Marciano the Great ?

[APerno]

I am of Italian-American decent so I not supposed to be bad mouthing ‘the rock’ – but my god talk about reigning in a time of weak competition – Ali always said, Joe Frazier has to be great otherwise Ali can’t be great – take Charles off this list and where the hell is Marciano’s chance to be great?

Ring Magazine Ratings: Heavyweights, December 1953

World Champion: Rocky Marciano
1. Roland La Starza
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Nino Valdes
4. Dan Bucceroni
5. Heinz Neuhaus
6. Don Cockell
7. Earl Walls
8. Tommy Harrison
9. Coley Wallace
10. Harry Matthews

Who the hell is Earl Walls?

[Kalan]

Right... Rocky didn't have a Jim Jeffries, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Max Schmeling, Joe Louis, Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Michael Spinks, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield, Lennox Lewis, Wladidmir Klitschko, Vitali Klitschko, David Haye, Tyson Fury, or Anthony Joshua to fight... and it's just as well because most all of them would have beaten Marciano.

Charles was a Middleweight or Light Heavyweight for most of his career... He was suffering from the early inroads of ALS when he lost to Joe Walcott after beating him easily in 2 earlier fights... Charles had more Heavyweight Title Defenses in 2 years than Marciano had in 4 years... Charles knew he was slipping a little, but he thought he was aging prematurely -- so he tried to get in a lot of Title Fights in a hurry.

[Controversial]

It was a weak era, post WW2 with a lot of old timers still about. He beat a lot of very average fighters which make his record seem better than it is. Would Marciano had remain unbeaten in the 60s, 70s etc... no. How many other fighters from other eras would have remained unbeaten against the same opposition? Quite a few I reckon. But saying that it wasn't Marciano's fault the era was weak and considering he wasn't the most skilled fighter he still managed to beat some great fighters (albeit arguably past their best), fighters on paper that should've still boxed rings around him.

Still great in my opinion only because he was a warrior, came to fight and made good use of his fairly limited ability and stature. Supremely fit, hard as nails and kept his unbeaten in tact by resisting the urge to carry on. Always a favourite of mine.

[cfang]

Seen all this before 100 times. Rocky is both under and over rated and for good reasons. You can pick holes in his record of course and for those reasons he shouldnt be up there with the ali's and louis's. However, this shouldnt detract from his abilities as a fighter. He would have a chance in a h2h head match against any of the great heavys previous and post his career. The reasons being his mental strength, incredible punch power, stamina etc etc. His size he actually turned into a positive with the way he fought and he was harder to hit than people think. Only slicksters like moore, charles and walcott hit him often. I'd think he'd have little trouble avoiding the punches of some of the really big heavys and he have no trouble getting inside and hurting them. What is for sure is that when things get really really nasty and its kill or be killed, I know hes going to be in there fighting when some others would not be.

[Caractacus]

I am of Italian-American decent so I not supposed to be bad mouthing ‘the rock’ – but my god talk about reigning in a time of weak competition –

LOL prove it pal.
You sound like you may actually be one of those looney left wing commy callers
trying to get past the call screener on one of those conservative radio shows.
claiming to be a staunch life-long conservative and agree with everything the radio host does "however"
with the 'exception" and "but" on a controversial particular subject.
I bet you are really a pinko commy whose roots go back within the last hundred years to some oblast in Mother Russia,
would I be correct in assuming that sir ?

[gilgamesh]

No question he was a great fighter, because of the limited competition in his time I have a hard time rating him among the Top 5 all time best Heavyweights, but you'd certainly have to give him Top 10 at the very least. On several lists he's behind only Ali and Joe Louis.

[Caractacus]

No question he was a great fighter, because of the limited competition in his time I have a hard time rating him among the Top 5 all time best Heavyweights, but you'd certainly have to give him Top 10 at the very least. On several lists he's behind only Ali and Joe Louis.

yeah,but look at it this way.
Suppose Albert Einstein would have been born sometime during the Bronze Age.
He still would have been a genius,woul'dnt he have ?

[Tomasino]

No question he was a great fighter, because of the limited competition in his time I have a hard time rating him among the Top 5 all time best Heavyweights, but you'd certainly have to give him Top 10 at the very least. On several lists he's behind only Ali and Joe Louis.

yeah,but look at it this way.
Suppose Albert Einstein would have been born sometime during the Bronze Age.
He still would have been a genius,woul'dnt he have ?

Depends.

