Controversial Fantasy Fight Picks

First topic message reminder :

Saw this elsewhere and seemed like a good idea.

Basically you pick someone who you think would be able to upset a superior boxer. The idea is you can justify it based on styles/precedents and you should try and be as controversial as possible.

Good idea if we stick to roughly similar eras I think.

I'll start. I think Forrest gives Mayweather nightmares with his reach, jab and power.

Gatti had more skill

I'm losing the will to live. I really am.

Outboxed by numerous opponents, oh sod it i can't be bothered to go on.

"Popular beliefs on essential matters must be examined in order to discover the original thought" This is an old Xosha saying which means (in relation to this issue) that you question the hype of Rocky to discover why many think his to me better that he originally was thought of as.

Dont kill yourself coxy. Gatti had more skill than Rocky but Rocky used his limited skills to his advantage. So what if Gatti lost or was outboxed. Did Rocky face anyone remotely close to Floyd?

Right Marciano get criticised for having trouble with light heavies and guys past their best, so lets see if similar criticisms can be levelled at others in the top ten. Have picked the IBRO as it's pretty decent, will leave Ali and Louis out and Rocky obviously so lets see how the some of the others stand up to the scrutiny Marciano endures

3.Jack Johnson - Fought dross, got decked off a middle, and managed to draw with the ordinary Jim Johnson, avoided his best challengers like the plague.

4.Jack Dempsey - Feasted on light heavies such as Gibbons and Carpentier, was lucky to keep his title when he got decked off the crude Firpo, lost to the first stylist he fought who was natural at heavy.

6.Larry Holmes - Barely won the title off an ancient Norton, avoided unification fights and dropped his title to a light heavy

7.James J. Jeffries - Had fits against the tiny Fitzsimmons, lucky to get a draw against Sharkey in a fight he probably deserved to lose and had fiyts against on old Corbett

9.Sonny Liston - Quit against a green kid and tanked in the rematch, only ok if he can bully guys with no chin

10.Joe Frazier - One of the few heavies around when there were decent fighters and he went 1-4 against them.

Has there ever been a decent fighter in the division?

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:By the beard of the prophet, you guys are testing my patience.

Your patience.

The fish has been boned and the shark has been jumped.

In the past month alone, you have declared:

1. Sibson beats Greb.
2. Jack Johnson had flawed fundamentals
3. If Rocky Marciano were around today and fighting at cruiserweight, he wouldn't retire undefeated.

Are you trying to stretch the bounds of credulity with every passing statement? Because creduliy has been stretched and is now past breaking point.

Who in the name of all that is merciful beats Rocky in the current cruiser scene? In the last 10 years, great champions like Maccarinelli, Braithwaite and, lest we forget, the indomitable Johnny "the Entertainer" Nelson have all plied their merry trade in this dross-hole of a division - and you really believe that Rocky would be beaten by the likes of these? Who at cruiser has his number?

You've hit 3 - lets see if you can make for 5 "just plain wrong" statements of the day/week/month/year/century.

I'll explain point 3. In today's game, boxers are carefully matched. When Rocky's manager sees his skill level, he would over-match him at an early stage of his career. Plus when he stepped up, he would be mullered. FACT!

Right. Mullered by who, Az? By Huck? By Lebedev? Hernandez? Cunningham? Wlodarczyk? Palacios?

Orlin Norris

My point is that Rocky would have been over-matched in his early career and his style would have been changed to attempt to make his less of a two left footed fighter. That would have damaged what made him (his somewhat ungainly and ugly style).

Plus at CW, De Leon, Warring, Cole and others would have been very good fights for Rocky. After all they were at his level.

Congratulations - in 1 post you've managed to up that list to 5.

1. Sibson beats Greb.
2. Jack Johnson had flawed fundamentals
3. Marciano wouldn't be undefeated functioning as a cruiserweight today
4. Orlin Norris beats Marciano
5. DeLeon, Warring and Cole were at Marciano's level.

Racism is a terrible thing hey Az - if it can lead you to suggest that a guy, KOd by anyone with HW power - beats the Rock.

Your explanation is even more duplicitous. By saying Rocky would be forced to change - you are making Rocky - no longer Rocky.

