Rocky Marciano seems to be...

Oh common,

You mean you have no fondness for Brian Neilson for beating some of the utter palookas that he fought? He was the palooka king. In fact I'm thinking about writing some sort of rhiming tune in honor of him.

Something like this

Mooka-Mooka-Mooka---Neilson the king of Palooka----Mooka Mooka Mooka Just come and have a looka!!!

Okay, back to my day job:good

 

Mendoz says:

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.

To answer your question directly, I only have three. They are Jeffries, Dempsey, and Louis. However, I didn't see enough Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, Langford, Wills, McVey to judge. Many of the people I was referring to in the 1950’s did.

Dominate athletes tend to jump out and instantaly challenge past greats. Rocky was not held as high in esteem by the press or the historians in his own time.

 

No one in football pretends the 1972 Dolphins would win a super bowl in the modern football era. They simply did not have the size or speed to match up with modern teams. I also believe they lacked the athletes of some of the other great teams after them.

The entire 1972 Miami Dolphins team passed for 2,076 yards, 17TD, 12 INT. That is it in 14 games.


The 1972 Dolphins team did go un-defeated, but like C.M Clay says things were in flux them. The Steelers, Cowboys, and Raiders were about to emerge. This parallels with Rocky Marciano. Charles, Walcott, and Louis were on the outs. Marciano was at his best. Patterson, Ingo and Liston were on the horizon.

The Dolphins were not the best team in their own decade. Pittsburgh and Dallas were better. And before them Green Bay was better in the 1960's.

 

I guess none of us are in the position to know exactly how the likes of Sullivan and Fitz and McVey shape up against Marciano.

I notice you dont rate Johnson above Marciano, but all of those historians you refer to would have done, right ?

On your last point, were many of these boxing historians and scribes instantly impressed to that degree by a young Muhammad Ali ?

 

Correct, none of us in 2008 are in position to know exactly what the likes of Sullivan, Ftiz, McVey et al had. I think Johnson is compeletly over rated and I can say this because there is a good amount of film on him. I rate Rocky over Johnson even though Johnson beat better fighters on paper.

Ali turned people off by in the 1960’s by being what many people perceived to be anti USA with his Black Muslim stances. I don't think Ali did enough to be top 5 until he beat Frazier, Foreman, and Norton. Having said that, old time critics did agree that Ali was the fastest of the champions. The critics were instantly impressed by Ali's speed.


I think Ali was on his way up into the top ten, until Frazier beat him in 1971.

 

The NFL is always in flux. What is this supposed to mean? Miami had the best single season record in NFL history (1972)-The best two year record (1972-1973), the best 3 year record (1971-1973) & the best 4 year record (1971-1974). They won in 1972 and 1973 defeating the best teams available, as I pointed out. Many of the other great teams did not defeat their chief rivals. How many teams have had the best regular season record for two straight years and swept the playoffs. Not many. Dallas beat them in 1971 but lost to Miami in 1973. Pittsburg lost in 1972 and 1973. Oakland won a close one in Oakland in 1973 but was crushed in the playoffs. You have an unsubstantiated opinion that this or that team would have beaten Miami, but the fact is they were the best team until they began losing stars (Warfield, Csonka, Kiick, Buoniconti, Fernandez).
As for Miami not winning today-neither would Green Bay, Oakland, Dallas, or Pittsburg. None of these teams, with their largest players in the 260 lb class and playing under vastly different rules, could compete today. But in their time and place, Miami was a superior team.

I looked up the stats on 1972 Miami and 2007 New England. There are interesting. Remember that the rules have changed a great deal and even the field--the hash marks have been moved closer to the middle of the field.
points per game---New England 36.8, Miami 27.5
Defensive points allowed---New England 17.1, Miami 12.2
Yards per passing play-----New England 8.3, Miami 8.6
Yards per running play-----New England 4.1, Miami 4.8
defensive yards per rush----New England 4.9, Miami 4.0
defensive yards per pass--New England 6.4, Miami 5.8

Clearly you couldn't match these teams as the rules have changed and players are so much bigger, but in their own time, Miami has by far the better rushing attack and also the better rushing defense. New England, great as they are, are vulnerable to the rush. Miami had a great rushing attack. One can claim Miami would have lost to this team or that team, but a look at the stats shows that they were a balanced team without a weakness. They averaged more yards per rush and per pass than New England, and gave up fewer yards per rush and fewer yards per pass than New England. New England still has a ways to go to be 32-2 over two years.

 

"He was not a Superman, he was one of us."

The first time I saw The Rock "live" was in 1953 on our small
round black & white TV and my Dad had invited his construction buddies to come over to watch the fight. Dad went back to get the brewski's for everyone, and Marciano then knocked out Walcott in the first ound before he could get back to see any of the fight.

 

Longhhorn, what was your opinion of him back then and how has it changed since you saw him again ?