[gilgamesh]

No question he was a great fighter, because of the limited competition in his time I have a hard time rating him among the Top 5 all time best Heavyweights, but you'd certainly have to give him Top 10 at the very least. On several lists he's behind only Ali and Joe Louis.

yeah,but look at it this way.
Suppose Albert Einstein would have been born sometime during the Bronze Age.
He still would have been a genius,woul'dnt he have ?

I'm sure there are several geniuses who aren't remembered by history.

[APerno]

I am of Italian-American decent so I not supposed to be bad mouthing ‘the rock’ – but my god talk about reigning in a time of weak competition –

LOL prove it pal.
You sound like you may actually be one of those looney left wing commy callers
trying to get past the call screener on one of those conservative radio shows.
claiming to be a staunch life-long conservative and agree with everything the radio host does "however"
with the 'exception" and "but" on a controversial particular subject.
I bet you are really a pinko commy whose roots go back within the last hundred years to some oblast in Mother Russia,
would I be correct in assuming that sir ?

What? You got all that from "I am of Italian-American decent . . ." and you have me on the radio doing what?

[Kalan]

Seen all this before 100 times. Rocky is both under and over rated and for good reasons. You can pick holes in his record of course and for those reasons he shouldnt be up there with the ali's and louis's. However, this shouldnt detract from his abilities as a fighter. He would have a chance in a h2h head match against any of the great heavys previous and post his career. The reasons being his mental strength, incredible punch power, stamina etc etc. His size he actually turned into a positive with the way he fought and he was harder to hit than people think. Only slicksters like moore, charles and walcott hit him often. I'd think he'd have little trouble avoiding the punches of some of the really big heavys and he have no trouble getting inside and hurting them. What is for sure is that when things get really really nasty and its kill or be killed, I know hes going to be in there fighting when some others would not be.

The problem with that is, Rocky was easy to hit with jabs.. Old Walcott and Louis were both ahead on points early and they were washed up.. Louis was bloated, but he was only 200 pounds at his best.. A big heavyweight is going to smash Rocky with uppercuts like Foreman did to Frazier and Liston did to Patterson... You can't come inside with a big powerful guy like Rocky did..

Both Patterson and Frazier had as many World Title Fights as Marciano ever did BEFORE they fought Liston or Foreman.. Frazier was favored to beat Foreman because nobody ever thinks about style dynamics -- except for Charlie Goldman, Marciano's trainer. He kept Rocky away from Nino Valdes and Bob Baker, who were both slow and inept as Hell but fairly big guys for the period. Valdes beat Charles to become the number one contender for a while in 1953. Goldman said "nobody wants to see that fight." Baker beat Valdes in a Title Elimination Fight. Goldman said "They eliminated each other." That's about what Cus D'Amato had to say about Liston, "We can't have an ex-con fighting for the Heavyweight Title. I won't allow it."

So the difference is Marciano never HAD to fight anybody like that.

[L.A. kidd]

I believe rocky was the greatest of all time. my reasons.

he never lost a fight 49-0 43 kos, he beat a underated ezzard Charles, Charles cut his nose halfway off and rocky came back

when he had to, and koed Charles, he was losing to Walcott, and took him out with one punch.

was louis really that far over the hill, when rocky destroyed him ? he destroyed archie moore, and archie was at his peak,

if he were to fight Floyd Patterson, rocky could swing, and miss, and the breeze would knock Patterson down.

he would have destroyed johannson. as far as ali, foreman, frazier, and the rest, they would not have been able to

stand up tp rockys right hand.

[Kalan]

if he were to fight Floyd Patterson, rocky could swing, and miss, and the breeze would knock Patterson down

LOL.. Archie Moore knocked Marciano down and went 9... Moore couldn't knock Patterson down with his best shot and was gone quickly.

Don Cockell went 9 with Rocky.. Cockell was previously knocked out by LHW Jimmy Slade in 4. Even Middleweight Randy Turpin KO'd Cockell previously

[APerno]

Here is some unnecessary information.

I added a bad joke at the end of my original post: “Who the hell is Earl Walls?” I looked him up on Boxrec (which by the way is a hell of a site); this guy should have gotten a shot. I wonder if being Canadian screwed him over?

His overall record was 34 – 9 – 1 with 27 KOs, but seven of those loses came early; once he won the Canadian heavyweight title, in 1952, his record between 1952 and 1955 was 20 – 2 – 1 with 15 KOs; and he avenged both those loses in immediate rematches. But then in 1955 at the age of 27/28 he just quit.

