Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Twitter MMA Facebook Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools
Old 03-04-2011, 11:26 AM   #91
Bummy Davis
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 11,099
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

Originally Posted by choklab View Post
I never heard this before, but it would explain a lot. many italians in boxing circles are prety close, yet I dont remember seeing any photos of cus, an italian, with any other italian american boxing people yet there is no shortage of all the others photographed together.

Do you have any more details or inside talk of this story bummy?
There is a woman, writing a book about Cus D,mato, I cant think of her name right now but I will post it. She is limited to what she can say but will touch on this subject.

I have heard it from reliable boxing guys but took it with a grain of salt because there are so many agendas in boxing but I recently was at a fight in NY with some knowledgeable boxing people and they were talking about some of this and investigations in regard to this book.

For now I will call it a bad rumor but we will see what surfaces. There were other reasons Cus was shunned and if it holds true, will be revealed in this book but if it is not true it would be a shame to tarnish anyone.
Bummy Davis is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 01:01 AM   #92
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6
vCash: 500
Default Re: Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

Originally Posted by RockyJim View Post
Coulda....Woulda...Shoulda....Marciano was 49-0 43 KO's...he had the **** beat out of him by Joe Walcott...was floored for the first time...cut...blinded for 3-4 rounds...couldn't see....behind on all score cards....and then throws the best right hand ever and wins the title in 1952....has his nose split open down to the ****ING bone in 1954 against Ezzard Charles....does he quit while sitting on his stool?...does he yell"No Mas!"..and walk away?...does he tell his trainers to cut off his gloves because his nose hurts like hell?...just because he wasn't the fastest...or the flashiest...or the tallest...or the heaviest
....he had everything going against him...BUT...he had heart...guts...courage...a will to win...incrdebile tolerance for pain...KO power in each hand..a great chin...and a kill or be killed attitude....put him in the ring with anyone!!!
Great posts RockyJim =D! I would have to say I agree with what you say. While i wouldn't call Rocky the best heavyweight...I would absolutely say that on his best day i'd give him a good shot at any heavyweight to ever step into the ring. Would he beat all of them? Probably not...would he go out swinging while taking a few of them out with him? You bet your ass he would.
MonzonFan914 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 01:38 AM   #93
Return Of The Terminator
ESB Jr Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 167
vCash: 500
Default Re: Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

Rocky is ranked high in my book. Who else could go undefeated? I'm certain that Tyson, Frazier, Dempsey, Louis and many others would have beaten Rocky's opponents. But each of them had an off night or became a slacker at some point. (Aside from Frazier. George Foreman was just wrong for him stylewise) To actually get in the ring and never lose is a great achievement. But it's hard for me to rank Rocky as my number one heavyweight because I can think of quite a few who would beat him. Rocky certainly deserves praise because of his records, and the fact that he had freakish power for such a little guy. You can't count him out against anyone. That's what made him Rocky Marciano. He always found a way to win and surprise you.
Tuaman is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Old 03-31-2011, 04:11 AM   #94
East Side Guru
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 7,204
vCash: 500
Default Re: Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
Ah, well, I think Marciano is a hard one to put into perspective. People look at his record, at his size and at his resume and critizise it. Saying he would have never wnt 49-0 in another era, he would be too small and that his best opponents were all past it old men. While there is some truth in all of it, itīs also all wrong. At the same time.

Marciano would never have went 49-0 in another era. Yes, very likely - although I think swap him with Dempsey or Tyson in the 80s or Wlad now and it is possible. But does it matter? Can you rank a fighter on what he perhaps would have done in another era? Really? Doesnīt make it more sense to look at what a fighter did in his era and compare it to what other fighterd did in their eras? Marciano went 49-0, every one of his defences during his reign was against the number one contender bar one which was against the number two. Which other champion can say this of himself? I canīt think of one. This alone makes his resume very good. Well, if his record of 49-0 wasnīt that special why wasnīt it equalized by anyone? Holmes nearly got it but got beaten by a blown up lhw. Well, Marciano beat his "blown up lhws" up and both were much, much better hws than Spinks. Alone the fact that no other hw in any other era was able to repeat his feat of going 49-0 makes it big.

