Do you think Rocky Marciano would be successful in today's heavyweight division?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by globe_trotter, Jun 17, 2011.


  1. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    34,236
    5,912
    Apr 30, 2006
    I think he would score his fair share of knockouts based on the conditioning difference- he might not be scoring flash KO's over the big guys when they're fresh, but Marciano was extremely fit in an era where the average heavyweight had to be in better condition. The difference today between him and most heavyweights would be even more profound and a massive advantage, probably the best one Marciano's got. The stamina difference would lead to a number of out of shape heavyweights getting stopped at the later stages of fights, IMO.

    Discounting the conditioning factor I don't think his punches would have as devastating an effect on today's heavyweights. The Rock having to punch up would diminish the effects a bit, as well.
     
  2. Post Box

    Post Box I'm back too, bitches Full Member

    14,484
    3
    Oct 12, 2010
    He would get owned at heavy but would beatdown the light heavys of today
     
  3. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member

    79,438
    2,647
    Feb 1, 2007
    yes.

    He would lay a beatdown on most heavies. Would probably find a way to get to Wlad as well.

    Most of the heavies today are B class lardasses. Marciano would hospital them.
     
  4. bRoNeR**a**G

    bRoNeR**a**G Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,755
    2
    Mar 10, 2011
    Successful yes, would he beat the bro's Klit? Maybe, especially Wlado. He had power and we all know Wlads problem with someone that can find his chin, the question is, being sooooo badly out weighed, and having a massive height and reach disadvantage would he be able to get to them. Waaaay lesser fighters have dropped Wlad for the count so why not the Rock?
     
  5. Beatle

    Beatle Sheer Analysis Full Member

    9,270
    269
    Apr 12, 2009
    See new thread titled "The top heavyweights were all cruiserweights".

    You should be asking whether today's heavyweights would survive Marciano, not the other way around.
     
  6. Blake Rayne

    Blake Rayne Fat Cuban Aficianado Full Member

    5,373
    11
    Mar 26, 2011
    Fact is he wouldn't stand a chance against modern Heavies. People need to stop making out that fighters of the past were supermen.
     
  7. KO Boxing

    KO Boxing Boxing Addict Full Member

    7,055
    4
    Apr 30, 2006
    Silly.

    There's probably 2 or 3 guys in today's HW division that would have a chance (and yes, they are at the very top).

    Size means very little, especially with today's HW division. Having 50 pounds of fat does not give you a better chance of beating someone. It just makes you slower and more prone to gas out earlier (which spells trouble against the Rock).

    And out of the fitter "bigger" HW's of today, only 2 or 3 would have a chance. And only a chance at that. The others just don't have the skill to compete with ATG HW'S, regardless of size.
     
  8. Blake Rayne

    Blake Rayne Fat Cuban Aficianado Full Member

    5,373
    11
    Mar 26, 2011
    If size means so little and our current crop of Heavies are so woefull then where are the light heavies and cruisers comming up and cleaning out the division without putting on weight? I mean The Klits and Haye only have a chance at beating Marciano so the current 170 -200 pounders should be able to make light work of the rest of the bums in the division. They must be lining up around the block.
     
  9. Against certain opponents? Absolutely. He would murder anyone in the cruiser div. IMHO.

    Probably have a tough time with the Klits.
     
  10. globe_trotter

    globe_trotter Member Full Member

    262
    2
    Aug 23, 2008
    question is why do you put so much stock in a man's size. Why is it in your mind (or anyone else's for that matter) that being a bigger man automatically makes you so much superior? What is it about that height and those extra pounds on the scale that secures a victory for a bigger opponent?

    With that said, i want you to look at a video (just one of the examples)

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avXsk9Q8Jjo[/ame]

    this is a video of bob satterfield destroying bob baker, a much bigger larger man. I believe Baker was 220 in that fight. Satterfield was a light heavyweight by today's standards but he beat down much bigger guys. On the other token he also lost to smaller man than himself or the opponents he faced, such as lamotta.

    just some food for thought.

    and before you give me the 'LMFAO who is this bum baker, cant be compared etc etc, satterfield is one in a million' or any one of those dismissive arguements i ask you bring logic into this, and come up with a constructive arguement.
     
  11. Blizz42

    Blizz42 Boxing Addict banned

    4,504
    0
    Jun 1, 2011
    He'd be a cruiser. He was 185 lbs soak and wet. Todays heavies are too big.
     
  12. Black2023

    Black2023 Guest


    He was also a soft 185.........i mean if he the same bodyfat as say Haye or Wlad he could well be 175... So maybe he would have fought in the super-middleweights.
     
  13. irishny

    irishny Obsessed with Boxing banned

    15,119
    10
    May 8, 2009
    People seem to miss the point that style and technical ability alos improves over the generations,not just physical abilities.

    If you watch a fight from Dempseys era for example,it has all the skill and technique of a modern era toughman contest.

    Just like old timey basketball, its not just the fact that the players are bigger and fitter. The skill is MILES superior too. Sports evolve.

    Marciano,would be massacred by the top heavyweights today. 5'10 185 pounds vs the Klitschkos? c'mon!
     
  14. globe_trotter

    globe_trotter Member Full Member

    262
    2
    Aug 23, 2008
    LOL a soft 185?

    did you ever even see a marciano fight?

    you dont have to go great lengths to watch his fights, youtube has a sufficient amount of his fights.

    im now starting to get an idea of the kind of people that are replying here. maybe i should have taken this to classic.
     
  15. Black2023

    Black2023 Guest

    Its not even his size, just alot of other things.

    He reigned for 3 yrs and fought at the top level for 4 yrs.

    When you compare to-

    J. Louis fought at the top from 1935 to 1951
    L. Lewis from 1993 to 2003
    M. Ali from around 1962/63 to 1980
    L. Holmes from 1977 to around 1995
    Tyson from 86 to 2002
    Holyfield from 1985 to 2009

    The one reason he was unbeaten is he fought at the top for such a short period of time.

    His opponents in title fights were LaStarza, Walcott x 2, Charles x 2, Moore and Cockerill.

    Even the variety of fighters he fought were not much....they guy had like 2 good wins Walcott and Charles....and Charles was really a light-heavyweight back in those days....Moore a light-heavyweight. Cockerill is aweful.