What if: Ezzard Charles beats Marciano

[Barn]

Bear in mind though how those losses go down determines alot as well, considering his only 2 losses would be to an arguably top 10ish(give or take depending on your opinion) ATG.

If he is decisioned a couple times in close ones, I doubt he falls too too far. KO1 or some type of ridiculous blow out, thats another story.

No shame in losing to Ezzard Charles.

Marciano's legacy is being unbeaten. He has honestly like 6 good wins.
LaStarza
Walcott.
Charles.
Louis.
Moore.
****ell.
Matthews.

Everyone else is literally dogcrap.

Take away his unbeaten run. He couldn't even rule in a crap post war division, only made 2 defences etc. Come on man that's not Top 10 ATG no matter what way you spin it.

It may not be a shame in losing to Ezzard Charles but, it's a big dent if it's the best win on your resume. For example take away Haglers win against Hearns. No shame losing to Hearns, right? Well it would wreck Hagler's chances of being the MW GOAT in anyones eyes. His reign cut-short. Lost to the best opponent he faced etc.

[New England]

If Ezzard Charles beat Rocky Marciano I would probably consider him the greatest fighter in the history of the sport.

i was wondering when somebody was going to say that!


i will add that i do not agree, which is fine.

[IronDanHamza]

Then you've got Armstrong, a FW who beat Middles. (He beat Garcia I read.)

I honestly don't see how it can bump Charles up anymore than 1-2 places. Rocky suddenly becomes arguably lower ranked on a HW list than Jersey Joe Walcott if he loses twice to Charles.

Also if you take into account Rocky wasn't really a true 200Ib Heavyweight. In the second fight Charles outweighed him.

I'm not denying Charles greatness here, moreso Marciano's as if you take his unbeaten record away making him less dominant in an already weak division then he becomes a footnote when talking about ATG heavies.

To be honest, If Ezzard Charles split 2 fights with Rocky Marciano I'd still consider him a Top 10 ATG HW.

I don't see how 1 loss on his reocrd to Charles would badly effect his ranking in which he becomes a footnote.

Especially, considering I've seen the whole "He beat everyone he faced" logic been wildly thrown around to justify Lennox Lewis being ranked in the Top 10 HW list so why wouldn't the same apply for Rocky Marciano in this scenario?

Rocky Marciano was a animal, he was a destroyer I wouldn't care if he split a 2 fight series or 3 fight series with Ezzard Charles or not, I know for a fact that beating prime Rocky Marciano takes something special. I think there's a handful of Heavyweight's who could beat him but he's the kind of win you'd have on a resume that elevates a resume.

What if Moore had beaten Marciano? You bet your ass he'd be considered alot greater than he is now and an unquestionable Top 10 ATG.

You say that Marciano would be a footnote if he lost to Ezzard Charles? Let's face it, he would not. Rocky Marciano was a living legend in his prime and he still is to this day.

The idea of a past prime, former Middleweight beating Rocky Marciano is an incredible feat. It really is.

Ezzard Charles would have beaten Charley Burley at MW and beaten Rocky Marciano at Heavyweight. Incredible.

In all honesty, Ezzard Charles has a strong enough resume to have an argument to be the greatest fighter in the history of the sport right now to be honest. I don't rate him #1 I rank him #4 or #5 but he still has an argument.

With a win over Rocky Marciano on top of that? No doubt he has.

And I'm not really a fan of Marciano either, to be honest.

[Barn]

To be honest, If Ezzard Charles split 2 fights with Rocky Marciano I'd still consider him a Top 10 ATG HW.

I was under the impression we had moved onto him losing twice but, maybe I was mistaken. Regardless take away Marciano's unbeaten record and it becomes a lot less impressive.

I don't see how 1 loss on his reocrd to Charles would badly effect his ranking in which he becomes a footnote.

It puts his 4 title defences down to 2.

Especially, considering I've seen the whole "He beat everyone he faced" logic been wildly thrown around to justify Lennox Lewis being ranked in the Top 10 HW list so why wouldn't the same apply for Rocky Marciano in this scenario?

Lennox Lewis was much more dominant had much more longlivity and his resume is better when you factor in quantity.

Rocky Marciano was a animal, he was a destroyer I wouldn't care if he split a 2 fight series or 3 fight series with Ezzard Charles or not,

It's not a question of if he was an animal a destroyer or whatever. All that doesn't change his resume.

I know for a fact that beating prime Rocky Marciano takes something special.

And why is this, because he was never beaten? Lets face it Walcott, LaStarza and Charles all came close to beating him. He isn't damn unbeatable.

I think there's a handful of Heavyweight's who could beat him but he's the kind of win you'd have on a resume that elevates a resume.

Of course it elevates his resume, I'm not saying it doesn't. All I'm saying is Rocky's stock would lower therefore the stock of the win would.

