View Full Version : When Rocky Marciano...
FrankieCas
08-11-2007, 11:40 AM
had you in trouble, hurt, dazed etc he made sure to finish you off. He was relentless & brutal in making sure the finish the job. No one ever was able to withstand his beatings once he got the upper hand. My question is this.... Would any of the all time greats be able to come back against him to win, or would Rocky continue to pummel them into submission?
janitor
08-11-2007, 12:39 PM
If Rocky Marciano had you hurt then he tended to increase his workrate to 100 punches per round or more. Obviously not good if you are already in trouble.
Bill1234
08-11-2007, 01:07 PM
Larry Holmes was decent at coming back, or at least fighting through tought moments, but once Rocky Marciano got started, typicaly you weren't gonna make it. And with his one punch, out cold power, he really didn't need to finish you if you were hurt really bad. All he would need to do is hit you once clean with Suzie Q, and you were out.
SevenSamurai
08-11-2007, 05:14 PM
Holyfield (Warrior's heart)
Holyfield+Steroids (Warriors heart plust more testosterone)
Oliver Mccall (The guy had one of the best chins period).
Holyfield the ATG heavyweight who has 11 losses on his record, I forgot about how hard to beat he was...:huh
janitor
08-11-2007, 05:17 PM
Holyfield the ATG heavyweight who has 11 losses on his record, I forgot about how hard to beat he was...:huh
Hard enough when he was the underdog if I remember right.
SevenSamurai
08-11-2007, 05:21 PM
Hard enough when he was the underdog if I remember right.
If you boxed him, kept the fight on the outside like lewis did to him in both his wins then he was not hard to beat. I seem to remember him being the underdog against Lewis so that blows apart your theory.
Holyfields "heart" was only a factor when you let him get close to you and let it go to the inside. Lewis executed the perfect strategy against Holyfield because he never let it go to the inside.
janitor
08-11-2007, 05:29 PM
[quote=Kings Randsom]If you boxed him, kept the fight on the outside like lewis did to him in both his wins then he was not hard to beat.
Then you do it.
I seem to remember him being the underdog against Lewis so that blows apart your theory.
I seem to remember Lewis being the decided underdog.
Holyfields "heart" was only a factor when you let him get close to you and let it go to the inside. Lewis executed the perfect strategy against Holyfield because he never let it go to the inside.
He did but it is easier said than done. Not everybody has Lewis's tools.
Bummy Davis
08-11-2007, 05:36 PM
I spoke to Walcott, I was impressed with the size of his hands and neck and he was 63, I fought many men but even at 63 he looked like he had the know how and the power to make it differcult, and he said imagine being hurt,tired,really tired but doing good gives you adrenilene but, here is a guy who keeps coming, got off the floor stronger and every punch he throws hurts, and he just keeps punching, arms, head,body,neck, you try and catch your breath and Bam they get harder. Walcott also said before the fight, he had it won but Marciano was easy to beat watching him but harder to beat in the ring trying to do it, he was a hard guy to time consistantly
SevenSamurai
08-11-2007, 05:42 PM
[quote]
Then you do it.
I seem to remember Lewis being the decided underdog.
He did but it is easier said than done. Not everybody has Lewis's tools.
1. I am not a professional boxer, who is a title contender in the heavyweight division so this comment is very childish.
2. Lewis was the favourite in UK against Holyfield in both fights. I dont know whether you are from the USA. I would not be surprised if you were, if you are trying to tell me that Holyfield was a favourite to beat Lewis in both fights or even just the first one.:huh
3. Lewis had the tools yes, but many other fighters have beaten Holyfield without executing the perfect strategy. He has been beaten by far worse fighters than Lewis :yep , like a former middleweight with a pot belly for instance. :dead
Bummy Davis
08-11-2007, 05:50 PM
Holyfield (Warrior's heart)
Holyfield+Steroids (Warriors heart plust more testosterone)
Oliver Mccall (The guy had one of the best chins period).
the Body shots VS former middleweight Tony were very effective vs Holyfield and those Body shots made Evander know enough was enough, guys that hurt you to the body have that effect
Holyfield the ATG heavyweight who has 11 losses on his record, I forgot about how hard to beat he was...
