View Full Version : The Most Overrated ''Old School Fighter''?


winky44
06-28-2009, 11:49 PM
Who is it??????????

mickey malone
06-29-2009, 06:47 AM
Who is it??????????
I'm always apprehensive on this sort of question..
As the first respondant.. I'm putting myself in the line of fire..
This will undoubtedly upset some people..

Sugar Ray Robinson & Rocky Marciano fall into this category..

Although both ATG.. Some peoples opinions tend to go beyond the super human..
By todays standards it would be B/Hop and Paul Williams..

Sugarj
06-29-2009, 10:52 AM
Robinson's ability is clear to anyone who has watched him extensively. His combinations are fantastic and he was clearly extremely fast, durable and supremely fit.

I'm sure he'd do well at welter through middle in any era!

The guy I'll get into trouble about is Carlos Monzon, I never felt his actual ability was that high, even though his record was terrific. I honestly think that Hagler, Robinson and Hopkins were vastly superior fighters.

Slimey Limey
06-29-2009, 11:17 AM
Easily Joe Louis and Ray Robinson.

winky44
06-29-2009, 11:32 AM
Easily Joe Louis and Ray Robinson.

wow........reasons?

mickey malone
06-29-2009, 11:43 AM
Robinson's ability is clear to anyone who has watched him extensively. His combinations are fantastic and he was clearly extremely fast, durable and supremely fit.

I'm sure he'd do well at welter through middle in any era!

The guy I'll get into trouble about is Carlos Monzon, I never felt his actual ability was that high, even though his record was terrific. I honestly think that Hagler, Robinson and Hopkins were vastly superior fighters.
No it wasn't.. But he was 'Granite' hard...

An absolutely huge MW.. Would probably come in the ring nearer 175..

Tall, rangey & incredibly strong...

Even more amazingly.. He'd make Ricardo Myorga look like a choir boy when it came to partying.. Smoked & drank like a trooper.. He was wild....Really wild!

Slimey Limey
06-29-2009, 04:15 PM
wow........reasons?

Joe Louis is often called the greatest Heavyweight of all time. They even have him in the top 3 ATGs P4P?? That's pukingly offensive. The lad had a bum of the month club title reign, was knocked down by virtually everybody even by bums, struggled with many of his opponents including Light Heavyweights, was brutally destroyed and made to QUIT in his prime against Schmeling. Not even top 3 HW.

SRR has more losses than he has great wins. I've seen much more succesful move ups in weight than the "GOAT". His era was not as dynamic and filled with greats as other fighters like Ali, Leonard or Duran etc.

CCobra
06-29-2009, 04:24 PM
Sugar Ray Robinson.. overrated?! That's insane. When you make a statement like that you have to have some serious evidence to back it up with. Obama produced a fantastic study into how great Sugar Ray Robinson was and I'm going to post it here, it's long but I'm going to say it's a great look into his fantastic and legendary career.

When Obama gets on, I hope he can post his breakdown as I wouldn't want to take his own work. It's fantastic though.

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 04:29 PM
Joe Louis is often called the greatest Heavyweight of all time. They even have him in the top 3 ATGs P4P?? That's pukingly offensive. The lad had a bum of the month club title reign, was knocked down by virtually everybody even by bums, struggled with many of his opponents including Light Heavyweights, was brutally destroyed and made to QUIT in his prime against Schmeling. Not even top 3 HW.

SRR has more losses than he has great wins. I've seen much more succesful move ups in weight than the "GOAT". His era was not as dynamic and filled with greats as other fighters like Ali, Leonard or Duran etc.

Wow, that's harsh.

You're entitled to your own opinion, as we all are.

But let me just say this ; The reason Joe Louis' title reign was labelled the "bum of the month club" was not because they were actual bums.

Joe just made them look like bums.

cotto16
06-29-2009, 04:49 PM
For me willie pep and benny learnard are very overrated

Slimey Limey
06-29-2009, 04:51 PM
Keep in mind that i'm comparing them to all the greatest boxers of all time. So I don't mean any of that in general. Just because they are overrated(i.e. SRR isn't #1 pound for pound ever, or Louis #1 HW ever. Just a little lower than what everybody else has them) doesn't mean they weren't great fighters.

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 04:58 PM
Keep in mind that i'm comparing them to all the greatest boxers of all time. So I don't mean any of that in general. Just because they are overrated(i.e. SRR isn't #1 pound for pound ever, or Louis #1 HW ever. Just a little lower than what everybody else has them) doesn't mean they weren't great fighters.

Who do you rank above Louis then, as far as Heavyweight go?

Marciano?

JAB5239
06-29-2009, 04:59 PM
For me willie pep and benny learnard are very overrated

How do you figure?

Jim Jeffries
06-29-2009, 05:00 PM
Joe Louis is often called the greatest Heavyweight of all time. They even have him in the top 3 ATGs P4P?? That's pukingly offensive. The lad had a bum of the month club title reign, was knocked down by virtually everybody even by bums, struggled with many of his opponents including Light Heavyweights, was brutally destroyed and made to QUIT in his prime against Schmeling. Not even top 3 HW.

SRR has more losses than he has great wins. I've seen much more succesful move ups in weight than the "GOAT". His era was not as dynamic and filled with greats as other fighters like Ali, Leonard or Duran etc.

And do tell after what age the majority of SRR's losses happened.

For me willie pep and benny learnard are very overrated

Lol at Willie Pep, considering that half of his career was fought after an almost life ending plane wreck, and he's still considered one of the top 3 greatest defensive fighters of all time. As for Leonard, at least spell the man's name right if you're going to try and discredit him.

cotto16
06-29-2009, 05:03 PM
How do you figure?

people are picking robinson, monzon and joe louis, but you dont say **** all to them and want to argue with me about pep and learnard, both didnt go up in weight, and win titles, to be fair learnard tried and learnard never avenged none of his very early losses

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 05:11 PM
people are picking robinson, monzon and joe louis, but you dont say **** all to them and want to argue with me about pep and learnard, both didnt go up in weight, and win titles, to be fair learnard tried and learnard never avenged none of his very early losses

For real ; it's bull**** like this that makes me wish Cotto fans would stop coming into this section of the forum.

They're not qualified to speak on anything that doesn't involve Miguel.

Slimey Limey
06-29-2009, 05:18 PM
Who do you rank above Louis then, as far as Heavyweight go?

Marciano?

Yes. And Ali obviously. Lewis and Holyfield also. Larry Holmes also had a long consistent title reign but atleast Louis didn't end up losing to light heavyweights although he was on his way. Foreman not sure, maybe if he had longer title reigns.

And do tell after what age the majority of SRR's losses happened.



Lol at Willie Pep, considering that half of his career was fought after an almost life ending plane wreck, and he's still considered one of the top 3 greatest defensive fighters of all time. As for Leonard, at least spell the man's name right if you're going to try and discredit him.

