Why Rocky Maricano is top 3 Heavyweight of all time

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jul 2006, 17:16

pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: - he won every round of the charles rematch knocking him down 3 times
Charles was way, way beyond his prime.

- marciano DOMINATED archie moore winning nearly every round and knocking him down 5 times in the process
...... and Moore was a goddamn blown-up light-heavyweight. A great blown-up light-heavyweight, but a blown-up light-heavyweight.

As for Walcott, Walcott was of course old but he fought great in their first bout - and he was winning clearly until Susie Q saved the day for Rocky.

Don't get me wrong, these are no poor wins. But they don't make you an Ali or a Louis.

Cheers, P

PS: I suggest we continue only if one of us comes up with something really new.

how was he way way beyond his prime?? since losing the title in 1951, he had beaten every contender he faced besides valdes. (harold johnson and rex layne losses were ROBBERIES). the valdes loss was a case of charles showing up out of shape and overconfident not to mention valdes is a very good fighter.

plus charles had recentley fought one of the best fights of his career 3 months earlier losing a close 15 fight with marciano.

you can argue that charles was ruined from the first marciano fight, and didnt have enough time to recover and u can argue he showed up overweight for the marciano rematch, but he was not well beyond his prime.

he was past his prime for sure, but not well beyond it. not like louis was in 51 vs marciano . charles was still a great fighter when he fought marciano.

charles POST 1954 was well beyond his prime, in fact more than that. the marciano fights ruined charles

ill hold it that the charles of the first marciano fight was as good as any opponent joe louis beat during his title reign

...... and Moore was a goddamn blown-up light-heavyweight. A great blown-up light-heavyweight, but a blown-up light-heavyweight.

well this "godaamm" blown up light-H was tearing up the best contenders in the heavyweight divisiomn.

check it out who moore was beating in the heavyweight division leading up to the marciano fight.........

6'3 215lb nino valdes 2x - # 1 ranked
6'2 215lb bob baker - # 2 ranked
clarence henry- # 3 ranked hall of famer
harold johnson - hall of famer light-h/top heavy contender

moore esentially in a 3 year span 1953-55 beat 4 top heavyweight contenders. with ezzard charles ruined from the marciano fights, moore now was clearly the best heavyweight challenger in the division.

and these guys moore was dominating, they were all very good heavyweights. i rate moore top 35 heavyweights of all time and he deserves it. moore was one of the best heavyweight contenders never to win a title. had patterson not been around, moore would have been the next heavyweight champ and reigned till sonny liston came in 58. dont forget marciano dominated moore. only ATG heavyweights marciano, patterson, ali was able to beat moore. and the only heavyweight to beat moore close to his 185lb heavyweight prime was rocky marciano.

the fact he dominated a very good all time heavyweight contender like archie moore only further exemplifies marcianos greatness. marciano dominating moore is like larry holmes dominating a tim witherspoon

i might add moore was not a blown up light-h. he was a huge light-H who had trouble making the weight. his natural weight was over 200lb. moore fighting at 185lb like he did vs marciano was not blown up at all, moore was in excellent shape at 185lb.

pundit, was tunney a blown up light-H vs dempsey? if not, then neither was moore than marciano.

- moore was also better than tunney!

moore going into the marciano fight was 45-1 in his last 46 fights.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 04 Jul 2006, 17:27

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:- moore was also better than tunney!

Moore was not better than Tunney - Tunney owned 175 in the early 1920s (i.e., in his active career), was considered untouchable, beat several HOFers in the process - while Moore was second to Charles. Moreoever, Moore went back down to l-h after his failed title shots, while Tunney moved up to heavyweight and never looked back. Thus he was not blown-up indeed, instead he made a clean transition.

But we've been through all this, I see no points repeating arguments for 3rd or 4th time.

