Molten Lava Vitriol For Rocky Marciano

This is a tale/debate as old as time; as a Marciano fan, I've been in many of these arguments in my past before I took a step back from boxing history to pursue academics

As someone who has "survived the trenches", so to speak, I would say there are 3 main groups that dislike Marciano:


1. Boxing "modernists" who believe that old fighters, especially those before the era of Ali, could not compete with modern boxers. They are annoyed when someone like Marciano is brought up, because they believe that Marciano is the antithesis to modern boxing ideals. Of course, this is silly, as things such as slugging and swarming still very much exist, although swarming isnt as effective in the 12 round era compared to the 15 round era. They also most likely dislike that Marciano defeated fighters who were more technically sound, slick, better "fundamental boxers", and larger than Marciano.

1b. This is sort of related to the first group, but there are a number of boxing fans whom, while they dont believe that boxing has necessarily gotten "better", they believe that modern boxers are too athletic and especially modern heavyweights are "too big" for the smaller heavyweights of the past to compete with. While i disagree slightly about size, and I used to fight this point frequently due to older boxers defeating larger fighters often, I do agree that modern boxers are superior athletes. This is because of performance enhancing drugs, or "PEDs", such as anabolic steroids, diuretics to make weight, designer drugs, HGH, etc. Because of this, I actually agree that the boxers from the 90s are probably the best ever head to head, simply because they had the least restricted access to anabolic steroids. There are some Marciano fans who will say Marciano can defeat someone like Lennox Lewis, despite this being unlikely. These people are a reactionary group to that. They tend to downplay heavyweights whom dont have a good physique, arent "fast enough to overcome size", or arent that big. They typically think that any fighter pre-Sonny Liston should not be in a fight with any modern fighter, and will be extremely annoying about it.

2. Those who believe Marciano only fought old men. This is a bit of propaganda spread against him by notable figures such as Bert Sugar, and was repeated and even satirized (unknowingly to modern fans, who thought it was serious) by the movie "Coming to America" ("Joe Louis was 137 years old!"). Bert Sugar said some dumb **** that Marciano's average opponent was 40, despite his average title defense being against someone who was 32, and his average opponent across his career being 29.8. He actually had one of the younger groups. These people are a bit hypocritical, because they claim Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore, etc could not have been in great condition due to their age, despite video evidence and analysis of their resumes showing otherwise. Obviously we have seen other athletes be in their "prime", or at least quite near it, in their late 30s. Bernard Hopkins, Bob Fitzsimmons, in more recent times Zhilei Zhang, hit their stride later on in life. It is quite common in the heavier weight classes, where experience, power and pacing trumps all. Marciano still beat the "young, prime, hungry contenders" such as Rex Layne and Roland LaStarza, and cannot be accused of ducking anyone. The older gentlemen (Louis, who was definitely washed but is still the greatest heavyweight ever, Jersey Joe Walcott, and Archie Moore), just happened to be more dangerous. Also, Ezzard Charles was 32, and had recently been reported to be "back to his old self" after a bit of a slip in form after losing to Walcott twice.

3. Racists who see him as a bastion of "white hope" or "white supremacy". I will not go further on this, because this isn't what the forum is supposed to be about and i hate discussing race related subjects. Just know that this take is deluded and provably wrong. These people tend to automatically assume that Marciano fans are racist, and that Marciano was the last great white heavyweight ever. Larry Holmes started this movement, in my opinion.

3b. This is kinda related to the above, but there's a subsection of people who believe Marciano's entire career was fixed due to the Italian Mafia. This is ridiculous. Obviously outside of firsthand accounts saying that (DURING HIS CAREER) Marciano would steer clear of the mafia, the fights when you watch them are very much legitimate. If anyone were to claim that the mafia "fixed" Charles 1 or Walcott 1, they would have to be senile. These claims come from a book about a jewish boxer and holocaust survivor named Harry Haft claiming in his book that the mafia "tried to get him to take a dive" before their fight. This is silly, as Haft was 12-7, and was likely either just a few lame-brains pretending to be mafioso trying to secure some money they bet on Marciano, or more likely, a fib to make his book more interesting.