Akin to saying that Monzon, today, would be forced to change the technique of his shots and so would lose output and thus would be outworked by Paul Williams. By removing monzon's power and output - he ceases to be Monzon and so the discussion is both irrelevant and moot.

Az, how many fighters in history have been as good as FMJ technically? Yes, he lacks other things such as aggression and power (at welter, he had serious pop at the lower weights) etc.

And Moore wasn't half bad, even if he was a few % below his absolute beast of a best.

Rowley

Of course you can look at records in many ways. But I am not saying anything that is not true. He met ATGs at the tail end of their careers.

But it appears Rocky is beyond criticism as much and impervious to punches (allegedly).

*sigh* My comparison was that of Gatti to Marciano in his determination and will to win - I didn't say that they were the same person or comparable in skill. Gatti didn't have the same skill as The Rock, what are you smoking?

You said that top tier boxers have exactly what Marciano had - my point was that nobody in the past 20 years has matched what Marciano had in terms of what I compared other than Gatti.

rowley wrote:Right Marciano get criticised for having trouble with light heavies and guys past their best, so lets see if similar criticisms can be levelled at others in the top ten. Have picked the IBRO as it's pretty decent, will leave Ali and Louis out and Rocky obviously so lets see how the some of the others stand up to the scrutiny Marciano endures

3.Jack Johnson - Fought dross, got decked off a middle, and managed to draw with the ordinary Jim Johnson, avoided his best challengers like the plague.

4.Jack Dempsey - Feasted on light heavies such as Gibbons and Carpentier, was lucky to keep his title when he got decked off the crude Firpo, lost to the first stylist he fought who was natural at heavy.

6.Larry Holmes - Barely won the title off an ancient Norton, avoided unification fights and dropped his title to a light heavy

7.James J. Jeffries - Had fits against the tiny Fitzsimmons, lucky to get a draw against Sharkey in a fight he probably deserved to lose and had fiyts against on old Corbett

9.Sonny Liston - Quit against a green kid and tanked in the rematch, only ok if he can bully guys with no chin

10.Joe Frazier - One of the few heavies around when there were decent fighters and he went 1-4 against them.

Has there ever been a decent fighter in the division?

I have a sneaky feeling however that getting the above point into Az's skull will be slightly more difficult than trying to dig to China with a teaspoon.

Rowley hasn't said anything untrue in his statement but still wouldn't call it a fair and level appraisal of the fighters.

Gatti had better footwork, better handspeed, more variety of punches especially after McGirt took over. He just wasn't that good and others around were better that him.

Are you now suggesting that rocky has any kind of latteral movement, jabbed and boxed on the back foot? Look at the 2nd ward/gatti fight and you see a transformation in gatti wherehe became more of a boxer than a slugger.

He is far from beyond criticism Az and if someone was arguing he is the best heavy of all time I would join you in making the counter argument. All I am arguing is despite its glamour billing the talent pool at heavy is rarely that great and it is not a division stacked with talent and depth, as such Rocky's records and acheivements stand fairly reasonable comparison with all but a couple of fighters and as such he warrants his top ten berth.

trottb wrote:Rowley hasn't said anything untrue in his statement but still wouldn't call it a fair and level appraisal of the fighters.

Not is it meant to be, am trying to show how easy it is to apply Az's approach to Marciano to the rest of the division.

OK Oxy, you've called it out. Explain the rocky thing. Now questioning Rocky is not only a sign of mental illness but also racist (which to me is deffo mental illness).

Please explain why my criticism of rocky is racist, yet my criticism of Patterson, Johnson and my praise of dempsey is not.

azania wrote:Are you now suggesting that rocky has any kind of latteral movement, jabbed and boxed on the back foot? Look at the 2nd ward/gatti fight and you see a transformation in gatti wherehe became more of a boxer than a slugger.

Didn't need to. There's no 1 fit all model to boxing - all that matters is winning. Rocky was a master of educated pressure and opening angles to land his punches. That, combined with the fact that every punch was delivered with power and force makes him one hell of an opponent.

He's not going to win any beauty pageants but does it matter? If silky skills are all that is required then why has Cotto ever lost?

trottb wrote:Rowley hasn't said anything untrue in his statement but still wouldn't call it a fair and level appraisal of the fighters.

That was the point of the comment though was it not?

