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.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Foreman fought those guys in his comeback, ignore Coetzer the guys a nobody and a bad admission on my part.

It's not a fact, the fact is he looked perfectly capable then losses and suddenly all the excuses come out, if you read again what I wrote I said if your making excuses for Tyson then the same applies for Foreman, it's either both or none not just one of them.

Cooney was Holmes' most legitimate title defence, no one else he faced held such quality wins as Norton, Lyle and Young. You seem to rate Smith and Witherspoon far too high considering they never did anything to deserve such high praise.

Holmes beat Norton for the title so what? Foreman had previously destroyed the guy in two rounds, I know which win I rate higher.

It is what happened and not an excuse. But there's only one person to blame for that. Tough cookie. Boxers someimes come into the ring less than prepared. Lewis did it for Rahman and paid the price. Ali did it against Spinks and paid the price Tyson did it for Douglas and paid the price. Its a fact of boxing that dominant champions cut corners when they under-estimate their opponents.

Holmes defeated Norton which was imo his most significant win. The Cooney win was the most high profile due to the race card which was played in the lead up to that fight. I do rate Tim quite highly. Smith was also a belt holder when the WBA belt was like a pass the arcel contest. Furthermore I'd pick Tim over Young, Lyle and probably Norton.

So what if Foreman beat Norton in 2 rounds and Holmes in 15? Styles make fights. Norton beat Ali twice (once robbed by the judges). The fact remains Holmes won. You seem to be usng the arguments which you claimed I used in this thread and rubbished.

Big difference with Ali/Spinks Lewis/Rahmann to Tyson/Douglas and Foreman/Young is that the former righted the wrongs of the original fights which in itself cannot be ignored It's all well and good losing to someone when your not prepared but not making amends is almost as bad as losing in the first place.

Thing with Cooney as apposed to all his other title defences is that he'd earned his shot by beating the likes of Young, Lyle and Norton, talent is one thing but proving it in the ring is the most important.

I'm merely highlighting the fallibility of your argument that the style of victory is all that important, a win is a win at the end of the day.

Witherspoon was good but nothing more than that, he was a typical fighter in the division at the time, decent wins interspersed with losses. Many of them made their names by holding a title at one point or another then losing it fairly quickly. It was a strange period in the divsion, you had Holmes who was a clear number one and a lot of decent fighters swapping titles here there and everywhere, in previous eras they may well be contenders but nothing more.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Big difference with Ali/Spinks Lewis/Rahmann to Tyson/Douglas and Foreman/Young is that the former righted the wrongs of the original fights which in itself cannot be ignored It's all well and good losing to someone when your not prepared but not making amends is almost as bad as losing in the first place.

Thing with Cooney as apposed to all his other title defences is that he'd earned his shot by beating the likes of Young, Lyle and Norton, talent is one thing but proving it in the ring is the most important.

I'm merely highlighting the fallibility of your argument that the style of victory is all that important, a win is a win at the end of the day.

Witherspoon was good but nothing more than that, he was a typical fighter in the division at the time, decent wins interspersed with losses. Many of them made their names by holding a title at one point or another then losing it fairly quickly. It was a strange period in the divsion, you had Holmes who was a clear number one and a lot of decent fighters swapping titles here there and everywhere, in previous eras they may well be contenders but nothing more.

I done recall Foreman/Yound 2.

You cant seriously say that Cooney's win over Norton was a worthy win. He beat the shell of Norton. They were just names and no where near their best. Come on now, be real here please.

Witherspoon was very good. Unfortunately bad management (King) seriously hindered his career. He paid the price for taking and persuing legal action against Don King. But when he fought, he looked the part. With the exception of Frazier, I'd say he was better than any of foreman's title wins and defences by a long shot.

You seriously need to read things properly before jumping in feet first, I never said there was a Foreman/Young 2

Witherspoon better than Norton, please be real haha, see we can both do that. Lyle, Norton and Young were still a darn site better than anything that Witherspoon beat and no the likes of Smith aren't as good in any way. He was good but someone very good achieves more than he did

The Mighty Atom wrote:With Walcott I don't subscribe to the opinion is was at anything but his best, simply put prior to the years leading up to the fight he was dreadfully inconsistent, if anyone could specify when exactly they think he was better I may agree but until then i'll have to disagree.

In Moore we're talking about someone who had proven himself at Heavyweight, was as if he'd just jumped up to the weight and faced Marciano, if someone proves themselves at a weight then in my opinion that legitimises the win. He also had a great equalizer that neither Calzaghe or Hopkins possess, incredible power.

It's all when and good saying guys are old or moving up in weight but you need to apply some context rather than simply stating it.

Where has Moore proved himself at heavyweight really? Where are his noteable wins at heavyweight? Someboday like Antonio Tarver or James Toney have moved to heavyweight and sure they may have won some fights there against mediocre opposition but they have hardly proved themselves at heavy. Another example would be Roy Jones who managed to pick up a portion of the title. But had Lewis beat him I dont honestly think it would be considered a major win given that Jones just isnt a heavyweight.

Moore was knocked out by the three best heavyweights he faced and despite forays into the heavyweight division he didnt really do much there and often dropped back down to Lightheavy. If anything I would say that his constant flitting between divsions showed he could never really establish himself at heavyweight outright. Moore obviously had the skills to beat lesser heavyweights but he wasnt really a heavyweight and didnt have great pedigree at the weight.

With Walcott I accept his two wins over Charles are his best, but like I say I think theres a number of other considerations. I think Charles was waning at this point and was never a true heavyweight. I think Walcott was getting on himself regardless. I also dont think Walcott ws ever really that great of a heavy. As you say yourself, he was quite inconsistent and has a bad loss to go with every good win.

