If marciano had one loss on his record how would that alter his placement?

Not a bad question.

The "0" is important because the argument of "If X could beat him, therefore Y could too" is removed. There's a certain aura about a guy that nobody could beat.

I think Marciano's real problem was his sparse amateur career.

By the end of his career he'd developed some real skills, but unfortunately he still has those early fights where he was as crude as all heck and relying on his stamina and punch alone. I feel that if he'd had a more extensive run up into his pro career, then we may have seen a young Rocky WITH the skills that he'd developed in his late career.

He may even have had more longevity as a result.

 

I think he'd actually be rated higher by some.
I think here's quite a significant contingent who view him with more suspicion and scrutiny for the fact that he never had a loss, nor a decision go against him. Together with being a white heavyweight in that era, and an Italian-American.

 

It wouldn't alter his standing in my eyes. He is officially 49-0-0, though some believed he should have lost decisions to Lowry and Lastarza. He fought who was around and beat them on the scorecards or by count out,what more could he do? I haven't made a top ten for a while so I'm not sure if he still cracks it.

 

Had a think,in no order my ten is.
Tyson
Holmes
Liston
Foreman
Lewis
Johnson
Dempsey
Ali
Holyfield
Louis

Marciano probably next ,then Frazier.

 

I take your point ,his resident fan-club do often make a point of the fact that he remained unbeaten.It doesn' t mean so much to me.eg Jack Dempsey was stopped by Jim Flynn early in his career, without going into the bona fides of the ko, I'll just say it doesn't mean much to me.

 

Depends on who he lost to, and how he lost. If he hadn't landed that Suzy Q against
Walcott, but beat him in a re-match in 1 round, then no, it wouldn't hurt.
Had he lost to one of his earlier bouts that's a different story. I think it would hurt
him a bit.

 

On paper it shouldnt change much, but it would have a significant impact on perceptions.

A lot would depend on who he lost to and when.

 

if holmes hasnt fought spinks how would he be affected?

 

I think Rocky may well have been fortunate getting decisions during his development, as house prospects often are. So what does that mean?

It means like everyone else he wasn't always as good as he became.

Rocky was extremely fortunate to get excellent match making with perfect career timing. The thing is either he got every opponent at just the right time or he really was that good. I think it is a bit of both. He had to be good. Not necessarily that good. His greatness does not need to hinge on being unbeaten.

All The 49-0 thing shows is consistency at the levels throughout the course of his career. I am sure if the film existed it would show he was half the fighter at 20-0 than he was at 47-0 so the unbeaten thing dosnt count until he becomes a rated headliner. So Rocky also won a series of fights against the best fighters, then retired. Once he retired It just happened Rocky had won all his learning fights too.

There once was a guy who built up an unbeaten nonsense record that meant absolutely nothing. And until Rocky met a rated fighter his record meant absolutely nothing too.

So the unbeaten thing is merely an interesting foot note to Marcianos career rather than a be all and end all so far as i am concerned.

 

Depends on the loss, of course.

Did it occur early or late in his career? Did he lose a clear decision, get stopped on cuts or get knocked cold?

Who beat him? Was it Joe Louis? Or was it Gino Buovino?

Some losses for any fighter are excusable. Some losses never are.

The fact he didn't have any losses definitely helps Rocky's all-time standing. It's essentially why he's remembered.

It's his biggest accomplishment.

(After all, other guys beat better versions of Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore.)

So any losses would hurt his legacy. Some would hurt more than others.

 

Marciano did lose to LaStarza and Ted Lowry. If they would of got their wins Marciano fans would still make excuses for him. They need him to be their hero. Whites need him to be their hero like black people need Mayweather of Tyson. No matter what their fans will still try a way to justify how great they were.

Marciano is probably one of the biggest jokes in boxing history. A 5'10 180 pound guy who fought guys that size and smaller but his fans will still try to rationalize him being better than he was.

You see in the thread you made about Marciano vs Foreman how these idiots stated well since 50 year old Foreman couldn't knock out 6'4 230 pound Shannon Briggs so that means he couldn't knock out Marciano. Then you can tell them well Marciano couldn't knock out or hurt 177 pound Ted Lowry in the 2 fights they had. They will find some excuse.

Marciano fans are the worse sports fans. I can't take anything these morons say seriously. Marciano is trash. The worse fighter in boxing history who ever had a belt in any weight class.