You can pull any fighters record apart and make them sound bad.

Such as Az has done over the last 15 pages to Marciano's record. Az has done it too absurd heights however.

Just trying to highlight it to him further badger but alas to no avail.

You know why Gatti had better footwork and handspeed? The guy was a LIGHT WELTERWEIGHT

I'm not at all saying that The Rock was anything but a plodder, but he did have a range of punches. he had a rockhammer of a jab, and why would he box on the back foot? This was a time when referees wouldn't call a fight based on how many times a guy had been hit without defending. Now if someone gets jabbed a few times the referee considers stopping it.

If Wlad jabbed Marciano the same way he has for years, he'd score points of course, but seriously, it wouldn't stop him, he'd walk through it and get on the inside. UNLIKE modern heavyweights, The Rock wasn't afraid of getting hit. His skill was that he could get hit and move forward. I'm not saying he was impervious to punches, the guys face was often a mess - but his record speaks for itself.

You've been toying with complete idiocy for a while now - but to say he's not in the top 10 heavyweights is going against a MASSIVE majority of boxing fans.

Its arrogance to the point of stupidity. Boxing fans (you know people who actually watch boxing) will 99.9% say that Rocky Marciano is an ATG. Maybe in the top 10 of all time at all weights. He was that good. Are you arrogant enough to go against people who clearly have a much more vast knowledge of boxing?

If Oxring and Windy told me that in their opinion a certain boxer was better in comparison to another, I'd make sure my opinion was at the very least educated.

You know nothing about pre 60's boxers. Fact.

Ike williams v Roberto Duran.

Duran gets koed late in the fight.

rowley wrote:

trottb wrote:Rowley hasn't said anything untrue in his statement but still wouldn't call it a fair and level appraisal of the fighters.

Not is it meant to be, am trying to show how easy it is to apply Az's approach to Marciano to the rest of the division.

Appreciate that was just trying to hammer the point home to see if it would sink in. It appears as though I failed.

trottb wrote:

rowley wrote:

trottb wrote:Rowley hasn't said anything untrue in his statement but still wouldn't call it a fair and level appraisal of the fighters.

Not is it meant to be, am trying to show how easy it is to apply Az's approach to Marciano to the rest of the division.

Appreciate that was just trying to hammer the point home to see if it would sink in. It appears as though I failed.

suspect there is more chance of my cat learning latin this side of christmas but cheers for trying.

azania wrote:OK Oxy, you've called it out. Explain the rocky thing. Now questioning Rocky is not only a sign of mental illness but also racist (which to me is deffo mental illness).

Please explain why my criticism of rocky is racist, yet my criticism of Patterson, Johnson and my praise of dempsey is not.

No, your criticism of Patterson has racial overtones to it as well. Ref Uncle Tom.

Re: Marciano and racism - its that you continually mention and have mentioned "White America" with reference to "The Rock" as a pejorative and critical point against him. This is patently unfair and a second criticism with racial overtones.

Ergo - racist criticisms.

Marciano was a great no doubt about it. Yes he was crude in his style but many fighters he faced spoke of how he was the hardest hitter they had faced. He beat 3 ATG ( i WONT MENTION LOUIS) with different styles. Walcott was a clever crafty heavy, Charles was superbly test book and Moore was as seasoned as they come. Tyson as much as I love him never faced such talent in his day.

That's about the most sensible thing you've ever said onetwo. The sole sensible thing you've ever said actually.

Wait..... I can hear Az's stomping feet and the slamming of doors

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Marciano was a great no doubt about it. Yes he was crude in his style but many fighters he faced spoke of how he was the hardest hitter they had faced. He beat 3 ATG ( i WONT MENTION LOUIS) with different styles. Walcott was a clever crafty heavy, Charles was superbly test book and Moore was as seasoned as they come. Tyson as much as I love him never faced such talent in his day.

I have to say I think this a huge misconception and one of the reasons why Marcianos record gets overplayed.

The Larry Holmes or Mike Spinks that Tyson beat was a far more formidable prospect than the Joe Louis or Ezzard Charles beat in my view. Even if you dont agree with me on that I think you would have to concede that they were at least on a par. Holmes only losses up to that point had been to Spinks. Spinks was unbeaten Tyson annihialted them both. Marciano historically gets far more credit for these wins than Tyson does and I dont think thats correct at all. Even Joe Frazier and Joe Louis gets limited or little credit for beating Foster and Conn who were in better form and condition than Charles was.

