Arguably the greatest conditioned heavyweight of all time, 49-0 (43), is either dismissed by some as an overrated fighter in a poor era or he's considered by some as an invincible fighting machine regardless of era.
Regardless of which side of the equation you're on, or somewhere in-between, Marciano is the stuff that legends are made from that's deserving of our respects.
I'd say, he was in a good era. Walcott, Charles and Moore aren't some nonames. Some say, Walcott was old, but he was such type of fighter, who emerges late. Charles and Moore still had it also. Maybe Rocky wasn't too advanced technically, but he was certainly gifted in the sense of offensive abilities and power. Especially considering his size, which was small even for his times. He effectively haunted and mauled down his opponents.
DrDuke wrote: ↑01 Sep 2018, 18:13
I'd say, he was in a good era. Walcott, Charles and Moore aren't some nonames. Some say, Walcott was old, but he was such type of fighter, who emerges late. Charles and Moore still had it also. Maybe Rocky wasn't too advanced technically, but he was certainly gifted in the sense of offensive abilities and power. Especially considering his size, which was small even for his times. He effectively haunted and mauled down his opponents.
Yeah Walcott was a guy that peaked later than most fighters do because he just developed his craft more, and became a more skillful operator.
Not unlike a Bernard Hopkins who peaked when most fighters are starting to slide due to all the tricks of the trade he picked up along the way.
I think, in a way, he made people greater than they already were. Ezzard Charles was (and still is) one of the greatest fighters that ever lived, but I'd argue that the greatest match he was apart of was his fifteen round war with Marciano. Charles fought the hardest he ever did, and it is one of the best fights ever. That's saying something considering how amazing his career was.
Same with Jersey Joe Walcott. For twelve rounds he was fighting the greatest performance of his career. Walcott may have been robbed against Louis, but he was definitely masterclass when he fought Marciano, until the 13th round and "the greatest knockout of all time" took place.
Marciano had a way of making guys go above and beyond the call of duty, to perform at a higher level than usual, because quite frankly you couldn't slouch for one moment with this human buzzsaw coming right at you non-stop. Alot of the time, this was their undoing because as great as they were, they'd tire out whereas Marciano didn't.
I find rocky hard to rate. Casting a cold eye on his career it looks like he beat older fighters and also that he was in the last era before all the larger heavys started to appear (Liston, Ali etc). He only made a handful of defences then retired.
Common sense would dictate that he'd have struggled with big heavys especially as he used to get cut often. I think overall he cannot be classed with the top tier of heavys as his record isn't anywhere near others when it comes to longevity or quality of wins but.....I'd think that apart from the super heavys that would be just too big for him, in a one off fight a peak Marciano with his will to win, power and stamina could beat pretty much anyone.
In hypothetical matches, I keep in mind that circumstances and conditions are equally important in determining outcomes. You bring up Ali for example.
Based on size differentials alone, it's in Ali's favor, but then again EVERYONE of Marciano's opponent's was either taller or heavier than he was. So would it have been a problem? Marciano's ability to get inside is drastically underrated. Besides, is 6'3" vs 5'11" really that enormous of an obstacle? No. Now had Ali been someone like the Klitschko brothers standing 6'7", then we have a problem. Size, depending on style, can either be a benefit or a hindrance.
Based on skills alone, it's in Ali's favor, but once again EVERYONE of Marciano's opponent's were better tacticians and had higher ring IQs than he ever had. So would it have been a problem? 49 superior boxers than him fell victim to his relentlessness and crushing power.
Based on speed, it's definitely in Ali's favor because very few men in Heavyweight history matched the kind of hand speed or foot speed as Ali. But Ezzard Charles was fast, as was Jersey Joe Walcott. Sure Ali's faster, but by how much? Maybe 10-20% faster. If Marciano could win 9 rounds plus in 15 against Charles, then he could for all intents and purposes pull off a draw or split decision against Ali based on speed (the work rate and relentless punching would perpetually have Ali on the defensive, the jab accounting for most of his output).
All things considered, though, if it's the Ali of the mid-late 60s then Marciano's best chance relies on the conditions. If the ring is 24x24 solely benefiting Ali, then Marciano is going to be on a perpetual wild goose chase because Ali has all the room in the world to run and hide.
