Rocky Marciano or Jack Johnson who was the greater fighter?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by road_warrior_99

i agree that jeffries had shed close to 100 lbs to fight johnson and that has to effect his cardio/endurance. Still see johnson winning a 15rd decision as you mentioned. You have to give johnson credit for being emotionally strong enough to thwart the hatred leveled against him at the time. This social pressure has to wear you down over time and leaves you unfocused. I see marciano totally focused on boxing so it is hard to compare the times of these two fighters.

I quite agree and I have not made a pick in this debate.

[Seamus]

Well, I think Jeffries is almost as overrated as Johnson. The guy was a beast of a man for his time but he struggled with guys far, far smaller. I think the word that best describes him is "limited."

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Well, I think Jeffries is almost as overrated as Johnson. The guy was a beast of a man for his time but he struggled with guys far, far smaller. I think the word that best describes him is "limited."

Don't tell me, tell Mendoza ,his self appointed protector, and number one fanboy.
You are entitled to your opinions ,as I have said before , I don't agree with you on Johnson ,but that 's bye the bye. If we all agreed there would not be much point to the forum would there?

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by mcvey

If we all agreed there would not be much point to the forum would there?

Nope there would not.

A lot of amorphous inexact terms like "greatness" and "talent" get tossed around here. That sort of argument is fairly pointless. Basically, you only get the quality of answers in regard to the quality of questions you ask.

I like to learn some facts or at least reported facts in my discussions.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Seamus

Nope there would not.

A lot of amorphous inexact terms like "greatness" and "talent" get tossed around here. That sort of argument is fairly pointless. Basically, you only get the quality of answers in regard to the quality of questions you ask.

I like to learn some facts or at least reported facts in my discussions.

One of my pet hates is the overuse of the word "great", it has been devalued so as to become almost meaningless, imo

[Dempsey1238]

Perhaps, but I think both Johnson and Marciano earn the right to be called great.

[MrMarvel]

Originally Posted by Dempsey1238

Perhaps, but I think both Johnson and Marciano earn the right to be called great.

At least one of them has.

[MrMarvel]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

Kevin Smith is the top historian on early black prize fighters. He says Burns had a Jaundice. My research says the same thing. In this case Callis is mistaken.

As I said before Burns was at a low weight and not at 100%.

I commented on the biceps point a while back when you claimed it was a great means of defense. I suppose it can work when you have you are heavyweight fighting a 5'7" super middle weight. It is not a good form of deffense in modern boxing.

How fit would Burns need to be in order to avoid being completely dominated and ktfo?

[frankenfrank]

marciano clearly.

[Dempsey1238]

Originally Posted by MrMarvel

At least one of them has.

And which one??

[janitor]

At the end of the day it is subjective.

Quantity vs consistency.

Personaly I think that verry few posters here have a handel on how deep Johnson's resume is and what it means.

[MrMarvel]

Johnson. Clearly. He is historically the more important and far superior to every other heavyweight of his style.

I am not impressed by Rocky enough to think of him as an all-time great heavyweight, and that is relative to the level of development of the division in that day. I see him as reigning during a weak period with a smart manager. I don't regard a single fighter he faced as a great or even outstanding heavyweight. Moore was a great light heavyweight. So was Charles. Both were solid heavyweights. But neither was great or outstanding at that weight the way, say, Frazier or Louis was. And I believe either of them would beat on him on another day. Walcott clearly wasn't an outstanding heavyweight and he had Rocky whipped but for his chin that betrayed him (as it often did). Louis was outstanding, but way over the hill. Layne, LaStarza, Matthews, Cockell and the rest were nothing special. Rocky doesn't look very good on film. Put him in the 1980s prize ring and we will talk about an interesting fight, but nothing more.

I believe he gets the attention he does because he's white. Sorry. I know that's controversial. But it's the only way I can explain how a limited smallish heavyweight gets touted as an all-time great. There's no rational explanation.

[Dempsey1238]

Originally Posted by MrMarvel

Johnson. Clearly. He is historically the more important and far superior to every other heavyweight of his style.

I am not impressed by Rocky enough to think of him as an all-time great heavyweight, and that is relative to the level of development of the division in that day. I see him as reigning during a weak period with a smart manager. I don't regard a single fighter he faced as a great or even outstanding heavyweight. Moore was a great light heavyweight. So was Charles. Both were solid heavyweights. But neither was great or outstanding at that weight the way, say, Frazier or Louis was. And I believe either of them would beat on him on another day. Walcott clearly wasn't an outstanding heavyweight and he had Rocky whipped but for his chin that betrayed him (as it often did). Louis was outstanding, but way over the hill. Layne, LaStarza, Matthews, Cockell and the rest were nothing special. Rocky doesn't look very good on film. Put him in the 1980s prize ring and we will talk about an interesting fight, but nothing more.

I believe he gets the attention he does because he's white. Sorry. I know that's controversial. But it's the only way I can explain how a limited smallish heavyweight gets touted as an all-time great. There's no rational explanation.

I dont think its race, What made Rocky great was because he clear out his era.

Weight or not, Charles, Walcott, Louis and Moore were GREATS of the ring.
Louis was past his prime, but Charles and Walcott were cleaning out the divsion when Rocky got em in the ring(I dont count the lost to Johnson on Charles part, Clear robbery imo)

Johnson may have had a great pre title run, but once he won it, he didnt face the best out there, were Rocky time in and time out fought the best.

Archie Moore did more at lightheayvweight than Bob Foster getting rank number 1 over Valez, were Foster got blasted out mostly against good or great heavyweights.

Johnson didnt relly help his case with middleweights like Ketchel or Langford imo.

I rank Rocky higher, thought because Johnson is the first black fighter, historic is higher.


PS, Fraizer or even Joe Louis beating Marciano is mostly guess work imo. I give each fight 50 50 about.

I also belive if Ali is taking off of Fraizer's record, Rocky beat the better fighters.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by MrMarvel

Johnson. Clearly. He is historically the more important and far superior to every other heavyweight of his style.

I am not impressed by Rocky enough to think of him as an all-time great heavyweight, and that is relative to the level of development of the division in that day. I see him as reigning during a weak period with a smart manager. I don't regard a single fighter he faced as a great or even outstanding heavyweight. Moore was a great light heavyweight. So was Charles. Both were solid heavyweights. But neither was great or outstanding at that weight the way, say, Frazier or Louis was. And I believe either of them would beat on him on another day. Walcott clearly wasn't an outstanding heavyweight and he had Rocky whipped but for his chin that betrayed him (as it often did). Louis was outstanding, but way over the hill. Layne, LaStarza, Matthews, Cockell and the rest were nothing special. Rocky doesn't look very good on film. Put him in the 1980s prize ring and we will talk about an interesting fight, but nothing more.

I believe he gets the attention he does because he's white. Sorry. I know that's controversial. But it's the only way I can explain how a limited smallish heavyweight gets touted as an all-time great. There's no rational explanation.

I dont see any way that a champion who defended his title half a dozen times against elite contenders of his era (all ranked top 5) can not be considered great.

There is no prescedent from any period in history for such a champion not being acored this status and if you are going to set it then a lot of other champions traditionaly considerd great will be colateral victims.

[Ste Hawkins]

Jack Johnson is the ATG. In any era he shines. The man was a legend. Get things in perspective. He wasfighting 30 round wars before the likes of Marciano were even born. He was retired before Joe Louis even hit puberty. He was a boxing visionary. Imagine him in the 70's, 80's or current era with the same benefit of training and nutrition techniques the recent champs have had.