Frazier vs. Marciano

[laxpdx]

If these two swarmers collided, who would eventually get run over?

[McGrain]

All the standard issue fights are coming around again this month!!

I got Frazier as the slightly better of the two, and based upon that i see Joe taking it on cuts middle of the fight. But if Marciano hits just a wee bit harder than I think he does (or gets lucky), he could win.

[Bokaj]

Very close. Marciano had better two fisted power, but Frazier was bigger, a bit faster and a bit more accurate. Stamina-wise they're very even, but Marciano probably has the better chin.

I think Frazier's advantages in size, speed and accuracy might make the difference, though. But very hard to say.

[dezbeast]

I think Frazier would beat Marciano pretty badly. He was quicker than Marciano, and I think Frazier's left hook was a harder punch than Rocky's right. And I'm pretty positive that Frazier had the better chin. He walked straight through Foster's best punches without getting hurt, and Foster punches every bit as hard, if not harder than Moore. I say Frazier would likely stop the Rock on cuts.

[Bill1234]

I think Marciano would take it by a very close decision. Both fighters got much stronger and increased their workrates starting in the middle rounds, but I think Marciano was stronger, and hit harder than Frazier, and I think he would outslug him. By the end both men would probably hit the canvas, and both would be very swollen and bloody. This would have been a great fight.

[warrior85]

ill take a prime frazier

[GPater11093]

next thread is Louis vs Ali

[Minotauro]

I'd take Frazier neither fighter would be the same after.

[Holmes' Jab]

Frazier TKO7.

[OBCboxer]

Frazier wins by TKO in round 10. They have nice power but Frazier has greater handspeed, accuracy, head movement and timing. It will be a pretty even fight up until the later rounds where the stronger and bigger Frazier starts to come on.

[hermeneut]

I get the feeling this fight wouldn't really go that long. Both have remarkable consistency of style and after a few bloody exchanges I believe Marciano's two fisted knockout power would take a toll. I can almost see their heads colliding in a brawl at about the time Marciano knocks Frazier out.

But there would be mighty action from the start.

[djanders]

I think whiskers would be important. I liked watching both fighters, but I don't think Joe would see round 5 in this one. Marciano, although surprisingly banged up in such a short fight, would win by KO around the 4th, in my opinion.

[PhillyPhan69]

This would be a great war! My personal bias my cloud my judgement, but I would lean towards frazier. I could reasonably fathom either guy getting stopped late, but both had good stamina. I would envision this going the distance and Frazier nipping a decision. Although I rate Marciano ahead in a ratings list, I would narrowly favor Joe in a H2H encounter...although I wouldn't be comfortable placing money on it either!!!

[guilalah]

Great fight, which I don't think will go the distance, unless both guys get too beaten up to end it. I lean a little to Marciano by KO, round six or after. A Frazier win would probably be either a cuts stoppage or a round six to eight TKO.
I think whoever looses will none-the-less look like a formidable fighter.

[Russell]

Frazier.

Equal will. Equally difficult to land clean on. Both true 15 round fighters. Both relentless, with comaprable workrates.

Frazier doesn't mark up badly, at all, eliminating him being stopped by TKO a majority of the time.

Frazier is larger, and more refined.

Frazier CAN box to some degree, and has an underrated jab.

Frazier is better to the body.

[Maxmomer]

Frazier by stoppage.

[hhascup]

I pick Frazier.

He was 20 to 30 pounds heavier, hit just as hard if not harder, was faster with his hands and he didn't cut as Rocky did.

By the way, I just came back from the AAIB affair where Ken Norton, Emile Griffith, Emanuel Steward, Hilmer Kenty, Bobby Czyz, Bruce Beck, Harold Lederman and Bert Sugar were all their.

I drove up with Referee Steve Smoger and Boxing Judge Steve Weisfeld.

[he grant]

Frazier by mid-round TKO ... Joe was twenty pounds bigger, considerbly faster, a huge puncher in his own right, a better combo puncher and at least Rocky's equal in stamina ... similiar to the first Quarry bout ...

[196osh]

Frazier would win.

[Bummy Davis]

Marciano had a great right and and Frazier got hit with that punch a lot. I also think Marciano recuped better of the 2....Marciano by a late stop 11-15 in a war....Frazier said only 2 guys would have beaten him in his prime...Louis and Marciano

[SuzieQ49]

Two hands are better than one! Marciano by stoppage rounds 9-11 in a war

[Mendoza]

Great match up. I'll go with Marciano because I think he took the better punch, and threw the harder punch. The styles of the two would pretty much result in plenty of action.

[Russell]

Great match up. I'll go with Marciano because I think he took the better punch,

Because Marciano fought a Foreman level puncher, right?

[hhascup]

Because Marciano fought a Foreman level puncher, right?

Very Good!

Who was the best puncher Rocky ever fought when they were in their prime. Louis was not the Louis as he once was, Moore & Walcott were both in their late 30's. Maybe Ezzard Charles, who? No one that he fought compares to Foreman as far as punching power goes, not even close.

[MrMarvel]

Nice to see so many people picking Frazier. I agree.

[Maxmomer]

Very Good!

Who was the best puncher Rocky ever fought when they were in their prime. Louis was not the Louis as he once was, Moore & Walcott were both in their late 30's. Maybe Ezzard Charles, who? No one that he fought compares to Foreman as far as punching power goes, not even close.

The hardest and best punchers Marciano ever fought were Moore and Walcott, both of whom floored him.

[Hank]

Layne hit hard, and had beaten Walcott in 1950. Marciano had great left hook too, it gets overlooked because he was always known for the right he ko'd Walcott with.

As for taking a punch, Walcott and Moore both said shots they knocked other guys out with did not faze Marciano. That's impressive, especialy coming from moore.

[Hank]

Frazier was careless and overcondident agaianst Foreman. If Marciano was, he may get same loss Frazier did. In head to dhead match of Marciano and Frazier, I don't think going by one fight Frazier had--regardless of if you pick Frazier, like some do, or Marciano, as I do, is right method of comparisson. Just my opinion.

[Flea Man]

Frazier, but only just.

[RockyJim]

I'll take The Rock by KO in this one....this would be a GREAT fight!!!

[mcvey]

Frazier.

Equal will. Equally difficult to land clean on. Both true 15 round fighters. Both relentless, with comaprable workrates.

Frazier doesn't mark up badly, at all, eliminating him being stopped by TKO a majority of the time.

Frazier is larger, and more refined.

Frazier CAN box to some degree, and has an underrated jab.

Frazier is better to the body.

"Frazier doesn't mark up badly, at all" Are you for real?
Fraziers head looked like a black football after his fights with Ali,he had contusions all over his face!
He was known to be prone to facial swelling!
Marciano used to cut, but not swell up.

[turpinr]

"Frazier doesn't mark up badly, at all" Are you for real?
Fraziers head looked like a black football after his fights with Ali,he had contusions all over his face!
He was known to be prone to facial swelling!
Marciano used to cut, but not swell up.

after that first fight ,frazier's head was as big as jeremy clarkson's
though obviousy not as useless !!

[punchy]

I have never been able to seperate them but it would not be a draw, and I don't buy this stuff about Frazier being a one handed puncher meaning much, he certainly smashed a lot of two handed men.

[mcvey]

after that first fight ,frazier's head was as big as jeremy clarkson's
though obviousy not as useless !!
:lol::lol::lol::lol::good

[Mendoza]

Because Marciano fought a Foreman level puncher, right?

No because Frazier was stunned or buckled by mid level punchers like Stander, or Bugner. Or badly hurt by a solid puncher in Bonevenna. Frazier might have the weakest chin of any all time top 15 heavyweight.

Marciano hit much harder then these guys and was more active / ferocious. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

In a match where fighters will stand and trade, durability and power mean a lot. I think Marciano has the edge on durability and power.

[mcvey]

No because Frazier was stunned or buckled by mid level punchers like Stander, or Bugner. Or badly hurt by a solid puncher in Bonevenna. Frazier might have the weakest chin of any all time top 15 heavyweight.

Marciano hit much harder then these guys and was more active / ferocious. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

In a match where fighters will stand and trade, durability and power mean a lot. I think Marciano has the edge on durability and power.

We agree ,especially two fisted power.

[Bummy Davis]

No because Frazier was stunned or buckled by mid level punchers like Stander, or Bugner. Or badly hurt by a solid puncher in Bonevenna. Frazier might have the weakest chin of any all time top 15 heavyweight.

Marciano hit much harder then these guys and was more active / ferocious. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

In a match where fighters will stand and trade, durability and power mean a lot. I think Marciano has the edge on durability and power.


Good response

[Russell]

"Frazier doesn't mark up badly, at all" Are you for real?
Fraziers head looked like a black football after his fights with Ali,he had contusions all over his face!
He was known to be prone to facial swelling!
Marciano used to cut, but not swell up.

There's a difference between swelling and the horrific, possibly fight ending cuts Marciano routinely picked up.

Marciano also never took a sustained, consistent beating like Frazier did in Ali III. Who's face wouldn't of swelled up after that?

[Dempsey1238]

Some one didnt see Marciano Walcott I.

[OBCboxer]

No because Frazier was stunned or buckled by mid level punchers like Stander, or Bugner. Or badly hurt by a solid puncher in Bonevenna. Frazier might have the weakest chin of any all time top 15 heavyweight.

Marciano hit much harder then these guys and was more active / ferocious. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

In a match where fighters will stand and trade, durability and power mean a lot. I think Marciano has the edge on durability and power.

Frazier the weakest chin? What about Joe Louis? He was down more than Frazier was and from a different array of fighters.

Frazier was inexperienced when he fought Bonavena the first time. Frazier was never in any trouble against Stander or Bugner who were both beaten handidly.

[Joe E]

Frazier was slightly taller, about 15Lbs heavier, and a bit quicker then Marciano. With that said, Joe was a sucker for a right hand, due to being essentially blind in his left eye, had no right hand to speak of, and didn't use the left Jab much. Joe really dosn't have much to keep Marciano off him, being essentaily a one handed fighter. Add to that, that Marciano was a 2 fisted puncher with power in both fists, with almost super human resolve and stamina, and could handle anything Frazier threw at him. I think Marciano grinds him down for a late round KO in a sensational brawl.

[rekcutnevets]

I've seen a lot of talk about size here, and I'm influenced by it as well. But is it really that big of a difference? Marciano was between 184-188 at his best. Frazier was around 205, or at times a lb or so less, at his. This is basically a cruiserweight fight, albeit a big cruiser against a small one.

A lot of people also like to bring up the fact that some of Maciano's biggest wins, like Charles and Moore, are against light heavyweights. They like to say Marciano never faced a "big" guy. Smaller guys are, on average, quicker than larger opponents. It may be safe to say that Mariciano faced quicker opposition than a lot of heavyweights, and would not be offset that much by what we consider to be a fast "big" guy.

I say most of this out of respect. I rank Marciano #6 all time, and he deserves a benefit of my doubt.

Still, after watching:
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

and

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I can't picture Marciano winning this.

[hhascup]

Back in 1963, a Boxing Mag. ran an article on all the Heavyweight Champions. The experts rated them on Power, Chin, Footwork, Jab, Hook, Right & Stamina.

They had Rocky with a BEST rating in Power, Chin & Right, he got a fair rating in Jab and a Poor rating in both Footwork & Hook.

[TheGreatA]

This is the first time I've ever seen anyone say that Joe Frazier had a "weak chin".

I have Frazier winning this fight, not only because he is 20 lbs bigger but because I think Marciano would actually have a lot of trouble landing consistently on Frazier.

[Joe E]

Some one didnt see Marciano Walcott I. Or Charles 1.

[Russell]

Back in 1963, a Boxing Mag. ran an article on all the Heavyweight Champions. The experts rated them on Power, Chin, Footwork, Jab, Hook, Right & Stamina.

They had Rocky with a BEST rating in Power, Chin & Right, he got a fair rating in Jab and a Poor rating in both Footwork & Hook.

Oh wow, well, that settles that then.

:rofl:rofl:rofl

[mcvey]

There's a difference between swelling and the horrific, possibly fight ending cuts Marciano routinely picked up.

Marciano also never took a sustained, consistent beating like Frazier did in Ali III. Who's face wouldn't of swelled up after that?

Look ,you said Frazier did not mark up badly at all.
I pointed out to you that you were totally wrong, and gave the three Ali fights as examples ,can't you just accept you were wrong?
You have a history of making sweeping statements ,and ,when you are called on them, ignoring the replies. ie Bob Foster was winning against Ali etc.
Marciano had two cuts in fights that were potentially fight ending ,the split nose he sufffered against Charles in their second fight and the cut eyebrow he sustained against Keene Simmons.Rocky had a gash high on his hair line in the first Walcott fight ,but he DID NOT" routinely pick up possibly fight ending cuts" . Another unsubstantiated ,sweeping statement.Frazier 's face was a mass of lumps in ALL THREE fights .Marciano took as much ,I would say more punishment from Walcott in their first fight, than Frazier did against Ali, yet he was relatively unmarked after the fight ,as photos attest to.

[DRMULLEN]

Rocky Marciano by a late ko..note 1971 frazier will win..good fight..

[dezbeast]

Marciano took as much ,I would say more punishment from Walcott in their first fight, than Frazier did against Ali, yet he was relatively unmarked after the fight ,as photos attest to.

I think this is a ridiculous statement. Did you even watch the whole Marciano-Walcott fight? And did you even watch the whole Ali-Frazier fight?

[mcvey]

I think this is a ridiculous statement. Did you even watch the whole Marciano-Walcott fight? And did you even watch the whole Ali-Frazier fight?

Yes to both questions.

[hhascup]

Oh wow, well, that settles that then.

:rofl:rofl:rofl


I put that in because some people claim that Rocky was a 2 fisted fighter and had a great left hook as well as a great right cross. Most experts that saw him box, don't agree. They do agree that he had a Great right cross and only a fair left hook.

Frazier had a Great left hook and a fair right cross. Bert Sugar stated that his left hook was 2nd only to Dempsey's. Nat Fleischer rated Frazier as the best body puncher ever, and the 2nd most aggressive fighter, only behind Henry Armstrong. He also rated Rocky as one of the best punchers, behind Dempsey and Baer and the most courageous.

As I stated before, I think the Frazier that fought Ali in their 1st fight, would get the better of Rocky. He was faster, hit just as hard if not harder, could take a punch, and was approx. 20 pounds heavier.

As far as who took the more punishment, Frazier against Ali 1 or Rocky against Walcott 1, all you got to do is watch the tapes and know what happen to both after the bouts. Frazier spent time in the hospital during the ensuing week and Rocky went home.

[SuzieQ49]

frazier may be 20lb heavier(a little fluff around the midsection too), but he was not stronger than rocky marciano

[round15]

Look ,you said Frazier did not mark up badly at all.
I pointed out to you that you were totally wrong, and gave the three Ali fights as examples ,can't you just accept you were wrong?
You have a history of making sweeping statements ,and ,when you are called on them, ignoring the replies. ie Bob Foster was winning against Ali etc.
Marciano had two cuts in fights that were potentially fight ending ,the split nose he sufffered against Charles in their second fight and the cut eyebrow he sustained against Keene Simmons.Rocky had a gash high on his hair line in the first Walcott fight ,but he DID NOT" routinely pick up possibly fight ending cuts" . Another unsubstantiated ,sweeping statement.Frazier 's face was a mass of lumps in ALL THREE fights .Marciano took as much ,I would say more punishment from Walcott in their first fight, than Frazier did against Ali, yet he was relatively unmarked after the fight ,as photos attest to.

I politely disagree with you McVey.

I would say Marciano took the most punishment in his fight with Ezzard Charles. The hooks that Charles landed almost caved in the right side of Marciano's face and vice-versa. Marciano's face sure wouldn't look pristine if he ate the same amount of jabs and right hands that Frazier did against Ali during their fights.

By the way, Frazier was nowhere near puffed up or swelled in the 2nd fight with Ali like the FOTC or Manilla because Ali's punches were mostly pittypat/shoeshine in the rematch. One right hand shot to the side of Frazier's head in the second round almost had him down, and he might have been knocked down if Perez didn't goof up thinking he heard the bell.
Ali spent most of the rematch pushing down on Frazier's head, mugging, hugging and holding whenever he could, so he couldn't have landed enough punches to make Frazier swell significantly. Over 12 rounds with his illegal tactics, it's just not possible.

[McGrain]

I think I agree with Q on that, Rocky was a bull. Frazier was mightily strong though, he may well get the better of those duels where it counts. Frankly, I think there is no way to know this one though.

But yeah, much of Frazier's extra weight was weight.


No weight on Rocky.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[round15]

frazier may be 20lb heavier(a little fluff around the midsection too), but he was not stronger than rocky marciano

I agree to disagree because Frazier had pretty strong legs and was one of the hardest body punchers in heavyweight history. Rocky may have slightly more upper body strength to Frazier but overall, he's not stronger than Frazier.

[Bokaj]

frazier may be 20lb heavier(a little fluff around the midsection too), but he was not stronger than rocky marciano

Perhaps he was, perhaps he wasn't. But since they would fighting at close quarters for just about the whole fight Frazier would make his extra weight to bear. If two fighters, with stamina being more or less equal, fight in close, the smaller fighter should be the one to tire first.

And Frazier had no fluff around the midsection at 204.

[mcvey]

frazier may be 20lb heavier(a little fluff around the midsection too), but he was not stronger than rocky marciano
Neither did he hit harder.

[brando18b4h]

I would pick prime Frazier by late round K.O, However if Marciano caught Frazier with a couple of crisp Suzy Q's he could K.O Frazier as well. It is definitely not going the distance.

[mcvey]

I politely disagree with you McVey.

I would say Marciano took the most punishment in his fight with Ezzard Charles. The hooks that Charles landed almost caved in the right side of Marciano's face and vice-versa. Marciano's face sure wouldn't look pristine if he ate the same amount of jabs and right hands that Frazier did against Ali during their fights.

By the way, Frazier was nowhere near puffed up or swelled in the 2nd fight with Ali like the FOTC or Manilla because Ali's punches were mostly pittypat/shoeshine in the rematch. One right hand shot to the side of Frazier's head in the second round almost had him down, and he might have been knocked down if Perez didn't goof up thinking he heard the bell.
Ali spent most of the rematch pushing down on Frazier's head, mugging, hugging and holding whenever he could, so he couldn't have landed enough punches to make Frazier swell significantly. Over 12 rounds with his illegal tactics, it's just not possible.

I'll try and dig out some pics for you .The cover of a BI of that time showed Frazier lumpy and puffy after the second fight.
Whether Marciano took more punishment from Charles or Walcott,is not the issue.Marciano said no one hurt him like Charles, but we are comparing Marciano and Frazier
I agree, Frazier was on the verge of going down when Perez goofed up as you say.

[mcvey]

I put that in because some people claim that Rocky was a 2 fisted fighter and had a great left hook as well as a great right cross. Most experts that saw him box, don't agree. They do agree that he had a Great right cross and only a fair left hook.

Frazier had a Great left hook and a fair right cross. Bert Sugar stated that his left hook was 2nd only to Dempsey's. Nat Fleischer rated Frazier as the best body puncher ever, and the 2nd most aggressive fighter, only behind Henry Armstrong. He also rated Rocky as one of the best punchers, behind Dempsey and Baer and the most courageous.

As I stated before, I think the Frazier that fought Ali in their 1st fight, would get the better of Rocky. He was faster, hit just as hard if not harder, could take a punch, and was approx. 20 pounds heavier.

As far as who took the more punishment, Frazier against Ali 1 or Rocky against Walcott 1, all you got to do is watch the tapes and know what happen to both after the bouts. Frazier spent time in the hospital during the ensuing week and Rocky went home.

I would say ,from watching all the available film of Marciano,and coming up with Frazier that Marciano's left hook was better than Frazier's right cross.

I would say that Liston's left hook was harder than Frazier's ,Foreman 's too ,but Frazier threw his incessantly ,with power and accuracy, so its arguable,for me Frazier was NOT a top notch puncher,in the Foreman ,Baer, Liston ,Dempsey mould.

[MAG1965]

Frazier would win by early knockout. The stronger man wins.

[TheGreatA]

I think I agree with Q on that, Rocky was a bull. Frazier was mightily strong though, he may well get the better of those duels where it counts. Frankly, I think there is no way to know this one though.

But yeah, much of Frazier's extra weight was weight.


No weight on Rocky.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Frazier never had a great "build" but at 205 he didn't seem to have any excess weight either:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

A pic of his legs:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Marciano:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[hhascup]

What would happen if Frazier & Marciano switched careers. Meaning what if Frazier fought in Rocky's time frame and Rocky fought in Joe's.

I honestly feel that Joe would have as good a record as Rocky did BUT Rocky would have been hard pressed to match Joe's.

