is rocky marciano totally underrated in this forum?

indeed. They were all in excellent and exceptional shape fighting Marciano. Each one of those fights represented real showdowns between the best two heavyweights in the world. How many times have other champions sought showdowns like that and won? And when they did who ever said the challenger was old or pretended they were lightheavyweights? A number one contender back then was as good as a beltholder.

 

It's all the selfish, myopic simpletons who can't help but drag race into it. If you watch Marciano fight, and all you're thinking about is his skin color, then not only are you a blight on boxing, but you're an embarrassment as a human being. Get a fcuking grip.

 

Why?

How does Charles in these fights compare to Charles at his best? What does Charles' record look like from the Marciano fights until his last fight in '59? Was he dominant? How many fights and rounds were on his career odometer by '54? If you could pick any version of Charles to fight Marciano in '54 would you pick this one? Or, would you pick some version from '54 until career end? Perhaps you'd select one from an earlier period, huh?

How does JJ in these fights compare to JJW at his best? How much was left in the tank by the Marciano fights? Wouldn't you say JJ had put down some serious mileage from the mid 1940s through mid-'52 or was that a pretty soft schedule? Did he have tough multiple (and quadruple) fights with decent opposition? Sometimes a run of tough opponents or series of hard fights makes you better for the experience. Sometimes late in a career it can serve to take the last remaining strength before the show closes. How old was JJ when he fought Marciano? How many fights did he have after the Marciano fights? How old was Marciano in these fights? If you could optimize Marciano against this version of Walcott which other Marciano (from what year) would you pick? Is there actually any substantive difference between this other version of Marciano and the one who fought the 38+/39+ year old version of Walcott?

How does Archie Moore in the fight compare with Moore at his best? How many of his +200 career fights and nearly 1500 rounds were actually at heavyweight? In the few meaningful ones (HW title fights) what was his record? At what weight class was Moore the champ and how many fights did he have at heavyweight immediately prior to the Marciano fight in '55?

It would be pretty impressive (and still is) for a champion in a lower division to move up to meet the champ in the next higher division without a fight to acclimate to the weight such as when McClellan went abroad to face Benn in '95 (just one of many examples others could highlight). In McClellan's case (and others can choose their own examples) his move to SMW was inevitable and LHW was also predictable - only a few years farther down the road most likely - if not for what occurred. But, was Moore an example of someone who had outgrown LHW or would he actually return there and fight again multiple times for the LHW title after September '55?

At what weight do we associate with Moore as his optimal division? How old was Moore in the '55 fight? Since Moore was able to fight another eight years does that mean he had little meaningful mileage on his physical odometer and hadn't been in any serious wars against any top talent? Or, does fighting competitively into old age (boxing old age) such as Bernard Hopkins today mean that age is irrelevant?

For example, in a one off, which do you think Bernard would rather be: the '97 or '98 version who is told he doesn't have to worry about a subsequent return to 160 and he gets to put on eight, ten, or fifteen pounds of muscle at 32 or 33 years of age in preparation for a fight at or near 175 pounds against the 2013 version of himself who is 48 years old? Regardless of how the 48 year old might want to answer that question for public consumption there is little doubt about how I would bet my assets in this matchup.

Once again the next question is how old was Marciano vis-a-vis Moore and which was closer to the optimal version? I predict that given the ability to switch out the 32 year old Marciano with another version many would move him back a couple years as he too would have been fresher without the hard fights he experienced in those immediately preceding years from '51 to '54. But, however beneficial this might be it would always pale to the point of immateriality relative to Charles', Walcott's, & Moore's challenge of being older, past prime, and ring worn in specific combinations.

I'll skip Louis as you did as well - I'll assume you accept the obvious in his case that this wasn't a great version in '51 at 37+ years of age.

