Where does Marciano rank all-time amongst the hws?

Yes and Tyson blew out Holmes, who you rank at #9, and ripped through his era's comp in dominitive fashion that was rarely seen. The point here? You rank Dempsey at #6, who destroyed all of his comp in his prime similiar to Tyson, but without an ATG of any sort like Tyson blasting out Holmes. You can also add the ATG LHW Michael Spinks, who lasted less than a minute and also had two close victories over Holmes.

If Dempsey is #6, why is Tyson so low? Dempsey avoided Wills.

Most of the time Wills is ranked lower top 20, but to each his own.

 

i said top ten....i think his achievements justify this but i tend to choose most greats over him in head to head match ups

 

Most of them, yes.

 

Holmes was shot, and didn´t fight for 1.5 years, and he didn´t have much time to train for this time, so this victory doesn´t count that much for me. The same with Spinks, Marciano for example is always getting critizing because his best wins were LHW´s, and now in Tyson´s case it was something other, what a double standard...

Dempsey didn´t avoid Wills, even Harry said it so, the contract was signed, Jack´s managment pulled out this fight, Dempsey couldn´t do something...

 

Exactly how many of them beat an oponent of the calibre of Marciano?

I mean really?

 

Lewis made 9 defenses of the lineal title, 8 successful. Holmes made 13, 12 successful. Tyson 3, 2 successful.

 

I am not saying that Tyson's competition over the LHW was something other. But Tyson surely puy the ATG LHW right out with no struggle at all, unlike Marciano, who often had very competitive fights with them.

Fights need to be judged on how they were won just as much as who they were against in my opinion.

 

To be fair though Marciano dose have a one round blowout of Walcott in the fight imidiately after he relieved him of the title.

Depending on how you interpret it this could be seen as a Tyson Spinks type win over a former champion.

 

That´s because Moore and Charles were much better fighters than Spinks at HW...

 

If Marciano had a loss on his record I don't think very many people would rank him in there top ten. It's the undefeated part of his record that impresses most people.

 

Based on what he did in his time and in his era then Rocky rates near the top or at the top. Based on head to head or quality of opposition then he dips down a bit. Going undefeated in any era is quite an accomplishment. No denying that but the best way to rate fighters I feel is based on a head to head basis. Who would've beaten whom if they had met in thier respective primes. Based on this I think Rocky rates anywhere between 10-12 in the rankings. I don't see him beating a prime Ali/Holmes/Foreman/Dempsey/Vlad Klitschko/Lewis or Louis and maybe even Holyfield for that matter. His size or lack of it would be a big handicap against these much bigger and more skilled opponents. Don't get me wrong. Marciano was as tough or even tougher relatively speaking and as well conditioned or better conditioned than any man who laid claim to the title. It's his lack of natural physical gifts that hold him back, height/reach/hand and foot speed that hurt him. Against men of similar size it was'nt such an overwhelming obstacle. But against more modern HW champs, Men who had the size,often considerable at times, speed and ability, I think Marciano does'nt rate so high. That's not an indictment against what Rocky accomplished. Rather it's an honest realistic assessment of what Rocky could accomplish against these men. It almost seems as if we have to have a cutoff time period when rating HW champs. Say from 1900-1950 and then 1950-2000(or present) to be really fair. Does that make sense to anyone out there?

 

I know this. Did you see my list Janitor?

I have Marciano ranked over Tyson, at #6. I am just arguing that Wills shouldn't be over him and that Tyson at least deserves a top 10 mention, in my case, I switch him between Liston-Holyfield depending on the mood.

 

No, it´s because he dominated his era. He beat all his opponents by the way of KO, he never struggled and needed the judges for helping him, and so on...

 

Tyson certainly did enough to merit a top 10 spot having dominated an era.

Wills for contrast is a unique case. Never held the title, no surviving film for practical purpouses, yet a closer inspection reveals something interesting.

OLD FOGEY did some analysis a couple of years back where he graded top heavyweights on their records against ranked contenders (or in Wills case those who would have been ranked by a conservative estimate had rankings existed then). Some of the results were surprising.

Harry Wills beat more world class heavyweights than anybody else including Ali and Louis. Another surprising winner was Jack Sharkey who came in about 7th.

Recently Wills has started showing up in a few top 10 lists in the classic section. This is certainly revisionist history in action but it is worth taking a closer look.

 

He didn't KO all of his opponents and a lot of people felt that LaStarza was robbed.