Rocky Marciano has a very good case for #1...

[FrankieCas]

for the reasons posted by Carmelo Modica:


My list of the top 5 heavyweights is:

1. Marciano, and in the next four positions, in no particular order: Dempsey, Louis, Tunney, Ali.

It isn't apparent at first, but when you start comparing Marciano's fights to any of the 70's boxers, you start to see what made Marciano almost unbeatable. He had virtually endless stamina, in fact he had the best stamina in boxing history. He punched for 15 rounds and never got tired. He would never give his opponent a second to catch his breath. Could you imagine if Ali had fought Marciano instead of Frazier? There would be no "cruising" through a round to recover energy. Ali would have been KO'd if he slowed down even for one second against Marciano. Watch the first Ezzard Charles-Rocky Marciano fight. No cruising allowed. Plus he was small enough to hit anyone on the chin. His bigger opponents were all brutalized. I would give George Foreman little chance against him. To beat Marciano, it would take a fast, smaller man like Gene Tunney, to outbox him and win a decision. But it would have to be Tunney on his best day ever. Marciano had better stamina than Dempsey. You would have to hit Rocky frequently to win points, but each time you hit, he would have a good chance to hit you with his stronger punches. Two guys tried to stick-and-move Marciano: Roland LaStarza and Harry Kid Matthews. They were both KO'd. LaStarza lost by SD the first time, but even there he was floored for 7. Marciano had lost a round for a low blow, or it would have been unanimous.

Every strategy has been tried against Marciano. Joe Walcott tried to give him everything he had in round one, in an attempt to knock him out early. Marciano was floored for 2 seconds and got up as if nothing had happened, and proceeded with his usual slow-but-steady demolition.

I think Tunney, LaStarza and Ali would have been capable of beating Marciano on points in maybe one out of five fights. But no more than that. Watch the LaStarza and Matthews fights on youtube and you'll see why I'm so pessimistic.

[FrankieCas]

And because of his dedication:


From Joyce Carol Oates' essay/book "On Boxing" :

"..... Marciano was willing to seclude himself from the world, including his wife and family, for as long as three months before a fight. Apart from the grueling physical ordeal of this period and the obssessive preoccupation with diet and weight and muscle tone, Marciano concentrated on one thing : the upcoming fight. Every minute of his life was defined in terms of the opening second of the fight. In his training camp the opponent's name was never mentioned in Marciano's hearing, nor was boxing as a subject discussed. In the final month Marciano would not write a letter since a letter related to the outside world. During the last ten days before a fight he would see no mail, make no telephone calls, meet no new acquaintances. During the week before the fight he would not shake hands. Or go for a ride in a car, however brief. No new foods ! No dreaming of the morning after the fight ! For all that was not the fight had to be excluded from consciousness. When Marciano worked out with a punching bag he saw his opponent before him, when he jogged he saw his opponent close beside him, no doubt when he slept he "saw" his opponent constantly - as the cloistered monk or nun chooses by an act of fanatical will to "see" only God.
Madness ? - or merely discipline ? - this absolute subordination of the self. In any case, for Marciano, it worked."

[BlackWater]

How would he deal with someone like Tyson?

[Nick Balsamo]

Foreman, Liston and Lewis would hurt him badly.

[salsanchezfan]

for the reasons posted by Carmelo Modica:


My list of the top 5 heavyweights is:

1. Marciano, and in the next four positions, in no particular order: Dempsey, Louis, Tunney, Ali.

It isn't apparent at first, but when you start comparing Marciano's fights to any of the 70's boxers, you start to see what made Marciano almost unbeatable. He had virtually endless stamina, in fact he had the best stamina in boxing history. He punched for 15 rounds and never got tired. He would never give his opponent a second to catch his breath. Could you imagine if Ali had fought Marciano instead of Frazier? There would be no "cruising" through a round to recover energy. Ali would have been KO'd if he slowed down even for one second against Marciano. Watch the first Ezzard Charles-Rocky Marciano fight. No cruising allowed. Plus he was small enough to hit anyone on the chin. His bigger opponents were all brutalized. I would give George Foreman little chance against him. To beat Marciano, it would take a fast, smaller man like Gene Tunney, to outbox him and win a decision. But it would have to be Tunney on his best day ever. Marciano had better stamina than Dempsey. You would have to hit Rocky frequently to win points, but each time you hit, he would have a good chance to hit you with his stronger punches. Two guys tried to stick-and-move Marciano: Roland LaStarza and Harry Kid Matthews. They were both KO'd. LaStarza lost by SD the first time, but even there he was floored for 7. Marciano had lost a round for a low blow, or it would have been unanimous.

Every strategy has been tried against Marciano. Joe Walcott tried to give him everything he had in round one, in an attempt to knock him out early. Marciano was floored for 2 seconds and got up as if nothing had happened, and proceeded with his usual slow-but-steady demolition.

I think Tunney, LaStarza and Ali would have been capable of beating Marciano on points in maybe one out of five fights. But no more than that. Watch the LaStarza and Matthews fights on youtube and you'll see why I'm so pessimistic.



...........Unless someone can show me Marciano's results in a Vo2 max. test, any claim that he has "the greatest stamina in boxing history" is really a rather silly claim. There is no way to tell that.