It was not within Marciano's control that these fighter's careers didn't line up so each could meet in their primes and the outcome could be viewed more definitively and objectively. That's the way it usually is. However, it is very reasonable to argue and even strongly believe from watching a prime version of Marciano in his fights against non-prime versions of Louis, Walcott, Charles, & Moore that - notwithstanding Rocky's own ring strengths and abilities - his circumstance would have been materially more difficult against different versions of these fighters. I doubt many here (though the GF would likely scream to differ) would easily assert that age is not a most critical determinant and factor in evaluating a fighter's prime. It is the exception that makes the rule but as we all know - if we were going to go out and compete in some sport or physical activity I would prefer to be in my mid or late 20s again because that is where one's stamina is optimized. At no point in a physical competition is it assumable that it is better to be five or ten years more experienced at the sacrifice of one's stamina, energy, speed, and quickness. This is not that high level of a mental endeavor that we can assume that fighters that have been fighting either from their youth or from their teens into their late 20s are somehow unaccomplished and unfamiliar with the fine points of something they are doing each and every day.

If the aforementioned fighters can win rounds in their advanced age or ring age and yet in some cases got caught at some point which turned things irrevocably then a younger version with no dearth or deficit of stamina and energy could be realistically expected to hold form through out.

 

Are you asking these questions because you dont know the answers? It certainly sounds like you dont know a thing about the circumstances, careers of the fighters you are talking about. I doubt you could pick their photos out of a line up. You have just went and looked at stats and ages without understanding a thing about the landscape of that time.

If Jersey joe was ever better or fought any harder than he did defending his hard earned title against Marciano then there is no film of it. Let me remind you Walcott was regarded as the best heavyweight in the world at that time. He was the curent fighter of the year, his title winning effort was rated fight of the year. It was his best ever win against a good champion who already beat him two times. Walcott had turned a corner as a fighter late in his career for a whole set of reasons i am prepared to explain if you want to know because you clearly do not know.

Archie Moore was the most outstanding heavyweight contender of Marcianos reighn because he was knocking out and beating highly regarded heavyweights. In fact Moore knocked out the number 2 rated heavyweight then won an eliminator against the curent number 1 rated heavyweight To earn that shot at Marciano. Moore was never better. How could he have proven himself anymore at that time? It was like Ali beating Quarry and Bonnevena to get his crack at Frazier or someone beating Haye and Vladimir to get a crack at Vitali. Moore also knocked out a heavyweight who had knocked out the first man to beat Sonny Liston. I repeat what more could Moore have done? Moore v Marciano was a superfight of the day because Moore was for real.

Dont get me started on Charles. Ezzard too had turned a corner. His two most recent fights were among his most impressive knockouts. And they were filmed. Whenever anyone puts a highlight reel together of Charles's best wins those two fights are recorded every damn time. He was not just a former champion, he had earned his number one rating through knocking out two curent rated contenders. In 7 years Charles had only one real loss on his record and he beat that man 2 times and was coming off two spectacular wins. Charles has the finest resume of any champion in the history of the sport. If you are only as good as your last fught then Charles was still very, very good.

Joe Louis was shot by his standards but he was on a win streak and a worthy contender at the time Rocky fought him. Louis was not rated out if sentiment or sympathy or because he had an affiliation with a governing body! no. Joe Louis worked for that ranking and any other fighter who decked, outpointed and knocked out the same group of fighters he was facing would have been rated as highly as Joe Louis was at that time. One knock out victim was even lightly regarded as holding a version of world champion and in another era would almost certainly have passed on a belt of some discription to comeback joe louis.

 

Marciano haters...SSDD...same ****...different day...

 

excellent post and if HH has an open mind he may learn something from a man who knows the facts

 

Is English your second language? Why don't you begin by answering THOSE very specific questions and that will help you stay on point and force you to consider and understand their import while allowing you all the room you need to stay in and establish context. Anything else and you are missing the forest for the trees ... YOU want to illuminate just walk between the lines I provided with my questions and skip nothing.
[/quote]

Well, let's see ... I can understand that the farther one is removed from an era the harder it would be for someone to be as familiar as someone who lived through it. OTOH, I'm not so far removed as these fighters were the very first fighters I was exposed to beyond the contemporaries of my youth. A handful of years later when I was being taken in California to see dozens of fights at the Olympic and The Forum or the Convention Center including watching Jerry and Mike Quarry fight live multiple times (my father and his friends took us specifically to support them) or to see the FOTC on closed circuit (as live as one could get that night without being in MSG) I certainly wasn't allowed or allowed myself to be unfamiliar with those most mentioned by the prior generation(s). And, the great thing about living through the following period is that there wasn't a need to have a rare reminiscing program on a past great when there was still a legitimate reason for comparative purposes to replay these famous fights - appropriately on black and white TVs - as the participants were still living and the time of Liston, Patterson, Clay, & Frazier was in progress. The defensive posturing surrounding Marciano was no less fervent (you know what I mean? Call it Classic Forum on steroids) in the 60s with all of this defensive hatred being aimed at Clay/Ali as if what occurred outside the ring was somehow relevant to what he did within the ring and as if he was engendering this hatred from the majority within the US ...

