The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

Point of order, Louis’ autobiography was a good read but it also contained a healthy dose of BS and should not IMO be taken as gospel truth. For someone who always acted so humble in real time … I figure a lot of that was a deliberate work … Joe in his dotage at least as reflected in that book seemed to have a really high opinion of himself, not that he’d be out of line there with other elite athletes. Comes with the territory.[/QUOTE]
Jimmy Cannon a close friend of Louis' said , "there was conceit there,but he hid it well".

Point out the BS please.How about the TV footage is that BS too?

 

This is your statement.

"The newspapers all said Walcott won, A STANDARD WHICH YOU HAVE USED BEFORE.

Again, your obvious double standards.

By the way, Louis said Walcott won, and he started to leave the ring before the decision was announced in shame."

And its all BS.
What a pity you have, neither the courtesy or the class to admit you are WRONG!

 

Jimmy Cannon a close friend of Louis' said , "there was conceit there,but he hid it well".

Point out the BS please.How about the TV footage is that BS too?[/QUOTE]

I ain’t got time or the inclination to go through every page of the book, and I saw the TV show in real time. Joe in the book was on about “you have to take the title away from the champion, you can’t just outpoint him.” Which is silliness and always has been. But basically, the book while again a good read was Joe’s perspective, or at least the way Art Rust Jr. interpreted it. And Joe was not exactly an impartial or reflective observer. All autobiographies are the subject’s perspective and should be treated as that, not as gospel history. I’d say the same thing about Young Stribling’s autobiography if one existed. My credentials for my perspective are nearly a half century as a professional journalist and writer, half that time in sports.

 

The only thing you're correct about is anyone reading along will "see that" you're full of ****.

You've subtly changed the goal posts, presumably hoping nobody would notice. First you said ALL the newspapers favored Walcott. When Mcvey showed this was clearly untrue, you changed your argument to "majority wins".

Then you have the audacity to call other posters dishonest.

Just man up and admit you were wrong ffs.

 

I ain’t got time or the inclination to go through every page of the book, and I saw the TV show in real time. Joe in the book was on about “you have to take the title away from the champion, you can’t just outpoint him.” Which is silliness and always has been. But basically, the book while again a good read was Joe’s perspective, or at least the way Art Rust Jr. interpreted it. And Joe was not exactly an impartial or reflective observer. All autobiographies are the subject’s perspective and should be treated as that, not as gospel history. I’d say the same thing about Young Stribling’s autobiography if one existed. My credentials for my perspective are nearly a half century as a professional journalist and writer, half that time in sports.[/QUOTE]
I'd agree Louis, like any other champion had a high opinion of his own abilities,I've never heard of one who did not. The idea that you have to take the title away from the champion has been around for ever,Hagler quoted it after losing to Leonard and Im pretty sure there are and have be

I ain’t got time or the inclination to go through every page of the book, and I saw the TV show in real time. Joe in the book was on about “you have to take the title away from the champion, you can’t just outpoint him.” Which is silliness and always has been. But basically, the book while again a good read was Joe’s perspective, or at least the way Art Rust Jr. interpreted it. And Joe was not exactly an impartial or reflective observer. All autobiographies are the subject’s perspective and should be treated as that, not as gospel history. I’d say the same thing about Young Stribling’s autobiography if one existed. My credentials for my perspective are nearly a half century as a professional journalist and writer, half that time in sports.[/QUOTE]
Louis, like every champion had a high opinion of his own abilities,has there ever been a champion who has not?
The premise that a challenger has to take away a champions title has been around for ever,it maybe factually incorrect,but that does not mean some boxing officials have not tacitly agreed with it over the years. Bottom line Louis flat out stated, [ rightly or wrongly,] he thought he had kept his title,and he not only said it ,he said had no doubt of it, and he reiterated it on TV.You watched it in real time? What does that imply,me watching it later in the UK is not as valid ? Did they edit it for overseas consumption?
When Hagler lost to Leonard he stated,you have to take the title away from the champ it may not be true,but many seem to suscribe to that old axiom.
The 2/3rds that voted for Walcott did not give him big margins in the scoring,neither did those voting for Louis.

