Being unbeaten, doesn't mean you are the best

[Elroy The Great]

b/w era fans getting hissy because those shltty resumes are finally getting a closer look

''you cant blame rocky for his weak era.''
''rocky was great cause he beat up everyone.''

which one is it

imho, rocky ''shined'' due to the piss poor era. all he had going for him was stamina and brute strength. again, no way on earth a guy can be blamed for the shlt he has to fight but no awards should be given him either. his reign matched his talent level...middling.

[Elroy The Great]

When Rocky Marciano retired Sonny Liston was 12-1 (6 KO) and relatively unknown. Floyd Patterson was 27-1 (19 KO) and with him you may have a point. Most definately one of those great fantasy matchups that sadly never came off. A 32 year old Rocky Marciano, 49-0 (43 KO) versus a 21 year old Floyd Patterson, 27-1 (19 KO) in Spring 1966 for the Heavyweight championship. Would Marciano have made it 50-0, or would Patterson have beaten the reigning champion and started his own reign 6 months earlier? We will never know.

imho, i dont think fp could have withstood rockys bombs and fp's bombs couldnt compete. maybe fp outboxes him ?

[jack p]

Marciano was only unbeaten because he was plucky

[QUOTE=chaconfan;17620164]Does anyone agree that Marciano was only unbeaten because he was lucky?
He was lucky for these reasons;

QUOTE=chaconfan7. His nose injury suffered in the Charles bout was easily bad enough for the fight to be stopped, and if the injury was on Charles, I think it is safe to say that the fight would have been stopped.

Its TOUGH to say whether if the injury was on Charles that the fight would have been stopped.
I think it is safe to say that while Marciano has a chance to put Charles away in the short time he has left :even if its only two minutes.
Charles if situations reversed has no chance to get a quick knock out over Rocky.
If Ezzard was bleeding as bad as Rocky was he risks serious injury by going toe to toe trying to score a quick knock out

QUOTE=chaconfan 8. He didn't want anything to do with Liston, and was challenged by Patterson, who was young, unlike all the men he had been beating, and had been looking awesome, which was later backed up by his performance against Moore, in comparison to Rocky's. He therefore retired younger than his title challengers.

You mean the same Patterson that was knocked out by Maxim? Maxim who couldn't hit hard enough to crack an egg.
Cus never would have let Floyd get near Rocky
unless Rocky's prime was so far back in his rear view mirror that stretched to the horizon.
You mean the same Moore that was close to fifty when Floyd fought him who when Rocky fought Moore
Archie was closer to 40.

Liston where was he ranked in 1956?
Did everyone think since Liston's the number one contender, after all he's a good clean kid ,wonderful role model he's beaten everyone lets give him the crown like when the WBC made Norton champ?

I will tell you when Liston was training Rocky came by and when Liston saw everyone flock to Rocky
He accused Marciano of ducking him.
Rocky saw red(Rocky was a temper angry fighter)
Rocky challenged him right then and now.
Liston heavy weight champion of the world got scared and refused to step in the ring.
This was years after Rocky retired

Rocky's main reason for retiring was his main reason for
everything else he did..MONEY.
He knew with Weil managing him he never was gonna see the big checks of his predecessors..
He knew retiring undefeated could increase his earning
capabilities and he would get to keep all his post retirement earnings.
Rockies only fear was being broke and having nothing to show for it.

How many people could start boxing at 24 and 4 years
later become champ and 4 years after that retire undefeated?
That's near impossible so many things could
crop up to de-rail that achievement.
And they did crop up
Of course it can't be done alone got to have the right trainer and manager.
Where would JCChavez be if not for Don King
What would Chavez's record be now if not for Don King?..
How many times was Chavez's title saved?

But all the luck in the world is for naught if a fighter can't hold their end in the ring.
Rocky was a dominant champ. Notice how guys that fought Rocky never were the same afterward?
That's cause Rocky broke them down

[JK1700]

Of course everyone can get beaten, and being undefeated doesn't make you the best. However, at the same time this doesn't mean we should say everyone who's undefeated fought bad competition or didn't get tested etc. Or that a guy who has more losses was more tested, you just have to look at every situation individually and see how many champions they fought, how many big fights etc. A record is just that, a record, I mean Juan Manuel Marquez has 7 losses but if you really look at it you could argue he only has 1 or 2 (I had him beating everyone except Mayweather). It's really simple, if you beat 10+ world champions in their prime and unify your division/division's I think it's safe to say you beat very good competition. The strange truth though, is that if you take a few losses people are more happy to give you credit because they think it means you "paid your dues". Look at Ali, when he was undefeated and on top everyone hated him then once he took a few losses and we could all see he was in a very bad way after his career ended, these same people all of a sudden starting praising him. That's just how it is.

[jack p]

I didn't read entire thread yet, but I'll take what's in the title of a thread even further.
Being unbeaten, doesn't mean you are the best.
Being the best, doesn't mean you're unbeatable.
There's a right style and right opponent, as well as right(or rather wrong) night for every fighter to lose. If you fight the best constantly, you're not going to keep you 0(which is why fighters don't do it anymore).
It's not any different than in any other major sport. Teams that are the best in sports where there's healthy and fair competition system(League) - are not teams that win every game, but teams that win most and lose least.
If we had the same system in boxing - league of the best - let's say 20 fighters - where every fighter faces everybody twice(At home + away) - no one would remain undefeated in any division...

