I was wondering, since by todays standards Marciano is just a Cruserweight. How do you think he would do against the Cruserweights from 2000 untill now like Adamek, Haye and Juan Carlos Gomez?
It's an interesting question that is difficult to answer because people have trouble changing their thinking from that which is framed by the older categories. If we suggest that Marciano doesn't do that well against the best cruiserweights, then we have to also admit that Charles and Walcott wouldn't have been among the best cruiserweights. Charles and Walcott are so defined by their (manufacture) legendary status as heavyweights that it becomes impossible to imagine that Marciano wouldn't have been the greatest cruiserweight ever. And around we go. I predict that virtually everybody who responds to this thread will argue that Marciano is one of the very best, if not the best, cruiserweight of all time. (weird, but the word "j u s t i n g" is starred out.)
My opinion on the issue is that Rocky Marciano would have convincingly beaten probably every cruiserweight of the past 10 years, and probably the vast majority that ever existed.. The only Cruiserweight that I might have given a shot against him was Evander Holyfield, but given how green Holy was, I'm not so sure that even he'd prevail.
Holyfield is the only CW that I'm aware of who would stand a chance. Holyfield is/was a great, great fighter. But Marciano had one of the hardest punches in the history of the HW division. At CW he'd be lethal.
Rocky Marciano, Jack Dempsey and Evander Holyfield would be the greatest cruiserweights in history...1, 2 and 3...Jerry Quarry #4. I would consider Ezzard Charles, Gene Tunney, Michael Spinks and Bob Foster all who also fought at that higher weight as all time natural light heavyweight greats though.
