Appreciating Rocky

Morning

Since this fighter is one of the most beloved/underrated/overrated on the board I'd like to take an opportunity, once and for all , to memorialise some thoughts on him.

From what I've read and learned about Rocky Marciano over the many years in the beginning he was an acquired taste; it took a long time. But, even the sceptics soon become Marciano believers. He apparently was clumsier in sparring than many could imagine a ham-‘n’-egger against most half-decent boxers in the gym wearing his 16-ounce gloves that looked like the fluffy pillows from Debenhams the wife keeps buying for some reason each week. I see the flaws what the doubters see on tape don't get me wrong, but every guy who looked like they boxed rings around him, the ones who pinned his ears back, the ones never missed him with jabs, came out of the ring looking like he was dropped from a 10-story building and landed flat-footed. Rocky's cuffing, pawing, mauling, grazing shots, flicks to the sides when he was tied-up on the inside, impacted them like they'd been bumped by a rhino. From ringside many reporters said when Rocky landed, the only evidence was an "OOPH!" grimace and quiver.

Rocky was ponderous. Fighters could see the punches. They weren't surprised; they were beat down, every sparring partner who looked sensational against him, said the same thing exiting the ring: "I hurt all over." The wonderkinds and Robinson-clones that watched Rocky in the gym or at the Garden and licked their lips at a future match thought of him like cancer: He could only happen to the other guy.

Off a stat sheet, any number of guys now would be favoured over him, but doing it in the ring proved it would be a sobering experience. The lads yesterday Jeff, Windy, Chris etc mentioned how Archie one of the toughest creatures on earth held Rocky in the highest esteem.

There are certain dimensions to his game, that are not immediately obvious, that quickly became apparent to anybody who shared a ring with him from Louis to Ali.

I cant remember who said "it hurt to bump into him", but they probably summed it up best. He could seemingly make an oponent hurt for every second of every round, and he was a lot more unpredictable than people think.

This is one fighter who definitely had the devil inside him.

I tend to rate him in the listings higher than most, Rocky is my number 3, not the most glamorous c.v I accept, however his undefeated feat and winning streak is yet to be replicated in any era at the heavyweights top level, that is proof to me thats how difficult it is.

Thanks and have a great day.

I'll bite.

As Larry Holmes found out, criticising Rocky is akin to killing Bambi. It appears its no different here also. My views of Rocky are obvious here. I wouldn't put him in the top 20 HW or top 100 ATG at any weight. I've given my opinions so many times and wont repeat them as someone find it irritating that Rocky is criticised. Outside of his era, he would only be a marginal contender in most other eras at best.

Strong, powerful but extremely limited. Frazier and Foreman would have him for breakfast. Both K Bros with anihilate him. Forget about the Alis Holmes etc. I can name over 20 HW over the past 40 years who imo would make mincemeat out of him. Add a few LHW also.

Cheers

Whilst I feel number three is a little high as I struggle to have him above the likes of Jeffries, Ali and Louis and perhaps Johnson he is certainly in the mix and is a nailed on top tenner and the amount of disrespect he gets off people on here is staggering.

In many ways (obviously not stylistically) he reminds me of Wlad. Everyone focusses on his limitations and what he can't do and everyone seems to know what you have to do to beat him but when it comes to turning the trick it is quite a different matter.

As I said yesterday as Moore said getting in there and doing what you want and what works against other fighters is quite a different matter. Personally people question his record but outside of Ali and Jeffries whose reign is stellar, people have Johnson commonly in their top fives but are the likes of Ketchell and an ancient Jeffries significantly better than Moore and Charles.

azania wrote:I'll bite.

As Larry Holmes found out, criticising Rocky is akin to killing Bambi. It appears its no different here also. My views of Rocky are obvious here. I wouldn't put him in the top 20 HW or top 100 ATG at any weight. I've given my opinions so many times and wont repeat them as someone find it irritating that Rocky is criticised. Outside of his era, he would only be a marginal contender in most other eras at best.

