how great would marciano be if he wasnt undefeated??

It's grown with time because he never lost. His rep grew over time BECAUSE he retired as the only undefeated heavyweight champion. His name and record came up over and over again BECAUSE people tried to duplicate or surpass his undefeated record, but THEY LOST.

If he'd LOST a couple times, he wouldn't have the same reputation. His name wouldn't come up nearly as often. There'd be nothing about his record people would aspire to.

What would people clamor to equal? His 47-2 record? His THREE successful title defenses? What?

 

I went back to re-read the original thread starting posts, and you are correct. Unitas was talking about Marciano losing the Charles fight. That would undoubtedly drop his rep, turning a fight he won by KO despite a severe injury into a defeat.

But I repeat that I think it pointless. The same would be true of any champion if you change history by making victories into defeats, like as I said Dempsey not making it back in time against Firpo, or Holmes not beating the count against Shavers. But why debate a historical figure if you are going to change history. I see no point in debating Lincoln on the assumption he lost the Civil War, except as an abstract and pointless exercise.

Still, you are in fact following the the premises of the thread, so my dispute is with Unitas and not you.

 

Give Lennox Lewis another 10 years and his rep will be enhanced ,and he was ko'd twice.

 

Some members I know are undoubtedly very knowledgeable others,[and there is one former member here,]not so.

 

Everything we do on this board is pointless (LOL). I only commented because

1. A doctor could've stopped the fight before the eighth round and there's nothing Rocky could've done about it, same as if a judge had awarded the fight to LaStarza. So it's not really fantasy. It (the stoppage) could've just as easily have happened as a mark on a scorecard.

2. The original poster said the losses wouldn't have mattered. And I wanted to point out that of course it would matter if he lost. It always matters if someone loses.

 

I don't give a lot of respect to Fleischer's lists.I think his favouring the old timers to the extent he did is somewhat perverse.
I post his and other Ring lists as a subject for debate. My number 1 heavy is Ali ,how he doesnt make a top ten is absurd imo.
I'm not giving Dempsey credit for f*cking starlets and night club hostesses for 3 years though I might have easily done the same given his opportunities.What I am categorically saying is if Marciano had taken 3 years off and come back against a Tunney he might have lost just as comprehensively as Dempsey did.I find that an eminently reasonable stance to take. No credit is attached to either man. Your comparison is irrelevant.

 

And if he never lost, and retired 44-0 instead of 41-2-1, his rep would be even better than it is now.

And we'd all be asking IF ANYONE EVER COULD'VE beaten him, instead of NAME ALL the fighters who WOULD'VE beaten him, since he was KOed with one punch twice.

 

No it’s more like Dempsey without his early defeats. And one accidental defeat that he avenged as champion. It would mean absolutely nothing to me. And Dempsey would be regarded as he is now. And I assume those that see the sport as more than a bunch of numbers and measure things in context would think the same.

 

Lewis desrves credit because he beat all men he met. Avenged his losses. If they were weird accidental cuts or a points loss outside the championship and he avenged both then I would say he actually erased them. But you cannot erase a knockout. A knockout is different. You really lose with a knockout.

Take Holyfield, he erased his loss with Moorer. But He can’t erase the knockout he suffered to Bowe.

 

Yes, the Marshall loss is less significant than losing by knockout or losing as champion. It’s rather like Dempsey losing before he made the grade.

It is however Worth noting in that marshall was 20 odd pounds lighter and lost to other people and not an unbeaten prospect as Lastarza was. This sort of thing is worth bringing up isn’t it?

But yes it is entirely fair to call me out on this. Yes Liston erased Marshall but the advantages he had are worth raising in a splitting hairs situation. Perhaps I should remember this in future.

 

But to be entirely fair, I don’t think Dempsey was 20lb heavier than either of those guys.

 

My point is some time and distance is required for an objective appraisal.

Is everyone asking , if anyone could have beaten Marciano?
I've never seen that thread.
How about?
Dempsey
Johnson
Louis
Ali
Liston
Foreman
Holmes
Lewis
Wlad K
Vitali K
For starters?

 

How about this for a double standard from you?
Thirty fight, undefeated, reigning champ Frazier was washed up and badly depleted at 29 when he fought Foreman because he wore a contact lens and one of his eyes had only partial vision so Foreman's win is devalued.

Yet you repeatedly praise Charles and Louis[in an ex,] for stopping blind in one eye 29 years old 76 fight, ranked for 2 years at 9th and 8th Pat Valentino who retired immediately after the Louis exhibition and had won just 3 of his last 8 fights when he fought Charles!
You use their ko's of Valentino to demonstrate how Louis was still a force to be reckoned with and that Charles was prime.Thereby shoring up Marciano's wins over them.
I find that seriously inconsistent!