Appreciating Rocky

First topic message reminder :

Morning

Since this fighter is one of the most beloved/underrated/overrated on the board I'd like to take an opportunity, once and for all , to memorialise some thoughts on him.

From what I've read and learned about Rocky Marciano over the many years in the beginning he was an acquired taste; it took a long time. But, even the sceptics soon become Marciano believers. He apparently was clumsier in sparring than many could imagine a ham-‘n’-egger against most half-decent boxers in the gym wearing his 16-ounce gloves that looked like the fluffy pillows from Debenhams the wife keeps buying for some reason each week. I see the flaws what the doubters see on tape don't get me wrong, but every guy who looked like they boxed rings around him, the ones who pinned his ears back, the ones never missed him with jabs, came out of the ring looking like he was dropped from a 10-story building and landed flat-footed. Rocky's cuffing, pawing, mauling, grazing shots, flicks to the sides when he was tied-up on the inside, impacted them like they'd been bumped by a rhino. From ringside many reporters said when Rocky landed, the only evidence was an "OOPH!" grimace and quiver.

Rocky was ponderous. Fighters could see the punches. They weren't surprised; they were beat down, every sparring partner who looked sensational against him, said the same thing exiting the ring: "I hurt all over." The wonderkinds and Robinson-clones that watched Rocky in the gym or at the Garden and licked their lips at a future match thought of him like cancer: He could only happen to the other guy.

Off a stat sheet, any number of guys now would be favoured over him, but doing it in the ring proved it would be a sobering experience. The lads yesterday Jeff, Windy, Chris etc mentioned how Archie one of the toughest creatures on earth held Rocky in the highest esteem.

There are certain dimensions to his game, that are not immediately obvious, that quickly became apparent to anybody who shared a ring with him from Louis to Ali.

I cant remember who said "it hurt to bump into him", but they probably summed it up best. He could seemingly make an oponent hurt for every second of every round, and he was a lot more unpredictable than people think.

This is one fighter who definitely had the devil inside him.

I tend to rate him in the listings higher than most, Rocky is my number 3, not the most glamorous c.v I accept, however his undefeated feat and winning streak is yet to be replicated in any era at the heavyweights top level, that is proof to me thats how difficult it is.

Thanks and have a great day.

Scottrf wrote:

Fists of Fury wrote:So, going by Az's assumption, we can suggest that Spadafora is light years ahead of a certain Floyd Mayweather Jr, based on sparring reports, then?

45-0>41-0, simples.

That is your assumption of my assumptions. Its not remotely close to any of my assumptions.

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:And if Mrs Az files for divorse I'm taking legal action.

She tells me she won't, but she's surprised you can put such effort into this argument. Says it's not like you to keep anything going this long...

You've been speaking to her?

Yeah, I'm her divorce lawyer.

Oh good. My fortune's secure then.

Fists of Fury wrote:Want me to answer that, Windy?

Which of today's lightheavies is better than Charles ? None

Which middle better than Monzon ? None

Which welter better than Robinson ? None

Which lightweight better than Duran ? None

Which feather better than Pep ? None

Which bantam better than Jofre ? None

Which flyweight better than Canto ? None

Don't get me wrong, we have some outstanding fighters, particularly in the shape of FMJ and Manny Pac, who I believe would give anybody an argument in the history of the sport, but I just see Robinson having too much in all departments for the two of them, far too much of a complete fighter.

Bingo, Fists.

I love fighters like Manny, Floyd, RJJ, Hopkins, etc., and I have no doubt whatsoever that they are all time greats. I don't say that the greats of yesterday - in general terms - were BETTER than the greats of today, but I'm absolutely convinced that :

a.) They are AS good, and

b.) That they came by more often when the talent pool was deeper and there were fewer belts, etc.

My, we've come a long way from Rocky Marciano, haven't we ?

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:And if Mrs Az files for divorse I'm taking legal action.

She tells me she won't, but she's surprised you can put such effort into this argument. Says it's not like you to keep anything going this long...

You've been speaking to her?

Yeah, I'm her divorce lawyer.

Oh good. My fortune's secure then.

Lawyers aren't what they were, az.

HumanWindmill wrote:az, simple questions. We won't go too far back and include fighters you've never seen, so :

Which of today's lightheavies is better than Charles ?