Im not suggesting at all that Marcianos wins are worthless or anything like that. Im just trying put them in context against the backdrop of a fighter that is held as a top ten heavyweight. Comparing and translating this to other eras is immensely difficult but with Marciano I think you are looking at an era of largely cruisers and lightheavies by todays terms.

Charles was past his best by the time he fought both Walcott and Marciano.

His best years were clearly at light-heavyweight; although he was still a very good fighter at Heavyweight.

I agree that Charles was slightly past it when he fought Walcott and Marciano.

However, this in no way diminishes Walcott's improvement with time. Few would back Walcott to have beaten the best version of Charles, but it's also fair to say that the Walcott who was losing to Joey Maxim in the late forties would probably not beaten the version of Charles whom Jersey Joe DID beat.

My argument concerning Marciano v Charles is a simple one. Of course, Charles was faded, but a faded Charles was still a better fighter than half of Holmes' challengers, or Jose King Roman, Ron Stander, Brian London, Henry Cooper, Karl Mildenberger, Pete Rademacher, Paolino Uzcudan, etc., etc. In addition, Charles significantly raised his game and put on an inspired performance in the first Marciano fight, which is what prompted the rematch.

HumanWindmill wrote:I agree that Charles was slightly past it when he fought Walcott and Marciano.

However, this in no way diminishes Walcott's improvement with time. Few would back Walcott to have beaten the best version of Charles, but it's also fair to say that the Walcott who was losing to Joey Maxim in the late forties would probably not beaten the version of Charles whom Jersey Joe DID beat.

My argument concerning Marciano v Charles is a simple one. Of course, Charles was faded, but a faded Charles was still a better fighter than half of Holmes' challengers, or Jose King Roman, Ron Stander, Brian London, Henry Cooper, Karl Mildenberger, Pete Rademacher, Paolino Uzcudan, etc., etc. In addition, Charles significantly raised his game and put on an inspired performance in the first Marciano fight, which is what prompted the rematch.

Well this for me is the crux of the issue. I find it immensely hard to tell just exactly what level Charles was at when he fought Marciano. Granted he may have raised his game and had some success against Marciano but you also have to consider that less than 10 months before the Marciano fight he had lost two decisions on the trot to Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson. Less than 12 months after the Marciano fights he would be knocked out by John Holman. Not only that, but you also have to factor in that he wasnt a natural heavyweight. For the era he was in, of small heavies, then this might not be such a problem when you consider Marciano himself was only about 185lbs. But I have to think that this could have been a more of a problem against bigger albeit less skilled heavies. Is it so implausible that at that stage Charles could have struggles with some of the aforementioned names you mentioned or even the likes of the Witherspoons, Weavers, Shavers, Berbicks?

The Walcott v Charles is another debate in itself because again its difficult to say how much was down to Walcott suddenly improving in a 6 month period and how much ws down to Charles starting to slide. Probably fair to say a combination but hard to say in what measures.

The Valdes and Johnson fights were about three weeks apart, and Charles would regroup and earn his shot at Marciano by flattening Satterfield, who was touted as the new danger man in the division, in two rounds.

Charles died of Lou Gehrig's disease, and it was AFTER the Marciano fights - which were brutal - that his trainer noticed he was having difficulty moving to his right. Fair to say that the Marciano fights finished him, just as Manila finished Ali and Frazier.

Witherspoon and the others whom you mention from Holmes' resumé are among his better contenders. My contention is that the Evangelistas, LeDouxs, etc., etc., against whom Holmes defended, and the Brian London, Henry Cooper and Karl Mildenberger who challenged Ali, were inferior to the Charles whom Marciano beat.

Charles isn't necessary as a barometer for Walcott's progress. We need only consider the men to whom Walcott was losing prior to '48 and '49, when a change of management and new found ambition resulted in a couple of very good showings against Joe Louis and offered everybody some idea of Walcott's potential, which would be realized at the time he won the title.

Part of the terms of Joe Louis' retirement was that he held the contracts of the three leading contenders of the day, two of them being Charles and Walcott - this was the catalyst for the setting up of Jim Norris' IBC, with Palermo and Carbo pulling the strings - and it's unlikely that a great fighter like Louis would have erred in his judgement of another pro fighter. If Walcott HAD been going downhill Louis could hardly have expected to earn from his stake in Jersey Joe. The entire scenario was predicated on the idea that Walcott, Charles and the third contender, ( don't know who it was, to be honest, ) were the immediate future of the heavyweight division. Palermo, Carbo, Norris, who would soon own the rights to Madison Square Gardens, Yankee Stadium, Soldiers Field in Chicago, along with others, were not the kinds of businessmen to back losers or longshots, and every contemporary account of the day points to Walcott's having been one of those rare creatures who actually got better with age.

The cyberboxingzone boasts some of the best informed historians alive today among its writers, and the very first line of the mini bio for Walcott reads : " Walcott is a fighter who truly got better with age. "

HumanWindmill wrote:The Valdes and Johnson fights were about three weeks apart, and Charles would regroup and earn his shot at Marciano by flattening Satterfield, who was touted as the new danger man in the division, in two rounds.

Charles died of Lou Gehrig's disease, and it was AFTER the Marciano fights - which were brutal - that his trainer noticed he was having difficulty moving to his right. Fair to say that the Marciano fights finished him, just as Manila finished Ali and Frazier.

Witherspoon and the others whom you mention from Holmes' resumé are among his better contenders. My contention is that the Evangelistas, LeDouxs, etc., etc., against whom Holmes defended, and the Brian London, Henry Cooper and Karl Mildenberger who challenged Ali, were inferior to the Charles whom Marciano beat.

Charles isn't necessary as a barometer for Walcott's progress. We need only consider the men to whom Walcott was losing prior to '48 and '49, when a change of management and new found ambition resulted in a couple of very good showings against Joe Louis and offered everybody some idea of Walcott's potential, which would be realized at the time he won the title.

