Rocky Marciano seems to be...

[JohnThomas1]

For whatever reason, the most keenly scrutinised and argued fighter from the last 65 years when it comes to an exact worth in the more modern day. Something about him seems to garner much interest and indeed feeling. Maybe it's his size, i see it mentioned and debated from often with his detractors. Maybe it's his undefeated record. Maybe it's because he is white. Heritage maybe. Possibly a combination. Whatever it is he certainly does have that aura of intrigue and forthright opinion.

And there'in ends my deep thought of the day.

[KTFO]

For whatever reason, the most keenly scrutinised and argued fighter from the last 65 years when it comes to an exact worth in the more modern day. Something about him seems to garner much interest and indeed feeling. Maybe it's his size, i see it mentioned and debated from often with his detractors. Maybe it's his undefeated record. Maybe it's because he is white. Heritage maybe. Possibly a combination. Whatever it is he certainly does have that aura of intrigue and forthright opinion.

And there'in ends my deep thought of the day.




Wait until someone breaks his record. More discussions....:rolleyes:

[North Star]

For whatever reason, the most keenly scrutinised and argued fighter from the last 65 years when it comes to an exact worth in the more modern day. Something about him seems to garner much interest and indeed feeling. Maybe it's his size, i see it mentioned and debated from often with his detractors. Maybe it's his undefeated record. Maybe it's because he is white. Heritage maybe. Possibly a combination. Whatever it is he certainly does have that aura of intrigue and forthright opinion.

And there'in ends my deep thought of the day.


Many people feel Rocky had too many shortcomings to become a heavyweight champion and that he was exceptionally fortunate to have been fighting in a less than spectacular era. If he won all of his professional fights it must mean he fought too many nobodies and had too many hometown decisions.

Rocky was too small and too light, but he was about the same height as Mike Tyson, and probably could have carried close to the same amount of weight as the prime Tyson without being overweight, but in his day Rocky felt that fighting at a bit under 190 pounds was his best bet.

Some of the bigger name fighters he beat must have lost to Rocky because they were too old and too far past their prime when he defeated them. But a lot of these things are said about many other heavyweight champions. New heavyweight champions often come along by way of marching over top contenders and reigning champions in decline. If a heavyweight champion retires without ever losing a title defense his choice of top flight challengers is frequently questioned. :patsch

[Duodenum]

Wait until someone breaks his record. More discussions....:rolleyes:I don't think it will matter much, because Rocky will have always been the champion to to retire with an unblemished record first, and stay retired.

If Larry Holmes had managed to get awarded the decision over Mike Spinks, he would have been extremely close to busting Joe Louis's record of 25 successful title defenses. My suspicion is that the temptation of going 55-0 would have been too great to pass up. If he'd somehow succeeded though, we might have been deprived of his stellar masterpiece against Mercer.

Holmes did realize some unprecedented achievements however. He was the first undefeated boxer to win 20 consecutive championship matches, and he was the first champion to successfully defend his title in eight consecutive calendar years. (From Evangelista in 1978 to Williams in 1985.)

The thing is, somebody could win 49 matches against tomato cans, win the championship in their 50th match, and then retire. I think it's more impressive to be the first at something, because that status can never be displaced.

[Duodenum]

For whatever reason, the most keenly scrutinised and argued fighter from the last 65 years when it comes to an exact worth in the more modern day. Something about him seems to garner much interest and indeed feeling. Maybe it's his size, i see it mentioned and debated from often with his detractors. Maybe it's his undefeated record. Maybe it's because he is white. Heritage maybe. Possibly a combination. Whatever it is he certainly does have that aura of intrigue and forthright opinion.

And there'in ends my deep thought of the day.I think the fact of his blue collar background and image, the fact he always remained close to his roots in Brockton, his stoic dedicated work ethic and "never say die" attitude, combined with the stature of a more average human being, reasonates very strongly with rank and file fight fans. He was not a Superman, he was one of "us," a representation of what we could dream of being if only we applied ourselves sufficiently enough. Before becoming a boxer, he worked as a ditch digger, and was drafted into the military where he served during WW II.

He wasn't blessed with freakish height or reach, he wasn't a pretty boy who was likely to enjoy a career in entertainment after retiring, he seemed to be a regular bloke who somebody could enjoy a pint with at the local pub, or make small talk with while sitting on the front steps of a neighborhood tenement. He was no kind of flashy show-off in the ring, but a stoic who seemed to be just himself. Yet it was this seemingly regular fellow who did what nobody else had ever done in one of the most elemental of blue collar sports. Yeah, I suspect that might provoke a strong reaction with rank and file boxing fans.

[Russell]

It's partly his size, partly the fact that he had an extremely short career at eight years... Partly that he fought smaller guys moving up who were "past their prime...".

Lot of things, I guess.

