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.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:az, I have the entire Marciano v Walcott first fight. ( Actually, one round was never filmed - maybe the camera broke down, or something. ) Anyway, while nobody is going to pretend that Marciano was a heavyweight Floyd Mayweather, his actual BOXING was quite controlled and pretty decent during the fight. Sure, Walcott was ahead - no shame in that - but Marciano certainly had his moments.

He LOOKS wild in highlight reels, but so does Dempsey's destruction of Willard. Watch all three rounds of that one and you see some fine boxing from Dempsey. Watch the whole of the Walcott fight and you'll see that Rocky wasn't quite the carthorse which you portray.

Laugh all you will, az.

The joke's on you if you haven't seen the entire fight. Does your DVD player actually play black and white film, or is it just your arguments which are colourless ?

I have seen the entire fight (unfortunately). Yep he does things which passes for rudimentary boxing. But he crouched forward dragging his trail leg like a dead weight readying himself for position and planting his feet before wailing away like a man chopping a tree. Decent boxers who were quick on their feet wouldn't be in the position to get his. A boxer with a decent jab would keep him at arm's length.

You saying Walcott wasn't a decent boxer ?

Not at that stage of his career. He was far better a few years prior. Rocky was there to pick up the pieces. Great timing.

azania wrote:Not at that stage of his career. He was far better a few years prior. Rocky was there to pick up the pieces. Great timing.

Walcott was like a fine wine, and most agree that he was at his best in the year or two leading up to, and including, the Marciano fight. That's why he was bookies' favourite going in.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Not at that stage of his career. He was far better a few years prior. Rocky was there to pick up the pieces. Great timing.

Walcott was like a fine wine, and most agree that he was at his best in the year or two leading up to, and including, the Marciano fight. That's why he was bookies' favourite going in.

Amazing. All the old men Rocky beat are praised as not past it. I've even heard that Louis was still near his prime. Next people will be saying it was a prime Louis he beat because he was younger that Walcott and Hopkins.

Yeah that was crazy. There's bias from both sides IMO, the debate has gone as far as it will.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Not at that stage of his career. He was far better a few years prior. Rocky was there to pick up the pieces. Great timing.

Walcott was like a fine wine, and most agree that he was at his best in the year or two leading up to, and including, the Marciano fight. That's why he was bookies' favourite going in.

Amazing. All the old men Rocky beat are praised as not past it. I've even heard that Louis was still near his prime. Next people will be saying it was a prime Louis he beat because he was younger that Walcott and Hopkins.

If you knew anything about boxing history, you'd know that they said it AT THE TIME about Walcott.

This is getting like a turkey shoot. You've got nearly as much staying power as Rocky himself.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Not at that stage of his career. He was far better a few years prior. Rocky was there to pick up the pieces. Great timing.

Walcott was like a fine wine, and most agree that he was at his best in the year or two leading up to, and including, the Marciano fight. That's why he was bookies' favourite going in.

Amazing. All the old men Rocky beat are praised as not past it. I've even heard that Louis was still near his prime. Next people will be saying it was a prime Louis he beat because he was younger that Walcott and Hopkins.

If you knew anything about boxing history, you'd know that they said it AT THE TIME about Walcott.

This is getting like a turkey shoot. You've got nearly as much staying power as Rocky himself.

So Mrs Az and the wifelets say 8)

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Not at that stage of his career. He was far better a few years prior. Rocky was there to pick up the pieces. Great timing.

Walcott was like a fine wine, and most agree that he was at his best in the year or two leading up to, and including, the Marciano fight. That's why he was bookies' favourite going in.

Amazing. All the old men Rocky beat are praised as not past it. I've even heard that Louis was still near his prime. Next people will be saying it was a prime Louis he beat because he was younger that Walcott and Hopkins.

If you knew anything about boxing history, you'd know that they said it AT THE TIME about Walcott.

This is getting like a turkey shoot. You've got nearly as much staying power as Rocky himself.

So Mrs Az and the wifelets say 8)

I'm sure they do, mate.

