Excellent tribute to Don Cockell

Don Cockell is one of Britain's most misunderstood and under appreciated fighters, in my opinion. Often, these days, his name is used merely as a stick with which to beat the great heavyweight champion, Marciano, who ' ONLY beat old men and Don Cockell. '

Cockell, had it not been for a glandular condition, might very well have been remembered as one of our finest lightheavies, but increasing problems in making weight saw him beaten by Randy Turpin and eventually stepping up to ply his trade at heavyweight, with varied results.

I came across this, quite by chance, and thought some of you might find it interesting :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmJdQojlir0

Enjoy.

I've heard alot about Don Cockell and that as a 175 pound merchant he was an excellent boxer....Fell foul of the golden rule that there was no money to be made at light heavy then...

Certainly didn't do himself justice with his podgy appearance against the Rock...However he showed much honor and bravery in shippng both the Rock's legal and illegal bombs and much kudos for him...

However I'm not too much up on this guy's career but he certainly seemed a Brit of calibre....

Respect..

Great find, Windy. It's unfortunate that Cockell belongs to that 'lovable loser' image of British boxers in the fifties which has built up (not always fairly) over the years. My step Granddad (who's almost entirely the reason I got in to boxing) always explained to me how time has distorted our fighters of that era, and Cockell was no exception. He certainly had plenty of whack, and the generalisation of him being an oafish plodder with no technical ability doesn't do him justice, as your video shows.

Certainly a valiant effort against the 'Hard Rock from Brockton', too, though still one of the most foul-filled bouts I've ever seen.

88Chris05 wrote:Great find, Windy. It's unfortunate that Cockell belongs to that 'lovable loser' image of British boxers in the fifties which has built up (not always fairly) over the years. My step Granddad (who's almost entirely the reason I got in to boxing) always explained to me how time has distorted our fighters of that era, and Cockell was no exception. He certainly had plenty of whack, and the generalisation of him being an oafish plodder with no technical ability doesn't do him justice, as your video shows.

Certainly a valiant effort against the 'Hard Rock from Brockton', too, though still one of the most foul-filled bouts I've ever seen.

Not surprisingly, I agree with your stepGrandad, Chris.

I missed out on Cockell by a few years, ( though Marciano was champ when I came along, ) but there are a few like him from the fifties who don't get their dues, in my opinion.

As Truss says, Cockell is worthy of great respect, and Marciano was effusive in his praise for him.

Interesting you tube video there. And you reckon Rocky was a great? Sorry to deflect.

azania wrote:Interesting you tube video there. And you reckon Rocky was a great? Sorry to deflect.

Glad you liked it, az. I'll convert you, yet.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Interesting you tube video there. And you reckon Rocky was a great? Sorry to deflect.

Glad you liked it, az. I'll convert you, yet.

I loved it. Don seems a wonderful human being, as were most boxers of that era. But it simply reinforces by opinions. Rocky was cr@p. A lucky champ who would have been a contender only in any era after he gave up. Lucky man in a lucky time.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Interesting you tube video there. And you reckon Rocky was a great? Sorry to deflect.

Glad you liked it, az. I'll convert you, yet.

I loved it. Don seems a wonderful human being, as were most boxers of that era. But it simply reinforces by opinions. Rocky was cr@p. A lucky champ who would have been a contender only in any era after he gave up. Lucky man in a lucky time.

Thanks very much Windy, haven't had a chance to have a look yet but will look forward to it.

Rocky was cr@p ? Azania

Have some respect for christ sake, Cockell was carrying the expectations of an entire nation and was a tough cookie anyway. Marciano gave a C+ grade performance. Every ATG has had a similar night.

When you beat the top contenders in your era and stay unbeaten, you aren;t rubbish. He was the man and reigned impressively, if he was that **** how come no one in the steeped history of boxing has replicated his feat ? and stayed unbeaten, only one title back then remember.

rudey poo fighters do not hold wins over Walcott, Charles and Moore. Period

You're welcome, Jimmy. It's well worth a watch.

Needless to say, I agree with every word you say about Marciano.

Cheers Windy, I think we've been here before with Marciano, and I'm sure we'll go there again.

Jimmy Stuart wrote:Cheers Windy, I think we've been here before with Marciano, and I'm sure we'll go there again.

Wherever there's an ' az ' there's a rudey poo from the black and white era, mate.

Whether or not Marciano was slightly fortunate to emerge in the era that he did, and whether or not his unbeaten record and standing in the sport gets slightly over played and romanticized, is a matter of opinion and open to debate. But what is most definitely NOT up for debate is that he was a great, great fighter, regardless of what era he fought in.

