Marciano's 49-0 vs. The Rest

The answer Janitor is Okke the super middleweight champion whose reign is the most damaging in boxing history because of some shamefull cheating. See Okke vs Reid if you want a six month holiday from watching boxing.

Oppersition very much does matter.

Larry Holmes record is a country mile better than rocky's for quality.

Rocky's meaning full fights are less than fifteen. At world heavyweight level there are perhaps 9. Most against light heavies, all against fighters who are old on the way down except for 2 live challengers La Starza and Cockell. The other exception is Archie Moore who I think you can compare to Bernard hopkins.

The heavyweight division was poor at the time, hence why the light heavies did so well. I agree you can only beat what is in front of you. The crystal ball works both ways you can not say Rocky is great because he was not beaten. Anymore than i can say he was crap and would have be beaten by Patterson. We do not know. So he remains an unknown not an ATG.

We do know he was hurt and knocked down by Walcott. Notice i do not count the flash knock down by moore. We also know he had to pull it out of the bag a few times in fights because he was in danger of losing. Charles and Walcott I believe might have beaten Rocky if they had fought at their peak. La Starza got his shot at Rocky because it was felt he was robbed in their first encounter. A peak Joe louis destroys Rocky in my opinon.

My glass half empty I posted above.
A half full glass you get the top 3 heavyweight champ of all time.
A balance view was the 1962 rating in December of the greatest heavyweight champs to date Rocky got 6th or 7th.

Since 1962 we have had better and bigger heavyweights. Today a cruiser weight gets in the ring at 210 pounds e.g. Ali size in 1962.

Rocky was a decent heavyweight champion who was great to watch. He had 7 heavyweight title fights not 20+ and in a poor era. Putting him down as an ATG as a heavyweight is a real stretch. If La Starza had got the correct decision the first time and Rocky had fought Patterson. Would you be talking about him? It is 50/50 in my mind.

 

otkke has nothing to do with boxing history, he was a belt holder not a champion. this translates to "contender" in any other era. he wasnt knocking anyone out.

marciano beat serious threats to the real title by KO so he deserves to be ranked amoung others who did this. 1953 charles was a serious threat and would have been against any ATG champion let alone belt holder. Same with Moore, this guy was cleaning out the top ten heavyweights yet marciano knocked him down many times. moores record was fantastic at this point! moores whole resume is based on what he acheived at this time, was knocking out contenders and comon opponents of listons quicker years later, in fact in 1962 moore was still flatening rated heavyweights! for a comparison b-hop stopped knocking guys out a long time ago.

I love holmes he is a great champion, was matched hard on the way up but he was running out of steam near the 49 mark. Holmes was a genuine champion though.

 

Ali could only go about 8 or 9 title fights at a time before losing!

Lennox much less, and he only held a partial world title.

Other than Louis, which heavys went so many title fights without losing, certainly none that were not all time greats! And certainly everyone that did was better than "decent".

 

combatboxeo wrote

the great difference is, ali was not in his prime against cooper, he was very green.prime ali dominated cooper in the rematch. marciano was not green against walcott.





and Foreman was already Champ and prime vs Ali and Young but he was spanked and sparked

 

Frazier beating ali then retireing after stander is the closest to having a beter resume than marciano.


There is no glossing over the fact frazier beat a great fighter in an unbeaten ali something neither tyson, holmes or the other champs did at the unbeaten stage. However by beating ali on points rather than knockout means frazier does not have a knockout win over a linear heavyweight champion, marciano trumps him three times over on this count- even if neither were unbeaten.

having said that I honestly think joe frazier would have knocked out Liston and patterson in 1967-70 this would help fraziers resume and trump marciano. jimmy ellis by winning a genuine tournement is also a beter beltholder than any of holmes's rival champions. of all partial HW belt holders ellis is the most authentic. until he fought frazier ellis's claim to the title was just as strong as joes was.

like ingo Foreman KO'd two of the highest regarded heavyweights before losing (norton and a shopworn frazier) but unlike frazier there were no ellis, quarry, bonnavena or a foster on his record at that stage

 

And where would Norton rank fe he had died in a car crash (he very nearly did, later), a week after breaking Ali's jaw ?

And where would Duran and Leonard be ranked if Duran's plane had crashed on the way back from Montreal ?


And where would we put RJJ if he'd retired after Ruiiz ?

Or Tarver 1 ?

 

That the guys in the poll lost does not affect how I'd rate them relative to Rocky. That's because I rate guys based on how good they were (in terms of actual physical performances) during their primes. It's not the record that's important.

 

Aside from Spinks, retiring early wouldn't have helped any of them in my book, because they all achieved something past the dates you're retiring them, things which, to a greater or lesser degree with each fighter, added to their legacies.

 

Do you rank him above or below Frankenfrank? Is there a post which if they had retired from classic and not made it, that would affect their standing?

Say Foreman Hook had quit before he just made the first tyson post in this thread?