BoxRec

Marciano is one of the very few men I can really ever think of who is both over-rated and under-rated. In my opinion, his greatest fight was his rematch with Roland LaStarza. The first time they fought Rocky was easier to hit and it was rather close---the second time, Marciano was deceptively defensive (what looked like him getting hit many times to the crowd was in reality maybe one or two hits out of a flurry of punches).

Marciano worked also at a MW pace averaging 80-85 punches a round and it wasn't unusual for him to throw over 100 punches a round. Combined with his tremendous hitting power, toughness and bravery in the face of danger, despite his short reach and size---made him deadly to any man of that time, let alone any other man in any other era, to face him.

What many people forget is that most of his opponents were running away from him the majority of the time, they knew if he landed flush that they would be gone. Had these men went ahead and actually fought him, rather than back peddaling, he would have won fights much more sooner than he did.

As for the LaStarza bout, I do quote Joe Frazier when he seen Marciano punching non-stop on LaStarza's arms (he was rope-a-doping), which resulted in LaStarza's blood vessels erupting and his arms being broken [LaStarza also urinated blood after the fight]: "Ali couldn't do the rope a dope to Marciano!" believing fully that such a tactic wouldn't have worked against a man who could punch non-stop for 15 rounds.

Ironically, most of the people born (that I have talked to) from the late 1930's in their late 60's have said that the two greatest HW's that they have ever seen were Cassius Clay (as they call him) and Rocky Marciano. The reason behind their logic was that, Marciano could be beaten to a pulp but still keep on coming and still had the same power in the 10th, 12th, 15th rounds as he did in the 1st.

What people, in ranking the All-Time HW's, when it comes to Marciano, is to try and think of what former and present HW champions he could or could not have beaten. In my opinion, if Marciano couldn't beat Ali, Frazier, Louis and Liston in their primes, it makes Marciano a comfortable #5 on the top 100 list. You could make the argument for George Foreman as well, but irregardless a number 5 or 6 spot isn't nothing to be ashamed of.

Could you see Carnera, Willard, Burns, Hart, Leon Spinks, Michael Spinks, John Tate, Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith, Witherspoon, Bruno, Klitschko's, Valuev beating Marciano? I personally can't, but if you can, you must admit that they couldn't beat Marciano as badly as an Ali, Frazier, Liston, Louis could.

Marciano was a great champion for what he achieved in the sport. That you can not dispute. But if we are talking about fighters in history and fighters of today that could have beaten him, i believe there are many.

You only have to look at his size (190 lbs at his heaviest) to realize that he wouldn't have been able to handle it with some some of the many heavyweight champions over the years.
The fact that he was put down against an old Archie moore, and put down and hurt against walcott (old) doesn't make good reading for his chances against the other elite heavys.
Are we to believe that this same Marciano (190 lbs) with minimal boxing technique, and brute power and heart, would have beaten a 6'5" Lewis with devastating punch power and far more accomplished skills at 18st. A 222 lb peak, tyson who had quicker hands and feet and hit harder than both Walcott and Moore. A prime Ezzard Charles. a prime Larry Holmes with a significant reach advantag, sticking that jab in his face. Evander Holyfield, who has just as much heart, and work rate as Marciano. There are many more who i believe could have beaten Rocky. That does not automatically make them greater, as there are numerous ways that you can define a boxers greatness. But lets look at these issues of who would have beaten who objectively.

For the record i believe that Roy Jones at heavy beats Rocky. and i do not see any reason why it would not have happened. Jones 192 lbs, fast, defensively skilled, balance, foot speed and power. Who's to say that Rocky would have gotten anywhere near his chin. And walking someone like Jones down is easier said than done.

This is only my opinion. I believe that too many people go with the general concensus, of what they're use to hearing, and not what they believe themselves.

pundit wrote:

Marciano Frazier wrote:

silkov wrote:
4th!!!. ... jeeze!... I'm sorry man but Marciano wasnt better than we believe,

Yes, I think he was, and the facts support it.

you want proof, watch his fights and look at his opposition...

I assure you I've done a heck of a lot more research on Marciano's fights and opposition than you have.

his best opponents were all past their best and yet still managed to give him hell...

