Stamina vs Stamina, Marciano vs Frazier

Well were getting closer!

Like I said, IMO if it was 2 out of 3, Ali would win 2 straight.

 

Your polling is of prime v prime. Not FOTC with the bad timing and questionable stamina. The layoff did a lot, this is why Ali was better around 72-74 then in 71. He looked very poor at times against Bonvena. I suppose Bonavena beats Marciano in your eyes too.

 

Giving Rocky chances, but you said NEVER, and Joe Fraizer said as long as any one had 2 fist, they always had a chance. Hell there been fights in the 1900's were guys won the first 4 or 5 fights, and lost the 6th.

Lamotta beat Robinson 1 time out of 6th.

Lewis I belive won the wars with Briton.

I would not say NEVER. You might favor Ali, but you cant just write off a Marciano victory. Marciano would be pressing Ali to the ropes more than a certain slugging in the 1960's with less power did. I take Ali's word on how shock he was in how Rocky Took the jab away in there sparing matchs.

Ali would be fighting tooth and nail for this win imo, He has a shot to win, but I would never used the word NEVER.

 

I never said Oscar would beat Rocky.

OK, at Ali's worse, which was not FOTC, and Rocky's best, you pick that, yes Rocky would stand a chance of beating him. It's like saying a prime Oscar could most likely beat Rocky before 1951.

I am talking about when each of them were Champions and in their primes. Another words, at their best.

 

Good post. It was an extreme position by him to say that but I'm not suprised he did say it. How can he Rocky never beats Ali if he only means prime versus prime? Say Rocky could never beat Ali prime vs prime is a lot in and of itself but saying blankly that "Rocky could never beat Ali" is hyperbole. Guess what, FOTC is not prime Ali. Timing off, and stamina not top notch. Frazier beat that version handedly enough and is won in the late rounds. Better durability and stamina Rocky could close the gap. I feel Joe can get to Ali better but I feel Rocky takes advantage of Ali more once closing the gap and I feel he can finish the rounds even stronger than Joe. Personally, I think Rocky would win a decision but would have a better chance of finishing the dead tired Ali by KO than Joe had. So in anycase, that was just hyperbole by hhascup.

 

Rocky of 51 was arguably better than the champion version of 55 so that would be more hyperbole from you. Rocky has a good chance against Ali in FOTC. Obviously an Ali of 75 onwards was worse. You're downplaying what the layoff effect had on Ali and Cus D'Amato explained why he felt Joe would win. Notice how Ali of 72-74 was better. The timing with shots, punching, moving, reflexes, and Ali's stamina for that fight wasn't stellar. His performance against Oscar Bonavena didn't look that good either.

 

Like I said, at their very best Ali wins. Maybe I should not have used the word NEVER, But in their prime years, I really don't see Rocky winning this one at any time. I am not talking about an early young Ali or an Ali past him prime. If you match a young inexperienced Rocky against a young inexperienced Ali, I would again take Ali. Most boxing people would agree with that too. If your talking about at the end of both careers, when Ali was just a shell of himself and getting sick, Rocky would have won.

 

I don't agree with Rocky being better in 1951 BUT the other stuff I do agree with.

When Rocky fought Walcott in their 1st match, he only averaged 34 punches a round. It was later on in his Championship reign did he increase his punch total.

 

Here's what Buddy McGirt had to say:

1- Muhammad Ali. (Joe Louis, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier, 'Jersey' Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes, Jack Johnson and Evander Holyfield).

"To me, the greatest is Ali. After that, it's hard to say who goes where because there were so many greats. But, I wasn't impressed with Marciano or Dempsey. But I was impressed with Tyson. He had great speed and combinations.... a really devastating puncher. As for Johnson, he was a really great defensive fighter. He was a very smart fighter and put you into situations that were hard to get out of. The moves that Johnson made, were very surprising to see... especially during the era that he was fighting in. Holyfield... he did it all! Combinations. He was tough. Lots of heart. And, he fought everyone they put in front of him. No matter how big they were. He always took on the challenge. Walcott was a great fighter. Very slick and smart. He could really punch too. But he didn't get his just due until later in his years. Ezzard Charles.... same thing. I think if these guys fought Marciano in their youth, they woulda beat the **** outta him. Al (Certo) picked Roland LaStarza? You're kidding! I wonder if the heat in that tailor shop is gettin' to him!" (Laughs)

 

But his power probably was lessened to a ever so slightly degree. Rocky wasn't as aggressive or swarming but he was themore mechanical, tactical slugger. He adopted that more so because Goldman didn't want any chance of Rocky being down in a fight again.

I do agree that Marciano of 51 or 55 or slightly different, but not much better or worse. More just difference. But Marciano at 51 has to be a bit fresher, no? Then you agree he was quite durable and strong a fighter :yep

 

It's funny how a detractor can even place 2 guys that Marciano beat ahead of him and say Marciano was just unimpressive. He must've been one of those old critics that turned bitter on him for being so wrong.