If the ring is smaller, much like the 1969 "Superfight" ring which had to of been 16x16, then it's Ali who is forced to run, run, run seldom throwing anything back because Marciano is firing on all cylinders and scoring quite often. It's more of a survival mission for Ali than anything else because you're more or less in a glorified phone booth with the greatest brawler in history.
So, where's the middle ground, to have no excuses? Rings (historically) come in various sizes, the largest can be 30x30 and the smallest can be 12x12. For an Ali-Marciano fight, 18x18-20x20 is perfect.
Ali always said, "Marciano was greater than Frazier & you saw what he done to me," so this definitely would be a solid fight and not some one-sided affair.
Frazier was better, than Rocky, he was a kinda advanced version of Rocky, more mobile, faster and sharper. But still Rocky could deliver a punch despite all his drawbacks. And it's a question, who had a bigger power, Joe or Rocky. Anyway Ali got caught by the ones, who were slower and less powerful, than those two. Marciano's chances to catch Ali were pretty high. If Ali managed to avoid Rocky's punches, he would have taken a decision. If Rocky landed some clean shots, he would have either spoiled all Ali's game or just knocked him out.
I don't see how Frazier was allegedly better than Marciano. Frazier had less of a work rate than Marciano, and his best wins (minus Ali in the FOTC) don't stand out to me as anything spectacular. I have to assume people believe this only because he happened to be in the 1970s, and because people automatically assume that all heavyweights in the 1970s were therefore better than guys in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 80s, 90s, etc.
Frazier, before the FOTC, had alot of trouble with the inconsistent Oscar Bonavena. Frazier before the FOTC, fought alot of stiffs (Ron Stander, for example) and some of his wins against names were obviously not meaningful in retrospect (Bob Foster, for example).
His best wins, arguably, were against the shopworn George Chuvalo, the battle scarred Jerry Quarry, the "hot & cold" Buster Mathis, and Jimmy Ellis who for all intents and purposes was not great either as he had five losses prior to meeting Frazier (which should have been six as he was gifted a win over Floyd Patterson) and his best win up to that point was a Jerry Quarry who literally fought with a broken back.
These things, ultimately, mean something in the long run. Frazier was as tough as they came, and hit hard, and worked harder. But his resume is checkered with wins over average at best men.
Frazier was faster and more elusive in the offence. He had a bit more of a class. His win of then unbeaten Ali was bigger, than any of Marciano's wins.
Frazier had troubles with Bonavena, but he won him twice fair and square. And Bonavena was a really tough guy, a better, than some Rocky's title defence victims. And Quarry was even better, he actualy was the 6th after Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton and Young, that's a damn good status.
Marciano himself had arguable moments too, cause everyone had them. They both were great for sure, but Smokin' Joe was better.
Frazier best wins were against Ali, Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, Mathis, Bugner
Marciano's best was Walcott, Charles, Moore, La Starza, and Layne.
(You do have gray areas regarding how good Charles was at the time Marciano beat him and how good was Ellis at the time Frazier beat him the first time.)
If you go man for man, Frazier's list is more impressive.
Obviously Frazier lost four times and Marciano didn't. However Frazier's losses who to fighters well above anyone Marciano beat. The third fight with Ali was more impressive than any of Marciano's wins.
You could argue that Frazier losses to Foreman were so bad that they have to count against him.
It's blasphemous for me to say, but, in all honesty I don't see how Quarry or Ellis or Mathis or Bugner or Bonavena overall were so special.
Were they really that much better than contenders in other eras? So much is said about the 70s that I think people blindly assume that it was the best era ever. Outside of Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton.... Can you really say that it stood out in such a way?
For the life of me I can't see Wepner, Stander, Coopman, Evangelista, and other world title challengers of the 70s honestly beating guys like Ray Mercer, Willie Meehan, Harry Wills, Sam Langford, etc etc etc.
I dare say, I can't see alot of them (even the damn good ones) beating the Joe Louis who came back in the 50s. Or the light heavyweight turn heavyweight king Ezzard Charles, or Jersey Joe Walcott.
Maybe Shavers could. Maybe Lyle could. Maybe Young could. But then again those men also had losses to men not named Muhammad Ali.
