Rocky Marciano

[MickyMoose]

do we all agree he was the greatest fighter ever???? 49-0 never beat he even beat joe louis a hall of fame fighter yet he dosent seem to get the respect he deserves why is this??? also everybody goes on about muhammed ali even low he was beat 5 times

[KOJOE90]

Joe Louis was an old man making a comeback due to money problems when Marciano beat him, many other top ten Heavyweight may well have beaten the ghost of the great Joe Louis that night.

Rocky Marciano was a very good fighter but came along at time when all his challengers were past their best. Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott and Archie Moore where all great fighters but were past there best days when they fought The Rock. Those three were also much better Light-Heavyweight than they were Heavyweights. You could agrue Charles was at his best at 160lbs!!!

Savold was a very clever fighter but was no George Foreman. And Don Cockell was a good Light-Heavyweight who only fought at Heavyweight due to a gladular problem.

Marciano was a tremendous fighter with great stamina, power and determination but I do not think he was the greatest fighter of all time ever. No pffence to the late Marciano but I would struggle to put him in my top 15.

Statistics don't tell the full story.

[JC]

do we all agree he was the greatest fighter ever????

No.

I also don't agree that he doesn't get the respect he deserves if anything I think his reputation is slightly inflated. Don't get me wrong he's one of my all time favorites and is a great example of a musclar power puncher as opposed to some of the 260lb guys who rely on weight and brute strength with a minimum of skill we have nowadays. But definately not the greatest fighter ever.

I also agree with the previous post, if he had come along in another era it would not have been so easy to retire unbeaten. But I'm not saying he's wasn't aa all time great fighter

[tonyevs]

MickyMoose is on the wind-up, :P :P come on that’s obvious, nobody can be that uninformed.

[elmersalsa]

Well, To say he was the greatest fighter ever is not even close, but I could see him in the top 15 best ever simply because he never lost a fight. We cannot argue with perfection (49-0, 43KOs) fighting the best fo his time and that's what he did. He fought the best in so short period.

Some may say that Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore were past their primes, which is true, but, but!!!

These fighters even when they were not at their primes, WERE STILL DANGEROUS FOES and gave Marciano HELL in terrific fights. Remember, even when these men mentioned were past their peak, NOT ANYBODY COULD BEAT THEM JUST LIKE THAT, and any fighter of that era could tell us that.

Marciano was a great fighter because when push came to shove, or when the going got tough, MARCIANO SOLVED THE PROBLEM...Simply as that!!!
Walcott, Moore and Charles even though they were old, were THE VERY BEST OF HIS TIME.

[BozSkaggs]

These fighters even when they were not at their primes, WERE STILL DANGEROUS FOES and gave Marciano HELL in terrific fights. Remember, even when these men mentioned were past their peak, NOT ANYBODY COULD BEAT THEM JUST LIKE THAT, and any fighter of that era could tell us that.

Marciano was a great fighter because when push came to shove, or when the going got tough, MARCIANO SOLVED THE PROBLEM...Simply as that!!!
Walcott, Moore and Charles even though they were old, were THE VERY BEST OF HIS TIME.

I think this says it all. While I do not think Marciano was the greatest of all time, and I do agree that his status is inflated sometimes, depending on who you talk to, I do not dismiss that maybe he COULD HAVE been the greatest of all time if he had fought WOlcott and the like when they were in their primes. Would he have won? We will never know. Could he have won? Well, he had the heavy hands which is something you can't learn, so he always had a punchers chance. But in my opinion, what made him so great is that he always made the most out of that and DID win all of his fights. Even if you're going against shitty apponents, you're statistically bound to lose sometime whether it's because you lose focus or whatever. So that says something about him.

[Brutu]

Was Ezzard Charles really past his prime when he fought Marciano?How old was he?
It wasnt Marciano's fault there wasnt better depth of competion his own age or younger.
Marciano clobbered them all.

[KOJOE90]

Was Ezzard Charles really past his prime when he fought Marciano?How old was he?.

Charles was about 33 when he first fought Marciano and had near 100 fights in a long, tough career.

In my opinion, Charles was at his best over 10 years earlier when he was beating the likes of Lloyd Marshall, Jimmy Bivins, Charley Burley, Joey Maxim and Arxhie Moore and was weighing from Middle to Light-Heavyweight.