Because of a mildly fervent fanbase and extreme prejudice and assumptions, Marciano is attacked very frequently. His name is an easy way to start up controversy, its a tale as old as time. It does not help that Marciano is as beloved as he is, since he was such a gentleman outside of the ring, a great representative of Italians at the time and helped them gain social acceptance when the mafia dominated their public opinion, always spoke highly of his opponents, and was never defeated. Some people take the "never defeated" thing very strongly, but we must admit, only having wins in his era? Was an absolute miracle. Was the first champion to ever have a perfect record with no losses or draws, is still the only retired undefeated heavyweight champion, and most of the champions retiring in this era are only undefeated due to protected records and ABC belts allowing them to avoid the best in their division.

Also, the same people tend to hate Jack Dempsey. Idk why, but Joe Louis usually gets the pass with them, typically because Joe is seen as a more "modern" style fighter who... accidentally knew how to box(?). Marciano is also the easiest to attack, due to Ali being a larger, more fast fighter who proved himself against "modernism", and pre-Jack Dempsey basically being completely irrelevant today. The 3 major champions in this "classic but not necessarily outdated" era are Dempsey, Louis and Marciano. Marciano being the shortest and slowest of the 3, he is typically what revolts the "modernists" the most.

Either way, the Marciano arguments and rage bait are best avoided. Many are scornful at him and his fans, and will use any excuse to speak poorly about him. It is a shame, because he was a role model and something we need more of in this otherwise destitute sport.

 

Great post.

 

The best "technical" fighters he beat, which was really only a handful, were worn out guys, two of the very best of whom some were blownup lightheavies.

The level of athlete is more than PED's. It is that we have a much broader recruitment pool. We have Africa, particularly west and south. We have all the countries behind the Iron Curtain with their vast populations. We have the products of the Cuban system. We have a trickle from giant China, including one of the best heavies today, albeit it would have been nice for him to be active 15 years ago.

No, the only decent fighters Marciano beat were ancient, and except for blownup lightheavy Moore, at the very end of their actual or effective careers. Most of the names on Marciano's resume were ham and egger circuit fighters, most of his fights were in the same arena in Rhode Island (because he was for most of his short career a regional circuit fighters) When he finally got to the elite, the best names were the ancients. Roland Lastarza was a nobody, a guy we would never know if not for him meeting and possibly beating the great Marciano. Layne was a lazy softy who wasn't much into training and didn't possess strength or quicks. Which just leaves the olds. And you can not compare modern guys like Hopkins, who had a bevy of nutritionists and strength coaches and medical experts, to fighters from the 1950's and their liniments and salves concocted by self-appointed experts. The fact is that today 40 is the new 30 in every department, in almost every sport.

I agree that 3 is stupid. I'm sure that element exists to some degree but it does not sustain Marciano's legacy (which I do believe is largely deserved).

3b has no credence either so far as I have ever read.

Marciano was a decent dude in public, and quite well spoken too, but like many fighters he could be violent and petty. The "never defeated" thing is overplayed. He had a very short career, and moreso, a very short time fighting elite fighters. And he was lucky that the best of that post-war era were holdovers from the previous era. There was a dearth of talented heavies, plain and simple. Maybe the war had something to do with it, maybe TV, maybe just the natural fluctuations of the sport. And let's not forget, he got out when getting out was good. Plenty of guys had great or longer streaks but kept fighting until those losses finally arrived.

Marciano was a great warrior, no doubt. Unfortunately, or fortunately for those looking to troll, his fiercest admirers, usually but not always fellow Italian Americans, inflate his abilities and accomplishment to levels beyond absurdity. This makes them easy, highly entertaining targets.

 

I rank Marciano as the fifth greatest heavyweight of all time because of what he did accomplish against the people who were placed in front of him during his career.

I think he would have literally died trying but would have been beaten down to a pulp on the ground in an awful lot of head-to-head matches with others at the top of the ATG list.

I don’t think those are contradictory statements.

