How Good is Rocky Marciano’s Resume Actually?

Johnson won the title from a man in his prime,a man younger than himself,only 1 of his challengers was older,Jeffries.
Marciano took the title from a 38 years old man,defended against him and 2 other men who were older than himself,his only young challengers were fat Don Cockell,who had no business being in there with him,and the protected Lastarza.
Johnson's reign was certainly not distinguished,but his circumstances were radically different to those that Marciano found himself in.Quite why Johnson and Louis' title reigns are under scrutiny is baffling,[well not Johnson's lol ,] the subject is after all Marciano.

 

Johnson won his title from a little 5'7" blown up welterweight. Any of Rocky's opponents would have beaten Burns just as easily. There is no question in my mind Rocky would have made easy work of Ketchel, Jeffries, Flynn, Kaufman, Moran and Battling Jim.

Louis won his title from a washed up B-level fighter. From then on he defended his title against a long string of LHWs and opponents whose resumes were abysmal. His best title defenses were against Walcott, who he arguably lost to in their first fight.

No kidding, the subject is Marciano? Because you NEVER discuss other fighters in threads where they aren't the subject right?

 

When did Burns fight at welterweight?
Oh I discuss anybody,but I don't bring them into threads just to **** on them,which was your reason for mentioning Johnson.
What was abysmal about
Schmeling
Pastor
Godoy
Farr
Mauriello
Nova's
Records when they fought Louis?

 

Billy Conn may have been a LHW, but he had pretty well cleaned up the heavyweight division as it was comprised in 1941.

 

He began is career as a welter. Which is neither here nor there, he was a small HW, the smallest to ever win the title, and the obvious size difference between the two in the ring was quite obvious.

Tell us all about the great fighters that Pastor, Godoy (Lost his fight prior to Louis title shot), Mauriello, beat leading up to their title shots? Then tell us all about the greatness of Nathan Mann, Harry Thomas, Jack Roper, Johnny Paychek, Al McCoy, Red Burman, Gus Dorazio, Abe Simon who he easily beat and then gave another title shot to, Tony Musto, Johnny Davis, Galento, while you're at it.

 

Why is Rocky's resume always defended in the context of Rocky fighting everyone he could? Nobody says Rocky's resume sucks because Rocky intentionally ducked contenders. People say it sucked because it sucked... He just happened to fight in a weak era.

People get so defensive about Rocky's poor resume that they start making excuses that they don't apply to the fighters they don't like personally as much as Rocky. No one does this song and dance for Ricardo Lopez or Joe Calazghe.

 

Your opinion that it sucked is a wrong opinion. Does Archie Moore suck? Walcott? Charles? Layne? Old Louis? LaStarza? Good champions and contenders. The only people who it “sucked” are people who don’t know much about boxing. Could you say maybe it’s weaker than Frazier or Holyfield or whoever by argument? Maybe but I and many boxing historians would disagree with you. Most people who know the sport have him in the top ten some top five. To say it sucked is just a terrible opinion and nothing but slander

 

I agree 100%, Rocky Marciano was as tough as a fighter could be, his courage and stamina are unprecedented. The timing was brilliant for him, had he came along earlier he'd have fought younger versions of Charles and Walcott, and if he got past that he'd have run into a close to prime Louis ,which he wouldn't survive. If he came along later,,,He might last 4 or 5 minutes coming at Sonny Liston...I admire the man immensely, but in head to head matchups with all timers he's not top 10

 

I don't really get the whole "weak era" argument when it comes to Marciano. To me, he's just one of the later representatives of the pre-war generation. After him, you had Patterson and Johansson bridging the gap (born in the 1930s), I'd say, but already Olympic medalists. Well, and Patterson was more of a light heavyweight. That's why both are more comparable to Marciano.

Sonny Liston was kind of an anomaly and therefore perhaps unique; okay, maybe Foreman was too. Then came the actual post-war generation: Ali, Frazier, Foreman, etc. (born in the 1940s and onward). They were bigger, had better amateur backgrounds, and benefited from improving opportunities for young Black fighters... moving away from the long, self-made, gritty careers of veterans like Charles, Walcott, and Moore. That’s why Marciano’s era compares much better to the 1930s or 40s than to the 1960s or 70s.

Look at Rocky’s top three title defenses: Walcott, Moore, and Charles. Are they really that much worse than Joe Louis's best title defense opponents (a bit younger Walcott, Conn, maybe Schmeling who was getting up there in age)? Or Charles's best title opponents (a tad younger Walcott, the faded comeback Joe Louis, Maxim)? Sure, Louis and Charles beat a deeper pool of top-tier fighters, and Charles fought across multiple divisions. But they had much longer careers and way more fights overall.

That doesn't mean Rocky's era was bad. His actual time at the top was just relatively brief once you filter out the tune-up fights, since he was carefully developed and had little amateur experience. As I said, it's all in the context of the time. I think there was soon a leap in boxing's evolution with the post-war generation.