Quarry, today, is almost elevated to something mythical. I've seen countless times people argue a defense for him being in the HOF. But was he really that damn good? Losses abound whenever the man stepped up.
Wow, where to start.
Quarry or Ellis or Mathis or Bugner or Bonavena overall were so special. They were simply very good fighters.
I can really say that the 1970s was the best era for heavyweights. Of course you want to take out four of the best guys. That's pretty stupid.
Take out Marciano, Charles, Moore Walcott, how good was the early 1950s? Light years worse than the early 1970s
Nobody said that Wepner, Stander, Coopman, Evangelista, were that good. They were nowhere near the best of their era. You can come up with terrible fighters of any era.
Yes, I would pick many fighters of the 1970s to beat that version of Joe Louis.
I think it's a gross error. Primarily because the 70s was THE era of primetime television in color and greater High-Definition, etc. so in people's minds automatically they believe the people were "light years" better than every other era.
Its a psychological trick of the brain.
Take out the top 10-15 from any era... And the rest of the field is absolutely comparable to any other era no matter how far back or how far forward. So what are we really arguing here?
Take away the top five from any era, and you'll see the virtually all eras are virtually identical to earlier and later eras. So again, what are we arguing here?
The argument, then, is the top five-ten of every era that's ever been. Let's face facts, that's when we're splitting hairs so astronomically thin that it's mere opinion and conjecture whatever conclusion you want to make.
The top five of the 90s? Holyfield, Tyson, Bowe, Lewis, and arguably Mercer. The top five of the 60s? Liston, Patterson, Clay, Machen and Johansson. Not much difference. You can easily argue that 3 out of 5 in the earlier era could either beat or draw the later era.
The top five of the 50s? Marciano, Charles, Walcott, Moore, and arguably Satterfield. The top five of the 40s? Louis and Conn for sure, but outside of those two the 1940s was pretty damn thinned out (much like the 80s). The 50s, then, trumps the WW2 era because even if we extended the 40s into the 30s I can't see any heavyweight really beating Charles, Walcott, Marciano or Moore in a series. Louis is the only obstacle and he was not invincible.
So what of the 70s? Ali who was slower than his 60s incarnation. Frazier who was effectively done by 1975, and outside of the FOTC either struggled or fought relative nobodies. Foreman who outside of his power was one dimensional. Norton who could be out fought as well as out boxed and refused to meet Frazier. How about Jimmy Young? Inconsistent as hell.
Yet this is the best era of all time? Yet you want to defend guys like Ellis who either was gifted victories or fought SCRUBS or damaged fighters or old men?
As usual you are going on about weird tangents instead of being concise and talk about what we have been talking about..
It's more than a psychological trick of the brain in which we tell the heavyweight division of the 1970s (especially the early 1970s) was the best eras for heavyweights. Some of us can tell that it if fighter might be better whether he fought in the black and white era or not. And guess what, there is was been color in the 1980s to now as well.
Don't know why you are asking if take the top 15 out whether or not each era is much different. Nobody was saying anything about that.
But no, if you take out the top 5, there is sometimes a big difference between two eras.
As for the early 1950s compared to the early 1970s take them man for man.
#1 of early 1970s (Ali) was better than #1 of early 1950s (Marciano)
#2 of early 1970s (Foreman) was better than #2 early 1950s (Walcott)
#3 of early 1970s (Frazier) was better than #3 of early 1950s (Charles)
#4 of early 1970s (Norton) was better than #4 of early 1950s (Moore)
#5 of early 1970s (Quarry) was better than #5 of early 1950s (Satterfield)
I don't see how any reasonable or knowledgeable boxing fan would argue with any of these 5 statements.
Frazier better overall than Charles? In a p4p sense that's nonsense. Head to Head, it's more than a certainty that Charles was far away better than Foster. Considering he went 15 rounds with a prime Marciano when he was slipping, I could argue that the prime heavyweight Charles potentially could have outboxed Frazier over fifteen rounds. If he is an underdog, I'd argue he's a live underdog.
P4P Moore was better than Norton. Head to Head, I think it'd of been competitive. Norton most likely wins, but then again, Archie had 80+ fights as a Heavyweight and many were damn solid wins over solid opposition. He'd of been competitive.