Part of the terms of Joe Louis' retirement was that he held the contracts of the three leading contenders of the day, two of them being Charles and Walcott - this was the catalyst for the setting up of Jim Norris' IBC, with Palermo and Carbo pulling the strings - and it's unlikely that a great fighter like Louis would have erred in his judgement of another pro fighter. If Walcott HAD been going downhill Louis could hardly have expected to earn from his stake in Jersey Joe. The entire scenario was predicated on the idea that Walcott, Charles and the third contender, ( don't know who it was, to be honest, ) were the immediate future of the heavyweight division. Palermo, Carbo, Norris, who would soon own the rights to Madison Square Gardens, Yankee Stadium, Soldiers Field in Chicago, along with others, were not the kinds of businessmen to back losers or longshots, and every contemporary account of the day points to Walcott's having been one of those rare creatures who actually got better with age.

The cyberboxingzone boasts some of the best informed historians alive today among its writers, and the very first line of the mini bio for Walcott reads : " Walcott is a fighter who truly got better with age. "

I dont really see the comparison between Charles and the likes of some of Alis opponents. Naturally Ali has his share of mediocre defences but he has huge wins on top of them which Marciano doesnt have. The point with Marciano is he doesnt have those kind of Ali wins to back up his c.v so you are forced to put alot of stock in his wins over the likes of Charles, Moore and Walcott. Ali isnt defined by wins over London, Cooper and Mildenberger etc.

On Charles I agree that the Marciano fights finished him. However the point hat he was capable to losing to the likes of Nino Valdes not long prior to Marciano means he was capable of losing to a wide range of heavies at that time. Not sure what Bob Satterfield had done to inherit a reputation as a dangerman. I thinks its pretty hard to say exactly what level he was on, but its not beyond reason that he had sunk to the levels of much lesser fighters by then.

Walcott and Charles may have been touted as the future of the division and had Marciano not arrived then they probably would have held the title longer in the 50s. But they were also stand out names so its not surprising backers would invest in them. How often have we seen promoters getting behind someone as the future only for it not to be the case. This isnt even really the issue anyhow as Im not really arguing that Walcott at least was the best heavy when Marciano beat him. Im just saying in the grand scheme of things how big is that win all things considered? Even if you want to credit Walcott with being at his absolute best for Marciano then hes still 2-2 against Charles and 0-2 against Marciano and Loius.

I was only contesting the point that Walcott was in the form of his life when he took the title, rematched Charles and lost to Marciano, which he was.

So obscure was Walcott at the time of his first challenge to Joe Louis that the New York State Athletic Commission wanted to stage the fight as an exhibition.

I believe that my point about Ali's opposition is absolutely valid in the context of this debate. At no time have I suggested that Ali is defined by the Brian Londons of this world, but the naysayers DO define Rocky by downplaying the significance of his wins over Charles and Walcott. Similarly, you point out that Walcott was 2-2 with Charles and 0-2 with Louis and Marciano. Patterson was 2-1 against Johansson, 0-1 against Maxim and 0-2 against Liston. In addition, he was crippled by a back injury when he fought Ali. Cleveland Williams was 0-2 against Liston, was at least five years past his best, and was carrying a bullet from a traffic cop when he fought Ali. How many say that the Williams performance was Ali's greatest ?

We require consistency if we are going to attempt comparisons.

In fairness Manos - Ali does get let off lightly re:resume. He did fight some excellent opponents - BUT - the Ali everyone remembers is that peak figure - who redefined what a HW could do with blistering combinations and quick feet.

But THAT version of Ali (pre-ban) fought hardly anyone of note. Defending against Liston in dubious fashion, then the likes of Cooper, Mildenberger and a shot Williams is not a resume to last the ages.

Post ban - he loses to peak Frazier. Loses to Norton, arguably at least twice. Goes life and death with the likes of Shavers. Great win over Foreman - but slow to grant a rematch.

So that's why Ali is relevant. If we're going to pick holes in Marciano's career and discredit wins - even though he has HoFers Charles, Walcott, Moore on his HW resume - then we should pick holes in Ali's too.
------------------
And yes - Walcott IS 2-2 vs Charles, and 0-2 vs Marc/Louis.

But - he'd just beaten Charles twice, which tends to add weight to the notion he was improving with time.

And, once again, pundits at the time said he was at his best - which shouldn't be discounted

Forgot to mention regarding Satterfield.

Of course, he was no world beater, ( I believe he was only ranked for a year or two, ) and he had more ups and downs that a yoyo, but he was considered dangerous. A bit like Cleveland Williams, ( whom Satterfield knocked out six months after having been flattened by Charles, ) if you will.

The entire thrust of my argument is that, no matter how we rate Marciano in terms of ability, his RESUMÉ as champion is nowhere near as bad as some would paint it. Of course, it doesn't match Ali's overall ledger, or Jeffries', or probably Dempsey's, but it's better than that of many an acknowledged great fighter - Johnson's championship reign, for example, or Tunney's, for that matter - and is as good as most.

You are missing the point I am making. Of course holes can be picked in virtually all records. Thats not what I am trying to do. I am merely trying evaluate the quality and context of the wins.

The fundemental argument seems to be that people accept Charles was faded for the Marciano fight or that Moore was never really a top heavyweight, yet are reluctant to say by how much. The assumption being that a faded Charles at heavyweight or a Moore is still a cut above all but the finest challengers of Ali. I am just challenging this on a couple of points.

I recognise that Marciano could only face and beat whats in front of him and I dont dispute dispute that Charles, Walcott, Louis and Moore were still probably amongst the biggest threats and certainly amongst the biggest names. But how good are these wins is the point? How does it translate?

I think that it doesnt translate particularly well.