[Executioner]

It's a lot of things

[Ted Stickles]

For whatever reason, the most keenly scrutinised and argued fighter from the last 65 years when it comes to an exact worth in the more modern day. Something about him seems to garner much interest and indeed feeling. Maybe it's his size, i see it mentioned and debated from often with his detractors. Maybe it's his undefeated record. Maybe it's because he is white. Heritage maybe. Possibly a combination. Whatever it is he certainly does have that aura of intrigue and forthright opinion.

And there'in ends my deep thought of the day.

Basically i think it is because he was undefeated and people are always trying to say who or why someone would have beat him but we will never know ....

[red cobra]

Marciano can never be denied by todays haters and historical revisionists, because when it's all said and done, there it is living in eternity....that big 49-0. That one of a kind, as yet unequaled, undisputed UNDEFEATED PERFECT RECORD!!! What more can you ask of a man than have him take what he's got and make the most out of it. Rocky Marciano was only 5'-10 1/2" tall with a reach of only 67", yet, he maximized all that he had, turned these disadvantages into advantages by being a fanatical addict to training and conditioning, hard, hard work, a spartan routine when training, throwing hard short punches constantly, hitting any target that was available, not just waiting for an opening. Pounding forearms, biceps, every thing above the waist without ever becoming discouraged. Never letting up for an instant, with a superhuman disregard for pain and fatigue. Today's revisionists can rank him as low as they want to and twist everything around to change the facts as much as they want to. They probably rate him today as no better than say, Brian London, or something, but they miss the point. Marciano was a classic case of mind over matter. He triumphed over all those guys with superior physical gifts and skills and simply imposed himself on them and made them bruise, bleed and hurt real bad before he ko'd them.

[Dempsey1238]

He could have, But his back problem, Al, Family begging him retire ete. He retire.

[Ted Spoon]

He was doubted then because of his stature, and then his opponents are doubted because of his record. When Rocky Marciano won a fight his legacy seemed to be put under the microscope more and more. Why is this little man winning? So when faced with a question the boxing world can't answer they attack his legacy in an attempt to make sense of their false accusations.

Soon the boxing world will universally know Rocky as simply the great, undefeated Heavyweight Champion. Ted Spoon can do that.

[Cojimar 1945]

Perhaps people are upset that none of the heavyweights of their times had the consistancy of Marciano and this upsets them because it suggests the fighters of their time cannot match up to Marciano.

[salsanchezfan]

If someone could come up with the youtube bit from "Coming To America," you know, the barber shop scene, you'd have a pretty decent answer to this question. :lol:


I read a lot here about his accomplishments, his disadvantages in size, etc, and his ability to overcome them, but that isn't the reason he's discussed so much. At least I don't think so. He'd be overwhelmingly lauded for his accomplishments in that case, and he's just as routinely denegrated here.

Skin color and ethnicity play hugely into it. At the risk of lighting a match to tinder, he's Whitey's ace in the hole. And Italian to boot! It enfuriates his critics that his fans continually play this card with the smugness they do, and it angers his fans that the critics can't get over the 49-0 and accept that he was a great fighter. It's often a case, then, where there is simply no middle ground. In a wide discussion of him the likes of which we see here (too often an occurence in itself), you're branded a hater if you take the torch to his memory and a nuthugger and possibly a racist if you support him.

Marciano will forever be a lightning rod for heated debate based on that alone.

[RDJ]

Same reason people rip on Manny Pac. His nuthuggers are god awful.

[Club Fighter]

49-0 leads many to say he was "unbeatable" and the "greatest of all time" which enrages many boxing fans who know this to be very untrue. The best names on his resume were old as hell when he Kayo'd them, and he damn near lost to one of them.

49 fights. 6 title defenses. Not a greatest of all time stat.

[Beebs]

The undefeated record and the spatting that goes on because of it is the reason for all the discussion, other factors come into play, but if he's 48-1 he isn't as polarizing at all.

Also, he is a difficult fighter to rate head to head, which is where alot of the non record related arguments come from. He made a career out of being able to win even if he looked bad doing it, so some look at the win, and others look at the near loss.

[brownpimp88]

When people evaluate rocky's resume they just look at names. It was joe louis's last fight, walcott's two last fights, ezzard was done by then, i mean just look at his career in the mid 50s. Archie moore was 39.

Outside of them his resume has very little volume. Out of 49 fights, 35/36 were against street bums that are not even contenders.

[Seamus]

at the end of the day, he was a spectacular fighter. call him a cruiser or a heavy, he was simply fantastic for his size. amazingly fit, perhaps a heavier Greb with his non-stop attacks. he beat everyone put before him and nothing more can be asked.

under-rated defense, somewhat over-rated power. the last guy you would ever want meet in an alley with bad intentions.

[Mendoza]

For whatever reason, the most keenly scrutinised and argued fighter from the last 65 years when it comes to an exact worth in the more modern day. Something about him seems to garner much interest and indeed feeling. Maybe it's his size, i see it mentioned and debated from often with his detractors. Maybe it's his undefeated record. Maybe it's because he is white. Heritage maybe. Possibly a combination. Whatever it is he certainly does have that aura of intrigue and forthright opinion.

