Russ Anber bashes Rocky Marciano

[b***@gmail.com]

I recently watched a videotape of Russ Anber's "Classic Night At The
Fights: Rocky Marciano", and after seeing it I felt I had to expose
the shocking, false statements I heard.

This is the usual unprofessional sports writing we are used to getting
from HBO, TSN and ESPN. The documentary is filled with inaccurate
statements, which I'm about to list. They believe Marciano is
overrated (and Ali, of course, was "the Greatest"), but they have done
very little research on the man. In any case, a picture of Muhammad
Ali is on the wall next to host Russ Anber, and all you hear
throughout the documentary is that Marciano hand-picked his opponents
to avoid difficult fights.

Anber keeps repeating how old Archie Moore was (39), implying that he
was hand-picked for that reason. Any serious journalist would probably
say that Marciano chose Moore because he was the light heavyweight
champion of the world at the time. Like most ignorant critics who have
done no research, Anber keeps telling us how old Louis, Moore and
Walcott were, giving the impression that Marciano only fought old
guys. He leaves out the fact that most of Marciano's opponents were
young, including his best opponents (Layne, LaStarza, Matthews).

Russ Anber also calls Don Cockell "a roly poly British heavyweight".
He forgets to mention that Cockell was the reigning British
heavyweight champion. Any serious documentarian would mention this as
the reason Marciano fought him, instead of implying that Marciano was
a coward. A quick look at boxing history shows that the world champion
frequently fought a European champion to prove he really was the
world's best. Also, Cockell had just beaten two world heavyweight
contenders, so Marciano really had to fight him to prove himself. All
of this is omitted in this so-called documentary.

Anber repeats that Marciano's manager thought Ezzard Charles' days
were over. This implies that Charles was also "hand-picked". This is
also absurd, since Charles had been champion just 2 years earlier. The
fight was a must for Marciano, not a choice. Charles was 33 years old
and still fighting great. At this point, Anber finally decides to name
names, and tells us exactly WHO Marciano ducked. Ready? The name is...
Nino Valdes! A quick look at Valdes' boxing record shows just how
incompetent Russ Anber really is. He conveniently forgets to mention
that in 1952-1953, Valdes lost 4 fights in a row. So you can decide
for yourself if Marciano was afraid of him. Also, Valdes was beaten
twice by Archie Moore, once in 1953 and once in 1955. The truth is,
for anyone who does some research, that Marciano was probably
considering a fight with Valdes in 1955, but chose Moore when he saw
him beat Valdes for the second time. That Marciano ducked Nino Valdes
is the most ridiculous sports statement ever made in public.

Still not convinced how unprofessional Russ Anber is?

In 1952, Marciano fought a fast Muhammad Ali-style boxer named Harry
Kid Matthews, who was 29 years old with a record of 81-3. This was a
title eliminator, but Anber does not show the fight in this video.
It's one of the very few fights for which film footage exists, so why
didn't he include it? Why omit this one? The fight goes like this: the
fast, dancing Matthews does the stick-and-move on Marciano, outboxing
him and easily winning the first round. In round 2, while Matthews is
moving backward, Marciano catches him with a quick, long-distance left
hook and puts him to the canvas for the ten count. I'll let you decide
why Russ Anber did not include this fight in the documentary, and
instead filled it with unsubstantiated charges, implying that Marciano
was a coward. This documentary was made by people who obviously have
never done any real research on Marciano.

Most TV stations like to keep the audience thinking Muhammad Ali was
"The Greatest", since they have so much fun, entertaining, color
footage on the guy. I myself love to watch Ali, but I separate
entertainment from talent. He was the most entertaining, but whether
he was the most talented is a completely different story. Russ Anber
is not qualified to give anyone a true account of how good any boxer
really was. You can learn more about Marciano by just watching the
fights and reading the accounts of the ones that were never recorded
on film.

[n***@million]

Post by b***@gmail.com
I recently watched a videotape of Russ Anber's "Classic Night At The
Fights: Rocky Marciano", and after seeing it I felt I had to expose
the shocking, false statements I heard.
This is the usual unprofessional sports writing we are used to getting
from HBO, TSN and ESPN. The documentary is filled with inaccurate
statements, which I'm about to list. They believe Marciano is
overrated (and Ali, of course, was "the Greatest"), but they have done
very little research on the man. In any case, a picture of Muhammad
Ali is on the wall next to host Russ Anber, and all you hear
throughout the documentary is that Marciano hand-picked his opponents
to avoid difficult fights.
Anber keeps repeating how old Archie Moore was (39), implying that he
was hand-picked for that reason. Any serious journalist would probably
say that Marciano chose Moore because he was the light heavyweight
champion of the world at the time. Like most ignorant critics who have
done no research, Anber keeps telling us how old Louis, Moore and
Walcott were, giving the impression that Marciano only fought old
guys. He leaves out the fact that most of Marciano's opponents were
young, including his best opponents (Layne, LaStarza, Matthews).
Russ Anber also calls Don Cockell "a roly poly British heavyweight".
He forgets to mention that Cockell was the reigning British
heavyweight champion. Any serious documentarian would mention this as
the reason Marciano fought him, instead of implying that Marciano was
a coward. A quick look at boxing history shows that the world champion
frequently fought a European champion to prove he really was the
world's best. Also, Cockell had just beaten two world heavyweight
contenders, so Marciano really had to fight him to prove himself. All
of this is omitted in this so-called documentary.
Anber repeats that Marciano's manager thought Ezzard Charles' days
were over. This implies that Charles was also "hand-picked". This is
also absurd, since Charles had been champion just 2 years earlier. The
fight was a must for Marciano, not a choice. Charles was 33 years old
and still fighting great. At this point, Anber finally decides to name
names, and tells us exactly WHO Marciano ducked. Ready? The name is...
Nino Valdes! A quick look at Valdes' boxing record shows just how
incompetent Russ Anber really is. He conveniently forgets to mention
that in 1952-1953, Valdes lost 4 fights in a row. So you can decide
for yourself if Marciano was afraid of him. Also, Valdes was beaten
twice by Archie Moore, once in 1953 and once in 1955. The truth is,
for anyone who does some research, that Marciano was probably
considering a fight with Valdes in 1955, but chose Moore when he saw
him beat Valdes for the second time. That Marciano ducked Nino Valdes
is the most ridiculous sports statement ever made in public.
Still not convinced how unprofessional Russ Anber is?
In 1952, Marciano fought a fast Muhammad Ali-style boxer named Harry
Kid Matthews, who was 29 years old with a record of 81-3. This was a
title eliminator, but Anber does not show the fight in this video.
It's one of the very few fights for which film footage exists, so why
didn't he include it? Why omit this one? The fight goes like this: the
fast, dancing Matthews does the stick-and-move on Marciano, outboxing
him and easily winning the first round. In round 2, while Matthews is
moving backward, Marciano catches him with a quick, long-distance left
hook and puts him to the canvas for the ten count. I'll let you decide
why Russ Anber did not include this fight in the documentary, and
instead filled it with unsubstantiated charges, implying that Marciano
was a coward. This documentary was made by people who obviously have
never done any real research on Marciano.
Most TV stations like to keep the audience thinking Muhammad Ali was
"The Greatest", since they have so much fun, entertaining, color
footage on the guy. I myself love to watch Ali, but I separate
entertainment from talent. He was the most entertaining, but whether
he was the most talented is a completely different story. Russ Anber
is not qualified to give anyone a true account of how good any boxer
really was. You can learn more about Marciano by just watching the
fights and reading the accounts of the ones that were never recorded
on film.

A very interesting approach to stripping away the mantle of coward to
throw light on the Marciano years.

DCI

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by b***@gmail.com
I recently watched a videotape of Russ Anber's "Classic Night At The
Fights: Rocky Marciano", and after seeing it I felt I had to expose
the shocking, false statements I heard.
This is the usual unprofessional sports writing we are used to getting
from HBO, TSN and ESPN. The documentary is filled with inaccurate
statements, which I'm about to list. They believe Marciano is
overrated (and Ali, of course, was "the Greatest"), but they have done
very little research on the man. In any case, a picture of Muhammad
Ali is on the wall next to host Russ Anber, and all you hear
throughout the documentary is that Marciano hand-picked his opponents
to avoid difficult fights.
Anber keeps repeating how old Archie Moore was (39), implying that he
was hand-picked for that reason. Any serious journalist would probably
say that Marciano chose Moore because he was the light heavyweight
champion of the world at the time. Like most ignorant critics who have
done no research, Anber keeps telling us how old Louis, Moore and
Walcott were, giving the impression that Marciano only fought old
guys. He leaves out the fact that most of Marciano's opponents were
young, including his best opponents (Layne, LaStarza, Matthews).
Russ Anber also calls Don Cockell "a roly poly British heavyweight".
He forgets to mention that Cockell was the reigning British
heavyweight champion. Any serious documentarian would mention this as
the reason Marciano fought him, instead of implying that Marciano was
a coward. A quick look at boxing history shows that the world champion
frequently fought a European champion to prove he really was the
world's best. Also, Cockell had just beaten two world heavyweight
contenders, so Marciano really had to fight him to prove himself. All
of this is omitted in this so-called documentary.
Anber repeats that Marciano's manager thought Ezzard Charles' days
were over. This implies that Charles was also "hand-picked". This is
also absurd, since Charles had been champion just 2 years earlier. The
fight was a must for Marciano, not a choice. Charles was 33 years old
and still fighting great. At this point, Anber finally decides to name
names, and tells us exactly WHO Marciano ducked. Ready? The name is...
Nino Valdes! A quick look at Valdes' boxing record shows just how
incompetent Russ Anber really is. He conveniently forgets to mention
that in 1952-1953, Valdes lost 4 fights in a row. So you can decide
for yourself if Marciano was afraid of him. Also, Valdes was beaten
twice by Archie Moore, once in 1953 and once in 1955. The truth is,
for anyone who does some research, that Marciano was probably
considering a fight with Valdes in 1955, but chose Moore when he saw
him beat Valdes for the second time. That Marciano ducked Nino Valdes
is the most ridiculous sports statement ever made in public.
Still not convinced how unprofessional Russ Anber is?
In 1952, Marciano fought a fast Muhammad Ali-style boxer named Harry
Kid Matthews, who was 29 years old with a record of 81-3. This was a
title eliminator, but Anber does not show the fight in this video.
It's one of the very few fights for which film footage exists, so why
didn't he include it? Why omit this one? The fight goes like this: the
fast, dancing Matthews does the stick-and-move on Marciano, outboxing
him and easily winning the first round. In round 2, while Matthews is
moving backward, Marciano catches him with a quick, long-distance left
hook and puts him to the canvas for the ten count. I'll let you decide
why Russ Anber did not include this fight in the documentary, and
instead filled it with unsubstantiated charges, implying that Marciano
was a coward. This documentary was made by people who obviously have
never done any real research on Marciano.
Most TV stations like to keep the audience thinking Muhammad Ali was
"The Greatest", since they have so much fun, entertaining, color
footage on the guy. I myself love to watch Ali, but I separate
entertainment from talent. He was the most entertaining, but whether
he was the most talented is a completely different story. Russ Anber
is not qualified to give anyone a true account of how good any boxer
really was. You can learn more about Marciano by just watching the
fights and reading the accounts of the ones that were never recorded
on film.

Most here love The Rock but the record is clear: he did run from
Big Nino. Can you spot the time-frame?

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10360&cat=boxer

Also, Archie Moore had to put up "Wanted" posters in order
get the Rock in the ring.

Otherwise, your information seems paint on.
Long live the Massachusets Mauler!

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Most here love The Rock but the record is clear: he did run from
Big Nino. Can you spot the time-frame?
http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10360&cat=boxer
Also, Archie Moore had to put up "Wanted" posters in order
get the Rock in the ring.

Ronald, what exactly makes you think Marciano would duck Nino Valdes?
In the two-year timeframe of 1955-1956, Valdes had 6 wins and 6
losses. He was beaten twice by Archie Moore in 1953 and 1955. I don't
see a reason for any boxer, letalone Marciano, to duck him. Valdes was
simply not a contender.

[a***@late]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Most here love The Rock but the record is clear: he did run from
Big Nino. Can you spot the time-frame?
http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10360&cat=boxer
Also, Archie Moore had to put up "Wanted" posters in order
get the Rock in the ring.

Ronald, what exactly makes you think Marciano would duck Nino Valdes?
In the two-year timeframe of 1955-1956, Valdes had 6 wins and 6
losses. He was beaten twice by Archie Moore in 1953 and 1955. I don't
see a reason for any boxer, letalone Marciano, to duck him. Valdes was
simply not a contender.

I rather enjoy this frequent venture into the history of Rocky
Marciano's career, especially, continuing statements that he avoided
fighters. It's total BS. There is absolutely no truth to it.

DCI

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Most here love The Rock but the record is clear: he did run from
Big Nino. Can you spot the time-frame?
http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=10360&cat=boxer
Also, Archie Moore had to put up "Wanted" posters in order
get the Rock in the ring.

Ronald, what exactly makes you think Marciano would duck Nino Valdes?
In the two-year timeframe of 1955-1956, Valdes had 6 wins and 6
losses. He was beaten twice by Archie Moore in 1953 and 1955. I don't
see a reason for any boxer, letalone Marciano, to duck him. Valdes was
simply not a contender.

Rocky hid from Nino after The Big Guy beat Ezzard Charles; it's
the dirty little secret of Rocky's great career.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Rocky hid from Nino after The Big Guy beat Ezzard Charles; it's
the dirty little secret of Rocky's great career.

I'm sorry Ronald but that is a complete invention of the media. I
could play the same game with any hevyweight champion. When Ali was
champion, he never fought Eddie Machen who was 47-5 at the time
(including 2 victories over Nino Valdes). Did Ali duck Machen? And
Foreman never fought Earnie Shavers. Is that a "dirty little secret"?

Also, you "ducked" my main question: Nino Valdes had a ridiculous
boxing record, so why should Marciano have given him a shot at the
title?

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Rocky hid from Nino after The Big Guy beat Ezzard Charles; it's
the dirty little secret of Rocky's great career.

I'm sorry Ronald but that is a complete invention of the media. I
could play the same game with any hevyweight champion. When Ali was
champion, he never fought Eddie Machen who was 47-5 at the time
(including 2 victories over Nino Valdes). Did Ali duck Machen? And
Foreman never fought Earnie Shavers. Is that a "dirty little secret"?
Also, you "ducked" my main question: Nino Valdes had a ridiculous
boxing record, so why should Marciano have given him a shot at the
title?

Again, after beating Ezzard Charles, Nino went undefeated for well
over a year, was considered to be The Man. Ez got two shots, Nino
got nada. Nino did not have a great record en toto but was passed
over when he'd earned a shot.

Boxing always was and will be "No Fair At All" (The Association).

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Again, after beating Ezzard Charles, Nino went undefeated for well
over a year, was considered to be The Man. Ez got two shots, Nino
got nada. Nino did not have a great record en toto but was passed
over when he'd earned a shot.

When Marciano fought Archie Moore, Nino Valdes had a record of 32-11.
I understand he won a few fights including a decision over Ezzard
Charles, but Marciano could not give a title shot to every guy who
beat an ex-champion. He had to fight the ex-champions, though, that is
always obligatory for the current champ. Charles earned his shot at
Marciano because he had recently been world champion. He went the
distance, so he got another shot by popular demand. Nino Valdes was
just a common boxer, I could list at least twenty other boxers who had
a better record than him at that time. That's why it seems so
ludicrous to me that someone would accuse a guy who is 48-0 of ducking
a guy who is 32-11!

[n***@million]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Again, after beating Ezzard Charles, Nino went undefeated for well
over a year, was considered to be The Man. Ez got two shots, Nino
got nada. Nino did not have a great record en toto but was passed
over when he'd earned a shot.

When Marciano fought Archie Moore, Nino Valdes had a record of 32-11.
I understand he won a few fights including a decision over Ezzard
Charles, but Marciano could not give a title shot to every guy who
beat an ex-champion. He had to fight the ex-champions, though, that is
always obligatory for the current champ. Charles earned his shot at
Marciano because he had recently been world champion. He went the
distance, so he got another shot by popular demand. Nino Valdes was
just a common boxer, I could list at least twenty other boxers who had
a better record than him at that time. That's why it seems so
ludicrous to me that someone would accuse a guy who is 48-0 of ducking
a guy who is 32-11!

It seems some of our readers aren't grasping how fighters work their
way up the ladder to get an opportunity to fight the champion. You've
touch well on the subject. Marciano never, ever avoided any worthy
heavyweight. Truth be known, there were many heavies that sort of took
the low profile with Marciano. How could that be, one may ask. Simple,
they didn't want to be subjected to a destruction machine, a man who
couldn't shorten your career and extend your medical payments.

Oh well, it is just an opinion from an old man.

Enjoy.

DCI

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by n***@million
Truth be known, there were many heavies that sort of took
the low profile with Marciano. How could that be, one may ask. Simple,
they didn't want to be subjected to a destruction machine, a man who
couldn't shorten your career and extend your medical payments.