What if Moore had beaten Marciano? You bet your ass he'd be considered alot greater than he is now and an unquestionable Top 10 ATG.

That's because he didn't do that much at Heavyweight. Charles is already a Top 15 Heavyweight and people overlook how much he actually done at that weight. It's like saying Roy Jones beating a good fighter at LHW enhances his resume as much as it would Hagler's/Monzons if he did the same thing. It doesn't work like that.

You say that Marciano would be a footnote if he lost to Ezzard Charles? Let's face it, he would not. Rocky Marciano was a living legend in his prime and he still is to this day.

Let's face it he was a living legend due to his unbeaten record and being white after the Heavyweight division had been dominated by a black Joe Louis.

The idea of a past prime, former Middleweight beating Rocky Marciano is an incredible feat. It really is.

It's two weight classes above, I know that is very very impressive but Robinson beat Angott and LaMotta, Armstrong beat Zivic and Chalky Wright. Langford beat Gans and Jeanette, Greb beat Tunney and Walker. I'm not denying it's an incredible achievement but, when you get to the Top 5 P4P. It's the norm.

In all honesty, Ezzard Charles has a strong enough resume to have an argument to be the greatest fighter in the history of the sport right now to be honest. I don't rate him #1 I rank him #4 or #5 but he still has an argument.

With a win over Rocky Marciano on top of that? No doubt he has.

I never said Charles doesn't have an argument for top spot.

And I'm not really a fan of Marciano either, to be honest.

I like both Marciano and Charles.

[IronDanHamza]

I was under the impression we had moved onto him losing twice but, maybe I was mistaken. Regardless take away Marciano's unbeaten record and it becomes a lot less impressive.

One loss to Charles isn't that downgrading considering he would have the same resume except one loss to Charles.

It puts his 4 title defences down to 2.

And?

Lennox Lewis was much more dominant had much more longlivity and his resume is better when you factor in quantity.

Arguably.

Even then, still doesn't change the fact the same logic is used to justify Lennox Lewis' case.

Lennox Lewis still get's argued to be a Top 10 HW when he's split fights with McCall and Rahman yet Maricano becomes a footnote if he splits fights with Ezzard Charles?

It's not a question of if he was an animal a destroyer or whatever. All that doesn't change his resume.

Of course it is.

We know what Marciano is capable of.

Whether his stock 'Plummits' by losing 1 fight out of 2 to Charles or not we still know what kind of fighter he is.

And why is this, because he was never beaten? Lets face it Walcott, LaStarza and Charles all came close to beating him. He isn't damn unbeatable.

Not sure where I said he was unbeatable. Infact, I'm pretty sure I said the exact opposite.

But did they beat him? Did they arguably beat him? No.

Muhammad Ali didn't say Marciano had the best chance at beating him for nothing.

Beating him isn't something little. It's huge.

Of course it elevates his resume, I'm not saying it doesn't. All I'm saying is Rocky's stock would lower therefore the stock of the win would.

The stock of the win would still be huge.

That's because he didn't do that much at Heavyweight. Charles is already a Top 15 Heavyweight and people overlook how much he actually done at that weight. It's like saying Roy Jones beating a good fighter at LHW enhances his resume as much as it would Hagler's/Monzons if he did the same thing. It doesn't work like that.

Not talking about Heavyweight. Talking about general ranking.

Let's face it he was a living legend due to his unbeaten record and being white after the Heavyweight division had been dominated by a black Joe Louis.

Is that a fact?

He was a legend and is a legend for more than his unbeaten record.

He's a legend because of his aura, his ability, the quality we know he has.

It's two weight classes above, I know that is very very impressive but Robinson beat Angott and LaMotta, Armstrong beat Zivic and Chalky Wright. Langford beat Gans and Jeanette, Greb beat Tunney and Walker. I'm not denying it's an incredible achievement but, when you get to the Top 5 P4P. It's the norm.

You just named 3 fighters that arguably are THE best fighters of all time.

Ezzard Charles with a win over Marciano would be in that company.

Hence, why a win like that would give him a pretty good argument to be the greatest of all time.

I never said Charles doesn't have an argument for top spot.

So what's the issue?

If he has an argument to be the #1 now then surely he would have a pretty huge one with a win over Rocky Marciano.

I like both Marciano and Charles.

Big fan of Charles.

Not so much Marciano.

[raf727]

Of course it is.

We know what Marciano is capable of.

While I agree with your argument basically, you cannot rate fighters based on potentialities otherwise RJJ would probably be #1 ATG(as an example).

[Barn]

And?

That makes him have less resume points...

Even then, still doesn't change the fact the same logic is used to justify Lennox Lewis' case.