And there'in ends my deep thought of the day.
There will never be another heavyweight champion like Rocky. Whether he is under rated or over rated depends on how you view things.

I lean towards the very bottom of the top ten mostly because Rocky has a " O " at end of his record. I think the “ O “ was a result of talent, careful match making until Rocky was ready, had offs referee’s ( Avoiding DQ’s ) and ring doctors ( Stopping fights on cuts / swelling ), retiring at the age of 32, and perhaps a favorable nod on the judges cards. What can never be under rated is Rocky’s intangibles and will to win.

Reasons why I think Rocky is more over rated than under rated.

1 ) Historians and boxing scribes who saw Rocky had a consensus opinion of placing him about 7th or 8th of all time in the late 50's to early 60's. Nearly 50 years have passed since.

If someone were to ask me who was the best 5 basketball players of all time, Jordan, Bird, Chamberlin, O’Neal and Johnson make the cut.

If someone were to ask me who was the best quarter backs of all time, I'd say Unitas, Marino, Elway, Montana, and Brady.

And the beat goes on. My point here is Rocky did not make this cut in his era, and I for one tend to doubt the collective minds of those who saw him were that blind not see he was among the top 5 circa 1960.

2 ) Film Rocky looks both great and terrible at the same time. Could he afford to fight like this vs better opponents?

3 ) Size. Rocky was short, light of weight, and had limited reach. I believe all three matter in heavyweight boxing.

4 ) Quality of competiton when he met them. Rocky did not face a top 15 all time great when they were in their prime or near prime in my opinion. He beat a collection of older but still good past their prime fighters, who for the most part did not have a lot of power, size, or durability.

I refer to Rocky Marciano as the NFL Version of the 1972 Miami Dolphins, who also went und defeated. Miami won by narrow margin in some games, and ended up undefeated, but very few beleive they would rank in the top 5 best teams talent wise.

[Sonny's jab]

1 ) Historians and boxing scribes who saw Rocky had a consensus opinion of placing him about 7th or 8th of all time in the late 50's to early 60's. Nearly 50 years have passed since.

If someone were to ask me who was the best 5 basketball players of all time, Jordan, Bird, Chamberlin, O’Neal and Johnson make the cut.

If someone were to ask me who was the best quarter backs of all time, I'd say Unitas, Marino, Elway, Montana, and Brady.

And the beat goes on. My point here is Rocky did not make this cut in his era, and I for one tend to doubt the collective minds of those who saw him were that blind not see he was among the top 5 circa 1960.


OK.
That's fine, but then if you agree with that position then you must still have 5 pre-Rocky heavyweights rated above him on your list, right ?
If the boxing scribes and historians of 1960 were right then, they are still right now.

So, who do you rate above Marciano who came before him ?

[Dempsey1238]

OK.
That's fine, but then if you agree with that position then you must still have 5 pre-Rocky heavyweights rated above him on your list, right ?
If the boxing scribes and historians of 1960 were right then, they are still right now.

So, who do you rate above Marciano who came before him ?

Well the normal names, Jim Corbett, Jim Jeff, Bob Fitz, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson. Gene Tunney. Most of these names would have been rated over the Rock at the time.

[Sonny's jab]

Well the normal names, Jim Corbett, Jim Jeff, Bob Fitz, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson. Gene Tunney. Most of these names would have been rated over the Rock at the time.

Yeah, sure, they probably were by many of the people offering all-time ratings.

But I wouldn't rate all of those fighters above Marciano now. Would you ?

I think Mendoza was implying that the historians/scribes of 1960 must have been correct, they cant all have been wrong. So, that means that Mendoza must have about 5 pre-Marciano fighters rated higher on his current list ?
(Or at least that's how I understood it).

I'm just interested in which pre-50s heavywewights Mendoza would rate above Marciano.

[Dempsey1238]

Yeah, sure, they probably were by many of the people offering all-time ratings.

But I wouldn't rate all of those fighters above Marciano now. Would you ?

I think Mendoza was implying that the historians/scribes of 1960 must have been correct, they cant all have been wrong. So, that means that Mendoza must have about 5 pre-Marciano fighters rated higher on his current list ?
(Or at least that's how I understood it).

I'm just interested in which pre-50s heavywewights Mendoza would rate above Marciano.

Well What other names ARE there to be rate over Marciano pre 1960 of couse. Ali and Liston have not reach the top of there games yet.
Most peope that did the rankings grew up in Dempsey's time though. With the Million $ gates. In fact, when Louis retire, Dempsey was rated number 1. And here is a guy that spend a good amout of his title rein, well OUT of the ring.

[Sonny's jab]

Well What other names ARE there to be rate over Marciano pre 1960 of couse. Ali and Liston have not reach the top of there games yet.
Most peope that did the rankings grew up in Dempsey's time though. With the Million $ gates. In fact, when Louis retire, Dempsey was rated number 1. And here is a guy that spend a good amout of his title rein, well OUT of the ring.