Not true. Out of his five best opponents(Walcott, Charles, Moore, Louis, LaStarza) I believe two were past their best and one was substantially past it. Of those, one gave Marciano hell, but was decisively beaten, and the other was just soundly beaten. All-in-all, Marciano didn't struggle substantially more often than any other all-time great did against the same level of opposition.

he was brave but also clumsy,

Have you seen the way that man could pivot, punch effectively from virtually any angle to virtually any part of his opponents(including the illegal areas), etc.? Often off-balance, yes, but I do believe it is a myth that Marciano was "clumsy" in the sense most mean when they say it.

technically limited, a notorious slow starter

"notorious" slow starter? Now, Marciano was no Jack Dempsey or Mike Tyson in there, but he won 26 of his 49 fights by knockout in the first three rounds. He had first-and-second-round knockouts against Walcott and Matthews and scored knockdowns in the first couple rounds against several other noteworthy opponents. He was a lukewarm starter, maybe, but not a "notorious slow starter."

and he cut up like tissue paper...

The only time in any of his major fights that Marciano was in serious danger of being stopped on cuts was when the cartilege of his nose was torn open by either an uppercut or more likely an elbow after a missed uppercut. I hardly think this demonstrates any significant weakness on his part(unless you want to argue that the cartilege of Ali's and Louis' noses was untearable and Marciano would be at a great disadvantage because of his weak nose-cartilege).
Now, it is true that Marciano was more easily cut than the majority of other heavyweight champions, but, as you seem to do in every department here, you're exaggerating and magnifying whatever reflects negatively on Marciano while brushing off the numerous glaring evidences which reflect on him in an overwhelmingly positive light.

these are all facts!... no matter how you try to avoid it...

Look, you really aren't adding much to this discussion. I may disagree with some of the other posters on this thread, but at least they're respectful and are at least taking the time to address some of my points on the material to some extent. Your posts, on the other hand, are near-identical repetitions of the exact same little formula of statements you make every time Marciano comes up. All you do is make some dismissive remark about someone else's views, repeat the exact same set of claims without any supporting evidence, and throw in some mocking emoticons. This is really pretty unproductive and a little annoying.

Marciano Frazier, you still fail to address the decisive point: Marciano never put a prime performance in like Louis or Ali or some of the other ATG heavyweights. Not once.

Why? Because he couldn't. He didn't have the means.

Which PRIME performances are open for discussion? What aren't you comparing Marciano's achievements to. I'll let you name them. One for each Johnson, Louis and Ali.

HomicideHenry wrote:Marciano is one of the very few men I can really ever think of who is both over-rated and under-rated. In my opinion, his greatest fight was his rematch with Roland LaStarza. The first time they fought Rocky was easier to hit and it was rather close---the second time, Marciano was deceptively defensive (what looked like him getting hit many times to the crowd was in reality maybe one or two hits out of a flurry of punches).

Marciano was losing also the refight until his corner told him to hit LaStarza's arms (thus basically to do somehting that has little to do with the sweet sceince) until LaStarza couldn't hold them up any longer. Besides, with the excpetion of fighting tooth and nail with Marciano twice, LaStarza did few remarkable things in his heavyweight career. He was not even a particulalry strong challenger, and yet Marciano had to mobilize everything in himself to beat LaStarza.

Now, noone is talking of downgrading Marciano from ATG status; but sorry, there is no way he ought to be above champions like Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Foreman, Liston, Lewis. Fighters who were simply awesome when they brought their A game, towered over their opponents. In fact, I'd have Marciano a few ranks lower still.

serious wrote:Marciano was a great champion for what he achieved in the sport. That you can not dispute. But if we are talking about fighters in history and fighters of today that could have beaten him, i believe there are many.

You only have to look at his size (190 lbs at his heaviest) to realize that he wouldn't have been able to handle it with some some of the many heavyweight champions over the years.
The fact that he was put down against an old Archie moore, and put down and hurt against walcott (old) doesn't make good reading for his chances against the other elite heavys.
Are we to believe that this same Marciano (190 lbs) with minimal boxing technique, and brute power and heart, would have beaten a 6'5" Lewis with devastating punch power and far more accomplished skills at 18st. A 222 lb peak, tyson who had quicker hands and feet and hit harder than both Walcott and Moore. A prime Ezzard Charles. a prime Larry Holmes with a significant reach advantag, sticking that jab in his face. Evander Holyfield, who has just as much heart, and work rate as Marciano. There are many more who i believe could have beaten Rocky. That does not automatically make them greater, as there are numerous ways that you can define a boxers greatness. But lets look at these issues of who would have beaten who objectively.

For the record i believe that Roy Jones at heavy beats Rocky. and i do not see any reason why it would not have happened. Jones 192 lbs, fast, defensively skilled, balance, foot speed and power. Who's to say that Rocky would have gotten anywhere near his chin. And walking someone like Jones down is easier said than done.