Tell me though: do YOU believe the Walcott, Charles and Moore wins put Marciano in Ali's and Louis' league? This is all I am contesting. An all-time #1 ranking for Marciano doesn't make sense.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jul 2006, 17:35

of course marciano isnt # 1 all time, i never said that. i rate him 5th all time.

moore would have beat tunney

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 04 Jul 2006, 17:39

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:moore would have beat tunney

Hmmmm

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 04 Jul 2006, 18:08

I believe Joe Louis' statement when he said that even at his best he couldn't have stopped Marciano, and would lose....I put that quote right up there with Jim Jefferies quote that "even at my best I could never reach Johnson...no I couldn't reach him in a thousand years."

It takes the fighters who fought those men, to accurately judge a perfect picture.

I look at it this way, Louis faced Schmeling, Carnera, Baer, Walcott, Charles, and a long laundry list of other 'could have been's' and of course "bums of the month"---Louis for years stated that Schmeling was his hardest opponent, as did Schmeling say the same thing for Louis.

But when he faced Marciano, his opinion changed. You have to figure, for Louis being passed his best he was in line for a title shot and beat some really good fighters, faced all these ATG's and HOF's...but in the end said Marciano was the only one he could have not beaten....is saying something.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 04 Jul 2006, 19:54

IrishRufusMurphy wrote:I believe Joe Louis' statement when he said that even at his best he couldn't have stopped Marciano, and would lose....I put that quote right up there with Jim Jefferies quote that "even at my best I could never reach Johnson...no I couldn't reach him in a thousand years."

I know of the Jeffries quote, but the Louis quite is news to me.

I look at it this way, Louis faced Schmeling, Carnera, Baer, Walcott, Charles, and a long laundry list of other 'could have been's' and of course "bums of the month"---Louis for years stated that Schmeling was his hardest opponent, as did Schmeling say the same thing for Louis.

But when he faced Marciano, his opinion changed.

News to me too.

As far as I know he said Marciano hit harder than Schmeling, but this is all. And boxing consists of a lot more than hitting hard.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jul 2006, 19:57

In the May, 1990 issue of Boxing Illustrated, Joe Louis was quoted as saying, "very few people knew this, but I had a weakness, a bad weakness. I didn't like to be crowded. And that was Marciano's thing. He always crowded. I knew I could never beat Rocky."

there thats ur quote, as u see joe louis said he would never beat rocky.

i disagree with joe, i still think joe louis in his prime would kayo rocky.

the film of louis-marciano also revealed to me certain things louis could have done to marciano but he was too far gone to capitalize.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 04 Jul 2006, 21:14

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:In the May, 1990 issue of Boxing Illustrated, Joe Louis was quoted as saying, "very few people knew this, but I had a weakness, a bad weakness. I didn't like to be crowded. And that was Marciano's thing. He always crowded. I knew I could never beat Rocky."

there thats ur quote, as u see joe louis said he would never beat rocky.

i disagree with joe, i still think joe louis in his prime would kayo rocky.

the film of louis-marciano also revealed to me certain things louis could have done to marciano but he was too far gone to capitalize.

Thanks.

I agree with you though - prime Louis would have been too much for Marciano.
P

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 05 Jul 2006, 00:50

...the louis quote was printed as stated. however, at other times he said he would have had a hard time with marciano, but felt he could have kept him from charging by using his left jab. he also admitted marciano's punches were "impossible to shake off......but when i fought smellin' i was able to shake his off for a while....but i was a lot younger then."

ezzard charles told me...not via a magazine quote ...but said to me...as we sat a few feet apart ..that marciano was not the hardest hittter he ever faced....but "he was the strongest fighter he was ever in against.

look...no one is saying marciano couldn't hit..and hit hard.

but....there is one devastating kayo artist whom joe louis was never hit by....and that was....tah dah....JOE LOUIS!!!!!....so he couldn't compare his own punches to anybody else's.

rocky was tough....but he was nowhere near the top three....or top five..or top....well....i shall stop there.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Jul 2006, 04:11

Jaclem wrote:...the louis quote was printed as stated. however, at other times he said he would have had a hard time with marciano, but felt he could have kept him from charging by using his left jab. he also admitted marciano's punches were "impossible to shake off......but when i fought smellin' i was able to shake his off for a while....but i was a lot younger then."

ezzard charles told me...not via a magazine quote ...but said to me...as we sat a few feet apart ..that marciano was not the hardest hittter he ever faced....but "he was the strongest fighter he was ever in against.

look...no one is saying marciano couldn't hit..and hit hard.

but....there is one devastating kayo artist whom joe louis was never hit by....and that was....tah dah....JOE LOUIS!!!!!....so he couldn't compare his own punches to anybody else's.

rocky was tough....but he was nowhere near the top three....or top five..or top....well....i shall stop there.