Strong, powerful but extremely limited. Frazier and Foreman would have him for breakfast. Both K Bros with anihilate him. Forget about the Alis Holmes etc. I can name over 20 HW over the past 40 years who imo would make mincemeat out of him. Add a few LHW also.

Cheers

Morning Azania

Do you base your rankings merely on the head to head criteria ?

Out of curiosity, didn't Jeffries invoke the colour bar?

Morning, Jimmy.

Great stuff - an excellent article to redress the balance. I've nothing to add, ( nothing, that is, until the debate gets under way, ) except the opinions of Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey :

LOUIS :

“Marciano hurt me every time he landed. He’s such a powerful puncher, he can hurt you by just hitting your arm. When he hits you in the ribs and body, you feel like sitting down for a rest. When you move forward against Marciano, you’re risking getting your block knocked off. That boy took me out with three punches. It took Max Schmeling a hundred. Of course, I was 22 back then but this Marciano is tough enough to beat anybody.”

DEMPSEY :

“In ’49, he fought from long range and used a looping right all the time. Now he fights in close and seems to have developed a good left hand. The Marciano right against Walcott in Philadelphia was a thing of artistic and scientific beauty and downright damage.”

Jack Nicklaus once said winning all the titles was 2% ability and 98% inspiration and he could of been thinking of the Rock when he said it...

Implacable will to win, courage, heart and great bodywork made him what he was....

Slightly lucky in his timing but it's hard to beat down a guy that was unbeaten...

I think his greatest win was against Lastarza!! Who according to scribes was one of the best fighters never to win the crown...

Walcott and CHarles were probably past it as were Moore and Lewis....

His reign was a bit like lennox in that regard...

Ugly to watch but amazingly effective...top 7 for me..

Jimmy

Seeing as Rocky defended against blown up LHW, old men etc I didn't. I base it on what I see. He was the crudest of crude boxers with very limited skills but with good power.

azania wrote:Jimmy

Seeing as Rocky defended against blown up LHW, old men etc I didn't. I base it on what I see. He was the crudest of crude boxers with very limited skills but with good power.

az,

For the twentieth time, apart from Ali, Dempsey and Jeffries, which heavyweight fought better challengers than Marciano ?

Having never seen Marciano fight in colour ar drinking Lucozade, it's clear he's rubbish!

If I can figure this out, whay can't everyone else?

As for Frazier eating Rocky for breakfast I think that whilst Joe would probably be favourite, I'm certain that at the end (whenever it came) he'd know he'd been in one helluva fight.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Jimmy

Seeing as Rocky defended against blown up LHW, old men etc I didn't. I base it on what I see. He was the crudest of crude boxers with very limited skills but with good power.

az,

For the twentieth time, apart from Ali, Dempsey and Jeffries, which heavyweight fought better challengers than Marciano ?

For the twentieth time in answering, practically all post Rocky (Patterson and Klits the exception) champions fought live opponents. Tell me in which era, other than today would a Don Cockell get a shot at the HW crown? Moore, Charles, Louis were all past it and/or not at their best weight. For crissakes, I'd even gove RJJ a loud shout against Rocky. My opinion of Rocky as a fighter is very very low.

Jeffries did invoke the colour line as indeed did most fighters of the age. I am a little more forgiving than others on this issue because the view was very much a reflection of the times and attitudes that prevailed at the times.

Also worth remembering that fighters made more from exhibitions and theatrical engagements at the time and this could be seriously jeopardised by fighting and potentially losing to black fighters. Should also be remembered the main fighter who was in the frame for Jeffries was Jack Johnson and given he managed to lose to Hart when there was a genuine groundswell for him to fight Jeffries and the fact he was not too quick to face black fighters when he finally won the title I don't feel too sorry for him.

Still maintain though that with a CV that includes Sharkey, Fitz and Corbett Jeffries brief reign stands comparison with anyone ever and is pretty much devoid of any guff.