This is only my opinion. I believe that too many people go with the general concensus, of what they're use to hearing, and not what they believe themselves.

Firstly I would hardly rate Lewis' punching power as 'devastating', in fact I think there would a good enough case to rank Marciano's power above Lewis'. But the style of both Lewis and Holmes using their advantages in height and reach could offer problems. Marciano would break Tyson's will enough to KO him easier than Douglas did. Ezzard Charles certainly in his prime, a little younger and fresher would give Marciano trouble. Holyfield would offer the most competitiveness for Marciano as I think both Lewis and Holmes would stay at a distance and fight behind their jabs, where as Holyfield would come forward pick his shots and try to rough Marciano up, that one would be hard to call. But if Bowe can handle Holyfield so well Marciano could easily.

I hope by your last comments in regards to Jones Jnr are a joke, Marciano would completely swarm all over him and dominate him from the opening bell and when Marciano would have finished with him he would'nt be good enough for dog food.

Rocket
______
Molon Labe!

'Rocket'Rigby wrote:

pundit wrote:

Marciano Frazier wrote: Yes, I think he was, and the facts support it. I assure you I've done a heck of a lot more research on Marciano's fights and opposition than you have.
Not true. Out of his five best opponents(Walcott, Charles, Moore, Louis, LaStarza) I believe two were past their best and one was substantially past it. Of those, one gave Marciano hell, but was decisively beaten, and the other was just soundly beaten. All-in-all, Marciano didn't struggle substantially more often than any other all-time great did against the same level of opposition.
Have you seen the way that man could pivot, punch effectively from virtually any angle to virtually any part of his opponents(including the illegal areas), etc.? Often off-balance, yes, but I do believe it is a myth that Marciano was "clumsy" in the sense most mean when they say it.
"notorious" slow starter? Now, Marciano was no Jack Dempsey or Mike Tyson in there, but he won 26 of his 49 fights by knockout in the first three rounds. He had first-and-second-round knockouts against Walcott and Matthews and scored knockdowns in the first couple rounds against several other noteworthy opponents. He was a lukewarm starter, maybe, but not a "notorious slow starter."
The only time in any of his major fights that Marciano was in serious danger of being stopped on cuts was when the cartilege of his nose was torn open by either an uppercut or more likely an elbow after a missed uppercut. I hardly think this demonstrates any significant weakness on his part(unless you want to argue that the cartilege of Ali's and Louis' noses was untearable and Marciano would be at a great disadvantage because of his weak nose-cartilege).
Now, it is true that Marciano was more easily cut than the majority of other heavyweight champions, but, as you seem to do in every department here, you're exaggerating and magnifying whatever reflects negatively on Marciano while brushing off the numerous glaring evidences which reflect on him in an overwhelmingly positive light.
Look, you really aren't adding much to this discussion. I may disagree with some of the other posters on this thread, but at least they're respectful and are at least taking the time to address some of my points on the material to some extent. Your posts, on the other hand, are near-identical repetitions of the exact same little formula of statements you make every time Marciano comes up. All you do is make some dismissive remark about someone else's views, repeat the exact same set of claims without any supporting evidence, and throw in some mocking emoticons. This is really pretty unproductive and a little annoying.

Marciano Frazier, you still fail to address the decisive point: Marciano never put a prime performance in like Louis or Ali or some of the other ATG heavyweights. Not once.

Why? Because he couldn't. He didn't have the means.

Which PRIME performances are open for discussion? What aren't you comparing Marciano's achievements to. I'll let you name them. One for each Johnson, Louis and Ali.

Take Terrell for Ali, Max Baer for Louis, Burns for Johnson. It's straightforward to extend the list though:

Ali vs. Terrell, Folley, Quarry I and II, Williams, Patterson.

Louis vs. Max Baer, Carnera, Schmeling II, Mann, Pastor, Nova, Buddy Baer II, Godoy II.

Johnson vs. Jeffries, Burns, and his earlier fights vs. the great colorline heayweights -- Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Denver Ed Martin.

Add in Foreman vs. Norton or Frazier; Liston vs. Williams or Patterson, Holmes vs. Berbick, Cooney, Spinks; Lewis vs. Ruddock, Golota, Tua.

Fights were the finest ATGs dominated opponents who in spite of being world class never had any hope -- beware of a realistic chance -- of winning.

(quote="Decagon") Conn didn't beat Louis silly for 12 rounds. He won seven, out of 15.

