I don't know if any of you saw the 50 greatest boxers of all time on ESPN.com but I personally thought Rocky Marciano was horribly ranked at 14. That's ridiculous. We're looking at the only undefeated heavyweight champ ever and they put him at 14. BULL****! I understnad he didn't fight Ali or whatever but for his time who was bigger than Rocky? Where do you think the Brockton Blockbuster should rank?

These are intrinsically subjective things, so... but it doesn't seem so bad to me. The only guy on the list who's ahead of him who I'd put behind him would be Sugar Ray Leonard, but I'm sure many would disagree. I'm sure there are also plenty of guys behind Marciano who one could argue should be ahead, so ... :dunno: certainly it's nothing to write your senator about ;^>


1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Joe Louis
5. Willie Pep
6. Roberto Duran
7. Benny Leonard
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Sam Langford
11. Joe Gans
12. Sugar Ray Leonard
13. Harry Greb
14. Rocky Marciano

i hope they put tyson on the list.

Ohh..I didn't expect any other Heavies to be in that list up to 20, so i'm surprised they actually put Marciano in the top 15.

yaman, when r u making another good boxing video like you did with the top 10 ko's :D

yaman, when r u making another good boxing video like you did with the top 10 ko's :D

I guess my routine is every 2 months bro:D First i'll have to think of something, i don't it'll be another top 10 or something like that. I'll let you know(or you can subscribe to my profile on youtube)

Tyson is on the list at a big old 50.

Like his amount of wins

***sigh***

Having him as low as 14 puzzles me to be honest.

3 things off the bat wrong with that list.

1. Julio Cesar Chavez being ranked ahead of Marvin Hagler.
2. Erik Morales being in a top 50 p4p list in general
3. Using mainstream appeal as a criteria in making up the list.

3 things off the bat wrong with that list.

1. Julio Cesar Chavez being ranked ahead of Marvin Hagler.
2. Erik Morales being in a top 50 p4p list in general
3. Using mainstream appeal as a criteria in making up the list.

Agreed, and their mainstream appeal rating doesnt make sense either when tyson and oscar are so low. I think they showed lots of respect for marciano, he got ranked above foreman, tyson, holmes, frazier, liston, patterson, lewis, and holy. Frankly he doesnt deserve to be above all those guys.

Thats what I said no respect for the Rock. He was a ****in amazing boxer. Nobody gives him credit for that. No one was eveb on his page at that time. And to answer brian99's thing I don't even think Patterson made the list which is ridiculous.

Thats what I said no respect for the Rock. He was a ****in amazing boxer. Nobody gives him credit for that. No one was eveb on his page at that time. And to answer brian99's thing I don't even think Patterson made the list which is ridiculous.

Why should marciano have been higher than 14? I don't think so.

Roberto Duran ahead Marciano ...NOPE!!!!

I guess my routine is every 2 months bro:D First i'll have to think of something, i don't it'll be another top 10 or something like that. I'll let you know(or you can subscribe to my profile on youtube)done :D....

I don't know if any of you saw the 50 greatest boxers of all time on ESPN.com but I personally thought Rocky Marciano was horribly ranked at 14. That's ridiculous. We're looking at the only undefeated heavyweight champ ever and they put him at 14. BULL****! I understnad he didn't fight Ali or whatever but for his time who was bigger than Rocky? Where do you think the Brockton Blockbuster should rank?

I also think that it's ridiculous of ESPN.com to put Rocky Marciano at #14.
To me, he is the greatest heavyweight fighter of all time. He fought 49 fights and never
lost. He should be ranked #1.

I could see Duran being ahead of Marciano. Some historians have him down as one of the ten greatest fighters to ever step in a ring.

Sugar Ray Leonard is low. Where you put JCC is where you put Delahoya...they are the two greatest Mexicans ever if the Mexicans ever consider DeloHoya as Mexican.

Ezzard Charles should be higher.

I have said it a million times and I will say it a million more. A boxer is only as good as the people he beat...i.e his competition. BOTTOM LINE. Sometimes it sucks like in the case of Roy Jones Jr. or a Mike Tyson but it is what it is.