DAVE667 wrote:Having never seen Marciano fight in colour ar drinking Lucozade, it's clear he's rubbish!

If I can figure this out, whay can't everyone else?

As for Frazier eating Rocky for breakfast I think that whilst Joe would probably be favourite, I'm certain that at the end (whenever it came) he'd know he'd been in one helluva fight.

Gatorade mate. Its a better isotonic drink.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Jimmy

Seeing as Rocky defended against blown up LHW, old men etc I didn't. I base it on what I see. He was the crudest of crude boxers with very limited skills but with good power.

az,

For the twentieth time, apart from Ali, Dempsey and Jeffries, which heavyweight fought better challengers than Marciano ?

For the twentieth time in answering, practically all post Rocky (Patterson and Klits the exception) champions fought live opponents. Tell me in which era, other than today would a Don Cockell get a shot at the HW crown? Moore, Charles, Louis were all past it and/or not at their best weight. For crissakes, I'd even gove RJJ a loud shout against Rocky. My opinion of Rocky as a fighter is very very low.

Ali fought Coopman and Richard Dunn, Holmes fought Cobb, plenty of heavies other than Rock have given sub standard opponents title shots

Oh I agree. Many heavies fought their fair sare of stiffs. Joe Louis fought one practically a month. But ALL Rocky's defences were against past it and never was. He came in at a time when the HW division was the weakest it had ever been in history. This era runs it very close in terms of the lack of available talent although I would back both K Bros and Haye over Rocky.

azania wrote:Oh I agree. Many heavies fought their fair sare of stiffs. Joe Louis fought one practically a month. But ALL Rocky's defences were against past it and never was. He came in at a time when the HW division was the weakest it had ever been in history. This era runs it very close in terms of the lack of available talent although I would back both K Bros and Haye over Rocky.

Sorry, az, but that's pure nonsense.

First version of Ali defended against Liston, Patterson, ( with a a bad back, ) Cooper, ( never anywhere near as good as Charles or Walcott, ) BRIAN LONDON !!!!!!, Mildenberger, shot - to - pieces Cleveland Williams, Chuvalo, Terrell and Folley, who was way past his best. Given the doubts over the second Liston fight, Terrell and Chuvalo would be his best opponents. Nothing wrong with them - they were damned good fighters, but it's still not enough to make Rocky's comp look poor.

Larry Holmes has a list of challengers who would do less violence than the average membership of a knitting club in Berkshire.

You don't like Rocky ? No problem, but at least deal in FACTS.

azania wrote:Oh I agree. Many heavies fought their fair sare of stiffs. Joe Louis fought one practically a month. But ALL Rocky's defences were against past it and never was. He came in at a time when the HW division was the weakest it had ever been in history. This era runs it very close in terms of the lack of available talent although I would back both K Bros and Haye over Rocky.

I'm sure Danny Williams, Sam Peter and Ibrabimov would beat Marciano from pillar to post...although I'd give Roman Abramovic more chance to be honest.

Danny Williams is out again this weekend, warrior.

Joe Louis' top 10 rated opponents

1934
Lee Rampage - No. 10

1935
Patsy Perroni - No. 6
Natie Brown - No. 10
Primo Carnera - No. 4
King Levinsky - No. 10
Max Baer - No. 1

1936
Charley Retzlaff - No. 4
Max Schmeling - No. 2 - LOSS
Jack Sharkey - No. 4
Al Ettore - No. 3
James Braddock - World Champion
Tommy Farr - No. 3

1938
Nathan Mann - No. 3
Max Schmeling - No. 1

1939
John Henry Lewis - World Champion at Light-Heavyweight
Tony Galento - No. 3
Bob Pastor - No. 2

1940
Johnny Paychek - No. 5
Arturo Godoy (2) - No. 1

1941
Red Burman - No. 4
Buddy Baer - No. 5
Billy Conn - World Champion at Light-Heavyweight
Lou Nova - No. 1

1942
Buddy Baer - No. 4
Abe Simon - No. 6

1946
Billy Conn - No. 1
Tami Mauriello - No. 1

1947
Jersey Joe Walcott - No. 1

1948
Jersey Joe Walcott - No. 1

1950
Ezzard Charles - World Champion - LOSS

1951
Lee Savold - No. 4
Cesar Brion - No. 8
Rocky Marciano - No. 3 - LOSS


Overall record vs. top 10 opposition (incl. 2 light-heavyweight champs): 30-3

Scottrf wrote:Danny Williams is out again this weekend, warrior.

