Is Rocky Marciano as respected as he should be?

[Rick Taylor]

Rocky Marciano is synonyms with boxing 'His legacy has stood the test of time, very few fighters legacies stand the test of time'.

Rocky Marciano, Jack Johnson, Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson.

There was a thread asking? Which 4 fighters would you place upon a boxing Mount Rushmore 'Those four fighters above where the fighters I chose' etc

Most people wouldnt know who jack johnson is.
A lot wouldnt even know who sugar ray robinson is. though they might guess he is a boxer from his name

[REDEEMER]

“I became a dedicated fighter because I had single-mindedness, purpose of winning the title. I just overcame a lot of handicaps. A lot of people thought I had too short a reach to be a Heavyweight Champion. A lot of people thought I wasn’t big enough to be Heavyweight Champion. I had the big legs and was not too fast in the ring. The one thing I really had was strength. Body punching became a very important phase of my fighting. I hurt many opponents and was able to bring their guard down so I could eventually punch them to the chin and take them out.” R. Marciano.

His skills are somewhat underatted but his status as compared to others is vastly overated .

[KillaMane26]

I think he is overrated asf

[Boxing-1013]

Probably because of the age of his most notable opponents and where they were in their careers when he fought them.

Ezzard Charles had seen better days by age 33 and 14 years in.

Jersey Joe Walcott was 40 and had 22 years fighting pro already. Marciano was 29.

Archie Moore was 40 and had 20 years fighting pro. Marciano had just turned 32 that month.

Joe Louis was 37, 17 years in, ready for retirement and clearly looked past his best physical form. Marciano was 28.

Also, when he wasn’t fighting old past greats, he had a ton of opponents with losing records. Like more losses than wins, by a wide margin. To be fair though, these were the days when fighters stayed busy with “Bum-of-the-month” opponents to stack their record and everyone was doing it at the time.

If you do that now, fans will not allow you to get away with it. The stacking your resume with bums routines no longer works. But without that method, fighters can’t fight 4-5 times a year realistically.

If you see through the 49-0 and look at every fighter with poor records, his resume will all of a sudden look really thin and ordinary. It also helps that he was a good boxer and puncher. This led to him being able to dispatch of the old ATG’s he fought.

Picture Joe Smith Jr vs Bernard Hopkins. How much credit do you give Smith for KO’ing 51 year old Hopkins, who had never been stopped? That win will be forgotten.

Jeff Horn beating Pacquiao? That win will hold less and less weight as time goes by.

How about Calzaghe beating a shot to pieces RJJ? Almost no sensible fan cares about that win.

Marciano gets a ton more credit than he deserves for his most notable opponents.

So what you're saying is Canelo deserves little credit for his win over Kovalev? And his official win and draw over GGG? As well as his wins over Cotto and Mosley. Good to know you are consistent.

[Boxing-1013]

The absolute irony of a Canelo fan (or fans) talking about another fighter padding a record with nobodies (early in Canelo's career in his case) and also talking about that fighter being overrated due to his best wins being over great, past prime opponents. It is rich. Floyd fans also. But at least Floyd did some great work as a LW etc early in his career.

[-Kev-]

Disrespected if anything.

A bunch of ignorant ****s voicing opinions and little else. Almost no research is ever done, ever, and it seems like everyone who ever approached the Marciano story did so either as a hater or fan before they did their learning.

Scanning this thread is basics are already out.


Bad resume - I've yet see Harry Matthews even mentioned. No ****ell, no Rex, just Joe, Joe, Ezzard, Archie....only good names right? Let me ask y'all, how the **** do you get a good name in an era where one HW beat the **** out of EVERY contender before he stole the title from the champ? Who is meant to look good now? Oh, you got a self serving argument then huh? Nice, you are dumb as ****.

In truth, y'all lazy mother ****ers don't even know who the highly respected prospects were let alone why they were favored to win the title.

Ring Mag- founded by a plagiarist who made up **** to make the **** he stole all fit together. Anyone doing any real historical anything doesn't stop at Ring because Ring is like the Bible. Historically bull****.