Since nobody alive has seen the complete fight,nobody is in a position to state categorically who really won which is what Catchweight has done more than once,he has also flat out lied about the presses voting,and Louis' opinion,meanwhile saying I am being dishonest.
I haven't seen the complete fight but, when good judges of fights such as;
Fleischer
Lardner
Corum
Abramson
Dawson
Smith
Parker
Buck

Voted for Louis it indicates to me a very close fight which is open to the interpretation of the individual scoring it ,did he go for clever defensive work,aggression. etc
Glad you are with us, I went to college to be a journalist,and ultimately a boxing writer,but financial pressures at home dictated that I go out and begin earning some £££££.
At least the way it went, I can say I might have been another McIllvanney,Cannon.Smith,Heinz,Kimball, whereas if I had continued I might well have been a dismal failure,or a hack like Sugar.

 

I'd agree Louis, like any other champion had a high opinion of his own abilities,I've never heard of one who did not. The idea that you have to take the title away from the champion has been around for ever,Hagler quoted it after losing to Leonard and Im pretty sure there are and have be


I ain’t got time or the inclination to go through every page of the book, and I saw the TV show in real time. Joe in the book was on about “you have to take the title away from the champion, you can’t just outpoint him.” Which is silliness and always has been. But basically, the book while again a good read was Joe’s perspective, or at least the way Art Rust Jr. interpreted it. And Joe was not exactly an impartial or reflective observer. All autobiographies are the subject’s perspective and should be treated as that, not as gospel history. I’d say the same thing about Young Stribling’s autobiography if one existed. My credentials for my perspective are nearly a half century as a professional journalist and writer, half that time in sports.[/QUOTE]
Louis, like every champion had a high opinion of his own abilities,has there ever been a champion who has not?
The premise that a challenger has to take away a champions title has been around for ever,it maybe factually incorrect,but that does not mean some boxing officials have not tacitly agreed with it over the years. Bottom line Louis flat out stated, [ rightly or wrongly,] he thought he had kept his title,and he not only said it he said had no doubt of it, and he reiterated it on TV.You watched it in real time? What does that imply,me watching it later in the UK is not as valid ? Did they edit it for overseas consumption?
When Hagler lost to Leonard he sated,you have to take the title away from the champ it may not be true,but many seem to suscribe to that old axiom.
The 2/3rds that voted for Walcott did not give him big margins in the scoring,neither did those voting for Louis.

Since nobody alive has seen the complete fight,nobody is in a position to state categorically who really won which is what Catchweight has done more than once,he has also flat out lied about the presses voting,and Louis' opinion,meanwhile saying I am being dishonest.
I haven't seen the complete fight but, when good judges of fights such as;
Fleischer
Lardner
Corum
Abramson
Dawson
Smith
Parker
Buck

Voted for Louis it indicates to me a very close fight which is open to the interpretation of the individual scoring it ,did he go for clever defensive work,aggression. etc
Glad you are with us, I went to college to be a journalist,and ultimately a boxing writer,but financial pressures at home dictated that I go out and begin earning some £££££.
At least the way it went, I can say I might have been another McIllvanney,Cannon.Smith,Heinz,KImball, whereas if I had continued I might well have been a dismal failure,or a hack like Sugar.[/QUOTE]

It was close enough for doubt and when that happens, anything can happen. How many times do you think Kenny Norton regretted assuming and playing it safe in Yankee Stadium in 1976 instead of closing hard?

 

Marciano doesn’t get enough credit for what he did. First of all at that time most heavyweights were well under 200 lbs. so you can’t call him a cruiserweight. It was a different time period and people were smaller. He was a similar size and weight to Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, etc. He beat everyone there was for him to beat in that time period. He overcame every adversity he faced in fights and rematched anyone who was competitive against him and wanted a second fight. Everyone says he didn’t face tough competition like people say about Bud Crawford today. Is it that or is it that he was just that much better than the competition? People call Ali the greatest because they say he had great competition. A lot of his fights were close and he had some losses in there. Is that because the competition was better or just that he was that much closer in talent to those other fighters. These were different time periods with different styles of boxing. You can’t really make straight up comparisons to guys like Dempsey, Marciano, Louis, Ali, Tyson. Their circumstances were all very different. The only real argument you can make is that they were the best of their era.

 

Excellent post.

 

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner, but lot's to do

"Valdes vs Williams"

You make good points for Williams. The case for Valdes is he faced tougher competition and beat higher rated men, even if you discount Charles and Cockell all together. For me, Williams is an enigma. I don't understand why such an exciting fighter with a big punch was rarely on TV until he was in his thirties, and fighting down in Texas rather than on TV at MSG. Valdes fought so many top men we know exactly how good he was or wasn't. Williams is much harder to judge. My take is the two were on about the same level, but I wouldn't go to the wall debating it.