He actually faced better oposition after his peak.

And so what? Wouldn't the Greatest of All time be able to adapt at his age and still beat pretty much everyone and stilld dominate? Like, I don't know, a certain Muhammad did?(Pretty much all his great wins were when he was past his prime). Or Leonard(Same goes for this lad). Or Pep(Same goes for this lad.)

JAB5239
06-29-2009, 05:19 PM
[[QUOTE=cotto16;5597531]people are picking robinson, monzon and joe louis, but you dont say **** all to them and want to argue with me about pep and learnard,/QUOTE]

Most anybody mentioning Louis or robinson on this board is an idiot. Slimey Limey is the perfect example. You I consider thick headed and uninformed more than I do stupid.

both didnt go up in weight, and win titles, to be fair learnard tried and learnard never avenged none of his very early losses

There is no way to argue with either ones resume or talent. Both fought great fighters and were dominant for years. In Leonards case not only was he dominant, but he fought in the greatest lightweight era ever Not moving p n weight meas very little with half the weightclasses of today and only one title. And one unavenged loss is minor compared to the huge wins posted.

cotto16
06-29-2009, 05:28 PM
[QUOTE]

There is no way to argue with either ones resume or talent. Both fought great fighters and were dominant for years. In Leonards case not only was he dominant, but he fought in the greatest lightweight era ever Not moving p n weight meas very little with half the weightclasses of today and only one title. And one unavenged loss is minor compared to the huge wins posted.

they are great fighters but they can still be overrated, for me pep and benny do not rank as high as robinson, armstrong, gerb, langford, dempsey, ali, learnard, duran, whitaker, chavez, monzon, burley, la motta or pac man.

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 05:32 PM
[QUOTE=JAB5239;5597592]

they are great fighters but they can still be overrated, for me pep and benny do not rank as high as robinson, armstrong, gerb, langford, dempsey, ali, learnard, duran, whitaker, chavez, monzon, burley, la motta or pac man.

I was with you all the way up until you mentioned Pacquiao.

Pep and Leonard are leaps and bounds beyond Manny right now, IMO.

And it will probably remain that way, seeing as Manny wants to get out of boxing by 2010.

GJC
06-29-2009, 05:32 PM
Still thinking about the question, totally disagree with all the answers given so far though. It is a tricky one though, does over rated mean that you don't think a fighter shouldn't be ranked as high? In which case is rating him top 10 atg when you have him top 20 over rating him? Or fighters you believe have no business being rated as an ATG?
Going to be good for a few arguments this one.

Jim Jeffries
06-29-2009, 05:33 PM
He actually faced better oposition after his peak.

And so what? Wouldn't the Greatest of All time be able to adapt at his age and still beat pretty much everyone and stilld dominate? Like, I don't know, a certain Muhammad did?(Pretty much all his great wins were when he was past his prime). Or Leonard(Same goes for this lad). Or Pep(Same goes for this lad.)

Over half of SRR's losses came after the age of 40. At 36, Ali was losing to Leon fricken Spinks. What was your point again?

DonTaseMeBrah
06-29-2009, 05:34 PM
rocky marciano, carlos palomino, kid gavilan come to mind.

billionaire
06-29-2009, 05:39 PM
i dont respect anybody with a ko ratio less than 50% unless its a defensive wizard like pep or whitaker......jake lamotta had 80 wins 30 kos lmao great middleweight my foot.....

RightCross94
06-29-2009, 05:42 PM
Yes. And Ali obviously. Lewis and Holyfield also. Larry Holmes also had a long consistent title reign but atleast Louis didn't end up losing to light heavyweights although he was on his way. Foreman not sure, maybe if he had longer title reigns.



He actually faced better oposition after his peak.

And so what? Wouldn't the Greatest of All time be able to adapt at his age and still beat pretty much everyone and stilld dominate? Like, I don't know, a certain Muhammad did?(Pretty much all his great wins were when he was past his prime). Or Leonard(Same goes for this lad). Or Pep(Same goes for this lad.)

i dont know what you're talking about, robinson was still winning titles and beating good fighters in his 30's, ali was washed up at a younger age than ray robinson

leonard came back once every 5 years to catch someone at the right time and look good, make no mistake a terrific fighter but yeah
and plus he never did anything of note after 34, (apart from get whooped by norris and camacho) while ray robinson was still winning titles after that age

pep did well after his plane crash but he was still done by his 30's

the funny thing is, ray robinson lasted longer than all these fighters, age and number of fights wise,

in fact ray robinson was still fighting for the world MW title at age 39/40 vs fullmer if i remember correctly and he held it until 1960 when pender beat him

so obviously ray was not as dominant at old age as he was in his prime but he was still fighting at title level until age 40, which is quite impressive

DonTaseMeBrah
06-29-2009, 05:46 PM
i think henry armstrong is highly overrated. ive seen clips of him, wasnt impressed. the old time historians seem to think that bums were invented in the 90s & 2000s. As if they didnt exists back in the day.

bklynboy
06-29-2009, 06:17 PM
Still thinking about the question, totally disagree with all the answers given so far though. It is a tricky one though, does over rated mean that you don't think a fighter shouldn't be ranked as high? In which case is rating him top 10 atg when you have him top 20 over rating him?

Yes, that how I look at it. If someone (take your choice) is considered to be a top 3 by just about everyone and you think that he is no better than top 5 then yes -- you consider him to be overrated.

You need to explain yourself and clearly say that you don't think the man was a bum, after all how can top 5 be a bum?

Let's say that you think that Ali is at best a top 3 or top 5 all-time heavyweight. Then you would think that he is being overrated by all who call him, at worst, a top 2 heavyweight. By saying he is at best a top 5 doesn't make Ali a bum.

Of course the first question that would be asked of you is: name who's better then Ali.

In case it matters I have Ali as 1, interchangeable with Louis.

I'll leave it to others to say who could top Ali but the choices are very limited: Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano would be the only ones I would think worthy of discussion. Others may bring in Tyson and Klitschko but I don't see any way that they could be considered better than Ali.

Regardless, say you're convinced that Ali is at best a top 5 then you would consider him overrated.

Southpaw16BF
06-29-2009, 06:38 PM
i dont respect anybody with a ko ratio less than 50% unless its a defensive wizard like pep or whitaker......jake lamotta had 80 wins 30 kos lmao great middleweight my foot.....

So due to Lamotta not having a big KO ratio, you judge his whole legacy soley off this. Lamotta wasnt a big puncher due to his fragile hands which he would regulary have to get injections into to ease the pain.

Thus why he had to target the body more than the head. But lets look past his KO percentage and lets look at his accomplishments.

