Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Giving Walcott an immediate rematch after having gotten battered from post to post in the first fight, and being behind on all scorecards 8 rounds to 4, was a brave thing to do.
Next, fighting a 32 year old great Ezzard Charles TWICE, was also gutsy.
Furthermore, fighting LaStarza WHO MANY THOUGHT OUTPOINTED MARCIANO in 1952 took a lot of nerve.
Then fighting a man 30 pounds heavier and 4 years younger, THE BRITISH HW CHAMPION, Don Cockell, was also brave.
Finally, fighting a great man Archie Moore in 1955---- WHO WAS SO "WASHED UP" THAT HE HELD HIS LHW CROWN FOR 8 MORE YEARS!!!---- was a brave choice.
Rocky THE BEAST Marciano.
5 feet 10 inches tall. 184 pounds.
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
He was a beast and he fought any and all challengers, including black fighters, which is more than can be said for Dempsey and Tunney.
True champ Marciano, true warrior, Cinderella story
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Best Heavyweight ever in my eyes. Rocky remaining undefeated after some of the fights he had was just impressive.
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Trying to find a story with a guy who claimed rocky hit him in a street fight. His lips were numb for a week.
Did Marciano ever spend a night in the slammer? Story was related ...
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.
The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.
Having the same trouble with lightheavy Ezzard Charles and old Moore was not a good sign either for a great champion.
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.
The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.
Walcott was HW champion at the time, he had a late prime. When he fought Rocky, he was younger than Wladimir Klitschko, and younger than Vitali was for his last several dominating performances.
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Freedom
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.
The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.
Walcott was HW champion at the time, he had a late prime. When he fought Rocky, he was younger than Wladimir Klitschko, and younger than Vitali was for his last several dominating performances.
You know better diets and training regime means boxers today box longer. Walcotts age is equivalent to 50 year old by today's standard.
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Master is letting no bullshit get by in this thread!