Tysons 80s form, opposition and wins are on a very similar level to Marcianos. I dont understand how Holmes, Spinks, Tucker, Tubbs etc are routinely written off but Charles, Louis, Walcott etc are hyped up.

Charles was a fading former middleweight to light heavyweight going into his Marciano fights with patchy form (losses to Walcott, Johnson and Valdes previous to it) and literally went to pot after the fights. Marciano struggled with him in the first encounter.

Spinks was a former light heavyweight coming into the Tyson fight unbeaten and having beaten an all timer great heavyweight in Holmes. Blasted out instantally.

Which win is better? We all know Marciano gts more credit for it but I dont think its right that he should.

I don't think which boxer gets more credit is what we're debating here Manos (although I respect your comments as always)

Its more about Azanias complete disregard for Rocky Marciano, saying he'd struggle in todays cruisers and that Tyson would blow him out in round 1.

Thats what we're trying to educate him on - I don't disagree that Marciano gets more credit for his victories over ATG's than Tyson does - but disregarding him as a boxer by todays standards is nothing short of complete lunacy.

I think like Tyson Marciano was trained to face much bigger men then themselves and both excelled at it. IMO Tyson would be too quick for Marciano and that is the factor here speed. No way does he blast out a former undefeated heavyweight champ in Marciano.

1 other reason that sometimes gets overlooked when matching fighters is that Marciano was a very proud champion. Some fighters become even harder to beat when they are champ like Tommy Burns, Ali, Haglar and Marciano. Tyson might floor Rocky but I am willing to bet my house that he would get up.

Maybe Tyson would floor him, but certainly not in the first round. I'd bet my house he wouldn't hi The Rock hard in round one.

Unless Rocky fancied testing him and let him swing.

That would be pretty stupid. He'd get up though, you're right.

And then a tear-up would ensue. And we know what happened to people who showed no fear in the face of Tyson.

They won!

Thats the thing, and it pains me to say it, but if the intimidation did not work then Tyson was in no mans land. Rocky however would fight on until the final bell no problems. The longer the fight goes on and with Marciano's will to only throw power shots I think Tyson would fold late.

THATS an objective view!

Tyson probably does have the tools to take down Marciano, certainly not with ease, but if the Rock expected an easy night then he'd be in for a bit of a problem. Thing is - Tyson wouldn't know what to do, he'd hit Rocky a few times with huge overhand rights and big uppercuts and think "good god this guy is made of something else" and Rocky would just keep on coming forward, burying himself inside and sending hooks and angled straights to negate Tysons head movement.

I'd have late stoppage from Rocky, maybe even a KO in the mid-rounds.

I think Azania is talking about "prime Tyson" (mythical creature akin to the Dragon)

Ahh the legendary prime Mike of Tyson. Dragon slayer, King Kong killer (I gonna smash him in his snotbox"), and all round nice guy.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:OK Oxy, you've called it out. Explain the rocky thing. Now questioning Rocky is not only a sign of mental illness but also racist (which to me is deffo mental illness).

Please explain why my criticism of rocky is racist, yet my criticism of Patterson, Johnson and my praise of dempsey is not.

No, your criticism of Patterson has racial overtones to it as well. Ref Uncle Tom.

Re: Marciano and racism - its that you continually mention and have mentioned "White America" with reference to "The Rock" as a pejorative and critical point against him. This is patently unfair and a second criticism with racial overtones.

Ergo - racist criticisms.

How wrong you are. In my opinion the words uttered towards Ali, calling him and his religion a menace, displayed, at that time, Uncle Tom characterictics. He stated that Ali should be grateful for the opportunities that America gave him. If you know the story of the field and house slaves, you will know why I and many other black people refer to Patterson in such terms. Those words were incredibly offensive. Grateful for whta? For using a dirty toilet? For not being able to sit on a bus where he wanted to? Fo not being able to live where he wanted to live? My dislike for Patterson is complete. But I would pick Rocky to beat him simply because Patterson had no chin and was weak. It would be like Chavez/Taylor but all inside 3 rounds.

