View Full Version : Marciano: alternate legacy


JAB5239
10-28-2011, 06:50 PM
Rocky Marciano is one of my all time favorite fighters, but how would his legacy have fared had he not beaten Charles, Louis, Walcott and Moore? Without those all time greats on his resume does it drop him significantly in the all time heavyweight rankings? I have Marciano currently at 10. Without those names though I believe he surely falls out of the top 20. Opinions?

Miburo
10-28-2011, 09:46 PM
I'm not sure he'd rank at all without those names.

Scott9945
10-28-2011, 10:16 PM
Rocky Marciano is one of my all time favorite fighters, but how would his legacy have fared had he not beaten Charles, Louis, Walcott and Moore? Without those all time greats on his resume does it drop him significantly in the all time heavyweight rankings? I have Marciano currently at 10. Without those names though I believe he surely falls out of the top 20. Opinions?


If you take away those names, then Rocky wasn't even really the heavyweight champion. So all you would have left is an unbeaten heavyweight who beat mostly unimpressive competition. That would make him out of any top 20 for sure. He'd be a little higher than Joe Mesi I guess.

Kid McCoy
10-28-2011, 10:56 PM
Rocky Marciano is one of my all time favorite fighters, but how would his legacy have fared had he not beaten Charles, Louis, Walcott and Moore? Without those all time greats on his resume does it drop him significantly in the all time heavyweight rankings? I have Marciano currently at 10. Without those names though I believe he surely falls out of the top 20. Opinions?

And it was those fights which cemented the Rocky legend; the come from behind KO against Walcott, one more round against Charles etc. A lot would depend on who he beat instead. Assuming he still wins the title, we'd have probably seen defences against the likes of Nino Valdes, Bob Baker, Tommy Jackson and Bob Satterfield (which would have been a barnburner for the few rounds it lasted!). Overall not really inspiring. He'd still have the gloss of being undefeated, but undefeated against who? With a resume like that I can see him dropping out of the top 20.

Something else to ponder: if one judge had scored one round differently Marciano would have lost to LaStarza. What would his legacy be today if he'd ended his career 48-1 instead of 49-0?

Forza
10-28-2011, 11:18 PM
Well the fact is he beat all those guys, and by K.O., and some of them multiple times.

But yes if he didn't have those guys, his best wins would be lastarza and matthews which would hardly make him top 20

GJC
10-29-2011, 01:33 AM
Rocky Marciano is one of my all time favorite fighters, but how would his legacy have fared had he not beaten Charles, Louis, Walcott and Moore? Without those all time greats on his resume does it drop him significantly in the all time heavyweight rankings? I have Marciano currently at 10. Without those names though I believe he surely falls out of the top 20. Opinions?
Could knock the top 4 fighters off most fighters resumes and knock em a fair way down though surely Jabs?

Terry A
10-29-2011, 01:58 AM
Rocky Marciano is one of my all time favorite fighters, but how would his legacy have fared had he not beaten Charles, Louis, Walcott and Moore? Without those all time greats on his resume does it drop him significantly in the all time heavyweight rankings? I have Marciano currently at 10. Without those names though I believe he surely falls out of the top 20. Opinions?

I like Rocky Marciano. He's not in my all-time top 10 Heavyweights because I feel he had somewhat easy opposition. An old Jersey Joe, an old Ezzard Charles, an old Joe Louis, an old Archie Moore......

I'm also glad to see that Kid McCoy mentioned the LaStarza fight. Even though the Rock won that fight on the score-cards, that decision was in hot dispute for some time. LaStarza was thought to be a golden boy & many thought Marciano was too crude to really go anywhere. When Rocky won, it wasn't popular at the time.

Writing some negatives on such a highly esteemed champion feels almost dirty. But if you take a real close inspection of his opposition, it was over-all not too strong.

None of that is Rocky's fault. His manager Al Weill really moved Rocky in a way that provided the minimum risk while still keeping him somewhat active. To that end, Weill was a very good manager. Albeit not the most scrupulous when it came to the Rock's part of the purse.

Still, his all-out "swing for the fences, kill with every shot" style of fighting, his enormous heart, his humble & gracious attitude, his loyalty to his parents & friends, etc all combine to make Rocky Marciano a bonafide legend. He's hard not to like.

But yes JAB, take away the fights you mentioned and the Rock's all-time legacy greatly diminishes. Not as low a ranked fighter as a Lee Canalito, but he'd be nothing special compared to other great champions.

Forza
10-29-2011, 02:49 AM
ezzard charles was not old, joe louis was only 37 and on a 10 fight win streak, archie moore was like the bhop of the old HW's

JAB5239
10-29-2011, 06:31 AM
ezzard charles was not old, joe louis was only 37 and on a 10 fight win streak, archie moore was like the bhop of the old HW's

Lets look at the fights for what they were. Charles was certainly shopworn. I'll be glad to entertain any disagreements. Louis? Come on, let's be real. Should Moore be considered more than lets say today's Arreola for what he actually did? Walcott?

My point is that many want to rate fighters today, but they don't have the resume to be deserving. Im not trying to argue h2h, but resumes don't lie if you look at them in detail.

Rockin'
10-29-2011, 06:39 AM
The greats that Marciano beat were all at the end of their careers and were shells of their former selfs. Marciano does not even make my list of 20 greatest heavyweights.ccWith exception Charles was only 32 or so but was a light heavyweight..............Rockin':boxing:

JAB5239
10-29-2011, 06:45 AM
The greats that Marciano beat were all at the end of their careers and were shells of their former selfs. Marciano does not even make my list of 20 greatest heavyweights...............Rockin':boxing:

So where do fighters like Holmes, Tyson, Vitaly and other arguable heavyweights rate? Not trying to call you out, but I promise I have a point.

Rockin'
10-29-2011, 06:52 AM
So where do fighters like Holmes, Tyson, Vitaly and other arguable heavyweights rate? Not trying to call you out, but I promise I have a point.

Honestly I have never made a llist yet I am certain that he would not be included in it. A young walcott and Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Dempset, Tunney,there are a bunch of guys that I would place infront of Marciano. I would even venture to say that Renaldo Snipes would have given Marciano more than he could handle...........Rockin':boxing:

JAB5239
10-29-2011, 07:04 AM
Honestly I have never made a llist yet I am certain that he would not be included in it. A young walcott and Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Dempset, Tunney,there are a bunch of guys that I would place infront of Marciano. I would even venture to say that Renaldo Snipes would have given Marciano more than he could handle...........Rockin':boxing:

My point is that resume dictates greatness, not h2h fantasy fights. Accomplishment over other top fighters is the end all (in my opinion) considering who they fought and what they accomplished. Of course there is more, but that is the jist of it.

Greatest1942
10-29-2011, 08:40 AM
Rocky Marciano is one of my all time favorite fighters, but how would his legacy have fared had he not beaten Charles, Louis, Walcott and Moore? Without those all time greats on his resume does it drop him significantly in the all time heavyweight rankings? I have Marciano currently at 10. Without those names though I believe he surely falls out of the top 20. Opinions?


What will ali's record look without Liston, Foreman, Frazier and Norton?

He might just sneak in the top 10, forget top 2. You can take away the top fighters of every ones resume and make their resume look less extraordinary.

Forza
10-29-2011, 02:32 PM
The greats that Marciano beat were all at the end of their careers and were shells of their former selfs. Marciano does not even make my list of 20 greatest heavyweights.ccWith exception Charles was only 32 or so but was a light heavyweight..............Rockin':boxing:

Yes charles was a LHW......who came into the ring weighing more than marciano and being 3 inches taller.

If marciano doesn't make your top 10 you need your head checked

IronDanHamza
10-29-2011, 02:46 PM
If you take the Top 4 wins off any fighter in history's legacy they will drop drastically.

Just take Lennox Lewis Top 2 wins off him and he falls drastically.

Same for almost anyone.

Those 4 wins, although all past prime, ARE literally his legacy. Without it, he has no legacy.

JAB5239
10-29-2011, 04:05 PM
Honestly I have never made a llist yet I am certain that he would not be included in it. A young walcott and Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Dempset, Tunney,there are a bunch of guys that I would place infront of Marciano. I would even venture to say that Renaldo Snipes would have given Marciano more than he could handle...........Rockin':boxing:

There is NO way either Tunney or Walcott can rank over Marciano.

TheGreatA
10-29-2011, 04:13 PM
Take away the best wins of any heavyweight and they wouldn't rate very highly. But that's what separates a great heavyweight from a good heavyweight.

Marciano beat very good versions of Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles who were among the most skilled fighters of all time. He may not have gotten them at their peak but you don't always get the prime match-ups in boxing.

Marciano fought and beat the best of his era and that's what he will be judged by. However the lack of depth in his resume, his relatively short stay at the top and the fact that his best opponents were past their best years does keep him away from discussions about whether he was a top 2 heavyweight.

That's reserved for Ali and Louis as far as I'm concerned.

Barn
10-30-2011, 11:47 AM
Take away the best wins of any heavyweight and they wouldn't rate very highly. But that's what separates a great heavyweight from a good heavyweight.

Marciano beat very good versions of Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles who were among the most skilled fighters of all time. He may not have gotten them at their peak but you don't always get the prime match-ups in boxing.

Marciano fought and beat the best of his era and that's what he will be judged by. However the lack of depth in his resume, his relatively short stay at the top and the fact that his best opponents were past their best years does keep him away from discussions about whether he was a top 2 heavyweight.

That's reserved for Ali and Louis as far as I'm concerned.
The way I see the HW division you've got Ali, Louis at the top. Then it's just a mad free for all until you reach about 12 and a slightly lower bracket comes about creating another mad free for all until about 20.

It's not like for example Middleweight with: Greb, Monzon, Hagler, Fitzsimmons Robinson all with a claim to the top spot.

McGoorty
10-30-2011, 01:37 PM
Rocky Marciano is one of my all time favorite fighters, but how would his legacy have fared had he not beaten Charles, Louis, Walcott and Moore? Without those all time greats on his resume does it drop him significantly in the all time heavyweight rankings? I have Marciano currently at 10. Without those names though I believe he surely falls out of the top 20. Opinions?
Well yes he would be just a blip on the screen, but he did, and I for one am glad of it, boxing needed Marciano, he was a good thing for the sport and I just love watching him fight, I love that he evened things up with his great power,... The 50's would have sucked without him.

McGoorty
10-30-2011, 01:40 PM
Honestly I have never made a llist yet I am certain that he would not be included in it. A young walcott and Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Ali, Frazier, Dempset, Tunney,there are a bunch of guys that I would place infront of Marciano. I would even venture to say that Renaldo Snipes would have given Marciano more than he could handle...........Rockin':boxing:
Man, that's a pretty poor observation,.. I'll remember not to ask you for any "knowledge" of yours,.... Snipes ?????????????...... GTF outta here.

Barn
10-30-2011, 01:41 PM
Man, that's a pretty poor observation,.. I'll remember not to ask you for any "knowledge" of yours,.... Snipes ?????????????...... GTF outta here.
er................................................ .................................................. ......................

McGoorty
10-30-2011, 01:53 PM
I like Rocky Marciano. He's not in my all-time top 10 Heavyweights because I feel he had somewhat easy opposition. An old Jersey Joe, an old Ezzard Charles, an old Joe Louis, an old Archie Moore......

I'm also glad to see that Kid McCoy mentioned the LaStarza fight. Even though the Rock won that fight on the score-cards, that decision was in hot dispute for some time. LaStarza was thought to be a golden boy & many thought Marciano was too crude to really go anywhere. When Rocky won, it wasn't popular at the time.

Writing some negatives on such a highly esteemed champion feels almost dirty. But if you take a real close inspection of his opposition, it was over-all not too strong.

None of that is Rocky's fault. His manager Al Weill really moved Rocky in a way that provided the minimum risk while still keeping him somewhat active. To that end, Weill was a very good manager. Albeit not the most scrupulous when it came to the Rock's part of the purse.

Still, his all-out "swing for the fences, kill with every shot" style of fighting, his enormous heart, his humble & gracious attitude, his loyalty to his parents & friends, etc all combine to make Rocky Marciano a bonafide legend. He's hard not to like.

But yes JAB, take away the fights you mentioned and the Rock's all-time legacy greatly diminishes. Not as low a ranked fighter as a Lee Canalito, but he'd be nothing special compared to other great champions.
I don't support all of this, these guy's would beat most anyone at that sort of weight. And La Starza is way underated here, and Matthews to an extent... I don't think that era was weak.... just weak among the giants.... there were some very big dudes then but they were all very average,, ****ell and Valdes for example.... ****ell was massive. I actually think this era is special... the last era of the great small HW's... small HW's that were superior head to head against the bigger HW's.... and in Marciano we had almost the most exciting fighter to ever pull on a glove.... I hope that clears up my position on the "Rock".

IronDanHamza
10-30-2011, 02:09 PM
er................................................ .................................................. ......................

In fairness, I really don't like Renaldo Snipes chances agasint Marciano.

Barn
10-30-2011, 02:27 PM
In fairness, I really don't like Renaldo Snipes chances agasint Marciano.
Neither do I but, saying someone who's boxed pro has no knowledge of boxing is a bit off.

IronDanHamza
10-30-2011, 02:33 PM
Neither do I but, saying someone who's boxed pro has no knowledge of boxing is a bit off.

I'm not doubting Rockin's knowledge of the sport he certainly knows the game and has experienced the game.

But I know a few ex-pro's who lack any real knowledge of the sport or it's history.

I mean, knowing how to fight and knowing about the History of the sport are two different things.

Barn
10-30-2011, 02:41 PM
I'm not doubting Rockin's knowledge of the sport he certainly knows the game and has experienced the game.

But I know a few ex-pro's who lack any real knowledge of the sport or it's history.

I mean, knowing how to fight and knowing about the History of the sport are two different things.
Although I am inclined to agree you can "learn boxing" or "know boxing" and pro's will obviously "know" the game.

It's another reason why I don't understand anyone who learns about boxing history and hasn't boxed before.

Rockin'
10-30-2011, 03:06 PM
Renaldo Snipes gave Larry Holmes all that he could handle when he challenged for his title. I remember watching this fight live on the networks back in the day.

Snipes had his jab in Larrys face all night, he is the man who came closest to defeating Holmes back then and did it with an educated jab, if he had more power he may have taken Holmes out.

Now put short statured Rocky Marciano against Snipes and that jab and the Rock would definately have a hard time reaching him and Snipes would catch the Rock coming in with his wide shots.

I know the fight and I know it's history. I'm just not sold on Marciano being all that great when he beat big names that were either on the back side of the hill or fighting out of their weight class. Besides the big names Lastarza is the only quality opponent that Rocky beat.

Just because I don't agree with common opinion does not mean that I don't know what I am talking about. I would rate Ali, Louis, Fraizier, Johnson, Tyson at his peak and others above Rocky as an all-time great.

Head to head I think that Renaldo Snipes would have beaten Rockys face to a swollen pulp if they ever met. Was Rocky a technical fighter, no. Was Rocky a highly skilled fighter, no. Did Rocky take alot of shots to get his shots off, yes. Was Rocky basically a brawler with little defense, a good chin and a big punch, yes he was. That does not sound like the greatest of all time, just my opinion.............Rockin':boxing:

Forza
10-30-2011, 03:13 PM
You obviously have something against marciano

Rockin'
10-30-2011, 03:22 PM
You obviously have something against marciano

I don't have anything against him, I never even knew him. I just know that watching his films he was a scrappy slugger with a good chin. If Tex Cobb had a bigger punch we might be here arguing his greatness. He'd take a few to get his shot in just like Rocky. Although Cobb never had his nose nearly torn from his face............Rockin':boxing:

Greatest1942
10-30-2011, 03:59 PM
I don't have anything against him, I never even knew him. I just know that watching his films he was a scrappy slugger with a good chin. If Tex Cobb had a bigger punch we might be here arguing his greatness. He'd take a few to get his shot in just like Rocky. Although Cobb never had his nose nearly torn from his face............Rockin':boxing:

Rockin I respect you but this highly controversial statement. I don't know where to start, if you were someone else my response will be a bit terse.

But as for Cobb the day Tex could evade punches liek Rocky he would have been a genius. Rocky avoided punches, otherwise guys like Moore or even the old Charles would have blown him away.

Now you are a pro and all that but I will take Charles word about Rocky's defense over yours. "Rocky fools you, he does not take as much punishment as it seems.He looks easy to hit inside but he isn't"...that man had a better view. So if I have to absolutely take a boxers opinion, I will take this.

However you might have missed some of these attributes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b0yHvw-vW0

Watch the above video and go and watch a Tex Cobb video and let me know if Tex had remotely the skills of Rocky. Watch how he slips jabs from Joe lOuis(who was old but still had a great jab, Walcott etc).

Snipes wil be caught by Rocky atleast five times in a 15 rounder, even Ali was caught by George Chuvalo. I have never seen anything in Snipes to suggest he will endure a barrage from Rocky...from Holmes yea, who never had Rock's power.

And you never go undefeated in boxing without getting tested. Have a good day.

TheGreatA
10-30-2011, 04:11 PM
When you hear Marciano talk about boxing it's obvious that the man had a lot of knowledge about the sport. He was trained by one of the best in Charley Goldman after all who recognized his raw talent early on (apparently by looking sluggish in sparring until flattening his opponent with a single punch). Part of the reason why he might appear more crude than some of the other heavyweight champions is that he was a late starter who took up boxing in his 20's.

Goldman instilled in him the knowledge of all the techniques that were needed to become a champion and while he did not necessarily have the co-ordination to pull of them all, he would instead use his experience by taking advantage of his awkwardness and making the fight extremely difficult and uncomfortable for his opponents. Sure he did not utilize a double jab or subtle footwork, but he did know how to prevent his opponent from using these techniques effectively. Once he dragged you into a war, he always got the better of it.

"The Rock didn't know too much about the boxing book, but it wasn't a book he hit me with. It was a whole library of bone crushers."
-Joe Louis

Greatest1942
10-30-2011, 04:19 PM
Me and Kid are mostly on the same page. Here we are however it seems on a different one.

Kid the LaStraza fight could have dented some of the lustre of Rocky's 49-0. But who's say then Rocky would not have fought LaStraza 3 more times to make it 2-1 in the series or retired with 50-1 or 51-1. These are all conjectures.

If Ali lost the series to Norton 2-1( the judges basically screwed Norton), lost to Young and drew with Shavers his career will look not as good.

What if Dempsey fought Willis and got KO'd in three rounds...it would make him look bad. There is hardly a champion, Louis, Ali,Rock, Holmes included who does not have a controversial winin their resume which helped them to preserve teh title.

Even if Rocky lost, I think many would have lost the arguement , "undefeated so untested". Because say what you will of Walcott or Charles, on video they tested Rocky to the core. OS ultimately he would be ranked where he is today. 6 times title defence a good top 10 victim (better than George Foreman's or Larry Holmes IMO, believe it or not).

I don't see he him being severely crippled.

Greatest1942
10-30-2011, 04:27 PM
When you hear Marciano talk about boxing it's obvious that the man had a lot of knowledge about the sport. He was trained by one of the best in Charley Goldman after all who recognized his raw talent early on (apparently by looking sluggish in sparring until flattening his opponent with a single punch). Part of the reason why he might appear more crude than some of the other heavyweight champions is that he was a late starter who took up boxing in his 20's.

Goldman instilled in him the knowledge of all the techniques that were needed to become a champion and while he did not necessarily have the co-ordination to pull of them all, he would instead use his experience by taking advantage of his awkwardness and making the fight extremely difficult and uncomfortable for his opponents. Sure he did not utilize a double jab or subtle footwork, but he did know how to prevent his opponent from using these techniques effectively. Once he dragged you into a war, he always got the better of it.

"The Rock didn't know too much about the boxing book, but it wasn't a book he hit me with. It was a whole library of bone crushers."
-Joe Louis

Good post.

Rocky was brilliant in making the other guy fight his fight. Archie Moore confessed "He doesn't let you fight your fight".

Freddie Brown put it best " It's not like football. Rocky never gives you the ball".

As for Goldman working on Rocky's defense, to give him the subtle skills required. Nothing could be more true.

Lets hear from the man himself"Rocky rolls under punches and he weaves under punches...He protects his belly by blocking punches with his elbows".

Simple yet effective, this is a past 1953 Rocky though. Goldman made some subtle changes to sacrifice some power to give Rocky a good defense.

Keane Simmons once said "When you look at him from outside the ring he seems easy to hit, but if you are in the ring with him you will find it isn't the case."

McGoorty
10-30-2011, 05:01 PM
Although I am inclined to agree you can "learn boxing" or "know boxing" and pro's will obviously "know" the game.

It's another reason why I don't understand anyone who learns about boxing history and hasn't boxed before.
Ummm how on earth would I know if Rockin' has ever boxed before, all I saw was him saying Marciano was a nobody,.... I bet no matter how good a boxer he may be... I bet he'd pale at the thought of facing Marciano for real. Anyway, my post was in response to one post. Boxers all have their own theories about boxing but as Tyson say's about theories being punched out of people. So I ask again,.. how would I know what Rockin' does for an opinion. I think some boxers are good historians,, but Dan is right about many of them being very poor judges too.

McGoorty
10-30-2011, 05:45 PM
Renaldo Snipes gave Larry Holmes all that he could handle when he challenged for his title. I remember watching this fight live on the networks back in the day.

Snipes had his jab in Larrys face all night, he is the man who came closest to defeating Holmes back then and did it with an educated jab, if he had more power he may have taken Holmes out.

Now put short statured Rocky Marciano against Snipes and that jab and the Rock would definately have a hard time reaching him and Snipes would catch the Rock coming in with his wide shots.

I know the fight and I know it's history. I'm just not sold on Marciano being all that great when he beat big names that were either on the back side of the hill or fighting out of their weight class. Besides the big names Lastarza is the only quality opponent that Rocky beat.

Just because I don't agree with common opinion does not mean that I don't know what I am talking about. I would rate Ali, Louis, Fraizier, Johnson, Tyson at his peak and others above Rocky as an all-time great.

Head to head I think that Renaldo Snipes would have beaten Rockys face to a swollen pulp if they ever met. Was Rocky a technical fighter, no. Was Rocky a highly skilled fighter, no. Did Rocky take alot of shots to get his shots off, yes. Was Rocky basically a brawler with little defense, a good chin and a big punch, yes he was. That does not sound like the greatest of all time, just my opinion.............Rockin':boxing:
That's all fine but I objected to the way you went about that earlier post,.. but Rocky seems to me to be the greatest brawler of them all, this post was much better put, we all have a right to our opinions, me because I study them for years,,,,, Rocky was the best HW in the world,,, Tex Cobb may have similarities, but there is no comparison,... Rocky may look ugly at times but 42 KO's from 49 proves that no HW in history was as effective as a head first slugger, but many punches that came Rocky's way are just glancing off him.. these fighters back then were very, very tough. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think I prefer substance over style anyday, I've seen hundreds of fights where a slick boxer made someone look silly all night then WHAM,.. the brown Bomber lowers the boom on Conn (for instance),,, and all that great work means nothing........... in Disneyland.

