Rocky Marciano's so called punching power

If Rocky's supporters could content themselves with the statement that for his size and weight ,[under 190lbs]he may/would, have been the winner of a round robin featuring Langford,Fitzsimmons,Dempsey,Schmeling,Patterson and all others of that stature.That he was also the hardest puncher among them,which is also a reasonable statement , I don't think there would such a backlash of resistance against his boosters but some of their claims just defy reality imo.
Last night I had a frosty argument with a poster on this thread in which he cites Rocky's 11 one round ko's as evidence of his power, though nobody has claimed he didn't have power.
Closer inspection of those 1 st rd victims reveals two are classed as middles two as light heavies and two as debutees.When I pointed this out he said, well Tyson knocked out 12 in the 1strd and they were not all good fighters.
Actually he kod 22 in the 1st rd and only 2 did not have winning records and the were his 1st and 2nd fights.
Confronted with this he changed tack and said but Marciano was 178lbs/192lbs implying its unfair to compare him to 218lbs Tyson because of the weight differential.Conveniently omitting that Tyson was koing men 220lbs plus on a regular basis and thereby tacitly admitting his argument is flawed .He said I was incapable of being unbiased.lol I asked him to put me on ignore and hope he agrees to my request.
Nobody polarises posters more into seperate camps than Rocky but,imo the reason is more the unrealistic claims that are made for him than a wish on the part of the opposition to tear him down.
The other day Janitor stated Marciano knocked out Rex Layne's entire front row of teeth out.When I proved this was false he was very reluctant to accept it and ended up with well I may not have been entirely correct or some other absurd equivocation.When a usually fairly reasonable poster such as he finds it so difficult to
admit their claims are false you can see how easily things escalate when some of the more "reactive" posters get involved.

 

This sort of thing sounds familiar. Ego & over-identification with certain fighters makes people irrational.
The inability to be honest enough (with yourself) & big enough to face the facts means some live in Delusionville & never grow.

 

I do not take disagreements personal, nor do I get aggressive unless it's against agenda driven trolls such as Chok and yourself. You're the biggest joke on this forum. I could pull up, countless posts of yours proving this but fortunately everyone here is sadly familiar with your work so I have no need to.

 

There you go again with insults

 

This is not true. Tyson knocked out 23 opponents in the first round (22 if you don't include Mcneeley) which accounted for more than half of his KO wins. A ridiculously impressive statistic. Some of those names include: Bruce Seldon, Michael Spinks, Carl Williams, Alex Stewart, Marvis Frazier, and David Jaco.

Marciano on the other hand knocked out 9 opponents in the first round. 6 of whom had a losing record. Two were middleweights. And the others who actually didn't have losing records weren't very good with the exception of Walcott who was 39 years old, had been fighting for 23 years, and had still given Marciano all he could handle and then some in their previous bout (which he actually would've won had it happened today). He most likely stayed down, if not took a dive and could've gotten up.

Now who's first round KO resume looks impressive? Hmmmmm that's a tough one.

 

This was my mistake. The full statistic was 12 of Tyson's 19 KO streak victims were in the first round.

And you will notice my point wasn't to argue Marciano as having a superior resume in any regard. But point out how easy it is to tear down such a statistic for a fighter regarded as the best fast starter in history.

I think this is evident in the text you are quoting but since it's the second such post to misread my intentions I have made this post to clarify.

 

I'm not sure why you are reframing an exchange we just had on the other page. But you seem to be very emotional and not understanding what I was saying at all. I will reply to your last post.

 

I never stated Spinks should be criticized as a former light heavy. I was pointing out the double standard I've seen in this thread that ridiculed Marciano's opponents for their previous weights.

My mistake on the Tyson stat. My point was not a direct comparison between him and Marciano. I used Tyson as an example of how easy it is to apply your criticisms of Marciano to any fighter, even one with Mike's reputation as a puncher. I was not obvious enough in that intention. My mistake.