Azania, Eric Crumble is 'cr@p.' Rafael Lovera was 'cr@p.' At a stretch, you could say that Audley Harrison is 'cr@p.' Rocky Marciano most definitely wasn't.

Chris, Chris, Chris

Haven't you heard of modern nutrition and training methods ? Why, they are all the rage, doncha know ? That's why Arreola, Peter, Solis, Brewster, are SO much better than the rudey poo Marciano and Louis.

Misty eyed romantic, that's what you are.

HumanWindmill wrote:Chris, Chris, Chris

Haven't you heard of modern nutrition and training methods ? Why, they are all the rage, doncha know ? That's why Arreola, Peter, Solis, Brewster, are SO much better than the rudey poo Marciano and Louis.

Misty eyed romantic, that's what you are.

Sorry Windy, I forgot about all that. I suppose it's just my mind trying to blank out the truth, a truth which I'm having trouble accepting.

It's a shame that we can't revive Marciano or Louis and drop them in to this modern era, with all the new training methods (you know, like, erm...Well, you know, the one where, erm...) and nutritional knowledge. They'd probably give Arreola a decent scrap, until Arreola's superior hand speed took control.

Always an excuse for Rocky. Against Cokell, from the footage shown, he looked god awful (and that is me being generous). Beating up old men does not mark you out as a great. Brian Neilson went 48-0 until he ran into an ancient Holmes. His record was meaningless.

Put Rocky into today's game with all the modern benefits and he would only be a contender at cruiser. Nothing more.

Louis would have been a great in any era, but not world champ in the 1980s or during the Lewis reign. He would be champ today although Vit of a few years ago would take him out.

azania wrote:Louis would have been a great in any era, but not world champ in the 1980s or during the Lewis reign. He would be champ today although Vit of a few years ago would take him out.

Why ?

Louis is a better boxer, hits harder, has faster hands and a proven record for chopping down enormous men. He'd counter Vitali silly.

No offence Az but when it comes to assessing the Rocks abilities I am more willing to accept Archie Moore's appraisal than yours. Archie is an all time great and in Ali, Charles and Burley shares a ring with some of the greatest fighters of all time amongst countless other top tier fighters and Moore said of Rocky whilst he was not the most sophisticated of technicians his lack of sophistication was in many ways his greatest strength.

Moore argues that whilst you would do things such as feinting and trying to draw leads that worked against most fighters none of these things worked against Marciano because no matter what you did he simply kept coming forward and throwing leather for 15 rounds solid and so no matter what you did there would be a point in the 15 rounds where you would end up in an uncomfortable place and he certainly felt that whilst Marciano was not the best he faced he was a tough nights work for anyone.

No offence taken Rowley. Archie was old and a light heavy. No one is disputing that Rock was stong, tough and relentless. But he was a crude brawler on par with Bonavena. He would have given many fits due to his strength and pressure, but he would have been schooled by most also.

azania wrote:No offence taken Rowley. Archie was old and a light heavy. No one is disputing that Rock was stong, tough and relentless. But he was a crude brawler on par with Bonavena. He would have given many fits due to his strength and pressure, but he would have been schooled by most also.

Archie may have been old, az, but he wasn't senile, and a man with his experience is worth listening to when he offers his opinion.

Ancient Archie was a very nice man. No-one said anything negative about Rock. He is an American icon. When Holmes said what he said about Rocky, he was forced to apologise.

azania wrote:Ancient Archie was a very nice man. No-one said anything negative about Rock. He is an American icon. When Holmes said what he said about Rocky, he was forced to apologise.

Archie was so nice he allowed Marciano to batter him senseless, then ?

Okay.

Ha. Not that nice. But very gracious to an American icon after the fight. Boxers usually are.

This BS has got to stop, it's becoming a joke now, the same things being said again and again and again etc.

Moore was 39 when he faced Marciano and that 39 year old Moore would go on to hold the light heavyweight championship for another 7 years, that 39 year old version of Moore is behind only Tunney and Charles in the all time light heavyweight rankings. Age by itself doesn't mean a thing, about time you started applying some context to your lame argument.

The Mighty Atom wrote:This BS has got to stop, it's becoming a joke now, the same things being said again and again and again etc.

Moore was 39 when he faced Marciano and that 39 year old Moore would go on to hold the light heavyweight championship for another 7 years, that 39 year old version of Moore is behind only Tunney and Charles in the all time light heavyweight rankings. Age by itself doesn't mean a thing, about time you started applying some context to your lame argument.

