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.

HumanWindmill wrote:Oh, and one other point, az.

640 posts have failed to convince ANYBODY that Marciano doesn't make a top forty, so your rejoicing would appear to be even more inappropriate.

I'm not rejoicing. I mentioned that after approx 300 of my posts, manos said in ONE what I patently failed to do.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Oh, and one other point, az.

640 posts have failed to convince ANYBODY that Marciano doesn't make a top forty, so your rejoicing would appear to be even more inappropriate.

I'm not rejoicing. I mentioned that after approx 300 of my posts, manos said in ONE what I patently failed to do.

Yes, and with every respect to manos there are still those of us who disagree with his points, and particularly with regard to Walcott.

Don't remember manos' saying that Marciano belongs outside a top forty, either.

A lot of fighters grow into a new weight. Haye seems very natural at HW where as Adamek looks like a blown up CW. Their are more fighters that have fought at 2 or more weights than were 1 weight fighters throughout their whole careers with the exception of those who started at HW. The 'genuine' aspect is a bit of a myth with most.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:If Liston were around at the time of Rocky, we would never be having this debate. If Rocky had fought Terrell, his 0 would have gone.

Many of Ali's opponents were genuine, live HW. Rock's opponents were neither anywhere near their prime or actually geunuine HW. Take Holmes for example. After Tyson beat him everyone said the result would have been different (myself included) were Holmes near his peak. But look what he did afterwards? Took Holy the distance and beat Mercer who gave Lewis fits. It doesn't change the fact that Tyson beat a shot Holmes.

The Liston point is moot.

Maybe if Ali had been born ten years later we would never have heard of Larry Holmes. Context is everything. Bearing said context in mind, how can you argue that Ali's opponents during his FIRST reign were top notch ? Can you refute the points I made, above ?

Walcott was certainly at his best for the first Rocky fight, and we don't require revisionist history to say so. It was commonly accepted at the time, and he was favourite going in. Many believe that Walcott took the easy route in the second fight and that, having been served a reminder of Rocky's power by a more confident Marciano, Jersey Joe gave up the ghost.

Charles WAS slightly faded, and the two Marciano fights finished him, just as Manila probably finished Ali as well as Frazier. Notwithstanding, just as Morales proved over the weekend, a faded fighter can often pull off one last, blood and guts inspired effort. Charles did it twice, but was never to be the same again.

I doubt that Walcott was the type of person to give up the ghost in any fight especially as he was winning the first fight pretty handily until THAT moment. But I defer to manos's post.

Moreover I am not dismissing the views of others. I just disagree with them.

prettyboy1304 wrote:A lot of fighters grow into a new weight. Haye seems very natural at HW where as Adamek looks like a blown up CW. Their are more fighters that have fought at 2 or more weights than were 1 weight fighters throughout their whole careers with the exception of those who started at HW. The 'genuine' aspect is a bit of a myth with most.

Not with Charles and Moore though. They are definate not natural heavies. They were closer to Bernard Hopkins than Mike Tyson.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Oh, and one other point, az.

640 posts have failed to convince ANYBODY that Marciano doesn't make a top forty, so your rejoicing would appear to be even more inappropriate.

I'm not rejoicing. I mentioned that after approx 300 of my posts, manos said in ONE what I patently failed to do.

Yes, and with every respect to manos there are still those of us who disagree with his points, and particularly with regard to Walcott.

Don't remember manos' saying that Marciano belongs outside a top forty, either.

Absolutely. That's the 'beauty' of Rocky. He divides opinions like no other boxer I know. I recall me saying that Rocky belongs in the higher echelons of ATG for his record and achievement. That's an entirely different matter to hypothetical H2H encounters.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:If Liston were around at the time of Rocky, we would never be having this debate. If Rocky had fought Terrell, his 0 would have gone.

Many of Ali's opponents were genuine, live HW. Rock's opponents were neither anywhere near their prime or actually geunuine HW. Take Holmes for example. After Tyson beat him everyone said the result would have been different (myself included) were Holmes near his peak. But look what he did afterwards? Took Holy the distance and beat Mercer who gave Lewis fits. It doesn't change the fact that Tyson beat a shot Holmes.

