Rocky Marciano's so called punching power

The last part is nonsense...

I would hardly call the 50's heavyweights as defensive specialists. Charles and Lastarza are just about the only fighters that remotely fit that description. Louis was a boxer puncher and very offense oriented. He got hit and dropped A LOT. Moore was very scientific but in an offensive way. His technique was for setting up knockouts (he wouldn't have such a high number of KO's if he was some defense first fighter like Whitaker or mayweather). Rex Layne was the Chris Arreola of the 50's, a slow slugger. Cokkel was a slow unathletic fighter and not exactly hard to find. Walcott had fancy footwork and could counter but in the Rocky fight he spent quite a lot of time standing right in front if him and trying to out slug him. Vingo and was no defensive fighter.

 

This is your statement ,will you now acknowledge that it is false? I think we can agree that an entire front row of teeth is not two!

"Knocked out Rex Layne's entire front row of teeth.!
If you cannot bring yourself to admit that your statement is a gross exaggeration, please say so and I'll waste no more time on you ,nor on looking up sources.

BTW teeth being knocked out is not that unusual.
Willard knocked out Johnson's two gold teeth.
Louis knocked out three gold teeth of Uzcudun's.

 

The key heavyweights of the era, apart from Marciano himself, were Walcott, Charles and Moore.

I would call that an era dominated by defensive specialists wouldn't you?

If you look at most of Marciano's most important opponents, their main card was their ability to not get hit.

 

If it means a lot to you!

I have already acknowledged that the evidence seems to show, that he knocked out two teeth, and a piece of bridgework.

That would be taken as an admission, that my previous statement was in some measure inaccurate, by most normal people!

Willard and Louis are two of the heaviest punchers in the history of the division.

Johnson probably didn't even have a mouthpiece.

 

Not Even remotely.

Like I said, Charles is the only one of the 3 you mentioned who can be described as a defensive specialist and he was hardly a whitaker or mayweather type of fighter. He let his hands go, was willing to trade and fight on the inside, attack the body, etc. You're acting like when Charles fought Marciano he got on his toes circling, jabbing, tying up, using a tight guard, or fighting on the back foot. That's not what happened and you know it. Charles spent entire rounds going toe to toe with Rocky and his puffy black eyes show that he obviously didn't have great defense in their bout. Charles also suffered 6 ko losses, including one of the most devastating ko losses of all time to Walcott.

Walcott was brutally KO'd quite often for a guy you insist was a "defensive specialist". He was also stopped 6 times. Again, aside from tricky footwork and his ability to counter, walcott was not some sort of heavyweight version of Willie pep. He was willing to mix it up or go for the knock out more often than not. Are we watching the same fights?

Do you not understand what a "defensive specialist" is? Because that is hardly how I'd describe Walcott. Tricky and cagey, sure. Well rounded, absolutely. But if you say defensive specialist you are talking about a safety first fighter who is hard to hit, often let's his opponent lead, has a strong guard that's hard to penetrate, can slip and dodge punches masterfully or roll with them even if they get tagged, are effective at surviving and tying up when hurt, have good footwork and don't get caught against the ropes or stuck in a corner often, etc.

When the 38 year old shopworn walcott fought Rocky, he rarely fought on the back foot and attacked rocky immediately, even dropping him. He was willing to trade. He went for the knockout. He did not tie up effectively when hurt. He was not slipping or rolling effectively. Punches often got through his guard. He let himself get pressured and caught against the ropes and was brutally knocked out in one of the most devastating losses in history. I fail to see how this performance could be described as some sort of master class defensive fight on walcotts part.

As for Archie Moore, for a guy with the highest number of knockouts in history and who himself got KO'd 7x, his "main card" clearly wasn't the ability to not get hit. It's the total opposite. Can you name a single "safety first defensive specialist" who was knocked out more than half a dozen times and simultaneously scored a staggering number of knockouts?

 

In regards to Moore how many people even had the amount of fights he had? Of course he was a defensive specialist. How do you think his career spanned three decades? And was still speaking well after
Also I’m not sure you watched the Marciano v Walcott fight. Walcott with the exception of the first round ran the whole fight (affectively). Did you ever think for a moment that Marcianos skill set allowed him to get through their guards?
Besides those three Marciano fought solid defensive fighters in Matthews, Lastarza, and Cockell. Who were skill fighters. Without good defense they wouldn’t have made it very far.
Still can’t believe you called Charles and Moore not good defensively. Try giving the man his due for being affective in breaking all these different styles

 

What's more is that even Charles was a Mayweather/Whitaker type guy, Marciano needed him to be old, overworked and coming off a vicious war to KO him.

I would just like to add that Charles' chin is excellent. Of those seven KOs, only one is truly worthy of criticism IMO. The loss to Marshall was while he was badly injured in the hip. He obviously reversed it twice while not injured. Second, is Walcott III, which is the one I was on about. Third is Marciano II, where Charles was clearly well past his prime. Hell, Charles was probably past his prime when he lost to Walcott, let alone Marciano.