Is there a sale on at the cake shop?













Can he pick me up some custards and a couple of eclairs!

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Oh I agree. Many heavies fought their fair sare of stiffs. Joe Louis fought one practically a month. But ALL Rocky's defences were against past it and never was. He came in at a time when the HW division was the weakest it had ever been in history. This era runs it very close in terms of the lack of available talent although I would back both K Bros and Haye over Rocky.

Sorry, az, but that's pure nonsense.

First version of Ali defended against Liston, Patterson, ( with a a bad back, ) Cooper, ( never anywhere near as good as Charles or Walcott, ) BRIAN LONDON !!!!!!, Mildenberger, shot - to - pieces Cleveland Williams, Chuvalo, Terrell and Folley, who was way past his best. Given the doubts over the second Liston fight, Terrell and Chuvalo would be his best opponents. Nothing wrong with them - they were damned good fighters, but it's still not enough to make Rocky's comp look poor.

Larry Holmes has a list of challengers who would do less violence than the average membership of a knitting club in Berkshire.

You don't like Rocky ? No problem, but at least deal in FACTS.

Liston alone is better than all Rocky's opponents. Much better than Rocky himself. Walcott and Charles were even older than you when they fought Rocky. They were past their best. You may as well acknowledge Holmes beating Ali as a great victory for Holmes. Holmes fought and beat a better calibre than Rocky did.

Louis had better opposition than the majority of Heavyweight champions no doubt. Those 1939/40 rankings don't make the division too strong though.

Again I'd question how Azania got this Moderator job given his obvious lack of impartiality

azania wrote:Liston alone is better than all Rocky's opponents. Much better than Rocky himself. Walcott and Charles were even older than you when they fought Rocky. They were past their best. You may as well acknowledge Holmes beating Ali as a great victory for Holmes. Holmes fought and beat a better calibre than Rocky did.

Liston is a good NAME, but the Liston who fought the rematch with Ali was not a great FIGHTER.

Charles was TWO YEARS older than Rocky, and Walcott was in the form of his life when Marciano beat him first time out.

Scottrf wrote:Louis had better opposition than the majority of Heavyweight champions no doubt. Those 1939/40 rankings don't make the division too strong though.

That's my point, Scott.

The heavyweights have almost always lacked depth, and Rocky's comp as champion was as good, or better than, most, with the obvious exception of Ali, probably Dempsey, and definitely Jeffries.

Foreman only defended, ( successfully, ) against Jose ' King ' Roman, Ken Norton and Axel Scultz. Does that make him a poor fighter ?

DAVE667 wrote:Again I'd question how Azania got this Moderator job given his obvious lack of impartiality

Impartial in what way? My moderating or my opinions? Is it Mod duty to praise Rocky? Cant mods have an opinion? If a mod is not permitted to have an opinion then I'd resign immediately.

Scottrf wrote:Louis had better opposition than the majority of Heavyweight champions no doubt. Those 1939/40 rankings don't make the division too strong though.

He may have done, but this is about Rocky.

Wonderful, another old vs young debate which involves Azania showing blind ignorance for the older generation of fighters.

Face it buddy, and this is a fact:

You say Marciano only took on old has-beens etc. But you take one of the greatest fighters who've lived, Ezzard Charles, and then look at who he beat in the run up to his fight with Rocky. He did Valdez in (twice), the only guy you could probably say Rocky didn't fight. He also fought Moore who was on a 20+ (or something) win streak....