To simplify the point, how "live" do you think the versions of Moore, Walcott and Charles that Marciano faced would be in other eras? Im not even neccessarily saying how they would fare against other champs but simply how they would fare on a contender basis? I think its pretty obvious that even on contender level they struggle through most of the 60s and 70s when the division was stronger and more robust. But after? Are they really a cut above the 80s contigent for example?

manos de piedra wrote:You are missing the point I am making. Of course holes can be picked in virtually all records. Thats not what I am trying to do. I am merely trying evaluate the quality and context of the wins.

The fundemental argument seems to be that people accept Charles was faded for the Marciano fight or that Moore was never really a top heavyweight, yet are reluctant to say by how much. The assumption being that a faded Charles at heavyweight or a Moore is still a cut above all but the finest challengers of Ali. I am just challenging this on a couple of points.

I recognise that Marciano could only face and beat whats in front of him and I dont dispute dispute that Charles, Walcott, Louis and Moore were still probably amongst the biggest threats and certainly amongst the biggest names. But how good are these wins is the point? How does it translate?

I think that it doesnt translate particularly well.

To simplify the point, how "live" do you think the versions of Moore, Walcott and Charles that Marciano faced would be in other eras? Im not even neccessarily saying how they would fare against other champs but simply how they would fare on a contender basis? I think its pretty obvious that even on contender level they struggle through most of the 60s and 70s when the division was stronger and more robust. But after? Are they really a cut above the 80s contigent for example?

My understanding is that your principle argument concerned whether or not Walcott was at his best when he fought Marciano.

I feel Moore,Walcott and Charles would definitely do well in the 80s contingent, amongst Tubbs, Thomas, Dokes et al.

Early 30s also, where Schmelling, Sharkey and Carnera were playing swap-the-title.

It would be a brave man to pick those to dominate Charles, Walcott and Moore. Hell - if Moore had been around in the 80s - he'd probably have been a HW champ. If Spinks could do it, Moore certainly could.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:You are missing the point I am making. Of course holes can be picked in virtually all records. Thats not what I am trying to do. I am merely trying evaluate the quality and context of the wins.

The fundemental argument seems to be that people accept Charles was faded for the Marciano fight or that Moore was never really a top heavyweight, yet are reluctant to say by how much. The assumption being that a faded Charles at heavyweight or a Moore is still a cut above all but the finest challengers of Ali. I am just challenging this on a couple of points.

I recognise that Marciano could only face and beat whats in front of him and I dont dispute dispute that Charles, Walcott, Louis and Moore were still probably amongst the biggest threats and certainly amongst the biggest names. But how good are these wins is the point? How does it translate?

I think that it doesnt translate particularly well.

To simplify the point, how "live" do you think the versions of Moore, Walcott and Charles that Marciano faced would be in other eras? Im not even neccessarily saying how they would fare against other champs but simply how they would fare on a contender basis? I think its pretty obvious that even on contender level they struggle through most of the 60s and 70s when the division was stronger and more robust. But after? Are they really a cut above the 80s contigent for example?

My understanding is that your principle argument concerned whether or not Walcott was at his best when he fought Marciano.

Not really. My main argument was the above but I was using the Walcott point to discuss how big a win that was for Marciano.

Im happy to acknowledge Walcotts biggest wins were against Charles but think that there is a strong chance that Charles at the stage was on the downward slope. Like yourself, I think a younger Charles beats even an improved Walcott.

It just seems to be the case that Walcott was this fairly inconsistent fighter who suddenly at the age of 38/39 hit peak form just in time to face Marciano and lose into retirement. I find that somewhat generous to Marciano. Walcotts reputation was largely cemented on the wins over Charles and therefore dependant on what kind of level Charles was operating.

oxring wrote:I feel Moore,Walcott and Charles would definitely do well in the 80s contingent, amongst Tubbs, Thomas, Dokes et al.

Early 30s also, where Schmelling, Sharkey and Carnera were playing swap-the-title.

It would be a brave man to pick those to dominate Charles, Walcott and Moore. Hell - if Moore had been around in the 80s - he'd probably have been a HW champ. If Spinks could do it, Moore certainly could.

Bearing in mind this is a close to 40y old Moore we are talking about and Spinks was 28/29 when he beat Holmes?

Moore is a small guy. Im not even sure I see him making a step up to heavyweight in most eras and not with any real success if he did.

To be honest, manos, having sifted the wheat from the chaff, I don't think we're too far away from each other on this one.

I certainly acknowledge that Charles was past his absolute best, ( though I DO believe he fought ' above himself ' in the two efforts against Rocky, ) but my default argument is always that very few heavyweight champions can boast a stellar list of challengers, but Rocky is systematically trashed, ( though not by you, I would add, ) for his list of challengers.

Methinks Jimmy Stuart has a lot to answer for in upsetting this particular can of worms.

HumanWindmill wrote:To be honest, manos, having sifted the wheat from the chaff, I don't think we're too far away from each other on this one.

I certainly acknowledge that Charles was past his absolute best, ( though I DO believe he fought ' above himself ' in the two efforts against Rocky, ) but my default argument is always that very few heavyweight champions can boast a stellar list of challengers, but Rocky is systematically trashed, ( though not by you, I would add, ) for his list of challengers.

Methinks Jimmy Stuart has a lot to answer for in upsetting this particular can of worms.

Yeah I tend to fall down in the middle of with Marciano and I think the scrutiny of the record comes from the fact that hes so small as a heavyweight and the margins separating a whole host of heavies outside Ali/Louis are pretty tiny which means scrutiny has to applied heavily.

I dont think anyone would dispute Rocky made the best of what he had to deal with but my gut feeling is that at that stage the fighters were just too small or too old to operate as top heavies in other eras. Marciano, Charles and Moore would be great lightheavies or cruisers in any era but as heavyweights Im just not convinced. It would be like Jones challenging Lewis or Hopkins challenging Klitschko nowadays. Just cant see it working out well.

Someone like Holmes also suffers a bit like Rocky but he had the size and style that makes it far more imagineable to see him being a top heavy at any era.