Ezzard were 33 does- kev - You've not that ****** of a poster, but, that was a ****ing dumb one. Ezzard is how much older than Rocky? Okay, and how much more experience? So, a mother ****er who is a peer but has waaaaaaay more experience does not the advantage?

Comparing to modern - It's easy to make others look good when they can and do get belts before, during, and after your reign. The **** are you doing comparing single straps to Marciano?

Early career - Look at any ye olden early career. Jack Dempsey's whole career is ass and y'all praise that fool all the time. Maybe if he had an 0 all those debuts would be public knowledge? How about Bob Fitzsimmons? Who fights debuts around a title? The immortal SRR? Oh but Marciano's early career is especially ****ty is it?

In favor - I like 0s, and, but his skills were actually underrated. - Meh, his 0 is only special in this form of boxing, in all forms there are ten Marcianos, ten unbeaten HW champions. His skills might be a little under appreciated but it's hard to rate Marciano highly based on hit and don't be hit back tactics for sure. Those are both bad counter points.



What frustrates me is I don't see any real level of understanding when folks talk Marciano or even the 50s. If you don't like Rocky, cool, don't tell me "all he fought were old doe" 90-7 is not a bad career record. 81-3 at the time of the fight is not a bad fighting record. 55+ win streak is not a bad accolade, nor is it a bad time to pick up a win over the guy. Why don't you know about him? Why are all Marciano's best wins exclusively the old guys everyone knows about? You did research? You didn't even do boxrec properly let alone research.

What is the purpose of every kid with a smidgen of talent getting a belt? It makes them look good right? Now, this might tax yer wee brain a bit but think for a moment, if we live in a time of inflated awards and accolades then there must be time when awards and accolades started to look not so great and that must have been a systemic issue given a systemic change did 'fix' that. If Ali is the era of the split then whose era is the era of highly awarded fighters still not looking great without taking a closer look? If you had a brain you'd look for the reason why we have a split authority in the first place.

It's all well and fine for you to look at Rex Layne's record and go "Him **** doe" but Rex is the guy pushed by Ring. Maybe his resume does look like ****, maybe that has to do with how ranking worked back then and how it works today. Maybe being pushed by Ring is the only direct transitive that takes the least amount of adjusting due to time? Maybe y'all force modern ideals on **** that happened before those ideals were thought of? Maybe you *****es like the 4 body, WBC-F, WBA-R, bull**** more than you realize? Rex Layne was a fine prospect at a time when a joke like ****ing Joe Parker is not a possibility.

Didn't fight anyone, except, he steamrolled right through every single prospect that was put into any form of media as worth a ****, and, there is no ranked opponent, no Langford, no Wills, no Norfolk, Marciano did not fight.

Conversely, Marciano isn't even trained to be slick. Slick's not what he's going for be being better at it than how heavily he is criticized is such a small point I'm not sure why it's even made. So people say Rocky never ducked a punch when he did here and there? Big ****in' deal. No, he's not a boxer, wasn't a boxer, wasn't trained to box, does not give a **** about boxing. He fought sword and shield style, Marciano isn't trying to avoid punches per-se, he's trying to force his opening and KO you, duh. He's very ****ing good at it though and that's why it's sad as **** on one hand you get just "Him crude" and on the other "him not as crude as you think doe" whatever. Yes, by your metric he is crude. His crude ass went right through some of the greatest movers ever, crudely. He doesn't need "boxing skills" and no other HW in the 3k years of the division has for them to retire unbeaten. Dudes who box at HW pick up losses. Maybe your asses should investigate some history and see if Marciano's style isn't worth understanding without trying force some points-boxing philosophy on to it. Ya dumb ****s.

49-0

43 KOs

25 quit boxing five fights or less after fighting Marciano

KO'd the longest reigner Louis

KO'd the KO King Archie

KO'd possibly the greatest LHW, p4p ATG Charles

KO'd the bag or tricks Ali would work with in Walcott

KO'd and chipped the bones of the original rope-a-dope LaStarza

Ended a 55+ win streak Matthews

Ended Rex's Ring push

Handed ****ell his first HW loss


Not worth any real investigation though?





