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.

It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Here's a question.

Why should today's fighters learn from the oldies ?

According to some of you there's nothing to learn, and also nothing to learn from Ray Arcel, Eddie Futch, etc., either.

I thought today's great fighters came on prescription ?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Again, just like Valuev has.

If fighters are better the longer the period of rest and recuperation why do you hear fighters talk of ring rust, surely the longer the absence the greater the period of rest.

Like Valuev has, for example.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me who were the 5 best Russian HW's (pro's) of the 30's and 60's? You know, when the talent pool was so deep.

It's not a descrete increase of ability with time. It's a general trend.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Does your brain even register what your fingers are typing? Seriously? It doesn't matter how much a person can learn about a given topic from second-hand sources, the best way to improve your ability to do anything is by actually doing it. Otherwise we'd all just read books about driving, and be brilliant drivers, or read cook-books and become Michelin starred chefs.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

That's presuming its something you can pass on. A lot is instinctive and you only pick up by doing. How do you write in a book about timing, judging distance etc?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

Like Valuev has, for example.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me who were the 5 best Russian HW's (pro's) of the 30's and 60's? You know, when the talent pool was so deep.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which of the old timers you've actually seen fight.

I, at least, posted a list of Olympian heavyweight gold medallists.

But I can REALLY see the influence of Sugar Ray Robinson in Valuev's slick movement and skills. Yep, he learned well. Same with today's lightheavies. They've come a long way in eight years. Much better than Jones.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Does your brain even register what your fingers are typing? Seriously? It doesn't matter how much a person can learn about a given topic from second-hand sources, the best way to improve your ability to do anything is by actually doing it. Otherwise we'd all just read books about driving, and be brilliant drivers, or read cook-books and become Michelin starred chefs.

Brilliant Balti, has expressed what I've been trying to say in a concise and amusing way. On that note I am going home for the weekend. Have a good one chaps

I was watching Chagaev last night. For a moment, I thought it was Ali.

You know, the speed, coordination, handspeed, chin, tactical nous, savvy, heart, judgement of distances, feinting.

Chagaev is an example to us all of heavyweight progress.

Sven Ottke, as well.

Like a white Sugar Ray, that one. Easy to see how boxing has progressed.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

What he lacks is the benefit of centuries of accumulated knowledge

And what the old fighters would lack is the decades of accumulated knowledge modern fighters have.

Like Valuev has, for example.

A bum will always be a bum no matter when he fought. Look at Rock as an example.

Gotta be perfectly frank here, for a mod you're a bit heavy-handed on the wind-ups.

Well, apart from our disagreeing about Rocky, that's what I've been saying all along, az.

A great fighter is a great fighter, regardless of his date of birth, and a poor one is a poor one.

azania wrote: 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

~ Why, sir, I've never seen a poster so dependent on absolute certain outcomes of hypothetical fantasy matches. One supposes you must be a certified billionaire from betting on modern matchups thanks to your unparalleled prognostications.

Fairplay, who turns down free money, right? In the meantime, reading up on the rich history of Mr. Ali and Mr. Rocky, both developed an abiding friendship and respect after sparring sessions for their famed fantasy computer match which had Rocky winning all the marbles.

In contrast, Mr. Holmes never beat a prime fighter of Mr. Rocky's reputation, mainly feasting on the shells of a golden era he was strangely absent from until he finally recovered from being knocked out by Mr. Bobick in the Olympic trials and was able to establish enough reputation to break wind over. Seeing as Mr. Holmes never held more than 33-50% share of the title, it's no wonder he developed such an inferiority complex that kept him from fighting the other belt holders of his day.

And to think that his very last moment in the ring that folks remember is him being knocked down by Butterbean and then holding on to the ropes while walking away from the ref to buy time before the final bell save him. Oh, my!

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Greatest, not best ever.

What's the difference?

I'll go back to my old comparison

Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the greatest Physicist who ever lived.

