I Underate Rocky Marciano!

Exactly.

 

:good :good :good good answer

 

Down with Russ Anber.

 

Good post Luigi. I like your list too, although Jeffries at #4 raises an eyebrow. Why is he that he high, and for instance Johnson at #10? Under the criterium of dominating an era i can understand his placing, but shouldn't Johnson rank alongside or near him then?

 

Marciano is my clear #3.

He was a wrecking ball that smashed his entire era - he never got upset (in fact, he was sometimes the upsetter). He made a habit of brutally stopping good ranked contenders. He had, by all accounts, chin and stamina of the absolute highest caliber. His power, although somewhat debatable in terms of the modern era, is certainly superhuman for a champ pre-Liston.

The only thing that hurts him in comparison to Ali and Louis is lack of sheer talent depth (Ali) and longevity (Louis). Considering that he cleaned out the division while reigning several years, and that he retired without any clear threats to his crown, it's more a fault of his contemporaries than his.

 

You underrate Larry Holmes and Foreman as well..
Your list sucks

Rock isnt in my top 10 either though, ill admit to underrating him..But Larry and George are both in and out of the top 5 everytime i make a list...

 

:huh I'm pretty sure that involves head to head, which is where I don't rank him above Tyson.

 

Doesn't greatness have to do with who they beat?

Tyson beat better comp for a HW, and more impressively.

 

Era to era Duddy doesn't last but a few rounds, luckily, ol' Amsterdam has ditched that nonsense and not for disrespectful purpouses, but for realism.

I think we all know that in 2012, we're all going to burn, so let's get the facts straight and enjoy what we time we have left as breathing, thinking human beings and stop the propaganda. But I bought the book 'surviving 2012', so I'll be here to pass on the real deal to the 1% that decides to make the change that Nostradamus demanded. If you guys keep it up, I won't even mention the likes of Joe Louis and Harry Greb, it'll be as if they didn't exist...:yep

All I seek is for old time boxing to be in a different category of rating, as it's vastly different than today's sport in many ways.

 

I know quite a bit about boxing history, but having historical knowledge is not as good as having mechanical knowledge about the sport when discussing fantasy match ups and using footage.

I'm sorry that it subconciously bothers you that your old time heroes just aren't up to par with what we have now and are therefore nothing more than important building block fighters that have no relation to the supremely talented athletes and tacticians of the last 35 years, give or take a few for pioneers like a Sonny Liston.

Keep dreaming, it is my right as a forum poster to post what I want to post so long as it doesn't violate the rules, the only people I attack personally are examples of absurdity like the Joy Boys, I've got no bother with you, so let's keep the discussion either fun or technical.

 

Charles is a top 20 HW, Tyson's win over Holmes was at least as good though, yes. Moore was a good HW. Walcott was a very good HW, top 20 as well. Louis was shot, but a decent win. Tyson had Holmes, Spinks, Ruddock, etc. Tyson also lost to mediocre fighters, and his prime lasted only about 4 years. Could you make an argument that he outranks Marciano on greatness? Sure, but I believe Marciano's consistency in his era far outdoes Tyson's, though Tyson was more impressive in his prime.

 

He destroyed Holmes much more impressively and Holmes is a better win than Charles. So take in the fact that Tyson destroyed a generally better set of opponents much more impressively and Marciano struggled with several LHW's, you have an easy case for Tyson being greater.

Tyson also had some success outside of his prime, Marciano would have had his ass beat had he stayed around.

Had Tyson somehow retired before Douglad, say even a career ending injury, he'd rank higher, take that into consideration.

 

If he retired after 5 years? I don't think so.

 

Yeah, as time went on. He'd have been 37-0 and a much more impressive shredding of an at least equal set of crop that Marciano fought in when comparing era's.

Marciano retired at the right time, couple of losses would have seriously brought him down had he stayed around just for a bit longer in people's views.

I've got no issue's favouring Patterson over him on his best night.

 

Even with his chin?