BoxRec

BoxBuzz wrote: Rocky achieved that "0" in an era where Joe and a few others could have done the same.

Thats how I see it. Several heavyweights would have been unbeaten if they fought when Marciano did, the same cannot be said if you put Marciano in Ali's era. No way would he have stayed undefeated. I'm a big Marciano fan, he was a true underdog in so many ways and achieved great things but you do have to be objective and realise he fought in a poor era against some great fighters past their bests.

The notion that Quarry pushed Frazier all over over the ring and almost out of it in rd 1 of their first fight is an exaggeration.

Frazier slipped backward to the ropes early in the fight, but for the most part Quarry and Frazier stayed head to head in one of the most thrilling rounds in heavyweight history.

Yes, Quarry did win rd 1 and probably was slightly stronger, but what happened beginning in rd 2?

Frazier clearly became stronger and stronger and definitely took control.

Frazier would knock out Marciano in a brutal affair.

I would have liked to have seen Quarry and Marciano fight. I think that would have been a hell of a fight, with Quarry having a better chance of winning than generally given.

Martin Sosa Cameron wrote:

xxoldwarriorxx wrote:Not sure if this topic has been discussed but I think Frazier would be too much for "The Rock".

Why do you think?

Dear, xxoldwarriorxx,
May be Somkin' Joe would be too much for Rocky, but only before the fight and out of the ring... In the ring, fighting? Rocky Marciano knocked out Joe Frazier in the first round

Aren't you the fellow that has the Rock knocking practically every decent heavyweight in history out in the first round?

Mr E wrote:I'm not sure Frazier was any stronger than Marciano. Taking their weights @ their peak performances, I note that Frazier weighed 205 1/2 for his first fight against Ali and Marciano weighed 187 for his rematch against Charles. That's a difference of 18 1/2 pounds, which difference is not so great as to make the "strength" issue a foregone conclusion by any means. To me, it looked like Marciano had a strength advantage in every fight he ever fought, including against guys who outweighed him by the same amount or more than Frazier would have outweighed him.

Both were swarmers but Frazier had a greater punch-rate than Marciano did, and that's saying something. However, Frazier DID seem to run out of gas late a few times (Bonavena II, Ali II and III, Bugner). I think Frazier was a bit quicker, Marciano a bit more durable.

My instinct is that Marciano had better power in his right than Frazier had in his left and probably better overall "2-hand" power. I also suspect that Marciano had the better chin. I use the words "instinct" and "suspect" because all of these conclusions are open to debate, to say the least.

IMO, this is a close fight between 2 GREAT champions. I favor Marciano on about a 51-49 basis, but, again, it's a very very close call.

If ever there were a hypothetical bout with respect to which reasonable minds could differ, then this is the one.

Best offering so far.

Any of you picking one or the other with conviction should think again.

I have it on good authority that Ambling Alp picks Ali in this one. i kid, I kid, instead of multiple quotes, two things I would address.

Marciano was incredibly strong. i wouldn't give Joe an edge there.

Frazier's right hand was not a crippling punch, but it wasn't feathery either. He could bang to the body from either side with equal authority. He just got so much torque into the hook to the head and his stance was predicated towards that blow. Joe Frazier didn't do anything soft.

Look my point is this, for those who can disregard the "0" and understand that he was a very powerful and capable "smallish" HW and clearly his ability outpaced his size....I'm good.

I favor Frazier....if you favor Marciano...I'm not going to be critical....in this case it could be the first guy with an edge could run with the fight and win it. It might be a question of who had lady luck with them on that night. Both Greats....

But over and over again...(not so much these days as a few years ago) the magic of the "0" was just absurd. People got carried away with it. He beat four champions that he quite likely could have lost to if they would have had the luxury of fighting him in their prime.

I don't see Joe having the same probable outcomes with 3 of those 4...so I give the edge to Joe...but it's just an edge not a slam dunk.

I can only hope that 40 years from now, Clowns aren't chiming in drunk on boxrec, that Joe Calzaghe was some sort of undefeatable monster because he had no defeats.