If you were to get him in a time machine and bring him to today he wouldn't be in the top 10 000 'best' physicists on the planet.

Utterly irrelevant. His brain may be just as capable as that of his modern equivalent. What he lacks is the benefit of centuries of accumulated knowledge. That's how we've managed to progress as a species (for the most part). We remember, we archive and we share information-knowledge. Your comparison is moot, to be polite.

But Rembrandt is not?

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

azania wrote: 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

~ Why, sir, I've never seen a poster so dependent on absolute certain outcomes of hypothetical fantasy matches. One supposes you must be a certified billionaire from betting on modern matchups thanks to your unparalleled prognostications.

Fairplay, who turns down free money, right? In the meantime, reading up on the rich history of Mr. Ali and Mr. Rocky, both developed an abiding friendship and respect after sparring sessions for their famed fantasy computer match which had Rocky winning all the marbles.

In contrast, Mr. Holmes never beat a prime fighter of Mr. Rocky's reputation, mainly feasting on the shells of a golden era he was strangely absent from until he finally recovered from being knocked out by Mr. Bobick in the Olympic trials and was able to establish enough reputation to break wind over. Seeing as Mr. Holmes never held more than 33-50% share of the title, it's no wonder he developed such an inferiority complex that kept him from fighting the other belt holders of his day.

And to think that his very last moment in the ring that folks remember is him being knocked down by Butterbean and then holding on to the ropes while walking away from the ref to buy time before the final bell save him. Oh, my!

Can you tell me a fighter in his prime that Rocky fought during his reign? In fact name me a decent fighter he ever fought.

BALTIMORA wrote:Gotta be perfectly frank here, for a mod you're a bit heavy-handed on the wind-ups.

How is a strongly held opinion a wind up? I do not rate Rocky. Never have done and never will do. I believe he would have had a hard time beating anyother HW champ outside of Carnera, Patterson and Johansson.

azania wrote:

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

azania wrote: 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

~ Why, sir, I've never seen a poster so dependent on absolute certain outcomes of hypothetical fantasy matches. One supposes you must be a certified billionaire from betting on modern matchups thanks to your unparalleled prognostications.

Fairplay, who turns down free money, right? In the meantime, reading up on the rich history of Mr. Ali and Mr. Rocky, both developed an abiding friendship and respect after sparring sessions for their famed fantasy computer match which had Rocky winning all the marbles.

In contrast, Mr. Holmes never beat a prime fighter of Mr. Rocky's reputation, mainly feasting on the shells of a golden era he was strangely absent from until he finally recovered from being knocked out by Mr. Bobick in the Olympic trials and was able to establish enough reputation to break wind over. Seeing as Mr. Holmes never held more than 33-50% share of the title, it's no wonder he developed such an inferiority complex that kept him from fighting the other belt holders of his day.

And to think that his very last moment in the ring that folks remember is him being knocked down by Butterbean and then holding on to the ropes while walking away from the ref to buy time before the final bell save him. Oh, my!

Can you tell me a fighter in his prime that Rocky fought during his reign? In fact name me a decent fighter he ever fought.

az, yet again, shall I post a list of Holmes' challengers ? You're just taking this round in circles.

And again, a slightly faded Charles is a darned sight better than Brian London, a past it Zora Folley, shot - to - smithereens Williams or Henry Cooper. Let's apply some consistency, here.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Does your brain even register what your fingers are typing? Seriously? It doesn't matter how much a person can learn about a given topic from second-hand sources, the best way to improve your ability to do anything is by actually doing it. Otherwise we'd all just read books about driving, and be brilliant drivers, or read cook-books and become Michelin starred chefs.

Fighting a bum every 2 weeks is glorified sparring. I dare say sparring over the past 3-4 decades is the equivalent of fighting every 2 weeks.

