Appreciating Rocky

First topic message reminder :

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.

Weaker than right this instant? You're kidding, right? There's evidence aplenty to support the belief that Rocky was a guy with immense determination, stupendous stamina and a 'wallop' that'd pole-axe water buffalo. I don't understand quite why you find it so hard to give the guy credit. It's OK saying a guy is limited, but if he goes beaten then there's plainly nothing wrong with his style. As someone said earlier: there were a number of opponents who thought Rocky was limited, flawed, overrated and ripe for the taking, but when they found themselves facing him in the ring (oo-er) they realised that the reality was an entirely different proposition. In that aspect, he's very similar to Mayweather Jr.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Just like the inferior Jones, Toney and Hopkins, all of whom a 40 year old Moore would have beat with relative ease.
When fighting Marciano, Moore was a heavyweight, he fought in the division more often than he did the light heavyweight division, surely boxrec could have told you that.

You do realise that skill comes in many forms, being a marauding bull is a skill hence why very few were as successful doing it as Marciano.

No way does Archie beat RJJ.

You may as well say that Tyson beat a HW in Spinks. In my mind Spinks was a LHW. I dont use boxrec.

Hahahaha you are a funny guy, Jones simply wouldn't be able to live with Moore. The power Moore had was like nothing Jones has ever faced and his reflex based defence would crumble against a relentless power puncher like the old Mongoose.

Moore is without doubt the 3rd or 4th best 175lber of all time, the 40 year old plus version as well and would have beaten Hopkins, Toney, Jones, Spinks just like he beat Olson, Maxim, Pompey, Durelle, Johnson amongst others. But im assuming speed and 'skills' beat him easily.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Just like the inferior Jones, Toney and Hopkins, all of whom a 40 year old Moore would have beat with relative ease.
When fighting Marciano, Moore was a heavyweight, he fought in the division more often than he did the light heavyweight division, surely boxrec could have told you that.

You do realise that skill comes in many forms, being a marauding bull is a skill hence why very few were as successful doing it as Marciano.

A matador always kills the bull. Only when the matador is old and past it does the bull gore him.

It also shows the calibre of the division if a LHW can be competitive at HW. Shocking. It compared to RJJ beating Ruiz. The calibre of HW was poor.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Hahahaha you are a funny guy, Jones simply wouldn't be able to live with Moore. The power Moore had was like nothing Jones has ever faced and his reflex based defence would crumble against a relentless power puncher like the old Mongoose.

Moore is without doubt the 3rd or 4th best 175lber of all time, the 40 year old plus version as well and would have beaten Hopkins, Toney, Jones, Spinks just like he beat Olson, Maxim, Pompey, Durelle, Johnson amongst others. But im assuming speed and 'skills' beat him easily.

Many said the same thing when Ali faced Liston and especially Foreman. "They were too strong etc". Skill trunps power everytime (mostly). Take RJJ and LaMotta etc. They were arguably stronger than him. The Moore who fought Rock would have been beaten by RJJ who beat Ruiz. Simply too fast and varied. Too many angles.

But this is about Rocky.

Just like your number two heavyweight Holmes losing to Spinks or Dempsey losing to Tunney or Tyson losing to Holyfield or Holyfield losing to Moorer or Corbett losing to Fitzsimmons. Light Heavyweights have never been competitive at heavyweight have they?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Just like the inferior Jones, Toney and Hopkins, all of whom a 40 year old Moore would have beat with relative ease.
When fighting Marciano, Moore was a heavyweight, he fought in the division more often than he did the light heavyweight division, surely boxrec could have told you that.

You do realise that skill comes in many forms, being a marauding bull is a skill hence why very few were as successful doing it as Marciano.

A matador always kills the bull. Only when the matador is old and past it does the bull gore him.

It also shows the calibre of the division if a LHW can be competitive at HW. Shocking. It compared to RJJ beating Ruiz. The calibre of HW was poor.

So...likewise if a middleweight can be successful as a light heavy, it must be an indicator that it was merely a weak division...right?

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Just like the inferior Jones, Toney and Hopkins, all of whom a 40 year old Moore would have beat with relative ease.
When fighting Marciano, Moore was a heavyweight, he fought in the division more often than he did the light heavyweight division, surely boxrec could have told you that.

You do realise that skill comes in many forms, being a marauding bull is a skill hence why very few were as successful doing it as Marciano.

A matador always kills the bull. Only when the matador is old and past it does the bull gore him.

It also shows the calibre of the division if a LHW can be competitive at HW. Shocking. It compared to RJJ beating Ruiz. The calibre of HW was poor.