HomicideHenry wrote:Dunno where you come with that assumption, considering had Conn not went for the knockout he would have beaten Louis via 15 round decision. Louis couldn't hit Conn effectively during those 12 rounds, and anyone who gives Louis more than a round or two is really full of themselves.

I think his point was that Conn wasn't as far ahead as people seem to think. Had Louis won the 13th, 14th, and 15th rounds, Louis would have won the decision. He didn't need to knock Conn out to win.

pundit wrote:

'Rocket'Rigby wrote:

pundit wrote: Marciano Frazier, you still fail to address the decisive point: Marciano never put a prime performance in like Louis or Ali or some of the other ATG heavyweights. Not once.

Why? Because he couldn't. He didn't have the means.

Which PRIME performances are open for discussion? What aren't you comparing Marciano's achievements to. I'll let you name them. One for each Johnson, Louis and Ali.

Take Terrell for Ali, Max Baer for Louis, Burns for Johnson. It's straightforward to extend the list though:

Ali vs. Terrell, Folley, Quarry I and II, Williams, Patterson.

Louis vs. Max Baer, Carnera, Schmeling II, Mann, Pastor, Nova, Buddy Baer II, Godoy II.

Johnson vs. Jeffries, Burns, and his earlier fights vs. the great colorline heayweights -- Langford, Jeanette, McVey, Denver Ed Martin.

Add in Foreman vs. Norton or Frazier; Liston vs. Williams or Patterson, Holmes vs. Berbick, Cooney, Spinks; Lewis vs. Ruddock, Golota, Tua.

Fights were the finest ATGs dominated opponents who in spite of being world class never had any hope -- beware of a realistic chance -- of winning.

Ali v Terrell is your pick off PRIME performances put in by Ali. A uninanimous decision over 15 rounds...differs so drastically from a dominent and all out 15 round uninanimous decision put in by Rocky v Charles (I). The referee never once had to seperate the fighters for 15 rounds.

Baer v Louis, the same Baer that was known for his clowning around enough for him to lose his heavyweight championship crown. Baer was telented, had the tools but lacked the heart. 30/12/49, Rocky Marciano is lined up against the next biggest heavyweight prospect to come out of New York, Carmine Vingo. Vingo was tipped to hit the big time, tipped to become a future champion. Marciano completely pulverised him, once down for nine in the first, again for nine in the second and took the full count in six.

Johnson's PRIME display was against Burns. Everyone calls Marciano for fighting and struggling with the 'old', 'over-the-hill' boxers of past and yet Johnson fights Burns again capable but never going to cause Johnson any trouble as he weighed in at 168lbs as suffering from a bout of the flu or jaundice and still manages to push Johnson to 14 rounds. The same burns that only measured 5' 7" compared to Johnson's 6' 1". Roland La Starza's second defeat to Rocky was nothing short of amazing, Rocky and Charley (Goldman) knew that they would struggle yet again with La Starza's slick and defensive approach to boxing but yet still put Rocky in to make as much damage as possible before the call came to 'bang his arms' the fight then took a brutal turn, Marciano as instructed broke La Starza down and made it look easy. Just to confirm, Marciano was famous for hitting anywhere he could because it didn't matter where he it, it always hurt. Marciano improved considerably from the 1st fight and was never going to let the same result happen again, whether he got the call or not. The result was always going to be the same.

'Rocket'Rigby wrote:Ali v Terrell is your pick off PRIME performances put in by Ali. A uninanimous decision over 15 rounds...differs so drastically from a dominent and all out 15 round uninanimous decision put in by Rocky v Charles (I). The referee never once had to seperate the fighters for 15 rounds.

Baer v Louis, the same Baer that was known for his clowning around enough for him to lose his heavyweight championship crown. Baer was telented, had the tools but lacked the heart. 30/12/49, Rocky Marciano is lined up against the next biggest heavyweight prospect to come out of New York, Carmine Vingo. Vingo was tipped to hit the big time, tipped to become a future champion. Marciano completely pulverised him, once down for nine in the first, again for nine in the second and took the full count in six.

Johnson's PRIME display was against Burns. Everyone calls Marciano for fighting and struggling with the 'old', 'over-the-hill' boxers of past and yet Johnson fights Burns again capable but never going to cause Johnson any trouble as he weighed in at 168lbs as suffering from a bout of the flu or jaundice and still manages to push Johnson to 14 rounds. The same burns that only measured 5' 7" compared to Johnson's 6' 1". Roland La Starza's second defeat to Rocky was nothing short of amazing, Rocky and Charley (Goldman) knew that they would struggle yet again with La Starza's slick and defensive approach to boxing but yet still put Rocky in to make as much damage as possible before the call came to 'bang his arms' the fight then took a brutal turn, Marciano as instructed broke La Starza down and made it look easy. Just to confirm, Marciano was famous for hitting anywhere he could because it didn't matter where he it, it always hurt. Marciano improved considerably from the 1st fight and was never going to let the same result happen again, whether he got the call or not. The result was always going to be the same.