So, this fervent desire to sustain Marciano historically today is in no way any different than what I remember as a kid in the 60s. In all likelihood your family, your friends, my family, our friends, Italian-Americans undoubtedly, whites in overwhelming numbers, etc., etc., all desired (and desire) to ignore the all too obvious in supporting the non-defensible fiction that age and/or ring wear are irrelevant issues to bring up when discussing Marciano's accomplishments and perfect professional record. Yet, if we could switch this around and ask for some well known examples of ATG white fighters that met other great BLACK fighters when they were in their late 30s, far out of prime, and giving away many years or many ring years to the black fighter how quick would you be to defend this imbalance of time as a legitimate mitigating factor if the past prime white fighter had been stopped suddenly or had performed laudably and competitively for most of the fight? As it would be right to point out in such an instance (albeit finding actual examples in boxing history up to the present is not really so easy - now is it?) it is accordingly a relevant point when examining Rocky's record and evaluating those wins.

You need to stick to the questions I proffered. Because your answers are only going to matter in THAT context. I never said that Marciano should have fought other fighters than Louis, Walcott, Charles, and Moore. I never said that they weren't deserving of the fights against Marciano. I never said they hadn't earned their shot. Even old versions of talented athletes can be better than young versions of pedestrian athletes. I never said that it was Marciano's fault that these fighters were not the best versions they had ever been.

But, when you defend too fervently and give no consideration - AT ALL - to time and age issues delineated then one must question YOUR motivation.

I was there in those years of social unrest to listen to the defenders of Marciano, the detractors of Clay/Ali, and the proponents of the great Joe Louis. I watched these most famous fights for the very first time from Joe Louis on - in the mid-60s - not in the '70s, nor the '80s, etc.

I don't dismiss the interrelationship between peak athletic quality and the impact of aging and while I didn't box as a pursuit - though I had multiple pairs of boxing gloves from the day I could walk - family loved boxing - and boxed more than a few times over the years - I did start in the Pac-10 in the 80s and you won't ever persuade me athletically that a fifteen year old car with 180K miles is preferable to the same car at ten years with 120K because "the car is now more familiar with the road!"

Regarding Archie Moore (and the other greats) there are simply too many fights in their long active careers in which there is little or no footage to allow for a definitive statement like "Moore was never better" and I'll leave it to others with his catalog to evaluate the many many fights of his that are available and offer their opinion as to when was the best version of Moore that they have ever seen. Archie who had his first professional fight when he was 18 years old "was never better" than when he stepped into the ring when he was nearly 40 years old. Really? No room to equivocate even a little on that one huh? In "Ezzard too had turned a corner" that hardly is the sense of a prime versus prime matchup, ya know? "If you are only as good as your last fight then Charles was still very, very good" - because of Satterfield in two? "Joe Louis was shot by his standards but he was on a win streak and a worthy contender at the time Rocky fought him" - yes he was. But, that is not the criteria needed when one is attempting to define Marciano as the greatest or one of the greatest. That is the kind of evaluation you use to justify an opponents worthiness on the record of just about any marginal titlist. As for Walcott "if .. was ever better or fought any harder ..." I'll simply say that I'll place my chips behind the '47 or '48 version at the very least to gain those three or four years of youth against all that had improved in his situation by '52/'53.

The reality I ascribe to is that with age comes periodic inconsistency especially in any athletic competition that is not a series of matches or games. On any given night or match, you can come in flat or not feel right and age has caught up to you. You are a step slow your reflexes a fraction off. The idea that you are "as good as your last fight" is simply less applicable to an aged athlete because he might not replicate that last fight.

