Anyone seen Marciano fight live?

[john garfield]

Lots of conjecture how Rocky would've done against this one or that one. Anyone on here ever seen him fight live?

If you had, do you suppose it would change your opinion?

Ever seen a professional athlete perform in person and it colored your judgement about him?

[heerko koois]

:old This guy did .....[ in 1953 ]

[john garfield]

:old This guy did .....[ in 1953 ]

"This guy," being you, hk? Was it against LaStarza or Walcott?

[Jack Dempsey]

I wish I had, does that still count??

I was showing a friend a clip of Marciano the other day, it was one of the Charles fights and I had seen it a few times, but watching it I was still amazed how Rocky could just keep throwing punch after punch, the man was a machine!!!

I think to beat him you literally had to kill him, he had one of the greatest 'engines' seen in HW boxing

[janitor]

I suspect that he is sombody that you would actualy have to fight or spar with to fully apreciate.

Everybody who did seems to have been surprized by exactly what they found.

[McGrain]

I think it is only relevant if you HAVE seen an ATG that you are comparing him with. So for example, if you've seen Joe Frazier fight then you will tend to show him the bias that comes from seeing a great fighter in person.

I do not accept that seeing one great fighter in the flesh has greater value than seeing another in the flesh.

[Jack Dempsey]

I think it is only relevant if you HAVE seen an ATG that you are comparing him with. So for example, if you've seen Joe Frazier fight then you will tend to show him the bias that comes from seeing a great fighter in person.

I do not accept that seeing one great fighter in the flesh has greater value than seeing another in the flesh.

Nat Fleischer saw pretty much all the greats live, think that lends any credence to his top 10?

[john garfield]

I think it is only relevant if you HAVE seen an ATG that you are comparing him with. So for example, if you've seen Joe Frazier fight then you will tend to show him the bias that comes from seeing a great fighter in person.

I do not accept that seeing one great fighter in the flesh has greater value than seeing another in the flesh.

It's not how good or bad a fighter is, MG, but might your judgement change if you saw him fight live?

[McGrain]

Nat Fleischer saw pretty much all the greats live, think that lends any credence to his top 10?


He said some pretty freakish things, didn't he?

Yes. The answer probably has to be yes. Seeing the greats over and over again at close quarters must inform your opinion of them.

Although...it doesn't help if you're a looney to begin with.

When Conn stepped up Nat predicted Louis' demise...we all know how hard he was on Ali. I like to think I would have known better!

[McGrain]

It's not how good or bad a fighter is, MG, but might your judgement change if you saw him fight live?

I think it would, yes.

[Jack Dempsey]

He said some pretty freakish things, didn't he?

Yes. The answer probably has to be yes. Seeing the greats over and over again at close quarters must inform your opinion of them.

Although...it doesn't help if you're a looney to begin with.

When Conn stepped up Nat predicted Louis' demise...we all know how hard he was on Ali. I like to think I would have known better!

Truth be told he died before Ali's renaissance, plus he was probably used to the more humble black fighter and thus was somewhat irked by Ali

He placed Johnson at number one didn't he?

Louis would have had his demise had Conn been Jewish as opposed to Irish:lol:

[McGrain]

He placed Johnson at number one didn't he?

Louis would have had his demise had Conn been Jewish as opposed to Irish:lol:

He did indeed. I think he had Jeffries at 2.

I think it's Janitor that makes the point about Conn - he may have been worried that he wasn't ahead and he may have been worried about getting robbed.

His corner may not have done the job.

[john garfield]

If your opinion about a fighter changed after seeing him fight live, what hadn't you noticed on TV?

[Jack Dempsey]

He did indeed. I think he had Jeffries at 2.

I think it's Janitor that makes the point about Conn - he may have been worried that he wasn't ahead and he may have been worried about getting robbed.

His corner may not have done the job.

I know the fight was actually a lot closer than is usually reported but the title was there for the taking

[Jack Dempsey]

If your opinion about a fighter changed after seeing him fight live, what hadn't you noticed on TV?

On modern tv, not much, replays, multi angles allow you to get a much better idea on a fighter than say a 1940's piece of footage would.

For example, imagine seeing a prime Dempsey on todays technology

[ChrisPontius]

If your opinion about a fighter changed after seeing him fight live, what hadn't you noticed on TV?

I have never seen him live, but my guess would be that seeing him live, it would become clear to the observer that Marciano, even when he looks clumsy, is almost impossible to stop and really breaks his opponent down untill the opponent can't raise his hands anymore. Only Charles survived (the first time) and he did just barely. On film it may look like just another KO but i think if you were to witness it live it would become more obvious that he just pressures, pressures and pressures untill the other guy has no more. He is an animal.