Resume Of Wins
Ray Robinson (40-0)
Fritzie Zivicx3
Jose Basora(Who defeated fighters like Holman Williams and Fritzie Zivic, and drew with a prime Ray Robinson)
Holman Williams(Who Held wins over Archie Moore, Charley Burley Lloyd Marshall, and Jose Basora)
Tony Janiro (57-3)
Marcel Cerdan (111-3)
Bob Satterfield (Who Held wins over Harold Johnson and Clevand Williams)

Held wins over numerous All Time Great Fighters
Won Middlweight Title when past his best put still made 2 defences.
Fought and beat some of his era's best.
Argubaly the best chin of all time.

Hopefully this will give you a better insight to how good Lamotta was. And you will learn your way of judging him as being overrated to his KO ratio is a bogus.

▀ringer
06-29-2009, 06:43 PM
I struggle to think of any fighter, past or present, whom I'd label "overrated".

Wanna know why?

Because I sit my ass on my couch and watch from a safe distance while they lace up the gloves and risk their health for my entertainment.

Hard for me to find something "overrated" in any of that.

bklynboy
06-29-2009, 06:49 PM
I struggle to think of any fighter, past or present, whom I'd label "overrated".

Wanna know why?

Because I sit my ass on my couch and watch from a safe distance while they lace up the gloves and risk their health for my entertainment.

Hard for me to find something "overrated" in any of that.

I don't know if I completely agree with you but I understand the sentiment. I feel the same way when I hear boxers called cowards or punks. Whatever you may think of Mayweather, Cotto or whoever they are not cowards.

Regarding "overrated" well this is what sports fans do. We talk about the sport and say who is better than who and for what reason.

Slimey Limey
06-29-2009, 06:55 PM
Over half of SRR's losses came after the age of 40. At 36, Ali was losing to Leon fricken Spinks. What was your point again?

Yes, because every fighter ages exactly the same. Moron.

When Ali lost to "Leon frickin Spinks" he was already completely washed up. That was after the life threathening Frazier, Foreman, Shavers etc fights.

SRR never lost 3 vital years of his peak like Ali did, losing his most important asset: speed. Ali was able to adapt and beat a load of legends, top contenders and win the title back two more times.

The "GOAT" was not as succesful in moving up in weight like other legends and was in an era nowhere near as great as the 70s HWs, the fab 4 in the 80s etc.

That was my point again.

TheGreatA
06-29-2009, 07:00 PM
Yes, because every fighter ages exactly the same. Moron.

When Ali lost to "Leon frickin Spinks" he was already completely washed up. That was after the life threathening Frazier, Foreman, Shavers etc fights.

SRR never lost 3 vital years of his peak like Ali did, losing his most important asset: speed. Ali was able to adapt and beat a load of legends, top contenders and win the title back two more times.

The "GOAT" was not as succesful in moving up in weight like other legends and was in an era nowhere near as great as the 70s HWs, the fab 4 in the 80s etc.

That was my point again.

Robinson started as a lightweight, beat the champion in that division (Sammy Angott who has a very underrated resume), moved up to welterweight, dominated without losing a fight in that division, went up to middleweight, defeated the best opposition available, went up to the light heavyweight division, challenging for the title unsuccessfully, retired for 3 years, came back and regained the title 3 more times while in his late 30's.

I'd say that's pretty successful.

CharlieGarbs
06-29-2009, 07:18 PM
Yes, because every fighter ages exactly the same. Moron.

When Ali lost to "Leon frickin Spinks" he was already completely washed up. That was after the life threathening Frazier, Foreman, Shavers etc fights.

SRR never lost 3 vital years of his peak like Ali did, losing his most important asset: speed. Ali was able to adapt and beat a load of legends, top contenders and win the title back two more times.

The "GOAT" was not as succesful in moving up in weight like other legends and was in an era nowhere near as great as the 70s HWs, the fab 4 in the 80s etc.

That was my point again.

Ali himself said SSR's the best ever.

GJC
06-29-2009, 08:55 PM
I don't know if I completely agree with you but I understand the sentiment. I feel the same way when I hear boxers called cowards or punks. Whatever you may think of Mayweather, Cotto or whoever they are not cowards.

Regarding "overrated" well this is what sports fans do. We talk about the sport and say who is better than who and for what reason.
I agree I cringe whenever I see fighters labeled bums or even worse cowards

GJC
06-29-2009, 08:59 PM
Yes, because every fighter ages exactly the same. Moron.


Well in the narrowest sense, they rack up the same birthdays in the same order but to say someone like Benetiz aged in the same way as a fighter as Hopkins or Archie Moore is a silly statement.

Dynamite Kid
06-30-2009, 07:38 PM
I would say Duran, not because of ability/record but because some people rate him above Leonard and that is a bit excessive to say the least.

mickey malone
07-01-2009, 08:32 AM
Well in the narrowest sense, they rack up the same birthdays in the same order but to say someone like Benetiz aged in the same way as a fighter as Hopkins or Archie Moore is a silly statement.
For sure!! Look at Rocky Lockeridge...

them_apples
07-01-2009, 11:39 PM
Wow, that's harsh.

You're entitled to your own opinion, as we all are.

But let me just say this ; The reason Joe Louis' title reign was labelled the "bum of the month club" was not because they were actual bums.

Joe just made them look like bums.

Louis had a great career, but a good share of his oponents WERE bums. There is no denying this. Tony Galento was in the top 5 (?) for quite a few years during Louis' reign. I disagree with Limeys hate though.

RightCross94
07-02-2009, 07:39 AM
i do feel that rocky marciano was a bit overrated, mainly because he is undefeated

i just feel he maybe caught a few guys at the right time and his legacy benefited from that, he's still an ATG and a top fighter, but not top 10 ATG imo

Emon723
07-03-2009, 05:21 AM
Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey.

0Rooster4Life0
07-03-2009, 07:54 AM
i do feel that rocky marciano was a bit overrated, mainly because he is undefeated

i just feel he maybe caught a few guys at the right time and his legacy benefited from that, he's still an ATG and a top fighter, but not top 10 ATG imo



How can an undefeated man be overated? with the number 0 next to his losses how could you possibly say his overated. ( this is not directed just to you Kosta).


People say he fought older men etc. but at the end of the day he beat those "Older" men , if he had lost to one of them, then they would have a case. but he didnt. so they try to bring down rocky with ANYTHING they can, and the age comment is the only one they have.


Rocky is not overated. just hated by those who cant stand that he was never beaten.

Spartacus Sully
07-03-2009, 08:08 AM
To be never beaten is to be never truly tested

Or perhaps not

Benny Leonard
07-03-2009, 10:03 AM
How can an undefeated man be overated? with the number 0 next to his losses how could you possibly say his overated. ( this is not directed just to you Kosta).


People say he fought older men etc. but at the end of the day he beat those "Older" men , if he had lost to one of them, then they would have a case. but he didnt. so they try to bring down rocky with ANYTHING they can, and the age comment is the only one they have.


Rocky is not overated. just hated by those who cant stand that he was never beaten.