My criticism of Rocky has nothing to do with his ethnicity. If you think that my comment about White america is racist towards Rocky, I direct you towards Thomas Hauser who I lifted thta from. The elevation of Rocky's standings into this impregnible (spelling-ignore them pls) superman (see JabMachine's post of Rocky walking thru Wlad's jabs) gathered pace during the Ali years. My sources for this? Nelson George and Professor Cornell West of Harvard Uni. Also Sonia Sanchez and Angela Davis have said something similar. The only trait those people share is that they are all black and were active in the civil rights movement (George was too young and is mainly a music critic and social commentator). That I support their words makes me racist towards Rocky. Absolute nonsense.

The Holmes/Cooney fight was racilly charged during the build up. Also that Cooney was ahead in the 13th Round and Holmes needed a KO to win after outboxing him for 13 rounds (or 12 - cant recall) speaks volumes about who 'they' wanted to win.

After that fight the elevation of Rocky gathered pace. At the time and in all his fights, he was the heavy betting favourite. Hauser described Charles as being shop worn after 94 fights. That he put up a good fight says more about Rocky and his crude style than it does for Charles given that he was shop worn (Hauser). He refers to the JJW fight in the same manner and even more critical of him that I have been.

Now you may still say that my critique of Rocky is mired with racism. What of Hauser? He describes Rocky in similar terms (not as blunt as I have been obviously). He described Louis as fighting to pay off the taxman.

Yet through the years, these guys, who were described as washed up, suddenly became very live opponents all fighting the fights of their lives but eventually losing to the will and supreme power of Rocky. Total and utter BS. There is no doubt that Rocky was a fiercely determined fighter who utilised his extremely limited skills to his advantage and made the best out of them. There is little doubt that Rocky was incredibly powerful and strong puncher. I have never denied that and acknowledged it several times. But if washed up (not my words) fighters can give him hell, deck him in the early rounds before losing later, what would a live and brutally destructive 220lb HW who punches harder that any of Rocky's opponents do to him

Spinks had never been dropped. Was coming off a good campaign at HW including beating the reighing HW champ who although past it was better that anyone Rocky had faced. Was undefeated, in his prime. Yet stopped in 91 seconds. No credit there but words that he was a blown up LHW.

In my mind Tyson would do away with rocky in a similar but more brutal manner simply because perhaps Rocky could absorb more punishment than Spinks. We dont know if he could absorb more punishment because Spinks was never off his feet as a pro. Had fought big hitting LHW, big hitting HW (Cooney and Holmes) and remained standing. Yet Rocky got decked by JJW and Moore (LHW).

The alleged racialism (not racism) is not centred on Rocky who by all accounts was a thoroughly decent man (except to his wife and his love of orgies etc) but by the hype that surrounded him after his sad passing. Moreover I am repeating what far more intelligent people have said about the hype but in my own blunt manner.

Respect.

JabMachine wrote:*sigh* My comparison was that of Gatti to Marciano in his determination and will to win - I didn't say that they were the same person or comparable in skill. Gatti didn't have the same skill as The Rock, what are you smoking?

You said that top tier boxers have exactly what Marciano had - my point was that nobody in the past 20 years has matched what Marciano had in terms of what I compared other than Gatti.

I said technically Gatti was a better boxer than Rocky. Rocky's style was simple, crude, brutal but effective. But regardless, Gatti was still the better boxer. IMO Rocky was not top tier. Just lucky (time and place etc)

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Marciano was a great no doubt about it. Yes he was crude in his style but many fighters he faced spoke of how he was the hardest hitter they had faced. He beat 3 ATG ( i WONT MENTION LOUIS) with different styles. Walcott was a clever crafty heavy, Charles was superbly test book and Moore was as seasoned as they come. Tyson as much as I love him never faced such talent in his day.

Yes he was all that. Also his opponents were all that also. But when they fought Rocky they were past it. Simple.

JabMachine wrote:I don't think which boxer gets more credit is what we're debating here Manos (although I respect your comments as always)

Its more about Azanias complete disregard for Rocky Marciano, saying he'd struggle in todays cruisers and that Tyson would blow him out in round 1.