The Liston point is moot.

Maybe if Ali had been born ten years later we would never have heard of Larry Holmes. Context is everything. Bearing said context in mind, how can you argue that Ali's opponents during his FIRST reign were top notch ? Can you refute the points I made, above ?

Walcott was certainly at his best for the first Rocky fight, and we don't require revisionist history to say so. It was commonly accepted at the time, and he was favourite going in. Many believe that Walcott took the easy route in the second fight and that, having been served a reminder of Rocky's power by a more confident Marciano, Jersey Joe gave up the ghost.

Charles WAS slightly faded, and the two Marciano fights finished him, just as Manila probably finished Ali as well as Frazier. Notwithstanding, just as Morales proved over the weekend, a faded fighter can often pull off one last, blood and guts inspired effort. Charles did it twice, but was never to be the same again.

I doubt that Walcott was the type of person to give up the ghost in any fight especially as he was winning the first fight pretty handily until THAT moment. But I defer to manos's post.

Moreover I am not dismissing the views of others. I just disagree with them.

It was an issue at the time.

Some claimed Rocky caught him cold. Others, less charitable, felt that Jersey Joe had been served an early reminder of Rocky's power and wanted out.

Regardless, if you're claiming that it was a genuine one round kayo then that would appear to add credence to the idea that Rocky was a great fighter, wouldn't it ?

Can agree with Moore not being a genuine heavyweight although he beat numerous guys at the weight including Valdes but Charles was simply a Heavyweight at the time you don't completely dominate any version of Louis without having some ability at the weight.

manos de piedra wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:A lot of fighters grow into a new weight. Haye seems very natural at HW where as Adamek looks like a blown up CW. Their are more fighters that have fought at 2 or more weights than were 1 weight fighters throughout their whole careers with the exception of those who started at HW. The 'genuine' aspect is a bit of a myth with most.

Not with Charles and Moore though. They are definate not natural heavies. They were closer to Bernard Hopkins than Mike Tyson.

Marciano was only 185lb., himself.

Ali was a biggish heavy for his day, and Patterson and Cooper were both in the 185 - 190lb. region, thus making a bigger disparity than that which existed between Marciano and Charles or Moore.

Ali and Frazier each fought Bob Foster ; Tyson and Holmes fought Michael Spinks ; Louis fought Conn and John Henry Lewis ; Dempsey fought Gibbons and Carpentier ; Johnson fought O'Brien and Ketchel.

How come Rocky gets beaten over the head for the Moore fight ?

Also Windy should also consider that Marciano dealt with Moore better than any of those you mentioned with their respective Light Heavyweights and was better than all of them.

I believe it was a genuine one round KO. I dont believe Walcott is the type of person to take a dive. Rocky had huge power. I've acknowledged that time and time again. When he hits, you remain hit. I dont get this idea that because my opinion of Rocky as a fighter is low, it means I also believe he was incapable of knocking anyone out. Far from it. I just believe he was thoroughly unskilled and extremely lucky to be in an era where the heavywerght scene was in transition without a stand out champion. Walcott was 40. He had a tough and hard career prior to his fights with rocky. Was that a prime walcott? Convensional wisdom would suggest not. But Rocky bucks convensional wisdom.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Also Windy should also consider that Marciano dealt with Moore better than any of those you mentioned with their respective Light Heavyweights and was better than all of them.

Exactly, Ghosty.

For the record :

Ali 210lb. v Patterson 197lb.

Ali 202lb. v Cooper 188lb.

Ali 204lb. v Mildenberger 195lb.

Marciano 188lb. v Moore 188lb.

Marciano 188lb. v Charles 186lb.

Marciano 188lb. v Charles ( II ) 193lb.

azania wrote:Was that a prime walcott? Convensional wisdom would suggest not. But Rocky bucks convensional wisdom.

For the love of God, HOW MANY MORE TIMES ?