That's exactly how you can become overrated.

It really depends on how high or low someone rates him for him to be called overrated or underrated.

Maybe it is more of the "O," who he fought, when he fought them, and that they call him a "HW" and compare him with other HWs in history that have fought decent-good competition over 200 pounds and 6'0 in height that have people in question about him. That is what starts to make the debate longer and interesting.
So NO, the "Age" thing isn't all we have. Age, height and weight for how big they were as "HW," at what point they were in their careers and so on.

At the end of the day, every fighter can be overrated and underrated but what matters is the reasons you give for him and comparing him to other fighters in history for giving him the position you have bestowed upon him. That's for everybody...every fighter.

But it would be interesting to hear where you rate him and why and compare him to some other HWs.

Let's take for instance the HWs that came before him...Can Rocky beat these Champions (and we'll stick with Champions only since the list gets longer with "other" fighters that have been left out of the Championship title picture because of politics)

Jim Jeffries

Jack Johnson

Jess Willard

Jack Dempsey

Gene Tunney

Max Schmeling

Jack Sharkey

Primo Carnera

Max Baer

Jimmy Braddock

Joe Louis

And how about a PRIME Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore. I often wonder this myself.
Of course when we list those names, we also have to include where they were in their Prime. For example: Ezzard's best is known to be as a LH...some would want to include that he started below LH and displayed skills as a MW. LH was more his spot I would say. Although I will leave it to the historians for that one.
Archie: Started off lighter than a LH, but was known as a LH when many place him in history. Walcott: Where is he rated? Bigger as far as natural weight than the other two but what makes him an "ATG" and was he?
He did lose to a way past prime Louis for example before Rocky even got to him years later and had many losses before that.

In addition, if we continued with the HW list....

Floyd Patterson

Ingemar Johansson

Sonny Liston

Clay/Ali

Joe Frazier

George Foreman

etc. etc. etc.

Many things to think about.



Now for the others that have been left off the list that were not considered "The Champion" and only held the "Black" HW Champion title...that's another case...and something I don't know because I don't have footage....so we leave them off the list.
Even Jeffries is hard to tell because of lack of footage.



Nice article on Rocky and the "?"

Not saying everything can be agreed upon but there are some points.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rocky.html


Rocky is not overated. just hated by those who cant stand that he was never beaten

Maybe by some but that is your emotions talking as well as theirs.

You see, many newbies will just look at the "O" and will assume he is the greatest and when they do that, they list him above other "Greats" which can be wrong. And in doing so, that may piss off some people. But lists and rankings in general tend to piss people off.

It's all about making your case valid and it has to be more than the "O."

Even in those victories, and we understand where those opponents were in their career and their other statistics like height and weight...how well did he do. Stuff like that.
If you can give a good case, well, then it boosts up your point for how high you can rank him.



Here are some good points for Rocky:

He always came in his best shape. I can't say that for many others. Even as Champion, when we see other Champions start to have inflated egos and relax in life so their training goes downhill, Rocky did not. He was a dedicated fighter. Now he didn't have a long title reign but for that brief period he stayed at his best and he knew when to get out.

Rocky was also in his prime as Champion and like I said above, he knew when to get out. I can't say the same for some others, like Muhammad Ali who kept going way past prime. Now it is true Ali wasn't the same fighter when he came back from suspension, and he will get a ton of credit for what he did despite his declined ability, but he did stay in boxing to long to the point that it was just sad.

That said, we should also judge a person mostly at his best...and then take into consideration everything else. As far as a "fantasy" matchup...it will always be at their best. Legacy however will more than likely be everything.

GJC
07-03-2009, 11:17 AM
That's exactly how you can become overrated.

It really depends on how high or low someone rates him for him to be called overrated or underrated.

Maybe it is more of the "O," who he fought, when he fought them, and that they call him a "HW" and compare him with other HWs in history that have fought decent-good competition over 200 pounds and 6'0 in height that have people in question about him. That is what starts to make the debate longer and interesting.
So NO, the "Age" thing isn't all we have. Age, height and weight for how big they were as "HW," at what point they were in their careers and so on.

At the end of the day, every fighter can be overrated and underrated but what matters is the reasons you give for him and comparing him to other fighters in history for giving him the position you have bestowed upon him. That's for everybody...every fighter.

But it would be interesting to hear where you rate him and why and compare him to some other HWs.

Let's take for instance the HWs that came before him...Can Rocky beat these Champions (and we'll stick with Champions only since the list gets longer with "other" fighters that have been left out of the Championship title picture because of politics)

Jim Jeffries

Jack Johnson

Jess Willard

Jack Dempsey

Gene Tunney

Max Schmeling

Jack Sharkey

Primo Carnera

Max Baer

Jimmy Braddock

Joe Louis

And how about a PRIME Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore. I often wonder this myself.
Of course when we list those names, we also have to include where they were in their Prime. For example: Ezzard's best is known to be as a LH...some would want to include that he started below LH and displayed skills as a MW. LH was more his spot I would say. Although I will leave it to the historians for that one.
Archie: Started off lighter than a LH, but was known as a LH when many place him in history. Walcott: Where is he rated? Bigger as far as natural weight than the other two but what makes him an "ATG" and was he?
He did lose to a way past prime Louis for example before Rocky even got to him years later and had many losses before that.

In addition, if we continued with the HW list....

Floyd Patterson

Ingemar Johansson

Sonny Liston

Clay/Ali

Joe Frazier

George Foreman

etc. etc. etc.

Many things to think about.



Now for the others that have been left off the list that were not considered "The Champion" and only held the "Black" HW Champion title...that's another case...and something I don't know because I don't have footage....so we leave them off the list.
Even Jeffries is hard to tell because of lack of footage.



Nice article on Rocky and the "?"

Not saying everything can be agreed upon but there are some points.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rocky.html




Maybe by some but that is your emotions talking as well as theirs.

You see, many newbies will just look at the "O" and will assume he is the greatest and when they do that, they list him above other "Greats" which can be wrong. And in doing so, that may piss off some people. But lists and rankings in general tend to piss people off.

It's all about making your case valid and it has to be more than the "O."

Even in those victories, and we understand where those opponents were in their career and their other statistics like height and weight...how well did he do. Stuff like that.
If you can give a good case, well, then it boosts up your point for how high you can rank him.



Here are some good points for Rocky:

He always came in his best shape. I can't say that for many others. Even as Champion, when we see other Champions start to have inflated egos and relax in life so their training goes downhill, Rocky did not. He was a dedicated fighter. Now he didn't have a long title reign but for that brief period he stayed at his best and he knew when to get out.

