Bowe & Marciano overated????

Rocky Marciano is ......he was at the top of his sport for 3 years as champ and a few as a up and coming condender.

His opponents do not vary or match the quality of other heavyweights we have seen in the history of boxing.

Joe Frazier was better and so was Jack Dempsey.

Bowe head to head was a good fighter but not an all time great, i believe if he fought Holyfield a 4th he would lose and would have lost to Lewis, and Tyson.

 

Rocky Marciano is the fighter who those who have no knowledge of boxing's history think is the best ever. They get seduced by the 49-0 and fail to ask "who did he beat to get to it?".

 

Aren't you the guy who loves calzaghe?

 

No.

 

you're making a fair comment lee.
how good were old man river walcott, don cockell {who got beat by middleweight randy turpin}, an even older light-heavyweight in archie moore, and although, in fairness, you could say ezzard charles was top class, he was 14 years into his pro career and after those fights went on the slide, was he naturally past his prime or did the rocky fights take it out of him, i dunno

 

Any fighter who hasnt been beaten is difficult to judge I feel.

The '0' is great for marketing but it leaves us real fans with a problem. Was he really that good or were his opponents not up to much? Look at the criticism that is levelled at Marciano, Calzaghe and Floyd. It's all very similar.

I dont think for a minute that Marciano was the greatest HW of all time. Far from it. But I wont go as far as to say he was not a good champion.

Bowe is a strange one. Agree with the poster that said head to head Bowe was a good fighter. I do think he'd be a good fight for any heavyweight from any era. But he'd be beaten by most of them. My biggest problem with Bowe is his record really and the obvious omissions from it. Good. Not great.

 

Just the other day I was thinking about where I would rank Bowe. Probally top 25 is about right maybe just in top 20 at best.

 

Your ranking would based purely on head to head then.


In any case.....its pointless this all time crap, its if your the best of your era.

Sullivan, Burns, Johnson, Willard, Dempsey, Tunney - I got Johnson

Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano, Walcott, Charles, Braddock, M. Baer - I got Joe Louis

Liston, Patterson, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Norton - I got Ali

Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis - I got Lewis

03 onwards the best so far are the Kilt brothers....but its only been 6 years.

 

his 8-4 amatuer record too

 

Bowe, yes. Didn't achieve anything like what his talent was capable of.

Marciano, no. You need to take a harder look before going along with the conceived wisdom.

Archie Moore won about 20 fights in a row before fighting Marciano. He just beat Bobo Olson and Joey Maxim in the year previous, two hall of famers. He would go on to win the world light heavyweight title again, after losing to Marciano. Far from a corpse...or damn..he was a good corpse.

Ezzard Charles went on to be quite inconsistent after his losses to Marciano so I can see where that criticism comes from. However, in the year previous he beat Bob Satterfield and Rex Layne and lost 2 close decisions.

Jersey Joe had just come off wins to Ezzard Charles. These were his last fights, but how bad could he have been if he just beat Ezzard Charles?

And then we come to the bull**** about size. Jersey Joe outweighed Marciano by 12-13lbs so who really have the size advantage there? Ezzard Charles weighed the same, and more in the rematch. Archie Moore weighed the same. I'm not saying Marciano isn't the naturally thicker set man but its not like comparing todays heavyweights with great light heavyweights, its more like comparing a small cruiserweight.

 

Give it a rest, Swollocks 2.0 or what? :good (first time I've heard you whinge about Joe in a while though, I'll give you that)

Bowe is not an ATG, Marciano is, certainly not in the top 10 I'd imagine though.

 

Marciano's record stands firm next to anyone. You can pick huge holes in anyones career.

The problem with Rocky is that he finished at the right time and never came back to suffer those stupid late defeats.

 

his 6 challengers
walcott -39 years old and his heart wasn't in it
roland la starza-didn't weigh 13 stone
ezzard charles-had started on the slippery slope
ezzard charles-ditto
don cockell-chubby,big hearted and with genuine medical reasons for his bulk,but lacking
archie moore-46 years old and with a long career behind him

its not marciano's fault,he beat who was in front of him and had limitless amounts of courage.at 187lb and 5ft-10ins he's just not big enough

 

Roland La Starza weighed 1 whole pound less than Marciano. If thats the best criticism...