Az, don't be a fool - he split LaStarza once - and then beat hell out of him the second time. LaStarza shipped one of the worst hidings a challenger ever received. Amongst other things, Rocky broke both his arms and hospitalised him. Just through punching.

Az - seriously, you NEED to READ. Not just watch highlight reels.

oxring wrote:Az, don't be a fool - he split LaStarza once - and then beat hell out of him the second time. LaStarza shipped one of the worst hidings a challenger ever received. Amongst other things, Rocky broke both his arms and hospitalised him. Just through punching.

Az - seriously, you NEED to READ. Not just watch highlight reels.

Read about Rocky? I have read a lot of the praises about him and how his 'unique' style was actually an advantage. I've seen his fights and honestly I cant fathom out how he has a 0. His title reign was shockingly poor in the quality of opposition imo. Fighting old lhw and past it walcott and Charles who would have beaten him 18 months earlier is not the stuff of legend. His 0 is and that is what created the mystique.

I wouldn't give him a cat in hell's chance against many other HW in their prime.

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Az, don't be a fool - he split LaStarza once - and then beat hell out of him the second time. LaStarza shipped one of the worst hidings a challenger ever received. Amongst other things, Rocky broke both his arms and hospitalised him. Just through punching.

Az - seriously, you NEED to READ. Not just watch highlight reels.

Read about Rocky? I have read a lot of the praises about him and how his 'unique' style was actually an advantage. I've seen his fights and honestly I cant fathom out how he has a 0. His title reign was shockingly poor in the quality of opposition imo. Fighting old lhw and past it walcott and Charles who would have beaten him 18 months earlier is not the stuff of legend. His 0 is and that is what created the mystique.

I wouldn't give him a cat in hell's chance against many other HW in their prime.

AZ you contradict yourself mate you're the one that said Calzaghe was Britains greatest ever fighter and used his 0 as one of your reasons.

azania wrote: I've seen his fights and honestly I cant fathom out how he has a 0.

We agree upon the problem! Laudamus igitur!

As you so cleverly pointed out - YOU can't see why he is the only undefeated heavyweight champion of all time. The rest of us can.

Never mind old boy, don't trouble yourself about it.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Az, don't be a fool - he split LaStarza once - and then beat hell out of him the second time. LaStarza shipped one of the worst hidings a challenger ever received. Amongst other things, Rocky broke both his arms and hospitalised him. Just through punching.

Az - seriously, you NEED to READ. Not just watch highlight reels.

Read about Rocky? I have read a lot of the praises about him and how his 'unique' style was actually an advantage. I've seen his fights and honestly I cant fathom out how he has a 0. His title reign was shockingly poor in the quality of opposition imo. Fighting old lhw and past it walcott and Charles who would have beaten him 18 months earlier is not the stuff of legend. His 0 is and that is what created the mystique.

I wouldn't give him a cat in hell's chance against many other HW in their prime.

AZ you contradict yourself mate you're the one that said Calzaghe was Britains greatest ever fighter and used his 0 as one of your reasons.

I didn't just say that his 0 was the only reason. I recall saying it was one of the reasons.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote: I've seen his fights and honestly I cant fathom out how he has a 0.

We agree upon the problem! Laudamus igitur!
As you so cleverly pointed out - YOU can't see why he is the only undefeated heavyweight champion of all time. The rest of us can.

Never mind old boy, don't trouble yourself about it.

Name calling is prohibited here! I can barely speak English let alone latin.

This has gone far enough now. There's no way of proving anything definite either way. So let's all agree to agree with me.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:This has gone far enough now. There's no way of proving anything definite either way. So let's all agree to agree with me.

Well we agree anyway.....maybe not so on the Enzo Mac bit though.

Cheers Azania.

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Az, don't be a fool - he split LaStarza once - and then beat hell out of him the second time. LaStarza shipped one of the worst hidings a challenger ever received. Amongst other things, Rocky broke both his arms and hospitalised him. Just through punching.

Az - seriously, you NEED to READ. Not just watch highlight reels.