I just can't see Rocky beating Ali at no time. Frazier only lost to 2 boxers, Ali and Foreman and I can't see Rocky beating either one of them either. Plus I believe Frazier would beat 37 year old Louis, 38 year old Walcott, Charles might have given Joe some trouble if they fought in the late 40's or early 50's BUT at the time Ezzard fought Rocky, Joe would have had no trouble.

Over 51% of Frazier's bouts were against boxers that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another (13 different boxers 19 times in 37 bouts), Marciano is under 33% (13 different boxers 16 times in 49 bouts).

While there opponents were rated in the Top 10 (counting Light Heavyweight Champions at the time), Frazier fought 37.8% to Marciano's 22.4%.

[hhascup]

I would say ,from watching all the available film of Marciano,and coming up with Frazier that Marciano's left hook was better than Frazier's right cross.

I would say that Liston's left hook was harder than Frazier's ,Foreman 's too ,but Frazier threw his incessantly ,with power and accuracy, so its arguable,for me Frazier was NOT a top notch puncher,in the Foreman ,Baer, Liston ,Dempsey mould.

All were Great punchers, BUT I think that Frazier's left hook was much faster. Like I said, my friend Bert Sugar has his left hook 2nd all-time, behind Dempsey's. Some other boxing historians & experts have it on top as well.

[mcvey]

All were Great punchers, BUT I think that Frazier's left hook was much faster. Like I said, my friend Bert Sugar has his left hook 2nd all-time, behind Dempsey's. Some other boxing historians & experts have it on top as well.

Well ",you pays your money ",etc

[Chinxkid]

Marciano by knockout

[hermeneut]

I put that in because some people claim that Rocky was a 2 fisted fighter and had a great left hook as well as a great right cross. Most experts that saw him box, don't agree. They do agree that he had a Great right cross and only a fair left hook.

Frazier had a Great left hook and a fair right cross. Bert Sugar stated that his left hook was 2nd only to Dempsey's. Nat Fleischer rated Frazier as the best body puncher ever, and the 2nd most aggressive fighter, only behind Henry Armstrong. He also rated Rocky as one of the best punchers, behind Dempsey and Baer and the most courageous.

As I stated before, I think the Frazier that fought Ali in their 1st fight, would get the better of Rocky. He was faster, hit just as hard if not harder, could take a punch, and was approx. 20 pounds heavier.

As far as who took the more punishment, Frazier against Ali 1 or Rocky against Walcott 1, all you got to do is watch the tapes and know what happen to both after the bouts. Frazier spent time in the hospital during the ensuing week and Rocky went home.

I don't know any way to settle an issue like who hits harder than by taking a look at KO percentage. Does anyone know a better way? It certainly gives us concrete and behavioral data to measure the punch for one of the fighters is rendered unconsious or nearly so. And dang near everyone can see that and take the measure of the punch or punches. There will always be the experts and their opinions but what do they rest their opinions on?

Marciano was a KO specialist. He had one of the hightest KO percentages of any fighter. Higher than Frazier's.

And it seems to me another point regarding KOs should be mentioned.

We must distinguish between a KO and a TKO though often these are conflated. The KO is usually definitive and there isn't much argument about it. A TKO, on the other hand, is often up for debate. For it often isn't thought to be a definitive end of the fight. We hear things like "he could have gone on." And the sissy modern age calls offs fights pretty quickly compared to the old days.

Looked at that way we notice that Frazier's so called KO record is much lower than Marciano's for many of his KOs were in reality TKOs. All in all there were few TKOs on Marciano's record. He basically knocked his opponents unconscious or nearly so. It is the other way around with Frazier. But Marciano may have one of the highest, if not the hightest, of pure KO finishes.

Now tell me how hard a puncher punches can be settled any better? Of course, it goes without saying there are many other ways to end a fight than by hard KO punches. But that is not the question here.

As to whether Marciano had a two fisted power, well, can some of you informed folks show Marciano knocking out a man with his left hand? It seems to me, if I remember, Marciano had Louis out on his feet with the his left. Louis' is basically limp with the shot, his eyes closed and arms down at his side while still standing. The right only comes to knock Joe outside the ring.

But perhaps that question is mostly irrelevant given Rocky knocked cold most of his opponents and did so more often than any other fighter.

On these grounds there is little comparison of Frazier to Marciano as far as punching power goes. Marciano hits a lot harder.

[mcvey]

I don't know any way to settle an issue like who hits harder than by taking a look at KO percentage. Does anyone know a better way? It certainly gives us concrete and behavioral data to measure the punch for one of the fighters is rendered unconsious or nearly so. And dang near everyone can see that and take the measure of the punch or punches. There will always be the experts and their opinions but what do they rest their opinions on?

Marciano was a KO specialist. He had one of the hightest KO percentages of any fighter. Higher than Frazier's.

And it seems to me another point regarding KOs should be mentioned.

We must distinguish between a KO and a TKO though often these are conflated. The KO is usually definitive and there isn't much argument about it. A TKO, on the other hand, is often up for debate. For it often isn't thought to be a definitive end of the fight. We hear things like "he could have gone on." And the sissy modern age calls offs fights pretty quickly compared to the old days.

Looked at that way we notice that Frazier's so called KO record is much lower than Marciano's for many of his KOs were in reality TKOs. All in all there were few TKOs on Marciano's record. He basically knocked his opponents unconscious or nearly so. It is the other way around with Frazier. But Marciano may have one of the highest, if not the hightest, of pure KO finishes.

Now tell me how hard a puncher punches can be settled any better? Of course, it goes without saying there are many other ways to end a fight than by hard KO punches. But that is not the question here.

As to whether Marciano had a two fisted power, well, can some of you informed folks show Marciano knocking out a man with his left hand? It seems to me, if I remember, Marciano had Louis out on his feet with the his left. Louis' is basically limp with the shot, his eyes closed and arms down at his side while still standing. The right only comes to knock Joe outside the ring.

But perhaps that question is mostly irrelevant given Rocky knocked cold most of his opponents and did so more often than any other fighter.

On these grounds there is little comparison of Frazier to Marciano as far as punching power goes. Marciano hits a lot harder.

A well argued post with which I agree.Who exactly did Frazier render unconscious? Walcott said Marciano had greater one shot power than Louis,anyone think Frazier is in that league?

[hhascup]

I don't know any way to settle an issue like who hits harder than by taking a look at KO percentage. Does anyone know a better way? It certainly gives us concrete and behavioral data to measure the punch for one of the fighters is rendered unconsious or nearly so. And dang near everyone can see that and take the measure of the punch or punches. There will always be the experts and their opinions but what do they rest their opinions on?

Marciano was a KO specialist. He had one of the hightest KO percentages of any fighter. Higher than Frazier's.

And it seems to me another point regarding KOs should be mentioned.

We must distinguish between a KO and a TKO though often these are conflated. The KO is usually definitive and there isn't much argument about it. A TKO, on the other hand, is often up for debate. For it often isn't thought to be a definitive end of the fight. We hear things like "he could have gone on." And the sissy modern age calls offs fights pretty quickly compared to the old days.

Looked at that way we notice that Frazier's so called KO record is much lower than Marciano's for many of his KOs were in reality TKOs. All in all there were few TKOs on Marciano's record. He basically knocked his opponents unconscious or nearly so. It is the other way around with Frazier. But Marciano may have one of the highest, if not the hightest, of pure KO finishes.

Now tell me how hard a puncher punches can be settled any better? Of course, it goes without saying there are many other ways to end a fight than by hard KO punches. But that is not the question here.

As to whether Marciano had a two fisted power, well, can some of you informed folks show Marciano knocking out a man with his left hand? It seems to me, if I remember, Marciano had Louis out on his feet with the his left. Louis' is basically limp with the shot, his eyes closed and arms down at his side while still standing. The right only comes to knock Joe outside the ring.

But perhaps that question is mostly irrelevant given Rocky knocked cold most of his opponents and did so more often than any other fighter.

On these grounds there is little comparison of Frazier to Marciano as far as punching power goes. Marciano hits a lot harder.


I disagree with your last statement. If Frazier fought the same opponents as Rocky did he would have just as good if not better KO%.

If we go by what you have, Lamar Clark would be rated as one of the hardest punchers ever.

Frazier's Left hook was much better then his right BUT before he was Champion, he had as many KO's with his right hand as he did with his left, according to Jim Jacobs.

[mcvey]

Frazier would win by early knockout. The stronger man wins.
How do you know Frazier was stronger than Marciano?

[SuzieQ49]

I do think people are underating frazier's one punch power, his left hook was lethal, just one was all it takes to put you on queer st. On the otherhand, I think people are also overlooking marcianos huge advantage in having two knockout punches, to fraziers one, which I think makes the difference in this fight.

[hhascup]

I do think people are underating frazier's one punch power, his left hook was lethal, just one was all it takes to put you on queer st. On the otherhand, I think people are also overlooking marcianos huge advantage in having two knockout punches, to fraziers one, which I think makes the difference in this fight.


Not too many boxing historians or experts would agree that Rocky had even a good left hook. He did have KO's with it BUT Frazier also had KO's with his right, especially early in his career.

[mcvey]

Frazier would win by early knockout. The stronger man wins.
Why are you sure Frazier is the stronger man?

[mcvey]

I do think people are underating frazier's one punch power, his left hook was lethal, just one was all it takes to put you on queer st. On the otherhand, I think people are also overlooking marcianos huge advantage in having two knockout punches, to fraziers one, which I think makes the difference in this fight.
Who did Frazier ko with one punch ?

[mcvey]

I disagree with your last statement. If Frazier fought the same opponents as Rocky did he would have just as good if not better KO%.

If we go by what you have, Lamar Clark would be rated as one of the hardest punchers ever.

Frazier's Left hook was much better then his right BUT before he was Champion, he had as many KO's with his right hand as he did with his left, according to Jim Jacobs.
Could you name ONE ko Frazier acheived with his right cross?

[mcvey]

Not too many boxing historians or experts would agree that Rocky had even a good left hook. He did have KO's with it BUT Frazier also had KO's with his right, especially early in his career.

Examples of Frazier kos with his right please.

[hhascup]

I haven't watched many of his early bouts because there not available, BUT when he KO'ed one of his opponents, before he became the Champion, Jim Jacobs made the statement that he had so many KO's and half of them were with his right hand and the other half was with his left. He made a point to say that he had equal amount of KO's with each hand.

I would have to go through my collection of boxing films to see which ones he was talking about.

To be honest with you, his statement took me by surprise as well BUT I never saw many of his early bouts.

I never said he had a Great right hand, I honestly think that it was just fair. Most boxing historians & experts rate Rocky's left as only fair as well. If I had to rate Rocky's left with Frazier's right, I might have Rocky's rated a little higher.

This is what one stated about Frazier:
His right hand was solid and hurtful, but it suffered in comparison to the one punch that not only defined his career but the image of his adopted hometown of Philadelphia – the left hook.

Again, if Joe Frazier fought the same opponents as Rocky did, I truly believe his record and KO record would be just as good.

[mcvey]

I haven't watched many of his early bouts because there not available, BUT when he KO'ed one of his opponents, before he became the Champion, Jim Jacobs made the statement that he had so many KO's and half of them were with his right hand and the other half was with his left. He made a point to say that he had equal amount of KO's with each hand.

I would have to go through my collection of boxing films to see which ones he was talking about.

To be honest with you, his statement took me by surprise as well BUT I never saw many of his early bouts.

I never said he had a Great right hand, I honestly think that it was just fair. Most boxing historians & experts rate Rocky's left as only fair as well. If I had to rate Rocky's left with Frazier's right, I might have Rocky's rated a little higher.

This is what one stated about Frazier:
His right hand was solid and hurtful, but it suffered in comparison to the one punch that not only defined his career but the image of his adopted hometown of Philadelphia – the left hook.

Again, if Joe Frazier fought the same opponents as Rocky did, I truly believe his record and KO record would be just as good.

Jim Jacobs was a great hand ball player and had a fine collection of fight films thats it. He did NOT have great insight into boxing and had a lot of his matches for his charges made under the aegis of Mickey Duff ,a close personal friend.I'm afraid I take that assertion with a pinch of salt .

[hhascup]

Jim Jacobs was a great hand ball player and had a fine collection of fight films thats it. He did NOT have great insight into boxing and had a lot of his matches for his charges made under the aegis of Mickey Duff ,a close personal friend.I'm afraid I take that assertion with a pinch of salt .

I have high regard for Jimmy and so do most boxing people.

Frazier fought opponents that had an average record of W26-L5.4-D.95 - 81.7%
Marciano fought opponents that had a average record of W29.7-L10.2-D1.8 - 73.5%

[mcvey]

I have high regard for Jimmy and so do most boxing people.

Frazier fought opponents that had an average record of W26-L5.4-D.95 - over 81%
Marciano fought opponents that had a average record of W29.7-L10.2-D1.8 - 73.5%

I have a high regard for Jim Jacobs as a man of probity ,and compassion but not as a man with an in depth knowledge of boxing.

[Joe E]

I politely disagree with you McVey.

I would say Marciano took the most punishment in his fight with Ezzard Charles. The hooks that Charles landed almost caved in the right side of Marciano's face and vice-versa. Marciano's face sure wouldn't look pristine if he ate the same amount of jabs and right hands that Frazier did against Ali during their fights.

By the way, Frazier was nowhere near puffed up or swelled in the 2nd fight with Ali like the FOTC or Manilla because Ali's punches were mostly pittypat/shoeshine in the rematch. One right hand shot to the side of Frazier's head in the second round almost had him down, and he might have been knocked down if Perez didn't goof up thinking he heard the bell.
Ali spent most of the rematch pushing down on Frazier's head, mugging, hugging and holding whenever he could, so he couldn't have landed enough punches to make Frazier swell significantly. Over 12 rounds with his illegal tactics, it's just not possible.I seem to recall seeing a picture of Frazier after the 2nd Ali fight in my local paper and he didn't look to good.

[TheGreatA]

Frazier cut up and stopped Quarry with his right in the rematch. He also had a good right uppercut which set up the big left hook and he worked the body with both hands.

His left hook was the knockout punch but I wouldn't say that he had no right hand to speak of.

Some videos to watch:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Shows that he greatly prefers to throw the left hook but the right uppercuts do some damage as well.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Frazier cuts Quarry with his right.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Look at Frazier go to work in the fourth round.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Watch from about 2:25 onwards.

[mcvey]

I have high regard for Jimmy and so do most boxing people.

Frazier fought opponents that had an average record of W26-L5.4-D.95 - 81.7%
Marciano fought opponents that had a average record of W29.7-L10.2-D1.8 - 73.5%

I'm not sure what you think the figures you posted signify.
You mentioned Frazier's early fights .
Well lets take a look.
1.Woody Goss tko1rd The fight is stopped because of Goss's holding after a knockdown.
2.Mike Bruce tko3rds Frazier down for a a count of 8 in 1st rd
3..Ray Staples tko2rds.Staples was a puffed up LH and had been stopped 8 times in his last 15 fights.
4..Abe Davis ko1rd. Davis had been stopped 8 times in 28 fights and would be stopped in ALL of his next fights [5] in a total of 10rds.Ko via left hook
5..Mel Turnbow ko1rd by left hook
6..Dick Wipperman tko5rds this was a respectable win.
7..Charley Polite tko 2rds.Polite had lost 4 of last 5 fights,the other was a draw.
8.Don Smith ko3rds by left hook
So ,in first 8 fights Frazier scored 3 kos,NONE via left hook
Other 5 fights were stopped by referees intervention , or corner man's
Conclusion } Frazier's early fights ,most were tkos with opponent conscious ,those that were kos ,were acheived by left hook.

[hhascup]

I have a high regard for Jim Jacobs as a man of probity ,and compassion but not as a man with an in depth knowledge of boxing.


I think he had a lot of knowledge in boxing. Just because he was a handball player, don't mean that he wasn't an expert on boxing.

Jimmy Jacobs was elected to the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1993, as well as the World Boxing Hall of Fame, so others must have thought the same thing.

[hhascup]

I'm not sure what you think the figures you posted signify.


They tell you that Frazier fought the better opponents.

Frazier fought opponents that had an average record of W26-L5.4-D.95 - 81.7%
Marciano fought opponents that had a average record of W29.7-L10.2-D1.8 - 73.5%

Over 51% of Frazier's bouts were against boxers that were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another (13 different boxers 19 times in 37 bouts), Marciano is under 33% (13 different boxers 16 times in 49 bouts).

While there opponents were rated in the Top 10 (counting Light Heavyweight Champions at the time), Frazier fought 14 out of 37 for a 37.8% to Marciano's 11 out of 49 for a 22.4%.

Rocky fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 26th bout when he won a close split decision against LaStarza. He fought another 10 bouts before he fought another top 10 contender when he stopped Rex Layne. When he fought Moore that was only the 11th time Rocky ever fought a boxer that was rated in the top 10 when he fought them.

Thank you "TheGreatA" for bringing those tapes to light.

[Bummy Davis]

I think he had a lot of knowledge in boxing. Just because he was a handball player, don't mean that he wasn't an expert on boxing.

Jimmy Jacobs was elected to the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1993, as well as the World Boxing Hall of Fame, so others must have thought the same thing.


Jimmy Jacobs had a lot of boxing films and had a lot of clout in boxing but to say that 1/2 of Fraziers KO's were because of the right hand is
ridicules .....Fraziers right was not as useless as Cooneys but both men could be defined as one handed fighters without too much of an arguement from most.

[mcvey]

Frazier cut up and stopped Quarry with his right in the rematch. He also had a good right uppercut which set up the big left hook and he worked the body with both hands.

His left hook was the knockout punch but I wouldn't say that he had no right hand to speak of.

Some videos to watch:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Shows that he greatly prefers to throw the left hook but the right uppercuts do some damage as well.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Frazier cuts Quarry with his right.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Look at Frazier go to work in the fourth round.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Watch from about 2:25 onwards.
Love your videos. Right to business.
Ziglewisz was a product of Hugh Benbow ,the millionaire oilman ,he put an ad in the Ring magazine inviting young men over 5 10 in and 180lbs[ziggy just qualified] to get in touch with him ,with a view to becoming pro fighters . He looked at Ziggy's close to his head ears and nicknamed him the "animal." Ziggy never beat a live fighter and the very fact that he was contesting a version of the heavyweight title speaks more about Benbow's influence and ties with the Houston Astrodome, than it does about the Polish boys ability.The fight shows Frazier doubling up his left hook to body and head ,breaking up the Pole.
Of the three fights you show this is the only one in which Frazier scores a ko.
Quarry was on his feet and fully conscious ,Ellis was retired on his stool by Dundee.
No one said Frazier did not have a right hand, my contention is that it was not as effective as Marciano's left hook . I have asked those who state that Frazier scored as many kos with his right as his left to produce ONE of them. The silence has been deafening.
I could go further and state that Frazier SELDOM KOD ANYONE, most of his stoppages were tkos and most of his victims like Chuvalo, Quarry were on their feet at the time.MY position is that Frazier did NOT pack the ONE PUNCH POWER OF MARCIANO.OR COMPARABLE POWER IN HIS OTHER HAND,in his case his right, in Marciano's his left.
Frazier was a VOLUME puncher who ground down his better opposition ,he hit Mathis allnight before bringing him down , banged Bonavena like a drum ,but never looked like flooring the man who was dropped by Folley and Ellis.Three times by Ali and kod Frazier's other wins were over an old Machen ,a Ramos who quit,Frazier caught Foreman flush with acouple of hooks in their first fight ,there was no reaction from George.
Keep Posting the Vids!:good

[hhascup]

This is because of the era. After Paret was killed many referees stopped the bouts sooner then they did in the past.

As far as Frazier's right hand goes, when he became a contender he used his left hook mostly to score his KO's or TKO's. Most if not all his KO's by his right hand was done during the early part of his career. Jacobs made the statement not me and he had all the films.

[Dempsey1238]

Perhaps, but most often Marciano needed 1 or 2 knockdowns to end a fight compare to Joe's 4 or 5.