And that there lies one of the problems. This criticism of "modern size" scalps when discussing a fighter who is not modern sized and did not fight in a modern sized division.

Holding Marciano to the standards of men 60 to 30 pounds heavier who competed in a division with that was at minimum 25 pounds higher just because he was a "heavyweight" is erroneous.

I'm more impressed with the power of Marciano routinely battering heavier or similiar sized men than I am with say Liston battering someone near 20 pounds lighter. That is not a direct comparison between the power of these two men, I'm just saying Marciano appears to have the heavier hands relative to his frame in boxing history. Langford and Moore overcame similar discrepancies with accuracy and timing, the Rock did it with brute power and intimidation.

Marciano's power in context of his era is not overrated. His reputation as the hardest hitter of his time is well earned. If the argument is that he is not a hard hitter because he didn't routinely knock out "modern sized" heavyweights despite not being "modern sized" himself and fighting in a smaller division....then no, he's not overrated, that is a foolish criticism.

I will also point out that modern sized heavies are now 6'4" 240. The current lineal Champion is a 270 lb 6'9" switch hitter. I would doubt Tyson's and Holyfield's chances in today's era as much as I would Marciano's. All these men would need to be much heavier to deal with giants routinely throwing their weight on them.

 

Nobody said Marciano wasnt a hard hitter he may well have been the hardest puncher under 190lbs ever, though four of his opponents named others as the hardest. Marciano was a grinder who generally, if his opposition was any good ,needed rounds to wear them down,that is just a stone cold fact, as is the fact that most of his early ko's were over 3rd raters .Tyson was koing ranked heavyweights as in knocking them out. I believe Tyson could ko any heavyweight regardless of their size.I do not believe the same of Marciano. you are actually constructing an argument that directly contradicts your first statement. Just put me on ignore Pal.

 

The whole point of this thread is to call his reputation as a power puncher into question. It's all there in the opening post. I agree he is probably the hardest puncher ever under 190 lbs.

I would disagree with that stone cold fact but that could be a matter of semantics. When I think of a grinder I think of an aggressive fighter that lacks the big punch equalizer. I would place Holyfield in that category. Maybe Duran as well as he got older and moved up in weight.

While this is true it's also a moot point that is true for almost every boxer.

As did Maricano so I'm not sure what difference you are trying to point out.

I'm not sure what first statement you could be referring to but I think I've been pretty straight forward and consistent enough at this point there shouldn't be confusion where I stand.

I'm not certain Tyson could KO any heavyweight regardless of their size. While he did knock out his share of larger men, his KO percentage certainly drops against more contemporary sized heavies like Ruddock, Douglas, Lewis, Tucker, Bonecrusher..etc as you would expect it to. In many cases Ruddock, Douglas, and Bonecrusher could simply throw their weight on him and manhandle their way out of trouble whenever they got hurt.

In the 80s, Tyson was short for a heavy but still was comfortably in that 215-220 range. Currently, he would be giving up 20-50 pounds in weight on average on a given night. I'm not sure why he would do that, when he could stay in the 215 range and compete as a cruiser. Modern cruisers hydrate around 215 on average these days.

 

I agree completely on whose record is more impressive-Tyson just had so much more natural talent.
Small point is that like Louis vs. Conn, the odds are good that if it was a 12 round bout, both would have stepped it up earlier, I still favor them for the win.
Although given I just found out Rocky was fairly blinded in his first title fight, (by his own corner, accidentally, maybe not him!

 

He was no feather fist..

 

Those four opponents who were they and who did they name? Just curious.

 

Lastarza said he had been hit harder, but not so consistently he did not name anyone.
Charles said Satterfield and Marshall hit him harder.
Moore said Durelle hit him the hardest and he included Sheppard,Satterfield and Richards in that bracket,he did say Marciano was a very hard puncher,but that he wore you down with his incessant agression
Cockell said he had been hit harder ,but did not name anyone.

 

It's not a name that springs to mind when we talk about the great punchers, but Cockell said that Johnny Barton hit him harder than Marciano did.