The Most Overrated ''Old School Fighter''?

[0Rooster4Life0]

i do feel that rocky marciano was a bit overrated, mainly because he is undefeated

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

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


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


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

[Spartacus Sully]

To be never beaten is to be never truly tested

Or perhaps not

[Benny Leonard]

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


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


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

That's exactly how you can become overrated.

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Jeffries

Jack Johnson

Jess Willard

Jack Dempsey

Gene Tunney

Max Schmeling

Jack Sharkey

Primo Carnera

Max Baer

Jimmy Braddock

Joe Louis

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

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

Floyd Patterson

Ingemar Johansson

Sonny Liston

Clay/Ali

Joe Frazier

George Foreman

etc. etc. etc.

Many things to think about.



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



Nice article on Rocky and the "?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Here are some good points for Rocky:

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

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

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

[GJC]

That's exactly how you can become overrated.

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Jeffries

Jack Johnson

Jess Willard

Jack Dempsey

Gene Tunney

Max Schmeling

Jack Sharkey

Primo Carnera

Max Baer

Jimmy Braddock

Joe Louis

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

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

Floyd Patterson

Ingemar Johansson

Sonny Liston

Clay/Ali

Joe Frazier

George Foreman

etc. etc. etc.

Many things to think about.



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



Nice article on Rocky and the "?"

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

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




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

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

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

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



Here are some good points for Rocky:

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

Rocky was also in his prime as Champion and like I said above, he knew when to get out. I can't say the same for some others, like Muhammad Ali who kept going way past prime. Now it is true Ali wasn't the same fighter when he came back from suspension, and he will get a ton of credit for what he did despite his declined ability, but he did stay in boxing to long to the point that it was just sad.
That said, we should also judge a person mostly at his best...and then maybe take into consideration everything if we like that certain fighters, well, many fighters decided to not train their hardest and slacked off and kept going beyond when they should have.
But such is life.

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

[GJC]

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

[TheGreatA]

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

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

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

[#1Assassin]

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

[Benny Leonard]

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

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

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

[TheGreatA]

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

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

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

[TheGreatA]

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

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

Jim Jeffries

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

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

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


0:55

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



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

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

Jack Johnson

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



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



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

Jess Willard

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

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

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

Jack Dempsey

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

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

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

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

Gene Tunney

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

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





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

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