Rocky was also in his prime as Champion and like I said above, he knew when to get out. I can't say the same for some others, like Muhammad Ali who kept going way past prime. Now it is true Ali wasn't the same fighter when he came back from suspension, and he will get a ton of credit for what he did despite his declined ability, but he did stay in boxing to long to the point that it was just sad.
That said, we should also judge a person mostly at his best...and then maybe take into consideration everything if we like that certain fighters, well, many fighters decided to not train their hardest and slacked off and kept going beyond when they should have.
But such is life.
Good post.
Marciano was in a weak era no doubt of that but obviously not withstanding age I would have fancied him to beat both Patterson and Johansson.
So theoretically he could have reigned for a few more years in another weak era and so held the title for nearly ten years which would only have made rating him even harder.
Marciano had his limitations but he had a cast iron chin, good punch and limitless stamina I think he would give any heavyweight a fight.
Think he would struggle in the modern era purely because he soaked up punishment and cut so in the more safety concious modern era he would have been stopped more. Pre his era that wouldn't be a factor so I believe he would have beat all the second tier HW champions and had a very good chance against the top tier.
I would favour prime Louis over him but in a theoretical ten fights I would fancy Marciano in 3 of them. If Schmelling could beat Louis by getting in the eye of the storm and taking punches to get his right in then Marciano certainly could.

GJC
07-03-2009, 11:21 AM
As I said before always difficult to say who is overrated and you run the risk of stepping on the toes of someones rival but I guess if I had to pick one it would be Tony Zale.
Good fighter and tough guy but don't believe he was the best middleweight in his era let alone others. I apologise in advance to Tony Zale fans.

TheGreatA
07-03-2009, 11:26 AM
Good post.
Marciano was in a weak era no doubt of that but obviously not withstanding age I would have fancied him to beat both Patterson and Johansson.
So theoretically he could have reigned for a few more years in another weak era and so held the title for nearly ten years which would only have made rating him even harder.
Marciano had his limitations but he had a cast iron chin, good punch and limitless stamina I think he would give any heavyweight a fight.
Think he would struggle in the modern era purely because he soaked up punishment and cut so in the more safety concious modern era he would have been stopped more. Pre his era that wouldn't be a factor so I believe he would have beat all the second tier HW champions and had a very good chance against the top tier.
I would favour prime Louis over him but in a theoretical ten fights I would fancy Marciano in 3 of them. If Schmelling could beat Louis by getting in the eye of the storm and taking punches to get his right in then Marciano certainly could.

He may have beaten Patterson and Johansson, although I feel age was getting to him, but there were also Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams, Zora Folley, Eddie Machen...

I don't think he would have gone undefeated had he continued taking on the best opposition until the late 1950's. Had he went something like 5-1 against those fighters though he would probably be ranked higher by most people, despite having a loss on his record.

#1Assassin
07-03-2009, 11:29 AM
rocky marciano by a mile. the guy beat up on blown up and washed up fighters and bcuz he aint lost he great? good fighter, not great, not even very good. closer to decent. nothing special, just took advantage of a weak spot in the HW division and the mafia. watching his fights im not impressed. SRR, now he was impressive. i know alot of ppl say he was overrated, he wasnt. he was the greatest there ever was.

Benny Leonard
07-03-2009, 11:33 AM
He may have beaten Patterson and Johansson, although I feel age was getting to him, but there were also Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams, Zora Folley, Eddie Machen...

I don't think he would have gone undefeated had he continued taking on the best opposition until the late 1950's. Had he went something like 5-1 against those fighters though he would probably be ranked higher by most people, despite having a loss on his record.

Opinion on the HW fighters prior to Marciano. How do you see the results.

TheGreatA
07-03-2009, 11:35 AM
As I said before always difficult to say who is overrated and you run the risk of stepping on the toes of someones rival but I guess if I had to pick one it would be Tony Zale.
Good fighter and tough guy but don't believe he was the best middleweight in his era let alone others. I apologise in advance to Tony Zale fans.

I agree that he wasn't the best middleweight around his time and he never take on some of the best contenders out there. Today Zale doesn't seem to get rated at all though, he is somewhat of a forgotten fighter. Even Charley Burley who was underrated then seems to be more known than Zale.

I've said that Jack Dempsey is overrated but this is mainly because of a couple of popular pound for pound lists rating him in the top 10. Most people are realistic about his abilities and his record and don't rate him in the top 10.

TheGreatA
07-03-2009, 12:23 PM
Opinion on the HW fighters prior to Marciano. How do you see the results.

I'm going to write down some of my thoughts on these match-ups.

Jim Jeffries

Jeffries was bigger and stronger, known for his athleticism. He was used to fighting bouts that went 20 rounds or more.

I feel he wasn't as powerful as he is made out to be however. Marciano, despite being around 30 lbs lighter was the bigger puncher of the two in my view.

Out of the film I've seen of Jeffries, his sparring sessions have actually been the most impressive. He employed a similar crouching defense as Marciano did.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bF5NVO0WA6A&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bF5NVO0WA6A&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
0:55

Against Tom Sharkey he seemed to land numerous counter uppercuts, a punch Marciano was somewhat open for. The much lighter Sharkey took them well though and gave two tough fights to Jeffries.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/17FjFuGr61k&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/17FjFuGr61k&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It's hard to call. I have not seen a whole lot of Jeffries but I'd give him a fair chance of actually wearing down Marciano in a fight to the finish because of his size advantage. Both were extremely durable.

This also brings me to ask this question, what rules should be used in these match-ups? 10 rounds, 15 rounds, 20 rounds, 45 rounds, no rounds limit... It could affect the outcomes.

Jack Johnson

Jack Johnson was brilliant in the clinches and he was at his best when man-handling smaller, shorter opponents. He used a punishing jab and a sneaky uppercut from the clinch to dominate his opposition.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/h903dv1yxb4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/h903dv1yxb4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I don't know how he would deal with Marciano's pressure. Most of the men who fought him tried to get him with one punch which Johnson could easily avoid. Marciano too was a one punch knockout artist, known for his wild right hands, until his trainer convinced him to concentrate on a much more consistent attack as seen in his fights against Charles, ****ell and Moore.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oA6E_0h6xjE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oA6E_0h6xjE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

He no longer knocked out people like he did Walcott, Louis and Layne, but he may have been better off for it.

Jess Willard

Willard was a tough, strong man who was bigger than most of the heavyweights in his time. Unlike most big men, he had trendemous stamina. He used a powerful left jab and an uppercut which he once tragically killed a man with, giving him a feared reputation.

Willard did not take boxing very seriously however, starting his career while already in his 30's and stayed inactive for years while reigning as the champion.

Marciano doesn't destroy Willard in the same way that Dempsey did, especially the younger, more motivated Willard who fought an aging Jack Johnson and took his title. I feel he would win a decision, depending on how many rounds the fight would be scheduled for, or perhaps a TKO if he finds Willard with enough frequency. Willard was not all that easy to hit but he was rather slow.

Jack Dempsey

Marciano could be caught early. Dempsey could definitely catch him early.