Sorry but you comapre apples with oranges. Marciano fought tooth and nail with a years beyond prime Charles before edging out a close decision. And he was on his way to defeat against an at best second rate LaStarza before he found a way of turning it around that has only a remote relationship with "boxing". Marciano's willpower to win these seemingly losing battles was impressive (add in Walcott I), but not the boxing ability that he displayed.

By contrast, Ali toyed for 15 rounds with an in-prime Terrell who couldn't touch Ali. Louis destroyed an in-prime and very focussed Max Baer who didn't dare to clown once. And Johnson hit the heavyweight champ from pillar to post who had previoulsy beaten with ease top contenders like Philadelphia Jack O'Brien, Bill Squite, and Jim Flynn.

Marciano's gruelling matches with old, small, post-prime opponents simply don't hold the comparison with these stellar performances of the first-rank ATGs. Most importantly, he never put in one of these performances himself.

Why? Because he could not. He lacked the means. While Ali, Louis, Johnson put in plentiful performances where they seemed sheer invincible -- the above three bouts were only examples.

nearly 200 posts on the top 100 heavyweights.

too bad 183 of them are debating the same stupid topic.

you either belong to scool a)wich suggestss that marciano was a good heavyweight(not great)that came along at a very weak era.and fought old and sub-par fighters his entire career

or

you belong to school b)who believe that marciano was one of the greatest if not the greatest heavyweight that ever lived.a man that took his small stature to unbelievable heights.a man who could hold his own with true top 10 all time greats.

no one is changing there minds.all of the supposed factss that are being presented are nothing more than oppinion.and very starry eyed oppinions at that.



and for the record i believe that marciano was a very good heavyweight who did come at a weak era.but i also believe that with his heart he would of stood a chance no matter how slim that chance may appear
to pull off an upset over several top 20 all time greats.

MEISINGER wrote:nearly 200 posts on the top 100 heavyweights.

too bad 183 of them are debating the same stupid topic.

you either belong to scool a)wich suggestss that marciano was a good heavyweight(not great)that came along at a very weak era.and fought old and sub-par fighters his entire career

or

you belong to school b)who believe that marciano was one of the greatest if not the greatest heavyweight that ever lived.a man that took his small stature to unbelievable heights.a man who could hold his own with true top 10 all time greats.

no one is changing there minds.all of the supposed factss that are being presented are nothing more than oppinion.and very starry eyed oppinions at that.



and for the record i believe that marciano was a very good heavyweight who did come at a weak era.but i also believe that with his heart he would of stood a chance no matter how slim that chance may appear
to pull off an upset over several top 20 all time greats.

Well I rank him #11, which seems pretty consistent with your view.

But you're of course right that on Marciano many peoples' mind are pretty set.

i would not argue with anyone that has rocky from 6-20th
it is subjective and depends on your credentials for your view of all time
greats.

'Rocket'Rigby wrote:

serious wrote:Marciano was a great champion for what he achieved in the sport. That you can not dispute. But if we are talking about fighters in history and fighters of today that could have beaten him, i believe there are many.

You only have to look at his size (190 lbs at his heaviest) to realize that he wouldn't have been able to handle it with some some of the many heavyweight champions over the years.
The fact that he was put down against an old Archie moore, and put down and hurt against walcott (old) doesn't make good reading for his chances against the other elite heavys.
Are we to believe that this same Marciano (190 lbs) with minimal boxing technique, and brute power and heart, would have beaten a 6'5" Lewis with devastating punch power and far more accomplished skills at 18st. A 222 lb peak, tyson who had quicker hands and feet and hit harder than both Walcott and Moore. A prime Ezzard Charles. a prime Larry Holmes with a significant reach advantag, sticking that jab in his face. Evander Holyfield, who has just as much heart, and work rate as Marciano. There are many more who i believe could have beaten Rocky. That does not automatically make them greater, as there are numerous ways that you can define a boxers greatness. But lets look at these issues of who would have beaten who objectively.

For the record i believe that Roy Jones at heavy beats Rocky. and i do not see any reason why it would not have happened. Jones 192 lbs, fast, defensively skilled, balance, foot speed and power. Who's to say that Rocky would have gotten anywhere near his chin. And walking someone like Jones down is easier said than done.

