Rocky Marciano has a very good case for #1...

The guy loves Marciano. The claims are impossible to prove. What else can you say ?

 

I think Marciano is unquestionably a top 5 heavyweight of all time, but not # 1. those spots are reserved for ali and louis.

 

............True. If this place has taught me anything since I got here, it's that Uber-Fans cannot be dissuaded from an opinion, no matter its precarious grip on reality.

 

Certainly he has a case for #1. If you go the way back among undisputed champions to Figg, Marciano has the highest winning percentage, the highest knockout percentage, the highest winning percentage against rated fighters (since the ratings began), the highest knockout percentage against rated fighters, and the highest winning and knockout percentages against Hall-of-Famers. He is the only fighter to have as many as six victories against Hall-of-Famers without suffering a single loss. He is the only fighter to knock out every rated or ever rated fighter he ever fought, and no one else has come close.

In going over all the champions since Figg, only a handful stand out as having truly unique records. Marciano is certainly one of them. I would rate him along with Cribb, Sullivan, Louis, and Ali for having a record that stamps them as historically unique. Jeffries, perhaps Johnson, Holmes, and Lewis, and Brain and Pearce from the old times, are in the next tier.

I rate him third myself, behind Ali and Louis.

*Concerning Figg and Broughton--I feel I don't have enough info on them to consider them in the above list.

 

Sal...bullseye!

O.F. Stats are misleading and there are many ways to spin them ...

 

Winning and losing isn't a mere stat, nor to mention them just spin.

 

.............But are you prepared to say Klitschko has more power than anyone in boxing history?

Again, you're giving me nothing here. Just your starry-eyed need to see what you see. It means nothing.

 

How would Tyson deal with him

 

There are many Things I love about Marciano, Great condition,extreme power, Stamina, great chin,goes to the body and the head well, subtle defence, very good counter puncher for a agressive slugger, but because Marciano is my type of fighter, I put Louis above him .I rate Marciano # 2 next to Joe Louis and because of all of Louis's defences and Dominance but prime to prime who would win is a toss up. I rate Ali # 3 and anyone of them could exchange places in the top 3 but I could put Marciano in as # 1 as well because we have only seen him in his prime and he got out before he began to slip...I do not argue with anyones ratings but that my top 3, Louis Marciano, Ali but I can understand him being # 1 ( he was a snap shot of perfection, held lineal title 6 defences 5 vs # 1 contender 1 vs # 2 contender...Beat Moore who beat everyone in his last defence...top 3 yes...I think Marciano had the style to beat Ali, always did . I think that he is the type of fighter to be a nightmare for Ali but even then...If these 3 where in the same era, none of them would dominate,and they may splt a few between them.... IMO

 

I don't get this statement at all...

 

That's not enough to put him past Ali or Louis. Not even close. Do you honestly think Ali or Louis (Or Liston or Dempsey or Frazier) had they fought in the same era wouldn't have had similar success? Not to mention both Ali and Louis fought a much higher level of competition than Marciano's.

 

Well noone (at heavyweight) threw as many punches late into fights on as regular basis did they?

And no one with that high a work rate in the later rounds, still had the power to knock people out by this time, did they?


If not, isnt that the best way to actually measure stamina (or at least what people consider stamina, as i actually think it has as much to do with heart and will to win as anything else).

 

...........Heavyweight-schmeavyweight. They suck by definition. :smoke

The point is, there is no way to prove who had the best stamina any more than we can prove who had the best chin, or even the most power. It's a ridiculous argument from the word go.

 

this is a good arguement

 

Marciano fought 8 years. Louis fought 8 years prior to WWII. Marciano went 49-0 with 43 knockouts. Louis went 56-1 with 48 knockouts. Louis was badly beaten by Schmeling in their first fight. Marciano was never beaten at all. You might argue that Marciano had a couple of close fights with LaStarza and Lawry, but then so did Louis with Pastor, Godoy, and Adolph Wiater. It is a tough sell to me that Louis had necessarily beaten better fighters than Walcott, Charles, Moore, and an old Joe Louis. I would agree that he clearly had beaten more second-tier fighters.

Louis did continue fighting after WWII, but few agreed with the decision in his first fight with Walcott and he lost to Charles and Marciano.

Marciano retired at 32 having proved himself clearly better than every single man he fought. Ali at 32 had split with Frazier and Norton and there had also been a tight fight with Jones. Ali did beat Frazier in a third fight, and also Norton, but the Norton victory was another highly disputed fight. As against Louis, Marciano was more dominant to the age he retired and had proven himself superior to each and every one of his opponents. The same can not be said for Ali.

There is a case, I think. If a man is more dominant than any other fighter ever has been, he must be considered at or near the top.

Liston did fight in that era and lost in it to an ordinary lightheavyweight. I think Dempsey fought in a weaker era and he lost several times in that one and had a number of draws, including a newspaper "draw" with Miske in 1918. Frazier both beat Ali and lost four other times to Ali and Foreman, but other than those two I don't see his competition as being as good as Marciano's. No one had Marciano down twice like Bonavena did. It is certainly no cinch that Frazier sweeps the Marciano era.