You're right about Marciano's ability ot end careers, probably because
you've done your own research instead of listening to incompetent
journalists like Russ Anber. Marciano in fact ended the careers of 14
boxers: Epperson, Edwards, Weeks, Jackson, Hardeman, Evans, Haft,
Louthis, Vingo, Eatman, Buonvino, Louis, Savold, Walcott. There is a
reason why it was sometimes hard to find a worthy contender to fight
Marciano: he did terrible damage in the ring. He savagely battered
LaStarza for 11 rds and forced him to have surgery on his arms to
remove pieces of chipped bone. With one punch, he put Walcott to sleep
for about a minute. He hit Layne with a fast, long-distance right that
shaved his teeth off and put him to sleep. He put Vingo in a coma. He
was simply the hardest-hitting, most dangerous boxer ever. Foreman and
Tyson never did this type of damage. But ESPN and HBO like to give
false information without doing any research, so they tell the
ignorant public that Marciano ducked the "hard-hitting Nino Valdes".
Of course, that's a complete fabrication, and no one says anything
about it. If anyone was a hard-hitter, it was Marciano. And if anyone
could have been afraid, it was probably Valdes, who had a boxing
record of 32-11 compared to Marciano's 48-0.

[mich]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by n***@million
Truth be known, there were many heavies that sort of took
the low profile with Marciano. How could that be, one may ask. Simple,
they didn't want to be subjected to a destruction machine, a man who
couldn't shorten your career and extend your medical payments.

You're right about Marciano's ability ot end careers, probably because
you've done your own research instead of listening to incompetent
journalists like Russ Anber. Marciano in fact ended the careers of 14
boxers: Epperson, Edwards, Weeks, Jackson, Hardeman, Evans, Haft,
Louthis, Vingo, Eatman, Buonvino, Louis, Savold, Walcott. There is a
reason why it was sometimes hard to find a worthy contender to fight
Marciano: he did terrible damage in the ring. He savagely battered
LaStarza for 11 rds and forced him to have surgery on his arms to
remove pieces of chipped bone. With one punch, he put Walcott to sleep
for about a minute. He hit Layne with a fast, long-distance right that
shaved his teeth off and put him to sleep. He put Vingo in a coma. He
was simply the hardest-hitting, most dangerous boxer ever. Foreman and
Tyson never did this type of damage. But ESPN and HBO like to give
false information without doing any research, so they tell the
ignorant public that Marciano ducked the "hard-hitting Nino Valdes".
Of course, that's a complete fabrication, and no one says anything
about it. If anyone was a hard-hitter, it was Marciano. And if anyone
could have been afraid, it was probably Valdes, who had a boxing
record of 32-11 compared to Marciano's 48-0.

If you look at
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1950s
Valdez was actually very highly regarded in 1953 and 1954.

[Ivan Weiss]

Post by mich
If you look at
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1950s
Valdez was actually very highly regarded in 1953 and 1954.

--
Highly regarded is relative. Nobody questions that he was a top 10
heavyweight. But his path to a title shot lay through Archie Moore, and
Moore beat him twice, once in 1953, a year that Valdes started out by losing
three straight fights. In his final fight of 1952, he lost to light
heavyweight champion Harold Johnson, who he outweighed by 35 pounds.

The notion that Marciano ducked Valdes is pure bullshit, yet these schmucks
who propagate it keep popping up, 55 years after the fact, as if they were
there or something. Well, in fact *I* was there, and they weren't. There was
no reason for Marciano to fight Valdes because he had better opponents to
fight. We argued these very issues on the street when we were kids. It might
sound weird today, but in that time and place, boxing was KING! Nobody at
the time thought Marciano was ducking Valdes, and Valdes' people didn't even
try to claim it.
--
ivan

[The Sanity Cruzer]

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by mich
If you look at
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1950s
Valdez was actually very highly regarded in 1953 and 1954.

--
Highly regarded is relative.

Michael Grant was "very highly regarded" too.


Nobody questions that he was a top 10

Post by Ivan Weiss
heavyweight. But his path to a title shot lay through Archie Moore, and
Moore beat him twice, once in 1953, a year that Valdes started out by
losing three straight fights. In his final fight of 1952, he lost to light
heavyweight champion Harold Johnson, who he outweighed by 35 pounds.
The notion that Marciano ducked Valdes is pure bullshit, yet these
schmucks who propagate it keep popping up, 55 years after the fact, as if
they were there or something. Well, in fact *I* was there, and they
weren't. There was no reason for Marciano to fight Valdes because he had
better opponents to fight. We argued these very issues on the street when
we were kids. It might sound weird today, but in that time and place,
boxing was KING! Nobody at the time thought Marciano was ducking Valdes,
and Valdes' people didn't even try to claim it.

Jorge Luis Garcia was another Cuban HW who was "very highly regarded".
Riddick Bowe forgot to read the press clippings about Garcia. After Bowe
finished with Garcia, others finished him too.

http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=8597&cat=boxer

To paraphrase Ivan; Very highly regarded doesn't mean dick!

[D.Flynn]

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by mich
If you look at
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Rati...
Valdez was actually very highly regarded in 1953 and 1954.

--
Highly regarded is relative. Nobody questions that he was a top 10
heavyweight. But his path to a title shot lay through Archie Moore, and
Moore beat him twice, once in 1953, a year that Valdes started out by losing
three straight fights. In his final fight of 1952, he lost to light
heavyweight champion Harold Johnson, who he outweighed by 35 pounds.
The notion that Marciano ducked Valdes is pure bullshit, yet these schmucks
who propagate it keep popping up, 55 years after the fact, as if they were
there or something. Well, in fact *I* was there, and they weren't. There was
no reason for Marciano to fight Valdes because he had better opponents to
fight. We argued these very issues on the street when we were kids. It might
sound weird today, but in that time and place, boxing was KING! Nobody at
the time thought Marciano was ducking Valdes, and Valdes' people didn't even
try to claim it.
--
ivan

And of course had Marciano actually decided to face Valdes in his
final fight the trolls here would be screeching about how the Rock had
ducked Archie Moore, though in that case thay might have had a point.

[mich]

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by mich
If you look at
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1950s
Valdez was actually very highly regarded in 1953 and 1954.

--
Highly regarded is relative. Nobody questions that he was a top 10
heavyweight. But his path to a title shot lay through Archie Moore, and
Moore beat him twice, once in 1953, a year that Valdes started out by
losing three straight fights. In his final fight of 1952, he lost to light
heavyweight champion Harold Johnson, who he outweighed by 35 pounds.
The notion that Marciano ducked Valdes is pure bullshit, yet these
schmucks who propagate it keep popping up, 55 years after the fact, as if
they were there or something. Well, in fact *I* was there, and they
weren't. There was no reason for Marciano to fight Valdes because he had
better opponents to fight. We argued these very issues on the street when
we were kids. It might sound weird today, but in that time and place,
boxing was KING! Nobody at the time thought Marciano was ducking Valdes,
and Valdes' people didn't even try to claim it.

I wont argue against you on that. It just seems that for whatever reason
Valdes hit a peak that made him a strong contender for a while but he faded
quite rapidly. Can this be a case of fixed fights to make Valdes look good?

[n***@million]

Post by mich

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by mich
If you look at
http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1950s
Valdez was actually very highly regarded in 1953 and 1954.

--
Highly regarded is relative. Nobody questions that he was a top 10
heavyweight. But his path to a title shot lay through Archie Moore, and
Moore beat him twice, once in 1953, a year that Valdes started out by
losing three straight fights. In his final fight of 1952, he lost to light
heavyweight champion Harold Johnson, who he outweighed by 35 pounds.
The notion that Marciano ducked Valdes is pure bullshit, yet these
schmucks who propagate it keep popping up, 55 years after the fact, as if
they were there or something. Well, in fact *I* was there, and they
weren't. There was no reason for Marciano to fight Valdes because he had
better opponents to fight. We argued these very issues on the street when
we were kids. It might sound weird today, but in that time and place,
boxing was KING! Nobody at the time thought Marciano was ducking Valdes,
and Valdes' people didn't even try to claim it.

I wont argue against you on that. It just seems that for whatever reason
Valdes hit a peak that made him a strong contender for a while but he faded
quite rapidly. Can this be a case of fixed fights to make Valdes look good?

This is a totally silly thread and involves so much second guessing
and Monday morning quarterbacking, all, that involves conjecture of
facts not in existance, assumptions from very personal/iadequate
points of view. Some of the folks on RSB who were alive and involved
in those years have tried, unsuccessfully, to stop the BS and have
dealt with the facts of those days. Valdez, if he were to have fought
Marciano, would be still looking for his ass and head today.

DCI

[Ivan Weiss]

Post by mich
I wont argue against you on that. It just seems that for whatever reason
Valdes hit a peak that made him a strong contender for a while but he
faded quite rapidly. Can this be a case of fixed fights to make Valdes
look good?

--
No, I have it on good authority that aliens from the Alpha Centauri system,
working with the Illuminati, the Trilateral Commission, and Skull and Bones,
invaded Valdes' brain to make him look good.
--
ivan

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Again, after beating Ezzard Charles, Nino went undefeated for well
over a year, was considered to be The Man. Ez got two shots, Nino
got nada. Nino did not have a great record en toto but was passed
over when he'd earned a shot.

When Marciano fought Archie Moore, Nino Valdes had a record of 32-11.
I understand he won a few fights including a decision over Ezzard
Charles, but Marciano could not give a title shot to every guy who
beat an ex-champion. He had to fight the ex-champions, though, that is
always obligatory for the current champ. Charles earned his shot at
Marciano because he had recently been world champion. He went the
distance, so he got another shot by popular demand. Nino Valdes was
just a common boxer, I could list at least twenty other boxers who had
a better record than him at that time. That's why it seems so
ludicrous to me that someone would accuse a guy who is 48-0 of ducking
a guy who is 32-11!

You say: "..seems so ludicrous.." But Boxing's hx is ludicrous.
May this poster be allowed to say that the Rock is numero uno
but he wanted no part of Nino. That is a matter of factual
information as Mr. Anber said.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
You say: "..seems so ludicrous.." But Boxing's hx is ludicrous.
May this poster be allowed to say that the Rock is numero uno
but he wanted no part of Nino. That is a matter of factual
information as Mr. Anber said.

I repeat, Marciano did not fight Nino Valdes because he was not worthy
of a title shot. In 1955, Valdes' record was 32-11, and Archie Moore
had recently mopped the floors with him twice. So Marciano fought
Archie. If you think Marciano ducked Valdes, then why not say that
Muhammad Ali ducked Eddie Machen? Or that George Foreman ducked Earnie
Shavers? Apply the same standard to all boxers, and you'll see how
ridiculous your statement is.

-Bugees

[Loki]

Post by b***@gmail.com
I recently watched a videotape of Russ Anber's "Classic Night At The
Fights: Rocky Marciano", and after seeing it I felt I had to expose
the shocking, false statements I heard.
This is the usual unprofessional sports writing we are used to getting
from HBO, TSN and ESPN. The documentary is filled with inaccurate
statements, which I'm about to list. They believe Marciano is
overrated (and Ali, of course, was "the Greatest"), but they have done
very little research on the man. In any case, a picture of Muhammad
Ali is on the wall next to host Russ Anber, and all you hear
throughout the documentary is that Marciano hand-picked his opponents
to avoid difficult fights.

Etc. etc. The point that was being made was that Marciano, through no
fault of his own, ruled the roost when the heavyweight division was at
a low ebb. Look at the big names Marciano beat and you will see old
men past their peaks (Louis, Walcott) and blown up light heavyweights
and middleweights (Moore, Charles).

On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.

Guys like Layne, LaStraza, Cockell, and Matthews may have been at the
top of their games when they fought Marciano, but they were all second
and third tier fighters from a historical perspective. No where near
the quality of Shavers, Quarry, Patterson, Lyle, or Terrell-all of
whom Ali also beat in their primes.

Now please do not misinterpret what I am saying. Marciano was a
warrior. He faced the best that was out there, beat them all, and
ducked no one.

However, due to misfortune of timing, he was never tested by top tier
opposition while they were in their prime. Do you honestly think that
any of the people Marciano beat (at the times in their careers when
Marciano fought them) would have beaten Fraizer, Foreman, or Liston?

Ali on the other hand was at his peak during the golden age of
heavyweight boxing and faced and beat the best opposition that any one
man faced in the history of heavyweights.

Loki

"The Bob Jones policy on interracial dating,
I mean I spoke out on interracial dating. I
spoke against that. I spoke out against interracial
dating. I support the policy of interracial dating."
—George W. Bush, interview with CBS News,
February 25, 2000

[mwhaught]

Post by Loki
On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.

To be fair on Frazier, he defeated Ali when he was at his peak. When Ali
defeated him, Frazier had already been KO'd by Foreman, was working on a
3-4 record at the end of his career and 3-4 years past his peak.

-mwh

p.s. I'm not counting the Jumbo Cummings comeback fight for Frazier here.

______________________________________________________________________ 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

[Loki]

Post by mwhaught

Post by Loki
On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.

To be fair on Frazier, he defeated Ali when he was at his peak. When Ali
defeated him, Frazier had already been KO'd by Foreman, was working on a
3-4 record at the end of his career and 3-4 years past his peak.

Ali was not at his peak in the first Fraizer fight. Remember that he
was older than Fraizer and was in his third fight after a 3 1/2 year
layoff. If you think he was at his peak, I would suggest you watch the
Williams and Foley fights and then watch any of the fights he had from
Quarry on. Yeah, he was still damn good, but not at his best.

Loki

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."
—George W. Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown,
who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over
his job performance, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005

[mwhaught]

Post by Loki

Post by mwhaught

Post by Loki
On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.

To be fair on Frazier, he defeated Ali when he was at his peak. When Ali
defeated him, Frazier had already been KO'd by Foreman, was working on a
3-4 record at the end of his career and 3-4 years past his peak.

Ali was not at his peak in the first Fraizer fight. Remember that he
was older than Fraizer and was in his third fight after a 3 1/2 year
layoff. If you think he was at his peak, I would suggest you watch the
Williams and Foley fights and then watch any of the fights he had from
Quarry on. Yeah, he was still damn good, but not at his best.
Loki

I phrased that not so well. That's why I quickly posted a follow-up to
clarify the point.

Frazier was at his peak when he defeated Ali. After a couple more wins,
Frazier had a 3-4 record and obviously was not the same fighter following
the the first Foreman KO loss. So I do disagree that Ali defeated Frazier
when Frazier was at his peak.

The argument has also been made by some boxing writers that Liston was
likely 2-3 years past his peak when he first lost to Clay (Ali). His
career was at a high with his title wins, but he was physically a few
years beyond his athletic and fighting prime.

-mwh

____________________________________________________________________ 
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

[mwhaught]

Post by mwhaught

Post by Loki
On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.

To be fair on Frazier, he defeated Ali when he was at his peak. When Ali
defeated him, Frazier had already been KO'd by Foreman, was working on a
3-4 record at the end of his career and 3-4 years past his peak.
-mwh
p.s. I'm not counting the Jumbo Cummings comeback fight for Frazier here.

Reading this again, I was not clear. Frazier defeated Ali when *Frazier*
was at his peak. Not Ali's peak.

-mwh

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

[Loki]

Post by mwhaught

Post by mwhaught

Post by Loki
On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.

To be fair on Frazier, he defeated Ali when he was at his peak. When Ali
defeated him, Frazier had already been KO'd by Foreman, was working on a
3-4 record at the end of his career and 3-4 years past his peak.
-mwh
p.s. I'm not counting the Jumbo Cummings comeback fight for Frazier here.

Reading this again, I was not clear. Frazier defeated Ali when *Frazier*
was at his peak. Not Ali's peak.

Clarification appreciated.

Let it also be pointed out though that Fraizer was hardly over the
hill in the classic sense for the second and third fights. At the time
of the second fight, Fraizer only had one loss on his record-that to
Foreman. Ali on the other hand was just coming off splitting the first
two Norton fights.

When they met for the third time, Fraizer had only two losses on his
record-the afore mentioned Foreman defeat and the rematch with Ali.

Yeah, his strongest performance was in the first fight, however I
would venture to say that even in the second and third battles he was
good enough to be considered one of the top 15 heavyweights of all
time.

Loki

"Rudy Giuliani has been married more times
than Mitt Romney's been hunting."
- James Carville

[The Sanity Cruzer]

Post by mwhaught

Post by Loki
On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.

To be fair on Frazier, he defeated Ali when he was at his peak.

That's not accurate. When Frazier beat Ali, it was Ali's 3rd bout after a
3.5 year layoff. No way was Ali at his peak. Previous to the long layoff,
there is no way that Ali lays against the ropes. Ali's legs were never the
same after his bout with Zora Folley in 1967. BTW, the bout with Folley was
just 6 weeks and a couple of days following Ali's bout with Ernie Terrell.
Do you recall any other recent HW champ having two title defenses within a 7
week period?

