Rocky Marciano is not a top ten all time heavyweight and I'll tell you why

[Mr.MojoRisin']

That can also be seen as Jack Johnson making his opponents look bad.

[The Old LefHook]

Only the legs of a smaller or equal weight opponent can beat Marciano. I believe he would arguably be the greatest light heavyweight ever. Only pure runners would stand a chance at that weight, as I elaborated in another post.

At cruiserweight, Dempsey, Holyfield, Langford and Tunney are his main competition. Tunney, because of his style, has the best chance of all, in my opinion. Dempsey and the Rock are a close match, where I may give Jack the nod. If I had to pick one mythical match to watch, that would probably be it. Holyfield and Marciano will both be tested mightily. Holy liked to get in there and fight it out, but he lacked the Rock's huge wallop. He made up for it with volume and a chin arguably as good as the Rock's, and he still had a good punch, just not as devastating as Marciano's.

Marciano is a top five all time cruiserweight, for sure, with a good shot at the number one slot.

At heavyweight, I never heard anyone describe him as easy to fight, this includes taller and heavier opponents, of whom he fought more than a few. Rex Layne was a stout, heavier boy, and no bum, but he got out-stouted. Even Walcott said the Rock's punch was harder than the Brown Bomber's, for single shots. He had the enrgy to keep slinging his hardest shots all night. Any modern galoots who could not get rid of him in a few rounds might find themselves tiring fast and a feeling of panic beginning to rise. The guy will not stop. You have to stop him. In a furious fight where a lot of energy is being expended, I do not trust the stamina of behemoths.

I figure there are three or four former heavyweight champs who would outbox him, and four or five more who would maul him because they are heavyweights and he is not. That still leaves him close to, or possibly in, the top ten, and the man was a light heavyweight by modern standards!

[juggernaut666]

lol, all this says to me is you guys lack the context to understand the visuals. It's revisionism sure, but it's poorly done too. Someone who understands modern boxing trying to use that knowledge to address historical boxing has a fundamental flaw and bias from the outset. What most fail to comprehend or even consider is the styles have more to do with ticket sales than any given technique or group of techniques one might call a skill set being useful.

Look up Daniel Mendoza and Mendoza School boxing. Inventor of making money off heat, defensive god father of the modern world of boxing, and the first person to charge a ticket for a seat at a sporting event. The Jew used antisemitism and refusal to engage as fuel for a fire that served to fill his wallet. Since then the trend of skills and when to apply them have had and will have more to do with what you want to see and what makes people money than safety, or effectiveness. Bradley v Provodnikov is a modern example of a boxer giving the fans what they want to see. Individualism, sure, but the same mentality is ripe in boxing as a whole. Of course a promoter wants the next Mike, and of course every fighter wants to be impressive, not just a winner. It's not an agreed upon thing nor a conspiracy, but from 1790 to 2016 you can safely say how they fought reflects more with what the fans wanted and less with their limitations or knowledge of the game. Daniel Mendoza wrote a whole book on how to cut the ring. They knew how to cut the ring when they where standing on the scratch pumbling each other, cutting the ring didn't pay bills for most. They didn't know how to cut and sell themselves at the same time in that climate.

Do you believe it's by chance Ali is defensive and inflammatory? Floyd? They're just Mendoza'ing the **** out of you. there is a reason why prize comes first in prizefighting.

Wrong....Monte coxx was JJ's biggest fan....you do know who Mont Coxx is right? No one can really believe anything other the truth when dealt with video footage.Sorry but those guys were not very refined fighters compared to today.

[Marchegiano]

Wrong....Monte coxx was JJ's biggest fan....you do know who Mont Coxx is right? No one can really believe anything other the truth when dealt with video footage.Sorry but those guys were not very refined fighters compared to today.

So, yeah, bud, after y'all cried about me cursing at yous like little girls I've made an attempt to try and play nice with you, but honestly bud you got me wanting to make fun, cast vulgarities, and generally be mean to you. When you just lob them at me like that, I'm just supposed to pretend I don't see the joke just floating there waiting to be plucked like the lowest hanging fruit possible? I'll try, but maybe you try to laugh too yeah?

This is history section, not ****ing twitter. I'm not from that era, and don't understand how to communicate without using full complete thoughts. That said; what the **** does Monte have to do with Daniel Mendoza or what I told you to look up? Are you seriously throwing a ****ing youtube historian at me? My source Daniel the Jew Mendoza, yer's CoxxCorner and a hack writer......those are ****ing equal in yer head? Go ****ing read you dumb little **** or don't ****ing talk to me. I'm easy to ignore, I'll let you do it, but don't ****ing engage me with this twitter time bull****. If you have a source to even imply Jack couldn't fight any other way or didn't know more about the game then caught on film then go on and explain yerself. Otherwise shut the **** up and learn something.

I'm not an ******* who specializes in one era, I'm not some prick looking through a microscope. I know Euthymos, I know Sparta, I know the honor duels, I know Broughton, I know LPRR, and I know the Marquee. Not know of, ****ing know it. So let me ask you, what did you learn from Coxx? What did you learn from me? Let me know when Monte Coxx does a video or writes an article pointing to the origin of a cause and effect that ripples through out boxing and history. Any time He's ever done it ****ing ever. Show me a Monte Coxx origin and in no time I'll give you an example of the same subject predating his claims. Why? Because Monte ****ing Coxx is a hack and only knows about a quarter of the history. Some **** what gets some of his articles published at CBZ doesn't have **** on me. The weight of the keywords alone ought to tell you that.

