Being unbeaten, doesn't mean you are the best

[chaconfan]

Of course being unbeaten doesn't mean someone is the best. It usually means, like Ali said, that they didn't fight everyone. There was that big list posted a while back of all the undefeated boxers and few of them were significant at all, maybe just Marciano, Mayweather and possibly Calzaghe, the rest was a lot of crap.

I know you are a Marciano fan, and I don't want to upset you, but I don't consider his unbeaten record "significant" tbh.
If you actually look at it, he fought guys with up to 57 losses, and by all accounts, it appears he was given two decisions he did not deserve at all.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Does anyone agree that Marciano was only unbeaten because he was lucky?
He was lucky for these reasons;
1. He got to his title shot by beating mostly unknowns. Guys with as many as 57 losses!
2. He got a decision over Roland LaStarza that was "universally criticised" as being unfair. The fact that Marciano's manager was the matchmaker for Madison square garden, was the major reason as to why Rocky was gifted it.
3. He also got a decision over Ted Lowry which even Ring magazine accepts was a robbery.
4. He fought a 37 old for the title, who already had 16 losses. # Side note, a man at 37 in those days was a lot more worn out than today's equivalent, having a much tougher life, and many more gruelling fights, plus they were 15 rounders back then, as some younger readers might not be aware.
5. His title defences were against either old men (some sources list Moore as 45) or men who had moved up in weight, or both. Don C#ckell had been stopped by former middleweight Randy Turpin, and looked like the worst title challenger in history...although he did have guts.
6. Of his 6 defences, 3 were against guys he had already beaten and if we include his title win, his 7 opponents had 87 losses between them, often inflicted by light heavies and even middles.
7. 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.
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.
Any decent prospect could beat 49-0, if they were matched right, and if that was the only goal. Hell, line me up 50 90 year olds, and hopefully, I would beat it!
Hope you enjoyed the article. I am not looking to diss anyone, nor am I looking for arguments, just want to see what others think.

Number seven is pure conjecture. Of all the Marciano criticisms I've read, that is the most ridiculous.

[The Old LefHook]

Was there a greater sportsman or a man more willing to die in the ring than this heavyweight champion? Such qualities do count for something.

[phallus]

In Rocky's defense, he fought whoever was there during his reign. Like Holmes later on he was a champion without a big name opponent, he was in a division that was after Louis and prior to the Ali era. But, Rocky did a lot with very little. He was a great all around athlete and wanted to be a baseball player. When that didn't pan out he turned to boxing. He got off to a late start and his trainer Charley Goldman took this raw, clumsy kid and developed his strengths while minimizing his weaknesses. Rocky was a guy who did more with less. A small HW even by 1950s standards, he fought whoever they put in front of him and never bad-mouthed an opponent. He was one of the first fighters to help raise money for Ezzard Charles when he was dying of ALS.

In hindsight we can pick apart a lot of great fighter's and not-so-great fighter's records. But, records don't tell the whole story. You have to factor in their entertainment value, their heart, their skills, determination, discipline, and ability to overcome adversity. While Rocky could have been stopped in that Charles fight where his nose was busted open, he also could have quit or found a way to get the fight stopped on some other bogus injury like the "great" Berhard Hopkins or Mikey Garcia. He never took steroids, he never bit off anyone's ear, never dropped his title in the trash to duck an opponent, and he carried an entire division on his shoulders without any other great HWs to help do the lifting. He deserves to be in the top ten all-time, but where he is placed on that list will always be up for debate.

And yes, unbeaten doesn't = great in and of itself.

Good post. While we can pick Marcianos resume apart, there's not one qualified heavy weight contender in that era Marciano didn't fight.

I know you are a Marciano fan, and I don't want to upset you, but I don't consider his unbeaten record "significant" tbh.
If you actually look at it, he fought guys with up to 57 losses, and by all accounts, it appears he was given two decisions he did not deserve at all.

Was there a greater sportsman or a man more willing to die in the ring than this heavyweight champion? Such qualities do count for something.

these days we can look up almost every pro fighter's record and find something fishy on it, like the other guy said, the rock fought the best guys available and had the most heart. him, louis and dempsey were probably the hardest punchers of their time

[chaconfan]

Number seven is pure conjecture. Of all the Marciano criticisms I've read, that is the most ridiculous.

Not remotely ridiculous. Everyone knows how racist America was in times past. They would do anything to keep a white champ.

[chaconfan]

Was there a greater sportsman or a man more willing to die in the ring than this heavyweight champion? Such qualities do count for something.