[mwhaught]

Post by The Sanity Cruzer

Post by mwhaught

Post by Loki
On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.

To be fair on Frazier, he defeated Ali when he was at his peak.

That's not accurate. When Frazier beat Ali, it was Ali's 3rd bout after a
3.5 year layoff. No way was Ali at his peak. Previous to the long layoff,
there is no way that Ali lays against the ropes. Ali's legs were never the
same after his bout with Zora Folley in 1967. BTW, the bout with Folley was
just 6 weeks and a couple of days following Ali's bout with Ernie Terrell.
Do you recall any other recent HW champ having two title defenses within a 7
week period?

I soon reread my post and saw that I did not phrase that well. I posted
this as a follow-up:

**Reading this again, I was not clear. Frazier defeated Ali when *Frazier*
was at his peak. Not Ali's peak.**

-mwh

----- 
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

[The Sanity Cruzer]

Post by mwhaught

Post by The Sanity Cruzer

Post by mwhaught

Post by Loki
On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.

To be fair on Frazier, he defeated Ali when he was at his peak.

That's not accurate. When Frazier beat Ali, it was Ali's 3rd bout after a
3.5 year layoff. No way was Ali at his peak. Previous to the long layoff,
there is no way that Ali lays against the ropes. Ali's legs were never the
same after his bout with Zora Folley in 1967. BTW, the bout with Folley was
just 6 weeks and a couple of days following Ali's bout with Ernie Terrell.
Do you recall any other recent HW champ having two title defenses within a 7
week period?

I soon reread my post and saw that I did not phrase that well. I posted
**Reading this again, I was not clear. Frazier defeated Ali when *Frazier*
was at his peak. Not Ali's peak.**

I saw your reply to another poster after I had typed the above. Thanks.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Loki
Etc. etc. The point that was being made was that Marciano, through no
fault of his own, ruled the roost when the heavyweight division was at
a low ebb. Look at the big names Marciano beat and you will see old
men past their peaks (Louis, Walcott) and blown up light heavyweights
and middleweights (Moore, Charles).
Ali on the other hand was at his peak during the golden age of
heavyweight boxing and faced and beat the best opposition that any one
man faced in the history of heavyweights.
Loki

Loki, I disagree with you on all points. The reason most people think
Marciano's opponents were chumps is because he made them look like
chumps. Imagine if Ali had won all of his fights, 88percent of them by
KO. Wouldn't his era look like a weak one? Marciano's era was good,
it's just that he was near-perfect. Look at his fights against Roland
LaStarza, Rex Layne and Harry "Kid" Matthews. These guys had beaten
everyone they had fought before meeting Marciano, except Layne who had
2 draws and Matthews who still had a record of 81-3. LaStarza and
Layne were favorites to beat Marciano. How can the "experts" say these
guys were going to beat Marciano, and then after the fight say they
were chumps? This contradiction is common when critics talk about
Marciano, and made me look at these fights more closely. I'm sure
Roland LaStarza, Rex Layne, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe would have
had wins (and losses) to Ali, Frazier and Foreman. Big does not always
mean good, especially in boxing. The boxers of the 1970's are
extremely overrated. This becomes obvious when you see how these guys
lost to eachother: Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Norton, Shavers. They were
all big but lacking severely in at least one important sector. Foreman
had speed and stamina deficiencies, Ali had insufficient power,
Frazier lacked stamina. The 1970's were not the golden age of boxing,
they were the golden age of color television. The 1950's were not as
entertaining. Marciano did not taunt his opponents or act like a clown
outside of the ring. In the 70's, it was more fun to watch boxing. But
that has nothing to do with talent. Ezzard Charles and Roland LaStarza
beat opponents who were much bigger than them. I would have them as
favorites against almost any 70's boxer.

[Loki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki
Etc. etc. The point that was being made was that Marciano, through no
fault of his own, ruled the roost when the heavyweight division was at
a low ebb. Look at the big names Marciano beat and you will see old
men past their peaks (Louis, Walcott) and blown up light heavyweights
and middleweights (Moore, Charles).
Ali on the other hand was at his peak during the golden age of
heavyweight boxing and faced and beat the best opposition that any one
man faced in the history of heavyweights.
Loki

Loki, I disagree with you on all points. The reason most people think
Marciano's opponents were chumps is because he made them look like
chumps. -

You used the word "chump". Not I. However, my point was and remains
that the people Marciano beat, at the time he beat them, were not top
quality fighters by historic standards. Louis, while one of the
greatest of all time at the top of his game, was a shell of his old
self. He was only a "name" who had not beaten a top fighter for years.
Very comparable to the condition Ken Norton was when he fought Cooney,
or that Holyfield is today. A victory over Louis that day was not a
great accomplishment. Likewise, Walcott, even though he was champion
was in the last days of a fine career that had peaked several years
earlier. By the time he faced Marciano he was the oldest heavyweight
champion in history with 16 losses. Moore and Charles were both at
their best at middleweight, all time greats at light heavyweight, and
fighting beyond their strengths at heavyweight. Furthermore, Charles
had already had 91 fights with 11 losses, and Moore was fighting in
his 166th fight. They were among the best in history at lighter
weights and younger ages, but by the time any of those four guys faced
Marciano they would not be among the top 40 heavyweights in history.

And they were the best of the bunch.

Again, it is not Marciano's fault. He fought the best available. I
have no doubt that had Liston, Foreman, Lennox Lewis, or anyone else
been around Rocky would have faced them. Not sure he would have done
too well, but he would have not ducked any of them.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Imagine if Ali had won all of his fights, 88percent of them by
KO. Wouldn't his era look like a weak one?

Foreman had an even greater KO percentage and no one is knocking his
era. His choice of competition perhaps, but certainly not an era that
brought us Ali, Fraizer, and Norton.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Marciano's era was good,

No it wasn't.

Post by b***@gmail.com
it's just that he was near-perfect.

In his time, yes he was.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Look at his fights against Roland
LaStarza, Rex Layne and Harry "Kid" Matthews.

First of all, look at LaStraza, Layne, and Matthews. How do you
honestly think any of them compare to Foreman, Fraizer, Norton,
Shavers, Lyle, Quarry, Terrell, or even Jimmy Ellis or Floyd
Patterson?

Post by b***@gmail.com
These guys had beaten
everyone they had fought before meeting Marciano, except Layne who had
2 draws and Matthews who still had a record of 81-3. LaStarza and
Layne were favorites to beat Marciano.

So what? No one is denying that they were among the best in their day,
however comparing them to other fighters who were the best in their
respective days, and they will come up short. Take any list of the 50
greatest heavyweights in history. The top 75 even. How many of them do
you think would be on the list?

Post by b***@gmail.com
How can the "experts" say these
guys were going to beat Marciano, and then after the fight say they
were chumps?

No idea. Nor do I care.

Post by b***@gmail.com
This contradiction is common when critics talk about
Marciano, and made me look at these fights more closely. I'm sure
Roland LaStarza, Rex Layne, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe would have
had wins (and losses) to Ali, Frazier and Foreman.

Which of those guys do you think beats prime Ali, Fraizer, or Foreman?
And I am not talking the Joe Louis who beat Schmeling in 1938. I am
referring to the 1951 version. To say that Marciano was great based on
that victory is akin to claiming that Trevor Berbick and Leon Spinks
were all times great because they beat Ali.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Big does not always
mean good, especially in boxing.

Big does not necessarily mean good, however when skills are comparable
big is as a rule better. That is why bouts between middleweights and
featherweights are not fought.

Post by b***@gmail.com
The boxers of the 1970's are
extremely overrated. This becomes obvious when you see how these guys
lost to eachother: Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Norton, Shavers.

Which of those guys is over rated? Put together a list of who you
consider to be the 50 greatest heavyweights of all time. If four of
those names are not on it, the list is a joke.

Post by b***@gmail.com
They were
all big but lacking severely in at least one important sector. Foreman
had speed and stamina deficiencies,

Yes he did. And it was exploited by 216 pound Ali and 213 pond Jimmy
Young. You may also want to add that Ali and Young both had the
ability to shake off some massive shots in order to get their wins.
LaStraza and Layne were 29 and 20 pounds lighter than either Ali or
Young and never demonstrated the ability to shake off the kinds of
shots Foreman laid on his opposition. One more thing about Foreman
that is often forgotten... Against Ron Lyle he took some of the
hardest shots landed in a professional fight, got knocked down, and
had the heart to shake them off and keep fighting. Foreman is an all
time great. Layne and LaStraza were not.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ali had insufficient power,

Criticizing Ali for not having great power makes about as much sense
as criticizing Marciano for not having a good defensive jab. Different
styles. Ali, like Marciano was able to win by controlling his fights.
He just controlled fights against better opposition than Marciano
faced.

Post by b***@gmail.com
Frazier lacked stamina.

Put down the crack pipe now. If there was one thing Fraizer had in
spades it was stamina.

Post by b***@gmail.com
The 1970's were not the golden age of boxing,

Never said it was. I said it was the golden age of HEAVYWEIGHT boxing.
They started with Fraizer, went through Foreman, Ali, Norton, and
ended with Holmes. Two of those guys were among the top 5 heavyweights
in history. Two more of them are arguably in the top 10. The last is
certainly in the top 20.

Post by b***@gmail.com
they were the golden age of color television. The 1950's were not as
entertaining. Marciano did not taunt his opponents or act like a clown
outside of the ring.

Neither did Fraizer. Neither did Holmes. Neither did Foreman. And yet
they were all time greats.

Post by b***@gmail.com
In the 70's, it was more fun to watch boxing.

Overall boxing was more fun to watch in the '80s with Leonard,
Hearnes, Duran, Hagler, Michael Spinks, etc. etc. However, the
heavyweight was at it's best in the '70s.

Post by b***@gmail.com
But
that has nothing to do with talent. Ezzard Charles and Roland LaStarza
beat opponents who were much bigger than them. I would have them as
favorites against almost any 70's boxer.

Let me confirm what you are saying... You would pick 185 pound Roland
LaStarza over Ali, Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle,
and Holmes?

Loki

"Wow! Brazil is big."
—George W. Bush, after being shown a map of
Brazil by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula
da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil, Nov. 6, 2005

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Loki
Louis, while one of the
greatest of all time at the top of his game, was a shell of his old
self.

I never mention Louis as one of Marciano's best opponents. I don't
know why everyone keeps bringing him up.

Post by Loki
And they were the best of the bunch.

No they weren't. The best were LaStarza and Layne. They were supposed
to be the ones to finally beat Marciano. They were young and seemingly
unbeatable. Marciano to all effects put an end to their careers,
wiping their names from the public mind.

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
Marciano's era was good,

No it wasn't.

You forgot to say why, like most people forget to.

Post by Loki
First of all, look at LaStraza, Layne, and Matthews. How do you
honestly think any of them compare to Foreman, Fraizer, Norton,
Shavers, Lyle, Quarry, Terrell, or even Jimmy Ellis or Floyd
Patterson?

LaStarza was 37-0 when he fought Marciano in 1950. He was considered
the best defensive heavyweight ever by many critics (one rare point I
agree with them on), and he used the "rope-a-dope" on Marciano before
Ali gave that technique its name. He had won decisions over fighters
who were much bigger than he was, through sheer speed. He lost to
Marciano by SD, then continued to beat every opponent he faced until
his 1953 title loss to Marciano. He would have been in all the top ten
lists if Marciano had never been born. LaStarza was too fast and
intelligent for any of the guys you mentioned. He would beat them all
by decison, Norton and Patterson possibly by KO.

Post by Loki
respective days, and they will come up short. Take any list of the 50
greatest heavyweights in history. The top 75 even. How many of them do
you think would be on the list?

The "experts" lists are filled with popular fighters, not necessarily
the best. Most people (not you) don't like to watch black and white
films. LaStarza should be on any top 30 heavyweights list. Until
Marciano disabled him in 1953, he was comparable to Gene Tunney.

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
How can the "experts" say these
guys were going to beat Marciano, and then after the fight say they
were chumps?

No idea. Nor do I care.

But you're saying that all of Marciano's opponents were inferior to
all of Ali's opponents, which is the same thing most ESPN critics say.
Doesn't that seem odd to you? Is it possible that all the best
heavyweights just happened to come around at the same time, and right
when color TV came along?

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
This contradiction is common when critics talk about
Marciano, and made me look at these fights more closely. I'm sure
Roland LaStarza, Rex Layne, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe would have
had wins (and losses) to Ali, Frazier and Foreman.

Which of those guys do you think beats prime Ali, Fraizer, or Foreman?
And I am not talking the Joe Louis who beat Schmeling in 1938. I am
referring to the 1951 version. To say that Marciano was great based on
that victory is akin to claiming that Trevor Berbick and Leon Spinks
were all times great because they beat Ali.

Again, I never talked about Louis. But Roland LaStarza was a smart
fast boxer like Ali, but he could avoid punches better than Ali could.
I would have Roland LaStarza favorite vs Ali, Foreman or Frazier.
Ezzard Charles, Harry Kid Matthews, Rex Layne would also be good
fights for any of the best heavyweights of the 70's. Even 37 year-old
Walcott, who kept in great shape until the end (but critics dont
mention this).

Post by Loki
Big does not necessarily mean good, however when skills are comparable
big is as a rule better. That is why bouts between middleweights and
featherweights are not fought.

What rule are you talking about? We're talking about a specific
division. In the same division, being smaller means you're usually
faster and harder to hit. See Dempsey, Tunney, Charles, Marciano,
Tyson. The 70's boxers were too heavy and sluggish to even find
Dempsey in the ring, letalone beat him.

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
The boxers of the 1970's are
extremely overrated. This becomes obvious when you see how these guys
lost to eachother: Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Norton, Shavers.

Which of those guys is over rated? Put together a list of who you
consider to be the 50 greatest heavyweights of all time. If four of
those names are not on it, the list is a joke.

I would have all 5 of them on my top 50 list. But they are still
overrated. I think most people (not you) overrate them because they
don't like to take the time to watch the black and white films of
older fights. The 70's fights are so entertaining it's almost
impossible not to exalt Ali as "the greatest". It takes time to
separate entertainment value from sheer talent.

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
They were
all big but lacking severely in at least one important sector. Foreman
had speed and stamina deficiencies,

Yes he did. And it was exploited by 216 pound Ali and 213 pond Jimmy
Young. You may also want to add that Ali and Young both had the
ability to shake off some massive shots in order to get their wins.
LaStraza and Layne were 29 and 20 pounds lighter than either Ali or
Young and never demonstrated the ability to shake off the kinds of
shots Foreman laid on his opposition. One more thing about Foreman
that is often forgotten... Against Ron Lyle he took some of the
hardest shots landed in a professional fight, got knocked down, and
had the heart to shake them off and keep fighting. Foreman is an all
time great. Layne and LaStraza were not.

Actually LaStarza did demonstrate the ability to shake off tremendous
blows. In 1950, he was caught once by Marciano for a 7-count, and
continued to fight well, losing a split decision. In 1953 Marciano
again caught him with one good shot, sent him flying through the
ropes, but he was back in the ring after 3 seconds.

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ali had insufficient power,

Criticizing Ali for not having great power makes about as much sense
as criticizing Marciano for not having a good defensive jab. Different
styles. Ali, like Marciano was able to win by controlling his fights.
He just controlled fights against better opposition than Marciano
faced.

The difference is that Marciano did not need a defensive jab. He
fought from a crouch, and could withstand even the worst blows to the
head even when he was caught. Ali on the other hand didn't have enough
power to slow down the brawling Ken Norton, and lost that first fight.
I agree that style matters, I just think that Ali's style was less
effective than Marciano's. Marciano lacked no necessary boxing skills.
Ali, LaStarza and Tunney were always taking a risk because they lacked
the power to slow down big brawlers, so they lost to Frazier, Marciano
and Greb. But I still rate them highly because of the great results
they achieved with their particular techniques.

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
Frazier lacked stamina.

Put down the crack pipe now. If there was one thing Fraizer had in
spades it was stamina.

You're completely wrong on this one. If there is one thing I can't
stand, it's when a boxer retires in his corner. Frazier is a quitter.
Yes, it was his trainer who wanted to stop the "thrilla in Manila",
but before he told the referee, he told Frazier, who consented. If
Frazier didn't want to stop the fight, he would have told his trainer
not to stop it. If you have any doubts, listen to Eddie Futch in this
youtube video:

Muhammad Ali vs Joe Frazier 3 1975 end of fight commentary

Roland LaStarza, on the other hand, never quit and always got up even
after Marciano's best shots.

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
The 1970's were not the golden age of boxing,

Never said it was. I said it was the golden age of HEAVYWEIGHT boxing.

Oh, come on. It's obvious we're talking about heavyweights.

Post by Loki
They started with Fraizer, went through Foreman, Ali, Norton, and
ended with Holmes. Two of those guys were among the top 5 heavyweights
in history. Two more of them are arguably in the top 10. The last is
certainly in the top 20.