You have to rate a fighter on the quality of opposition and who he beat to make up his legacy. You can be 40-0 but if those 40 are nothing but bums then you shouldn't be ranked so high. I'm not saying Marciano fought nothing but bums but to put him ahead of the elite fighters of the 60's and 70's is tough, very tough.

I have said it a million times and I will say it a million more. A boxer is only as good as the people he beat...i.e his competition. BOTTOM LINE. Sometimes it sucks like in the case of Roy Jones Jr. or a Mike Tyson but it is what it is.

You have to rate a fighter on the quality of opposition and who he beat to make up his legacy. You can be 40-0 but if those 40 are nothing but bums then you shouldn't be ranked so high. I'm not saying Marciano fought nothing but bums but to put him ahead of the elite fighters of the 60's and 70's is tough, very tough.

Great post.:fing02:

I also think that it's ridiculous of ESPN.com to put Rocky Marciano at #14.
To me, he is the greatest heavyweight fighter of all time. He fought 49 fights and never
lost. He should be ranked #1.

:haha:.........

I have said it a million times and I will say it a million more. A boxer is only as good as the people he beat...i.e his competition. BOTTOM LINE. Sometimes it sucks like in the case of Roy Jones Jr. or a Mike Tyson but it is what it is.

You have to rate a fighter on the quality of opposition and who he beat to make up his legacy. You can be 40-0 but if those 40 are nothing but bums then you shouldn't be ranked so high. I'm not saying Marciano fought nothing but bums but to put him ahead of the elite fighters of the 60's and 70's is tough, very tough.
Rocky marciano fought and beat archie moore, ezzard charles twice, jersey joe walcott twice and joe lious..he never ****ing lost...

Rocky marciano fought and beat archie moore, ezzard charles twice, jersey joe walcott twice and joe lious..he never ****ing lost...

He's not the only one who would have "never lost" fighting the same people Rocky fought.

I have said it a million times and I will say it a million more. A boxer is only as good as the people he beat...i.e his competition. BOTTOM LINE. Sometimes it sucks like in the case of Roy Jones Jr. or a Mike Tyson but it is what it is.

You have to rate a fighter on the quality of opposition and who he beat to make up his legacy. You can be 40-0 but if those 40 are nothing but bums then you shouldn't be ranked so high. I'm not saying Marciano fought nothing but bums but to put him ahead of the elite fighters of the 60's and 70's is tough, very tough.

great post! :boxing:

He's not the only one who would have "never lost" fighting the same people Rocky fought.
YOU GUYS ARE WRONG..

YOU ARE ONLY COMPARED TO THE GREATS OF YOUR ERA. COMPARE IT TO BASEBALL. IS BARRY BONDS REALLY A BETTER BALL PLAYER THAN HANK AARON? BETWEEN THE JUICE, THE JUICED UP BALLS AND THE WATERED DOWN PITCHING (SO MANY MORE TEAMS) YOU JUST CANT COMPARE. WHO WOULDA WON JACK JOHNSON OR TYSON? WHO WAS STRONGER. I DUNNO BUT ONE THING I DO KNOW. YOU COMPARE A CHAMPION TO HIS CONTEMPORARIES NOT TO PEOPLE IN THE SPORT 30 YEARS LATER!!!!

YOU GUYS ARE WRONG..

YOU ARE ONLY COMPARED TO THE GREATS OF YOUR ERA. COMPARE IT TO BASEBALL. IS BARRY BONDS REALLY A BETTER BALL PLAYER THAN HANK AARON? BETWEEN THE JUICE, THE JUICED UP BALLS AND THE WATERED DOWN PITCHING (SO MANY MORE TEAMS) YOU JUST CANT COMPARE. WHO WOULDA WON JACK JOHNSON OR TYSON? WHO WAS STRONGER. I DUNNO BUT ONE THING I DO KNOW. YOU COMPARE A CHAMPION TO HIS CONTEMPORARIES NOT TO PEOPLE IN THE SPORT 30 YEARS LATER!!!!