 

Burns was the champion ,was Johnson supposed to not fight him because he was 5ft 7in? Langford was the same size yet you incessantly say Johnson was scared of him! lol You can't have it both ways ,so which is it?
If it doesnt matter what weight Burns began his career at,why did you mention it?lol BTW Burns was the shortest to win it but not the lightest ,and he had defended it successfully13 times prior to facing Johnson .
I never suggested any of the names I mentioned,[which by the way did not include.Musto,Burman,Davis,Roper,Dorazio,Thomas or Simon,who did stop Walcott,whom you class as Louis' best defence,]were great I asked you why the ones I named were abysmal, which is what you stated.
You want the resumes of those I named ? Okay
Schmeling beat
Risko
Sharkey
Neusel
Walker
Stribling
Uzcudun
Hamas

Pastor beat
Ettore
Ramage
Toles
McCoy
Franklin
Scott
Thompson
Bivins
Farr beat
Loughran
Baer
Neusel
Olin
Foord

Mauriello beat
Schott
Nova
Savold
Woodcock
Oma
Knox
Burman

Godoy beat
Firpo
Campolo
Loughran
Galento
Lovell

Nova beat
Baer
Comiskey
Farr
Simon
Ramage
Barlund

What's abysmal about those scalps ?

 

I didn’t fault Johnson for fighting Burns, I’m saying Burns wasn’t a great HW, and was considerably outsized. Marciano’s opponents who you dismiss would all have beaten Burns.

If I have to explain what’s wrong with the scalps you posted then we will be here all day as I show you how many were washed up or no-hopers.

 

I didn't dismiss Marciano's opponents ,I pointed out the respective ages of the best of them, and that his other two challengers, Lastarza and Cockell were not top tier.
You stated the records of those I named were abysmal,by naming the men they defeated I showed that is untrue.
Let's be candid here, you have a long history of dissing Johnson,claiming that prime versions of Langford,Jeannette,McVey and Wills beat him,you even claimed Johnson avoided Kid Cotton!
On a Marciano thread you took the opportunity to heap some more **** on Johnson got called on it and now are trying to explain your action by disingenuously claiming you were only pointing out Burns wasnt a great heavyweight!
Perhaps you will now point out in which post of this thread anybody claimed he was? Also you can point out where anybody ,other than you , even mentioned his or Johnson's name?

In 1908 on the 21st of November 1908,[ my birthday,but not the year. ] Langford weighed 160lbs to fight Flynn,Sam was also ,give or take the same height as Burns. You rushed into print to say Burns was a blown up welter yet Langford ,whom you disparage Johnson for not fighting ,was a blown up welter too.
That same year Johnson, before he won the title, had signed to fight Langford in London the following year,after winning the crown ,Johnson then declared he wanted the same amount to defend it as Burns had received to fight him.
You have ceaselessly castigated Johnson for not defending his title against Sam for the pittance offered by the NSC ,yet Langford was the same size,[actually lighter than Burns was,]and his record ,up till then, wasn't superior to Burn's. Yet you have the effrontery to talk about me having "double standards! "


Will you now name the favourite fighters that I have double standards about?

 

You were the one who quoted me first. When I chimed in with Johnson and Louis for context and comparison you got triggered as usual. Immediately came to Johnson's defense as if he were related by blood.

As marginal as LaStarza and Cockell were, they'd still beat Burns and all of the other no-hopers Johnson defended his title against.

Nearly every thread introduces fighters who aren't part of the subject line. But you cherry pick when you want to "stay on topic". I can pull up some of your posts that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but then you'll play victim and cry that you're being targeted. I told you once before, you're the one who continues to quote me first, I don't have any interest in your threads of posts, you're obsessed. Find a new hobby.

 

Lets face it,you had previously had no use for this Forum ,and are only here because your favourite one folded.

You who give Dempsey a free pass for not defending his title against his number 1 challenger Wills for 5 plus years,are constantly criticising Johnson for not defending against the black trio,though its proven he signed to do so several times and the fights fell through due to circumstances beyond his control.
You talk about double standards and hypocrisy.
What a joke you are! You gratuituously mentioned me by name in a post on another thread that I wasnt even currently engaged in.

"McVey normally swears by rankings. He'll use the rankings argument to build up his favorite fighters but then say they don't matter as much as the quality of those ranked when arguing against a fighter."

Me a victim of yours? That would be like being savaged by a toothless Teddy Bear! lol
You bottle out of answering every question you are asked!

I wonder how long it will be before you start running away on here as you did on the other site, retreating to the lounge? I have several hobbies and one of them is exposing hypocritical people like you, and I'm doing pretty good so far!

Now go and procreate with yourself!

 

I've been here for six years. What's it to you where and when I post? I'm not like you, closing in on 100K confrontational posts on just one site. I have a life outside the internet. You keep referencing a former boxing site which you were banned on permanently for being belligerent and offensive. Get over it, it's gone.

Dempsey didn't draw the color line himself, that was Kearns, Rickard and the commissions of the day. It's been proven and debunked countless times, yet you just like arguing the same old topics over and over. You're a broken record with a broken soul.

I've answered all of your nonsense hypotheticals and goal-post moving questions. I've asked you several times to go your own way but you refuse. You're an antagonist and a coward. I never ran from anyone, and I certainly won't start by running from you. Get over yourself.