That's all good.
But my question was quite specific, and addressed to Mendoza.

Which pre-50s heavyweights does Mendoza rate above Marciano on his list ?

[sthomas]

P4P among heavyweight champions, where would Rocky be ranked. P4P against: Lewis, Wlad, Foreman etc.....

[Sonny's jab]

P4P among heavyweight champions, where would Rocky be ranked. P4P against: Lewis, Wlad, Foreman etc.....

If you want to rank the heavyweight champions pound-for-pound, then I cant see any reason not to have Marciano in the top 3.
245 pound guys like Lewis are at a disadvantage here.

[Jack]

49-0 leads many to say he was "unbeatable" and the "greatest of all time" which enrages many boxing fans who know this to be very untrue. The best names on his resume were old as hell when he Kayo'd them, and he damn near lost to one of them.

49 fights. 6 title defenses. Not a greatest of all time stat.
Exactly. On papaer, he is obviously the most impressive of all time at heavyweight, which is untrue. Because you have the idea that he is the greatest of all-time, it leads people to pick him apart more.

I think most people give Marciano the respect he deserves. The best of his era, but it wasn't a good one. He has a deceptive record and probably doesn't rank in the top 5 in most peoples head to head lists. Good fighter, but is often overrated.

[Sonny's jab]

SIX consecutive defences of the championship is impressive.

Not many heavyweights champions have managed more than that.

[ChrisPontius]

I think most boxing experts, i.e. most people posting here give him his rightful spot in the top10 (i have him at #4 even). But under the "general" boxing fan (say, most people in the general forum) who don't really know him, see a goofy looking small guy so he has to suck.
I think he's the best heavyweight pre-Louis and the third best post-Louis.



Looking forward to your next deep thought of the day, John. That Australian beer is a killer isn't it. :D

[Dempsey1238]

SIX consecutive defences of the championship is impressive.

Not many heavyweights champions have managed more than that.

Fraizer got 4
Foreman 3 in both title reins I belive.
Dempsey made 5
Fitz 0
Corbett 1
Walcott made 1
Bowe 0 I belive
Jess Wilard 1 sort of
Johnson made 5 I think
I mean Marciano in regards to title defenses range about in the middle.

Its not bad, but its not up there with Ali or Louis either.
If People are going to rank Bowe in the top ten, and turn around and said Marciano made 6, thus give him a lower ranking in that regard. Is that a double edge sword?

[Sonny's jab]

Fraizer got 4
Foreman 3 in both title reins I belive.
Dempsey made 5
Fitz 0
Corbett 1
Walcott made 1
Bowe 0 I belive
Jess Wilard 1 sort of
Johnson made 5 I think
I mean Marciano in regards to title defenses range about in the middle.

Its not bad, but its not up there with Ali or Louis either.
If People are going to rank Bowe in the top ten, and turn around and said Marciano made 6, thus give him a lower ranking in that regard. Is that a double edge sword?

Bowe made 2 defences, against crap opposition.

Holyfield only managed 3 consecutive defences.

Lennox Lewis made 6 consecutive at the most, if you count his win over Briggs as the "linear title", otherwise it's 3 or 4.

Tyson managed 6 if you count his unification with Tony Tucker as the real title, or 2 if you count his win over Spinks as the championship.

[mr. magoo]

I don't personally have a problem with him, but I often think that a bit too much is made of his unbeaten record. When debating the old school versus the new, its common for a contemporary advocate to point out that the old school fighters had more blemishes on their records than many of the more modern champions. Old school fans will rebuddle by saying that the less pretty records were attributed to the lack of amateur experience as well as the prescense of better competition, hence records mean nothing. Where the contradiction comes into play, is when someone tries to rate a fighter over Marciano, the same fans will point out that he had a perfect unbeaten record. Marciano debates often generate arguments where double standards are concerned.

[radianttwilight]

The more I think about Marciano, the more I want to put him as my #1 heavyweight ATG.

You can't ask more of any guy, honestly. He was small by the day's standards, tiny by today's, and yet he still beat everyone ever put in front of him, mostly via brutal knockout. His training ethic is legendary and his will to win is nearly without parallel.

49-0 speaks for itself. Everyone else lost - except for Marciano. His comp as champ is highly underrated, too - and so is the manner he disposed of them.

As of right now, I have him at #3.

[Sonny's jab]

I don't personally have a problem with him, but I often think that a bit too much is made of his unbeaten record. When debating the old school versus the new, its common for a contemporary advocate to point out that the old school fighters had more blemishes on their records than many of the more modern champions. Old school fans will rebuddle by saying that the less pretty records were attributed to the lack of amateur experience as well as the prescense of better competition, hence records mean nothing. Where the contradiction comes into play, is when someone tries to rate a fighter over Marciano, the same fans will point out that he had a perfect unbeaten record. Marciano debates often generate arguments where double standards are concerned.