Yes but when you are discussing the greatest of ALL time it is still somthing you have to consider.

YOU GUYS ARE WRONG..

YOU ARE ONLY COMPARED TO THE GREATS OF YOUR ERA. COMPARE IT TO BASEBALL. IS BARRY BONDS REALLY A BETTER BALL PLAYER THAN HANK AARON? BETWEEN THE JUICE, THE JUICED UP BALLS AND THE WATERED DOWN PITCHING (SO MANY MORE TEAMS) YOU JUST CANT COMPARE. WHO WOULDA WON JACK JOHNSON OR TYSON? WHO WAS STRONGER. I DUNNO BUT ONE THING I DO KNOW. YOU COMPARE A CHAMPION TO HIS CONTEMPORARIES NOT TO PEOPLE IN THE SPORT 30 YEARS LATER!!!!

I gotta give it to him. He's right.

I gotta give it to him. He's right.
thank you buddy...

YOU GUYS ARE WRONG..

YOU ARE ONLY COMPARED TO THE GREATS OF YOUR ERA. COMPARE IT TO BASEBALL. IS BARRY BONDS REALLY A BETTER BALL PLAYER THAN HANK AARON? BETWEEN THE JUICE, THE JUICED UP BALLS AND THE WATERED DOWN PITCHING (SO MANY MORE TEAMS) YOU JUST CANT COMPARE. WHO WOULDA WON JACK JOHNSON OR TYSON? WHO WAS STRONGER. I DUNNO BUT ONE THING I DO KNOW. YOU COMPARE A CHAMPION TO HIS CONTEMPORARIES NOT TO PEOPLE IN THE SPORT 30 YEARS LATER!!!!

Thats not a good analogy because you just can't compaire a team sport to a sport that only you are competing in. And I am compairing Marciano to his contemporaries. I said in the post he fought good fighters, that all weren't bums but the 60's and 70's were so deep it was rediculous.

I mean a 44 years old and washed up Foreman won the title damn near 20 years later, that alone tells you how good the competition was in the 60's and 70's. Marciano beat some greats no doubt but his win over Joe Lewis was bogus, Lewis was WAAYYYY past his prime and so was Jersey Joe Walcott. Marciano will always be remembered as one of the greatest, I just can't put him top 5 all time, no way.

I'll give you that Louis was past his prime but past that I think most of his other big name fights were legitimate. Oh yeah danny stash we disagree about the Power of One but I agree with you on Marciano.

As a boxer marciano wasnt no great, he had a good chin and a good punch, his defensive skills were really lacking. I dont hate marciano but when i saw espns top 20 boxers of all time and he was in top ten i was shaking my head..but then again they had henry armstrong number 6 and sugar ray robinson number 3...so **** em.

No one ever beat the Rock so theres nothing to say anyone could. I rate him very highly he's the only undefeated heavyweight champion no one can take anything away from him.

YOU GUYS ARE WRONG..

YOU ARE ONLY COMPARED TO THE GREATS OF YOUR ERA. COMPARE IT TO BASEBALL. IS BARRY BONDS REALLY A BETTER BALL PLAYER THAN HANK AARON? BETWEEN THE JUICE, THE JUICED UP BALLS AND THE WATERED DOWN PITCHING (SO MANY MORE TEAMS) YOU JUST CANT COMPARE. WHO WOULDA WON JACK JOHNSON OR TYSON? WHO WAS STRONGER. I DUNNO BUT ONE THING I DO KNOW. YOU COMPARE A CHAMPION TO HIS CONTEMPORARIES NOT TO PEOPLE IN THE SPORT 30 YEARS LATER!!!!

So that makes Jim Jeffries the greatest of all-time!:omfg:

As a boxer marciano wasnt no great, he had a good chin and a good punch, his defensive skills were really lacking. I dont hate marciano but when i saw espns top 20 boxers of all time and he was in top ten i was shaking my head..but then again they had henry armstrong number 6 and sugar ray robinson number 3...so **** em.

great post! Good k.