Holy would chop Rocky's head off. Holy with power,chin,will and skills. Marciano on a stretcher.
the Body shots VS former middleweight Tony were very effective vs Holyfield and those Body shots made Evander know enough was enough, guys that hurt you to the body have that effect
You can't compare Tony's skills with Marciano's brawling style.
janitor
08-11-2007, 06:25 PM
[quote=Kings Randsom]
1. I am not a professional boxer, who is a title contender in the heavyweight division so this comment is very childish.
That coment puts what you are saying into perspective.
2. Lewis was the favourite in UK against Holyfield in both fights. I dont know whether you are from the USA. I would not be surprised if you were, if you are trying to tell me that Holyfield was a favourite to beat Lewis in both fights or even just the first one.:huh
I live in the UK
The press at the time made Hollyfield out to be a strong favourite.
3. Lewis had the tools yes, but many other fighters have beaten Holyfield without executing the perfect strategy. He has been beaten by far worse fighters than Lewis :yep , like a former middleweight with a pot belly for instance. :dead
The worst fighter to beat him was good enough that other all time greats have lost to worse.
Incidentaly I am often a Hollyfield critic.
janitor
08-11-2007, 06:30 PM
You can't compare Tony's skills with Marciano's brawling style.
Correct
No more than you can compare Tony's piter patter punches to Marciano's bombs.
McGrain
08-11-2007, 06:36 PM
Ali could do it.
Frazier possibly.
Luigi1985
08-11-2007, 06:38 PM
Holy would chop Rocky's head off. Holy with power,chin,will and skills. Marciano on a stretcher.
Even the Holy with hardcore roids early in his HW career would probably be the one on the stretcher at the end of the fight my little friend...
No more than you can compare Tony's piter patter punches to Marciano's bombs.
Toney's piter patter punches floored 43 opponents bruva.
Luigi1985
08-11-2007, 06:53 PM
Toney's piter patter punches floored 43 opponents bruva.
At MW Toney KO´d some, yeah, Marciano KO´ed good HW´s, big difference...
Even the Holy with hardcore roids early in his HW career would probably be the one on the stretcher at the end of the fight my little friend...
My little midget,with this you are totally wrong.
Luigi1985
08-11-2007, 06:56 PM
My little midget,with this you are totally wrong.
Why do you call me midget? You don´t know how big/small I am, btw, for people who know a bit about bodybuilding and stuff like that, it´s crystal-clear that Holy took roids, if he confesses it or not...
Marciano KO´ed good HW´s
You mean good HWs past their prime.Yes.
Luigi1985
08-11-2007, 07:00 PM
You mean good HWs past their prime.Yes.
Charles, Walcott, etc. showed great performances against Marciano, if you would have watched more tapes from them you would have seen that prime versions of these fighters weren´t much better than against the rock, but this theme we have all week...
btw, better beat a great fighter who´s not peak but still world class than mediocre fat boys with the help of roids...
Even the Holy with hardcore roids early in his HW career would probably be the one on the stretcher at the end of the fight my little friend...
Why do you call me midget? You don´t know how big/small I am
Are you on drugs?
for people who know a bit about bodybuilding and stuff like that, it´s crystal-clear that Holy took roids, if he confesses it or not...
Yes? And? Who else?
Luigi1985
08-11-2007, 07:03 PM
Are you on drugs?
No, when I´m on drugs I´m not at home...
perhaps it was a bit too high for you dumbass, although we talk in your language English, ask me if you don´t understand here something, I´m going to write it more comprehensible for you... :good
Luigi1985
08-11-2007, 07:04 PM
Yes? And? Who else?
Do you mean who else in boxing took surely drugs or do you mean who else believe that Holy was/ is on roids? Don´t write in secrets...
No, when I´m on drugs I´m not at home...
OMG,I knew it. You're a crackhead. Now stick to your drugs and forget boxing. :spliff
Luigi1985
08-11-2007, 07:13 PM
OMG,I knew it. You're a crackhead. Now stick to your drugs and forget boxing. :spliff
I practice boxing and bodybuilding pretty succesful and I have a bit of knowledge also in theory and boxing history, so IMO I can talk with some guys here, what have drugs to do with that now? It seems to be that you´re a very young and "fresh" guy, but don´t overact now, read better posts of good posters like Manassa, Janitor, McGrain, etc., there you can learn something instead of getting on my nerves...
