Rocky Marciano: Could he have beaten anybody?

[observer1]

Agree. Why some guys like Frazier get singled out out and ripped for close calls against good opponents early in their career, and most others don't, is silly.
Foreman somehow gets ripped for the Peralta fight from time to time.

Why is it that Marciano's dubious decision over journeyman Ted Lowry always gets swept under the rug?
You could just as easily say something like "If Marciano has that much trouble with Ted Lowry, he couldn't beat Frazier, Dempsey, Johnson" (or whoever.)

well said.

[Ezzard]

Unless you invoke the "Marciano could never be KO'd" rule of internet debate then I don't see what arguments can be made.

[hoodsyeahright]

Going back to the original post, I cannot personally see Rocky defeating any of these fighters except Jack Dempsey.

[overhand_right]

People who try knock a 10 fight novice Frazier for his tough fight with Bonavena seem to forget / never actually knew in the first place that Frazier totally shut him out over 15 rds in their actual world title fight.

[Ambling Alp]

Ambling Amp,

As you may (or may not) know... "Tiger" Ted Lowry was a survival specialist... He prided himself on the fact that he almost NEVER got KO'd... Usually he would just lose on points.

Some fights Lowry never even FOUGHT... He punched then ran... and ran... and ran... and clinched... adn scraped.... and held on.

However against Marciano, many people thought Lowry deserved the decision in the first fight. He must have done something more (atleast in that fight) than just survive.

[Crease]

Evidence of this....

Methinks this is just another attempt to discredit Marciano.

[Ambling Alp]

You may want to read the book "Rock of His Times", a biography of Marciano by Russell Sullivan. It came out a few years ago.

The author is very pro-Marciano and puts him in a positive light. However, to his credit, he didn't sugarcoat everything.

He goes into some detail about the first Marciano-Lowry fight and says that most people at the fight thought that Lowry should have got the decision. He mentions some specific opinions.

To me, if Marciano had an official loss to Lowry (at that stage of his career) it would do little to hurt how I rate him. Marciano was on his way up and wasn't yet the fighter that he would be. If the fight would have happened later in Marciano's career that would be a different story.

Of course people obesessed with his undefeated record would probably rate him much lower if he was "only" 48-1, even if the fight was early in his career. Those people simply don't understand some important factors in boxing that well.
When rating fighters you shouldn't just look at their Win/Loss record. It's not like everyone fights the same opponents or fight at the same stage of their careers.

The only reason I bring up the Lowry fight is because we were talking about Frazier almost losing to Bonavena. Frazier was also very early in his career and wasn't the fighter that he would become. It's even more unfair to criticize Frazier than Marciano because Bonavena was a much better fighter than Lowry.

[Ezzard]

When I watch boxing these days the American commentators talk a lot about unbeaten fighters 'not knowing how to lose...' It's overrated IMO.

I feel that it's easier to tell if a fighter is great when he's lost and I can see how he responds to defeat.

To be fair Rocky did turn losing situations into wins and that says a lot about the man's character.