IT WAS OPINION AMONG EXPERTS, JOURNALISTS, AND FIGHT INSIDERS AT THE TIME

AT THE TIME

AT THE TIME

AT THE TIME

That Walcott was at the top of his career.

I wouldnt beat Marciano over the head for Moore but when you look at his title reign the three biggest names were all pretty old primary lightheavies.

It wouldnt matter if it was Foreman, Ali, Lewis or whoever that was there at the time. I think the same arguments would be valid in relation to the opposition faced.

I dont look at it as important that it was Marciano in the other corner when trying to evaluate the contenders or their respective level at the time. It could have been Ali in the other corner and it wouldnt change that Walcott was 40yrs old or that Charles was on the way out for instance.

Walcott was going into the fight coming off the two best wins of his career so how he could have been better previously in his career is beyond me. Your looking at his age and assuming he was past it, he was not.

You seem to think that Windy and I hold Marciano in some god like status which I for one do not, for instance I feel Vitali and Holyfield would beat Marciano in tough fights but Lewis and Wlad both get knocked out. With Marciano you need two things, a chin and stamina if you don't have either your in trouble.

manos de piedra wrote:It could have been Ali in the other corner and it wouldnt change that Walcott was 40yrs old or that Charles was on the way out for instance.

Well, the Walcott thing has been done, manos, but isn't it too simplistic to say that, ( in the case of Charles, ) a fighter deemed to be faded is incapable of one or two last hurrahs ?

How about Ali and Frazier in Manila ? Or Ali in the second Spinx fight ? Or Holyfield v Valuev ? Or Foreman v Holyfield ? Or Patterson against Ellis ? Or Louis in the second Walcott fight ?

Charles fought magnificently against Marciano, and the effort expounded in those fights just about finished him.

To be honest I find it equally bizzare that someone could consider Walcott at the end of his career which included numerous tough fights, at a weight above whats considered his best and at 40y old could be considered at his best.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Was that a prime walcott? Convensional wisdom would suggest not. But Rocky bucks convensional wisdom.

For the love of God, HOW MANY MORE TIMES ?

IT WAS OPINION AMONG EXPERTS, JOURNALISTS, AND FIGHT INSIDERS AT THE TIME

AT THE TIME

AT THE TIME

AT THE TIME

That Walcott was at the top of his career.

Prior to the Floyd Mayweather and Pac fights, many thought Hatton had a chance because of his strength and pressure fighting style and huge body punching. After he was despatched by both many of those same people claimed that Hatton was limited etc. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Similarly, many here are looking at Vit as being very special (in this era) but ignoring one huge issue. His age. He is not as good as the guy who blew away Hide and ran Lewis close. So when he fights and loses to Haye, that factor should and will come into the equation when people start discussing Haye's legacy (if he actually does achieve one).

At the time Walcott was a 40 year old HW champ.

The Mighty Atom wrote:You seem to think that Windy and I hold Marciano in some god like status which I for one do not

Neither do I.

I do, however, believe that he was a great fighter and a top ten heavyweight. I also believe that only a man with the style of Foreman would have an easy night with Marciano. I believe there are others who would have beaten him, but they wouldn't have it easy. Foreman would, ( in my opinion, ) because, as D'Amato said, no swarmer who comes straight at Foreman has any chance whatsoever.

manos de piedra wrote:To be honest I find it equally bizzare that someone could consider Walcott at the end of his career which included numerous tough fights, at a weight above whats considered his best and at 40y old could be considered at his best.

I think the fact that his form prior to facing off against Marciano had been, without doubt, the best of his career is a fair indicator. Had Walcott looked like an 'old man' in his few fights before facing Marciano? No. Did he look like an 'old man' for the first twelve rounds of that fight? No.

While it may have some credence, the idea that a fighter is always shot and lightyears past their best once their age creeps up in to the mid thirties and onwards isn't always accurate.