This is only my opinion. I believe that too many people go with the general concensus, of what they're use to hearing, and not what they believe themselves.

Firstly I would hardly rate Lewis' punching power as 'devastating', in fact I think there would a good enough case to rank Marciano's power above Lewis'. But the style of both Lewis and Holmes using their advantages in height and reach could offer problems. Marciano would break Tyson's will enough to KO him easier than Douglas did. Ezzard Charles certainly in his prime, a little younger and fresher would give Marciano trouble. Holyfield would offer the most competitiveness for Marciano as I think both Lewis and Holmes would stay at a distance and fight behind their jabs, where as Holyfield would come forward pick his shots and try to rough Marciano up, that one would be hard to call. But if Bowe can handle Holyfield so well Marciano could easily.

I hope by your last comments in regards to Jones Jnr are a joke, Marciano would completely swarm all over him and dominate him from the opening bell and when Marciano would have finished with him he would'nt be good enough for dog food.

Rocket
______


How you can see that Lewis did not have devastating power is ridiculous.
I've never been lewis's greatest fan but i do respect what he has done in the sport. Ok we might not remember him as a devastating puncher like we do with Tyson, Foreman, or shavers but he certainly woulld have hit harder than a 13 1/2 stone Marciano. point i'm making is if this man was hurt bad against a 38 year old walcott and a blown up l.heavy moore, what is the reasoning behind this notion that marciano would have knocked out an ultra quick, fast starting devastating puncher with awsome combinations and excellent feet like Tyson (who was better than walcott imo by the way). Nothing against marciano, but people really need to look at the bigger picture.
In regards to Marciano, all of the above mentioned greats stand head and shoulders ahead of him in terms of technical abilityannd he was a lot smaller than them. it took 13 rounds and one of the best right hands in history before he could catch up to walcott andd he went the full 15 with charles. given his style of fighting i sincerely could not see him going past 3 rounds with lewis. and he would be lucky to here thew second bell against tyson.

Molon Labe!

[/quote]

If the rankings are based on accomplishments than I would have to disagree with some of them. Additionally, some of the primes seem incorrect.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:If the rankings are based on accomplishments than I would have to disagree with some of them. Additionally, some of the primes seem incorrect.

Let me know buddy. Always interest in informed alternative views.

If John Ruiz could knock Jones across the ring with a single shot to the body, and by no means is John Ruiz an ATG puncher, imagine what one of the greatest HW body punchers (Marciano) would have done to Jones?

Like I written in my 'Rocky Marciano: An Enduring Legacy into Mythology' thread, I believe between the two sides (that he was invincible because of being undefeated and that he was incapable of any ring science and was a bum who became champion in a mediocre era) there is the truth somewhere in between the lines.

Was he the greatest? No. Could he have handled himself well against the greatest, if not win a couple against them? Yes. The man never knew fear, never knew how to back up, never stopped punching, had a tremendous work rate, phenomenal conditioning, unbreakable will, very tough, and of course being one of the hardest punchers in history.

He would have been a very dangerous opponent for anyone past or present, irregardless if he would have beaten them or not. Nobody would have wanted to fight Rocky Marciano unless they absoloutely had to (looking back on all he accomplished). He was just awesome in his brutality; and deservedly belongs in the same class as Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Sullivan, Jefferies and Dempsey---irregardless if he did fight in a 'lesser' era. Not everybody had the chance to fight in the 1970's.

HomicideHenry wrote:
As for the comment on Marciano not being able to beat Louis/Ali on their best night, there used to be an old saying/theory in boxing that whenever a fighter won the title that he/she was unbeatable on that particular day. While I personally don't believe this, your statement somewhat goes along these lines. With this logic, Ali couldn't beat Jack Dempsey, the same Dempsey who annihilated Willard in Toledo, Ohio. Or that Louis couldn't beat the same George Foreman who beat Joe Frazier in Kingston.

No. the logic is just a simple stripped down version of probability. If 2 guys fight each another enough times it doesn't matter how superior fighter 1 is fighter 2 will eventually win one match up (whether it be by a bad decision or a freak one in a trillion occurence).

The question is how close to a 50-50 split would it be?

One thing that is important is how many fighters in the top 10 a heavyweight beat. Could someone post rankings at heavyweight for different years? This would help show how many top contenders the various heavyweights beat.

Langford rates above Walcott and Schmelling in terms of how good they were in their own eras.

