Marciano: alternate legacy

[La_Vibora]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 shit way to seriously.

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

[Anthony342]

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'

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.