What is the biggest knock against Marciano's Legacy

Just stating a fact ,I'm rather keen on them.

Life magazine reported: "Trying to knock the challenger out with one punch, the 29-year-old Marciano was over-eager and awkward. He lunged, butted, hit below the belt, on the break and after the bell. Once, he swung so wildly that he missed and slipped clumsily to the canvas. Outboxing the champion and avoiding his blows, LaStarza managed to win four of the first six rounds. In the seventh, Marciano changed his tactics, started aiming at LaStarza's body as well as his head in an attempt to wear the challenger down. He succeeded."
The Associated Press reported: "Sliced around both eyes and bleeding from a cut on the bridge of his nose, the well-battered LaStarza took a tremendous beating in the last five rounds before Referee Ruby Goldstein wisely stopped the slaughter."
The referee took the sixth round away from Marciano for a low blow

 

You nailed it!:good

 

Probably no bigger a knock than any other HW champion.

 

Fair enough!

 

Wouldn't call them "knocks" on his legacy per se but the fact that he had few title defenses and that his biggest names were either past prime, natural light-heavies, or both are real limitations.

 

I've no problem with the distinction myself, and I'm keen on facts too (I'm even subscribed to Neil DeGrasse Tyson's social media pages!) - just found it funny that someone literally just yesterday was complaining about you splitting that same hair in regards to Frazier and making allegations that you had some agenda to diminish Joe because of it. Here we are 24 hours later and you're going in on another heavyweight ATG wagging a finger when his TKO's are referred to as KO's.

You don't shy away from :stir, that's for sure.

 

That poster, Yancey by name is a Frazier fan boy.
One question .
Did either of my posts say anything that is not FACTUALLY TRUE ?

If the answer is yes then you have a case for your statement.
If the answer is no then you don't ,and your little emoticon is unwarranted.
If you state facts ,you're not sh*t stirring ,you're telling the truth.
If you "embroider" the facts you are improving on them for your own reasons/agenda.

 

my take

fair enough to focus on the ages of Marciano's opponents,

Their best days were behind them, except debatably with Moore who was on a big winning streak.

However, three of them, Louis, Moore, and Charles were at their best genuinely great fighters. Louis and Moore were the longest-reigning heavyweight and light-heavyweight champions of the 20th century. Had they been at their best, Marciano with a perfect record against them and everyone else would probably have to be considered the best fighter of the century. They weren't, so he isn't, but going to the other extreme and completely dismissing them is not accurate either.

It is fair enough to point out that Charles and Moore were at their best as light-heavyweights.

Where I would differ with some of Marciano's critics is that they don't apply the same stringent standards to other pre-1960 champions. For example, what about age for Jeffries's opponents? If Moore and Charles were at their best as light-heavies, what about Tunney and Gibbons? And how big were Fitz, Langford, Burns, and Ketchel when Johnson beat them?

I want to make clear I am not referring to anyone on this thread when I bring up double standards, just some high-visibility "historians" like Sugar and others.

*Just a last thought on Marciano. He never made any of his opponents great. What I mean is where would Tunney be ranked if Dempsey had beaten him in 1926? Or Schmeling if Louis hadn't lost to him in 1936? Would Hart be anything more than a footnote if he hadn't edged out a decision over Johnson?

None of Marciano's name opponents gained much by fighting him. Possibly LaStarza, but it pretty much ends there.

 

There aren’t really any major knocks against his legacy.

He fought the best available opponents, he was scrupulous in defending his title against the most deserving contenders, and he always won.

The only thing that can really be said against him is that he might not have come along in the strongest era.

 

Well, technically it was a knockout.

 

Technically and factually ,it was a technical knockout. As in the referee stopped the fight whilst Lastarza was on his feet , the ref did not count ten over Lastarza whilst he was on the canvas.

 

Marciano aside,

I find dwelling on the difference between a KO and a TKO troubling (at least if we're not talking about a cut or another injury)

the reason the ref or the corner steps in is to protect a helpless fighter.

Take two 1948 fights which are on you tube--

In the Ike Williams-Beau Jack fight, the ref jumps in to stop it while Jack is helpless but still on his feet-saving him from that last punch.

In the Tony Zale-Rocky Graziano fight, the ref allowed Graziano to continue while helpless until Zale landed that last punch and put Rocky out for several minutes. Graziano later criticized the "brave" ref on TV during a retro show for not stopping it as the film shows he couldn't defend himself.

 

FWIW, I certainly do. :yep

 

a question--

What does FWIW mean?

and a couple of comments--

I mentioned that I wasn't referring to anyone on this thread.

as for Charles or Moore being a natural light-heavyweight, they were in the past, and it is fair to argue they were better at light-heavy than heavy,

but Charles hadn't made light heavy in years and was coming in at 185 to the low 190's. He actually outweighed Marciano in their second fight.

Moore was the light-heavy champion, but making that weight was a real strain for him, and he was more comfortable fighting in the 180's or 190's and usually did.

 

The competition. Almost every fighter he fought had a serious issue/weakness BEFORE he fought them. Not his fault though, he beat who he was supposed to beat. Much like Floyd Mayweather jr.