-
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
-
Yes Rocky was a FORCE OF WILL.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bzkfn
Best Heavyweight ever in my eyes. Rocky remaining undefeated after some of the fights he had was just impressive.
A Past prime tyson would have destroyed him.
Rocky is not even in my top 5 heavyweights but he is still a great fighter during that corrupt mafia match fixing era.
-
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!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
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.
Sports medicine was unheard of at that time. Many of the guys fighting today would have had very short careers. Marciano had his career in eight years, 1947-1955!
A great fighter and a hell of a man. Fact as Fenster says.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
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.
Sports medicine was unheard of at that time. Many of the guys fighting today would have had very short careers. Marciano had his career in eight years, 1947-1955!
A great fighter and a hell of a man. Fact as Fenster says.
I would not say he was a great fighter but he had great heart.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
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.
Sports medicine was unheard of at that time. Many of the guys fighting today would have had very short careers. Marciano had his career in eight years, 1947-1955!
A great fighter and a hell of a man. Fact as Fenster says.
Master's logic defies reason, don't bother.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
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.
Sports medicine was unheard of at that time. Many of the guys fighting today would have had very short careers. Marciano had his career in eight years, 1947-1955!
A great fighter and a hell of a man. Fact as Fenster says.
Master's logic defies reason, don't bother.
Be quiet Bill, I mean Brock. ;)
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
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.
Sports medicine was unheard of at that time. Many of the guys fighting today would have had very short careers. Marciano had his career in eight years, 1947-1955!
A great fighter and a hell of a man. Fact as Fenster says.
Master's logic defies reason, don't bother.
Be quiet Bill, I mean Brock. ;)
"Oh come on now, Master. You know that Cassius Clay would have had a few ~ribs~ cracked early in the fight with Marciano."
Attachment 3631
-
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.
Having the same trouble with lightheavy Ezzard Charles and old Moore was not a good sign either for a great champion.
Rocky didn't give a shit if you were young, old, light in the ass or just plain stupid he'd kick the shit out of you if you got in the ring with him. Like when Hopkins got in the ring with Kovalev or Floyd Patterson fought Pete Rademacher, it's about the money.
-
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.
Having the same trouble with lightheavy Ezzard Charles and old Moore was not a good sign either for a great champion.
This is very true.
Lets get real.
How many of us have rocky in our top 5?
He was around at the perfect time to beat fighters on the slide and there is always the rumourmill of the mafia helping him along the way.
A great fighter but would possibly struggle in even todays heavyweights..
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
@Master
if you only knew what Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, and Roland la Starza said about Marciano
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
beenKOed
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.
Having the same trouble with lightheavy Ezzard Charles and old Moore was not a good sign either for a great champion.
Rocky didn't give a shit if you were young, old, light in the ass or just plain stupid he'd kick the shit out of you if you got in the ring with him. Like when Hopkins got in the ring with Kovalev or Floyd Patterson fought Pete Rademacher, it's about the money.
I accept he fought the best opposition at the time but I do not think they were fighters at their peak. Rocky title defences and reign as champion was not long enough to be considered a great fighter in anyone top 10.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.
Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.
Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.
Troll.
6 defenses is more than alot of Top 10 ATGs.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.
Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.
Troll.
6 defenses is more than alot of Top 10 ATGs.
Name 1 on your list.
-
Would rocky have beaten frazier?
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Would rocky have beaten frazier?
Frazier bigger, stronger and fitter.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Would rocky have beaten frazier?
No Chance. Not in a month of Sundays.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Would rocky have beaten frazier?
No Chance. Not in a month of Sundays.
Exactly.
Rocky is a Top 15-20 heavyweight and it just goes to show that the big 0 doesn't always mean your the best.
JC was undefeated and would have been a problem for any super middleweight in any era but the same can't be said for rocky.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.
Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.
Troll.
6 defenses is more than alot of Top 10 ATGs.
Name 1 on your list.
George Foreman
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.
Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.
Troll.
6 defenses is more than alot of Top 10 ATGs.
Name 1 on your list.
George Foreman
There were exceptional reasons for that. The greatest heavyweight of all time beat him.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.
Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.
Troll.
6 defenses is more than alot of Top 10 ATGs.
Name 1 on your list.
George Foreman
There were exceptional reasons for that. The greatest heavyweight of all time beat him.
You asked, I gave you one, now you are squirming out of it.
'Nuff said. :cool:
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.
Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.
Troll.
6 defenses is more than alot of Top 10 ATGs.
Name 1 on your list.
George Foreman
There were exceptional reasons for that. The greatest heavyweight of all time beat him.
You asked, I gave you one, now you are squirming out of it.
'Nuff said. :cool:
Name another.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
I accept he fought the best opposition at the time but I do not think they were fighters at their peak. Rocky title defences and reign as champion was not long enough to be considered a great fighter in anyone top 10.
He was fortunate to fight in a not-so-great era, when the best guys were past their prime.
I don't think he would have been undefeated if he came 10 years later and had to fight the likes of Patterson, Liston or Ali.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
He'd be fighting at 175, maybe even 168 if he was around today.
No doubt there are guys who fight at 168 today who are 180-185 on fight night like he was.
-
Re: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses
Calzaghe would run rings around him.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
imp
Calzaghe would run rings around him.
onion rings
