p4p where does Marciano rank in your atg list

By "interesting" do you mean "****ing ******ed"?

 

I still don't understand what P4P means.

Isn't P4P just ranking the fighters? See, I rate greatness based on criteria that has zero bearing for H2H. That's an entirely different subject. And because of this, Wlad isn't better than Floyd because he would beat him. I don't judge erroneously like that.

Yet, there seems to be two camps of people. Those who say P4P and just me "Where do you rank him on an ATG list?" And those who say P4P and think "Where do I rank him P4P against the rest of ATG boxers. Placing him against him, etc."

With his power, strength, conditioning (Guy had a MW-like pace), relentlessness, and unorthodox and decieving ability (Defensively, and technically much better than given credit). Then... I think in this meaning he could be ranked as high as a lot of people do. Which could be anywhere from 1-30 on your "P4P" scale of things.


However, in terms of his all time great ranking. I rank him probably anywhere from the 30-50 range.

 

What an excellent post. I applaud you Chris.

As a Rocco fan, top 30 feels a bit high. I understand your reasoning. I think Top 30-50 is fair. But again, based on what? I don't really get P4P. If we're ranking him on an ATG list then 30-50 seems fair. P4P putting him up against the rest... well Top 30 isn't too unfair for my eyes.

Just to add to Fogey's great insert. LaStarza was battered so bad that Rocky broke blood vessels in his arm. He had to have reconstructive sugery. Clearly, when Marciano got in the ring with men... afterwards they were badly beaten up or never quite the same. For whatever it's worth, that theory and transcript seems to hold true. Some use this to try detracting Marciano. They say his opponents floundered, or looked awful in matchups against other men. But before fighting Rocky, that isn't the case. Afterwards, you can make your point. The only time that logic has it's merit is in the case of Cockell... who basically just beat Rocky's leftovers. One of those men being LaStarza. Even Rocky knew this, who thought of Cockell as to be a bum and a fight that he really couldn't lose. Still - he had to train like a madmen like usually. Even if it wasn't the same, he put himself through the rigors of training. I think his resume and opposition were great early on just pre-title and up till the middle of his reign. Toward the middle of the 50's it starts to fizzle. Moore being the only legitimate man and after that there was Valdes who Moore beat. Patterson was waiting for Rocky to either duck out, or taking his time. Then the Liston's, Machen's, Williams, etc came along. The era grew stronger toward the end of the 50's.

Rocky's reign of greatness can only be described as great. And he can only be described as a great champion. Ranking him brings out the most polarizing of thoughts from critics and fans. I'll say it again, though. Anywhere from 30-50 to me seems genuinely fair.

 

You're better then this man. I don't want to make assumptions. But being a Barrera fan and seeing most of your comments I can tell your appreciate the little guys. I'm trying to get into that, but I'm assuming here that the heavyweights may not be where your expertise is.

Borderline top 100 is way too unkind.

He was out-boxed once and that was against one of the most skilled, talented, and craftiest of heavyweights that ever came along - Jersey Joe Walcott. So you're wrong on that. Ugly to watch? I enjoy watching him, but is this really a legitimate reasoning to ranking him so harshly?

His division that he "dominated" while often getting outboxed (Love the contradiction) was much better than era than you think. His resume and division are easily superior to Dempsey's and Holmes'. Many would argue so, and others would argue that its better than Johnson's, and Jeffries' too. At least he fought the best of the best, and didn't either not fight while enjoy the luxurious of Hollywood, or fracture the belt and refuse to fight the highest rated contenders available because other chances were "more money."

 

Somewhere between 40 and 50. There were simply to many fighters who were better that marciano for him to rank any higher than that imo. Marciano's biggest wins was against old fighters past their primes. No disrespect to rock, great fighter, made the most of what he had, but I'm just being truthfull. The 49-0 record simply doesn't justify a high ranking.