In the 1970's, the heavyweight division became the ultra-heavyweight
division. And by ultra-heavy I mean fat and sluggish. Gone were the
golden days of Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano, when boxers
stayed in shape, ate healthy, and relied on speed and strength to win.
The new, so-called "golden era" of boxing was not quite what it
seemed: it was the golden era of morbid entertainment. Watching Joe
Frazier, Muhammad Ali and George Foreman fight eachother was similar
to watching a monster movie, like Godzilla vs Mothra. Fat, sluggish
giants pounding at eachother, what a fun thing to watch while eating
popcorn! The media capitalized on the sudden, immense popularity of
the sport, and boxing was soon turned into a big circus. It was so
much more fun to watch Muhammad Ali imitate George Foreman than to see
Joe Louis fight Arturo Godoy on black-and-white film. As far as strict
boxing talent goes, the 70's were the worst we had ever seen. The once
fast, lean Cassius Clay had now morphed into the overweight imitation
known as Muhammad Ali. Yes, Ali looked fast and slim when you compared
him to the other Godzillas of the time; but in absolute value, he was
fat. Since the 1970's boxing has gotten worse and worse. Mike Tyson
was a glimmer of hope, but the big fat Lennox Lewis put the definite
nail in the coffin of heavyweight boxing.

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
Marciano did not taunt his opponents or act like a clown
outside of the ring.

Neither did Fraizer. Neither did Holmes. Neither did Foreman. And yet
they were all time greats.

Ali was the clown, and promoted the other guys' fights. Frazier and
Foreman are popular thanks to Ali who taunted them. Larry Holmes was
never as popular as the others.

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
In the 70's, it was more fun to watch boxing.

Let me confirm what you are saying... You would pick 185 pound Roland
LaStarza over Ali, Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle,
and Holmes?

Yes. I'm disagreeing with HBO and ESPN, how shocking. Just like I
would pick 185 lbs Rocky Marciano over any heavyweight in history.
LaStarza beat lots of heavier guys. Little Jack Dempsey beat the giant
Jess Willard. Little Max Baer beat the giant Primo Carnera. So what is
so incredible about what I'm saying? Big does not necessarily mean
better. In the same division, I would say it's the opposite.


-Bugees

[Loki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ezzard Charles and Roland LaStarza
beat opponents who were much bigger than them. I would have them as
favorites against almost any 70's boxer.

Let me confirm what you are saying... You would pick 185 pound Roland
LaStarza over Ali, Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle,
and Holmes?

Yes. I'm disagreeing with HBO and ESPN, how shocking. Just like I
would pick 185 lbs Rocky Marciano over any heavyweight in history.
LaStarza beat lots of heavier guys. Little Jack Dempsey beat the giant
Jess Willard. Little Max Baer beat the giant Primo Carnera. So what is
so incredible about what I'm saying? Big does not necessarily mean
better. In the same division, I would say it's the opposite.

The rest of your post does not matter. This premise shoots down
everything else you are saying so let me make sure I understand...
You are saying that Roland LaStraza was a better Heavyweight than Ali,
Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle, and Holmes.

Is that correct?

Loki

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't
spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about
why I do things."
—George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Loki
The rest of your post does not matter. This premise shoots down
everything else  you are saying so let me make sure I understand...
You are saying that Roland LaStraza was a better Heavyweight than Ali,
Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle, and Holmes.
Is that correct?
Loki

Loki, the fact that you have repeatedly misspelled LaStarza's name
shoots down my hopes to stimulate your brain. You have no idea who
LaStarza is, because he has never appeared on your color TV screen
shouting rap poems. You too have been brainwashed by your television
into thinking that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer ever. I tried
to make you think with your own head, but I failed.

-Bugees

[Loki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ezzard Charles and Roland LaStarza
beat opponents who were much bigger than them. I would have them as
favorites against almost any 70's boxer.

Let me confirm what you are saying... You would pick 185 pound Roland
LaStarza over Ali, Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle,
and Holmes?

Yes. I'm disagreeing with HBO and ESPN, how shocking. Just like I
would pick 185 lbs Rocky Marciano over any heavyweight in history.
LaStarza beat lots of heavier guys. Little Jack Dempsey beat the giant
Jess Willard. Little Max Baer beat the giant Primo Carnera. So what is
so incredible about what I'm saying? Big does not necessarily mean
better. In the same division, I would say it's the opposite.

The rest of your post does not matter. This premise shoots down
everything else  you are saying so let me make sure I understand...
You are saying that Roland LaStraza was a better Heavyweight than Ali,
Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle, and Holmes.
Is that correct?
Loki

Loki, the fact that you have repeatedly misspelled LaStarza's name
shoots down my hopes to stimulate your brain. You have no idea who
LaStarza is, because he has never appeared on your color TV screen
shouting rap poems. You too have been brainwashed by your television
into thinking that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer ever. I tried
to make you think with your own head, but I failed.

Is your refusal to answer the question because you do not understand
it, or are you trying to change the subject into a spelling flame
because you realize that you said something really stupid?

Even Bobby Beardon who knows more about Rocky Marciano than Eric
Clapton knows about playing guitar would run from a claim like the one
you made.

Loki

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea
and really don't care. It's not that important. It's
not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ezzard Charles and Roland LaStarza
beat opponents who were much bigger than them. I would have them as
favorites against almost any 70's boxer.

Let me confirm what you are saying... You would pick 185 pound Roland
LaStarza over Ali, Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle,
and Holmes?

Yes. I'm disagreeing with HBO and ESPN, how shocking. Just like I
would pick 185 lbs Rocky Marciano over any heavyweight in history.
LaStarza beat lots of heavier guys. Little Jack Dempsey beat the giant
Jess Willard. Little Max Baer beat the giant Primo Carnera. So what is
so incredible about what I'm saying? Big does not necessarily mean
better. In the same division, I would say it's the opposite.

The rest of your post does not matter. This premise shoots down
everything else  you are saying so let me make sure I understand...
You are saying that Roland LaStraza was a better Heavyweight than Ali,
Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle, and Holmes.
Is that correct?
Loki

Loki, the fact that you have repeatedly misspelled LaStarza's name
shoots down my hopes to stimulate your brain. You have no idea who
LaStarza is, because he has never appeared on your color TV screen
shouting rap poems. You too have been brainwashed by your television
into thinking that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer ever. I tried
to make you think with your own head, but I failed.

Is your refusal to answer the question because you do not understand
it, or are you trying to change the subject into a spelling flame
because you realize that you said something really stupid?
Even Bobby Beardon who knows more about Rocky Marciano than Eric
Clapton knows about playing guitar would run from a claim like the one
you made.
Loki

Loki, you're the one who ran away. I confirmed my statements the first
time you wanted confirmation. The second time, it was obvious you
couldn't sustain the debate anymore and wanted to bail out. Whenever I
try to convince teenagers that Ali and Tyson are overrated, they
respond the same way you did. If you want to talk I'll talk but at
least say something other than "So are you actually saying that....?"

[Loki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ezzard Charles and Roland LaStarza
beat opponents who were much bigger than them. I would have them as
favorites against almost any 70's boxer.

Let me confirm what you are saying... You would pick 185 pound Roland
LaStarza over Ali, Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle,
and Holmes?

Yes. I'm disagreeing with HBO and ESPN, how shocking. Just like I
would pick 185 lbs Rocky Marciano over any heavyweight in history.
LaStarza beat lots of heavier guys. Little Jack Dempsey beat the giant
Jess Willard. Little Max Baer beat the giant Primo Carnera. So what is
so incredible about what I'm saying? Big does not necessarily mean
better. In the same division, I would say it's the opposite.

The rest of your post does not matter. This premise shoots down
everything else  you are saying so let me make sure I understand...
You are saying that Roland LaStraza was a better Heavyweight than Ali,
Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle, and Holmes.
Is that correct?
Loki

Loki, the fact that you have repeatedly misspelled LaStarza's name
shoots down my hopes to stimulate your brain. You have no idea who
LaStarza is, because he has never appeared on your color TV screen
shouting rap poems. You too have been brainwashed by your television
into thinking that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer ever. I tried
to make you think with your own head, but I failed.

Is your refusal to answer the question because you do not understand
it, or are you trying to change the subject into a spelling flame
because you realize that you said something really stupid?
Even Bobby Beardon who knows more about Rocky Marciano than Eric
Clapton knows about playing guitar would run from a claim like the one
you made.
Loki

Loki, you're the one who ran away. I confirmed my statements the first
time you wanted confirmation. The second time, it was obvious you
couldn't sustain the debate anymore and wanted to bail out. Whenever I
try to convince teenagers that Ali and Tyson are overrated, they
respond the same way you did. If you want to talk I'll talk but at
least say something other than "So are you actually saying that....?"
Yes. I'm disagreeing with HBO and ESPN, how shocking. Just like I
would pick 185 lbs Rocky Marciano over any heavyweight in history.
LaStarza beat lots of heavier guys. Little Jack Dempsey beat the giant
Jess Willard. Little Max Baer beat the giant Primo Carnera. So what is
so incredible about what I'm saying? Big does not necessarily mean
better. In the same division, I would say it's the opposite.

It was a yes or no question. I was not asking how Marciano would do
against any other heavyweights. I was not asking how LaStarza would do
against "a lot of heavier guys."

I was asking specifically if you are saying that in your opinion
LaStarza would have beaten Ali, Foreman, Fraizer, Shavers, Norton, and
Holmes?

Simple question. One word answer.

Bet you don't provide one.

Loki

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in
the flag and carrying a cross."
-Sinclair Lewis

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
Ezzard Charles and Roland LaStarza
beat opponents who were much bigger than them. I would have them as
favorites against almost any 70's boxer.

Let me confirm what you are saying... You would pick 185 pound Roland
LaStarza over Ali, Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle,
and Holmes?

Yes. I'm disagreeing with HBO and ESPN, how shocking. Just like I
would pick 185 lbs Rocky Marciano over any heavyweight in history.
LaStarza beat lots of heavier guys. Little Jack Dempsey beat the giant
Jess Willard. Little Max Baer beat the giant Primo Carnera. So what is
so incredible about what I'm saying? Big does not necessarily mean
better. In the same division, I would say it's the opposite.

The rest of your post does not matter. This premise shoots down
everything else  you are saying so let me make sure I understand...
You are saying that Roland LaStraza was a better Heavyweight than Ali,
Fraizer, Norton, Shavers, Foreman, Quarry, Lyle, and Holmes.
Is that correct?
Loki

Loki, the fact that you have repeatedly misspelled LaStarza's name
shoots down my hopes to stimulate your brain. You have no idea who
LaStarza is, because he has never appeared on your color TV screen
shouting rap poems. You too have been brainwashed by your television
into thinking that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer ever. I tried
to make you think with your own head, but I failed.

Is your refusal to answer the question because you do not understand
it, or are you trying to change the subject into a spelling flame
because you realize that you said something really stupid?
Even Bobby Beardon who knows more about Rocky Marciano than Eric
Clapton knows about playing guitar would run from a claim like the one
you made.
Loki

Loki, you're the one who ran away. I confirmed my statements the first
time you wanted confirmation. The second time, it was obvious you
couldn't sustain the debate anymore and wanted to bail out. Whenever I
try to convince teenagers that Ali and Tyson are overrated, they
respond the same way you did. If you want to talk I'll talk but at
least say something other than "So are you actually saying that....?"
Yes. I'm disagreeing with HBO and ESPN, how shocking. Just like I
would pick 185 lbs Rocky Marciano over any heavyweight in history.
LaStarza beat lots of heavier guys. Little Jack Dempsey beat the giant
Jess Willard. Little Max Baer beat the giant Primo Carnera. So what is
so incredible about what I'm saying? Big does not necessarily mean
better. In the same division, I would say it's the opposite.

It was a yes or no question. I was not asking how Marciano would do
against any other heavyweights. I was not asking how LaStarza would do
against "a lot of heavier guys."
I was asking specifically if you are saying that in your opinion
LaStarza would have beaten Ali, Foreman, Fraizer, Shavers, Norton, and
Holmes?
Simple question. One word answer.
Bet you don't provide one.
Loki
First of all, look at LaStraza, Layne, and Matthews. How do you
honestly think any of them compare to Foreman, Fraizer, Norton,
Shavers, Lyle, Quarry, Terrell, or even Jimmy Ellis or Floyd
Patterson?

LaStarza was too fast and
intelligent for any of the guys you mentioned. He would beat them all
by decison, Norton and Patterson possibly by KO.

Post by Loki
Which of those guys do you think beats prime Ali, Fraizer, or Foreman?

I would have Roland LaStarza favorite vs Ali, Foreman or Frazier.


Now stop smoking marijuana, Loki.

-Bugees

[b***@gmail.com]

For anyone who thinks it is crazy to think Roland LaStarza could beat
Muhammad Ali, allow me to remind you that in 1950 LaStarza was favored
by journalists and bookmakers to beat Rocky Marciano. He lost by a
very close split decision. If it's normal to favor him against a KO
artist like Marciano, why is it so crazy to favor him against Ali?

[Ivan Weiss]

Post by b***@gmail.com
For anyone who thinks it is crazy to think Roland LaStarza could beat
Muhammad Ali, allow me to remind you that in 1950 LaStarza was favored
by journalists and bookmakers to beat Rocky Marciano. He lost by a
very close split decision. If it's normal to favor him against a KO
artist like Marciano, why is it so crazy to favor him against Ali?

--
Because Ali, like Larry Holmes and George Foreman, had the height, the
weight, the reach, the lateral movement (not Foreman), the punishing jab,
and the discipline to keep pumping it, to beat Marciano. What they would
have done to Marciano, they would have done to LaStarza. These are the only
fighters I know of who I think could have kept Rocky off of them.

I would pick Marciano to beat Lennox Lewis, a tall, rangy, and powerful, but
undisciplined fighter with a lazy jab, who was given to mental lapses. But
not Ali, Holmes,. or Foreman. These fighters had the attributes, the style,
and the focus to have beaten Rocky. Tyson? Who knows? Physically, he had it
all over the Rock. But we saw how he came apart when people fought him back.
We know Rocky would have stood and traded, and we know he brought a lot of
pain.

Prime Ali is the best heavyweight I ever saw. He had no end of ways to beat
an opponent. But I would pick the Rock over any heavyweight fighting today.
--
ivan

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Ivan Weiss
Because Ali, like Larry Holmes and George Foreman, had the height, the
weight, the reach, the lateral movement (not Foreman), the punishing jab,
and the discipline to keep pumping it, to beat Marciano. What they would
have done to Marciano, they would have done to LaStarza. These are the only
fighters I know of who I think could have kept Rocky off of them.

In 1950, Rex Layne was supposed to bully Marciano, keeping him away
with his long jab. He was a 9-5 betting favorite, since he had beaten
everyone he fought except for two draws. What happened was the jabs
had no effect on Marciano who could withstand even the worst
punishment. He was bobbing and weaving to get in close and land his
uppercuts, wearing Layne down. Then in round 6 he landed a lightning-
fast, long-distance hook that put Layne to sleep, shaving off his
front teeth. Marciano fought the fast, the strong, the heavy, but
always prevailed because he had almost endless resistance and stamina.
We know that Ali could be caught even in his prime, and Ali never
faced anyone with the speed, power and stamina of Marciano.

-Bugees

[Ivan Weiss]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Ivan Weiss
Because Ali, like Larry Holmes and George Foreman, had the height, the
weight, the reach, the lateral movement (not Foreman), the punishing jab,
and the discipline to keep pumping it, to beat Marciano. What they would
have done to Marciano, they would have done to LaStarza. These are the only
fighters I know of who I think could have kept Rocky off of them.

In 1950, Rex Layne was supposed to bully Marciano, keeping him away
with his long jab. He was a 9-5 betting favorite, since he had beaten
everyone he fought except for two draws. What happened was the jabs
had no effect on Marciano who could withstand even the worst
punishment. He was bobbing and weaving to get in close and land his
uppercuts, wearing Layne down. Then in round 6 he landed a lightning-
fast, long-distance hook that put Layne to sleep, shaving off his
front teeth. Marciano fought the fast, the strong, the heavy, but
always prevailed because he had almost endless resistance and stamina.
We know that Ali could be caught even in his prime, and Ali never
faced anyone with the speed, power and stamina of Marciano.
-Bugees

--
Dude! I have watched film of the Rex Layne fight several times. You can't
seriously tell me Rex Layne was in a class with Muhammad Ali as a fighter. I
mean, people call *me* a wack job when I tell them the Rock would have taken
Lennox Lewis, but this is over the top. Ali was at a different level
altogether.

I try my level best to provide an informed opinion around here, and not to
describe these fighters as bigger than life just because I saw them when I
was a kid. Buty not even in my imagination does Rex Layne equal Muhammad
Ali.

