Least Skilled ATG?

[Capaedia]

Was Frazier as tough as Marciano? Do people say how it hurt when Frazier just bumped into them? I know Frazier was tough, I'd say Marciano had a better chin and was the tougher of the two. Frazier was more skilled though, no denying that.

Frazier got up all 11 times Foreman knocked him down despite being desperately and clearly in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You don't get any tougher than that.

That aside, it doesn't matter how much better a chin Marciano had, or how tough he was. He's never outslugging George Foreman.

In fact, I think that's a worse match up than Foreman-Frazier.

[kendom]

Frazier got up all 11 times Foreman knocked him down despite being desperately and clearly in the wrong place at the wrong time.

You don't get any tougher than that.

That aside, it doesn't matter how much better a chin Marciano had, or how tough he was. He's never outslugging George Foreman.

In fact, I think that's a worse match up than Foreman-Frazier.

Not to mention on what evidence you come to the conclusion that either one is "tougher" than the other.

[Barn]

You pretty much got it wrong and you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying Rocky retired when he should have and beat all best of his time. Also, he was pretty much known to have been forced to retire because his manager was ripping him off and was stuck under contract with him

.
His reason for retiring is irrelevant.

You're saying that he didn't fight the best opponents until later in his career. Well, even if that was the case, so what?

So, he doesn't rank as high as people who beat top flight opposition all the way through their career.

Every heavyweight for decades had always hoped to break it or even tie it and all had failed. Even super-talents like Tyson, Holyfield, and Holmes. If thats not the most impressive feat I don't know what is.

Yes but most of those fighters fought more than 13 decent opponents, making it a lot harder.

You say you wouldn't fault him for the era he fought in but it seems like you are.

I am not faulting him on his era I'm just pointing out due to his era he didn't beat opponents that were as good as other HW champions.

But, sad to say there are a lot of people who downplay Rocky. There's one guy on here that doesn't even have him in his top-12. How laughable is that??

I would still have him Top 10.

You say Liston is not relevant in this debate. But, indeed he is very much so. Sonny is one of the top wins in Ali's prime career. Maybe even the best win. But, how great was he? How many wins did he have? How many defenses of the title did he make? He pretty much quit the rematch with Ali before it started. He was very good at intimidation. He had a bully's mentality and Muhammad knew how to take advantage of it even before fight 1. Thats a fact that virtually everyone knows.

Even if you take away the wins against Liston Ali is better than Marciano. I would say Ali's win over Foreman is better anyway. I still reckon the second match wasn't legitimate anyway but we'll never know.

I'm not knocking Ali, though. He was the best of his time as Rocky was of his.

Mhm, but Ali's time was better and he had a longer "time."

I just think Marciano had a more consistant career and was an incredible champion.

He made much less defences of the title than Ali if that's what you're basing "incredible" champion on. Ali was pretty consistent as well, against BETTER opposition.

Am i not entitled to see it that way? Apparantly, you feel a three-time gifted champ who fought for a longer duration of time

And against much better opposition, yes.

is more impressive than a man who trained like a dog, retired with a perfect record

Both stats are pretty much irrelevant.

I really can't find any faults with the way he carried himself inside or outside the ring.

Again, totally irrelevant.

And, thats why I'm putting him as #1 heavyweight champion by a hair.So you're altering your criteria and ignoring crucial details of his and other HW champions record in order to justify your placing of Marciano as #1?

[Anthony342]

Yeah I mean Rocky's my favorite and I even have him as an avatar here, but even I would put Ali ahead of him. I don't know where I'd place him, probably top 10, but Ali and Louis are 1 and 2 on most lists and should be. I put Louis slightly ahead for his 25 title defenses. I know Ali is considered to have the best heavyweight resume, and being the first 3 time champion, will always make it a close comparison.

[Mintcar923]

.
His reason for retiring is irrelevant.


So, he doesn't rank as high as people who beat top flight opposition all the way through their career.


Yes but most of those fighters fought more than 13 decent opponents, making it a lot harder.


I am not faulting him on his era I'm just pointing out due to his era he didn't beat opponents that were as good as other HW champions.




I would still have him Top 10.


Even if you take away the wins against Liston Ali is better than Marciano. I would say Ali's win over Foreman is better anyway. I still reckon the second match wasn't legitimate anyway but we'll never know.


Mhm, but Ali's time was better and he had a longer "time."


He made much less defences of the title than Ali if that's what you're basing "incredible" champion on. Ali was pretty consistent as well, against BETTER opposition.


And against much better opposition, yes.


Both stats are pretty much irrelevant.


Again, totally irrelevant.

And, thats why I'm putting him as #1 heavyweight champion by a hair.

So you're altering your criteria and ignoring crucial details of his and other HW champions record in order to justify your placing of Marciano as #1?