Bummy Davis
08-11-2007, 07:19 PM
Holy would chop Rocky's head off. Holy with power,chin,will and skills. Marciano on a stretcher.
Holyfield was dropped and almost stopped by Burt(no Heart) Cooper, Johnny Ruiz and Fat 5"9 Toney, there were no real skills in that fight just good body shots, Ridduck (the fat riddler Bowe) stopped Evander, I love the guy but Marciano can hit a lot harder than Toney on Steriods or a fat slow Bowe(big as he was)...Marciano was a horse of a different color (no pun intended):smoke
Holyfield was dropped and almost stopped by Burt(no Heart) Cooper, Johnny Ruiz and Fat 5"9 Toney, there were no real skills in that fight just good body shots, Ridduck (the fat riddler Bowe) stopped Evander, I love the guy but Marciano can hit a lot harder than Toney on Steriods or a fat slow Bowe(big as he was)...Marciano was a horse of a different color (no pun intended)
You mean the same Holyfield who gave Tyson fits would lose to a brawling ploddering Marciano? So you'd rate Marciano higher than Tyson?
Marciano Frazier
08-11-2007, 10:04 PM
There are a few ATG's that could beat him without having to "come back" That wasn't the question.
Marciano Frazier
08-11-2007, 10:07 PM
Toney's piter patter punches floored 43 opponents bruva. 43 in a 78-fight career, as compared with Marciano's 43 in 49. And about two of them were heavyweights for Toney.
Toney had better boxing technique, but Marciano was the better fighter.
Club Fighter
08-11-2007, 10:14 PM
Many of Rocky's biggest wins came over guys suffering from geriatric-related deficiencies. Way-to-go, Rock. You're a great champ with your whole 6 title defenses. Larry Holmes KO8 Marciano.
Bummy Davis
08-12-2007, 07:40 AM
You mean the same Holyfield who gave Tyson fits would lose to a brawling ploddering Marciano? So you'd rate Marciano higher than Tyson?
Tyson was a good front runner but when challenged with a real heart in front of him, he folded, Evander struggled to stop Bobby Cyz who was KO'd in 2 by Corrie Sanders but he stood up to Mike and Mike quit, same with Williams,Lewis,McBride and Holyfield 2(bully bite)...Marciano would have showed him heart and toughness that he never saw. Yes I RATE Marciano over Tyson
Bummy Davis
08-12-2007, 07:44 AM
Many of Rocky's biggest wins came over guys suffering from geriatric-related deficiencies. Way-to-go, Rock. You're a great champ with your whole 6 title defenses. Larry Holmes KO8 Marciano.
Walcott primed late but was still better than all of Holmes opponents, and how would you compare him next to Henry Cooper,Doug Jones,Karl Mildenburger, Do you think Charles,Moore,Walcott,Lastarza or some of the men they beat(Valdes,Satterfield,Baker could beat most of Ali's opponnets
43 in a 78-fight career, as compared with Marciano's 43 in 49.
Doesn't matter if you KO them with class or with raw power. Thing is that Toney did it.
Marciano would have showed him heart and toughness that he never saw. Yes I RATE Marciano over Tyson
:patsch :patsch :patsch
Marciano was half the fighter Tyson was. Regarding speed,power,aggressiveness, etc.
joe33
08-12-2007, 08:58 AM
:patsch :patsch :patsch
Marciano was half the fighter Tyson was. Regarding speed,power,aggressiveness, etc.
Bull he was,the guy never proved it for long enough though did he,he may well have gone on to be the best fighter ever,but come on now douglas for fucks sake knocked him into next week,and he was a nothing fighter.
Still so many haters for the rock,i guess for some people,even the thought that a white smallish awkward guy,who was a decent man still holds the all time heavyweight record must kill them,still get fucking used to it LOL,hes never gonna be knocked off the perch,theres not a guy out there who is ever gonna get near the rocks record.:happy :happy
SevenSamurai
08-12-2007, 09:20 AM
[quote]
That coment puts what you are saying into perspective.