Did I say they didn't count for something?
The article was written to counter peoples arguments I keep seeing, that state that he must have been the best, because he was unbeaten, whilst no one else was.
I have nothing against Marciano and accept that he did have some good qualities. However his record is nowhere near as good as it appears....if you look at it in an unbiased way.
Thanks for your input.

[chaconfan]

these days we can look up almost every pro fighter's record and find something fishy on it, like the other guy said, the rock fought the best guys available and had the most heart. him, louis and dempsey were probably the hardest punchers of their time

1. I never questioned his heart.
2. If we accept that he fought the best guys available, we must also accept that what I said was right, that the guys that were available were mostly terrible(with up to 57 losses)and the 4 all time greats he beat were not close to being in their peak years,or in two of the 4 cases were not in their peak weight categories either.
3. You MAY be able to look up almost every fighters record and find something fishy on it, but being "fishy" is not what my point is about, it is about explaining to those that are naive, that being unbeaten doesn't really mean much. I wanted to write this, after seeing people on youtube exclaiming his superiority due to that one fact, so I put it into perspective.

[GhostofDempsey]

1. I never questioned his heart.
2. If we accept that he fought the best guys available, we must also accept that what I said was right, that the guys that were available were mostly terrible(with up to 57 losses)and the 4 all time greats he beat were not close to being in their peak years,or in two of the 4 cases were not in their peak weight categories either.
3. You MAY be able to look up almost every fighters record and find something fishy on it, but being "fishy" is not what my point is about, it is about explaining to those that are naive, that being unbeaten doesn't really mean much. I wanted to write this, after seeing people on youtube exclaiming his superiority due to that one fact, so I put it into perspective.

To show you that we can pick apart any fighter's record from any era, here are several fighter's records for you to consider:

Rudolph Bent 44-42-4
Peter Schmidt 22-25-7
Harvey McCullough 7-25-2
Rocky Randall 79-54-14
Jimmy Beecham 41-30-3
Fabio Bettini 20-10-5
Clarence Riley 21-31-5
George Estatoff 3-11-2
Wilf Greaves 34-20-1
Ted Olla 35-18-2
Jean Wanes 24-33-11
Kid Marcel 81-38-25
Billy Brown 59-30-8
Cliiff Beckett 17-14-3
Vern Lester 25-26-15
Charley Dodson 37-29-4
Al Mobley 50-26-5
George LaRover 65-26-6
Don Lee 46-18-9
Cecil Hudson 59-30-4
Freddie Flores 21-38-10
Ossie Harris 41-45-5
Flashy Sebastian 42-18-6
Sammie Secreet 30-20-2
Eddie Finazzo 39-31-5
Freddie Wilson 15-29-0
Sidney Miller 11-24-5
Izzy Jannazzo 63-42-15
Tony Riccio 30-16-6
Vic Dellicurti 39-28-9
Carl Guggino 109-42-25
Victor Troise 20-29-10
Joe Ghnouly 65-28-8
Charley Burns 41-38-8

I'm sure you don't recognize any of these names. By today's standards most casuals would call them bums, a term I detest towards any fighter. However, these were some of Sugar Ray Robinson's opponents, most of whom he fought during his prime, and several of them he fought in multiple bouts. I even left a few out for the sake of brevity.

So while you're aching about Marciano's opponent who had 57 losses, it wasn't uncommon for fighter's of that era to stay busy by fighting club fighters and journeymen in between title fights just to keep earning a paycheck and stay sharp and in fighting condition.

Ray Robinson is arguably one of the greatest prize fighters of all time, and even he had several opponents on his record who carried losing records.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Not remotely ridiculous. Everyone knows how racist America was in times past. They would do anything to keep a white champ.

Yes. Ridiculous. Once again, conjecture. "Everyone knows" translates to BS- something not provable at all. Just a BS assumption that goes on and on. It is not proof of anything.

[Anthony342]

I know you are a Marciano fan, and I don't want to upset you, but I don't consider his unbeaten record "significant" tbh.
If you actually look at it, he fought guys with up to 57 losses, and by all accounts, it appears he was given two decisions he did not deserve at all.

Yes, that's true, but still I and a lot of others still feel it's significant because he fought everyone in his era, which is all you could ask of a champion. He left after 49 fights because he felt he was getting too old for the sport and didn't enjoy it anymore.

But, of course, simply being unbeaten doesn't make someone the best. Otherwise, instead of names like Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, Louis and Ali, people's all time best boxers list would be littered with names like Joe Calzaghe, Sven Ottke, Ike Ibeabuchi, Joe Mesi and Michael Loewe. Mayweather and Marciano will at least be somewhere in there in the top 50-100, I doubt any of those other guys are. You'd have to ask our educated historians here.