The rest of it is just fanboy stuff. Great fighter, for sure, but.......

[Bokaj]

Which rounds did you see Ali "cruise" against Frazier? I can't remember one round in their three meetings where Frazier let Ali have an easy time. Ali did slow down in some rounds, but that didn't mean Frazier did.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if Frazier's punch output was better on average than Marciano's. Manilla is said to be the HW title fight with most punches thrown, and this when both guys was well past their prime.

As for Ali-Marciano... Anything a 38 year old Walcott could do, a prime Ali could do way better.

[TommyV]

Be sure that there is a reason I clicked on this thread, and that is to rofl.

:rofl

That is all.

[dmille]

A monster two-handed puncher like Foreman given "little chance". ALL heavyweight punchers always have a chance.

[he grant]

He ws faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound ... :patsch .... there is nothing like Marciano fans .. they think he was a messiah ...

Rocky was a great crusierweight ... a warrior, great power, chin, heart and stamina ... however guys, he was human.

[Dempsey1238]

And Ali is a God.

[dmille]

.. they think he [is] a messiah ...

I believe you might be thinking of a certain US politician...

[heehoo]

Tyson, Foreman, Dempsey and Frazier would give The Rock hell.

[TommyV]

Rest by sured that Liston, Lewis and Holmes would all school Marciano.

Foreman and Tyson would probably TKO him. Dempsey likewise.

[mr. magoo]

As much as I truly respect and admire Rocky Marciano, I think awarding him the position of #1, is a very difficult case to make. Granted, he is the only heavyweight champion to have never lost a pro match, defeated several hall of famers in convincing fashion, and at one point, had the the highest win/Ko ratio ever, until Foreman surpassed it. All of the above acheivments have cemmented Marciano's place in my personal top five, but I can't see rating him as number one. While the man certainly had quality as opposed to quanitity on his side, 7 title fights is not that many when compared to the resumes of Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali. Addtionally, I think those two men defeated a larger number of all time greats who were at or near their primes.

[Marciano Frazier]

As much as I truly respect and admire Rocky Marciano, I think awarding him the position of #1, is a very difficult case to make. Granted, he is the only heavyweight champion to have never lost a pro match, defeated several hall of famers in convincing fashion, and at one point, had the the highest win/Ko ratio ever, until Foreman surpassed it.
It's the FIGHTS/KOs ratio that matters, not wins/KOs. Otherwise, a guy who's 3-10 (3 KOs) has a higher knockout percentage than Foreman or Marciano. Marciano has the highest knockout percentage of any linear heavyweight champions.

All of the above acheivments have cemmented Marciano's place in my personal top five, but I can't see rating him as number one. While the man certainly had quality as opposed to quanitity on his side, 7 title fights is not that many when compared to the resumes of Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali. Addtionally, I think those two men defeated a larger number of all time greats who were at or near their primes.
Marciano had fewer title fights than Ali and Louis, but they had far more "throw-away" title fights than he did; Marciano had only one semi-throw-away title defense, that being the Cockell fight, which was still against a legitimate contender. Ali and Louis made a substantial portion of their title defenses against guys like Bob Roper, Richard Dunn, an old, shot-in-the-gut Cleveland Williams, etc. who were clearly not qualified challengers. Thus, I think the overall "substance" of Marciano's title reign as compared with Ali's and Louis' is much closer than an unadulterated "number-of-title-fights" statistic would lead one to believe.
Of course, even still, Ali and Louis had far greater top-tier longevity than Marciano did, with Rocky only fighting at the elite level for about five years in total, whereas they each had a span of three times that length in which they were competing near the top. If one places great emphasis on longevity, then yes, it is difficult to place Marciano ahead of Ali or Louis. I, too, place a good deal of emphasis on longevity, and so I also rank Ali and Louis ahead of Marciano; however, if one's criteria are slightly different, I think an all-time #1 ranking for Marciano is entirely reasonable. Surely it can't be unreasonable to rank the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history who had the most consecutive wins and highest knockout average of any linear champion, was 7-0 with 6 knockouts in world title fights, and defeated all of the top four to five best opponents of his era in clear-cut and decisive fashion as the greatest in history. For me, he's #4, but if one is being objective, I think the case for placing him as high as one wishes has to be seen as reasonable.

[tylerrcurtis]

not 1 i say he is deff top ten but i think he is a tad overrated due to the 49-0 record

[PowerPuncher]

You can make a case for Marciano being No1 but I stopped reading after seeing Dempsey and Tunney in his top5

[he grant]

Dempsey: Exactly ...

Magoo: BY the way, great ass !!!

[mr. magoo]

It's the FIGHTS/KOs ratio that matters, not wins/KOs. Otherwise, a guy who's 3-10 (3 KOs) has a higher knockout percentage than Foreman or Marciano. Marciano has the highest knockout percentage of any linear heavyweight champions.




Marciano had fewer title fights than Ali and Louis, but they had far more "throw-away" title fights than he did; Marciano had only one semi-throw-away title defense, that being the Cockell fight, which was still against a legitimate contender. Ali and Louis made a substantial portion of their title defenses against guys like Bob Roper, Richard Dunn, an old, shot-in-the-gut Cleveland Williams, etc. who were clearly not qualified challengers. Thus, I think the overall "substance" of Marciano's title reign as compared with Ali's and Louis' is much closer than an unadulterated "number-of-title-fights" statistic would lead one to believe.
Of course, even still, Ali and Louis had far greater top-tier longevity than Marciano did, with Rocky only fighting at the elite level for about five years in total, whereas they each had a span of three times that length in which they were competing near the top. If one places great emphasis on longevity, then yes, it is difficult to place Marciano ahead of Ali or Louis. I, too, place a good deal of emphasis on longevity, and so I also rank Ali and Louis ahead of Marciano; however, if one's criteria are slightly different, I think an all-time #1 ranking for Marciano is entirely reasonable. Surely it can't be unreasonable to rank the only undefeated heavyweight champion in history who had the most consecutive wins and highest knockout average of any linear champion, was 7-0 with 6 knockouts in world title fights, and defeated all of the top four to five best opponents of his era in clear-cut and decisive fashion as the greatest in history. For me, he's #4, but if one is being objective, I think the case for placing him as high as one wishes has to be seen as reasonable.

True.

[A Rock]

the best names on his resume were old men and physically he was very small compared to the HWs of the 60s or 70s.

he was w/o a doubt an ATG but theres no way a prime Joe Louis wouldnt have taken him to school

[Bokaj]

he was w/o a doubt an ATG but theres no way a prime Joe Louis wouldnt have taken him to school

I wouldn't be too sure about that. Marciano matches up pretty well h2h against other ATGs IMO. Foreman, Tyson and Lewis might just be too big, strong and powerful, but otherwise...

[ChrisPontius]

Well, if you can justify Tunney in your top5, then Marciano at #1 is not unreasonable by comparison. I would strongly suggest moving Ibeabuchi in the top5 as well, however.

[he grant]

Dmille: Bullseye !!! very perceptive !!!

[TommyV]

You can make a case for Marciano being No1 but I stopped reading after seeing Dempsey and Tunney in his top5

You actually read that far?

There is no way you can justify having Marciano as the greatest heavyweight of all-time.

[TommyV]

Gene Tunney deserves a place in the top 5 as much as Ali does. Ali beat Joe Frazier and George Foreman, Tunney beat Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey twice. Let me repeat that: he beat Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey twice each.

He was as fast as Ali, and had less power but better stamina. His record of 81-1 speaks for itself. Tunney and Ali were very similar. I never know who to put first on my lists.

I might ask ChrisPontius and Powerpuncher, if there is any logic to your disagreement on Tunney, or are you just shooting your mouths off?

Credit to Tunney for his wins over Dempsey, but it can't be denied that these were at the end of Dempsey's career. Greb, as good as he is p4p (he is my #2) is a natural middleweight.

Tunney does not deserve a place in any top 5 heavyweights of all time list.

[Brian123]

I disagree with Tyson beating Rocky but Demsey-yes.

[Superfuzz]

for the reasons posted by Carmelo Modica:


My list of the top 5 heavyweights is:

1. Marciano, and in the next four positions, in no particular order: Dempsey, Louis, Tunney, Ali.

It isn't apparent at first, but when you start comparing Marciano's fights to any of the 70's boxers, you start to see what made Marciano almost unbeatable. He had virtually endless stamina, in fact he had the best stamina in boxing history. He punched for 15 rounds and never got tired. He would never give his opponent a second to catch his breath. Could you imagine if Ali had fought Marciano instead of Frazier? There would be no "cruising" through a round to recover energy. Ali would have been KO'd if he slowed down even for one second against Marciano. Watch the first Ezzard Charles-Rocky Marciano fight. No cruising allowed. Plus he was small enough to hit anyone on the chin. His bigger opponents were all brutalized. I would give George Foreman little chance against him. To beat Marciano, it would take a fast, smaller man like Gene Tunney, to outbox him and win a decision. But it would have to be Tunney on his best day ever. Marciano had better stamina than Dempsey. You would have to hit Rocky frequently to win points, but each time you hit, he would have a good chance to hit you with his stronger punches. Two guys tried to stick-and-move Marciano: Roland LaStarza and Harry Kid Matthews. They were both KO'd. LaStarza lost by SD the first time, but even there he was floored for 7. Marciano had lost a round for a low blow, or it would have been unanimous.

Every strategy has been tried against Marciano. Joe Walcott tried to give him everything he had in round one, in an attempt to knock him out early. Marciano was floored for 2 seconds and got up as if nothing had happened, and proceeded with his usual slow-but-steady demolition.

I think Tunney, LaStarza and Ali would have been capable of beating Marciano on points in maybe one out of five fights. But no more than that. Watch the LaStarza and Matthews fights on youtube and you'll see why I'm so pessimistic.This is great reading. I agree with you. I have had Rocky Marciano on the top of my list also. There have been lists of the greatest boxers compiled before, and very few have Rocky at the top, but usually just top ten. His head movement is very underrated.

[lfsdan]

He was great but not #1. I just think he'd be too small for some of the other top heavys in history.

[salsanchezfan]

There are several myths being spread here, so I'll tackle them one by one.

1. SIZE: Lots of people say Marciano was too small to compare to today's HWs. But what does that mean? Do big HWs always beat smaller ones? When we think about "big vs small", most of us usually think of the same two fights: Willard vs Dempsey and Carnera vs Baer. If the small guy has talent, his small stature is an advantage, because it's harder to hit him on the chin. According to East Side Boxing's "Rocky Marciano - The Unstoppable Force" web article, Carmine Vingo weighed 220 lbs when he fought Marciano, who was 185. They traded countless hard hooks for 6 rounds, Marciano was staggered several times but never stopped punching, eventually knocking out Vingo and putting him in a coma. Vingo was 16-1 and had never been floored when he fought Rocky. He could have been championship material, but we'll never know because Marciano ended his career like he did to so many of his opponents (see Layne and LaStarza). If the "big guy" theory had any validity, Marciano and Dempsey would have been KO'd at least once.

2. STAMINA: Lee Savold and Roland LaStarza were hit so hard and so frequently that after about 15 minutes they could no longer throw punches, making them sitting ducks for Marciano. Both fights had to be stopped. LaStarza was brought to the hospital to remove pieces of chipped bone from his arms. This is why Marciano's fights seem so easy. People who don't see this think Marciano's opponents were bums, but the reason they looked like bums is that Rocky wore them out with his non-stop hitting. No one in boxing history had anything close to Marciano's stamina. Watch his fights and compare him to other boxers. Then add his punching speed, power and iron chin, and placing Marciano n.1 will become almost an afterthought. Which other boxer can boast all of these attributes? Ali didn't have the power, and suffered against swarmers. Foreman was a predictable puncher, and suffered against elusive boxers like Ali and Jimmy Young. Dempsey had everything except he was lacking slightly in the stamina department. Tyson had serious stamina issues. Marciano would weather Tyson's early storm (like he did with Walcott) and force him into the late rounds, where Marciano takes no prisoners. As for Liston: if Ali could KO Liston twice in 7 rounds, I have serious doubts as to whether Sonny could last through Marciano's 15-round hell for more than a few minutes.

3. AGE: As for the "Marciano only fought old men" myth, let's compare his record to Muhammad Ali's. Marciano took the title from Walcott who was 9 years older than him, but Ali took it from Sonny Liston who, on paper, was 10 years older than Ali, but many believe (including Ali himself) that Liston was almost 20 years older than Ali.

Marciano fought Archie Moore who was 39, but Ali fought Archie when he was 46! And Joe Louis was 37 when he fought Marciano, but Floyd Patterson was the same age when he fought Ali in 1972. Ali also fought Zora Folley (36), George Chuvalo (35), Bob Foster (34), and Cleveland Williams (34) who had recently been shot in the stomach! Ali even had the guts to tease Moore and Williams when they were down.

4. DEFENSES: Marciano only had 6 title defenses, but in each case the opponent actually deserved a shot at the title. Even Don Cockell was a European champ who had recently defeated some of Marciano's opponents. He was ranked n.2 at the time. Ali defended his title against people who did not deserve a shot. What did Chuck Wepner and Richard Dunn do to deserve a shot at the title? I dare you to look at Richard Dunn's record, he had no wins over any decent fighters. Ali could have defended against George Foreman instead, who in the meantime had just beaten Ron Lyle and Joe Frazier. Ali's ridiculous reign was only given a tidbit of credibility when Jimmy Young won a UD over Foreman in 1977.



.............I'm sorry, but your claim that "no one in boxing history" having Marciano's stamina is nothing more than supposition. I need for you to come back at with me with something more than the typical crap of "he just kept coming and wearing you down." That means nothing. Bring me something that spells out exactly how his stamina was so much better than anyone else who was known for great stamina.

I challenge you on this knowing full well it simply cannot be answered. Bit of a trap, you see. What was his oxygen uptake level? Any idea? No, of course you haven't.

[Maxmomer]

Hilarious. Marciano has no case for No. 1 at all. No way he rates higher than Ali or Louis.

[he grant]

The guy loves Marciano. The claims are impossible to prove. What else can you say ?

[SuzieQ49]

I think Marciano is unquestionably a top 5 heavyweight of all time, but not # 1. those spots are reserved for ali and louis.

[salsanchezfan]

The guy loves Marciano. The claims are impossible to prove. What else can you say ?


............True. If this place has taught me anything since I got here, it's that Uber-Fans cannot be dissuaded from an opinion, no matter its precarious grip on reality.

[OLD FOGEY]

Hilarious. Marciano has no case for No. 1 at all. No way he rates higher than Ali or Louis.

Certainly he has a case for #1. If you go the way back among undisputed champions to Figg, Marciano has the highest winning percentage, the highest knockout percentage, the highest winning percentage against rated fighters (since the ratings began), the highest knockout percentage against rated fighters, and the highest winning and knockout percentages against Hall-of-Famers. He is the only fighter to have as many as six victories against Hall-of-Famers without suffering a single loss. He is the only fighter to knock out every rated or ever rated fighter he ever fought, and no one else has come close.

In going over all the champions since Figg, only a handful stand out as having truly unique records. Marciano is certainly one of them. I would rate him along with Cribb, Sullivan, Louis, and Ali for having a record that stamps them as historically unique. Jeffries, perhaps Johnson, Holmes, and Lewis, and Brain and Pearce from the old times, are in the next tier.

I rate him third myself, behind Ali and Louis.

*Concerning Figg and Broughton--I feel I don't have enough info on them to consider them in the above list.

[he grant]

Sal...bullseye!

O.F. Stats are misleading and there are many ways to spin them ...

[OLD FOGEY]

Sal...bullseye!

O.F. Stats are misleading and there are many ways to spin them ...

Winning and losing isn't a mere stat, nor to mention them just spin.

[salsanchezfan]

No one has any scientific evidence of Vitali Klitschko's power, but we have eyes, and with our eyes we see him throw punches and we see the effects of these punches.

With Marciano, we similarly use our eyes and we can see him hounding each opponent, throwing punches throughout the fight. In each case, the opponent can take no more, and Marciano is still fresh at the end (we can see him still throwing punches with great frequency, with our eyes of course).

Other fighters have faded in certain fights, and so we can see (with our eyes, again) that they have less stamina than Marciano.


.............But are you prepared to say Klitschko has more power than anyone in boxing history?

Again, you're giving me nothing here. Just your starry-eyed need to see what you see. It means nothing.

[Bummy Davis]

How would he deal with someone like Tyson?

How would Tyson deal with him

[Bummy Davis]

There are many Things I love about Marciano, Great condition,extreme power, Stamina, great chin,goes to the body and the head well, subtle defence, very good counter puncher for a agressive slugger, but because Marciano is my type of fighter, I put Louis above him .I rate Marciano # 2 next to Joe Louis and because of all of Louis's defences and Dominance but prime to prime who would win is a toss up. I rate Ali # 3 and anyone of them could exchange places in the top 3 but I could put Marciano in as # 1 as well because we have only seen him in his prime and he got out before he began to slip...I do not argue with anyones ratings but that my top 3, Louis Marciano, Ali but I can understand him being # 1 ( he was a snap shot of perfection, held lineal title 6 defences 5 vs # 1 contender 1 vs # 2 contender...Beat Moore who beat everyone in his last defence...top 3 yes...I think Marciano had the style to beat Ali, always did . I think that he is the type of fighter to be a nightmare for Ali but even then...If these 3 where in the same era, none of them would dominate,and they may splt a few between them.... IMO

[mr. magoo]

Ali's ridiculous reign was only given a tidbit of credibility when Jimmy Young won a UD over Foreman in 1977.

I don't get this statement at all...

[Maxmomer]

Certainly he has a case for #1. If you go the way back among undisputed champions to Figg, Marciano has the highest winning percentage, the highest knockout percentage, the highest winning percentage against rated fighters (since the ratings began), the highest knockout percentage against rated fighters, and the highest winning and knockout percentages against Hall-of-Famers. He is the only fighter to have as many as six victories against Hall-of-Famers without suffering a single loss. He is the only fighter to knock out every rated or ever rated fighter he ever fought, and no one else has come close.

That's not enough to put him past Ali or Louis. Not even close. Do you honestly think Ali or Louis (Or Liston or Dempsey or Frazier) had they fought in the same era wouldn't have had similar success? Not to mention both Ali and Louis fought a much higher level of competition than Marciano's.

[Boilermaker]

.............I'm sorry, but your claim that "no one in boxing history" having Marciano's stamina is nothing more than supposition. I need for you to come back at with me with something more than the typical crap of "he just kept coming and wearing you down." That means nothing. Bring me something that spells out exactly how his stamina was so much better than anyone else who was known for great stamina.

I challenge you on this knowing full well it simply cannot be answered. Bit of a trap, you see. What was his oxygen uptake level? Any idea? No, of course you haven't.

Well noone (at heavyweight) threw as many punches late into fights on as regular basis did they?

And no one with that high a work rate in the later rounds, still had the power to knock people out by this time, did they?


If not, isnt that the best way to actually measure stamina (or at least what people consider stamina, as i actually think it has as much to do with heart and will to win as anything else).

[salsanchezfan]

Well noone (at heavyweight) threw as many punches late into fights on as regular basis did they?

And no one with that high a work rate in the later rounds, still had the power to knock people out by this time, did they?


If not, isnt that the best way to actually measure stamina (or at least what people consider stamina, as i actually think it has as much to do with heart and will to win as anything else).



...........Heavyweight-schmeavyweight. They suck by definition. :smoke

The point is, there is no way to prove who had the best stamina any more than we can prove who had the best chin, or even the most power. It's a ridiculous argument from the word go.

[SuzieQ49]

Certainly he has a case for #1. If you go the way back among undisputed champions to Figg, Marciano has the highest winning percentage, the highest knockout percentage, the highest winning percentage against rated fighters (since the ratings began), the highest knockout percentage against rated fighters, and the highest winning and knockout percentages against Hall-of-Famers. He is the only fighter to have as many as six victories against Hall-of-Famers without suffering a single loss. He is the only fighter to knock out every rated or ever rated fighter he ever fought, and no one else has come close.

In going over all the champions since Figg, only a handful stand out as having truly unique records. Marciano is certainly one of them. I would rate him along with Cribb, Sullivan, Louis, and Ali for having a record that stamps them as historically unique. Jeffries, perhaps Johnson, Holmes, and Lewis, and Brain and Pearce from the old times, are in the next tier.