Read about Rocky? I have read a lot of the praises about him and how his 'unique' style was actually an advantage. I've seen his fights and honestly I cant fathom out how he has a 0. His title reign was shockingly poor in the quality of opposition imo. Fighting old lhw and past it walcott and Charles who would have beaten him 18 months earlier is not the stuff of legend. His 0 is and that is what created the mystique.

I wouldn't give him a cat in hell's chance against many other HW in their prime.

AZ you contradict yourself mate you're the one that said Calzaghe was Britains greatest ever fighter and used his 0 as one of your reasons.

I didn't just say that his 0 was the only reason. I recall saying it was one of the reasons.

I said it was 1 of the reasons you not the only one. That was another 0 that was severely padded. It's a contradiction that's all I'm saying this topic has had the bum talked out of it

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Cheers Azania.

No worries. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who sees the myth that is Rocky....and the esteem that old timers are held. Rose tinted glasses and all that.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:This has gone far enough now. There's no way of proving anything definite either way. So let's all agree to agree with me.

Haha !

I'll split the difference, Juke, since you're such a good sport.

We'll agree to disagree. Okay with you ?

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Az, don't be a fool - he split LaStarza once - and then beat hell out of him the second time. LaStarza shipped one of the worst hidings a challenger ever received. Amongst other things, Rocky broke both his arms and hospitalised him. Just through punching.

Az - seriously, you NEED to READ. Not just watch highlight reels.

Read about Rocky? I have read a lot of the praises about him and how his 'unique' style was actually an advantage. I've seen his fights and honestly I cant fathom out how he has a 0. His title reign was shockingly poor in the quality of opposition imo. Fighting old lhw and past it walcott and Charles who would have beaten him 18 months earlier is not the stuff of legend. His 0 is and that is what created the mystique.

I wouldn't give him a cat in hell's chance against many other HW in their prime.

AZ you contradict yourself mate you're the one that said Calzaghe was Britains greatest ever fighter and used his 0 as one of your reasons.

I didn't just say that his 0 was the only reason. I recall saying it was one of the reasons.

I said it was 1 of the reasons you not the only one. That was another 0 that was severely padded. It's a contradiction that's all I'm saying this topic has had the bum talked out of it

You're right. Not easy posting with a house full of screaming 9 year old girls. My daughter is having a sleepover and the chaos is mind numbing (not enough to cloud my thoughts about Rocky though).

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Cheers Azania.

No worries. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who sees the myth that is Rocky....and the esteem that old timers are held. Rose tinted glasses and all that.

My varifocals work just fine, you cheeky sod. I only need tints when I watch those GREAT fighters from yesteryear so that I can see them in colour. Twenty first century man, me !

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Cheers Azania.

No worries. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who sees the myth that is Rocky....and the esteem that old timers are held. Rose tinted glasses and all that.

My varifocals work just fine, you cheeky sod. I only need tints when I watch those GREAT fighters from yesteryear so that I can see them in colour. Twenty first century man, me !

Try 3D. Or did they fight in 3D then

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:Az, don't be a fool - he split LaStarza once - and then beat hell out of him the second time. LaStarza shipped one of the worst hidings a challenger ever received. Amongst other things, Rocky broke both his arms and hospitalised him. Just through punching.

Az - seriously, you NEED to READ. Not just watch highlight reels.

Read about Rocky? I have read a lot of the praises about him and how his 'unique' style was actually an advantage. I've seen his fights and honestly I cant fathom out how he has a 0. His title reign was shockingly poor in the quality of opposition imo. Fighting old lhw and past it walcott and Charles who would have beaten him 18 months earlier is not the stuff of legend. His 0 is and that is what created the mystique.

I wouldn't give him a cat in hell's chance against many other HW in their prime.

AZ you contradict yourself mate you're the one that said Calzaghe was Britains greatest ever fighter and used his 0 as one of your reasons.

I didn't just say that his 0 was the only reason. I recall saying it was one of the reasons.