McGoorty
10-30-2011, 05:53 PM
Rockin I respect you but this highly controversial statement. I don't know where to start, if you were someone else my response will be a bit terse.

But as for Cobb the day Tex could evade punches liek Rocky he would have been a genius. Rocky avoided punches, otherwise guys like Moore or even the old Charles would have blown him away.

Now you are a pro and all that but I will take Charles word about Rocky's defense over yours. "Rocky fools you, he does not take as much punishment as it seems.He looks easy to hit inside but he isn't"...that man had a better view. So if I have to absolutely take a boxers opinion, I will take this.

However you might have missed some of these attributes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b0yHvw-vW0

Watch the above video and go and watch a Tex Cobb video and let me know if Tex had remotely the skills of Rocky. Watch how he slips jabs from Joe lOuis(who was old but still had a great jab, Walcott etc).

Snipes wil be caught by Rocky atleast five times in a 15 rounder, even Ali was caught by George Chuvalo. I have never seen anything in Snipes to suggest he will endure a barrage from Rocky...from Holmes yea, who never had Rock's power.

And you never go undefeated in boxing without getting tested. Have a good day.
You know, it seems to me that apart from one sticky subject,..... we are in agreement on virtually everything else, this post of yours is a perfect example, I have never hidden my admiration for Rocky and I just cannot understand why he's not admired by everyone. I look forward to more.

McGoorty
10-30-2011, 05:56 PM
When you hear Marciano talk about boxing it's obvious that the man had a lot of knowledge about the sport. He was trained by one of the best in Charley Goldman after all who recognized his raw talent early on (apparently by looking sluggish in sparring until flattening his opponent with a single punch). Part of the reason why he might appear more crude than some of the other heavyweight champions is that he was a late starter who took up boxing in his 20's.

Goldman instilled in him the knowledge of all the techniques that were needed to become a champion and while he did not necessarily have the co-ordination to pull of them all, he would instead use his experience by taking advantage of his awkwardness and making the fight extremely difficult and uncomfortable for his opponents. Sure he did not utilize a double jab or subtle footwork, but he did know how to prevent his opponent from using these techniques effectively. Once he dragged you into a war, he always got the better of it.

"The Rock didn't know too much about the boxing book, but it wasn't a book he hit me with. It was a whole library of bone crushers."
-Joe Louis
All in all, for a bloke who wanted nothing more than to play baseball in the major leagues, Marciano became a hell of a fighter.

McGoorty
10-30-2011, 05:59 PM
Good post.

Rocky was brilliant in making the other guy fight his fight. Archie Moore confessed "He doesn't let you fight your fight".

Freddie Brown put it best " It's not like football. Rocky never gives you the ball".

As for Goldman working on Rocky's defense, to give him the subtle skills required. Nothing could be more true.

Lets hear from the man himself"Rocky rolls under punches and he weaves under punches...He protects his belly by blocking punches with his elbows".

Simple yet effective, this is a past 1953 Rocky though. Goldman made some subtle changes to sacrifice some power to give Rocky a good defense.

Keane Simmons once said "When you look at him from outside the ring he seems easy to hit, but if you are in the ring with him you will find it isn't the case."
This quote is one of the all-time great boxing quotes.... thanks for that tid-bit...Freddie Brown put it best " It's not like football. Rocky never gives you the ball".

Greatest1942
10-30-2011, 07:05 PM
All in all, for a bloke who wanted nothing more than to play baseball in the major leagues, Marciano became a hell of a fighter.


He became one of the best of all time. Period.

As for him short and crude, trust me before Bolt came along most so called trainers would have scoffed at man of his figure trying to make a name in 100M dash.

We all know what happened next. Rocky proved the same in boxing.

Rockin'
10-30-2011, 10:53 PM
I bet he'd pale at the thought of facing Marciano for real. ..

Not true, as a matter of fact my attitude would have been glove me up. I threw fists with current, future and past world champions. The strongest guy that I would say that I sparred with would be Dennis Andreas. The guy was like a tree stump with gloves on. I just don't find the same greatness in Rocky Marciano as the general consensus does. He was strong, he was persistant and ok, he had nice head movement when rolling in. But in this thread a resume will determine your greatness, so be it.

Marciano fights his first few fights, noticebly against decent competition judging by their records. In his 25th bout he meets Roland Lastarza, a well produced pretty boy who could box. Marciano scraps out a draw between the 3 judges cards and the referee votes 9-6 in favor of Marciano as it is reported. How you could score a 10 round bout 9-6 still baffles me.

Anyway, he fights on and eventually and knocks out favored Rex Layne. He stopped a Harry Matthews that I don't know much of and fights Jersey Joe Walcott who was trying to enjoy the title by fighting less than stellar competition after all of the long and hard fought battles that he was part of. He was at the end of his line, the time had come. Similar to a Larry Holmes vs Michael Spinks if you would.

He took out a highly touted Roland Lastarzza and then stepped in to face Ezzard Charles. Who, although he was great in his own right, was far better as a Light Heavyweight contender and champion. At Heavyweight Ezzard Charles only managed mild contention. 2 loses against Jersey Joe Walcott, 1 lose by decision the other by ko. He then loses against Rex Layne who was knocked out by Marciano 3 months prior to fighting Charles.

Marciano then fights Don ****ell, who that guy was I am clueless, and then goes on to defeat Archie Moore, who had dended his light heavyweight crown just 3 months before his bout with Marciano.

So in essense we have defenses against a well known lightheavy weight, a pretty blonde boy with some skills, another well known light heavy, who was Don ****ell and then defends against Archie Moore. Who not only knocked out by Marciano for the title but was knocked out by Floyd Patterson just a little over a year after Rocky fought him.

Plain and simple, 3 very talented light heavyweights, a pretty boy, some guy named Don ****ell and he retires after beating the 3rd very talanted lightheavy weight.. That does not sound like the greatest Heavyweight Champion resume to me. Not even close................Rockin':boxing:

JAB5239
10-31-2011, 03:42 AM
Not true, as a matter of fact my attitude would have been glove me up. I threw fists with current, future and past world champions. The strongest guy that I would say that I sparred with would be Dennis Andreas. The guy was like a tree stump with gloves on. I just don't find the same greatness in Rocky Marciano as the general consensus does. He was strong, he was persistant and ok, he had nice head movement when rolling in. But in this thread a resume will determine your greatness, so be it.

Marciano fights his first few fights, noticebly against decent competition judging by their records. In his 25th bout he meets Roland Lastarza, a well produced pretty boy who could box. Marciano scraps out a draw between the 3 judges cards and the referee votes 9-6 in favor of Marciano as it is reported. How you could score a 10 round bout 9-6 still baffles me.

Anyway, he fights on and eventually and knocks out favored Rex Layne. He stopped a Harry Matthews that I don't know much of and fights Jersey Joe Walcott who was trying to enjoy the title by fighting less than stellar competition after all of the long and hard fought battles that he was part of. He was at the end of his line, the time had come. Similar to a Larry Holmes vs Michael Spinks if you would.

He took out a highly touted Roland Lastarzza and then stepped in to face Ezzard Charles. Who, although he was great in his own right, was far better as a Light Heavyweight contender and champion. At Heavyweight Ezzard Charles only managed mild contention. 2 loses against Jersey Joe Walcott, 1 lose by decision the other by ko. He then loses against Rex Layne who was knocked out by Marciano 3 months prior to fighting Charles.

Marciano then fights Don ****ell, who that guy was I am clueless, and then goes on to defeat Archie Moore, who had dended his light heavyweight crown just 3 months before his bout with Marciano.

So in essense we have defenses against a well known lightheavy weight, a pretty blonde boy with some skills, another well known light heavy, who was Don ****ell and then defends against Archie Moore. Who not only knocked out by Marciano for the title but was knocked out by Floyd Patterson just a little over a year after Rocky fought him.

Plain and simple, 3 very talented light heavyweights, a pretty boy, some guy named Don ****ell and he retires after beating the 3rd very talanted lightheavy weight.. That does not sound like the greatest Heavyweight Champion resume to me. Not even close................Rockin':boxing:

It's not the greatest heavyweight championship resume, but it's pretty good. Certainly better than *Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Baer, Charles, Walcott, *Foreman, *Liston and Patterson Three of which (asterisk indicated) I rank higher all time. I think 10 is a good all time placing for him at heavy. With all due respect bro, who did Dempsey, or especially Tunney beat who you think were better than Moore, Charles or Walcott? Tunney really has nobody but an inactive Dempsey, and Dempsey's resume is a lot of smoke and mirrors when you get down to the nitty gritty and see that he avoided his two best challengers without ever giving them an opportunity. Take away THEIR 4 best wins at heavy and they're also left with nada. Rocky pretty much cleaned out a division and did it with disadvantages in size, skills and experience when matching up against other all time greats. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I think that has to count for something. Jmo. :dunno:

Rockin'
10-31-2011, 04:20 AM
It's not the greatest heavyweight championship resume, but it's pretty good. Certainly better than *Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Baer, Charles, Walcott, *Foreman, *Liston and Patterson Three of which (asterisk indicated) I rank higher all time. I think 10 is a good all time placing for him at heavy. With all due respect bro, who did Dempsey, or especially Tunney beat who you think were better than Moore, Charles or Walcott? Tunney really has nobody but an inactive Dempsey, and Dempsey's resume is a lot of smoke and mirrors when you get down to the nitty gritty and see that he avoided his two best challengers without ever giving them an opportunity. Take away THEIR 4 best wins at heavy and they're also left with nada. Rocky pretty much cleaned out a division and did it with disadvantages in size, skills and experience when matching up against other all time greats. I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I think that has to count for something. Jmo. :dunno:

5 defenses against 4 great fighters. (In no particular order) He beats some guy named Don ****ell, he beats 3 great fighters by the name Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. They were great alright but only in the LightHeavyweight division. As heavyweights neither ever broke contender status. Throw in an a slightly slower but still viable old mongoose that defended his Light-Heavyweight title 3 months prior to fighting Marciano for the Heavyweight title. Archie Moore would go up in weight to fight Heavyweights while he held the Light Heavy crown. I'll give credit to Marciano in beating Moore but that's were the accolaids end. That's it! Nothing More to Pull From His Resume. If resumes do in-deed determine greatness than this would have to serve as a 2nd place to a few fighters. Give me a bit of time and I'll dissect and tell you what I find. ...............Rockin':boxing:

McGoorty
10-31-2011, 04:28 AM
He became one of the best of all time. Period.

As for him short and crude, trust me before Bolt came along most so called trainers would have scoffed at man of his figure trying to make a name in 100M dash.

We all know what happened next. Rocky proved the same in boxing.
Now that you mention Bolt, man I love that that dude's ability, I have NEVER seen an athlete like him, the guy is a freak,..... Marciano was a freak of a different kind, but he was, some people here do NOT respect the power that Jersey Joe had, that chin on Rocky was a freak, he reminds me of a certain MW in that area.

McGoorty
10-31-2011, 04:57 AM
Not true, as a matter of fact my attitude would have been glove me up. I threw fists with current, future and past world champions. The strongest guy that I would say that I sparred with would be Dennis Andreas. The guy was like a tree stump with gloves on. I just don't find the same greatness in Rocky Marciano as the general consensus does. He was strong, he was persistant and ok, he had nice head movement when rolling in. But in this thread a resume will determine your greatness, so be it. I presume you mean Dennis Andries of Jeff Harding fame,.... lol, you are giving your age away.. lol... Seriously though he was a tough SOB, but Rocky would have blown Dennis out of the water. I understand boxers are a bit nutso,... I think anyone going into the ring with Marciano just don't wanna live long, but I give you kudos for courage.

Marciano fights his first few fights, noticebly against decent competition judging by their records. In his 25th bout he meets Roland Lastarza, a well produced pretty boy who could box. Marciano scraps out a draw between the 3 judges cards and the referee votes 9-6 in favor of Marciano as it is reported. How you could score a 10 round bout 9-6 still baffles me. Well nobody could explain 9-6 as a scoreline, but the re-match settled this question anyway,... now La Starza may have been a pretty boy,... but he was very good, and Ali was pretty, Oscar was THE pretty Boy (i never could stand him)

Anyway, he fights on and eventually and knocks out favored Rex Layne. He stopped a Harry Matthews that I don't know much of and fights Jersey Joe Walcott who was trying to enjoy the title by fighting less than stellar competition after all of the long and hard fought battles that he was part of. He was at the end of his line, the time had come. Similar to a Larry Holmes vs Michael Spinks if you would. Harry Matthews had more speed, more skills,... more than most things Rocky had, Harry Matthews would easily win a few ABC belts in today's era. But he was monstered by the Rock, trust me man that Rocky was far tougher than you imagine him to be.

He took out a highly touted Roland Lastarzza and then stepped in to face Ezzard Charles. Who, although he was great in his own right, was far better as a Light Heavyweight contender and champion. At Heavyweight Ezzard Charles only managed mild contention. 2 loses against Jersey Joe Walcott, 1 lose by decision the other by ko. He then loses against Rex Layne who was knocked out by Marciano 3 months prior to fighting Charles. You underate Layne too, he'd get a ABC title too, I have seen Layne fight, he only beat Charles because he was simply too bog for Ezzard.

Marciano then fights Don ****ell, who that guy was I am clueless, and then goes on to defeat Archie Moore, who had dended his light heavyweight crown just 3 months before his bout with Marciano. ****ell was an overweight Pom, but he was very heavy, he was a rugged brawler who made Rocky appear as just a MW.

So in essense we have defenses against a well known lightheavy weight, a pretty blonde boy with some skills, another well known light heavy, who was Don ****ell and then defends against Archie Moore. Who not only knocked out by Marciano for the title but was knocked out by Floyd Patterson just a little over a year after Rocky fought him. You make it sound like Rocky was this big guy, mate he was outreached by Les Darcy who was 4 inches shorter..... He is virtually only a CW with a reach that would have discouraged a LW,.... He was actually disadvantaged against the taller Charles.

Plain and simple, 3 very talented light heavyweights, a pretty boy, some guy named Don ****ell and he retires after beating the 3rd very talanted lightheavy weight.. That does not sound like the greatest Heavyweight Champion resume to me. Not even close................Rockin':boxing:

You are no doubt the man to ask, if one wants to know how to move and how to throw a left-hook, you have fortitude and all, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you automatically know history. I can really play some high-level guitar,... I can show people some tricks, but I just ain't no teacher, I cannot pass on my ability to someone else, believe me I have tried and tried, I can play the blues, but only because I can FEEL the blues as if I invented the genre (I didn't), ,most people just don't have "IT"..... cheers.

McGoorty
10-31-2011, 05:04 AM
5 defenses against 4 great fighters. (In no particular order) He beats some guy named Don ****ell, he beats 3 great fighters by the name Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. They were great alright but only in the LightHeavyweight division. As heavyweights neither ever broke contender status. Throw in an a slightly slower but still viable old mongoose that defended his Light-Heavyweight title 3 months prior to fighting Marciano for the Heavyweight title. Archie Moore would go up in weight to fight Heavyweights while he held the Light Heavy crown. I'll give credit to Marciano in beating Moore but that's were the accolaids end. That's it! Nothing More to Pull From His Resume. If resumes do in-deed determine greatness than this would have to serve as a 2nd place to a few fighters. Give me a bit of time and I'll dissect and tell you what I find. ...............Rockin':boxing:
Contender status ?????,... Charles and Walcott contender status,..???.. a typo ?... Walcott a LHW ????...... I found JAB's reply there to have been a very solid one, and JAB is/was a fighter too.... as for me, do streetfights count ?... lol... no need to answer that last bit.

Rockin'
10-31-2011, 05:04 AM
Now that you mention Bolt, man I love that that dude's ability, I have NEVER seen an athlete like him, the guy is a freak,..... Marciano was a freak of a different kind, but he was, some people here do NOT respect the power that Jersey Joe had, that chin on Rocky was a freak, he reminds me of a certain MW in that area.

Did Marciano punch harder than a prime 215 pound Mike Tyson, I doubt it.

Lamotta was very good in his own way but that does not make him the best ever.

People claim that Marciano fought the best and cleared out the division. Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno, Williams and then the most incredible upset, possibly of All-Time.

Now that is what I call clearing out a division and he never took more than 3 months between his defenses. The girl shows up and things get out of sync. He takes 5 months for Williams and 7 months to the defeat at the hands of Douglas.

You have to admit that Tyson cleared out the division Completely. Marciano took out 4 contenders and said that I'm done. I do not knock The Rock for hanging the gloves up but if you want to be the greatest of All-Time you don't fight 2 heavyweights and 2 Light Heavyweights for 5 defenseses and quit to be considered all-time greatest. In 2 years and 4 months Marciano aquired 5 succesfull defenses while king. In the same time frame Tyson had made 8 defenses. Getting Ezzard Charles twice could be compared to the getting the Spinks/Tyson blow-out twice. A natural Light Heavy would never be standing for too long against Tyson.............Rockin':boxing:

Rockin'
10-31-2011, 05:11 AM
You are no doubt the man to ask, if one wants to know how to move and how to throw a left-hook, you have fortitude and all, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you automatically know history. I can really play some high-level guitar,... I can show people some tricks, but I just ain't no teacher, I cannot pass on my ability to someone else, believe me I have tried and tried, I can play the blues, but only because I can FEEL the blues as if I invented the genre (I didn't), ,most people just don't have "IT"..... cheers.



It was a very informative reply, thanks..........Rockin':boxing:

Rockin'
10-31-2011, 05:17 AM
.... as for me, do streetfights count ?... lol... no need to answer that last bit.

People who fight in the streets really don't want to find somebody else who can fight to fight against. They generally go for the seemingly simple fights. If they did want to fight somebody else who could fight they would have been where Jab and I were fighting those kinds of people who could fight....Rockin':boxing:

JAB5239
10-31-2011, 05:18 AM
5 defenses against 4 great fighters. (In no particular order) He beats some guy named Don ****ell, he beats 3 great fighters by the name Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. They were great alright but only in the LightHeavyweight division. As heavyweights neither ever broke contender status. Throw in an a slightly slower but still viable old mongoose that defended his Light-Heavyweight title 3 months prior to fighting Marciano for the Heavyweight title. Archie Moore would go up in weight to fight Heavyweights while he held the Light Heavy crown. I'll give credit to Marciano in beating Moore but that's were the accolaids end. That's it! Nothing More to Pull From His Resume. If resumes do in-deed determine greatness than this would have to serve as a 2nd place to a few fighters. Give me a bit of time and I'll dissect and tell you what I find. ...............Rockin':boxing:

Arguments can be made that both Charles and Walcott are top 25 all time at heavy and their skills are undeniable, even at the times they fought Marciano. The same can't be said for Dempsey or Tunney, my man. I respect both you and your opinion, but you're off on this and I can show it by using the same criteria you use for Marciano.

Rockin'
10-31-2011, 05:23 AM
Arguments can be made that both Charles and Walcott are top 25 all time at heavy and their skills are undeniable, even at the times they fought Marciano. The same can't be said for Dempsey or Tunney, my man. I respect both you and your opinion, but you're off on this and I can show it by using the same criteria you use for Marciano.

The other you have to admit was a blown up lightheavy though........Rockin':boxing:

JAB5239
10-31-2011, 05:34 AM
People who fight in the streets really don't want to find somebody else who can fight to fight against. They generally go for the seemingly simple fights. If they did want to fight somebody else who could fight they would have been where Jab and I were fighting those kinds of people who could fight....Rockin':boxing:


I appreciate the accolade, but your level of fighting far surpassed mine. I have nothing but pride about who I've worked out and been in the ring with, but my experience simply wasn't on your level. I know exactly what you're saying though. Without trying to demean the knowledge of any poster here, it's very hard to understand just how hard world class fighters train and just how gifted they are unless you've actually trained beside them. Doesn't make our knowledge of history any better, but I think it gives the few who have been there a better understanding. Hope that doesn't come off as pompous.

JAB5239
10-31-2011, 05:51 AM
The other you have to admit was a blown up lightheavy though........Rockin':boxing:

Admittedly, yes. But that didn't make him less competitive against the heavyweights of the day and his skills were still undeniable.

I look at it this way....when I judge all time greatness at heavy I don't consider the size differential of fighters as the utmost importance. To me that equals a fantasy h2h match up that can't be proven. But I still consider it relevant when one skilled fighter can carry those tools up and be relevant in the same division and within 10 or 20lbs of another ATG.

I been drinking tonight and I don't think Im conveying what I want to say the way I want to say it, but Im pretty firm on this. I'll try and explain this better when Im in a clearer state of mind.

Rockin'
10-31-2011, 05:57 AM
Admittedly, yes. But that didn't make him less competitive against the heavyweights of the day and his skills were still undeniable.

I look at it this way....when I judge all time greatness at heavy I don't consider the size differential of fighters as the utmost importance. To me that equals a fantasy h2h match up that can't be proven. But I still consider it relevant when one skilled fighter can carry those tools up and be relevant in the same division and within 10 or 20lbs of another ATG.

I been drinking tonight and I don't think Im conveying what I want to say the way I want to say it, but Im pretty firm on this. I'll try and explain this better when Im in a clearer state of mind.

I'm a wee bit medicated myself, cheers........Rockin':439:

JAB5239
10-31-2011, 06:08 AM
I'm a wee bit medicated myself, cheers........Rockin':439:

Salud champ!! :beerchug:

Rockin'
10-31-2011, 06:13 AM
Salud champ!! :beerchug:

I haven't been able to drink in years because of medication. But I will be certain to exhale a cloud for you.............Rockin':439:

JAB5239
10-31-2011, 06:25 AM
I haven't been able to drink in years because of medication. But I will be certain to exhale a cloud for you.............Rockin':439:

Lol, well Im unable to toke because of sheer retardation and stupidity. If you get me to do it have a camera ready and you will be guaranteed a youtube hit! Im done with the crown for the night, but Im tipping a brew in your direction! THANK God I have no work tomorrow!!

GJC
10-31-2011, 09:14 AM
Another alternate legacy for Rocky would be if he had been say born 4 years later and started at 21 instead of 24/25. That might have taken him up 1959 as champ, personally I think he would have seen off the likes of Patterson etc. If he retired in 1959 before running into a prime Liston he might well have been 60 odd and 0 with a solid 7 year reign as champ? Think the stand out top 2 of Louis and Ali might well be a 3?

Rockin'
10-31-2011, 09:28 AM
Another alternate legacy for Rocky would be if he had been say born 4 years later and started at 21 instead of 24/25. That might have taken him up 1959 as champ, personally I think he would have seen off the likes of Patterson etc. If he retired in 1959 before running into a prime Liston he might well have been 60 odd and 0 with a solid 7 year reign as champ? Think the stand out top 2 of Louis and Ali might well be a 3?