Nowadays with more money on the table, the stakes are higher. Boxers (discount many heavyweights) tend to be at their very best physically when they step through the ropes. David Haye is in a 3 month training programme for his next fight. Dont you think that his sparring will become more intensive as the fight date draws nearer? Their training programme is geared towards getting him into the ring at his prime physical best.

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Greatest, not best ever.

What's the difference?

I'll go back to my old comparison

Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the greatest Physicist who ever lived.

If you were to get him in a time machine and bring him to today he wouldn't be in the top 10 000 'best' physicists on the planet.

Utterly irrelevant. His brain may be just as capable as that of his modern equivalent. What he lacks is the benefit of centuries of accumulated knowledge. That's how we've managed to progress as a species (for the most part). We remember, we archive and we share information-knowledge. Your comparison is moot, to be polite.

But Rembrandt is not?

Not at all, no, not in the context. Any more daft questions?

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Does your brain even register what your fingers are typing? Seriously? It doesn't matter how much a person can learn about a given topic from second-hand sources, the best way to improve your ability to do anything is by actually doing it. Otherwise we'd all just read books about driving, and be brilliant drivers, or read cook-books and become Michelin starred chefs.

Fighting a bum every 2 weeks is glorified sparring. I dare say sparring over the past 3-4 decades is the equivalent of fighting every 2 weeks.

Nowadays with more money on the table, the stakes are higher. Boxers (discount many heavyweights) tend to be at their very best physically when they step through the ropes. David Haye is in a 3 month training programme for his next fight. Dont you think that his sparring will become more intensive as the fight date draws nearer? Their training programme is geared towards getting him into the ring at his prime physical best.

Sparring is still only sparring. Even the lowliest opponent in a real fight can aim for the upset. And it's not your opinion that's a wind-up, but rather your blasé and sweeping generalisations.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Greatest, not best ever.

What's the difference?

I'll go back to my old comparison

Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the greatest Physicist who ever lived.

If you were to get him in a time machine and bring him to today he wouldn't be in the top 10 000 'best' physicists on the planet.

Utterly irrelevant. His brain may be just as capable as that of his modern equivalent. What he lacks is the benefit of centuries of accumulated knowledge. That's how we've managed to progress as a species (for the most part). We remember, we archive and we share information-knowledge. Your comparison is moot, to be polite.

But Rembrandt is not?

Not at all, no, not in the context. Any more daft questions?

I think the comparison is very relevant and Juke's comparison is more in context than citing artists. Aboriginal cave paintings dating over 50,000 trumps Da Vinci imo. All subjective mate.

azania wrote:Fighting a bum every 2 weeks is glorified sparring. I dare say sparring over the past 3-4 decades is the equivalent of fighting every 2 weeks.

Nowadays with more money on the table, the stakes are higher. Boxers (discount many heavyweights) tend to be at their very best physically when they step through the ropes. David Haye is in a 3 month training programme for his next fight. Dont you think that his sparring will become more intensive as the fight date draws nearer? Their training programme is geared towards getting him into the ring at his prime physical best.

Have a look at Ezzard Charles' and Harry Greb's records and tell us that they fought bums every two weeks.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Does your brain even register what your fingers are typing? Seriously? It doesn't matter how much a person can learn about a given topic from second-hand sources, the best way to improve your ability to do anything is by actually doing it. Otherwise we'd all just read books about driving, and be brilliant drivers, or read cook-books and become Michelin starred chefs.

Fighting a bum every 2 weeks is glorified sparring. I dare say sparring over the past 3-4 decades is the equivalent of fighting every 2 weeks.

Nowadays with more money on the table, the stakes are higher. Boxers (discount many heavyweights) tend to be at their very best physically when they step through the ropes. David Haye is in a 3 month training programme for his next fight. Dont you think that his sparring will become more intensive as the fight date draws nearer? Their training programme is geared towards getting him into the ring at his prime physical best.

Sparring is still only sparring. Even the lowliest opponent in a real fight can aim for the upset. And it's not your opinion that's a wind-up, but rather your blasé and sweeping generalisations.