I said it was 1 of the reasons you not the only one. That was another 0 that was severely padded. It's a contradiction that's all I'm saying this topic has had the bum talked out of it

You're right. Not easy posting with a house full of screaming 9 year old girls. My daughter is having a sleepover and the chaos is mind numbing (not enough to cloud my thoughts about Rocky though).

Sounds harsh mate my daughter is only 5 months so not at the sleepover stage yet I'm still up to my knees in sh!tty nappies. Can't believe you can still find time to give us your strange views on the world of boxing.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:This has gone far enough now. There's no way of proving anything definite either way. So let's all agree to agree with me.

Haha !

I'll split the difference, Juke, since you're such a good sport.

We'll agree to disagree. Okay with you ?

yeah let's wrap this one up.

My views are strange?

I just get all the toys out, the wii and let them trash the place. Then we tidy up later only to repeat it the following day

azania wrote:My views are strange?

I just get all the toys out, the wii and let them trash the place. Then we tidy up later only to repeat it the following day

Just winding you up mate just your views on Rocky and JC

You make sweeping generalisations like Walcott was an old man past his best, like i've said previously age means absolutely nothing, Walcott was in the best form of his career and had never been better so how he was past it is beyond me.

Charles was a long time previous heavyweight champion who was 'slightly' past his best but not the shot old man you keep trying to make him out to be.

Moore was a 39 year old light heavyweight champion who would hold that title for a further 7+ years, now explain to me how his age is relevant when he proved he still had quality in abundance.

Louis was far from his best but a Louis at 50% is still better than most heavyweights around today baring the top 2/3.

Just a few examples of crude boxers beating what you assume to be the more skillful, not sure why you narrow down skill to just the stylists myself.

Saddler over Pep
Harada over Jofre
Frazier over Ali
Greb over Tunney
Fitzsimmons over Corbett
Nelson over Gans
Foreman over Moorer
Duran over Leonard
Hagler over Hearns
LaMotta over Cerdan
Basillio over Robinson

I could go on forever showing examples of either 'face first brawlers' or simply power punchers beating more 'skilled' boxers

Seeing as how you're so adament that Saddler beating a nearly crippled Pep shows him to be without doubt a better 'skilled' boxer, cannot understand for the life of me why your so dismissive of Marciano beating regardless of age far more skillful boxers than himself. One of the many contradictions you bring into this argument

The Mighty Atom wrote:You make sweeping generalisations like Walcott was an old man past his best, like i've said previously age means absolutely nothing, Walcott was in the best form of his career and had never been better so how he was past it is beyond me.

Charles was a long time previous heavyweight champion who was 'slightly' past his best but not the shot old man you keep trying to make him out to be.

Moore was a 39 year old light heavyweight champion who would hold that title for a further 7+ years, now explain to me how his age is relevant when he proved he still had quality in abundance.

Louis was far from his best but a Louis at 50% is still better than most heavyweights around today baring the top 2/3.

Just a few examples of crude boxers beating what you assume to be the more skillful, not sure why you narrow down skill to just the stylists myself.

Saddler over Pep
Harada over Jofre
Frazier over Ali
Greb over Tunney
Fitzsimmons over Corbett
Nelson over Gans
Foreman over Moorer
Duran over Leonard
Hagler over Hearns
LaMotta over Cerdan
Basillio over Robinson

I could go on forever showing examples of either 'face first brawlers' or simply power punchers beating more 'skilled' boxers

Seeing as how you're so adament that Saddler beating a nearly crippled Pep shows him to be without doubt a better 'skilled' boxer, cannot understand for the life of me why your so dismissive of Marciano beating regardless of age far more skillful boxers than himself. One of the many contradictions you bring into this argument

Once again you make assumptions on what you think I said as opposed to what I actually said. Your last comment about Saddler/Pep is wildly innacurate. I have never said Saddler was a more 'skilled' boxer that Pep. I said he was a better boxer that Pep and should be ranked higher in the P4P table that Pep. You added the 'skilled' to give your argument more credence. I didn't.

I have never described Frazier, Duran et al as crude boxers. You did and you assigned that terminology to me. I have described Rocky as crude, ungainly and many other adjectives. The bottom line is, he was all those adjectives.