I live in the UK
The press at the time made Hollyfield out to be a strong favourite.
The worst fighter to beat him was good enough that other all time greats have lost to worse.
Incidentaly I am often a Hollyfield critic.
1. You are not a professional boxer either- so that puts things into perspective.
2. The press in the UK at the time did not have Holyfield as a favourite. You are a liar, or just stupid. I cant decide which one although I would assume the later given your posting style.
3. This is a highly debatable point. One in which, neither me nor you could agree upon. However, Maskaev and Ruiz are both very high on the list of the worst heavyweight champions in the history of boxing- both of which have wins over Holyfield.
SevenSamurai
08-12-2007, 09:24 AM
Holy would chop Rocky's head off. Holy with power,chin,will and skills. Marciano on a stretcher.
How you can think that a fighter who has been stopped by the likes of John Ruiz and Oleg Maskaev would be able to beat an unbeaten heavweight champion of the world is beyond reasoning.
I assume you are the usual Holyfield fanboy who frequents boxing message boards on a regular basis to be delusional about your heros skills.
How you can think that a fighter who has been stopped by the likes of John Ruiz and Oleg Maskaev would be able to beat an unbeaten heavweight champion of the world is beyond reasoning.
How you can think that a fighter who won 2 times against Mike Tyson wouldn't win against that mummy Marciano?
Even James Buster Douglas would be able to KO Marciano.
SevenSamurai
08-12-2007, 01:41 PM
How you can think that a fighter who won 2 times against Mike Tyson wouldn't win against that mummy Marciano?
Even James Buster Douglas would be able to KO Marciano.
I rate a fighter over their entire career, unlike you.
If you look at Holyfields entire career, then he has displayed major weaknesses and has been beaten too many times to be considered a match for marciano.
I know from a personal point of view that you hate Marciano. I dont care either way for him, apart from thinking he is over-rated by many like you.
However, the fact that Holyfield got two good wins over a fading and mentally weak former champion like Tyson does not define his entire career like you are suggesting. If Holyfield had met the 88 Tyson it would have been very different.
Buster Douglas KO Marciano. Now that is funny.:rofl
Bill1234
08-12-2007, 10:25 PM
The better question would be what all time great would lose to somebody who was as worthless as a fighter as Maricano was and the answer would be none.Even a big bum like Tye Fields would knock Marciano out in 1 round.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :nut
Dempsey1238
08-12-2007, 11:11 PM
Marciano was a All time Great. Far from the bum you paint him as. On any giving night, He give any one hell.
fists of fury
08-13-2007, 02:59 AM
You mean the same Holyfield who gave Tyson fits would lose to a brawling ploddering Marciano? So you'd rate Marciano higher than Tyson?
I'd rate Marciano above both of them, yes.
Buster Douglas kicked the shit out of a prime (or close enough) Tyson. Bowe beat Holyfield 2/3.
"Oh" I hear you say "Tyson wasn't on his game that night." So what? He lost. Marciano, even on an off night, managed to win. He found a way, unlike Mike who could barely find his mouthpiece.
Holyfield was a great fighter with heart and will to win that rivals Rocky's. It would be a war, but Rocky's immense natural ruggedness and strength would carry the day. (Assuming he was brought into the modern era with contemporary nutritional and training techniques.)
Back to topic, when Marciano had you hurt it was usually only a matter of time until he got you, but maybe someone like an Ali or Holyfield could survive.
Holyfield was a great fighter with heart and will to win that rivals Rocky's. It would be a war, but Rocky's immense natural ruggedness and strength would carry the day. (Assuming he was brought into the modern era with contemporary nutritional and training techniques.)
Marciano was slow,Holy was not. Marciano was a slow powerpuncher,Holy was a technical puncher with a bang. Holy would outbox AND bang the shyte out of Marciano. Marciano's style is made for Holy no matter how much roids he would take.
fists of fury
08-13-2007, 07:02 AM
Marciano was slow,Holy was not. Marciano was a slow powerpuncher,Holy was a technical puncher with a bang. Holy would outbox AND bang the shyte out of Marciano. Marciano's style is made for Holy no matter how much roids he would take.
