question to dmar about marciano

View previous topic View next topic Go down

question to dmar about marciano

Post  powerpuncher on Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:07 am

i know you regard him very highly. i was thinking about him the other day and started to wonder why. i promise that this thread isnt at all to call you wrong or anything. im just wondering why. ill tell you what i see. he beat 4 HOFers (louis, moore, walcott 2x, charles 2x) who were all older. not saying that they werent good still but i wouldnt say any of them were in there prime. plus, 2 out of the 4 were more light HWs than actual HWs. the only 2 other fighters i know anything about that he fought were rex layne and lastarza. im not sure how good they were supposed to be though. maybe he fought other fighters that were really good that i dont know about.

so my question is that from what i know of you, usually only having 49 fights isnt enough to make a fighter that great usually (i remember you having him as the #1 HW of all time). also, his resume doesnt seem that great (good but not at all the best of the HWs). ive seen a few of his fights and know to a pretty good extent his strengths and weaknesses.

so im asking you this because i know you were around when he fought so you obviously know better than me. and i definitely have him as one of the best HWs of all time but just not at all #1. so if you could tell me more about why you hold him in such a high regard, that would be great. thanks!
avatar
powerpuncher

Posts : 2643
Join date : 2010-10-24

Back to top Go down

Re: question to dmar about marciano

Post  dmar5143 on Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:28 am

ill give you some of my thoughts ok.first since you made this a public post ill give my thoughts here instead of a pm.there are several on here that will disagree of course since rocky losses every fantacy fight you can think of.ill also go on record that rocky is one of the ten greatest fighters of all time.forget the overdone term p4p .i prefer the word fighter over that.first ill state greatness or the best or whos number 2 or 3 does not mean who can beat who.example is willie mehan a greater fighter then dempsey or is norton greater then ali. i like to adress some of the things you stated thats a so called knock on rocky and even stated by todays writers that just copy each others thoughts and is fiction not fact.ok.1.the hall of famers rocky fought were past there prime.wrong.walcott was the heavyweight champ.when he brought his A game he would give any hw a fight of there life.any hw.both walcott and moore were at there best when rocky fought them.there are fighters that got better or greater at a older age or latter in there career those two are prime examples.sergio martinez of today is another..fighters who reached there best late in there career but not in the form of age but late career wise were basilio and dempsey.dempsey was a totaly different fighter just before he won the title.
charles was 2 years older then rocky.almost all writers think or talk like it was a decade older.charles yes was not at his peak but was still in his prime.think of a prime as a bell shaped item which it is.charles bell shape was on a downturn a bit but still in the form of a bell ..louis yes was past his peak and prime.bare in mind even the louis at that time only 2 hws could beat him.rocky and charles and perhaps walcott.even louis has stated several times he felt at both there peaks rocky would of won.
moore by the way was ranked number 1 at hw when rocky beat him.moore was successfull in beating other ranked hw contenders before that fight.
charles and moore were realy light heavies.realy.then what the heck was the rock.a light heavy also since they all weighed the same.
yes 49-0 43 koes is impressive.thats the highest ko percetage for any legit real hw champ.
its how he won and what he did to overcome ALL the odds that maks him one of the 10 greatest fighters ever..first 33 percent of all the guys rocky fought retired after that fight.they said the hell with this.thats more then impressive..second after rocky beat them not one fighter was the same.not one.not charles not walcott not layne matthews lastarza moore etc etc.he took that much out of them and thats what nobody sees or talks about.not louis nor ali nor anyone can say that.
he wrecked the division.yes and there were 2 all time great ones still in there prime.moore at his best and charles was as i said bell shaped prime.walcott was a great one also and layne lastarza matthews were dam very very good fighters.
layne in fact was the favorite in that fight so was louis.marciano was also a underdog in a few other fights in his career.
today we got 168 pounders that step in the ring weighing as much as rocky or more since rock did have fights at 180-81 or so in some of his bigger fights.
