Rocky Marciano is not a top ten all time heavyweight and I'll tell you why

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Yes it does? Top 10 greatest heavyweights of all time great means that you're one of the top 10 hevyweights of all time, including modern time. If he can't beat todays fighters, he isn't one of the best of all time, therefore he should be replaced with people who would beat him.

I'm totally cool with him being recognised as one of the best Cruiserweights if not the best cruiserweights of all time. To say he's one of the best heavyweights isn't right though. Mainly because he's not a heavy weight.

Most of the pre 80s fighters had lots of skill. They had terrible bodies though. There was no PEDs and as I said, nobody knew about nutrition. You can't even compare half of them to post 80s fighters.

I don't get what you're saying. A fighter who uses PED's is better than a fighter who doesn't? PED usage eliminates any fighter from being an ATG. Unless we see what they do while not on PED's and decide that they earned ATG status from that but then you would have to know the specific date when they started juicing.

As far as the nutrition you are ill informed. Do some research, they knew plenty about nutrition. Don't let modern marketing scams fool you. Fighters from post 80s were/are mostly trash. Wlad being the best heavyweight for 10 years is living proof that the division is trash. Wlad's a modern day Carnera. Not to mention a drug cheat.

[The Old LefHook]

I don't get what you're saying. A fighter who uses PED's is better than a fighter who doesn't? PED usage eliminates any fighter from being an ATG. Unless we see what they do while not on PED's and decide that they earned ATG status from that but then you would have to know the specific date when they started juicing.

As far as the nutrition you are ill informed. Do some research, they knew plenty about nutrition. Don't let modern marketing scams fool you. Fighters from post 80s were/are mostly trash. Wlad being the best heavyweight for 10 years is living proof that the division is trash. Wlad's a modern day Carnera. Not to mention a drug cheat.

Now you're talkin'.

[motivational]

I don't get what you're saying. A fighter who uses PED's is better than a fighter who doesn't? PED usage eliminates any fighter from being an ATG. Unless we see what they do while not on PED's and decide that they earned ATG status from that but then you would have to know the specific date when they started juicing.

As far as the nutrition you are ill informed. Do some research, they knew plenty about nutrition. Don't let modern marketing scams fool you. Fighters from post 80s were/are mostly trash. Wlad being the best heavyweight for 10 years is living proof that the division is trash. Wlad's a modern day Carnera. Not to mention a drug cheat.

I'm saying that it's extremely difficult to tell if someone using PEDs or not. They enhance your performance so you can't really tell if certain boxers are using stuff or if they just had a really good fight.

And yes, a fighter who uses PEDs will literally obliterate a fighter who isn't. Have you not seen the Evander Holyfield and Tyson fight? They proved Holyfield was using stuff for that fight and yet some still say he was an ATG.

And no, I'm not ill-informed about nutrition. Some people on these forums can't tell when someone is natural or not when the evidence is staring them in the face. Why are the modern day fighters so much faster and stronger than the old ones? They have better diets and nutrition. Rocky looks like an average guy and so does Joe Louis. Compare that to the likes of Anthony Joshua (if you actually think he's natural) or even some piece of trash like David Haye.

Tyson was benching 200lbs when he was 12 years old, I think that speaks for itself.

Wlad isn't even that bad. He's 6'7 and 115KG and as you said he's off his mind on gear, even if he's not a good fighter, he'd still be hard to beat.

Boxers from post 80s were bad? Have you not seen George Foreman, Mike Tyson or Sugar Ray Leonard? These guys would kill the majority of old fighters. As I said, I honestly believe that if D'Amato hadn't died when he did and if Mike didn't focus so much on girls and drugs, he had the potential to be the best heavyweight of all time.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

I'm saying that it's extremely difficult to tell if someone using PEDs or not. They enhance your performance so you can't really tell if certain boxers are using stuff or if they just had a really good fight.

And yes, a fighter who uses PEDs will literally obliterate a fighter who isn't. Have you not seen the Evander Holyfield and Tyson fight? They proved Holyfield was using stuff for that fight and yet some still say he was an ATG.

