BoxRec

Okay guys, this thread is DEDICATED to discussing "The Brockton Blockbuster".

I recently purchased a book entitled: "Sporting progression through the century" (published in 1986)... In it, the sport of Boxing was discussed (Heavyweight Boxing is particular) and five former champions were named as "The Greats", they were;
Jack Johnson,
Jack Dempsey,
Joe Louis,
Rocky Marciano,
Muhammad Ali.

The book mentioned John L. Sullivan has being the original champion, and also (in passing) talked about the skills of Sugar Ray Robinson... It defined the "great champions" as those who had elevated the sport when they became the champion, who were the "undisputed no 1" of their times, and who have left a lasting legacy over the sport...

Of the five, two were discussed more heavily, they were: Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali - whom today, are recognised as the "top 2" of all time, and who still to this very day, arouse arguements of "Who's the Greatest: Louis or Ali".

Yet, I personally think that people sometimes forget Marciano's contribution to Heavyweight boixng... Which is where my arguement of him being: "The Oddball Champion" comes in.

Granted, some think that Marciano is un-deserving of the hype in which he's given, while others examine his record and fail to see why he's given such criticism (Louis was over-the-hill, Rocky only fought old boxers)...

BUT, if you look at history, and say we do indeed take Louis and Ali as jointly: "The Greatest", wouldn't Marciano be the bridge which gulfs the gap... Arguments will forever flair:
What if Rocky was fighting in the 70s?
What if he was born younger and he fought a Prime Louis?
- all these arguments aside, one simply CANNOT recognise that Rocky was the MAN between these two iconic eras Joe Louis' reign and Ali's dominance, (beginning with the KO over Sonny Liston).

People will say that Marciano was never truly tested, that he liked to "play with his food" but could dispense of them whenever he choosed too... Look at Walcott fight 1, and Charles fight 2...
Some also say that Marciano will ALWAYS win a computer-generated fight, because a boxer with a 100% fight record, mathematically CANNOT lose to a virtual fighter, because of the mathematics of it... Louis and Ali lost, yet Marciano didn't.

Now, take a step back, look at all these subjects which are being brought up around Rocky and perhaps you can see why I'm christening him "The Oddball Champion"...
Isn't it unusual for a fighter to retire at the top of his game, usually he stays until this tenure his broken by a young challanger, and, it is only then that he realises that he's stayed too long.
AND,
Isn't is even more unusual that the champion would be UNDEFEATED throughout his whole career...

It is because of these unusual things that Rocky's career has become the stuff of legend, even suprassing Rocky himself...

Oddball Champion - the man who CAN'T be compared - the man who was UNDEFEATED-

Rocky Marciano

No-one have any thoughts on this thread, LOL.

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, but I will take a stab at it.

Some people overrate Marciano and some people underrate him.
Those that do overrate him tend to make way too much of a big deal about his win/loss record.
In boxing, win loss records can be very decieiving. It's not like everyone is fighting the same competition.
A fighter with 5 losses isn't automatically better than a fighter with 6 losses. Likewise, a fighter with 0 losses is automatically better than a fighter with 1 or more losses.

If Marciano had lost a four round decision early in his career, that shouldn't have too much impact on where to rate. However, it would make a huge difference with those obesessed with being undefeated. If Marciano was 48-1, with a 4 round decision loss early in career, probably wouldn't him anywhere near the #1 heavyweight position.

On the other hand, some people underrate Marciano. Some people seem to resent him going undefeated against competition that wasn't as good as some other heavyweight champions. Others just blow him off because of size. Many of his detractors seem to think he was just some lucky bum who wasn't that good at all.

The truth is somewhere in between. He had some strengths and weaknesses. Had he fought in a stronger era, he wouldn't have been the best heavyweight in the world. However, there were weaker eras than Marciano's and he would have dominated them.