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:I feel Moore,Walcott and Charles would definitely do well in the 80s contingent, amongst Tubbs, Thomas, Dokes et al.

Early 30s also, where Schmelling, Sharkey and Carnera were playing swap-the-title.

It would be a brave man to pick those to dominate Charles, Walcott and Moore. Hell - if Moore had been around in the 80s - he'd probably have been a HW champ. If Spinks could do it, Moore certainly could.

Bearing in mind this is a close to 40y old Moore we are talking about and Spinks was 28/29 when he beat Holmes?

Moore is a small guy. Im not even sure I see him making a step up to heavyweight in most eras and not with any real success if he did.

Yes it IS an old Moore - but its an old Moore who'd go on to reign at LHW afterwards - and wasn't that faded at the time. In fact - contemporaries reckon he was BETTER then than when he was young.

The only trouble Moore would have would be with size - and given Larry only weighed 220 vs Spinks - that's not that much weight.

oxring wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

oxring wrote:I feel Moore,Walcott and Charles would definitely do well in the 80s contingent, amongst Tubbs, Thomas, Dokes et al.

Early 30s also, where Schmelling, Sharkey and Carnera were playing swap-the-title.

It would be a brave man to pick those to dominate Charles, Walcott and Moore. Hell - if Moore had been around in the 80s - he'd probably have been a HW champ. If Spinks could do it, Moore certainly could.

Bearing in mind this is a close to 40y old Moore we are talking about and Spinks was 28/29 when he beat Holmes?

Moore is a small guy. Im not even sure I see him making a step up to heavyweight in most eras and not with any real success if he did.

Yes it IS an old Moore - but its an old Moore who'd go on to reign at LHW afterwards - and wasn't that faded at the time. In fact - contemporaries reckon he was BETTER then than when he was young.

The only trouble Moore would have would be with size - and given Larry only weighed 220 vs Spinks - that's not that much weight.

Well the size is a big issue. This is the same Moore that was knocked out by Marciano, Patterson and a young Ali (granted he was VERY old by then). I dont see much to be confident about in him taking on a Holmes that outweighs him fairly significantly.

I would never dount his lightheavy credentials for a second and he was definately a force to be reckoned with there even into his late 30s bt heavyweight is a different kettle of fish for a guy of Moores size.

Spinks was young and naturally alot bigger. Even then look at what happened to him against Tyson.

Moore was a great lightheavy but to be honest his acheivements at heavyweight even in his own era of small heavies is not very special at all. I just see nothing to be confident or to suggest he would have any more of an impact in any future heavyweight eras.

I don't think Oxy was necessarily saying that Moore could or would beat Holmes but rather he was more than capable of beating the likes of Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Smith, Thomas etc. who all held a share of the title in the 80's. He was by no means an old 39, no other 39 year old has ever gone on to reign as an undisputed champion for a further 7 years, beating Durelle, Pompey and drawing with the more than capable and very talented Pastrano at the tail end of his career.

Marciano, Ali and even Patterson were a darn site more dangerous than any of the 80's lot. Patterson and Marciano with there power and Ali well was Ali. So to use them as the sole yard stick for Moore isn't quite right in relation to the poor champions of the 80's.

The Mighty Atom wrote:I don't think Oxy was necessarily saying that Moore could or would beat Holmes but rather he was more than capable of beating the likes of Weaver, Dokes, Coetzee, Smith, Thomas etc. who all held a share of the title in the 80's. He was by no means an old 39, no other 39 year old has ever gone on to reign as an undisputed champion for a further 7 years, beating Durelle, Pompey and drawing with the more than capable and very talented Pastrano at the tail end of his career.

Marciano, Ali and even Patterson were a darn site more dangerous than any of the 80's lot. Patterson and Marciano with there power and Ali well was Ali. So to use them as the sole yard stick for Moore isn't quite right in relation to the poor champions of the 80's.

I think its debateable. Id say he may well be able to mix it with them alright but I dont think he would particularly be a class above. The 80s bunch were an inconsistent lot so Id say Moore would have a mixed record against them. I dont use Marciano, Ali or Patterson as a sole yardstick. I just use it to illustrate that Moore was never a great heavyweight, the same as most of the 80s contenders were not great heavies.

I agree Moore was by no means finished in his late 30s but thats at lightheavy and the competition post his Marciano defeat was probably not as stellar as prior to it.

Don't think anyones ever said he would be a class above but think overall he'd have a winning record against those guys

The Mighty Atom wrote:Don't think anyones ever said he would be a class above but think overall he'd have a winning record against those guys

Well there a few comments back a while ago that were defending Marcianos title reign by suggesting that a faded Charles or a Moore at heavyweight were superior to or every bit as good as the defences of most other heavies. I think its debateable. They are obviously bigger names but the circumstances meant that I dont consider them to be superior.

For instance how do you see Moore coping with the bigger albeit lessed skilled contenders around today like Valuev, Povetkin, Chagaev, Peter etc?

They're not a million miles away from Nino Valdes and Lavorante to be honest, Moore outpointed the former twice and stopped the latter so can see him beating Povetkin, Chagaev and Peter but Valuev well he only has size so impossible to say.

manos de piedra wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Don't think anyones ever said he would be a class above but think overall he'd have a winning record against those guys

Well there a few comments back a while ago that were defending Marcianos title reign by suggesting that a faded Charles or a Moore at heavyweight were superior to or every bit as good as the defences of most other heavies. I think its debateable. They are obviously bigger names but the circumstances meant that I dont consider them to be superior.

For instance how do you see Moore coping with the bigger albeit lessed skilled contenders around today like Valuev, Povetkin, Chagaev, Peter etc?

With respect, manos, that's hardly a level playing field.