And no, I'm not ill-informed about nutrition. Some people on these forums can't tell when someone is natural or not when the evidence is staring them in the face. Why are the modern day fighters so much faster and stronger than the old ones? They have better diets and nutrition. Rocky looks like an average guy and so does Joe Louis. Compare that to the likes of Anthony Joshua (if you actually think he's natural) or even some piece of trash like David Haye.

Tyson was benching 200lbs when he was 12 years old, I think that speaks for itself.

Wlad isn't even that bad. He's 6'7 and 115KG and as you said he's off his mind on gear, even if he's not a good fighter, he'd still be hard to beat.

Boxers from post 80s were bad? Have you not seen George Foreman, Mike Tyson or Sugar Ray Leonard? These guys would kill the majority of old fighters. As I said, I honestly believe that if D'Amato hadn't died when he did and if Mike didn't focus so much on girls and drugs, he had the potential to be the best heavyweight of all time.

You can tell if a boxer is using when you know what to look for.

Old school fighter knew plenty about nutrition. Just look at Dempsey. He lived to be 87 almost 88. That's 45 years past what it was when he was born. Today the life expectancy is around 76. You don't live a long life not knowing something about diet and nutrition.

Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano had great physiques. I've seen color pictures of both. I will admit though I had a similar view when all I had seen were black and white pictures. Not to mention they were 200 lb fighters and a sub-200 lber so quite a bit of muscle difference. Physiques don't mean anything anyway. Looking like Arnold doesn't mean you're healthy.

The fighters you named all started their careers before 1990. Thats what post 1980s means 1990-present. The heavyweights who started from 1990-present are shlt like I said.

[juggernaut666]

Yes it does? Top 10 greatest heavyweights of all time great means that you're one of the top 10 hevyweights of all time, including modern time. If he can't beat todays fighters, he isn't one of the best of all time, therefore he should be replaced with people who would beat him.

I'm totally cool with him being recognised as one of the best Cruiserweights if not the best cruiserweights of all time. To say he's one of the best heavyweights isn't right though. Mainly because he's not a heavy weight.

Most of the pre 80s fighters had lots of skill. They had terrible bodies though. There was no PEDs and as I said, nobody knew about nutrition. You can't even compare half of them to post 80s fighters.

No one with common sense is going to agree with that ,you may ,no ...you will get a few here in this section but im not one of them. No credible person is going to say Marciano is not an all time great because he would lose in other eras!

[motivational]

No one with common sense is going to agree with that ,you may ,no ...you will get a few here in this section but im not one of them. No credible person is going to say Marciano is not an all time great because he would lose in other eras!

What actually makes him one of the best heavyweights of all time? Because he was ahead of his era? His era was terrible. That doesn't make him one of the best of all time, that makes him one of the best of his era.

He's a great boxer but he just isn't up to the standard that boxers he's being compared to are. Firstly because he's not a heavyweight and secondly because he just doesn't live up to the standards of other boxers. The majority of fights that boxers lose are in their later years and Rocky died before he got to his later years.

I can agree that he has a place in the top ten after reading Mr Dago's arguement but I don't think he should be compared to Ali and Tyson, his body just simply wasn't good enough.

You can tell if a boxer is using when you know what to look for.

Old school fighter knew plenty about nutrition. Just look at Dempsey. He lived to be 87 almost 88. That's 45 years past what it was when he was born. Today the life expectancy is around 76. You don't live a long life not knowing something about diet and nutrition.

Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano had great physiques. I've seen color pictures of both. I will admit though I had a similar view when all I had seen were black and white pictures. Not to mention they were 200 lb fighters and a sub-200 lber so quite a bit of muscle difference. Physiques don't mean anything anyway. Looking like Arnold doesn't mean you're healthy.

The fighters you named all started their careers before 1990. Thats what post 1980s means 1990-present. The heavyweights who started from 1990-present are shlt like I said.

Old school fighter knew plenty about nutrition. Just look at Dempsey. He lived to be 87 almost 88. That's 45 years past what it was when he was born. Today the life expectancy is around 76. You don't live a long life not knowing something about diet and nutrition.