The other four were while ALS ridden, old and worn out and basically just fighting for money. Even still, Holman, Fleeman & Logan weren't exactly featherfisted

 

A defensive specialist, does not necessarily spend most of their time on the back foot!

Why should I even need to explain this to you?

Do you understand why Walcott developed the style that he did?

He was a journeyman, who worked another job, while fighting contenders.

Boxing was not his full time job, so he developed a style based upon economy of effort.

If that is not a defensive specialist, then there is no such thing!

I begin to think that I understand what a defensive specialist is, much better than yourself!

Being a defensive fighter is not necessarily about fighting on the back foot.

It is about defending yourself.

A lot of the best defensive fighters in history, have fought with little mobility, as I would hope that you would already know!

A defensive specialist, is a fighter whose style is built around avoiding punches.

It is honestly that simple!

 

Did You even read my post?!? I literally praised Charles for being a skilled defensive fighter TWICE! I just said that he wasn't "defense first" like Whitaker or mayweather and let his hands go way more than those 2.

Moore being able to speak clearly doesn't prove anything. George Foreman can speak eloquently at college campuses whole James Toney has slurred speech. Again, Moore has a staggering number of knockouts for a guy you claim is a defensive specialist. I am nit suggesting he lacked skill ir was just some slugger, Moore was brilliant. But his defense and cross arm block style was designed for breaking guys down and setting up KO's, not fighting on the back foot and being safety first.

I also acknowledged Lastarza had good defense and footwork. Him and Charles were the exception in Marcianos resume.

 

Believe me I am not trying to slag Charles Im aware that the poor guy had als and was very shopworn and far above his natural weight as heavyweight. Of course the fan boys of a certain type won't acknowledge any of this since he "must be in his prime" since he won a belt at HW. But not to take anything from Charles but that tells you it was somewhat of a weak era if a shell of Charles could become #1 and remain in the top 10 for years.

 

Never said that was a requirement.

You are being facetious.

Do You mind actually addressing some of the points i made about how he actually fought Marciano and the major tactical/defensive mistakes he made?

Claiming to know more than another person is not a valid rebuttal.

As I have admitted multiple times, you have more encyclopedic knowledge about boxing than I do and several others here, but you often pretend as though you don't get what somebody means despite clear unambiguous examples backed up by facts!

How many defensive specialists in history aside from Walcott got caught backing up into the ropes with their hands down and getting brutally knocked out?

What about supposed defensive specialists aside from Moore who have a staggering number of KO wins?

Again you choose to focus on only one small part of my post. And i never said you had to have high mobility to be considered defensively sound. Jimmy Young wasn't a highly mobile fighter but he was notoriously difficult to hit flush clean, let alone stop.

If You have more than half a dozen brutal knockout losses, you either

A) aren't very good at avoiding getting hit by punches and defending yourself

Or

B) maybe you were wrong in labeling their style as a defensive specialist?

 

Wrong.

For example if a local level defensive specialist, fights world class offensive specialists, the they will get unsatisfactory results.

That doesn't mean that their style was not defensive.

You are perhaps missing the most important point?

Defensive boxing is an equalizer!

It is the resort of the weaker fighter, attacking the stronger fighter!

Look at the great defensive fighters of history, and they generally had this dilemma at some point!

 

I am genuinely confused by your example.

Walcott and Moore were not "local level" guys, they were literally the best the division had to offer when Rocky fought them and had twice as much experience with better fundamentals and natural talent.

I would never harshly judge a defensive fighter for getting beat up by a guy with more experience/ranking/talent than them.

So You have chosen option A that they weren't very good at avoiding getting hit? Because both boxers have been dropped multiple times against opponents close to their level of skill and ability (and in some cases even being dropped by guys who are even worse than them). It's not like they were rookies thrown to the wolves and slaughtered by elite experienced boxers when they got stopped.

As for defensive fighters being the "weaker" fighter, this absolutely does not apply to Moore who was a brutal knockout artist and a strong guy with big arms. He did NOT have this "dilemma". Again, I demand to know of these so called defensive fighters who have a high number of knockouts like Moore?

 

I agree, but you might want to look at Walcott's history, and why he developed the style that he did?

Just a suggestion!

There are other, much more obvious explanations.

They fought under unfavorable circumstances?

They fought very often?

I will start by saying the glaringly obvious.

A lot of defensive fighters, have a high KO%.

Muhammad Ali anyone?

Defense is just a way of getting from A to B!

Let me ask you one question.

Lets say that you had to fight a superior fighter, who had trained to go fifteen rounds, while you had not, what style would you use?

Take all the time that you need on that question!

 

My main focus is and was on Moore. He was known for his defense...I didn’t think this was debatable. But I respect your opinion to disagree. Moore was also know to be overly cautious. He probably could have had more KOs but choose to coast if he was able too.