Prior to beating Charles at the age of 37 who had Walcott beaten to show he was better before that? If you could care to tell me when he was better please go ahead but on the face of things it looks as though your only taking into account his age.
Manos Walcott was always a heavyweight so he was in no way fighting at a weight above his best

Azania you seem to be repeating what Manos has said because you've got Walcotts age wrong, not a huge thing but would have expected a small detail like that to be correct

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Was that a prime walcott? Convensional wisdom would suggest not. But Rocky bucks convensional wisdom.

For the love of God, HOW MANY MORE TIMES ?

IT WAS OPINION AMONG EXPERTS, JOURNALISTS, AND FIGHT INSIDERS AT THE TIME

AT THE TIME

AT THE TIME

AT THE TIME

That Walcott was at the top of his career.

Prior to the Floyd Mayweather and Pac fights, many thought Hatton had a chance because of his strength and pressure fighting style and huge body punching. After he was despatched by both many of those same people claimed that Hatton was limited etc. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Similarly, many here are looking at Vit as being very special (in this era) but ignoring one huge issue. His age. He is not as good as the guy who blew away Hide and ran Lewis close. So when he fights and loses to Haye, that factor should and will come into the equation when people start discussing Haye's legacy (if he actually does achieve one).

At the time Walcott was a 40 year old HW champ.

So the number ' 40 ' has such magical powers as to render the opinions of fight insiders of the day irrelevant, then ?

I see.

Charles, by the way, was two years older than Marciano. Guess the number 33 also has sinister and magical properties, eh ?

Yeah, that all makes perfect sense. Perhaps we should choose our top ten heavies on the basis of astrology.

Just as you do.

I've just consulted Mystic Meg and asked for her top heavies. She has them thus :

Tyson
Patterson
Louis
Ali

She also says that Benitez and Pedlar Palmer are the greatest ever, p4p.

HumanWindmill wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:You seem to think that Windy and I hold Marciano in some god like status which I for one do not

Neither do I.

I do, however, believe that he was a great fighter and a top ten heavyweight. I also believe that only a man with the style of Foreman would have an easy night with Marciano. I believe there are others who would have beaten him, but they wouldn't have it easy. Foreman would, ( in my opinion, ) because, as D'Amato said, no swarmer who comes straight at Foreman has any chance whatsoever.

Foreman was far better than the Rumble showed, we should be talking about someone who would tear holes through any era of heavyweights, personally think he deals with the fleet flooted Ali better than the one he faced oddly. It's a very tricky fight to call as we don't know what kind of shot Marciano could stand up to, seeing the similarly styled and very strong chinned Frazier blown away would have to assume a similar conclusion

88Chris05 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:To be honest I find it equally bizzare that someone could consider Walcott at the end of his career which included numerous tough fights, at a weight above whats considered his best and at 40y old could be considered at his best.

I think the fact that his form prior to facing off against Marciano had been, without doubt, the best of his career is a fair indicator. Had Walcott looked like an 'old man' in his few fights before facing Marciano? No. Did he look like an 'old man' for the first twelve rounds of that fight? No.

While it may have some credence, the idea that a fighter is always shot and lightyears past their best once their age creeps up in to the mid thirties and onwards isn't always accurate.

Walcott was beating Rocky up until that punch. Rocky's superior conditioning won the day. Fair play as that is part and parcel of boxing. JJW was still a 40 year old. It would be similar to Vit losing to Haye although Vit hasn't had the wars JJW had and is therefore more fresh. The Vit of 10 years ago would have beaten any version of Haye imo.

Strange how you weren't mentioning these wars before Manos brought it up, call me cynical but I smell something fishy

The Mighty Atom wrote:Strange how you weren't mentioning these wars before Manos brought it up, call me cynical but I smell something fishy

I didn't have to. I take it as a given that fighters of yesteryear were involved in more fights and thus more wars than today's guys.

azania wrote:Walcott was beating Rocky up until that punch.

So what ?

Marciano wasn't likely to outpoint Walcott, was he ?

His pressure and his stamina and his punching won the day. They used to say that if Henry Armstrong didn't knock you out he wore you out.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:To be honest I find it equally bizzare that someone could consider Walcott at the end of his career which included numerous tough fights, at a weight above whats considered his best and at 40y old could be considered at his best.