Lennox Lewis still get's argued to be a Top 10 HW when he's split fights with McCall and Rahman yet Maricano becomes a footnote if he splits fights with Ezzard Charles?

Unless you're Joeyzagz then you don't need that to justify his ranking, you need resume longlivity(how do you spell that?) and dominance. Something Lennox trumps Rocky in.

If a fighter is robbed of a greatest win it usually has quite a large impact, yes.

Of course it is.

We know what Marciano is capable of.

Whether his stock 'Plummits' by losing 1 fight out of 2 to Charles or not we still know what kind of fighter he is.

As I said I thought we'd move onto both fights. Marciano's amazing legacy IS his unbeaten run. He was in a weak era and his unbeaten record is what qualifies him as great. Put him in place of someone else in another era and he will pick up losses. For example I don't think he'd beat Liston from the first Ali fight. Ali from the first Frazier fight etc.

But did they beat him? Did they arguably beat him? No.

LaStarza actually did, many ringsiders thought LaStarza won. The Charles fight would probably have been stopped under different conditions. Walcott was nearly there.

Muhammad Ali didn't say Marciano had the best chance at beating him for nothing.

Muhammad Ali also said Jack Dempsey is a joke etc.

Beating him isn't something little. It's huge.

But not as huge is he loses a key component in his legacy.

The stock of the win would still be huge.

Yes but, not as huge that you could move him up above someone on a P4P list in my opinion.

Not talking about Heavyweight. Talking about general ranking.

His heavyweight rankings plays a big part in his overall ranking...

Is that a fact?

He was a legend and is a legend for more than his unbeaten record.

He's a legend because of his aura, his ability, the quality we know he has.

His aura obtained from being unbeaten. Of course he has quality, just not as much as people make out due to the fact he never lost.

You just named 3 fighters that arguably are THE best fighters of all time.

Ezzard Charles with a win over Marciano would be in that company.

Hence, why a win like that would give him a pretty good argument to be the greatest of all time.

Exactly and they've all done the same thing. I'm just pointing out it's nothing extraordinary when you go down to fighters of that calibre.

So what's the issue?

Mainly Marciano's new ranking had he lost said fight to Charles and how it would decrease the stock of the win.

Not so much Marciano.

What's not to like?

[Barn]

While I agree with your argument basically, you cannot rate fighters based on potentialities otherwise RJJ would probably be #1 ATG(as an example).

Exactly and Marciano's "aura" is heavily based on the fact he never lost. Not who he never lost to. Just the fact he never lost.

Mayweather will get it in the future as well I can picture it already.

[IronDanHamza]

That makes him have less resume points...

Does it?

Automatically?

Unless you're Joeyzagz then you don't need that to justify his ranking, you need resume longlivity(how do you spell that?) and dominance. Something Lennox trumps Rocky in.

Longevity.

Doesn't really trump him IMO.

As I said I thought we'd move onto both fights. Marciano's amazing legacy IS his unbeaten run. He was in a weak era and his unbeaten record is what qualifies him as great. Put him in place of someone else in another era and he will pick up losses. For example I don't think he'd beat Liston from the first Ali fight. Ali from the first Frazier fight etc.

Well, I'm talking about splitting a 2 fight series with Charles, hypothetically.

His unbeaten record isn't what qualifies him as great IMO. It adds it it but it isn't the be all and end all. I would still rank him in the same place I do right now if he was 1-1 with Charles.

LaStarza actually did, many ringsiders thought LaStarza won. The Charles fight would probably have been stopped under different conditions. Walcott was nearly there.

Well yeah, LaStarza arguably beat him. He slipped my mind.

But did the others? No.

Being well on your way and getting knocked unconcious isn't close to winning.

Not being stopped on cuts isn't either.

Muhammad Ali also said Jack Dempsey is a joke etc.

So?

It still doesn't change the regard that Marciano is held in.

Yes but, not as huge that you could move him up above someone on a P4P list in my opinion.

Disagree.

His heavyweight rankings plays a big part in his overall ranking...

Who? Archie Moore?

His aura obtained from being unbeaten. Of course he has quality, just not as much as people make out due to the fact he never lost.

Not really.

With or without a loss to Charles he'd still have that Aura.

Exactly and they've all done the same thing. I'm just pointing out it's nothing extraordinary when you go down to fighters of that calibre.

My whole argument that's being refuted is he would be in their calibre. As argubaly the greatest of all time.

But, you're saying a win like this infact does put him in the same sentance as Robinson, Greb and Langford.

Doesn't that prove my point?

Mainly Marciano's new ranking had he lost said fight to Charles and how it would decrease the stock of the win.

Disagree.

[IronDanHamza]

While I agree with your argument basically, you cannot rate fighters based on potentialities otherwise RJJ would probably be #1 ATG(as an example).

Where am I ranking off potentialities?