 

Marciano himself was smaller than or equal in size to those blown up light heavies, so it is silly to hold that against him

Walcott looked terrific on film and was clearly a case of a boxer aging well. And he was obviously champ. There were reports that after the fight with Bob Satterfield, Ezzard Charles had regained his old glamour. You can see, once again only in the first fight, that these were mostly true, although we do not have early footage of Ezzard for the most part. Charles only being 32 and having a refound passion to win heavyweight gold again seems likely to me, it follows occams razor. Moore was on a very long winstreak, and had clearly adjusted his style well to suit his less mobile, more defensive-counterpunching heavyweight form. Imo, it was similar to what Wladimir did. I will not argue whether or not Moore was in his prime, but i believe he was at least very quality, since he went on to fight for quite a while longer, with a good record for most of it. He beat young, big, strong, well ranked heavyweights such as Bob Baker, Clarence Henry and Nino Valdes to get to Marciano, give credit where credit is due.

Also, by the admission of Marciano himself, he wasnt exactly at his best for the Moore and C0ckell fights, stating he trained half as much for both compared to something like Walcott 1. Didnt have the same passion, and you can see it reflected in his physique and explosiveness imo.

All of the best boxers in the world would still be American had football and basketball not overtaken out culture. Also the addition of west and east africa hasnt really done much for boxing, historically speaking. Ike Ibeabuchi almost did something, but outside of him and Sam Peter becoming an ABC champ in the abysmally weak klitschko era (outside of the klitschkos themselves), does not impress me. The best heavyweights still come from America and Europe (the countries with the highest average heights), and those countries were already well into if not moreso into boxing at the time. I agree in the lower weight classes, it has changed slightly. Although the lower weight classes were always far more diverse, even going back to Pancho Villa in the early 1900s.

I do not really regard training methods as having gotten much better. Alot of the advancements in strength and conditioning is just rediscovering truth in what we thought was once debunked. Really, it is extremely primarily the PEDs and diuretics. Please do not site drug testing, we both know that "drug tested" does not mean "drug free", and this is easily skirted around with designer steroids, short half life anabolics and just literally cheating the tests or paying off the officials

Because Marciano made it the end of their careers, lmao. Charles lost any sort of hope at regaining heavyweight gold, Walcott saw it was time to retire, Layne and LaStarza just got plain beaten like a dog and never mentally recovered. You can see every fighter just blows up and loses their motivation after Marciano, primarily because his style of boxing is probably the most disheartening you can go against. I agree LaStarza was extremely lucky to have met Marciano, and would not be half the man he is without that connection to their one close fight after Marciano was traumatized from the Carmine Vingo fight.

Whether an athlete ages well is typically up to genetics and how their style ages with them, modern nutrition is not even different and perhaps is inferior to times of the past (with the exceptions of supplementation, which you could get naturally in a diet as well), due to decreasing food quality in the years. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Bob Fitzsimmons was in his prime at 36. Mike Tyson was washed at 26.

Marciano was a gentleman and scholar in public, and while he had his issues in private, he was still an upstanding man and even as they came to light (mostly rumor from people seeking attention, such as the fabled "suitcase" which has absolutely no evidence towards it), he still desired to improve himself and succeeded. He was a raised in an italian ghetto where he'd fight frequently. In the army, he was a degenerate and disobedient. Yet, as he gained fame, he knew he had to bring honor to his family and his people, and gradually fixed himself; teaching himself how to speak more fluently, learning more vocabulary, staying out of trouble, being respectful to his opponents. That is something that is incredibly respectable, and what we need more of.

Marciano gave money to Ezzard Charles after he contracted Lou Gehrig's disease, aided a charity for muscular distrophy, was a pioneer of youth amateur boxing, cried after beating Joe Louis, nearly quit boxing after Carmine Vingo and only continued due to support from Vingo's family. I just dunno what more he could do to prove that he was actually a kind man.