I totally agree with marcianofrasier, in fact he owned pundit in this debate. i dont post much here anymore because this forum has declined badly, as seen in this thread

Fights were the finest ATGs dominated opponents who in spite of being world class never had any hope -- beware of a realistic chance -- of winning.

like the way marciano did to archie moore, rex layne, roland lastarza?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:I totally agree with marcianofrasier, in fact he owned pundit in this debate. i dont post much here anymore because this forum has declined badly, as seen in this thread

Declined badly??!... by which you mean everyone on this thread doesnt agree with the Rocky is superman doctrine??... oh boo hoo!!... 8)

MEISINGER wrote:nearly 200 posts on the top 100 heavyweights.

too bad 183 of them are debating the same stupid topic.

you either belong to scool a)wich suggestss that marciano was a good heavyweight(not great)that came along at a very weak era.and fought old and sub-par fighters his entire career

or

you belong to school b)who believe that marciano was one of the greatest if not the greatest heavyweight that ever lived.a man that took his small stature to unbelievable heights.a man who could hold his own with true top 10 all time greats.



no one is changing there minds.all of the supposed factss that are being presented are nothing more than oppinion.and very starry eyed oppinions at that.



and for the record i believe that marciano was a very good heavyweight who did come at a weak era.but i also believe that with his heart he would of stood a chance no matter how slim that chance may appear
to pull off an upset over several top 20 all time greats.

I sort of agree with this. Marciano has always been a guy that most people have extreme opinions of. I myself don't really belong to either "school". The "school" I belong to rates him between the two extremes.
I think his unbeaten record is a huge reason why there are the two extemes. Some of his fans act as if that automatically makes him the best heavyweight ever.
His criitcs seem to disregard his wins entirely.
It's not hard for an objective person to imagine another great fighter beating Marciano. He had his limitations.
He was easy to hit. His biggest fans often will say it's not the case but it's obvious that he was. He also wasn't a very accurrate puncher. He didn't connect on a high % of punches and often he missed by a mile. He was also small for a heavyweight.
However, he was a very hard puncher. He threw a lot of punches so even though he didn't connect a high % of the time, he connected often enough. He had a very good chin.
Yes he was small, but there simply haven't been many bigger fighters who were talented enough, smart enough, and tough enough that would have handled Marciano.
However what always impressed me the most about Marciano the most was his consistency. He had less "off nights" than any other heavyweight.
There are a handful of other heavyweights who probably would have beaten him in a head to head matchup. However, it's hard to imagine Marciano losing to just a good fighter like other greats did.

Think of it this way. Take the Top 100 list on this thread (or someone elses or your own). How many fights would Marciano have lost if he would have fought each of the other 99 guys once?
Ali,Louis,Foreman,Johnson,Holmes,Frazier,Holyfield,Lewis,Liston,Tyson,
Tunney,Dempsey would have good chances of beating him. After that maybe a few other guys would have a chance but Marciano would probably beat them.
Marciano would probably pull off a couple of wins against the true greats.
It's highly unlikely that Marcaino would lose to anyone outside of the top 20. He would wind up with a better record than guys that would probably beat him in a head to haed matchup.
Foreman lost to Young, Johnson lost to Hart. Lewis lost to McCall and Rahman, Tyson lost to Douglas etc. They would all lose a few fights to fighters outside of the top 20 if they fought everyone else in the top 100.
I would estimate that Marciano would only lose 10-12 fights against the rest of the top 100. His win/loss record would probably be among the 10 best if everyone fought the rest of the top 100.

The bottom line is that he certainly wasn't the greatest heavyweight of all time. However, he has to be in the top 10.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Fights were the finest ATGs dominated opponents who in spite of being world class never had any hope -- beware of a realistic chance -- of winning.

like the way marciano did to archie moore, rex layne, roland lastarza?

Lightheavyweight Moore had Marcinao down and hurt -- in that second round he had plenty of hope of winning the fight. And La Starza -- who otherwise did few remarkable thing in his career -- won the first fight in the eyes of many (under modern rules it would have been scored a draw, btw), and was winning the second fight until Marciano stopped boxing (which, as is well known, is about connecting one's fist with the opponent's upper body or head) and instead focussed on shredding LaStarza's arms to pieces.

Now compare this to Ali vs. Terrell or Louis vs. MBaer. Fights where Ali or Louis won every round by massacre. I for my part see a rather clear difference.

Haven't seen Marciano vs. Layne.

pundit wrote:

'Rocket'Rigby wrote:Ali v Terrell is your pick off PRIME performances put in by Ali. A uninanimous decision over 15 rounds...differs so drastically from a dominent and all out 15 round uninanimous decision put in by Rocky v Charles (I). The referee never once had to seperate the fighters for 15 rounds.