Solid Gold!!!!!

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 05 Jul 2006, 04:19

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
ill hold it that the charles of the first marciano fight was as good as any opponent joe louis beat during his title reign

I think this is a very good point, and one rarely mentioned. Charles was past his prime in that fight but managed to put it all together for one last time. Marciano deserves a lot of credit for winning that fight.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 05 Jul 2006, 23:08

Brockton, from memory I thought you rated Marciano 5th of all time, which is the same as I do.

My top 10
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Holmes
4. Foreman
5. Marciano
6. Frazier
7. Lewis
8. Johnson
9. Dempsey
10. Liston

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 06 Jul 2006, 08:00

HA HA HA HA HA.... Here we go....

IrishRufusMurphy said,
“Marciano could have did more, but really, what else was out there?"

Very little, alright lets look at the other fighters toward the end of Marciano's reign:

NINO VALDES, (Okay a decent cuban fighter, not nearly in the same league as Marciano though)...
BOB BAKER, (Who beat John Holman on a title-elminator, but lost twice to Tommy "Hurricane" Jackson, The Rock would've KO'd him, BIG TIME)...
BOB SATTERFIELD, (Satterfield was a good boxer, but he was too inconsistent, He could beat the likes of Bob Baker (KO round 1) and Cleveland Williams, BUT he then lost to the likes of Matty Marshall and Joe Lindsay, Marciano would've soundly KO'd him)...

Pundit said,
“ONLY because he had a hard punch? You seem to confuse something here. Boxing is no strong-man competition. It consists of a little more than that.”

Do you want me to go into Rocky's stamina? Or would you prefer quotes from boxers (including Ali) of how difficult to squarely land a jab on Marciano's kisser?

Pundit said,
"Moore was not better than Tunney - Tunney owned 175 in the early 1920s.”

Moore KO'd a hell of a lot of decent boxers, his punch power can't be undermined or underestimated... As for Tunney "owning the early 1920s", Dempsey had knocked him down for 14 SECONDS, and Harry Greb beat him twice, (I think).

Jaclem said,
"Rocky was tough....but he was nowhere near the top three....or top five..or top....well....i shall stop there."

HA HA HA HA HA. (Sometimes I laugh at you silly people), Rocky was not top 5? I like to hear your (obviously misguided reasoning) of how 5 Heavyweights would soundly defeat Marciano? Just name 5, man.

BTW,
Check: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Aren ... Rock4.html
Charlie Goldman was asked (after the Louis-Marciano fight) of who would win in a straight fight between prime Louis and prime Marciano,
He replied,
"It would have been a shorter fight. A younger Louis would have come after Rocky. And nobody can survive coming to Marciano."

HMMMM, I tend to agree there, Charlie....

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Jul 2006, 11:19

Crease wrote: Pundit said,
“ONLY because he had a hard punch? You seem to confuse something here. Boxing is no strong-man competition. It consists of a little more than that.”

Do you want me to go into Rocky's stamina? Or would you prefer quotes from boxers (including Ali) of how difficult to squarely land a jab on Marciano's kisser?

Ali never fought Marciano, so how can he say (did he, btw? Would be nice to see the original quote). Marciano stopped plentiful punches with his chin. He had great one-hand punchpower and, right, 1a stamina, but still boxing consistst of more than this. Footspeed? Defensive skills? Jab?

I for my part rank Louis, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Johnson, Langford, Lewis, Liston, Frazier, Tunney all above Marciano. Had any of these been around at Marciano's time I believe Marciano wouldn't have been champ. I can see though how someone would rank him higher - historical comparisons are difficult and no rocket science. If someone ranks Marciano #5 that's OK with me. If someone ranks him #3 I grind my teeth but, well - folks have different views.