The Ring rankings I posted where from just December 1953 where he is ranked 7th, but if you look at the Ring Annual Rankings he is ranked 5th for both 1953 and 1954; but there are no big fights against Americans, that I can discern. I guess that is why he never got considered.

I wonder why he quit?; In forty years of being a fight fan I never heard his name before, I guess it’s a Canadian thing, I still can’t identify the ten provinces. (There are ten, right?) – But from the looks of his record the guy could bang.

Oh, his nickname was “The Hooded Terror”

[Controversial]

Here is some unnecessary information.

I added a bad joke at the end of my original post: “Who the hell is Earl Walls?” I looked him up on Boxrec (which by the way is a hell of a site); this guy should have gotten a shot. I wonder if being Canadian screwed him over?

His overall record was 34 – 9 – 1 with 27 KOs, but seven of those loses came early; once he won the Canadian heavyweight title, in 1952, his record between 1952 and 1955 was 20 – 2 – 1 with 15 KOs; and he avenged both those loses in immediate rematches. But then in 1955 at the age of 27/28 he just quit.

The Ring rankings I posted where from just December 1953 where he is ranked 7th, but if you look at the Ring Annual Rankings he is ranked 5th for both 1953 and 1954; but there are no big fights against Americans, that I can discern. I guess that is why he never got considered.

I wonder why he quit?; In forty years of being a fight fan I never heard his name before, I guess it’s a Canadian thing, I still can’t identify the ten provinces. (There are ten, right?) – But from the looks of his record the guy could bang.

Oh, his nickname was “The Hooded Terror”

According to his bio on boxrec it says -

"Earl Walls also known to some as "The Windsor Walloper" was a smooth, intelligent boxer with a terrific punch in either hand. He made a name for himself with a 90-second knockout of top contender Rex Layne. In 1954 and 1955 there was talk of a match with Rocky Marciano for the world championship but Marciano's promoter was uninterested. Walls was the Canadian Heavyweight Champion when he retired to become a successful real estate agent in the late 1950s boom. Walls passed away while playing poker at a charity Casino in Toronto, December 13, 1996."

[Caractacus]

Mike DeJohn would probably have been better known too among latter day boxing fans if he had been given a title shot against Floyd Patterson.
Yeah, sure he lost some key fights,but he had a puncher's chance and the world title would have been on the line for some motivation there to realy succeed.

[Ambling Alp II]

What if funny is that you are going to better remembered losing in a title shot than if you never got one. People will look up your record. If you never got a title shot, you are usually going to be largely forgotton.

[APerno]

What if funny is that you are going to better remembered losing in a title shot than if you never got one. People will look up your record. If you never got a title shot, you are usually going to be largely forgotton.

That's what Terry Malloy was trying to say to his brother.

[cfang]

What if funny is that you are going to better remembered losing in a title shot than if you never got one. People will look up your record. If you never got a title shot, you are usually going to be largely forgotton.

That's what Terry Malloy was trying to say to his brother.

[Kalan]

Yup... People knew who Chuck Wepner, Pete Rademacher, Tom McNeeley, Buddy Baer, and Luis Angel Firpo were... They were famous for losing.

[Crease]

Ring Magazine Ratings: Heavyweights, December 1953

World Champion: Rocky Marciano
1. Roland La Starza
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Nino Valdes
4. Dan Bucceroni
5. Heinz Neuhaus
6. Don Cockell
7. Earl Walls
8. Tommy Harrison
9. Coley Wallace
10. Harry Matthews

Firstly, I would say that this list is misleading.

To post up a top 10 of a single month (not even a year) and try to use it as some sort of instrument to devalue one of the greatest Heavyweight Champions in history is unreasonable, when compared to others ways of measuring his achievements.

Secondly, let me just say that during Marciano's day there were a group excellent Light Heavies who came up and were beating the Heavyweight guys... LHWs like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Harry "Kid" Matthews - the three of them all were elected in to the International Boxing Hall Of Fame years later, which is a further statement of the pedigree of those men.

It wasn't Marciano's fault that these were the top contenders in his day and that they were natural Light Heavies, all he could do was beat what was there at the time. And so he did.

Thirdly, I also think that there is this perception that the Heavyweight Division of 1950-56 was the among the weakest of the past 120 years. So I researched it and I have to say that I would strongly dispute the claim. To my mind, it really was not. Back in those days all the top contenders fought each other repeatedly and were beating each other - in that way it was somewhat reflective of the Walcott vs Charles rivalry.