Ali fought up to the level of his competition. I think we can agree that the
Rock would have brought out the best in him. We know he had super respect
for the Rock after that promotional thing they put on -- and the Rock was
47! But styles make fights.
--
ivan

[n***@million]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:18:19 -0800, "Ivan Weiss"

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Ivan Weiss
Because Ali, like Larry Holmes and George Foreman, had the height, the
weight, the reach, the lateral movement (not Foreman), the punishing jab,
and the discipline to keep pumping it, to beat Marciano. What they would
have done to Marciano, they would have done to LaStarza. These are the only
fighters I know of who I think could have kept Rocky off of them.

In 1950, Rex Layne was supposed to bully Marciano, keeping him away
with his long jab. He was a 9-5 betting favorite, since he had beaten
everyone he fought except for two draws. What happened was the jabs
had no effect on Marciano who could withstand even the worst
punishment. He was bobbing and weaving to get in close and land his
uppercuts, wearing Layne down. Then in round 6 he landed a lightning-
fast, long-distance hook that put Layne to sleep, shaving off his
front teeth. Marciano fought the fast, the strong, the heavy, but
always prevailed because he had almost endless resistance and stamina.
We know that Ali could be caught even in his prime, and Ali never
faced anyone with the speed, power and stamina of Marciano.
-Bugees

--
Dude! I have watched film of the Rex Layne fight several times. You can't
seriously tell me Rex Layne was in a class with Muhammad Ali as a fighter. I
mean, people call *me* a wack job when I tell them the Rock would have taken
Lennox Lewis, but this is over the top. Ali was at a different level
altogether.
I try my level best to provide an informed opinion around here, and not to
describe these fighters as bigger than life just because I saw them when I
was a kid. Buty not even in my imagination does Rex Layne equal Muhammad
Ali.
Ali fought up to the level of his competition. I think we can agree that the
Rock would have brought out the best in him. We know he had super respect
for the Rock after that promotional thing they put on -- and the Rock was
47! But styles make fights.

Muhammad Ali would walk, dance and fly around Rex Lane while stinging
him with jabs, flurries and overhand rights and never be touched
seriously by anything resembling a power shot. Rock Marciano would
have been a different matter.

DCI

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Ivan Weiss
Because Ali, like Larry Holmes and George Foreman, had the height, the
weight, the reach, the lateral movement (not Foreman), the punishing jab,
and the discipline to keep pumping it, to beat Marciano. What they would
have done to Marciano, they would have done to LaStarza. These are the only
fighters I know of who I think could have kept Rocky off of them.

In 1950, Rex Layne was supposed to bully Marciano, keeping him away
with his long jab. He was a 9-5 betting favorite, since he had beaten
everyone he fought except for two draws. What happened was the jabs
had no effect on Marciano who could withstand even the worst
punishment. He was bobbing and weaving to get in close and land his
uppercuts, wearing Layne down. Then in round 6 he landed a lightning-
fast, long-distance hook that put Layne to sleep, shaving off his
front teeth. Marciano fought the fast, the strong, the heavy, but
always prevailed because he had almost endless resistance and stamina.
We know that Ali could be caught even in his prime, and Ali never
faced anyone with the speed, power and stamina of Marciano.
-Bugees

--
Dude! I have watched film of the Rex Layne fight several times. You can't
seriously tell me Rex Layne was in a class with Muhammad Ali as a fighter. I

I never said Rex Layne was as good as Ali, don't put words in my
mouth. I was just providing an example of how Marciano dealt with big
jabbing boxers. I think Ali would have beaten Layne. But remember
we're talking about a guy who was a 9-5 favorite to beat Marciano, so
he was without a doubt a great fighter. Why do you guys have amnesia
when it comes to boxing history? Why is Roland LaStarza all of a
sudden a Mr. Nobody? In the 40's and 50's, he was a very feared boxer.
Do you think the bookmakers were stupid for making him a favorite to
beat Marciano? He beat Rex Layne by SD to get a shot at Marciano's
title. Watch him fight Marciano, watch him avoid the hooks and counter
with quick combinations. Watch him use the "rope-a-dope" tactic.
Unfortunately for Roland, Marciano was much smarter than George
Foreman. Rocky went for LaStarza's head; George foolishly went for
Ali's body. Nonetheless, LaStarza was fast and clever enough to win a
decision over anybody, including Ali.

-Bugees

[GreenDistantStar]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Ivan Weiss
Because Ali, like Larry Holmes and George Foreman, had the height, the
weight, the reach, the lateral movement (not Foreman), the punishing jab,
and the discipline to keep pumping it, to beat Marciano. What they would
have done to Marciano, they would have done to LaStarza. These are the only
fighters I know of who I think could have kept Rocky off of them.

In 1950, Rex Layne was supposed to bully Marciano, keeping him away
with his long jab. He was a 9-5 betting favorite, since he had beaten
everyone he fought except for two draws. What happened was the jabs
had no effect on Marciano who could withstand even the worst
punishment. He was bobbing and weaving to get in close and land his
uppercuts, wearing Layne down. Then in round 6 he landed a lightning-
fast, long-distance hook that put Layne to sleep, shaving off his
front teeth. Marciano fought the fast, the strong, the heavy, but
always prevailed because he had almost endless resistance and stamina.
We know that Ali could be caught even in his prime, and Ali never
faced anyone with the speed, power and stamina of Marciano.
-Bugees

--
Dude! I have watched film of the Rex Layne fight several times. You can't
seriously tell me Rex Layne was in a class with Muhammad Ali as a fighter. I

I never said Rex Layne was as good as Ali, don't put words in my
mouth. I was just providing an example of how Marciano dealt with big
jabbing boxers. I think Ali would have beaten Layne. But remember
we're talking about a guy who was a 9-5 favorite to beat Marciano, so
he was without a doubt a great fighter. Why do you guys have amnesia
when it comes to boxing history? Why is Roland LaStarza all of a
sudden a Mr. Nobody? In the 40's and 50's, he was a very feared boxer.
Do you think the bookmakers were stupid for making him a favorite to
beat Marciano? He beat Rex Layne by SD to get a shot at Marciano's
title. Watch him fight Marciano, watch him avoid the hooks and counter
with quick combinations. Watch him use the "rope-a-dope" tactic.
Unfortunately for Roland, Marciano was much smarter than George
Foreman. Rocky went for LaStarza's head; George foolishly went for
Ali's body. Nonetheless, LaStarza was fast and clever enough to win a
decision over anybody, including Ali.
-Bugees

LaStarza would beat Ali? Are you LaStarza's unknown, bastard son?

Or have you simply taken leave of your senses?

GDS

"Let's roll!"

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by GreenDistantStar

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Ivan Weiss
Because Ali, like Larry Holmes and George Foreman, had the height, the
weight, the reach, the lateral movement (not Foreman), the punishing jab,
and the discipline to keep pumping it, to beat Marciano. What they would
have done to Marciano, they would have done to LaStarza. These are the only
fighters I know of who I think could have kept Rocky off of them.

In 1950, Rex Layne was supposed to bully Marciano, keeping him away
with his long jab. He was a 9-5 betting favorite, since he had beaten
everyone he fought except for two draws. What happened was the jabs
had no effect on Marciano who could withstand even the worst
punishment. He was bobbing and weaving to get in close and land his
uppercuts, wearing Layne down. Then in round 6 he landed a lightning-
fast, long-distance hook that put Layne to sleep, shaving off his
front teeth. Marciano fought the fast, the strong, the heavy, but
always prevailed because he had almost endless resistance and stamina.
We know that Ali could be caught even in his prime, and Ali never
faced anyone with the speed, power and stamina of Marciano.
-Bugees

--
Dude! I have watched film of the Rex Layne fight several times. You can't
seriously tell me Rex Layne was in a class with Muhammad Ali as a fighter. I

I never said Rex Layne was as good as Ali, don't put words in my
mouth. I was just providing an example of how Marciano dealt with big
jabbing boxers. I think Ali would have beaten Layne. But remember
we're talking about a guy who was a 9-5 favorite to beat Marciano, so
he was without a doubt a great fighter. Why do you guys have amnesia
when it comes to boxing history? Why is Roland LaStarza all of a
sudden a Mr. Nobody? In the 40's and 50's, he was a very feared boxer.
Do you think the bookmakers were stupid for making him a favorite to
beat Marciano? He beat Rex Layne by SD to get a shot at Marciano's
title. Watch him fight Marciano, watch him avoid the hooks and counter
with quick combinations. Watch him use the "rope-a-dope" tactic.
Unfortunately for Roland, Marciano was much smarter than George
Foreman. Rocky went for LaStarza's head; George foolishly went for
Ali's body. Nonetheless, LaStarza was fast and clever enough to win a
decision over anybody, including Ali.
-Bugees

LaStarza would beat Ali? Are you LaStarza's unknown, bastard son?

In the 1940's and 50's, it was common thinking that LaStarza was a
master heavyweight boxer. He was a favorite to beat Marciano, so why
do you find it so strange to hear me say that I would favor him over
Ali?

By the way, I am not Roland LaStarza's bastard son. I am Roland
LaStarza. Now bring on Muhammad Ali, I can beat him even at age 80.

[GreenDistantStar]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by GreenDistantStar

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ivan Weiss

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Ivan Weiss
Because Ali, like Larry Holmes and George Foreman, had the height, the
weight, the reach, the lateral movement (not Foreman), the punishing jab,
and the discipline to keep pumping it, to beat Marciano. What they would
have done to Marciano, they would have done to LaStarza. These are the
only
fighters I know of who I think could have kept Rocky off of them.

In 1950, Rex Layne was supposed to bully Marciano, keeping him away
with his long jab. He was a 9-5 betting favorite, since he had beaten
everyone he fought except for two draws. What happened was the jabs
had no effect on Marciano who could withstand even the worst
punishment. He was bobbing and weaving to get in close and land his
uppercuts, wearing Layne down. Then in round 6 he landed a lightning-
fast, long-distance hook that put Layne to sleep, shaving off his
front teeth. Marciano fought the fast, the strong, the heavy, but
always prevailed because he had almost endless resistance and stamina.
We know that Ali could be caught even in his prime, and Ali never
faced anyone with the speed, power and stamina of Marciano.
-Bugees

--
Dude! I have watched film of the Rex Layne fight several times. You can't
seriously tell me Rex Layne was in a class with Muhammad Ali as a fighter. I

I never said Rex Layne was as good as Ali, don't put words in my
mouth. I was just providing an example of how Marciano dealt with big
jabbing boxers. I think Ali would have beaten Layne. But remember
we're talking about a guy who was a 9-5 favorite to beat Marciano, so
he was without a doubt a great fighter. Why do you guys have amnesia
when it comes to boxing history? Why is Roland LaStarza all of a
sudden a Mr. Nobody? In the 40's and 50's, he was a very feared boxer.
Do you think the bookmakers were stupid for making him a favorite to
beat Marciano? He beat Rex Layne by SD to get a shot at Marciano's
title. Watch him fight Marciano, watch him avoid the hooks and counter
with quick combinations. Watch him use the "rope-a-dope" tactic.
Unfortunately for Roland, Marciano was much smarter than George
Foreman. Rocky went for LaStarza's head; George foolishly went for
Ali's body. Nonetheless, LaStarza was fast and clever enough to win a
decision over anybody, including Ali.
-Bugees

LaStarza would beat Ali? Are you LaStarza's unknown, bastard son?

In the 1940's and 50's, it was common thinking that LaStarza was a
master heavyweight boxer.

And what relevance does that have?

Post by b***@gmail.com
He was a favorite to beat Marciano, so why
do you find it so strange to hear me say that I would favor him over
Ali?

Because the fact that he was a favourite to beat Marciano is utterly
irrelevant.

Post by b***@gmail.com
By the way, I am not Roland LaStarza's bastard son. I am Roland
LaStarza. Now bring on Muhammad Ali, I can beat him even at age 80.

Well you're *someone's* bastard son.....

GDS

"Let's roll!"

[Loki]

Post by b***@gmail.com
I would have Roland LaStarza favorite vs Ali, Foreman or Frazier.

Fair enough. I will bother you no further. Enjoy your unique reality.

Loki

"I would say the best moment of all was when I
caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake."
—George W. Bush, on his best moment in office,
interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag,
May 7, 2006

[The Sanity Cruzer]

Post by b***@gmail.com
LaStarza was too fast and
intelligent for any of the guys you mentioned. He would beat them all
by decison, Norton and Patterson possibly by KO.

Wow!

Post by b***@gmail.com
I would have Roland LaStarza favorite vs Ali, Foreman or Frazier.

Wow!

Post by b***@gmail.com
Now stop smoking marijuana, Loki.

Why?

[n***@million]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:10:48 -0800, "The Sanity Cruzer"

Post by b***@gmail.com
LaStarza was too fast and
intelligent for any of the guys you mentioned. He would beat them all
by decison, Norton and Patterson possibly by KO.

Wow!

Post by b***@gmail.com
I would have Roland LaStarza favorite vs Ali, Foreman or Frazier.

Wow!

Post by b***@gmail.com
Now stop smoking marijuana, Loki.

Why?

Two Wows and one Why. Seems to cover quite a bit of ground rather
quickly.

DCI

[The Sanity Cruzer]

Post by n***@million
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:10:48 -0800, "The Sanity Cruzer"

Post by b***@gmail.com
LaStarza was too fast and
intelligent for any of the guys you mentioned. He would beat them all
by decison, Norton and Patterson possibly by KO.

Wow!

Post by b***@gmail.com
I would have Roland LaStarza favorite vs Ali, Foreman or Frazier.

Wow!

Post by b***@gmail.com
Now stop smoking marijuana, Loki.

Why?

Two Wows and one Why. Seems to cover quite a bit of ground rather
quickly.
DCI

What I really think about bugee-boy is: You're a fucking idiot. Who did
Roland LaStarza ever beat? Answer: Nobdy. LaStarza's claim to fame was his
having lost a close decision to Marciano. End of story.

That covers just about all of the ground this moron deserves. Now, time for
me to go to bed.

[Loki]

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:19:20 -0800, "The Sanity Cruzer"

Post by The Sanity Cruzer
What I really think about bugee-boy is: You're a fucking idiot.

Your analysis is spot on Sanity. Ignore him. Let him play with his
brother in stupidity that more-more clown and perhaps they leave the
rest of us alone.

Loki

"I'm also not very analytical. You know I don't
spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about
why I do things."
—George W. Bush, aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Loki
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:19:20 -0800, "The Sanity Cruzer"

Post by The Sanity Cruzer
What I really think about bugee-boy is: You're a fucking idiot.

For Loki and Sanity: you are mindless media slaves. Keep obeying your
television set for the rest of your lives. Ali was the greatest. The
Beatles were the greatest. Maradona was the greatest. Believe,
believe, believe...

[i***@hotmail.com]

Post by b***@gmail.com
Loki, the fact that you have repeatedly misspelled LaStarza's name
shoots down my hopes to stimulate your brain. You have no idea who
LaStarza is, because he has never appeared on your color TV screen
shouting rap poems. You too have been brainwashed by your television
into thinking that Muhammad Ali was the greatest boxer ever. I tried
to make you think with your own head, but I failed.

I think this post gives away the reason for your crazy opinions.


-Isaiah

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki
Etc. etc. The point that was being made was that Marciano, through no
fault of his own, ruled the roost when the heavyweight division was at
a low ebb. Look at the big names Marciano beat and you will see old
men past their peaks (Louis, Walcott) and blown up light heavyweights
and middleweights (Moore, Charles).
Ali on the other hand was at his peak during the golden age of
heavyweight boxing and faced and beat the best opposition that any one
man faced in the history of heavyweights.
Loki

Loki, I disagree with you on all points. The reason most people think
Marciano's opponents were chumps is because he made them look like
chumps. Imagine if Ali had won all of his fights, 88percent of them by
KO. Wouldn't his era look like a weak one? Marciano's era was good,
it's just that he was near-perfect. Look at his fights against Roland
LaStarza, Rex Layne and Harry "Kid" Matthews. These guys had beaten
everyone they had fought before meeting Marciano, except Layne who had
2 draws and Matthews who still had a record of 81-3. LaStarza and
Layne were favorites to beat Marciano. How can the "experts" say these
guys were going to beat Marciano, and then after the fight say they
were chumps? This contradiction is common when critics talk about
Marciano, and made me look at these fights more closely. I'm sure
Roland LaStarza, Rex Layne, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe would have
had wins (and losses) to Ali, Frazier and Foreman. Big does not always
mean good, especially in boxing. The boxers of the 1970's are
extremely overrated. This becomes obvious when you see how these guys
lost to eachother: Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Norton, Shavers. They were
all big but lacking severely in at least one important sector. Foreman
had speed and stamina deficiencies, Ali had insufficient power,
Frazier lacked stamina. The 1970's were not the golden age of boxing,
they were the golden age of color television. The 1950's were not as
entertaining. Marciano did not taunt his opponents or act like a clown
outside of the ring. In the 70's, it was more fun to watch boxing. But
that has nothing to do with talent. Ezzard Charles and Roland LaStarza
beat opponents who were much bigger than them. I would have them as
favorites against almost any 70's boxer.

