What is the biggest knock against Marciano's Legacy

I pretty much agree with you.

I think Walcott was as good as ever vs. Marciano, at least in their first fight. He was knocked out in the 1st round of their rematch, it's a little hard to tell if he was washed up or not... he trained hard for that fight though.

Moore was as good as ever vs. Marciano. He went on to win many more fights only losing 3 times over the next 6 1/2 years. 1 of the losses was avenged, the other 2 were to Patterson and Ali.

Charles was still very good. He was past prime but he was well prepared for his fights vs. Marciano and really rose to the occasion. I think he was better vs. Marciano than he was vs. Harold Johnson or Niño Valdes (close fights that could have went Charles' way).

Louis was pretty well past prime but he had won 8 fights in a row, 3 by KO, including wins over C. Brion x2, F. Beshore, O. Agramonte x2, L. Savold, and Hall of Famer J. Bivins. He could have continued beating guys like this for a few more years Marciano ended all of that.

 

Plenty of other people did with positive results.

Neuhaus lost 6 times from 1952-1956, 3 times by KO.

Dunlop lost 7 times during the same time frame, 5 times by KO.

So... Rocky Marciano ducked these guys???

 

Are you really suggesting that those two guys deserved a fight with Marciano?

 

Trouble is a SHW as we understand them today had not been invented yet.

The same way 260lb cyclists and marathon runners have not been invented yet, but who knows what the future holds?

There was big guys back then, but not enough was yet in place for them to be quite as functionally effective with their size as giants now can be.

All the stuff that can allow a giant to be as effective as they appear today was not yet in place.

It's just silly to say all giants were oafs until Lennox Lewis. Nothing favoured giants then. They were unable to utilise their potential under standard practice of the day that favoured Speed, endurance, tempo and technique.

Everything favours them now.

 

it dosnt hold 260 lb cyclists and runners. simple anatomy and cardi.

same way faling standards have allowed gassing giants to step in and capitalise.

 

I see no real knock on his resume. Weak era or not, he did everything that a champion is expected to do. legacies shouldn't be knocked for things that were beyond a fighter's control. For that reason his legacy remains perfectly in tact in my opinion. Where things become controversial is when he's picked in head to head fantasy fights over certain other opponents. But that shouldn't have a bearing on the accomplishments that he ACTUALLY established.

 

Anyone's resume can be picked apart.

Marciano likely lost the first LaStarza fight 6-4, and a draw vs. Ted Lowry might have been a fairer verdict.

But Rocky had a very short amateur career of 12 fights and took a few years to sharpen his skills.

His biggest knocks to me are thus:

His contemporaries historians, many of whom were watching boxing from 1900 viewed him as a solid but not special champion. Not in Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey's or Louis class.

In his time, he wasn't too small, but his lack of size would be a major drawback today.

 

Agree with every word. It's not a knock on him per se, but us a stick that can be used to beat him with in a rankings discussion providing your criteria is h2h.

 

Had he done what Dempsey and Louis did and slayed the giants of his day, he'd be more favourable in h2h matches.

They didn't exist in that era though which is a shame.

 

For me, the argument that Marciano or any other old champion couldn't compete today because of the size explosion is the weakest of all.

The argument is equally true of old NFL or NBA teams, but I don't dispute that not only modern champions, but mediocre teams, would almost certainly defeat the Auerbach Celtics or the Lombardi Pack-rs. Size counts, and these sports have also advanced in other ways,

but I can't see rating mediocrity in one era over greatness in a previous era.

 

My, my, my, what a nasty, vulgar little man you are.

All because I'm on to your little agenda.

 

These aren't knocks on his legacy though... Some examples of knocks, are ducking a mandatory challenger. Or refusing to rematch a fighter who should have gotten a decision over him .. Or having a title stripped. Or getting caught cheating. Opinions of contemporary historians ( especially ones made while his career was in progress ) or comments about his size aren't legacy knocks.

 

If there is one argument which is weaker for me than comparing old champions to modern super-heavyweights,

it is the "contemporaries" said argument.

This boils down, in the case of Nat Fleischer for example, to saying that all the champions of the 1890's--Corbett, Fitz, and Jeffries--were better than Louis, Marciano, and Tunney, and Jeff and Fitz were also better than Dempsey.

Not only film, but records, and any kind of logic (a sport which is widely illegal in a rural country was much better than the sport at its peak of popularity in an urbanizing country) point to the contrary.

and having fifty plus year old memories, I can attest that aging memories are not always reliable.