I tend to disagree. Holyfield had a propensity to get dragged into a brawl, and under what circumstances does he beat Marciano at his own game?
Holyfield had great stamina and he threw a ton of punches at you, he overwhelmed you with volume. However, Evander's strong points are Marciano's too. Same great stamina and similar punch volume. Marciano though, had the bonus of a genuine fight-ending punch with either hand.
I'm not saying he could KO Evander with one shot, but in general he had heavier hands and over a long fight that edge in power would help him in a rough fight.
Anyway, I think this would be a great, great fight. Maybe if Evander chose to box he'd win, but in a brawl (which is what I think the fight would become) I have to go with the guy who is more suited to do so.
Holyfield had a propensity to get dragged into a brawl, and under what circumstances does he beat Marciano at his own game?
Under same circumstances he won twice against a much speedier Tyson.
Manassa
08-13-2007, 04:02 PM
I tell you what, Randolph Turpin beat Don Cockell a lot more definitively and effectively than Marciano did.
Sonny's jab
08-13-2007, 05:04 PM
I tell you what, Randolph Turpin beat Don Cockell a lot more definitively and effectively than Marciano did.
I agree.
And Cockell looked to be the same fighter but without the 30 pounds of blubber.
janitor
08-13-2007, 06:16 PM
Under same circumstances he won twice against a much speedier Tyson.
Tyson did not know how to infight.
Bummy Davis
08-13-2007, 07:33 PM
Under same circumstances he won twice against a much speedier Tyson.
Tyson had no heart,Marciano had heart and power and stamina bad combo for the opponent,as soon as Douglas and Holyfield stood up to Mike he quit and he did it again with Williams and McBride, HEART (or as Vlad Klitschko says BALLS) Thats one thing the tale of the tape measurements leave out and Marciano NEEDED a WHEEL Barrell to carry his:smoke
Marciano Frazier
08-14-2007, 12:23 AM
I tell you what, Randolph Turpin beat Don Cockell a lot more definitively and effectively than Marciano did. Ummm... What criteria are you using here? Marciano won either every round or every round but one(some had the second round for Cockell), floored Cockell three times and stopped him in nine. How, exactly, can you beat someone more "definitively" or "effectively" than that? Maybe a 30-second knockout or something of the like, but Turpin took into the 11th. Further, although I haven't seen the fight, the AP account describes it as a "bruising" match, which doesn't sound like a total slaughter.
Dempsey1238
08-14-2007, 01:11 AM
The Marciano Cockell fight was pretty much a slaughter. That ref stop the fight a few rounds too late imo.
Luigi1985
08-14-2007, 08:26 AM
The Marciano haters are getting more ridiculous and more ridiculous, now even a natural disaster, who´s so slow like me when I´m both, drunk and drugged up, Tye Fields would beat "the bum Marciano" in 1 round by easy KO...
grow up kids! :lol:
Tyson had no heart,Marciano had heart and power and stamina bad combo for the opponent,as soon as Douglas and Holyfield stood up to Mike he quit and he did it again with Williams and McBride, HEART (or as Vlad Klitschko says BALLS) Thats one thing the tale of the tape measurements leave out and Marciano NEEDED a WHEEL Barrell to carry his
Tyson had enough heart to pull a UD against a Razor Ruddock or Tony Tucker,and this win was by no means very easy for Tyson.
Tyson did not know how to infight.
OMG :patsch
janitor
08-14-2007, 10:48 AM
OMG :patsch
I stand by my statment. Tyson was not a true infighter but a mid range fighter who just had verry short arms.
I stand by my statment. Tyson was not a true infighter but a mid range fighter who just had verry short arms.
With what footage do you want to prove that theory?
janitor
08-14-2007, 01:30 PM
With what footage do you want to prove that theory?
Any.
There is not one fight where he shows genuine infighting ability. An infighter is sombody whose shoulders practicaly touch his oponents chest. Take Henry Armstrong as the classic example.
Any.
There is not one fight where he shows genuine infighting ability. An infighter is sombody whose shoulders practicaly touch his oponents chest. Take Henry Armstrong as the classic example.
Pfffft,yeah.......and Sugar Ray Leonard was a slugger :lol:
Dempsey1238
08-14-2007, 03:59 PM
Frazier, Marciano, Armstrong, Nelson. THATS INFIGHTING. Tyson was more of a mid fighter.