Independent research carried out some time ago suggested that the ideal heavyweight, in terms of the trade off between strength and speed, would be somewhere between 200 - 220lb. The men going up against Valuev and co. are, for the most part, in this range or bigger. Moore was 188lb. when he fought Marciano, and Marciano weighed the same.

Might be fairer to consider Moore against Holyfield at cruiser. That would have been some fight, and would give us, perhaps, an indication of Moore's quality.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Don't think anyones ever said he would be a class above but think overall he'd have a winning record against those guys

Well there a few comments back a while ago that were defending Marcianos title reign by suggesting that a faded Charles or a Moore at heavyweight were superior to or every bit as good as the defences of most other heavies. I think its debateable. They are obviously bigger names but the circumstances meant that I dont consider them to be superior.

For instance how do you see Moore coping with the bigger albeit lessed skilled contenders around today like Valuev, Povetkin, Chagaev, Peter etc?

With respect, manos, that's hardly a level playing field.

Independent research carried out some time ago suggested that the ideal heavyweight, in terms of the trade off between strength and speed, would be somewhere between 200 - 220lb. The men going up against Valuev and co. are, for the most part, in this range or bigger. Moore was 188lb. when he fought Marciano, and Marciano weighed the same.

Might be fairer to consider Moore against Holyfield at cruiser. That would have been some fight, and would give us, perhaps, an indication of Moore's quality.

But this is kind of what Im driving at. Moore is probably competitive against smaller heavies but probably not if giving away upwards of 30lbs. This is no slight on his ability merely an acknowledgement that hes just physically outgunned.

He was an occasional heavyweight in an era that allowed him to be one but I question if he would be anything other than a lightheavyweight in most of the subsequent eras. The likes of Peter, Chagaev and Valuev are considered awful heavies but Charles and Moore are not. This is fair enough given they are all time greats, but in practical terms their effectiveness in later eras as heavyweights is disputed.

This is what gives rise to some of the criticisms of Marcianos reign (and of Marciano himself on a size basis).

Well you can't use size against someone especially when during their time it wasn't an issue, would effect head to head match ups but isn't really relevant to all time standings.

But the calibre of opposition is relative.

Not so below heavyweight, or even at heavyweight - with few exceptions - until Shannon Briggs came along, but certainly nowadays. Even Frazier, in his early days, came in under 200lb., but that's unheard of, now. Every competitive heavyweight is above that 200lb. threshold. They have even moved the cruiser limit up to accommodate the changes.

As a 185lb. champion, Marciano faced a nailed on HOFer in Moore who was the same size as he was. If Valuev fights Povetkin it's a different thing altogether.

We can't downgrade Marciano - or Moore, for that matter - simply because he wasn't fighting in an age when giants decided to make a living in boxing. Nobody reckons Povetkin to be better than Moore, right ?

If Lewis Hamilton and I go to Silverstone and he is given a Morris Minor and I'm given a Ferrari there's a very good chance that I might beat him.

Now, if Hamilton AND Vettel are given Morris Minors and I have a Ferrari I'll likely still win, but the REAL competition will be between those two, each of whom is a 100 times better driver than I am.

HumanWindmill wrote:But the calibre of opposition is relative.

Not so below heavyweight, or even at heavyweight - with few exceptions - until Shannon Briggs came along, but certainly nowadays. Even Frazier, in his early days, came in under 200lb., but that's unheard of, now. Every competitive heavyweight is above that 200lb. threshold. They have even moved the cruiser limit up to accommodate the changes.

As a 185lb. champion, Marciano faced a nailed on HOFer in Moore who was the same size as he was. If Valuev fights Povetkin it's a different thing altogether.

We can't downgrade Marciano - or Moore, for that matter - simply because he wasn't fighting in an age when giants decided to make a living in boxing. Nobody reckons Povetkin to be better than Moore, right ?

Yes but Moores HoF exploits were due to his work at 175. Above that weight he has nothing remotely HoF worthy. Do you then devalue the win on that basis?

I appreciate that you have to measure greats in the context of their own era first but I think the original argument that azania was making was that because Marciano and his opposition would not be competitive in todays terms thus the whole modern/old debate.

I actually tend to agree that those guys would struggle nowadays with the modern sized heavies despite Charles and Moore etc being more skilled. However they would still be greats in the lower weights around Cruiser and Lightheavy.

Moore was number one contender for Marciano's title, courtesy of wins over two rated contenders, Nino Valdes and Bob Baker.

HumanWindmill wrote:Moore was number one contender for Marciano's title, courtesy of wins over two rated contenders, Nino Valdes and Bob Baker.

Im not disputing that Im just saying that there was nothing great about what he did at heavy.

Marciano gets away with this in a historical sense due to the fact he himself was not a big heavy. But if say, Klitschko was to beat Hopkins or Toney they would get no credit by virtue of the size difference (Notwithstanding Toney probably weighs more than them these days). Its inconsistent.

Marciano is rewarded in historical terms for being a small heavy as it legtimizes wins over natural light heavies for him. Yet in pratical terms his size is a disadvantage in heavyweight terms.

It's not inconsistent because things change with the times and priot to Marciano the majority if heavyweights were around 200lbs and I simply don't see why we have to apply things to modern times. He was around at a time when it was normal for heavyweights to be sub 200lbs and light heavyweights jumped up to the weight far more regularly.

Using Klitschko as an example when he's a 250lber is worlds apart

It isn't inconsistent.

Marciano beat men his own size, and as such they represented legitimate challenges, and particularly so since both Moore and Charles are routinely ranked higher than he in the ATG p4p stakes.

I could argue that very few of the challengers faced by either Klitschko have done anything significant at heavyweight, and neither has defended against a man larger than he is, or even the same size.

What did Bob Foster achieve at heavyweight ? Billy Conn ? John Henry Lewis ? Tommy Loughran ? Young Stribling ? Tommy Gibbons ? Georges Carpentier ? Stanley Ketchel ? Philadelphia Jack O'Brien ?