I've recently rewatched his fights and aside from some technical things, the thing that became clear to me is how underrated his breaking-down factor is, and it's really easy to miss or underestimate because most people only see highlights/his goofyness, etc.

[john garfield]

On modern tv, not much, replays, multi angles allow you to get a much better idea on a fighter than say a 1940's piece of footage would.

For example, imagine seeing a prime Dempsey on todays technology

Excellent point, JD. But there's actually an important difference. Consider this: When you see a baseball pitcher fire a fastball, you've got no trouble tracking it (it's razor sharp) -- even sit home imagining you could hit it. The same goes for an Andy Roddick serve.

You'd never even dream of it if you saw it live.

The next time you see a helicopter on TV, notice that you can see the blades turning. You can't live.

So, speed can't fully be appreciated on TV. The subtle intangibles can only be best appreciated live -- the closer the better.

[Dempsey1238]

comeing from the guy that claims L Spinks would have ko Marciano in a round or 2.

[Mohak]

comeing from the guy that claims L Spinks would have ko Marciano in a round or 2.

Leon Spinks KO Marciano in 2!?

Marciano was no superman but come on!

[john garfield]

It's harder to see things when you see a fight live. It's easier to be swayed by the crowd.

HH, has your opinion about a fighter changed after seeing him live at ringside?

If so, what did you notice different?

[Duodenum]

On modern tv, not much, replays, multi angles allow you to get a much better idea on a fighter than say a 1940's piece of footage would.

For example, imagine seeing a prime Dempsey on todays technologyInterestingly enough, something like this could have easily taken place in reality, athough not quite with a prime Dempsey.

One of Jack's final exhibition performances in a boxing ring was at the 1939 Chicago World's Fair. At that same event, color television was demonstrated to the public for the very first time. What might our impressions of the 44 year old Dempsey be, if we saw a videotape of his performance there, in living sound and color? (For one, we'd readily assert that the middle aged version of Dempsey was an infinitely more evolved and fluid boxer than the crude looking brawler battering Willard about 20 years earlier, as recorded on manually operated primitive film technology.)

While I'm no fan of Steve Farhood's writing, the one thing he wrote about that I found most interesting concerned the scoring of the Mike Spinks/Eddie Davis LH Title fight. When attending the match in person, he scored Spinks the winner. But later, when Farhood viewed the same bout on television, he scored Davis the winner.

This was one area where Howard Cosell actually could excel as an announcer while calling a match. He was very good at articulating the difference between what the monitor showed, and what was authentically transpiring in the ring. A hometown crowd might make a loud excited racket over their hero delivering a punch which made a lot of noise, and looked impressive on camera. But if in reality, it was blocked, or merely a grazing punch, Cosell would calmly intone that fact to his viewers.

Likewise, viewing the television rebroadcast of The Valentine's Day massacre between SRR and LaMotta is far different from watching a movie film of the action. TV, movies, or in person, three very alternative experiences of the same event.

[Mendoza]

It's harder to see things when you see a fight live. It's easier to be swayed by the crowd.


Television announcers can influence their audience by cheerleading too. It is best to judge a fighter by seeing him both live and on television. Boxing is both theater and sport. A ring side ticket allows the boxing fan intimate access to the action more so than any other sport I can think of. The sound and fury of a boxing match looses something in the translation on television, much like watching a play, opera, or concert on television looses something. Think about it. It’s true. The replay jumbo screens at stadiums have the ability to show replays the same as television. If you want to see how fast Roy Jones really is, or how hard Vladimir Klitschko hits, you must see it live to fully appreciate it.

[Jupiter1610]

Nat Fleischer saw pretty much all the greats live, think that lends any credence to his top 10?

Which greats did he watch?

[john garfield]

Which greats did he watch?

Probably everyone you could think of from the turn of the 20th century.

[Dempsey1238]

From Corbett to Ali/Frazoer 1 as far as heavyweights go. And thats NOT including the lighter weights.

[Duodenum]

Television announcers can influence their audience by cheerleading too. It is best to judge a fighter by seeing him both live and on television. Boxing is both theater and sport. A ring side ticket allows the boxing fan intimate access to the action more so than any other sport I can think of. The sound and fury of a boxing match looses something in the translation on television, much like watching a play, opera, or concert on television looses something. Think about it. It’s true. The replay jumbo screens at stadiums have the ability to show replays the same as television. If you want to see how fast Roy Jones really is, or how hard Vladimir Klitschko hits, you must see it live to fully appreciate it.That's why, when I tape a match, I'll sometimes watch it live with the sound off, but closed captioning on. If it's good enough, or controversial enough to merit a review, I'll rewatch it with the sound on, and captioning off. Still, it is true that there's no substitute for viewing it live. (Let alone competing in the ring yourself!)