However, I someone ranks him above Louis and Ali - fighters with abilities Marciano didn't dream of, and who domianted the division for a decade at least - that simply doesn't make sense.

Pundit said,
"Moore was not better than Tunney - Tunney owned 175 in the early 1920s.”

Moore KO'd a hell of a lot of decent boxers, his punch power can't be undermined or underestimated... As for Tunney "owning the early 1920s", Dempsey had knocked him down for 14 SECONDS, and Harry Greb beat him twice, (I think).

Tunney fought the great Harry Greb so often until he had his number. He is 4:2 against him overall. Greb is the ONLY fighter to who Tunney ever lost, and Tunney is the only fighter to who Greb lost on balance. Besides, Tunney beat Loughran, Gibbon, Carpentier, Delaney, Maloney, Renault, Levinksy, Weinert - you name a great light-heavyweight of the 1920s and Tunney has beaten him.

Tunney is definitely an all-time great light-heavyweight (on top of being an all--time great heavywegith). How far up you wanna rank him is a matter of judgement. I have him #2 right after Charles; most place him around #4-#5. Mooore is also an all-time great , of course, but he did not dominate the divison as Tunney did, playing second fiddle to Ezzard Charles in the late 1940s.

As for Dempsey, this was at heayvweight, not light-heavyweight. The 14 seconds count, however, is one of the dumbest myths in boxing history. Tunney stayed down because Dempsey's idocy granted him the extra time, but he could have gotten up easily after 9 seconds - even Dempsey admitted so later. Besides, Tunney clearly won that fight.

Cheers,
P

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Jul 2006, 12:04

Tunney beat Loughran, Gibbon, Carpentier, Delaney, Maloney, Renault, Levinksy, Weinert - you name a great light-heavyweight of the 1920s and Tunney has beaten him.

gibbons was far past his prime, loughran was green and 20 years old(some thought loughran won), carpentier and levinskey were past there prime.

tunney NEVER BEAT maloney or renaut.

as for wut light-h tunney never beat..........

tunney never beat

prime tommy gibbons
prime tommy loughran
jimmy slattery
maxie rosenbloom
paul berlenbach
mike mctigue
battling siki
young stribling

as u see tunney missed out on fighting a lot of good fighters

tunney also NEVER FOUGHT BLACK FIGHTER, he ducked george godfrey and avoided some of the top black contenders of his day. SOMETHING MOORE NEVER DID.

* tunney did not beat jack delaney, he beat jim delaney

archie moore beat far better competition than tunney did and fought black men

i cant picture a peak 175lb archie moore losing to harry greb twice

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 06 Jul 2006, 12:23

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i cant picture a peak 175lb archie moore losing to harry greb twice

That's a tough picture for anyone, since there's no film of Greb!

Crease · Post by **Crease** » 06 Jul 2006, 13:25

Pundit said,
"Ali never fought Marciano, so how can he say (did he, btw? Would be nice to see the original quote)."

From: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Aren ... cky13.html

Charlie Goldman said (1955):
"He ain't easy to hit as they say. Rocky rolls under punches and he weaves under punches... He protects his belly by blocking punches with his elbows."

Roland LaStarza said (after his 2nd fight with Marciano)
"In defense. It was harder to get at him... Rocky fools you. He doesn't take as much punishment as it seems. He looks easy to hit inside but he isn't."

Keene Simmons said (1951 opponent, KO'd in 8th)
"He fools you. When you loook at him from outside the ring he seems easy to hit but if you're in the ring with him you find this isn't the case. His head is bobbing and he's crouched low, so low in fact that you can't get a clear shot at him."

Joe Louis said, (in the dressing room after his fight with Rocky)
"Marciano is a good puncher and he's hard to hit. He has a funny style."

Angello Dundee (Ali's trainer) said,
"Rocky was a very deceiving guy. He was not that easy to hit."

Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore both said Marciano had proved to be much harder to hit than they had expected...

And Ali, during the filming of "The Superfight" told Angello Dundee that he was surprised at how hard it was to land his jab on Marciano.