Rocky was not an undefeatable champion, he was an undefeated champion....and a little like Calzaghe he had timing on his side.


Please don't take from this that I compare Rocky to Joe C....In this case I compare only the fans of the mighty "0" to one another.

"0" is a mythological entity with a life all it's own.

I totally agree, same thing goes for mayweather. I'd love to see him march his "0" into Montrreal against Duran. That's a time machine dream of mine at this point.

BoxBuzz wrote:
I can only hope that 40 years from now, Clowns aren't chiming in drunk on boxrec, that Joe Calzaghe was some sort of undefeatable monster because he had no defeats.

I am sure there will be one or two drunks singing that song, Buzz.

However, BB49 always makes good points. The main one being that Marciano fought and beat ALL the top guys of his era OR he beat them by proxy by beating the guy who beat them. We can't ask for more than that.

It's hard to make that case for Calzaghe.

I think Marciano is a little under-rated in here these days. Whenever I see his fights I see a formidable fighting machine who would have given most of the other heavyweight champs a run for their money. Especially one like Frazier who would be right in front of him.

BoxBuzz wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:Well if all the folks who had Marciano as the #1 would trade up to Frazier, credibility would be on the rise.

Seriously if you have Rocky at number one there is no reason you couldshould not seriously consider Joe holding that same slot.

I must confess I have often had thoughts and feared to speak out.... I look at Joes Olympic Gold Medal. I look at the lethal wrecking machine on his rise to the title and the man through numerous title defences over tough competition.

Than I remember he beat Ali the first time in the fight of the "century" clearly.

I beleive he had reached a physical and mental prime that night.

If he had retired than and there. How would he be viewed?

The fact is he was still a young man and his hard fights would come later. He went to Jamaica and got damn near half killed by Foreman a man who i beleive always would have had his number. But than there are some who argue Frazier was already over the hill and the real hungry Frazier would have got George. If thats the case these same people (nuts?) say his losses to Ali didnt matter either and hell the third and deciding one came down to Eddie Futchs losing his apron. Otherwise it would be Frazier 2-Ali one.

Still I also have thoughts about Foreman Mk 1 being the greatest HW of all time and the loss to Ali being a abberation and Foreman would have won a rematch if he was given it etc.

A lot of people also think Liston was the best ever. I guess these kind of fighters like Foreman, Liston, Frazier should not be discounted so readily by the prevailing wisdom of the ages which is its either Louis ( a man I have doubts could have ever handled these 3) and Ali ( a man who did it all and deserves by all consensus of wisdom to be number 1).

I have never seen a list in all my years which ranked Sonny Liston at the top of the Heavyweight tree.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I have never seen a list in all my years which ranked Sonny Liston at the top of the Heavyweight tree.

Me either, there really are 3 choices. Louis, Ali or being wrong.

Im not talking "lists" Im talking the opinion of certain crusty old time fight figures around at Liston's prime before he beat Patterson. Some have sworn that incarnation of Liston would have beaten every HW in history

What can I say. I've never heard anyone say that, ever. You would think once, maybe.

It's a hard task. I was re-reading some of Mike Casey's pieces that he kindly posted here. They make good reading and are always well researched.

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=49711

I read this one above and thought but we all know Joe Louis and Ali are 1 or 2 (or 2 and 1)… But then I read the quotes from Ray Arcel and I thought but this guy knows more than I’ll ever know about boxing. I can’t just throw this guy’s opinion out when he’s arguably the greatest trainer the sport has ever had. Okay, Gene Tunney goes overboard (and as jaclem says he’s essentially self-promoting) but there’s too much ‘certainty’ kicked around boxing forums.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:What can I say. I've never heard anyone say that, ever. You would think once, maybe.

An article in The Ring after Holmes-Bey pitted Larry bagainst the greats of the past. It only picked 2 fighters to beat him Ali and Sonny...

That's the closest I've ever seen him get.

Ezzard wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:What can I say. I've never heard anyone say that, ever. You would think once, maybe.

