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

[therealpugilist]

1) He would be considered a crusierweight even a small one by today's standards and couldnt compete with the bigger guys. His team kept him away from big guys like Nino Valdez who was ranked in the 50s

2) His era was one of the weakest of all time

3) His skill set is overlooked but he was great at what he did but not much else. His defense could be porous, he lacked a jab, his cut pretty easy at the elite level as well

4) His best opponents were past prime. Walcott, Moore and Louis were all closer to 40 than 30. Walcott was a great fighter but was worn out with nearly 100 fights and started at 160

5)He never fought anyone very good or great in their prime to show how good he really was and what he could or couldnt deal with. Patterson and Liston were on the rise but it wasnt to be, Rocky retired before they established themselves.



These are the greatest/ best heavyweights of all time in my book

Ali
Holmes
Louis
Frazier
Wlad
Foreman
Tyson
Holyfield
Lewis
Jack Johnson


honorable mention: Liston, Vitali, Dempsey, Tunney, Charles



Marciano was a great fighter.....but could he compete with these guys? did he face the competition they did? no AND NO

[therealpugilist]

what do you guys think? He can be a little overrated IMO all time.

[juggernaut666]

He couldn't compete with most ,i would have him beating JJ and Frazier would be a 50/50 since Bonevena nearly tko'd him in 2 rnds. Hes still a great champion but far from the best. Ialso think style wise he would give 1960's Ali trouble but lose on points .Big Long ,tall jabbers and ones packing power would not go good for him. Top 3 worst possible match ups for him would be Klitchko ,Lewis , Foreman 1990's.

Tyson is beyond bad for him ,Marciano may mot make it out of rnd one!

[therealpugilist]

He couldn't compete with most ,i would have him beating JJ and Frazier would be a 50/50 since Bonevena nearly tko'd him in 2 rnds. Hes still a great champion but far from the best. Ialso think style wise he would give 1960's Ali trouble but lose on points .Big Long ,tall jabbers and ones packing power would not go good for him. Top 3 worst possible match ups for him would be Klitchko ,Lewis , Foreman 1990's.

Tyson is beyond bad for him ,Marciano may mot make it out of rnd one!

Tyson would absolutely slaughter him....possibly in one but def before 3

Jack Johnson dealt with fighters with the strength of Marciano or more, power and def more size. Some more skilled. You may want to watch more of Johnson. He was elusive, very strong and could punch. Outside of a one punch ko Marciano gets his ears boxed off.

[juggernaut666]

Tyson would absolutely slaughter him....possibly in one but def before 3

Jack Johnson dealt with fighters with the strength of Marciano or more, power and def more size. Some more skilled. You may want to watch more of Johnson. He was elusive, very strong and could punch. Outside of a one punch ko Marciano gets his ears boxed off.

JJ has lost to guys his size or bigger and was used to fightihg with 180 pounders not remotly as skilled .If you take away the dirty boxing which was legal then hes even less effective .JJ was no giant either he was 190 /200 pounds in his prime so Marciano like 160 pnd Ketchel could not only drop JJ but certainly knock him out . I cant see JJ competition as impressive , i would even take 38 year old Louis as JJ's best opponent that Marciano fought and say Louis would beat anyone JJ fought as well.

[Joe Beamish]

Marciano isn't a heavyweight. He's a cruiserweight. He fought at around the mid 180s. Today he would probably drain to LHW and rehydrate, walk people down and kill them.

[therealpugilist]

Marciano isn't a heavyweight. He's a cruiserweight. He fought at around the mid 180s. Today he would probably drain to LHW and rehydrate, walk people down and kill them.

he'd definitely be at 175 for some time, probably end up at 200.....he was a squat and stocky fella with tree trunk thighs

[Cyberspace]

He didn't hold a part of a title like most pretenders, he held the honor of being "The one and only"

[Marchegiano]

1) He would be considered a crusierweight even a small one by today's standards and couldnt compete with the bigger guys. His team kept him away from big guys like Nino Valdez who was ranked in the 50s
No they didn't, they fought harder competition. That's like saying Floyd ducked Bradley to fight Manny. revisionism, not truth.
2) His era was one of the weakest of all timeIs that so? LaStarza was a bad boxer? Mathews? Layne? Charles? Walcott? Moore? Let me ask you, is Bernard not one of the best active boxers p4p presently? Do you take away from Kovalev's win? Do you not think B-Hop is one of the best p4p period even at his current age? Moore goes on to win quite a bit after Marciano, but ya know he was ready to go...he's a magic man who gets to be a top ranked boxer for decades after his prime is he?

3) His skill set is overlooked but he was great at what he did but not much else. His defense could be porous, he lacked a jab, his cut pretty easy at the elite level as wellNonsense. His skill set is yet to be duplicated. You are a fool who has yet to realize the Marciano lie. His jab was perfect for what he used it for, when you figure that out you'll understand why a great mover like Charles stayed still.

4) His best opponents were past prime. Walcott, Moore and Louis were all closer to 40 than 30. Walcott was a great fighter but was worn out with nearly 100 fights and started at 160
Not Charles? I'd say Charles is one of the best ever period, also was a peer. Marciano started late in life and people give him **** for fighting guys his own age because they didn't. It's like saying if AJ ( if he had no ams career) beat Fury it's because Fury's old. Whatever, they're around the same age and one has been boxing longer. The experienced guy has every advantage. Layne, Charles, Mathews, ****ell, LaStarza, all peers, all excellent. Walcott shop worn? Prove it. What was he slower to do than he was when we was losing to Joe? That's nonsense, watch the performance. The Walcott Marciano beat was much better than the Walcott Joe beat. His timing is better, his placement is better, his feints are slicker, and he had more to watch out for. Hell by you're own POV, if Marciano is such ****, and Walcott fought at his best against Joe Luis at his best, wouldn't you expect Walcott to look really good while Marciano sets his trap? Just Juxtaposition to Luis's prime. Anyway, either way you rationalize what happened it doesn't matter, all that matter is Walcott came on point and ready to fight.

