Was Rocky Marciano considered the HW GOAT before Ali?

[Rick Taylor]

The Rockman has always been the GOAT, and those with any sense knew it. He was the toughest man alive. Only one man at a time can say that, by buggery. He fought legends and smashed them up. The man had deceptive defense that made him look sloppy & careless. He was not an oversized galoot like today's heavyweights who tire and puke after a round of action. All Rock has to do is last a few rounds with any of these bum behemoths and he would have them so tired the table would be set. Getting past the first few rounds would not be so easy, but if anyone could, it would be Rock. After that, you know very well Wilder or Joshua would have nothing to deter him, and he would only then be sufficiently warmed up. If the fight got that far, he murders the behemoth bums. Wake up, lads. Galoots are the wrong size to be ATGs.

"rockman" is definitely better than louis and ali tbh

[Verus]

Joe Louis was generally considered the best heavyweight of all time. Ali was considered the greatest. There is an important distinction between the best and greatest. Being the "greatest" implies transcending the sport whether or not that individual is the most skilled or the toughest of all time.

[Rick Taylor]

Joe Louis was generally considered the best heavyweight of all time. Ali was considered the greatest. There is an important distinction between the best and greatest. Being the "greatest" implies transcending the sport whether or not that individual is the most skilled or the toughest of all time.

it seems you are the one making that distinction.

[BKM-]

Joe Louis was generally considered the best heavyweight of all time. Ali was considered the greatest. There is an important distinction between the best and greatest. Being the "greatest" implies transcending the sport whether or not that individual is the most skilled or the toughest of all time.

Ali is widely considered the best and greatest or whatever term you want to come up with. Louis simply falls short by a very large margin if you compare the two skillfully but especially resume/accomplishments.

Schmeling/Walcott/Braddock/Bear vs Foreman/Frazier/Liston/Norton and that's just the top wins not even the full bulk of the resumes. Ranking Louis #1 at this point is just bias/nostalgia.

[Verus]

it seems you are the one making that distinction.

I guess I am making what I see as a clear distinction. The reality is that there never was much talk or speculation by fans or the media as to who was the "greatest of all time." It was Ali who proclaimed himself to be the greatest at every opportunity and the GOAT spread to sports in general. Similarly, there was little talk about the "greatest" basketball player of all time or the greatest football player and so on.

[Verus]

I guess I am making what I see as a clear distinction. The reality is that there never was much talk or speculation by fans or the media as to who was the "greatest of all time." It was Ali who proclaimed himself to be the greatest at every opportunity and the GOAT spread to sports in general. Similarly, there was little talk about the "greatest" basketball player of all time or the greatest football player and so on.

I was referring to the time when Joe Louis fought, not the present. Nor did I assert that I thought that Joe Louis was the best ever.
During his time, before Tyson, Foreman and the rest, most folks considered Joe Louis to be the best. No one referred to him as the greatest. The GOAT idea was popularized much later than the 1940s when Louis was in his heyday. The idea of the greatest of all time in anything generates lively discussion but is a bit silly since sports rules, training, and everything attendant to each sport changes over time so that objective comparisons are impossible.





__________________

[QueensburyRules]

Ali is widely considered the best and greatest or whatever term you want to come up with. Louis simply falls short by a very large margin if you compare the two skillfully but especially resume/accomplishments.

Schmeling/Walcott/Braddock/Bear vs Foreman/Frazier/Liston/Norton and that's just the top wins not even the full bulk of the resumes. Ranking Louis #1 at this point is just bias/nostalgia.

- -Heh, heh, making this easy pickin's for Joe.

IBRO, prob never heard of the most comprehensive historical boxing society in history, why they had Joe #1 until enough Louis guys died off for their 2020 vote that first admits Ali.

Joe won his FOY against all the odds set against him in the most humanly destructive global era in history where you fainting goats would be dropping like flies.

Ali got beat up in his FOY!
66-3 record going out on his Shield against the future champ better than any fluff Ali could conjure up for you candies.

When Ali boys start dying out, he'll be replaced. Happens like clockwork .

Time to study up!

[Rick Taylor]

Ali is widely considered the best and greatest or whatever term you want to come up with. Louis simply falls short by a very large margin if you compare the two skillfully but especially resume/accomplishments.

Schmeling/Walcott/Braddock/Bear vs Foreman/Frazier/Liston/Norton and that's just the top wins not even the full bulk of the resumes. Ranking Louis #1 at this point is just bias/nostalgia.

louis was lucky to be in an era of absolute bums tbh

[them_apples]

Rocky's more a hated champion if anything. There's just no hit and don't be hit back in Rock.

thats whats so rediculous about casuals when it comes to Rocky. Even during his day he was being chirped for all the same things. hes too small, hes too slow, his era was weak etc. Because people couldnt believe what Rocky was getting away with, fighting as rugged as he was.

His trainers wouldnt even give him a shot at first until they realized he had a knack for fighting, he had some craftiness to him, and was a very very hard individual.

I don't understand how people write off Ezzard Charles, probably the greatest light heavy of all time, yet give Spinks or Moorer a free pass, Spinks beat Holmes and Moorer beat Holyfield. Not to mention Holyfield himself was a light heavy at one point.

Charles was as slick as they come, a very clever fighter. Yet "because he was a light heavyweight" at one point, it somehow makes Rocky a useless fighter. Look at Rockys record, he beat some big tall lugs very easily, even easier - its just only weak eras (like today) are rules by some big lug of a marketing attraction. stronger eras have smaller, more skilled and more agile champions.

[them_apples]

louis was lucky to be in an era of absolute bums tbh

thats whats funny, is Louis' better competition came later in his career, when he was on the slide.

He fought Huge fighters in his prime and destroyed them (somehow size kings say Louis is too small, meanwhile his resume is loaded with 6 ft 6+ 250+ lb chumps that would fit right in with the guys today, only they had better chins lol!)

later on he was slower but fighting skilled guys like Charles and Walcott, yet when Rocky out hustles these guys it means nothing lol.

I do think Louis would have knocked them out in his prime (charles) but that doesnt mean he wouldnt have had a hard time.

Then we got Ali, he destroyed all the big guys, and gets hurt by Cooper and Doug Jones, later on Frazier. The only guys that hurt him were small. Cooper and Jones were cruisers. Yet some how he's too small, and Rocky is too small. I dont understand the casual logic.

Rocky wouldnt be too small, he would be right in close and these bums wouldnt know what to do with him.