Marciano: alternate legacy

[joseph5620]

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]

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 ****** 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]

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]

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 ****** 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.