I think very good fighters with spotty records often have had issues with matchmaking and management. But that doesn't apply only to an "old school" era.

Also, I believe the old-timers had lots more amateur, or unrecorded pro, or un-regulated amateur contests than is often assumed. So that's not a good explanation.

[joe33]

I loved the guy,he was never a big head,and seemed quite shy at times,a good honest family man,who imo would give fits to any heavy weight that ever laced up the gloves and got in a ring,by the way heres that funny coming to america clip someone was looking for

-CEayuIgB8k

[C. M. Clay II]

I refer to Rocky Marciano as the NFL Version of the 1972 Miami Dolphins, who also went und defeated. Miami won by narrow margin in some games, and ended up undefeated, but very few beleive they would rank in the top 5 best teams talent wise.

Great observation, I always thought the same thing.:good

[Dempsey1238]

Marciano and the 72 Dolphins are nothing a like, Hell even today's New England got a few close calls to that unbeating record.

Yes the Rock had a close call here or there?? But than again who doenst. Ali had close calls vs Fraizer III, Cooper, and Dong Jones.
Louis had it against Conn.
Dempsey vs Firpo.
Robinson vs Turpin II and of couse Lamotta.
Marciano is just as great as any other legend of the ring. I dont see why people are even debating about this. Yes the 72 Dolphins PERHAPS could win the Superbowl to day. There only close call would be New England of couse.

[C. M. Clay II]

Marciano and the 72 Dolphins are nothing a like, Hell even today's New England got a few close calls to that unbeating record.

Yes the Rock had a close call here or there?? But than again who doenst. Ali had close calls vs Fraizer III, Cooper, and Dong Jones.
Louis had it against Conn.
Dempsey vs Firpo.
Robinson vs Turpin II and of couse Lamotta.
Marciano is just as great as any other legend of the ring. I dont see why people are even debating about this. Yes the 72 Dolphins PERHAPS could win the Superbowl to day. There only close call would be New England of couse.

It's not just the close calls, it's the inferior competition. The teams in the Dolphins division were piss poor, none of them were close in making the playoffs. And when they would have lost to the Steelers in the playoffs if Bradshaw was more mature. They got lucky.:good

[Dempsey1238]

And Marciano had pretty great wins, Walcott, Charles and Moore were great fighters. They would have been champs or contenders in about any era.

[sthomas]

Marciano is the ultimate story of triumph, a charmed boxing life. If anything, I think he's underrated, except for the supernuthuggers.

The guy had like 15 amatuer fights & turned pro @ 23 1/2 years old. How many guys have had successful careers with this sort of beginning? Add to that, he was relatively short, had short arms, and appeared clumsy, and some claim he was not very fast. How many guys with this description have great careers. Yet he won it all, defended the title 6 times, KO'd all his defenses except Charles I, convincingly won the rematches with Walcott and Charles, defeated Archie Moore who was still a champion some 7 years later, retired undefeated when there wasn't any competition, and perhaps most impressive of all, he stayed retired!

As far as skills go, his defense was very underrated, just too unorthodox to appreciate, and it set up an offense that was delivered at all angles with serious power.

P4P he's the only guy I would not favor Ali to beat. I'd have to flip a coin.

[Sonny's jab]

Marciano's opposition was excellent really.

[OLD FOGEY]

There will never be another heavyweight champion like Rocky. Whether he is under rated or over rated depends on how you view things.

I lean towards the very bottom of the top ten mostly because Rocky has a " O " at end of his record. I think the “ O “ was a result of talent, careful match making until Rocky was ready, had offs referee’s ( Avoiding DQ’s ) and ring doctors ( Stopping fights on cuts / swelling ), retiring at the age of 32, and perhaps a favorable nod on the judges cards. What can never be under rated is Rocky’s intangibles and will to win.

Reasons why I think Rocky is more over rated than under rated.

1 ) Historians and boxing scribes who saw Rocky had a consensus opinion of placing him about 7th or 8th of all time in the late 50's to early 60's. Nearly 50 years have passed since.

If someone were to ask me who was the best 5 basketball players of all time, Jordan, Bird, Chamberlin, O’Neal and Johnson make the cut.

If someone were to ask me who was the best quarter backs of all time, I'd say Unitas, Marino, Elway, Montana, and Brady.

And the beat goes on. My point here is Rocky did not make this cut in his era, and I for one tend to doubt the collective minds of those who saw him were that blind not see he was among the top 5 circa 1960.

2 ) Film Rocky looks both great and terrible at the same time. Could he afford to fight like this vs better opponents?

3 ) Size. Rocky was short, light of weight, and had limited reach. I believe all three matter in heavyweight boxing.

4 ) Quality of competiton when he met them. Rocky did not face a top 15 all time great when they were in their prime or near prime in my opinion. He beat a collection of older but still good past their prime fighters, who for the most part did not have a lot of power, size, or durability.