Say Rocky was born later just those few years and Rocky had to fight Liston. Marciano would be seriously injured in this one. Fraizer/ Marciano would of been fireworks and nuclear bombs. But he wasn't born later. What about if Marciano had to fight Quarry. I think that it would be a good fight with Quarry eventually being chopped down by Marcianos body attack.........Rockin':boxing:

McGoorty
10-31-2011, 09:33 AM
People who fight in the streets really don't want to find somebody else who can fight to fight against. They generally go for the seemingly simple fights. If they did want to fight somebody else who could fight they would have been where Jab and I were fighting those kinds of people who could fight....Rockin':boxing:
I did say to forget about that last cheeky little bit. You are absolutely right, and now that you have said that I must clear up something. I got punched in the head my first day in kindergarten and from that day onward until 21, there was always an element that always wanted to bash my head in, my dad was a policeman and we always lived in smallish towns, and I was therefore a target of the criminal types for a long time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So to clear things up, I am no thug, I also learnt that I had no talent for fighting, but damn it what choice was there, I got bashed a lot sometimes by 3 or 4 at once and I learned the true meaning of blind fury, I began to retaliate and on one occasion I beat a prick up real bad and that scared me more than getting bashed, from then on I avoided fights like a plague, I still can't forget the revulsion of seeing that blokes head. Therefore boxing wasn't my idea of fun..... but I have come to love boxing through films like Zale V Graziano III........ I believe every word of what Bob Fitzsimmons say's about boxing, that it is not the preferred sport of thugs, but the braver sort,... I think this is also the true outlook of a genuine Karate or some other eastern Martial philosophies. As I grew up, the guys who did boxing brought great shame upon real boxing,... and I bet you aren't shocked to hear that ALL of those thugs amounted to nothing.... zip,... Most of them are just washed up drunks now,... with no friends..... I hope that wasn't too long winded.

McGoorty
10-31-2011, 09:36 AM
Admittedly, yes. But that didn't make him less competitive against the heavyweights of the day and his skills were still undeniable.

I look at it this way....when I judge all time greatness at heavy I don't consider the size differential of fighters as the utmost importance. To me that equals a fantasy h2h match up that can't be proven. But I still consider it relevant when one skilled fighter can carry those tools up and be relevant in the same division and within 10 or 20lbs of another ATG.

I been drinking tonight and I don't think Im conveying what I want to say the way I want to say it, but Im pretty firm on this. I'll try and explain this better when Im in a clearer state of mind.
And they call us Aussies a bunch of drunks..... hee hee.

McGoorty
10-31-2011, 09:43 AM
Lol, well Im unable to toke because of sheer retardation and stupidity. If you get me to do it have a camera ready and you will be guaranteed a youtube hit! Im done with the crown for the night, but Im tipping a brew in your direction! THANK God I have no work tomorrow!!
Is it true that yankee beer is as weak as Aussie blokes reckon,.. You should try an old Northern Territory Stubby mate,... just one of those in yer belly is enough to get the average bloke paraletic rolling drunk, I haven't seen one in decades but they contained about 4 Litres at around 7% alcohol content, The N.T. has a tiny population but they hold many many beer drinking records, but let me tell you, it's one of the hottest places on earth and is a great help to becoming a beer drinking legend,.... I tried to become one myself,... but I was as weak as piss,... Drunk in less than 40 cans,.. I'm a disgrace to my race.... lol.

McGoorty
10-31-2011, 09:47 AM
Is it true that yankee beer is as weak as Aussie blokes reckon,.. You should try an old Northern Territory Stubby mate,... just one of those in yer belly is enough to get the average bloke paraletic rolling drunk, I haven't seen one in decades but they contained about 4 Litres at around 7% alcohol content, The N.T. has a tiny population but they hold many many beer drinking records, but let me tell you, it's one of the hottest places on earth and is a great help to becoming a beer drinking legend,.... I tried to become one myself,... but I was as weak as piss,... Drunk in less than 40 cans,.. I'm a disgrace to my race.... lol.
You see a normal "Stubby" means a small stubby bottle in most places but the Northern Territorian thinks a Schooner is just a "shot" glass.. they do things bigger than Texas there.

JAB5239
10-31-2011, 03:06 PM
And they call us Aussies a bunch of drunks..... hee hee.

My drinking tolerance is for **** since I quit to get back in shape this summer. I feel like someone hit me in the head with a brick. :grumble:

Greatest1942
10-31-2011, 03:30 PM
The other you have to admit was a blown up lightheavy though........Rockin':boxing:


Atleast Marciano beat those guys...I think Holmes go beat by a blown up lightheavy too. How big was Leon Spinks, who beat Ali. How big was Conn who troubled Louis..Tunney was a natural LHW who won 19 out of 20 rounds from Jack Dempsey. Your pointing out Ezzard as a blown up light heavy is a bad try. HE was the HW champ of the world for a period, has multiple defenses to his name and on video looks awesome. By your logic Willis beating Sam Langford counts for nothing.

What is Jack's resume compared to Marciano? Care to argue it out? How good was Liston's resume compared to Rocky ?

The way you are dishing Marciano, I can dish any fighter!!! Any fighter even Ali and Louis.He was never ever beaten. HE beat good heavy weights like Layne, Savold (about whom if you have a bad opinion it doesn't matter, since they were very good contenders). Beat top 30 guys like Walcott or Charles...beat a solid contender In Louis( he was no more the great champ , but still a good fighter), beat a all time great LHW in Moore (which Holmes or Dempsey failed). Was a champ and defended six times. And never ever ducked anyone.

How crude he was is out of the question.( With all your attributes as I said I will pick Charles or Goldman's word over yours or even Dundees so no need to comment). His resume is as good as anyone in the history of boxing. The fact that you argue it out it was not shows your bias or ignorance.

McGoorty
10-31-2011, 03:52 PM
My drinking tolerance is for **** since I quit to get back in shape this summer. I feel like someone hit me in the head with a brick. :grumble:
Oh mate those silly days are long gone for me, I still have the odd beer but that's all.

Greatest1942
10-31-2011, 04:01 PM
At Heavyweight Ezzard Charles only managed mild contention. 2 loses against Jersey Joe Walcott, 1 lose by decision the other by ko.

Again this shows your lack of research. Charles won the first two against Walcott..in the third he was KO'd by a punch, no harm in that better people have been knocked out too. In the fourth it was Charles who won the fight. he did well. It was a bad decision by all accounts.

Charles beat a returning Louis (aged and all , still a good win), Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Satterfield, Joe Baksi, Pat Valentino,Gus Lesnevich,Lee Oma, Rex Layne except Walcott. All good contenders and two great fighters. BIvins was #26 by the ring magazine at heavyweight (because I know your response).

The fact that you have to now belittle Charles career at heavyweight, shows your desperation. Cut it anyway , blown up or any ***** like that, Charles was a top 30 guy at heavy. Same as Walcott. And ****ell was not worse than Rahman. And Layne and Savold were very good contenders and would have been so in any era.

How many guys did Liston beat who can be ranked in the top 30 or Dempsey or Tunney or even Tyson.

GJC
10-31-2011, 04:05 PM
Again this shows your lack of research. Charles won the first two against Walcott..in the third he was KO'd by a punch, no harm in that better people have been knocked out too. In the fourth it was Charles who won the fight. he did well. It was a bad decision by all accounts.

Charles beat a returning Louis (aged and all , still a good win), Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Satterfield, Joe Baksi, Pat Valentino,Gus Lesnevich,Lee Oma, Rex Layne except Walcott. All good contenders and two great fighters. BIvins was #26 by the ring magazine at heavyweight (because I know your response).

The fact that you have to now belittle Charles career at heavyweight, shows your desperation. Cut it anyway , blown up or any ***** like that, Charles was a top 30 guy at heavy. Same as Walcott. And ****ell was not worse than Rahman. And Layne and Savold were very good contenders and would have been so in any era.

How many guys did Liston beat who can be ranked in the top 30 or Dempsey or Tunney or even Tyson.
Baksi was no dancing master but a rough tough guy who would be a tough fight for any HW, not saying he'll win but a good contender

Greatest1942
10-31-2011, 04:10 PM
Baksi was no dancing master but a rough tough guy who would be a tough fight for any HW, not saying he'll win but a good contender

Exactly...look the top contenders in those days were seldom cakewalk, no matter how people try to potray them now...There were many more licensed fighters and these blokes had to fight through a lot even to reach the top.

Very rarely did bad fighters make it that good Baksi, Lee Oma etc were good fighters. Just because people don't know about them does not make them a bum.

Rockin'
10-31-2011, 07:27 PM
Again this shows your lack of research. Charles won the first two against Walcott..in the third he was KO'd by a punch, no harm in that better people have been knocked out too. In the fourth it was Charles who won the fight. he did well. It was a bad decision by all accounts.

Charles beat a returning Louis (aged and all , still a good win), Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Satterfield, Joe Baksi, Pat Valentino,Gus Lesnevich,Lee Oma, Rex Layne except Walcott. All good contenders and two great fighters. BIvins was #26 by the ring magazine at heavyweight (because I know your response).

The fact that you have to now belittle Charles career at heavyweight, shows your desperation. Cut it anyway , blown up or any ***** like that, Charles was a top 30 guy at heavy. Same as Walcott. And ****ell was not worse than Rahman. And Layne and Savold were very good contenders and would have been so in any era.

How many guys did Liston beat who can be ranked in the top 30 or Dempsey or Tunney or even Tyson.

An old, fat and fighting only because he got screwed by the irs Joe Louis was a good win? Louis was nothing when Marciano beat him except for a recognizable name who was cleared to fight in that mis-match.

And you are mistaken about Charles, while I agree that he was a good fighter at the time he won the first bout against Walcott and lost the next two meetings, the last by ko. Charles was a great fighter but his Heavyweight resume pales in comparison to his lightheavy resume. I respect Charles, Bill Miller always praised Charles for his skill as do I. But he was better still at Light-Heavy.

Don ****ell was a blown up light heavy who was at the end of his rope when he faced Marciano. ****ell was nothing close to what he was as a Light-Heavy when in with the Heavyweights. ****ell didn't start fighting as a heavyweight until he was 33 years old. ****ell was Ko'd by Randy Turpin for the British Light-Heavy title and 2 years later was ko'd in his last 3 bouts by our man Rocky and lost by Ko against Nino Valdez and a guy named Kitione Lave and he was done.

The Louis fight was a farce, ****ell who proved better as a Light-Heavy loses to Marciano at the tail end of his career. Ezzard Charles, ok I'll give you that he was a good heavyweight. Jersey Joe was at the end of his career. Archie Moorer was a nice win but Floyd Patterson was able to stop Moore just a little over a year after Rocky did.
Doesn't sound like it was the Mongoose of old that was in there with Rocky. ..............Rockin':boxing:

joseph5620
10-31-2011, 07:49 PM
Again this shows your lack of research. Charles won the first two against Walcott..in the third he was KO'd by a punch, no harm in that better people have been knocked out too. In the fourth it was Charles who won the fight. he did well. It was a bad decision by all accounts.

Charles beat a returning Louis (aged and all , still a good win), Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Satterfield, Joe Baksi, Pat Valentino,Gus Lesnevich,Lee Oma, Rex Layne except Walcott. All good contenders and two great fighters. BIvins was #26 by the ring magazine at heavyweight (because I know your response).

The fact that you have to now belittle Charles career at heavyweight, shows your desperation. Cut it anyway , blown up or any ***** like that, Charles was a top 30 guy at heavy. Same as Walcott. And ****ell was not worse than Rahman. And Layne and Savold were very good contenders and would have been so in any era.

How many guys did Liston beat who can be ranked in the top 30 or Dempsey or Tunney or even Tyson.





You need to explain how that was a "good" win. Liston beat every top fighter he needed to beat with the exception of Ali. Charles heavyweight resume is not better or on par with Liston's no matter how you try to spin it.

Marchegiano
10-31-2011, 08:56 PM
My point is that resume dictates greatness, not h2h fantasy fights. Accomplishment over other top fighters is the end all (in my opinion) considering who they fought and what they accomplished. Of course there is more, but that is the jist of it.

beautiful, I'm obviously different. The resume is second to what I'm seeing/reading. Rocky's my favorite simply because I enjoy the way he boxes more than anyone else. Put the bull **** aside and lets see who's the harder man. Rocco is obvious, not hiding anything. He hits really ****ing hard ( check the out-of-ring studies, easily can break a man's skull, and much harder than many of his larger heavy-handed counterparts) and really ****ing continuously. People seem to think because it's not complicated it's easy....or that skill trumps trait. Some people are natural rivals....Some are trained rivals. No one ever beat anyone simply because they're good a jabbing, or simply because they hit really hard. thats always been a stupid over simplification probably stemming from folks who've never fought. I guess my point is I do not subscribe to the idea that "pure" boxing even exists, or that there is a wrong way to fight. There is wrong for you...For what is right for him...for his particular genetics he fought god damned perfectly. So if Rocky went around killing cans instead of KO'ing highly trained vets who still hold records to this day He'd still likely be my favourite...I'd just defend him less vehemently. Also, in addition, I'd like to state resume a bit differently. Marciano defeated: The former champ, The former former champ, and the former former former champ. the British champ, the LHW champ, the EBU champ, and his one near-loss. The majority of fighters he beat lost due to KO. The majority of KO's resulted in retirement. He and those he beat still hold records to this day.....don't actually give a damn about any of that...Just saying resumes are directly relative to POV. Rocky's over-hand isn't so much.....h2h Rocky's got a chance against anyone...in fact, chance he might kill them. That's the biggest point made in boxing to me. All at once saying BAM! your dexterity just met my constitution.

It'd take a guy leaning even farther back and jumping even more with every punch and landing them on fellas who'd owned the belt longer than anyone else or some other great prestige to get Rocco off the number one slot. Tyson almost did it...if he had cardio, and a better chin.

Marchegiano
10-31-2011, 09:11 PM
You need to explain how that was a "good" win. Liston beat every top fighter he needed to beat with the exception of Ali. Charles heavyweight resume is not better or on par with Liston's no matter how you try to spin it.

um, what top fighters? You can't go saying Rex Layne doesn't matter, but Williams does. My point is Charles beat the top competition of his time too. You just don't see them as equal tops. He didn't cherry pick homie. You can claim weak era, but not weak champion.
Plus, Charles would be a god damned god send today......so would Sonny...

JAB5239
10-31-2011, 09:42 PM
beautiful, I'm obviously different. The resume is second to what I'm seeing/reading. Rocky's my favorite simply because I enjoy the way he boxes more than anyone else. Put the bull **** aside and lets see who's the harder man. Rocco is obvious, not hiding anything. He hits really ****ing hard ( check the out-of-ring studies, easily can break a man's skull, and much harder than many of his larger heavy-handed counterparts) and really ****ing continuously. People seem to think because it's not complicated it's easy....or that skill trumps trait. Some people are natural rivals....Some are trained rivals. No one ever beat anyone simply because they're good a jabbing, or simply because they hit really hard. thats always been a stupid over simplification probably stemming from folks who've never fought. I guess my point is I do not subscribe to the idea that "pure" boxing even exists, or that there is a wrong way to fight. There is wrong for you...For what is right for him...for his particular genetics he fought god damned perfectly. So if Rocky went around killing cans instead of KO'ing highly trained vets who still hold records to this day He'd still likely be my favourite...I'd just defend him less vehemently. Also, in addition, I'd like to state resume a bit differently. Marciano defeated: The former champ, The former former champ, and the former former former champ. the British champ, the LHW champ, the EBU champ, and his one near-loss. The majority of fighters he beat lost due to KO. The majority of KO's resulted in retirement. He and those he beat still hold records to this day.....don't actually give a damn about any of that...Just saying resumes are directly relative to POV. Rocky's over-hand isn't so much.....h2h Rocky's got a chance against anyone...in fact, chance he might kill them. That's the biggest point made in boxing to me. All at once saying BAM! your dexterity just met my constitution.

It'd take a guy leaning even farther back and jumping even more with every punch and landing them on fellas who'd owned the belt longer than anyone else or some other great prestige to get Rocco off the number one slot. Tyson almost did it...if he had cardio, and a better chin.

So do you think Marciano falls out of the top ten with no Louis, Charles, Moore or Walcott's on his resume?

joseph5620
10-31-2011, 09:57 PM
um, what top fighters? You can't go saying Rex Layne doesn't matter, but Williams does. My point is Charles beat the top competition of his time too. You just don't see them as equal tops. He didn't cherry pick homie. You can claim weak era, but not weak champion.
Plus, Charles would be a god damned god send today......so would Sonny...

Is that a serious question or do I really need to tell you the top fighters that Liston beat? And when did I say Rex Layne "didn't matter?" Or anything about "cherry picking?" Don't put words in my mouth.The point was Charles heavyweight resume doesn't match Liston's and unless you come up with something compelling that says otherwise, that stands.


And whether you like it or not, Charles was 2-2 in his last 4 fights and aging when he first fought Marciano.

McGoorty
11-01-2011, 02:20 AM
You need to explain how that was a "good" win. Liston beat every top fighter he needed to beat with the exception of Ali. Charles heavyweight resume is not better or on par with Liston's no matter how you try to spin it.
I wouldn't mention Liston on the same line as ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ezzard Charles, so you are saying--------------- Liston beat a bunch of ATG's...... really ??,.... he's as good as --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ezzard Charles ?. ---- What ?

McGoorty
11-01-2011, 02:24 AM
You need to explain how that was a "good" win. Liston beat every top fighter he needed to beat with the exception of Ali. Charles heavyweight resume is not better or on par with Liston's no matter how you try to spin it.
Take away all that size with Liston and what are you left with ???

McGoorty
11-01-2011, 02:37 AM
So do you think Marciano falls out of the top ten with no Louis, Charles, Moore or Walcott's on his resume?
Umm JAB, all boxers drop dramatically if you take away their 4 best opponents. Imagine Les Darcy with no McGoorty, Clabby, Chip and either Jeff Smith or KO Brown. Or Gene Tunney without Greb, Dempsey, Carpentier and Heeney....... Joe Louis without Walcott, Baer, Schemeling and say Conn....... all drop 80 places down, Darcy would have had only 44 fights then.... Only Klompton would be happy for that.

JAB5239
11-01-2011, 03:15 AM
Take away all that size with Liston and what are you left with ???

Liston cleaned out the division in devastating fashion while Chatles was somewhat inconsistent at heavyweight. Liston is a top 10 heavy in my opinion, Ezzard isn't.

JAB5239
11-01-2011, 03:18 AM
Umm JAB, all boxers drop dramatically if you take away their 4 best opponents. Imagine Les Darcy with no McGoorty, Clabby, Chip and either Jeff Smith or KO Brown. Or Gene Tunney without Greb, Dempsey, Carpentier and Heeney....... Joe Louis without Walcott, Baer, Schemeling and say Conn....... all drop 80 places down, Darcy would have had only 44 fights then.... Only Klompton would be happy for that.

The difference with Marciano is that if you take his 4 biggest fights away he is left with practically nobody of note.

joseph5620
11-01-2011, 03:20 AM
I wouldn't mention Liston on the same line as ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ezzard Charles, so you are saying--------------- Liston beat a bunch of ATG's...... really ??,.... he's as good as --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ezzard Charles ?. ---- What ?



Maybe if you correctly comprehended what I posted you wouldn't have to ask that question. I never said Liston beat a bunch of all time greats. So spare me your typical hyperbolic responses. And yes, Liston was a better heavyweight than Charles. Whether you "mention him in the same line" or not. That's exactly what I'm saying. Does that answer your question?

McGoorty
11-01-2011, 03:25 AM
Liston cleaned out the division in devastating fashion while Chatles was somewhat inconsistent at heavyweight. Liston is a top 10 heavy in my opinion, Ezzard isn't.
I agree that he did all that, but I asked how he'd go if he was Marciano or Tommy Burns size, same thing for the Klits, it's one thing to bully guys because compared to them he's a water Buffalo..... BTW water Buffalos can kill any man to ever live in a second flat, now shrink that animal down to a Tasmanian Devil, and you have a very small aggressive critter instead of a man mountain like Sonny.

McGoorty
11-01-2011, 03:35 AM
The difference with Marciano is that if you take his 4 biggest fights away he is left with practically nobody of note.
All the same he beat the entire division, or the cream at least, Valdez though very big, wouldn't have lasted many rounds. You know Jab, I think Marciano is a NIGHTMARE for any gloved boxer to ever live, If Darcy was around in the 50's and I managed Les, I would not let Darcy fight Rocky under any circumstances, I'd tell Les, "yes you are better in most departments than him, but he's simply too big and powerful", Darcy would probably win any round he survived, but even with that chin, surely it would end in disaster. Rocky did everything ever asked of him. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Rocky was born an Australian he may have become one of the greatest forwards in either Rugby League Or Rugby Union if he was born a kiwi,... maybe an ice-hockey legend if born a canuck.... he was a natural born athlete who would have made a name for himself in nearly any endeavor.

McGoorty
11-01-2011, 03:41 AM
Maybe if you correctly comprehended what I posted you wouldn't have to ask that question. I never said Liston beat a bunch of all time greats. So spare me your typical hyperbolic responses. And yes, Liston was a better heavyweight than Charles. Whether you "mention him in the same line" or not. That's exactly what I'm saying. Does that answer your question?
Yes, actually that was much better explained. P4P there is no WAY you can compare them, Charles a small HW and Liston anything but small, that size of Liston cannot be sneered at. I think Floyd Patterson would have beat Liston if they weighed the same... just my opinion though...... but why put the word hyperbolic in ???..... Maybe you should read the variety of work that I've done here, damn, without me I doubt if more than two people on this forum would have ever heard of Les Darcy..... I HAD to correct that.

joseph5620
11-01-2011, 03:52 AM
Yes, actually that was much better explained. P4P there is no WAY you can compare them, Charles a small HW and Liston anything but small, that size of Liston cannot be sneered at. I think Floyd Patterson would have beat Liston if they weighed the same... just my opinion though...... but why put the word hyperbolic in ???..... Maybe you should read the variety of work that I've done here, damn, without me I doubt if more than two people on this forum would have ever heard of Les Darcy..... I HAD to correct that.

This is not a p4p discussion. Liston was a better heavyweight than Charles. Period. And the size argument is ridiculous. If size was the main factor why didn't Primo Carnera and Jess Willard have the same talent as Liston? Why didn't Wepner or Williams beat Liston? There were heavyweights taller and bigger than Liston before him. That excuse doesn't cut it. Don't even try to convince me Liston was only winning because of his "size".


And I said "Hyperbolic" because you flat out misquoted my post. I would appreciate if you question me about what I actually post and not your false interpretation of it.

JAB5239
11-01-2011, 03:53 AM
I agree that he did all that, but I asked how he'd go if he was Marciano or Tommy Burns size, same thing for the Klits, it's one thing to bully guys because compared to them he's a water Buffalo.

He wasn't a water buffalo compared to Williams, Valdes and Wepner and destroyed them with minimal effort. I've heard many say Williams is one of the greatest heavyweights to never win the title. Pretty high accolades.

I personally feel Liston is much better than given credit for.

McGoorty
11-01-2011, 08:21 AM
He wasn't a water buffalo compared to Williams, Valdes and Wepner and destroyed them with minimal effort. I've heard many say Williams is one of the greatest heavyweights to never win the title. Pretty high accolades.