Which middle better than Monzon ?

Which welter better than Robinson ?

Which lightweight better than Duran ?

Which feather better than Pep ?

Which bantam better than Jofre ?

Which flyweight better than Canto ?

None. Duran alone would beat everyone from LW to MW (Floyd being the exception).

Modern lawyers like the late Johnny Cochran was P4P the best lawyer in history.

Don't say I don't give you anything, az :

http://cybernetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/oldies-but-goodies.png

Im enjoying reading this thread immensely, learning a bit about the old timers. Can I ask windmill and jeff etc if they can see any advantages the modern generation have over the old timers? I.e. anything new that has come into the game that would have been difficult for the old timers to deal with?

b.) That they came by more often when the talent pool was deeper and there were fewer belts, etc.
____________________________________________________

That is the crux of the matter for me Windy. I rate Manny and Floyd as exceptional talents but from welter to below how many fighters would you reckon would give them an argument apart from each other. Berto is an unbeaten champion in their weight, would anyone back him to win more than a couple of rounds with either?

Now to me that means one of two things, either Manny and Floyd are supermen, redefining what is possible in the ring but that is unlikely to be honest what is more likely is the talent pool is simply not as deep as it once was and so talent which is certainly the equal of that which has passed but is in all reality not superior stands out more, because even in the era of Robinson there were plenty around who would give him an argument and in the case of Burley would have obviously beaten him easily.

joeyjojo618 wrote:Im enjoying reading this thread immensely, learning a bit about the old timers. Can I ask windmill and jeff etc if they can see any advantages the modern generation have over the old timers? I.e. anything new that has come into the game that would have been difficult for the old timers to deal with?

A jab.

HumanWindmill wrote:Don't say I don't give you anything, az :

http://cybernetnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/oldies-but-goodies.png

Is it clean?

rowley wrote:b.) That they came by more often when the talent pool was deeper and there were fewer belts, etc.
____________________________________________________

That is the crux of the matter for me Windy. I rate Manny and Floyd as exceptional talents but from welter to below how many fighters would you reckon would give them an argument apart from each other. Berto is an unbeaten champion in their weight, would anyone back him to win more than a couple of rounds with either?

Now to me that means one of two things, either Manny and Floyd are supermen, redefining what is possible in the ring but that is unlikely to be honest what is more likely is the talent pool is simply not as deep as it once was and so talent which is certainly the equal of that which has passed but is in all reality not superior stands out more, because even in the era of Robinson there were plenty around who would give him an argument and in the case of Burley would have obviously beaten him easily.

What period was the talent pool deeper?

joeyjojo618 wrote:Im enjoying reading this thread immensely, learning a bit about the old timers. Can I ask windmill and jeff etc if they can see any advantages the modern generation have over the old timers? I.e. anything new that has come into the game that would have been difficult for the old timers to deal with?

To be honest, joey, I reckon a great fighter is a great fighter, no matter when he was born.

Boxing is so old that the skills and techniques have been evolving for hundreds of years, and most of the techniques of today were around at least 100 years ago.

However, I can think of some old timers - James J Jeffries would be the best example - who were great in their time but probably wouldn't fare well today. Jeffries traded on endurance and strength, and trained for twenty five rounders. Over that distance, he beats most, in my opinion, but over twelve rounds I'd say that the best of the moderns outbox him, in my opinion.

azania wrote:

rowley wrote:b.) That they came by more often when the talent pool was deeper and there were fewer belts, etc.
____________________________________________________

That is the crux of the matter for me Windy. I rate Manny and Floyd as exceptional talents but from welter to below how many fighters would you reckon would give them an argument apart from each other. Berto is an unbeaten champion in their weight, would anyone back him to win more than a couple of rounds with either?

Now to me that means one of two things, either Manny and Floyd are supermen, redefining what is possible in the ring but that is unlikely to be honest what is more likely is the talent pool is simply not as deep as it once was and so talent which is certainly the equal of that which has passed but is in all reality not superior stands out more, because even in the era of Robinson there were plenty around who would give him an argument and in the case of Burley would have obviously beaten him easily.

What period was the talent pool deeper?

Links have been posted earlier in the thread, az.