No wonder you get all hot under the collar. Your assumptions are yours only and not mine yet you pass them off as mine. Arguing from that point would get anyone confused.

You should read what I wrote again and you should also read your previous comments before you start acting like a child. Put it this way Saddler beating Pep meant about as much as Marciano beating Charles if not less taking into account all the variables.

Someone with your inciteful knowledge should be able to realise straight away that the more artistically skilled boxer in all those match ups lost, which shows that if your good your good regardless of style and power has and always will be a huge equalizer in any fight.

Or would you argue that the more skillful fighter won in each of those fights?

The Mighty Atom wrote:You should read what I wrote again and you should also read your previous comments before you start acting like a child. Put it this way Saddler beating Pep meant about as much as Marciano beating Charles if not less taking into account all the variables.

Someone with your inciteful knowledge should be able to realise straight away that the more artistically skilled boxer in all those match ups lost, which shows that if your good your good regardless of style and power has and always will be a huge equalizer in any fight.

Or would you argue that the more skillful fighter won in each of those fights?

Here we go again.

Always variables when one of your guys loses, but when he wins, those same variables are discounted. Nevermind, its been done to death.

I dont know what line of argument you are searching for. I haven't said the more artistically gifted boxers won those fights or commented on those fights. Frazier, Hagler, Duran were anything but crude boxers. YOu seem to be arguing with yourself there mate.

Lastly I'll add that if you resort to name calling and insults, I will delete the offending post. Keep it civil please. Thanks.

Delete my posts and it proves the point i've raised with the admin already, so shooting yourself in the foot

Can I just ask why we should ignore the fact Pep was involved in a serious plane crash that left his career in the balance, he subsequently lost a lot of his speed which for a fleet boxer is a major problem much like the excuse you used for Ali losing because of his lay off. Also Pep beat 8 guys who beat Saddler which in itself shows why head to heads aren't the be all and end all.

Anyway Duran and Frazier were brawlers, swarmers call them what you will but whilst they were incredibly good at it they were never the most skilled boxers out there and were to a degree very crude. Duran beat Leonard not because of a jab, not because of speed but because his chin, stamina and determination won him the day. Much in the same way that's how Marciano won. If Duran out of his comfort zone whilst carrying a punch but nothing that was realistically going to knock Leonard can win brawling why can't Marciano in his comfort zone also beat inferior opposition to Leonard brawling?

The Mighty Atom wrote:Delete my posts and it proves the point i've raised with the admin already, so shooting yourself in the foot

Can I just ask why we should ignore the fact Pep was involved in a serious plane crash that left his career in the balance, he subsequently lost a lot of his speed which for a fleet boxer is a major problem much like the excuse you used for Ali losing because of his lay off. Also Pep beat 8 guys who beat Saddler which in itself shows why head to heads aren't the be all and end all.

Anyway Duran and Frazier were brawlers, swarmers call them what you will but whilst they were incredibly good at it they were never the most skilled boxers out there and were to a degree very crude. Duran beat Leonard not because of a jab, not because of speed but because his chin, stamina and determination won him the day. Much in the same way that's how Marciano won. If Duran out of his comfort zone whilst carrying a punch but nothing that was realistically going to knock Leonard can win brawling why can't Marciano in his comfort zone also beat inferior opposition to Leonard brawling?

I'd argue that Frazier and Duran WERE skilled, but skilled at being effective swarmers/brawlers, whatever phrase you'd prefer. They simply weren't as technically honed and proficient as your Alis, your Whitakers and your Leonards. Agree with your point though, just being pedantic.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Delete my posts and it proves the point i've raised with the admin already, so shooting yourself in the foot

Can I just ask why we should ignore the fact Pep was involved in a serious plane crash that left his career in the balance, he subsequently lost a lot of his speed which for a fleet boxer is a major problem much like the excuse you used for Ali losing because of his lay off. Also Pep beat 8 guys who beat Saddler which in itself shows why head to heads aren't the be all and end all.

