Rocky Marciano is very overrated IMO

[ShoulderRoll]

...But not without heavy use of opinion. Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification". Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method. Given this, and for ****s & giggles, I'm happy to remind the room that Rocky Marciano is the one and only World Heavyweight Champion in history good enough to dominate the division for years and retire undefeated. Nobody else was good enough to do that, ever.
Those aren't opinions- those are facts born of the Empirical method.
Now all those airheaded narcissists who believe that thay can rate champions across eras simply by looking at them filmed? If they haven't made their 1st million looking at film and betting the upcoming fights, then who cares about their drivel?

Knowledgeable and experienced boxing men from back in the day had the ability to accurately judge Marciano's place in history.

They almost never placed him as #1 or as the most dominant. I personally place a lot of value on their opinions.

But that's just me.

[GhostofDempsey]

This topic comes up a lot on boxing forums. I would say Rocky is both over and underrated. Overrated for anyone who thinks he was the greatest HW of all time. Underrated for anyone who can't appreciate that he did more with less. He was a small HW who got off to a late start in boxing, he had incredible stamina, chin and respectable power. He had tremendous heart. Crude as he was, he dominated his era. Louis, Walcott and Moore were past their respective primes, Charles was still game, while at the end of his prime. He was good for TV ratings at a time when boxing was transitioning from live venues to television.

[Marchegiano]

More dominant than Joe Louis, Robinson, B Leonard, Duran, Greb? I think there are many that were more dominant, and I love Marciano.

Absolutely.

All those guys took losses. You have to say things like Louis was the most dominant heavyweight of all time after his loss to Max and before his loss to Ezzard. Make qualifiers or pick a portion of a career for them. Marciano doesn't need that favor.

I do like the guys who fight the then current champion, former champion, and even the champion prior to the former champion. The LHW champion and the Euro champion back when the EBU title was a major title. I can't say in his time Louis wasn't dominant as dominant gets, but I can say he fought beyond his time and his career overlaps an era where he lacks domination.

The other 0s of history didn't beat up every single logical contender, that I know of anyway. I'm a Floyd fan and don't really think he cherrypicked so much as had no interest is fighting everyone so didn't. Between the losses and the lack of fighting every contender no one's career quite matches Marciano, in my opinion, in terms of domination.


Wlad from 2005 to 2014 is extremely dominant. Why isn't he on your list?

[Marchegiano]

Knowledgeable and experienced boxing men from back in the day had the ability to accurately judge Marciano's place in history.

They almost never placed him as #1 or as the most dominant. I personally place a lot of value on their opinions.

But that's just me.

Those are the same folks in the same era who said Rex Layne would be the next great heavyweight champion though.

[Willie Pep 229]

This topic comes up a lot on boxing forums. I would say Rocky is both over and underrated. Overrated for anyone who thinks he was the greatest HW of all time. Underrated for anyone who can't appreciate that he did more with less. He was a small HW who got off to a late start in boxing, he had incredible stamina, chin and respectable power. He had tremendous heart. Crude as he was, he dominated his era. Louis, Walcott and Moore were past their respective primes, Charles was still game, while at the end of his prime. He was good for TV ratings at a time when boxing was transitioning from live venues to television.

Very good for TV --> First close circuit fight --> Marciano-Louis 1951

I wonder if it was the first re-broadcast on 'free TV' as well. I never heard one way or the other.


**You remember when we called it 'free TV' and 'pay TV'? In the end we got both, to pay for it, and still have to watch commercials. Lol

[JAB5239]

Absolutely.

All those guys took losses. You have to say things like Louis was the most dominant heavyweight of all time after his loss to Max and before his loss to Ezzard. Make qualifiers or pick a portion of a career for them. Marciano doesn't need that favor.

I do like the guys who fight the then current champion, former champion, and even the champion prior to the former champion. The LHW champion and the Euro champion back when the EBU title was a major title. I can't say in his time Louis wasn't dominant as dominant gets, but I can say he fought beyond his time and his career overlaps an era where he lacks domination.

The other 0s of history didn't beat up every single logical contender, that I know of anyway. I'm a Floyd fan and don't really think he cherrypicked so much as had no interest is fighting everyone so didn't. Between the losses and the lack of fighting every contender no one's career quite matches Marciano, in my opinion, in terms of domination.


Wlad from 2005 to 2014 is extremely dominant. Why isn't he on your list?

Ok, but Louis was dominant for longer as champion than anyone else in heavyweight history as well as fighting better comp than Rocky. By using your logic Julio Cesar Chavez was more dominant when he was 87-0 before the dubious draw with Whitaker. The numbers themselves don't mean anything without context such is who the opposition was and how tough. Number of defenses and so on.

Wlad is on my all time list because of his longevity as champion. His unavenged losses hurt his standing though.

[ShoulderRoll]

Absolutely.

All those guys took losses. You have to say things like Louis was the most dominant heavyweight of all time after his loss to Max and before his loss to Ezzard. Make qualifiers or pick a portion of a career for them. Marciano doesn't need that favor.

I do like the guys who fight the then current champion, former champion, and even the champion prior to the former champion. The LHW champion and the Euro champion back when the EBU title was a major title. I can't say in his time Louis wasn't dominant as dominant gets, but I can say he fought beyond his time and his career overlaps an era where he lacks domination.

The other 0s of history didn't beat up every single logical contender, that I know of anyway. I'm a Floyd fan and don't really think he cherrypicked so much as had no interest is fighting everyone so didn't. Between the losses and the lack of fighting every contender no one's career quite matches Marciano, in my opinion, in terms of domination.


Wlad from 2005 to 2014 is extremely dominant. Why isn't he on your list?

Floyd had a better resume than Marciano. And I certainly don't view Floyd as the best or most dominant ever.

Those are the same folks in the same era who said Rex Layne would be the next great heavyweight champion though.

Did Gene Tunney, for example, ever say that about Rex Layne?

I seriously doubt it.

[Marchegiano]

Ok, but Louis was dominant for longer as champion than anyone else in heavyweight history as well as fighting better comp than Rocky. By using your logic Julio Cesar Chavez was more dominant when he was 87-0 before the dubious draw with Whitaker. The numbers themselves don't mean anything without context such is who the opposition was and how tough. Number of defenses and so on.

Wlad is on my all time list because of his longevity as champion. His unavenged losses hurt his standing though.

I don't undestand. Rocky got out of the game before he lost and fought champions/former champions. Julio feasted on goat herders and Louis both bit off more than he can chew earlier in his career and later in his career. I'm totally lost with the by my logic stuff...almost the opposite would be true.

Context = beat champions, no?

[Marchegiano]

Floyd had a better resume than Marciano. And I certainly don't view Floyd as the best or most dominant ever.




Did Gene Tunney, for example, ever say that about Rex Layne?

I seriously doubt it.

Did Gene Tunney say anything negative about Layne?

You went from vague to specific and I'm too lazy to do your research for you. I know Ring had loads of glowing reviews for Rex, who specifically can be quoted from those articles I don't remember.

[JAB5239]

I don't undestand. Rocky got out of the game before he lost and fought champions/former champions. Julio feasted on goat herders and Louis both bit off more than he can chew earlier in his career and later in his career. I'm totally lost with the by my logic stuff...almost the opposite would be true.

Context = beat champions, no?

Louis was undefeated as champion longer than Marciano's career was long. He beat 8 former world champions to Rockys 3. He fought better overall comp and was technically the better fighter, and harder puncher. Besides an undefeated record, Marciano isn't more dominant in almost any other category. I'm not following how you think otherwise.