[TheGreatA]

Love your videos. Right to business.
Ziglewisz was a product of Hugh Benbow ,the millionaire oilman ,he put an ad in the Ring magazine inviting young men over 5 10 in and 180lbs[ziggy just qualified] to get in touch with him ,with a view to becoming pro fighters . He looked at Ziggy's close to his head ears and nicknamed him the "animal." Ziggy never beat a live fighter and the very fact that he was contesting a version of the heavyweight title speaks more about Benbow's influence and ties with the Houston Astrodome, than it does about the Polish boys ability.The fight shows Frazier doubling up his left hook to body and head ,breaking up the Pole.
Of the three fights you show this is the only one in which Frazier scores a ko.
Quarry was on his feet and fully conscious ,Ellis was retired on his stool by Dundee.
No one said Frazier did not have a right hand, my contention is that it was not as effective as Marciano's left hook . I have asked those who state that Frazier scored as many kos with his right as his left to produce ONE of them. The silence has been deafening.
I could go further and state that Frazier SELDOM KOD ANYONE, most of his stoppages were tkos and most of his victims like Chuvalo, Quarry were on their feet at the time.MY position is that Frazier did NOT pack the ONE PUNCH POWER OF MARCIANO.OR COMPARABLE POWER IN HIS OTHER HAND,in his case his right, in Marciano's his left.
Frazier was a VOLUME puncher who ground down his better opposition ,he hit Mathis allnight before bringing him down , banged Bonavena like a drum ,but never looked like flooring the man who was dropped by Folley and Ellis.Three times by Ali and kod Frazier's other wins were over an old Machen ,a Ramos who quit,Frazier caught Foreman flush with acouple of hooks in their first fight ,there was no reaction from George.
Keep Posting the Vids!:good

Lets not forget though that Frazier was fighting very durable men who were tough for anyone to get out of there with one punch (Chuvalo, Quarry, Ali). Against light heavyweights such as Bob Foster or less than stellar opposition such as Zyglewicz he looked like a destroyer which is often the case.

Marciano didn't always get his opposition out of there with one punch either, for example Don Cockell, Roland LaStarza, Archie Moore, Lee Savold. He had to wear them down.

[OBCboxer]

I have watched a lot of Frazier's fights and more than once and have noticed that he has a very solid right uppercut. I've noticed that when a fighter gets hit flush with the right uppercut, he is straightened out and stunned which is when the left hook comes flying in on his jaw. Frazier loved to mix this little combination in with a great body attack to wear his opponent down. Some of you underrate his one shot power, if a fighter gets hot with one or two clean shots by Frazier, they go down or are in big trouble.

Frazier had a style that was meant to wear you down because he was primarily a body puncher, he wasn't a headhunter even though he had the power to get you out of there with one or two clean shots.

Frazier late TKO. Marciano is not as strong and will be backed up and hit by Frazier down that latter stretch of the fight. The right uppercut and left hook combination will find it's way and mark Marciano's face up and the fight will be stopped. Frazier might find himself on the canvas early but will get up and come back to win.

[mcvey]

I think he had a lot of knowledge in boxing. Just because he was a handball player, don't mean that he wasn't an expert on boxing.

Jimmy Jacobs was elected to the International Boxing Hall of Fame in 1993, as well as the World Boxing Hall of Fame, so others must have thought the same thing.

Don King is in there too!

[hhascup]

Perhaps, but most often Marciano needed 1 or 2 knockdowns to end a fight compare to Joe's 4 or 5.

The opponents Frazier fought were better on a hold. If Rocky fought Frazier's opponents and Frazier fought Rocky's you would be saying the same thing BUT this time it would be Frazier needing only 1 or 2 knockdowns, compared to Rocky's 4 or 5.

Also, Rocky knocked Archie Moore down 5 times before putting him away.

[mcvey]

This is because of the era. After Paret was killed many referees stopped the bouts sooner then they did in the past.

As far as Frazier's right hand goes, when he became a contender he used his left hook mostly to score his KO's or TKO's. Most if not all his KO's by his right hand was done during the early part of his career. Jacobs made the statement not me and he had all the films.

Ive just provided you with Fraziers first 8 fights ,only 3 kos and none via right hand. I asked you for ONE example of a right hand ko by Frazier,in the light of the fact that you said he had as many with both hands ,is that unreasonable?

[mcvey]

I have watched a lot of Frazier's fights and more than once and have noticed that he has a very solid right uppercut. I've noticed that when a fighter gets hit flush with the right uppercut, he is straightened out and stunned which is when the left hook comes flying in on his jaw. Frazier loved to mix this little combination in with a great body attack to wear his opponent down. Some of you underrate his one shot power, if a fighter gets hot with one or two clean shots by Frazier, they go down or are in big trouble.

Frazier had a style that was meant to wear you down because he was primarily a body puncher, he wasn't a headhunter even though he had the power to get you out of there with one or two clean shots.

Frazier late TKO. Marciano is not as strong and will be backed up and hit by Frazier down that latter stretch of the fight. The right uppercut and left hook combination will find it's way and mark Marciano's face up and the fight will be stopped. Frazier might find himself on the canvas early but will get up and come back to win.

What leads you to beleive FRAZIER WAS STRONGER THAN MARCIANO?

[OBCboxer]

Exactly, Frazier fought bigger and more durable men than Marciano fought. Fighters like Chuvalo, Mathis, Foreman, Ali, Bonavena, Quarry were all more durable than the men Marciano fought like an old Louis, Charles, Moore, LaStarza, an old Walcott.

[hhascup]

Ive just provided you with Fraziers first 8 fights ,only 3 kos and none via right hand. I asked you for ONE example of a right hand ko by Frazier,in the light of the fact that you said he had as many with both hands ,is that unreasonable?

Once again, it was Jacobs that made that statement, not me, and if anyone should know, its him, because he had all the films. KO's or TKO's are the same to me as they are both counted as knockouts. Like I stated before, after the Paret bout with Griffith, the referees stopped the bouts a lot sooner then before.

[OBCboxer]

What leads you to beleive FRAZIER WAS STRONGER THAN MARCIANO?

At their prime weight, Frazier was about 202-205. Marciano was about 183-185. That's a good 20 pounds there, and it wasn't just weight, it was muscle. Frazier also had more muscular legs than Marciano which is key when applying pressure and backing him up. So I ask you, what would make you believe Marciano was stronger?

[Bummy Davis]

I watch most of Fraziers films and I would say he hooked about 75% of the time to the body and head....Frazier threw the right to the body, I mean he did have 2 hands but I have never seen him KO anyone with the right hand and if it was the last punch to land I can almost bet it was because the left hand did 75-99% of the damage

[Bummy Davis]

The fact that Jacobs said 1/2 of Fraziers KO's were from the right hand makes me believe he was a MAX KELLERMAN before his time

[OBCboxer]

I watch most of Fraziers films and I would say he hooked about 75% of the time to the body and head....Frazier threw the right to the body, I mean he did have 2 hands but I have never seen him KO anyone with the right hand and if it was the last punch to land I can almost bet it was because the left hand did 75-99% of the damage

I would agree, his right uppercut was more of a set up for the left hook. Bit it was still solid and could hurt you.

[hhascup]

Exactly, Frazier fought bigger and more durable men than Marciano fought. Fighters like Chuvalo, Mathis, Foreman, Ali, Bonavena, Quarry were all more durable than the men Marciano fought like an old Louis, Charles, Moore, LaStarza, an old Walcott.


I agree!

Does anyone honestly believe that Frazier would have been taken the distance Applegate, who was 11-14-2 and won only 1 of his last 12 bouts before he fought Rocky. During that time he was stopped by both Angel Sotillo and Lee Oma.

This was a bruising, crowd-pleasing battle. Marciano won handily enough but failed to even knock down his opponent, who had fought only twice in the previous two years. Applegate's best round was the third, which the referee also took from Marciano because of a low punch. Red landed plenty of good punches, typically in the early parts of rounds, but Marciano almost always came back later to take the play away. Marciano's best round was the sixth.

[hhascup]

The fact that Jacobs said 1/2 of Fraziers KO's were from the right hand makes me believe he was a MAX KELLERMAN before his time


Like I said, this was said early in Frazier's career, before he became a world contender. After that, I agree that most, if not all, of his KO's was with the left hook.

[Dempsey1238]

Chuvalo, Mathis and Bonavena were no were near the movers as Charles, Walcott, or even Moore. They were harder to hit.

[mcvey]

Lets not forget though that Frazier was fighting very durable men who were tough for anyone to get out of there with one punch (Chuvalo, Quarry, Ali). Against light heavyweights such as Bob Foster or less than stellar opposition such as Zyglewicz he looked like a destroyer which is often the case.

Marciano didn't always get his opposition out of there with one punch either, for example Don Cockell, Roland LaStarza, Archie Moore, Lee Savold. He had to wear them down.
A COMPARISON OF THEIR RESPECTIVE KOS.
FRAZIER 9 kos
Foster
Ziggy
Davis29-11-1
D Jones 29-8-1
Leslie 11-9-1
Smith 9-4-1
Turnbow6-3-0
A Davis 5-22-1
A Jones 3-5-2
MARCIANO 24 kos
Moore148-19-9
Charles 83-11-1
Walcott 52-17-2
Walcott 52-16 -2
Mathews 81-3-5
Reynolds 52-9-2
Bounovino 24-14-8
Louis 65-2-0
Beshore 30-13-1
Layne 34-1-2
Vingo 16-1-0
Dominic 19-10-0
Digorgio 9-9-0
Louthis 23-12 -5
Haft 14-7-0
Walls 9-15-1
Donato 9-6-0
Cardone 0-1-0
Hardeman 1-4-0
Jackson
3-20
Ross 15-0-1
Quinn8-0-0
Edwards 1-1-0
Epperson 0-0-0


Frazier kod one LH Champ [Foster ]and one former contender[ Jones ]


Marciano kod Three Heavyweight Champs ,one Lhvy Champ, four contenders

[Longhhorn71]

Marciano's right hand on Frazier's jaw in the first two rounds can not be overlooked.

(Walcott didn't want any more of it either)

[mcvey]

At their prime weight, Frazier was about 202-205. Marciano was about 183-185. That's a good 20 pounds there, and it wasn't just weight, it was muscle. Frazier also had more muscular legs than Marciano which is key when applying pressure and backing him up. So I ask you, what would make you believe Marciano was stronger?
That is an opinion not a fact. Ken Norton stated that Holyfield was far stronger than him would you go by a picture? Joe Louis picked Carnera up bodily . Dempsey picked up Firpo like a sack of flour. strength is not cosmetic.
I never said Marciano was stronger ,I'm challenging your assertion to the contrary I dont know ,and neither do you.See were I'm going now?
Jack Dempsey had slim legs yet he was very strong he applied pressure in every fight he was in and backed his opponents up, ditto Henry Armstrong , your argument is flawed.

[hhascup]

A COMPARISON OF THEIR RESPECTIVE KOS.
FRAZIER 9 kos
Foster
Ziggy
Davis29-11-1
D Jones 29-8-1
Leslie 11-9-1
Smith 9-4-1
Turnbow6-3-0
A Davis 5-22-1
A Jones 3-5-2
MARCIANO 24 kos
Moore148-19-9
Charles 83-11-1
Walcott 52-17-2
Walcott 52-16 -2
Mathews 81-3-5
Reynolds 52-9-2
Bounovino 24-14-8
Louis 65-2-0
Beshore 30-13-1
Layne 34-1-2
Vingo 16-1-0
Dominic 19-10-0
Digorgio 9-9-0
Louthis 23-12 -5
Haft 14-7-0
Walls 9-15-1
Donato 9-6-0
Cardone 0-1-0
Hardeman 1-4-0
Jackson
3-20
Ross 15-0-1
Quinn8-0-0
Edwards 1-1-0
Epperson 0-0-0


Frazier kod one LH Champ [Foster ]and one former contender[ Jones ]


Marciano kod Three Heavyweight Champs ,one Lhvy Champ, four contenders


A lot of those bouts that Marciano got credit for a KO, would have been a TKO's if they were fought in Frazier's era. A KO or TKO is counted as the same thing.

Ross 15-0-1 record looks very good until you look at who he fought. Before he fought Rocky, he only fought 2 boxers that had a winning record. One Bobby Jones 35-19-7, who was stopped in his last 3 bouts before his match with Ross and was again stopped after that bout. Wilfie Shanks 39-20-6 was the other, who was also stopped the last 3 times before he fought Ross and was 2-9 leading up to his match with Ross.

The 3 Ex-Heavyweight Champions:

Joe Louis was past his prime when he fought Marciano. His record was 61-1 with 52 KO's in his 1st 62 bouts. In his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky, Louis was 8-1 with only 3 KO's.

Walcott was 38 years old and was beating Rocky in the 1st bout. Walcott was not noted for his chin.

Charles was also past his prime as well.

[mcvey]

A lot of those bouts that Marciano got credit for a KO, would have been a TKO's if they were fought in Frazier's era. A KO or TKO is counted as the same thing.

Ross 15-0-1 record looks very good until you look at who he fought. Before he fought Rocky, he only fought 2 boxers that had a winning record. One Bobby Jones 35-19-7, who was stopped in his last 3 bouts before his match with Ross and was again stopped after that bout. Wilfie Shanks 39-20-6 was the other, who was also stopped the last 3 times before he fought Ross and was 2-9 leading up to his match with Ross.

The 3 Ex-Heavyweight Champions:

Joe Louis was past his prime when he fought Marciano. His record was 61-1 with 52 KO's in his 1st 62 bouts. In his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky, Louis was 8-1 with only 3 KO's.

Walcott was 38 years old and was beating Rocky in the 1st bout. Walcott was not noted for his chin.

Charles was also past his prime as well.

Fraziers ONLY Ko over a CHamp was scored over a Light Heavy Bob FOster ,who was stopped by EVERY top Heavyweight he met.
Many of Marcianos ko s were ONE PUNCH KNOCKOUTS ,AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE PUNCH KOS IN ANY ERA.
TKOS? Marciano has them too ,19 of them to Frazier's 18.
FACT FRAZIER NEVER KOD A TOP TEN FIGHTER
FACT MARCIANO KOD 9, 4 OF THEM CHAMPS.
LOOK AT THE RESPECTIVE RECORDS OF THE MEN FRAZIER KOD AND COMPARE THEM WITH MARCIANO'S KO VICTIMS.
Walcott was 37 ,and he was beating Marciano ,till the roof fell on him!
ONE PUNCH KO! REMATCH? ONE PUNCH KO!
Show me Frazier's.

[Bummy Davis]

That is an opinion not a fact. Ken Norton stated that Holyfield was far stronger than him would you go by a picture? Joe Louis picked Carnera up bodily . Dempsey picked up Firpo like a sack of flour. strength is not cosmetic.
I never said Marciano was stronger ,I'm challenging your assertion to the contrary I dont know ,and neither do you.See were I'm going now?
Jack Dempsey had slim legs yet he was very strong he applied pressure in every fight he was in and backed his opponents up, ditto Henry Armstrong , your argument is flawed.

very true, I think some Big men like Marciano 5"11, Langford 5'8 Qwawi 5"7 Mickey Walker 5"7 Tua 5"10 Toney 5"9 are judged by height or weight...yet I know a lot of Big men that are short but abnormally strong...one of the tougest street fighters from my town but older were two brothers who were about 5"8 or so powerfull and rugged and could fight...they are street fighting legends and powerfull punchers...even at the age of 60 one of the men KO'd a 6'5 240lb muscular guy that was 32 yrs younger...these are exceptions to the rule but some people are freakishly strong.......Marciano was one of them......Frazier was strong also but I think Rocky was the tighter package with 2 fisted 1 punch power and great recupritive powers

[TheGreatA]

Fraziers ONLY Ko over a CHamp was scored over a Light Heavy Bob FOster ,who was stopped by EVERY top Heavyweight he met.
Many of Marcianos ko s were ONE PUNCH KNOCKOUTS ,AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE PUNCH KOS IN ANY ERA.
TKOS? Marciano has them too ,19 of them to Frazier's 18.
FACT FRAZIER NEVER KOD A TOP TEN FIGHTER
FACT MARCIANO KOD 9, 4 OF THEM CHAMPS.
LOOK AT THE RESPECTIVE RECORDS OF THE MEN FRAZIER KOD AND COMPARE THEM WITH MARCIANO'S KO VICTIMS.
Walcott was 37 ,and he was beating Marciano ,till the roof fell on him!
ONE PUNCH KO! REMATCH? ONE PUNCH KO!
Show me Frazier's.

Don't you think Frazier would've KO'd Quarry, Chuvalo, Ellis if those fights had been allowed to continue?

Quarry's face was ripped apart by Frazier and he was taking heavy punishment at the time both fights were stopped.

Chuvalo's orbital bone was fractured by Joe's left hook. As tough as he was, I don't see how he could've continued with that kind of an injury.

Ellis went down heavily and would've gone down for the count if Dundee had allowed him to continue.

[mcvey]

Don't you think Frazier would've KO'd Quarry, Chuvalo, Ellis if those fights had been allowed to continue?

Quarry's face was ripped apart by Frazier and he was taking heavy punishment at the time both fights were stopped.

Chuvalo's orbital bone was fractured by Joe's left hook. As tough as he was, I don't see how he could've continued with that kind of an injury.

Ellis went down heavily and would've gone down for the count if Dundee had allowed him to continue.

I'll settle for one punch kos Frazier acheived over tomato cans,hows that?

[TheGreatA]

I'll settle for one punch kos Frazier acheived over tomato cans,hows that?

How many one punch knockouts did Marciano have (against top opposition)?

I'd classify his wins over Walcott, Layne and Matthews as such. Maybe the Louis fight but Marciano had worn down the old Brown Bomber by the 8th and the last right hand that put Louis through the ropes was little more than a free shot with Joe defenseless on the ropes, the fight should've been stopped earlier.

Cockell, Savold, LaStarza, Moore and Charles were worn down.

[hhascup]

Fraziers ONLY Ko over a CHamp was scored over a Light Heavy Bob FOster ,who was stopped by EVERY top Heavyweight he met.
Many of Marcianos ko s were ONE PUNCH KNOCKOUTS ,AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE PUNCH KOS IN ANY ERA.
TKOS? Marciano has them too ,19 of them to Frazier's 18.
FACT FRAZIER NEVER KOD A TOP TEN FIGHTER
FACT MARCIANO KOD 9, 4 OF THEM CHAMPS.
LOOK AT THE RESPECTIVE RECORDS OF THE MEN FRAZIER KOD AND COMPARE THEM WITH MARCIANO'S KO VICTIMS.
Walcott was 37 ,and he was beating Marciano ,till the roof fell on him!
ONE PUNCH KO! REMATCH? ONE PUNCH KO!
Show me Frazier's.


Once again, Frazier would have done the same to all these guys BUT faster.

They also would have stopped counting if the boxer was out cool. If the bouts with Chuvalo, Quarry and Ellis continued, they too would have been counted out.

Joe had 27 KO's or TKO's in 37 bouts
Rocky had 43 KO's or TKO's in 49 bouts

Frazier stopped Chuvalo, Ramos, Quarry twice, Ellis twice, and Foster. He also beat Ali, Bugner & Bonavena twice.

Rocky stopped Layne, Louis, Light heavyweight Matthews, Walcott twice, Charles, LaStarza, Cockell and Moore. He also beat Charles & LaStarza by decision.

[hhascup]

This was written by Monte D. Cox

Frazier or Marciano?

Marciano and Frazier are about equals. Both were swarming style heavyweights who came in low and attacked the body then ripped to the head. Both were tough fighters. With only one being able to fit in the top 10 what separates them? Is it Rocky's undefeated record but low level of opposition or Frazier's better opposition with losses to only men in the top 3? In the end I believe Frazier achieved a win that Marciano could never hope to duplicate by defeating Muhammad Ali in Superfight 1. Marciano would lose to both Ali and Foreman, the only men to ever beat Frazier and with all other things being equal Frazier did beat Ali in the biggest fight in heavyweight history. Frazier's better overall competition and big win over Ali gives him a spot in the top 10.

[JIm Broughton]

Although this would be a brutal fight I tend to lean toward Frazier in this one though not by much. Level of opposition is the deciding factor in my mind. Almost all of Marciano's opponenets (At least in his big fights) were older than he was. Walcott, Charles and Moore were all in thier mid to late thirties when Rocky met them and Louis was a shadow of his former self when Rocky beat him. Joe didn't enjoy that distinction. Plus Joe fought in an era where there were more quality big men which was pretty tough considering that Joe himself wasn't a big heavyweight. Just fighting 3 wars with the greatest HW champion of all time and winning one of them puts Joe a notch or two above Rocky in my opinion. Could Rocky beat Joe? Yes he could but he would have to do it early. If he doesn't and Frazier gets into his "groove" I see Joe cutting up Rocky and stopping him later in the fight. Joe and Rocky were somewhat similar in style but Frazier was faster and more consistent in his attack. More head movement and bobbing and weaving. Rocky can't let Joe get warm so to speak. If he does then it's Frazier and that's how I see the outcome of this classic.

[janitor]

Once again, Frazier would have done the same to all these guys BUT faster.


Would he though?

I think that Frazier might have done better than Marciano against the mainly technical boxers who ruled the heavyweight division at the time.

Would he have scored more one punch KOs?

I verry much doubt it.