I refer to Rocky Marciano as the NFL Version of the 1972 Miami Dolphins, who also went und defeated. Miami won by narrow margin in some games, and ended up undefeated, but very few beleive they would rank in the top 5 best teams talent wise.

"I refer to Rocky Marciano as the NFL version of the 1972 Miami Dolphins, who also went undefeated. Miami won by narrow margin in some games, and ended up undefeated, but very few believe they would rank in the top 5 best teams talent wise."

Seriously, who are these very few. The Sporting News in 2002 picked the Dolphins as the best team ever, and they were loaded with talent. They may have been more talented teams, but I doubt if there were any teams as deep and as balanced with as few glaring weaknesses.
Running Backs--The Dolphins may have had the best corps in the history of the sport. Here are the top five all-time yards per carry leaders in the history of the NFL:
1. Jim Brown--------5.20
2. Mercury Morris---5.14 (halfback on the 1972 Dolphins)
3. Gale Sayers------5.00
4. Barry Sanders----4.99
For a talentless guy, Morris is keeping fairly fast company here. Morris averaged 5.3 yards per carry in 1972. The fullback, Larry Csonka, in the era of two back running games, averaged 5.2 yards per carry. Csonka was possibly the best bet in the history of the NFL to get you one or two yards when you really needed them. The third back, Jim Kiick, was a solid performer in short yardage situations and excellent at catching the ball coming out of the backfield.
Recievers--This is a list of the top yards per catch leaders among recievers in the Hall-of-Fame:
1. Paul Warfield------20.06 (wideout on the 1972 Dolphins)
2. Bob Hayes--------19.98
3. Lance Alworth-----18.93
4. Don Maynard------18.70
Warfield was simply the best reciever of his time. Nor was he all the Dolphins had--here is the yards per catch of the Dophin recievers in 1972:
wideouts
Paul Warfield---------20.9 Yards per catch
Howard Twilley-------18.2 ypc
Marlin Briscoe--------17.4 ypc
Otto Stowe----------21.2 ypc
tight ends
Jim Mandich---------15.3 ypc
Marv Fleming--------12.0 ypc
This was certainly a very talented and explosive group. Briscoe, by the way, was, I think, the first black quarterback in the NFL-certainly one of the first. Fleming had started on three championship teams in Green Bay.
Quarterbacks--Bob Griese was an accurate passer and the type of quarterback who rarely made mistakes. One can argue he was not as good as some other championship quarterbacks, but what separates Miami is the quality of their backup. Earl Morrall was a former NFL and Super Bowl MVP-Griese was hurt in the 6th game in 1972 and Morrall led the Dolphins to 9 straight victories. He led the league with 9.07 yards per pass, generally considered the best measurement of quarterback effectiveness. No top team in the history of the NFL had two better quarterbacks.
Offensive line--led by Hall of Famer Larry Little, the Dolphin line was considered by far the best of the era.
Defense--The Dolphins 'no name" defense led the league both in least yardage allowed and fewest points allowed. They were tougher to score on then the Steelers' steel curtain in both 1972 and 1973.
Kicking--There were no better placekicker or punter in the league than Garo Yepremian and Larry Seiple.

Bottom line--The Dolphins are the only team in NFL history to lead the league in most offensive yards and fewest defensive yards, as well as both scoring offense and scoring defense, and they repeated as champions. Warfield, Csonka and Kiick jumping leagues ruined their chances of ever regaining their championship after the most narrow of defeats in 1974. A superficial arguement belittling the Dolphins does not lend much credence to similar superficial arguments belittling Marciano.

[OLD FOGEY]

It's not just the close calls, it's the inferior competition. The teams in the Dolphins division were piss poor, none of them were close in making the playoffs. And when they would have lost to the Steelers in the playoffs if Bradshaw was more mature. They got lucky.:good

When was Bradshaw supposed to get mature? The fact is the Dolphins in 1972 and 1973 defeated every Super Bowl team from 1969 through 1977. It is hard to argue they didn't meet the best. Also, they had to go to Pittsburg in 1972. They won with a backup quarterback and they won on the road and they came back and beat Pittsburg the next year also.
And, by the way, even if you think Pittsburg became better at some point--so what. A lot of people rate the 1970's Steelers the best team of all time.
Also, unlike many top teams, the Dolphins defeated their chief rivals. They beat Pittsburg at Pittsburg and Washington in the Super Bowl. The 1962 Packers were blown out at Detroit and never played them again. In 1967, the 9-4-1 Packers lost to the Colts who in turn lost only one game all year but were eliminated by the Rams who the next week had to go to Green Bay where they came up flat. The 1979 Steelers were crushed by San Diego but never had to go to San Diego to reverse the result as San Diego blew a close one in an early playoff to the Oilers. The 1985 Bears were blown away by the Dolphins but the Dolphins were eliminated in the semis by a New England team that was a setup for the Bears.
Sure the Dolphins had some luck and there were close games, but they had to be very, very, very good to go undefeated.

