Thoughts on Marciano's resume?

Actually, Baker was indeed the #1 contender in the NBA rankings. He may have even been #1 in the Ring rankings but all we have to go on are year-end rankings showing him at #2 and a lot can happen in the previous 11 months. But this aside, I was answering the OP's question about Marciano's resume and if you look closely, you'll see I stated that had Rocky met the 2 big and top-rated men of his day, that I felt he could beat them. So what's this nonsense about the modern era looking backward? Like I'm trying to denigrate Rocky. The guys on this forum are very educated on the history of boxing. Are we not entitled to an opinion?

 

There is no nonsense...no one wanted to see these fights. There was no contemporary clamor for them.

When was Baker #1? How long did he keep that rating?

 

Who said Ken Norton was a club fighter? Based on what?

 

I think that criticizing Marciano for not fighting certain contenders, is being more than demanding.

This is a man who repeatedly defended against his #1 contender, twice within a twelve month period.

Most of us recently lived through a ten year period where that never happened.

 

He was a member of the “ Bad ass “ club !!!

 

And you would know that no one wanted to see these fights? What is this? Sounds like an affectation of the modern era looking backward.

 

The first Walcott fight in 1952 was a life and death struggle from the start! Decked for the first time in his career...cut and blinded for 4 rounds...way behind on all scorecards...going into the 13th round...and then "BANG! He had the S**T beat out of him...and he never QUIT! Compare that to Liston! Sonny QUIT for a LOT less! The first fight with Charles in June 1954 was a great brawl...Charles was ahead...and had Rocky cut. Marciano keeps pressing...they beat the hell out of each other! Look at their faces after the fight! Marciano & Charles showed their mettle that night! In the rematch 3 months later...Charles splits Rocky's nose down to the cartilage...and they can't stop the bleeding. Marciano is given one more round and he storms back...KO's Charles...and keeps his title! For all the young "Revisionists"...read about the fights...watch the fights...Did Liston take beatings like this and win? No!~ He QUIT! Tyson? No! He bit off a piece of Holyfield's ear to get DQ"d. Rocky beat everyone they put in front of him...

 

Rubbish. Show me the big clamor to have Marciano fight Bob Baker. Ridiculous.

 

He’s right no one wanted to see them. Baker and Nino were not looked at as threats. At all. They both consistently lose to men while being ranked 1 like Harold Johnson and Satterfield and Archie Moore. Marciano said in his biography it was thought by him and his team these weren’t big fights (at least Baker).

 

He had a weak era, but he dominated it and beat nearly every single relevant name. That's what you're supposed to do when you fight in a weak era: you go above and beyond to not only win, but do so convincingly. Rocky left a few question marks because there were very few big strong prime heavies to truly test him, but when he did get pushed he passed with flying colors. Undefeated, only 2 knockdowns that he quickly got up from, a staggering KO%, did even better in rematches, and frequently beat #1 contenders. You can criticize his crude style, lack of defense, coordination, balance, and the age of his best opponents, but his results are amazing.

 

Oh, that's right. It was overshadowed by the clamor for Marciano to risk his title against Don Cockell.

 

Not the point. No one was claiming that there was. Only that no one was clamoring for a Marciano-Valdez fight, and that is a modern thing due to Valdez' size, which is correct.

 

This is getting further and further away from the OP's question and my statement from page 2. The question was about Marciano's resume and I replied it was only missing the big heavyweight. Valdes and Baker were #1 and #2 and Al Weill deftly avoided them. You seem lost in idolatry to see what I'm talking about. Again, I'm not here to denigrate Rocky, he was an exceptional talent, but his record is sorely lacking the big heavy, which again, in my OP, clearly was stated that I felt Rocky would have beaten them. But if you think this was something minor, then why are we discussing it 70 years later? He's your hero, I get it, but let's not pretend we would be having this discussion if he had taken on either one of the big boys instead of Cockell.

 

Highly controversial, but something we still break down even today.

Personally, I think he should have sealed up 50-0, even against an easy final opponent. Something for the fans, they could have broadcast it on the radio and TV, and made a big event of it.

His resume as it stands is actually quite decent, just much fewer defenses than most of the greats we think of. Even Wilder has almost twice as many defenses.

Another knock, out of his six defenses, two of them were rematches, which narrows down his championship opponents even further.

And of course many people will always believe that first Ezzard Charles fight should be retroactively changed to a TKO loss. They basically robbed Charles of a legit TKO and the HW championship of the world.

 

And I correctly pointed out that the idea that he should have fought the "big" heavyweights is a modern thing. No one was clamoring for those fights back then.