How to rate Rocky Marciano? (Fair Anaylsis)

[url]https://www.sportingnews.com/us/boxing/news/how-reliable-is-compubox-muhammad-ali-by-the-numbers-legacy/10zpedj878ucp1j9uesixqshfm[/url]

 

Man seems mixed on compubox. Compubox is what it is essentially. It’s really the only boxing statistics we have but some of it needs to be taken w a grain of salt while other parts tell an important story. Knowing opponents conn percentage is important. I think this book speaks more to how great Ali’s chin was as opposed to “exposing” a Leakey defense. We have to remember Ali fought the greatest list of HWs ever and I Don’t think that’s arguable. So of course his stats may seem somewhat worse than others who were fighting tomato cans. But it does serve an important role. Tracking how many punches thrown a round speaks to stamina. Accuracy. I don’t think all of it tells the whole story like power punches. What’s the difference between a Byrd power punch and a Foreman? But stats also don’t lie they are what they are. I would have never believed Ali Liston was so close for example until u really watch that fight and see it’s a closer bout than most of us remember. I’ve always been a stat guy in all sports so I like the idea of having some stats for these old timers to look back upon. Even if we have limited footage of some

 

I had the first Liston vs Ali fight as 3-2- 1 for Ali until Sonny quit. I agree Ali defense is overrated, and he hit too often in film and gives up rounds vs. lesser fighters more often than meet the eye. This is not to say he can look good on defense at times in highlights. Ali toughness and chin are under rated!

I believe that punch stats are useful data and should be displayed during the round by round scoring to keep judges honest and limit corrupt decisions. Every bad decision or questionable decision the punch stats can expose.

 

I rate Marciano on the basis he truly did feel and believe his quote of "What could be better than walking down any street in any city and knowing you're the heavyweight champion of the world?" so would do a anything and did do everything prior to and during a bout to become and stay the champ.

Dedicated and virtually obsessive with that regard.

He sure rode his luck with regard his disregard for the Marquess of Queensberry rule book, but he got away with this most of the time so fair play to him, you take your chances.

Rocky was of his time, he defeated everyone put before him, he was the king of the castle, a hero to his fans, no one dethroned him and he left the sport on his own terms as the undefeated champion of the world, that sounds mighty fine to me.

 

I have a love / hate relationship with these types of comparisons / analyses. I love them b/c I'm a fight fan & we all wonder about the generation v generation match ups. I hate them b/c 1 - there's no true answer, only speculation & 2 - I think the ONE BIG THING nobody takes into account is that the fighters of older eras would look much more like fighters in the common era if they fought in the common era and vice versa.

What I mean to say is let's take a common comparison of Rocky v. Tyson. Immediately most casual fans say Tyson would kill him b/c he fought around 215 at this best & Rock fought at 189 on average at his best. Of course, that's a huge disadvantage for Rock & it would be hard to conceive him winning giving up 26 pounds.

But.....If you transported Tyson back to the 50's it would be unlikely he would be 215 b/c of that eras training & especially nutrition. Tyson likely would be closer to my guess of 195 - 200. Likewise, Rock in the common era would be more likely closer to 205 - 210 ish if he fought in the common era. So I think to accurately compare eras you have to create an even playing field for the older guys if you really want to know how good a FIGHTER some of these guys are from stamina, toughness, chin and power by either giving them some size and pounds or reducing that same thing from the modern guys.

Having said that, Don Turner famously said that Rock was the hardest hitter he has ever seen. This man helped train Holyfield and was on hand for the Tyson Holyfield fight as well as seeing Rock in person. That's an amazing comment to make from someone who was there.

Hence, to rate Rock or any other older generation guy I feel like you have to discount the modern advantages and just look at pure fighting, accomplishments, etc.

In my mind, I feel it's hard not to rate Rock as an all time great. Could he have beaten anybody in any era? Probably not. But in my tiny mind he has earned the right to never be underestimated nor underrated as he never tasted defeat. Was his era weak? Yeah, probably. But for one he can only beat who's in front of him & 2 - he also never faltered like some of the greats of all the eras have. That counts for something.

Example: Tyson managed to lose to Buster D. A man we would have never heard of if not for that upset. He also lost to Danny Williams, Kevin McBride, Holyfield x 2 & Lennox Lewis. That's 5 without even considering the fact that he never fought Riddick Bowe, who yes, definitely never hit his full potential but remember, DESPITE that Bowe was 43-1 and avenged his only loss.

Lewis got knocked out by McCall & Rahman. Neither will ever go down as all timers.

I won't mention Holyfields later losses since he fought damn near 10 years past his prime, but Holyfield had a loss to Michael Moore. Good fighter, not great.

Joe Louis got KO'd by Schmelling in his prime. Good fighter not great. Ali lost to Leon Spinks, good fighter not great. Foreman lost to Jimmy Ellis, good fighter but on paper it should have never happened. Liston lost to somebody before Clay whose name I don't even know.

All I'm trying to say is, yes Rock's opposition may not have been of the 70's or 90's eras level, but if he did fight in one of those eras he would be bigger, and stronger & 20lbs extra of Rock throwing the Susie Q could devastate anybody. And....the Rock never lost a fight so despite the fact that his opposition wasn't as strong as other eras, many greats still found a way to lose and often to inferior competition.

The fact that Rock never had his Tokyo moment says he was made of something special and that should never be discounted.

Lastly, I'll wrap this novel up by saying the argument I've heard from some is Rock retired early and hence never got beat b/c he lost a fight when he was past his prime, hence pumping up his record. Well.....1 - 32 yrs old in the 50's is no spring chicken. Again, most athletes hitting their 30's back in the day were considered old again due to training, medicine, etc. 2 - Can't fault a guy for not hanging on too long. That's just good smart decision making.

No, the Rock deserves a special place among the all timers. I think on an even playing field he would be a lot of work for anybody.

 

Don Turner said a lot of things.

 

I thought this was settled by that Computer in the late sixties. 49-0 Baby!

 

The great thing about Marciano is that for all the attempts to talk him down, contextualize him, diminish or outright insult him, he is STILL undefeated!

 

Hi Buddy.
Firstly welcome aboard, nice to see a new member, especially when they contribute a very detailed and comprehensive piece as you have done, speaking for myself , I feel you know your boxing, and you will be making more interesting and thought provoking posts in the near future.
stay safe matey, chat soon.

 

Seriously, I consider Rocky Marciano an all time great fighter, and especially in a pound for pound sense.

 

Usyk is in a similar position. He's cleaning out the heavyweight division, doesn't fear anyone, and wouldn't duck anyone. But his garbage era holds him back from ever truly knowing how good he actually is.

 

I don't agree that it is a garbage era now that they guys are actually fighting each other. The Deontay Wilders are being squeezed out and the Usyks, Joshuas and Parkers are rising to the top. I'd say it is a pretty good era...certainly better than the 80s pre-Tyson when the best of the moment simply didn't fight each other much.

 

Its more of how highly ranked can you get in this era even if you beat everyone. Like could Usyk crack a top 10 all time even if he beats everyone in this era?

 

I believe so because I believe Joshua will continue to rise, top ten gets pretty subjective. I am in a surprisingly bitter argument in another thread about how I rate his cruiser wins towards his heavyweight resume, the same as Conn is a good win for Louis despte being only 174 pounds when they fought. Others would not agree. It gets pretty subjective.