how great would marciano be if he wasnt undefeated??

Boxing fans follow smoke and mirrors and tall tales. Marciano would be called an overrated bum killer without his 0 and everyone knows it BC they see what they wish not what's actually in front of them and that's mainly in past eras.

Some fighters are legends after losing some are then hype jobs even if they struggle in some wins ....welcome to boxing.

 

If my grandmother had balls she’d be my grandfather.

 

Are you?
Ali wasn’t.

Ali said that Rocky Marciano was clearly better than Frazier, and that he would give Ali the toughest fight out of any other fighter in history.

But Rocky was Italian and he had a bulldozing style, so he can’t be the real deal. He was a Bert Sugar plant.

 

If Rocky was 47-2 He would be exactly the same. A great champion who cleaned out a division.

I have long said Frazier did the same. Had he retired after beating Ali he’s the same.

Rocky was not a perfect, unbeatable champion anyway. The stats don’t mean a thing. Nobody knew what it took to destroy him because he robbed the world of finding out what it took because he retired early. And the same would have been of Frazier if he retired early. Rocky should be afforded the benefit of the doubt because he did not put a foot wrong. Folks can only guess what would beat him as a champion even if he was 47-2.

That’s what makes him hard to assess because film evidence shows that he still beat enough great fighters to qualify for discussion, not that he has that 49-0.

Rocky should be evaluated on his prime just like Dempsey is. Nobody should hold losing fights as a Youngster against Dempsey. It’s what Dempsey did as a champion that counts.

If he lost the second Charles fight through injury it would not mean anything. Rocky already beat Charles once, he was well on his way to winning again too. Truth is a heavyweight champion never has been stopped on a cut.

If Rocky was 47-2 it most likely would be through Lastarza and Lowrey getting close decisions over him. It would not mean anything. Zero. Not to anybody who understands boxing anyway.

It would mean about as much as Tyson not getting the decision over Quick Tillis.

 

Sometimes I think the record works against him. Peoples favorite fighters don’t have perfect records, so who does this pre-Ali guy think he is?

Let’s look for reasons why this doesn’t make sense...
Aha, he fought old guys! That explains it!

 

The undefeated status is a distraction. It’s one of those stats that people who don’t understand boxing can cling to. That 49-0 status It has become famous in its own right with a life of its own.

The mainstream listener or casual can understand what unbeaten is, but it’s being undefeated as champion and cleaning out a division that counts. Terry Marsh retired undefeated as champion. It meant Jack sh!t. And quite rightly because Marsh did not clean out a division.

I recognise that if Rocky retired as champion at 47-2 his standing among people who don’t understand boxing would dismiss him as another champion from a long time ago. But it is more important that true students of boxing history still could not dismiss the fact that Ricky still cleaned out a division at 47-2 and retired without losing the title.

 

Primo Carnera was similarly as fast and as athletic as all but maybe two champions his size who ever lived.

 

Yes you are correct they cling to it as a positive, but how important is it that people who don’t understand boxing believe 49-0 is the most impressive factor? Surely it is more important that the people who count believe and can show Rocky was a great fighter using other examples? 49-0 is not what I think is the most important factor.