Rocky Marciano seems to be...

The undefeated record and the spatting that goes on because of it is the reason for all the discussion, other factors come into play, but if he's 48-1 he isn't as polarizing at all.

Also, he is a difficult fighter to rate head to head, which is where alot of the non record related arguments come from. He made a career out of being able to win even if he looked bad doing it, so some look at the win, and others look at the near loss.

 

When people evaluate rocky's resume they just look at names. It was joe louis's last fight, walcott's two last fights, ezzard was done by then, i mean just look at his career in the mid 50s. Archie moore was 39.

Outside of them his resume has very little volume. Out of 49 fights, 35/36 were against street bums that are not even contenders.

 

at the end of the day, he was a spectacular fighter. call him a cruiser or a heavy, he was simply fantastic for his size. amazingly fit, perhaps a heavier Greb with his non-stop attacks. he beat everyone put before him and nothing more can be asked.

under-rated defense, somewhat over-rated power. the last guy you would ever want meet in an alley with bad intentions.

 

There will never be another heavyweight champion like Rocky. Whether he is under rated or over rated depends on how you view things.

I lean towards the very bottom of the top ten mostly because Rocky has a " O " at end of his record. I think the “ O “ was a result of talent, careful match making until Rocky was ready, had offs referee’s ( Avoiding DQ’s ) and ring doctors ( Stopping fights on cuts / swelling ), retiring at the age of 32, and perhaps a favorable nod on the judges cards. What can never be under rated is Rocky’s intangibles and will to win.

Reasons why I think Rocky is more over rated than under rated.

1 ) Historians and boxing scribes who saw Rocky had a consensus opinion of placing him about 7th or 8th of all time in the late 50's to early 60's. Nearly 50 years have passed since.

If someone were to ask me who was the best 5 basketball players of all time, Jordan, Bird, Chamberlin, O’Neal and Johnson make the cut.

If someone were to ask me who was the best quarter backs of all time, I'd say Unitas, Marino, Elway, Montana, and Brady.

And the beat goes on. My point here is Rocky did not make this cut in his era, and I for one tend to doubt the collective minds of those who saw him were that blind not see he was among the top 5 circa 1960.

2 ) Film Rocky looks both great and terrible at the same time. Could he afford to fight like this vs better opponents?

3 ) Size. Rocky was short, light of weight, and had limited reach. I believe all three matter in heavyweight boxing.

4 ) Quality of competiton when he met them. Rocky did not face a top 15 all time great when they were in their prime or near prime in my opinion. He beat a collection of older but still good past their prime fighters, who for the most part did not have a lot of power, size, or durability.

I refer to Rocky Marciano as the NFL Version of the 1972 Miami Dolphins, who also went und defeated. Miami won by narrow margin in some games, and ended up undefeated, but very few beleive they would rank in the top 5 best teams talent wise.

 

OK.
That's fine, but then if you agree with that position then you must still have 5 pre-Rocky heavyweights rated above him on your list, right ?
If the boxing scribes and historians of 1960 were right then, they are still right now.

So, who do you rate above Marciano who came before him ?

 

Well the normal names, Jim Corbett, Jim Jeff, Bob Fitz, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson. Gene Tunney. Most of these names would have been rated over the Rock at the time.

 

Yeah, sure, they probably were by many of the people offering all-time ratings.

But I wouldn't rate all of those fighters above Marciano now. Would you ?

I think Mendoza was implying that the historians/scribes of 1960 must have been correct, they cant all have been wrong. So, that means that Mendoza must have about 5 pre-Marciano fighters rated higher on his current list ?
(Or at least that's how I understood it).

I'm just interested in which pre-50s heavywewights Mendoza would rate above Marciano.

 

Well What other names ARE there to be rate over Marciano pre 1960 of couse. Ali and Liston have not reach the top of there games yet.
Most peope that did the rankings grew up in Dempsey's time though. With the Million $ gates. In fact, when Louis retire, Dempsey was rated number 1. And here is a guy that spend a good amout of his title rein, well OUT of the ring.

 

That's all good.
But my question was quite specific, and addressed to Mendoza.

Which pre-50s heavyweights does Mendoza rate above Marciano on his list ?

 

P4P among heavyweight champions, where would Rocky be ranked. P4P against: Lewis, Wlad, Foreman etc.....

 

If you want to rank the heavyweight champions pound-for-pound, then I cant see any reason not to have Marciano in the top 3.
245 pound guys like Lewis are at a disadvantage here.

 

Exactly. On papaer, he is obviously the most impressive of all time at heavyweight, which is untrue. Because you have the idea that he is the greatest of all-time, it leads people to pick him apart more.

I think most people give Marciano the respect he deserves. The best of his era, but it wasn't a good one. He has a deceptive record and probably doesn't rank in the top 5 in most peoples head to head lists. Good fighter, but is often overrated.

 

SIX consecutive defences of the championship is impressive.

Not many heavyweights champions have managed more than that.

 

I think most boxing experts, i.e. most people posting here give him his rightful spot in the top10 (i have him at #4 even). But under the "general" boxing fan (say, most people in the general forum) who don't really know him, see a goofy looking small guy so he has to suck.
I think he's the best heavyweight pre-Louis and the third best post-Louis.



Looking forward to your next deep thought of the day, John. That Australian beer is a killer isn't it.

 

Fraizer got 4
Foreman 3 in both title reins I belive.
Dempsey made 5
Fitz 0
Corbett 1
Walcott made 1
Bowe 0 I belive
Jess Wilard 1 sort of
Johnson made 5 I think
I mean Marciano in regards to title defenses range about in the middle.

Its not bad, but its not up there with Ali or Louis either.
If People are going to rank Bowe in the top ten, and turn around and said Marciano made 6, thus give him a lower ranking in that regard. Is that a double edge sword?