Apologies about the sweeping generalisations. Posting from work has certain risks. But within those generalisations are strongly held views about Rocky in particular and old timers. I started watching boxing in the 1970s. For me that is my golden age (and 80s). But people have moved on. Of course there have been unique fighters over every generation who will buck a certain trend.

Ali for example said he aped SRR in many areas. But no-one has come close to copying of improving on Ali. People say his closest in terms of style has been Leonard. I disagree. Ali was unique in that he was a pure head hunter. No other boxer before or after only goes for the head. If you can tell me when Ali went to the body in any fight, I'd have a heart attack.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Fighting a bum every 2 weeks is glorified sparring. I dare say sparring over the past 3-4 decades is the equivalent of fighting every 2 weeks.

Nowadays with more money on the table, the stakes are higher. Boxers (discount many heavyweights) tend to be at their very best physically when they step through the ropes. David Haye is in a 3 month training programme for his next fight. Dont you think that his sparring will become more intensive as the fight date draws nearer? Their training programme is geared towards getting him into the ring at his prime physical best.

Have a look at Ezzard Charles' and Harry Greb's records and tell us that they fought bums every two weeks.

If you're fighting so frequently, its obvious you will fight some bums dragged out of a bar somewhere. Dont tell me the 1000+ fights Moore had were all top class fighters.

azania wrote:Apologies about the sweeping generalisations. Posting from work has certain risks.

Not nearly so perilous as the risks incurred from reading them.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Apologies about the sweeping generalisations. Posting from work has certain risks.

Not nearly so perilous as the risks incurred from reading them.

azania wrote:If you're fighting so frequently, its obvious you will fight some bums dragged out of a bar somewhere. Dont tell me the 1000+ fights Moore had were all top class fighters.

For the love of God, don't YOU start moving goalposts.

YOU implied that they fought bums every two weeks. I'm saying they DIDN'T. NOT ONCE DID I SAY that every opponent was top drawer, and nor did I imply it.

Time for the Holmes list, yet ?

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which of the old timers you've actually seen fight.

I, at least, posted a list of Olympian heavyweight gold medallists.

But I can REALLY see the influence of Sugar Ray Robinson in Valuev's slick movement and skills. Yep, he learned well. Same with today's lightheavies. They've come a long way in eight years. Much better than Jones.

I have seen just about all mentioned on here. There

Now post your list of the best Russian / Soviet HW boxers of the 30's and 50's.

In fact anyone can join in. Jeffery Rowley, Baltimore...anyone.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which of the old timers you've actually seen fight.

I, at least, posted a list of Olympian heavyweight gold medallists.

But I can REALLY see the influence of Sugar Ray Robinson in Valuev's slick movement and skills. Yep, he learned well. Same with today's lightheavies. They've come a long way in eight years. Much better than Jones.

I have seen just about all mentioned on here. There

Now post your list of the best Russian / Soviet HW boxers of the 30's and 50's.

In fact anyone can join in. Jeffery Rowley, Baltimore...anyone.

I've already answered that question.

What do you think of Joe Gans' and Benny Leonard's styles compared to today's fighters ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:If you're fighting so frequently, its obvious you will fight some bums dragged out of a bar somewhere. Dont tell me the 1000+ fights Moore had were all top class fighters.

For the love of God, don't YOU start moving goalposts.

YOU implied that they fought bums every two weeks. I'm saying they DIDN'T. NOT ONCE DID I SAY that every opponent was top drawer, and nor did I imply it.

Time for the Holmes list, yet ?

Yes I did. You implied that they were quality opposition (at least that's how I read it). My point is that it is simply impossible for your assumption to be correct.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Does your brain even register what your fingers are typing? Seriously? It doesn't matter how much a person can learn about a given topic from second-hand sources, the best way to improve your ability to do anything is by actually doing it. Otherwise we'd all just read books about driving, and be brilliant drivers, or read cook-books and become Michelin starred chefs.

