The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by catchwtboxing, Apr 13, 2024.



  1. Jakub79

    Jakub79 Member Full Member

    177
    135
    Mar 3, 2024
    właściwie nie do końca. Teoretycznie era Louisa też nie była taka wspaniała. Kto był najlepszy do pokonania? oczywiście długowieczność robi wrażenie, tyle lat na szczycie... i być może zakończył karierę kogoś, kto byłby lepszy, gdyby nie spotkał Joe Louisa.
    Moja teoria jest taka, że jedynym wielkim zawodnikiem in prime, z którym Ali walczył, był Joe Frazier w 1971 r., a drugim był Larry Holmes w 1980 r. Walka Foremana w Kinszasie była pełna dziwnych okoliczności. Ale moim zdaniem Marciano nie jest nawet blisko.
     
  2. swagdelfadeel

    swagdelfadeel Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,991
    15,292
    Jul 30, 2014
    That is correct. But still many papers scored the bout for Valdez. This isn't a contradiction.


    I disagree. Williams looked to me, like the much more polished fighter imo, and it reflects in their records against common opponents. Particularly Machen. He was also the much more consistent fighter.
    I disagree. Valdes lost quite a few fights because of his inconsistency, which is another reason I don't fault Marciano to much for not fighting him. In top form he was definitely one of the best fighters in the era, as shown by his fights against Moore (rematch), Charles and to a slightly lesser extent Cockell.

    Yes but they were two completely different opponents. Charles likely doesn't do nearly as well against Foreman as he did against Marciano. Also, Charles had been fighting professionally for fourteen years when he fought Marciano, partaken in multiple wars, and again had been knocked out multiple times whereas Ali had only taken serious punishment against Frazier in their first fight by the time he fought Foreman.

    I agree. Fighters were ruined after facing Marciano because of his grinding style. He wasn't a one punch KO artist like Liston who could KO them early and spare them from further damage.

    Fighters were in for a prolonged beating when it came to Marciano, on top of the KO, which is why many fighters were ruined after facing him, like Cockell.

    Yes but the caveat is, amateur fights are three rounds max, and generally not as grueling as pro fights.

    On top of being four months away from 39, he'd also been knocked out four times. He'd also taken quite a bit of punishment in those fights, losing nearly one in three every time he'd stepped in the ring/
     
    mcvey likes this.
  3. catchwtboxing

    catchwtboxing Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,086
    25,554
    Jul 4, 2014
    This is all factually incorrect, and Charles had just beat Satterfield and Wallace. So stupid.
     
    PRW94 likes this.
  4. catchwtboxing

    catchwtboxing Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,086
    25,554
    Jul 4, 2014
    Louis beat Baer, Walcott, Schemling, Conn...that is pretty good in and of itself.

    You are about the only person in the world denying the quality of Ali's win over Foreman.

    As for Marciano--six wins over four great fighters. They may have been past the best, but they were still great.
     
  5. Jakub79

    Jakub79 Member Full Member

    177
    135
    Mar 3, 2024
    yes but was Conn really a top heavyweight? Who great did Baer defeat? Which heavyweight did JJ Walcott beat?
    Ali - Foreman, it's no coincidence that Foreman was such a big favorite. Of course, he was overrated at the time and Ali had more in the tank than people thought, but it's not like everything is suddenly the other way around. Foreman fought several one-sided rounds before Ali which did not prepare him, he had a terribly energy-consuming style which was deadly in the African heat, the crowd pressure must have been terrible, Foreman burned out in this fight in my opinion. There should be a rematch, it would be more meaningful. After all, Rahman crushed Lewis in one fight, Spinks won one fight with Ali, and no one questions the fact that Ingo outclassed Patterson. But if we have this type of sensations, a rematch is simply a necessity. I'm not taking anything away from Ali, he has the best resume of any HW ever, I just think Foreman wasn't as ready as Frazier was in 1971 for Ali. Generally, I think that Frazier 1971 was the best fighter that came before Ali, maybe apart from Holmes 1980. This is not too difficult of an opinion in my opinion. Try to understand
     
    Kid Bacon likes this.
  6. Gog97675

    Gog97675 Member Full Member

    200
    112
    Apr 13, 2024
    Right and Charles was still past his best. Satterfield lost all the time and Wallace was noting special. Charles would lose most of his fights after he faced Marciano. So my point stands. Marciano's oppositon was comprised of old men, mafia controlled fighters and tomato cans. Lol yet his biased fanbase still claim he is a all time great and or claim he is the best heavyweight of all time even though 180 pounds isn't a heavyweight anymore.

    No matter what you say about Mike Tyson's opponents at least they were guys who were his weight class and at least he fought guys who were still in their primes.
     
    Reinhardt and mcvey like this.
  7. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    95,300
    25,184
    Jun 2, 2006
    Moore was 41,Walcott 38 ,Louis 37.
    Wallace never beat anyone worth talking about.Satterfield was a big puncher but very vulnerable himself.
    Charles had beaten them, but lost the two fights before that.
     
    swagdelfadeel and Reinhardt like this.
  8. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    95,300
    25,184
    Jun 2, 2006
    Louis was no longer a great fighter,I think there are a few contenders of that era that could have beaten him.
    Moore and Charles were not great heavyweights,neither was Walcott.imo
     
    swagdelfadeel likes this.
  9. Pedro_El_Chef

    Pedro_El_Chef Member Full Member

    497
    781
    Mar 29, 2023
    Yes, he was ranked number 1 in 1941, the year Louis defeated him and he knocked out top heavyweight Bob Pastor who was very hard to beat during that period.