There are 3 ranges.
Out fighting, Ali, Robinson, SRL, ete.
Mid fighting, Tyson of couse. Dempsey to a extant outside of Gibbions, Carp, Canzi, Ted Kid Lewis. Jack Johnson when not cliching of couse.
Than IN fighting.
Armstrong, Dempsey as he did vs Gibbions, Fraizer, Marciano, Fullmer, Balsio ete.
Mid fighting, Tyson of couse. Dempsey to a extant outside of Gibbions, Carp, Canzi, Ted Kid Lewis. Jack Johnson when not cliching of couse.
Than IN fighting.
Armstrong, Dempsey as he did vs Gibbions, Fraizer, Marciano, Fullmer, Balsio ete.
You name Dempsey both mid and infighting. So tell me now in which fights exactly did Tyson midrange fighting.
Dempsey1238
08-14-2007, 04:13 PM
Traver, Spinks, Holmes, All these fights were done in mid range. He never had chest to chest INFIGHTING like Armstrong or Fraizer did. Dempsey did it in ONLY one film fight I have and that was against Tommy Gibbons.
An infighter is sombody whose shoulders practicaly touch his oponents chest.
That's a sign of exhaustion.
An infighter fights within HIS range in which he can land his most powerful punches,means hooks or uppercuts.
Dempsey1238
08-14-2007, 04:19 PM
This is footage of Henry Armstrong on Youtube, This is INFIGHTING. As you will see. Tyson never fight that close chest to chest.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]
You see a BIG differnts between Tyson's midrange and Armstrong's infighting.
Dempsey1238
08-14-2007, 04:20 PM
That's a sign of exhaustion.
An infighter fights within HIS range in which he can land his most powerful punches,means hooks or uppercuts.
Than Armstrong must of been tired by the FIRST round. :lol:
Than Armstrong must of been tired by the FIRST round.
Some guys tend to save their stamina by fighting that way. It's a pre-stage of clinching.
Dempsey1238
08-14-2007, 04:25 PM
That's a sign of exhaustion.
An infighter fights within HIS range in which he can land his most powerful punches,means hooks or uppercuts.
No thats MID range.
Dempsey1238
08-14-2007, 04:29 PM
Some guys tend to save their stamina by fighting that way. It's a pre-stage of clinching.
Armstrong did not clich, He would be chest to chest thowing over 100 punchings a round. This is not John Ruiz or Sammy Argott. This was a wirldwind of a fighter. Armstrong was the TRUE case of infighting.
Marciano when he broke his man down went infighting as he did vs Cockell and Moore and Charles 1. chest to chest. If they get tired up, they rought it up or yank the arms to get out of the clich. Mostly its just chest to chest banging away.
Tyson never fight that close chest to chest.
You see a BIG differnts between Tyson's midrange and Armstrong's infighting.
Again, infighting is the range of a fighter who chooses the range in which he can land his best hooks or uppercuts. It's a matter of angles.
Dempsey1238
08-14-2007, 04:35 PM
Thats mid fighting. Tyson was just short of being a infighting. He perfer to be in his mid range to genrated his power. , with his power. IN fighting is chest to chest.
If infighting is chooseing the range, Than SRL was a infighter also when he chooses to to land his hooks ete.
Again for you:
1) Fighting outside: You use jabs all the time, sometimes weak crosses.
2) Fighting midrange: You use the whole arsenal,but hooks or uppercuts land in a different angle and therefore no full power.
3) Infighting: You use the perfect range for the hardest hooks and uppercuts in your arsenal. You try to have the perfect angle of your arm. How you do that is up to you and how you feel comfortable with it.
Dempsey1238
08-14-2007, 04:52 PM
Your mid and In are about the SAME though. You just give less power for Mid is all. Archie Moore was midrange fighter with his style. So was Tyson. You are confuses the 2.
Manassa
08-14-2007, 05:07 PM
Ummm... What criteria are you using here? Marciano won either every round or every round but one(some had the second round for Cockell), floored Cockell three times and stopped him in nine. How, exactly, can you beat someone more "definitively" or "effectively" than that? Maybe a 30-second knockout or something of the like, but Turpin took into the 11th. Further, although I haven't seen the fight, the AP account describes it as a "bruising" match, which doesn't sound like a total slaughter.