Fighting a bum every 2 weeks is glorified sparring. I dare say sparring over the past 3-4 decades is the equivalent of fighting every 2 weeks.

Nowadays with more money on the table, the stakes are higher. Boxers (discount many heavyweights) tend to be at their very best physically when they step through the ropes. David Haye is in a 3 month training programme for his next fight. Dont you think that his sparring will become more intensive as the fight date draws nearer? Their training programme is geared towards getting him into the ring at his prime physical best.

Sparring is still only sparring. Even the lowliest opponent in a real fight can aim for the upset. And it's not your opinion that's a wind-up, but rather your blasé and sweeping generalisations.

The intensity of sparring increases. Some of those old timers fought exhibition fights which was more slapstick in their intensity than pad work done nowadays.

azania wrote:Yes I did. You implied that they were quality opposition (at least that's how I read it). My point is that it is simply impossible for your assumption to be correct.

Then you read it wrong.

I was saying - accurately - that they didn't always fight bums every two weeks.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

But alot of the things to learn in boxing is muscle memory. Learning how to slip and then counter. You have to repeat it so it becomes second nature to do.

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Does your brain even register what your fingers are typing? Seriously? It doesn't matter how much a person can learn about a given topic from second-hand sources, the best way to improve your ability to do anything is by actually doing it. Otherwise we'd all just read books about driving, and be brilliant drivers, or read cook-books and become Michelin starred chefs.

Books This coming from the people trying to say it was beeter in the old days because x,y,z said so in their book.

You're acting silly. No one is saying someone should watch a vid of Roy Jones and then jump in the ring. Modern boxers have access to better everything than they had 60 years ago, plus all the knowledge gained in those sixty years. What is so hard to understand. It's just natural progression. Next you guys will be saying the internet was better in the 60's

azania wrote:I started watching boxing in the 1970s. For me that is my golden age (and 80s). But people have moved on. Of course there have been unique fighters over every generation who will buck a certain trend.

Ali for example said he aped SRR in many areas. But no-one has come close to copying of improving on Ali. People say his closest in terms of style has been Leonard. I disagree. Ali was unique in that he was a pure head hunter. No other boxer before or after only goes for the head. If you can tell me when Ali went to the body in any fight, I'd have a heart attack.

~ Better call EMS sir, Mr. Ali threw dozens of body shots at Mr. Rocky.

Oh, dear, you appear to be challenged at most every turn of the worm sir. The Klitschko brothers are as pure headhunters as was Mr. Ali as anyone with a spark of interest can see, and much more accurate punchers to boot.

As to your dire question about the best prime fighters Mr. Rocky beat, why sir, in his last fight he took on an all time P4Per in full sway of the best ever lightheavy reign in history and a Ring ranked heavyweight contender during ALL of those years, Mr. Archie.

PULVERVIZED HIM!

That in and of itself alone is enough to make the legend of Rocky sir, arguably better than any single win any heavyweight ever posted. Unfortunately in a top down lineal two dimensional thinking world that you operate in, the full three and four dimensions of any fighter can never be understood, only blithely criticized based upon your mood swings for the day.

Mr. Ali certainly could have showed up in better shape for too many of his fights to mention, but ne'r speak badly about a man in his condition.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:It doesn't matter how many times they fought and how much they learnt because the following generations would just take that knowledge and then improve on it again.

Does your brain even register what your fingers are typing? Seriously? It doesn't matter how much a person can learn about a given topic from second-hand sources, the best way to improve your ability to do anything is by actually doing it. Otherwise we'd all just read books about driving, and be brilliant drivers, or read cook-books and become Michelin starred chefs.

Books This coming from the people trying to say it was beeter in the old days because x,y,z said so in their book.