P.S. Something else for you : http://terapeut.ro/commerce/images/creatine.JPG

Think anywhere between the 20s and 50's which I consider to be the golden era of the sport the talent pool was deeper. Like I say I consider Robinson the greatest fighter ever but even at his welter peak would have backed Burley to give him absolute hell. Similarly Moore is one of the greatest light heavies ever and even his record is not without the odd losses because there were terrific fighters and contenders. Couple that with fighters fighting more frequently and even the best could pick up losses.

Seriously do not see Floyd losing now or even being pushed by anyone other than Manny, now unless I believe he is superman, which I don't I can only put that down to a serious downgrading of the talent outside the absolute elite.

Joey I am kind of conflicted, obviously with the internet and filming of fights being able to watch an opponent in detail before facing them is a massive advantage modern fighters have. However personally would argue this is a double edged sword because it is possible as we saw with Naz Barrera that if a fighter goes in expecting one thing and he does the other modern fighters can often be found lacking when it comes to a plan B.

Could argue if you only have limited information about a guys style you have to prepare for absolutely anything.

However to show I am an old grouch stuck in the past would say that a lot of what passes for innovation or developement now such as pad work and excessive weight training probably does more harm than good.

C'mon jeff, Valuev and Arreola are better than Ali, doncha know ?

SO you want to compare one of the worlds worst chmpions and probably the 5th best Russian HW of his time with arguabley the GREATEST HW of all.

Out of interest back in the 1920's and 60's when boxing standards were much better due to the deeper talent pool who were the top 5 Russian HW's then?

And to think Charles, a guy who wouldn't even be allowed to fight at HW now, would have the beating of the modern best HW's is plain ridiculous.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:And to think Charles, a guy who wouldn't even be allowed to fight at HW now, would have the beating of the modern best HW's is plain ridiculous.

Not nearly so ridiculous as your penchant for putting words into people's mouths.

I said Charles is the best LIGHTHEAVY.

I wasn't replying to you Windmill.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:I wasn't replying to you Windmill.

Sorry, Jukebox.

Anyway, come on, the 5 best Russian HW's of the 30's and 60's please.

The ever so svelt Two Ton Galento was a world beater then and would smash all contenders today.

Cripes Jimmy Five Belleis would have a decent shout in the bum of the month period.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Anyway, come on, the 5 best Russian HW's of the 30's and 60's please.

They were ALWAYS very active in amateur boxing. Here are the Olympic amateur heavyweight Gold medallists.

How many Russians ?

1904: Sam Berger, USA
1908: Albert Oldham, GBR
1920: Ron Rawson, GBR
1924: Otto von Porat, NOR
1928: Arturo R. Jurado, ARG
1932: Santiago A. Lovell, ARG
1936: Herbert Runge, GER
1948: Rafael Iglesias, ARG
1952: Hayes "Ed" Sanders, USA
1956: Peter Rademacher, USA
1960: Francesco de Piccoli, ITA
1964: Joseph Frazier, USA
1968: George Foreman, USA
1972: Teofilo Stevenson, CUB
1976: Teofilo Stevenson, CUB
1980: Teofilo Stevenson, CUB
1984: Henry Tillman, USA
1988: Ray Mercer, USA
1992: Felix Savon, CUB
1996: Felix Savon, CUB
2000: Felix Savon, CUB

SO you want to compare one of the worlds worst chmpions and probably the 5th best Russian HW of his time with arguabley the GREATEST HW of all.
_______________________________________________________

It's odd isn't it that people describe Ali who debuted 50 years ago the best heavy ever and Robinson who debuted even earlier as the best welter/fighter ever. Kind of doesn't sit too well with the bigger, better faster stronger theory.

azania wrote:The ever so svelt Two Ton Galento was a world beater then and would smash all contenders today.

Cripes Jimmy Five Belleis would have a decent shout in the bum of the month period.

Galento was a freak, as we all know. Besides, he could at least hit, and he didn't gas after two rounds.

Silly example, though. How about I bring Butterbean into the debate ? Didn't he push your man Holmes all the way. Butterbean knows all about modern training methods, doesn't he ?

Greatest, not best ever.

OK who do you consider to be the best fighter ever?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Greatest, not best ever.

What's the difference?