I rate him third myself, behind Ali and Louis.

*Concerning Figg and Broughton--I feel I don't have enough info on them to consider them in the above list.


this is a good arguement

[OLD FOGEY]

That's not enough to put him past Ali or Louis. Not even close. Do you honestly think Ali or Louis (Or Liston or Dempsey or Frazier) had they fought in the same era wouldn't have had similar success? Not to mention both Ali and Louis fought a much higher level of competition than Marciano's.

Marciano fought 8 years. Louis fought 8 years prior to WWII. Marciano went 49-0 with 43 knockouts. Louis went 56-1 with 48 knockouts. Louis was badly beaten by Schmeling in their first fight. Marciano was never beaten at all. You might argue that Marciano had a couple of close fights with LaStarza and Lawry, but then so did Louis with Pastor, Godoy, and Adolph Wiater. It is a tough sell to me that Louis had necessarily beaten better fighters than Walcott, Charles, Moore, and an old Joe Louis. I would agree that he clearly had beaten more second-tier fighters.

Louis did continue fighting after WWII, but few agreed with the decision in his first fight with Walcott and he lost to Charles and Marciano.

Marciano retired at 32 having proved himself clearly better than every single man he fought. Ali at 32 had split with Frazier and Norton and there had also been a tight fight with Jones. Ali did beat Frazier in a third fight, and also Norton, but the Norton victory was another highly disputed fight. As against Louis, Marciano was more dominant to the age he retired and had proven himself superior to each and every one of his opponents. The same can not be said for Ali.

There is a case, I think. If a man is more dominant than any other fighter ever has been, he must be considered at or near the top.

Liston did fight in that era and lost in it to an ordinary lightheavyweight. I think Dempsey fought in a weaker era and he lost several times in that one and had a number of draws, including a newspaper "draw" with Miske in 1918. Frazier both beat Ali and lost four other times to Ali and Foreman, but other than those two I don't see his competition as being as good as Marciano's. No one had Marciano down twice like Bonavena did. It is certainly no cinch that Frazier sweeps the Marciano era.

[r_9-Ronaldo]

As much as I truly respect and admire Rocky Marciano, I think awarding him the position of #1, is a very difficult case to make. Granted, he is the only heavyweight champion to have never lost a pro match, defeated several hall of famers in convincing fashion, and at one point, had the the highest win/Ko ratio ever, until Foreman surpassed it. All of the above acheivments have cemmented Marciano's place in my personal top five, but I can't see rating him as number one. While the man certainly had quality as opposed to quanitity on his side, 7 title fights is not that many when compared to the resumes of Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali. Addtionally, I think those two men defeated a larger number of all time greats who were at or near their primes.
how old were the hall of famers? old enough for pension? pretty close..

[groove]

well if you can be considered no.1 heavy by only beating light heavies then Rocky's your man e.g. beating an old moore that Patterson destroyed but its considered one of rocky's best wins - go figure. talking about the likes of lastarza in the same league as liston, ali or frazier is absurd. those 3 great heavies (liston, foreman, frazier) that ali beat are far greater than any rocky win. did he beat any great heavy who was over 200 pounds?

[flamengo]

I have chosen to read not a single response in regards to the opening thread, as my opinion may be altered... I have always enjoyed the vids of Marciano fighting and the biographies in my library regarding the man. He remains the greatest fighter of his era... whilst he reigned H/W Champ.

Yes, he demolished a very old Joe Louis.

Yes he demolished a very old Walcott after initially takin the title after 13 rounds.... Ko 1 in the return. Wacott was 38 & 39 years of age in the respective fights.

Yes he destroyed Ezzard Charles, who was a well established man, with a great record at the age of 31 and 33 twice.

Both Charles and Walcott managed to stay the distance, regardless of the offensive attack from Marciano.... Marciano was, with out fail, one of the fittest fighters of his weight, EVER. He trained inceasently, due to fact he was always fighting the flab.

Nothing can be taken away from the Records books... 49-0.(43).. and so it shall remain... FOREVER.

Regardless, its our right to ponder the likely out come of a match with Floyd Patterson. As this was a perfect match up.. A match up which escaped us by the retirement of Marciano 12 months earlier.

The same Marciano kod Moore in 9 round... Patterson took 5 rounds..

This match may have resulted in Marciano`s record not remaining intact..

Age would have become the better of marciano against Patterson.

As for Joe Frazier??? I strongly doubt that Rocky had the ability for a man of his size/weight to withstand the unsurpassed quantities of left hooks Joe landed in any fight....

Its in no way, of myself, an attempt to demean Marciano, but its just a clear observation, as far as Im concerned, that Rocky`s timely retirement created an even greater legacy. Not to mention the state of the H/W division at the time. He did all he had to do, alas, so did Dempsey. Had Dempsey remained far more active, he should have taken Tunney to the cleaners.... "To rest is to rust"... Jacks own terminology. The powers that be, dissuaded the match with Wills. Simple.

I truly believe the Marciano was perfectly managed, with himself an insperation to all fighters. His lack of inactivity was a positive influence on his career, as it remains deteramental to many other careers. His timing was perfect for his reign as H/W Champion, and its difficult to imagine he would have remained unconquered with 2-3 years of inactivity during the reign as Champ. These years away from the ring ensured a lot of rust and re-thinking for many other notables...

He remains a top 10 H/W Champion for sure. Top 5 is difficult for me to place him in... Its my own opinion. Cheers.

[Bokaj]

Marciano fought 8 years. Louis fought 8 years prior to WWII. Marciano went 49-0 with 43 knockouts. Louis went 56-1 with 48 knockouts. Louis was badly beaten by Schmeling in their first fight. Marciano was never beaten at all. You might argue that Marciano had a couple of close fights with LaStarza and Lawry, but then so did Louis with Pastor, Godoy, and Adolph Wiater. It is a tough sell to me that Louis had necessarily beaten better fighters than Walcott, Charles, Moore, and an old Joe Louis. I would agree that he clearly had beaten more second-tier fighters.

Louis did continue fighting after WWII, but few agreed with the decision in his first fight with Walcott and he lost to Charles and Marciano.

Marciano retired at 32 having proved himself clearly better than every single man he fought. Ali at 32 had split with Frazier and Norton and there had also been a tight fight with Jones. Ali did beat Frazier in a third fight, and also Norton, but the Norton victory was another highly disputed fight. As against Louis, Marciano was more dominant to the age he retired and had proven himself superior to each and every one of his opponents. The same can not be said for Ali.

There is a case, I think. If a man is more dominant than any other fighter ever has been, he must be considered at or near the top.

Liston did fight in that era and lost in it to an ordinary lightheavyweight. I think Dempsey fought in a weaker era and he lost several times in that one and had a number of draws, including a newspaper "draw" with Miske in 1918. Frazier both beat Ali and lost four other times to Ali and Foreman, but other than those two I don't see his competition as being as good as Marciano's. No one had Marciano down twice like Bonavena did. It is certainly no cinch that Frazier sweeps the Marciano era.

This is a very good point actually. But both Ali and Louis had beaten more ranked opponents at 32 than Marciano, hadn't they?

[McGrain]

Gene Tunney deserves a place in the top 5 as much as Ali does. Ali beat Joe Frazier and George Foreman, Tunney beat Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey twice. Let me repeat that: he beat Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey twice each.

He was as fast as Ali, and had less power but better stamina. His record of 81-1 speaks for itself. Tunney and Ali were very similar. I never know who to put first on my lists.

I might ask ChrisPontius and Powerpuncher, if there is any logic to your disagreement on Tunney, or are you just shooting your mouths off?


Wow. This is a terrible post.

[Loewe]

the best names on his resume were old men and physically he was very small compared to the HWs of the 60s or 70s.


How does this matter in ranking a fighter?

[McGrain]

How does this matter in ranking a fighter?

Level of competition? Shoud always be a factor

[Loewe]

Level of competition? Shoud always be a factor

Nah, I meant that Marciano was smaller than "the HWs of the 60s or 70s".

[McGrain]

Nah, I meant that Marciano was smaller than "the HWs of the 60s or 70s".

Ah, well, I suppose it's felt that it dents his chances head to head. I tend to agree with that although I don't think of it as a clincher.

[Loewe]

Ah, well, I suppose it's felt that it dents his chances head to head. I tend to agree with that although I don't think of it as a clincher.

Debatable if it does. Actually I think Marciano´s size disadvantage is more of an advantage against many fighters. Marciano was excellent at fighting small, pictuere him in his crouch against Lewis. Lewis would have to bow down to jab Marciano which lead him off-balance.

[McGrain]

Debatable if it does. Actually I think Marciano´s size disadvantage is more of an advantage against many fighters. Marciano was excellent at fighting small, pictuere him in his crouch against Lewis. Lewis would have to bow down to jab Marciano which lead him off-balance.

That is fair. On the other hand, in clinches, Marciano will be suffering a weight disparity of 60lbs and is comically outreached. Besides, Lewis was often off balance and suffered less thanmost for the fact.

[Loewe]

That is fair. On the other hand, in clinches, Marciano will be suffering a weight disparity of 60lbs and is comically outreached. Besides, Lewis was often off balance and suffered less thanmost for the fact.
I agree but against Marciano I´m sure he would pay. Against Tyson for example his size disadvantage would hurt Marciano. I think some people make to much out of size differences at hw. The difference there isn´t as important as in the lower weightclasses.

[McGrain]

The difference there isn´t as important as in the lower weightclasses.

Yes, it is an important factor, but not a clincher. Overall, Marciano's size would hurt him in a head to head sense, though.

[groove]

liston was undefeated for 10 years before facing Ali. He destroyed Patterson. You think Rocky is going undefeated fighting the likes of Liston, Ali, Frazier, Foreman or Holmes - all great 210 to 225 pound fighters. Frazier lost to 2 greats. Holmes didn't lose til he was 35 years old. Rocky got out at the right time. Credit to him. Maybe Ali shoulda stayed retired in 1967. He woulda remained undefeated but he wouldn't be considered number 1.

[Loewe]

Yes, it is an important factor, but not a clincher. Overall, Marciano's size would hurt him in a head to head sense, though.

vicious circle :lol:

Well, it would hurt him against some and would give him an advantage over others.