matthews for example was a terrific fighter.he could box and move with speed and fluidity.he could punch.he was very experienced and jack hurley his manager turned down a title fight with moore when harry was ranked number one to fight rocky because hurleys dream was to have a hw champ.matthews i feel had all the tools to beat moore.yes thats right.
if there were a few other great to near great guys in that era theres no reason not to believe that rocky would of crushed them also..harold johnson anyone.
rocky did things that almost all of todays
fans and writers simply dont see cant see or refuse to see.1.knowledge of distance and using angles for that advantage.rocky was a master at that and perhaps maybe a few 2 or3 fighters in history were his equal at that2.punch.rocky hit as hard as anyone.anyone including the super size guys that outweight him by 60 pounds.thata a big equalizer.2.conditioning.here heranks supreme in many ways.not ali nor foreman nor lewis nor wlad not anyone at 175 on up had the rocks conditioning.3.stanima.please.4.the real art of cutting off the ring.rocky was the master there.dempsey was good at it.frazier please.one way in.headmovement just up and down.no angles.yep looks good untill you analize it.5.great yes great counterpunching.you missed you paid.a body shot a right hand counter a left hook counter off a bob and weave or duck or simple head movement.you paid.so underated there its pathetic.
his defence knowledge of real estate angles etc etc all avoided punches that others got hit with..theres a clip on youtube that shows what i saw and knew for years how rock makes you miss by a inch and attacks.
chin.one of the all time greats there.the 2 knockdowns he suffered was due to a rare poor balance.ive disgussed that before on here.
he overcame ALL the odds to become a great fighter.to short to small to old to start so called to clumsy all that bullshit still exists today in peoples minds..measurements.realy.how do you measure ones heart determination will to win stanima desire guts punch confidence etc etc.thoses are some measurements that and as a package perhaps tops.
rocky along with a tiny tiny few fighters in history had.
i wrote a large post a long while back saying if todays weigh inns were the norm forever who were the best.it went tunney at 168 rocky at 175 louis at cruzier ali at hw.at cruzier i remember dempsey number 2 at lh charles number 2 langford number 3.i gave the top ten in each class from 168 on up.
boxing lawyer made a statement which makes sence.with louis ali or marciano he said he would not bet any good sum of money against any of thoses guys.there greatness was at that level..by the way i rate louis as number 2 not ali who is third.i love and yes at times chuckle on how guys pick a fight then use it like how ali could beat louis or rocky or so and so.with the same logic i can give 7 or 8 fights how thoses guys can beat ali..again its not who beats who.if thoses like to think that way its hopeless to disguss the topic of greatness..again meeham or dempsey.
toss the what ifs out the window.like i said before folks take jack johnson and put him in a era 60or 70 years differnce but dont give into account what if johnson had a tunney a walcott a conn etc etc to learn from.or the benefits of nutritional knowledge etc etc.or would be taller etc etc because of natures progression in that department.
i can go one forever on a topic like this.it comes down to either you see the greatness or you dont.either you see in detail things a guy does so well that often goes unnoticed or you dont.sometimes you can try to measure the unmeasureable..the very small but inportant things that truly go unnoticed.in rockys case the anilization of fighters.great one near great ones and some dam good ones.ill go back to facts.one third of the guys rocky fought he retired.ALL the rest were never the same.no bodies ever done that.that counts for something in my book.
ill end by saying if someone honestly thinks things out and says ali or louis perhaps was the best you will get no arguement from me.
avatar
dmar5143

Posts : 2248
Join date : 2011-10-06
Age : 74

Back to top Go down

Re: question to dmar about marciano

Post  boxinglawyer on Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:36 am

I have always rated Louis the best. Marciano and Ali switch between two and three depending on the day of the week LOL. After that it really gets sketchy to me. I think If you build a list based on who beats who on their best night you get a different list than one based on actual accomplishment.

boxinglawyer

Posts : 373
Join date : 2010-10-25

Back to top Go down

Re: question to dmar about marciano

Post  powerpuncher on Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:52 am

thanks for the post. i think its weird because everybody rates differently but i understand where you are coming from. i guess i probably havent watched rocky enough. again, ive seen some of his fights but havent analyzed them as i have with other fighters.
avatar
powerpuncher

Posts : 2643
Join date : 2010-10-24

Back to top Go down

Re: question to dmar about marciano

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum