Why Rocky Maricano is top 3 Heavyweight of all time

[pundit]

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?

Age and maturity got the better of Brockton.

[Ambling Alp]

Thought I need to address a few comments concerning Tunney.

As mentioned in another thread previoulsy, Tunney didn't duck Godfrey. Godfrey lost to Jack Renault in 1923, again to Renault in 1924, to sharkey in 1926, and to Risko in 1928. (Not tomentioned a few DQ losses). There simply was no reason to rate him the # 1 contender.
As mentioned on the other thread, Heeney on the other hand, had beaten Risko and had a draw with sharkey. He had as much claim to being the # 1 contender as anyone. Tunney completely outlcassed him. Tunney's other title defense was the rematch with Dempsey. He certainly could have found easier guys to defend the title against.

As mentioned on a previous thread, Levinsky and Carpentier were still very respectable fighters when Tunney beat them. They were each only 30. Levinsky had just won a Newspaper decison over McTigue only 4 months before Tunney beat Levinsky.

Neither one gave Tunney a title shot when they champion. Nor did Siki or McTigue.

Loughran was only 20 when he fought Tunney, but he was hardly green.He already had 45 professional fights.

As mentioned Slattery, Rosenbloom, and Berlanbach all became top lightheavyweight contenders after Tunney was a heavyweight.

That is like ripping Archie Moore for not fighting Dick Tiger, Jose Torres, and Bob Foster.

This is mostly old arguements that Brockton tried to use a few months ago in another post.

You certainly can make the arguement that Moore was better than Tunney at lightheavy; but it's certainly a close call. Tunney was the better heavyweight.

[Ambling Alp]

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

Moore never avoided top black contenders?
He never fought Liston, Machen, Folley, and Williams. Though he did find the time to fight journeyman heavyweight Howard King (39-29-8) no fewer than 5 times!! (I thought that deserved two exclamation points)

[cole fontes]

I agree that Rocky was a top 3 all time among champions. He was really good, much better than a lot of fans today give him credit for.

But I have to say that the really big guys of today will give Rocky a lot more trouble than the little guys of his time. Could he still beat them? Possibly, probably. But Vitali is better than most of the guys Rocky fought. Louis, Walcott, LaStarza were tough guys, but they were not giants and were not devastating punchers. They were great boxers and counter, great movers and slippery guys. But they could not generate the raw power that Vitali, Wlad (as chinny as he is he can hit HARD and it is tought to get inside him for a small guy), Tyson, Lewis, Valuev, Tua, Ibeabuchi etc. Now these guys not only were big and strong, but soem of them had such reach and height advantage that could have allowed them to outbox Rocky from a big distance. Rocky would have koed them if he got inside; but would he gotten inside them? And also be able to punch that high up without losing the sanp in his punches?

Hard to say. Size matters for a lot more than most people would acknowledge.

I agree with everything in this post, plus Marciano was a down to earth champ, that always impresses me

[cole fontes]

I agree that Rocky was a top 3 all time among champions. He was really good, much better than a lot of fans today give him credit for.

But I have to say that the really big guys of today will give Rocky a lot more trouble than the little guys of his time. Could he still beat them? Possibly, probably. But Vitali is better than most of the guys Rocky fought. Louis, Walcott, LaStarza were tough guys, but they were not giants and were not devastating punchers. They were great boxers and counter, great movers and slippery guys. But they could not generate the raw power that Vitali, Wlad (as chinny as he is he can hit HARD and it is tought to get inside him for a small guy), Tyson, Lewis, Valuev, Tua, Ibeabuchi etc. Now these guys not only were big and strong, but soem of them had such reach and height advantage that could have allowed them to outbox Rocky from a big distance. Rocky would have koed them if he got inside; but would he gotten inside them? And also be able to punch that high up without losing the sanp in his punches?

Hard to say. Size matters for a lot more than most people would acknowledge.

I agree with everything in this post, plus Marciano was a down to earth champ, that always impresses me

[cole fontes]

Sorry, double post

[Ezzard]

Thought I need to address a few comments concerning Tunney.

As mentioned in another thread previoulsy, Tunney didn't duck Godfrey. Godfrey lost to Jack Renault in 1923, again to Renault in 1924, to sharkey in 1926, and to Risko in 1928. (Not tomentioned a few DQ losses). There simply was no reason to rate him the # 1 contender.
As mentioned on the other thread, Heeney on the other hand, had beaten Risko and had a draw with sharkey. He had as much claim to being the # 1 contender as anyone. Tunney completely outlcassed him. Tunney's other title defense was the rematch with Dempsey. He certainly could have found easier guys to defend the title against.

As mentioned on a previous thread, Levinsky and Carpentier were still very respectable fighters when Tunney beat them. They were each only 30. Levinsky had just won a Newspaper decison over McTigue only 4 months before Tunney beat Levinsky.

Neither one gave Tunney a title shot when they champion. Nor did Siki or McTigue.

Loughran was only 20 when he fought Tunney, but he was hardly green.He already had 45 professional fights.

As mentioned Slattery, Rosenbloom, and Berlanbach all became top lightheavyweight contenders after Tunney was a heavyweight.

That is like ripping Archie Moore for not fighting Dick Tiger, Jose Torres, and Bob Foster.

This is mostly old arguements that Brockton tried to use a few months ago in another post.

You certainly can make the arguement that Moore was better than Tunney at lightheavy; but it's certainly a close call. Tunney was the better heavyweight.

I have to agree with you, Alp. Tunney cannot be so easily disregarded. There are problems with his career. The colourline argument does damage him but he wasn't the only guy to do this.

I think Moore is higher at LHW but Tunney is higher at HW.

[The Great John L]

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

This is a pretty silly assumption. Dempsey went 15 rds with Gibbons who weighed 175, so it's certainly no stretch to think that Greb, who often fought at 170 could have survived, and even done quite well against Dempsey.

[pundit]

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

I completely disagree with this post. Tunney had been fighting for a pro for seven years, held the American Light Heavyweight Championship, and had been in the ring with several top contenders. And the "smallest of margins"?!?!?!?!? Come on. That's bullshit. The only reason Tunney survived was a combination of alcohol, drugs (he was snorting adrenaline) and pure willpower. Greb butchered him.

Tunney was a humble 24 years old, and this was his first defense of the American light-heavyweight title that he had gained from Battling Levinsky four months earlier. Levinsky had been the very first top contender Tunney had shared the ring with.

Tunney himself said he was green in this fight, but learned from it more than from all other fights of his career combined.

Here is what boxrec has to say about this bout:

"" Pittsburgh Post reported that Tunney fought extremely well. H made a great fight for 10 rounds, but Greb set a pace in the last five that overwhelmed Gene. Tunney's eyebrows were cut and he bled at the nose and mouth. Greb fought his usual fight, all over his man, and chopping him up. Tunney fought Greb much better than Tommy Gibbons had done in New York. ""

[pundit]

So, all you know about the fight is from Boxrec? There are plenty of newspaper reports on the internet. Just go to http://www.harrygreb.com. It was not a close fight.

Of course I know harrygreb.com. Most reports agree that Greb won the fight decisively in the later rounds. So "by the smallest of margins" is stretching it a bit.

[The Great John L]

Quite a bit. So is calling a seven-year veteran "green." So is calling someone two days before his 25th birthday "24."

Exactly how old is someone that is 2 days before their 25th birthday?

[pundit]

Quite a bit. So is calling a seven-year veteran "green." So is calling someone two days before his 25th birthday "24."

Someone two days before his 25th birthday is 24.
And someone entering his second big fight is (relatively) green.

Anything else to offer but carping about the exact choice of words and interpunctuation rules (as surely this will come next)?

P

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

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?

check the date of this thread, it was made over a year ago. i changed my opinion on marciano. you can make a case for rocky being 3rd, but i prefer him at 5th

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

You certainly can make the arguement that Moore was better than Tunney at lightheavy; but it's certainly a close call. Tunney was the better heavyweight.

i think tunney was the slightly better heavyweight but why? wut did tunney do at heavyweight besides beat a old jack dempsey twice??

had archie moore fought tunneys HEAVYWEIGHT opposition, he would have done the same to it as tunney did. tunney had very weak heavyweight oppposition besides an old dempsey. archie moore would have beat the 1927 dempsey IMO


archie moore cleaned out the best heavyweight contenders of his era like jimmy bivins, harold johnson, nino valdes, bob baker, clarence henry, hatchetman sheppard, alejandro lavorante

tunneys heavyweight resume consists of old jack dempsey 2x, green johnny risko, weinhart, tom heeney, old tommy gibbons.

is that honestly better than moores??? i dont know


archie moore also beat the best big men of his era, tunney never fought a big heavyweight like archie did. nino valdes and bob baker were big skilled men, the type of fighters tunney never fought. not saying tunney wouldnt beat them cause i believe he would. but tunneys refusal to meet george godfrey shows me he was scared to fight a big black contender.


tunney defintley did duck george godfrey, i will post a newspaper article further proving my point.



alp, godfrey fought a lot of his fights in handcuffs, the risko fight probably being one of them. everyone knew that era how good godfrey was when he was allowed to really fight. tunney knew it. the experts of that era clearly knew godfrey was a much better fighter than tom heeny. in fact godfrey was rated # 2 and heeney was # 9 yet HEENEY GOT THE SHOT INSTEAD OF GODFREY.

tom heeney had no business getting a title shot over george godfrey, jack sharkey, and larry gains

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

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

Moore never avoided top black contenders?
He never fought Liston, Machen, Folley, and Williams. Though he did find the time to fight journeyman heavyweight Howard King (39-29-8) no fewer than 5 times!! (I thought that deserved two exclamation points)

this is starting to get really funny.

moore fought the best black heavyweight contenders of his era bob baker, nino valdes, clarence henry, 1947 jimmy bivins, harold johnson. he also beat other dangerous black contenders like hatchetman sheppard and buddy walker. not to mention when he was 45 years old, he soundily whupped # 4 ranked 6'4 210lb alejandro lavorante.


harold johnson and jimmy bivins were better than machen and folley so that cancels out ur arguement. a 34 year old past his prime harold johnson beat eddie machen. moore beat a prime 24 year old johnson 4 times!!!!! looks like ur getting nowhere with ur arguement.

imagine if machen fought a prime harold johnson, what would happen. moore beat a prime johnson. machen couldnt beat a past his prime harold johnson. moore was in a different class than machen.


moore beat a peak clarence henry, not the near blind henry who fought hurricane jackson. henry was just as good as machen and folley. henry was a terrific boxerpuncher with explosive power. nino valdes and bob baker at there peaks were near folley and machens level.


also, moore was to fight the winner of the folley-lavorante matchup. this was in 1962 when moore was 45 and by now far past his prime. lavorante KNOCKED A PRIME FOLLEY OUT.

so who does moore face? lavorante and he dominated lavorante for 10 rounds and knocks him out cold in the 10th nearly killing him in the process.

so dont go saying why folley didnt fight moore, cause folley lost his chance to fight moore cause he LOST TO ALJEANDRO LAVORANTE.

now think of this, folley lost brutally to a man that 45 year old far past his prime archie moore dominated! folley might not have been able to beat a 1962 45 year old archie moore let alone a early 1950s archie moore.


how does that look on folleys resume getting knocked out by a man who would be completley owned by a 45 year old man later that year???




by the time williams became a contender, it was 1959-60 and moore was now far past his prime and declinging rapidly and in the middle with his wars with yvon durelle. remember moore had his light-H title to think of too.





archie moore was past his prime in the late 1950s, he was slowing down and his age was catching up with him rapidly. after losing the title fight with patterson, moore faded rapidly on the heavyweight scene and by 1958 his reflexes as slowed down a lot and he was struggling to beat guys like bert whitehurst(who he destroyed in 1954) and howard king. this was not the early-mid 1950s moore anymore.


but a prime heavyweight moore of the early 1950s fought and beat the best black contenders of that era(with the exclusion of walcott and charles).

in moores prime, he avoided no one. he beat the best contenders in his prime. why should we critisize moore for what happened past his prime in the late 1950s?


MOORE CANNOT BE CRITISIZED IN THE LATE 1950S-EARLY 60S CAUSE HE WAS PAST HIS PRIME, UNLIKE IN THE EARLY-MID 1950S


ill say this, machen and folley wanted no part of moore in 1956 while archie still had something left.





liston said he didnt want to fight archie moore cause he thought he was too old. thats no exuse. if liston thought he was too old, he should have fought archie in 58-59 and knocked his brains out. t

i think a early 1950s moore would have given liston quite a lot of trouble and done a better job than eddie machen did vs liston. i think moore would have taken liston the distance with moore losing on points. styles matchup, moore matches up well with a liston.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

a good matchup is a late 50s-early 60s moore vs machen and folley


a 1947-55 archie moore? forget it, moore defintley wins




moore was far more consistent than machen and folley. he also beat better heavyweight competition than machen and folley. folley and machen also lost to far less fighters than moore did on his heavyweight resume. in fact only 3 heavyweights were able to beat a heavyweight moore.......ATG's ali, patterson, marciano. machen and folley lost to far less crop of fighters than that. from 1952-1962 moore was a top 10 heavyweight contender. longer than folley and machen were contenders. machen and folley cant match any of these accomplishments.


there is no reason folley and machen could be ranked over archie moore as heavyweights, really there is no justification. moores heavyweight accomplishments far exceed folley and machens. you could only argue that folley and machen be ranked over archie in a head to head scenario, but even then archie would still clearly be the favorite over folley and machen and it would be very tough indeed to believe folley and machen could beat moore.

moore KO 8 folley
moore close decision machen


moore beat a better standup classic boxer than machen in harold johnson.....and he desively beat johnson 4 times. so expect archie to have an easier time with machen.


folley has a glass jaw....hes very vunerable to a good heavyweight puncher and AWESOME finisher like archie moore. i expect archie too expolit this flaw and take out folley somewhere in the late rounds. folley might give archie a little trouble with his jab, but archie dealt with valdes long jab, and harold johnsons jab so i have no doubt archie could handle folleys. archie had a very tough defense to penetrate and folley didnt have that explosive power or speed patterson had. archies awesome counterpunching, tricky, and aggresive style would befuddle folley and folley would find himself caught in a trap where moore would unleash his straight right hand hurting folley badly, and then moore would unleash his awesome sharpshooting combinations and finish folley off. moore is all around the superior fighter than folley. folley will not be able to outbox moore.


far less fighters were able to knock out folley. doug jones a light-H knocked out folley. moore was a much better fighter and puncher than doug jones.

[pundit]

You certainly can make the arguement that Moore was better than Tunney at lightheavy; but it's certainly a close call. Tunney was the better heavyweight.

i think tunney was the slightly better heavyweight but why? wut did tunney do at heavyweight besides beat a old jack dempsey twice??

Beat top contenders Risko, Heeney (who came off 5 top notch matchups - certainly better than "Alejandro Lavorante").

Your Godfrey point is really mute. In 1927 Godfrey was one of several fighters standing in line for a shot. But Tunney retired on top -- the position Moore never reached because he lost to Marciano and to Patterson -- before Godfrey (or Sharkey or Uzcudun) could get his shot.

Nothing's wrong with this.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

You certainly can make the arguement that Moore was better than Tunney at lightheavy; but it's certainly a close call. Tunney was the better heavyweight.

i think tunney was the slightly better heavyweight but why? wut did tunney do at heavyweight besides beat a old jack dempsey twice??

Beat top contenders Risko, Heeney (who came off 5 top notch matchups - certainly better than "Alejandro Lavorante").

Your Godfrey point is really mute. Godfrey was one of several fighters standing in line for a shot, but Tunney retired on top -- the position Morre never reached -- before Godfrey (or Sharkey or Uzcudun) could get his shot.

Just get over it.

johnny risko was very green in 1925. risko was a much better fighter later on in the late 20s-early 1930s.

alejandro lavorante was a big 6'4 210lb dangerous puncher who flattend a prime zora folley in 5 rounds. i expect lavorante to win by decision over a 1925 green johnny risko. risko was not a top contendr in 1925 and was losing alot. a prime risko i could see beating lavorante possibly.


heeney?? please he was no world beater. he wouldnt have been able to handle a huge power puncher like lavorante. lavorante also had skills. lavorante shutout a good classical boxer like alonzo johnson over 10 rounds. the same johnson who gave muhammad ali a pretty close fight.




do u now admit moore beat better heavyweight opposition than gene tunney?

[pundit]

i think tunney was the slightly better heavyweight but why? wut did tunney do at heavyweight besides beat a old jack dempsey twice??

Beat top contenders Risko, Heeney (who came off 5 top notch matchups - certainly better than "Alejandro Lavorante").

Your Godfrey point is really mute. Godfrey was one of several fighters standing in line for a shot, but Tunney retired on top -- the position Morre never reached -- before Godfrey (or Sharkey or Uzcudun) could get his shot.

Just get over it.

johnny risko was very green in 1925. risko was a much better fighter later on in the late 20s-early 1930s.

alejandro lavorante was a big 6'4 210lb dangerous puncher who flattend a prime zora folley in 5 rounds. i expect lavorante to take out a green johnny risko. a prime risko i could see beating lavorante possibly.

heeney?? please he was no world beater. he wouldnt have been able to handle a huge power puncher like lavorante.

do u now admit moore beat better heavyweight opposition than gene tunney?

Of course not. Moore stayed at heavyweight longer and hence had more fights, but he did emphatically NOT beat stronger opposition. He lost a couple of rather important bouts though.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Beat top contenders Risko, Heeney (who came off 5 top notch matchups - certainly better than "Alejandro Lavorante").

Your Godfrey point is really mute. Godfrey was one of several fighters standing in line for a shot, but Tunney retired on top -- the position Morre never reached -- before Godfrey (or Sharkey or Uzcudun) could get his shot.