Looking at it that way, it was a very exciting time. But I suppose it largely depends on what you are looking for in the division and what excites you. Top contenders fighting each other and the Heavyweight Champions taking hard fights really appeals to me, so it would be one of my more favourite eras.

Case in point, Bob Satterfield & Harold Johnson beat each other, as did Lee Savold & Bruce Woodock. During that era contenders tended to struggle against one another with ultimately led to mixed results and no dominant force prevailing.

For example:
Bob Baker beat Nino Valdes - Valdes beat Hurricane Jackson - Jackson beat Baker.

Three way ties like this were common occurrences. It makes for an exciting division.

[Crease]

If you truly want to weight up Marciano's achievements against the top challengers of his day, check out this thread (based around The Ring Magazine's rankings):

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 3#p4183153

[Ambling Alp II]

Crease you are onto something about contenders fighting each other.

-When there was only one champion, contenders were forced to fight each other; often multiple times. With only one champion, there were many less opportunities to get a title shot. The only way to make real money was to fight another contender. Also, if you beat other contenders, you increased your chances of getting a a coveted title shot.

Many modern fans don't understand this. They are only interested in fights that with some lame title at stake.
- So they look back at a Top 10 list for years ago and don't recognize many of the names. After all most weren't ever champions so they aren't listed in records/lists of champions.

- They look up these contenders records and and see that they don't have pretty win/loss records.
Why don't they? Because they were actually fighting each other! Someone had to get an L or occasionally both got a draw.

-It's not like nowadays where the good fighters all began their careers 15-0 against opponents that they can't possibly lose to.
Then they get ranked, avoid other fighters who have similar pretty win/loss records, wait around until one of the four "champions" has to make a title defense, and eventually they get their title shot.

-You used to routinely have fight between two top 10 contenders. You almost never have that anymore.

-It's not like Marciano was avoiding contenders with pretty win/loss records. They simply did not exist. However, that doesn't mean that he ducked the best out there or did not fight good opponents. He did.

[Kalan]

Ring Magazine Ratings: Heavyweights, December 1953

World Champion: Rocky Marciano
1. Roland La Starza
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Nino Valdes
4. Dan Bucceroni
5. Heinz Neuhaus
6. Don Cockell
7. Earl Walls
8. Tommy Harrison
9. Coley Wallace
10. Harry Matthews

Firstly, I would say that this list is misleading.

To post up a top 10 of a single month (not even a year) and try to use it as some sort of instrument to devalue one of the greatest Heavyweight Champions in history is unreasonable, when compared to others ways of measuring his achievements.

Well... Some of those characters might even have beaten Chuck Wepner or Alfredo Evangelista... I think today's Heavyweights are better

THE TOP 32 HEAVYWEIGHTS TODAY...

1. Anthony Joshua... 2. Tyson Fury... 3. Luis Ortiz... 4. Deontay Wilder... 5. Wladimir Klitschko... 6. Alexander Povetkin... 7. David Haye... 8. Andy Ruiz... 9. Joseph Parker... 10. Charles Martin... 11. Bryant Jennings... 12. Hughie Fury... 13. Erkan Teper... 14. Kubrat Pulev... 15. Johann Duhaupas... 16. Ruslan Chagaev... 17. Bermane Stiverne... 18. Lucas Browne... 19. Malik Scott... 20. Carlos Takam... 21. Mike Perez... 22. Alexander Ustinov... 23. Dereck Chisora... 24. Christian Hammer... 25. Robert Helenius... 26. Steve Cunningham... 27. Artur Szpilka... 28. Otto Wallin... 29. Czar Glazkov... 30. Dominic Breazeale... 31. Amir Mansour... 32. Gary Cornish... I wouldn't want to leave Gary out of the list

[Tony1244]

I am of Italian-American decent so I not supposed to be bad mouthing ‘the rock’ – but my god talk about reigning in a time of weak competition – Ali always said, Joe Frazier has to be great otherwise Ali can’t be great – take Charles off this list and where the hell is Marciano’s chance to be great?

Ring Magazine Ratings: Heavyweights, December 1953

World Champion: Rocky Marciano
1. Roland La Starza
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Nino Valdes
4. Dan Bucceroni
5. Heinz Neuhaus
6. Don Cockell
7. Earl Walls
8. Tommy Harrison
9. Coley Wallace
10. Harry Matthews

Who the hell is Earl Walls?

There was a big war a few years earlier. I'm afraid some people got sidetracked.