Thats what we're trying to educate him on - I don't disagree that Marciano gets more credit for his victories over ATG's than Tyson does - but disregarding him as a boxer by todays standards is nothing short of complete lunacy.

In what way do I have complete disregard for Rocky? In todays terms, Rocky would be a contender. No way does he beat the K Bros.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:I think like Tyson Marciano was trained to face much bigger men then themselves and both excelled at it. IMO Tyson would be too quick for Marciano and that is the factor here speed. No way does he blast out a former undefeated heavyweight champ in Marciano.

1 other reason that sometimes gets overlooked when matching fighters is that Marciano was a very proud champion. Some fighters become even harder to beat when they are champ like Tommy Burns, Ali, Haglar and Marciano. Tyson might floor Rocky but I am willing to bet my house that he would get up.

You say that Rock was a proud champion as if he was the only proud champion. Yes Rocky may get up again. But only to be put down again.

Must say i'm very happy now that I don't have to read the bile that Azania is clearly still spouting and must ask this of Windy and Oxy. Why when a poster has such clear racial prejudice is he still allowed to post on here? Were it say myself for instance who had prejudical views against black fighters I would imagine i'd be banned straight away so why is this different?

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Must say i'm very happy now that I don't have to read the bile that Azania is clearly still spouting and must ask this of Windy and Oxy. Why when a poster has such clear racial prejudice is he still allowed to post on here? Were it say myself for instance who had prejudical views against black fighters I would imagine i'd be banned straight away so why is this different?

Jaysus H. What racial prejudice? Thomas Hauser? I know you like making baseless accusations, but kindly read my loooooong post at Oxy and tell me where the racial prejudice? If it is so clear to you, then state what is is and where it is.

If you don or cant, I expect you to man up and apologise. If you say that I am critical of Rocky because he is white, that would not only be a lie, but a deliberate lie. Whilst you're at it, explain my appreciation of Dempsey and my criticism of Johnson.

I see Oxy also missed that one.

I do quite like this foe feature

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I do quite like this foe feature

Ha. And I was pleading for a long time for you to use it. I bet it wont last long though.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:I have to say with regards to Lee and Harding, I will relate it to the heavyweight division for a minute. Lets consider the fact that Haye was ranked the third best heavyweight in the world at the time stand up to a similarly ranked heavyweight during the 70's? I personally would have to no by a long shot, so while Harding was ranked highly he wasn't regarded as highly as Tancy Lee was so the wins have to be put in perspective.

Marciano would probably lose to a few fighter ranked lower than him but despite coming out of the series against Ali at 1-2 I would in fact favour Frazier to beat him at their respective bests. Frazier would of course rank lower but he is the fighter whom I think would give Ali the most trouble not those ranked higher than him. As for Wlad beating Marciano, not a chance in hell.

Surely you give credence to size in boxing?

Weight classes were designed so matches like Klitschko v Marciano wouldnt happen.

Klitschko: 6'7, 245lbs, 81" reach

Marciano: 5'11. 185lbs, 67" reach


Its not even like Marciano is vastly more skilled than Klitschko. If anything I think Klitschko is better technically.

This is a mismatch. It wouldnt be allowed nowadays.

If you think Marciano would win (how?), ok, fair play. But to give Wlad no chance in hell is absurd I think.

Its like sticking LaMotta in with Liston.

coxy0001 wrote:Az, how many fighters in history have been as good as FMJ technically? Yes, he lacks other things such as aggression and power (at welter, he had serious pop at the lower weights) etc.

And Moore wasn't half bad, even if he was a few % below his absolute beast of a best.

Thanks Coxy. So now we have a LHW fighting for the HW title who was a few % below his best. It would be worth questioning a LHW who was below his best fighting for the title in his OWN weight class but we have a LHW below his best fighting for the title ABOVE his own weight class. That is considered a great win by the HW title holder. Boxing logic is turned upside down when it comes to Rocky.

I wonder how much credit Wlad would get for beating Hopkins. Or if Haye beat Hopkins for the WBA belt had they fought. What do you thing (assuming that you do think)?

rowley wrote:He is far from beyond criticism Az and if someone was arguing he is the best heavy of all time I would join you in making the counter argument. All I am arguing is despite its glamour billing the talent pool at heavy is rarely that great and it is not a division stacked with talent and depth, as such Rocky's records and acheivements stand fairly reasonable comparison with all but a couple of fighters and as such he warrants his top ten berth.