Anyway, you seem very knowledgable. You know a lot about boxing and your knowledge and resources are better than mine. I consider myself a great analyst of the sport, though. I'd be curious to see what all trainers/historians/experts rate the top 10 Heavyweights of all time. I remember seeing boxing experts and trainers list somewhere but could never trace it. And I remember that Roland LaStarza line so you must be looking at the same source. You should make a thread about it or compile the list and post it here.

 

He may be more impress with Charles or Walcott, but Rocky is 4-0 against them. And both at the time were still great fighters, Had they been younger, I not sure on that, Walcott show up out of fighting shape more often than not, and Charles would be a lightheavyweight to middleweight about.
Once they start ranking Roland LarSarza over Marciano is when the Rocky highly gets underated imo.

And they did beat the **** out of Rocky, Its just that Rocky either knock Walcott Cold, or gave Charles a beating worse or as bad as him.

 

I never said he wasn't. To be in my top 10 all-times, he has to be somebody special.

I honestly think Rocky got better as time went on. In 1952, he was behind after 12 round when he fought Walcott by 2, 3 and 4 points. He just got by LaStarza in their 1st match in 1950 and he stopped him in 1953.

I have counted his punches in several bouts, and after he became Champion, he started throwing a lot more.

 

I know Buddy very well, in fact I was on a talk show with him many years ago.

He rated them over Rocky because both gave Rocky a lot of problems in their 1st bout and they were on the way down when they fought him. I know, your going to say Walcott was at his best. IMO he was at his best when he fought Louis BUT he also showed what he could have done when he fought Rocky the 1st time.

By the way, I don't agree with Buddy on this. I have Rocky rated over both Charles and Walcott, although Charles could have been the Greatest Light Heavyweight of all-times.

As far as the trainers rating them, my very good friends Lou Duva and Al Certo rated Rocky #1. They were the only two that rated him #1. Also, they were very good friends of Rocky.

Here's what they had:

Lou Duva
1- Rocky Marciano. (Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Billy Conn, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Sonny Liston, Ernie Shavers, Jim Braddock and Max Baer. Special mention: Max Schmelling and 'Jersey' Joe Walcott)


"To me, the best heavyweight of all time is Marciano. No one ever beat him! Boxing was his life. There were so many great fighters that it's hard to rank these guys from 1 to 10. Aside from all his faults, I gotta add Liston. He was a good puncher and a good fighter. But one of the hardest punchers was Shavers! He could knock you dead with one punch! Then there's Braddock. A real tough guy with lots of heart. He worked 12 hours a day in a factory, then would go to the gym at night to train. Fighters back then didn't have the luxury of investors! They had to work to earn a living! And, in the old days, fighters knew what they were doing. They knew what they were there for and they got the job done. Also, back in the 30's and 40's, there were only 8 weight divisions. At the time, a light heavyweight was 175 pounds, but he stepped up to fight heavyweights. A good example of that were guys like Conn, Moore and Charles. But you haven't got that today! Today's light heavyweight fighters couldn't carry their (Conn, Moore, Charles) gym bags!"



Al Certo
1- Rocky Marciano, 2- Joe Louis, 3- 'Jersey' Joe Walcott. (Muhammad Ali, Roland LaStarza, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Jim Braddock, Max Baer and Max Schmelling. Special mention: Billy Conn).


"Marciano and Louis were great, and they were classy guys too. And, Walcott was my idol. So they're at the top of my list. But I don't want to classify any of these fighters over the others because they were all tremendous. I gotta stick Conn in there too. Even though he was a light heavyweight, he moved up to heavy and fought Louis. He had Louis beat up until the 13th round. I'll put LaStarza up there too. He was a tough S.O.B. I'll bet none of the other trainers mention him! (Laughs) In those years, guys never backed away from a fight and they would drop you on your ass. But fighters nowadays? You know what the guys on my list would've done to these modern days fighters? Forget about it! I know what the guys in my era were capable of, and let me tell you... it'd be no competition what so ever! By the way, who'd Angie (Dundee) pick? I'll bet that ole bugger's got Ali in the number #1 spot!"

 

That's a fine position. You get caught into facts and figures a bit much in my opinion. Certainly Rocky was capable of throwing more punches then. I don't see how throwing more puncher defines him better but I guess it depends on whether you believe that made him the better fighter. It's very very arguably.



Thanks for posting the piece on your friend and Duva and Certo. I don't want to see just people who rank Rocky high. If you could gather experts/trainers opinions together for a thread or here I would greatly appreciate that. I've always tried digging for that kind of stuff and had trouble. Anyone's list from Futch to Dundee to the experts would be very cool. :thumbsup

*Edit* I remember reading that source I believe you're referencing from. I remember that I wonder how Dundee has #1 line. Just put that link if your looking at what I'm thinking of.