Please do not 'ummm' me.
Turpin beat Cockell a lot more cleanly and efficiently; he wasted less energy, looked better, and outperformed Cockell on a professional, tidy level. He dispatched a fitter-looking Cockell with far more accurate and economical punches than Rocky delivered.
Besides, I was referring to the finish, since finishing is what we are talking about. Turpin wrecked Cockell in the eleventh round.
Your mid and In are about the SAME though.
Mid and in are not exactly the same because your outside-range contains the jab as your primary weapon.
Marciano Frazier
08-14-2007, 06:07 PM
Please do not 'ummm' me.
Now, I don't mean this as an insult, but I've seen you do plenty worse than "Ummming" someone.
Turpin beat Cockell a lot more cleanly and efficiently; he wasted less energy, looked better, and outperformed Cockell on a professional, tidy level. He dispatched a fitter-looking Cockell with far more accurate and economical punches than Rocky delivered.
Besides, I was referring to the finish, since finishing is what we are talking about. Turpin wrecked Cockell in the eleventh round.
So you're more or less saying that Turpin looked prettier doing the job than Marciano did. That may well be true, but Marciano did him in faster and more dominantly, so ultimately, even if he looked less economical or efficient in the process, his was, well, effectively at least as "effective" and "definitive". This is all a lot of hair-splitting, of course. Marciano put on a sloppy performance against Cockell, his form was unusually poor, and one would ordinarily have expected him to put Cockell away earlier. Not a big deal- for example, strictly speaking, no-name cruiserweight Ricardo Richardson beat Jose Ribalta more "effectively" and "definitively" than a prime Mike Tyson did.
janitor
08-14-2007, 07:15 PM
That's a sign of exhaustion.
An infighter fights within HIS range in which he can land his most powerful punches,means hooks or uppercuts.
No. An infighter punches inside what would normaaly be considered the optimum range for throwing punches. We are talking inches. He also maintains a low profile to make himself harder to counter.
Tyson never mastered this.
janitor
08-14-2007, 07:17 PM
3) Infighting: You use the perfect range for the hardest hooks and uppercuts in your arsenal. You try to have the perfect angle of your arm. How you do that is up to you and how you feel comfortable with it.
Oh dear. The kids today really dont learn what infighting means.
An infighter punches inside what would normaaly be considered the optimum range for throwing punches.
That's what I said already.
janitor
08-14-2007, 07:21 PM
That's what I said already.
A first class infighter will sacrifice power to get the shortest distence of travel possible. We are not just talking about the distence you need to get power into an uppercut or hook.
Oh dear. The kids today really dont learn what infighting means.
How old are you clown? I think you're not aware of who you're talking to.
janitor
08-14-2007, 07:25 PM
How old are you clown? I think you're not aware of who you're talking to.
I am 29.
Who exactly am I talking to if I should know already?
A first class infighter will sacrifice power to get the shortest distence of travel possible.
That's incorrect. Plain and simple.
Semi-Hugging Shoulder to Chest Style doesn't generate maximum powerpunches.
Ura-Nage
08-14-2007, 07:28 PM
A few things-
Marciano slaughtered Cockell. This fight is always brought up and I have no idea why. Its one of the few, clear Marciano fights we have and the footage is savage. Check out the double left hook Marciano crushes Cockell with.
Holyfield got hit to much to beat Marciano.
Ali had the recuperative abilities to come back from a Marciano beat down. Possibly Holmes and Louis.
janitor
08-14-2007, 07:30 PM
That's incorrect. Plain and simple.
Semi-Hugging Shoulder to Chest Style doesn't generate maximum powerpunches.
No. You loose power but the punches are imposible to predict or stop. This is the ultimate expresion of the art.
Produce a list of who you consider to be the best infighters of all time I will explain why they were not infact that.
I am 29.
Who exactly am I talking to if I should know already?
Certainly no teenager or highschool puppy that you are apparantly.
You loose power but the punches are imposible to predict or stop. This is the ultimate expresion of the art.
