BoxRec

fergusg wrote:I’ve thought long and hard about this… and I think I have to ignore the men listed in Freedom’s poll, as he clearly has an agenda to fulfil, so I’ve come up with a name that I truly believe has a legacy that may have been overrated!

Even though he was unbeaten, there are certain issues surrounding Rocky Marciano’s career that may leave him open to criticism:
• He had only one world title fight against an opponent that weighed more than 200lbs (he usually came to fight at around the 187lb mark).
• He was a limited slugger, who is really only really admired for his toughness, endurance, conditioning and punching power.
• His biggest wins were two fights against a 38 & 39 year old version of Jersey Joe Walcott, a 37 year old Joe Louis, a 38 year old Archie Moore and a 33 year old overweight version of Ezzard Charles (who’d lost two of his previous four fights leading up to the Rocky fight). Remember, back in those days, they did not have the scientific approach to training and nutrition, so fighters aged much quicker back then than they do nowadays.
• Rocky’s legacy is built on his “unbeaten” record, but many feel that he actually lost to Roland LaStarza.
• He was carefully managed, which meant that his handlers did not always match him with the truly best fighters of his time. For instance, when Rocky was a contender, it was rumoured that he avoided Nino Valdez & Bob Baker. At one point Valdez was on a very impressive winning streak, it was claimed during that period that he was "avoided" by the Rock.
• Marciano only defended his title six times, and to be honest when he was the champion, there was a distinct lack of quality contenders available for him to have defended his crown against. So in reality we will never know how good Marciano was.
• If Rocky would have fought for another year longer, he would have had to defend his titles against younger opponents like Ingemar Johansson, Floyd Patterson and possibly Sonny Liston.
• Much has been said about Marciano’s lack of size and that his fights were usually of a “David & Goliath” nature. His successes over these perceived “bigger” opponents lead many to believe that he was an “abnormally powerful puncher” in a smaller “Heavyweight” package, which enhanced his legacy. Yet in terms of actual weight, he wasn't really that much smaller than his opponents.

Since Marciano did retire undefeated, that leaves him with a permanent aura of invincibility and that is why some people can be biased. I believe that he was a great fighter, but there will always be doubts in many people’s minds’ due to the lack of high-calibre in-their-prime opponents on his resume.

That being said, when Larry Holmes failed to tie with Rocky Marciano’s 49-0 record, by losing to Michael Spinks, he deservedly received a lot of criticism for saying that “Rocky Marciano couldn't carry my jockstrap.” This may have been a disrespectful thing for Holmes to have said, but I feel that there may have been an element of truth to this harsh claim.

There’s no real right or wrong when people perform mythical comparisons of boxers from various weights and eras. Debates of this nature will continue as long as the sport exists, with people’s opinions depending on nothing more than which fighter you admire the most.

KBB wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:So, would you say it's unfair to compare him to the likes of SRR because of all the differences between then and now?

Ok here's the deal, I saw it is unfair to compare boxers over any era but people do it and then they summarize who they think would win based on how much they like one fighter over the other.

Impractical Poster wrote:So, why should it be valid to take stats into effect when talking all time greats while overlooking competition, frequency, and amount of fights?

My point is that Floyd's statement about being the best of all time is invalid because we don't have a valid measuring stick. This is something that you just admitted to, yet you still support Floyd in his claim and use his statistics to support your view. Doesn't really make sense.

KBB wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:So, why should it be valid to take stats into effect when talking all time greats while overlooking competition, frequency, and amount of fights?

My point is that Floyd's statement about being the best of all time is invalid because we don't have a valid measuring stick. This is something that you just admitted to, yet you still support Floyd in his claim and use his statistics to support your view. Doesn't really make sense.

Ask yourself this, given what we do know of SRR and how much he has been hit according to the information that is already on hand; do you honestly think what little they did not access will grant him so much that he will surpass Mayweather?

As much as SRR got hit there's no way that I will believe that he will show enough improvement in the few fights they did not access to take him past the level of Floyd, this should be common sense to anyone. The +/- ratio of Mayweather is so vast that his closest competitor (Ward) isn't even close and we all know that SRR lost quite a few bouts and obviously he got hit more too.

This is a simple matter of using common logic.

