how great would marciano be if he wasnt undefeated??

I think it "arbitrary" at best to compare Wepner to any top modern super-heavyweight.

The bottom line for me is that there is no evidence at all that Liston could do well against someone like Lewis.

 

You said “Modern Heavyweights.” Not “ Top modern SHWs.” I also never specified the 4-5 elite giants. More random goal posts.

Not that to point doesn’t still stand somewhat.

 

I think it actually possible.

The reason Marciano managed to go undefeated is that he has a higher KO rate than any other champion and of the six fights which went to the judges, only two were close. I can't think off hand of any other heavyweight champion with a complete career who wasn't on the wrong side of a fight which wasn't close. And the other champions generally had their share of close victories also.

The obsession with that 0 to a degree deflects from his overall outstanding record.

 

Okay. I just assumed that by modern heavyweights we were talking about the modern super-heavyweights, and the debate was about Liston doing well against fairly top men, not just big tomato-cans.

I think it possible big fellows far below Lewis or Vitali might well handle Liston. We simply have no strong evidence what he would do against modern giants, even the ordinary ones.

 

I think Rocky likely lost either the 1st LaStarza match or the Ted Lowry match.

In his time, boxing writers felt he was a worthy champion, but not quite as good as some predecessors. In modern times, he has leaped over Jeffries which no one in the 1950's that I am aware of would endorse, and in the IBRO poll rates above Holmes, Foreman, Liston, Lewis, Tyson and Holyfield!

About 12 years ago, the IBRO had their member poll on ranked heavyweights. I'm not going to share the private debates here in context, but many members were up in arms that Rocky Marciano came in 5th overall. Too high many thought.

Of course the word greatest could be defined in many ways, but I think the real reason for Rocky's historical surge is this. He was the only undefeated heavyweight champion, who happened to glory boxing due to his ability to overcome his shortcomings.

He's not in my top ten anymore, I barley have room for him in the top 15.

 

No. I am not referring to that poll. I can't see him replacing Ali or Louis because of lack of longevity.

Personally, I rank him third,

totally on historical placement. Head to head does not figure into my ranking.

 

I am a little surprised with the emphasis on stats. Jack Dempsey lost 6 fights. It never effected his legacy.

 

The emphasis on stats has increased over time I believe to the detriment of the sport. It is one of the things MMA gets right.

 

Yes if every fight was 50-50 on paper, even a good fighter would have a 50-50 record. An exceptional fighter would have a 100% record only until he got old, then he would dip to 50-50 too.

If Ali only fought Joe Louis the two of them would have a 50-50 record.

An unbeaten record is largely down to matchmaking and career timing, which translates to handicapping the opponent for the benefit of the prospect.

That’s why championship form and contender form is more value.

Hagler and Monzon were great fighters as champions they are rated on that. Not earlier losses.

Look how many times Robinson lost his title. Winning it back so many times is almost his U.S.P.

 

IBRO poll--I looked this up

1-----Joe Louis
2-----Muhammad Ali
3-----Jack Johnson
4-----Jack Dempsey
5-----Rocky Marciano
6-----Larry Holmes
7-----JimJeffries
8-----George Foreman
9-----Sonny Liston
10---Joe Frazier
11---Gene Tunney
12---Lennox Lewis
13---Mike Tyson
14---Evander Holyfield
15---Sam Langford
16---Jersey Joe Walcott
17---Ezzard Charles
18---Harry Wills
19---Jim Corbett
20---Bob Fitzsimmons

Now, I didn't have a vote in this poll, and so am only an onlooker. Granting that this is indeed a solid group of "historians" an observer must question why Marciano, of all those listed, is the one questioned for his position in the poll. He not only went 5-0 with 4 KO's against those listed, but also KO'd the #1 light-heavy on that IBRO list--Archie Moore (Charles was the #2 light-heavy). Nor in the real world did he lose to fighters not on this list.

Compare that to Dempsey who is ahead of him. He is 0-2 against men on this list, lost to men not on it, and altogether failed to win 17 out of 75 fights.

My take is rating Dempsey above Marciano is an historical judgment completely divorced from history. What these men actually accomplished in their real worlds (which is history) is apparently secondary to fantasy opinion. But when an historian relies on a fantasy opinion, I would say he is no longer an historian.

 

How would he be viewed as a champ who cleaned out the division if he made three title defenses before quitting on his stool with an injury and giving up the title to Ezzard Charles?

At 47-2, with losses to LaStarza and Charles, and after quitting with an injury, Marciano might fall into Jess Willard-Ingemar Johansson land.

Willard beat Jack Johnson, made a defense and quit against Dempsey with serious injuries. Ingo beat Floyd Patterson (more convincingly than Marciano beat Charles the first time) and lost to Floyd by stoppage.

Then both kind of drifted away.

Marciano would be in that realm, especially if he retired, as he did, after fighting Cockell and Moore in non-title fights.

His undefeated record is really like 75 percent of his whole legacy, if we're being honest.

 

If Marciano lost the decision to LaStarza and lost his rematch to Charles in the corner between rounds after three defenses, his legacy MOST CERTAINLY would not have been enhanced.

Are you kidding me?

On the contrary, people today would probably be arguing that Rocky didn't even win the first Charles fight, since basically no one has seen all 15 rounds except the people there that night.

And there would be no footage of Marciano actually dropping or stopping Ezzard in the return bout.

Instead, we'd Just have five rounds or so of the close first fight and Marciano quitting after a handful of rounds in the return.

That isn't enhancing anything. The knockout of Charles when his title was about to be taken enhances his legacy. Retiring undefeated enhances his legacy. Losing decisions and quitting on his stool doesn't.

Not in a million years. Especially since Charles wasn't exactly a world-beater by that point.

 

Dempsey and Marciano's early careers were radically different in how they were managed. Reverse them and you could easily see the same results.