I assume you are new to boxing. That's no shame.
janitor
08-14-2007, 07:33 PM
Certainly no teenager or highschool puppy that you are apparantly.
Most people on this site have me pegged at about 70.
janitor
08-14-2007, 07:36 PM
I assume you are new to boxing. That's no shame.
Verry easy to make remarks speculating about my age and background.
Why dont you prove your superior knowledge by listing the five fighters you consider to be the best infighters of all time and explaining why they are the best five in terms of technique.
You might find that you dont know as much as you think.
Anyway I am off to bed.
Make your list and I will scrutinize it tomorrow.
Most people on this site have me pegged at about 70.
So you have a good excuse. Having Alzheimer is no shame at all.
Anyway I am off to bed.
Yes,that's good for you.
janitor
08-14-2007, 07:42 PM
Yes,that's good for you.
Don't forgett the list.
I will be scrutinizing your choices.
mr. magoo
08-14-2007, 08:37 PM
Don't forgett the list.
I will be scrutinizing your choices.
I'd like to see how this turns out.
RockyJim
08-15-2007, 05:56 AM
We're still waiting for your list of fighters,asshole!! This should be good!!!
JohnThomas1
08-15-2007, 07:08 AM
If you boxed him, kept the fight on the outside like lewis did to him in both his wins then he was not hard to beat. I seem to remember him being the underdog against Lewis so that blows apart your theory.
Holyfields "heart" was only a factor when you let him get close to you and let it go to the inside. Lewis executed the perfect strategy against Holyfield because he never let it go to the inside.
A couple of things. Lewis isn't just any heavyweight and what range did Holyfield mainly beat Tyson? :hey
fists of fury
08-15-2007, 07:29 AM
We're still waiting for your list of fighters,asshole!! This should be good!!!
Cue frantic googling. :yep
Manassa
08-15-2007, 04:16 PM
Now, I don't mean this as an insult, but I've seen you do plenty worse than "Ummming" someone.
So you're more or less saying that Turpin looked prettier doing the job than Marciano did. That may well be true, but Marciano did him in faster and more dominantly, so ultimately, even if he looked less economical or efficient in the process, his was, well, effectively at least as "effective" and "definitive". This is all a lot of hair-splitting, of course. Marciano put on a sloppy performance against Cockell, his form was unusually poor, and one would ordinarily have expected him to put Cockell away earlier. Not a big deal- for example, strictly speaking, no-name cruiserweight Ricardo Richardson beat Jose Ribalta more "effectively" and "definitively" than a prime Mike Tyson did.
Now, I don't mean this as an insult, but I've seen you do plenty worse than "Ummming" someone.
Not when they have a valid point.
Marciano put on a sloppy performance against Cockell, his form was unusually poor, and one would ordinarily have expected him to put Cockell away earlier.
And this is it. Turpin beat Cockell in better fashion, and that was my comment - don't confuse it with me saying 'Turpin was better' or using it as ammunition to degrade Marciano. Rather, I was praising Turpin.
red cobra
08-15-2007, 04:44 PM
"Experts" nowadays just hate the fact that Rocky won 'em all and left most of his opponents unconcious in the process. Everyone has their opinions, however, and speculating on how the Rock would have done poorly against the new BIG HEAVYWEIGHTS from Liston on down the line to today is plausible and they have some reasonable points to make. However, what I find ridiculous are the jokers who make posts like "Roy Jones would whip Marciano", or ditto with James Toney, etc., There has NEVER been, then or now, a man from any division below heavyweight who would have beaten, in any way, Rocky Marciano. End of story.
Manassa
08-15-2007, 04:45 PM
"Experts" nowadays just hate the fact that Rocky won 'em all and left most of his opponents unconcious in the process. Everyone has their opinions, however, and speculating on how the Rock would have done poorly against the new BIG HEAVYWEIGHTS from Liston on down the line to today is plausible and they have some reasonable points to make. However, what I find ridiculous are the jokers who make posts like "Roy Jones would whip Marciano", or ditto with James Toney, etc., There has NEVER been, then or now, a man from any division below heavyweight who would have beaten, in any way, Rocky Marciano. End of story.
I disagree. Randolph Turpin would have whipped him.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.