Around here, Mr. Ali is viewed the way the MSM view him, as someone
who could do no wrong. It's revisionist hx but we know that r/h is
a tried and true technique which rarely if ever fails.

Jersey Joe was another grip and grab artist who Ali learned from.
Both get a lot more credit than they deserve.

[Walter Mitty]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Loki
Etc. etc. The point that was being made was that Marciano, through no
fault of his own, ruled the roost when the heavyweight division was at
a low ebb. Look at the big names Marciano beat and you will see old
men past their peaks (Louis, Walcott) and blown up light heavyweights
and middleweights (Moore, Charles).
Ali on the other hand was at his peak during the golden age of
heavyweight boxing and faced and beat the best opposition that any one
man faced in the history of heavyweights.
Loki

Loki, I disagree with you on all points. The reason most people think
Marciano's opponents were chumps is because he made them look like
chumps. Imagine if Ali had won all of his fights, 88percent of them by
KO. Wouldn't his era look like a weak one?

Yup. Similar to the now popular Tyson, and to a slightly lesser extent,
Naseem Hamed bashing.

"Who did he fight?" they shout. Well, everyone who was there, thats
who. The fact that he beat them up and ruined half of them doesn't seem
to weigh in his favour amongst the history fiddlers.

People need to pop along to You Tube to remind themselves just how
devastating he really was in those early years. The reason hard, gnarled
and skillful pros were scared or "lost before they got in the ring" was
a simple one - he was a damn dangerous customer. No HW in the world
could have lived with him prior to his long, slow and awful to see
spiral into drugs, depression and getting fleeced by everyone near him.

[Mr.Will]

Post by Loki

Post by b***@gmail.com
I recently watched a videotape of Russ Anber's "Classic Night At The
Fights: Rocky Marciano", and after seeing it I felt I had to expose
the shocking, false statements I heard.
This is the usual unprofessional sports writing we are used to getting
from HBO, TSN and ESPN. The documentary is filled with inaccurate
statements, which I'm about to list. They believe Marciano is
overrated (and Ali, of course, was "the Greatest"), but they have done
very little research on the man. In any case, a picture of Muhammad
Ali is on the wall next to host Russ Anber, and all you hear
throughout the documentary is that Marciano hand-picked his opponents
to avoid difficult fights.

Etc. etc. The point that was being made was that Marciano, through no
fault of his own, ruled the roost when the heavyweight division was at
a low ebb. Look at the big names Marciano beat and you will see old
men past their peaks (Louis, Walcott) and blown up light heavyweights
and middleweights (Moore, Charles).
On the other hand, if you look at the people Ali beat you see names
like Liston, Fraizer, Foreman, Norton, etc. And all of those guys were
at their peaks when Ali beat them.
Guys like Layne, LaStraza, Cockell, and Matthews may have been at the
top of their games when they fought Marciano, but they were all second
and third tier fighters from a historical perspective. No where near
the quality of Shavers, Quarry, Patterson, Lyle, or Terrell-all of
whom Ali also beat in their primes.
Now please do not misinterpret what I am saying. Marciano was a
warrior. He faced the best that was out there, beat them all, and
ducked no one.
However, due to misfortune of timing, he was never tested by top tier
opposition while they were in their prime. Do you honestly think that
any of the people Marciano beat (at the times in their careers when
Marciano fought them) would have beaten Fraizer, Foreman, or Liston?
Ali on the other hand was at his peak during the golden age of
heavyweight boxing and faced and beat the best opposition that any one
man faced in the history of heavyweights.
Loki

I agree with pretty much all you have put here Loki, I would also add that
Ali was PAST his peak when he fought alot of those fighters you mention,
which makes it even more of an achievement.

Mr.Will

[Nay-Sayer]

They believe Marciano is overrated

Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

Anber keeps repeating how old Archie Moore was (39),

39 *is* old.

Anber keeps telling us how old Louis, Moore and Walcott were

Louis, Moore, and Walcott *were* old.

giving the impression that Marciano only fought old guys.

If the shoe fits....

He leaves out the fact that most of Marciano's opponents were
young,

The only fighters of note that Marciano ever fought were either old,
fighting way above their prime weightclass, or BOTH...

He forgets to mention that Cockell was the reigning British heavyweight champion.

Being the best Horizontal Heavyweight in the world isn't something to
brag about...

Anber repeats that Marciano's manager thought Ezzard Charles' days
were over. This implies that Charles was also "hand-picked". This is
also absurd, since Charles had been champion just 2 years earlier.

Charles was 2-2 in his last 4 when he met Marciano.

The fight was a must for Marciano, not a choice.
You can learn more about Marciano by just watching the
fights and reading the accounts of the ones that were never recorded
on film.

You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.

"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952


TNS

[n***@million]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano

do you have any other points to make?

DCI

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match. That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.

I'm waiting....

TNS

[n***@millions]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:15:06 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match. That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....
TNS

And?

DCI

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by n***@millions
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:15:06 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....
TNS

And?
DCI-

AND - So who cares what _you_ think about how objective the press is
or is not? @ least the San Antonio Express had a _newspaper_ and saw
fit to publish an article about the fight. Since you're so smart
maybe _you_ can provide us with an article that was published where
_you_ give us your 'objective' insight into what happened during the
fight.

Or are you just full of it?

Take some exlax...

TNS

[Mr.Will]

Post by n***@millions
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:15:06 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match. That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....
TNS

And?
DCI-

AND - So who cares what _you_ think about how objective the press is
or is not? @ least the San Antonio Express had a _newspaper_ and saw
fit to publish an article about the fight. Since you're so smart
maybe _you_ can provide us with an article that was published where
_you_ give us your 'objective' insight into what happened during the
fight.

Or are you just full of it?

Take some exlax...

TNS

--------------------

Hold on , DCI has yet to post his predictionon this match, suggest waiting
at least until you've seen that to engage discussion!

Mr.Will

[n***@millions]

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:15:06 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match. That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....
TNS

And?
DCI-

AND - So who cares what _you_ think about how objective the press is
fit to publish an article about the fight. Since you're so smart
maybe _you_ can provide us with an article that was published where
_you_ give us your 'objective' insight into what happened during the
fight.
Or are you just full of it?
Take some exlax...
TNS
--------------------
Hold on , DCI has yet to post his predictionon this match, suggest waiting
at least until you've seen that to engage discussion!
Mr.Will

Too late for that, Mr. Will, he's foraging around for press coverage
that agrees with his foregone conclusions.

DCI

[n***@millions]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:06:30 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:15:06 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....
TNS

And?
DCI-

AND - So who cares what _you_ think about how objective the press is
fit to publish an article about the fight. Since you're so smart
maybe _you_ can provide us with an article that was published where
_you_ give us your 'objective' insight into what happened during the
fight.
Or are you just full of it?
Take some exlax...
TNS

Getting testy, eh?

DCI

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by n***@millions
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:06:30 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:15:06 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match. That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....
TNS

And?
DCI-

AND - So who cares what _you_ think about how objective the press is
fit to publish an article about the fight. Since you're so smart
maybe _you_ can provide us with an article that was published where
_you_ give us your 'objective' insight into what happened during the
fight.
Or are you just full of it?
Take some exlax...
TNS

Getting testy, eh?
DCI

Not even close.

TNS

[D.Flynn]

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.

If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

[Loki]

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Marciano's mystique is based largely on his perfect record. Truth is
that had he been 48-1 he would be considered at best a very good
fighter today. Can you honestly say, for example that anyone Marciano
beat would have beaten Fraizer on the night they fought Marciano?

Yet, there is a valid argument to be made that he got a gift decision
in the first LaStarza fight.

Take it for what it is worth.

Loki

"Let me put it to you bluntly. In a changing world,
we want more people to have control over your own life."
—George W. Bush, Annandale, Va, Aug. 9, 2004

[D.Flynn]

Post by Loki

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Marciano's mystique is based largely on his perfect record. Truth is
that had he been 48-1 he would be considered at best a very good
fighter today. Can you honestly say, for example that anyone Marciano
beat would have beaten Fraizer on the night they fought Marciano?
Yet, there is a valid argument to be made that he got a gift decision
in the first LaStarza fight.

The term "gift decision" is meant to refer to the likes of Louis-
Walcott 1 or Patterson-Ellis, not to a close fight like Marciano-
LaStarza 1.

[n***@millions]

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Do not bother Nay Sayer with facts.

DCI

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by n***@millions

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Do not bother Nay Sayer with facts.
DCI- Hide quoted text -

Maybe you could demonstrate by providing us with some F A C T S so
that I could not be bothered by them.

Do something more than your usual of blowing hot gasses out of your
ass.

I'm waiting...

TNS

[n***@millions]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:32:03 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Do not bother Nay Sayer with facts.
DCI- Hide quoted text -

Maybe you could demonstrate by providing us with some F A C T S so
that I could not be bothered by them.
Do something more than your usual of blowing hot gasses out of your
ass.
I'm waiting...
TNS

Marciano: 49 and 0.

DCI

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by n***@millions
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:32:03 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Do not bother Nay Sayer with facts.
DCI- Hide quoted text -

Maybe you could demonstrate by providing us with some F A C T S so
that I could not be bothered by them.
Do something more than your usual of blowing hot gasses out of your
ass.
I'm waiting...
TNS

Marciano: 49 and 0.

And am I supposed to be impressed? 49 and 0 in the weakest of HW eras
and only *6* defenses against ole men and nobodies does not stand out
as a hallmark achievement IMHO.

Try again...

TNS

[n***@millions]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:47:27 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:32:03 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Do not bother Nay Sayer with facts.
DCI- Hide quoted text -

Maybe you could demonstrate by providing us with some F A C T S so
that I could not be bothered by them.
Do something more than your usual of blowing hot gasses out of your
ass.
I'm waiting...
TNS

Marciano: 49 and 0.

And am I supposed to be impressed? 49 and 0 in the weakest of HW eras
and only *6* defenses against ole men and nobodies does not stand out
as a hallmark achievement IMHO.
Try again...
TNS

Sure you're supposed to be impressed. But you ain't. End of story.

DCI

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by n***@millions
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:47:27 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:32:03 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Do not bother Nay Sayer with facts.
DCI- Hide quoted text -

Maybe you could demonstrate by providing us with some F A C T S so
that I could not be bothered by them.
Do something more than your usual of blowing hot gasses out of your
ass.
I'm waiting...
TNS

Marciano: 49 and 0.

And am I supposed to be impressed?  49 and 0 in the weakest of HW eras
and only *6* defenses against ole men and nobodies does not stand out
as a hallmark achievement IMHO.
Try again...
TNS

Sure you're supposed to be impressed. But you ain't. End of story.

There's absolutely positively *nothing* impressive about beating up on
old guys, old LHWs, and MWs. Nothing at all...

TNS

[n***@millions]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:46:56 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions
Sure you're supposed to be impressed. But you ain't. End of story.

There's absolutely positively *nothing* impressive about beating up on
old guys, old LHWs, and MWs. Nothing at all...
TNS

Of some interest - not much - you weren't even alive at those times.
But of course, you will chant on as you dance your own lit fire.

DCI

[D.Flynn]

Post by n***@millions
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:32:03 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Do not bother Nay Sayer with facts.
DCI- Hide quoted text -

Maybe you could demonstrate by providing us with some F A C T S so
that I could not be bothered by them.
Do something more than your usual of blowing hot gasses out of your
ass.
I'm waiting...
TNS

Marciano: 49 and 0.

And am I supposed to be impressed?  49 and 0 in the weakest of HW eras

I wouldn't call Marciano's era (roughly '50-'55) the "weakest." I
think it was more competitive than the preceding decade or the 5 years
after when Patterson ruled.

[Loki]

Post by D.Flynn
I wouldn't call Marciano's era (roughly '50-'55) the "weakest." I
think it was more competitive than the preceding decade or the 5 years
after when Patterson ruled.

There were some pretty decent heavyweights while Patterson ruled.
Liston comes immediately to mind. Also Folley, Machen, Williams, and
Johansson were certainly as good if not better than the best of the
bunch in the early 50s.

Loki

"I would say the best moment of all was when I
caught a 7.5 pound largemouth bass in my lake."
—George W. Bush, on his best moment in office,
interview with the German newspaper Bild am Sonntag,
May 7, 2006

[n***@millions]

Post by Loki

Post by D.Flynn
I wouldn't call Marciano's era (roughly '50-'55) the "weakest." I
think it was more competitive than the preceding decade or the 5 years
after when Patterson ruled.

There were some pretty decent heavyweights while Patterson ruled.
Liston comes immediately to mind. Also Folley, Machen, Williams, and
Johansson were certainly as good if not better than the best of the
bunch in the early 50s.
Loki

Opinion based response?

DCI

[Loki]

Post by n***@millions

Post by Loki

Post by D.Flynn
I wouldn't call Marciano's era (roughly '50-'55) the "weakest." I
think it was more competitive than the preceding decade or the 5 years
after when Patterson ruled.

There were some pretty decent heavyweights while Patterson ruled.
Liston comes immediately to mind. Also Folley, Machen, Williams, and
Johansson were certainly as good if not better than the best of the
bunch in the early 50s.
Loki

Opinion based response?

When all is said and done, isn't everything posted in this forum,
besides fight results, opinion based?

However, if you are asking if in my opinion the guys I listed above
were pretty good heavyweights who were either as good as or better
than Layne, LaStarza, or Cockell my answer would be yes they were.

Loki

"I hear there's rumors on the Internets that we're
going to have a draft."
—George W. Bush, second presidential debate,
St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004

[D.Flynn]

Post by Loki

Post by D.Flynn
I wouldn't call Marciano's era (roughly '50-'55) the "weakest." I
think it was more competitive than the preceding decade or the 5 years
after when Patterson ruled.

There were some pretty decent heavyweights while Patterson ruled.
Liston comes immediately to mind. Also Folley, Machen, Williams, and
Johansson were certainly as good if not better than the best of the
bunch in the early 50s.

Now that you mention it, the late 50's did have better hvywts than I
gave them credit for.

Still, if I were a fighter I'd be less terrified getting into the
ring against Floyd & co. as opposed to Walcott, Charles, Marciano,
LaStarza, the Old Mongoose etc.

[Ivan Weiss]

Post by Loki
There were some pretty decent heavyweights while Patterson ruled.
Liston comes immediately to mind. Also Folley, Machen, Williams, and
Johansson were certainly as good if not better than the best of the
bunch in the early 50s.

--
Ezzard Charles says hello.
--
ivan

[n***@millions]

Post by D.Flynn

Post by n***@millions
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:32:03 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Do not bother Nay Sayer with facts.
DCI- Hide quoted text -

Maybe you could demonstrate by providing us with some F A C T S so
that I could not be bothered by them.
Do something more than your usual of blowing hot gasses out of your
ass.
I'm waiting...
TNS

Marciano: 49 and 0.

And am I supposed to be impressed?  49 and 0 in the weakest of HW eras

I wouldn't call Marciano's era (roughly '50-'55) the "weakest." I
think it was more competitive than the preceding decade or the 5 years
after when Patterson ruled.

Please do not bother Nay Sayer with facts, comparisons or well thought
opinions based on records and boxing history. The cognitive dissonance
would shatter his self induced dream world.

DCI

[D.Flynn]

Post by n***@millions

Post by D.Flynn

Post by n***@millions
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 09:32:03 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.

Do not bother Nay Sayer with facts.
DCI- Hide quoted text -

Maybe you could demonstrate by providing us with some F A C T S so
that I could not be bothered by them.
Do something more than your usual of blowing hot gasses out of your
ass.
I'm waiting...
TNS

Marciano: 49 and 0.

And am I supposed to be impressed?  49 and 0 in the weakest of HW eras

I wouldn't call Marciano's era (roughly '50-'55) the "weakest." I
think it was more competitive than the preceding decade or the 5 years
after when Patterson ruled.

Please do not bother Nay Sayer with facts, comparisons or well thought
opinions based on records and boxing history. The cognitive dissonance
would shatter his self induced dream world.
DCI- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I think you may be right, Donn. However, I just wanted to point out
that when The Nay Sayer often brays about Marciano beating up on
"middleweights" he's actually referring to Ezzard Charles.

Never mind that Charles was 5 pounds heavier than the Rock when they
fought or that he was the former hvywt champ....

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by D.Flynn

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@million
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 11:57:18 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer
You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952
TNS

Whew! Such press objectivity in San Antonio. Never mind that Walcott
was desperately trying to save his hide from the onslaught. What did
the San Antonio reporter have to say about the 13th round. Some sport
writers were learning, slowly so, about Marciano
do you have any other points to make?
DCI

Well maybe you can point me in the direction of a more objective
source that is contemporaneous with said boxing match.  That would be
much more informative than you gracing us with _your_ 'objective'
views of the press and what took place during the fight.
I'm waiting....