Give me another few hours and I'll find the exact quote, I remember reading it somewhere...

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Jul 2006, 15:16

Crease wrote:Pundit said,
"Ali never fought Marciano, so how can he say (did he, btw? Would be nice to see the original quote)."

From: http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Aren ... cky13.html

Charlie Goldman said (1955):
"He ain't easy to hit as they say. Rocky rolls under punches and he weaves under punches... He protects his belly by blocking punches with his elbows."

Roland LaStarza said (after his 2nd fight with Marciano)
"In defense. It was harder to get at him... Rocky fools you. He doesn't take as much punishment as it seems. He looks easy to hit inside but he isn't."

Keene Simmons said (1951 opponent, KO'd in 8th)
"He fools you. When you loook at him from outside the ring he seems easy to hit but if you're in the ring with him you find this isn't the case. His head is bobbing and he's crouched low, so low in fact that you can't get a clear shot at him."

Joe Louis said, (in the dressing room after his fight with Rocky)
"Marciano is a good puncher and he's hard to hit. He has a funny style."

Angello Dundee (Ali's trainer) said,
"Rocky was a very deceiving guy. He was not that easy to hit."

Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore both said Marciano had proved to be much harder to hit than they had expected...

And Ali, during the filming of "The Superfight" told Angello Dundee that he was surprised at how hard it was to land his jab on Marciano.

Give me another few hours and I'll find the exact quote, I remember reading it somewhere...

Ah, Ali acquired this wisdom while filming (with a 45 years old Marciano).

Btw, how exactly is all this related to the main point - which is: your nonsensical rating of Marciano above Ali and Louis? After all, I didn't claim Marciano was a bum with no defense.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Jul 2006, 15:33

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Tunney beat Loughran, Gibbon, Carpentier, Delaney, Maloney, Renault, Levinksy, Weinert - you name a great light-heavyweight of the 1920s and Tunney has beaten him.

gibbons was far past his prime, loughran was green and 20 years old(some thought loughran won), carpentier and levinskey were past there prime.

tunney NEVER BEAT maloney or renaut.

as for wut light-h tunney never beat..........

tunney never beat

prime tommy gibbons
prime tommy loughran
jimmy slattery
maxie rosenbloom
paul berlenbach
mike mctigue
battling siki
young stribling

You're funny. You say that Loughran was too young to really count, but then you blame Tunney for not fighting Stribling or Rosenbloom - to take the two most illustrious names on your list - fighters who were both a couple of years younger than Loughran. Rosenbloom wasn't even in sight as a serious l-h contender when Tunney stepped up to heaavyweight.

As for Tunney never fighting black fighters, that's true. But this was the colorline era, a bad but absolutely standard practice in these days. By the time Moore was there the era was over. Thus you can't hold that in Moore's favor, if you do you compare apples with oranges.

You're right about Maloney or Renault (he drew with Renault). Still Tunney's record is absolutley littered with HOFers and is about as impressive as they come - in particular if you consider that he did all this within 3 or 4 years (1922-25). Five fights alone with Harry Greb, by far the most feared fighter of the era who was so good Dempsey didn't dare to give him a shot at the heavyweight title.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Jul 2006, 16:18

Decagon wrote:Few fighters followed the color line as stringently as Tunney did. Harry Greb wasn't afraid of black fighters.

True.

Although Tunney was prepared to fight an eliminator with Harry Wills for the shot at Dempsey. It was Wills who withdrew himself from the fight (claiming - and quite rightly so - that he had been the #1 contender ever since Dempsey had gotten the title, so there was no need for an eliminator)

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Jul 2006, 16:56

Decagon wrote:... according to Tunney.

