Marciano in your top 10.

Please don't tell me you weigh less then 100lbs.

 

Whew! Good!

 

At 29 Chagaev weighed 224.25 for Wlad in his previous 4 fights he scaled
227
229
228
228
What he weighed as an amateur is immaterial, Patterson was 160lbs at theOlympics,Ali under 175lbs.
I didn't say Wlad was prime I said he wasn't shot and he wasn't ,as he proved.

 

You cant prove a point by using a hypothetical circumstance and that's what you tried to do.
EG. I never lost a fight to a professional heavyweight boxer..I never fought one .
Marciano never fought a class tall heavyweight ,it doesn't mean he would beat one if he did ,neither does it mean he would lose.It simply means he was an unknown quantity against one. Chagaev is 6'1" tall.How Valuev has performed against fighters is irrelevant to the discussion. You made a statement I corrected it, next time it might be the reverse.

 

It all depends on your definition of "class" and "tall".

If you regard certain fighters "tall class heavyweights" like say Lennox Lewis, the klitschko boys and decide that represents a certain echelon of class that's ok. But Don't go putting that level on all tall guys. Because most of them suck. They sucked then and they suck now. 99% of them represent no greater threat to a good fighter than anything else.

If your talking tall heavyweights then Rocky beat them.

If your talking of class heavyweights then Rocky fought them and beat them too.

Rocky beat everything that existed in his time.

He even beat a #1 rated guy the same size as George Foreman when Foreman beat Frazier for the title. So that's plenty big enough.

 

In no particular order, but my top ten HW are:

Ali (this shows how impartial I am because I despise the man, like the boxer)
Lewis
Wlad Klit
Holmes
Dempsey
Louis
Johnson (hate his style; admit he was head and shoulders above anyone else in his day)
Tyson (Mike, not Fury!)
Holyfield
Marciano

I had to struggle to get Rocky on the list. I left off Foreman, who I think would lose to any other
guys on the list, and Sonny Liston who would be tied with Rocky, I think.

Therefore Rocky would be my #10.

 

I'm talking tall heavyweights of class.
Or if you like "modernsized" class heavyweights.Now you're going to say what is modern-sized ,so I'll save you the trouble around 6'3" 224lbs and upwards
Marciano never faced one.

 

Not according to HIM, it's in the link. It states ABT=about 1917.

What are you so confused on? In those days, an enumerator would have simply came to the Wright household and been presented with the child. They would have asked for the child's age and recorded it if it seemed accurate. Birth year would be estimated for filing purposes.

late 1916, ABT 1917. Really isn't a huge difference to split hairs on or overthink. Census is only done once every 10 years and there would be no birth certificates for lower income families, so almost all Birth Years would be listed as ABT even if the family reported "the child was born exactly 1 year, 2 months, 1 day, 17 hours ago."

 

I'm confused as one minute Kentucky City Cobra (is that you, by the way) says Archie was 'three years and two months' at the time of the census (see post 110 if you care) but the next he says the same census says Archie was born in 'about 1917'. I'm confused at the sudden vagueness. That's all. Quite simple. The multiple links posted by myself and McVey all stated, without ambiguity, that Archie was born in 1913. I tend to favour arguments that are consistent.

But you're right - 1913, 1916. Tomatoes, tomatos, as they say. Either way, Archie was either 38 or 41 when he fought Rocky. Whichever age he was, that isn't prime for a man who started out at middleweight who had had well over 100 fights and was the smaller man as demonstrated by his continued ability to make light heavy.

That's the beef with those that question Rocky. You can't say there was a standout win against a big man in his prime. Walcott, who fought for some time at LHW, was nearly 38 when he fought Marciano the first time, Charles, a former middle, was well into his 30s with a lot of miles on the clock including a devastating loss to Walcott and had never fully recovered from an opponent dying after fighting him. Joe Louis was 37. Archie Moore, we've already mentioned. That's the main sticking point. Rocky's record has some great names but there is an asterisk next to them which has to temper some of the praise Marciano would otherwise be due.

 

heavyweight yes. no atg. He is not really the same weight class as Joshua or Klitchko..

 

He is not saying anything that is not there. The 1920 census lists the age given by the family(3 years, two months) and the enumerator's estimated birth year(ABT 1917). You are disputing the US Census not a poster's opinion on a message board.

No, the census states ABT 1917. Late 1916 and early 1917 is fair, but you are stretching a three year jump. The enumerator would have been able to distinguish a 3 year old toddler from a 6 year old child.

Prime in boxing can only be measured by demonstrated fighting ability. In 1955, Moore was at his fighting peak, if I'm not mistaken the longest win streak of his career and against relevant competition.

Size is a present state. In the ring when it counted, Moore and Maricano were of roughly equal height and weight.

 

DILLIAN WHYTE rocked Joshua. Marciano would BLOW both men out on the same night.

Also, Joshua's downfall is his lack of stamina as the fight goes on. Marciano would take him to deep waters and drown him.

 

if they were the same division. but they are not.

 

He did and he beat Ali in their computer bout.....