Rocky Marciano, the undefeated champion..

maybe... but still... cus damato saw marciano and he said that he would have no chance against foreman or liston... and lamotta saw marciano and he said that tyson was bigger ,better and stronger...

 

His resume aint as deep as a lot of others, hence peoples reluctance to rank him no1. Having an 'O' doesnt necessarily equate to being the best ever i.e. Ottke, Terry Marsh. Dont get me wrong, i rate Marciano a lot higher than some in this forum and im not being disrespectful towards his 49-0. Marciano gives ANYONE a hard nights work, make no mistake about it.

 

AAaaarrreee you Combateoboxeo in disguise!!?????? Are you Cooombateeooooo iiiinnn disguise!!!?artytime

 

Marciano was a great pound for pound fighter. Pound for pound he was an all time top heavyweight .. I personally don't believe he'd do too well against the best of the much bigger men based on his size and style ... thats about that ..

 

I think being undefeated is over rated. The very best have all lost at some point.

 

one of the most underrated fighters of all time (here on esb at least) but that doesn't mean that he's #1. Undefeated isn't that big a deal.

 

And Ali sparred with an old Marciano and from that brief sparring session, Rocky made a huge impression on him. Marciano is the only person Ali never bad mouthed and never 100% picked himself to beat Marciano.

 

Marciano was rated number one by some, he dropped as years went by. Walcott fight--he is only guy who wins that bout, maybe a Joe Louis or Tyson does too. Blinded during middle rounds, hung in, fast pace, one punch ko over great fighter. Ezzard Charles, latley is being called 'Old" in Marciano fights was not old, and still great. That second bout--freak nose cut, nose split, he comes out and ko's Charles.

Marciano ruinded carreers, Rex Layne and La starza, along with Charles, were never same. If they were, and continued as they had been doing before Marcian bouts, they would be ranked higher, and Marciano would have had a grea trematch with Layne if he had recoveered %100 from pounding Rocky gave him.

People criticsize his reach. He reached opponents chins, that's only reach that counts. Before title he had people saying he was not built right, or not talented enough. He proved that to be untrue. Some people, for whatever reasons, won't accept him.

 

I dont think this is true at all. In fact, the very best very rarely if ever lose, until they get old or slacken off. Certainly, once they hit prime they never do.

Sullivan never lost until old. Corbett never lost until old and retired. fitz never lost until old. Jeffries never lost until old. Johnson is an exception to the rule. Dempsey never lost, once he hit prime, until old. Tunney lost once only and avenged it. Louis lost once only. Marciano never lost. Liston lost once only until old. Ali never lost until he went inactive. Holmes never lost until he got old. Tyson never lost until he got old.

The best fighters who have lost and still been considered great are Lewis, Klitchsko, Holyfield, Foreman and Frazier. but there arent as many of these. I think that it is ridiculous to suggest that having no losses isnt important. Admittedly there is the occassional Ottke factor, but Rocky is different because he fought the best available.

 

Good one...
Jack Johnson wouldn't survive 10 rounds against Rocky.

Jack Dempsey would probably have the best chance to KO Rocky from all of the HW champions before him.
Joe Louis probably too, but i don't like his static style and beard against Rock.

 

He definitely has a better resume then say Jack Johnson,Floyd Patterson or as much as it hurts me to say Jack Dempsey.

 

Ah, well, I think Marciano is a hard one to put into perspective. People look at his record, at his size and at his resume and critizise it. Saying he would have never wnt 49-0 in another era, he would be too small and that his best opponents were all past it old men. While there is some truth in all of it, it´s also all wrong. At the same time.

Marciano would never have went 49-0 in another era. Yes, very likely - although I think swap him with Dempsey or Tyson in the 80s or Wlad now and it is possible. But does it matter? Can you rank a fighter on what he perhaps would have done in another era? Really? Doesn´t make it more sense to look at what a fighter did in his era and compare it to what other fighterd did in their eras? Marciano went 49-0, every one of his defences during his reign was against the number one contender bar one which was against the number two. Which other champion can say this of himself? I can´t think of one. This alone makes his resume very good. Well, if his record of 49-0 wasn´t that special why wasn´t it equalized by anyone? Holmes nearly got it but got beaten by a blown up lhw. Well, Marciano beat his "blown up lhws" up and both were much, much better hws than Spinks. Alone the fact that no other hw in any other era was able to repeat his feat of going 49-0 makes it big.

Marciano was a small hw, he could never have competed with the big hws from the 60s/70s on. Yes, very likely that he would have lost to someone like Liston, Ali, Foreman, Holmes or Lewis. But again, does it matter? Do you people rank fighters on some fantasy matches? Or do you rank them on what they actually did? Well, Marciano was small. Most of the fighters he beat were bigger than him. Marciano made an advantage out of his size. He was the hw that mastered fighting small to perfection. He made himself even smaller than he was to avoid the punches of his opponents, to make them punch down and thus taking away some of their snap and precision, making their punches longer and easier to see. I don´t see how this could lower his standing amongst the atgs. It should enhance it. When people talk about Fitz, Greb, Armstrong and so on they are astonished about their feat of beating bigger guys. When they talk about Rocky, they say he was too small to compete against bigger guys. Compare that to Lewis who was bigger than nearly all of his opponents. This is used to enhance his standing amongst the great hws. But beating up smaller fighters should actually lower it. When people talk about Monzon and Hopkins they critizise them for fighting smaller fighters. But with Lewis it enhances his status. Double standards.

Marciano´s best opponents were all past their best and old. That´s although true to an extent. It was discussed over and over alrady on here. Aside of Louis all of them put on a superb performance against Marciano the first time they fought. Walcott and Charles were as good as they ever were at hw despite age. And Moore put on a great effort, knocking the champ down before getting grinded down and came of the best streak of his career. Remember Louis was ranked above Marciano when they fought and came of a serious winning streak, including a KO over Walcott. So, why is Marciano getting sh*t for taking care of business? Why do people look at the age of his opponents instead of looking at the actual fights and circumstances of those fights? Not even talking that Marciano wasn´t really a young champ himself. Compare that to Holmes who only rarely (less than Marciano at least) get´s sh*t for struggling more with older (and worse) fighters like Norton or Shavers or young, inexperienced ones like Witherspoon. Why is that? Or what about Lewis? His best wins are over older, past their prime opponents like Holyfield or Tyson. I don´t see people critizising this very often - apart from some Tyson fans. Why is that?

I think when it comes to Marciano people just tend to see only negatives everywhere. Why is that? I´m not a fan of Rocky. But you got to recognize that what he did was special, that he is amongst the greatest hws ever. Personally, I only rate Ali, Louis and Jack Johnson above him. And I think he deserves very much to rank there.

 

Watch the flims, and he has his hands full with slightly past their prime fighters, and sometimes fails to finish weak opposition early. Marciano may have got a favorable decision vs LaStarza and Lowry. In a head to head sense, he is very small with a t-rex like reach. Top ten is fine. #1? no way.

 

When I first joined ESB in 2003 more people had him as a no1 and more people had him beating Ali.

The reasons he doesn't rate that highly on my list:

1. He was only champion for 3years
2. His comp isn't the highest quality and the best are all past prime
3. His 49-0 is quite deceptive, he didn't step up to world level until he was 25-0 when he won a controversal SD over LaStarza, then he didn't step up to world class again until his 36th fight. Effectively out of the 49 opponents most are fluff

 

ali was being humble... please... if ali ali had wanted to fight seriously he would hurt badly old marciano... please... marciano had the pressure style to give ali problems but it was because his style, not because he was marciano...