What a pity Rocky couldn't have faced the calibre of challenger faced by Holmes :


Alfredo Evangelista, Osvaldo "Ossie" Ocasio, Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Lorenzo Zanon, Leroy Jones, Scott LeDoux, a shot - to - smithereens Muhammad Ali, Trevor Berbick, Leon Spinks, Renaldo Snipes, Gerry Cooney, Tex Cobb, Lucien Rodriguez, a green - as - grass Tim Witherspoon, Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, James "Bonecrusher" Smith, David Bey and Carl "Truth" Williams

World beaters, every one of them.

Most of whom would have given Rocky a run for his money and in the case of Witherspoon, probably beaten Rocky. 3 of which went on to be belt holders also. I'd put those on a higher level to the shot and old fighters Rocky faced as champ.

azania wrote:Most of whom would have given Rocky a run for his money and in the case of Witherspoon, probably beaten Rocky. 3 of which went on to be belt holders also. I'd put those on a higher level to the shot and old fighters Rocky faced as champ.

Of course you would.

And if Holmes had fought in the fifties and Marciano had fought in the eighties you'd spin 180 degrees in offering your opinion, which, in these issues, is based on a calendar as opposed to boxing.

azania wrote:

DAVE667 wrote:Again I'd question how Azania got this Moderator job given his obvious lack of impartiality

Impartial in what way? My moderating or my opinions? Is it Mod duty to praise Rocky? Cant mods have an opinion? If a mod is not permitted to have an opinion then I'd resign immediately.

Not so much your opinion but you staunch refusal to accept that others may also have a valid point...whilst often reminding us (when wearing your MOD hat) that we should respect the opinions of others.

Just find it a tad hypocritical especially when Windy still seems to manage to be fair moderating or otherwise

coxy0001 wrote:Wonderful, another old vs young debate which involves Azania showing blind ignorance for the older generation of fighters.

Face it buddy, and this is a fact:

You say Marciano only took on old has-beens etc. But you take one of the greatest fighters who've lived, Ezzard Charles, and then look at who he beat in the run up to his fight with Rocky. He did Valdez in (twice), the only guy you could probably say Rocky didn't fight. He also fought Moore who was on a 20+ (or something) win streak....

No ignorance here. Its agreed that fighters like Valuev and worse than rubbish in terms of world champs. I am of the opnion that Rocky was also a terrible champ who was very lucky to be fighting in an era where the HW division was going through a transitional period. Right place and right time. 3 yeard ahead and he wouldn't have had a look in. Ditto 3 years previously. He would have beaten Patterson imo.

Holmes took on THE GREATEST HW who ever lived. Record books say that. What record books dont say was that Ali was worse than shot. Record books can say that Rocky beat Charles, but match them up 3 years prior to their fight and see where Rocky would have ended up.

Dave - I agree that all have a valid point and respect their opinions. I simply disagree with their point. In what way do I shot contempt for their opinions? I dont moderate them, I dont edit their posts or delete them. I leave all posts where they stand, even those which are personally insulting to myself. I have my opinions and mod or no mod, I fail to see why I should not air them.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Most of whom would have given Rocky a run for his money and in the case of Witherspoon, probably beaten Rocky. 3 of which went on to be belt holders also. I'd put those on a higher level to the shot and old fighters Rocky faced as champ.

Of course you would.

And if Holmes had fought in the fifties and Marciano had fought in the eighties you'd spin 180 degrees in offering your opinion, which, in these issues, is based on a calendar as opposed to boxing.

Ha. Nice one windy. In all honesty, I wouldn't. I rate Charles very highly. Brilliant LHW and would dominate boxing if he were around today. You wont get any argument from me about how good he was.

But he was old and shot when he fought Rocky. As for Rocky, I would argue all day long as to how great he was.

I'll add also Dave, that respectig the opinions of others does not mean you have to agree with said opinions. If you disagree, then fine, but do it in a respectful manner. That's all I have asked for.

