Rocky Marciano is very overrated IMO

[JAB5239]

Have we ever heard a recently retired fighter praise the competition or the 'state of the game' of the next generation of great fighters?

No, we never hear that.

All fighters thought their period was the toughest.

I'm a big Dempsey fan and as much as I would like to embrace his assessment, I won't.

In any era, the recently retired fighter is the worst possible source for evaluating the current state of boxing.

P.S. Can't we look at the 1970s and see a host of would be contenders and champions acting as sparing partners? E.g Holmes; Ellis; Maybe I'm wrong but that dearth of sparing partners remark, seems questionable to me.

I want to say Ali praised Tyson. But Ali seemed to praise a lot of fighters after retirement.

[Willie Pep 229]

I want to say Ali praised Tyson. But Ali seemed to praise a lot of fighters after retirement.

True, despite all the verbal crap he laid out to get a shot at Liston, and subsequently to sell his fights, he turned out to be a gracious man.

[JAB5239]

True, despite all the verbal crap he laid out to get a shot at Liston, and subsequently to sell his fights, he turned out to be a gracious man.

I'm trying to find if he ever praised Liston after they fought. Do you or anyone else happen to know?

[ShoulderRoll]

"Today it is common to see Marciano rated over Jack Dempsey on many all time lists, mostly because of his undefeated record. Such views are completely revisionist when compared to those who actually saw them both fight. Anything that Marciano could do Jack Dempsey could do better. Dempsey was nearly as strong a puncher with his right, stronger with his vaunted left hook, had much greater hand speed, was more maneuverable, a better boxer, had a better jab, was more cut resistant, was a faster starter and was just as tough and durable.

Consider that in the Dec. 1962 Ring magazine poll of 40 boxing experts it was Jack Dempsey that was rated the # 1 Heavyweight of all time with Joe Louis 2nd, Jack Johnson 3rd and Marciano finishing a distant 7th, way behind Dempsey.

If he was considered 7th in 1962 how does he propel to the top 5, when since then we have had Muhammad Ali who faced much tougher competition, the big power hitting George Foreman, Larry Holmes who made 20 title defenses, the bigger, faster and more powerful Mike Tyson, and the giant Lennox Lewis who at 6’5” 245 pounds would enjoy a 60 pound weight advantage over Marciano?

This is a key point. Nat Fleischer rated Marciano at # 10, Charley Rose rated him at # 8, McCallum's survey of old-timers had him at # 9. No major historian who saw Maricano in their lifetime thought he was a top 5 all time heavyweight and 50 years have passed since Rocky retired as champion...

Rocky Marciano was a great, but limited slugger who is admired for his toughness, endurance, conditioning and punching power. When rated against the other all time greats he compares to them in punching power only. He lacked the fundamental skills of Joe Louis, the quickness on attack of Jack Dempsey, or the quality of opponents of Joe Frazier. Marciano’s place can be argued amongst the top 10, but top 5 seems too high due to his lack of competitors. If Rocky were 48-1, he likely would not make the cut at all."

--Monte Cox

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

[DeeMoney]

"Today it is common to see Marciano rated over Jack Dempsey on many all time lists, mostly because of his undefeated record. Such views are completely revisionist when compared to those who actually saw them both fight. Anything that Marciano could do Jack Dempsey could do better. Dempsey was nearly as strong a puncher with his right, stronger with his vaunted left hook, had much greater hand speed, was more maneuverable, a better boxer, had a better jab, was more cut resistant, was a faster starter and was just as tough and durable.

Consider that in the Dec. 1962 Ring magazine poll of 40 boxing experts it was Jack Dempsey that was rated the # 1 Heavyweight of all time with Joe Louis 2nd, Jack Johnson 3rd and Marciano finishing a distant 7th, way behind Dempsey.

If he was considered 7th in 1962 how does he propel to the top 5, when since then we have had Muhammad Ali who faced much tougher competition, the big power hitting George Foreman, Larry Holmes who made 20 title defenses, the bigger, faster and more powerful Mike Tyson, and the giant Lennox Lewis who at 6’5” 245 pounds would enjoy a 60 pound weight advantage over Marciano?

This is a key point. Nat Fleischer rated Marciano at # 10, Charley Rose rated him at # 8, McCallum's survey of old-timers had him at # 9. No major historian who saw Maricano in their lifetime thought he was a top 5 all time heavyweight and 50 years have passed since Rocky retired as champion...