First you're implying you're blaming him for retiring "too early," then you say his reason is not relevant? Well, I guess Ali's reason for losing 3 years of his career is irrelevant, as well. And, to make a long story short you are basically saying over and over that because he had a longer career and had great success in an alleged stronger era that he should be hands-down number one. If it's just to do with what fighter had more success in a stronger era Lennox Lewis should be rated ahead of Joe Louis as the '90's were known to be stronger than the '30's/'40's. He was a three-time champion and had defeated everyone placed in front of him for over a dozen years.

Everyone is gonna have their own opinion. I'm not saying you cannot place Muhammad Ali #1. So, why must you dictate to me not to put Rocky Marciano at the top? If you think about it, Holyfield was a four-time champion. Ali was a three-time champ with great longevity. Louis had the most title defenses. Holmes had the second-best title defense record missing tying Marciano's win rec by one fight. Marciano has the seemingly unbreakable record. Who knows? It may even be for hundreds of years or so. Why? Umm he had had to have had the weakest era and his record had to have a lot of filler?!

To me, that concept is just BS. Please, give me a prediction. When will another great heavyweight actually tie it, let alone beat it? All of them have tried. All of them have failed. To me, that says something.

What I'm really trying to say is both Ali and Marciano were the best of their times and beat everyone significant of their distinctive era's. Yes, they also beat up the "bums" as the Brown Bomber did. So you know what, lets take away some of the Louis title defenses against the "non-decent" fighters if you're gonna knock some of Rocky's wins. Now do you see my point?

I just don't think if you happened to fight in the stongest era and were mostly successful it should automatically place you at #1. Rocky had COMPLETE success given his era and opportunities. Even if he somehow went on for a few more years he could not have elevated his stature more.

Furthermore, I also believe Marciano has the perfect style to beat Ali. Too bad, he never got the chance. And for the record, Muhammad did not have that many more fights than Rocky, anyway.

[Barn]

First you're implying you're blaming him for retiring "too early," then you say his reason is not relevant? Well, I guess Ali's reason for losing 3 years of his career is irrelevant, as well.

Yes it is irrelevant, I can't rank him on fights that weren't fought and a 3 year period of dominance that never happened. Simply because his reason is maybe justifiable does not mean his resume imporves.

And, to make a long story short you are basically saying over and over that because he had a longer career and had great success in an alleged stronger era that he should be hands-down number one.

That's it being simplified down a lot.

If it's just to do with what fighter had more success in a stronger era Lennox Lewis should be rated ahead of Joe Louis as the '90's were known to be stronger than the '30's/'40's. He was a three-time champion and had defeated everyone placed in front of him for over a dozen years.

Louis displayed a level of dominance and consistency unlike any other, including Lewis.

Everyone is gonna have their own opinion. I'm not saying you cannot place Muhammad Ali #1. So, why must you dictate to me not to put Rocky Marciano at the top?

This is a boxing forum, we debate boxing here.

If you think about it, Holyfield was a four-time champion. Ali was a three-time champ with great longevity. Louis had the most title defenses. Holmes had the second-best title defense record missing tying Marciano's win rec by one fight. Marciano has the seemingly unbreakable record. Who knows? It may even be for hundreds of years or so.

If Larry Holmes/Louis/Ali or anyone only fought 13 decent opponents they could have beaten the record easily but by 49 fights Ali had fought, Foreman, Frazier and Liston and Norton.

Why? Umm he had had to have had the weakest era and his record had to have a lot of filler?!

Terrible excuse, considering he went from fighting a lot of journeymen to world class opposition very quickly. And you can fight good opponents more than one time a piece, which is what Rocky done.

To me, that concept is just BS. Please, give me a prediction. When will another great heavyweight actually tie it, let alone beat it? All of them have tried. All of them have failed. `To me, that says something.

Firstly, how on earth should I know. Secondly, numbers for the most part mean little in boxing. Do you rate Calzaghe as the GOAT SMW?

So you know what, lets take away some of the Louis title defenses against the "non-decent" fighters if you're gonna knock some of Rocky's wins. Now do you see my point?

You do that then. Doesn't really matter all that much when he had 25.

Even if he somehow went on for a few more years he could not have elevated his stature more.

He actually could have. Probably by beating more people? If he fights a couple of years he could potentially add the likes of Patterson, Ingo, Machen, Folley,

Furthermore, I also believe Marciano has the perfect style to beat Ali. Too bad, he never got the chance. And for the record, Muhammad did not have that many more fights than Rocky, anyway.

It's not the fact Ali has more fights it's the fact he has more against the BEST opposition available.

Can you elaborate on why Marciano has the perfect style to beat Ali.

[Mintcar923]

Yes it is irrelevant, I can't rank him on fights that weren't fought and a 3 year period of dominance that never happened. Simply because his reason is maybe justifiable does not mean his resume imporves.

Again, he could not have achieved a better resume given the time of his career.



That's it being simplified down a lot.


Louis displayed a level of dominance and consistency unlike any other, including Lewis.