I'll add that Windy and myself hardly agree on anything. If he tells me its sunny outside, I'll go see for myself....just in case. But we never engage in verbals. I respect his opinions and he makes fun of mine. But we never trade insults which to me is how others should behave. A healthy disagreement is fine.

Lastly, and in all honesty, there is nothing anyone can say to convince me that Rocky was anything other than a crude, plodding brawler who carried a dig but was at the right place and the right time.

His legacy has increased and is now so much as American Icon that criticising him is a definite no no. See Larry Holmes opinion of hi=m as an example. I believe it went all the way to the Senate in USA.

Holmes took on THE GREATEST HW who ever lived. Record books say that. What record books dont say was that Ali was worse than shot.
***********************************************************
The record books don't HAVE to say it...it's common knowledge that Ali should have retired long before, nor does Holmes get any kudos for beating Ali...in much the same way Marciano gets no credit for beating an aging Louis

Look at how good Charles was when he fought Marciano and look how good Ali was when he fought Holmes. Surely you can't serioulsy compare the two?

This whole if he had emerged three years earlier or later is a specious argument. He didn't, are we really going to penalise a guy for when he was born. If so are we going to apply the same standard to other fighters, were Holmes to emerge three years earlier he would be running into a live Foreman, Frazier and Ali, potentially his career never gets off the ground.

If Tyson emerges three years earlier he has to deal with a far better version of Holmes than he did again he may not get started.

Truth is Rocky beat the best his era had to offer and as others have said on countless occasions but for a couple of guys, Jeffries and Ali being the stand out candidates Rocky's opposition stands pretty favourable comparison to most.

DAVE667 wrote:Holmes took on THE GREATEST HW who ever lived. Record books say that. What record books dont say was that Ali was worse than shot.
***********************************************************
The record books don't HAVE to say it...it's common knowledge that Ali should have retired long before, nor does Holmes get any kudos for beating Ali...in much the same way Marciano gets no credit for beating an aging Louis

Look at how good Charles was when he fought Marciano and look how good Ali was when he fought Holmes. Surely you can't serioulsy compare the two?

I'm not comparing the two insofar that the only comparison is what the record books say.

rowley wrote:This whole if he had emerged three years earlier or later is a specious argument. He didn't, are we really going to penalise a guy for when he was born. If so are we going to apply the same standard to other fighters, were Holmes to emerge three years earlier he would be running into a live Foreman, Frazier and Ali, potentially his career never gets off the ground.

If Tyson emerges three years earlier he has to deal with a far better version of Holmes than he did again he may not get started.

Truth is Rocky beat the best his era had to offer and as others have said on countless occasions but for a couple of guys, Jeffries and Ali being the stand out candidates Rocky's opposition stands pretty favourable comparison to most.

Bert Sugar said Rocky was affected by when he was active in that he fought no one etc.

If Tyson had fought a peak Holmes, Tyson would have been picking up more than his gumshield.

It is fast becoming a joke that every time we have an "old timer" debate, or mention of Marciano - the same posts are regurgitated time after time.

I appreciate that we're unlikely to change our opinions on a boxing forum, but when opinions are not at all linked to facts, I struggle to see how they are tenable.

I have Rocky in the top 5 at HW - where depends on my mood.

When he beat LaStarza, a great great boxer - he pulverised his arms and body, forcing him to drop them, before going to work on the head. When the fight was over, LaStarza had fractured both his arms from the repetitive blunt force trauma.

That is a hard, hard puncher. Not many fighters who could ever do that.

And to suggest the likes of Evangelista, Weaver and Neon Leon beat Marciano must be a joke, else I'm wondering for your sanity, Az.

azania wrote:Bert Sugar said Rocky was affected by when he was active in that he fought no one etc.

Sugar also said Dempsey is the greatest heavy of the lot, yet according to you he's an over rated nobody.

oxring wrote:It is fast becoming a joke that every time we have an "old timer" debate, or mention of Marciano - the same posts are regurgitated time after time.