You're acting silly. No one is saying someone should watch a vid of Roy Jones and then jump in the ring. Modern boxers have access to better everything than they had 60 years ago, plus all the knowledge gained in those sixty years. What is so hard to understand. It's just natural progression. Next you guys will be saying the internet was better in the 60's

We don't need to.

We just need to know that Futch and Arcel knew a damned sight more than you do.

Oh, and we can trust our own eyes, too.

I'm failing to see what the relevance is of no Russian boxers between 1920-1950? You'd almost have thought they were good in the amateurs back then but they weren't and it's almost as if the fact that there is less American boxers around now isn't being overlooked.


I've copied a post of mine from a different thread and it highlights the difference in class of opposition that the supposed best p4p in Jones faced compared to that of Charles and Tunney. Also highlights the remarkable difference in top class opposition.

Notable wins

Jones: Hopkins and Toney

Charles: Bivins, Maxim, Walcott, Louis, Lesnevich, Ray, Moore, Marshall and Burley

Tunney: Dempsey, Greb, Carpentier, Loughran, Gibbons and Levinsky

Now tell me how Jones comes even close to comparing to that?

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which of the old timers you've actually seen fight.

I, at least, posted a list of Olympian heavyweight gold medallists.

But I can REALLY see the influence of Sugar Ray Robinson in Valuev's slick movement and skills. Yep, he learned well. Same with today's lightheavies. They've come a long way in eight years. Much better than Jones.

I have seen just about all mentioned on here. There

Now post your list of the best Russian / Soviet HW boxers of the 30's and 50's.

In fact anyone can join in. Jeffery Rowley, Baltimore...anyone.

I've already answered that question.

What do you think of Joe Gans' and Benny Leonard's styles compared to today's fighters ?

You have not posted the name of a single Russian HW. How is that answering the question.

You know you can't answer the question because if you do it will ruin your argument.

What is your obsession with Russian heavyweights, they barely competed in the amatuers so what is it's relevance?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which of the old timers you've actually seen fight.

I, at least, posted a list of Olympian heavyweight gold medallists.

But I can REALLY see the influence of Sugar Ray Robinson in Valuev's slick movement and skills. Yep, he learned well. Same with today's lightheavies. They've come a long way in eight years. Much better than Jones.

I have seen just about all mentioned on here. There

Now post your list of the best Russian / Soviet HW boxers of the 30's and 50's.

In fact anyone can join in. Jeffery Rowley, Baltimore...anyone.

I've already answered that question.

What do you think of Joe Gans' and Benny Leonard's styles compared to today's fighters ?

You have not posted the name of a single Russian HW. How is that answering the question.

You know you can't answer the question because if you do it will ruin your argument.

That ship sailed when you joined in. This was supposed to be about Marciano.

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

azania wrote:I started watching boxing in the 1970s. For me that is my golden age (and 80s). But people have moved on. Of course there have been unique fighters over every generation who will buck a certain trend.

Ali for example said he aped SRR in many areas. But no-one has come close to copying of improving on Ali. People say his closest in terms of style has been Leonard. I disagree. Ali was unique in that he was a pure head hunter. No other boxer before or after only goes for the head. If you can tell me when Ali went to the body in any fight, I'd have a heart attack.

~ Better call EMS sir, Mr. Ali threw dozens of body shots at Mr. Rocky.

Oh, dear, you appear to be challenged at most every turn of the worm sir. The Klitschko brothers are as pure headhunters as was Mr. Ali as anyone with a spark of interest can see, and much more accurate punchers to boot.

As to your dire question about the best prime fighters Mr. Rocky beat, why sir, in his last fight he took on an all time P4Per in full sway of the best ever lightheavy reign in history and a Ring ranked heavyweight contender during ALL of those years, Mr. Archie.

PULVERVIZED HIM!

That in and of itself alone is enough to make the legend of Rocky sir, arguably better than any single win any heavyweight ever posted. Unfortunately in a top down lineal two dimensional thinking world that you operate in, the full three and four dimensions of any fighter can never be understood, only blithely criticized based upon your mood swings for the day.