Anyway Duran and Frazier were brawlers, swarmers call them what you will but whilst they were incredibly good at it they were never the most skilled boxers out there and were to a degree very crude. Duran beat Leonard not because of a jab, not because of speed but because his chin, stamina and determination won him the day. Much in the same way that's how Marciano won. If Duran out of his comfort zone whilst carrying a punch but nothing that was realistically going to knock Leonard can win brawling why can't Marciano in his comfort zone also beat inferior opposition to Leonard brawling?

Proves what point? This board should be free from personal insults. It doesn't exempt you. I said I would delete your post if YOU resort to personal insults again. If you feel you should be the only person allowed to insult others, kindly explain why that is.

I'm well aware of the type of boxing Duran and Frazier were. Duran beat SRL because on the day he was better. I for one was extremely happy that he did beat SRL. Duran is one of my favourite boxers. Are you suggesting that I believe that swarmers/brawlers are by definition useless or somehow worse that their more sylistic counterparts? If you are you are way off target there. I have said and will maintain once again that Rocky was absolutely the crudest of the crude boxers who was lucky to be fighting in an era where the level of opposition was very poor. And this is solely about Rocky. How many title defences did he have in his 4 year reign? So much for fighting frequently improves skills eh?

If your going to get all moddy then simply don't bother debating with him, I have no time for people like that

Exactly Duran outbrawled a stylist second only to Robinson for all round ability, he was as crude as crude could be in that fight, constant pressure throughout the fight showing little regard for Leonards punches. Hagler beat Hearns by jumping on him straight away, took his punches walked through him and got to him before knocking him, again a very crude performance.

When there are so many examples of boxers crudely brawling, I find it absurd that your so quick to disregard Marciano who holds 7 wins over hall of fame opposition. How many boxers in history can claim to hold that many wins over such a high caliber of opposition, past their best or not?

Fitzsimmons was being comprehensively outboxed by Corbett and from all accounts had barely won a round, being made to miss while being picked off time and time again then in an act of desperation throws a monsterous body shot that almost crushed Corbett. Showing that you can never discount a big puncher, Marciano had many faults but he could punch as well as anyone, if Shavers can land big on Holmes I think it's fair to assume that Marciano could land big on average opposition like Tubbs or Witherspoon.

The best pressure fighters force mistakes, rather than merely waiting and hoping for them. Marciano's unorthodoxy and workrate, together with his tremendous punching, could sap the strength, stamina, and probably ' heart ' out of opponents, with the end result that the openings would be there for his payoff punches.

It matters little whether or not we call it ' skill. ' In terms of the text book, Ali was short of ' skills,' but would anybody doubt that he was a fantastic fighter ?

Sorry mate, I am not being moody. Just ensuring that this thread keeps within the TOS and without another blow-out from your good self.

If you believe Duran was crude as crude can be then I will leave you with that thought all to yourself. I dont think he was crude in the slightest. Again you seem to believe that I am of the opinion that brawlers are by definition crude. No they are not. I am referring to Rocky being as being crude, not Duran, Hagler, Frazier, Tyson or whoever you may want to drag up to prove the point only you have. But hey, if you want to argue a point I am not maing, be my guest.

HumanWindmill wrote:The best pressure fighters force mistakes, rather than merely waiting and hoping for them. Marciano's unorthodoxy and workrate, together with his tremendous punching, could sap the strength, stamina, and probably ' heart ' out of opponents, with the end result that the openings would be there for his payoff punches.

It matters little whether or not we call it ' skill. ' In terms of the text book, Ali was short of ' skills,' but would anybody doubt that he was a fantastic fighter ?

For what you refer to as unorthodoxy I refer to as crude.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:The best pressure fighters force mistakes, rather than merely waiting and hoping for them. Marciano's unorthodoxy and workrate, together with his tremendous punching, could sap the strength, stamina, and probably ' heart ' out of opponents, with the end result that the openings would be there for his payoff punches.

It matters little whether or not we call it ' skill. ' In terms of the text book, Ali was short of ' skills,' but would anybody doubt that he was a fantastic fighter ?