[Marciano Frazier]

do we all agree he was the greatest fighter ever???? 49-0 never beat he even beat joe louis a hall of fame fighter yet he dosent seem to get the respect he deserves why is this??? also everybody goes on about muhammed ali even low he was beat 5 times

Historical greatness as a fighter doesn't all come from your win-loss percentage. Marciano never lost a fight, and that is an undeniably great accomplishment. He was one of the best ever and has a legitimate case to be ranked number one.

However, I personally feel- and most people agree with me on this- that while his undefeated record is great and impressive, he did not face as good of opposition as other champions, like, say, Ali and Holyfield did, and he didn't have as many fights against top opposition as guys like Ali, Louis and Holmes did.

Marciano beat Joe Louis, but Louis was old and way past his best years as a fighter by then. Marciano beating a 37-year-old Louis is not the same as beating a young, prime Louis like Louis the way he was when he fought Schmeling in 1937.

Taking a look at the career of a guy like Ali, you can see why Marciano is not considered the greatest of all time by most of the boxing public. Ali was fighting top contenders on a regular basis all the way from his 20th-60th fights. If Marciano had had that many fights against top guys, he almost certainly would have lost at least once himself.
Also, take into account that Ali's last three losses came when he was many years past his best. His only losses that were anything close to his prime were against Frazier and Norton, two top-notch fighters, and Ali beat both of them in rematches.
Ali beat more top fighters and champions over a longer period of time than Marciano did, and holds excellent accomplishments of his own, such as winning the legitimate heavyweight title three times and defending it successfully 17 times(Marciano only defended the title 6 times, relatively very few in comparison to Ali, Holmes, or Louis).

If one were to reverse their careers and have Marciano face all the same opponents in the same time frame as Ali did and vice versa, I believe Marciano would have lose at least five times(once to Frazier, once to Foreman, and at least three or four losses at the end of his career). Ali in Marciano's shoes might have lost once out of the 49 fights, since he wasn't as consistent as Marciano, but I feel he could handle most of Marciano's opposition comfortably.

I consider Marciano one of the 10 best heavyweights of all time for sure, and probably one of the top 5, but not #1.

[KOJOE90]

Around 1959 there was talk of Marciano coming out of retirement to challenge Ingemar Johansson for the World Heavyweight title. Marciano even went back into training for a few weeks but then had second thoughts.

[Marciano Frazier]

These fighters even when they were not at their primes, WERE STILL DANGEROUS FOES and gave Marciano HELL in terrific fights.

Have you noticed the flaw in your argument yet? If these guys gave Marciano hell... then what on earth would a young george forman do to him?

When rocky retired, he actually said he was retiring because he knew his run wouldn't last too much longer. He said something along the lines of " I've probably got a couple more good fights in me, but I don't want to take the risk" So even he knew he wasn't invincable, and was definately going to get beaten if he continued.

Just look at brian neilsen. Up until his first defeat he had a belt, and a few decent names on his record. Would he be the greatest of all time if he'd retired early?


Some of the injuries he picked up in the ring would definately be considered fight stopping by today's refereeing standards.... so that's another aspect in which he was lucky. In the second Charles fight, he and his corner actually beg the ref and the doctor to allow him to come out for another round. This just wouldn't happen these days. The doctor's don't give a crap if they're ruining a fight, or a career... they're too careful.

Rant over :)

He'd often loose all of the early rounds, so he'd be screwed if the fight went to the scorecard early.

"Have you noticed the flaw in your argument yet? If these guys gave Marciano hell... then what on earth would a young george forman do to him?"
Excuse me, but THAT argumet is the flawed one. Going by that logic, if Doug Jones and Henry Cooper, a couple average 185-pound contenders, gave Ali hell... then what on Earth would a young George Foreman do to him?! Or Marciano, for that matter? Obviously we know that even a past-his-peak Ali BEATS a young George Foreman even though a prime Ali was hurt, dropped, and given all kinds of trouble by mediocre non-great punchers like Douglas and Cooper.

"When rocky retired, he actually said he was retiring because he knew his run wouldn't last too much longer. He said something along the lines of " I've probably got a couple more good fights in me, but I don't want to take the risk" So even he knew he wasn't invincable, and was definately going to get beaten if he continued."
That there is just plain wrong. You just outright altered the quote. Marciano never said he thought his run wouldn't have lasted much longer. He did say "I probably had two or three good fights left," which is accurate. He was 33 years old. How long could you expect him to keep performing at his best at that age and sustaining as many injuries as he did? What Marciano said was "I like to benefit by others' mistakes, and if Joe Louis couldn't make a successful comeback, I will not try it."

