Can I Reasonably Omit Marciano& Frazier From My Ten ?

Marciano legitimately dominated his era, no doubt. But that doesn't negate the argument that it was a poor era.

Hopkins dominated the MW division longer than perhaps anyone else, but few have him as the top MW. Because his era is generally considered weak.

 

Exactly. On one hand he faced all comers and never lost and thus he should not be penalized because he did not have the opportunity to prove himself against even stiffer competition. You can make the argument that he in the right to be given the benefit of the doubt by virtue of the fact that he never lost in the ring.

On the other hand, it's even hard to know how much Charles and Moore had left at that point.

 

I would replace Lewis or Tyson for Fazier

 

Marciano wanted no part of Clearance Henry

Neither did he want Karel Sys or Heinz Neuhaus

 

I think I'd rank Frazier just ahead of Marciano, since his win over Ali that trumps anything Rocky had. Otherwise I think their wins are fairly even in stature.

Of course, then he has his losses and I can fully understand if some thinks those puts him below Rocky, but I feel his losses came because he faced challenges Rocky didn't have to face.

 

it's not hard to know what Moore had left, the guy was a sensation in 1954-55! When was Moore better?!!

Imagine the outcry if Rocky didn't fight Moore? Archie was outstanding in 1954-55 period beating two light heavyweight champions, current middleweight champion and the #1 and #2 heavyweight contenders!

Charles most recent fights before Marciano are sensational wins that still make his highlight reel. No filmed tribute to Charles is complete without the Satterfeild knock out and Wallace break down.at 32 Charles was where Ali was in his Career beating Foreman when challenging Rocky.

I think it safe to say Rocky beat Great fighters in Moore and Charles.

 

I don't doubt that overall Rocky fought the best available contenders.

 

I think you would have to jerryrig the criteria to exclude Marciano. He dominated his era, ducked no one, didn't have any suspicious or really close fights at the championship level. Judged within his own timeframe, he was astoundingly effective. If you introduce the speculative element of head to head, he would slip some spots but again, that is just speculation.

 

It's all about h2h or resume. If you balance the criteria, what weight do you put on what?

Do you put somebody like Tyson, who looked like he was on a mission to send the rest of the HW division to hell - but for a short time only - over somebody with a perfect, consistent record like Marciano? Is tremendous h2h ability for a few fights better than a consistent high level performance? I like consistency myself, but if you are asking the question at their best, who wins, then Tokyo Douglas needs to be on a top 10 list, surely?

What about guys like Holyfield, who have huge heart, are hugely entertaining, fought everybody and yet have a resume full of losses because of it? Where would he be?

Then you get somebody like Wlad who dominated a decade, yet has the stigma surrounding him of being allegedly unable to take a punch. Matching him h2h in fantasy fights becomes a real chore, because supporters will assume that his technical defence will overwhelm the boxer he is compared to as it always has, and detractors will argue that boxer X has always managed to land and KO his opposition.

Then there's the argument that Marciano isn't really a HW but a cruiser ... so if you want to omit him on that basis, be my guest

 

The trouble we have is that there are more than 10 champions that are ATG top ten level. And that was not the case when Nat Fleischer was compiling lists. We all want the top ten level guys to make the ten, there just isn't room any more for all of them that deserve to be there.

 

Very true. You could rank Marino over all but 3-4 fighters without it being loudicrous imo.