Never had a chance to re-post due to many work commitments at the moment, some great comments, and although opening a small tin of worms It wasn't my intention to create such a heated spark, I usually wrote an article on 606 which was lucky to get 10 replies and half were from me. Anyway before I go home for the weekend, I'll put my final twopenneths on the modern training argument, and I ask a question.

We here about how modern nutrition advanced things and how old timers cannot compete. And how if you look at any sport then you will see that the times always get faster and there are no fighters from the 20s or 30s who could match todays fighters because running times prove it.

While this has been i think explained numerous times, there is one inconsistency which hasnt been explained. of those who use this method of justification, 90 per cent of them have Muhammed Ali as their no 1. The top 10 will nearly always contain Frazier, Foreman and Holmes. N

So my point being that if this modern nutrition evolution theory does in fact hold valid, what in the world leads anyone to think that a fighter from the ancient 60s/70s like Ali, Frazier or Foreman could actually compete against guys in the current day? They cant in any other sport so why can they in Boxing? I believe that is the rationale used agaisnt the old timers. Why are the 70s crowd any different?

And if you consider that the old fat and past prime 70s boxers Holmes and Foreman beat many of the 90s boxers, it seems that realistically only the top few like Holyfield and Lewis and maybe Bowe could even hope to compete with todays fighters. So, with that being said, if you subscribe to this theory, shouldnt your top 10 list loook something like this:

1. Wlad Klitchsko
2. David Haye
3. Thomas Adamek
4 Vitali Klichsko (i put him this low because he actually lost to an Old Lewis even though he has improved since then).
5. Russian Chagaev
6. Nicolai Valuev
7. Lennox Lewis
8. Evander Holyfield
9. Riddick Bowe
10. Alexander Povetkin


Have a great weekend lads, and some great comments thanks.

Best, not greatest, ever based purely on ability. As in judging who would win if the best fighters from the ages in their primes were brought forward to today, and rank it on a P4P basis - probably Jones jr. There are plenty of fighters who I consider greater but none better.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Best, not greatest, ever based purely on ability. As in judging who would win if the best fighters from the ages in their primes were brought forward to today, and rank it on a P4P basis - probably Jones jr. There are plenty of fighters who I consider greater but none better.

On what criteria do you form your judgement of either?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Best, not greatest, ever based purely on ability. As in judging who would win if the best fighters from the ages in their primes were brought forward to today, and rank it on a P4P basis - probably Jones jr. There are plenty of fighters who I consider greater but none better.

In which weight division, or do you mean p4p ?

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Greatest, not best ever.

What's the difference?

I'll go back to my old comparison

Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the greatest Physicist who ever lived.

If you were to get him in a time machine and bring him to today he wouldn't be in the top 10 000 'best' physicists on the planet.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Greatest, not best ever.

What's the difference?

I'll go back to my old comparison

Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the greatest Physicist who ever lived.

If you were to get him in a time machine and bring him to today he wouldn't be in the top 10 000 'best' physicists on the planet.

When was Jones' prime ?

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Greatest, not best ever.

What's the difference?

I'll go back to my old comparison

Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the greatest Physicist who ever lived.

If you were to get him in a time machine and bring him to today he wouldn't be in the top 10 000 'best' physicists on the planet.

What's your point ??

Because thats one of the most silliest things I've read, and has squiddly to do with boxing.

In which weight division, or do you mean p4p ?

P4P.

He didn't have the greatest of careers, and fought his fair share of bums, but I think he had better boxing abilities than anyone before him. Will Roy be bettered in the future? Yes, undoubtedly.

Jones hasn't been at his best for about eight years. Guess there must be somebody better than him by now.

Put it this way.

Isaac Newton...................

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

In which weight division, or do you mean p4p ?

P4P.

He didn't have the greatest of careers, and fought his fair share of bums, but I think he had better boxing abilities than anyone before him. Will Roy be bettered in the future? Yes, undoubtedly.

p4p better than Robinson ?

I see.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:If you were to get him in a time machine and bring him to today he wouldn't be in the top 10 000 'best' physicists on the planet.

Would be relevant if watching a boxer meant you could do what they did.

Take the greatest person on the planet today with a lance back a few 100 years and he won't be in the top 10,000. Skills only improve with participation and necessity. As fighters have fought less frequently against less tough opposition the need for defensive skills and avoidance of cuts has waned.