So...likewise if a middleweight can be successful as a light heavy, it must be an indicator that it was merely a weak division...right?

Not necessarily. The jump between a LHW and HW is huge. Many Mids have competed successfully when they jump weight. RJJ jumped weight as he grew. He added muscle, improved diet (and dubiously) whilst maintaining his conditioning, speed and power. Just like Manny.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Just like your number two heavyweight Holmes losing to Spinks or Dempsey losing to Tunney or Tyson losing to Holyfield or Holyfield losing to Moorer or Corbett losing to Fitzsimmons. Light Heavyweights have never been competitive at heavyweight have they?

Come on. The record books say one thing, but most who saw the fight know Holmes actually won both fights.

Jones had definitely lost a fair bit of power once he got to the Light Heavyweight division

Huge jump between facing a 175lber and a 190lber isn't there?
Oh yes same as the jump between middleweight and Light Heavyweight

A light Heavyweight shouldn't even be able to compete against a genuine Heavyweight should he, also I had Spinks winning the first and losing the second, not seen the fights for a while though.

Rocky Marciano never weighed over 190lbs. He would get a hiding off Lennox Lewis.

Marciano was overated and his best wins are over faded champions. He is held in too high a regard.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Jones had definitely lost a fair bit of power once he got to the Light Heavyweight division

Huge jump between facing a 175lber and a 190lber isn't there?
Oh yes same as the jump between middleweight and Light Heavyweight

He definately did lose some power. But he retained his speed and more importantly his skills.

There's a huge jump in power when jumping through the same weight the heavier you go.

When he beat Joe Louis, Joe had only been beaten 2 times and had won 8 straight fights 3 by KO

WelshDevilRob wrote:Rocky Marciano never weighed over 190lbs. He would get a hiding off Lennox Lewis.

Marciano was overated and his best wins are over faded champions. He is held in too high a regard.

Be careful in your criticism of Rock WDR. You may feel the ire of many here.

Form means nothing it's all about age

prettyboy1304 wrote:When he beat Joe Louis, Joe had only been beaten 2 times and had won 8 straight fights 3 by KO

Oh please. That is meaningless. Louis was fighting for the IRS. He had no business being in the ring. You're almost legitimising Holmes' victory over Ali with such a comment.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Form means nothing it's all about age

Was that Louis at his peak? That's just cheap point scoring.

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:When he beat Joe Louis, Joe had only been beaten 2 times and had won 8 straight fights 3 by KO

Oh please. That is meaningless. Louis was fighting for the IRS. He had no business being in the ring. You're almost legitimising Holmes' victory over Ali with such a comment.

No I'm not those are facts. Whatever the reason he was fighting he clearly wasn't as past it as you say just because he was 37 you say he was past it. He had good form going into the fight.

You're still ignoring evidence such as the testimonials of the man's contemporaries which paint him in a very respectable light when compared to later fighters. The fact will always remain: contrary to the beliefs of doubters, the fact that those 'limited' things that Rocky did were done SO well should not be overlooked.

Why does it always have to fighters at their peak?

Louis legitimised the fight by beating Bivins and Savold, neither of whom were fools in the ring, not as if he was fighting nobodies prior to the Marciano fight. At his best no but still plenty good enough to beat a couple of good fighters.

As for Ali vs Holmes that was the fault of Ali and his team who made the fight happen he should never been in with Holmes. I have watched the fight once and refuse to ever watch it again. It was a horrible mismatch and to see an ATG top 5 fighter be beat like that is horrible.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:When he beat Joe Louis, Joe had only been beaten 2 times and had won 8 straight fights 3 by KO

Oh please. That is meaningless. Louis was fighting for the IRS. He had no business being in the ring. You're almost legitimising Holmes' victory over Ali with such a comment.

No I'm not those are facts. Whatever the reason he was fighting he clearly wasn't as past it as you say just because he was 37 you say he was past it. He had good form going into the fight.

God Almighty, you sound like D4. Sorry.

Unlike D4 we're looking at what actually happened and Louis despite being 37 was still in good form and had only ever lost two fights, no shame in losing to Charles at any stage of your career. Ignoring that but looking merely at his date of birth is a more fitting description of D4.

BALTIMORA wrote:You're still ignoring evidence such as the testimonials of the man's contemporaries which paint him in a very respectable light when compared to later fighters. The fact will always remain: contrary to the beliefs of doubters, the fact that those 'limited' things that Rocky did were done SO well should not be overlooked.

