jack johnson vs rocky marciano

[GhostofDempsey]

Neither Walcott nor Charles rates with Johnson. Historically many experts stated Johnson was the greatest. Johnson was rated top 3 for many decades by most.

No expert worth his salt has ever stated the same concerning Walcott or Charles.

Marciano gives Ali or Holmes hell but is completely shut down vs Johnson. Johnson’s greatness was his defensive ability inside and when he wanted he had a great destructive jab and movement at distance. However vs Marciano Johnson would step inside within the first 30 seconds of round one and dominate from there. In the end Marciano is cut to ribbons and Johnson unmarked as he wins over 15. The most frustrating night of Marcianos career.

Watching film on each of them I assess Rocky’s ability to defeat Johnson rather easily. Walcott and Charles were light years ahead of Johnson in skill and quality of opposition. You are basking in some sentimental fantasy if you believe anything you just wrote.

[billeau2]

Marciano batters that fool. I'm a huge JJ fan but Rocky's using techniques and power he's not ready for. People don't really respect Roland LaStarza these days and that's kind of sad because even though it he didn't live up the the hype around him there was good reason many, many, people believed in LaStarza. No one before him employs the ropes like he did. He was a pioneer of Ali's most famous technique. Roland's addition to the game is absorbing punishment with the ropes to mitigate damage. It was brilliant and in Ali's hands it was proven. According to Bill Libby, Marciano broke Rolands arms anyway. It's not that his defense wasn't good enough, it was, Marciano destroyed his body. This isn't Tommy Burns or Sam Langford. You don't simply block and clinch The Rock. He's going to break you for it. Archie Moore complained about being able to keep his arms up. Charles got battered into oblivion. Walcott got his best move cut off and slept for the attempt. I don't think JJ fairs any better. I love the chopping guard. I love the reaching and grabbing and bulling around the ring, there's plenty Johnson does that made him a great bully, but Marciano is the better bully.

Something like 25 of Marciano's 49 opponents retired from the sport five fights or less after facing Marciano. Some crush cans, The Rock crushes souls

Im going to quote...You, permit me to paraphrase: "Marciano was one in seven generations, truly a unique figure to come along." If this is off please feel free to respond, but the gist of what I learned from your farsighted look into so many historical figures, was that Marciano was more than a product of his times...

As good as JJ was, he fought in a manner fitting to preclassical form. His punches were designed to maximize connection, while the gloves allowed less area between the fist, glove and target...he employed an aresenal that took advantage of distance, the grapple, and quick footwork in the gap...

Marciano could fight in any era and distinguish himself. Glove size, technical differences, mattered little. Marciano's way was like his will and was timeless. Bigger gloves might slow him down a bit... but his clubbing blows would not ultimately be affected.

I don't even know who would win this fight... But its worth noting... "whoa to them that bet against Marciano!"

[HOUDINI563]

Not a question of believing. It’s a question of knowing what you are talking about. Experts felt Johnson was among the very best if not the best. Experts never rated either Walcott or Charles at Johnson level.

Johnson had the ability and style to nullify what Marciano brought to the table. Walcott and Charles although excellent fighters lacked the inside game that distinguished Johnson. That inside game would make for a long night for Rocky.

I rated both fighters in my top ten.

[Dr. Z]

Not a question of believing. It’s a question of knowing what you are talking about. Experts felt Johnson was among the very best if not the best. Experts never rated either Walcott or Charles at Johnson level.

Johnson had the ability and style to nullify what Marciano brought to the table. Walcott and Charles although excellent fighters lacked the inside game that distinguished Johnson. That inside game would make for a long night for Rocky.

I rated both fighters in my top ten.

Rocky was a good inside fighter too, with solid body work and can be just as dirty if held or needed.

Film shows Walcott had better movement than Johnson, and Charles better skills. Charles by the way had inside skills, and Walcott a short hook.

Clinching a 155 pound Ketchel ( his real weight for the fight ) a rather unskilled 5'9" Flynn, or 5'7 168 pound Burns doesn't impress me, nor does it mean he could do the same to Rocky Marciano. In fact Johnson clinching game was all but gone vs Moran, a run in the mill " white hope" type and was abandoned vs Willard. See the films.

If Joe Choysnki could KO Johnson cold in there, GunBoat Smith can knock him silly in an exhibition ,match in 1909, and Marvin Hart could out work him what's Rocky Marciano going to do to him. A fair question.

I think both Charles and Walcott are better than ANYONE in their prime or close to their prime Johnson beat. If you disagree please produce names.

[Dr. Z]

Watching film on each of them I assess Rocky’s ability to defeat Johnson rather easily. Walcott and Charles were light years ahead of Johnson in skill and quality of opposition. You are basking in some sentimental fantasy if you believe anything you just wrote.

Same here. As for his post that experts don't rate Charles, I took this from Wiki:




In 2002, Charles was ranked #13 on The Ring magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years.

In 2006, Ezzard Charles was named the 11th greatest fighter of all time by the IBRO (International Boxing Research Organisation).[11]

The "Cincinnati Cobra" was a master boxer of extraordinary skill and ability. He had speed, agility, fast hands and excellent footwork. Charles possessed a masterful jab and was a superb combination puncher. He was at his peak as a light-heavyweight. His record is quite impressive. Against top rate opposition like Archie Moore, Charley Burley, Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, and Joey Maxim he was an impressive 16-2 combined.

Despite being a natural light-heavy he won the heavyweight title and made 9 successful title defenses. Nearly 25% of voters had Charles in the top 10. Half of the voters had him in the top 15. Two thirds of voters had him inside the top 20.

In 2007, ESPN online ranks Ezzard Charles as the 27th greatest boxer of all time, ahead of such notable fighters as Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes and Jake LaMotta.[12]

In 2009, Boxing magazine listed Ezzard Charles as the greatest Light Heavyweight fighter ever, ahead of the likes of Archie Moore, Bob Foster, Michael Spinks and Gene Tunney.[13]

Prominent boxing historian Bert Sugar listed Charles as the seventh greatest Heavyweight of all time.

Need I say more? Johnson best wins came at 200 rounds or below. A few pounds south of where Charles fought.

[HOUDINI563]

Neither Charles or Walcott had the inside game of Johnson. That inside game was designed to nullify a swarmers offense.

Any elevation of Charles or Walcott is revisionist. No one rated them at Johnson’s level or as elite ATG heavyweights during their time or near their time. Johnson was considered an elite heavyweight as champion and after. Very incomparable.

[travestyny]

In 2007, ESPN online ranks Ezzard Charles as the 27th greatest boxer of all time, ahead of such notable fighters as Mike Tyson, Larry Holmes and Jake LaMotta.[12]

Guess who is ranked #8 on this list.

[Marchegiano]

LaStarza was not Jack Johnson. Johnson was an elite ATG heavyweight champion. His skill set would dominate Marcianos skill set. Johnson’s skill set was designed to overcome strong infighting swarmers. Marciano would land very few clean blows over the 15 round distance.

JJ doesn't have special bones.

[Marchegiano]

Neither Charles or Walcott had the inside game of Johnson. That inside game was designed to nullify a swarmers offense.

Any elevation of Charles or Walcott is revisionist. No one rated them at Johnson’s level or as elite ATG heavyweights during their time or near their time. Johnson was considered an elite heavyweight as champion and after. Very incomparable.

Mike Paul

4 Marciano
13 Johnson
16 Charles

Apparently they rate them close to Johnson than Johnson is to Marciano though.

[HOUDINI563]

No one knows anything about Johnson’s bones. What we do know was that his style was designed to nullify a swarmers offense. He would step inside quickly and relish the opportunity.