I seem to have worded it wrong. They did understand nutrition to an extent, they knew about good foods and bad foods and what not. But they didn't know how to build an effecient boxing physique. Nobody was 100KG+ back then because they simply didn't have neither the training nor the knowledge on how to do it. It's unfair to compare old boxers to moder ones. Compare Joshua to Marciano.



I absolutely hate Joshua but he shows exactly what the average boxer looks like and people actually believe this stuff.

What's the reality? Neally all good modern boxers are using some form of PED and I simply don't think that someone natural like Marciano could stand a chance against someone who's that much ahead of him physically, regardless of his skill.

Marciano was one of the most skilled of all time and if you're juding the ATG fighters by skill then he should definately be there. Actually, you're right. He does deserve a place in the top 10, so long as you're willing to overlook his weight class. I don't think that he should be compared to the top five boxers who are gentically superior such as Tyson and Ali though and he definately shouldn't be put first just because of him dying young, undefeated and not having to fight when he was old and out of shape.

[ShoulderRoll]

Top 10 greatest heavyweights of all time great means that you're one of the top 10 hevyweights of all time, including modern time. If he can't beat todays fighters, he isn't one of the best of all time, therefore he should be replaced with people who would beat him.

I agree with this.

There is a difference between being great for your era and being an all-time great.

All-time greats are those rare, special fighters that could compete with anyone regardless of era.

[juggernaut666]

What actually makes him one of the best heavyweights of all time? Because he was ahead of his era? His era was terrible. That doesn't make him one of the best of all time, that makes him one of the best of his era.

He's a great boxer but he just isn't up to the standard that boxers he's being compared to are. Firstly because he's not a heavyweight and secondly because he just doesn't live up to the standards of other boxers. The majority of fights that boxers lose are in their later years and Rocky died before he got to his later years.

I can agree that he has a place in the top ten after reading Mr Dago's arguement but I don't think he should be compared to Ali and Tyson, his body just simply wasn't good enough.





I seem to have worded it wrong. They did understand nutrition to an extent, they knew about good foods and bad foods and what not. But they didn't know how to build an effecient boxing physique. Nobody was 100KG+ back then because they simply didn't have neither the training nor the knowledge on how to do it. It's unfair to compare old boxers to moder ones. Compare Joshua to Marciano.



I absolutely hate Joshua but he shows exactly what the average boxer looks like and people actually believe this stuff.

What's the reality? Neally all good modern boxers are using some form of PED and I simply don't think that someone natural like Marciano could stand a chance against someone who's that much ahead of him physically, regardless of his skill.

Marciano was one of the most skilled of all time and if you're juding the ATG fighters by skill then he should definately be there. Actually, you're right. He does deserve a place in the top 10, so long as you're willing to overlook his weight class. I don't think that he should be compared to the top five boxers who are gentically superior such as Tyson and Ali though and he definately shouldn't be put first just because of him dying young, undefeated and not having to fight when he was old and out of shape.

If he has a place in top 10 than how is he not an atg for what he achieved in his era ? You are now twisting this to BEST of all time which is NOT the thread concerning atg 's .Marciano was 185 and fought mainly sub 190/200 pounders so he was not some giant that had a major advantage so you are simply wrong in calculating era strength vs other eras .ATG is NOT head to head comparisons its they will ALWAYS be great for achievements based on what they did in their time ,and sorry but only a fool cant comprehend that after this post!

[The Old LefHook]

Little Rocky is in reality the best light heavyweight ever who never fought in the division. He has too much punch and too much chin for any light heavy ever. Only runners would stand a chance in that division against him.

[JadeaKallen]

I would argue that despite their age, Walcott and Moore were at their peak when they lost to Marciano.

Walcott Had just won the best two wins of his career and Moore had Just beaten all the top heavyweight contenders and was Light-heavyweight champion for years after losing to Marciano.

It wasn't the toughest era, but I don't believe it was the weakest era by a long way. And Rocky Marciano was the apex of his era.