My Take on Marciano

Ah, the old Marciano debate again.

One of the problems with Rocky is that he's a fighter who polarises opinion, much like Tyson or Mayweather more recently. Quite a lot of people who contribute to the debate on him seem desperate to take an 'all or nothing' approach with no room for compromise. Those who rate him really rate him and will engineer all kinds of spurious arguments to suit their narrative, and on the other side of the coin those who aren't impressed by him will do the same and go over the top in deconstructing his CV.

I don't mind being the boring guy who sits somewhere between these two extremes. A win can still be a decent or even a good one, but have a slight asterisk against it which prevents it being great. Marciano has big names on his record and none of those wins were meaningless (far, far from it), but at the same time it's no crime to point out that the timing and circumstances of those fights probably favoured Marciano more than they did his opponents, especially in the cases of Louis, Charles and Moore.

And that in itself is nothing unique to Marciano. In fact if you try hard enough you can level that accusation at most of the great Heavyweights for quite a few of their best wins. I think what probably hurts Marciano's case a little more are factors like: the perception that he was sometimes feasting on smaller men; the fact that he had relatively few world title or really notable fights in comparison to other Heavyweight champions, hence his pool of best wins is a little smaller and the criticism of them thus stands out more; and the fact that most of his best victims had no significant success as a Heavyweight after he beat them (La Starza and Moore the slight exceptions, but neither of them were really from the top plate of Heavies). Louis' only significant fight was with the IRS, Charles' form (on the wane even before he lost to Marciano) completely went off a cliff, and Cockell (only fighting at Heavyweight because of a glandular disorder) was out of the game soon after as well.

Fitting a defence in there against Valdes at some stage would have silenced a few retrospective critics. Yes, Valdes was an inconsistent perfomer, and given this the windows where he was the legitimate leading contender (or something very close to it) and where a fight could have been arranged were quite small. But he was at least a genuine Heavyweight, appreciably bigger and heavier than Marciano, and would have provided a challenge which none of Rocky's championship opponents did. My knowledge of Valdes isn't anything special, but based on what I've seen and read, both the NYSAC and the NBA didn't seem keen on promoting him to number one contender status if they could avoid it, and happy to hide behind flimsy pretexts to keep him away. I'm sure those posters with greater knowledge on that front can enlighten me.

Aside from that debatable case, though, Marciano did more or less everything he could in his time - it just wasn't a particularly great time for the division. I don't think he has the wins to suggest that he's an elite Heavyweight in a head-to-head sense - but on record and accomplishments, he rates better. All in all, he's somewhere around the #9 or #10 spot in the Heavyweights for me. A great Heavyweight, just not one of the very, very greatest.

 

Fantastic post. Should be the last word.

 

Haha thanks, have a feeling it won't be!

 

I pretty much agree with everything you said but I do think Marciano was very athletic - he played football, baseball, was a champion street fighter who never lost in the street and played strength positions in sports-

I remember hearing that the Klitschko brothers did not have rhythm and perhaps Ali or Frazier or Walcott had better rhythm to motown - jazz- R&B but the Klitschko's had their own rhythm maybe Russian music

Marciano had his own Athleticism - Like a Roman soldier - he may have been short with powerful legs- but crazy stamina- power- heart-will- determination- and overcame obstacles like a split nose elbow accident (Charles 2) and blinded by ointment (walcott 1) but Marciano always did what he had to do to win and the Walcott -Charles-Moore he fought were very fit guys and still crafty and dangerous -

Marciano was a warrior

Marciano is my # 3 but I still give him a good chance to beat the #1 and # 2 ATG on a given night

 

There are a lot of guys that would beat marciano,not only the number 1 and 2

 

This content is protected

49(43)-0

Personally, I have Marciano at #9 on my HW ATG list, and #85 on my P4P ATG list. Whilst some say this underrating him (it isn't) this is incredibly high. He is in very esteemed company, a true ATG in every sense of the word. In fact, of all HWs, he's the 4th highest P4P and above 3 of my top 5 (below Ali, Louis and Holyfield, respectively. Yeah, I know by the way. I know, it doesn't make sense to have him at #9 at HW, and 4th highest P4P, but some achievements are more impressive and have higher sway on my rankings with the eye I use to look at P4P and individual weights. Marciano's stack up MUCH better P4P.).

I probably sway on the Modernista's side, at HW, at any rate. That said, my gripe isn't where he's placed in rankings (although top 50 P4P and top 5 HW is too high), it's more that he's treated like a God H2H.

Marciano isn't unskilled. He's not a paradigm of perfectly schooled pugilism, nor even fundamentally sound, but to mistake what he does as 'unskilled' is wrong. That word makes it sound like he was doing what he was doing by accident. He clearly wasn't, the counter which iced Walcott wasn't a mistake. A man with no skill at all isn't a man who can successfully take on Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore.

Marciano's best attribute is his stamina. That conditioning is what let him break through most men, and throw 95+ punches in the 15th round vs Charles. That's just madness. As is his power and toughness, his next best two attributes. He walked through shots from punchers and broke down tough chins.