[mr. magoo]

Also, I believe the old-timers had lots more amateur, or unrecorded pro, or un-regulated amateur contests than is often assumed. So that's not a good explanation.

Don't tell me. Its not my explanation, but it certainly seems to be the token excuse everytime a debate comes up about an old school fighter's record.

[Sonny's jab]

Don't tell me. Its not my explanation, but it certainly seems to be the token excuse everytime a debate comes up about an old school fighter's record.

Yeah, I know it's not your explanation.
I agree with you that it's not a good one.

Management is often a reason for spotty records though, also we should really consider what a fighter did when they were enjoying their best run, it's where they arrived at that matters more than where they came from.

I understand that a fighter with a good amateur reputation will be more likely to enjoy a well-managed career, and can often live as a full-time pro from day one, and matched carefully.
The management side of boxing has evolved tremendously. But still, there are good fighters these days who have come through with spotty records.

Then again, some fighters just need to grow and improve. Buster Douglas was destined to be better than quitting against Mike "The Giant" White, but for whatever reason that result did occur. Buster Douglas did something about the situation, and eventually became a very good boxer who beat Mike Tyson.

Henry Armstrong was knocked out in 3 in his first pro fight, accotding to the record books.
Same with Benny Leonard.

Armstrong was 1-3 after four fights.
All great fighters go through a learning process, all of them make massive improvements. Whether they were KO'd or embarrassed in the gym, in the amateurs, or as a pro, it happens to them all at one point.

So pristine records shouldnt mean that much, because they always tell as part of the story parts of that learning/improvement phase.

At his best Rocky Marciano beat the best guys in the world, and didn't lose to them. That's what matters, really. If he'd lost 3 of his first four fights - like Armstrong - we'd still recognize his greatness. But if he had gone 49-0 against utter palookas and tomato cans we wouldn't even be discussing him.

That's my take.

[mr. magoo]

But if he had gone 49-0 against utter palookas and tomato cans we wouldn't even be discussing him.



Oh common,

You mean you have no fondness for Brian Neilson for beating some of the utter palookas that he fought? He was the palooka king. In fact I'm thinking about writing some sort of rhiming tune in honor of him.

Something like this

Mooka-Mooka-Mooka---Neilson the king of Palooka----Mooka Mooka Mooka Just come and have a looka!!!

Okay, back to my day job:good

[Mendoza]

Mendoz says:

1 ) Historians and boxing scribes who saw Rocky had a consensus opinion of placing him about 7th or 8th of all time in the late 50's to early 60's. Nearly 50 years have passed since.

If someone were to ask me who was the best 5 basketball players of all time, Jordan, Bird, Chamberlin, O’Neal and Johnson make the cut.

If someone were to ask me who was the best quarter backs of all time, I'd say Unitas, Marino, Elway, Montana, and Brady.

And the beat goes on. My point here is Rocky did not make this cut in his era, and I for one tend to doubt the collective minds of those who saw him were that blind not see he was among the top 5 circa 1960.

OK.
That's fine, but then if you agree with that position then you must still have 5 pre-Rocky heavyweights rated above him on your list, right ?
If the boxing scribes and historians of 1960 were right then, they are still right now.

So, who do you rate above Marciano who came before him ?

To answer your question directly, I only have three. They are Jeffries, Dempsey, and Louis. However, I didn't see enough Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, Langford, Wills, McVey to judge. Many of the people I was referring to in the 1950’s did.

Dominate athletes tend to jump out and instantaly challenge past greats. Rocky was not held as high in esteem by the press or the historians in his own time.

[Mendoza]

It's not just the close calls, it's the inferior competition. The teams in the Dolphins division were piss poor, none of them were close in making the playoffs. And when they would have lost to the Steelers in the playoffs if Bradshaw was more mature. They got lucky.:good

No one in football pretends the 1972 Dolphins would win a super bowl in the modern football era. They simply did not have the size or speed to match up with modern teams. I also believe they lacked the athletes of some of the other great teams after them.

The entire 1972 Miami Dolphins team passed for 2,076 yards, 17TD, 12 INT. That is it in 14 games.


The 1972 Dolphins team did go un-defeated, but like C.M Clay says things were in flux them. The Steelers, Cowboys, and Raiders were about to emerge. This parallels with Rocky Marciano. Charles, Walcott, and Louis were on the outs. Marciano was at his best. Patterson, Ingo and Liston were on the horizon.

The Dolphins were not the best team in their own decade. Pittsburgh and Dallas were better. And before them Green Bay was better in the 1960's.

[Sonny's jab]

To answer your question directly, I only have three. They are Jeffries, Dempsey, and Louis. However, I didn't see enough Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, Langford, Wills, McVey to judge. Many of the people I was referring to in the 1950’s did.