I think the fact that his form prior to facing off against Marciano had been, without doubt, the best of his career is a fair indicator. Had Walcott looked like an 'old man' in his few fights before facing Marciano? No. Did he look like an 'old man' for the first twelve rounds of that fight? No.

While it may have some credence, the idea that a fighter is always shot and lightyears past their best once their age creeps up in to the mid thirties and onwards isn't always accurate.

Walcott was beating Rocky up until that punch. Rocky's superior conditioning won the day. Fair play as that is part and parcel of boxing. JJW was still a 40 year old. It would be similar to Vit losing to Haye although Vit hasn't had the wars JJW had and is therefore more fresh. The Vit of 10 years ago would have beaten any version of Haye imo.

Not sure what your point is here, Azania. You're simply consolidating my view that Walcott was in fine form when he faced Marciano, so surely this adds to Marciano's achievement of beating him? Simple question; do you think the twenty-eight year old version of Walcott was a better fighter than the thirty-eight year old one? Because I certainly don't, and the record books would seem to support that, too.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Strange how you weren't mentioning these wars before Manos brought it up, call me cynical but I smell something fishy

I didn't have to. I take it as a given that fighters of yesteryear were involved in more fights and thus more wars than today's guys.

It's not really relevant then is it using that logic because all the fighters are in the same boat?

Walcott, by the way, was still 38 when he fought Marciano first time out.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Walcott was beating Rocky up until that punch.

So what ?

Marciano wasn't likely to outpoint Walcott, was he ?

His pressure and his stamina and his punching won the day. They used to say that if Henry Armstrong didn't knock you out he wore you out.

I dont see your point seeing as I pretty much said the same thing you have just written.

I forgot how much fun it is discussing someone you know like the back of your hand

Fitzsimmons, Duran, Chavez or Wilde next please

HumanWindmill wrote:Walcott, by the way, was still 38 when he fought Marciano first time out.

I recall Carpenter's commentary in the Foreman/Ali fight in which he sounded incredulous that Ali had regained the title as age 32. He made 32 sound like being ancient for a boxer.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Walcott was beating Rocky up until that punch.

So what ?

Marciano wasn't likely to outpoint Walcott, was he ?

His pressure and his stamina and his punching won the day. They used to say that if Henry Armstrong didn't knock you out he wore you out.

I dont see your point seeing as I pretty much said the same thing you have just written.

You make it sound like an insult. I'm saying that it's an attribute.

You think Willard was ahead when he flattened Johnson ? Or Jeffries in the second Fitz fight ? Or Fitz, himself, in the Corbett fight ? Or Ali, in the Ron Lyle fight ? Or Holmes, in the Weaver fight ?

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Walcott, by the way, was still 38 when he fought Marciano first time out.

I recall Carpenter's commentary in the Foreman/Ali fight in which he sounded incredulous that Ali had regained the title as age 32. He made 32 sound like being ancient for a boxer.

Each boxer is different because one is past it at 32 doesn't make everyone else past it at the same age

Benitez was gone at 24 whereas Moore was still going strong at 46

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Walcott, by the way, was still 38 when he fought Marciano first time out.

I recall Carpenter's commentary in the Foreman/Ali fight in which he sounded incredulous that Ali had regained the title as age 32. He made 32 sound like being ancient for a boxer.

Fitz won it at thirty three or four.

Johnson won it at thirty.

Willard won it at thirty two.

Liston was officially twenty nine, but some sources say thirty four, when he won it.


Walcott's style had allowed him to age, and gather a lot of experience, without shipping tremendous punishment.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Walcott was beating Rocky up until that punch.

So what ?

Marciano wasn't likely to outpoint Walcott, was he ?

His pressure and his stamina and his punching won the day. They used to say that if Henry Armstrong didn't knock you out he wore you out.

I dont see your point seeing as I pretty much said the same thing you have just written.

You make it sound like an insult. I'm saying that it's an attribute.