Marciano was a small hw, he could never have competed with the big hws from the 60s/70s on. Yes, very likely that he would have lost to someone like Liston, Ali, Foreman, Holmes or Lewis. But again, does it matter? Do you people rank fighters on some fantasy matches? Or do you rank them on what they actually did? Well, Marciano was small. Most of the fighters he beat were bigger than him. Marciano made an advantage out of his size. He was the hw that mastered fighting small to perfection. He made himself even smaller than he was to avoid the punches of his opponents, to make them punch down and thus taking away some of their snap and precision, making their punches longer and easier to see. I donīt see how this could lower his standing amongst the atgs. It should enhance it. When people talk about Fitz, Greb, Armstrong and so on they are astonished about their feat of beating bigger guys. When they talk about Rocky, they say he was too small to compete against bigger guys. Compare that to Lewis who was bigger than nearly all of his opponents. This is used to enhance his standing amongst the great hws. But beating up smaller fighters should actually lower it. When people talk about Monzon and Hopkins they critizise them for fighting smaller fighters. But with Lewis it enhances his status. Double standards.

Marcianoīs best opponents were all past their best and old. Thatīs although true to an extent. It was discussed over and over alrady on here. Aside of Louis all of them put on a superb performance against Marciano the first time they fought. Walcott and Charles were as good as they ever were at hw despite age. And Moore put on a great effort, knocking the champ down before getting grinded down and came of the best streak of his career. Remember Louis was ranked above Marciano when they fought and came of a serious winning streak, including a KO over Walcott. So, why is Marciano getting sh*t for taking care of business? Why do people look at the age of his opponents instead of looking at the actual fights and circumstances of those fights? Not even talking that Marciano wasnīt really a young champ himself. Compare that to Holmes who only rarely (less than Marciano at least) getīs sh*t for struggling more with older (and worse) fighters like Norton or Shavers or young, inexperienced ones like Witherspoon. Why is that? Or what about Lewis? His best wins are over older, past their prime opponents like Holyfield or Tyson. I donīt see people critizising this very often - apart from some Tyson fans. Why is that?

I think when it comes to Marciano people just tend to see only negatives everywhere. Why is that? Iīm not a fan of Rocky. But you got to recognize that what he did was special, that he is amongst the greatest hws ever. Personally, I only rate Ali, Louis and Jack Johnson above him. And I think he deserves very much to rank there.

This says it all! best post ever on the subject.
choklab is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 04:28 AM   #95
ESB Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,280
vCash: 500
Default Re: Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Even the most deluded classicist realizes that at his size he wouldn't have near the record a decade, two, three, four and five decades later. It was a curious historical anomaly.

With that logic, so is Dempsey defeating Willard
reznick is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 08:24 AM   #96
P4P King
East Side VIP
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 17,445
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

I wouldn't put him at #1.
But I think he would have beaten Ali, (who most here have as number 1).
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 12:37 PM   #97
ESB Full Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 463
vCash: 500
Default Re: Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

yes, that was an excellent post by bodhi.

what i would say, is that while marciano isn't the greatest heavyweight that there has ever been, his undefeated record is very underrated. it shouldn't be dismissed offhandedly. i don't want to repeat what has been said, but...

liston quit on his stool. so did vitali.
holmes lost to a light heavyweight. so did holyfield.
lewis lost to bums. so did tyson. foreman too.

who is left? louis and ali are a lock for numbers one and two on most heavyweight lists, and frazier only ever lost to the best. i'm not saying marciano should be number three or four based on his unbeaten record alone. but marciano did something that no one else could do, and he did it for a good reason (as i've demonstrated by listing those who not only failed to go unbeaten, but lost in less than heroic circumstances). to say that marciano went unbeaten because it was 'a weak era' or 'he fought bums' doesn't cut it. and referring to hypothetical head to head ability doesn't either, as long as we're talking about achievements. it has already been said that his relatively small stature should work in his favour when considering his achievements, if anything.
goat15 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 02:50 PM   #98
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 24,177
vCash: 75
Default Re: Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

Imo he is one of the true great heavyweights. Only behind louis and ali. Comfortably ahead of johnson, lewis, holyfield, holmes, tyson, foreman, frazier etc.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2011, 03:02 PM   #99
The Mongoose
I honor my bets
East Side VIP
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 11,322
vCash: 75
Default Re: Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

Originally Posted by orriray59 View Post
Walcott, over the hills. Charles, not over the hills but not prime either. Moore, over the hills.
What draws you to this conclusion?

Moore was probably much closer to the peak of his abilities than Charles. Riding a ridiculious win streak Moore was even doing much better against common competition around this time, stopping Johnson and beating Valdez twice. Are you basing your assement completely on age and not boxing ability? In that case, Marciano wasn't prime either as he was just shy of Charles in years.
The Mongoose is online now  Top
Reply With Quote

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:17 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2015