Not according to Tunney. The Boxing Commission of New York had Wills as mandatory, Tex Rickards offered Wills the Tunney eliminator rather than a direct shot at Dempsey, Wills declined.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 06 Jul 2006, 19:01

please,

tunney clearly avoided a fight with black contender george godfrey, tunney wanted no part of it. tunney never fought a black fighter, let alone a man of godfreys size. godfrey would prove a serious threat to tunney since he NEVER took on a fighter like godfrey.

please harry greb was a middelweight, and the best i might add. but dont forget tunney was beaten by greb TWICE. thats right, tunney lost to a man twice despite having a 10-15lb weight advantage in each fight.

and dempsey would have killed harry greb, greb was way too small for dempsey. he would never be able to take punches from dempsey.

im sick of this sparring bullshit. sparring doesnt count for shit. so wut if greb got the better of dempsey in sparring, THATS SPARRING, not a real fight. BESIDES LOTS OF FALSE RUMORS BREAK OUT FROM SPARRING.

ali had trouble with many sparring partners, charley burley supposedly kayoed big heavyweight contender elmer ray in sparring, eugene hart supposedly kayoed big heavyweight contender tim witherspoon in sparring. sparring means shit.

u honestly think in a real fight eugene hart would have a chance vs tim witherspoon?

tunneys resume is not the qualitys of archie moore. archie dominated the light-H division in the 1950s better than tunney did.

so wut if charles beat archie moore, charles would have whupped tunney too. archie is the 2nd greatest light-H of all time.

tunney never even gave loughran a rematch when loughran was much better. why????

tunneys whole light-h resume is made up of going 3-2 vs a much smaller harry greb

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Jul 2006, 21:27

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:please,
tunney clearly avoided a fight with black contender george godfrey, tunney wanted no part of it. tunney never fought a black fighter, let alone a man of godfreys size. godfrey would prove a serious threat to tunney since he NEVER took on a fighter like godfrey.

That's a far too strong statement. In 1927 Godfrey was one contender among several, including Sharkey, Heeney, and Risko. Tunney chose Heeney.

please harry greb was a middelweight, and the best i might add. but dont forget tunney was beaten by greb TWICE. thats right, tunney lost to a man twice despite having a 10-15lb weight advantage in each fight.

Greb beat (on balance) ALL other light-heavyweights he fought --Rosenbloom, Walker, Slattery, Loughran, Gibbons, Renault, McTigue, Levinsky, you name them. All EXCEPT Tunney.

Btw, in the first fight Tunney was very green, and yet he lost only by the smallest of margins.

and dempsey would have killed harry greb, greb was way too small for dempsey. he would never be able to take punches from dempsey.

In sparring Greb killed Dempsey, so much that Dempsey's team pleaded with Greb as Dempsey had a defense vs. Miske a few days later.

im sick of this sparring bullshit. sparring doesnt count for shit. so wut if greb got the better of dempsey in sparring, THATS SPARRING, not a real fight. BESIDES LOTS OF FALSE RUMORS BREAK OUT FROM SPARRING.

Dempsey never accepted a real fight with Greb, so the only thing we have to judge them agasint one another is sparring.

tunneys resume is not the qualitys of archie moore. archie dominated the light-H division in the 1950s better than tunney did.

Tunney was around for much shorter, but in that period he dominated as much as one could possibly asked.

so wut if charles beat archie moore, charles would have whupped tunney too. archie is the 2nd greatest light-H of all time.

In my book it's Tunney. And Tunney-Charles is for me the l-h dream-matchup that Ali-Louis is at heavyweight. Moore is top 5, but not above Tunney.

vtunney never even gave loughran a rematch when loughran was much better. why????

Because Tunney stepped up to heavyweight.

tunneys whole light-h resume is made up of going 3-2 vs a much smaller harry greb

You better study that resumee again....

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 06 Jul 2006, 21:29

Decagon wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:please harry greb was a middelweight, and the best i might add. but dont forget tunney was beaten by greb TWICE. thats right, tunney lost to a man twice despite having a 10-15lb weight advantage in each fight.
And don't forget that their last bout was a heavyweight bout, in which Tunney weighed in the 180s. At light heavyweight, Greb was even with Tunney, or better.

Greb himself said that if they ever fought again, Tunney would KO him.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 06 Jul 2006, 22:08

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:of course marciano isnt # 1 all time, i never said that. i rate him 5th all time.

moore would have beat tunney

The title of your post is "Why Rocky Marciano is top 3 heavyweight of all Time" and you rank him # 5?