[Maxmomer]

Fraziers ONLY Ko over a CHamp was scored over a Light Heavy Bob FOster ,who was stopped by EVERY top Heavyweight he met.
Many of Marcianos ko s were ONE PUNCH KNOCKOUTS ,AND THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE PUNCH KOS IN ANY ERA.
TKOS? Marciano has them too ,19 of them to Frazier's 18.
FACT FRAZIER NEVER KOD A TOP TEN FIGHTER
FACT MARCIANO KOD 9, 4 OF THEM CHAMPS.
LOOK AT THE RESPECTIVE RECORDS OF THE MEN FRAZIER KOD AND COMPARE THEM WITH MARCIANO'S KO VICTIMS.
Walcott was 37 ,and he was beating Marciano ,till the roof fell on him!
ONE PUNCH KO! REMATCH? ONE PUNCH KO!
Show me Frazier's.

I've never understood this whole "one punch knock-out" thing. Yeah, Rocky floored guys for the count with a one or two good shots, and often he only had to knock them down the once, but most of the time these KO's came after several hard rounds of softening up. He didn't very often catch guys fresh out of the gate with one punch and KO them for good, he was an attrition puncher more than anything who wore his opponents down and then finished them off with a big shot or two.

[Maxmomer]

Frazier stopped bigger, tougher guys than Marciano. Maybe they weren't better in an all-time sense than Walcott, Moore, or Charles, but especially at the time of the fights in question some of them were harder to stop and maybe more dangerous fighters. Who would win if prime versions of Quarry and Ellis went up against the old versions of Charles and Walcott Rocky fought?

[janitor]

I've never understood this whole "one punch knock-out" thing. Yeah, Rocky floored guys for the count with a one or two good shots, and often he only had to knock them down the once, but most of the time these KO's came after several hard rounds of softening up. He didn't very often catch guys fresh out of the gate with one punch and KO them for good, he was an attrition puncher more than anything who worse his opponents down and then finished them off with a big shot or two.

Not the whole story.

These one punch Kos were not just part of an atrition sequence of punches that happened to pay off (ala Frazier). They were somtimes beutifuly timed and calculated, and above all were single punches.

[hhascup]

Would he though?

I think that Frazier might have done better than Marciano against the mainly technical boxers who ruled the heavyweight division at the time.

Would he have scored more one punch KOs?

I verry much doubt it.

I agree that Frazier might have done better then Marciano.

Not the whole story.

These one punch Kos were not just part of an atrition sequence of punches that happened to pay off (ala Frazier). They were somtimes beutifuly timed and calculated, and above all were single punches.

If Frazier fought these same boxers in that era, he too would have those so called 1 punch KO's.

Listen I respect everyones opinion, and no one knows for sure what would have happened. I just think that Joe fought the better opponents and if they changed positions, Joe would have done better then Rocky against his opponents.

[janitor]

[quote=hhascup;3636110]I agree that Frazier might have done better then Marciano.


It is good that we agree.


If Frazier fought these same boxers in that era, he too would have those so called 1 punch KO's.


Here I disagree.

I dont think that Quarry Ellis or even Bonavena were much bigger or more durable than the guys Marciano was sending ino oblivion.

When I compare these guys on film I think that Frazier makes Rocky look slow but I am in no doubt who had more concusive power.

Listen I respect everyones opinion, and no one knows for sure what would have happened. I just think that Joe fought the better opponents and if they changed positions, Joe would have done better then Rocky against his opponents.

Eminently fair observation.

[Bummy Davis]

How many one punch knockouts did Marciano have (against top opposition)?

I'd classify his wins over Walcott, Layne and Matthews as such. Maybe the Louis fight but Marciano had worn down the old Brown Bomber by the 8th and the last right hand that put Louis through the ropes was little more than a free shot with Joe defenseless on the ropes, the fight should've been stopped earlier.

Cockell, Savold, LaStarza, Moore and Charles were worn down.

Matthews it took 2 hooks but Matthews was out on his feet with the 1st

2 fights vs Walcott 1 punch KO's, when he ko'd Layne he also severed 4 of laynes front teeth at the nubs....Marciano almost killed the game Carmine Vingo

[Bummy Davis]

Here is what Dempsey had to say

Jack Dempsey, interviewed in the 1953 fall edition of Fight magazine said, "What everyone forgets is that Marciano can punch harder with a right hand than any modern-day heavyweight. In his first fight with Walcott, Rocky needed only one blow to win the title. The power in his right scrambled Jersey Joe's brains at Chicago."
"I've scored my share of knockouts along the way, but more often than not my opponents got up after being knocked down and had to be knocked down repeatedly. The same is true of Joe Louis. But Marciano needs only one solid smash and it's all over.
That's why I say Rocky Marciano is the hardest-hitting heavyweight champion I have seen."

[Bummy Davis]

Where the power came from might be best illustrated in a letter I received from a doctor who works with internal medical problems and trauma. He told me this: "Now what determines the power of a punch? I mean the formula… The effect of a punch is calculated by the energy applied at the sight of the hit. So the kinetic energy of Marciano's punch, that is the degree of damage the punch would generate, is equal to 1/2 mass x velocity x velocity (1/2mv2). Rocky's was equal to the mass of the arm plus the weight he shoved forward with body weight. Next, he hit in close. As your arm moves forward the time from beginning to end increases as you increase the distance of the thrown punch. Since velocity = feet per sec, that means the longer the range the less velocity. Now the energy generated is, remember, mass times vel x vel. Well if your punches are so much shorter, traveling only a few inches, your velocity is incredible! And the transmitted energy at impact is enormous! That calculation of energy is the destructive force (damage) to the body. Basically he broke his opponents up inside. Had George Foreman been a swarmer, he would have been a better fighter. He was a slugger. But as strong as he was he hit from too far away. Frazier was not as powerful as Marciano. He had a similar style, but didn't hit as hard (didn't use shifting weight, etc)."

This generation of power to the point of impact was described by boxing writer Nat Tashman in the July 1986 issue of Boxing Beat:
"Considering the weight advantage Rocky gave away to opponents, few seem to know the key to his power. Fully believing in his ability to take a punch and confident he couldn’t be knocked out, he’d wade in to position himself as close as he could get. Then, like lifting a weight, he’d plant his muscular, stumpy legs and thighs, and swivel-hip his punch. At that point, he was delivering his full 187 pound, adrenaline-loaded wallop for the lights-out contact."

[hhascup]

[quote]
Here I disagree.

I dont think that Quarry Ellis or even Bonavena were much bigger or more durable than the guys Marciano was sending ino oblivion.

When I compare these guys on film I think that Frazier makes Rocky look slow but I am in no doubt who had more concusive power.

I agree with everything but the above. Chuvalo, Bonavena, Quarry were all durable guys and at the time they were tougher then 38 year old Walcott, 37 year old Louis, over the hill Charles.

This is just my opinion.

Here's another article from Cox:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Bummy Davis]

What did some REAL experts think about Marciano as a fighter?


"What's so often forgotten is that Marciano was truely a great fighter. It was his will to win that made him unbeatable." Archie Moore

"I had a bad weakness I kept hid throughout my career. I didn't like to be crowded, and Marciano always crowded his opponents. That's why I say I could never have beaten him." Joe Louis, May, 1990 issue of Boxing Illustrated

"Naturally, the first thought that comes to mind would have to be Muhammad Ali. Ali is more my time. But before my time, it would have to be Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano." Marvin Hagler when asked to name the greatest fighter of all time.

"Just look at Rocky Marciano's record. Nobody beat him. You can't take that from him." George Foreman on why he placed Marciano behind Louis as second greatest heavyweight of all time.
________________________________________________________________
"Joe Louis is the greatest heavyweight champion of all time. Rocky Marciano is second only to Louis." Joe Frazier
________________________________________________________________
"Well, let’s face it. He never got licked. Undefeated heavyweight champion of the world. I mean, how much better can you do than that?"
"Marciano is the most underrated heavyweight of all time. He had so much more than they ever gave him credit for. He was capable of getting those bigger, heavier guys and destroying them." Angelo Dundee.

"This man was one of the greatest champions ever. He refused to accept defeat. And nobody beat him." Sonny Liston.

[SuzieQ49]

I agree with everything but the above. Chuvalo, Bonavena, Quarry were all durable guys and at the time they were tougher then 38 year old Walcott, 37 year old Louis, over the hill Charles.

I disagree here. I would take the 1952 Walcott, 37 year old louis, and june 1954 version of charles over any of those guys.

[Bummy Davis]

I disagree here. I would take the 1952 Walcott, 37 year old louis, and june 1954 version of charles over any of those guys.


I have to agree..

[TheGreatA]

I disagree here. I would take the 1952 Walcott, 37 year old louis, and june 1954 version of charles over any of those guys.

The question was about toughness though. Can anyone dispute that Chuvalo, Bonavena and Quarry were tougher than Louis, Walcott and Charles (not talking about greatness)?

Frazier did chop down 2 out of 3 of them, which should be considered an achievement. He got rid of Chuvalo in 4 rounds, a feat which only George Foreman repeated and twice stopped Quarry on cuts, seemingly having him on his way down.

[hhascup]

I disagree here. I would take the 1952 Walcott, 37 year old louis, and june 1954 version of charles over any of those guys.

I have to agree..


I don't. Like "TheGreatA" stated:

Chuvalo, Bonavena and Quarry were tougher than Louis, Walcott and Charles at that time in their careers. If you asked me about prime for prime, who was better, then that would be different.

[OBCboxer]

That is an opinion not a fact. Ken Norton stated that Holyfield was far stronger than him would you go by a picture? Joe Louis picked Carnera up bodily . Dempsey picked up Firpo like a sack of flour. strength is not cosmetic.
I never said Marciano was stronger ,I'm challenging your assertion to the contrary I dont know ,and neither do you.See were I'm going now?
Jack Dempsey had slim legs yet he was very strong he applied pressure in every fight he was in and backed his opponents up, ditto Henry Armstrong , your argument is flawed.

I am not going by cosmetics. It's the numbers, if Joe Frazier has nearly has 20 pounds more muscle than Marciano, who is stronger? Well my experience on the High School weightlifting tells me that the guy with more muscle lifts more than the guy who doesn't have as much, therefore he is stronger. I see what you are trying to get at but that doesn't apply here.

[Maxmomer]

Here is what Dempsey had to say

Jack Dempsey, interviewed in the 1953 fall edition of Fight magazine said, "What everyone forgets is that Marciano can punch harder with a right hand than any modern-day heavyweight. In his first fight with Walcott, Rocky needed only one blow to win the title. The power in his right scrambled Jersey Joe's brains at Chicago."
"I've scored my share of knockouts along the way, but more often than not my opponents got up after being knocked down and had to be knocked down repeatedly. The same is true of Joe Louis. But Marciano needs only one solid smash and it's all over.
That's why I say Rocky Marciano is the hardest-hitting heavyweight champion I have seen."

Jack Dempsey clearly didn't know what he was talking about. 1953? He was senile by then, let's be honest.

[frankwornank]

As time goes on, there are fewer and fewer fans that remember Marciano. Still plenty of fans that remember Frazier. Well I remember both real well. My view is that while I am a big fan of both, Marciano would win it. Why? Because all the things that made Joe great, Rocky as even better at. He was stronger, more durable, punched harder and was even more iron willed than Frazier. I know it would be a tough fight but in the end, my VIEW IS Marciano would prevail. I think TKO somewhere around round 11.

[OBCboxer]

As time goes on, there are fewer and fewer fans that remember Marciano. Still plenty of fans that remember Frazier. Well I remember both real well. My view is that while I am a big fan of both, Marciano would win it. Why? Because all the things that made Joe great, Rocky as even better at. He was stronger, more durable, punched harder and was even more iron willed than Frazier. I know it would be a tough fight but in the end, my VIEW IS Marciano would prevail. I think TKO somewhere around round 11.

People become too obsessed with power. Sure maybe Marciano hits harder but there' more to this fight than that. I disagree that Marciano was more willed than Frazier. Frazier has been through far worse than Marciano has and never quit in a fight. Only his corner quit for him once. Frazier is indeed stronger in my opinion, he had too back up the far more durable fighters in his time.

Anyway, Frazier has the superior handspeed, head movement and applys the heavier pressure. He is more relentless than Marciano and his punches will get there before Rocky's will. Marciano is easy to hit and if he keeps getting hit by Frazier's right uppercut and left hook combination, he'll get marked up or possibly cut to the point where it'll be stopped.

Now a cut stoppage is not out of the question here but the more likely scenario is after frazier finds himself down and behind early, he'll punish Marciano down the stretch and stop him late.

[OLD FOGEY]

I agree that Frazier might have done better then Marciano.



If Frazier fought these same boxers in that era, he too would have those so called 1 punch KO's.

Listen I respect everyones opinion, and no one knows for sure what would have happened. I just think that Joe fought the better opponents and if they changed positions, Joe would have done better then Rocky against his opponents.

"Joe would have done better than Rocky against his opponents."

That would be pretty hard to do. NO ONE in the history of the sport going back to Figg actually did better against the men he faced than Marciano.

"No one knows for sure what would have happened."

This does sort of weaken this argument. People who agree with you agree with you. But anyone who has any doubts at all that all of Rocky's successes would be easily matched by Frazier while Frazier's failures would without doubt be shared by Rocky find it unconvincing.

I do agree that Ali and Foreman would be a viewed by almost everyone as tougher opponents than the best Marciano fought. But Foreman proves nothing as Frazier was blown out badly twice. NONE of the other serious claiments to top 10 ATG status were blown out this badly twice by any opponent. Nor did Frazier prove anything like Foreman's toughest opponent. Foreman lost to Ali and Young, was on the floor and in serious trouble against Lyle, and taken late into the fight twice by Peralta. It seems to me that one could draw the conclusion that because Frazier had so much trouble with this big puncher, he might also have had difficulty with other big punchers such as Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, and Liston, rather than drawing the convoluted conclusion that Foreman simply overwhelms other ATG's as easily as he did Frazier.

[McGrain]

Here is how i'd break it down.

No fighter in history was ever more willed than hungry Joe Frazier. Not possible.

But Frazier would not have gone unbeaten fighting to Marciano's schedule. Not because he has less intensity - he doesn't - or less heart - not the case - and it's not because he is a worse fighter, I think he is a better one. Frazier would lose because he is made of the type of stuff that will drop off at the peak. When Frazier beat Ali, he was ruined as a fighter by what happened in the ring - but the boozing, women, the band, all this hurt him too, and that came after Ali, in earnest.

Frazier would have lost when he lost the top 2% of his intensity. That's the most important 2% for a man like Joe.

Marciano was special in a very different way. I think you'd have to nearly kill him to beat him.

[hhascup]

"Joe would have done better than Rocky against his opponents."

That would be pretty hard to do. NO ONE in the history of the sport going back to Figg actually did better against the men he faced than Marciano.

"No one knows for sure what would have happened."

This does sort of weaken this argument. People who agree with you agree with you. But anyone who has any doubts at all that all of Rocky's successes would be easily matched by Frazier while Frazier's failures would without doubt be shared by Rocky find it unconvincing.

I do agree that Ali and Foreman would be a viewed by almost everyone as tougher opponents than the best Marciano fought. But Foreman proves nothing as Frazier was blown out badly twice. NONE of the other serious claiments to top 10 ATG status were blown out this badly twice by any opponent. Nor did Frazier prove anything like Foreman's toughest opponent. Foreman lost to Ali and Young, was on the floor and in serious trouble against Lyle, and taken late into the fight twice by Peralta. It seems to me that one could draw the conclusion that because Frazier had so much trouble with this big puncher, he might also have had difficulty with other big punchers such as Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, and Liston, rather than drawing the convoluted conclusion that Foreman simply overwhelms other ATG's as easily as he did Frazier.

Styles make fights and I can't see Marciano beating Foreman. George had trouble with boxers, such as Ali, Young and early in his career, Peralta BUT the only slugger that gave him trouble, and a lot of it, was Ron Lyle.

I have talked to many of the top boxing historians and experts and most all of them say that Frazier would do at least as well, if not better, if he fought the same opponents as Rocky did.

Cox wrote the following:

When looking at Marciano’s opponents one must ask the question “Is there one person that Marciano beat that Joe Frazier would not beat?” The answer is clearly no. Joe Frazier would have little trouble with Marciano’s opponents and would easily have gone 49-0 against them. Frazier’s only career defeats were to Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. How would Marciano have fared against Frazier’s opponents? Marciano would be an underdog to Ali and would likely lose a decision. Ali was more susceptible to a left hook, Frazier’s bread and butter punch, than he was to a right hand, which was Rocky’s best shot. Cus D’Amato once said that, “No swarming heavyweight who ever lived could beat George Foreman coming to him.” Marciano would have had the same trouble trying to get inside George’s long arms and massive uppercuts, as did the bobbing and weaving Frazier. It seems highly unlikely that Marciano could overcome the freakish power of the much larger Foreman in a slugfest. Frazier holds a win over Muhammad Ali and defeated other quality heavyweights such as Jerry Quarry who were superior to most of Marciano's competition. Had the two all time greats switched era's Frazier would have been 49-0 and Marciano would likely have had losses to Ali and Foreman on his record.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[hhascup]

Here is how i'd break it down.

No fighter in history was ever more willed than hungry Joe Frazier. Not possible.

But Frazier would not have gone unbeaten fighting to Marciano's schedule. Not because he has less intensity - he doesn't - or less heart - not the case - and it's not because he is a worse fighter, I think he is a better one. Frazier would lose because he is made of the type of stuff that will drop off at the peak. When Frazier beat Ali, he was ruined as a fighter by what happened in the ring - but the boozing, women, the band, all this hurt him too, and that came after Ali, in earnest.

Frazier would have lost when he lost the top 2% of his intensity. That's the most important 2% for a man like Joe.

Marciano was special in a very different way. I think you'd have to nearly kill him to beat him.

Who would Frazier lose too? I can't see anyone, really.

Frazier fought the better opponents early in his career and lasted just as long as Rocky did before being beat by Foreman. Rocky had 1 Pro bout in March of 1947, then went back to the Amateurs, then started up as a Pro again in July 1948. He had his last bout against Moore in September 1955. That's 7 years, 2 months.

Frazier started in August 1965, and lost to Foreman in January 1973. That's 7 years, 5 months.

[Maxmomer]

Here is how i'd break it down.

No fighter in history was ever more willed than hungry Joe Frazier. Not possible.

But Frazier would not have gone unbeaten fighting to Marciano's schedule. Not because he has less intensity - he doesn't - or less heart - not the case - and it's not because he is a worse fighter, I think he is a better one. Frazier would lose because he is made of the type of stuff that will drop off at the peak. When Frazier beat Ali, he was ruined as a fighter by what happened in the ring - but the boozing, women, the band, all this hurt him too, and that came after Ali, in earnest.

Frazier would have lost when he lost the top 2% of his intensity. That's the most important 2% for a man like Joe.

Marciano was special in a very different way. I think you'd have to nearly kill him to beat him.

I don't understand your logic.

[OLD FOGEY]

Styles make fights and I can't see Marciano beating Foreman. George had trouble with boxers, such as Ali, Young and early in his career, Peralta BUT the only slugger that gave him trouble, and a lot of it, was Ron Lyle.

I have talked to many of the top boxing historians and experts and most all of them say that Frazier would do at least as well, if not better, if he fought the same opponents as Rocky did.


"I can't see Marciano beating Foreman."

Vis-a-vis Frazier, he doesn't have to. Foreman ko'd Frazier easily twice with Frazier hardly landing a meaningful punch.

Actually, though, I can see Marciano winning, but I hate to make predictions of this sort. Marciano had a ferocious right cross. Foreman simply throwing wide punches "from outside the window" as Chuvalo put it leaves himself wide open to a right counter, and unlike Frazier, Marciano has the tools to take advantage of this weakness.

"I have talked to many of the top boxing historians and experts most all of them say Frazier would do at least as well, if not better, if he fought the same opponents as Rocky did."

I would like someone to explain how he could really do better than winning them all and knocking out all his rated opponents. Even removing Ali and Foreman, Frazier didn't accomplish that, and I don't consider Foster, Quarry, Ellis, Chuvalo, Bugner, Bonavena, etc., a better group than Walcott, Charles, Moore, old Louis, Matthews, Layne, LaStarza, etc

As for all these "top boxing historians"--I respect your opinion, but this is merely an appeal to authority and a rather vague one at that. These boxers are on film. We can see and study them and judge for ourselves.

[hhascup]

"I can't see Marciano beating Foreman."

Vis-a-vis Frazier, he doesn't have to. Foreman ko'd Frazier easily twice with Frazier hardly landing a meaningful punch.

Actually, though, I can see Marciano winning, but I hate to make predictions of this sort. Marciano had a ferocious right cross. Foreman simply throwing wide punches "from outside the window" as Chuvalo put it leaves himself wide open to a right counter, and unlike Frazier, Marciano has the tools to take advantage of this weakness.

"I have talked to many of the top boxing historians and experts most all of them say Frazier would do at least as well, if not better, if he fought the same opponents as Rocky did."