Marciano retired because: A. his wife and mother were pressuring him to retire, B. he reportedly had back problems, although this is disputed, C. he had lost his hunger and passion for training, and D. he had just discovered that his manager, Al Weill, had embezzled $10,000 out of his profits for one of his title fights.

"Just look at brian neilsen. Up until his first defeat he had a belt, and a few decent names on his record. Would he be the greatest of all time if he'd retired early?"
No, and that's a ridiculous argument. Brian Nielsen was NEVER the legitimate champion, NEVER beat the best fighters of his time, and in fact NEVER even beat a real top 10 guy. That's an outer-space comparison.
Marciano was the legitimate undisputed champion, made six title defenses all against legitimate top 3 contenders, and retired at 49-0, which was NOT early. No other heavyweight champion has EVER made it that far undefeated. Marciano had a full career in which he beat all the best fighters available to him and reached an unmatched unbeaten streak before retiring undefeated. That is a special world record that still stands to this day, 50 years later.

"Anyway.......Marciano's career isn't quite as perfect as his record suggests. The first fight against Roland Lastarza was totally even. The only reason marciano won, was because of a weird scoring system used in the bout. Of the ringside judges, one had marciano ahead by a round, one had Lastarza ahead by a round, and the third had it even. If the fight was fought under todays rules, it would have been a draw."
That isn't true. Under modern rules, the 10-point must system, Marciano would have won by a point, because he scored a knockdown. Back then, each round was just a point and each fighter received a point for winning a round.
Anyway, the scoring system used was just as legitimate as any other. It was just done in a way to make draws less likely, which is actually a good idea. And Marciano brutalized LaStarza in the rematch, putting aside any doubts about his superiority.

"Some of the injuries he picked up in the ring would definately be considered fight stopping by today's refereeing standards.... so that's another aspect in which he was lucky. In the second Charles fight, he and his corner actually beg the ref and the doctor to allow him to come out for another round. This just wouldn't happen these days. The doctor's don't give a crap if they're ruining a fight, or a career... they're too careful."
No, he wasn't lucky. He was just fighting under the rules in which the fight was set. In fact, under modern rules, he probably would never have sustained a cut like that, due to larger, softer gloves.

[elmersalsa]

I don't think that there are too many fighters out there that can say "I HAVE NEVER LOST OR DRAW A FIGHT"

Marciano is probably the only fighter or champion in history that can make that claim.

He went to the grave saying: "I HAVE NEVER DREW NOR LOST A PROFESSIONAL FIGHT"

[jab]

Back in his days they used 8oz gloves and the injuries inflicted were greater. So Rocky would not have been cut as easily if he fough under the 10oz rules of Alis time.

Holmes came close to equaling Rocky with 48-0 but he lost the 49th and 50th fight.
Roy lost 3 fights, two by ko.
Dariuz Michaelchevsky lost his 49th fight (he had 48-0)

It just seems that the 49th is never quite reached undefeated, unless you are Rocky. Say what you want, but Rocky never ducked anyone.

Louis said Rocky would have beaten him in his prime too. Probably even earlier, because Louis would have come at him instead of running, so the ko would have come earlier.

Also for the computer match, the 46 year old Rocky, having just lost 65lb for this exhibition, and 14 years after his retirement, gave the 26 year old Ali all he could handle.

That leaves no doubt: Rocky was the best ever. Bar none.

[JC]

Back in his days they used 8oz gloves and the injuries inflicted were greater. So Rocky would not have been cut as easily if he fough under the 10oz rules of Alis time.

Holmes came close to equaling Rocky with 48-0 but he lost the 49th and 50th fight.
Roy lost 3 fights, two by ko.
Dariuz Michaelchevsky lost his 49th fight (he had 48-0)

It just seems that the 49th is never quite reached undefeated, unless you are Rocky. Say what you want, but Rocky never ducked anyone.

Louis said Rocky would have beaten him in his prime too. Probably even earlier, because Louis would have come at him instead of running, so the ko would have come earlier.

Also for the computer match, the 46 year old Rocky, having just lost 65lb for this exhibition, and 14 years after his retirement, gave the 26 year old Ali all he could handle.

That leaves no doubt: Rocky was the best ever. Bar none.

I still have a few doubts.

Rocky got 49-0 when Holmes and Michaelchevsky didn't, but Willie Pep went 69-0 in his first 69 fights fair enough he had no title fights in that time but it goesb to show win l,oss records do not show the whole story

It is not true that a prime Joe Louis would have just "Come at him" Louis was a far smarter fighter than that.