Mr. Ali certainly could have showed up in better shape for too many of his fights to mention, but ne'r speak badly about a man in his condition.

Ali fought Rocky? Balboa?

Moore was a lhw. An old one at that. Hardly a prime HW.

The K bros are not pure head hunters either.

azania wrote:

Perfessor Albertus Lion V wrote:

azania wrote:I started watching boxing in the 1970s. For me that is my golden age (and 80s). But people have moved on. Of course there have been unique fighters over every generation who will buck a certain trend.

Ali for example said he aped SRR in many areas. But no-one has come close to copying of improving on Ali. People say his closest in terms of style has been Leonard. I disagree. Ali was unique in that he was a pure head hunter. No other boxer before or after only goes for the head. If you can tell me when Ali went to the body in any fight, I'd have a heart attack.

~ Better call EMS sir, Mr. Ali threw dozens of body shots at Mr. Rocky.

Oh, dear, you appear to be challenged at most every turn of the worm sir. The Klitschko brothers are as pure headhunters as was Mr. Ali as anyone with a spark of interest can see, and much more accurate punchers to boot.

As to your dire question about the best prime fighters Mr. Rocky beat, why sir, in his last fight he took on an all time P4Per in full sway of the best ever lightheavy reign in history and a Ring ranked heavyweight contender during ALL of those years, Mr. Archie.

PULVERVIZED HIM!

That in and of itself alone is enough to make the legend of Rocky sir, arguably better than any single win any heavyweight ever posted. Unfortunately in a top down lineal two dimensional thinking world that you operate in, the full three and four dimensions of any fighter can never be understood, only blithely criticized based upon your mood swings for the day.

Mr. Ali certainly could have showed up in better shape for too many of his fights to mention, but ne'r speak badly about a man in his condition.

Ali fought Rocky? Balboa?

Moore was a lhw. An old one at that. Hardly a prime HW.

The K bros are not pure head hunters either.

I don't wish to tread on Albert's toes, but since he's logged off I'll jump in on the Ali / Rocky thing.

Marciano and Ali were asked to enact the ' computer fight ' for television and Rocky, who was about 46, trained down to something close to fighting weight. Story is that during sparring he nearly broke Ali in two with a body shot.

The two had great respect for each other.

For the millionth time age is irrelevant

A win over a 46 year old Hopkins means more than a win over anything with the exception of Mayweather or Pacquiao. Also Moore is the oldest ever world champion so at the age of 39 was still at the top of his game whereas someone like Benitez was done at 23/24.

A quick question what means more a win over a 39 year old Moore or a say 27 year old Benitez? Also why was Hatton finished after 47 fights at the age of 30?

What is your obsession with Russian heavyweights, they barely competed in the amatuers so what is it's relevance?

There could have been two answers as to why there were so few soviet fighters.

1, As you said. Boxing just wasn't popular in Russia back then.

2, Political reasons.

Either way, the region with the greatest dominance in Boxing today weren't even really into boxing back then.

It doesn't paint a good picture of boxings global popularity and depth of talent years ago.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Either way, the region with the greatest dominance in Boxing today weren't even really into boxing back then.

It doesn't paint a good picture of boxings global popularity and depth of talent years ago.

No reason why you should believe me, Jukebox, but I've actually seen stats to support the claim that there are fewer registered pros WORLDWIDE now than there were in the fifties.

I can't remember where I read it, but the member 88Chris has read the same thing, and is trying to find a link.

Ukraine isn't Russia but outside of the Heavyweight division where are these other dominant eastern block fighters?

There's also far less profressional American boxers now or do you wish to ignore that fact?

Was it not Ali who said that if they had fought Marciano wouldn't have been able to hit him with a handful of rice.

Would anyone give Marciano a hope against modern HW's. I recon he'd struggle to be top 10 at CW. Maccarinelli would do him.