The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

,correct.

And look closer at some of those results. He was behind in a tough fight in the 13th round. Landed a single right hand that is one of the best the sport and not just the division has seen. A 1 punch ko in the 13th.

And unlike the world of 4 titles---he gives the guy a rematch. So a come from behind victory and what did Rocky do in that rematch? Right--another thing we very rarely see in the sport for the result. Not the division where it is a haley's comet--the sport. How often do we ever get those results?

 

He'd be a light heavyweight or maybe even a super middleweight by today's standards. David Benavidez weighs more than Rocky. And don't say "with modern sports and nutrition", that's not how it works lol.

And I don't think people hate Rocky, they hate his very obnoxious super fans that think he dominates people much better than him solely because he went undefeated against relatively mediocre competition. Most people on this forum are white lol, so I doubt that's relevant.

Edit - My comment about most people on this forum being white wasn't a sarcastic quip implying that's the reason why Marciano gets overrated, it was a direct response to another poster saying that people on this forum don't like Rocky because he's white. I wasn't race baiting lol.

 

My apologies for the late response. Been very busy with college finals, and essays.

Louis wasn't in the state of someone like Ali was against Holmes I'll grant you, but aging, and his drug habits, had taken away almost everything that made him the brown bomber. His once infamous right hand was practically non-existent, he was much slower, and critically unable to throw combos at that point.

All he really had left imo was a semblance of a jab.

I really don't think, it took an ATG to beat him at that point, and that in most later eras, he wouldn't have made it anywhere near number one.

I agree. But they were better than virtually everybody else.

Regarding the weak era. The fact that a shot Joe Louis was the number one contender when he fought Marciano speaks volumes. That's part of the problem. Guys like Louis, Charles, Moore, and Walcott were remnants from the previous era, and they were still at the top of the food chain, in the current era.

The best young guys, people like Layne just weren't very good imo.

Cockell reaching number 2 wouldn't have happened in any other later era imo.

Regarding Ali, he was only 32 when he regained the title, and more importantly didn't have much wear and tear. He was relatively fresh, especially considering the exile. And he hadn't suffered any brutal KOs, like the aforementioned champions in the 50s. Charles was 33 when he fought Marciano but he'd had plenty more fights, more wars, and had suffered some KOs. He was clearly a lot worse, than someone like Ali when he fought Foreman in Zaire.

Regarding Walcott, he'd been knocked out four times and was 45 years old. Even taking away the wear and tear from the accumulation of damage he took, their's going to be some inevitable decline in bodily functions, at that age.

Again, I don't have much issue with Marciano's competition. It wasn't as bad as some make it out to be, but OP will do anything to make it look like the greatest reign of all time, which is why I commented.

He's called people haters for suggesting Valdes, should've gotten a title shot, dismissed his win over the number one contender Charles, because Valdes caught him off guard for being to aggressive, and called Valdez a bum which doesn't make sense to me.

That just tears Marciano's resume down. Two of Marciano's greatest victories lost decisively to this "bum" months before he faced Marciano, and another (Moore) went life and death with him, in a decision many contemporary papers scored for Valdes.

 

Oh **** off already.

 

Fair enough post. One obvious dispute. "many contemporary papers scored for Valdes"--The overwhelming consensus seems to have been that Moore won.

As for Valdes, I think he was a good contender, on about the level of Cleveland Williams. I have made that argument in the past. That he lost so many fights while Marciano was champion undercuts the weak era argument.

But let's look at the Ali was fresh and Charles shopworn argument. What can't be disputed is that at about the exact same age Charles gave a good shot against Marciano but Marciano had the stamina, what Liebling calls bottom, to outlast him. Ali defeated Foreman who had stamina issues. Charles was never the same after the first Marciano fight. He looked to have gone back by the second fight.

Ali had 47 or so pro fights and Charles 96, but Ali started his amateur career at 13. His minimum amateur record was 105-5. There are claims he had many more. Charles had 42 listed amateur fights. So the ring mileage might not have quite as one-sided as some maintain.

Walcott had no amateur career. He had about 70 pro fights only. One could make the case that while he was older, he actually had less ring mileage on him than Charles or Ali.

 

I think the World War Two argument is very unconvincing. There were not shooting only heavyweights, so if the war produced a weak era, the weakness should show all the way down the lighter divisions. Does it?

The 1946 to 1955 era from light-heavy down sported Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Harold Johnson, Marcel Cerdan, Jake LaMotta, Sugar Ray Robinson, Kid Gavilan, Billy Graham, Carmen Basilio, Ike Williams, Joe Brown, Willie Pep, Sandy Saddler.

In 2000 the Associated Press did a poll of the best fighters in each division for the century. How did these fighters do?

Light heavyweight: Archie Moore-1, Ezzard Charles-3, Harold Johnson-7

Middleweight: Sugar Ray Robinson-1, Jake LaMotta-7, Marcel Cerdan-9

Welterweight: Sugar Ray Robinson-1, Carmen Basilio-6, Kid Gavilan-9

Lightweight: Ike Williams-4

Featherweight: Willie Pep-1, Sandy Saddler-2

Ali was the top heavyweight. Duran the top lightweight. I think the #2 middleweight, Harry Greb, should have been number one.