Walcott "also taken quite a bit of punishment"

Possibly and possibly not. He seems a guy who can avoid a lot of punishment off the two Louis fights. He went 25 rounds with Louis without getting hit that often, until the 11th round of the second fight.

"Charles"

The issue is not Charles against Foreman, but Charles against Marciano versus Ali against Foreman. The fact is the old man wins in the 1970's and then holds the title for 4 years and many defenses while obviously going back.

 

Some reactions:

Who did Wallace beat?--Bob Dunlap, Bill Gilliam, Willie James, Aaron Wilson. All by impressive KO's. The people who were there and watching his fights were impressed enough to rate him as high as within the top five.

"188 lb. Walcott. Very small even for that time"

Actually 196 for Marciano. And this was not small for the time. Not big, but slightly above average for a heavyweight of that era.

"Joe Louis. I don't think that it took an ATG to beat him at that point."

Everyone has an opinion, but the fact is that only Charles and Marciano beat him. Not any average contenders. The three men who beat Louis were champions separate form Louis. He didn't create champions by losing.

"That Louis was the number one contender when he fought Marciano speaks volumes"

Actually #2 contender behind Charles. Louis had lost one fight in 15 years. He had been champion 12 of those years. He had lost only to Charles and was on an 8 bout winning streak. 7 of the 8 had recently been rated, were rated, and would soon be rated. He held two wins over the reigning champion. Why shouldn't he have been highly rated?

"Louis, who I think was done at that point"

He obviously was not the pre-war Louis. But nothing in his record indicates he couldn't compete against all but the very best.

Walcott--He had been knocked out four times and was 45 years old"

His tombstone gives his birthdate as 1914 which makes him 38 in 1952. I have never seen any serious dispute of his birthdate. He was born in the urban north where better records were kept.

"wear and tear"

Yes, tough fights can cause wear and tear. But there another side which many seem to ignore. A competitor can only become the best he can be by competing against the best competition. One learns from facing the best. I mentioned earlier Ted Williams and Tom Brady. Williams hit .388 at 39 in 1957. Had he been facing only minor league pitching for a decade, would he have done this well against major league pitching? I don't think so. Would Brady have been able to win Super Bowls in his forties if he had only been playing against college teams? No. In other words there is a skill upside to experience which can not be achieved by not competing or competing only against second-raters.

 

Bill Gilliam and Willie James?
Really?

 

This may be an unconventional way of coming out, but good for you

 

Louis, like every champion had a high opinion of his own abilities,has there ever been a champion who has not?
The premise that a challenger has to take away a champions title has been around for ever,it maybe factually incorrect,but that does not mean some boxing officials have not tacitly agreed with it over the years. Bottom line Louis flat out stated, [ rightly or wrongly,] he thought he had kept his title,and he not only said it he said had no doubt of it, and he reiterated it on TV.You watched it in real time? What does that imply,me watching it later in the UK is not as valid ? Did they edit it for overseas consumption?
When Hagler lost to Leonard he sated,you have to take the title away from the champ it may not be true,but many seem to suscribe to that old axiom.
The 2/3rds that voted for Walcott did not give him big margins in the scoring,neither did those voting for Louis.

Since nobody alive has seen the complete fight,nobody is in a position to state categorically who really won which is what Catchweight has done more than once,he has also flat out lied about the presses voting,and Louis' opinion,meanwhile saying I am being dishonest.
I haven't seen the complete fight but, when good judges of fights such as;
Fleischer
Lardner
Corum
Abramson
Dawson
Smith
Parker
Buck

Voted for Louis it indicates to me a very close fight which is open to the interpretation of the individual scoring it ,did he go for clever defensive work,aggression. etc
Glad you are with us, I went to college to be a journalist,and ultimately a boxing writer,but financial pressures at home dictated that I go out and begin earning some £££££.
At least the way it went, I can say I might have been another McIllvanney,Cannon.Smith,Heinz,KImball, whereas if I had continued I might well have been a dismal failure,or a hack like Sugar.[/QUOTE]

It was close enough for doubt and when that happens, anything can happen. How many times do you think Kenny Norton regretted assuming and playing it safe in Yankee Stadium in 1976 instead of closing hard?[/QUOTE]
Probably as many times as De La Hoya has that he went on the back foot against Tito.