Dempsey actually showed good stamina in the late rounds against Bill Brennan. His footspeed in that fight is among the best I've seen in the heavyweight division.

He was mainly known as an early round KO artist though. If the fight goes to the later rounds, I'd have to favour Marciano with his incredible stamina.

So many things have already been said about this particular match-up that I really have little to add.

Gene Tunney

Tunney was a brilliant boxer and had underrated toughness. Dempsey was on the slide but by no means a shot fighter when Tunney twice beat him. Harry Greb was perhaps lighter but was known for his ability to throw a ton of punches and get away with it due to his quickness. Tunney dealt with him in their last two bouts after having three tough fights with him.

I can see Tunney doing to Marciano what Walcott did for 13 rounds. He was adept at jabbing, moving, throwing combinations and clinching his opponents which is what bothered Marciano in his fights against Charles, LaStarza and Walcott.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l4_qPmEqZ9U&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l4_qPmEqZ9U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uTRjSsuPWm4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uTRjSsuPWm4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

I can also see Marciano's late round power bailing him out because Tunney, while durable and elusive, was by no means knockout proof or unhittable. Carpentier, Gibbons and Dempsey landed on him occasionally.

I might write some thoughts on the other champs later but this will be it for now.

GJC
07-03-2009, 03:25 PM
Would have fancied him against all of those but Liston. Liston would have given him problems, that said don't think he would have been intimadated by Liston so wouldn't have been beaten before he got in the ring as so many were. Obviously he wouldn't have lasted too much longer his style etc didn't lend itself to a long career.
What I was saying was very theoretical as in had Marciano not started his boxing career at a relatively old age and attained the title at say 25.
I would not say it is a huge leap of imagination to say he could have held it until 1960 and Liston, I don't think he would have ducked Liston as long as Patterson did. So then would have held the title 8 years instead of 3, like you say would have maybe picked up the odd loss but certainly would make for an interesting revaluation of Marciano.
Still could point at a weak era but 8 years is certainly a good reign.
Food for thought.

Kinetic Linking
07-03-2009, 03:29 PM
who's better than jack dempsey at 180, great a? He admitted that he weighed in for the willard fight at 180 though it was announced at 187 which is hard not to believe because he looks 180.

Or to break it down, who hit harder at 180? Who was faster? More durable? You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who did anything better than JD at 180. Anything.

I think a lot of historians think dempsey was overrated, and I think they're wrong. He belongs at the very, very top of the all time pound for pound rankings. You can say he wasn't a top heavyweight because what's he going to do to george foreman, but pound for pound he was a monster at 180.

Who else is going to beat willard at 180? Ezzard Charles? I don't think so. Dempsey was a beast.

Have you seen any video of the other dempsey fights in 1919? They're hard to find, but they're incredible. Dempsey plowed through the heavyweight division before fighting willard, and some of his fights he stands there looking kind of dumb, the bell rings, and his opponent is instantly unconscious or injured. He was a monster.

I think 1919 dempsey was the best fighter pfp of all time. As such, he was able to clean out the heavyweight division at the time, despite its containing a number of much larger fighters. And he did it with incredible ease. His best excuse for moving away from the fight game was that they couldn't find legitimate opponents for him.

Rocky Marciano was another great small heavyweight. He occasionally weighed in at 185, and he hit harder than dempsey. This is apparent from video. But he wasn't better, and he wasn't better pfp.

TheGreatA
07-03-2009, 05:16 PM
I don't think there was ever another heavyweight champion who did not fight his obvious number 1 challenger for as long as Dempsey. Harry Wills arguably had a better resume than Dempsey does.

Also Jess Willard was beaten by several 180 lbers. Gunboat Smith outboxed him as did Tom McMahon, both weighed under 180 lbs. This was a better version of Willard than the one Dempsey faced as well.

It's simply the manner in which Dempsey beat him that impresses me, other than that Willard is nothing more than a solid win on his record but not career-defining. Sharkey was his best win, in my opinion. He was being beaten by an impressive young challenger who later went onto become champ, and found a way to win.

TheGreatA
07-03-2009, 05:19 PM
Would have fancied him against all of those but Liston. Liston would have given him problems, that said don't think he would have been intimadated by Liston so wouldn't have been beaten before he got in the ring as so many were. Obviously he wouldn't have lasted too much longer his style etc didn't lend itself to a long career.
What I was saying was very theoretical as in had Marciano not started his boxing career at a relatively old age and attained the title at say 25.
I would not say it is a huge leap of imagination to say he could have held it until 1960 and Liston, I don't think he would have ducked Liston as long as Patterson did. So then would have held the title 8 years instead of 3, like you say would have maybe picked up the odd loss but certainly would make for an interesting revaluation of Marciano.
Still could point at a weak era but 8 years is certainly a good reign.
Food for thought.

I agree that if it was Marciano at his best fighting them, he would come up the victor against everyone except perhaps Sonny Liston.

He was getting up there in age though and when you fight quality competition often, you'll lose eventually. I don't think he could have lasted as a champion until 1960.

I do get what you're saying though, had he been younger. He would probably be a consensus top 3 or top 5 heavyweight in that case. He is often ranked top 5 even now but recently he has been underrated a lot.

Ziggy Stardust
07-03-2009, 05:20 PM
That's exactly how you can become overrated.

It really depends on how high or low someone rates him for him to be called overrated or underrated.

Maybe it is more of the "O," who he fought, when he fought them, and that they call him a "HW" and compare him with other HWs in history that have fought decent-good competition over 200 pounds and 6'0 in height that have people in question about him. That is what starts to make the debate longer and interesting.
So NO, the "Age" thing isn't all we have. Age, height and weight for how big they were as "HW," at what point they were in their careers and so on.

At the end of the day, every fighter can be overrated and underrated but what matters is the reasons you give for him and comparing him to other fighters in history for giving him the position you have bestowed upon him. That's for everybody...every fighter.

But it would be interesting to hear where you rate him and why and compare him to some other HWs.

Let's take for instance the HWs that came before him...Can Rocky beat these Champions (and we'll stick with Champions only since the list gets longer with "other" fighters that have been left out of the Championship title picture because of politics)

Jim Jeffries

Jack Johnson

Jess Willard

Jack Dempsey

Gene Tunney

Max Schmeling

Jack Sharkey

Primo Carnera

Max Baer

Jimmy Braddock

Joe Louis

And how about a PRIME Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore. I often wonder this myself.
Of course when we list those names, we also have to include where they were in their Prime. For example: Ezzard's best is known to be as a LH...some would want to include that he started below LH and displayed skills as a MW. LH was more his spot I would say. Although I will leave it to the historians for that one.
Archie: Started off lighter than a LH, but was known as a LH when many place him in history. Walcott: Where is he rated? Bigger as far as natural weight than the other two but what makes him an "ATG" and was he?
He did lose to a way past prime Louis for example before Rocky even got to him years later and had many losses before that.