    Max Schmeling, the heavyweight ranked at number 1 the most in the 1930s.

    Check his record in 1945-1946. A trail of victories over the top fighters including Joe Baksi, Elmer Ray, Joey Maxim, Lee Oma and Lee Q Murray. He cleaned house.
     
    Greg Price99 likes this.
  10. PRW94

    PRW94 Active Member Full Member

    995
    1,673
    Nov 26, 2020
    Maybe this is grist for a separate thread, but should people because of the "competition" that existed in the era in which they fought ... eras that were not of their choosing, mind you, it was an accident of birth ... retroactively be penalized as far as historical assessment because they people they were put in front of them weren't suitably strong enough for some folks, particularly some folks with modern perspectives? (I've said here before, I don't have patience with those who knee-jerk say "new is inherently and automatically better, and anyone who doesn't agree is a doofus," whether it's boxing or baseball fans with the canard that Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth faced batting practice pitchers.)

    Again, I rank Marciano very high all time because he beat every human being who was ever placed in front of him in the ring. I don't care if they were in iron lungs, no heavyweight has ever done that for such an extended period of time and retired as champion, and what Marciano actually did in the ring IMO must be acknowledged.

    But I also make very clear that Marciano isn't close to being the GOAT and that there are many people ... probably double figures ... who would beat him H2H, some of them with ease, although he was tough as teak and would die trying against them. I think that's a fair compromise.

    But I've also noted that my ATG rankings don't reflect who would win H2H so maybe I'm a complete outlier ...
     
  11. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,583
    1,961
    Aug 26, 2004
    Marciano fought the best of his era 5/6 -#1 Contenders fought the men that deserved the shot at the title.

    Valdes lost 2 fights, one for the title elimination vs Archie Moore who already beat Baker and Johnson and then Valdes lost to Bob Satterfield who was 5'10 and slightly north of 180, Valdez getting dropped in the 10th round for a nine-count ruining a chance for Marciano to bring his record to 50-0 44 KO's - Satterfield was already KO'D in 2 rounds by Ezzard Charles in electric fashion and Ko'd by Archie Moore previously, and he was not a marketable contender because he was badly beaten by Bob S.

    Some people don't like Rocky because of his size but love the 5'8 Sam Langford, some people don't like him because of his style or his race but I think we would all have to agree that Marciano was unique, a freak of nature and a beast of a man. No one can question his heart determination and his ATG status, try as they may.

    Marciano's opponents were the best of his era and he ducked no one - to his credit never drew the color line.
     
  12. Jakub79

    Jakub79 Member Full Member

    177
    135
    Mar 3, 2024
    ok, but imagine someone like Bolly Conn with prime Tyson, someone like Tony Galento with Larry Holmes, see what the level of the Baer-Carnera fight was and compare it with the Patterson fights. Don't get me wrong, Joe Louis is a legend but I think we look at a lot of things through sentiment. The standard of that boxing, at least in HW, was not great. Not as many people think
     
  13. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,991
    15,433
    Oct 4, 2016

    I agree, Ezzard Charles was clearly past his best days. His effort in losing a 15 round decision vs Marciano was his last hurrah.
     
    Man_Machine and swagdelfadeel like this.
  14. Pedro_El_Chef

    Pedro_El_Chef Member Full Member

    497
    781
    Mar 29, 2023
    Imagine someone like Ken Norton or Zora Folley or Leon Spinks against Tyson. Someone not being able to beat Tyson is not a metric for how good they are, not solely at the very least.
    Why compare Baer and Carnera to Patterson who was a much more technical fighter than both and not compare him to Max Schmeling or Jack Sharkey, both of whom were very much on par with Patterson and Machen and the very best boxers.
    It's also strange to criticize Baer and use him as an example of how boxing has evolved when Deontay Wilder was one of the most well respected heavyweights a year ago, and when in the 1970s you had Ernie Shavers. The linear progression isn't clear once you actually study the records.
    Of course the standard of boxing will seem to have risen if Galento, Carnera and Baer are the fighters you use for comparison, but it becomes a lot more complicated when men like Max Schmeling, Tommy Farr, Tommy Loughran, Lou Nova, Bob Pastor, Jimmy Bivins, Billy Conn, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and Joey Maxim enter the equation.
     
    Jason Thomas and Greg Price99 like this.
  15. Jakub79

    Jakub79 Member Full Member

    177
    135
    Mar 3, 2024
    I still don't see much good for those you mentioned. I remember how in an old film of the Louis-Schmeling II fight, the German is standing huddled in the ropes, one hand is holding on to them and Louis is bombarding him again and again. I don't see anything special about Schmeling, Braddock, Sharkey and the rest. I just don't see the big deal. Someone like Carnera became champion. Wilder would destroy him in my opinion. I feel like HW has become really technically advanced since Patterson