Ah I see it now. Its BS when criticisng Rocky et al, but fine to be full of wholesome praise for him and go overboard in praise of his limited skills.

Archie was a light heavy. A good one, but still a light heavy. Beating a light heavy is no great shakes. Rocky was nothing more than a crude brawler with a wallop. Nothing more, nothing less. To say he was great is totally and utterly ridiculous. He fought no-one at their peak. In any other era he would have been a contender only. Never a champ.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:This BS has got to stop, it's becoming a joke now, the same things being said again and again and again etc.

Moore was 39 when he faced Marciano and that 39 year old Moore would go on to hold the light heavyweight championship for another 7 years, that 39 year old version of Moore is behind only Tunney and Charles in the all time light heavyweight rankings. Age by itself doesn't mean a thing, about time you started applying some context to your lame argument.

Ah I see it now. Its BS when criticisng Rocky et al, but fine to be full of wholesome praise for him and go overboard in praise of his limited skills.

Archie was a light heavy. A good one, but still a light heavy. Beating a light heavy is no great shakes. Rocky was nothing more than a crude brawler with a wallop. Nothing more, nothing less. To say he was great is totally and utterly ridiculous. He fought no-one at their peak. In any other era he would have been a contender only. Never a champ.

You seem not to appreciate how wrong you are on this. A great shame, as you are very very wrong indeed.

Rocky weighed 1/4 lb more than Archie Moore in their fight. He clearly lost because he was "small".

I'm unsure as to how that video proves "all you think" of Marciano. He beat a previously unbeaten HW (unbeaten @HW), who had defeated LaStarza, Matthews and Williams - all very good boxers - a damn site better than most of the champions of today's non-era.

Others have said it - but I may as well repeat - if Maricano was so rubbish, then why has no-one emulated his feat?
------------------
If Marciano was rubbish - what about Patterson who succeeded him?

Patterson's era was arguably worse than Rocky's. So bad, in fact that Rademacher was granted a shot at the title without a professional fight. So bad, that a 23 fight novice gained a chance. So bad that a limited Johansson was able to take Patterson's title away from him.

I think Floyd was a great great fighter, one of the fastest and slickest HWs ever.

How do you rate Patterson, if Marciano was so bad?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:This BS has got to stop, it's becoming a joke now, the same things being said again and again and again etc.

Moore was 39 when he faced Marciano and that 39 year old Moore would go on to hold the light heavyweight championship for another 7 years, that 39 year old version of Moore is behind only Tunney and Charles in the all time light heavyweight rankings. Age by itself doesn't mean a thing, about time you started applying some context to your lame argument.

Ah I see it now. Its BS when criticisng Rocky et al, but fine to be full of wholesome praise for him and go overboard in praise of his limited skills.

Archie was a light heavy. A good one, but still a light heavy. Beating a light heavy is no great shakes. Rocky was nothing more than a crude brawler with a wallop. Nothing more, nothing less. To say he was great is totally and utterly ridiculous. He fought no-one at their peak. In any other era he would have been a contender only. Never a champ.

Difference is I don't bring up the same tired rubbish thread after thread, your ill informed to say the least and anyone suggesting that Marciano was not a great is devoid of any sense. Charles and Moore aren't the useless old men you seem to be suggesting they are, Moore was if anything at the peak of his powers when he faced Marciano and by that time was a fully fledged heavyweight who from time to time drained himself silly to defend his Light Heavyweight title.

Time you give this up, your destroying thread after thread

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:This BS has got to stop, it's becoming a joke now, the same things being said again and again and again etc.

Moore was 39 when he faced Marciano and that 39 year old Moore would go on to hold the light heavyweight championship for another 7 years, that 39 year old version of Moore is behind only Tunney and Charles in the all time light heavyweight rankings. Age by itself doesn't mean a thing, about time you started applying some context to your lame argument.

Ah I see it now. Its BS when criticisng Rocky et al, but fine to be full of wholesome praise for him and go overboard in praise of his limited skills.

Archie was a light heavy. A good one, but still a light heavy. Beating a light heavy is no great shakes. Rocky was nothing more than a crude brawler with a wallop. Nothing more, nothing less. To say he was great is totally and utterly ridiculous. He fought no-one at their peak. In any other era he would have been a contender only. Never a champ.

You seem not to appreciate how wrong you are on this. A great shame, as you are very very wrong indeed.

Rocky weighed 1/4 lb more than Archie Moore in their fight. He clearly lost because he was "small".