Hopkins was out of his physical prime by the end of the 90s (that's pre-Trinidad too). Still, he has had a bundle off fights since then and has risen to the highest pantheon (albeit in a horrendous era) at Moore-dyssian-like heights. A closer examination shows he has struggled - DUE TO HIS AGE - with most everyone he has fought struggling hard with Jermaine Taylor's relative youth and athleticism twice, an unimpressive performance against a past prime Winky Wright, gassed in a very poor performance against a very dismal Joe Calzaghe in which - not withstanding the glaucoma suffering punch stat keeper - Calz landed almost nothing and looked to these ringside eyes the inferior athlete though the seven year younger engine served him through to a narrow win, fought poorly against the even more shopworn RJJ, got rocked hard repeatedly by the limited Jean Pascal in two fights, looked poor against Chad Dawson twice, and was less than scintillating against Tavoris Cloud most recently.

As I said in my previous post - For example, in a one off, which do you think Bernard would rather be: the '97 or '98 version who is told he doesn't have to worry about a subsequent return to 160 and he gets to put on eight, ten, or fifteen pounds of muscle at 32 or 33 years of age in preparation for a fight at or near 175 pounds against the 2013 version of himself who is 48 years old? Regardless of how the 48 year old might want to answer that question for public consumption there is little doubt about how I would bet my assets in this matchup - age and ring wear matters.

Rocky in his prime was talented enough to beat these ATGs when they were less than they could be (you can sustain the degree to your liking as we won't find common ground in all likelihood) - for various reasons already delineated. That is better than all of his contemporaries that were also in their prime but could not beat these ATG fighters in these years. For some of us, it pretty much stops right there.


If you get this and feel compelled to respond I won't be back tonight. We'll see what my schedule allows after that. I not so interested in any back and forth - you've said your piece I've said mine - because I've already read the regulars here (on this very subject a few times) and while I appreciate the breadth of your (and their) knowledge in many cases and on many obscure fighters, I can judge the opinions regarding more than a few as I've followed boxing since the mid-60s and don't need others to tell me what I've already seen and evaluated with my own two eyes.

Cheers.

 

Marciano was and is one of the most beloved of all hwt champions. One of boxings all time well conditioned hwts. Never said a bad word about any opponent, always fought fair and he always won. He retired undefeated 49-0 and he fought everyone. You can't ask any more of any champion.

 

I agree with everything except the fought fair part.
Rocky was a dirty fighter. He hit after the bell, on the break and delivered a lot of low blows. He hit Charles, for one, on one knee.
When asked about this, Rocky always said he honestly didn't realize he was doing these things.
I believe him.

 

Brit Sillynanny,

You know. When I read your first post, I thought it was best post I have ever read here and thought you had Choklab cornered. But his reply was fanstatic. It was all boxing and it was all about Maricano's opponents. I was learning tons from this debate between you two and I couldn't wait to read your reply....and this is the reply?

All these words and ideas about the 60's and race, can Choklab read, and how you don't need to go back and forth. You are kidding right? This is a forum. You have to go back and forth or there is no discussion. Your reasoning must be put to the test just like everyone elses. Trying to raise to bar and move the conversation beyond the main point of your debate with Choklab to give you more leverage in a debate doesn't work. Then to post a 10000 word document and finally tell Choklab that you don't have time for his reply....Not sure about that either. I didn't see any motivation on his part to place Maricano high because of his race. Honestly, Maricano takes a beating around here because of his size, and that from what I assume to be people of all races and time periods. The guys around here who have seen him live usually put that oppinion in perspective with accusing others of some other movitation. Why? Because who cares. Talk boxing and put that other stuff to bed.

Now, I agree with you that Charles, Walcott, and Moore were not in thier primes but, they were still very formidable when Maricano put them out. I can appreciate the times you lived in. But, if you bring that context into the discussion then you are leaving yourself open about the motivation of your post. It looks like there is more in your post to make a person wonder is you are trying settle a debate that has bothered you since the 60's and somehow pressing that idea onto posters here who are only concerned with who beat who.

Thoughts?

 

fast hands, this clown wanted a war with me , he is a user of youtube , respect for all the other posters.

 

Rocky is underrated for what he meant to boxing, but over rated in terms of how he would do in the more competitive eras.

Rocky's 0 on his record is not quite the exclamation point some of his fans think. Most newspapers Rocky lost the first fight to LaStarza, and some felt he lost to Lowry.

 

All fighters have close bouts. The great ones typically get the W most of the time. Marciano was one of our greatest champions. No reason to degrade his accomplishments.