I personally feel Liston is much better than given credit for.
No,... those guys were as biggish as Sonny,... Sonny was simply better than those guys,.. in other words he was the best of the giants,..... Patterson was small and had no hope. For a smaller man to beat a big man,.. that small man must have twice the ability just to compete....... that's for Joseph too.

McGoorty
11-01-2011, 08:22 AM
No,... those guys were as biggish as Sonny,... Sonny was simply better than those guys,.. in other words he was the best of the giants,..... Patterson was small and had no hope. For a smaller man to beat a big man,.. that small man must have twice the ability just to compete....... that's for Joseph too.
And Pattersons chin could have been better.

McGoorty
11-01-2011, 08:30 AM
This is not a p4p discussion. Liston was a better heavyweight than Charles. Period. And the size argument is ridiculous. If size was the main factor why didn't Primo Carnera and Jess Willard have the same talent as Liston? Why didn't Wepner or Williams beat Liston? There were heavyweights taller and bigger than Liston before him. That excuse doesn't cut it. Don't even try to convince me Liston was only winning because of his "size".


And I said "Hyperbolic" because you flat out misquoted my post. I would appreciate if you question me about what I actually post and not your false interpretation of it.
They just didn't have anything on Sonny that's why,... hey I'm not saying Liston wasn't a terrifying and powerful man who had all the fundamentals.... Carnera had virtually no idea... Willard was technically sound but he was a teddy bear compared to Liston,... he just wasn't an aggressive guy whereas we know all about Liston's rage. Having said that, Ezzard Charles isn't going out in the 1st round like Floyd, he's too smart but eventually I think Liston gets him. But for out and out skills it's Ezzard all the way,... Just the fact that this guy won the HW title sets him among the elite.

Greatest1942
11-01-2011, 10:27 AM
An old, fat and fighting only because he got screwed by the irs Joe Louis was a good win? Louis was nothing when Marciano beat him except for a recognizable name who was cleared to fight in that mis-match.

And you are mistaken about Charles, while I agree that he was a good fighter at the time he won the first bout against Walcott and lost the next two meetings, the last by ko. Charles was a great fighter but his Heavyweight resume pales in comparison to his lightheavy resume. I respect Charles, Bill Miller always praised Charles for his skill as do I. But he was better still at Light-Heavy.

Don ****ell was a blown up light heavy who was at the end of his rope when he faced Marciano. ****ell was nothing close to what he was as a Light-Heavy when in with the Heavyweights. ****ell didn't start fighting as a heavyweight until he was 33 years old. ****ell was Ko'd by Randy Turpin for the British Light-Heavy title and 2 years later was ko'd in his last 3 bouts by our man Rocky and lost by Ko against Nino Valdez and a guy named Kitione Lave and he was done.

The Louis fight was a farce, ****ell who proved better as a Light-Heavy loses to Marciano at the tail end of his career. Ezzard Charles, ok I'll give you that he was a good heavyweight. Jersey Joe was at the end of his career. Archie Moorer was a nice win but Floyd Patterson was able to stop Moore just a little over a year after Rocky did.
Doesn't sound like it was the Mongoose of old that was in there with Rocky. ..............Rockin':boxing:

Charles lost the last fight by decison, not by KO. You are wrong there. And he by most accounts won that one. So its probably 3-1 in favour of Charles, which coming against a top 25 Heavyweight is not bad. Ali is probably 2-1 against Norton, Louis 1-1 against Schemelling. Surely you as a fighter will appreciate that when you fight the best you will sometimes lose to the best. Thats why boxing of yesteryears was exciting.

"Louis"

Louis was not the Louis of old. everyone knows that. But he did have some great wins in his bag when he fought Marciano. He had beaten Bivins, Savold.

Take it this way if you see a fighter today beating the the top 5 ranked contenders , don't you think it will be great wins. Louis beat the top contenders, that shows he was still good enough as a contender. It was a good win.

Ezzard was better at light heavy but he was also good at Heavyweight. The names that he beat shows it. Tunney was probably better at light heavy, than at heavy but it doesn't make him a bad heavyweight or even an average one.

Moore went on to beat the top ranking contenders of his era after Marciano beat him. He was still better than any one at light heavy weight.

He was the #2 in the ring ratings for heavy weight in 1956.He continued to be the light heavy champ beating good completion's at heavy and light heavy, looks like he was not so faded as you would like to portray as well. Moore said the Floyd loss was teh worst performance of his life. It also looks from proof that he was simply not at his best.

The way you are dissecting Rock's career I can dissect Ali's too or even Louis's.

take Ali's beats an over the hill Liston who quits. Beats a Williams who is shot,loses to Frazier, beats a Foreman who is embarrassingly erratic, beats a Frazier who is over the hill clearly, loses to Norton never beats him clearly and
is beaten by Leon Spinks whose career is atrocious to speak off.

You have a real fixation on light heavys turned heavy's right? ****ell was the #2 ranked contender when he met Marciano. One year earlier he had beaten LaStraza and Harry mathews both top 10 ranked heavyweights. He was the Commonwealth (British Empire) heavyweight title, an alphabet title in todays term. He doesn't seem as bad as you are trying to make him look. Not worse than many title defenses of even Ali or Louis or Dempsey. And by all accounts looking at his rankings and performance, he seems to be a good win.



You can diss everyones career if you have to...and at the moment you are simply clinging on straws to diss Rocky's.

Greatest1942
11-01-2011, 10:33 AM
You need to explain how that was a "good" win. Liston beat every top fighter he needed to beat with the exception of Ali. Charles heavyweight resume is not better or on par with Liston's no matter how you try to spin it.

List down the top 10 guys Liston beat. I will list down the top 10 Charles beat. You will see that it is pretty close. And pretty much on par.
Remember I am not disputing who was the better heavyweight, it was Liston ( I rank him ahead of Charles). BUt Charles resume is on par. There are a few wins in Listons resume better than Walcott or even the shot screwed Louis ( I rank Walcott as a better heavy than Floyd).

"Liston beat everybody he had to beat"

Same as every other great heavy did. Nothing astonishing in that. Doesn't mean he has automatically a better resume.

Greatest1942
11-01-2011, 10:36 AM
Is that a serious question or do I really need to tell you the top fighters that Liston beat? And when did I say Rex Layne "didn't matter?" Or anything about "cherry picking?" Don't put words in my mouth.The point was Charles heavyweight resume doesn't match Liston's and unless you come up with something compelling that says otherwise, that stands.


And whether you like it or not, Charles was 2-2 in his last 4 fights and aging when he first fought Marciano.

Atleast some of his loses were disputed. I assure you...need proof let me know.

And Liston was the same age he met Ali, so was Ali when he met Foreman. So was Louis when he met Walcott.

In boxing the young ultimately come up and unseat the old. Its done foreever and will be done. Marciano gets a bad stick for it.

joseph5620
11-01-2011, 01:49 PM
List down the top 10 guys Liston beat. I will list down the top 10 Charles beat. You will see that it is pretty close. And pretty much on par.
Remember I am not disputing who was the better heavyweight, it was Liston ( I rank him ahead of Charles). BUt Charles resume is on par. There are a few wins in Listons resume better than Walcott or even the shot screwed Louis ( I rank Walcott as a better heavy than Floyd).

"Liston beat everybody he had to beat"

Same as every other great heavy did. Nothing astonishing in that. Doesn't mean he has automatically a better resume.

Then what are you disputing exactly? If you're going to go off topic then there is nothing to argue here. Liston was a better heavyweight than Charles which is what I said. Period. Until you come up with anything to dispute that fact I'm not going to waste time with this.



And Charles heavyweight resume is not on par with Liston's. I know from your previous post that you're biased against Liston but you have no case for that. No matter how you try to spin it.




Why don't you post their heavyweight resumes and compare them. See how it works out. I already know.

joseph5620
11-01-2011, 01:51 PM
Atleast some of his loses were disputed. I assure you...need proof let me know.

And Liston was the same age he met Ali, so was Ali when he met Foreman. So was Louis when he met Walcott.

In boxing the young ultimately come up and unseat the old. Its done foreever and will be done. Marciano gets a bad stick for it.

Fighters age differently and at different times. Are you really going to argue that?

joseph5620
11-01-2011, 02:31 PM
Charles lost the last fight by decison, not by KO. You are wrong there. And he by most accounts won that one. So its probably 3-1 in favour of Charles, which coming against a top 25 Heavyweight is not bad. Ali is probably 2-1 against Norton, Louis 1-1 against Schemelling. Surely you as a fighter will appreciate that when you fight the best you will sometimes lose to the best. Thats why boxing of yesteryears was exciting.

"Louis"

Louis was not the Louis of old. everyone knows that. But he did have some great wins in his bag when he fought Marciano. He had beaten Bivins, Savold.
Take it this way if you see a fighter today beating the the top 5 ranked contenders , don't you think it will be great wins. Louis beat the top contenders, that shows he was still good enough as a contender. It was a good win.

Ezzard was better at light heavy but he was also good at Heavyweight. The names that he beat shows it. Tunney was probably better at light heavy, than at heavy but it doesn't make him a bad heavyweight or even an average one.

Moore went on to beat the top ranking contenders of his era after Marciano beat him. He was still better than any one at light heavy weight.

He was the #2 in the ring ratings for heavy weight in 1956.He continued to be the light heavy champ beating good completion's at heavy and light heavy, looks like he was not so faded as you would like to portray as well. Moore said the Floyd loss was teh worst performance of his life. It also looks from proof that he was simply not at his best.

The way you are dissecting Rock's career I can dissect Ali's too or even Louis's.

take Ali's beats an over the hill Liston who quits. Beats a Williams who is shot,loses to Frazier, beats a Foreman who is embarrassingly erratic, beats a Frazier who is over the hill clearly, loses to Norton never beats him clearly and
is beaten by Leon Spinks whose career is atrocious to speak off.

You have a real fixation on light heavys turned heavy's right? ****ell was the #2 ranked contender when he met Marciano. One year earlier he had beaten LaStraza and Harry mathews both top 10 ranked heavyweights. He was the Commonwealth (British Empire) heavyweight title, an alphabet title in todays term. He doesn't seem as bad as you are trying to make him look. Not worse than many title defenses of even Ali or Louis or Dempsey. And by all accounts looking at his rankings and performance, he seems to be a good win.



You can diss everyones career if you have to...and at the moment you are simply clinging on straws to diss Rocky's.

Those were not "great wins." Not even close. And Louis wasn't knocking fighters out like he used to during that comeback.

Greatest1942
11-01-2011, 03:14 PM
Those were not "great wins." Not even close. And Louis wasn't knocking fighters out like he used to during that comeback.

So beating top 10 contenders does not mean anything? :wtf:Only knocking out them counts? Who is disputing this was the Louis of old...he was a great champion..at these stage he was a very good contender. I hope you get the difference. He did KO Savold however brutally in this spree.

Me biased againt Liston? Just because in one thread I gave Rocky a chance against him, and showed how he might win? This is a :lame: comment.

Can you find the post where I stated Charles was better than Liston as a heavyweight..
here is what I posted "How many guys did Liston beat who can be ranked in the top 30 or Dempsey or Tunney or even Tyson."So before alleging that someone is backing up try and ascertain what they were saying. Show this piece of text to a School student who has moderate IQ and he will let you now the actual meaning.



All I tried to say was that Charles probably had better wins in his kitty than Liston has at heavyweight. Charles beat three guys who were ranked in the top 30 (edit:- by Ring magazines ranking). Liston beat 1(Patterson). My question applied to Dempsey and Tunney too.

I will restate so that you can get this in your head "Liston has lesser top 30 wins than Charles".

I am not trying to spin anything but stating the fact. And just signifying that Charles was a pretty good heavyweight, and a good win for Rocky. I have him in my top 30.

Care to elaborate what is so offensive in that post? You really are touchy about Liston it seems.

Try to read properly before posting this irrelevant stuff.

RubenSonny
11-01-2011, 03:52 PM
So beating top 10 contenders does not mean anything? :wtf:Only knocking out them counts? Who is disputing this was the Louis of old...he was a great champion..at these stage he was a very good contender. I hope you get the difference. He did KO Savold however brutally in this spree.

Me biased againt Liston? Just because in one thread I gave Rocky a chance against him, and showed how he might win? This is a :lame: comment.

Can you find the post where I stated Charles was better than Liston as a heavyweight..
here is what I posted "How many guys did Liston beat who can be ranked in the top 30 or Dempsey or Tunney or even Tyson."So before alleging that someone is backing up try and ascertain what they were saying. Show this piece of text to a School student who has moderate IQ and he will let you now the actual meaning.



All I tried to say was that Charles probably had better wins in his kitty than Liston has at heavyweight. Charles beat three guys who were ranked in the top 30. Liston beat 1(Patterson). My question applied to Dempsey and Tunney too.

I will restate so that you can get this in your head "Liston has lesser top 30 wins than Charles".

I am not trying to spin anything but stating the fact. And just signifying that Charles was a pretty good heavyweight, and a good win for Rocky. I have him in my top 30.

Care to elaborate what is so offensive in that post? You really are touchy about Liston it seems.

Try to read properly before posting this irrelevant stuff.

Who are the 3 Charles beat?

Greatest1942
11-01-2011, 05:03 PM
I doubt some who are arguing "I know how it works",, ever tried to make a top 10 list for both Charles and Liston, so here goes

Sonny Liston's top 10 :-

1. Patterson
2. Machen
3. Folley
4. Williams
5. Valdes
6. Harris
7. Bethea
8. DeJohn
9. Clark
10. Summerlin

Ezzard charles top 10 (at heavy)

1. Joe Walcott
2. Jimmy Bivins
3. Elmer Ray.
4. Rex Layne
5. Pat Valentino
6. Gus Lesnevich
7. Joe Baksi
8. Lee Oma
9. Joe Louis (put him down here, because he was just a contenderif you guys think he was worse than ATGS like DeJohn or Clark even at this stage okay :dance:)
10.Bob Satterfield.


Made 8 defences of his title.Lost in his 9th. Couldn't fit Maxim there though he weighed over the 175 mark.

Now Joseph tell why is Ezzard's resume not on par with Liston's, unless you think LAyne, Oma, Baksi, Elmer Ray, Bivins etc were much worse than Williams, Folley, MAchen, Bethea, Clarke, Summerlin etc.

Greatest1942
11-01-2011, 05:06 PM
Who are the 3 Charles beat?

Louis, Walcott and Bivins (ranked #26 by the ring).

RubenSonny
11-01-2011, 05:12 PM
Louis, Walcott and Bivins (ranked #26 by the ring).

More important than who is when, Bivins was past it as was Louis, it's not like their ranking holds any weight at that point. If you took the heavies ranked after them in their prime against those versions of Bivins and Louis many of them would beat them, so that's not really a good measure. Also Bivins isn't consensus top 30 and even if he was its such an even field after awhile where many fighters can be thrown out for others. In addition Charles was also brutally KO'ed by Walcott which is a detriment to his heavyweight legacy.

Greatest1942
11-01-2011, 05:21 PM
More important than who is when, Bivins was past it as was Louis, it's not like their ranking holds any weight at that point. If you took the heavies ranked after them in their prime against those versions of Bivins and Louis many of them would beat them, so that's not really a good measure. Also Bivins isn't consensus top 30 and even if he was its such an even field after awhile where many fighters can be thrown out for others. In addition Charles was also brutally KO'ed by Walcott which is a detriment to his heavyweight legacy.

Bivins was still in the top 10 when the fight took place. Louis was a good not a great win. Ultimately Jeffries gets mentioned in the resume of Johnson right?

"Many beating Louis"
Who did it other than Charles and Marciano on his return? What people fail to take notice is that he was still good enough to win vs most contenders and achieve a good ranking. He wasn't the force he was but he was still good.

Besides Charles beat Bivins multiple times once in 1948 , when Bivins was still close to his prime or in his prime.We happy?

See this is a resume...ultimately you will also lose some fights when you get old. Frazier was over the hill when George destroyed him. He is still there right. Liston barely managed to stay relevant after the Ali fights. But it was a great win for Ali. Resumes are made by who you beat, ofcourse you can then put extra marks for when you meet them . I made the list of top 10 victims of Charles and Liston...you will see its pretty even.

And no Bivins is not a consensus top 30. Ring ranked him there. I used the Ring rankings to just potray guys Liston, Tyson or Dempsey beat vs Charles. I can't go on listing people by how I rank them, that will be less OBJECTIVE IMO.


"Brutally knocked out"

Atleast he did not quit did he? Like Liston did vs Clay?
I think many have got knocked out (heavys who were in the top 30).

Lewis by much lesser fighters, Johnson, Tyson, Willis, Mcvey, Wlad same etc etc. Charles is a top 25 heavy, why give him so much slack when so called better heavies have failed against lesser opponents (Unless you say Rahman was better than Walcott). No one is ranking Charles in top 5 , where these arguments carry some weigh.

You need to remember Walcott is a top 20 max 25 heavy too.

joseph5620
11-01-2011, 10:59 PM
So beating top 10 contenders does not mean anything? :wtf:Only knocking out them counts? Who is disputing this was the Louis of old...he was a great champion..at these stage he was a very good contender. I hope you get the difference. He did KO Savold however brutally in this spree.

Me biased againt Liston? Just because in one thread I gave Rocky a chance against him, and showed how he might win? This is a :lame: comment.

Can you find the post where I stated Charles was better than Liston as a heavyweight..
here is what I posted "How many guys did Liston beat who can be ranked in the top 30 or Dempsey or Tunney or even Tyson."So before alleging that someone is backing up try and ascertain what they were saying. Show this piece of text to a School student who has moderate IQ and he will let you now the actual meaning.



All I tried to say was that Charles probably had better wins in his kitty than Liston has at heavyweight. Charles beat three guys who were ranked in the top 30 (edit:- by Ring magazines ranking). Liston beat 1(Patterson). My question applied to Dempsey and Tunney too.

I will restate so that you can get this in your head "Liston has lesser top 30 wins than Charles".

I am not trying to spin anything but stating the fact. And just signifying that Charles was a pretty good heavyweight, and a good win for Rocky. I have him in my top 30.

Care to elaborate what is so offensive in that post? You really are touchy about Liston it seems.

Try to read properly before posting this irrelevant stuff.


No, I don't get "touchy" at all about Liston. What I don't like is when people try to play both sides of the fence for the purpose of looking right either way or to conceal their true motives.You did the same thing when you tried to come up with the ridiculous "evidence" that Patterson could have beaten Liston if he had fought with a different strategy or like Ali did.(biased much?) Following that you made sure to quickly add " I'm not saying Patterson could have won." Same thing here. In one sentence you claim you believe Liston was a better heavyweight and ranks higher than Charles as a heavyweight. In another you claim Charles heavyweight resume matches Liston's with better wins. So which is it? And what exactly are you arguing? Because at this point, the only "irrelevant stuff" is coming from you.


I read it properly. And right now your post is as transparent as glass. It's pretty obvious that you're trying to make a case that Charles was the better heavyweight or at least equal to Liston which he wasn't. Whether you "say it" or not. If this is not true, then what is your point exactly?

Marchegiano
11-02-2011, 12:06 AM
So do you think Marciano falls out of the top ten with no Louis, Charles, Moore or Walcott's on his resume?

The showing is more important to me than the names. The first Rocky fight I ever saw was Walcott-Marciano 1. I had no idea who either fighter was, and almost no knowledge of the periods before the 80's. When it was done I was a lifetime fan of both men. Everything that I learned about both strengthened that fanatic resolve. I like watching Roland go through the ropes as much as Joe. I don't actually use those names in his defence much. Everyone just writes old Joe Louis off as old....It's like there's no Archie Moore in an old Archie.....I'd love to have KO'd the Mongoose at any point in his career...hell I'd retire on it. In the classic pedigree style of boxing I feel Joe more then proved himself king, but in the sacred art of slugging Rocco reigns almighty. It's not so much that Joe held the title so long, or the names he beat that make me call him the greatest, but when I go to practice a punch, or footwork etc. I watch how most of the greats did it if possible, and find not only is Joe damn near perfect all the time. He's efficient in a way Ali only dreamed of. Rocky, being a slugger, is one of the worst to watch for anything other than making yourself small, and throwing your body in terrific motion. He could hit harder and last longer...that's as much slugging as landing punches and getting punched is boxing. Rocco put out about 40 to 50 psi more than what is necessary to break a man's skull. That's in fact so much more than needed it's safe to say no man could develop a skull thick enough to take the full force blow. We'd need to have evolved for Rocky to not have that over the rest of the boxing world. My answer is definitely no. It doesn't change the fact that no matter who you bring up, he might get his head broken if steps in the ring with Marchegiano.

Joseph- I think you misunderstood me. My point was you claim Liston cleared the top comp, while somehow Ezzard didn't. Rex was a top contender. Joey Maxim top comp. Barone, Kahut, Reynolds, and Brion all top competition.

McGrooty- No love for Sonny? LoL, it's cool...I dont much like him myself....I mean he's ok...it's just like he's a poor man's Frazier or something... Kinda like watching Tua...he's great, but c'mon...I wish he was Tyson as much as he does.

joseph5620
11-02-2011, 12:08 AM
I doubt some who are arguing "I know how it works",, ever tried to make a top 10 list for both Charles and Liston, so here goes

Sonny Liston's top 10 :-

1. Patterson
2. Machen
3. Folley
4. Williams
5. Valdes
6. Harris
7. Bethea
8. DeJohn
9. Clark
10. Summerlin

Ezzard charles top 10 (at heavy)

1. Joe Walcott
2. Jimmy Bivins
3. Elmer Ray.
4. Rex Layne
5. Pat Valentino
6. Gus Lesnevich
7. Joe Baksi
8. Lee Oma
9. Joe Louis (put him down here, because he was just a contenderif you guys think he was worse than ATGS like DeJohn or Clark even at this stage okay :dance:)
10.Bob Satterfield.


Made 8 defences of his title.Lost in his 9th. Couldn't fit Maxim there though he weighed over the 175 mark.

Now Joseph tell why is Ezzard's resume not on par with Liston's, unless you think LAyne, Oma, Baksi, Elmer Ray, Bivins etc were much worse than Williams, Folley, MAchen, Bethea, Clarke, Summerlin etc.




Because for one, I don't see Bivens as a "top 30 heavyweight" No matter how much you want to believe it. And Liston beat most of these guys by knocking them out, and clearly beating them. Comparing the two against the listed opponents, Liston's resume is better. Why did you leave Valdes out from Charles list? Charles has losses and inconsistency mixed in with his wins there. And to get to the real topic here, Charles was clearly on his way out when he fought Marciano. So was Louis. You want to make them both better than they were at the time but the facts are against you. Bivens/Savold were not "great" wins for Louis. They did nothing for his legacy.Charles did not have positive momentum going into either fight. And certainly not what Liston had when facing Ali.




