Rocky Marciano all time heavyweight ranking?

I'd say he shared an era with Lewis as well. He had been pro for almost seven years and held the WBO title for three when Lewis had his last fight, so there was definite overlap. Not saying it was Wlad's fault they didn't meet, but Lewis is an ATG he shared an era with in prime age.

During what would turn out to be his actual peak, Vitaly was the only notable he didn't beat, yes, hence my "Vitaly being the main one", but during his prime age Lewis is one also.

 

Many argue that looking at video and making H2H comparisons are too subjective. Many also argue that all eras were roughly equivalent, so, using that argument, shouldn't the champions with the least amount of loses be considered the "greatest fighters?"

Marciano was undefeated so shouldn't he be #1? Then Johansson only lost to one fighter and he also beat that fighter so he'd have a strong case for #2, then Jeffries only lost once while making a comeback after almost 6 years of retirement so maybe #3, then Joe Frazier who only lost to two fighters, and he beat one of them too, so maybe #4? I'm probably over looking somebody (not a champ, but Joe Mesi?). Much easier and more objective to rate them this way.

 

Now you’ve got it, glad you’re on board the Marciano train - Choo Choo?

 

Then what's the point of even watching old fights?

 

Willis Earls - 189lb light heavy. 1-4-0 in his previous 5 fights. 0-2-0 in his next two fights.

Rodger Rischer. 2-3-0 in his previous 5. One fight away from retirement. Lost it to Marc Foster in 4 rounds.

Howard King 195lbs. 0-4-1 in his previous 5.

Will Besmanoff. 3-2-0 in his previous. 0-5-0 in his next.

Nino Valdez. One fight away from retirement. 3-2-0

Billy Joiner. 0-2-3

Dave Bailey. 1-9-1 in his previous 11

Garhard Zack. 3-2-0. 1-2-2... previous / next

Amos Johnson. 1-4-0 in his next 5.

Bill MacMurray. 1-3-1

Larry Watson. 1-4-0 Retired on another loss one fight later

Julio Mederos in his last ever fight. 2-3-0 in his last 5

The data here says any ol tom , dick and harry could and were beating the guys Sonny Liston was beating .

 

If you put the Lewis era in, sure, he missed him, but as you pointed out, there was never a moment when they could have fought.

 

He's #18 for me (I only ranked retired boxers on all time lists).

 

Sure they could have fought, but I don't blame either for it not happening. That's just the way it goes sometimes.

 

Record wise and going by the stats, he’s the number one heavyweight with his unbeaten 49-0 record.

 

So Calzaghe and Ward ranks above Robinson, Armstrong et al record wise since they're unbeaten then?

A long time at the top beats unbeaten and a much shorter time on top for me. If you keep facing the best for many years you will typically lose some time. But sure if Rocky hung them up unbeaten after defending aginst Liston in 1960 he's probably nr 1.

 

Like I said if you are going ONLY by the stats and record , then yes they would top of the pile. Doesn’t automatically mean that I think they were better fighters than the likes of Robinson or had better achievements in their careers.

 

I disregard expected outcomes in cross era fantasy fights and focus solely on how a fighter actually did in their own era, when I rank fighters all time.

My rankings are based on a lot more than just who had the least losses, as your post seems to suggest such rankings must be based on, though.

I consider who they beat, how and when, who they lost too, how and when.

Quality of win resume and prime losses, in the context of the above paragraph, is paramount, in conjunction with how dominant they were. Title reigns, number of defences, number and quality of ranked contenders beaten, number of defences against their number one contender, are all objective (to a degree) measures of establishing how dominant fighters were and for how long, i.e. the degree to which they separated themselves from the field.

I have no idea how I'd go about compiling an all time H2H list, when over the course of the c.140 years of gloved boxing there have been different rules, different equipment, different conditions, different circumstances, different "resources" available to fighters, frankly different sports. What era and ruleset are these fantasy fights to be staged in? Do we make allowances for how different the fighters would be if they fought under those conditions and/or if they had the "resources" available to them at that time?

Ranking fighters all time based on how great each was relative to their own era is still inherently subjective, but an all time H2H list would as impossible as it would crazy and pointless, imo.

 

Going only by record means different things for us. 25 defences of the undisputed title with only one loss in 50 or so fights is more impressive to me than six defences and zero losses in 49 fights. Going only by record.

Sure if we had absolutely zero information except wins, draws and losses, Marciano's record might be the most impressive. But we don't, so it isn't.

 

So to summarise: if we pretend we know nothing except number of wins and losses Rocky is nr 1 (if we're sure there isn't someone who put together 50-0 or better fighting on the club circuit).

If we don't pretend to not to know what we do know, he isn't.