how great would marciano be if he wasnt undefeated??

You seem to be a new poster here, so I shall welcome you to this sight before answering the points you make. Walcott was old. He was also a world champion because he beat the man regarded as the best heavyweight in the world. There are two types of champions. There are champions who win fights that decide who was the best heavyweight in the world and then there are champions who happen to beat men who have the world title. Walcott was not an old champion in the sense that he no longer could prove to be the best in the world. He was the best heavyweight in the world. Charles established himself as the best in the world. Walcott beat him more convincingly than he had beat since Charles came out of the army. Charles was 41-1 since the war.

have you seen the full fight?

if your definition of a light heavyweight is a that of a light heavyweight who only fights fighters within the LHW limit then Charles was an exclusive light heavyweight for only two months of a 19 year career. One of the biggest fallacies in boxing history is that Charles was only ever a lightheavy. Before the war charles was below the limit. always less than 168. After the war he was fighting heavyweights. Charles fought 87 Times after the war. Only 12 times against guys within the light heavyweight limit. He did beat heavyweights when he weighed less than 180. But so did a lot of heavyweight champions.

yes 19 losses sounds bad until you see that Moore had 149 wins and was on an 18 month incredible winning streak that included dominant wins over the current undisputed middleweight champion, undisputed light heavyweight champion and the #1 heavyweight contender and #2 heavyweight contender.

joe Louis looking bad for Joe Louis still leaves a top contender at worst. Where is this nonsense of Louis training at home? Louis was having full on training camps. He beat a recent world title challenger, the EU recognised world champion, #1, and #7 rated contenders in a 8 fight 10 month spree.

yes damn right I criticise Deontay Wilder. He just defended his title to a guy who never fought for two years. When did Marciano do that? Champions are supposed to win fights that decide who is the best in the world. Until a winner of Parker v Joshua or Wilder v Parker or Joshua v Wilder bouts can be made there is no such thing as a championright now.

yes. As an apprentice learning his craft. So what.

exactly. Let’s see Wilder, Parker and Joshua fight.

 

In my humble opinion, he is in the top 10 to 15 heavyweights ever (I have him at 11). But he will doubtless slide as time passes.
If he had lost a couple of early pro bouts, I don't know. But he had lost in fights that mattered.... Yes, definitely.

 

Can anyone explain the point of this thread? He is undefeated. Why would it help to imagine him not being? It's not a fantasy world.
It's like saying, would Muhammad Ali be as great without his Frazier fights. No he wouldn't, but what's the point?

 

Dude educate yourself before coming onto a gotdamn public forum. This has to be the most uneducated idiotic ignorant post I've ever read in all the time I've been on here. Just stfu already man forreal. All of your points are invalid and have been disproven over and over and over and over and over again. Were you by any chance born yesterday?

 

I would say that it would depend on how he lost and who he lost to. If both losses were close decision losses....no big deal. If he'd been stretched out on the canvas then lost the rematch (unlike Lewis) then that's certainly a blemish on his record.

 

Of course it matters that some will always feel that Marciano cleaning out the division is the bigger factor than the 49-0 label.

Mayweather beat more world class fighters. Of course he did. But let’s see how he is is remembered in 60 years time. I have a hunch Floyd will go down as an unbeaten, meticulous champion, of less memorable fights than either of the Sugar Rays, Duran’s, Armstrong’s etc. Floyd Could be entirely forgotten by then.

Losing the mystique of 49-0 would not effect the knowledge of those who look beyond that for more important factors like cleaning out the division in the most dominating fashion, not getting knocked out and retiring with the title.

It’s only a nose dive for folks who don’t fully understand the sport. 49-0 is only a label.

Joe Calzaghe isn’t celebrated half as much. If he lost a decision to Robin Reid would it effect him?

 

Yes your statement would be true To the people that put unbeaten records above all else. In a poll that could effect things overall depending how significant the group of people with a fetish for stats over substance was.

But it still would matter that it would not make a blind bit of difference to another group of people. You said it wouldn’t matter. It would to those people.

 

I can't argue that it wouldnt have a overall impact on the way OTHERS would view his career.
Personally however, I don't think it should.

 

925 ftlbs is 925 ftlbs no matter what. He'd be impressive even if he was just an anecdote about a man who hits really hard.

 

I appreciate your having to explain this for me. I accept over all it could make something of a difference to his mainstream standing.

But I can’t help thinking that in any thorough study of the period that Marciano dominated and ran out of challengers in, (providing it was only close loses earlier in his career) it would be impossible to dismiss other factors that would still stand up. Not among the more knowledgeable.

I personally don’t think Calzaghe would nose dive because of earlier less significant losses. Do you?

 

I don't think it would matter to real boxing people. It would matter to Historians however. You are going to get some who will rate him lower because he lost a couple of bouts.