An article in The Ring after Holmes-Bey pitted Larry bagainst the greats of the past. It only picked 2 fighters to beat him Ali and Sonny...

That's the closest I've ever seen him get.

Ive been looking all over in KO magazine. SO it was the Ring!
Yes and Jerry Izenberg also rated the Liston who was shut out of the HW picture as one of the greatest HW of all time although Im trying hard to find the exact placing. Still he also said similar things about Tyson back in 1988!

Cus D'amato rated Liston as one of the finest HW's ever. But that was before Ali,Frazier, Foreman, Holmes and co. Im trying to find some later early 80's material where Cus discusses Listons place. I will reveal my findings.

Intersting that as a kid I basically believed everything I read in The Ring and treated it as the gospel. But as I remember the article (it's been 25 years ago so give me some slack here) basically argued that Holmes beats Johnson, Dempsey, Louis because he was simply bigger than them...

Also, important for younger gusy to appreciate, Frazier was not in that list of fighters (though there were some dissenting letters to the editor about this) and neither was Foreman - and nobody thought Foreman deserved to be ranked in the elite group either.

Yes Herbert Goldman rated Sonny as the number 3 greatest HW ever in 1997. Only Ali and Louis were ahead of him.

Seems Bert Sugar rated Jack Dempsey number 1 in a HW list in 1991. Although Im sure on those endless re-runs on ESPN greatest ten HW's he has Dempsey lower?

Take a look at this list of the historians view. Note this was origionally on a website which i cant find again but I see it reprinted on another website.


http://www.BS.com/forums/showt ... p?t=196029

It is pretty revealing that in the polls given in the late 1970's that people like Jack Johnson, Dempsey, Ezzard Charles, and many many other HW's of the 20's-30's and 50's are rated so highly. I guess it reveals much of those people polled had actually lived through the reigns of these people or seen them on TV or in person.

In this internet age it seems more and more the guys of the earlier age are disregarded.

Jack Dempseys name of course is out there but he had a VHS tape released on him in 1983 and he was also on that video magazine (at least in the UK) called Boxers, destroying Willard in crystal clear black and white. Plus Tyson put his name out there by name dropping him so many times.

Ring magazine can't make their collective minds up over the years.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divis ... f_All-Time

orbtastic wrote:Ring magazine can't make their collective minds up over the years.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divis ... f_All-Time

In the late 80s they did a piece on each division (champs only) in which they gave marks out of 10 for 10 categories.

I seem to remember that it was...

1) Ali
2) Johnson
3) Louis
4) Tunney
5) Dempsey

Ezzard wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Ring magazine can't make their collective minds up over the years.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divis ... f_All-Time

In the late 80s they did a piece on each division (champs only) in which they gave marks out of 10 for 10 categories.

I seem to remember that it was...

1) Ali
2) Johnson
3) Louis
4) Tunney
5) Dempsey

In fact, it was:

The Ring Editors (Bert Randolph Sugar, Editor-n-Chief) (1987)
The Ring (August, 1987, pp. 6-16)

1-Muhammad Ali (95)
2-Jack Johnson (91)
3-Joe Louis (87)
4-Jack Dempsey (81)
5-Gene Tunney (80)
6-Larry Holmes (75)
7-Rocky Marciano (73)
8-Sonny Liston (69)
9-Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott (68)
11-Joe Frazier, Jim Jeffries (66)
13-Floyd Patterson, Max Schmeling (65)
15-Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons (63)
17-Jack Sharkey (60)
18-John L. Sullivan (59)
19-Max Baer, Jim Braddock, George Foreman (58)
22-Tommy Burns (57)
23-Leon Spinks (50)
24-Marvin Hart (47)
25-Jess Willard (46)
26-Ingemar Johansson (45)
27-Primo Carnera (39)

Each champion was rated, 1-10, in the following categories: defense, determination, durability, hand speed, foot work, punching power, cut resistance, natural ability, quality of opposition, and historical impact. 100 would have been a perfect score.

Mr E wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Ring magazine can't make their collective minds up over the years.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Divis ... f_All-Time

In the late 80s they did a piece on each division (champs only) in which they gave marks out of 10 for 10 categories.

