Joe Louis

[joseph5620]

Where do you rate him all time amoungst the heavies?

Number 2 behind Ali.

[Capaedia]

I'm kinda baffled as it seems some people put almost every other heavyweight ATG ahead of Rocky. It almost seems like some kind of bias that I don't understand. He basically set the standard as every heavyweights goal is pretty much to either match or to break his record. After close to 70 years no one came close save Larry Holmes. I can't see why he wouldn't be higher than most, if not all other heavyweight ATG's. He beat all the best of his time, cleaned out the division, and retired undefeated when there was nothing left to do. What other heavyweight had done this?

No, every heavyweights goal, if there would be something so broad, would be the same as every other boxers goal. Become the best by beating the best.

Every single heavyweight ATG after him could've gone 49-0 by fighting the Ron Standers of the world, but instead they fought the Joe Fraziers or Muhammad Alis.

I'm not taking anything away from Marciano's era but you don't seem to get it, the other ATGs beat a higher number of quality heavyweights. No-one gives 49-0 as much credence as you. In fact, I'd take the 58-1 that Louis achieved any day. And I'd go so far as to say it's much better because there are many more quality heavyweights in the 58, than in Rocky's 49. To top it off he kept going and went 66-3 with even more quality heavyweights.

It's fine that you rank Marciano at #1. You have every right to do so, but don't claim that other people rate him so lowly out of bias when really, he went undefeated over a period of 7 years against for the most part, useless opponents. This doesn't match up to the careers of many of the heavyweights, in most peoples opinions. Let alone Ali and Louis

[Mintcar923]

No, every heavyweights goal, if there would be something so broad, would be the same as every other boxers goal. Become the best by beating the best.

Every single heavyweight ATG after him could've gone 49-0 by fighting the Ron Standers of the world, but instead they fought the Joe Fraziers or Muhammad Alis.

I'm not taking anything away from Marciano's era but you don't seem to get it, the other ATGs beat a higher number of quality heavyweights. No-one gives 49-0 as much credence as you. In fact, I'd take the 58-1 that Louis achieved any day. And I'd go so far as to say it's much better because there are many more quality heavyweights in the 58, than in Rocky's 49. To top it off he kept going and went 66-3 with even more quality heavyweights.

It's fine that you rank Marciano at #1. You have every right to do so, but don't claim that other people rate him so lowly out of bias when really, he went undefeated over a period of 7 years against for the most part, useless opponents. This doesn't match up to the careers of many of the heavyweights, in most peoples opinions. Let alone Ali and Louis

I know we've had similar debates about this in the past. Again, my viewpoint is very different than yours. To me, it's a lot to do with how well you play the hand you were dealt. Yes, I think Ali's era was stronger and perhaps Louis' was, too. I don't think it's fair that Marciano has an automatic default spot behind Louis and Ali because his era may not have been quite as fierce as theirs. You know there have been soo many era's in boxing and he was basically the only one to retire undefeated heavyweight champion with nothing left to prove. If you think about it, the strength of an era can be somewhat subjective, too. Had he lost to some of the fighters he fought and had regained the title 2-3 times whilst fighting wicked trilogy's would his era be seen as stronger? Had Ali never lost and breezed through every fight of his career with a win would experts be saying his era was weaker?? Possibly...

I really can't fault a person if they put Ali and Louis ahead of Rocky. But he does belong right up there with them IMO. Each of our heavyweight ATG's have something that makes them very special. Marciano definitely had something special and became the best by beating the best of his time. Besides, Joe Louis had mad respect for him and even went on record saying that even in his prime he might've lost to the Brockton Blockbuster. There's nothing more flattering than that!

[BKM-]

He's behind Ali based on accomplishments and head-to-head matchups in general.

[Capaedia]

That's fine, as I said, you have your own opinion.

But it isn't some "some kind of bias" that makes people rank him lower. Nothing like that at all, for the most part we just don't think his achievements stack up as much as you do

[rightsideup]

Besides, Joe Louis had mad respect for him and even went on record saying that even in his prime he might've lost to the Brockton Blockbuster. There's nothing more flattering than as per mintcar923

Rocky also said there was no way he would beat a prime joe louis. I think both of these statements show the class and the respect each indivdual had for each other.

[Panamaniac]

Ali is my favorite and probably the best known and most popular heavyweight fighter of all time, but Louis' record 25 successful defenses of his title - "bum of the month club" and all - places him at the top of the heap.

Bonus addendum: My top 10

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Dempsey
4. Marciano
5. Johnson
6. Tyson
7. Holmes
8. Foreman
9. Frazier
10. Liston

[Daddy T]

please don't say that 'not having rocky in your top 3 is due to bias'

[Japanese Boxing]

#1 on my list.

[SBleeder]

He basically set the standard as every heavyweights goal is pretty much to either match or to break his record.

That's really not at all true and I'm not sure where you're getting this from.

Even before the first Spinks fight, and the jockstrap remark, Larry Holmes made almost no mention of the "record". And I've never heard any fighter declare that as a career goal.

Is it the goal of all 168/175 pound fighters to break the record of Joe Calzaghe? Are young pros aspiring to shatter the mark of Sven Ottke? Once you realize how insignificant those records are, you'll understand why I dismiss Marciano's.