Rocky Marciano with Ali's competition: Does he stay undefeated?

Whilst it's good you acknowledge your statement was erroneous, even if you had said over 200lbs you would have still been wrong.

Witktionary defines "vast majority" as "The greatest part of something, to the point where alternatives are nearly irrelevant in size".

9 out of 24 is 37.5%, which is not a sufficiently small proportion to be considered nearly irrelevant in size.

 

Ok what part of that 37.5% represented a really significant threat to Joe Louis title? Perhaps 1%? That surely would make the alternative percentage irrelevant wouldn’t it?

It’s all very well showing off how big and heavy a severe underdog was but wrong to forget there being a severe underdog element in the deal just because he’s so big and heavy.

Remember, it was only future advances in science that enabled even 220 pound fighters to dominate boxing. This science has increased that further with each new generation of extra advances.

it just wasn’t possible before.

 

You seem to have assigned an agenda to me in your mind that I do not possess. You made two factual errors that I corrected. That's all.

To addres your question and other point:

Imo, a very small proportion of Louis's title challengers, regardless of their size, represented a serious threat to him, because he was about as far removed from the best boxers in the world in his weight division as any boxer in history. Which is why - 1) He has more lineal world title defences than any fighter in history; and 2) For those whose ranking criteria is based on what a fighter actually achieved in their own era, rather than what they think may happen in cross era fantasy fights, Joe Louis is a consensus top 2 HW of all time.

I agree that HWs have typically gotten bigger between when Louis fought and now, and that advances in strength and conditioning, diet, supplements and PEDs have all likely contributed to that.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. Louis was a one off. What I like about him is the way the beating Schmeling put on him had no lasting effect or shortening of his career. The guy gets no credit for this.

Louis has an incredible number of defences but much of this high number must be attributed to the upcoming draft. Getting in as many paydays on the “hurry up” before joining the army. Look at the timeline. . One defence in 1937. 3 in 1938. 4 in 1940. Then 8 in 1941 … Some of these defences, not all of them, were little more than “champion on tour” dates. Then back to 2 defences in 1942. 2 in 1946. 1 in 1947. 1 in 1948.

Absolutely Joe Louis is in the top two of all time.

This is also correct. It’s absolutely indefensible now that so many elite fighters have tested positive.

 

Marciano isn't going to match Ali's body of work. He's not going to be top-10 level for that many years, and if he tries to pack all those opponents into five years, tough as Rocky is, he'd wear out before he got through them. Maybe in a different history Marciano would have more top years -- without WWII he might have matured earlier, and he might have fought a couple more years (older). But we'd have to add quite a few more years to Rocky to make all those quality Ali opponents viable, and I suspect that, though Rocky might have been capable of more years at/around the divisions top, style is that he's not likely to have that near a Johnson/Louis/Ali type longevity. And even giving him some more time to deal with Ali's wealth of quality opponents, fights with Liston, Frazier and Foreman will be extremely sever tests. Not saying any of this to down Marciano.

 

What terrible news? That Foreman refused to fight the elite fighters and got stripped? Is that what Walcott and Charles were doing?

 

If Norton wasn't in his prime when he was the freaking champion fighting Holmes, then Walcott, Moore, and Charles were pulled out of the retirement home tonight Rocky.

Leon had won an eliminator and had came off 2 good wins. To suggest he was having a career spiral is a flat out lie.

Holmes wasn't old at 35 he lost to Spinx, but Norton was old at 34?

This is a goofy argument and the main reason I debating most Rocky fans. You're never consistent.

 

This was after they had cleared out the division and the other contenders were of a similar age. Guys like Rahman, Golota, Tyson, etc weren't exactly spring chickens.

Walcott, Charles, and Moore were destroying ranked guys in their 20's.

Foreman and Holmes made their comebacks in their late 30's. It's a very simple comparison and doesn't need to be beaten to death. You get the point.

I didn't say they were the majority. The point is there were multiple elite big men in those eras and for some reason Rocky faced approximately zero. There were other big men that Louis and Dempsey didn't fight making the total even higher. So your suggestion that big men were just absent or incredibly rare is incorrect.

An era full of older men and light heavies is the exception even for that olden era was my point.

Has nothing to do with my point. Already addressed.

I don't think you know what the word multiple means Chok.

Nobody said Rocky should've fought those guys instead of Walcott, Moorer, and the others. This is a straw man argument.