Him best win were old, him don't dance, him poopy. VS Him dance a little, him no poop, him 0. - It's just ****ing sad.






So, I say disrespected.

Almost no one shows the era any respect and gives it any time. They just take a quick peek because they formed their opinions beforehand and are just on the hunt for ammo.

I carefully used “his most notable wins” instead of “good names” for a reason. I also used the term old ATG’s.

His MOST NOTABLE WINS were by far Charles, Ezzard, Moore Louis. My post is not talking about what historians think are good names on his resume. We’re talking about his most notable wins.

[Boxing-1013]

That’s nuts. Although at a glance, just being a box-rec warrior, you can tell his opponents were awful. Like there is no “you can’t go by their record” excuse to apply there. His opponents were straight up awful. Literal bums. His criticism has nothing to do with his color because there are many white boxers who are praised as top ATG’s. The criticism on him is solely based on his resume and whoever says otherwise is delusional.

I know you're not a Canelo fan talking like that - his first 18 fights, which he went 17-1. Were against guys with a combined record of 101-103. He faced one guy 3 times in that span, who finished his career 15-36-3. The third time Canelo needed a split decision to get the win.

The audacity of you to get on any fighter for those things, yet you revere Canelo, what a joke.

[-Kev-]

So what you're saying is Canelo deserves little credit for his win over Kovalev? And his official win and draw over GGG? As well as his wins over Cotto and Mosley. Good to know you are consistent.

You can give Canelo whatever amount of credit you want for whatever fight you want. You’re a grown ass man, you don’t need my permission for that. If that’s your opinion about Canelo, then that’s your opinion. Don’t base your opinions on what ever I think, i’m not your dad.

With that said...

Never seen anyone mention Mosley as a good win for Canelo.

Cotto was the Ring Champion at 160 by beating “the man”.

GGG was ranked #1 at MW.

Kovalev was ranked #2 at LHW and was the WBO champ.

[-Kev-]

I know you're not a Canelo fan talking like that - his first 18 fights, which he went 17-1. Were against guys with a combined record of 101-103. He faced one guy 3 times in that span, who finished his career 15-36-3. The third time Canelo needed a split decision to get the win.

The audacity of you to get on any fighter for those things, yet you revere Canelo, what a joke.

In the past, i’ve touched on records like Canelo, Chavez Sr, Duran, where I mentioned that is the old school way of bringing up fighters. Having them fight a bum of the month opponent to stack their resume. In fact I probably said that within the last two weeks. I have also always said that fans and media don’t like that way of bringing up fighters. And yes, I say it again here for Marciano as I said it for Canelo, Chavez Sr, and Duran.

Also, read the part where I said “to be fair, every fighter did that at the time”.

You are doing what most people do which is selective reading. I don’t recall you replying to my post saying that about the above fighters and saying “I agree with you kev, good post”. But you come in here swinging your purse at me for saying the same exact thing about Marciano.

[Boxing-1013]

You can give Canelo whatever amount of credit you want for whatever fight you want. You’re a grown ass man, you don’t need my permission for that. If that’s your opinion about Canelo, then that’s your opinion. Don’t base your opinions on what ever I think, i’m not your dad.

With that said...

Never seen anyone mention Mosley as a good win for Canelo.

Cotto was the Ring Champion at 160 by beating “the man”.

GGG was ranked #1 at MW.

Kovalev was ranked #2 at LHW and was the WBO champ.

If I really cared at all, I'm sure I can find 'stats' that show Charles and Walcott (4 fights/wins there btw) and Louis (1 win) were formidable enough, which they were. Quickly, for example, that was just Louis' 2nd loss of the last 15 years. Archie Moore as well was an objectively great win, certainly better than Canelo's over Cotto.

I was hoping that when it was staring you in the face, you would realize 'wow I am getting on this man for stuff, that I kind of gloss over when it comes to my favorite fighter.' For you to see it right in front of you and then try to spin it. I mean it's absurd.

People can evaluate guys however they want. But when you have two similar situations that you analyze completely differently, I mean what are we even doing on a boxing forum. It's just fanboys-r-us.