Each of them contested the heavyweight title, also, but neither the champions they faced, nor anybody else, gets routinely hammered for his opposition in the manner of Marciano.

The Mighty Atom wrote:It's not inconsistent because things change with the times and priot to Marciano the majority if heavyweights were around 200lbs and I simply don't see why we have to apply things to modern times. He was around at a time when it was normal for heavyweights to be sub 200lbs and light heavyweights jumped up to the weight far more regularly.

Using Klitschko as an example when he's a 250lber is worlds apart

Yes, granted but I merely using this as an example as to why some people like azania use the modern is better argument.

Jesse Owens is obviously one of the great sprinters, but he would barely qualify for the 100m final these days let alone win. Hes a great, but within the context of his era.

With Marciano there are 2 issues:

1. Was his title reign and ability all that good even in the context of his own era or was he just the beneficiary of good timing and circumstances?
2. Was his title reign and ability all that good in the context of other eras?

In general I dont believe that there has been gigantic changes in boxing levels. Greats now would be greats then and vice versa. Obviously circumstances have changed though which makes measuring more difficult. The exception is the heavyweight division where I think the sheer weight differences means some of these smaller heavies are rendered rather inneffective against the larger breeds. Obviously this is within context. Im not suggesting someone like Kevin McBride could go back and dominate the 50s with his poundage. But the big and skilled heavies would be a tall order for heavies that weighed in under 190 pounds in the past even if they were greats. If Langford or Fitzsimmons show up to fight a Bowe/Lewis/Klitschko weghing 165 pounds or something then I cant see it ending well for them.

Sprinting is a completely different sport, it's far more basic in it's application so don't use that as a comparison to boxing.

Have to disagree with that, think Jeffries was very much the equal of those guys in terms of strength and power, also doubt they would be standing up to the shots he took from Fitzsimmons.

HumanWindmill wrote:It isn't inconsistent.

Marciano beat men his own size, and as such they represented legitimate challenges, and particularly so since both Moore and Charles are routinely ranked higher than he in the ATG p4p stakes.

I could argue that very few of the challengers faced by either Klitschko have done anything significant at heavyweight, and neither has defended against a man larger than he is, or even the same size.

What did Bob Foster achieve at heavyweight ? Billy Conn ? John Henry Lewis ? Tommy Loughran ? Young Stribling ? Tommy Gibbons ? Georges Carpentier ? Stanley Ketchel ? Philadelphia Jack O'Brien ?

Each of them contested the heavyweight title, also, but neither the champions they faced, nor anybody else, gets routinely hammered for his opposition in the manner of Marciano.

I dont think the criticism of opposition is confined to Marciano at all. Id say theres only a few heavies immune to criticism. I personally think Dempsey is completely overated for instance. Not that hes a bad fighter but when he see him rated as a top 5 heavy based on his title reign then I dont really understand. The Klitschkos get hammered more than anyone over opposition. Holmes aswell suffers and even Louis has his "bum of the month" critics.

The problem Marciano faces is that 1) he gets rated highly (usually top 10) and 2) His record isnt seen as matching his ranking for the numerous reasons we have discussed and 3) his size and style count against him.

I dont get too hung up on these hypothetical top 10 lists and strict ranking because I dont really believe it captures the essence of the reality of the situation and its too damn difficult to compare across eras and the criteria people use to judge is too different. ITs apples and oranges really. I could make about 4 different lists based on various things and they would all look different.

How did this evolve into a head - to - head question ?

The bulk of this debate has concerned the value or otherwise of Marciano's competition, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Having said that, Marciano was, essentially, a cruiser by today's standards. So was Holyfield. Allow Marciano the same facilities and opportunities to bulk up as were enjoyed by Holyfield and we have another Mike Tyson ; less refined, but with a much stronger psyche. That Marciano could compete with anybody today, in my opinion.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Sprinting is a completely different sport, it's far more basic in it's application so don't use that as a comparison to boxing.

Have to disagree with that, think Jeffries was very much the equal of those guys in terms of strength and power, also doubt they would be standing up to the shots he took from Fitzsimmons.

I dont think you are getting me. Im not comparing boxing to sprinting. Im saying how greatness is measured and perceived.

Was Owens a great of his era? - Yes. Would he be a great by nows measurement? - probably not.
Was Marciano a great heavyweight of his era? - Yes. Would he be a great heavyweight by nows measurement? - probably not. He may not even be a heavyweight.

Owens didn't have sponsorship and couldn't train seven days a week. Also, we shouldn't under estimate the power of incentive. Laws of physics dictate that one day a man will not be able to run any faster, but until then barriers will be broken because it is human nature to AIM for the next target. Once Bannister ran a sub four minute mile it was done with increasing regularity, because there was :

a. A new belief, and

b. A new target.

Boxing doesn't have constants such as tape measure or clock, and in Owens' day fighters were already fully pro and able to train as and when they wished.

Comparisons between track and field and boxing are VERY tenuous.

HumanWindmill wrote:How did this evolve into a head - to - head question ?

The bulk of this debate has concerned the value or otherwise of Marciano's competition, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Having said that, Marciano was, essentially, a cruiser by today's standards. So was Holyfield. Allow Marciano the same facilities and opportunities to bulk up as were enjoyed by Holyfield and we have another Mike Tyson ; less refined, but with a much stronger psyche. That Marciano could compete with anybody today, in my opinion.

I dont really understand your point. You you dont believe that boxing has advanced or that modern/older counts but you are saying if Marciano had access to modern methods he would be a supercharged Tyson? Seems contradictory to me.

If anything I would say Marciano today would most likely try to get down to lightheavy or else be a cruiser. I dont doubt he would be very effective at these weights. But he doesnt have any of the skills or speed of Holyfield or Tyson to make the step up to heavy even if he could muscle up another 15 pounds or so. He would be like a better version of Ruiz maybe rather than a Mike Tyson.