Charles lost twice to Walcott, once by KO. Liston destroyed Patterson twice and losing to Ali doesn't compare to losing to Walcott. Ali was a better fighter than Walcott. Two, Liston destroyed Nino Valdes easily. Charles lost to Valdes. Whether you think Charles was robbed or not, Liston's win was more impressive.


I'll say it again. Liston's heavyweight resume is better than Charles and head to head I believe Liston would have knocked Charles out. Which is what I've been saying all along. Either you agree with this or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Marchegiano
11-02-2011, 11:16 AM
Because for one, I don't see Bivens as a "top 30 heavyweight" No matter how much you want to believe it. And Liston beat most of these guys by knocking them out, and clearly beating them. Comparing the two against the listed opponents, Liston's resume is better. Why did you leave Valdes out from Charles list? Charles has losses and inconsistency mixed in with his wins there. And to get to the real topic here, Charles was clearly on his way out when he fought Marciano. So was Louis. You want to make them both better than they were at the time but the facts are against you. Biven's/Savold were not "great" wins for Louis. They did nothing for his legacy.Charles did not have positive momentum going into either fight. And certainly not what Liston had when facing Ali.




Charles lost twice to Walcott, once by KO. Liston destroyed Patterson twice and losing to Ali doesn't compare to losing to Walcott. Ali was a better fighter than Walcott. Two, Liston destroyed Nino Valdes easily. Charles lost to Valdes. Whether you think Charles was robbed or not, Liston's win was more impressive.


I'll say it again. Liston's heavyweight resume is better than Charles and head to head I believe Liston would have knocked Charles out. Which is what I've been saying all along. Either you agree with this or you don't. You can't have it both ways.


Well, Joe, just because you don't like the HW's from the era doesn't mean he didn't fight them. It doesn't give you ammunition to make claims of an easy road. Personally, I like both fighters. I don't see either list of names as particularly strong.

The writing off of Old Joe Louis is crazy. WATCH what he's doing. Old Joe Louis has better hands and feet then most of boxing's prime. Everyone jumps on Old as if it takes away the displayed skills, or somehow changes the fact that guys like well any of those on the lists....hell Sonny himself, are less boxer in their prime than Joe was old. Old Joe Louis has a decent chance against any HW. Old Joe Louis would mop up today's HWs. Old Joe Louis has a chance against Young Joe Louis.....****ing look up why I'd say that...figure that one out.

I know all your gonna say is "blah blah blah, name name name, ko ko ko" but the way Sonny boxed isn't that damn impressive. like I said before he's a ****ty Frazier. You take out names, and only include displayed skills. Ezzard's lightyears ahead there. Power, and chin are Sonny's domain. Neither one really destroyed their comp. They both sat marginally better then the rest waiting for the real champ of the time to show up....I mean Rocco and Ali of course...I don't care who'd win between Ezzard and Sonny. Not even enough to speculate.

McGoorty
11-02-2011, 11:53 AM
The showing is more important to me than the names. The first Rocky fight I ever saw was Walcott-Marciano 1. I had no idea who either fighter was, and almost no knowledge of the periods before the 80's. When it was done I was a lifetime fan of both men. Everything that I learned about both strengthened that fanatic resolve. I like watching Roland go through the ropes as much as Joe. I don't actually use those names in his defence much. Everyone just writes old Joe Louis off as old....It's like there's no Archie Moore in an old Archie.....I'd love to have KO'd the Mongoose at any point in his career...hell I'd retire on it. In the classic pedigree style of boxing I feel Joe more then proved himself king, but in the sacred art of slugging Rocco reigns almighty. It's not so much that Joe held the title so long, or the names he beat that make me call him the greatest, but when I go to practice a punch, or footwork etc. I watch how most of the greats did it if possible, and find not only is Joe damn near perfect all the time. He's efficient in a way Ali only dreamed of. Rocky, being a slugger, is one of the worst to watch for anything other than making yourself small, and throwing your body in terrific motion. He could hit harder and last longer...that's as much slugging as landing punches and getting punched is boxing. Rocco put out about 40 to 50 psi more than what is necessary to break a man's skull. That's in fact so much more than needed it's safe to say no man could develop a skull thick enough to take the full force blow. We'd need to have evolved for Rocky to not have that over the rest of the boxing world. My answer is definitely no. It doesn't change the fact that no matter who you bring up, he might get his head broken if steps in the ring with Marchegiano.

Joseph- I think you misunderstood me. My point was you claim Liston cleared the top comp, while somehow Ezzard didn't. Rex was a top contender. Joey Maxim top comp. Barone, Kahut, Reynolds, and Brion all top competition.

McGrooty- No love for Sonny? LoL, it's cool...I dont much like him myself....I mean he's ok...it's just like he's a poor man's Frazier or something... Kinda like watching Tua...he's great, but c'mon...I wish he was Tyson as much as he does.
I certainly don't hate Sonny,.... put it this way, just imagine this scene { average sized Aussie white boy walks up to Liston and says, "I love you Sonny",.... what is Listons 1st reaction ????.....},... get the picture ??.. lol..... I'd wake up in 2011... lol..... in a wheelchair...... and then there was the MOB.... Nah, I think I'd have kept a distance, let's say,,....... The Pacific Ocean.

McGoorty
11-02-2011, 11:58 AM
Well, Joe, just because you don't like the HW's from the era doesn't mean he didn't fight them. It doesn't give you ammunition to make claims of an easy road. Personally, I like both fighters. I don't see either list of names as particularly strong.

The writing off of Old Joe Louis is crazy. WATCH what he's doing. Old Joe Louis has better hands and feet then most of boxing's prime. Everyone jumps on Old as if it takes away the displayed skills, or somehow changes the fact that guys like well any of those on the lists....hell Sonny himself, are less boxer in their prime than Joe was old. Old Joe Louis has a decent chance against any HW. Old Joe Louis would mop up today's HWs. Old Joe Louis has a chance against Young Joe Louis.....****ing look up why I'd say that...figure that one out.

I know all your gonna say is "blah blah blah, name name name, ko ko ko" but the way Sonny boxed isn't that damn impressive. like I said before he's a ****ty Frazier. You take out names, and only include displayed skills. Ezzard's lightyears ahead there. Power, and chin are Sonny's domain. Neither one really destroyed their comp. They both sat marginally better then the rest waiting for the real champ of the time to show up....I mean Rocco and Ali of course...I don't care who'd win between Ezzard and Sonny. Not even enough to speculate.
I know he ain't known for his boxing, but neither Liston or Charles ever fought Chuck Norris, don't laugh, they say that Norris has beard with a fist in it.... He knocked out Brian Griffin with it,... I know because I just saw it happen.

Marchegiano
11-02-2011, 02:08 PM
I know he ain't known for his boxing, but neither Liston or Charles ever fought Chuck Norris, don't laugh, they say that Norris has beard with a fist in it.... He knocked out Brian Griffin with it,... I know because I just saw it happen.

lol, word. Chuck Norris is magic though. Just ain't fair for these mere mortals.

Liston was a mean, bad, man...but I like bad guys too. Villains are fun. Personally, I feel like records have undermined talent. Damn near everyone of point lost to everyone else of point during the late forties an through the fifties. Multiple times. It's always been a way of saying "this guys no good he lost to a guy with a bunch of losses a few times" It's odd to me that in a time where having 8 or 9 losses is normal for the top 30 a guy rises up with none, and it's called a weak era. very, very, very few guys here actually dissect displayed skill sets during a video, nor do the pay attention to the training lineage...No one but me and you know The Gypsy. I doubt even the older, well respected, knowers of boxing really know what they're watching. Like you said pre-fitzs is unknown territory.

joseph5620
11-02-2011, 02:24 PM
Well, Joe, just because you don't like the HW's from the era doesn't mean he didn't fight them. It doesn't give you ammunition to make claims of an easy road. Personally, I like both fighters. I don't see either list of names as particularly strong.

The writing off of Old Joe Louis is crazy. WATCH what he's doing. Old Joe Louis has better hands and feet then most of boxing's prime. Everyone jumps on Old as if it takes away the displayed skills, or somehow changes the fact that guys like well any of those on the lists....hell Sonny himself, are less boxer in their prime than Joe was old. Old Joe Louis has a decent chance against any HW. Old Joe Louis would mop up today's HWs. Old Joe Louis has a chance against Young Joe Louis.....****ing look up why I'd say that...figure that one out.

I know all your gonna say is "blah blah blah, name name name, ko ko ko" but the way Sonny boxed isn't that damn impressive. like I said before he's a ****ty Frazier. You take out names, and only include displayed skills. Ezzard's lightyears ahead there. Power, and chin are Sonny's domain. Neither one really destroyed their comp. They both sat marginally better then the rest waiting for the real champ of the time to show up....I mean Rocco and Ali of course...I don't care who'd win between Ezzard and Sonny. Not even enough to speculate.

Again, this is about who was a better heavyweight between Liston and Charles. And again your changing the topic. I say Liston was a better heavyweight than Charles. And I don't think I'm alone with that choice. As far as me "not liking the fighters of that era" and easy road" that's not my stance or the point I'm making. It's all about Liston and Charles. If you don't care about the comparison between the two then why are you questioning it?




As far as Joe Louis, he was not even close to being what he was in his prime when he fought Marciano. You can talk all you want about how great he still was but I'm not buying it and the facts are clearly against you. I personally find it ridiculous when people try to argue this. Joe Louis retired for a reason the first time. He only came back to fight because he was broke. He needed money and he didn't care about championships. His needs had changed. This is all in his book btw. He didn't even train as hard as he used to and his fight with Charles should have ended any doubts about whether he could compete with the elite in the division. And no, Bivens and Savold wasn't it. After that fight Louis won a handful of carefully selected match ups and had a lot of problems pulling the trigger on his punches which is probably why he wasn't knocking fighters out who really had no business going the distance with him. He said he could see the openings but his body couldn't respond to them in time. His reflexes had diminished terribly.






And you can talk all you want about how "Liston couldn't box" "only had power and chin" and he "didn't really destroy his comp" because at this point you're telling lies with those comments.

joseph5620
11-02-2011, 02:41 PM
The showing is more important to me than the names. The first Rocky fight I ever saw was Walcott-Marciano 1. I had no idea who either fighter was, and almost no knowledge of the periods before the 80's. When it was done I was a lifetime fan of both men. Everything that I learned about both strengthened that fanatic resolve. I like watching Roland go through the ropes as much as Joe. I don't actually use those names in his defence much. Everyone just writes old Joe Louis off as old....It's like there's no Archie Moore in an old Archie.....I'd love to have KO'd the Mongoose at any point in his career...hell I'd retire on it. In the classic pedigree style of boxing I feel Joe more then proved himself king, but in the sacred art of slugging Rocco reigns almighty. It's not so much that Joe held the title so long, or the names he beat that make me call him the greatest, but when I go to practice a punch, or footwork etc. I watch how most of the greats did it if possible, and find not only is Joe damn near perfect all the time. He's efficient in a way Ali only dreamed of. Rocky, being a slugger, is one of the worst to watch for anything other than making yourself small, and throwing your body in terrific motion. He could hit harder and last longer...that's as much slugging as landing punches and getting punched is boxing. Rocco put out about 40 to 50 psi more than what is necessary to break a man's skull. That's in fact so much more than needed it's safe to say no man could develop a skull thick enough to take the full force blow. We'd need to have evolved for Rocky to not have that over the rest of the boxing world. My answer is definitely no. It doesn't change the fact that no matter who you bring up, he might get his head broken if steps in the ring with Marchegiano.

Joseph- I think you misunderstood me. My point was you claim Liston cleared the top comp, while somehow Ezzard didn't. Rex was a top contender. Joey Maxim top comp. Barone, Kahut, Reynolds, and Brion all top competition.

McGrooty- No love for Sonny? LoL, it's cool...I dont much like him myself....I mean he's ok...it's just like he's a poor man's Frazier or something... Kinda like watching Tua...he's great, but c'mon...I wish he was Tyson as much as he does.




That's not what I said. I said Liston has the better heavyweight resume and Maxim was not a top heavyweight.

IronDanHamza
11-02-2011, 02:47 PM
Sonny Liston and Joe Fraizer fight almost nothing alike.

Greatest1942
11-02-2011, 03:13 PM
Because for one, I don't see Bivens as a "top 30 heavyweight" No matter how much you want to believe it. And Liston beat most of these guys by knocking them out, and clearly beating them. Comparing the two against the listed opponents, Liston's resume is better. Why did you leave Valdes out from Charles list? Charles has losses and inconsistency mixed in with his wins there. And to get to the real topic here, Charles was clearly on his way out when he fought Marciano. So was Louis. You want to make them both better than they were at the time but the facts are against you. Bivens/Savold were not "great" wins for Louis. They did nothing for his legacy.Charles did not have positive momentum going into either fight. And certainly not what Liston had when facing Ali.




Charles lost twice to Walcott, once by KO. Liston destroyed Patterson twice and losing to Ali doesn't compare to losing to Walcott. Ali was a better fighter than Walcott. Two, Liston destroyed Nino Valdes easily. Charles lost to Valdes. Whether you think Charles was robbed or not, Liston's win was more impressive.


I'll say it again. Liston's heavyweight resume is better than Charles and head to head I believe Liston would have knocked Charles out. Which is what I've been saying all along. Either you agree with this or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

Why did you leave Valdes out from Charles list?

Because it is top 10 wins list pea brain. The same reason I left Marty Marshall, Ali out of Liston's list.


"Losing to Ali"

Quitting does matter. And anyways Charles is seldom if ever rated in the top 10. Liston is. Obviosuly the criteria for Liston is stricter than Charles who is mostly considered to be a top 20 heavy at most.

Liston destroyed Nino Valdes easily. Charles lost to Valdes.

Ohh...so Charles got beat by Valdes. So did Liston get beat by Marty marshall. What does this prove? No one is saying Charles was invincible. He does seem to have a good resume. He is 3-0 against the guy who beat Valdes too. Besides Whitehurst went twice the distance with Liston , check out Bert vs Moore. So now Moore is a better heavy by your twisted logic? The Vs logic does not work. Sorry.

Charles lost twice to Walcott, once by KO. Liston destroyed Patterson twice and losing to Ali doesn't compare to losing to Walcott. Ali was a better fighter than Walcott

Charles may be (lets say we let go of the fact that he most probably won 3-1) say lost to Walcott twice. So what a top 25 heavy losing to another top 25 heavy is not rare...Liston is rated ahead of Charles in all rankings. (So do I rank them too), against Clay he is 2-0 (with an embarassing quit job in the 1st round). I don't think Liston showed much against Ali too. And yes Walcott is a better heavyweight than Floyd.

Besides let go of the top 5 wins. The bottom 5 of Charles have more quality than Liston's bottom 5. However you can always have DeJohn like guys shead of Elmer ray or Baksi.:headbang: Ultimately its top 10 wins not top two wins like you are trying to potray. A resume is made of more than that.


I'll say it again. Liston's heavyweight resume is better than Charles and head to head I believe Liston would have knocked Charles out. Which is what I've been saying all along. Either you agree with this or you don't. You can't have it both ways.

My top 10 heavy's list is there in the heavyweights list thread. Check out where I have Liston. Charles is in top 20. Its because he was inconsistent at heavyweight and H2H falls short of Liston. But that does not deter from the fact that Charles had almost as good a resume and a longer title reign.

"Louis legacy'
I don't know what will make you understand the simple fact that Louis at this stage was not the great fearsome champion of yesteryears but a very good contender. Any guy who beats a top 3 contender is deserves kudos. HE was still good enough to beat most contenders and it took some one of Rock's or Charles ability (special fighters) to beat him.

"Bivins"

I was using the top 50 heavyweights published by ring to pinpoint the resumes of each of the guys (Charles, Tyson etc etc). Bivins appeared at #26. I thought it was better to take a list from Ring to compare rather than taking "Joseph" or "Greatest1942" list.

No matter how much you disagree Charles has the better top 10 wins, whether he KO'd them like Liston or not is a moot point. Liston was a puncher boxer , Charles the shifty clever guy. His style was not for KO's. I could not include Maxim in Charles list where as I had to search for names after 8 in Liston's...its a difference like it or not...may be in a year or two you will understand.

Whats so difficult here?

Greatest1942
11-02-2011, 03:18 PM
No, I don't get "touchy" at all about Liston. What I don't like is when people try to play both sides of the fence for the purpose of looking right either way or to conceal their true motives.You did the same thing when you tried to come up with the ridiculous "evidence" that Patterson could have beaten Liston if he had fought with a different strategy or like Ali did.(biased much?) Following that you made sure to quickly add " I'm not saying Patterson could have won." Same thing here. In one sentence you claim you believe Liston was a better heavyweight and ranks higher than Charles as a heavyweight. In another you claim Charles heavyweight resume matches Liston's with better wins. So which is it? And what exactly are you arguing? Because at this point, the only "irrelevant stuff" is coming from you.


I read it properly. And right now your post is as transparent as glass. It's pretty obvious that you're trying to make a case that Charles was the better heavyweight or at least equal to Liston which he wasn't. Whether you "say it" or not. If this is not true, then what is your point exactly?

You really have some problem with comprehension.:pat:

The short of what I am trying to prove is "Charles has a comparable resume to better heavies like Liston , Dempsey or Tyson (the three I originally asked for)"

NOTE:- Not that he was a better heavyweight.

So having him in your resume is a big plus.

Anymore help Signor?:headbang:

Greatest1942
11-02-2011, 03:21 PM
Again, this is about who was a better heavyweight between Liston and Charles. And again your changing the topic. I say Liston was a better heavyweight than Charles. And I don't think I'm alone with that choice. As far as me "not liking the fighters of that era" and easy road" that's not my stance or the point I'm making. It's all about Liston and Charles. If you don't care about the comparison between the two then why are you questioning it?




As far as Joe Louis, he was not even close to being what he was in his prime when he fought Marciano. You can talk all you want about how great he still was but I'm not buying it and the facts are clearly against you. I personally find it ridiculous when people try to argue this. Joe Louis retired for a reason the first time. He only came back to fight because he was broke. He needed money and he didn't care about championships. His needs had changed. This is all in his book btw. He didn't even train as hard as he used to and his fight with Charles should have ended any doubts about whether he could compete with the elite in the division. And no, Bivens and Savold wasn't it. After that fight Louis won a handful of carefully selected match ups and had a lot of problems pulling the trigger on his punches which is probably why he wasn't knocking fighters out who really had no business going the distance with him. He said he could see the openings but his body couldn't respond to them in time. His reflexes had diminished terribly.






And you can talk all you want about how "Liston couldn't box" "only had power and chin" and he "didn't really destroy his comp" because at this point you're telling lies with those comments.

Joe Louis still had his fundamentals which made him a good opponent, he was not the destroyer of old, he was a good boxer. You need to read more and comprehend what others are saying instead of posting hysteric stuff each time.

joseph5620
11-02-2011, 04:51 PM
Because it is top 10 wins list pea brain. The same reason I left Marty Marshall, Ali out of Liston's list.


"Losing to Ali"

Quitting does matter. And anyways Charles is seldom if ever rated in the top 10. Liston is. Obviosuly the criteria for Liston is stricter than Charles who is mostly considered to be a top 20 heavy at most.



Ohh...so Charles got beat by Valdes. So did Liston get beat by Marty marshall. What does this prove? No one is saying Charles was invincible. He does seem to have a good resume. He is 3-0 against the guy who beat Valdes too. Besides Whitehurst went twice the distance with Liston , check out Bert vs Moore. So now Moore is a better heavy by your twisted logic? The Vs logic does not work. Sorry.



Charles may be (lets say we let go of the fact that he most probably won 3-1) say lost to Walcott twice. So what a top 25 heavy losing to another top 25 heavy is not rare...Liston is rated ahead of Charles in all rankings. (So do I rank them too), against Clay he is 2-0 (with an embarassing quit job in the 1st round). I don't think Liston showed much against Ali too. And yes Walcott is a better heavyweight than Floyd.

Besides let go of the top 5 wins. The bottom 5 of Charles have more quality than Liston's bottom 5. However you can always have DeJohn like guys shead of Elmer ray or Baksi.:headbang: Ultimately its top 10 wins not top two wins like you are trying to potray. A resume is made of more than that.




My top 10 heavy's list is there in the heavyweights list thread. Check out where I have Liston. Charles is in top 20. Its because he was inconsistent at heavyweight and H2H falls short of Liston. But that does not deter from the fact that Charles had almost as good a resume and a longer title reign.

"Louis legacy'
I don't know what will make you understand the simple fact that Louis at this stage was not the great fearsome champion of yesteryears but a very good contender. Any guy who beats a top 3 contender is deserves kudos. HE was still good enough to beat most contenders and it took some one of Rock's or Charles ability (special fighters) to beat him.

"Bivins"

I was using the top 50 heavyweights published by ring to pinpoint the resumes of each of the guys (Charles, Tyson etc etc). Bivins appeared at #26. I thought it was better to take a list from Ring to compare rather than taking "Joseph" or "Greatest1942" list.

No matter how much you disagree Charles has the better top 10 wins, whether he KO'd them like Liston or not is a moot point. Liston was a puncher boxer , Charles the shifty clever guy. His style was not for KO's. I could not include Maxim in Charles list where as I had to search for names after 8 in Liston's...its a difference like it or not...may be in a year or two you will understand.

Whats so difficult here?



Because he's a common opponent "pea brain". Charles lost to Valdes, Liston didn't which further proves my point about Charles up and down record as a heavyweight as well as the fact that it doesn't "match" Liston's. This also indicates that Charles was starting to decline as a fighter. I'm sure you will argue against that too. It's funny how you use Liston's 8th pro fight as an example. Digging back that far in his career to find a loss says a lot. Should we go back and critique Charles in his 8th pro fight here too? Ridiculous comparison and the fact that it takes you three post to mkae one point shows who could be lacking anything here. Typing unnecessarily long responses don't change anything.


So now you're admitting that Charles heavyweight resume was not as good as Liston's? Before you said Charles resume matched Liston's with better wins for Charles. Either you like contradicting yourself or you just like arguing for the hell of it. Make up your mind. It's one or the other.



Sorry but I don't have as much time on my hands as you do so I can't respond to everything you posted. And since when have Ring Magazines all time ratings been the end all and be all when it comes to accuracy? Most of the time I disagree with their all time ratings.

joseph5620
11-02-2011, 05:03 PM
Joe Louis still had his fundamentals which made him a good opponent, he was not the destroyer of old, he was a good boxer. You need to read more and comprehend what others are saying instead of posting hysteric stuff each time.






Joe Louis was an old fighter WAY past prime fighter and his "fundamentals" couldn't protect him from the truth.

Joe Louis beating two fighters who like him, were at the end of their careers doesn't change that fact. Bivens and Savold were not "great wins" like you're delusional enough to believe. And what "others" are you referring too? If you're referring to the post that stated Liston was a "poor mans' Frazier" who couldn't box or that the Louis who fought Marciano "would beat almost every heavyweight in history." I comprehend that just fine for what it is. A bunch of BS.

THE REED™
11-02-2011, 05:07 PM
Could knock the top 4 fighters off most fighters resumes and knock em a fair way down though surely Jabs?