You think Willard was ahead when he flattened Johnson ? Or Jeffries in the second Fitz fight ? Or Fitz, himself, in the Corbett fight ? Or Ali, in the Ron Lyle fight ? Or Holmes, in the Weaver fight ?

No insult intended seeing as I did write that it is part and parcel of boxing. My exact words: Rocky's superior conditioning won the day. Fair play as that is part and parcel of boxing.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Walcott was beating Rocky up until that punch.

So what ?

Marciano wasn't likely to outpoint Walcott, was he ?

His pressure and his stamina and his punching won the day. They used to say that if Henry Armstrong didn't knock you out he wore you out.

I dont see your point seeing as I pretty much said the same thing you have just written.

You make it sound like an insult. I'm saying that it's an attribute.

You think Willard was ahead when he flattened Johnson ? Or Jeffries in the second Fitz fight ? Or Fitz, himself, in the Corbett fight ? Or Ali, in the Ron Lyle fight ? Or Holmes, in the Weaver fight ?

No insult intended seeing as I did write that it is part and parcel of boxing. My exact words: Rocky's superior conditioning won the day. Fair play as that is part and parcel of boxing.

Then why the need to say what everybody and his aunt knows, that Walcott was ahead on the cards ?

Do you qualify Holmes' win over Weaver in the same way ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Walcott was beating Rocky up until that punch.

So what ?

Marciano wasn't likely to outpoint Walcott, was he ?

His pressure and his stamina and his punching won the day. They used to say that if Henry Armstrong didn't knock you out he wore you out.

I dont see your point seeing as I pretty much said the same thing you have just written.

You make it sound like an insult. I'm saying that it's an attribute.

You think Willard was ahead when he flattened Johnson ? Or Jeffries in the second Fitz fight ? Or Fitz, himself, in the Corbett fight ? Or Ali, in the Ron Lyle fight ? Or Holmes, in the Weaver fight ?

No insult intended seeing as I did write that it is part and parcel of boxing. My exact words: Rocky's superior conditioning won the day. Fair play as that is part and parcel of boxing.

Then why the need to say what everybody and his aunt knows, that Walcott was ahead on the cards ?

Do you qualify Holmes' win over Weaver in the same way ?

Ooops, sorry, I just re-read that post again (poisoning my family by preparing sunday lunch). I should have qualified it by saying that age may have caught up with JJW after a long gruelling career. Age is most definately a factor imo.

azania wrote:Ooops, sorry, I just re-read that post again (poisoning my family by preparing sunday lunch). I should have qualified it by saying that age may have caught up with JJW after a long gruelling career. Age is most definately a factor imo.

Thing is though, Azania, Walcott had been boxing with the legs of a twenty-one year old for twelve rounds. A boxer may age 'over night' as they say, but not over one minute; Walcott's age didn't suddenly become a factor in the break between rounds twelve and thirteen.

azania wrote:Ooops, sorry, I just re-read that post again (poisoning my family by preparing sunday lunch). I should have qualified it by saying that age may have caught up with JJW after a long gruelling career. Age is most definately a factor imo.

Suggest you buy the family a KFC bucket, though what you're doing to common sense is far more noxious than what you are doing in the kitchen.

Not everything follows the path of logic, and wriggle though you may, and illogical though it may seem to you, it is a FACT that Walcott was betting favourite going in to the first Marciano fight, because expert opinion of the day was that, his management and motivational issues having been resolved, he had FINALLY realized his potential.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Ooops, sorry, I just re-read that post again (poisoning my family by preparing sunday lunch). I should have qualified it by saying that age may have caught up with JJW after a long gruelling career. Age is most definately a factor imo.

Thing is though, Azania, Walcott had been boxing with the legs of a twenty-one year old for twelve rounds. A boxer may age 'over night' as they say, but not over one minute; Walcott's age didn't suddenly become a factor in the break between rounds twelve and thirteen.

Perhaps that was the moment that ' modern nutrition and training methods ' were born, Chris.

Maybe Rocky had a protein bar during the interval, and was shown a photograph - colour, of course - of a rowing machine.