In addition, if we continued with the HW list....

Floyd Patterson

Ingemar Johansson

Sonny Liston

Clay/Ali

Joe Frazier

George Foreman

etc. etc. etc.

Many things to think about.



Now for the others that have been left off the list that were not considered "The Champion" and only held the "Black" HW Champion title...that's another case...and something I don't know because I don't have footage....so we leave them off the list.
Even Jeffries is hard to tell because of lack of footage.



Nice article on Rocky and the "?"

Not saying everything can be agreed upon but there are some points.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rocky.html




Maybe by some but that is your emotions talking as well as theirs.

You see, many newbies will just look at the "O" and will assume he is the greatest and when they do that, they list him above other "Greats" which can be wrong. And in doing so, that may piss off some people. But lists and rankings in general tend to piss people off.

It's all about making your case valid and it has to be more than the "O."

Even in those victories, and we understand where those opponents were in their career and their other statistics like height and weight...how well did he do. Stuff like that.
If you can give a good case, well, then it boosts up your point for how high you can rank him.



Here are some good points for Rocky:

He always came in his best shape. I can't say that for many others. Even as Champion, when we see other Champions start to have inflated egos and relax in life so their training goes downhill, Rocky did not. He was a dedicated fighter. Now he didn't have a long title reign but for that brief period he stayed at his best and he knew when to get out.

Rocky was also in his prime as Champion and like I said above, he knew when to get out. I can't say the same for some others, like Muhammad Ali who kept going way past prime. Now it is true Ali wasn't the same fighter when he came back from suspension, and he will get a ton of credit for what he did despite his declined ability, but he did stay in boxing to long to the point that it was just sad.

That said, we should also judge a person mostly at his best...and then take into consideration everything else. As far as a "fantasy" matchup...it will always be at their best. Legacy however will more than likely be everything.

I'm going to write down some of my thoughts on these match-ups.

Jim Jeffries

Jeffries was bigger and stronger, known for his athleticism. He was used to fighting bouts that went 20 rounds or more.

I feel he wasn't as powerful as he is made out to be however. Marciano, despite being around 30 lbs lighter was the bigger puncher of the two in my view.

Out of the film I've seen of Jeffries, his sparring sessions have actually been the most impressive. He employed a similar crouching defense as Marciano did.

Against Tom Sharkey he seemed to land numerous counter uppercuts, a punch Marciano was somewhat open for. The much lighter Sharkey took them well though and gave two tough fights to Jeffries.

It's hard to call. I have not seen a whole lot of Jeffries but I'd give him a fair chance of actually wearing down Marciano in a fight to the finish because of his size advantage. Both were extremely durable.

This also brings me to ask this question, what rules should be used in these match-ups? 10 rounds, 15 rounds, 20 rounds, 45 rounds, no rounds limit... It could affect the outcomes.

Jack Johnson

Jack Johnson was brilliant in the clinches and he was at his best when man-handling smaller, shorter opponents. He used a punishing jab and a sneaky uppercut from the clinch to dominate his opposition.

I don't know how he would deal with Marciano's pressure. Most of the men who fought him tried to get him with one punch which Johnson could easily avoid. Marciano too was a one punch knockout artist, known for his wild right hands, until his trainer convinced him to concentrate on a much more consistent attack as seen in his fights against Charles, ****ell and Moore.

He no longer knocked out people like he did Walcott, Louis and Layne, but he may have been better off for it.

Jess Willard

Willard was a tough, strong man who was bigger than most of the heavyweights in his time. Unlike most big men, he had trendemous stamina. He used a powerful left jab and an uppercut which he once tragically killed a man with, giving him a feared reputation.

Willard did not take boxing very seriously however, starting his career while already in his 30's and stayed inactive for years while reigning as the champion.

Marciano doesn't destroy Willard in the same way that Dempsey did, especially the younger, more motivated Willard who fought an aging Jack Johnson and took his title. I feel he would win a decision, depending on how many rounds the fight would be scheduled for, or perhaps a TKO if he finds Willard with enough frequency. Willard was not all that easy to hit but he was rather slow.

Jack Dempsey

Marciano could be caught early. Dempsey could definitely catch him early.

Dempsey actually showed good stamina in the late rounds against Bill Brennan. His footspeed in that fight is among the best I've seen in the heavyweight division.

He was mainly known as an early round KO artist though. If the fight goes to the later rounds, I'd have to favour Marciano with his incredible stamina.

So many things have already been said about this particular match-up that I really have little to add.

Gene Tunney

Tunney was a brilliant boxer and had underrated toughness. Dempsey was on the slide but by no means a shot fighter when Tunney twice beat him. Harry Greb was perhaps lighter but was known for his ability to throw a ton of punches and get away with it due to his quickness. Tunney dealt with him in their last two bouts after having three tough fights with him.

I can see Tunney doing to Marciano what Walcott did for 13 rounds. He was adept at jabbing, moving, throwing combinations and clinching his opponents which is what bothered Marciano in his fights against Charles, LaStarza and Walcott.

I can also see Marciano's late round power bailing him out because Tunney, while durable and elusive, was by no means knockout proof or unhittable. Carpentier, Gibbons and Dempsey landed on him occasionally.

I might write some thoughts on the other champs later but this will be it for now.

Great posts Gentlemen! This is why I like the Boxing History forum :boxing:

Poet

billionaire
07-04-2009, 05:08 PM
lmao someone actually said floyd patterson would beat rocky.....he had a worse chin than joe louis....and primo carnera, a huge clown.....you got no credibility!

Benny Leonard
07-04-2009, 05:28 PM
lmao someone actually said floyd patterson would beat rocky.....he had a worse chin than joe louis....and primo carnera, a huge clown.....you got no credibility!

Who knows.

I was surprised to hear Marciano talk in the Charles fight footage about Ezzard's chin:

Time: 3:13
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/l4_qPmEqZ9U&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/l4_qPmEqZ9U&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
And for Joe's "weak" chin, he was only knocked out twice despite fighting some solid punchers/fighters.

.................................................. ...........................

According to Duva, Marciano's pride in being champion kept him on top.

"He used to tell me, 'Nothing makes me feel better than to walk into a restaurant and hear someone say Hi champ.'

Retiring undefeated became Marciano's claim to fame, but when Ingemar Johansson defeated Floyd Patterson for the championship in 1959, Marciano considered a comeback.

"He was offered $1.2 million to fight Johansson, which is like $20 million now," said Duva, who'd been enlisted to work Marciano's corner. "Rocky would've knocked him out, too. He never wanted to fight Patterson because Patterson was quick. But Johansson stood right in front of you, which would've been perfect for Rocky."