Actually, if Marciano would have been 48-1 (if he would have lost a 4 round decision, or wouldn't have got the decisions against Lowry or La Starza), there probably wouldn't be near the controversy that there is with him. Virtually no one would have him #1, but some of those that that underrate him might not resent him so much.

He certainly wasn't the best heavyweight of All-Time. However, he is in the Top 10.

While retiring on top is a good thing I don't think that the accomplishments of fighters who stay on to long should be dismissed just because they did not exit when they should have.

For example, take Mike Tyson. What if Tyson had retired in 1989 after beating Carl Williams? He would have never lost in his career and would have beaten a number of top contenders. Would he be ranked far higher if he had retired on top?

That would've made Tyson a four-year fighter, against pretty tame opposition, no less. Marciano fought a higher quality of opponents than Tyson did across the full spectrum of their respective careers, & his tenure as a professional fighter spanned nine years, more than twice the time you are proposing, so I don't think it equates to the same thing.

Just take a look at how many fighters through history have commenced their careers with forty-nine consecutive victories, or lasted nearly a decade without defeat --- I don't care who you're fighting, that's one tough thing to accomplish. Even if you don't rate the competition (an argument I'm somewhat leary of, as Marciano took on some good & arguably great adversaries) a boxer is entitled to a suitably off-night or two, so as to cost them victory. To shun that virtual inevitability says to me, "great fighter."

Marciano clearly ranks among my greatest of all-time Heavyweights.

Marciano was good, but there were other good HW's.

I don't care what your record is, if you're 185lbs and put up against 220lbs+ monsters like Tyson, Frazier, Foreman, Ali, Lewis, Holmes etc. You WILL struggle

IMO, Marciano would have lost to each and everyone of those names i mentioned above.

does that mean he is not a Big HW CHAMP? of course not, he is indeed a legend, but realistically speaking, when compared to other HW's, ...

Of course he would struggle. That shouldn't be in contention, should it? My question is --- how much relevance does that have on his standing as one of the best Heavyweights of all-time? They all struggle against one another --- that doesn't disqualify any of them from being great. Holmes struggles against the other men you named, as does Tyson. As does Lewis, & so on.

Marciano had a way of overcoming some tremendous physical disadvantages --- a point summarily dismissed with a too-facile approach from his detractors.

Crease wrote: Some also say that Marciano will ALWAYS win a computer-generated fight, because a boxer with a 100% fight record, mathematically CANNOT lose to a virtual fighter, because of the mathematics of it... Louis and Ali lost, yet Marciano didn't.

To slip into the realm of odds making (essentially what any mathematical model works on) Marciano's record would have no such impact. Think of it like this... If a bookie were taking bets on Marciano versus Ali or Louis who would be the favourite? That's a mathematical model and one that's proven to make the bookie a rich man.

All that stats show are what has happened at given points in the past. And stats really have very little place in boxing other than scorecards of any given fight.

Marciano was only beating guys ranked in the top 10 from 1951 through 1955 which is not much longer than Tyson's streak against highly ranked fighters from 1986 through 1989. From 1947 through 1950 Marciano was not beating the divisions elite.

However, Marciano's "streak" was longer, albiet not by that much. Tyson did get knocked out by Buster Douglas. It's difficult to imagine Marciano getting knocked out by Buster Douglas, even with the Three Stooges in his corner.

Ambling Alp wrote:However, Marciano's "streak" was longer, albiet not by that much. Tyson did get knocked out by Buster Douglas. It's difficult to imagine Marciano getting knocked out by Buster Douglas, even with the Three Stooges in his corner.

Yes but you must look at the circumstances in which the fights took place.

The Tyson that became Champion and Unified the belts was not the same Tyson that lost to douglas.

Their two completley different versions.. I mean i dont think i have come accross anyone who has said Tyson would lose the rematch. Why? Simply because Tyson would be more dedicated and actually prepare

They're not the same, but, "completely different fighter" is a wild, revisionist stretch in respect to Tyson '88 with Tyson '90.