I would like someone to explain how he could really do better than winning them all and knocking out all his rated opponents. Even removing Ali and Foreman, Frazier didn't accomplish that, and I don't consider Foster, Quarry, Ellis, Chuvalo, Bugner, Bonavena, etc., a better group than Walcott, Charles, Moore, old Louis, Matthews, Layne, LaStarza, etc

As for all these "top boxing historians"--I respect your opinion, but this is merely an appeal to authority and a rather vague one at that. These boxers are on film. We can see and study them and judge for ourselves.


I agree that anyone can judge for themselves by looking at the films, BUT if you look at Jack Johnson or Harry Greb, they just don't look like all time Greats, BUT they are..

When they say Frazier could have done better, is that they told me that Frazier would have stopped them sooner and he would also stop a few that Rocky didn't. I have worked with many top boxing historians and I respect all their opinions. I also know most of the members of IBRO, which I am a charter member, and I respect them as well.

Again, no one knows for sure and that is what I LOVE about boxing, we can debate it for ever and still no one can say for sure what would actually happen. You have your opinion and I have mine, and I respect yours as well others.

[OLD FOGEY]

Who would Frazier lose too? I can't see anyone, really.

Frazier fought the better opponents early in his career and lasted just as long as Rocky did before being beat by Foreman. Rocky had 1 Pro bout in March of 1947, then went back to the Amateurs, then started up as a Pro again in July 1948. He had his last bout against Moore in September 1955. That's 7 years, 2 months.

Frazier started in August 1965, and lost to Foreman in January 1973. That's 7 years, 5 months.


Frazier started his career at a normal 21. Marciano at 25. Marciano still got to the championship and held it for 3 and 1/2 years and was still winning fights past 30--LaStarza, Charles twice, Cockell, and Moore. Frazier began to go back at 28. If he started at 25 and fought Walcott at 29 and 30, LaStarza at 30, Charles at 31, and Moore at 32, he might have had more trouble than you, and Monte Cox, assume. I can see him possibly losing to either Walcott, Charles, or Moore.

[hhascup]

Frazier started his career at a normal 21. Marciano at 25. Marciano still got to the championship and held it for 3 and 1/2 years and was still winning fights past 30--LaStarza, Charles twice, Cockell, and Moore. Frazier began to go back at 28. If he started at 25 and fought Walcott at 29 and 30, LaStarza at 30, Charles at 31, and Moore at 32, he might have had more trouble than you, and Monte Cox, assume. I can see him possibly losing to either Walcott, Charles, or Moore.

That's where we disagree. Frazier had some very tough opponents. What if Rocky fought Ali, Foreman etc., I don't think he would be the same either.

If Frazier fought Rocky's opponents, he would not have taken the beating he received from Ali and Foreman.

[TheGreatA]

Frazier started his career at a normal 21. Marciano at 25. Marciano still got to the championship and held it for 3 and 1/2 years and was still winning fights past 30--LaStarza, Charles twice, Cockell, and Moore. Frazier began to go back at 28. If he started at 25 and fought Walcott at 29 and 30, LaStarza at 30, Charles at 31, and Moore at 32, he might have had more trouble than you, and Monte Cox, assume. I can see him possibly losing to either Walcott, Charles, or Moore.

What if he starts at 21 and fights Walcott, Charles and Moore like he did Quarry, Ellis and Ali at 26-27 years of age?

Whatever age Marciano started his boxing career at shouldn't make him greater than other boxers.

[hhascup]

What if he starts at 21 and fights Walcott, Charles and Moore like he did Quarry, Ellis and Ali at 26-27 years of age?

Whatever age Marciano started his boxing career at shouldn't make him greater than other boxers.


Frazier would have no trouble beating Walcott, Charles or Moore at that time in their careers. Moore was KO'ed by Patterson a year after Rocky beat him and Patterson beat him easier.

[OLD FOGEY]

I agree that anyone can judge for themselves by looking at the films, BUT if you look at Jack Johnson or Harry Greb, they just don't look like all time Greats, BUT they are..

When they say Frazier could have done better, is that they told me that Frazier would have stopped them sooner and he would also stop a few that Rocky didn't. I have worked with many top boxing historians and I respect all their opinions. I also know most of the members of IBRO, which I am a charter member, and I respect them as well.

Again, no one knows for sure and that is what I LOVE about boxing, we can debate it for ever and still no one can say for sure what would actually happen. You have your opinion and I have mine, and I respect yours as well others.

"I also know most of the members of IBRO, which I am a charter member, and I respect them as well."

I just looked up IBRO and their ratings of heavyweights at Cyberboxing:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Johnson
4. Dempsey
5. Marciano
6. Holmes
7. Jeffries
8. Foreman
9. Liston
10. Frazier

They also have a list of the top 25 fighters p4p--Marciano is #23. Frazier is not on it.

What about the AP end of the century poll by a panel of experts:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson
6. Holmes
7. Liston
8. Frazier
9. Langford
10. Walcott

1980 poll of the Boxing Writers of America (by HBO)
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson

1978 poll of black sportwriters (by Ebony)
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Dempsey
5. Marciano
6. Frazier

This is kind of an odd outcome if "most all" think Frazier is better than Marciano. Curiously, Louis wins the IBRO heavyweight poll, and Moore and Charles are #1 and #2 at lightheavy. All three are in the IBRO top 25 p4p.

[OLD FOGEY]

Frazier would have no trouble beating Walcott, Charles or Moore at that time in their careers. Moore was KO'ed by Patterson a year after Rocky beat him and Patterson beat him easier.

If we talking Frazier being the same age as Marciano when he fought these men, I don't agree it is that easy to tell. I also think it very possible that the Patterson of 1956 beats the Frazier of 1976.

[OLD FOGEY]

What if he starts at 21 and fights Walcott, Charles and Moore like he did Quarry, Ellis and Ali at 26-27 years of age?

Whatever age Marciano started his boxing career at shouldn't make him greater than other boxers.

If Frazier is born in 1923, he would be fighting Louis, not Moore. A fight with Louis in 1947 would be interesting.

[leverage]

marciano by ko. He would have connected with that big uppercut square on fraziers chin and that would've been all she wrote. You just can't fight like frazier did against a devastating puncher like rocky and survive.

[leverage]

Frazier wins by TKO in round 10. They have nice power but Frazier has greater handspeed, accuracy, head movement and timing. It will be a pretty even fight up until the later rounds where the stronger and bigger Frazier starts to come on.
There's no way this fight goes anywhere near ten rounds because their styles wouldn't allow it. It would be a miracle if it lasted 5. This fight is clearly a bombs away, head on colision between two beasts.

[mcvey]

Styles make fights and I can't see Marciano beating Foreman. George had trouble with boxers, such as Ali, Young and early in his career, Peralta BUT the only slugger that gave him trouble, and a lot of it, was Ron Lyle.

I have talked to many of the top boxing historians and experts and most all of them say that Frazier would do at least as well, if not better, if he fought the same opponents as Rocky did.

Cox wrote the following:

When looking at Marciano’s opponents one must ask the question “Is there one person that Marciano beat that Joe Frazier would not beat?” The answer is clearly no. Joe Frazier would have little trouble with Marciano’s opponents and would easily have gone 49-0 against them. Frazier’s only career defeats were to Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. How would Marciano have fared against Frazier’s opponents? Marciano would be an underdog to Ali and would likely lose a decision. Ali was more susceptible to a left hook, Frazier’s bread and butter punch, than he was to a right hand, which was Rocky’s best shot. Cus D’Amato once said that, “No swarming heavyweight who ever lived could beat George Foreman coming to him.” Marciano would have had the same trouble trying to get inside George’s long arms and massive uppercuts, as did the bobbing and weaving Frazier. It seems highly unlikely that Marciano could overcome the freakish power of the much larger Foreman in a slugfest. Frazier holds a win over Muhammad Ali and defeated other quality heavyweights such as Jerry Quarry who were superior to most of Marciano's competition. Had the two all time greats switched era's Frazier would have been 49-0 and Marciano would likely have had losses to Ali and Foreman on his record.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I think Charles and Walcott would have given Frazier very tough fights

[mcvey]

I am not going by cosmetics. It's the numbers, if Joe Frazier has nearly has 20 pounds more muscle than Marciano, who is stronger? Well my experience on the High School weightlifting tells me that the guy with more muscle lifts more than the guy who doesn't have as much, therefore he is stronger. I see what you are trying to get at but that doesn't apply here.

I remember seeing the World Arm Wrestling Championships ,years ago the guy that won it was around 50 and not more than 190lbs he defeated giants of 250lbs,coincidently he was a former Marciano sparring partner.

[turpinr]

peak charles and walcott would indeed give joe frazier a hard night.
marciano didn't fight either at their peaks and has a marginally better challenger list than dempsey.marciano has a big heart but frazier matches him in this department and would be able to bully him.
frazier by stoppage

[mcvey]

peak charles and walcott would indeed give joe frazier a hard night.
marciano didn't fight either at their peaks and has a marginally better challenger list than dempsey.marciano has a big heart but frazier matches him in this department and would be able to bully him.
frazier by stoppage
True Charles and Walcott were aging ,but I would pick those versions to beat Ellis,Quarry,Bonavena, Mathis,Ramos just as comprehensively as Frazier did.

[Bummy Davis]

"Joe would have done better than Rocky against his opponents."

That would be pretty hard to do. NO ONE in the history of the sport going back to Figg actually did better against the men he faced than Marciano.

"No one knows for sure what would have happened."

This does sort of weaken this argument. People who agree with you agree with you. But anyone who has any doubts at all that all of Rocky's successes would be easily matched by Frazier while Frazier's failures would without doubt be shared by Rocky find it unconvincing.

I do agree that Ali and Foreman would be a viewed by almost everyone as tougher opponents than the best Marciano fought. But Foreman proves nothing as Frazier was blown out badly twice. NONE of the other serious claiments to top 10 ATG status were blown out this badly twice by any opponent. Nor did Frazier prove anything like Foreman's toughest opponent. Foreman lost to Ali and Young, was on the floor and in serious trouble against Lyle, and taken late into the fight twice by Peralta. It seems to me that one could draw the conclusion that because Frazier had so much trouble with this big puncher, he might also have had difficulty with other big punchers such as Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, and Liston, rather than drawing the convoluted conclusion that Foreman simply overwhelms other ATG's as easily as he did Frazier.

Very good point....I in fact the Lyle fight shows how Foreman may have had trouble with a real serious puncher, Lyle was a good puncher not a great puncher and he had big George close to the brink and Foreman himself stated that he avoided Quarry ....People assume because of the Frazier fight...Foreman would be victorious over anyone that met him head to head but Lyle was not one of the greats and not a puncher in the league of Dempsey,louis,Lewis or Marciano....every match up is different

[SuzieQ49]

Chuvalo, Bonavena and Quarry were tougher than Louis, Walcott and Charles at that time in their careers.

I disagree here. Bonavena lost to a 33 year old zora folley by shutout decision. surely a 32 year old june 1954 version of ezzard charles would win every round if he fought bonavena, it wouldnt even be close. Louis even at 37 would bust up chuvalo and bonavena something horrible with his jab.

chuvalo might win 1 round out of 15 against 1952 walcott and 1954 charles...way too much skill and speed for chuvalo, even at that stage of there careers



Quarry would be a much tougher fight, but quarry couldnt beat slick boxers. a washed up 33 year old eddie machen beat quarry, I suspect 1954 charles and 1952 walcott would have there way with them

[hhascup]

"I also know most of the members of IBRO, which I am a charter member, and I respect them as well."

I just looked up IBRO and their ratings of heavyweights at Cyberboxing:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Johnson
4. Dempsey
5. Marciano
6. Holmes
7. Jeffries
8. Foreman
9. Liston
10. Frazier

They also have a list of the top 25 fighters p4p--Marciano is #23. Frazier is not on it.

What about the AP end of the century poll by a panel of experts:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson
6. Holmes
7. Liston
8. Frazier
9. Langford
10. Walcott

1980 poll of the Boxing Writers of America (by HBO)
1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson

1978 poll of black sportwriters (by Ebony)
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Johnson
4. Dempsey
5. Marciano
6. Frazier

This is kind of an odd outcome if "most all" think Frazier is better than Marciano. Curiously, Louis wins the IBRO heavyweight poll, and Moore and Charles are #1 and #2 at lightheavy. All three are in the IBRO top 25 p4p.

I have all for ratings from approx. 50 boxing historians & experts. I have talked to many of them and I asked they why they rate Rocky so high. They rate Rocky higher because he was unbeaten. On a head to head match-up most picked Frazier.

If we talking Frazier being the same age as Marciano when he fought these men, I don't agree it is that easy to tell. I also think it very possible that the Patterson of 1956 beats the Frazier of 1976.

Age should not be an issue. Some boxers reach the top at a very young age and others don't reach their peak until they get much older. If we look at it the other way around, Frazier fought Ali at the age of 27, Rocky only fought 1 top 10 contender at that age.

After the 1st Ali bout, Frazier started to go down hill because of the beating he took. He had much harder bouts then Rocky had and Rocky never fought anyone with the punching power of Foreman. Again, if Rocky fought Ali and Foreman at the same time career wise, he would not be the same either.

If Walcott and Charles were in their prime, they would have given Rocky a run for his money too. Even when they were past their best days, they gave Rocky a good fight, just think what would happen if they fought him when they were in their primes.

Just to let you know, if you go by his overall career, I still rate Rocky in my Top 10.

[SuzieQ49]

Who would win if prime versions of Quarry and Ellis went up against the old versions of Charles and Walcott Rocky fought?


if quarry couldn't beat an old eddie machen, how is he going to beat "old" walcott and charles?

Ellis was lucky to escape with a gift decision over 33 year old floyd Patterson who broke elli's nose, yet 32 year old charles can't do better?


Frazier stopped bigger, tougher guys than Marciano

like who?


Marciano knocked out 6'2 214lb Joe Louis, who was rated # 2 in the world at the time. Louis had been just stopped once in 70 prior bouts. What fighter did frazier ever knockout that was as big and as highly rated as louis was? what big fighter did frazier ever stop that had only been knocked out once in 70 bouts?


but especially at the time of the fights in question some of them were harder to stop and maybe more dangerous fighters.

How were they more dangerous? Did they have better skills than walcott, charles and louis? did they have better defense? better technique? were they faster? Walcott had just knocked out a prime charles in 1951 right before facing marciano. Charles had just knocked out two top 10 contenders out cold bob satterfield and colley wallace in 1954, what top contenders did chuvalo and bonavena knock out cold?


harder to stop? Louis had not been floored in 4 years prior to the marciano fight including going 15 with a peak ezzard charles. louis stopped just once in 70 fights prior.


Ezzard Charles had been just stopped once in 8 prior years leading up to the marciano fight, despite facing some very big punchers. Valdez, Wallace, Satterfield, Louis, Haynes, Layne....All these big powerful hitters could not stop Charles.


Walcott had been stopped just once in 12 YEARS prior to the marciano fight, by none other than some guy named joe louis. Not to mention the slew of big punchers he fought(Hatchetman Sheppard, Lee Q Murray, Tommy Gomez, Elmer Ray, Hein Ten Hoff, Rex Layne). Not to mention he was CHAMPION, which sparks alot of confidence to hold on to your belt. I would say thats a man whos hard to stop!



Rex Layne? if you dont think he could take a punch, take a look at this video
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Roland Lastarza had never been stopped in his 56 prior bouts leading up to the title shot



Archie Moore could take a punch. He fought many punchers over 200lb. His record against heavyweights over 200lb? 22-1 with 19 kayos!!!!

[hhascup]

True Charles and Walcott were aging ,but I would pick those versions to beat Ellis,Quarry,Bonavena, Mathis,Ramos just as comprehensively as Frazier did.

If they were in their prime I would agree with you BUT they weren't. Walcott and Charles were on their way down when they fought Rocky. I do think they still could have beaten Mathis, Ramos and maybe Bonavena at that time.

[mr. magoo]

Walcott's career is a tad dicey when trying to determine at which point he was in his prime, given that he blossomed somewhat late. It would be interesting to do a poll and see when posters felt he was at the top of his game. Frankly, I think he looked pretty good against Marciano despite being 37. Though I suppose an argument could be made for him being a bit better against Louis maybe 3 years earlier.

[SuzieQ49]

If they were in their prime I would agree with you BUT they weren't. Walcott and Charles were on their way down when they fought Rocky.

Walcott knocked out a prime charles in 1951, what makes you say he was over the hill? Chuvalo has no chance in hell against 1952 walcott. walcott was HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION.

[hhascup]

if quarry couldn't beat an old eddie machen, how is he going to beat "old" walcott and charles?

Ellis was lucky to escape with a gift decision over 33 year old floyd Patterson who broke elli's nose, yet 32 year old charles can't do better?




like who?


Marciano knocked out 6'2 214lb Joe Louis, who was rated # 2 in the world at the time. Louis had been just stopped once in 70 prior bouts. What fighter did frazier ever knockout that was as big and as highly rated as louis was? what big fighter did frazier ever stop that had only been knocked out once in 70 bouts?




How were they more dangerous? Did they have better skills than walcott, charles and louis? did they have better defense? better technique? were they faster? Walcott had just knocked out a prime charles in 1951 right before facing marciano. Charles had just knocked out two top 10 contenders out cold bob satterfield and colley wallace in 1954, what top contenders did chuvalo and bonavena knock out cold?


harder to stop? Louis had not been floored in 4 years prior to the marciano fight including going 15 with a peak ezzard charles. louis stopped just once in 70 fights prior.


Ezzard Charles had been just stopped once in 8 prior years leading up to the marciano fight, despite facing some very big punchers. Valdez, Wallace, Satterfield, Louis, Haynes, Layne....All these big powerful hitters could not stop Charles.


Walcott had been stopped just once in 12 YEARS prior to the marciano fight, by none other than some guy named joe louis. Not to mention the slew of big punchers he fought(Hatchetman Sheppard, Lee Q Murray, Tommy Gomez, Elmer Ray, Hein Ten Hoff, Rex Layne). Not to mention he was CHAMPION, which sparks alot of confidence to hold on to your belt. I would say thats a man whos hard to stop!



Rex Layne? if you dont think he could take a punch, take a look at this video
[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Roland Lastarza had never been stopped in his 56 prior bouts leading up to the title shot



Archie Moore could take a punch. He fought many punchers over 200lb. His record against heavyweights over 200lb? 22-1 with 19 kayos!!!!




Joe Louis was past his prime before he fought Marciano. His record was 61-1 with 52 KO's in his 1st 62 bouts. In his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky, Louis was 8-1 with only 3 KO's.

An Interview with Roland LaStarza

Former Golden Gloves champ and heavyweight contender Roland LaStarza was unable to join us today. However, he shared these stories about his career and wished everyone in attendance well.

On fighting Rocky Marciano: "I won the first fight. Everyone thought I won the first fight except the referee. One judge scored it for me, the ref and the other judge gave it to Marciano. All the newspaper guys gave me the decision.

"The second fight, ruined me. It was easy at first. Then in maybe the sixth round I blocked a punch with my left arm and my left was gone. I blocked one of his right hands and that was it. I hurt that arm in training and when I blocked that punch I damaged blood vessels in my arm. I stood there and took a beating until the 11th. "If I had one word to describe Rocky it would be relentless. I would throw a right hand, he would throw a right hand. But the difference was Rocky would throw 10. He didn't hit me the hardest, but he hit me the most often. Don't get me wrong, Rocky was a great fighter. He was tough and he never stopped throwing punches."


Charles, wasn't the same after being caught by Walcott. Charles was 69-5-1 with 40 KO's before that bout with Walcott and counting that bout he was 24-20 with 12 KO's for the rest of his career. He also lost to Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson just 10 months before he fought Rocky. When Charles stopped Satterfield, it was the 10th time Satterfield was stopped during his career. Wallace was stopped by Bivins and Brothers before he fought Charles.

Moore was one of the best Light Heavyweights ever. After being stopped by Rocky in 9 rounds, he won his next 11 in a row with 8 KO's, then Patterson stopped him in only 5 rounds.

[hhascup]

Walcott knocked out a prime charles in 1951, what makes you say he was over the hill? Chuvalo has no chance in hell against 1952 walcott. walcott was HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION.


In Walcott's last 19 bouts of his career, he was 10-9. Sure he lost to some Great names, Louis (2), Charles (2), Rocky (2) Maxim & Ray once each and he did beat them both in return goes in very close decisions and Rex Layne. When he fought Rocky the 1st time, he was over 38-1/2 years old, and when he fought him again he was well over 39.

If he thought he still had it, he would have continued his career, BUT he didn't

[round15]

"Joe would have done better than Rocky against his opponents."

That would be pretty hard to do. NO ONE in the history of the sport going back to Figg actually did better against the men he faced than Marciano.

"No one knows for sure what would have happened."

This does sort of weaken this argument. People who agree with you agree with you. But anyone who has any doubts at all that all of Rocky's successes would be easily matched by Frazier while Frazier's failures would without doubt be shared by Rocky find it unconvincing.

