The Ali And Marciano Phenomenon

Great question Sal. For a few reasons, I think. First, despite their fame, who could say they weren't great fighters? The ignorant might say they were the greatest, then again so might the informed. For me, I don't like absolute labeling in any discussion on anything. There are just too many variables, too many ways of looking at things, too many nights, each one finding our subjects in a slightly varying form; maybe they have a cold or got schtooked too many times that week, or not at all for so long it left them so full of self-doubt they questioned their capability in any pairing whatsoever. Of course there are obscure guys in every weight class in any era that deserve our attention; their careers so worthy of analysis, their efforts often more remarkable and inspiring because of who they weren't. They weren't Robinson and LaMotta and Louis and Conn. They weren't the marquee fighters. But if we watch them, if we know the back-stories, and even if we don't, we can't miss it.

Another thing is, and I know we got some experts on this forum, some brilliant students of the game, but the inescapable truth in any scholarly pursuit is you can't know everything. There aren't enough spare hours in a day, years in a lifetime, for any expert in any field to not have missed something, some aspect of it; in the case of this thread, some lessor known fighters. I mean, who has been guiltier of it than I have, constantly trying to drag my dad's name into a discussion, anywhere I thought it might fit. Am I biased? Bet your ass. Is he worthy of attention anyway? I think most would agree he is, if they knew his story. But truth is, so many of them are. So many of these guys were great in their way, given their own set of pluses and minuses, and I'm pretty sure it was you Sal, on some thread I started that said, I paraphrase, that talent in itself was boring to you, that you were more interested in the guys that have to overcome handicaps or shortcomings. The problem is half the time we don't know enough about these guys to be able to give them credit for overcoming their shortcomings. In fact often it was just these things that kept us from knowing enough about them in the first place, that thing that kept them fighting at a level that didn't garner much exploration by the press or the fans. I could give examples, could drag the old man into this again as it would illuminate, but I don't think it's necessary..... the sighs of relief from every corner of the ESB world, the cheers of gratitude... :happy.. deafening!

Anyway Sal, Marciano and Ali, two great fighters, the greatest? Those would never be my words. But as great and worthy of attention as any, I think it's hard to argue not. Overdone? No doubt. Over-glorified? Ha, I dare anybody to argue otherwise, and I'll just speak for myself when I say that there are fighters that come up on this board that I've never seen on film, but then again I'm sure I've seen guys most here haven't, so in that chasm, where is there room for a discussion? With all due humility, I'd have to say that once I have watched a fight, a fighter, I do have a pretty good eye for it; but how can you have an opinion on something or someone that you have never experienced?

Have you ever noticed how reluctant people are to admit that they just don't know? I presume they see it as a sign of weakness, as a vulnerability. But to me, there's no shame, and in fact I think it's a sign of strength, of mental health. It might be interesting if we posted films of some of these of fights, of lessor known fighters, and then let's have a go of it. Dissecting this stuff once everybody's on an even playing field might be interesting. Anybody have the films, the inclination? Then again, maybe that's already been done too.

 

Because they are two of the greatest and most popular fighters of all time and they have great bylines.

Marciano's story is a fairy tail; Few amatuer fights, turned pro @ 24, too short, stubby arms, too light, too clumsey (allegedly). Seriously, what are the odds of q guy like that doing what he did?

Ali was magic, the way he moved, his speed, his over the top antics, taking out Liston and Foreman.

Add to this that 1969 computer fight, where both fighters gained a lot of respect for one another. Lou Duva, Marcianos friend, was pretty convincing saying that Rock busted up Ali's ribs and, if I remember correctly, Duva thought Rock would win a real figtht (not necassarilly @ that time)

Add all this together and you have a great topic to revisit forever.

 

Good idea :yep

 

Take it as gospel mate, my initial post regarding Marciano is as I see it... As for Billy Conn, I actually think he was a very capable fighter... A tough campaigner with adequate skills to manage Marciano long enough to create a potential upset. He had the better of Louis for 13 rounds in their first encounter... Anything could have transpired with a Marciano/Conn match..

AS for Chuvalo, this was nothing more than a bit of fun... I know his record very well..The immediate response from Pontious inspired myself to carry on with it. I had to giggle at his return of serve... especially regarding the belting Chuvalo took from Frazier, Foreman and Bonavena... Both Foreman and Frasier would have taken Marciano to the cleaners... both men hit harder and Frazier had a higher work rate (when fit).

Ive enjoyed boxing for several decade... yet, Marciano seems to have made less impact on my psyche than most other fans... Im not willing to suggest he is the unbeatable icon... nor will I ever.

 

Got it. I appreciate your argument and it's clear to me that you know you're stuff.

Billy Conn is an ATG and one of my favorites. How can you not love a guy blows the HW championship of the world and laughs it off to his ethnicity?

However, he would have a monster problem in Marciano in my opinion because of one reason. Marciano is a crowder. For that matter, Joe Louis would always have had a monster problem in Marciano -because he himself admits that he kept a secret throughout his career -namely, that he did not do well with crowders. There are hints in a few of his fights that support his own observation.

Marciano is an acquired taste. First impressions are lasting ones, and he gives a bad one. But he is the greatest HW example of intangibles trumping everything -he has exactly those qualities you do not want to face over 15; his style was a nightmare and was the kind that turns an opponent inside out -literally and figuratively. I'm going to gradually attempt to convert you when opportunities arise. I may fail, but I have no issue with going down swinging.

 

[

Marciano is an acquired taste. First impressions are lasting ones, and he gives a bad one. But he is the greatest HW example of intangibles trumping everything -he has exactly those qualities you do not want to face over 15; his style was a nightmare and was the kind that turns an opponent inside out -literally and figuratively. I'm going to gradually attempt to convert you when opportunities arise. I may fail, but I have no issue with going down swinging.[/quote]


Very true. The more I watch, and repeat watching, the more impressed I am.

 

How so? when I watch marciano, I see a very skilled tricky fighter in there who utilizes his crouch and leverage very effectivley. never did I ever think he looked crude in there.

 

I actually never posted on it myself but its obvious why both Ali & Marciano are interesting when discussed.

1stly - Most see Ali as the best ever HWT & Marciano is the only other HWT that never lost.

2ndly - the difference in styles would always have made a good fight.

 

I must say that he looks quite crude when having an exhausted Moore on the ropes, but still missing a ton of punches before eventually knocking him out.

But I've never studied Marciano closely, so I'm sure that he had many qualities that I haven't seen personally.

 

rocky never lost, lucky he wasn't facing liston, frazier or foreman like ali did. they would crucify, moore, charles and walcott. they would be big underdogs at the bookies. imagine foreman v moore, frazier v charles and liston v walcott.

 

They represent the strugle between the old small white and vicious, and the big modern athletic and black.

Smart posters toy with this argument then adopt a sensible non clique related position.