Yes Marciano did in fact get out when he should have, considering his home life was hellish, his manager was stealing from him and abusing him, and he had absolutely no motivation to train anymore and looked worse with each fight. Oh wait, no, he also herniated a disc in his back! Yeah, Marciano didnt "get out when it was good", if he had, he wouldve gotten out after Walcott 2. Marciano fought up until his body absolutely couldnt anymore.

I agree that there are other streaks just as long, but they do not face the same circumstances as Marciano, though they typically stay beyond their best. I am not gonna applaud that, sorry. Marciano was smart for not trying to give himself brain damage.

His opposition passed the eye test, I dont really have more to say on that. Perhaps he had no George Foremans in his time, but then again, there arent George Foremans in many other times either. Walcott was great. Charles was great. Moore was great. He beat the younger contenders with the exception of Nino Valdes, who wasnt that good anyway, and got beaten by Moore, lmao. There were young, big, strong heavyweights during Marciano's time, they just werent good enough to beat the crafty veterans. I believe in any other era, this makes said crafty veterans "great", such as Larry Holmes, Bob Fitzsimmons, Wladimir Klitschko, etc. But unfortunately, these great old ones were the victim of Marciano, who had the unfortunate disposition of having a height that started with 5 and a weight that started with 1.

If Marciano was a light heavyweight, we'd all be calling him the goat. I think he should have credit for facing the best in his era whom all had access to the same nutrition, supplements, training methods and lifestyle as him. Marciano went through extreme levels of adversity. At the end of the day, you can say his era was weak due to what they went through (I'd argue the opposite, the men who survived the 30s and 40s were some of the toughest ever), but doesnt that apply to Marciano? Isnt Marciano a victim of growing up poor, having to go into the military, starting out late, not having "modern nutrition and training methods", etc?

I am not claiming some absurd **** like "he would beat Lennox Lewis" or "he would beat Mike Tyson", I do not believe that anymore. But we should compare greatness based on what they COULD ACHIEVE in their era. And very, very, VERY few men did as much, as dominantly, as consistently, through as many bad circumstances, as Marciano.

 

So, if I were a betting man I'd have lost a lot of money on Marciano. On paper he should have lost to Moore, Walcott, Charles at the least. I would have picked a technical guy like LaStarza over him too. Louis, while not near his best form, was still a useful heavyweight who was on a win streak. He should have been on paper much more challenging to Rocky.

I think that the problem with Marciano is that he simply does not look near as refined as his opponents. The other guys look like modern boxers who can do it all. They are very pleasing to watch. They have a blend of offence and defence, and often base their games off a great jab which is something that is "approved" of in boxing and indeed which I love too.

Along comes lopsided, crouching Marciano who looks like a crab with a bad leg. When they talk about a jab he had to look it up in a dictionary. Hell, he's not even that fast. On paper he should be absolutely nowhere with his t-rex reach. And this is what makes him so hard to evaluate.

I think he's the epitome of a fighter who achieves greatness through doing a small subset of things at an elite level and more or less abandoning what he's no good at. His punching power per weight has to be right at the top. He's a stamina monster. He's got a titanium mental attitude. He gives the impression of being a sitting duck but is actually quite awkward and a lot harder to hit than at first glance.

I think that all these attributes blended together gives you a physical fighter that is much much more than the sum of his parts. His dogged stubborness and bludgeoning attack seem somewhat amusing in the face of the technical excellence of his best foes ... at least in the first few rounds. By the end of the fight he's not amusing, he's terrifying, like a prehistoric crocodile that has you in in deep waters and is slowly swallowing you whole inch by inch.

He's never going to be an aesthetically beautiful fighter but by god, he's an effective one.

 

Valdes was good enough to beat Charles,but Charles got the title shot.
What is your source that Marciano gave money to Charles and Vingo?

 

Marciano is the most underrated Heavyweight of all time.

Every era has a different set of circumstances both positive and negative.

Many of the people dislike him is because of his size or the era but Marciano's positive gifts such as determination, heart, power, boxing ability and defensive skills are overlooked.

Marciano fought the best of his era and fought some very experienced skilled men.

Walcott, Charles, Moore were tough skilled ATG's.