 

Nino and Baker were elite, and missed out, chiefly for the reason that they lost to better fighters that Narciano knocked out. Had Marciano accommodated either of them it might have been at the expense of Charles and Moore.

I said that big men were not yet good enough to dominate the division. Which is true. The advances that made it possible had not been realised yet. I didn’t say yet we’re not about. They were just largely inconsequential until advances allowed them to dominate. It’s amazing that people assume there was an agenda to keep them out like there was some kind of size line like a colour line or something. The advances were just not there for them to dominate yet.

Charles was not old. Before advances made it possible for 200 plus heavyweights to dominate the division was often littered with elite fighters who had campaigned at light heavyweight. Schmeling, Braddock, Tunney had all been lightheavyweights. Tommy Laughran beat max Baer. Joey maxim beat Walcott and Floyd Patterson. Even Micky Walker beat a HW champ too.

Walcott was a very good fighter. Great even. In each decade there have been elite men his kind of age. If your good enough to be champion your old enough to be champion.

Moore was the dominant current light heavyweight champion who was beating actual heavyweight contenders like Valdes, Henry and Baker.

The “light” heavies were interchangeable with Heavyweights until about 1970 anyway. Most Lightheavyweights fought heavyweights. It was almost the same division. A title within HW open to the smaller ones.

 

Mickey Walker never beat a HW world champion, he did draw with a future champion though.

 

The difference between Firpo, Fulton, Willard, Simon, the Baer brothers, Carnera and the big guys of Rocky's era (Nino and Baker) is that the latter didn't always prove to be elite while the others did. The discussion isn't about Rocky picking them at the expense of Moore, Charles, etc. It's asking why were there few skilled big men in Rocky's era and why he never faced even the small handful that were available.

But that is flat out false. You are just pushing your old narrative from over half a decade ago that nobody could truly develop big men to be elite until recently from the 90's onwards. The fact we had huge champions and ranked contenders such as Carnera, Willard, etc decades before Rocky means your claim is false.

None of them were "inconsequential". Willard ended Jackson's domination of the division. They all did well in their era and had several memorable fights. You cannot agree that they were elite and then call them inconsequential in the very next breath because it goes against your agenda Chok.

Not once did I claim there was some conspiracy to stop big men from becoming champion, I have been claiming the exact opposite. There were several big men getting opportunities. Managers and promoters loved putting big men on flyers as it would draw crowds and they'd be curious if the champs and contenders could handle the size difference.

Charles was in over like 80 fights. He wasn't that old biotically but had been through the ringer and suffering from the early stages of ALS.

Louis competed at over 200 lbs in his prime and didn't need any "advances". Jefferies was huge and would weigh as much as 220 or more. Jackson could also reach sizes comparable to guys in the 70's and 80's. History completely contradicts what you're claiming. And approximately none of them were light heavies.

 

Norton himself said that it was a bit past his best.

As for Leon, the drugs and alcohol had already taken their toll on his body. Yeah, he cruiesed along a bit because the era was so poor.

Fighters age at different times. Norton had already suffered some brutal knockouts.

At the end of the day, the fact doesn't change that it was Holmes that lost to a LHW, not Rocky.

 

He didn't face them because they lost to smaller men. But a perusing of the top 10 doesn't really show a lack of big guys relative to earlier eras. Valdes, Baker, Liston, Baksi were all 210 or so

 

I agree completely with those who say Rocky would not have the longevity given style, health issues, & size.
But what any fighter looks like when long retired says nothing about what they would have looked like-& done-when in shape.
It's like taking say George Foreman at @ 325 lbs when he was not even old & saying that proves the preacher could never come back & be competitive.

 

you are correct. Joe Louis and Jim Jeffries represent a sprinkling of two hundred pounders who individually dominated heavyweight championship before the rest of the division was able to fully become that size. Nobody was looking for the next Carnera because The best guys got no bigger than Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey.

Charles was no longer a rated fighter when he was suffering from the early stages of ALS. This is an untruth people push all the time that is one hundred percent unverified. I have no idea why anyone would want to say this.

one or two could always make the grade. I’m talking about dominance of big men and when that was able to start. And why.

no it proves the opposite. Carnera did not start a trend did he? Why didn’t the division change to SHW there and then? Isn’t it because there was t yet the advances to keep men that size on top?