Historically, why doesn't Rocky Marciano get his just dues?

i think most rank him in the top 10 heavies all time

it's WHERE he ranks within that's the issue

his top wins are against older and/or smaller fighters, he lacked longevity as champion, and shows many flaws on film

however, he's undefeated, possibly the most physically fit and durable heavyweight of the modern era and as you said, would always find a way to win

arguments on both sides really

 

He gets his due.

 

He's not underrated at all.

 

He's not a bum. Like you said he beat all the available opposition in his time.

He deserves respect for his achievements.

However he would lose even to many mediocre superheavyweights of our time because of his small size.

 

I think most have him from 4-8. It's not exactly underrating him, despite the lack of resume to keep up with the other great heavyweights

 

He cleaned out his era and compiled a very good resume in the meantime.

However his skills don't shine on film despite him always finding a way to win.

 

He escaped with his record unscathed from the era immediately following the greatest mass extermination of potential boxing talent the sport had seen. All that was left over from the massacre of 70 million humans was a handful of shot light heavies and Don Cockell.

Oh, and he had the genius of retiring at the right moment.

 

Brutally honest and accurate.

 

I can't chase it down right now but if you ever get the opportunity there is a fantastic youtube around showing his quite underrated skills.

 

What due is he not receiving ? What due is he due ?

 

Chris Pontius ESB's poster created this

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b0yHvw-vW0[/ame]

a lot of people underate him because of bias,his size, his short arms,his skin color but Marciano is top 3 ATG with Louis and Ali and the rest are from 4-10-etc. IMO, Marciano was a freak so was lANGFORD BUT Marciano had power,heart,determination,courage,Killer instinct,will,stamina,late power and relentlessness,solid chin,strength...he was the exception and not the rule but quite an exception.

 

a lot of it is his resume, which is open to criticism. if we're going on h2h, dominance, and skills then maybe. but his resume needs to be carefully massaged to be anywhere near the top 10

 

And which of these assets did Langford not have and demonstrate time and again against far better opposition ?

He is you all time number 3 at heavyweight ? Despite the fact he never fought a prime large ( even by 1970's standards) heavyweight and relied on his strength and power as his chief assets ? Pretty interesting. We can see he is not under rated by Bummy .