Foreman... If Ali isnt an indicator, then Young was... Wizard that Walcott was, and was equally tough... I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled an upset off against Foreman considering Walcott beat alot of rugged, big punchers.
Quarry could be inconsistent. Quarry could be both outboxed and outslugged. Satterfield was dangerous to anyone in history for five rounds. Anyone who survived, almost always beat him. Quarry was prone to cuts. It's a gamble of a fight in my view. If Chuvalo could knock him out... It's plausible... Again another toss up.
So we finally come down to Ali & Marciano... It depends on conditions as well as time frame... But it's one of those things where I think both men would bring out a greater greatness in both men... If Marciano is facing the Ali of 1970-1972, I go with Marciano if the ring is 20x20... If it's the Ali of 1973-1975, I possibly go with Ali... 1976-1979, it's all Marciano regardless of conditions (ring size).
We aren't talking pound for pound. That is you going off on on an irrelevant tangent again. We are talking about heavyweights. Charles and Moore pound for pound greatness doesn't count.
Charles was clearly not at the same level as a heavyweight as Frazier.
Walcott clearly wasn't as good Foreman.
Morre clearly wasn't as good of a heavyweight as Norton.
Quarry was inconsistent? What in the world was flippin Bob Satterfield?
This isn't brain surgery. These aren't tough calls to make.
Were Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton, Quarry perfect? Of course not. However, they were better than the heavyweights of the early 1950s or any other time period.
I disagree. I just don't see Norton or Frazier as being "great". They were damned good or near great, but not great. I don't see the first or second incarnation of Foreman as being great either; he's great collectively but not individually. Quarry? Mathis? Young? Shavers? Damned good, but not near great or great.
There's fine lines here, and we can't just throw a whole era into the all-time great category because it's just not the truth.
First of all, you don't see Joe Frazier or the first "incarnation of George Foreman as being great? Could you be any more ridiculous?
Didn't say Quarry Mathis Young Shavers were great.
Just comparing the fighters man for man (#1 vs 3!, #2 vs #2, etc.) against the early 1950s to show that the early 1970s was clearly better. There really aren't any fine lines in these cases. They are all pretty clear cut.
I suspect you would find numerous older boxing fans who would vehemently argue that Ezzard Charles is better than Frazier. Thats a matchup that would heavily break down by generation sort of like Muhammad Ali vs Joe Louis.
Have never,, ever heard of or seen anyone rate Charles as a better heavyweight than Frazier.
Do we really have to debate something like this?
Marciano being the best of his era doesn't make him better than Joe Frazier. James Jeffries was the best of his era. Doesn't make him better than Frazier.
Many older boxing fans rated Jeffries as the greatest heavyweight of all time. As recently as the 50s it was common for him to be rated number 1 or number 2 all time. I think he should be rated ahead of Frazier but his resume lacks depth so its close. Drawing the color line also obviously hurts his ranking.
As far as Ezzard Charles goes if someone was rating him ahead of Louis or Ali that would be ridiculous but I think we can make a reasonable case for putting him ahead of Frazier based on resume depth. The difference is Charles fought on long past his prime and tarnished his legacy by losing to all sorts of journeyman types whereas Frazier retired closer to his prime and didn't suffer a series of humiliating losses to guys he would have dominated in his prime.
I don't think it was common for Jeffries to be rated #1 or #2 highly by the 1950s. Most would have had Johnson, Dempsey, and Louis ahead of him.
Not trying to rip Jeffries here.
I am just saying that your notion that Marciano was #1 in his era and Frazier was not in his era that Marciano is somehow better is absurd.
Charles didn't have better "resume depth" than Joe Frazier? huh?
Take away the Walcott wins (which isn't as good as the Ali win) and what is next at heavyweight? Anyone decent that wasn't ready for the retirement home? After Ali, Frazier still has Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena, Bugner etc. Not even close.
That's assuming that the Ali of the 70s was better than the 60s version. That's assuming that Bonavena, Quarry, Mathis, Ellis, actually were "that damn good", and I don't think either premise is correct.
Arguably the greatest conditioned heavyweight of all time, 49-0 (43), is either dismissed by some as an overrated fighter in a poor era or he's considered by some as an invincible fighting machine regardless of era.