OK rowley, look at it this way. His victories which catapulted his to ATG standings were Louis, Moore, JJW and Charles.

Louis. Very much past his best and came out of retirement in order to pay the IRS money owed. Old, balding and past it. Great win by Rocky? Not in my books. If we call that a great win, we may as well agree with Holmes' ridiculous statement concerning his win over Ali.

Moore. A past is (coxy's words) LHW fighting for the HW title. Similar to Hopkins fighting Haye for the HW title. Who would get criticised? Would Haye get any credit for beating a fortysomething former great? Somehow I doubt it.

Charles. According to Thomas Hauser, he was washed up (his words) and showing all the signs of wear and tear after 94 fights. That Charles fought well is more a reflection of Rocky's limited skills that where Charles was at (not my words but Hauser's words)

Walcott. A man with a patchy record at best who had lost 2 of his 5 fights leading up to the Rocky fight. Beat a washed up Charles (who beat him when he was close to his prime) to win the HW title. Took Rocky 13 rounds to finally catch up with him. Furthermore a closer look at JJW's record shows a fighter whilst good at his prime always fell short until he met and beat a washed up Charles and had lost 8 or 9 of his last 20 fights.

Suddenly all these fighters become beasts, in or damn close to their beastial best, when they fought Rocky. All put up their best ever performance and the fight of their lives when they fought Rocky. Do you see a theme here?

If Haye had fought Hopkins, got dropped in the first and then KO'd in the 11th, Haye would be run out of town, be forced to wear a disguise wherever he goes and ridiculed until he retired and beyond. He would be known as the HW champ who got dropped by a LHW 40something who was a former MW as opposed to Haye beating a great LHW who was a former MW.

Now look at this without the tinted specs and objectively. YOu have stated that an undefeated record is over-valued. I agree with you (sorry ). But when it comes to Rocky, it is the be all and end all. His record on paper looks great. Hell, it is great. But turn the page and it has more holes than swiss cheese.

Now we have some numpty saying that Rocky would walk through Wlad and KO him/ Heavens above. He wouldn't get close to Wlad to land anything. It would be legalise slaughter. Put him in with Tyson and it wouldn't go past the first round. And Tyson wouldn't get any credit for beating up on a slow, crude slugger. A total mismatch. A complete, total and utter anihilation if there ever was one.

oxring wrote:

azania wrote:Are you now suggesting that rocky has any kind of latteral movement, jabbed and boxed on the back foot? Look at the 2nd ward/gatti fight and you see a transformation in gatti wherehe became more of a boxer than a slugger.

Didn't need to. There's no 1 fit all model to boxing - all that matters is winning. Rocky was a master of educated pressure and opening angles to land his punches. That, combined with the fact that every punch was delivered with power and force makes him one hell of an opponent.

He's not going to win any beauty pageants but does it matter? If silky skills are all that is required then why has Cotto ever lost?

Of course he didn't need latteral movement el al. That was my point to coxy and jabmachine. And his pressure was educated. He came in low and winged away. GCSE standard education.

I wouldn't call Tyson's skills silky either. But he was also brutally effective.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Thats the thing, and it pains me to say it, but if the intimidation did not work then Tyson was in no mans land. Rocky however would fight on until the final bell no problems. The longer the fight goes on and with Marciano's will to only throw power shots I think Tyson would fold late.

What evidence do you have that Tyson folded when his opponent was not intimidated? The Holy fight? He was beaten by the better man on the night who used a variety of skills to finally win. Claiming that Tyson folded is taking away credit from the guys who beat him.

It's hardly a mismatch when you're considering a great heavyweight against an average one, size is all Wlad has and that would never be enough against better heavyweights. Marciano would do as he always would, apply relentless pressure which would make Wlad wilt pretty damm quick. Its as much as a mismatch as Dempsey against Willard.

Its nothing like Dempsey v Willard.

Willard was a 38y old average fighter who hadnt fought in 4 years.

Dempsey was a quick, two fisted, agile heavyweight at his peak.

Marciano has a reach comparable with Hatton. He lacks the speed to get in range, he lacks the size to get in range, he lack the movement to avoid Wlads jab. How does he get past the jab? How does he get in close enough to Wlad to land?

