At least he was going bald naturally and not from steroid use like several fghters have done in more recent times.
Nothing natural about having more hair when you are 45 than you did at 30. This content is protected The man was a fraud!
Because he was 49-0 with 43 KO's....and he's not every bodies idea about what a heavyweight champ should look an be like!! He's not flashy...he doesn't have great footwork...he's not "colorful". He just gave you everything he had for 3 minutes of every round....he backed down from no one....beat everyone they put in front of him...and that's all you can ask of any fighter. I've seen a lot of crap on other sites...mainly from young guys who don't read or do much research...they just spew crap that they hear from someone that they know...who says.."He's too small ...he beat a bunch of old men...he gets credit 'cause he's white....if he was black...he would be criticized....blah blah...blah!!!" SSDD...."Same ****...Different Day!!!" The man was the best of his time.....
On Facebook and other internet boards, the same one's who say Marciano fought "old men" go out of their way to praise AJ's win over 41 year old Wladimir Klitchsko, who to date, is AJ's best win. I've even seen it billed as Wlad's "best performance" obviously in an effort to boost the quality of the win. While it was a good win, Wladimir was 8 years older than 33 year old Ezzard Charles, 4 years older than 37 year old Joe Louis, 3 years older than 38 year old Jersey Joe Walcott and about the same age as Archie Moore or perhaps 2 years older depending on whether he was born in 1913 or 1916. I agree that one ought to look at performance rather than age, but Walcott's performance vs Marciano was arguably better, at least equal, to Wlad's performance vs Anthony Joshua. And if AJ and Wilder fight in 2018, Wilder will be turning 33, the same age Charles turned in 1954. So should AJ defeat him, he'd have a 33 year old and 41 year old as top wins, but I doubt anyone will say "he only beat old men".
Back in the day no one was worried about legacy and Rocky was no different, and yet, was ,revered for decades. Time has passed to the point now where everyone questions a title reign. Rocky could definitely have done his legacy a lift if he added in a couple of the bigger heavies of the day such as Nino Valdez and Bob Baker - both whom I think he could have handled. But again, no one was worried about that back then, just making sure they got a good purse. Rocky certainly achieved more than what was expected of him back in the day with short arms and awkward style. But Charley Goldman worked wonders on his style and created something special. He was one of my Dad's favorites and I still hold him in high esteem.
I doubt that he would be invincible against some of the men Tyson, Lennox, and Wlad beat fairly easily. That's no disrespect to him or his legacy though. He was certainly an ATG and led a remarkable career.
So he's a fraud because he wore a toupee? I guess these men are frauds as well? http://www.ranker.com/list/celebrities-who-wear-hair-pieces/celebrity-lists
Marciano was a quiet humble fighter who never bragged about his accomplishments, never spoke negatively about his opponents prior to fights or after. So personality wise there isn't much to criticize. In fact, he himself was a fan of Joe Louis as he was growing up and did not want to fight him but was forced into it and wept and apologized to Joe personally after the fight. He later helped Joe out financially when the IRS did a number on Joe and Joe was hospitalized. So if he is intensely disliked it can't be based on a character flaw.
I don't think there is a dislike for Rocky tbh. Most people favour him over most people weighing 200 or less. I just think people are realistic about what a 180 pound man can achieve today in a division full of 240 pounders.