Before the 7th round began Marciano's corner applied ferric chloride
to his cut forehead and it inadvertently ended up in his eyes. For the
next few rounds his eyesight was greatly diminished and that may
explain why he missed a lot of punches, as the San Antonio reporter
noted.
If you should research the Rock's other 48 bouts I think you'll find
he was an accurate puncher.- Hide quoted text -

Maybe you could quote a source to substantiate your claims. This is
what I found:

"Rocky Marciano, the guy Jersey Joe Walcott and many others said
"can't fight," today held the world's heavyweight championship.
"They'll probably say he still can't fight," said Trainer Charley
Goldman shortly after the dynamic, 28-year-old
flattened Walcott in 43 seconds of the 13th round with one perfect
right and sent him into retirement."

"Going into the 13th round last night at Philadelphia stadium, we
didn't think Rocky Marciano had an earthly chance of winning the title
from Jersey Joe Walcott. The
boy from Brockton was behind, 7 rounds to 5, on our scorecard, and he
appeared to be fading."

- Reno Evening Gazette, September 24, 1952

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by Nay-Sayer

They believe Marciano is overrated

Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

That should read, Marciano is one of the most overrated HWs in history.

[n***@millions]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:16:50 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

They believe Marciano is overrated

Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

That should read, Marciano is one of the most overrated HWs in history.

Still having problems with it, eh?

DCI

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by n***@millions
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:16:50 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

They believe Marciano is overrated

Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

That should read, Marciano is one of the most overrated HWs in history.

Still having problems with it, eh?
DCI

No problems here. Your guy is WAY overrated.

Facts, learn to live with them....

TNS

[n***@millions]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 15:09:11 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by n***@millions
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 13:16:50 -0800 (PST), Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

They believe Marciano is overrated

Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

That should read, Marciano is one of the most overrated HWs in history.

Still having problems with it, eh?
DCI

No problems here. Your guy is WAY overrated.
Facts, learn to live with them....
TNS

And now you know facts from fiction? Damn!

DCI

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

They believe Marciano is overrated

Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

That should read, Marciano is one of the most overrated HWs in history.

Ducking Nino Valdez is one thing but calling Rocky "one of the most
underrated HW's in hx" is another.

There's little sense in saying things for shock value; please recall
that Larry Holmes went on a tirade after losing the title to Michael
Spinks (bad dec.) wherein he denigrated The Rock.

Larry knew The Rock was the gold standard; there's your proof.
Had Larry beaten Spinks, Larry would have said: "Now I'm greater than
Rocky but we are both the 2 best off all times. "
'

[Nay-Sayer]

On Jan 15, 1:14 am, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

They believe Marciano is overrated

Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

That should read, Marciano is one of the most overrated HWs in history.

Ducking Nino Valdez is one thing but calling Rocky "one of the most
underrated HW's in hx" is another.
There's little sense in saying things for shock value; please recall
that Larry Holmes went on a tirade after losing the title to Michael
Spinks (bad dec.) wherein he denigrated The Rock.
Larry knew The Rock was the gold standard; there's your proof.
Had Larry beaten Spinks, Larry would have said: "Now I'm greater than
Rocky but we are both the 2 best off all times. "
'

You must be braindead. Marciano's achievements pale in comparison to
that of Holmes. The Rock isn't in the Easton Assasin's league...

TNS

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by Nay-Sayer
On Jan 15, 1:14 am, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

They believe Marciano is overrated

Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

That should read, Marciano is one of the most overrated HWs in history.

Ducking Nino Valdez is one thing but calling Rocky "one of the most
underrated HW's in hx" is another.
There's little sense in saying things for shock value; please recall
that Larry Holmes went on a tirade after losing the title to Michael
Spinks (bad dec.) wherein he denigrated The Rock.
Larry knew The Rock was the gold standard; there's your proof.
Had Larry beaten Spinks, Larry would have said: "Now I'm greater than
Rocky but we are both the 2 best off all times. "
'

You must be braindead.  Marciano's achievements pale in comparison to
that of Holmes.  The Rock isn't in the Easton Assasin's league...
TNS- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I shouldn't say that if I were the Nay-Sayer; Larry lost to:

Kenny Norton
Carl (The Truth) William
"Terrible" Tim Witherspoon

so the losses to Michael Spinks were tastes of his own
baloney and ice cream sandwichs.

[Nay-Sayer]

On Jan 16, 2:35 am, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki

On Jan 15, 1:14 am, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki"

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by Nay-Sayer

They believe Marciano is overrated

Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

That should read, Marciano is one of the most overrated HWs in history.

Ducking Nino Valdez is one thing but calling Rocky "one of the most
underrated HW's in hx" is another.
There's little sense in saying things for shock value; please recall
that Larry Holmes went on a tirade after losing the title to Michael
Spinks (bad dec.) wherein he denigrated The Rock.
Larry knew The Rock was the gold standard; there's your proof.
Had Larry beaten Spinks, Larry would have said: "Now I'm greater than
Rocky but we are both the 2 best off all times. "
'

You must be braindead. Marciano's achievements pale in comparison to
that of Holmes. The Rock isn't in the Easton Assasin's league...
TNS- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Kenny Norton
Carl (The Truth) Williams
"Terrible" Tim Witherspoon

Well, using that logic, Marciano lost to LaStarza. And I'd take
Norton, Williams, and Witherspoon over LaStarza any day....

TNS

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Nay-Sayer
Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

You forgot to say why, like most nay-sayers do.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
Anber keeps repeating how old Archie Moore was (39),

39 *is* old.

He was the reigning world light heavyweight champion. He was old but
still in his prime. He had recently beaten Nino Valdes twice. He
fought Nuhammad Ali at age 46, but that's rarely mentioned in Ali
documentaries. There is a double standrd for Marciano, because he was
no a critics darling.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
Anber keeps telling us how old Louis, Moore and Walcott were

Louis, Moore, and Walcott *were* old.

Post by b***@gmail.com
giving the impression that Marciano only fought old guys.

If the shoe fits....

Ok so you believe that Marciano only fought old guys? God for you.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
He leaves out the fact that most of Marciano's opponents were
young,

The only fighters of note that Marciano ever fought were either old,
fighting way above their prime weightclass, or BOTH...

You have done no research whasoever on Marciano. Roland LaStarza and
Rex Layne were favorites to beat Marciano. So now all of a suddfen
they are not "of note". Strange logic you have...

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
He forgets to mention that Cockell was the reigning British heavyweight champion.

Being the best Horizontal Heavyweight in the world isn't something to
brag about...

You would make a very professional, accurate journalist. You could
easily get a job at ESPN.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
Anber repeats that Marciano's manager thought Ezzard Charles' days
were over. This implies that Charles was also "hand-picked". This is
also absurd, since Charles had been champion just 2 years earlier.

Charles was 2-2 in his last 4 when he met Marciano.

So what? He was champion two years earlier, you know that is a good
reason to get a title shot, especially when Marciano had fought most
worthy heavyweights prior to winning the title. Charles was a test
Marciano had to have.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
The fight was a must for Marciano, not a choice.

Ok so you really have done zero research. Charles beat some fellows
named Jersey Joe Walcott, Rex Layne, Joey Maxim, and Bob Satterfield.
Ever heard of them?

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
You can learn more about Marciano by just watching the
fights and reading the accounts of the ones that were never recorded
on film.

You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952

But you need to distinguish relevant facts from irrelevant ones.
Critics always wrote comments like "Rocky showed no boxing skill at
all; just strength and a punch", and "As usual Marciano was all fury
and no finesse." What does that mean? That he wasn't Picasso? That's
why critics don't like him. He reduced boxing to what it really is:
beating people to a pulp. Marciano gave them nothing to write about.
"Experts" like to think boxing is an art, so they exalt Muhammad Ali.
Remember what Marciano's trainier said: "Rocky may not look good in
there, but the guy laying on the canvas doesn't look too good either."

-Bugees

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nay-Sayer
Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

You forgot to say why, like most nay-sayers do.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
Anber keeps repeating how old Archie Moore was (39),

39 *is* old.

He was the reigning world light heavyweight champion. He was old but
still in his prime. He had recently beaten Nino Valdes twice. He
fought Nuhammad Ali at age 46, but that's rarely mentioned in Ali
documentaries. There is a double standrd for Marciano, because he was
no a critics darling.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
Anber keeps telling us how old Louis, Moore and Walcott were

Louis, Moore, and Walcott *were* old.

Post by b***@gmail.com
giving the impression that Marciano only fought old guys.

If the shoe fits....

Ok so you believe that Marciano only fought old guys? God for you.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
He leaves out the fact that most of Marciano's opponents were
young,

The only fighters of note that Marciano ever fought were either old,
fighting way above their prime weightclass, or BOTH...

You have done no research whasoever on Marciano. Roland LaStarza and
Rex Layne were favorites to beat Marciano. So now all of a suddfen
they are not "of note". Strange logic you have...

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
He forgets to mention that Cockell was the reigning British heavyweight champion.

Being the best Horizontal Heavyweight in the world isn't something to
brag about...

You would make a very professional, accurate journalist. You could
easily get a job at ESPN.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
Anber repeats that Marciano's manager thought Ezzard Charles' days
were over. This implies that Charles was also "hand-picked". This is
also absurd, since Charles had been champion just 2 years earlier.

Charles was 2-2 in his last 4 when he met Marciano.

So what? He was champion two years earlier, you know that is a good
reason to get a title shot, especially when Marciano had fought most
worthy heavyweights prior to winning the title. Charles was a test
Marciano had to have.

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
The fight was a must for Marciano, not a choice.

Ok so you really have done zero research. Charles beat some fellows
named Jersey Joe Walcott, Rex Layne, Joey Maxim, and Bob Satterfield.
Ever heard of them?

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
You can learn more about Marciano by just watching the
fights and reading the accounts of the ones that were never recorded
on film.

You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952

But you need to distinguish relevant facts from irrelevant ones.
Critics always wrote comments like "Rocky showed no boxing skill at
all; just strength and a punch", and "As usual Marciano was all fury
and no finesse." What does that mean? That he wasn't Picasso? That's
beating people to a pulp. Marciano gave them nothing to write about.
"Experts" like to think boxing is an art, so they exalt Muhammad Ali.
Remember what Marciano's trainier said: "Rocky may not look good in
there, but the guy laying on the canvas doesn't look too good either."
-Bugees

Nino was a Number One contender; after awhile, one has to present
the facts, as corroborated by key sources, just to stop the silliness.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-news/Jones-vs-Ruiz.php

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Nino was a Number One contender; after awhile, one has to present
the facts, as corroborated by key sources, just to stop the silliness.
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-news/Jones-vs-Ruiz.php

Ronald, you are presenting inaccurate information to back your
ridiculous theory that Marciano ducked Nino Valdes. That webpage says
Valdes was the n.1 contender, but it doesn't say when. The truth is,
Valdes was ranked n.1, but lost that ranking as soon as Marciano
became champion. After that critical loss to Harold Johnson in 1952,
he lost the next three fights as well. So Marciano's first title
defense had to be vs Roland LaStarza. There is no way you can get a
title shot after four consecutive losses. Ronald, Valdes was not a
great fighter. Will you ever admit it?

Here is the RELEVANT information, from the same site,
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/ArchieMoore.html

It went like this:
In 1952 Rocky Marciano beats Top Ten contenders Lee Savold and Harry \\
\"Kid\\\" Mathews, defeats two lesser ranked heavyweights (Gino
Buonavina and Bernie Reynolds), then tops the year off by taking the
title from Jersey Joe Walcott.

Archie Moore in the same year beats three of the other Top Ten
heavyweight contenders, Jimmy Slade, Clarence Henry, and Bob Dunlap.
He also takes the time to defeat two future Hall of Fame light
heavies, Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim, taking the title from Maxim.

The year ends with both Marciano and Moore the champions of their
respective divisions, having defeated not only the previous champs,
but taking out five of the Top Ten heavyweights between them.

For 1953 Marciano knocks out Walcott in the first round of their
return engagement, then brutalizes Roland LaStarza in their rematch
for an 11th round TKO.

To keep his hand in play, Moore takes a 10 rounder from Top Ten
heavyweight contender Nino Valdez, fights and beats heavyweights Toxie
Hall, Sonny Andrews, Al Spaulding and Frank Buford, then drops weight
to take a 15 rounder from Maxim to retain his title. Always the over-
achiever, Archie also goes down to Argentina to whip two other light
heavyweights, Reinaldo Ansaioni and Dogomar Martinez.

Between Marciano and Moore, three more Top Ten heavies have tasted
defeat in 1953. Still Moore is not ranked in the Top Ten of the
heavyweight division.

It's 1954 and Archie is making some noises towards a possible Marciano
fight but nobody is listening. Not yet.

So, while Marciano twice fights Ezzard Charles in two of the most
brutal bouts in heavyweight history, Archie finds time to TKO Top Ten
ranked Bob Baker. He also beats heavyweight Bert Withehurst by KO in
6, takes another 15 rounder from Maxim, and TKO's in 14 future Hall of
Fame light heavy Harold Johnson (who had been touted as a possible
Marciano opponent by Ring Magazine).

The tag team has accounted for two more Top Ten contenders and now
people are starting to wonder about a Marciano-Moore fight. The Ring
hints at the possibility as Rocky's list of worthwhile opponents is
getting thin, but Moore is still not in the Top Ten, even though he's
beaten three of the men who are listed for 1954, Jimmy Slade, Nino
Valdez, and Bob Baker. Archie decides it's time to aggressively reach
for the brass ring, to make it plain and simple just where his
ambitions lie.

As 1955 rolls around, Archie begins a one-man crusade for a fight with
the Rock. He issues challenges in interviews, he begins a mammoth
letter writing campaign to any and all sports writers, he makes it as
clear as Ike's bald head that he wants to fight Marciano before the
year ends. He slips almost unnoticed into the bottom of the
heavyweight Top Ten.

Marciano has two credible opponents set for the year, #1 ranked Nino
Valdez of Cuba and #2 ranked Don Cockell of England (then current
English and European heavyweight champion). His manager, Al Weil,
decides the best way to make the cash registers ring is to have a
fight in May and another one in the fall, perhaps September or
October. They will take Valdez in Miami where he will draw and Cockell
in California where he'd already fought a couple times and is somewhat
known. It's decided the best time to fight in Miami is in the fall so
the Cockell fight will be set up first. Valdez is disappointed at
missing the earlier fight and needs something to keep active and
before the public. And now in true mongoose fashion, Archie lures him
in.
While the Cockell fight is being promoted for May 16th, Moore works
out a deal to fight Valdez in Miami 2 weeks before, on May 2nd. Valdez
needs the money and perhaps doesn't realize the tremendous risk he's
taking by touching gloves with Moore again; a loss could give Archie
Nino's upcoming title fight slot. Moore knows full well the
implications; should he lose to #1 Valdez, he drops out of the Top Ten
and probably never meets Marciano, but if he wins, how will he be
denied? The battles of May decide the course of the fall heavyweight
championship contest as Marciano TKO's Cockell in 9 while Archie takes
a 15 round decision from Nino.

At last Archie gets the recognition among the heavyweights and
replaces Valdez in the #1 slot. In mid-year, of the Top Ten
contenders, Marciano has beaten 3 of them, Moore has beaten 2 of them,
and Moore is one of them, sitting in the coveted #1 position. Of the
others, there's Cavicchi of Italy, who wouldn't draw flies, Earl Walls
of Canada, another no-name, no draw, John Holman (see Walls), and the
special nut-case Tommy "Hurricane" Jackson, who many fighters avoid
"by reason of insanity". The only viable fight is Archie Moore and in
case everyone doesn't realize it, The Ring has taken up the call for a
Marciano-Moore bout as the only worthwhile fight left for Marciano.

Unknown to Moore, though, Marciano has already decided to retire. Back
problems, pressure from his family, and the rapidly deteriorating
relationship between the champion and his manager have convinced Rocky
that it's time to leave boxing. Rocky is about to push back from the
table and leave the game, when Archie ups the ante.

In a campaign of harassment that would make a celebrity stalker proud,
Moore goes after the heavyweight champion where it hurts the most; his
pride. He takes out adds in papers calling for Rocky to fight him, he
gives interviews where he outlines his strategy to defeat the Rock, he
has wanted posters printed and placed where Marciano will see them, he
sends him notes on the golf course, "Are you afraid to fight an old
man?". Even the Ring is suggesting Moore has a chance to dethrone the
Rock "if Marciano gives him a shot". Called out in such a sustained,
public manner, Rocky shelves his retirement plans (which are unknown
to the public or Moore) and agrees to answer the challenge of the Old
Mongoose.