Impractical Poster wrote:So the fighter that gets hit less is the better fighter?

Shouldn't Willy Pep be the best fighter?

And you now bring up Robinson's losses... So, shouldn't we now factor in his activity and level of competition of a consistent basis compared to Floyd's? Or are we just spinning in circles here?

KBB wrote:

Impractical Poster wrote:So the fighter that gets hit less is the better fighter?

Shouldn't Willy Pep be the best fighter?

And you now bring up Robinson's losses... So, shouldn't we now factor in his activity and level of competition of a consistent basis compared to Floyd's? Or are we just spinning in circles here?

We are spinning circles which is why I will leave you to debate it with the people here:


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1135 ... x-at-least

Impractical Poster wrote:For me, it's already too late for FLoyd to consider himself in the top 10 ATG P4P league. He never fought who he should have fought when he should have fought them. Sure, his stats are great, but only a clouded mind takes on stats alone as their sole criteria. This is what makes debating with blind Money fans as well as Manny fans so irritating. Too much love for either rules out any type of rational objectivity on this forum.

big train express wrote:assuming floyd beats manny, his resume is gonna look something like this:

corrales
castillo
dlh
mosley
marquez
cotto
hatton
canelo
pacquiao

pretty damn good list of fighters to go undefeated against... Top 10-15 maybe a stretch, but overrated he is not.

KBB wrote:

Perseus wrote:When you're talking about great fighters you have to nitpick to separate them.
That applies to other sports as well.
Eras also have to be taken into account. What was a great stat in X era may not mean much in a different era due to changes in the rules, technology of the equipment they use or simply how a given sport is managed and played.

How greatness is measured in other sports doesn't mean a damn thing for boxing.
Saying the competitors in the other sports must face the best to reach the top is absolutely true AND they have no say at all WHEN they face the best.
Saying boxers can simply steer clear of the best opponents, facing them when they so choose and ONLY when they choose is also true.
Plus boxers could have simply come along when there are no great fighters in their weight range for them to fight, that's not their fault but it still has to be taken into account when measuring them against other great fighters.
You have to nitpick the great ones.

Also I don't think anybody is even beginning to suggest that Floyd is NOT a great boxer....................just not the GREATEST boxer.
Wow, what an insult
This Mayweather guy is having his name mentioned in the same sentence as Robinson, Leonard, Ali, Duran, Chavez and so forth.
He might not be as good as those guys?
What a bum

You sure you want to nitpick? If so, let me know and then we will commence because believe me that if we do, Floyd will come out on top of that nitpicking war.

I disagree with you about stats not meaning anything in this era as opposed to other eras, boxers still use the same gloves, the same rules for the most part still stand today that stood back then and as far as technology---there is none in the ring.

Greatness is measured in other sports the same as it is in boxing, it's based on how well you play the game and how often you win Championships. Just look at any stats in any sport and you'll find that their measure of greatness is based on those things. In boxing it's about who you fought and how well you did against them, what's the difference??

Floyd is making a statement that is equivalent to what Jordan has done in the game, Kobe and Michael played the same game in almost the same way but when you look at their stat comparison there is a huge gap in how far ahead Jordan is over Bryant; the same can be said in Floyd vs the field of ALL other fighters in CompuBox stats.

So whenever he is saying he is better because he has never lost, never been knocked down officially, never been beaten up, dominated or KO'd then it is as fair to say that he was better than the rest at playing the game just as it is to safely say that Jordan was better than the rest.

I see nothing wrong with that argument, the problem people who claim they are "boxing fans" are having is one that is highly emotional, they don't like Floyd, they HATE him so they are unwilling to concede to this logic and these facts.

Idisagree wrote:To me stats means less than crap in boxing. In baseball a hit is a hit, a homerun is a homerun. Basketball you can score and it is tangible. That is not the case in boxing. Stats mean less than nothing. Take for example the Akiwandee fight vs Lewis. Sure the stats shows that Lewis barely landed a punch in that fight. When you see the fight you see why. He would not let Lewis land a punch because everytime Lewis was going to throw a punch Akiwandee will hold him. If I go by the stats then Akiwandee looks like a master defensive wizard. Many times punches landed are not counted and even if they land they could be meaningless punches. Face it people stats are very deceiving in boxing. Not like any other sport.