Baer v Louis, the same Baer that was known for his clowning around enough for him to lose his heavyweight championship crown. Baer was telented, had the tools but lacked the heart. 30/12/49, Rocky Marciano is lined up against the next biggest heavyweight prospect to come out of New York, Carmine Vingo. Vingo was tipped to hit the big time, tipped to become a future champion. Marciano completely pulverised him, once down for nine in the first, again for nine in the second and took the full count in six.

Johnson's PRIME display was against Burns. Everyone calls Marciano for fighting and struggling with the 'old', 'over-the-hill' boxers of past and yet Johnson fights Burns again capable but never going to cause Johnson any trouble as he weighed in at 168lbs as suffering from a bout of the flu or jaundice and still manages to push Johnson to 14 rounds. The same burns that only measured 5' 7" compared to Johnson's 6' 1". Roland La Starza's second defeat to Rocky was nothing short of amazing, Rocky and Charley (Goldman) knew that they would struggle yet again with La Starza's slick and defensive approach to boxing but yet still put Rocky in to make as much damage as possible before the call came to 'bang his arms' the fight then took a brutal turn, Marciano as instructed broke La Starza down and made it look easy. Just to confirm, Marciano was famous for hitting anywhere he could because it didn't matter where he it, it always hurt. Marciano improved considerably from the 1st fight and was never going to let the same result happen again, whether he got the call or not. The result was always going to be the same.

Sorry but you comapre apples with oranges. Marciano fought tooth and nail with a years beyond prime Charles before edging out a close decision.

-"edging out a close decision"? He won 9-5-1, 9-6, 8-6-1 on the scorecards, and although the full fight isn't available on film, judging by the available footage and press accounts, those scores are fair. "Edging out" a decision would be, say, 8-6-1, 8-7, 8-7, something of that ilk. Marciano won comfortably.

And he was on his way to defeat against an at best second rate LaStarza before he found a way of turning it around that has only a remote relationship with "boxing". Marciano's willpower to win these seemingly losing battles was impressive (add in Walcott I), but not the boxing ability that he displayed.

Saying he was "on his way to defeat" is rather inaccurate. He was behind for the first six rounds about 4-2, which is hardly anything insurmountable, and your descriptions of Marciano doing something which "hardly resembled boxing" and "resorting to shredding LaStarza's arms" suggest you haven't seen this full fight or at least not in a while, as, though Marciano did batter LaStarza's guard more instead of reaching around it, he was also throwing clean body and head shots and obviously performing the functions of a professional boxer(watch the fight if you don't believe me). He was well ahead on points and easily dominating the fight by the time he finished LaStarza off.

pundit wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Fights were the finest ATGs dominated opponents who in spite of being world class never had any hope -- beware of a realistic chance -- of winning.

like the way marciano did to archie moore, rex layne, roland lastarza?

Lightheavyweight Moore had Marcinao down and hurt -- in that second round he had plenty of hope of winning the fight.

Marciano was caught badly off-balance, went down for a flash two-count, hopped up immediately and never once staggered, covered up or clinched at any moment in that round. It's becoming apparent you haven't watched these fights in quite a while, judging by the inaccurate and exaggerated accounts. Moore was never even remotely close to stopping Marciano, or seriously hurting him, for that matter. Marciano won nearly every round aside from the second(which he would have won without the flash knockdown) decked Moore four times and left him in a helpless heap on the canvas.

And La Starza -- who otherwise did few remarkable thing in his career -- won the first fight in the eyes of many (under modern rules it would have been scored a draw, btw),

No, actually, Marciano had a knockdown, which would have given him a 10-8 round under modern scoring, and dominated the eighth round but lost it on a foul, meaning under modern scoring it would have been 10-10, which would cause a two-point swing in Marciano's favor and give him the win.

and was winning the second fight until Marciano stopped boxing (which, as is well known, is about connecting one's fist with the opponent's upper body or head) and instead focussed on shredding LaStarza's arms to pieces.

Again, this is a huge exaggeration. Marciano did batter at LaStarza's guard to some extent(which is perfectly legal, and arm-punching is quite a regular practice in boxing), but he was definitely still "boxing"- I think you should rewatch the film here. And Marciano completely dominated that fight from the seventh round on.

Haven't seen Marciano vs. Layne.

Marciano had a fairly clear edge through five rounds, and then knocked Layne out cold with a right hand that sheered off his front teeth in the sixth.