Necessity is the mother of invention, if you fight every fortnight you can't afford to get cut so you learn and perfect the skills that will avoid such things. Fight every six month it doesn't matter so much so you won't focus so much on these skills. Eventually if they are not focussed on and taught they will be lost.

The example is very good and should be simple to understand.

It's simple, but that's it's only merit. Simple but highly flawed.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

BALTIMORA wrote:

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:Greatest, not best ever.

What's the difference?

I'll go back to my old comparison

Isaac Newton is widely regarded as the greatest Physicist who ever lived.

If you were to get him in a time machine and bring him to today he wouldn't be in the top 10 000 'best' physicists on the planet.

Utterly irrelevant. His brain may be just as capable as that of his modern equivalent. What he lacks is the benefit of centuries of accumulated knowledge. That's how we've managed to progress as a species (for the most part). We remember, we archive and we share information-knowledge. Your comparison is moot, to be polite.

rowley wrote:Take the greatest person on the planet today with a lance back a few 100 years and he won't be in the top 10,000. Skills only improve with participation and necessity. As fighters have fought less frequently against less tough opposition the need for defensive skills and avoidance of cuts has waned.

Necessity is the mother of invention, if you fight every fortnight you can't afford to get cut so you learn and perfect the skills that will avoid such things. Fight every six month it doesn't matter so much so you won't focus so much on these skills. Eventually if they are not focussed on and taught they will be lost.

I see what your saying. Floyd Mayweather should take a long hard look at Peter Buckleys career if he wants to improve.

The top fighters stopped fighting so regularly because they knew they would perform better with recuperation time between fights and long hard training camps leading to the next fight. They didn't all decide to just take it easy all of a sudden.

I'll try and keep this boxing related but I struggle to see with my own eyes what modern boxers do so much better than their old time counter parts. I can watch old timers and see them do things which to my mind are not done as well nowadays. A few examples are blocking shots with elbows, and utilising superior upper body movement to name but two.

Can someone who genuinely believes the modern era offer something tangible in the ring the modern guys do better beyond "they're bigger, fitter, stronger or other such intangible unmeasurable factors.

What he lacks is the benefit of centuries of accumulated knowledge

And what the old fighters would lack is the decades of accumulated knowledge modern fighters have.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

rowley wrote:Take the greatest person on the planet today with a lance back a few 100 years and he won't be in the top 10,000. Skills only improve with participation and necessity. As fighters have fought less frequently against less tough opposition the need for defensive skills and avoidance of cuts has waned.

Necessity is the mother of invention, if you fight every fortnight you can't afford to get cut so you learn and perfect the skills that will avoid such things. Fight every six month it doesn't matter so much so you won't focus so much on these skills. Eventually if they are not focussed on and taught they will be lost.

I see what your saying. Floyd Mayweather should take a long hard look at Peter Buckleys career if he wants to improve.

The top fighters stopped fighting so regularly because they knew they would perform better with recuperation time between fights and long hard training camps leading to the next fight. They didn't all decide to just take it easy all of a sudden.

Buckley is actually remarkably good at what he does which is basically a professional opponent, but that is by the by. Are you trying to tell me that you don't improve by actually doing something competitively rather than solely training? Is Hopkins still a competitive fighter at 46 because he has found a way to reverse the ageing process or because he has 40 fights worth of experience to draw on. If it's the former does pose the question how good he would be with that experience in a 26 year old body.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

What he lacks is the benefit of centuries of accumulated knowledge

And what the old fighters would lack is the decades of accumulated knowledge modern fighters have.

No, instead they just fought five to ten times as many fights. Shot your own argument in the foot there.

Jukebox Timebomb wrote:

What he lacks is the benefit of centuries of accumulated knowledge

And what the old fighters would lack is the decades of accumulated knowledge modern fighters have.

Like Valuev has, for example.

The top fighters stopped fighting so regularly because they knew they would perform better with recuperation time between fights and long hard training camps leading to the next fight.
________________________________________________________

Nothing to do with the advent of PPV meaning they could earn countless millions from only fighting twice a year then?

Today's lightheavies are much better than Jones, then.

Put it this way,

Isaac Newton..........................