The resulting fight starts off as if Moore's master plan were
flawless. In the second round he drops Marciano with a perfect right
for only the second time in the Rock's career. For a brief moment, a
twinkling in the eye of fate, it appears Archie will hold both the
light heavyweight and the heavyweight belts. But the moment is a mere
two seconds and Marciano is back on his feet, taking no count, and
coming after Moore with a savagery he might not have unleashed on the
amiable Moore otherwise. Archie later admits the mistake he made was
to drop Marciano early, noting that the heavyweight champ was a slow
starter and he meant to get the early rounds in the bank as Walcott
had done. By dropping him in the second round, he's roused the
smoldering fire that always burned in Marciano and the result is a
relentless, merciless assault. All Archie's great boxing skill, his
cross-arm defense, his feints and moves, can't keep off him a man he
would refer to later as "a bull with boxing gloves". For eight rounds
Moore takes a terrible beating, knocked down three times, saved by the
bell in the eighth, and when he returns to his corner with the assist
of a compassionate referee it's obvious the end is near. Between
rounds the referee comes to Moore's corner and offers to stop the
fight, the outcome of which is no longer in doubt, and Archie replies,
"I too am a champion, and I want to go out like a champion."

The courageous words of a great fighter, the final defiant gesture
from a man who worked so hard for his shot at the heavyweight title.
The ninth round starts, Marciano is a whirlwind of fury, and Archie is
down for the fourth and last time. In defeat he is as endearing as in
triumph; he says he hopes the fans felt they got their money's worth
and he thanks Marciano for giving him the shot.

Archie Moore would have one more shot at the title, fighting Floyd
Patterson for Rocky's vacated title. It is Marciano himself who names
Patterson and Moore as the men most deserving to fight for the belt.
Moore fights a torrid schedule leading up to the Patterson fight,
eleven bouts in eight months, seven of them against heavyweights. It's
too much, and Archie isn't in the shape for Patterson that he was for
Marciano. The result is a 5th round KO and the end of Archie's
heavyweight championship dreams.

The incredible Archie Moore finished with a record of 183-24-10 with
at least 141 KOs (some historians state it at 145, but either way it's
the most of any fighter in the history of gloved boxing). He fought 61
times against Top Ten fighters and 15 times against future Hall of
Famers. Archie may not have grasped the golden ring he wanted so
badly, but it wasn't for lack of courage or the will to reach for it.

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
Nino was a Number One contender; after awhile, one has to present
the facts, as corroborated by key sources, just to stop the silliness.
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/boxing-news/Jones-vs-Ruiz.php

Ronald, you are presenting inaccurate information to back your
ridiculous theory that Marciano ducked Nino Valdes. That webpage says
Valdes was the n.1 contender, but it doesn't say when. The truth is,
Valdes was ranked n.1, but lost that ranking as soon as Marciano
became champion. After that critical loss to Harold Johnson in 1952,
he lost the next three fights as well. So Marciano's first title
defense had to be vs Roland LaStarza. There is no way you can get a
title shot after four consecutive losses. Ronald, Valdes was not a
great fighter. Will you ever admit it?
Here is the RELEVANT information, from the same site,http://www.eastsideboxing.com/ArchieMoore.html
In 1952 Rocky Marciano beats Top Ten contenders Lee Savold and Harry \\
\"Kid\\\" Mathews, defeats two lesser ranked heavyweights (Gino
Buonavina and Bernie Reynolds), then tops the year off by taking the
title from Jersey Joe Walcott.
Archie Moore in the same year beats three of the other Top Ten
heavyweight contenders, Jimmy Slade, Clarence Henry, and Bob Dunlap.
He also takes the time to defeat two future Hall of Fame light
heavies, Harold Johnson and Joey Maxim, taking the title from Maxim.
The year ends with both Marciano and Moore the champions of their
respective divisions, having defeated not only the previous champs,
but taking out five of the Top Ten heavyweights between them.
For 1953 Marciano knocks out Walcott in the first round of their
return engagement, then brutalizes Roland LaStarza in their rematch
for an 11th round TKO.
To keep his hand in play, Moore takes a 10 rounder from Top Ten
heavyweight contender Nino Valdez, fights and beats heavyweights Toxie
Hall, Sonny Andrews, Al Spaulding and Frank Buford, then drops weight
to take a 15 rounder from Maxim to retain his title. Always the over-
achiever, Archie also goes down to Argentina to whip two other light
heavyweights, Reinaldo Ansaioni and Dogomar Martinez.
Between Marciano and Moore, three more Top Ten heavies have tasted
defeat in 1953. Still Moore is not ranked in the Top Ten of the
heavyweight division.
It's 1954 and Archie is making some noises towards a possible Marciano
fight but nobody is listening. Not yet.
So, while Marciano twice fights Ezzard Charles in two of the most
brutal bouts in heavyweight history, Archie finds time to TKO Top Ten
ranked Bob Baker. He also beats heavyweight Bert Withehurst by KO in
6, takes another 15 rounder from Maxim, and TKO's in 14 future Hall of
Fame light heavy Harold Johnson (who had been touted as a possible
Marciano opponent by Ring Magazine).
The tag team has accounted for two more Top Ten contenders and now
people are starting to wonder about a Marciano-Moore fight. The Ring
hints at the possibility as Rocky's list of worthwhile opponents is
getting thin, but Moore is still not in the Top Ten, even though he's
beaten three of the men who are listed for 1954, Jimmy Slade, Nino
Valdez, and Bob Baker. Archie decides it's time to aggressively reach
for the brass ring, to make it plain and simple just where his
ambitions lie.
As 1955 rolls around, Archie begins a one-man crusade for a fight with
the Rock. He issues challenges in interviews, he begins a mammoth
letter writing campaign to any and all sports writers, he makes it as
clear as Ike's bald head that he wants to fight Marciano before the
year ends. He slips almost unnoticed into the bottom of the
heavyweight Top Ten.
Marciano has two credible opponents set for the year, #1 ranked Nino
Valdez of Cuba and #2 ranked Don Cockell of England (then current
English and European heavyweight champion). His manager, Al Weil,
decides the best way to make the cash registers ring is to have a
fight in May and another one in the fall, perhaps September or
October. They will take Valdez in Miami where he will draw and Cockell
in California where he'd already fought a couple times and is somewhat
known. It's decided the best time to fight in Miami is in the fall so
the Cockell fight will be set up first. Valdez is disappointed at
missing the earlier fight and needs something to keep active and
before the public. And now in true mongoose fashion, Archie lures him
in.
While the Cockell fight is being promoted for May 16th, Moore works
out a deal to fight Valdez in Miami 2 weeks before, on May 2nd. Valdez
needs the money and perhaps doesn't realize the tremendous risk he's
taking by touching gloves with Moore again; a loss could give Archie
Nino's upcoming title fight slot. Moore knows full well the
implications; should he lose to #1 Valdez, he drops out of the Top Ten
and probably never meets Marciano, but if he wins, how will he be
denied? The battles of May decide the course of the fall heavyweight
championship contest as Marciano TKO's Cockell in 9 while Archie takes
a 15 round decision from Nino.
At last Archie gets the recognition among the heavyweights and
replaces Valdez in the #1 slot. In mid-year, of the Top Ten
contenders, Marciano has beaten 3 of them, Moore has beaten 2 of them,
and Moore is one of them, sitting in the coveted #1 position. Of the
others, there's Cavicchi of Italy, who wouldn't draw flies, Earl Walls
of Canada, another no-name, no draw, John Holman (see Walls), and the
special nut-case Tommy "Hurricane" Jackson, who many fighters avoid
"by reason of insanity". The only viable fight is Archie Moore and in
case everyone doesn't realize it, The Ring has taken up the call for a
Marciano-Moore bout as the only worthwhile fight left for Marciano.
Unknown to Moore, though, Marciano has already decided to retire. Back
problems, pressure from his family, and the rapidly deteriorating
relationship between the champion and his manager have convinced Rocky
that it's time to leave boxing. Rocky is about to push back from the
table and leave the game, when Archie ups the ante.
In a campaign of harassment that would make a celebrity stalker proud,
Moore goes after the heavyweight champion where it hurts the most; his
pride. He takes out adds in papers calling for Rocky to fight him, he
gives interviews where he outlines his strategy to defeat the Rock, he
has wanted posters printed and placed where Marciano will see them, he
sends him notes on the golf course, "Are you afraid to fight an old
man?". Even the Ring is suggesting Moore has a chance to dethrone the
Rock "if Marciano gives him a shot". Called out in such a sustained,
public manner, Rocky shelves his retirement plans (which are unknown
to the public or Moore) and agrees to answer the challenge of the Old
Mongoose.
The resulting fight starts off as if Moore's master plan were
flawless. In the second round he drops Marciano with a perfect right
for only the second time in the Rock's career. For a brief moment, a
twinkling in the eye of fate, it appears Archie will hold both the
light heavyweight and the heavyweight belts. But the moment is a mere
two seconds and Marciano is back on his feet, taking no count, and
coming after Moore with a savagery he might not have unleashed on the
amiable Moore otherwise. Archie later admits the mistake he made was
to drop Marciano early, noting that the heavyweight champ was a slow
starter and he meant to get the early rounds in the bank as Walcott
had done. By dropping him in the second round, he's roused the
smoldering fire that always burned in Marciano and the result is a
relentless, merciless assault. All Archie's great boxing skill, his
cross-arm defense, his feints and moves, can't keep off him a man he
would refer to later as "a bull with boxing gloves". For eight rounds
Moore takes a terrible beating, knocked down three times, saved by the
bell in the eighth, and when he returns to his corner with the assist
of a compassionate referee it's obvious the end is near. Between
rounds the referee comes to Moore's corner and offers to stop the
fight, the outcome of which is no longer in doubt, and Archie replies,
"I too am a champion, and I want to go out like a champion."
The courageous words of a great fighter, the final defiant gesture
from a man who worked so hard for his shot at the heavyweight title.
The ninth round starts, Marciano is a whirlwind of fury, and Archie is
down for the fourth and last time. In defeat he is as endearing as in
triumph; he says he hopes the fans felt they got their money's worth
and he thanks Marciano for giving him the shot.
Archie Moore would have one more shot at the title, fighting Floyd
Patterson for Rocky's vacated title. It is Marciano himself who names
Patterson and Moore as the men most deserving to fight for the belt.
Moore fights a torrid schedule leading up to the Patterson fight,
eleven bouts in eight months, seven of them against heavyweights. It's
too much, and Archie isn't in the shape for Patterson that he was for
Marciano. The result is a 5th round KO and the end of Archie's
heavyweight championship dreams.
The incredible Archie Moore finished with a record of 183-24-10 with
at least 141 KOs (some historians state it at 145, but either way it's
the most of any fighter in the history of gloved boxing). He fought 61
times against Top Ten fighters and 15 times against future Hall of
Famers. Archie may not have grasped the golden ring he wanted so
badly, but it wasn't for lack of courage or the will to reach for it.

The Nino Valdez situation, just as any other, can be spun both ways.


"Nino Valdes - Marciano held the world heavyweight title form 1952
until 1955. In 1953, and 1954 The Ring magazine rated Valdez as the
number one contender (in their annual year end ratings) based upon
merit. During that time, Marciano defended the title against Ezzard
Charles (whom Valdez beat in 1953) and Roland LaStarza (who had lost
two of his last eight fights). Certainly, Valdez could have been
squeezed in..."


per Marty Mulcahey.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
The Nino Valdez situation, just as any other, can be spun both ways.
"Nino Valdes - Marciano held the world heavyweight title form 1952
until 1955. In 1953, and 1954 The Ring magazine rated Valdez as the
number one contender (in their annual year end ratings) based upon
merit. During that time, Marciano defended the title against Ezzard
Charles (whom Valdez beat in 1953) and Roland LaStarza (who had lost
two of his last eight fights). Certainly, Valdez could have been
squeezed in..."
per Marty Mulcahey.

The Nino Valdes situation can NOT be spun both ways, at least not
seriously. Instead of expressing your own thoughts, you're quoting a
magazine writer who happens to be completely incompetent. What about
facts? Ring Magazine said he deserved a title shot? How did he deserve
it? By losing 4 fights in a row in 1952-1953? In 1955, Valdes' record
was 32-11, and Archie Moore had recently mopped the floors with him
twice. So Marciano fought Archie. If you think Marciano ducked Valdes,
then you can say that any boxer ducked any other boxer he didn't
fight. Why not say that Muhammad Ali ducked Eddie Machen? Or that
George Foreman ducked Earnie Shavers? Apply the same standard to all
boxers, and you'll see how ridiculous Ring Magazine really is.

In all these posts, you have yet to explain why you think Nino Valdes
deserved a shot at the title. And please stop telling me what other
people think, because I already know.

[Ronald 'More-More' Moshki]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ronald 'More-More' Moshki
The Nino Valdez situation, just as any other, can be spun both ways.
"Nino Valdes - Marciano held the world heavyweight title form 1952
until 1955. In 1953, and 1954 The Ring magazine rated Valdez as the
number one contender (in their annual year end ratings) based upon
merit. During that time, Marciano defended the title against Ezzard
Charles (whom Valdez beat in 1953) and Roland LaStarza (who had lost
two of his last eight fights). Certainly, Valdez could have been
squeezed in..."
per Marty Mulcahey.

The Nino Valdes situation can NOT be spun both ways, at least not
seriously. Instead of expressing your own thoughts, you're quoting a
magazine writer who happens to be completely incompetent. What about
facts? Ring Magazine said he deserved a title shot? How did he deserve
it? By losing 4 fights in a row in 1952-1953? In 1955, Valdes' record
was 32-11, and Archie Moore had recently mopped the floors with him
twice. So Marciano fought Archie. If you think Marciano ducked Valdes,
then you can say that any boxer ducked any other boxer he didn't
fight. Why not say that Muhammad Ali ducked Eddie Machen? Or that
George Foreman ducked Earnie Shavers? Apply the same standard to all
boxers, and you'll see how ridiculous Ring Magazine really is.
In all these posts, you have yet to explain why you think Nino Valdes
deserved a shot at the title. And please stop telling me what other
people think, because I already know.

uh, Nino was the Number One challenger for more than a year; that is
the why. We've proven many things here, such as:

1. There was a "3-4 minute" delay in Clay-Cooper, based on Angelo
Dundee's own words.

2. Teddy Atlas was NOT the trainer of Kevin Rooney.

3. Rocco 'Rocky' Marchegiano ran from the Big Guy, Nino Valdez.

[Nay-Sayer]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nay-Sayer
Marciano is one the most overrated HWs in history.

You forgot to say why, like most nay-sayers do.

He defended his title against ole men, blown up middleweights, and
nobodies. That's what makes him overrated.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
Anber keeps repeating how old Archie Moore was (39),

39 *is* old.

He was the reigning world light heavyweight champion. He was old but
still in his prime.

WTF? "He was old but still in his prime"? Do you not see the
contradiction here? Moore was O L D. Leave it at that.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
giving the impression that Marciano only fought old guys.

If the shoe fits....

Ok so you believe that Marciano only fought old guys? God for you.

Marciano fought OLD guys. Facts, learn to live with them.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
He leaves out the fact that most of Marciano's opponents were
young,

The only fighters of note that Marciano ever fought were either old,
fighting way above their prime weightclass, or BOTH...

You have done no research whasoever on Marciano. Roland LaStarza and
Rex Layne were favorites to beat Marciano. So now all of a suddfen
they are not "of note". Strange logic you have...

Only Marciano nut-huggers consider LaStarza and Layne to be fighters
of note. To everyone else LaStarza and Layne are _nobodies_. Put
down the crack pipe.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
He forgets to mention that Cockell was the reigning British heavyweight champion.

Being the best Horizontal Heavyweight in the world isn't something to
brag about...

You would make a very professional, accurate journalist. You could
easily get a job at ESPN.

I'll consider that a compliment.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
Anber repeats that Marciano's manager thought Ezzard Charles' days
were over. This implies that Charles was also "hand-picked". This is
also absurd, since Charles had been champion just 2 years earlier.

Charles was 2-2 in his last 4 when he met Marciano.

So what? He was champion two years earlier, you know that is a good
reason to get a title shot, especially when Marciano had fought most
worthy heavyweights prior to winning the title. Charles was a test
Marciano had to have.

In the four fights Charles had before facing Marciano, Ezzard drops
the first two to Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson. Charles then goes on
the beat Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield who were 51-16 between the
two of them. Charles goes on to get a title shot while Johnson and
Valdes, the two guys who had just _beaten_ Charles, get side stepped.

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
The fight was a must for Marciano, not a choice.

Ok so you really have done zero research. Charles beat some fellows
named Jersey Joe Walcott, Rex Layne, Joey Maxim, and Bob Satterfield.
Ever heard of them?

Who had Charles beaten since losing to Johnson and Valdes to earn his
title shot?

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Nay-Sayer

Post by b***@gmail.com
You can learn more about Marciano by just watching the
fights and reading the accounts of the ones that were never recorded
on film.

You can learn alot about Marciano from what the sports writers of the
day had to say about him.
"When he resorted to boxing in the eighth, ninth and 10th, he made
Marciano look like a novice who winged wild punches that cut only the
cool Municipal Stadium air."
- San Antonio Express on Walcott Marciano I, September 24, 1952

But you need to distinguish relevant facts from irrelevant ones.

Ok, please explain, what are the "relevant" facts and what are the
"irrelevant" facts? Then explain why.

I'm waiting...

TNS