I do agree that Ali and Foreman would be a viewed by almost everyone as tougher opponents than the best Marciano fought. But Foreman proves nothing as Frazier was blown out badly twice. NONE of the other serious claiments to top 10 ATG status were blown out this badly twice by any opponent. Nor did Frazier prove anything like Foreman's toughest opponent. Foreman lost to Ali and Young, was on the floor and in serious trouble against Lyle, and taken late into the fight twice by Peralta. It seems to me that one could draw the conclusion that because Frazier had so much trouble with this big puncher, he might also have had difficulty with other big punchers such as Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, and Liston, rather than drawing the convoluted conclusion that Foreman simply overwhelms other ATG's as easily as he did Frazier.

I don't think Foreman blows out the Joe Frazier from 1967 - 1970. This version of Frazier gives Foreman a much tougher battle than what he showed in 1973. Who wins is a different story. Anyone who remembers Foreman's destruction of Frazier in 1973 knows that Big George didn't fight the same conditioned fighter that beat Ali in the FOTC.

In Uniondale 1976, this version of Frazier had nothing to offer in the rematch against Foreman after leaving everything in the ring against Ali in Manilla. Only his fighting heart and pride got him through four rounds against Foreman, albeit wearing contact lenses. Prime Frazier was much quicker moving his head and pressuring his opponent. He would have definitely been able to land to the body against Foreman.

As for Marciano vs Frazier, I'd bet on Frazier to stop Marciano before the late rounds. Nobody in heavyweight history, with the exception of Tyson was as deadly a body puncher as Frazier.

[PowerPuncher]

I remember seeing the World Arm Wrestling Championships ,years ago the guy that won it was around 50 and not more than 190lbs he defeated giants of 250lbs,coincidently he was a former Marciano sparring partner.

Arm wrestling isn't a good indication of strength, its more technique and doesn't use much of the bodies muscles

[PowerPuncher]

As for the match up I like Frazier's speed and Marciano's underrated defense and timing. Allot would boil down to how each handle the other man's power. Frazier was blown out by Foreman, how would he handle Frazier's power? If Marciano was decked by Moore/Walcott how would he handle Frazier's relentless assaults?

Anything could happen in this 1

[mr. magoo]

I think the Marciano from the Walcott fights vs Frazier from FOTC would be a pretty good fight truthfully. A real battle of wills.

[guilalah]

Although I favor Marciano, the arguments posted on this thread have raised my opinion of Frazier.

[janitor]

I don't. Like "TheGreatA" stated:

Chuvalo, Bonavena and Quarry were tougher than Louis, Walcott and Charles at that time in their careers. If you asked me about prime for prime, who was better, then that would be different.

I can honestly say that I would bet my house that the Walcott of the first Marciano fight would have beaten Quary, Chuvalo, Bonavena.

I think that a faded Charles would have done also.

I even think that a 37 year old Louis could have taken them outside of Quary.

[OBCboxer]

I can honestly say that I would bet my house that the Walcott of the first Marciano fight would have beaten Quary, Chuvalo, Bonavena.

I think that a faded Charles would have done also.

I even think that a 37 year old Louis could have taken them outside of Quary.

It's not about if these guys would beat these guys, that's a different topic, it's about who was more durable and tougher to stop.

[Dempsey1238]

The guy with the chin? or the guy that was hard to hit??

[TheGreatA]

The guy with the chin? or the guy that was hard to hit??

Don't you think Frazier would get to old Louis, Charles and Walcott?

Do you think Marciano would easily knock down and knock out George Chuvalo and Jerry Quarry?

People have been arguing that Frazier doesn't have true KO power because he couldn't KO any of them "clean", he "only" won by TKO (after injuring both of them badly to the point they could not continue).

[Dempsey1238]

Not sure on Walcott and Charles, these guys were defenses genuis. Frazier would in deed have trouble landed his best on them imo.

Old Louis is other story.

[hhascup]

I can honestly say that I would bet my house that the Walcott of the first Marciano fight would have beaten Quary, Chuvalo, Bonavena.

I think that a faded Charles would have done also.

I even think that a 37 year old Louis could have taken them outside of Quary.


Well, then you might lose your house. Walcott had 10-9 record in his last 19 bouts, don't you think he was past him prime. Charles was also past his prime and Louis was a shot fighter. He only had 3 KO's in his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky.

[la-califa]

Both fighters would be on the inside, throwing bombs. I can't see Frazier recovering from one of those bombs which almost decapitated Walcott. Down goes Fraziah! Down goes Fraziah!

[Maxmomer]

I can honestly say that I would bet my house that the Walcott of the first Marciano fight would have beaten Quary, Chuvalo, Bonavena.

I think that a faded Charles would have done also.

I even think that a 37 year old Louis could have taken them outside of Quary.

I'm not sure I would have those versions of Walcott and Charles beating prime Quarry or Bonavena. Close fights as far as I'm concerned. Prime for prime, yes. Or what about Ellis?

[hhascup]

Both fighters would be on the inside, throwing bombs. I can't see Frazier recovering from one of those bombs which almost decapitated Walcott. Down goes Fraziah! Down goes Fraziah!


Foreman was the only one to do that to Frazier, I can't see Marciano doing the same.

[janitor]

[quote=hhascup;3640657]Well, then you might lose your house.

OK I bet my weelbarrow instead.

Walcott had 10-9 record in his last 19 bouts, don't you think he was past him prime.

It is not clear.

Walcott had a lot of losses in his last few bouts but names like Louis, and Charles skew that statistic.

The bottom line is that since the Louis fights Walcott only lost to Charles (pound 4 pounf gr8) and had an upset loss to Rex Layne (who himself beat Charles).

I dont know if he was past his prime but I do know that the Walcott who KOd Charles then gave Marciano the toughest fight of his career would have probably taken Quarry. I guarantee that he would have taken Chuvalo and Bonavena.


Charles was also past his prime and Louis was a shot fighter. He only had 3 KO's in his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky.


Yes but how many of Fraziers oponents could have beaten them at this stage?

[janitor]

[quote=Maxmomer;3640738]I'm not sure I would have those versions of Walcott and Charles beating prime Quarry or Bonavena.

I am verry certain.


Or what about Ellis?


He might be the fly in the ointment along with Patterson.

[OLD FOGEY]

Well, then you might lose your house. Walcott had 10-9 record in his last 19 bouts, don't you think he was past him prime. Charles was also past his prime and Louis was a shot fighter. He only had 3 KO's in his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky.

"don't you think he was past his prime?"

Well, this was his peak period, with wins over Joey Maxim (2), Elmer Ray, two great efforts against Louis with most seeing him the deserving winner of their first fight, Ole Tandberg, Harold Johnson, Omelio Agramonte, Johnny Shkor, Hein Ten Hoff, an impressive knockout of Charles which most would consider his greatest win, and a successful defense against Charles, and then a great effort against Marciano.

Without these 19 fights, Walcott would be at best a footnote in heavyweight history. Frankly, there is no evidence at any point that Walcott was "over the hill." The two victories over Charles and the first Marciano fight were among his most impressive performances.

By the way, Frazier was 3-4-1 in his last 8 fights.

These kind of stats can be misleading. Both men were fighting only top men.

[OLD FOGEY]

Don't you think Frazier would get to old Louis, Charles and Walcott?

Do you think Marciano would easily knock down and knock out George Chuvalo and Jerry Quarry?

People have been arguing that Frazier doesn't have true KO power because he couldn't KO any of them "clean", he "only" won by TKO (after injuring both of them badly to the point they could not continue).

"Don't you think Frazier would get to old Louis, Charles, and Walcott?"

And if Dempsey had never fought Gibbons or Tunney, my guess it would be an almost unanimous opinion that Dempsey would finish them early.

How many would pick Marty Marshall to beat Liston? Hasim Rahman to ko Lewis? Jimmy Young to beat Foreman? Norton to beat Ali? Schmeling to KO Louis?

Anytime you jerk an ATG out of his era and take him back to another era and then match him with the second-level fighters of that era, he obviously is going to be favored over all of them. The oddity here is that I am not certain that I would favor a 31 year old Frazier over a 33 year old Charles. I think that is a pick-um fight. Frazier had gone back quite a ways by then, perhaps more than Charles. A Moore fight when Frazier is 32 would be plenty tough also. I can see Moore winning it.

"Do you think Marciano would easily knock down or knock out George Chuvalo and Jerry Quarry."

Quarry was stopped 6 times in 66 fights or 1 time every 11 fights. That is not particularly durable. Louis, Matthews, LaStarza, Charles, Walcott, and even Savold were not stopped that frequently per fight. I see no reason to think Marciano couldn't have stopped Quarry.

Chuvalo was tough as they come. I think Marciano might well have stopped him on cuts or swellings like Frazier and Foreman did. Whether he could have knocked him down or out is unknowable. Frazier stopped him on an injury. Foreman hurt him and had him against the ropes but Chuvalo was lasting okay until the ref decided to stop it, in my opinion unnessarily, but it was a judgement call for the ref to make.

[Sardu]

Marciano by KO.

[OLD FOGEY]

If they were in their prime I would agree with you BUT they weren't. Walcott and Charles were on their way down when they fought Rocky. I do think they still could have beaten Mathis, Ramos and maybe Bonavena at that time.


Walcott had just come off a win over Charles. I would be quite willing to bet on him against any of these contenders, period. Ellis was probably the best of them, and as I argued in an earlier thread, it is difficult to find in all of boxing history a man who was so ordinary at a lighter weight who then quickly moved up and cleaned out the heavyweight contenders. You spin this as proving Ellis suddenly became great. I spin it as raising questions about the quality of the other contenders of the late '60's, who, after all, with the exception of Bonavena, proved little more than punching bags for Frazier and Ali.

[mr. magoo]

Walcott had just come off a win over Charles. I would be quite willing to bet on him against any of these contenders, period. Ellis was probably the best of them, and as I argued in an earlier thread, it is difficult to find in all of boxing history a man who was so ordinary at a lighter weight who then quickly moved up and cleaned out the heavyweight contenders. You spin this as proving Ellis suddenly became great. I spin it as raising questions about the quality of the other contenders of the late '60's, who, after all, with the exception of Bonavena, proved little more than punching bags for Frazier and Ali.


To be fair, I think Quarry was a legitimately good fighter even if he DID serve as a punching bag for Ali and Frazier.

[OLD FOGEY]

I have all for ratings from approx. 50 boxing historians & experts. I have talked to many of them and I asked they why they rate Rocky so high. They rate Rocky higher because he was unbeaten. On a head to head match-up most picked Frazier.



Age should not be an issue. Some boxers reach the top at a very young age and others don't reach their peak until they get much older. If we look at it the other way around, Frazier fought Ali at the age of 27, Rocky only fought 1 top 10 contender at that age.

After the 1st Ali bout, Frazier started to go down hill because of the beating he took. He had much harder bouts then Rocky had and Rocky never fought anyone with the punching power of Foreman. Again, if Rocky fought Ali and Foreman at the same time career wise, he would not be the same either.

If Walcott and Charles were in their prime, they would have given Rocky a run for his money too. Even when they were past their best days, they gave Rocky a good fight, just think what would happen if they fought him when they were in their primes.

Just to let you know, if you go by his overall career, I still rate Rocky in my Top 10.

"They rate Rocky higher because he was unbeaten. On a head-to-head match-up, most picked Frazier."

I am pleased that they rate on history rather than on speculation.

"If Walcott and Charles were in their prime, they would have given Rocky a run for his money too."

Walcott and Charles in their primes would give ANYONE a run for his money.

After all, these fighters we are talking about are among the best boxing has produced. Louis has been selected now and then as the greatest heavyweight. Moore and Charles as the greatest lightheavyweight. All three were on IBRO's top 25 p4p and among the top 15 of THE RING'S best of the 80 years from 1922 to 2002. Not bad. And Walcott made the AP top ten heavyweights of the century list. I don't think anyone has an easy time with these men.

[OLD FOGEY]

To be fair, I think Quarry was a legitimately good fighter even if he DID serve as a punching bag for Ali and Frazier.


I didn't mean to imply he wasn't a good fighter, but I don't think his record is so outstanding to put him above Walcott, Charles, Moore, etc. If he had fought Marciano, I don't think he would have been one of Marciano's five toughest opponents.

[TheGreatA]

"Don't you think Frazier would get to old Louis, Charles, and Walcott?"

And if Dempsey had never fought Gibbons or Tunney, my guess it would be an almost unanimous opinion that Dempsey would finish them early.

How many would pick Marty Marshall to beat Liston? Hasim Rahman to ko Lewis? Jimmy Young to beat Foreman? Norton to beat Ali? Schmeling to KO Louis?

Upsets happen but you could say the same about Marciano facing Frazier's opposition. Who knows how he would deal with a 200+ lb fighter with the same come forward pressure style as him since he never fought one?

Anytime you jerk an ATG out of his era and take him back to another era and then match him with the second-level fighters of that era, he obviously is going to be favored over all of them. The oddity here is that I am not certain that I would favor a 31 year old Frazier over a 33 year old Charles. I think that is a pick-um fight. Frazier had gone back quite a ways by then, perhaps more than Charles. A Moore fight when Frazier is 32 would be plenty tough also. I can see Moore winning it.

The difference is though that Marciano is generally thought to have been in his prime at the time of those fights because he started boxing so late. He did not have the wear and tear that Frazier did by his 30's as he had not fought for as long.

Being fair you'd have to match-up a prime championship form Frazier against Charles and Moore.

"Do you think Marciano would easily knock down or knock out George Chuvalo and Jerry Quarry."

Quarry was stopped 6 times in 66 fights or 1 time every 11 fights. That is not particularly durable. Louis, Matthews, LaStarza, Charles, Walcott and even Savold and Cockell were not stopped that frequently per fight. I see no reason to think Marciano couldn't have stopped Quarry.

You can look at their records or you can look at their fights. Watching Quarry's fights it's obvious that he has a granite jaw but he also cut easily.

Lets pick apart those 6 stoppage losses:

Cut stoppage against Frazier after taking trendemous punishment for 7 rounds in what was the FOTY of 1968.

"KO" loss to Chuvalo after taking the count of 8 and rising up a little too late.

Cut stoppage after 3 rounds against Ali. He was not even hurt.

Stopped against Ali because Ali pointed out to the referee that Quarry was not competitive enough. Again not hurt nor close to going down.

Another cut stoppage against Frazier but this time he was beaten badly and would've probably been knocked out if the fight had continued.

Past prime TKO loss to Ken Norton, stopped on his feet after taking a huge amount of punishment.

Walcott (KO'd 6 times), Charles (KO'd 7 times), Savold (KO'd 10 times) and Cockell (KO'd 9 times) had all been flattened for the count of 10 in previous fights, Cockell and Charles even at lighter weights.

[OLD FOGEY]

Upsets happen but you could say the same about Marciano facing Frazier's opposition. Who knows how he would deal with a 200+ lb fighter with the same come forward pressure style as him since he never fought one?



The difference is though that Marciano is generally thought to have been in his prime at the time of those fights because he started boxing so late. He did not have the wear and tear that Frazier did by his 30's as he had not fought for as long.

Being fair you'd have to match-up a prime championship form Frazier against Charles and Moore.



You can look at their records or you can look at their fights. Watching Quarry's fights it's obvious that he has a granite jaw but he also cut easily.

Lets pick apart those 6 stoppage losses:

Cut stoppage against Frazier after taking trendemous punishment for 7 rounds in what was the FOTY of 1968.

"KO" loss to Chuvalo after taking the count of 8 and rising up a little too late.

Cut stoppage after 3 rounds against Ali. He was not even hurt.

Stopped against Ali because Ali pointed out to the referee that Quarry was not competitive enough. Again not hurt nor close to going down.

Another cut stoppage against Frazier but this time he was beaten badly and would've probably been knocked out if the fight had continued.

Past prime TKO loss to Ken Norton, stopped on his feet after taking a huge amount of punishment.

Walcott (KO'd 6 times), Charles (KO'd 7 times), Savold (KO'd 10 times) and Cockell (KO'd 9 times) had all been flattened for the count of 10 in previous fights, Cockell and Charles even at lighter weights.


Fair enough--and I was wrong about Cockell. He was stopped 9 times in 81 fights or 1 per nine fights. I removed him from my post.

But I stand by my point that Quarry was not particularly difficult to stop.
He simply did not have good head movement or defensive skills. Not surprisingly the better fighters pounded him into helplessness.

Comparing Quarry with Savold:

Quarry--stopped 6 times in 66 fights--1 every 11 fights.
Savold--stopped 10 times in 137 fights--1 every 13.7 fights.

One could say for Savold, though, that five of his stoppages came before he was a contender and still learning his craft. From 1937 to 1952, fighting a great many top contenders, Savold was stopped 5 times, by Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo, Elmer Ray, Joe Louis, and Rocky Marciano. Quarry might have had a better chin, but off what I've seen of Savold--only against Louis and Marciano--he has much better defensive skills. Savold could slip and roll with punches and was a fairly elusive target.

[hhascup]

"They rate Rocky higher because he was unbeaten. On a head-to-head match-up, most picked Frazier."

I am pleased that they rate on history rather than on speculation.

"If Walcott and Charles were in their prime, they would have given Rocky a run for his money too."

Walcott and Charles in their primes would give ANYONE a run for his money.

After all, these fighters we are talking about are among the best boxing has produced. Louis has been selected now and then as the greatest heavyweight. Moore and Charles as the greatest lightheavyweight. All three were on IBRO's top 25 p4p and among the top 15 of THE RING'S best of the 80 years from 1922 to 2002. Not bad. And Walcott made the AP top ten heavyweights of the century list. I don't think anyone has an easy time with these men.


They were rated so high when they were in their prime, not when they fought Rocky. You can not tell me that the Louis that fought Rocky was the best of all-time. When he came back after the war he wasn't the same fighter, and he was even further down hill when he came back from retirement, won't you agree.

[Bummy Davis]

"don't you think he was past his prime?"

Well, this was his peak period, with wins over Joey Maxim (2), Elmer Ray, two great efforts against Louis with most seeing him the deserving winner of their first fight, Ole Tandberg, Harold Johnson, Omelio Agramonte, Johnny Shkor, Hein Ten Hoff, an impressive knockout of Charles which most would consider his greatest win, and a successful defense against Charles, and then a great effort against Marciano.

Without these 19 fights, Walcott would be at best a footnote in heavyweight history. Frankly, there is no evidence at any point that Walcott was "over the hill." The two victories over Charles and the first Marciano fight were among his most impressive performances.

By the way, Frazier was 3-4-1 in his last 8 fights.

These kind of stats can be misleading. Both men were fighting only top men.


Very good points...Walcott was a late bloomer and the first fight vs Louis should have been a win...Its like telling Kelly Pavlik that B-Hop is over the hill...yea get in the ring with him...in Walcotts case his power in either hand was excellent but that was the icing on the cake to great foot movement and great ring generalship....Walcott was able to stay fit once he got into the bigger money..early on he had to work, then train......either way the Walcott of Marciano1 would have beaten a lot of guys that were or became Champs that night...I would not be surprised if some of the best..he almost beat Louis and Marciano....almost

[hhascup]

"don't you think he was past his prime?"

Well, this was his peak period, with wins over Joey Maxim (2), Elmer Ray, two great efforts against Louis with most seeing him the deserving winner of their first fight, Ole Tandberg, Harold Johnson, Omelio Agramonte, Johnny Shkor, Hein Ten Hoff, an impressive knockout of Charles which most would consider his greatest win, and a successful defense against Charles, and then a great effort against Marciano.

Without these 19 fights, Walcott would be at best a footnote in heavyweight history. Frankly, there is no evidence at any point that Walcott was "over the hill." The two victories over Charles and the first Marciano fight were among his most impressive performances.

By the way, Frazier was 3-4-1 in his last 8 fights.

These kind of stats can be misleading. Both men were fighting only top men.


True BUT who did Frazier lose to, Foreman and Ali twice each. Both Ali and Foreman were near the top of their game. The Foreman and Ali that fought Frazier would have beaten any Walcott opponent. Walcott did beat Maxim twice BUT they were both very close decisions, one was a MD and the other was a SD.

Tell you the truth, we put up a monument of Jersey Joe in Camden and I was the guest speaker at the event. Also I MC'ed the unveiling of the Rocky Marciano Stamp and a few days later MC'ed the unveiling of the Joe Louis Memorial Park Monument. Marciano's brother asked me to MC the event for Rocky.