I've address this issue countless times before. Criticising Rocky is akin to killing Bambi in USA. I cite Holmes as an example where his criticism of Rocky was debated in the Senate. They even wheeled out Rocky's family to criticise Holmes. Rocky has to be praised at all times. He was an All American Hero.

Any boxer of that generation who didn't prasie Rocky would have been lynched.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Unlike D4 we're looking at what actually happened and Louis despite being 37 was still in good form and had only ever lost two fights, no shame in losing to Charles at any stage of your career. Ignoring that but looking merely at his date of birth is a more fitting description of D4.

As Victor Meldrew would say "I dont believe it". Now you are almost suggesting Rocky was better than Louis. Heard it all now.

You really are a fool

How in any shape or form am I suggesting Marciano is better than Louis?

You have serious issues, you start acting kind of retarded when backed into a corner

I wasn't just that it was a good victory over a top opponent

prettyboy1304 wrote:As for Ali vs Holmes that was the fault of Ali and his team who made the fight happen he should never been in with Holmes. I have watched the fight once and refuse to ever watch it again. It was a horrible mismatch and to see an ATG top 5 fighter be beat like that is horrible.

The Ali fight should never have happened. I dont think even Holmes counts that as a victory. You cant seriously think that the 37 year old Louis who fought Rocky was anywhere near his peak. Come on.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:You're still ignoring evidence such as the testimonials of the man's contemporaries which paint him in a very respectable light when compared to later fighters. The fact will always remain: contrary to the beliefs of doubters, the fact that those 'limited' things that Rocky did were done SO well should not be overlooked.

I've address this issue countless times before. Criticising Rocky is akin to killing Bambi in USA. I cite Holmes as an example where his criticism of Rocky was debated in the Senate. They even wheeled out Rocky's family to criticise Holmes. Rocky has to be praised at all times. He was an All American Hero.

Any boxer of that generation who didn't prasie Rocky would have been lynched.

Not at the time he wasn't considered in such high esteem but please don't let facts get in the way, the whole boxing world must be in on this con that was Marciano

Rocky beating Joe Louis holds as much relevance historically as Lennox Lewis beating Mike Tyson. Tyson and Louis were well past their best years. Do we agree on that or no?

Louis was in far better form than Tyson was, so its not even comparitive

His contemporaries doesn't simply mean fighters who were active at the same time. There's a good amount of comparative evidence from people who witnessed later generations to suggest that Rocky was not simply a product of fortune, as you are claiming.

If I say I could knock you over by throwing a banana at you, it seems like a ridiculously inefficient object to use. If however I were to accomplish my aim, then does it matter how inefficient an object I used? It's easy to criticise from the safety of a keyboard, but evidence suggests that Rocky was just very good at doing what he did: closing distance and hitting VERY hard, and simply not knowing what surrender meant.

The Mighty Atom wrote:You really are a fool

How in any shape or form am I suggesting Marciano is better than Louis?

You have serious issues, you start acting kind of retarded when backed into a corner

What the hell is wrong with you? Everyone on this thread is debating without resorting to insults. Why cant you do the same? Many are taking the pi$$ out of me, some taking what I say in jest or humour. But you take it as if I havbe insulted your family.

Please refrain.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:You're still ignoring evidence such as the testimonials of the man's contemporaries which paint him in a very respectable light when compared to later fighters. The fact will always remain: contrary to the beliefs of doubters, the fact that those 'limited' things that Rocky did were done SO well should not be overlooked.

I've address this issue countless times before. Criticising Rocky is akin to killing Bambi in USA. I cite Holmes as an example where his criticism of Rocky was debated in the Senate. They even wheeled out Rocky's family to criticise Holmes. Rocky has to be praised at all times. He was an All American Hero.

Any boxer of that generation who didn't prasie Rocky would have been lynched.

Not at the time he wasn't considered in such high esteem but please don't let facts get in the way, the whole boxing world must be in on this con that was Marciano

If I respond, you will resort to insults......again. I wont bother.

Think i'll ignore your advice thank you very much and twisting my words to suggest I said something which I clearly doesn't shows you to be a fool.

Please refrain from debating things you know nothing about

WelshDevilRob wrote:Rocky beating Joe Louis holds as much relevance historically as Lennox Lewis beating Mike Tyson. Tyson and Louis were well past their best years. Do we agree on that or no?

Louis had won 8 straight going into the Marciano fight. In Tysons 8 fights before Lewis he had 2 defeats to Holyfield 2 no contests Norris and Gollota although Gollota was due to him testing positive for pot after the fight and 4 wins all by KO decent form but not 8 straight is it?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:You're still ignoring evidence such as the testimonials of the man's contemporaries which paint him in a very respectable light when compared to later fighters. The fact will always remain: contrary to the beliefs of doubters, the fact that those 'limited' things that Rocky did were done SO well should not be overlooked.