For what you refer to as unorthodoxy I refer to as crude.

It hurts just the same.

Your getting moddy and you know you are, I never see Windy or Oxy bring it up as much as you do

Do you ever read what I write?

I said on those particular nights both Hagler and Duran fought in a very crude way, over their careers they showed more skill, head movement, jabs, speed etc. but when they respectively beat Hearns and Leonard they showed barely any of that aside from Durans mickey taking in the 15th round which makes No Mas even harder to swallow.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your getting moddy and you know you are, I never see Windy or Oxy bring it up as much as you do

Do you ever read what I write?

I said on those particular nights both Hagler and Duran fought in a very crude way, over their careers they showed more skill, head movement, jabs, speed etc. but when they respectively beat Hearns and Leonard they showed barely any of that aside from Durans mickey taking in the 15th round which makes No Mas even harder to swallow.

If you say I'm getting moody, then I'm getting moody.

I disagree with you as to the way Hagler and Duran fought in calling it crude. It wasn't. They both had to use tremendous levels of skills in slipping the artillery coming their way. Duran has always had very subtle head movement which takes the sting out of many punches. Both he and Hagler didn't plod forward hoping to bludgeon their opponent into submission.

There's more to Duran simply giving up in NO Mas than just the fight. It would be an interesting thread on just that topic. And it shows to me the contempt I have for SRL.

az,

Surely this is getting into the realms of personal preference. You don't like Rocky's style, but that surely doesn't mean that the man couldn't fight. I don't like watching Vitali Klitschko, but if I look past my own prejudice I can see that he's a very difficult man to beat and a worthy champion.

Neither Hagler or Duran really slipped the artillery in those fights though did they, they were getting hit with flush shot after flush shot but refused to budge. They simply jumped on their opponent and out brawled them, it's a skill to be able to do it but it was still very crude on the night, they may have shown more in other fights but not in their biggest wins.

The Thriller in Manila is another classic example.

Ali had no choice but to engage Frazier in a slugfest because of Joe's pressure and the pace he sustained. Rocky would have presented similar problems.

I'm not saying Marciano BEATS Ali, Louis, etc., but I don't think we can simply write off his chances because he was ' crude.' His very ' crudeness ' was a huge part of his effectiveness.

Hang on - I thought we'd agreed to disagree? Az, you seem to be still debating ab absurdo

oxring wrote:Hang on - I thought we'd agreed to disagree? Az, you seem to be still debating ab absurdo

HumanWindmill wrote:az,

Surely this is getting into the realms of personal preference. You don't like Rocky's style, but that surely doesn't mean that the man couldn't fight. I don't like watching Vitali Klitschko, but if I look past my own prejudice I can see that he's a very difficult man to beat and a worthy champion.

Vit is a worthy champion in today's game which by most standards, with the exception of one particular period in the 1950s, is extremely poor. I cant see Vit hanging with most of the guys in the 1960s, 70s, 80s and 90s. But I can almost guarantee that if Vit were American, he would not only be called an excellent world champ, but would be recognised as almost the second coming.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Neither Hagler or Duran really slipped the artillery in those fights though did they, they were getting hit with flush shot after flush shot but refused to budge. They simply jumped on their opponent and out brawled them, it's a skill to be able to do it but it was still very crude on the night, they may have shown more in other fights but not in their biggest wins.

Boxers dont go down by choice. They go down when hit hard and at the right spot. Some take a better shot than others. I cite Duran rolling like a hooker after Hearns cracked him. He didn't exactly refuse to budge did he?

There was nothing crude about the styles of both Duran, Hagler and for that matter Hatton. Rocky on the other hand was very crude by any definition of the word crude when applied to a boxer. Even by the admission of his coach and most boxing experts including those who rank him in the top 10 ATGs.

I would agree with you that Rocky was crude but he was the best so called crude fighter in history.

prettyboy1304 wrote:I would agree with you that Rocky was crude but he was the best so called crude fighter in history.

I'll give you that one.

The No1 P4P of crude fighters ATGs.