[Bummy Davis]

I disagree here. Bonavena lost to a 33 year old zora folley by shutout decision. surely a 32 year old june 1954 version of ezzard charles would win every round if he fought bonavena, it wouldnt even be close. Louis even at 37 would bust up chuvalo and bonavena something horrible with his jab.

chuvalo might win 1 round out of 15 against 1952 walcott and 1954 charles...way too much skill and speed for chuvalo, even at that stage of there careers



Quarry would be a much tougher fight, but quarry couldnt beat slick boxers. a washed up 33 year old eddie machen beat quarry, I suspect 1954 charles and 1952 walcott would have there way with them


I agree, I was just watching Charles fights against Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield just before his Marciano fight...still a very crafty and lethal puncher at heavyweight and Walcott also would have his way with them

[hhascup]

Fair enough--and I was wrong about Cockell. He was stopped 9 times in 81 fights or 1 per nine fights. I removed him from my post.

But I stand by my point that Quarry was not particularly difficult to stop.
He simply did not have good head movement or defensive skills. Not surprisingly the better fighters pounded him into helplessness.

Comparing Quarry with Savold:

Quarry--stopped 6 times in 66 fights--1 every 11 fights.
Savold--stopped 10 times in 137 fights--1 every 13.7 fights.

One could say for Savold, though, that five of his stoppages came before he was a contender and still learning his craft. From 1937 to 1952, fighting a great many top contenders, Savold was stopped 5 times, by Lem Franklin, Harry Bobo, Elmer Ray, Joe Louis, and Rocky Marciano. Quarry might have had a better chin, but off what I've seen of Savold--only against Louis and Marciano--he has much better defensive skills. Savold could slip and roll with punches and was a fairly elusive target.


Quarry was stopped by much better fighters. Ali (2), Frazier (2), Norton (1) and Chuvalo (1) when he missed read the count. This was the only time he was counted out. After his 2nd lose to Frazier he was finished as a serious contender.

Savold use to live and train in Paterson New Jersey, where I was born and lived, and I talked to several of his sparring partners and they all said that he was washed up when he fought Louis and Marciano.

[hhascup]

When Quarry lost to Machen he wasn't in shape and he just turned 21 years old, so he was still learning his craft.

[hhascup]

"Don't you think Frazier would get to old Louis, Charles, and Walcott?"

And if Dempsey had never fought Gibbons or Tunney, my guess it would be an almost unanimous opinion that Dempsey would finish them early.

How many would pick Marty Marshall to beat Liston? Hasim Rahman to ko Lewis? Jimmy Young to beat Foreman? Norton to beat Ali? Schmeling to KO Louis?

Anytime you jerk an ATG out of his era and take him back to another era and then match him with the second-level fighters of that era, he obviously is going to be favored over all of them. The oddity here is that I am not certain that I would favor a 31 year old Frazier over a 33 year old Charles. I think that is a pick-um fight. Frazier had gone back quite a ways by then, perhaps more than Charles. A Moore fight when Frazier is 32 would be plenty tough also. I can see Moore winning it.

"Do you think Marciano would easily knock down or knock out George Chuvalo and Jerry Quarry."

Quarry was stopped 6 times in 66 fights or 1 time every 11 fights. That is not particularly durable. Louis, Matthews, LaStarza, Charles, Walcott, and even Savold were not stopped that frequently per fight. I see no reason to think Marciano couldn't have stopped Quarry.

Chuvalo was tough as they come. I think Marciano might well have stopped him on cuts or swellings like Frazier and Foreman did. Whether he could have knocked him down or out is unknowable. Frazier stopped him on an injury. Foreman hurt him and had him against the ropes but Chuvalo was lasting okay until the ref decided to stop it, in my opinion unnessarily, but it was a judgement call for the ref to make.


I don't know why you keep bringing up age. The 1st Ali bout took a lot out of him. We are talking about the Frazier that fought Ali, Foster, Ellis and Quarry. If your talking about age, 21 year old Quarry, would have beaten 21 year old Marciano.

By the way, when Liston lost to Marshall in Septemer 1954, neither one of them were rated. Marshall was 1st rated in the Light Heavyweight division in January 1955 and Liston was 1st rated in October 1958, so I really don't see much of an upset when Marshall lost, BUT I know what your talking about. On paper boxer "A" should beat boxer "B" every time BUT like you said, you never know until they actually fight each other.

[OLD FOGEY]

They were rated so high when they were in their prime, not when they fought Rocky. You can not tell me that the Louis that fought Rocky was the best of all-time. When he came back after the war he wasn't the same fighter, and he was even further down hill when he came back from retirement, won't you agree.


Yes. Louis was well past his best. However, it is not clear that Walcott and Moore were not fighting as well as they ever had, and Charles was still winning most of his fights. His losses to Walcott, Layne, and Johnson were by disputed decisions. He was the same age as Ali was when he beat Foreman in 1974. There were plenty of experts who thought Ali was slipping. He had lost badly to Norton and barely squeaked by in the rematch, while Foreman was a peak 25, not 31 like Marciano.

[mr. magoo]

I didn't mean to imply he wasn't a good fighter, but I don't think his record is so outstanding to put him above Walcott, Charles, Moore, etc. If he had fought Marciano, I don't think he would have been one of Marciano's five toughest opponents.

True,

I certainly don't think that quarry would have survived meetings with Walcott, Moore, Charles and perhaps not even Lastarza. I do however think that a 1973 version of Quarry who defeated Shavers and Lyle could possibly have been Marciano's 5th or 6th best opponent, but who knows.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't know why you keep bringing up age. The 1st Ali bout took a lot out of him. We are talking about the Frazier that fought Ali, Foster, Ellis and Quarry. If your talking about age, 21 year old Quarry, would have beaten 21 year old Marciano.

By the way, when Liston lost to Marshall in Septemer 1954, neither one of them were rated. Marshall was 1st rated in the Light Heavyweight division in January 1955 and Liston was 1st rated in October 1958, so I really don't see much of an upset when Marshall lost, BUT I know what your talking about. On paper boxer "A" should beat boxer "B" every time BUT like you said, you never know until they actually fight each other.

"I don't know why you keep bringing up age."

This sure sounds like the kettle talking about the pot. How many times have you mentioned the various ages of Marciano's opponents.

Clearly, if you are going to play fantasy games such as matching one fighter's opponents from one era with the opponents from another era, I think at least enough realism should be retained to note that fighters age. For example, if I ask how Dempsey would have done against Louis' opponents, it is not really fair to simply say Dempsey at his peak was better than Walcott. Louis was not at his peak when he fought Walcott. He was 33 and 34. The question you must ask is how would Dempsey do against Walcott at that age or at least a similar point in his career.

The same is true of Frazier and Marciano. What would Frazier do at a similar age or point in his career. He would be 31 when he fought Charles and 32 when he fought Moore. Frazier indeed was going back pretty severely by this time and victory would not be assured.

"21 year old Quarry would beat a 21 year old Marciano"

Marciano was in the army at 21. The facts in the real world is that he did get to start his career until he was 24 and still managed to become champion. Frankly, I think this argument is less than weak.

[groove]

same old crap.

[SuzieQ49]

He only had 3 KO's in his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky.

Thats a very weak arguement. I think the fact Louis sported a 8-1 record in his last 9 fights with 5 wins over top 10 ranked contenders, proves he was still very difficult to beat. I dont see Bonavena or chuvalo being able to outpoint joe louis, i just dont see it happening.

[SuzieQ49]

One could also make a case frazier did not do well against and did not fight the punchers of his era, making him a huge question mark against a Two handed knockout puncher like the rock

[mr. magoo]

Ellis was probably the best of them, and as I argued in an earlier thread, it is difficult to find in all of boxing history a man who was so ordinary at a lighter weight who then quickly moved up and cleaned out the heavyweight contenders. You spin this as proving Ellis suddenly became great. I spin it as raising questions about the quality of the other contenders of the late '60's, who, after all, with the exception of Bonavena, proved little more than punching bags for Frazier and Ali.

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing however, after giving this some thought, I have arrived at the conclusion that this statement requires closer examination.

Ellis's career at middleweight was nothing to write home about, and I think anyone can concur with that. The problem that I have with the ascertion that his failures at middleweight, quickley followed by a successful career at heavyweight, is summed up by the contenders of the late 60's being questionable in quality, is that it doesn't examine the whole story. Ellis lost 5 matches at middleweight, but when I look at the timing and circumstances of those fights, it is revealed to me that he had less than 20 pro bouts when he sustained those defeats and all came between age 21-23. His first defeat came at the age of 21, when he was a 5-0 prospect and facing an 80 fight veteran in a scheduled 10 round match.. The result was a decision loss. The rest of his losses were under similar circumstances. Additionally, I will argue that at 6'1", and fighting in the 150's to 160's range, it is likely that he was a bean poll at that weight and probably better suited to be fighting at either lightheavy or heavy. Lastly, we don't know what kind of changes may have occurred behind the scenes. Who was managing him? Who was training him? Did either of these things change?

That said, I think his brief run in the late 60's at heavyweight was an admirable one, and I'm not sure that I'd chalk it up to questionable comp. He did very well at eliminating the top fighters in the heavyweight tourny of '68 or whenever it was by beating Martin, Bonavena, Quarry and patterson. That's about as good of a run as most fighters can claim to have had within such a short duration. The title he eventually won was viewed by the public as more or less "plastic", but be that as it may, I'd say he earned it nonetheless.

[TheGreatA]

The same is true of Frazier and Marciano. What would Frazier do at a similar age or point in his career. He would be 31 when he fought Charles and 32 when he fought Moore. Frazier indeed was going back pretty severely by this time and victory would not be assured.

Marciano was in the army at 21. The facts in the real world is that he did get to start his career until he was 24 and still managed to become champion. Frankly, I think this argument is less than weak.

You're leaving out the fact that Frazier started his pro career years earlier than Marciano did and thus had more wear and tear than Marciano did by his 30's.

When Frazier was 31, he had fought for 10 years. When Marciano was 31, he had fought for 6-7 years.

Marciano retired in 1955 when he had fought for 8 years.

[mr. magoo]

You're leaving out the fact that Frazier started his pro career years earlier than Marciano did and thus had more wear and tear than Marciano did by his 30's.

When Frazier was 31, he had fought for 10 years. When Marciano was 31, he had fought for 6-7 years.

Marciano retired in 1955 when he had fought for 8 years.

In all fairness though, Marciano had fought in far more matches. By the time he was in his early 30's he had compiled between 45-49 fights as opposed to Frazier's 35 or whatever. Now you can say that Joe had some grueling battles that wore on him such as the FOTC and the Foreman beatings. But then again, what about Marciano's fights with Walcott, Lastarza, etc?

[mcvey]

One could also make a case frazier did not do well against and did not fight the punchers of his era, making him a huge question mark against a Two handed knockout puncher like the rock
This needs to be taken into account,Marciano was a legitimate two handed puncher his left hooks had Louis on the floor.Despite what has been averred ,Iv'e yet to see evidence that Frazier floored ANYONE with his right.

[hhascup]

I agree with your statement "at least a similar point in his career," BUT not at the same age. Most boxers reach their prime at a different age. Louis and Walcott were the same age, so at 21 to 33, Louis was much better, BUT as they got older, Walcott became as good or even better.

When I stated about Rocky's opponents, I didn't say or mean their age, I said about being past their prime years, age has nothing to do with it like I stated above. You even stated that Louis wasn't as good, in fact he was only a shell of what he once was.

When I stated that Louis had a record of 8-1 with only 3 KO's, I was saying that his biggest assist, punching power was gone, don't you agree. I also believe Walcott was at his best when he was well into his 30's. I believe his 3 greatest fights were the 1st Louis bout, the 3rd Charles bout and the 1st Marciano bout. His 3 bouts with Maxim were all close, and they could have gone either way in any of them, BUT Walcott got the verdict twice.

As far as Ellis goes, I agree with everything you said. Ellis was a middleweight until he hooked up with Angelo Dundee, who told him that his body wasn't made for such a light weight. After that Ellis gained some weight and coaching from the master and the rest is history.

As far as Quarry goes, in my opinion he would have held his own with any of Rocky's opponents at that time. Quarry was not an easy night for anyone.

[hhascup]

In all fairness though, Marciano had fought in far more matches. By the time he was in his early 30's he had compiled between 45-49 fights as opposed to Frazier's 35 or whatever. Now you can say that Joe had some grueling battles that wore on him such as the FOTC and the Foreman beatings. But then again, what about Marciano's fights with Walcott, Lastarza, etc?


I agree, BUT Frazier fought much better opponents especially earlier in his career then Rocky did. Frazier had 37 bouts in his career, against 13 (14 if you count Light Heavyweight Champion Bob Foster) top 10 contenders. When Rocky had 37 bouts he only fought 2 Top 10 contenders, LaStarza and Layne, his next bout was against Louis. When Rocky fought his last bout, he fought a total of 8 different top 10 contenders 11 times.

Like I stated before, you can't go by age or pick an equal timeline in their careers, fighters peak at different stages. The Frazier that went against Ali in their 1st bout, Quarry (1st bout), Ellis and Foster, in my opinion would beat Rocky at anytime during his career.

[SuzieQ49]

His 3 bouts with Maxim were all close, and they could have gone either way in any of them, BUT Walcott got the verdict twice.

Not Really. according to newspaper reports, walcott deserved to win all three cleanly and clearly. first fight was a robbery.

When I stated that Louis had a record of 8-1 with only 3 KO's, I was saying that his biggest assist, punching power was gone, don't you agree.

That doesnt take away from the fact that louis was still a very hard man to beat, with his size jab skills he was very hard to outpoint. do we agree?


As for his punching power, i disagree it was gone. Lee Savold was knocked out by one punch from louis, Savold was extremley durable and marciano couldnt even floor savold. Future # 1 contender Nino Valdes was knocked out in one round in a live exhibition vs louis in 1951, pat valentino a durable contender was knocked out cold through the ropes by louis, watch it on youtube. Prime Ezzard charles and Prime Rocky Marciano both suffered huge welts and marks on there faces, surely louis couldnt mark up there faces this badly if he didnt have power left. Louis was a big guy, 6'2 215lb. Jimmy Bivins after his fight with louis that Louis speed and skills had diminished but that one thing he still posessed was his punching power, that louis could still hit very hard.

Only reason he didnt knockout some of these guys was because guys like brion and bivins were cautious defensive fighters who fought just to survive vs louis. Agramonte ran on his bicycle for 20 rounds to survive against louis, and even then one louis right hand put agramonte down in rematch for a 9 count.



He wasnt the menacing joe louis of old, no way shape or form, but he could still hit.

[SuzieQ49]

The Frazier that went against Ali in their 1st bout, Quarry (1st bout), Ellis and Foster, in my opinion would beat Rocky at anytime during his career.


I dont see how frazier stands a chance trading blows with a 1951 rocky marciano of the rex layne or joe louis fights.

[TheGreatA]

In all fairness though, Marciano had fought in far more matches. By the time he was in his early 30's he had compiled between 45-49 fights as opposed to Frazier's 35 or whatever. Now you can say that Joe had some grueling battles that wore on him such as the FOTC and the Foreman beatings. But then again, what about Marciano's fights with Walcott, Lastarza, etc?

A lot of those early fights were early round blowouts against soft opposition though.

Frazier stepped up in competition almost instantly. One year into his career he fought Oscar Bonavena, the next year he fought Machen, Chuvalo, Jones and by 1968 he was already a heavyweight title holder.

[hhascup]

Not Really. according to newspaper reports, walcott deserved to win all three cleanly and clearly. first fight was a robbery.

There 1st bout was in Camden, Walcott's home town.

That doesnt take away from the fact that louis was still a very hard man to beat, with his size jab skills he was very hard to outpoint. do we agree?

As for his punching power, i disagree it was gone. Lee Savold was knocked out by one punch from louis, Savold was extremley durable and marciano couldnt even floor savold. Future # 1 contender Nino Valdes was knocked out in one round in a live exhibition vs louis in 1951, pat valentino a durable contender was knocked out cold through the ropes by louis, watch it on youtube. Prime Ezzard charles and Prime Rocky Marciano both suffered huge welts and marks on there faces, surely louis couldnt mark up there faces this badly if he didnt have power left. Louis was a big guy, 6'2 215lb. Jimmy Bivins after his fight with louis that Louis speed and skills had diminished but that one thing he still posessed was his punching power, that louis could still hit very hard.

Only reason he didnt knockout some of these guys was because guys like brion and bivins were cautious defensive fighters who fought just to survive vs louis. Agramonte ran on his bicycle for 20 rounds to survive against louis, and even then one louis right hand put agramonte down in rematch for a 9 count.

He wasnt the menacing joe louis of old, no way shape or form, but he could still hit.

Louis was always a force, BUT with only 3 KO's in 9 bouts when he had 52 in his other 61 bouts speaks for itself. A couple friends of mine fought exhibitions against Louis in the early 1950's too. He was far from the punching machine he once was. Agramonte was KO'ed 7 times during his career, he would not laswt 2 rounds with a prime Louis. As far as Savold goes, even Lee's close friends told me that he was just a puching bag at that time in his career.

I dont see how frazier stands a chance trading blows with a 1951 rocky marciano of the rex layne or joe louis fights.

Your entitled to your opinion, BUT I respectfully disagree with you. Look any thing can happen in a fight as we all know, BUT I just feel that Frazier was just a little better then Rocky was.

[mr. magoo]

A lot of those early fights were early round blowouts against soft opposition though.

Frazier stepped up in competition almost instantly. One year into his career he fought Oscar Bonavena, the next year he fought Machen, Chuvalo, Jones and by 1968 he was already a heavyweight title holder.


True

[SuzieQ49]

As far as Savold goes, even Lee's close friends told me that he was just a puching bag at that time in his career.

If he was such a punching bag, than why did Lee just recently knockout top contender european champ bruce woodcock, and why was savold rated # 2 in the world and recognized heavyweight champion by BBC when he fought louis?

[hhascup]

If he was such a punching bag, than why did Lee just recently knockout top contender european champ bruce woodcock, and why was savold rated # 2 in the world and recognized heavyweight champion by BBC when he fought louis?

When he fought Rocky he wasn't rated anymore. He was rated last in November of 1951 (so that means a few months before that) and he fought Rocky in February 1952.

Savold's manager stopped the bout between the 6th and 7th rounds in that bout with Rocky.

At the end of 1950, he was rated #2, BUT that only shows the weakest in the division at that time:

As selected by The Ring magazine in the February 1951 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue.

Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Joe Louis ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Lee Savold ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joey Maxim ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Clarence Henry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Baker ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rex Layne ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jersey Joe Walcott ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jack Gardner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Lee Oma ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[mr. magoo]

I have to agree with Hascup on this one. In 1951, Joe Louis was long-long past the days where he was scoring back to back early KO's over the likes of Schmeling, Sharkey, Braddock, Baer, Carnera, etc.. To go from basically leaving hall of famers knocked senseless on a regular basis to not even being able to finish fringe contenders and journeyman is a clear indication that his lightening fast combo-punching ability had diminished.

[hhascup]

I have to agree with Hascup on this one. In 1951, Joe Louis was long-long past the days where he was scoring back to back early KO's over the likes of Schmeling, Sharkey, Braddock, Baer, Carnera, etc.. To go from basically leaving hall of famers knocked senseless on a regular basis to not even being able to finish fringe contenders and journeyman is a clear indication that his lightening fast combo-punching ability had diminished.


Thank You, I am sure we will disagree on something else in the future, BUT that's what makes it all Great.

[SuzieQ49]

When he fought Rocky he wasn't rated anymore. He was rated last in November of 1951 (so that means a few months before that) and he fought Rocky in February 1952.

Savold's manager stopped the bout between the 6th and 7th rounds in that bout with Rocky.

At the end of 1950, he was rated #2, BUT that only shows the weakest in the division at that time:

As selected by The Ring magazine in the February 1951 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue.

Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Joe Louis ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Lee Savold ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joey Maxim ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Clarence Henry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Baker ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rex Layne ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jersey Joe Walcott ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jack Gardner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Lee Oma ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links])



You have to start paying attention better. I never said anything about marciano, I said savold was rated # 2 when he fought louis, and I stand by that statement. In fact, you proved it to me right there. If savold was so washed up when he fought joe louis, then how was he rated # 2 in the world?

At the end of 1950, he was rated #2, BUT that only shows the weakest in the division at that time:

Your calling Clarence Henry, Rocky Marciano, Bob Baker, Rex Layne, Jersey Joe Walcott "weak" contenders?

[SuzieQ49]

to not even being able to finish fringe contenders and journeyman

What journeyman was louis unable to finish? the only journeyman louis fought in his comeback was andy walker. louis knocked him down 3 times and finished him off in round 10.

Louis also knocked out the # 2 rated heavyweight in the world with 1 punch, left charles and marciano's faces battered to shreds, and he knocked out nino valdez and pat valentino out cold. Im sure you've seen the valentino clip on youtube, its frightening. The man could still hit hard. Raw Power is the last thing to leave a fighter. Louis lost his ability to throw fight finishing combinations, but he absolutley still possessed one punch power

Could sonny liston still hit hard in the 1960s? Joe Louis in the 1950s knocked out more rated contenders than him.