I'm unsure as to how that video proves "all you think" of Marciano. He beat a previously unbeaten HW (unbeaten @HW), who had defeated LaStarza, Matthews and Williams - all very good boxers - a damn site better than most of the champions of today's non-era.

Others have said it - but I may as well repeat - if Maricano was so rubbish, then why has no-one emulated his feat?
------------------
If Marciano was rubbish - what about Patterson who succeeded him?

Patterson's era was arguably worse than Rocky's. So bad, in fact that Rademacher was granted a shot at the title without a professional fight. So bad, that a 23 fight novice gained a chance. So bad that a limited Johansson was able to take Patterson's title away from him.

I think Floyd was a great great fighter, one of the fastest and slickest HWs ever.

How do you rate Patterson, if Marciano was so bad?

The weight on the night is irrelevant. Archie was a light heavy (middleweight moving up). I'm not going down the road of todays fat and overpaid heavies.

Floyd was a good technician but without a chin. He would have boxed rings around rocky until suzie Q landed anywhere on or near his chin.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:This BS has got to stop, it's becoming a joke now, the same things being said again and again and again etc.

Moore was 39 when he faced Marciano and that 39 year old Moore would go on to hold the light heavyweight championship for another 7 years, that 39 year old version of Moore is behind only Tunney and Charles in the all time light heavyweight rankings. Age by itself doesn't mean a thing, about time you started applying some context to your lame argument.

Ah I see it now. Its BS when criticisng Rocky et al, but fine to be full of wholesome praise for him and go overboard in praise of his limited skills.

Archie was a light heavy. A good one, but still a light heavy. Beating a light heavy is no great shakes. Rocky was nothing more than a crude brawler with a wallop. Nothing more, nothing less. To say he was great is totally and utterly ridiculous. He fought no-one at their peak. In any other era he would have been a contender only. Never a champ.

Difference is I don't bring up the same tired rubbish thread after thread, your ill informed to say the least and anyone suggesting that Marciano was not a great is devoid of any sense. Charles and Moore aren't the useless old men you seem to be suggesting they are, Moore was if anything at the peak of his powers when he faced Marciano and by that time was a fully fledged heavyweight who from time to time drained himself silly to defend his Light Heavyweight title.

Time you give this up, your destroying thread after thread

Yes you do. Whenever there's a debate about old timers, you praise them to the hilt. I say the opposite and you cry foul.

Once again you attribute words to me that I didn't use. Charles and Moore were not useless. Just past it in terms of charles with moore a LHW who put on weight to fight at heavy. In fact he was a blown up middle.

Your actually so wrong it's not even funny

I praise those who deserve praise, unless you can provide evidence of me praising them to the hilt, simply shut the F up, your a irritating little sh!t who is ruining this forum with your ridiculous comments.

Moores walk around weight was actually always around 190lbs, he simply didn't need to cut weight to fight at heavyweight so again your coming out with comments that are factually incorrect.

You'd be better off debating with people who can't prove you wrong at every turn.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your actually so wrong it's not even funny

I praise those who deserve praise, unless you can provide evidence of me praising them to the hilt, simply shut the F up, your a irritating little sh!t who is ruining this forum with your ridiculous comments.

Moores walk around weight was actually always around 190lbs, he simply didn't need to cut weight to fight at heavyweight so again your coming out with comments that are factually incorrect.

You'd be better off debating with people who can't prove you wrong at every turn.

Take it easy. No need for that kind of stuff. You have your opinions about them and I have mine. My comments are ridiculous to you because you disagree with them.

Most boxers cut weight in training. Hardly any fight at their walk around weight. Not even Areola does that.

You have anger management issues. Chill out.

Marciano vs Cockell sure was a foul fest and you can see why Marciano got a bad reputation.

WDR wrote:Marciano vs Cockell sure was a foul fest and you can see why Marciano got a bad reputation.

On the other hand, WelshDevil, Pep and Saddler were no strangers to the ' dark arts ' yet nobody disputes their greatness.

HumanWindmill wrote:

WDR wrote:Marciano vs Cockell sure was a foul fest and you can see why Marciano got a bad reputation.

On the other hand, WelshDevil, Pep and Saddler were no strangers to the ' dark arts ' yet nobody disputes their greatness.

In fairness, if we're going to use dirty fighting (or bending the rules) as a way of excluding certain fighters from greatness, then we can also chuck Tyson, Greb, Zivic, Pedroza, Chavez and Gomez out of the window, too. Gomez in particular would need his greatness re-evaluating; the only part of his opponent he didn't hit was the soles of their feet!