But getting the top spot in even three of these six weight divisions hardly speaks of a weak era. In fact it is the era which did best by this measurement. And I at least don't dispute that Moore, Pep, and Robinson at welter were excellent choices.

Why was this such a good era? The impact of the Depression was greater by far than WW2. And so was the fall of the color line and the migration of southern blacks to the northern cities between the wars.

 

If you’re talking about Probst, co-signed. He’s Mr. Overkill, he’s made his point.

 

I’ve said repeatedly, I place Marciano No. 5 on my ATG list because of what he accomplished against the opponents that were placed in front of him. I think there are many more than five ATGs who would beat him H2H, some easily. I don’t think the two opinions are oxymoronic. I think they give the man the respect he is due.

 

???

**** off with what? I don't think I said anything disagreeable. What do you take issue with?

 

Disingenuous by definition, is the act of being dishonest by pretending to know less than one actually knows which I thought fit the criteria perfectly, and I'll expand on it below.

Well actually, that wasn't me, it was Seamus who made that post. I thought you brought it up to dispute Charles was past his prime, but you seem to have just been making a general statement. If so I apologize, for calling you disingenuous.

That's fair. While I think the best guys Marciano fought were past their prime, they perfectly fit your criteria, of not being prime, but not being shot at the same time. With the exception of Louis, who I think was done at that point.

 

Marciano beat 40 year old Archie Moore, 40 year old Jersey Joe Walcott, 40 year old joe Louis, and 34 year old faded Ezzard Charles. Those were the best people he faced.

Moore was naturally smaller than Marciano. Moore weighed 160 or so odd pounds until he was in his early 30's. Ezzard Charles was a natural 175 pound fighter.

Marciano also faced Roland LaStarza and most people think he lost their first right. Marciano also fought club fighter Ted Lowry and most people think Marciano lost their first right and almost got knockedo out.

Yet Marciano fanboys will tell you Mike Tyson didn't fight anybody. Tyson beat Tony Tucker, Razor Ruddock, Frank Bruno, Pinklon Thomas. Hell even Tyson beating a old Larry Holmes was more impressive than anything Marciano did. Old Larry Holmes had far more left in the tank than Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles or Jersey Joe Walcott did.

 

Lol Archie Moore was pushing 40, Joe Louis was pushing 40, Jersey Joe Walcott was pushing 40. Ezzard Charles was done as a top level fighter.

Mike Tyson still fought guys who were in their primes. Mike Tyson actually fought guys who were actually his weight class.
Marciano was bigger than both Charles and Moore naturally. Every guy Marciano fought were either mafia controlled, old men , or tomato cans and even then Roland LaStarza and Ted Lowry beat Marciano and got robbed. Yet Marciano's fanboys still love to talk about how he is one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. Even though he weighed 180 pounds and 180 pounds isn't a heavyweight anymore.

 

właściwie nie do końca. Teoretycznie era Louisa też nie była taka wspaniała. Kto był najlepszy do pokonania? oczywiście długowieczność robi wrażenie, tyle lat na szczycie... i być może zakończył karierę kogoś, kto byłby lepszy, gdyby nie spotkał Joe Louisa.
Moja teoria jest taka, że jedynym wielkim zawodnikiem in prime, z którym Ali walczył, był Joe Frazier w 1971 r., a drugim był Larry Holmes w 1980 r. Walka Foremana w Kinszasie była pełna dziwnych okoliczności. Ale moim zdaniem Marciano nie jest nawet blisko.

 

That is correct. But still many papers scored the bout for Valdez. This isn't a contradiction.

I disagree. Williams looked to me, like the much more polished fighter imo, and it reflects in their records against common opponents. Particularly Machen. He was also the much more consistent fighter.

I disagree. Valdes lost quite a few fights because of his inconsistency, which is another reason I don't fault Marciano to much for not fighting him. In top form he was definitely one of the best fighters in the era, as shown by his fights against Moore (rematch), Charles and to a slightly lesser extent Cockell.

Yes but they were two completely different opponents. Charles likely doesn't do nearly as well against Foreman as he did against Marciano. Also, Charles had been fighting professionally for fourteen years when he fought Marciano, partaken in multiple wars, and again had been knocked out multiple times whereas Ali had only taken serious punishment against Frazier in their first fight by the time he fought Foreman.

I agree. Fighters were ruined after facing Marciano because of his grinding style. He wasn't a one punch KO artist like Liston who could KO them early and spare them from further damage.

Fighters were in for a prolonged beating when it came to Marciano, on top of the KO, which is why many fighters were ruined after facing him, like Cockell.

Yes but the caveat is, amateur fights are three rounds max, and generally not as grueling as pro fights.

On top of being four months away from 39, he'd also been knocked out four times. He'd also taken quite a bit of punishment in those fights, losing nearly one in three every time he'd stepped in the ring/