I've address this issue countless times before. Criticising Rocky is akin to killing Bambi in USA. I cite Holmes as an example where his criticism of Rocky was debated in the Senate. They even wheeled out Rocky's family to criticise Holmes. Rocky has to be praised at all times. He was an All American Hero.

Any boxer of that generation who didn't prasie Rocky would have been lynched.

Not at the time he wasn't considered in such high esteem but please don't let facts get in the way, the whole boxing world must be in on this con that was Marciano

If I respond, you will resort to insults......again. I wont bother.

In other words you actually thought you could lie about something I know about in great depth and for me to not realise?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Think i'll ignore your advice thank you very much and twisting my words to suggest I said something which I clearly doesn't shows you to be a fool.

Please refrain from debating things you know nothing about

Well done.

I don't really Tyson was finished and was just cashing cheques. Louis had form behind him.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:You're still ignoring evidence such as the testimonials of the man's contemporaries which paint him in a very respectable light when compared to later fighters. The fact will always remain: contrary to the beliefs of doubters, the fact that those 'limited' things that Rocky did were done SO well should not be overlooked.

I've address this issue countless times before. Criticising Rocky is akin to killing Bambi in USA. I cite Holmes as an example where his criticism of Rocky was debated in the Senate. They even wheeled out Rocky's family to criticise Holmes. Rocky has to be praised at all times. He was an All American Hero.

Any boxer of that generation who didn't prasie Rocky would have been lynched.

Not at the time he wasn't considered in such high esteem but please don't let facts get in the way, the whole boxing world must be in on this con that was Marciano

If I respond, you will resort to insults......again. I wont bother.

In other words you actually thought you could lie about something I know about in great depth and for me to not realise?

OK, I'll bite. What have I lied about that warranted personal abuse?

Marciano wasn't held in as high regard as your suggesting and to suggest that those who fought would over exaggerate just to please the nation is a fanciful remark.

Your knowledge of any of these boxers is nowhere near good enough to debate the same sh!t over and again

The Mighty Atom wrote:Marciano wasn't held in as high regard as your suggesting and to suggest that those who fought would over exaggerate just to please the nation is a fanciful remark.

Your knowledge of any of these boxers is nowhere near good enough to debate the same sh!t over and again

Chill out will you. This is getting tiresome and boring. Try to be civil for a change. But answer this. Why was Holmes dragged thru the coals when he criticised Rocky's ability?

That was some 40+ years later so is hardly relevant to what Louis, Moore and others were saying at the time.

What is getting tiresome is having your bring this up every time some of us want to chat about a boxer pre Ali, you've already been warned about time you heed that advice.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Marciano wasn't held in as high regard as your suggesting and to suggest that those who fought would over exaggerate just to please the nation is a fanciful remark.

Your knowledge of any of these boxers is nowhere near good enough to debate the same sh!t over and again

Chill out will you. This is getting tiresome and boring. Try to be civil for a change. But answer this. Why was Holmes dragged thru the coals when he criticised Rocky's ability?

Because he was doing the same thing as Rocky's opponents had done: dismissing the man as being limited, without having any idea what it was actually like to face the guy. It's the same as Calzaghe's opponents turning round and saying "actually, those slaps hurt", and Pacquiao's opponents saying "wow, I just didn't realise how fast he really is".

It matters little how tiresome YOU find it. It doesn't warrant insults and you should know that.

The Mighty Atom wrote:You really are a fool

How in any shape or form am I suggesting Marciano is better than Louis?

You have serious issues, you start acting kind of retarded when backed into a corner

That was out of line Atom.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Marciano wasn't held in as high regard as your suggesting and to suggest that those who fought would over exaggerate just to please the nation is a fanciful remark.

Your knowledge of any of these boxers is nowhere near good enough to debate the same sh!t over and again

Chill out will you. This is getting tiresome and boring. Try to be civil for a change. But answer this. Why was Holmes dragged thru the coals when he criticised Rocky's ability?

Because he was doing the same thing as Rocky's opponents had done: dismissing the man as being limited, without having any idea what it was actually like to face the guy. It's the same as Calzaghe's opponents turning round and saying "actually, those slaps hurt", and Pacquiao's opponents saying "wow, I just didn't realise how fast he really is".

Even by US politicians?

Atom where do you rank Rocky on a ATG of heavyweights.