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:How did this evolve into a head - to - head question ?

The bulk of this debate has concerned the value or otherwise of Marciano's competition, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Having said that, Marciano was, essentially, a cruiser by today's standards. So was Holyfield. Allow Marciano the same facilities and opportunities to bulk up as were enjoyed by Holyfield and we have another Mike Tyson ; less refined, but with a much stronger psyche. That Marciano could compete with anybody today, in my opinion.

I dont really understand your point. You you dont believe that boxing has advanced or that modern/older counts but you are saying if Marciano had access to modern methods he would be a supercharged Tyson? Seems contradictory to me.

If anything I would say Marciano today would most likely try to get down to lightheavy or else be a cruiser. I dont doubt he would be very effective at these weights. But he doesnt have any of the skills or speed of Holyfield or Tyson to make the step up to heavy even if he could muscle up another 15 pounds or so. He would be like a better version of Ruiz maybe rather than a Mike Tyson.

Nothing contradictory whatsoever.

Independent scientific analysis suggests that 200 - 210lb. is the optimum size for correlation between mass and velocity, and therefore, power. Marciano was below that threshold. So was Holyfield.

Holyfield was able to add usable weight to compete at heavyweight. Given his wrist and ankle size, it is fair to say that Marciano could have done the same, thus raising him above the threshold.

And again, this debate has largely concerned quality of opposition as opposed to head - to - head analysis.

HumanWindmill wrote:Owens didn't have sponsorship and couldn't train seven days a week. Also, we shouldn't under estimate the power of incentive. Laws of physics dictate that one day a man will not be able to run any faster, but until then barriers will be broken because it is human nature to AIM for the next target. Once Bannister ran a sub four minute mile it was done with increasing regularity, because there was :

a. A new belief, and

b. A new target.

Boxing doesn't have constants such as tape measure or clock, and in Owens' day fighters were already fully pro and able to train as and when they wished.

Comparisons between track and field and boxing are VERY tenuous.

Im not comparing sports. Im comparing eras and greatness.

Without getting into the who, what, whys - thats a different debate to do with whether sport improves. Im talking about how greats are held.

The bottom line is that Owens is regarded as a great sprinter because he was the best of his era depite running times less than the average now. People dont rate him as a great because he might have been faster than Bolt with new runners on a different track and a dietician. Thats a different debate altogether. Thats plays no part in how he is rated. Its done on what he did in his era.

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:Owens didn't have sponsorship and couldn't train seven days a week. Also, we shouldn't under estimate the power of incentive. Laws of physics dictate that one day a man will not be able to run any faster, but until then barriers will be broken because it is human nature to AIM for the next target. Once Bannister ran a sub four minute mile it was done with increasing regularity, because there was :

a. A new belief, and

b. A new target.

Boxing doesn't have constants such as tape measure or clock, and in Owens' day fighters were already fully pro and able to train as and when they wished.

Comparisons between track and field and boxing are VERY tenuous.

Im not comparing sports. Im comparing eras and greatness.

Without getting into the who, what, whys - thats a different debate to do with whether sport improves. Im talking about how greats are held.

The bottom line is that Owens is regarded as a great sprinter because he was the best of his era depite running times less than the average now. People dont rate him as a great because he might have been faster than Bolt with new runners on a different track and a dietician. Thats a different debate altogether. Thats plays no part in how he is rated. Its done on what he did in his era.

My mistake, manos. That one I DID misunderstand. Apologies.

This is getting complicated. Jimmy Stuart drops it in our laps and disappears. The man needs his backside kicked.

HumanWindmill wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:How did this evolve into a head - to - head question ?

The bulk of this debate has concerned the value or otherwise of Marciano's competition, which is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Having said that, Marciano was, essentially, a cruiser by today's standards. So was Holyfield. Allow Marciano the same facilities and opportunities to bulk up as were enjoyed by Holyfield and we have another Mike Tyson ; less refined, but with a much stronger psyche. That Marciano could compete with anybody today, in my opinion.

I dont really understand your point. You you dont believe that boxing has advanced or that modern/older counts but you are saying if Marciano had access to modern methods he would be a supercharged Tyson? Seems contradictory to me.

If anything I would say Marciano today would most likely try to get down to lightheavy or else be a cruiser. I dont doubt he would be very effective at these weights. But he doesnt have any of the skills or speed of Holyfield or Tyson to make the step up to heavy even if he could muscle up another 15 pounds or so. He would be like a better version of Ruiz maybe rather than a Mike Tyson.

Nothing contradictory whatsoever.

Independent scientific analysis suggests that 200 - 210lb. is the optimum size for correlation between mass and velocity, and therefore, power. Marciano was below that threshold. So was Holyfield.

Holyfield was able to add usable weight to compete at heavyweight. Given his wrist and ankle size, it is fair to say that Marciano could have done the same, thus raising him above the threshold.

And again, this debate has largely concerned quality of opposition as opposed to head - to - head analysis.

Yes no doubt Marciano could bulk up. But its not going to give him skills and speed he never had in the vein of Holyfield or Tyson. Im not sure what exactly the various dimensions etc of Marciano are but hes definately alot smaller than Holyfield. I would have thought the best course of action for Marciano would be to drop down, not try and bulk up.

Anyhow I have to leave it there for the moment. Enjoyed the discussion and some interesting points raised.

I enjoyed it, also. Thanks for the fun.

What should also be considered is that running shoes and track are now designed for speed, give Owens access to that and he runs faster, give Bolt Owens conditions and he runs slower. Factors like that don't exist in boxing. Marciano was a natural 190lbs as was Holyfield so the actual size difference is minimal.

Marciano beat the best of his era without doubt while the K Bros may have done the same taking out weight they are rated far lower because they are lesser skilled.