If Rocky Marciano is so overrated, why has nobody else done what he did?

One quit when he beat the best there was, the other just beat the beaten and left a tainted record.

 

Marciano beat Walcott, Charles and Louis who were, at the time he beat them, the champ, # 1 contender, and #2 contender respectively.

Marciano also beat excellent contenders in Roland Lastarza and Rex Layne, who, though much maligned, also held victories over Walcott and Charles in his career.

Marciano was a great champ. Deal.

 

Well for one. Marciano, although fought "the best there was", is still overrated nonetheless.

The reasons no one has done it today is because fighters back then hadn't fought as many times in the year as fighters today. So during Rocky's era people fought roughly 5 to 10 times a year. Whereas you get fighters today only fighting 5 fights a year TOPS...most likely 3 or 2 times.

So fighters who enter their prime today never utilize the time to smash tomato cans and decent B level fighters to pad their records while finishing with some elite competition. Whereas back then you'll get a few scraps with total bums, a decent tune-up or two and then a shot at the crown.

Totally different mindset in what we expect of fighters today. You also have to consider that back then the mob ran most of the robberies HERE in America, but fighters today are expected to leave their home turf and fight in other continents where they are most likely to be robbed of a decision or a TKO or some ****...a shitload harder to accomplish anywhere near close to what Marciano did today then yesteryear. Most fighters that get close usually stay on their home turf for years before finally moving around.

 

Marciano, ehhh...okay but limited.

 

Why ignore the more salient points regarding those wins? Is it intentional? Seems like it must be.

Marciano was a great champion. He had a perfect record. If you equate a perfect record with being the greatest heavyweight of all time then it requires clarification because he certainly was not (IMO). His record says he was the greatest - his ability and skill demonstrates he was not. There are many heavyweights that would have beaten Rock.

Whether by circumstance or not, Rock did not defeat GREAT versions of Walcott, Charles, Louis, or Moore. Without exception they were either old in years (Louis 39, Walcott 38 & 39, Moore 39) or old in ring years (Charles 95-96 fights, Moore 176 fights).

Charles fought Marciano in two consecutive fights when he was 33 and these were his 95th & 96th professional fights - that is a lot of wars. (Rock got a tough 15 round decision, and badly cut in the second fight, KOd Charles in the 8th). Ezzard fought five more years getting something like 10 more wins but 13 losses.

Rocky was 30 and 31 years of age in his two fights with Charles.

Jersey Joe Walcott fought Marciano in two consecutive fights (and then retired) when he was 38 and 39 years old. These were his 70th and 71st professional fights.
Rocky was 29 years old so Joe was giving up 9-10 years.



Archie Moore fought Marciano once when he was just about 39 years of age. This was something like Archie's 176th professional fight.

Rocky was 32 years old in this fight.


Joe Louis fought Marciano once (and then retired) he was half way to 38 years of age in the KO loss. It was his 68th professional fight.

Rocky was 28 years old so Joe was giving up ten years.


Lastarza's classification as an "excellent contender" might depend upon your honesty regarding Charles, Walcott, Louis, & Moore. He basically fought during the same exact period as Rock. He fought him twice & gave a good accounting in both fights losing a split decision when he was 23 years of age and Rock was 26 years, and got KO'd late when he was nearly 27 years of age and Rock was 30 in a well enjoyed "fight of the year" in 1953. Lastarza a was counter puncher without any pop. He had an early glossy record fighting an identical parade of bums and near bums and pretty much only weak guys for his entire career. There are no ring worn Ezzard Charles, or old Walcott, Louis, and Moore on his resume - and certainly no young such types. A question might be "is Lastarza decent because he gave Rock tough fights or is Rock less then some might think because a Lastarza gave him tough fights?" It is tricky to try and prove one fighter's quality by using another fighter that is even less convincing historically.

Rex Layne was "sort of okay for a while" - perhaps like Lastarza in a historical sense (though very different fighters) but definitely no world beater. Yes, he has one win over an almost 37 year old Walcott when Layne was 23 years old. A 14 year age differential. Any wonder what a younger Walcott would have had for Rex Layne?

He has three fights with Ezzard Charles with two losses (1 by KO .. he was knocked down a half dozen times maybe a little less by Charles in those two losses) and one points win over ten in UTAH (and Layne was basically from UTAH - if you get my drift). Layne was 23, 24, & 25 years of age in those fights. Again Layne was fighting a man who had upwards of 80-100 fights by that time. Yeah, Layne could crack a little.


I grew up on Marciano. In the mid to late sixties, I watched all of his fights as his career had run through '55. Rocky's fights were replayed on black and white television in the sixties. While I don't recall every in and out (not even close) I do know very clearly that his popularity far exceeded his ability. It was evident in the number of tough rounds and tough battles he went through with a variety of guys not all that excellent before he finally prevailed. It is understandable to rate him highly. It is understandable to want to believe he was the best. But it is dishonest to believe he fought anything but old versions of Louis, Walcott, Moore, and even Charles (due to the number of rounds he had banked).

Anyone who believes age is irrelevant must be pretty young or incredibly foolish. A more truthful review of Rock's career is possible.

A perfect record doesn't mean a perfect fighter or the greatest heavyweight (or supermiddleweight) of all time. If the intention is to compare fighters from different generations then there is more to go on than just their resume or a winning record. You can use your eyes and mind too. How can you not? If a prime Rock was troubled by all of these guys what would have happened if it were possible to throw him in with the prime versions?

 

Hate Marciano? No way. You are ****ing clueless.

 

If Marciano was overrated, then Tyson must have been too, he was also prime in a "weak" era!

 

The rock beat every guy who was out there ?, what we he meant to do invent a time machine and fight louis and others when they were younger ?, come on now he never ducked any one, he quit when he had, had enough and did not bother with comebacks and taint his legacy like some guys do, he was a bit of a tight git with money by all accounts, he demanded when he turned up for events to be paid in cash, he did not trust cheques, and he was said to have hid money all over the place, some of which i believe was never found after his death. But what im getting at, is he was good with money and never wasted it like so many did and then had to fight on, sadly joe louis was treated dreadful by the goverment and had little choice but to box on and on and on etc

 

Rock is an icon of the sport.

but if a heavy like him never beat a prime top guy and retired undefeated hed get no credit.

 

I would never underestimate the great "Rock", but it is kind of hard to see him fighting all the huge guys of today. BUT without question, he would be the Cruiserweight Champion of the World today. If you take his weight 185 pounds, and match him with any cruiser in history he has to be the favorite or at least 50-50. His best comp from all the cruisers would have been Holifield. But you gotta remember the Rock had true one punch power, unbelievable stamina and heart, great inside fighting skills, and nothing/nobody deterred him. He could knock you out with one punch or beat your ass all night.

 

Valuev almost managed it

 

Like any other great fighter, Rocky has people who over rate him, and people who under rate him.
People do get caught up in the "zero". I think that Larry Holmes' 48-0 streak is certainly comparable to Rocky's 49-0 finish. Holmes fought more championship fights than Rocky. Another factor in Rocky's "0" is that he picked a good time to quit; a lot of fighters don't.

With that out of the way; what Marciano accomplished is undoubtedly admirable, undeniably difficult and definitely worthy of much praise.

 

Marciano is top 5 Heavyweight ATG, not overrated at all.

 

The reason is because Marciano was a tough ******* both mentally and physically. You have to have both to do what he did many fighters like Tyson for example just have one of those attributes and not both.