Applying relentless pressre in this translates to walking straight into a jab all day.

If I was designing a boxer that would be the most problematic, awkward opponent possible for Marciano Wlad would be close to it. Massive reach and size advantage, cautious strategy to, quality jab, good at controlling distance and range.

Marciano is exactly the kind of fighter Wlad has proven to be so good at dealing with in the last few years. Slow, physically out gunned, easy to hit.

Marcianos best punch is his right hook. The most difficult punch to land against Wlad because of the way he sticks out the jab. Marcianos 67" reach cant go under or over the jab and his footwork and speed isnt sufficient to get him up close.

Relentless pressure is just the same as plodding forwad into a top jab and a guy with a reach advanage that 1 and a half foot.

I can see arguments for smaller heavyweights like Dempsey - who was quick and double fisted. Or Frazier who I think would beat Wlad by virtue he had good head movement and being a southpaw in the orthodox stance means his left hook would be a massive factor - its the punch Wlad is most vunerable against because he keeps his right so low.

But Marciano has none of these things. He has no tools to work with in this. Other than the durability to perhaps allow him to withstand a beating he has so few advantages.

If you have the reach of Hatton and mediocre speed and footwork its a nightmare to face a guy like Wlad. I dont see how hes able to apply any pressure. He just doesnt have the required tools to do it.

Sorry Manos but I see it the complete opposite, how does Wlad keep an aggressive fighter off him who was known to slip better jabs? Wlad has size but little else, his jab is vastly over rated and judging distance is fairly simple when your opponents don't do anything, he's no Holmes, Liston or Lewis in any regad, he doesn't come close to having that kind of ability. All three of them beat Marciano for the reasons you've stated but not Wlad not by a long shot.

azania wrote:

coxy0001 wrote:Az, how many fighters in history have been as good as FMJ technically? Yes, he lacks other things such as aggression and power (at welter, he had serious pop at the lower weights) etc.

And Moore wasn't half bad, even if he was a few % below his absolute beast of a best.

Thanks Coxy. So now we have a LHW fighting for the HW title who was a few % below his best. It would be worth questioning a LHW who was below his best fighting for the title in his OWN weight class but we have a LHW below his best fighting for the title ABOVE his own weight class. That is considered a great win by the HW title holder. Boxing logic is turned upside down when it comes to Rocky.

I wonder how much credit Wlad would get for beating Hopkins. Or if Haye beat Hopkins for the WBA belt had they fought. What do you thing (assuming that you do think)?

Archie Moore was one of the greatest light heavies who ever lived. And can you read what i read - "beast of a best". He was STILL an massive threat, as his record at heavy wasn't one of a guy struggling to beat people now was he? Boxing logic isn't turned upside down, i acknowledge he wasn't at his absolute peak but maintain that he was still a big force to be reckoned with - you just take that statement and put your own pathetic spin on it by just dismissing him as "not at his best" i.e. you think he was basically shot.

And Marciano didn't just have one or two great wins, he beat everyone he faced and never ducked a challenge. He has a series of wins which is why he's ranked so highly. So to address your sweeping statement you don't get massive kudos for "one win" you get kudos for a series of wins.

Jimmy Wilde, a massively brilliant fighter, would regularly knock out guys he was giving masses of weight away to. The same goes for Armstrong. History, and yes this is history which is therefore fact, shows us that giving weight away doesn't automatically mean that the smaller guy loses. That is a factually based statement, you on the other hand like to make things up.

It is my opinion that you're monotonous and laughably biased.

So you base much of your opinion on 4 people with racially charged opinions and you wonder why I discount your views? Your beliefs on Patterson do a great man a deal of discredit. You peddle lies and falsehoods about great fighters and greater men.

I would like to say that the lies and falsehoods are of your own creation, but it appears that you don't have the creativity for that - and instead deal in contradictory stories from the likes of Nack and Hauser.

Frankly, Az, I don't care how you twist it - your opinions are racially charged.

I prefer to accept Moore's perspective and leave it there.


“A lot of colored guys think Marciano couldn’t fight,” Moore told Donald Turner several years later. “But that’s not a fact. It’s a prejudice.”