Marciano never drew the color line like Johnson, Jeffries, Dempsey, Tunney (I am not blaming them because some of it was politics)
and Marciano fought his # 1 contender in 5 of 6 defenses.

In 49 fights he won them all and ko'd 43

I think Marciano had the gifts to surprise many and may come out on top prime for prime with many top ATG heavyweights.

Frazier said only Louis and Marciano would have beaten him at his best and picked Marciano to beat Ali, Ali said Marciano would have been his toughest fight.

A lot of the wisest minds in boxing felt Marciano was great, trainers, promoters, fighter, I agree.

I don't want to swap opinions because everyone has their own and that's mine.

 

In my case I have no particular grudge with Marciano, even if he is not one of my favorite vintage ATG.

However, I admit I am bothered with the whole "Marciano was undefeated, therefore he beats X" argument, which had been overused by now.

Sure, Marciano is an ATG and his undefeated record is an impressive accomplishment. But we all know not everything shinning is necessarily gold. In that undefeated 49 list there must be a good share of coal. In a closer look, in Marciano's record there should be several asterisk marks ... journeyman, tomato cans and maybe here and there some dive job. That is kinda "expectable", that is the way the game is played, and no necessarily diminish Marciano's accomplishment.

No boxer has a 100% perfect resume. Every great champion has some asterisk marks in his historial.
Ali and all the gifted wins during the final phase of his career. Holy with the roids. Klitschko and all his clinching and holding, etc.

However, there are some Marciano’s fans who just lock into “Marciano was undefeated” as a circular argument with no critical analysis, and that maybe is helping to create a negative view of Marciano as a boxer.

 

Valdes beat Charles, but then Satterfield beat Valdes, and then Charles beat Satterfield, hope this helps

Forgive me, it was actually just that Marciano assisted in a fundraiser for Charles.

"With the help of Joe Kellman and Ben Bentley he organized an event to raise money and defray the mounting medical bills of the ex-champion. “The Ezzard Charles Appreciation Night” was held on November 13th 1968 in the Grand Ballroom of Chicago’s Sherman Hotel. For $15 the guests were treated to a sit-down dinner and fight films that they themselves could request through the Chicago Daily Tribune. Many bent noses were in the crowd of 1300 –several of them bent by the guest of honor. Rocky Marciano, whose nose he split into a canyon, was a featured speaker. “I never met a man like Ez in my life,” he said as he turned and looked into the eyes of his old foe, “Ez, you fought me about the very best of anybody. I couldn’t put you down and I don’t believe anybody can put you down. You’ve got more spirit than any man I ever knew.”

It was a glorious night. The benefit would raise about $15,000 for Ezzard. It was almost the same amount to the dollar that Ezzard raised for the Baroudi family after that tragedy twenty years earlier."

Carmine Vingo i blatantly misremembered, he may have offered(?), but Carmine did not ask for such nor receive any. Though i do remember that Marciano wished to quit boxing, and was encouraged by Carmine and/or his family to continue

 

Weill several times said they would,"do something for Carmine",but ,according to Vingo's Wife Kitty,they never did.

 

The guy did the best he could with what he had and the times he lived in. I’m good with that.

 

Weill said alot of things; was always a lying, greedy ******* unfortunately

 

There are five things going on:

1) He is undefeated. A lot of boxing fans don't like that, and Mayweather, Calzaghe and Ward get it too. there is the feeling that guys have to take their losses.

2) He is undersized. A great is a great for what they accomplish in their own era, but we have to have the dumb "how would have done against a super-heavy" threads and posts. It is of no consequence. The best big man of his era, Valdez, was oft-beaten and lost his spot to a LHW. There was no super heavy of any note fighting, so it doesn't matter.

3) He had an awkward style. In truth, the guys who fight against him praised it, but due to his small size and reach, he had to develop and alternate style of coming in low and delivering punches in bunches on the inside.

4) His best opponents are criticized as old, which is stupid, because they were ATG, and because he also beat good young contenders like LaStarza and Layne. He beat the best he could get his hand on.

5) He's white. And Italian. Let's be honest.