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Ooops, sorry, I just re-read that post again (poisoning my family by preparing sunday lunch). I should have qualified it by saying that age may have caught up with JJW after a long gruelling career. Age is most definately a factor imo.

Thing is though, Azania, Walcott had been boxing with the legs of a twenty-one year old for twelve rounds. A boxer may age 'over night' as they say, but not over one minute; Walcott's age didn't suddenly become a factor in the break between rounds twelve and thirteen.

I beg to differ in that JJW didn't have the legs of a 21 year old in that fight. I've spent time looking at previous fights of his and he was slower. Likewise Vit is slower now than he was 10 years ago. I find it strange that all Rocky's opponents seem to defy not only logic but medical science also.

And no I didn't say that JJW's legs suddenly caught up with him between rounds. That would be silly even by my own standards.

Is your wife cool with how much time you spend online panning Marciano Az?

Age in itself is not necessarily a factor, if it were and i'll bring him up again a 46 year old Moore wouldn't go life and death with a world class operator like Pastrano or Hopkins shouldn't beat Pavlik or draw with Pascal.

People age differently and each boxer has to be judged on his own rather than generalising that at a certain age boxers are past it.

HumanWindmill wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Ooops, sorry, I just re-read that post again (poisoning my family by preparing sunday lunch). I should have qualified it by saying that age may have caught up with JJW after a long gruelling career. Age is most definately a factor imo.

Thing is though, Azania, Walcott had been boxing with the legs of a twenty-one year old for twelve rounds. A boxer may age 'over night' as they say, but not over one minute; Walcott's age didn't suddenly become a factor in the break between rounds twelve and thirteen.

Perhaps that was the moment that ' modern nutrition and training methods ' were born, Chris.

Maybe Rocky had a protein bar during the interval, and was shown a photograph - colour, of course - of a rowing machine.

I suggest you try my cooking instead Microwave here we come.

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Ooops, sorry, I just re-read that post again (poisoning my family by preparing sunday lunch). I should have qualified it by saying that age may have caught up with JJW after a long gruelling career. Age is most definately a factor imo.

Thing is though, Azania, Walcott had been boxing with the legs of a twenty-one year old for twelve rounds. A boxer may age 'over night' as they say, but not over one minute; Walcott's age didn't suddenly become a factor in the break between rounds twelve and thirteen.

I beg to differ in that JJW didn't have the legs of a 21 year old in that fight. I've spent time looking at previous fights of his and he was slower. Likewise Vit is slower now than he was 10 years ago. I find it strange that all Rocky's opponents seem to defy not only logic but medical science also.

And no I didn't say that JJW's legs suddenly caught up with him between rounds. That would be silly even by my own standards.

What fights did he look quicker just out of interest?

At what point in his career was Walcott better than he was against Marciano?

joeyjojo618 wrote:Is your wife cool with how much time you spend online panning Marciano Az?

I've already got my lawyers ready to sue Windy, rowley, Atom et al for when she files divorce proceedings. I'll cite them as reasons why I had no choice but to watch those videos.

The Mighty Atom wrote:

azania wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

azania wrote:Ooops, sorry, I just re-read that post again (poisoning my family by preparing sunday lunch). I should have qualified it by saying that age may have caught up with JJW after a long gruelling career. Age is most definately a factor imo.

Thing is though, Azania, Walcott had been boxing with the legs of a twenty-one year old for twelve rounds. A boxer may age 'over night' as they say, but not over one minute; Walcott's age didn't suddenly become a factor in the break between rounds twelve and thirteen.

I beg to differ in that JJW didn't have the legs of a 21 year old in that fight. I've spent time looking at previous fights of his and he was slower. Likewise Vit is slower now than he was 10 years ago. I find it strange that all Rocky's opponents seem to defy not only logic but medical science also.

And no I didn't say that JJW's legs suddenly caught up with him between rounds. That would be silly even by my own standards.

What fights did he look quicker just out of interest?

At what point in his career was Walcott better than he was against Marciano?

I could easily answer that question, but as per previous comments, you would assume I used boxingrec or you tube.