This is a boxing forum, we debate boxing here.



If Larry Holmes/Louis/Ali or anyone only fought 13 decent opponents they could have beaten the record easily but by 49 fights Ali had fought, Foreman, Frazier and Liston and Norton.




Terrible excuse, considering he went from fighting a lot of journeymen to world class opposition very quickly. And you can fight good opponents more than one time a piece, which is what Rocky done.



Firstly, how on earth should I know. Secondly, numbers for the most part mean little in boxing. Do you rate Calzaghe as the GOAT SMW?





You do that then. Doesn't really matter all that much when he had 25.





He actually could have. Probably by beating more people? If he fights a couple of years he could potentially add the likes of Patterson, Ingo, Machen, Folley,





It's not the fact Ali has more fights it's the fact he has more against the BEST opposition available.



Can you elaborate on why Marciano has the perfect style to beat Ali.

#1 - I'd say both had about an equal amount of dominace. But, Lewis fought in the stronger era. So if it's all about the stronger era to you why don't you put Lennox higher than Joe???

#2 - That we do. OK.

#3 - You know every decade there's an excuse why Marciano's record wasn't broken. Look at how weak the current era is and how dominant the Klits are. Yet, they still couldn't come close to doing it.

#4 - I'd really have to think about where to rate Calzaghe and get back to you. But, numbers do matter in boxing. And so do records...

#5 - But, only 13 may have been decent fighters and not bum-of-the-months. If you're gonna knock some of Marciano's wins. Doesn't matter cause he had 49.

#6 - I don't know quite what you mean here. It sounds like you're complimenting Rocky from going from journeyman guys to world class with equal success.

#7 - I don't think those names are any better than Louis, Walcott, Charles, Layne etc. I really believe if he'd gone 60-0 and beat the names you mentioned above we'd still be having the same debate.

#8 - Again, Ali had a better era than any of the other heavyweight ATG's. But, being in the best era doesn't necessarily make you the superior boxer. Some people rate Louis the GOAT. And, there are some who even rate Tyson the GOAT...

#9 - Joe Frazier was oft compared with Marciano. And, he(along with Norton) were the two toughest fighters of Ali's career. The Rock was more awkward than Joe and was arguably tougher. Also, Joe Frazier had a dynamite left hook but Rocky had two great weapons. He also was known to have a more deadly punch as told by common sparring partners.

[Barn]

#1 - I'd say both had about an equal amount of dominace. But, Lewis fought in the stronger era. So if it's all about the stronger era to you why don't you put Lennox higher than Joe???

#2 - That we do. OK.

#3 - You know every decade there's an excuse why Marciano's record wasn't broken. Look at how weak the current era is and how dominant the Klits are. Yet, they still couldn't come close to doing it.

#4 - I'd really have to think about where to rate Calzaghe and get back to you. But, numbers do matter in boxing. And so do records...

#5 - But, only 13 may have been decent fighters and not bum-of-the-months. If you're gonna knock some of Marciano's wins. Doesn't matter cause he had 49.

#6 - I don't know quite what you mean here. It sounds like you're complimenting Rocky from going from journeyman guys to world class with equal success.

#7 - I don't think those names are any better than Louis, Walcott, Charles, Layne etc. I really believe if he'd gone 60-0 and beat the names you mentioned above we'd still be having the same debate.

#8 - Again, Ali had a better era than any of the other heavyweight ATG's. But, being in the best era doesn't necessarily make you the superior boxer. Some people rate Louis the GOAT. And, there are some who even rate Tyson the GOAT...

#9 - Joe Frazier was oft compared with Marciano. And, he(along with Norton) were the two toughest fighters of Ali's career. The Rock was more awkward than Joe and was arguably tougher. Also, Joe Frazier had a dynamite left hook but Rocky had two great weapons. He also was known to have a more deadly punch as told by common sparring partners.

i'm not getting through to you, you're stuck in your biased ways and trying to convince you otherwise is a pointless endeavour.

plain and simple you're blocking out obvious facts and somehow have the audacity to imply i am a rocky hater.

[Mintcar923]

i'm not getting through to you, you're stuck in your biased ways and trying to convince you otherwise is a pointless endeavour.

plain and simple you're blocking out obvious facts and somehow have the audacity to imply i am a rocky hater.

I don't see how I'm biased by putting Marciano at the top. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind. And, I'm not saying you are a Rocky hater. It seems you're implying I'm an Ali hater primarily because I don't have him at #1. I'm just trying to convince you there are other points of view than simply your own.

[Barn]

I don't see how I'm biased by putting Marciano at the top. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind. And, I'm not saying you are a Rocky hater. It seems you're implying I'm an Ali hater primarily because I don't have him at #1. I'm just trying to convince you there are other points of view than simply your own.

Where did I imply you're an Ali hater?

I implied you were biased towards Marciano, well, flat out stated it.

Of course there are view points other than my own but you can't justify your choice effectively.