Rocky Marciano was a great, but limited slugger who is admired for his toughness, endurance, conditioning and punching power. When rated against the other all time greats he compares to them in punching power only. He lacked the fundamental skills of Joe Louis, the quickness on attack of Jack Dempsey, or the quality of opponents of Joe Frazier. Marciano’s place can be argued amongst the top 10, but top 5 seems too high due to his lack of competitors. If Rocky were 48-1, he likely would not make the cut at all."

--Monte Cox

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

I'm not disagreeing with the general point, that Dempsey and other older boxers were better and that Rocky's '0' has moved him up the list in recent years'. Rather, the premise that since the old guard of Rocky's time ranked him lower, we should do the same.

Boxing historians often suffer from hipster mentality, they overrate the older less known fighters as a means of showing off their knowledge, and to separate them from the plebian masses. Just like when a hipster proclaims that their 'favorite band, youve never heard of them'; boxing historians like to think of their 'more highly rated fighter, youre probably too young (naive) to know about them'.

Its that stroke to the ego that comes with a faux esotericism that often causes people to overrate the lesser known, or in boxing history the older guy. Not saying that Dempsey, and others, werent better than Rock; just that historians of 60 year ago aren't infallible in their opinions

[ShoulderRoll]

The 40 boxing experts polled by the Ring in 1962 weren't opining on lesser known fighters.

To them those fighters were more known, and they were ranking based on having seen them AND having seen Marciano.

As opposed to the current generation who rushes to overrate Marciano with only limited knowledge of the other past greats, based on limited film. Film which some of them don't even bother to familiarize themselves with.

[them_apples]

once you realize Marciano is a great fighter, one of the best ever with great ring savvy and mentally was built for boxing. You then graduate as a non casual. If you continue to think Marciano is just a bum who fought old light heavies then you sound like the press clippings in the 1950s, and they were wrong back then too. Marciano is not a face first brawler, he caught a few good ones, but he really didn't take a lot of punishment. Freddy Brown taught him baiting head-movement.

First of all.

Marciano weighed LESS than the light heavyweights he was beating. Light heavyweights have often moved up and had success at heavyweight, not always but they have. If they are skillful sometimes they can dominate.

Ezzard Charles, Moore and Walcott are some of the greatest light heavies, if not the greatest light heavies ever. Marciano sent all of them into retirement, and size WAS NOT a factor. Instead of worrying about him not fighting someone fat enough, worry about him being so small and destroying fighters he shouldn't have beat. In what world does a slow slugging 5 ft 10 67 reach man destroy Ezzard Charles while weighing 6-7 lbs lighter than him, and mauling him on the inside as well.

The only time I see Marciano struggling is if someone decides to run from him all night. Anyone who comes to **** is in for a long night, or a short one. If you actually watched Marcianos fights, in the better quality they have now, youll see that 99% of the time, if he's in the pocket, he's kicking ass. feed him the right oponents and he'll look like an absolute monster. Give him a big target and he'll topple a tree. casuals are obsessed with size, because they have never boxed - the human instinct obsesses over size and weight, it can play a factor - but one factor among many.

its funny cause it doesn't play out in the wild like this either.


Anyone who's a ****er is in trouble.

[QueensburyRules]

- - As typical of most lower brow boxing fans on internet forums, the OP made a completely leading statement that presumes factual content without providing any factual content like an actual rating from Ring, Boxrec, or any so and so "boxing expert" who proliferate the fringes of a dying sport these days.

Yeah, in general we know Rocky appears in he top ten of most popular ratings that tend to be echo chambers of a self gratifying sport unable to enter into the modern mainstream.

[them_apples]

- - As typical of most lower brow boxing fans on internet forums, the OP made a completely leading statement that presumes factual content without providing any factual content like an actual rating from Ring, Boxrec, or any so and so "boxing expert" who proliferate the fringes of a dying sport these days.

Yeah, in general we know Rocky appears in he top ten of most popular ratings that tend to be echo chambers of a self gratifying sport unable to enter into the modern mainstream.

You ain't even one of those posters who sympathizes with new fighters, you just sympathize with Wlad. oddly enough

[JAB5239]

You ain't even one of those posters who sympathizes with new fighters, you just sympathize with Wlad. oddly enough

He loves Joshua, he's just not willing to bet on him.