Joe Frazier or Rocky Marciano : Who do you ranked higher ?

No losses usually means untested.

A used up Louis, a shopworn Charles, and an ancient and overrated Walcott shouldn't impress anybody who is taking a serious accounting of the respective records.

Frazier's two losses to Ali were competitive losses. Foreman is a monster who would have destroyed Marciano. There's no real comparison to be made either head to head or legacy wise.

It is a tribute to the power of myth and sentiment that Marciano gets any votes at all.

 

Joe Frazier defeated Muhammad Ali in what was rightly called The Fight of The Century.

He really does not get enough credit for that win on ESB.



I think if Frazier fought the same people Marciano did, he would have gone 49-0. If Marciano fought the same people Frazier did, he would not have done any better. I think he would have done worse (no win against Ali).

 

Frazier.

 

Ali really out-toughed and out-smarted Foreman. Yes, he was winning rounds catching Foreman but took some big shots he didn't need to. But I went on the point on how Foreman was better on the Frazier fight than the Ali fight. Foreman was throwing wide punches, and hardly setting his shots up with the jab. He was falling in love with his power. The Foreman from 72-73 was completely different from the one that fought Young.

But he was 48 years old. Foreman must've been surprisingly good in his comeback for you then.

The knockdown was, the staying down wasn't. Liston was a better boxer with a better jab, but Foreman had better power and was more durable. Ali hurt Liston in the first fight. Even if it's not the best conditioned Liston, I still think Foreman can take a little more. Exhaustion usually was his worst victim during his 70's run. Also, Foreman was just as fast if not faster. He threw faster combinations to me.

I do too, but I don't think he can beat Foreman. Not durable enough, has to come inside. Hell, I can't pick Dempsey if I don't pick Tyson.

 

Now you're saying that Rocky's undefeated record, against the best heavyweights available in his era, somehow proves that he wasn't as good as Joe Frazier?

As far as Rocky's opponents being past their best, is there anyone on this forum who believes Muhammad Ali was at his best when Joe Frazier won the FOTC? Was Muhammad at his very best when he came back and beat Joe twice? I don't think so.

Joe Frazier, against Linear Champions, was 1-4. Rocky Marciano was 5-0.

When I have sat in the audience and watched Rocky Marciano fight, more than once, and have met the man, there is no myth to it. When I rank Muhammad Ali above Rocky on my all-time heavyweight list, that puts a rather large dent in your sentiment theory.

 

:happy

 

Personally I think if Walcott would have been able to just concentrate on boxing throughout his we would now talk about him beeing the clear GOAT.

 

I think you may be right. If he had had the backing Louis, Ali, Tyson etc, it's frightening to think how good he could have been.

 

I did not say his undefeated record proved he wasn't good as Frazier. I argued very plainly that an undefeated record usually indicates a fighter is untested - which is to say, I am unimpressed by Rocky's undefeated record in the same way I am unimpressed with Calzaghe's record. It doesn't mean anything. Who did he fight? How did he look? Those are the relevant questions.

Moreover, Marciano was not untested, since he was floored and made to look foolish by fighters who wouldn't have stood a much of change against Frazier. I mean there is always hope, but imagine Walcott, a journeyman who couldn't beat the count six times in his spotty career in a weak era on the receiving end of a Frazier hook. Or imagine a fading Charles against the man who blew the great Bob Foster away. Foster lasted how many rounds? And Charles is lasting much longer? Let's see Charles try to hold Frazier the way Ali did. Ali could hardly get away with it. How spectacular would Frazier's career have been if almost all the men he blew away weighed 180-190 lbs?

I am not even sure Marciano faced the best heavyweights of his day (Cockell? Mathews?).

Ali in his second coming was better than any heavyweight in history, so I don't get the point of your question. Ali wasn't less in the 1970s than he was in the 1960s, just different. That's the thing that makes Ali so great - he was the greatest twice as different fighters!

Marciano's record against linear champs means very little when the linear champs are an old Joe Louis (who is overrated on ESB, anyway), a shot Ezzard Charles (a light heavyweight fighting too many years over his natural weight), a journeyman in Walcott. An old light heavyweight in Moore (a fighter whom I love)

It puts no dent in my sentiment argument that you would put Ali over Marciano. You don't want people to think you're stupid, do you? But we're talking about Frazier and Marciano, and there you are definitely letting sentiment get the best of you.

 

A lot of fighters had tough lives. It is usually that experience that makes them better. Walcott wasn't that good. You can't excuse that away.

 

His head snapped back. Surely he felt something?

Physically or psychological? I definitely disagree with this. Liston got rocked.

Yes way, he definitely threw quicker combos. I presented this in a discussion awhile back before. His combos are quicker than people think, Liston had that big 84 inch reach and some of his combos come off a bit slow. I'm talking compact Foreman here.

Ohhh, yous must be crazy!