Exactly... I'd like to think the OP question is a bit self explanatory.

If we take Liston, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton out of Ali's resume does it take him down a notch.

Uh.... maybe.

Exactly what fighter can you take away their 4 greatest wins and NOT have them drop in the rankings significantly?

Greatest1942
11-02-2011, 07:40 PM
Because he's a common opponent "pea brain". Charles lost to Valdes, Liston didn't which further proves my point about Charles up and down record as a heavyweight as well as the fact that it doesn't "match" Liston's. This also indicates that Charles was starting to decline as a fighter. I'm sure you will argue against that too. It's funny how you use Liston's 8th pro fight as an example. Digging back that far in his career to find a loss says a lot. Should we go back and critique Charles in his 8th pro fight here too? Ridiculous comparison and the fact that it takes you three post to mkae one point shows who could be lacking anything here. Typing unnecessarily long responses doesn't change anything.


So now you're admitting that Charles heavyweight resume was not as good as Liston's? Before you said Charles resume matched Liston's with better wins for Charles. Either you like contradicting yourself or you just like arguing for the hell of it. Make up your mind. It's one or the other.



Sorry but I don't have as much time on my hands as you do so I can't respond to everything you posted. And since when have Ring Magazines all time ratings been the end all and be all when it comes to accuracy? Most of the time I disagree with their all time ratings.

"Long Posts"

I understand now your IQ does not allow you to comprehend a long post. I will post shorter ones after this..how long will you need 2 lines ?:bottle:

"Busy"
I don't know how busy you are, yea I have time , since I am always on the net , on my job. So I do have plenty of time. Besides I think I spend lesser times than you , after all you have to use italics , boldem and all then think twice hard with your "pea brain". Count the number of lines and posts we make a month, and you see the difference dumbass.

"Common Opponents"

Common opponents don't prove a damn thing. Its circular logic , which kids like you feast on. Foreman destroyed Frazier, Ali lost to him...doesn't make Ali lesser...Valdez was at the end of his career when Liston got to him...Archie Moore KO'd Whitehurst Liston couldn't. Doesn't make Liston a worse fighter. You bring up Valdez in Liston's case and say how well he did , that was however his second last fight. Yet you are the one who discredits Louis's Savold win. (Valdez lost the fight prior to Liston, Savold won his prior to Louis)...as usual your BS double standards

Norton was destroyed in 1 round by Cooney and Ali struggled with Norton and is in all fairness 2-1 with him. Conney greater resume and better than Ali now ...you are great.

"Resume"

I am still saying Charles has the deeper resume, their top wins cancel each other out but the bottom half of Charles's list is far superior to Liston's.

But Liston as a heavyweight still ranks over Charles because when you rank them you use (OR I use ) 75% resume and 25% H2H...in that resume part Liston is close enough but in the H2H part Charles isn't . So Liston ranks higher. Doesn't however completely overshadow the fact that Charles has the deeper resume though in all fairness Liston is close enough.

I am not critisizing Liston for his loss to Marshall, I mentioned that because you brought up Valdez, same with Ali, its not my fault you can't comprehend what is a win's list...HOW THE HELL WILL I LIST VALDEZ ON CHARLES TOP 10 WINS, you really are a moron or try hard to be one. .Harp on 8th fight yet You also fail to acknowledge the fact that Marshall took the fight on a three days notice which is a big handicap too.


To reiterate so that you get it "Charles has the better resume at heavyweight"...to make up a top 10 list of Sonny Liston you have to scrape the bottom of the Barrell (no shame you have to do that with other great heavies too), but with Charles you have to exclude (or I did) Maxim, who would be a top 6 win in Liston's resume. You still might not get it even after Maxim analogy but what I can I do, I always have tried to make the novices understand what they should..:cool2:

If I could rank Charles better in H2H , I will have him over Liston, as is resume is better...but I have Liston pretty high H2H and Charles pretty low.

Surely you understand now, you should unless you are thick.:chom

"Ring Lists'

Post your top 50 heavyweights list in future I will replace that with the Ring list...:la:

Greatest1942
11-02-2011, 08:10 PM
Joe Louis was an old fighter WAY past prime fighter and his "fundamentals" couldn't protect him from the truth.

Joe Louis beating two fighters who like him, were at the end of their careers doesn't change that fact. Bivens and Savold were not "great wins" like you're delusional enough to believe. And what "others" are you referring too? If you're referring to the post that stated Liston was a "poor mans' Frazier" who couldn't box or that the Louis who fought Marciano "would beat almost every heavyweight in history." I comprehend that just fine for what it is. A bunch of BS.

"Others"
Anyone except yourself, includes me..now no more homework lessons.

I did not say that Louis will beat almost every heavies in history..So answer the guy who did.

In the previous fight Savold beat by KO Bruce Wood**** to hold the BBC Heavyweight Title, in other words an alphabet belt in todays term.

Bivins cracked the top 10 after Louis beat him. So he was far from a spent force "Mr Delusional". Louis also beat Cesar Brion who was a good contender (I hope you heard the name :boxing:). The fact that a top 5 contender is beating other top 10 contenders and is a big victory for the guy ...but in your small world perhaps beating the #2 contender does not count for anything. During this period in an exhibition he KO'd Valentino who was #8 ranked in 1949. He was old and shot, not the great champ he was , but he was still a good heavyweight, otherwise he would not have beaten the guys he did.

joseph5620
11-02-2011, 09:42 PM
"Long Posts"

I understand now your IQ does not allow you to comprehend a long post. I will post shorter ones after this..how long will you need 2 lines ?:bottle:

"Busy"
I don't know how busy you are, yea I have time , since I am always on the net , on my job. So I do have plenty of time. Besides I think I spend lesser times than you , after all you have to use italics , boldem and all then think twice hard with your "pea brain". Count the number of lines and posts we make a month, and you see the difference dumbass.

"Common Opponents"

Common opponents don't prove a damn thing. Its circular logic , which kids like you feast on. Foreman destroyed Frazier, Ali lost to him...doesn't make Ali lesser...Valdez was at the end of his career when Liston got to him...Archie Moore KO'd Whitehurst Liston couldn't. Doesn't make Liston a worse fighter. You bring up Valdez in Liston's case and say how well he did , that was however his second last fight. Yet you are the one who discredits Louis's Savold win. (Valdez lost the fight prior to Liston, Savold won his prior to Louis)...as usual your BS double standards

Norton was destroyed in 1 round by Cooney and Ali struggled with Norton and is in all fairness 2-1 with him. Conney greater resume and better than Ali now ...you are great.

"Resume"

I am still saying Charles has the deeper resume, their top wins cancel each other out but the bottom half of Charles's list is far superior to Liston's.

But Liston as a heavyweight still ranks over Charles because when you rank them you use (OR I use ) 75% resume and 25% H2H...in that resume part Liston is close enough but in the H2H part Charles isn't . So Liston ranks higher. Doesn't however completely overshadow the fact that Charles has the deeper resume though in all fairness Liston is close enough.

I am not critisizing Liston for his loss to Marshall, I mentioned that because you brought up Valdez, same with Ali, its not my fault you can't comprehend what is a win's list...HOW THE HELL WILL I LIST VALDEZ ON CHARLES TOP 10 WINS, you really are a moron or try hard to be one. Just to explain that the Valdez lost was not a travesty , since you yourself mention Charles was over the hill then...you can't have your cake and eat it too..You also fail to acknowledge the fact that Marshall took the fight on a three days notice which is a big handicap too.

To reiterate so that you get it "Charles has the better resume at heavyweight"...to make up a top 10 list of Sonny Liston you have to scrape the bottom of the Barrell (no shame you have to do that with other great heavies too), but with Charles you have to exclude (or I did) Maxim, who would be a top 6 win in Liston's resume. You still might not get it even after Maxim analogy but what I can I do, I always have tried to make the novices understand what they should..:cool2:

If I could rank Charles better in H2H , I will have him over Liston, as is resume is better...but I have Liston pretty high H2H and Charles pretty low.

Surely you understand now, you should unless you are thick.:chom

"Ring Lists'

Post your top 50 heavyweights list in future I will replace that with the Ring list...:la:

It's interesting that you talk about "circular logic" when just a few post ago you claimed Charles was the same age as Ali for Foreman and Liston for Ali as if that somehow nullifies that he was on his way out against Marciano. I don't think I need to explain how ridiculous that is.

I highlighted your statements about the resume comparison because today you said "Charles had almost as good a resume and a longer title reign. Now once again, according to you, Charles has the better heavyweight resume? Make up your mind, slick. It's too bad you can't be a man and take a stand one way or the other. Either you have a multiple personality disorder or you're just a stupid, forgetful, old man. For someone who prides himself in having a high IQ you should have been smart enough to avoid making this elementary contradiction. So who's really the "thick" one here?

Now you finally admit that Charles was over the hill when he lost to Valdez. But you want everybody to believe he drank from the fountain of youth for Marciano? That doesn't even make sense. If he was over the hill for Valdez, he was for over the hill for Marciano as well. And Liston rematched Marshall twice and beat him handily. If there were doubts in your head that should have erased them. Not biased against Liston huh?

I should have known you were a confused old fart when you tried to prove Patterson could have beaten Liston if he "moved" like Ali :lol1:. I see you're now using the bold and italics too.Too bad you're not smart enough to grasp when to use them and when not to use them lol.

Rockin'
11-02-2011, 09:50 PM
If Marciano had been black he would not be ranked as high as he is with his short reign on top and would not be given such adjulation as he has been given in history..............Rockin':boxing:

joseph5620
11-02-2011, 10:10 PM
"Others"
Anyone except yourself, includes me..now no more homework lessons.

I did not say that Louis will beat almost every heavies in history..So answer the guy who did.

In the previous fight Savold beat by KO Bruce Wood**** to hold the BBC Heavyweight Title, in other words an alphabet belt in todays term.

Bivins cracked the top 10 after Louis beat him. So he was far from a spent force "Mr Delusional". Louis also beat Cesar Brion who was a good contender (I hope you heard the name :boxing:). The fact that a top 5 contender is beating other top 10 contenders and is a big victory for the guy ...but in your small world perhaps beating the #2 contender does not count for anything. During this period in an exhibition he KO'd Valentino who was #8 ranked in 1949. He was old and shot, not the great champ he was , but he was still a good heavyweight, otherwise he would not have beaten the guys he did.

If you're going to give me a "homework lesson" at least speak correctly. Bruce Wood**** BBC title. Wow! :lol1:. Am I supposed to be impressed by that? And you're right. Louis was old and shot and that's all that needs to be said. And rankings are not always indicative of fighters ability. You should know better than that Mr IQ.

JAB5239
11-03-2011, 04:01 AM
Exactly... I'd like to think the OP question is a bit self explanatory.

If we take Liston, Foreman, Frazier, and Norton out of Ali's resume does it take him down a notch.

Uh.... maybe.

Exactly what fighter can you take away their 4 greatest wins and NOT have them drop in the rankings significantly?

My point was, my opinion, is that Marciano doesn't just drop a notch, he falls completely out of the top 20. And of course you can do this with any fighter, but Rocky creates debate on where he should be placed more than any other fighter. After this thread fizzles I plan on creating another for Larry Holmes, than Dempsey, than Tyson and others I think may spark debate. The only 3 I don't see falling out of the top 10 are Louis, Ali and Johnson, and Im sure that will cause some debate in itself. We all have our reasons why we rank fighters where we do. Take a few of those reasons away and things are viewed differently. It doesn't change history or the greatness of any fighter, it's just a fun little exercise. Some of you guys take this **** way to seriously.

JAB5239
11-03-2011, 04:14 AM
If Marciano had been black he would not be ranked as high as he is with his short reign on top and would not be given such adjulation as he has been given in history..............Rockin':boxing:

I don't think it's the color of his skin that makes him so revered (though that is certainly a factor) but him being the only heavyweight champion to retire undefeated. People hold the 0 in such high regard and look at it like just because he was never beaten than he couldn't be beaten. I almost started a thread about where the Rock would rank had the doctor or ref stopped the second Charles fight when his nose was split. It wouldn't change his heart, his power, skills, stamina, determination.....whatever. But he certainly wouldn't rank as high today with a loss on his record.

Rockin'
11-03-2011, 04:38 AM
I don't think it's the color of his skin that makes him so revered (though that is certainly a factor) but him being the only heavyweight champion to retire undefeated. People hold the 0 in such high regard and look at it like just because he was never beaten than he couldn't be beaten. I almost started a thread about where the Rock would rank had the doctor or ref stopped the second Charles fight when his nose was split. It wouldn't change his heart, his power, skills, stamina, determination.....whatever. But he certainly wouldn't rank as high today with a loss on his record. On a social timescale Marciano falls just before the dismantelment of segregation. Retire undefeated and you will be revered and loved for ages. I believe his greatness has alot to do with the publicity that he recieved in his time, it makes all fighters histories to speak off. Marcianos was just polished from the time he hit. He beat some big names but most of them were on the last leg of their careers.

Suppose Tyson had just up and said I retire after his demolition of Carl "the Truth"Williams in one round. In just 3 years and 4 months Tyson had literally cleaned out the division. Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno and finally Williams. 10 defenses in 38 months, Tyson completely dominated. A much bigger feet than Rocky Marciano ever accomplished.............Rockin':boxing:

JAB5239
11-03-2011, 05:35 AM
On a social timescale Marciano falls just before the dismantelment of segregation. Retire undefeated and you will be revered and loved for ages. I believe his greatness has alot to do with the publicity that he recieved in his time, it makes all fighters histories to speak off. Marcianos was just polished from the time he hit. He beat some big names but most of them were on the last leg of their careers.

Suppose Tyson had just up and said I retire after his demolition of Carl "the Truth"Williams in one round. In just 3 years and 4 months Tyson had literally cleaned out the division. Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno and finally Williams. 10 defenses in 38 months, Tyson completely dominated. A much bigger feet than Rocky Marciano ever accomplished.............Rockin':boxing:

I agree and believe he would have been thought of by the masses as the greatest heavyweight ever. It wouldn't have been true in my opinion, but that zero has a way of making people think differently and forget about circumstances and competition.

Since we're off topic, where and why do you rate Gene Tunney at heavyweight? You mentioned him earlier in this thread and Im still curious. To me he was a great, great fighter and would match up favorably with many past greats. But his resume at heavy simply doesn't get him in the top 20 in my opinion.

Greatest1942
11-03-2011, 10:07 AM
If you're going to give me a "homework lesson" at least speak correctly. Bruce Wood**** BBC title. Wow! :lol1:. Am I supposed to be impressed by that? And you're right. Louis was old and shot and that's all that needs to be said. And rankings are not always indicative of fighters ability. You should know better than that Mr IQ.

:lame::lame: Genius it was just to point out that Savold was coming out of a big win.

Just have a look at the guy Bivins beat after Louis beat him. Instead of fooling around.

So ring rankings don't matter, but Mr Joseph's view of fighters in 2011 is a more objective and accurate representation of their abilities? No wonder I call you Mr Low IQ.:fingersx:

Greatest1942
11-03-2011, 10:22 AM
My point was, my opinion, is that Marciano doesn't just drop a notch, he falls completely out of the top 20. And of course you can do this with any fighter, but Rocky creates debate on where he should be placed more than any other fighter. After this thread fizzles I plan on creating another for Larry Holmes, than Dempsey, than Tyson and others I think may spark debate. The only 3 I don't see falling out of the top 10 are Louis, Ali and Johnson, and Im sure that will cause some debate in itself. We all have our reasons why we rank fighters where we do. Take a few of those reasons away and things are viewed differently. It doesn't change history or the greatness of any fighter, it's just a fun little exercise. Some of you guys take this **** way to seriously.

I am sorry but you are way out of the mark here. I am going to give some stats to you which you might like to take a look in, when I get the time to form them.

Meanwhile form a top 10 fighters who Frazier beat and Tyson beat. And kick out the top 4. And see who are more prone to dropping down out of the top 20. If Frazier had lost to Ali 3-0 , can you place him in the top 10?

Even if Rocky takes a lose, his performance against the top ranked contenders (an imporatant barometer to me, since generally the top 2 ranked guys are the ones throughout eras who are pretty good), is better than most heavyweights. In case someone's tail starts to wiggle and they ask me to post or prove it don't worry I will do this soon.

Greatest1942
11-03-2011, 10:23 AM
If Marciano had been black he would not be ranked as high as he is with his short reign on top and would not be given such adjulation as he has been given in history..............Rockin':boxing:

"Colour"

being neither black or white ( I am an Asian) I can say that Marciano also gets a lot of flak because he was white...people like you seem to not look at the resume and say this.

This kind of sweeping race statements don't mean a thing, from you or me.

joseph5620
11-03-2011, 01:45 PM
:lame::lame: Genius it was just to point out that Savold was coming out of a big win.
Just have a look at the guy Bivins beat after Louis beat him. Instead of fooling around.

So ring rankings don't matter, but Mr Joseph's view of fighters in 2011 is a more objective and accurate representation of their abilities? No wonder I call you Mr Low IQ.:fingersx:

Yes. Savold's huge win over that killer Bruce Wood**** for the BBC title. How could I possibly overlook that? LOL!



Before you start talking about a "low IQ" you better think about how stupid you look when you make these contradicting statements in the same day. Comical.



You really have some problem with comprehension.:pat:My top 10 heavy's list is there in the heavyweights list thread. Check out where I have Liston. Charles is in top 20. Its because he was inconsistent at heavyweight and H2H falls short of Liston. But that does not deter from the fact that Charles had almost as good a resume and a longer title reign.




I am still saying Charles has the deeper resume, their top wins cancel each other out but the bottom half of Charles's list is far superior to Liston's.But Liston as a heavyweight still ranks over Charles because when you rank them you use (OR I use ) 75% resume and 25% H2H...in that resume part Liston is close enough but in the H2H part Charles isn't. So Liston ranks higher. Doesn't however completely overshadow the fact that Charles has the deeper resume though in all fairness Liston is close enough.

THE REED™
11-03-2011, 02:06 PM
My point was, my opinion, is that Marciano doesn't just drop a notch, he falls completely out of the top 20. And of course you can do this with any fighter, but Rocky creates debate on where he should be placed more than any other fighter. After this thread fizzles I plan on creating another for Larry Holmes, than Dempsey, than Tyson and others I think may spark debate. The only 3 I don't see falling out of the top 10 are Louis, Ali and Johnson, and Im sure that will cause some debate in itself. We all have our reasons why we rank fighters where we do. Take a few of those reasons away and things are viewed differently. It doesn't change history or the greatness of any fighter, it's just a fun little exercise. Some of you guys take this **** way to seriously.

On the contrary... I didn't take it seriously at all.

Terry A
11-03-2011, 02:46 PM
[FONT="Tahoma"]
Since we're off topic, where and why do you rate Gene Tunney at heavyweight? You mentioned him earlier in this thread and Im still curious. To me he was a great, great fighter and would match up favorably with many past greats. But his resume at heavy simply doesn't get him in the top 20 in my opinion.

JAB,
If you ever wrote that here before, I must have missed it. But I'm real surprised you feel that way about Tunney.

I have no problem with you seeing it that way, it just kinda (shocked is too strong a word, but I can't think of anything similar)....."surprises" me.

Your Gene Tunney is my Sam Langford I guess! :)

It's funny how the great majority of us have a somewhat deep knowledge about fighters from the past, yet we can still see things different in almost any fighter. I for one think that's what makes it all the more fun here.

One more thing just to be a little cute...I find that it's best not to say anything bad about another historians choice of who rates where. It's akin to keeping quiet when you see one of your buddy's wives or girlfriend who is, well, let's just say "not pretty". It's best just to aknowledge her & change the subject. :D

McGoorty
11-03-2011, 03:31 PM
If Marciano had been black he would not be ranked as high as he is with his short reign on top and would not be given such adjulation as he has been given in history..............Rockin':boxing:
Well, that has never been a factor with me, I grew up with Ali.

McGoorty
11-03-2011, 03:35 PM
jab,
if you ever wrote that here before, i must have missed it. But i'm real surprised you feel that way about tunney.

I have no problem with you seeing it that way, it just kinda (shocked is too strong a word, but i can't think of anything similar)....."surprises" me.

Your gene tunney is my sam langford i guess! :)

it's funny how the great majority of us have a somewhat deep knowledge about fighters from the past, yet we can still see things different in almost any fighter. I for one think that's what makes it all the more fun here.

One more thing just to be a little cute...i find that it's best not to say anything bad about another historians choice of who rates where. It's akin to keeping quiet when you see one of your buddy's wives or girlfriend who is, well, let's just say "not pretty". It's best just to aknowledge her & change the subject. :d
looooooooooooooooooooooooooooollllll

Greatest1942
11-03-2011, 03:44 PM
Yes. Savold's huge win over that killer Bruce Wood**** for the BBC title. How could I possibly overlook that? LOL!



Before you start talking about a "low IQ" you better think about how stupid you look when you make these contradicting statements in the same day. Comical.

I mentioned Savold just to expose your hypocrisy...you are the same guy who does not give Louis any credit for his victory over Savold, yet was giving Liston credit for beating Valdes in his penultimate fight, when he had lost his previous too. Atleast Savold won his previous one...Wood**** is not a great fighter...but he was not so bad either as your ignorant ass is trying to potray...he was 35-4 not a bad career. (His two loses came in his last two fights). Surely not much worse than Summerlin or Clarke or Dejohn...but I bet you heard the name first time.:sleeping:

He beat
1)Gus Lesnevich
2)Lee Oma.

Good fighters..overall a respectable resume, learn a bit about these guys before opening your mouth too much cr@p is coming out of it.

"Almost as good"

In all my posts I have tried to convey that Charles held a comparative resume with Liston...the top 5 guys are almost equal. But he had more depth, and had a longer title reign. I have stated this again and again, and this is in almost every post of mine..Even those two posts mention that they have a comparative resume...its not like comparing Liston's resume to Ali or Louis.

If one post fails to convey the meaning surely the rest (7 atleast ) should do. Keep it up mate , its fun talking with Mr Low IQ.

joseph5620
11-03-2011, 04:15 PM
I mentioned Savold just to expose your hypocrisy...you are the same guy who does not give Louis any credit for his victory over Savold, yet was giving Liston credit for beating Valdes in his penultimate fight, when he had lost his previous too. Atleast Savold won his previous one...Wood**** is not a great fighter...but he was not so bad either as your ignorant ass is trying to potray...he was 35-4 not a bad career. (His two loses came in his last two fights). Surely not much worse than Summerlin or Clarke or Dejohn...but I bet you heard the name first time.:sleeping:

He beat
1)Gus Lesnevich
2)Lee Oma.

Good fighters..overall a respectable resume, learn a bit about these guys before opening your mouth too much cr@p is coming out of it.

"Almost as good"

In all my posts I have tried to convey that Charles held a comparative resume with Liston...the top 5 guys are almost equal. But he had more depth, and had a longer title reign. I have stated this again and again, and this is in almost every post of mine..Even those two posts mention that they have a comparative resume...its not like comparing Liston's resume to Ali or Louis.