Dominate athletes tend to jump out and instantaly challenge past greats. Rocky was not held as high in esteem by the press or the historians in his own time.

I guess none of us are in the position to know exactly how the likes of Sullivan and Fitz and McVey shape up against Marciano.

I notice you dont rate Johnson above Marciano, but all of those historians you refer to would have done, right ?

On your last point, were many of these boxing historians and scribes instantly impressed to that degree by a young Muhammad Ali ?

[Mendoza]

I guess none of us are in the position to know exactly how the likes of Sullivan and Fitz and McVey shape up against Marciano.

I notice you dont rate Johnson above Marciano, but all of those historians you refer to would have done, right ?

On your last point, were many of these boxing historians and scribes instantly impressed to that degree by a young Muhammad Ali ?


Correct, none of us in 2008 are in position to know exactly what the likes of Sullivan, Ftiz, McVey et al had. I think Johnson is compeletly over rated and I can say this because there is a good amount of film on him. I rate Rocky over Johnson even though Johnson beat better fighters on paper.

Ali turned people off by in the 1960’s by being what many people perceived to be anti USA with his Black Muslim stances. I don't think Ali did enough to be top 5 until he beat Frazier, Foreman, and Norton. Having said that, old time critics did agree that Ali was the fastest of the champions. The critics were instantly impressed by Ali's speed.


I think Ali was on his way up into the top ten, until Frazier beat him in 1971.

[OLD FOGEY]

No one in football pretends the 1972 Dolphins would win a super bowl in the modern football era. They simply did not have the size or speed to match up with modern teams. I also believe they lacked the athletes of some of the other great teams after them.

The entire 1972 Miami Dolphins team passed for 2,076 yards, 17TD, 12 INT. That is it in 14 games.


The 1972 Dolphins team did go un-defeated, but like C.M Clay says things were in flux them. The Steelers, Cowboys, and Raiders were about to emerge. This parallels with Rocky Marciano. Charles, Walcott, and Louis were on the outs. Marciano was at his best. Patterson, Ingo and Liston were on the horizon.

The Dolphins were not the best team in their own decade. Pittsburgh and Dallas were better. And before them Green Bay was better in the 1960's.

The NFL is always in flux. What is this supposed to mean? Miami had the best single season record in NFL history (1972)-The best two year record (1972-1973), the best 3 year record (1971-1973) & the best 4 year record (1971-1974). They won in 1972 and 1973 defeating the best teams available, as I pointed out. Many of the other great teams did not defeat their chief rivals. How many teams have had the best regular season record for two straight years and swept the playoffs. Not many. Dallas beat them in 1971 but lost to Miami in 1973. Pittsburg lost in 1972 and 1973. Oakland won a close one in Oakland in 1973 but was crushed in the playoffs. You have an unsubstantiated opinion that this or that team would have beaten Miami, but the fact is they were the best team until they began losing stars (Warfield, Csonka, Kiick, Buoniconti, Fernandez).
As for Miami not winning today-neither would Green Bay, Oakland, Dallas, or Pittsburg. None of these teams, with their largest players in the 260 lb class and playing under vastly different rules, could compete today. But in their time and place, Miami was a superior team.

I looked up the stats on 1972 Miami and 2007 New England. There are interesting. Remember that the rules have changed a great deal and even the field--the hash marks have been moved closer to the middle of the field.
points per game---New England 36.8, Miami 27.5
Defensive points allowed---New England 17.1, Miami 12.2
Yards per passing play-----New England 8.3, Miami 8.6
Yards per running play-----New England 4.1, Miami 4.8
defensive yards per rush----New England 4.9, Miami 4.0
defensive yards per pass--New England 6.4, Miami 5.8

Clearly you couldn't match these teams as the rules have changed and players are so much bigger, but in their own time, Miami has by far the better rushing attack and also the better rushing defense. New England, great as they are, are vulnerable to the rush. Miami had a great rushing attack. One can claim Miami would have lost to this team or that team, but a look at the stats shows that they were a balanced team without a weakness. They averaged more yards per rush and per pass than New England, and gave up fewer yards per rush and fewer yards per pass than New England. New England still has a ways to go to be 32-2 over two years.

[JohnThomas1]

Looking forward to your next deep thought of the day, John. That Australian beer is a killer isn't it. :D

Well it must surely be coming this weekend now ya mention it. I'll see what i can conjure up. I've stayed out of this one and let others run it's course. Enjoyed every reply actually. Some good points of view from different ends of the spectrum. Agree with what you said too.

Has Suzie been in?

:D

[Longhhorn71]

"He was not a Superman, he was one of us."

The first time I saw The Rock "live" was in 1953 on our small
round black & white TV and my Dad had invited his construction buddies to come over to watch the fight. Dad went back to get the brewski's for everyone, and Marciano then knocked out Walcott in the first ound before he could get back to see any of the fight.

:-)

[ChrisPontius]

Longhhorn, what was your opinion of him back then and how has it changed since you saw him again ?