5)He never fought anyone very good or great in their prime to show how good he really was and what he could or couldnt deal with. Patterson and Liston were on the rise but it wasnt to be, Rocky retired before they established themselves. What do you call Moore? When exactly would you claim was his prime? Moore's's biggest asset was his bag of tricks, which is still one of the largest bag of tricks known to boxing. He had more trick going into Marciano than he ever did prior. Moore would continue a successful career, but ya know past his prime. Because Moore who fought Ali looks as much like the Moor who fought Marciano as the LHW champion Moore did? Exactly, past Moore is vs Ali and ****ing looks it. The Moore who fought Marciano looks like a Moore fight, the Moore who fought Ali looks like an old man. I don't give a **** what his age is, when did his skills decline?





These are the greatest/ best heavyweights of all time in my book

Ali
Holmes
Louis
Frazier
Wlad
Foreman
Tyson
Holyfield
Lewis
Jack Johnson


honorable mention: Liston, Vitali, Dempsey, Tunney, Charles



Marciano was a great fighter.....but could he compete with these guys? did he face the competition they did? no AND NO

49 fights, 43 KOs, 25 retires. No one else even came close. The probabilities are clear. Unless you believe man becomes more capable of received more power than a 9mil the probability of you continuing a boxing career post Marciano is less than half. The probability of you not being KO'd is next to none, and the probability of you winning is next to impossible. More likely to be struck by lightening? Sure as ****. More likely to be bite by a Shark? damn right. More likely to go to space? Learn yer math son of course it is.

How about we talk about to this day Marciano seem obvious? Why is that? Do you really believe Moore and Charles couldn't've just moved? Of course they could. Anyone could, hell even barely mobile Wlad could. It's why didn't they? Because they saw what you see. Maybe dig into why it worked and why it's not been done since Marciano.

How about raw power? The ability to break bones on command? Do you think as people get larger their bones get stronger? Marciano put out more footpounds than anyone else ever recorded. He could break bones, period and open ended. It's like saying you believe there are men big enough to just take a bullet from a 9. You can think it, but yer ****ed to death stupid to.

How about the win-loss ratio of this "weak" era? I know the double digits of the L bracket hurt y'alls vag to see, but if you work out w-l ratios it's one of the finest eras of boxing.

How about how often the era fought or what advancements in the game came of it? I mean, it was enough to inspire Ali to take Walcott and LaStarza's techniques and claim they're his to beat the likes of Foreman etc. That's Walcott's shuffle and LzStarza's rope-a-dope....but ya know weak era.

How about we talk about how you guys act like you know **** all about a 1950s resume? This is why y'all reckon the 50s is weak. What the **** do you know about Jackie Burke? **** all? How the **** do you judge Harry Kid Mathews? By looking at the record and knowing you don't recognize the name? All great boxers have lots and lots of articles written about them do they? Nope, go learn on some Harry and some Jackie.

Right now you can't even explain to me what makes any of Marciano's opponents bad. Walcott was older, sure, does that make him a bad opponent or just older? Let me know that way I can tell everyone old who does something physical their age makes them **** at it regardless of their feats. What makes Harry Mathews not one of the best names on any resume period? How about ****ell? They lost? To who? How many times did Harry fight a guy with over a 100 wins on him? How many times did a name lose to another name? 5 losses to the same damn person is different from 5 to 5 people. These thing don't make someone good, or bad. They're adjectives, modifiers. If you believe Walcott would have been sharper younger show me with video. While you go try to prove that you're gonna find you're just wrong. Far more video for you to work with too.



So yeah, whatever bro, to a guy who has never heard of Jackie Burke your list should look the way it does. You're one of millions who loves to talk about the 1950s but doesn't bother to learn anymore than what can be found in any given single article on the subject. You couldn't spot a great resume of the past if I ****ing laid the out for you. Why do you support only Dempsey and Tunney of the 20s? Why is JJ the only HW of the 10s you like? Because that's all you know. You can't explain to me what made Dempsey. You don't know who the guys people were looking at are, nor do you recognize the decent resumes the make up what becomes a fantastic resume. It doesn't even make sense to pick a single from an era. If he's the only thing great about the era guess what? Weak ****ing era init ya dumb ****? Marciano, Moore, Walcott, Mathews, Charles, LaStarza, Layne, and ****ell. good supports great, and you recognize most those names. Who the **** is Jack Dempsey's Harry Mathews? Who is Jack Johnson's Jackie Burke? **** if you know right? You know about Tunney, Willard, Jeffries, and Langford, the easy ****. What made them worth a **** in the first place you don't know. So you've a ****ty list any casual could have shat out as a result.



Spending more hours with surface knowledge than youre average casual doesn't make you less casual.


The fact that I can't say Don ****ell is ****ed up. You ****ing ****s have put hurt feelings over history. **** you for that, you stupid silly *****es.

[ShoulderRoll]

I think he is overrated. Most people see that he is the only undefeated heavyweight champion and automatically assume that this makes him the best heavyweight champion.

Which is not the case.

There have been heavyweights with losses who were better. Either in terms of skill set or in terms of facing tougher competition. Or both.