I seem to remember that it was...

1) Ali
2) Johnson
3) Louis
4) Tunney
5) Dempsey

In fact, it was:

The Ring Editors (Bert Randolph Sugar, Editor-n-Chief) (1987)
The Ring (August, 1987, pp. 6-16)

1-Muhammad Ali (95)
2-Jack Johnson (91)
3-Joe Louis (87)
4-Jack Dempsey (81)
5-Gene Tunney (80)
6-Larry Holmes (75)
7-Rocky Marciano (73)
8-Sonny Liston (69)
9-Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott (68)
11-Joe Frazier, Jim Jeffries (66)
13-Floyd Patterson, Max Schmeling (65)
15-Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons (63)
17-Jack Sharkey (60)
18-John L. Sullivan (59)
19-Max Baer, Jim Braddock, George Foreman (58)
22-Tommy Burns (57)
23-Leon Spinks (50)
24-Marvin Hart (47)
25-Jess Willard (46)
26-Ingemar Johansson (45)
27-Primo Carnera (39)

Each champion was rated, 1-10, in the following categories: defense, determination, durability, hand speed, foot work, punching power, cut resistance, natural ability, quality of opposition, and historical impact. 100 would have been a perfect score.

Mr E, you're a gent. You've saved me a trip to the loft at my mum's house down in Devon...

Foreman at 19... I think people will be shocked at how downgraded he was back then. Though I do feel he gets overrated a little today.

Things that stand out... I remember the article saying something like Ali gets 9/10 for cut resistance because he was human... And that though Holmes didn't get 10/10 for historical impact (i.e. he didn't beat Marciano's record) he still finished above him (just about).

I'm pretty sure Archie Moore won the 175 class...

Did you get your data from an online source or an old magazine?

Ezzard wrote:

Mr E wrote:

Ezzard wrote: In the late 80s they did a piece on each division (champs only) in which they gave marks out of 10 for 10 categories.

I seem to remember that it was...

1) Ali
2) Johnson
3) Louis
4) Tunney
5) Dempsey

In fact, it was:

The Ring Editors (Bert Randolph Sugar, Editor-n-Chief) (1987)
The Ring (August, 1987, pp. 6-16)

1-Muhammad Ali (95)
2-Jack Johnson (91)
3-Joe Louis (87)
4-Jack Dempsey (81)
5-Gene Tunney (80)
6-Larry Holmes (75)
7-Rocky Marciano (73)
8-Sonny Liston (69)
9-Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott (68)
11-Joe Frazier, Jim Jeffries (66)
13-Floyd Patterson, Max Schmeling (65)
15-Jim Corbett, Bob Fitzsimmons (63)
17-Jack Sharkey (60)
18-John L. Sullivan (59)
19-Max Baer, Jim Braddock, George Foreman (58)
22-Tommy Burns (57)
23-Leon Spinks (50)
24-Marvin Hart (47)
25-Jess Willard (46)
26-Ingemar Johansson (45)
27-Primo Carnera (39)

Each champion was rated, 1-10, in the following categories: defense, determination, durability, hand speed, foot work, punching power, cut resistance, natural ability, quality of opposition, and historical impact. 100 would have been a perfect score.

Mr E, you're a gent. You've saved me a trip to the loft at my mum's house down in Devon...

Foreman at 19... I think people will be shocked at how downgraded he was back then. Though I do feel he gets overrated a little today.

Things that stand out... I remember the article saying something like Ali gets 9/10 for cut resistance because he was human... And that though Holmes didn't get 10/10 for historical impact (i.e. he didn't beat Marciano's record) he still finished above him (just about).

I'm pretty sure Archie Moore won the 175 class...

Did you get your data from an online source or an old magazine?

I have the magazine somewhere but I didn't need to re-check it. A few years ago, I gathered up all the all-time heavyweight rankings I had come across in books and magazines, etc., and entered them into a word perfect doc. It's over 50 pages long now-- I have a million of 'em. Now when somebody asks, I just cut and paste.