I don't think you can use the computor simulation as any kind of indicator as to ho he would have done again Ali in a real fight there are too many unknown factors.

As I have said earlier I'm not saying he was not an all time great, but nobody yet has put forward a convincing enough arguement other than him retiring undefeated for him being the greatest fighter ever.

[jab]

No problem you still have doubts. But in law we talk of reasonable doubts.
The point about Rocky is that he did retire champion, he ducked no one, and he did fight the deserving challengers of his time. You mock that he was considered great only because he was undefeated. Well, I cannot argue with anyone holding a great love for disagreement for the sake of disagreement. Suffice it to say that THAT is the point. He didnt fill his 49 wins with hand picked bums. He fought and beat the best, including current and past champions.

You mock the computer game also. Cannot argue with you on that either. The only point is you disregarded my whole argument. A 46 year old Rocky had his way with a 26 year old prime Ali, 14 years AFTER he retired and having just lost 65lb in a month; you can imagine he was rather weight drained and he still handled a 26 year old prime Ali. That says it all, no matter how you turn it or if you disregard it. If that doesnt show you Rocky was much above Ali then nothing would.
And although you may disagree on Louis too, that was what Louis said. Rocky would have beaten him in any era. I take Louis word if you do not mind.

[Grimm]

do we all agree he was the greatest fighter ever???? 49-0 never beat he even beat joe louis a hall of fame fighter yet he dosent seem to get the respect he deserves why is this??? also everybody goes on about muhammed ali even low he was beat 5 times

YOU CAN NOT , CAN NOT JUDGE FIGHTERS BY ONLY THEIR RECORD. NEED I REPEAT MYSELF?[/b]

[JC]

No problem you still have doubts. But in law we talk of reasonable doubts.
The point about Rocky is that he did retire champion, he ducked no one, and he did fight the deserving challengers of his time. You mock that he was considered great only because he was undefeated. Well, I cannot argue with anyone holding a great love for disagreement for the sake of disagreement. Suffice it to say that THAT is the point. He didnt fill his 49 wins with hand picked bums. He fought and beat the best, including current and past champions.

You mock the computer game also. Cannot argue with you on that either. The only point is you disregarded my whole argument. A 46 year old Rocky had his way with a 26 year old prime Ali, 14 years AFTER he retired and having just lost 65lb in a month; you can imagine he was rather weight drained and he still handled a 26 year old prime Ali. That says it all, no matter how you turn it or if you disregard it. If that doesnt show you Rocky was much above Ali then nothing would.
And although you may disagree on Louis too, that was what Louis said. Rocky would have beaten him in any era. I take Louis word if you do not mind.

I wasn't trying to mock your arguements mate, just at the end of your post you stated.

That leaves no doubt: Rocky was the best ever. Bar none.

I don't feel any of the arguements proved beond doubt that Rocky was the best ever. We obviously can never say for sure who the greatest boxer ever was it's a matter of opinion, but what about all the other great fighters outside of the heavyweight division? Sugar Ray Robinson, Willie Pep, Sugar Ray Leonard, Roberto Duran, Jimmy Wilde, Marvin Hagler, Carlos Monzon, Joe Gans, Benny Leonard or Henry Armstrong can you really rule out all of these fighters and the many others based on Marciano's achievements?

[jab]

I am really sorry J-C. I thought we referred only to the heavyweight division. Obviosly Monzon, Sugar, Pep, and many, many others were great. It would be unfair to compare heavyweights with other classes or to compare fighters from different weight classes. Generally the heavier divisions have slower fighters, but their punching power is greater, so we are not comparing likes. Unless you comare then as p4p you cannot do that. Eg: Hopkins wouls always lose against Vitaly, though he is a far better boxer etc.

I respect any fighter who steps in the ring. Any if I pick Rocky as the top heavy it does not imply that I dismiss Ali, Louis, Lewis or Holmes etc. or that I dump on other divisions. My favourite classes are the 126-160lb because we see more boxing and less haymakers there.

On an interesting note, Rocky wouldnt even be a heavy if he fought today, but a cruiser (176-200lb), because he never weighed more that 190lb. Perhaps we should actually rate Rocky as a Cruiserweight? But then Louis would also be a Cruiser, as well as Dempsey and that would throw out all our comparitions. (in those days heavyweight was anything 175lb+, since Cruiser was only made in 1983)

Peace,

Jab