Undefeated fighters deserve credit for right career managment, it has less to do with level of abilities than most fans want to believe. It comes down to people wanting to believe in myths.
It's intriguing to think that someone can't possibly be beaten... and when you never see someone lose, you can believe that. But at the end it's just a myth, nothing else.

You said some cool things like.
Undefeated fighters deserve credit for right career management.

Yes but winning a close fight without a knockout to determine who wins. Who wins is left up to individuals who can't always agree on a clear cut points score.Three judges can have a different score. Unlike team sports where everyone agrees one team has more points.

Also you can't have a league in boxing because with a decision victory being subjective well you get guys that work the system not fight run and jab and win on points scored like Cubans do in the olympics but still subjective in
whether a point was actually scored
but not fun to watch cause its a combat sport not
flag football.
MMA avoids this tactic of running and not fighting by grappling

The topic is whether Rocky was only unbeaten cause he was lucky.
Which i think if Rocky's fights were all decisions then his
chances of losing would be greatly increased.The only clear cut winning tactic in boxing is the KO'
Fortunately a KO's coming from a KO artist is harder to attribute to luck alone.
Especially when there's 43 of them.
A KO from a boxer that never wins by a KO that
can be seen as luck

l
Being unbeaten, doesn't mean you are the best.
Being the best, doesn't mean you're unbeatable.
That's a great quote..
You also made me realize that Rocky believed it.
He knew he was beatable he knew his physical
attributes put him in a disadvantage.
He knew even winning didn't mean he was the best it
just meant he won.
The topics about whether being unbeaten is due to luck.
No Rocky trained to hard and he threw too many punches he didn't dare leave it to lady luck.
Luck works both ways. Maybe Rocky won his close fights not because of what he did But rather what his opponent failed to do

it has less to do with level of abilities than most fans want to believe. It comes down to people wanting to believe in myths.
Success at all levels of Boxing is all about ability The truth that athletes being better then ever does lead to the myth that boxers are better then ever because they're athletes to.

[jack p]

[QUOTE=Elroy The Great;17748741]b/w era fans getting hissy because those shltty resumes are finally getting a closer look

''you cant blame rocky for his weak era.''
''rocky was great cause he beat up everyone.''

That depends on your viewpoint
if you compare it to this era which can be called "The Glass Jaw era we can blame the Klitschko's for lowering the bar making this era truly a crying shame.
This era makes that era seem stellar

[Elroy The Great]

[QUOTE=jack p;17836047]

b/w era fans getting hissy because those shltty resumes are finally getting a closer look

''you cant blame rocky for his weak era.''
''rocky was great cause he beat up everyone.''

That depends on your viewpoint
if you compare it to this era which can be called "The Glass Jaw era we can blame the Klitschko's for lowering the bar making this era truly a crying shame.
This era makes that era seem stellar

ill always say this about that era;
when most of the boxers can find someone to ''fight'' every week, thats a shltty era.

look at those ''atg'' resumes. a ton of ''debuts'' and 5-13 types.

[jack p]

If basketball players played just one game a year how good would they get?

[QUOTE=Elroy The Great;17836885][QUOTE=jack p;17836047]

ill always say this about that era;
when most of the boxers can find someone to ''fight'' every week, thats a shltty era.

If basketball players played just one game a year
how good would they get?
The thing is when boxers can't find anyone to fight
it makes the era even ****tier
Boxers now a days probably say to themselves "**** if my opponent closes his eyes and throws a punch at me or throws a punch between his legs in my direction he's sure to connect.

Screw that I'm going back to the gym for another year
Spar with the heavy bag some more and perfect the
Klitschko style of using my face to block a punch technique

[Elroy The Great]

[QUOTE=jack p;17837405][QUOTE=Elroy The Great;17836885]

ill always say this about that era;
when most of the boxers can find someone to ''fight'' every week, thats a shltty era.

If basketball players played just one game a year
how good would they get?
The thing is when boxers can't find anyone to fight
it makes the era even ****tier
Boxers now a days probably say to themselves "**** if my opponent closes his eyes and throws a punch at me or throws a punch between his legs in my direction he's sure to connect.

Screw that I'm going back to the gym for another year
Spar with the heavy bag some more and perfect the
Klitschko style of using my face to block a punch technique

boxing is so different from other sports. they keep the scores a secret and how a fight is scored is completely subjective.

team sports must abide by a set schedule.
not sure on golf, tennis, bowling.

my point on boxers finding ''someone'' to fight once a week is, that guy is padding his stats. all a person has to do is check the guys resume. you are who you fight.

[jack p]

[QUOTE=Elroy The Great;17837414][QUOTE=jack p;17837405]

boxing is so different from other sports. they keep the scores a secret and how a fight is scored is completely subjective.

team sports must abide by a set schedule.
not sure on golf, tennis, bowling.

my point on boxers finding ''someone'' to fight once a week is, that guy is padding his stats. all a person has to do is check the guys resume. you are who you fight.

boxers finding ''someone'' to fight once a week is, that guy is padding his stats. Wrong

Boxers finding ''someone they know they can BEAT once a week" That guy is padding his stats.

Boxers finding ''someone to fight once a week is, that guy is honing his craft"

You were almost right your error was forming an opinion
on a subject that you were ignorant about

You are entitled to your opinion NO MATTER HOW WRONG IT IS