how great would marciano be if he wasnt undefeated??

Paying a few bucks to join an organization does not make you a "historian" its a vanity project with no criteria necessary except the willingness to part with some $$$ for the right to say I am a member. Being defeated by another champion isn't the," be all and end all ",what stage of your respective careers where you when it happened is.
e.g. Take Marciano out of the ring for 3 years and put him in with Tunney and one might easily see a comprehensive win for Tunney.
If one reads the Ring magazines of the late 50's one would be very hard pressed to find any boxing judge who would place Marciano on a par with Dempsey ,let alone in front of him.

 

I'll steer clear of taking that lot seriously then!!!

 

And this is my whole point. If we reverse things and Rocky ends up with Dempseys exact career results (and the 6 losses) wouldn’t Rocky therefore be regarded as great as Dempsey is now?

If Dempsey is great with those losses why not Rocky?

The 49-0 is just a distraction for people who don’t understand boxing.

 

it would never happen. Think about it. He beat Charles already. He’s winning again, decks him and is clearly superior even with the cut. Why quit?

It would be regarded as a very hollow victory for Charles and absolutely no comparison to your examples with the crushing victories over Ingo and Willard that produced severe wallopings. Marciano has not been walloped by Charles like they did.

Under those circumstances a technical decision would be given to Rocky today anyway!

It is laughable.

the undefeated record is a distraction for those that know no better. There are stronger arguments to be made for Rocky.

 

Much the same without Sonny Liston. Even After he retired Liston was constantly rated behind Tunney.

 

It does with me. I would have rated Dempsey at or near the top when young. I bought into the polls and the "expert" opinion. It was only when I started thinking for myself that I began dropping him. Winning and losing is what sports are about and really determine how good a competitor was in the context of his time.

"Stats"

But winning isn't exactly just a stat. Two quotes from the gridiron coach Vince Lombardi define this--

"Statistics are for losers."

"Winning isn't the most important thing. It is the only thing."

 

I already dealt with this point in my original post at 12:50 on November 28, 2017. Here is the paragraph--

"I disagree with those who think Marciano losing a fight or two would really matter that much. This is based on the fights he would lose would be decisions to Lowry and/or LaStarza. Assuming a fight he won by KO, such as the second Charles fight, as a loss, is simply totally rewriting history, such as assuming Dempsey did not make it back into the ring against Firpo or Johnson didn't beat the ten count against Ketchel. Of course the reps would then nosedive, but this sort of argument is just too much fantasy."

Or to elaborate, the Lowry and LaStarza fights went to the judges. I am willing to go to speculation on what happens if the judges voted differently. But Marciano getting KO'd or quitting on his stool? This is simply conjuring a non-Marciano to beat with a stick. There is a historical record.

It is like Alexander the Great and his entire army being slaughtered in his first battle with the Persians and the Persians then quickly conquering Greece and Macedonia. Would that Alexander be the Great? No, he would be Alex the flop. But we really aren't talking about Alexander the Great. We just conjured up a loser to replace a winner.

 

Or perhaps not. Just speculation.

The bottom line for me is that if Dempsey fought in Marciano's era with the same opportunities, I find it hard to see him improving on winning them all. Marciano might do better than losing six against Dempsey's opponents.

 

Thanks for the info on IBRO.

I will say for this poll that I find it less bad with Louis, Ali, and Johnson at the top then a lot of polls I have seen, regardless if these guys are only fans with money.

Where I disagree with you (and Mendoza by the way) is giving so much respect to the opinions of Ring Magazine "experts" back in the day. Here is a quote from Fleischer,

"There is scarcely an old-timer who would give Robinson a chance against Ketchel."

Not even a chance! I really don't know what makes a boxing expert, but these sorts of opinions fail to convince me that these people should define an expert.

"Take Marciano out of the ring for 3 years and put him in with Tunney and one might easily see a comprehensive win for Tunney."

Marciano didn't take three years off as champion as that isn't what a champion should do. Why should Dempsey be given left-handed credit for not attending to his business.

It is like two physicians operate on patients. Physician A attends to business and saves the patient. Physician B shows up drunk and kills the patient on the operating table with mistakes. I see no point in saying if physician A had been drunk he might have killed his patient also. A is the better physician purely because he attended to business.

 

I was reading the original post as the first fight with LaStarza was scored for Roland and the rematch with Charles was stopped between the 7th and 8th rounds (which was talked about before the final round) ... so we never saw Rocky stop Ezzard in round 8.

Had the fight been stopped in the corner, due to the cut, and Ezzard regained the title, and Rocky finished up stopping Don and Archie, his reputation isn't the same.

Being undefeated is a huge part of his legacy. (The biggest, actually.) And his comeback win against Charles is right up there with stopping Walcott in the first fight and beating Louis.

If he loses TWO of those FOUR signature moments, his rep suffers greatly.

 

I think you're WAY underselling his being the ONLY MAN to retire as undefeated heavyweight champion.

Especially considering he's the only man to do it. Ever.

If you take away the undefeated record, and you take away the comeback win over Charles when his nose was split in half and the fight could be stopped at any moment ... that leaves you with ...

A KO win over an old Joe Louis in a non-title fight and a KO win for the title over Walcott ... and only three defenses ... as his signature moments.

Still solid. But ... not the same as retiring as the undefeated heavyweight champion of the world.

 

I also don't know how anyone can say losing to Charles by a corner stoppage wouldn't have hurt his legacy.

Had Vitali Klitschko been allowed to come out for the seventh round against Lennox Lewis, and he knocked out Lewis like Marciano knocked out Charles, would that have added to Vitali's legacy or would it have remained the same as it is now?

Seriously? Vitali's career would be viewed LEVELS higher had he been allowed to continue and he actually scored a KO win.

Losing the title to Charles via a corner stoppage would've greatly impacted Marciano's career. Greatly. And not for the positive.

Had Vitali Klitschko retired 47-0 instead of 45-2, EVERYTHING would've been different.

 

This is poppycock. If (and this is a unlikely if) after already beating Charles once the corner retired Rocky in the second fight, a fight he was winning big even with the cut, having knocked Charles down etc, it would be the only time in heavyweight championship history anything like that happened. Ever.

But if it did happen, nobody would class it as a real loss. It was the rematch clause era. There would have been a third fight and Rocky would have won. Rocky would have regained the title. Marciano would have got the recognition for regaining the title. Then he would have skipped Don and fought Moore in the great fight that they had.

Poor Charles would have went down as the guy who regained the title for one fight in accidental circumstances.

It would not effect Rocky at all.

 

I'm answering the thread question. The thread question was what if everything in Marciano's career played out exactly the same except he lost the decision to LaStarza and lost on the cut nose to Charles.

Of course it impacts his career. Of course he's not viewed the same.

The people who say nothing changes if he loses those two fights are way off.

Every loss impacts a career. And not for the better.

Take your favorite fighter, wipe away his losses, and have him retire undefeated, undisputed champ. That version will be head and shoulders above the actual guy with the losses included.

An undefeated Ali is better than an Ali with five losses. An undefeated Joe Louis is better than a Joe Louis with three losses. An undefeated Marciano is better than a Marciano with two or three losses.

 

Rocky's rep has grown with time, if he had dropped a dec or two early in his career it wouldn't significantly affect his standing with me.