Just get over it.

johnny risko was very green in 1925. risko was a much better fighter later on in the late 20s-early 1930s.

alejandro lavorante was a big 6'4 210lb dangerous puncher who flattend a prime zora folley in 5 rounds. i expect lavorante to take out a green johnny risko. a prime risko i could see beating lavorante possibly.

heeney?? please he was no world beater. he wouldnt have been able to handle a huge power puncher like lavorante.

do u now admit moore beat better heavyweight opposition than gene tunney?

Of course not. Moore stayed at heavyweight longer and hence had more fights, but he did emphatically NOT beat stronger opposition. He lost a couple of rather important bouts though.

moore beat top heavyweight contenders jimmy bivins, harold johnson, nino valdez, bob baker, bob satterfield, clarence henry, alejandro lavorante, hacthetman sheppard, buddy walker.

please how did tunney beat better heavyweight opposition than that?




wow big deal, moore lost to ATG rocky marciano. his first loss as a heavyweight. tunney never fought a heavyweight as good as a prime rocky marciano.

moore lost to floyd patterson on an off night in which moore had still won the first 4 rounds. floyd patterson is an ATG heavyweight too, top 20 of all time. tunney never fought a heavyweight as good as a prime floyd patterson either.


moore lost only one other heavyweight fight, to muhammad ali when archie was 46 years old. ali is ATG top 2 heavyweight of all time not to mention moore was 46 years old at the time.

its not like moore was losing to 2nd rate heavyweights the way folley and machen were. only ATG's were able to beat moore.


tunney never proved himself or tested himself as a heavyweight like moore did. had tunney stuck around and fought a prime jack sharkey, george godfrey, and max schmeling then we would be able to see tunney in a better view.


tunney beat a old way out of shape jack dempsey 2x. however theres controversy since jack knocked tunney down for 14 seconds and got screwed. yes dempsey was still a very solid fighter when he fought tunney and it counts as a very good win, especially in the manner tunney dominated dempsey. however this was not the jack of 1918-19 and add that to the fact dempsey basically knocked tunney out in the rematch.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

who ever said tunney is green when he fought greb the first time is out of there mind.

tunney was in his 7th pro year and was 50-0-2 going into the greb fight, hardly a green fighter.

[pundit]

who ever said tunney is green when he fought greb the first time is out of there mind.

tunney was in his 7th pro year and was 50-0-2 going into the greb fight, hardly a green fighter.

He had fought 51 (0-3-1) fighters to substitute for a missing amateur career - standard practice in the 1920s.

The first serious contender he fought was Battling Levinsky - 3 months before the Greb fight.

[pundit]

however this was not the jack of 1918-19 and add that to the fact dempsey basically knocked tunney out in the rematch.

You kept the dumbest phrase for the end.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

however this was not the jack of 1918-19 and add that to the fact dempsey basically knocked tunney out in the rematch.

You keep the dumbest phrase for the end.

who was the one that was knocked down for over 10 seconds? not jack dempsey

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

archie moore beat better light-H and heavyweight competition than tunney.

charles may have gone 3-0 vs moore but the series was a lot closer than the record indicates. some believe moore won the rematch in which charles took a very close majority decision, and in the 3rd fight the fight was very close going into the 8th when moore hurt charles badly and nearly knocked him out before charles miraculously came back and knocked moore out cold. the 2nd and 3rd fights were extremley close calls, hardly a difference between the two fighters. the series could have easily been 2-1 rather than 3-0. also charles was defintley better than tunney as a light-H and heavyweight.

going 3-2 vs a 160lb greb whos best weight was middleweight is no more of a feat than moore going 4-1 vs harold johnson

greb is probably the best middleweight of all time, but hes not one of the best light-H of all time. hes top 10 maybe, but hes no better of a 175lb than harold johnson or jimmy bivins. bivins and johnson were natural light-H unlike greb


fact is yes tunney got the better of a much smaller man who did beat the best light-H of the era. HOWEVER THAT WAS GREB WHO beat the best light-H of that era. NOT TUNNEY. tunneys got to do more than just prove himself against one guy. tunney matched up well vs greb.

take te loughran fight. loughran was 20 years old and not in his prime yet he gave tunney a very close fight, some think loughran won.

now tunney never gave loughran a rematch when loughran was older and more expereinced, he never showed he could beat a prime loughran.



one thing that really gets me is tunney totally avoided black fighters. he drew the color line more than anyone of the top champions of that era. how could u not take points off tunneys legacy for doing this??