I appreciate that we're unlikely to change our opinions on a boxing forum, but when opinions are not at all linked to facts, I struggle to see how they are tenable.

I have Rocky in the top 5 at HW - where depends on my mood.

When he beat LaStarza, a great great boxer - he pulverised his arms and body, forcing him to drop them, before going to work on the head. When the fight was over, LaStarza had fractured both his arms from the repetitive blunt force trauma.

That is a hard, hard puncher. Not many fighters who could ever do that.

And to suggest the likes of Evangelista, Weaver and Neon Leon beat Marciano must be a joke, else I'm wondering for your sanity, Az.

Well thankfully I haven't alluded to that. I aint that silly. Well maybe weaver would have a decent argument.

Windy

I dont agree with everything everyone says.

His legacy has increased and is now so much as American Icon that criticising him is a definite no no. See Larry Holmes opinion of hi=m as an example. I believe it went all the way to the Senate in USA.
Given Holmes had Cobb, Marvis Frazier and Butterbean on his record, he's in no position to criticise anyone's record.

Holmes had his choice of HW to be considered inferior to...it just so happened that he was close to equally Marciano's record a HW. Had he failed to match Louis's 7year HW reign you can bet Joe wouldn't have been fit to carry Larry's jock either.and had Larry failed to equal Ali's then record of three HW title reigns, Ali would also be considered unworthy of jock carrying duties. Think you'll find the common denominator in all this is Big Pants lar

azania wrote:Windy

I dont agree with everything everyone says.

I believe the reverse to be true also, az.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Windy

I dont agree with everything everyone says.

I believe the reverse to be true also, az.

That can't be right can it?

Says everyone everything with agree dont I.

Na, I don't think that's right.

Ron Lipton is now 67 years old. He was a sparring partner to Ali, Frazier, Griffith, Tiger, Hurricane Carter and worked the corner for several other greats. He was also a world class referee who has been the middle man in Holyfield fights and, I believe, a Tyson fight or two.

Today, Lipton runs a gym and is a highly respected boxing writer. Here's what he says of Marciano :

“The power punching categories mentioned by Mike Hunnicut are right on the money. Essential is the use of perfect technique combined with great speed and snap practiced over and over again, with the entire body being used as one with each integral muscle group and its deep fibre being called upon instantaneously to contribute to the punch.

“Other helpful factors include being in shape to utilise vicious torque, combined body dip, shoulder snap, deep forearm muscle rotation, and all the muscles of the hand being crunched into the punch with each finger and muscle being used to contribute to the final hard fisted squeeze and snap upon landing.

“My own hands are like animal paws after years of hitting the bags bare- knuckled. The great punchers have hands like that too. I met Marciano and spent time with him in Florida when he was filming the computer fight with Ali. I feel The Rock was a punishing puncher in fantastic aerobic shape. Rocky had strong hands and trained like a long distance marathon runner, never got tired and kept beating on a man. His heavy- handed short punches were damaging and his Susie Q could be thrown long or short, like when he took out Rex Layne.

“Being able to set a guy up, pull the string on him with one shot that he can’t see coming and having the juice to make it work at any given time is the true test of a puncher. To be able to take a guy out with one shot in the first round or when the one opportunity presents itself is some talent to have.”

Along with what I've seen with my own eyes, along with the testimonies of Dempsey, Louis and a few other Rocky opponents, this is plenty good enough for me.

One other point of interest. Marciano's trainer is widely acknowledged as one of the best trainers of all time, and was himself a veteran of over three hundred fights. If Rocky was so poor why, then, did he take him on in the first place ?

Scottrf wrote:Says everyone everything with agree dont I.

Na, I don't think that's right.

Smart ass, Scott.

In point of fact, though, it would be :

.syas enoyreve gnihtyreve htiw eerga tnod I

Anybody fancy a pint?