A whimsically inventive fighter, he made up punches on the spot and changed his offence around what seemed to work. His angles weren't pretty, but they worked. He wasn't exactly a genius in the ring, but he still got the job done. He wasn't exactly this easy-to-hit front-runner either, his defensive stats show this. He wasn't Willie Pep, but his crouching defence and erratic, constant movement made him hard to hit.

He wasn't immortal, he wasn't perfect. He was slow, he was inaccurate, he was poorly balanced and wild. He was crude for the most part, very crude. He did cut a bit, he did go down against the best punchers he fought, he didn't have the best defence, he wasn't as athletically gifted as some ect ect. the list goes on and on. But he still kept winning...

The bottom line is that, "sure, he didn't have very good skills, but what he had is underrated, bit it doesn't matter coz the other aspects of his game make up for it".

So yeah, he has awesome power, an inhuman workrate and a sturdy chin, but look at his weaknesses. To pick him over genuine HW ATGs who outweigh him by 30/40lbs are the acts of fanboys, blinded by delusion. Nothing in his career supports this idea. Nothing at all. The guys who he fought, were near his cap, if they weren't, he wouldn't have struggled so much with them. There's no reasonable case for him beating Tyson Fury or Vitali Klitschko. The fact he's overcoming 80+lbs vs Fury makes everything unrealistic.

I do, however, have absolutely 0 qualms with him being called the best below 200lbs. I'm inclined to agree. I think he beats everyone (aside from maybe a prime Charles ). Look at the 2 best below 200lbs, he already beat one of them twice, and he's a stylistic nightmare for the other. No issues with how he's rated there.

The most extremist groups on either side are so far off the mark it ends up funny and ridiculous.

For example, from @Pat M:
"Marciano has no outstanding physical traits"

From @Seamus:
"A guy with a full-time job could have pulled it off[Marciano's training regiment]"

"Wlad beat plenty of guys who would dominate Marciano"

From @The Undefeated Lachbuster:

"Marciano looks better than Hagler on film"

"Marciano wouldn't be slow next to Fury"

"Marciano is only fundamentally bad compared to other atg heavyweights"


All of these are laughably wrong. I'm not debating with you, I'm just telling you look like idiots. That said, I've never seen such a polarising figure, barring Durán.

For such a nice, entertaining guy, he sure does attract flack, and is frequently disrespected. I've got his book, not read it yet, but from the first few pages I sampled, he sure did have an interesting life. And it was far from easy. The guy's childhood was hell. What he overcame in boxing, and what he achieved, is mind-boggling. He's damn worthy of the hoards of fans he's got, but just because he had to overcome more, in his own life, to achieve what he did, isn't a logical reason to expand those feets.

There's my take.

Holy ****, I just got my 'The Thread' on, big time!

 

You gotta come up with something different....it's the same old stuff!!!

 

But it isn't!!!

 

Put him in with Prime Joe Frazier, he'll be KO'd

 

I didn't say 1 or 2 would beat him, I said based on resume I rate them higher- As far as anyone else beating him- that would only be your opinion.

Marciano dominated his era - He fought all colors - he fought 5 #1 contender and rematched all tough fights and improved in rematches and was the solo Champion with no other Champions in his era, no split titles

I rate the ATG's based on beating the best in their era- Being the sole Champion- fighting the best in your era- rematching tough fights

many fall short in that area - Louis and Ali and Marciano fought all comers and would not stand for a co-champion

 

More like the opinion of tons of people and boxers too

 

A lot of the old timers with wisdom of the game had deep respect for the fighters of the era -I knew many of them. I am assuming you are young so the hero's of your day are on a pedestal. which is ok.

I respect the fighters of today and every decade that has passed - IMO every fighter that fights or fought the best of his era as champion and was the sole Champion (unified) and defended against the best of his era deserves credit and should be ranked accordingly-

Louis - Marciano and Ali fought the best - Foreman, once he won the title he defended against Norton and Ali so I give him a pass for Joe Roman. Tyson avoided no one.

Holmes never unified and fought a bunch of novices - too many of the tougher fighters he avoided and never unfied - I still think he was the best of his time but can not rate him in the top 5, in fact he gave up a belt to avoid Page (who was hot and cold)

Many fighters did fight the best and had short times as Champ- Walcott defended against Marciano and beat some tough fighters on the way to the title while playing ball with the boxing business of the day. Braddock fought Louis- Burns fought Johnson. Mike Spinks fought Tyson.

I like Fury because he is willing to fight and Wilder fought him 2X - I also think Joshua has fought some good fighters - Vlad- Povetkin- ( 40- ish but still dangerous and experienced) he also beat Whyte and Martin and Parker- Joshua did surprise me by losing to the much short robust Andy Ruiz (who according to HeightPedia ( heightpedia.com ) is slightly over 6' ft or 185 centimeters kind of puts most of the height worshipers in check

https://heightpedia.com/andy-ruiz-jr-height-how-tall/

 

I am 35 i was born in 1984 and my opinion has nothing to do with my age, i rank Ali very high h2h and he was before of my time. I respect marciano.. But i can say that there are fighters that would have beaten him.
Btw (1.85 = 6'1)

 

We all have different opinions - sometimes we are right and sometimes we are wrong - all good

Andy Ruiz height is 185 cm (6 ft 0.83 in).

Feet: 6.07 ft ALMOST 6'1