I gave you a subject to look into and you told me you don't think you need to because Monte ****ing Coxx, think about that you ignorant *****.

[MisterHardtop]

To hold wins over the likes of Walcott, Moore and Charles can not make you overrated.

[Barn]

How about we talk about to this day Marciano seem obvious? Why is that? Do you really believe Moore and Charles couldn't've just moved? Of course they could. Anyone could, hell even barely mobile Wlad could. It's why didn't they? Because they saw what you see. Maybe dig into why it worked and why it's not been done since Marciano.

How about raw power? The ability to break bones on command? Do you think as people get larger their bones get stronger? Marciano put out more footpounds than anyone else ever recorded. He could break bones, period and open ended. It's like saying you believe there are men big enough to just take a bullet from a 9. You can think it, but yer ****ed to death stupid to.

How about the win-loss ratio of this "weak" era? I know the double digits of the L bracket hurt y'alls vag to see, but if you work out w-l ratios it's one of the finest eras of boxing.

How about how often the era fought or what advancements in the game came of it? I mean, it was enough to inspire Ali to take Walcott and LaStarza's techniques and claim they're his to beat the likes of Foreman etc. That's Walcott's shuffle and LzStarza's rope-a-dope....but ya know weak era.

How about we talk about how you guys act like you know **** all about a 1950s resume? This is why y'all reckon the 50s is weak. What the **** do you know about Jackie Burke? **** all? How the **** do you judge Harry Kid Mathews? By looking at the record and knowing you don't recognize the name? All great boxers have lots and lots of articles written about them do they? Nope, go learn on some Harry and some Jackie.

Right now you can't even explain to me what makes any of Marciano's opponents bad. Walcott was older, sure, does that make him a bad opponent or just older? Let me know that way I can tell everyone old who does something physical their age makes them **** at it regardless of their feats. What makes Harry Mathews not one of the best names on any resume period? How about ****ell? They lost? To who? How many times did Harry fight a guy with over a 100 wins on him? How many times did a name lose to another name? 5 losses to the same damn person is different from 5 to 5 people. These thing don't make someone good, or bad. They're adjectives, modifiers. If you believe Walcott would have been sharper younger show me with video. While you go try to prove that you're gonna find you're just wrong. Far more video for you to work with too.



So yeah, whatever bro, to a guy who has never heard of Jackie Burke your list should look the way it does. You're one of millions who loves to talk about the 1950s but doesn't bother to learn anymore than what can be found in any given single article on the subject. You couldn't spot a great resume of the past if I ****ing laid the out for you. Why do you support only Dempsey and Tunney of the 20s? Why is JJ the only HW of the 10s you like? Because that's all you know. You can't explain to me what made Dempsey. You don't know who the guys people were looking at are, nor do you recognize the decent resumes the make up what becomes a fantastic resume. It doesn't even make sense to pick a single from an era. If he's the only thing great about the era guess what? Weak ****ing era init ya dumb ****? Marciano, Moore, Walcott, Mathews, Charles, LaStarza, Layne, and ****ell. good supports great, and you recognize most those names. Who the **** is Jack Dempsey's Harry Mathews? Who is Jack Johnson's Jackie Burke? **** if you know right? You know about Tunney, Willard, Jeffries, and Langford, the easy ****. What made them worth a **** in the first place you don't know. So you've a ****ty list any casual could have shat out as a result.



Spending more hours with surface knowledge than youre average casual doesn't make you less casual.


The fact that I can't say Don ****ell is ****ed up. You ****ing ****s have put hurt feelings over history. **** you for that, you stupid silly *****es.

Jesus dude. Take it easy.

[McGoorty]

Tyson would absolutely slaughter him....possibly in one but def before 3

Jack Johnson dealt with fighters with the strength of Marciano or more, power and def more size. Some more skilled. You may want to watch more of Johnson. He was elusive, very strong and could punch. Outside of a one punch ko Marciano gets his ears boxed off.

Oh man you are severely underrating his chin which is the best in heavyweight history .. you also do the same to his punching power... Marciano is easily top 10

[juggernaut666]

Oh man you are severely underrating his chin which is the best in heavyweight history .. you also do the same to his punching power... Marciano is easily top 10

You can only measure ones chin by who one got hit by...Marciano has fought fought 39 guys under 200 pounds who arent ranked up there as the hardest hitters ...not even remotely close. At least you're smarter than the clown above " marchegiano" whos little rant is quite not just amusing but one of the little fat kid with ADD disorder as I would picture him in real life.


Theres simply no evidance Marciano withstands a punch from Tyson. I would ima gine the first direct punch to the chin or temple causes a severe cut open and he gets pummeled. If he doesn't fall which ,lets be real even in the history section that's rare...would be the most likely scenerio.

[Main Source]

[AlexKid]

trolls commenting badly on things they have no chance of achieving, imo you dont deserve to have an opinion on the matter you are too low down to comment on such lofty achievements