete nonsense. Before he even fought Schmeling, Louis had almost as many wins over contenders as Rocky would have in his entire run as a pro.
As for the chin, it took Schmeling 80 power punches to put Louis out, the same Schmeling knocked out Stribling and Risko, yet Louis held up under fire for almost 12 rounds. Would the Marciano who was dropped by a 39 year old Walcott and a 41 year old Moore even manage to stick around against a 30 year old Schmeling?
There is no boxer puncher or finisher in the league of Schmeling that was ever in a ring with Rocky, not 37 year old Louis who for the first time couldn't score knockouts in rematches, not a 39 year old Walcott, not a 1954 Charles who by 1955 was losing to literally anybody and not a 41 year old Moore.
Besides, Louis tried to get Schmeling with uppercuts, hooks and crosses from close and medium range but Max always was prepared. Marciano has vastly inferior hand speed and telegraphs his punches every time he throws them, Schmeling would be reading him like an open book.

There was no maneuver whatsoever that Marciano could pull that would ever make him as fast as Louis in any way. What the hell are you even watching?

Ok, let's play a game. Name me the oldest fighters Louis fought. Tell me their ages, then tell me how long the fights lasted.

 

Not against counter punchers! Marciano's style was simply better for facing counter punchers than that version of Louis, because Louis had a notable flaw that had not been accounted for, and Marciano was tailor made to fight counter punchers. And that is what my original comment is about. Going against ****ing COUNTER PUNCHERS. I am not saying Marciano is greater than Louis, holy **** youd think hes the father of everyone in this thread

Walcott and Moore were both 38 and aged extremely well, but beyond that Marciano just very obviously has a better chin than Louis and to claim anything else is just blatant revisionism. Louis got shook by Billy Conn for ****s sake. Good to note that Marciano was down against Walcott and Moore for a combined 5 seconds and immediately began fighting again perfectly fine, literally quoting after Walcott "I was mad at myself, not hurt".

Imo everyone you just listed was a better counter puncher than Schmeling. That Charles from the first fight was something especially fierce, glimpses of his prime in that

Schmeling would not read Marciano like an open book, even ****ing Louis himself said Marciano was underratedly hard to hit. Marciano could be very methodical in his approach, or just explosively dart into the inside where his short reach provides advantage, and while Schemling doesnt mind fighting on the backfoot, he absolutely is not going to dance 15 rounds from Marciano's pressure.

The fights where Marciano very clearly had a faster dart and dash, as in he moved into the inside quicker. How much of this was because Marciano could afford to be wreckless with his (very obviously) superior chin? Not sure.

He fought a 34 year old Walcott, and Walcott probably deserved to beat him when they did. Dunno what age has to do with anything. Dunno what comparing Louis' best win to Marciano's has to do with anything either, I'm just saying that Marciano is a worse style matchup for Schmeling than the incomplete Louis that ran into him in their first fight. That was just a side personal opinion that i put and doesnt really have anything to do with my main argument. I find it hilarious that it seemingly offended so many of you, though

 

Words have meanings. You said Louis was a 1-2 merchant like 3x in a row, doubled down on it, and even compared his style to Lennox Lewis and ****ing Wladmir Klitschko. Should I create a poll asking if anyone agrees with this absurd comparison?

You can pull up basically any Louis fights and he has a wide variety of punches using multiple angles. So either you were trolling or you never watched a Louis fight in your life. Which is it? If it's the former, then I'm wasting my time, and if it's the latter than clearly you're an idiot who whose babbling without even checking the footage of the fighter you're arguing about.

It is quite obvious you aren't watching Rocky fights either.

My issue isn't with you claiming Rocky is a worse matchup for Schmeling than Louis. You can believe that if you want. My issue is with you making utterly untrue claims about Louis and then back pedaling the moment I show footage demonstrating that your claims are complete and total horse ****.

You INSISTED Louis threw "mostly straight linear shots, lacked punch variety, and didn't use many angles while fighting" and this is COMPLETELY false to anyone with functioning eyes.

I just ****ing showed you a fight with time stamps of Louis throwing looping overhand rights and hooks to clobber Schmeling and Baer. Do you have eyes?

By "looping" do you mean wide open caveman swings that Rocky was fond of even when he had more than 30+ professional boots under his belt? Is Louis "less versatile" than Rocky because he didn't stumble over the weight of his own punches missing by whole feet?

This content is protected

 

I'm not even gonna read the rest of this. Louis is a 1-2 based fighter who seldom threw other punches. You don't even know what an overhand right is. You clearly just do not like Marciano. Have a good day.

 

You're not gonna respond because you're a complete and total fraud who didn't bother watching the clips I posted, or any Louis fight for that matter.

Louis was a brilliant combination puncher you idiot, he didn't just spam jabs and 1-2s all day never changing angles. Show me the fight where Louis fights the way you're describing.

 

He doesn't watch boxing matches. Even after I posted the clips where Louis showed TONS of punch variety, angles, and pivoting, he insists Louis was a 1-2 spammer who lacked punch variety and compared him to Wladmir Klitschko.

This has to be the dumbest **** I've read this whole year.

 

C’mon now, that’s madness. No way should I read this week that peak George Foreman might not be able to defeat Leon Spinks & expect for a statement like that to have any kind of competition on the lunatic fringe…yet here we are.

 

Who the heck said that...?

 

Great analysis
I found just one little mistake and fixed it for you.