The ring magazine published this list in June 1996 and this info: Record 49-0 (43) Quality of competition: 7 Bouts vs Top 50 fighters: 2 Why he`s here: You can`t argue with perfection What he could have done to better his ranking: Beaten Joe Louis Ten years before he did. Does anyone agree or disagree with this?
No, it was a pound for pound list, Ray Robinson was No.1 and I don`t know if you`re talking about L.Lewis or Louis but this list was compiled in `96 and Lennox hadn`t established himself much by then and Joe L. wouldn`t be included because his prime finished before the 50 year cut off period forv this list, but if Marciano could beat a prime Louis ten Robinson would have agreed with you because he once stated Louis and Armstrong were the two greatest P4P fighters ever.
This guy looks like a Marciano/Jack Dempsey hybrid , only nowhere as good obviously. This content is protected How come nobody fights in that crouchy , swarming style anymore. Why couldn't Sanchez teach Gassiev how to pressure effectively like Maricano.
I said nearly the same thing about Kovalev. Dude doesn't move his head. If he crouched once in a while he might not get clobbered like he recently did.
No problem with this or higher. The "0" means something. The longer I am a boxing fan, the harder it is for me to qualify greatness. Are there such things as PfP? H2H? Who do you compare heavies in the eras when they were 185 to the eras when they were 230 and up? Bare knuckle to gloved? 12 rounds to 15 to 20 to 65 or more? Unified champs to alphabet champs? PEDS era guys to natural physiques? How do you compare guys who fought in eras were careers can be manufactured to eras when everyone took losses? Is if better to beat aging, formerly great champs, or fellow young contenders? Does quantity count, or just quality? If so, then is every guy who gets a lucky punch over a great also a great? What if he has a host of losses? The color line was so problematic, even for black fighters who drew it. And now that there is almost 150 years of Queensbury rules, is talking about a top 10 really sufficient, or do we have to start talking about a top 20 or 25? To an extent, I have come to agree with the late, great, Bert Randolph Sugar, who believed that the only way to judge a fighter is what he meant to his era, and the Rock towered above it. Marciano won five fights against three ATG heavies, and 1 against an all time light heavy who bounced around most heavies. We all know the names: Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore. He also beat a host of good contenders including Layne, Lastarza, Mathews, Savold, Beshore, Cockell. And who did he lose to--nobody. Who did he leave on table: Satterfield, Valdez, Baker. All of these guys had been beaten by Archie Moore and others. So really, nobody. The Rock had earned his place in the pantheon. Haters can hate.