Making Marciano a lock for the top 5

I don't make the rules, take that up with commissions.

All I know is, by ranking the way I do, I am comparing fighters based on style not size.

 

No I think the reverse is true. You are ranking guys on size not style.

230 is the cut off. Actually era itself is a better cut off. It is a bigger advantage than size since if you take a big great fighter from the present and put him into the past he won’t have what made him great.

 

Which one gives credence to anything he says?

 

Nobody. Just take care with the silly head to head comparison, or at least don’t over emphasize it.
He beat the best available, until the time machine becomes reality you can’t do more than that.

 

I rank 147 pound fighters alongside each other. I rank 200 pound fighters alongside each other

 

This. The Rock is an easy lock for top five and he was also smart enough to not leave everything in the ring. People seem to forget that Ali and Louis started as pros at around 20 years of age and both were distinguished amateurs while Rocky started his pro career at around 25 years of age with barely any amateur experience. Also, at 32 years old Rocky had 49 fights under his belt and beat all of the top guys around as champion. In all honesty Ali should've retired in 75 when he was 33, since from 76-78 Ali was winning fights more on his name than his ability, which wasn't there anymore. This is also the case for Louis, who at 34 should've called it a day in 1948, since he just couldn't cut it as a top fighter anymore in the 50's.

People slighting Marciano for not fighting guys like Valdez, Patterson, Ingo, and Liston don't make much sense.

Valdes had two chances to get a Marciano showdown, but got beat twice by Archie Moore. Weill was actually going to have Marciano fight Valdes because they knew Valdes would be easy work, but Moore and his manager called Marciano out, since Moore had already beaten Valdes and rightfully so didn't think Valdes deserved the shot.

Patterson only moved up to heavyweight in 1956 because Marciano was retired and Moore was easy pickings after Marciano destroyed him. Cus D'Amato would've never put Patterson in the ring with Marciano as early as 1956. D'Amato would've waited until Marciano was 36 or 37.

Ingo and Liston wouldn't have been credible opponents for Marciano until the late 50's when Marciano would've been pushing 40.

 

I don't care about who Marciano fought or what his size was, what I care about is video. I don't care what some "historian" thinks, and what some boxing writer wrote means nothing to me either. The video is the story. I've watched parts of the Cockell fight and the entire Walcott 1 fight and Marciano does not look impressive. He looks slow, and his fundamentals/mechanics/skills are not impressive. If/when I see Marciano look good on video, my opinion will change, until then, the two videos show me a fighter that I wouldn't walk across the street to watch fight.

 

In 1958, Marciano would have been 34/35. Ingo was champ, Liston was #3. The Ali comparison above is a bit ludicrous. Ali started his career at 18 and was facing Miteff, Besmanoff and Banks within a year. Marciano was 25 and didn't get a good opponent until a few years after that.

You can also go backwards and say that Marciano would have been considered greater had he begun his career earlier and faced a more prime Louis, a more prime Charles, and maybe some dangerous fighters like Ray and Murray. However, he was only up at the elite level for a four year window, a transitional period between Louis and Liston. Good timing. However, with one of the above scenarios, he might now be considered a top 15 or even top 10 heavyweight.

 

The problem with that of course is that until 1960 190 pounders could be compared to 270lb at world level because “weight difference” was not seen as a “weight advantage” in title fights. Giants were the historical canon fodder of world class 190 pound men.

147 pound fighters should be ranked alongside each other. There had been no 180 pound 147 pound champions.

 

Obviously we are talking with the benefit of hindsight here.

An active fighter never knows who is going to be the heir to his throne, and who is going to turn out to be a flash in the pan.

Marciano predicted that Charley Powel would be the man to eventually beat him!

I think it self evident that Floyd Patterson and Ingemar Johansen would have been significant editions to his resume, because they were lineal champions. You would then start to get the Joe Louis effect, where people compare the reigns of the earlier champions that he beat, to the dates of the later champions that he beat.

That aside, just beating another three or four top rated contenders would start to skew the numbers game in his favor. It would become increasingly had to find other people who had more title defenses, or beat more rated opponents.

 

A transitional period between a totally outstanding champion like Joe Louis and an ultimately disappointing one like Liston?

Don’t get me wrong, Sonny was a great fighter as a contender and as a challenger. However, He only beat one man in championship fights. It’s hardly the start of magnificence in the division.

Might have made sense if you said “the period between Louis and Ali” because the championship impression Sonny made was only similar to Ingo Johansson or Max Baer.

 

When I'm considering how I rank Leonard, I don't think about him against potential heavier opponents, I think about him against 147 pounders. I'll happily debate him against heavier opponents, but it doesn't reflect my ranking of him.

When I'm considering how I rank Hagler, I don't think about him against potential heavier opponents, I think about him against 160 pounders. I'll happily debate him against heavier opponents, but it doesn't reflect my ranking of him.

When I'm considering how I rank Marciano, I don't think about him against potential heavier opponents, I think about him against sub 200 pounders. I'll happily debate him against heavier opponents, but it doesn't reflect my ranking of him.

I like to rank people based on their peers. I will debate people against anyone, but usually if I was to debate say Leonard against Monzon, I would afford Leonard the chance to bulk to 160. Usually if I was to debate say Hagler against Spinks, I would afford Hagler the chance to bulk to 175.

When people talk about Rocky they don't like to afford him that same leeway. They insist he weighs less than 190, which makes it harder for him to compete imo. I think he could bulk to 210/215 and compete against anyone, but I think it a bit unfair expecting a CW to face a HW without adding any weight.

But as I said, when I rank him, I do so based against his peers. The likes of Patterson, Frazier, Walcott, Usyk, Gassiev, Haye, Jirov, Nelson, De Leon etc.

 

It never made it harder for champions of that weight (190) to compete with giants for about a 100 years though.

Perhaps There is a difference between the 230lb heavyweights before 1960 and the 230 pound heavyweights after 1960?

Certainly The ones before 1960 were not great enough to make a dent on history.

 

Either way I rank Rocky amongst his peers which is CW sized fighters.

Rank him against bigger men if you choose, but it seems to only be these CW sized men who get ranked against much bigger men.

 

How many champs would have a longer reign if their second defence was against Ali?

Leopards? Spots?