How Good is Rocky Marciano’s Resume Actually?

I know it’s hard to face the reality of your hallowed heros. Compared to any more recent era starting about 1958 this group was weak. The best fighters were old men at the end of their careers except for Moore who was 42 when he fought Marciano and had never been more then a fairy good heavyweight and Nino Valdez also only fairly good who Marciano avoided.

 

He did pad his record with journeymen,that's irrefutable. Other fighters with less Amateur experience fought much better opponents at the start of their pro careers.


Marciano 33-0-0 v Art Henri 13-16-1 lost 5 of his last 6.
Marciano 34-0-0 v Willis Applegate lost last 5.had 2 fights in the previous 2 years.
Lastarza and Mathews were hyped,carefully protected fighters.
Savold was washed up.
"The will was there but not the body," said Daly. "I'm going to advise Lee to retire from the ring tomorrow."

John (Ox) DaGrosa, Pennsylvania state athletic commissioner, said he was going to suspend Savold indefinitely and ask him to retire.

Look up how many men Marciano actually knocked out ,as in dropped for the count of ten.I'll give you a clue.It ain't 43!

 

He has no quality losses on which to judge him.

 

Going by 'name value' his resume is right up there. Hell, you could argue that he was #1 on name value.

 

Number 1 for name fighters who were old and at the end of their careers.
The story is Al Weill was walking through hotel where Brian London was sparring for his title shot at Floyd Patterson and said to Patterson team well at least he looks pretty good the English guy we fought was terrible. So there you are the mediocre Brian London was way better then the fat short Cockell.

 

That's where the discussion starts.

 

Again, and again, and again, and again...Valdez was #1 contender for about 8 months. He was never some mythic long-term mando that had to be avoided. The idea that he was #1 after Charles is from RING MAGAZINE ratings, which have nothing to do with who Marciano was actually obligated to face.

 

He was stopped by Randy Turpin.

 

Not all guys champions fight are number 1. Cockell wasn’t. Nino beat Charles before he fought Rocky.
Feb 54 and Feb 55 Nino was number 1 by Ring mag.

 

Baker was KO'd by Archie Moore who also beat Valdez 2 X, so I think Archie deserved that shot by far! Valdez and Baker were also beaten by Bob Satterfield who was 5"10 180 lbs. Baker ko'd in 1 - Valdes was dominated and dropped for a 9 count in the last rd. against Sattefield -Moore also KO'd Satterfield and Ezzard Charles KO'd Satterfield in 2 rounds and also KO'd Coley Wallace, while Valdes lost to Moore 2X

Marciano fought the best of his era - never drew the color line like most champs before him - 5 of his 6 title defenses were to the #1 contender

49-0 43 kos - great resume= great fighter

 

All good points, and I don't find them to be inconsistent with my view of Rocky, except that I don't consider his resume as champion to be as impressive as the others I mentioned. Ergo, in terms of semantics, I think of his resume as champion as "good", even "very good," but not quite in the "great" category of the others.

 

but champions are not obligated to fight guys who are not number 1. The accusation was that I was addressing was that Valdez was "avoided." Definitionally, he wasn't.

 

It's very good. I think between the 6 title defenses and the undefeated record (mainly this) he retired at a perfect time. I think only Louis and Ali are ahead of him due to their reign length / competition.

 

London would have beaten Cockell,imo.

 

He was no1 in Feb 53 and Feb 54.
He earned his spot by beating Charles no1 inAug 52 and was not beaten until May55,that's nearly 3 years, during which time he beat Sys no9.Jackson no8,and Neuhaus no 6.So who deserved a title shot more, Valdes or the man he beat Charles?