If one post fails to convey the meaning surely the rest (7 atleast ) should do. Keep it up mate , its fun talking with Mr Low IQ.



Now you're just flat out lying. You're very good at changing your view in each post for whatever reason.. "Patterson could have beaten Liston with a different strategy. "I'm not saying Patterson could have beaten Liston" Charles had a better resume." "Charles didn't have the better resume." So no, you have not "conveyed the same message in every post." You don't even have a clear "message". Nice try.

And who gives a damn about Wood****'s record or BBC title? With your ridiculous logic logic Brian Neilson should be considered a big win for Tyson considering that Neilson finished at 64-3 with "titles" in his career.

You really have some problem with comprehension.:pat:My top 10 heavy's list is there in the heavyweights list thread. Check out where I have Liston. Charles is in top 20. Its because he was inconsistent at heavyweight and H2H falls short of Liston. But that does not deter from the fact that Charles had almost as good a resume and a longer title reign.




I am still saying Charles has the deeper resume, their top wins cancel each other out but the bottom half of Charles's list is far superior to Liston's.But Liston as a heavyweight still ranks over Charles because when you rank them you use (OR I use ) 75% resume and 25% H2H...in that resume part Liston is close enough but in the H2H part Charles isn't. So Liston ranks higher. Doesn't however completely overshadow the fact that Charles has the deeper resume though in all fairness Liston is close enough.






And you should learn how to spell "portray" before calling anybody "ignorant."

Greatest1942
11-03-2011, 05:03 PM
""Patterson could have beaten Liston with a different strategy. "I'm not saying Patterson could have beaten Liston" Charles had a better resume."


I said this
"Besides let go of the top 5 wins. The bottom 5 of Charles have more quality than Liston's bottom 5. However you can always have DeJohn like guys shead of Elmer ray or Baksi. Ultimately its top 10 wins not top two wins like you are trying to potray. A resume is made of more than that."

Then this "I am still saying Charles has the deeper resume, their top wins cancel each other out but the bottom half of Charles's list is far superior to Liston's.

But Liston as a heavyweight still ranks over Charles because when you rank them you use (OR I use ) 75% resume and 25% H2H...in that resume part Liston is close enough but in the H2H part Charles isn't . So Liston ranks higher. Doesn't however completely overshadow the fact that Charles has the deeper resume though in all fairness Liston is close enough."

Then this :

"To reiterate so that you get it "Charles has the better resume at heavyweight"...to make up a top 10 list of Sonny Liston you have to scrape the bottom of the Barrell (no shame you have to do that with other great heavies too), but with Charles you have to exclude (or I did) Maxim, who would be a top 6 win in Liston's resume"


Pretty consistent I see...and to the point, no wonder you don't see any though,you have to have a brain, for good comprehension.

""Patterson-Liston"
Dumbo it was not me who said this about patterson - Liston , it was Patterson who said that, I quoted him. Which you are idiot enough not to undertand. He also said that he was still learning and will do better then , than his fights with Liston...I quoted him directly. :fing26:...

My message is clear, Charles has the better resume vs Liston. I even gave the analogy with Maxim, which you did not understand due to obvious reason. liston is better H2H...having Charles in your resume is a big plus...

"Spelling"
I am pretty busy, I type hurriedly, so I often make spelling mistakes, but I read what others have to say, and think about what I am posting,

You wont find me confusing you with patterson, this made my day , though , laughed real hard...

But you learnt about Bruce Wood**** though, good for you:boxing:

Greatest1942
11-03-2011, 05:26 PM
This is my post in that thread,

"I have often stated Floyd's strategy against Liston was wrong , which actually made Liston's job easy.

Here is a heading of an article "In Stockholm, Floyd Patterson humbled Texan Tod Herring with the hit-and-run style he now admits he should have used against Liston".

The above quote was made in response to someone who said Liston got aggressive with Floyd, which I thought was a moot point, since Floyd himself tried to slug it out with Liston, which with his chin was suicide.

Joseph's hyper Liston mania reply

Patterson could have fought Liston with a motorcycle and a 38 pistol. He still was going to lose badly. Why do you think his manager/trainer didn't want the fight?

My reply :-

Who says Floyd would have won vs Liston? He did not have the chin...just because you know you cannot win does not win you go in with the wrong strategy and fight your opponents fight...Or you think that is Okay?

Joseph's intelligent reply :-

How can you say it was the "wrong strategy" when you have no evidence fighting differently would have been any better for Patterson? Obviously you were implying that Patterson would have done better with a different strategy or you never would have brought it up.

My response:-

In a previous post in a rebuttal to a poster I had written that Patterson fought the wrong fight...Against Liston...I just posted that to support what Patterson himself thought...a common sparring mate of Sonny and Patterson thought so too...And I can darn sure say that Sonny would KO out Patterson sure but against a good mover with good chin he will have trouble...

Later I posted the whole artcile I am posting the relevant extract here :-

"Why," asked a Swede in the audience, "didn't Floyd fight Liston that way?" Drinking tea in the dressing room and frequently blowing his nose because of a cold that had come on that day, Patterson offered his own explanation. "All the time," he said, "the whole world is learning different things. First the Wright brothers flew; now we have jets. I did not know yesterday what I know today, but if I had to fight Liston all over again I would fight a completely different style. My pride this time would not compel me to fight as I did before."..I also quoted previously one of Patterson's sparring mate saying before the fight that if Patterson slugged it out with Liston it will be curtains, which due to his pride he could do.(he said all this before the fight). But he stayed away he will have a better chance.


The usual hysteric stuff with Joseph and Liston...in Joesphs world Liston could catch a bullet with his fists and catch the whole earth in his shoulders...even if a fighter thinks he fought the wrong way and will do better next time its a travesty...

This guy now accuses me of saying all this stuff about Patterson. (when I quoted him) ...and having bias against Liston...This is beyond funny.

joseph5620
11-03-2011, 06:09 PM
This is my post in that thread,



The above quote was made in response to someone who said Liston got aggressive with Floyd, which I thought was a moot point, since Floyd himself tried to slug it out with Liston, which with his chin was suicide.

Joseph's hyper Liston mania reply

J

My reply :-



Joseph's intelligent reply :-



My response:-



Later I posted the whole artcile I am posting the relevant extract here :-

..I also quoted previously one of Patterson's sparring mate saying before the fight that if Patterson slugged it out with Liston it will be curtains, which due to his pride he could do.(he said all this before the fight). But he stayed away he will have a better chance.


The usual hysteric stuff with Joseph and Liston...in Joesphs world Liston could catch a bullet with his fists and catch the whole earth in his shoulders...even if a fighter thinks he fought the wrong way and will do better next time its a travesty...
This guy now accuses me of saying all this stuff about Patterson. (when I quoted him) ...and having bias against Liston...This is beyond funny.




In case you forgot, Patterson fought Liston twice and did not make it out of the first round in either fight. So what "next time" are you talking about LOL ? :headbang: Bruce Wood**** Mafia lives!


And don't bother hurting yourself by typing a two page response to one post because I skip through most of it. You sure take a lot of time to type for a guy in a hurry :lol1:

Greatest1942
11-03-2011, 07:07 PM
In case you forgot, Patterson fought Liston twice and did not make it out of the first round in either fight. So what "next time" are you talking about LOL ? :headbang: Bruce Wood**** Mafia lives!


And don't bother hurting yourself by typing a two page response to one post because I skip through most of it. You sure take a lot of time to type for a guy in a hurry :lol1:

In case you forgot, Patterson fought Liston twice and did not make it out of the first round in either fight. So what "next time" are you talking about LOL ?
This is the stuff of unwanted drivel I am talking of pertaining to you.
You retarded idiot its not me but Patterson who is talking of it. Go ask him,Mr LOW IQ

Bruce Wood**** Mafia lives!

If calling someone a good contender = a mafia, good I am Bruce Wood**** mafia, trying to teach the ignorant Joseph about guys pre 2000.:buttkick:

And don't bother hurting yourself by typing a two page response to one post because I skip through most of it. You sure take a lot of time to type for a guy in a hurry

The fact that you have a reading and comprehension problem is evident by your posts. Its worse than a nursery grade student.:bottle:

"Lot of typing"

Most of it was ctrl+c and ctrl +v..which you don't know the use of..

JAB5239
11-03-2011, 07:25 PM
I am sorry but you are way out of the mark here. I am going to give some stats to you which you might like to take a look in, when I get the time to form them.

Meanwhile form a top 10 fighters who Frazier beat and Tyson beat. And kick out the top 4. And see who are more prone to dropping down out of the top 20. If Frazier had lost to Ali 3-0 , can you place him in the top 10?

Even if Rocky takes a lose, his performance against the top ranked contenders (an imporatant barometer to me, since generally the top 2 ranked guys are the ones throughout eras who are pretty good), is better than most heavyweights. In case someone's tail starts to wiggle and they ask me to post or prove it don't worry I will do this soon.

I don't believe Im wrong because this is a matter of opinion my friend. And yes, Frazier probably falls from the top 20 also, especially considering I rank him 11th or 12th.

Greatest1942
11-03-2011, 08:06 PM
I don't believe Im wrong because this is a matter of opinion my friend. And yes, Frazier probably falls from the top 20 also, especially considering I rank him 11th or 12th.

Yea, thats true these are all opinions...

Frazier out of top 10, Rock out of top 10...did you try kicking out the top 4 guys in Foreman's resume ? or Liston's? can you rate them in the top 10 with those four names excluded...

Foreman's top 10:-
1. Joe Frazier
2. Ken Norton
3. Michael Moorer
4. Ron Lyle
5. George Chuvalo
6. Alex Stewart
7. Gregorio Peralta
8. Adilson Rodrigues
9. Dwight Qawi
10. Boone Kirkman

Tyson top 10:-

1. Holmes
2. Spinks
3. Ruddock 2x
4. Bruno 2x
5. Tucker
6. Golota
7. Thomas
8. Botha
9. Biggs
10. Berbick

Jeffries top ten:
1. Fitzsimmons
2. Corbett
3. Jackson
4. Sharkey
5. Ruhlin
6. Armstrong
7. Goddard
8. Munroe
9. Griffin
10. Everett

Johnson's top ten:
1. Jeffries
2. Langford
3. Fitzsimmons
4. Jeannette
5. McVea
6. Burns
7. Moran
8. Ketchel
9. Denver Ed Martin
10. Tom Cowler

If I eliminate the top 4 in each of the case, what will they be left with?

Nothing in case of Foreman or Liston, except Foreman made that massive comeback which was a big plus, but its still not top 15 IMO. Tyson's is not top 30 in that case. Jeffries is in pretty bad shape too.I will spare dissecting him.

Johnsons best victim is McVea and then the 155lb Burns, and a middle weight Ketchel forms the rest...is this really a top 20? If we count his resume from 5 onwards I am saying it is top 25 at best top 20.

Except Ali and Louis , must will suffer badly...some will fall out of top 10 and some out of top 20...Rock is not special IMO.

JAB5239
11-03-2011, 11:57 PM
Yea, thats true these are all opinions...

Frazier out of top 10, Rock out of top 10...did you try kicking out the top 4 guys in Foreman's resume ? or Liston's? can you rate them in the top 10 with those four names excluded...

Foreman's top 10:-
1. Joe Frazier
2. Ken Norton
3. Michael Moorer
4. Ron Lyle
5. George Chuvalo
6. Alex Stewart
7. Gregorio Peralta
8. Adilson Rodrigues
9. Dwight Qawi
10. Boone Kirkman

Tyson top 10:-

1. Holmes
2. Spinks
3. Ruddock 2x
4. Bruno 2x
5. Tucker
6. Golota
7. Thomas
8. Botha
9. Biggs
10. Berbick

Jeffries top ten:
1. Fitzsimmons
2. Corbett
3. Jackson
4. Sharkey
5. Ruhlin
6. Armstrong
7. Goddard
8. Munroe
9. Griffin
10. Everett

Johnson's top ten:
1. Jeffries
2. Langford
3. Fitzsimmons
4. Jeannette
5. McVea
6. Burns
7. Moran
8. Ketchel
9. Denver Ed Martin
10. Tom Cowler

If I eliminate the top 4 in each of the case, what will they be left with?

Nothing in case of Foreman or Liston, except Foreman made that massive comeback which was a big plus, but its still not top 15 IMO. Tyson's is not top 30 in that case. Jeffries is in pretty bad shape too.I will spare dissecting him.

Johnsons best victim is McVea and then the 155lb Burns, and a middle weight Ketchel forms the rest...is this really a top 20? If we count his resume from 5 onwards I am saying it is top 25 at best top 20.

Except Ali and Louis , must will suffer badly...some will fall out of top 10 and some out of top 20...Rock is not special IMO.

Resume is the key factor in any all time list, IN MY OPINION. But there are certainly other things to consider. As I have already said though this is just an exercise, NOT what I consider any fighters personal ranking to be. With all due respect G, it seems you and a couple others have taken this thread totally out of context.

GJC
11-04-2011, 03:06 AM
"

However you can always have DeJohn like guys shead of Elmer ray or Baksi


Personally I find it difficult to understand the small minority who rate Ali over Baksi :)

Baksi nearly killed Wood**** BTW

McGoorty
11-04-2011, 04:10 AM
Yea, thats true these are all opinions...

Frazier out of top 10, Rock out of top 10...did you try kicking out the top 4 guys in Foreman's resume ? or Liston's? can you rate them in the top 10 with those four names excluded...

Foreman's top 10:-
1. Joe Frazier
2. Ken Norton
3. Michael Moorer
4. Ron Lyle
5. George Chuvalo
6. Alex Stewart
7. Gregorio Peralta
8. Adilson Rodrigues
9. Dwight Qawi
10. Boone Kirkman

Tyson top 10:-

1. Holmes
2. Spinks
3. Ruddock 2x
4. Bruno 2x
5. Tucker
6. Golota
7. Thomas
8. Botha
9. Biggs
10. Berbick

Jeffries top ten:
1. Fitzsimmons
2. Corbett
3. Jackson
4. Sharkey
5. Ruhlin
6. Armstrong
7. Goddard
8. Munroe
9. Griffin
10. Everett

Johnson's top ten:
1. Jeffries
2. Langford
3. Fitzsimmons
4. Jeannette
5. McVea
6. Burns
7. Moran
8. Ketchel
9. Denver Ed Martin
10. Tom Cowler

If I eliminate the top 4 in each of the case, what will they be left with?

Nothing in case of Foreman or Liston, except Foreman made that massive comeback which was a big plus, but its still not top 15 IMO. Tyson's is not top 30 in that case. Jeffries is in pretty bad shape too.I will spare dissecting him.

Johnsons best victim is McVea and then the 155lb Burns, and a middle weight Ketchel forms the rest...is this really a top 20? If we count his resume from 5 onwards I am saying it is top 25 at best top 20.

Except Ali and Louis , must will suffer badly...some will fall out of top 10 and some out of top 20...Rock is not special IMO.
On those lists there, only Johnson and Jeffries would be top 15, with 4 names out. Actually if you take just 2 off the others they look very slim indeed, especially Tyson's. Looking at that, Jeffries is ridiculously underated. Without Frazier and Norton on there Foreman would not rate at all, we wouldn't even be talking about him.

McGoorty
11-04-2011, 04:13 AM
Personally I find it difficult to understand the small minority who rate Ali over Baksi :)

Baksi nearly killed Wood**** BTW

JOE THE GREAT....................................:headbang ::headbang::headbang::headbang:

JAB5239
11-04-2011, 06:36 AM
On the contrary... I didn't take it seriously at all.

Well that's just peachy, you've set my mind at ease. ;)

JAB5239
11-04-2011, 06:59 AM
JAB,
If you ever wrote that here before, I must have missed it. But I'm real surprised you feel that way about Tunney.

I have no problem with you seeing it that way, it just kinda (shocked is too strong a word, but I can't think of anything similar)....."surprises" me.

Your Gene Tunney is my Sam Langford I guess! :)

It's funny how the great majority of us have a somewhat deep knowledge about fighters from the past, yet we can still see things different in almost any fighter. I for one think that's what makes it all the more fun here.

One more thing just to be a little cute...I find that it's best not to say anything bad about another historians choice of who rates where. It's akin to keeping quiet when you see one of your buddy's wives or girlfriend who is, well, let's just say "not pretty". It's best just to aknowledge her & change the subject. :D

As a fighter I respect Tunney's abilities, his light heavyweight status and p4p standing by most. At heavyweight though his accomplishments are just to thin for me to rank in the top 15 let alone top 10. He didn't clean out the division and his best wins were over a guy who hadn't fought in 3 years. Im not putting him down, there were just plenty of other fighters who fought and beat better fighters at heavyweight.

Langford doesn't make my top 10 either but I do think he has a better resume p4p and at heavyweight. A major difference in my opinion is Langford would fight anyone if granted the opportunity. Had he been allowed to fight more white heavyweights his resume in all likelihood would be even better. Tunney chose not not to fight black fighters. Had he his resume would also likely be better. But he made a choice whereas Langford was forced. Maybe it's just me, but these things weigh in on how I rank a fighter. :dunno:

joseph5620
11-04-2011, 02:48 PM
On those lists there, only Johnson and Jeffries would be top 15, with 4 names out. Actually if you take just 2 off the others they look very slim indeed, especially Tyson's. Looking at that, Jeffries is ridiculously underated. Without Frazier and Norton on there Foreman would not rate at all, we wouldn't even be talking about him.





So nobody would talk about the oldest fighter to ever win a heavyweight championship? Just dismiss Foreman's comeback? If you feel that way about Foreman, why would you talk about Jeffries if his top 4 wins were left out? That would leave him with about 15 pro fights on record. How is he ridiculously underrated in this situation?

Greatest1942
11-04-2011, 03:36 PM
Resume is the key factor in any all time list, IN MY OPINION. But there are certainly other things to consider. As I have already said though this is just an exercise, NOT what I consider any fighters personal ranking to be. With all due respect G, it seems you and a couple others have taken this thread totally out of context.


True, Marciano still seems to bring a lot of unneccessary exercise. :boxing:.


But honestly though, with all due respect too, once you make a thread like this, which is a strong exercise, you shouldn't be complaining if it goes out of context.

But to be brutally honest with you, I think Marciano gets a bad shake from you...though in all fairness I probably give bad shakes to other deserving fighters too.

McGoorty
11-04-2011, 04:51 PM
So nobody would talk about the oldest fighter to ever win a heavyweight championship? Just dismiss Foreman's comeback? If you feel that way about Foreman, why would you talk about Jeffries if his top 4 wins were left out? That would leave him with about 15 pro fights on record. How is he ridiculously underrated in this situation?
Well Joseph, I always liked George, I loved him against Frazier and Norton, I was never real big on Frazier. When I looked at those lists that 1942 put up, I saw some very impressive names on Jeff's list,.. mate Gus Ruhlin was on the bottom part of that list, Ruhlin was a hell of a fighter, his name may not ring a bell to you, after all he never won the title and it was along time ago, they fought under much tougher conditions then too. I was expecting Johnson to be wiped out with 4 going off there, but his resume looks the most solid to me, --------------------------Johnson's top ten:
1. Jeffries
2. Langford
3. Fitzsimmons
4. Jeannette
5. McVea Great fighter
6. Burns Great fighter
7. Moran A top contender,, good fighter
8. Ketchel Yeah small but a Great Champion
9. Denver Ed Martin Good Fighter
10. Tom Cowler Never ****ing heard of this guy I admit----------- Foreman's top 10:-
1. Joe Frazier
2. Ken Norton
3. Michael Moorer Like Ketchell just too small
4. Ron Lyle This guy fought a bit like Ruhlin,, rough and always dangerous
5. George Chuvalo Not one of the greats,.. Taker of massive punishment.. Ruhlin again maybe.. but Gus had a bit more finesse
6. Alex Stewart Don't know him from a bar of soap, surely Quawi is twice as good as this bloke
7. Gregorio Peralta Can't say anything, not a name I know
8. Adilson Rodrigues ?????????????????????
9. Dwight Qawi Cruiserweight but at least top 5 on this list, very good fighter
10. Boone Kirkman ??????????????????? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jeffries top ten:
1. Fitzsimmons
2. Corbett
3. Jackson
4. Sharkey
5. Ruhlin
6. Armstrong
7. Goddard
8. Munroe
9. Griffin
10. Everett....................... Solid all the way to Munroe at least..... Jeffries was rated by many as the greatest HW,,,, back to the pre-Louis era..... most then have the bomber as ATG HW.......... Foremans comeback doubles his prestige, a great achievement, but they are zack compared to the 70's victims....... That was just the "RING" lists anyway Joseph, I was simply giving my opinion OF THE LIST THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED............ Do you agree that this list actually represents Foremans ten best wins in order ??.. well Quawi should be at least 4 spots higher, What do you reckon ?... mate, I refuse to acknowledge most magazine lists..... you should see "Fist" magazines PATHETIC attempt at the Top 25 Aussies of all time........ Grantlee Kieza, qualified to speak on behalf of a nation ?... No F***in way... I gave up caring after I read that,,...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relax a bit Jo, no need for getting too worked up, it wasn't a list that 1942 made up..... have a good day.

Ziggy Stardust
11-04-2011, 07:05 PM
Well Joseph, I always liked George, I loved him against Frazier and Norton, I was never real big on Frazier. When I looked at those lists that 1942 put up, I saw some very impressive names on Jeff's list,.. mate Gus Ruhlin was on the bottom part of that list, Ruhlin was a hell of a fighter, his name may not ring a bell to you, after all he never won the title and it was along time ago, they fought under much tougher conditions then too. I was expecting Johnson to be wiped out with 4 going off there, but his resume looks the most solid to me, --------------------------Johnson's top ten:
1. Jeffries
2. Langford
3. Fitzsimmons
4. Jeannette
5. McVea Great fighter
6. Burns Great fighter
7. Moran A top contender,, good fighter
8. Ketchel Yeah small but a Great Champion
9. Denver Ed Martin Good Fighter
10. Tom Cowler Never ****ing heard of this guy I admit----------- Foreman's top 10:-
1. Joe Frazier
2. Ken Norton
3. Michael Moorer Like Ketchell just too small
4. Ron Lyle This guy fought a bit like Ruhlin,, rough and always dangerous
5. George Chuvalo Not one of the greats,.. Taker of massive punishment.. Ruhlin again maybe.. but Gus had a bit more finesse
6. Alex Stewart Don't know him from a bar of soap, surely Quawi is twice as good as this bloke
7. Gregorio Peralta Can't say anything, not a name I know
8. Adilson Rodrigues ?????????????????????
9. Dwight Qawi Cruiserweight but at least top 5 on this list, very good fighter
10. Boone Kirkman ??????????????????? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jeffries top ten:
1. Fitzsimmons
2. Corbett
3. Jackson
4. Sharkey
5. Ruhlin
6. Armstrong
7. Goddard
8. Munroe
9. Griffin
10. Everett....................... Solid all the way to Munroe at least..... Jeffries was rated by many as the greatest HW,,,, back to the pre-Louis era..... most then have the bomber as ATG HW.......... Foremans comeback doubles his prestige, a great achievement, but they are zack compared to the 70's victims....... That was just the "RING" lists anyway Joseph, I was simply giving my opinion OF THE LIST THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED............ Do you agree that this list actually represents Foremans ten best wins in order ??.. well Quawi should be at least 4 spots higher, What do you reckon ?... mate, I refuse to acknowledge most magazine lists..... you should see "Fist" magazines PATHETIC attempt at the Top 25 Aussies of all time........ Grantlee Kieza, qualified to speak on behalf of a nation ?... No F***in way... I gave up caring after I read that,,...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relax a bit Jo, no need for getting too worked up, it wasn't a list that 1942 made up..... have a good day.