George Foreman failed to knockout almost every single rated contender he faced in the 1990s, does that mean he couldn't hit hard anymore?

[mr. magoo]

What journeyman was louis unable to finish? the only journeyman louis fought in his comeback was andy walker. louis knocked him down 3 times and finished him off in round 10.

Louis also knocked out the # 2 rated heavyweight in the world with 1 punch, left charles and marciano's faces battered to shreds, and he knocked out nino valdez and pat valentino out cold. Im sure you've seen the valentino clip on youtube, its frightening. The man could still hit hard. Raw Power is the last thing to leave a fighter. Louis lost his ability to throw fight finishing combinations, but he absolutley still possessed one punch power

Could sonny liston still hit hard in the 1960s? Joe Louis in the 1950s knocked out more rated contenders than him.


George Foreman failed to knockout almost every single rated contender he faced in the 1990s, does that mean he couldn't hit hard anymore?

Let's try and decipher it this way. Do you honestly feel that Louis's punching abiltiy ( one-punch or otherwise ), was anything like it was 10-15 years earlier? He went from brutally creaming 6'5" hall of famers to decisioning men who weren't even close in status. Frankly, I don't see how a comparison can even be made. While Joe may have still had power in a single shot, we have to remember that the core of his finishing abilty came in the reflexes and the ability to fire off combinations - not single bombs. He wasn't really that type of a puncher.

[hhascup]

You have to start paying attention better. I never said anything about marciano, I said savold was rated # 2 when he fought louis, and I stand by that statement. In fact, you proved it to me right there. If savold was so washed up when he fought joe louis, then how was he rated # 2 in the world?



Your calling Clarence Henry, Rocky Marciano, Bob Baker, Rex Layne, Jersey Joe Walcott "weak" contenders?


Do you honestly think Savold should have been rated so high. In his last 12 bouts before he fought Louis, he won only 6 of them (6-4-2). When he fought Louis has rating was down to #4.

[Bummy Davis]

What journeyman was louis unable to finish? the only journeyman louis fought in his comeback was andy walker. louis knocked him down 3 times and finished him off in round 10.

Louis also knocked out the # 2 rated heavyweight in the world with 1 punch, left charles and marciano's faces battered to shreds, and he knocked out nino valdez and pat valentino out cold. Im sure you've seen the valentino clip on youtube, its frightening. The man could still hit hard. Raw Power is the last thing to leave a fighter. Louis lost his ability to throw fight finishing combinations, but he absolutley still possessed one punch power

Could sonny liston still hit hard in the 1960s? Joe Louis in the 1950s knocked out more rated contenders than him.


George Foreman failed to knockout almost every single rated contender he faced in the 1990s, does that mean he couldn't hit hard anymore?

Its a fact a fighters reflexes will go but a fighter never loses his punch...Dempsey proved vs Sharkey and Louis was still a powerfull puncher until the end. Archie Moore had KO power when he left the ring and Foreman was still punching hard and learned to relax more as he aged.....reflexes and the legs can go but power stays...Holmes and Ali and Foreman still had fights left in there later days...Walcott,Lewis,Liston and Toney(vs Rahman) kept there power

[hhascup]

Let's try and decipher it this way. Do you honestly feel that Louis's punching abiltiy ( one-punch or otherwise ), was anything like it was 10-15 years earlier? He went from brutally creaming 6'5" hall of famers to decisioning men who weren't even close in status. Frankly, I don't see how a comparison can even be made. While Joe may have still had power in a single shot, we have to remember that the core of his finishing abilty came in the reflexes and the ability to fire off combinations - not single bombs. He wasn't really that type of a puncher.

Good Post, I agree 100%

[mr. magoo]

Do you honestly think Savold should have been rated so high. In his last 12 bouts before he fought Louis, he won only 6 of them (6-4-2). When he fought Louis has rating was down to #4.


Although the question was directed at Suzy, I will give my answer by saying no. Based on his career record, I do not see the justification for having a man who only won 6 of his last 12 bouts in a #2 spot, regardless of who those 12 fights were against. I hate to take the discussion down this road, but the stark reality of the fact is that the quality of the heavyweight picture had diminished significantly by 1950. Most of the upper tier fighters were aging men and you had a lot of contenders that in other eras would have likely bore the label of journeyman or at the very best, fringe contender. I don't know why the hell Savold was rated so high, unless it was a promotional stunt to give Louis a win over a top rater so that he could be catipulted back into contention... However, Fixes and conspiracy theories aren't welcomed here at ESB.

[hhascup]

Its a fact a fighters reflexes will go but a fighter never loses his punch...Dempsey proved vs Sharkey and Louis was still a powerfull puncher until the end. Archie Moore had KO power when he left the ring and Foreman was still punching hard and learned to relax more as he aged.....reflexes and the legs can go but power stays...Holmes and Ali and Foreman still had fights left in there later days...Walcott,Lewis,Liston and Toney(vs Rahman) kept there power

They always say that the power is the last to go BUT a prime Louis would have KO'ed all these guys he fought in the early 1950's. Do you honestly think that Andy Walker would have lasted 10 rounds with Louis in his prime.

Just because you still have a punch, doesn't mean your going to score KO's. You need reflexes, putting together combination punches and strong legs, and Louis just didn't have those at that time as he once did.

[mr. magoo]

I think the topic should switch to whether or not Louis would have beaten Marciano in his prime. Of course, its probably a subject for a different thread.

[groove]

whatever way you look at it - it was a weak era for heavyweight boxing - guys like savold being rated 2nd - 38 losses on his record when he fought old louis and he being the number 1 contender. no way would this happen in other eras.

[mr. magoo]

whatever way you look at it - it was a weak era for heavyweight boxing - guys like savold being rated 2nd - 38 losses on his record when he fought old louis and he being the number 1 contender. no way would this happen in other eras.


Agreed, although the color line had been disolved and you had more black fighters climbing the ranks during the 50's, most of them were either declining while others simply weren't that good. We didn't really see a recovery in heavyweight boxing until the coming of Cassius Clay.

[ChrisPontius]

whatever way you look at it - it was a weak era for heavyweight boxing - guys like savold being rated 2nd - 38 losses on his record when he fought old louis and he being the number 1 contender. no way would this happen in other eras.

You have to realise it was a different era, though. They fought much more often, under less luxurious circumstances and against better opposition.


I think Old Fogey made a great, illustrative point on this a while back when he said that of all champions pre-1950, only Willie Pep was undefeated when he won the championship. Doesn't mean all those greats were any less than the ones after the 50's, who often were undefeated when winning the title. The impact of TV fight broadcast on match making is enormous.

[SuzieQ49]

hate to take the discussion down this road, but the stark reality of the fact is that the quality of the heavyweight picture had diminished significantly by 1950


Savold was rated over contenders like Rocky Marciano, Jersey Joe Walcott, Rex Layne, Bob Baker, Clarence Henry, Roland Lastarza. Your saying the heavyweight picture had diminished with these hot young contneders coming up? all these men were filled with talent and huge potential.

[hhascup]

You have to realise it was a different era, though. They fought much more often, under less luxurious circumstances and against better opposition.


I think Old Fogey made a great, illustrative point on this a while back when he said that of all champions pre-1950, only Willie Pep was undefeated when he won the championship. Doesn't mean all those greats were any less than the ones after the 50's, who often were undefeated when winning the title. The impact of TV fight broadcast on match making is enormous.

Jeffries was undefended too, BUT I know what your talking about. Even if you take away half of Savold's bout and loses, it still looks pretty bad.

[SuzieQ49]

Savold got the high ranking because he scored a huge upset knockout over top ranked Bruce Woodcock and earned himself BBC heavyweight crown. Savold was a slick boxer if you watch the films vs louis, he had an intelligent mind and good jab too. Louis just went out there and ruined him. too much size and power. Do i think savold deserved # 2 rating? NO especially with names like baker marciano walcott layne henry rated below him

[SuzieQ49]

whatever way you look at it - it was a weak era for heavyweight boxing - guys like savold being rated 2nd - 38 losses on his record when he fought old louis and he being the number 1 contender. no way would this happen in other eras.

how is it weak if names like bob baker rocky marciano clarence henry jersey joe walcott rex layne and joe louis were in the rankings? are these men weak?

[mr. magoo]

=SuzieQ49;3646423]Savold was rated over contenders like Rocky Marciano, Jersey Joe Walcott, Rex Layne, Bob Baker, Clarence Henry, Roland Lastarza.

Having only won 6 of his last 12? What does that tell you?



Your saying the heavyweight picture had diminished with these hot young contneders coming up? all these men were filled with talent and huge potential.


I wouldn't describe Walcott as being young in the early 50's. Even today 36-37 is not considered particularly young. In those days, it was an ancient number for a fighter. While Walcott may have been far better than the average 37 year old, I think part of his success had to do with the conditions of the division, and no I don't think that it was a particularly booming period where talent is concerned.

[SuzieQ49]

Just because you still have a punch, doesn't mean your going to score KO's. You need reflexes, putting together combination punches and strong legs, and Louis just didn't have those at that time as he once did


but like you said, he STILL HAD A PUNCH


Ezzard Charles, Champion

1. Joe Louis
2. Lee Savold
3. Joey Maxim
4. Clarence Henry
5. Bob Baker
6. Rex Layne
7. Jersey Joe Walcott
8. Jack Gardner
9. Lee Oma
10. Rocky Marciano


The following men I highlighted in red were all very talented dangerous contenders. thats six out of the top 10 that were genuine world class threats. I would say this year and era was far from weak.

[hhascup]

Savold got the high ranking because he scored a huge upset knockout over top ranked Bruce Woodcock and earned himself BBC heavyweight crown. Savold was a slick boxer if you watch the films vs louis, he had an intelligent mind and good jab too. Louis just went out there and ruined him. too much size and power. Do i think savold deserved # 2 rating? NO especially with names like baker marciano walcott layne henry rated below him

Your right, he got the rating when he beat Woodcock. Before that bout Woodcock was rated #3 and Savold was at #4. "RING" had the title vacant with Charles #1, Walcott #2, then Woodcock and Savold, followed by Joe Baksi #5, Bob Baker #6, Lee Oma #7, Rocky #8, LaStarza #9 and John Holman #10.

Woodcock got that rating after beating Oma and Freddie Mills afterbeing stopped by Baksi.

After that bout, Savold was tied with Charles as #1, followed by Walcott #3, Maxim #4, Baksi #5, Baker #6, Rocky #7, LaStarza #8, Woodcock #9 and Clarence Henry #10.

Do you honestly believe Savold should have been rated #1?

[SuzieQ49]

I wouldn't describe Walcott as being young in the early 50's. Even today 36-37 is not considered particularly young. In those days, it was an ancient number for a fighter. While Walcott may have been far better than the average 37 year old, I think part of his success had to do with the conditions of the division


Walcott had just knocked out harold johnson and ezzard charles at age 36-37, harold johnson and charles are both hall of fame talent. As for the conditions of the division, i wouldnt say there that bad....walcott was outworked by young 22 year old stud rex layne, and two talented black murders row henry and baker coming up, and of course you had the rock coming up. I would argue walcotts best years came when he was in his mid thirties. I would also argue that the young talent coming up in 1950 was VERY good.


Having only won 6 of his last 12? What does that tell you?

It tells me he recorded a very good win over bruce woodcock. Do I think Savold was the 2nd best heavyweight in the world at the time? No. 2ndly, are you claiming that the other men rated in the top 10 was not a strong group? Louis Marciano Walcott Baker Henry and Layne were STUDS!

[SuzieQ49]

Do you honestly believe Savold should have been rated #1?

Why not just give Joe Louis credit for destroying the # 2 heavyweight contender in the world with 1 punch. Hell marciano could not even floor a fatter savold a year later. Savold looked trim and fit and slick in the louis bout.

[mr. magoo]

I don't have a problem with Marciano, Walcott, Louis, Charles or anyone else from that period, in fact I rate them all very highly. But, frankly, I don't think that the era as a whole was that tremendous. Lee Savold being as highly ranked as he was, Louis being shot and still a top rater, Walcott being at the top of the division at age 37. It the period does not suit my fancy..

[hhascup]

Walcott had just knocked out harold johnson and ezzard charles at age 36-37, harold johnson and charles are both hall of fame talent. As for the conditions of the division, i wouldnt say there that bad....walcott was outworked by young 22 year old stud rex layne, and two talented black murders row henry and baker coming up, and of course you had the rock coming up. I would argue walcotts best years came when he was in his mid thirties. I would also argue that the young talent coming up in 1950 was VERY good.


It tells me he recorded a very good win over bruce woodcock. Do I think Savold was the 2nd best heavyweight in the world at the time? No. 2ndly, are you claiming that the other men rated in the top 10 was not a strong group? Louis Marciano Walcott Baker Henry and Layne were STUDS!

I would not rate them STUDS. Just look at their records. Compare them with the ratings when Frazier was the Champion.

Joe Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jerry Quarry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Oscar Bonavena ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Mac Foster ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jimmy Ellis ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Floyd Patterson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jose Luis Garcia ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jack Bodell ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Joe Bugner ([Only registered and activated users can see links])



Why not just give Joe Louis credit for destroying the # 2 heavyweight contender in the world with 1 punch. Hell marciano could not even floor a fatter savold a year later. Savold looked trim and fit and slick in the louis bout.


He did destroy him BUT that's what most of the good heavyweight Champions would have done.

When you say "Marciano could not even floor a fatter Savold a year later" are you tell us that Louis, who was way past his prime, was still a better puncher then Rocky at that time?

[Maxmomer]

When you say "Marciano could not even floor a fatter Savold a year later" are you tell us that Louis, who was way past his prime, was still a better puncher then Rocky at that time?

That's what it sounds like to me.

[MrMarvel]

Why not just give Joe Louis credit for destroying the # 2 heavyweight contender in the world with 1 punch. Hell marciano could not even floor a fatter savold a year later. Savold looked trim and fit and slick in the louis bout.

Doesn't speak very highly of Marciano.

Let's be honest, the heavyweight division was extrmely weak during this period. Somebody mentioned names like Bob Baker, Rex Layne, and Clarence Henry. Baker lost 15 of 68 fights in a 10-year career. Layne lost 17 in a 70 fight career 7-year career (6 of those losses by knockout!). Henry lost 6 of 42 in a 6-year career. There's a reason why journeymen like Jersey Joe Walcott and Lee Savold and light heavyweights like Joey Maxim could make it to the top of the heavyweight ranks.

[Dempsey1238]

Layne only had 2 defeats when he fought the Rock. Marciano just ruin him imo.

[mr. magoo]

Doesn't speak very highly of Marciano.

Let's be honest, the heavyweight division was extrmely weak during this period. Somebody mentioned names like Bob Baker, Rex Layne, and Clarence Henry. Baker lost 15 of 68 fights in a 10-year career. Layne lost 17 in a 70 fight career 7-year career (6 of those losses by knockout!). Henry lost 6 of 42 in a 6-year career. There's a reason why journeymen like Jersey Joe Walcott and Lee Savold and light heavyweights like Joey Maxim could make it to the top of the heavyweight ranks.


In all fairness i agree with your crticisms but the records of fighters have to be taken into consideration. In those days men turned pro with very limited amatuer careers or none at all. In addition, they often fought under unfavorable circumstances which sometimes included holding full time jobs while training for fights.

Therefore, some additional losses are allowable. MY REASONING for claiming that heavyweight boxing was weak during the early 50's, is that I think the war probably took a lot of quality candidates away from the sport both in America and in Europe. Additionally, racial discrimination prevented a lot of young black athletes during the 30's and 40's from emerging as potentially good fighters in the 50's. Such factions as World war II, the great depression and racial discrimination had a huge aftermath effect on the 1950's. The further we ventured away from these periods, the more the talent started to comeback as seen by the 1960's and 70's.

If any of that makes sense.

[hhascup]

In all fairness i agree with your crticisms but the records of fighters have to be taken into consideration. In those days men turned pro with very limited amatuer careers or none at all. In addition, they often fought under unfavorable circumstances which sometimes included holding full time jobs while training for fights.

Therefore, some additional losses are allowable. MY REASONING for claiming that heavyweight boxing was weak during the early 50's, is that I think the war probably took a lot of quality candidates away from the sport both in America and in Europe. Additionally, racial discrimination prevented a lot of young black athletes during the 30's and 40's from emerging as potentially good fighters in the 50's. Such factions as World war II, the great depression and racial discrimination had a huge aftermath effect on the 1950's. The further we ventured away from these periods, the more the talent started to comeback as seen by the 1960's and 70's.

If any of that makes sense.


I agree BUT almost every fighter had very limited amateur careers or none at all, so there is the same boat.

[mcvey]

Doesn't speak very highly of Marciano.

Let's be honest, the heavyweight division was extrmely weak during this period. Somebody mentioned names like Bob Baker, Rex Layne, and Clarence Henry. Baker lost 15 of 68 fights in a 10-year career. Layne lost 17 in a 70 fight career 7-year career (6 of those losses by knockout!). Henry lost 6 of 42 in a 6-year career. There's a reason why journeymen like Jersey Joe Walcott and Lee Savold and light heavyweights like Joey Maxim could make it to the top of the heavyweight ranks.
Walcott may have been considered a Journeyman when he was taking bouts on short notice ,wthout benefit of regular sparring and decent food but to describe him thusly after he hooked up with Felix Bochichio , is wide of the mark.

[hhascup]

Walcott may have been considered a Journeyman when he was taking bouts on short notice ,wthout benefit of regular sparring and decent food but to describe him thusly after he hooked up with Felix Bochichio , is wide of the mark.


Walcott was one of the better heavyweights of that time, BUT name another top heavyweight that had a record of 10-9 in their last 19 bouts that fought for the title.

By the way, here's a picture of the Monument we put up for Walcott in Camden, N.J.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[OLD FOGEY]

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing however, after giving this some thought, I have arrived at the conclusion that this statement requires closer examination.

Ellis's career at middleweight was nothing to write home about, and I think anyone can concur with that. The problem that I have with the ascertion that his failures at middleweight, quickley followed by a successful career at heavyweight, is summed up by the contenders of the late 60's being questionable in quality, is that it doesn't examine the whole story. Ellis lost 5 matches at middleweight, but when I look at the timing and circumstances of those fights, it is revealed to me that he had less than 20 pro bouts when he sustained those defeats and all came between age 21-23. His first defeat came at the age of 21, when he was a 5-0 prospect and facing an 80 fight veteran in a scheduled 10 round match.. The result was a decision loss. The rest of his losses were under similar circumstances. Additionally, I will argue that at 6'1", and fighting in the 150's to 160's range, it is likely that he was a bean poll at that weight and probably better suited to be fighting at either lightheavy or heavy. Lastly, we don't know what kind of changes may have occurred behind the scenes. Who was managing him? Who was training him? Did either of these things change?

That said, I think his brief run in the late 60's at heavyweight was an admirable one, and I'm not sure that I'd chalk it up to questionable comp. He did very well at eliminating the top fighters in the heavyweight tourny of '68 or whenever it was by beating Martin, Bonavena, Quarry and patterson. That's about as good of a run as most fighters can claim to have had within such a short duration. The title he eventually won was viewed by the public as more or less "plastic", but be that as it may, I'd say he earned it nonetheless.


Fair enough.

Still, no one else ever jumped two weight classes to dominate the heavies, and considering that these heavies basically did lose consistently and badly to the very top men, Frazier, Ali, Foreman, later Norton--I think it is fair to raise this issue.

[MrMarvel]

In all fairness i agree with your crticisms but the records of fighters have to be taken into consideration. In those days men turned pro with very limited amatuer careers or none at all. In addition, they often fought under unfavorable circumstances which sometimes included holding full time jobs while training for fights.

Therefore, some additional losses are allowable. MY REASONING for claiming that heavyweight boxing was weak during the early 50's, is that I think the war probably took a lot of quality candidates away from the sport both in America and in Europe. Additionally, racial discrimination prevented a lot of young black athletes during the 30's and 40's from emerging as potentially good fighters in the 50's. Such factions as World war II, the great depression and racial discrimination had a huge aftermath effect on the 1950's. The further we ventured away from these periods, the more the talent started to comeback as seen by the 1960's and 70's.

If any of that makes sense.

I agree with you about the lack of amateur experience. However, that excuses the fact but does change it.

On your historical point, more so the war and less so discrimination. It's well documented that the war was really tough on boxing. Divisional rankings during the war and after were often appeared to be rather rag-tag collection of fighters from several divisions.

Discrimination actually made it more likely that that black boxers would emerge as the leading talent since they would use the sport as a way to get out of their circumstances. We saw similar things when different immigrant groups were dominant at points in boxing history.

[MrMarvel]

Layne only had 2 defeats when he fought the Rock. Marciano just ruin him imo.


More like exposed him.