When Patterson signed for a rematch with Johansson, Marciano lost interest





There was also a S.I. article about Patterson that said D'Amato actually wanted that fight and pressed for it because he felt Patterson could beat Marciano. Have to find the article later to make sure that was it.
Boxing was really corrupt back then...but not like it still isn't.

billionaire
07-04-2009, 05:30 PM
of course speed matters for a 37 year old against a 20 year old.....ray leonard prime would kill terry norris but what happened when they fought each other....

Benny Leonard
07-04-2009, 05:32 PM
of course speed matters for a 37 year old against a 20 year old.....ray leonard prime would kill terry norris but what happened when they fought each other....

Patterson won the title a year after Maricano retired by knocking out Archie Moore in quick fashion...so Patterson was on the scene at that point just a year later.

Rocky's view of Patterson:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/wCUkqyfUjTU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/wCUkqyfUjTU&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Ziggy Stardust
07-04-2009, 08:30 PM
Remember this?

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195982

It's the same guy. A certified troll.


Ah yes! Good old Rafael Benitez who claimed he was a boxing trainer and then later JulioCesa(r)Chavez. What a hypocrite seein as how under Rafael Benitez he was squawking about what a worthles bum-beater Marciano was:


Marciano was overrated. If he fought Liston isntead of being a chicken he would have bean beaten to a pulp. He struggled against slow old men like Walcott and a washed up Charles. I reckon most top heavies from each era would have wiped the floor with him. Do u really think he could stand in there with Big Klitchko, Lewis, Holyfied or even Samuel Peter?LOL. Way too easy to hit. He was lucky that Italians loved boxing at the time, it was number one in sports and he had no competition.

Only idiots who have no fight dvd's (i have 1000+ 500vhs) and haven't seen much would rate 'the rock'. The best of his era were old men, and even then he was getting outboxed by the painfully slow Jersey Joe Walcott (equivalent to a journeyman like glen johnson)just by looking at footage one can see he wouldn't stand a chance aginst a Prime Roy Jones, the old Hopkins or even our Clinton Woods! Never mind any genuine heavyweight. He didn't lose coz he didn't fight anybody. Look at all the best, they lost coz they fought the best. He knew he had to retire early or get ko'd by the up and coming fighters! Smart guy but still rubbish.

I've seen every major boxing match that took place in the past 100 years and every Marciano title fight. Walcott was an old slow man and even then he had to hit the man when he was down because he was being outboxed. Marciano is overrated because he was the white hope in a segragated America where they believed they were evolutionarily superior. Marciano never beat anybody decent in their prime and was lucky he was in a dead era. The truth is he was overrated and would lose to many of todays light heavyweights including Calzaghe Hopkins and maybe even Tarver. People who know boxing know he is not a top ten heavyweight. Don't get upset, it is the truth.

LOL some Marciano advocates believe Joe Louis was not totally over the hill when Marciano fought him!!! He was pulled out of retirment and looked more washed up than the shores of Blackpool. Just because Rocky was crap and made a meal out of him and the other old men he fought doesn't mean they were not washed up. Also he did not fight everyone around at his time and retired early to avoid the likes of Sonny liston, Cleveland Williams etc. Even so, it may not be his fault but still exposed his weaknesses. He struggled with Walcott who was average, slow and ever so OLD. It took a dirty shot and there was never to be a rematch in segregated america that needed their hero so bad. He was so easy to hit it was a joke. Completely outboxed for many rouns. Marciano would lose to David Haye in about 2 rounds.

I think he is not even in the top 20 in the heavyweight division of all time. It pisses me off when people think he was in the top 5 or even the best! ROFL. Why does he always pop up on p4p lists? He was absolutely ****!

I see you did your hours long homework on me. That's sweet.

THIS is coming from the guy who has several TheGreatA accounts, several Manmachine accounts as well as other alts such as Southpaw16. And if you want to deny this, then how are they so similar like you? After all mate, you're just mad that there are more people that agree with me such as the lad you posted here behind his back.

Stick to the thunderdome with that crap.

This thread is to expose Louis' perversities.

If by that you mean you have around 5 alts, then yes you are right mate.

Maybe you should step up your stalking game, so that I won't notice it's your alt that's following me around every time. For Gods sake is it that hard not to talk like a robot?


Well well, doesn't that make him just look "special"? Can we say "busted"? Nice job GreatA!

Poet

McGoorty
09-12-2011, 12:57 PM
Who is it??????????
Popeye the Sailor Man.............. I don't reckon he was as good as they make out.... I mean did anyone even do a drugs test on a SINGLE CAN OF SPINACH ??????..................... -------- BLUTO WAS CHEATED And He's UNDERRATED.................. So in my opinion the most overrated Old-Time fighter is ...... Popeye the Sailor Man.... "toot toot".

McGoorty
09-12-2011, 12:58 PM
Popeye the Sailor Man.............. I don't reckon he was as good as they make out.... I mean did anyone even do a drugs test on a SINGLE CAN OF SPINACH ??????..................... -------- BLUTO WAS CHEATED And He's UNDERRATED.................. So in my opinion the most overrated Old-Time fighter is ...... Popeye the Sailor Man.... "toot toot".
I also think that Olive Oil and Wimpy were doin' each other..... it's just my opinion though.

McGoorty
09-12-2011, 01:36 PM
hahahaha that gave me a good chuckle.
Yeah..... my funnies amaze even me...... hey man have you read my Fights and The Darcy story lately ??????http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=506545http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=497729

ghns1133
09-12-2011, 01:58 PM
the people who said robinson and joe louis dont have an eye for subtle skills

i think marciano

he was damn good and an ATG puncher but he wouldnt be in my top 20

McGoorty
09-16-2011, 06:19 PM
The most overated BUM in HISTORY ,.... his name ???..... DEMPSEY.... here's all the proof you need to prove DEMPSEY'S A BUM. BUM, BUM....... HERE'S THE ULTIMATE PROOF.. http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=226370&cat=boxer

aleksandrhleb
09-17-2011, 10:00 PM
I'm always apprehensive on this sort of question..
As the first respondant.. I'm putting myself in the line of fire..
This will undoubtedly upset some people..

Sugar Ray Robinson & Rocky Marciano fall into this category..

Although both ATG.. Some peoples opinions tend to go beyond the super human..
By todays standards it would be B/Hop and Paul Williams..

b-hop is a legend cos of his age and class. sloppiano i agree with you there but robinson fought very often. in todays boxing of big breaks and big build ups he could go 50-0, that's if they even allow him so many fights in his career! i think some of his losses were avenged a month later

mickey malone
09-18-2011, 06:21 AM
b-hop is a legend cos of his age and class. sloppiano i agree with you there but robinson fought very often. in todays boxing of big breaks and big build ups he could go 50-0, that's if they even allow him so many fights in his career! i think some of his losses were avenged a month later
I posted that more than 2 years ago and i'm happy to admit i'd answer the question a bit differently today.. Marciano and Dempsey would've been a better choice.
And yes, Hopkins who with many 'old school' qualities, has certainly surpased my expectations.