Bear in mind now that while Ketchel and Burns where great fighters they were great MIDDLEWEIGHTS. Heavys don't get credit for beating up Middles. How much credit do you think Larry Holmes would have gotten if he had given Marvin Hagler a title shot? After all, Hagler was a great FIGHTER wasn't he? He was still a Middleweight and people would be crucifying Holmes for pounding the crap out of Hagler if such a matchup had gone down.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
11-04-2011, 07:11 PM
And BTW, for some other posters in this thread, resumes aren't just about "names": The career stage that that name is at determines whether the name means anything or not. Johnson does NOT get any credit for smacking around a washed-up Jeffries by anybody that has a working brain cell. Or are we counting Ali as anything other than a meaningless sparring session for Holmes? Ali at that career stage was no better than a tomato can and Holmes gets as much credit for it as he would for beating up any no-name tomato can culled from the local tough-guy circuit.....that is to say he gets NO credit for it. Just so, Johnson shouldn't be getting any credit for Jeffries either.

Poet

Ziggy Stardust
11-04-2011, 07:22 PM
Your Gene Tunney is my Sam Langford I guess! :)

The problem with Tunney isn't that he wasn't a great fighter (obviously he WAS and any one claiming differently needs his head checked out) but that he had only around 6 fights at Heavyweight out of a 60+ fight career. I don't know how anybody can be ranked in a division where they had that few fights. It's why we don't rank Roy Jones as a Heavy even though he, like Tunney, won a title there. The body of work in that division is simply too small to truly gauge how good was at that particular weight.

Poet

JAB5239
11-04-2011, 08:09 PM
True, Marciano still seems to bring a lot of unneccessary exercise. :boxing:.


But honestly though, with all due respect too, once you make a thread like this, which is a strong exercise, you shouldn't be complaining if it goes out of context.


This is a fair point.

But to be brutally honest with you, I think Marciano gets a bad shake from you...though in all fairness I probably give bad shakes to other deserving fighters too.

How so G? I rank him 10th all time, he's my 3rd favorite fighter and I don't think there was ever a heavyweight with more sheer determination. I don't see how I give him a bad shake. Im not trying to be unfair, just objective.

Greatest1942
11-04-2011, 09:18 PM
And BTW, for some other posters in this thread, resumes aren't just about "names": The career stage that that name is at determines whether the name means anything or not. Johnson does NOT get any credit for smacking around a washed-up Jeffries by anybody that has a working brain cell. Or are we counting Ali as anything other than a meaningless sparring session for Holmes? Ali at that career stage was no better than a tomato can and Holmes gets as much credit for it as he would for beating up any no-name tomato can culled from the local tough-guy circuit.....that is to say he gets NO credit for it. Just so, Johnson shouldn't be getting any credit for Jeffries either.

Poet

POet I don't know if this is for me or not...that was just a list, I made trying to give each boxers as many names as I could...In all fairness, even then most guys will likely have still not enough to take the ommision of 4 fighters.

I give Marciano credit for beating up Charles, not because what I read about him or his resume (or names in the resume), but because on video I think he tested Marciano as much as anyone or better than most.

I don't give Charles too much credit for beating Louis, since Louis beat a lot of good heavies after Charles beat him, (which I hope you agree), I am more interested in giving Louis the status of a good contender...surely he was good enough to be #9 in ones resume (this is where I put him in Charles)...

I agree about Ketchel and Burns...I think too much credit is given for banging those guys, I doubt even Hagler (a P4P great chin), will survive any good heavyweight, forget ATGS.

I hope you agree.

Greatest1942
11-04-2011, 09:32 PM
How so G? I rank him 10th all time, he's my 3rd favorite fighter and I don't think there was ever a heavyweight with more sheer determination. I don't see how I give him a bad shake. Im not trying to be unfair, just objective.

I do think the Rock gets overly criticised for being undefeated or for being white. I can't simply think it that way...Surely his colour did not help him get 49-0 as a record or be the champion and defend it 6 times.

He fought the best contenders available and thats all we can ask of anybody ...We have seen boxers trip up (even ATGs) on lesser challenges than what was offered to Rocky. As for him being ranked below if was 48-1 , I doubt many guys will do that. Again but this is hypothesis and you can't conjecture what if? Because its a dubious question...point is what happened. Because if he lost to LaStraza might be the Rock would have fought on till he was 56-1 or something and added Valdes or the Young patterson in his resume...In all fairness even with that loss the Rock's resume and achievements will read well, to the objective mind.

However if I conjectured something wrong about you, its my fault...I misunderstood your posts with Rockin...

By the by Rock is 9-0 (8 KO) against top2 contenders...I post this just for reference and the fact that I said i will...as for me the debate is dead...since I can't argue why you rank Rock #10, its your choice.

Foreman = 4-3 (4 KO)
Liston = 5-2 (4 KO)
Holmes = 6-5 (4 KO).

All against top 2.

Rockin'
11-04-2011, 10:38 PM
Baksi nearly killed Wood**** BTW

you said wood****........Rockin':boobies:

RubenSonny
11-04-2011, 11:00 PM
Well Joseph, I always liked George, I loved him against Frazier and Norton, I was never real big on Frazier. When I looked at those lists that 1942 put up, I saw some very impressive names on Jeff's list,.. mate Gus Ruhlin was on the bottom part of that list, Ruhlin was a hell of a fighter, his name may not ring a bell to you, after all he never won the title and it was along time ago, they fought under much tougher conditions then too. I was expecting Johnson to be wiped out with 4 going off there, but his resume looks the most solid to me, --------------------------Johnson's top ten:
1. Jeffries
2. Langford
3. Fitzsimmons
4. Jeannette
5. McVea Great fighter
6. Burns Great fighter
7. Moran A top contender,, good fighter
8. Ketchel Yeah small but a Great Champion
9. Denver Ed Martin Good Fighter
10. Tom Cowler Never ****ing heard of this guy I admit----------- Foreman's top 10:-
1. Joe Frazier
2. Ken Norton
3. Michael Moorer Like Ketchell just too small
4. Ron Lyle This guy fought a bit like Ruhlin,, rough and always dangerous
5. George Chuvalo Not one of the greats,.. Taker of massive punishment.. Ruhlin again maybe.. but Gus had a bit more finesse
6. Alex Stewart Don't know him from a bar of soap, surely Quawi is twice as good as this bloke
7. Gregorio Peralta Can't say anything, not a name I know
8. Adilson Rodrigues ?????????????????????
9. Dwight Qawi Cruiserweight but at least top 5 on this list, very good fighter
10. Boone Kirkman ??????????????????? -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Jeffries top ten:
1. Fitzsimmons
2. Corbett
3. Jackson
4. Sharkey
5. Ruhlin
6. Armstrong
7. Goddard
8. Munroe
9. Griffin
10. Everett....................... Solid all the way to Munroe at least..... Jeffries was rated by many as the greatest HW,,,, back to the pre-Louis era..... most then have the bomber as ATG HW.......... Foremans comeback doubles his prestige, a great achievement, but they are zack compared to the 70's victims....... That was just the "RING" lists anyway Joseph, I was simply giving my opinion OF THE LIST THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED............ Do you agree that this list actually represents Foremans ten best wins in order ??.. well Quawi should be at least 4 spots higher, What do you reckon ?... mate, I refuse to acknowledge most magazine lists..... you should see "Fist" magazines PATHETIC attempt at the Top 25 Aussies of all time........ Grantlee Kieza, qualified to speak on behalf of a nation ?... No F***in way... I gave up caring after I read that,,...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relax a bit Jo, no need for getting too worked up, it wasn't a list that 1942 made up..... have a good day.

Jackson was worse than shot.

McGoorty
11-06-2011, 05:30 AM
Bear in mind now that while Ketchel and Burns where great fighters they were great MIDDLEWEIGHTS. Heavys don't get credit for beating up Middles. How much credit do you think Larry Holmes would have gotten if he had given Marvin Hagler a title shot? After all, Hagler was a great FIGHTER wasn't he? He was still a Middleweight and people would be crucifying Holmes for pounding the crap out of Hagler if such a matchup had gone down.

Poet
Sure, but A great MW can beat a poor HW,... especially if he can carry some extra pounds of muscle easily a la a certain MW I know..... but the main question is proved, take the top 4 off and they all go down the list by quite a way. Ditto for 99.95% of all boxers.

McGoorty
11-06-2011, 05:36 AM
And BTW, for some other posters in this thread, resumes aren't just about "names": The career stage that that name is at determines whether the name means anything or not. Johnson does NOT get any credit for smacking around a washed-up Jeffries by anybody that has a working brain cell. Or are we counting Ali as anything other than a meaningless sparring session for Holmes? Ali at that career stage was no better than a tomato can and Holmes gets as much credit for it as he would for beating up any no-name tomato can culled from the local tough-guy circuit.....that is to say he gets NO credit for it. Just so, Johnson shouldn't be getting any credit for Jeffries either.

Poet
I agree with most of that, but even a washed up great is more dangerous than an inexperienced bum.... they say the punch is one of the last things to go. and unless he is too punch drunk (Jeffries wasn't), he still knows what he always knew,... the experience is always there.... I give you 93% for that ...lol...

McGoorty
11-06-2011, 05:39 AM
The problem with Tunney isn't that he wasn't a great fighter (obviously he WAS and any one claiming differently needs his head checked out) but that he had only around 6 fights at Heavyweight out of a 60+ fight career. I don't know how anybody can be ranked in a division where they had that few fights. It's why we don't rank Roy Jones as a Heavy even though he, like Tunney, won a title there. The body of work in that division is simply too small to truly gauge how good was at that particular weight.

Poet
Massive difference between the title Tunney won and whatever that bauble was that Jones got.... but yeah I agree that you have to take into account how many fights he had at HW.

McGoorty
11-06-2011, 05:43 AM
POet I don't know if this is for me or not...that was just a list, I made trying to give each boxers as many names as I could...In all fairness, even then most guys will likely have still not enough to take the ommision of 4 fighters.

I give Marciano credit for beating up Charles, not because what I read about him or his resume (or names in the resume), but because on video I think he tested Marciano as much as anyone or better than most.

I don't give Charles too much credit for beating Louis, since Louis beat a lot of good heavies after Charles beat him, (which I hope you agree), I am more interested in giving Louis the status of a good contender...surely he was good enough to be #9 in ones resume (this is where I put him in Charles)...

I agree about Ketchel and Burns...I think too much credit is given for banging those guys, I doubt even Hagler (a P4P great chin), will survive any good heavyweight, forget ATGS.

I hope you agree.
For such a small HW champion,... Tommy Burns WAS a GREAT fighter...... he had Darcy's reach too.

McGoorty
11-06-2011, 05:46 AM
Jackson was worse than shot.
I admit that I didn't google to check the date, poor Peter Jackson is one of my favourite fighters to ever live.

Marchegiano
11-06-2011, 09:48 AM
Wow, as the only fella with his name as a handle, and pic avatar. I'm a little puzzled as to why y'all still are speculating why he's popular. It's got nothing to do with being white. Nothing to do with record, and 100% in the way he knocked people around. No one's got a KO reel like Rocky. Giant HW who by all means look like bigger, heavier hitters, seem to cause less destructive KO's. Marciano makes you question when the guy's going to get up. It's his brutality I like.

You don't watch those KO's and go "wow and thats Louis" like it makes a god damn difference. Look at what he's throwing. It really doesn't matter who's head that hand lands on. It's a brutal, mean punch, with full body motion in terrific explosion. Y'all are way too hung up on records. His crouch is 100% his, his constant pressure and power are 100% his. The way guys fell all his. The length they stayed down, his. His total lack of respect for the other fighter's talents. There are no sluggers nearly as good at that end of boxing. 49-0? don't give a damn. Louis, Moore, Ezzard, and Jersey gone? I'd still be relishing the rabbit punch on ****ell. Roland being drilled in the side on the ropes is my background on my cell. Pay attention to displayed skills. Tyson and Tua similar sluggers. no one's like Rocky until you get good and ****ing bare fist old.



Joe- If you actually give a damn, and want to put effort into communication, your misunderstanding what I'm telling you.

Barn
11-06-2011, 10:35 AM
Sure, but A great MW can beat a poor HW,... especially if he can carry some extra pounds of muscle easily a la a certain MW I know..... but the main question is proved, take the top 4 off and they all go down the list by quite a way. Ditto for 99.95% of all boxers.
Mickey Walker did it, routinely.

MJ223
11-06-2011, 07:41 PM
Hey fellas its a Joe Frazier appreciation thread in NSB and I would greatly appreciate it if you guys stopped by.

Tiozzo
11-10-2011, 08:43 AM
Could knock the top 4 fighters off most fighters resumes and knock em a fair way down though surely Jabs?

lol exactly...

Marchegiano
11-11-2011, 05:58 PM
It seems Rocky is really underrated here

Yeah man, seems so. No love for the p4p hardest hitting gloved HW champ. What's worse is since Rocco gets little respect those he beat get next to none. Roland LaStarza was a damn good boxer. I appreciate his career. Charles was attacked already on this thread, and Charles on a good night was bleeding brilliant boxing. Rex was a decent bully and a hellacious bruiser. The whole era gets a bad rap. It's like no one can watch a fight and tell what type of fighter they're watching. I mean it's ****ing blatant that Mike Perez should not fight Vitali right? Apparently if no one knew their records it wouldn't be. Apparently you can't tell who's the superior ring general if they've only fought cans. And what if Mike had a record more suiting of a contender. Would there be masses of fans calling for him to face a Klitschko? Does having names change the way Wlad moves? No man, having names is supposed to be addition evidence, not main argument. Your main point ought to have more to do with stance, techniques used, skill sets and less to do with stats, %'s, and names.

Great John L
11-11-2011, 06:09 PM
Marciano's name is inextricably tied to that of Walcott, Charles, and Moore, and without them you have no real Marciano. How would the world have known of the courage, determination, and iron toughness of Marciano had he not soldiered through the beatings by Walcott and Charles to win? Had he lost, we would have no notions of his ability to defy the odds and take insane punishment, winning with his nose hanging off his face. We would have a rough and tough guy good enough to beat an old Joe Louis, but not the top level fighters of the time. If he didn't have those wins, he wouldn't be Marciano. I don't think he could even be ranked as a great without them. Lastarza and Layne were also good wins, but Rocky wasn't pushed to the brink by them the way he was with Charles and Walcott. What would we think of Ali if he lost to Liston and Foreman?

La_Vibora
11-11-2011, 07:30 PM
It seems Rocky is really underrated here

Its not just here but other places too. It seems as the more time that passes the more underrated and unappreciated he becomes.

Marchegiano
11-12-2011, 08:48 AM
Marciano's name is inextricably tied to that of Walcott, Charles, and Moore, and without them you have no real Marciano. How would the world have known of the courage, determination, and iron toughness of Marciano had he not soldiered through the beatings by Walcott and Charles to win? Had he lost, we would have no notions of his ability to defy the odds and take insane punishment, winning with his nose hanging off his face. We would have a rough and tough guy good enough to beat an old Joe Louis, but not the top level fighters of the time. If he didn't have those wins, he wouldn't be Marciano. I don't think he could even be ranked as a great without them. Lastarza and Layne were also good wins, but Rocky wasn't pushed to the brink by them the way he was with Charles and Walcott. What would we think of Ali if he lost to Liston and Foreman?

What if the actions in each of those fights happened, but with different men playing the role of opponent? I agree, 100% of why Rocco's my hero can be found in the Walcott fight, but you don't have to know who Walcott is to be moved my Rocky's display. In my opinion.

What would you think of the Phantom Punch if it happened to Chuck?

Great John L
11-12-2011, 11:43 AM
Well, I'm not saying that it has to be Walcott, but that was his career greateness expressed beautifully in one fight. If Rock had another fighter who pushed him to the brink and he still won against, Rocky would still be a great, but I thought the thread was if Marciano did fight Walcott and Charles but just lost instead. I mean if he fought another great from another era and won he'd still be great, but making him lose to Charles, Walcott, Moore, would be like making Ali lose to Foreman, Liston, Frazier(all times), and Norton(all times). Any time you take the greatest wins out a fighter's career, they look much worse, but if you replace those wins with a different fighter who's just as skilled and they still won, the fighter's greatness is still preserved, I believe. So Rocky's career doesn't rely on the names Walcott and Charles, just their skill.

Marchegiano
11-14-2011, 02:15 PM
Yeah, maybe I misunderstood the op. Anyway, yes I agree. Rocky's greatness is in his performance not his record. I've always told people on that night it wouldn't matter who stepped in that ring. On that night Rocco came to win.

Anthony342
11-15-2011, 01:37 PM
The way I see the HW division you've got Ali, Louis at the top. Then it's just a mad free for all until you reach about 12 and a slightly lower bracket comes about creating another mad free for all until about 20.

It's not like for example Middleweight with: Greb, Monzon, Hagler, Fitzsimmons Robinson all with a claim to the top spot.


What abour Hopkins? Where do you rank him among middleweights?

Dubblechin
11-15-2011, 07:19 PM
Rocky Marciano is one of my all time favorite fighters, but how would his legacy have fared had he not beaten Charles, Louis, Walcott and Moore? Without those all time greats on his resume does it drop him significantly in the all time heavyweight rankings? I have Marciano currently at 10. Without those names though I believe he surely falls out of the top 20. Opinions?

But he does have those names on his record, so why would you remove them? I don't understand the premise? If you remove the "the biggest wins" off anyone's record, it will hurt them.

Are you asking how would your top 10 all time list change if you removed EVERYONE's top four wins?

Muhammad Ali certainly had enough big wins that he would probably still be a top-rated all-time fighter if you removed his four biggest wins, but probably not top two. Joe Louis fought a lot of bums, so his would definitely knock him down some notches. (Remove Baer, Schmeling, Conn, Walcott and you're left with ... Primo, Braddock, Sharkey and not much else.)

I actually have Lennox Lewis THIRD on my all-time list, behind Ali and Louis. It's arguable which are Lewis' biggest wins, but if you knock off four of them, he has plenty to still remain highly rated - certainly above the likes of Marciano, Liston, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Frazier, Foreman, etc. if you removed their best wins too.

Lennox Lewis
1. Vitali Klitschko
2. Evander Holyfield
3. Mike Tyson
4. Frank Bruno
5. Razor Ruddock
6. Ray Mercer
7. Andrew Golota
8. Tommy Morrison
9. Tony Tucker
10. Hasim Rahman
11. David Tua
12. Oliver McCall
13. Shannon Briggs
14. Gary Mason
15. Michael Grant

NChristo
11-15-2011, 08:02 PM
What abour Hopkins? Where do you rank him among middleweights?

He does not have an argument for #1 at all but imo he's top 10.

JAB5239
11-15-2011, 09:16 PM
But he does have those names on his record, so why would you remove them? I don't understand the premise? If you remove the "the biggest wins" off anyone's record, it will hurt them.

This thread was made for entertainment purposes only. It does't reflect how I feel about Marciano or where I rank him all time (I rank him 10th). I was going to do this with other fighters but it seems to many posters took this as how I reflect on Marciaao's career, instead of the actual career itself. It was just a mental excercise, thats all.

Anthony342
11-16-2011, 10:39 PM
My point was, my opinion, is that Marciano doesn't just drop a notch, he falls completely out of the top 20. And of course you can do this with any fighter, but Rocky creates debate on where he should be placed more than any other fighter. After this thread fizzles I plan on creating another for Larry Holmes, than Dempsey, than Tyson and others I think may spark debate. The only 3 I don't see falling out of the top 10 are Louis, Ali and Johnson, and Im sure that will cause some debate in itself. We all have our reasons why we rank fighters where we do. Take a few of those reasons away and things are viewed differently. It doesn't change history or the greatness of any fighter, it's just a fun little exercise. Some of you guys take this **** way to seriously.

Agreed, which is why I only rank my personal favorites, not best fighters.

Anthony342
11-16-2011, 10:41 PM
On a social timescale Marciano falls just before the dismantelment of segregation. Retire undefeated and you will be revered and loved for ages. I believe his greatness has alot to do with the publicity that he recieved in his time, it makes all fighters histories to speak off. Marcianos was just polished from the time he hit. He beat some big names but most of them were on the last leg of their careers.

Suppose Tyson had just up and said I retire after his demolition of Carl "the Truth"Williams in one round. In just 3 years and 4 months Tyson had literally cleaned out the division. Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno and finally Williams. 10 defenses in 38 months, Tyson completely dominated. A much bigger feet than Rocky Marciano ever accomplished.............Rockin':boxing:

Yeah true, but wouldn't people then say he should've fought Holyfield, which Tyson didn't even get to do until he was considered by many to be past his prime. Not shot, mind you, but many don't consider him prime after prison.

Bad Guy
11-16-2011, 11:56 PM
http://t1.stooorage.com/thumbs/1073/4827999_4569298_std.jpg (http://www.stooorage.com/show/1073/4827999_4569298_std.jpg)

Let me tell you something, once and for all--Rocky Marciano was good; but compared to Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano ain't ****.

Anthony342
11-17-2011, 12:28 AM
On a social timescale Marciano falls just before the dismantelment of segregation. Retire undefeated and you will be revered and loved for ages. I believe his greatness has alot to do with the publicity that he recieved in his time, it makes all fighters histories to speak off. Marcianos was just polished from the time he hit. He beat some big names but most of them were on the last leg of their careers.

Suppose Tyson had just up and said I retire after his demolition of Carl "the Truth"Williams in one round. In just 3 years and 4 months Tyson had literally cleaned out the division. Berbick, Smith, Thomas, Tucker, Biggs, Holmes, Tubbs, Spinks, Bruno and finally Williams. 10 defenses in 38 months, Tyson completely dominated. A much bigger feet than Rocky Marciano ever accomplished.............Rockin':boxing:

He does not have an argument for #1 at all but imo he's top 10.

Oh okay, that's what I thought. I believe guys like Emannuel Stewart and other announcers at the time were saying the same thing when Hopkins was getting close to that 20th title defense. I believe he and others still ranked guys like Hagler and Monzon higher because there was no super middleweight divison for those guys at the time, so the weight class was less watered down. I didn't think much of Hopkins at first, until his more recent fights and then when I finally got a chance to watch a career set on him. I guess, like someone else here said, at 46, he's like the Archie Moore of today.