[PowerPuncher]

Gene Tunney deserves a place in the top 5 as much as Ali does. Ali beat Joe Frazier and George Foreman, Tunney beat Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey twice. Let me repeat that: he beat Harry Greb and Jack Dempsey twice each.

He was as fast as Ali, and had less power but better stamina. His record of 81-1 speaks for itself. Tunney and Ali were very similar. I never know who to put first on my lists.

I might ask ChrisPontius and Powerpuncher, if there is any logic to your disagreement on Tunney, or are you just shooting your mouths off?

Greb was a 168lb Super Middleweight, he does not figure in Tunney's rank at heavyweight. Dempsey was past prime. What prime elite heavyweight did Tunney beat? How many Heavyweight contenders did Tuney beat? Why did Tunney duck Sharkey and Godfrey?

Tunney isn't on Ali's level

[SuzieQ49]

well if you can be considered no.1 heavy by only beating light heavies then Rocky's your man e.g. beating an old moore that Patterson destroyed but its considered one of rocky's best wins - go figure. talking about the likes of lastarza in the same league as liston, ali or frazier is absurd. those 3 great heavies (liston, foreman, frazier) that ali beat are far greater than any rocky win. did he beat any great heavy who was over 200 pounds?


This guy groove is the same turkey from youtube who posts on all the marciano videos talking shit about how patterson was better than marciano and destroyed moore. bla bla bla. bonehead.

[SuzieQ49]

Regardless, its our right to ponder the likely out come of a match with Floyd Patterson. As this was a perfect match up.. A match up which escaped us by the retirement of Marciano 12 months earlier.

The same Marciano kod Moore in 9 round... Patterson took 5 rounds..

This match may have resulted in Marciano`s record not remaining intact..

Age would have become the better of marciano against Patterson.


Ya this is also the teenage inexperienced patterson who barely eeked out a split decision over B level SWARMER hurricane jackson, hows he going to dealk with a great experienced swarmer liek the rock? patterson got flattened by johannson and liston, his style played right into rocks hands. I like rock by KO. btw marcianos camp challenged floyd in early 1956, pattersons camp turned them down damato said patterson was a year away from being ready for marciano

ps groove wont mention this, but patterson got to fight moore AFTER he already took a horrible beating from marcianos. its safe to say given marcianos track record of ruining fighters.....moore was not the same.

[SuzieQ49]

That is fair. On the other hand, in clinches, Marciano will be suffering a weight disparity of 60lbs and is comically outreached


yes but take into account marciano had unbelievable strength, and great clinching skills and it would be hard for the big men to push him around. Even on film against 215lb Joe Louis on film(outweighed by 30lb), you can see him manhandling pushing back louis all night long, and NO ONE(outside of max baer) was ever able to push around joe louis.

Also take into consideration in modern world marciano would look like a tua/tyson and enter the ring at a solid 210lb.

[McGrain]

yes but take into account marciano had unbelievable strength, and great clinching skills and it would be hard for the big men to push him around. Even on film against 215lb Joe Louis on film(outweighed by 30lb), you can see him manhandling pushing back louis all night long, and NO ONE(outside of max baer) was ever able to push around joe louis.

Also take into consideration in modern world marciano would look like a tua/tyson and enter the ring at a solid 210lb.

I think that Marciano did have freakish strength, but it is not only weight that is an issue. I know you don't particularly care for him, but I think that the footage backs my claim that Lewis is a pretty fine defincive fighter in such situations. Against old-Tyson, he proved very good at getting his weight onto the smaller man, pushing down, draining him. Height is an advantage, same as weight.

Let me ask you, do you think 210lb Maricano would be a better fighter or worse?

[PowerPuncher]

I think that Marciano did have freakish strength, but it is not only weight that is an issue. I know you don't particularly care for him, but I think that the footage backs my claim that Lewis is a pretty fine defincive fighter in such situations. Against old-Tyson, he proved very good at getting his weight onto the smaller man, pushing down, draining him. Height is an advantage, same as weight.

Let me ask you, do you think 210lb Maricano would be a better fighter or worse?

If Toney and Holyfield can handle big heavies, then so can Marciano, and I think Marciano brings similar skills to the Toney who models some of his moves on Marciano (as much as any 50s fighter for me). But with greater stamina, power and strength.

IF Marciano comes in at a ripped 210, he'll be stronger, more powerful and actually a bit quicker due to explosive weight training. It will slow his output down a bit though in a similar way as Holyfield did when moving from 190-210

[McGrain]

If Toney and Holyfield can handle big heavies, then so can Marciano, and I think Marciano brings similar skills to the Toney who models some of his moves on Marciano (as much as any 50s fighter for me). But with greater stamina, power and strength.

I think that's a given.

IF Marciano comes in at a ripped 210, he'll be stronger, more powerful and actually a bit quicker due to explosive weight training. It will slow his output down a bit though in a similar way as Holyfield did when moving from 190-210

You're presuming a bit much for my taste here, especially the speed-weight training part. I'm far from convinced that this is the case.

Agree with you that it would stunt his output though, and as an ATG pressure fighter, you've got to wonder if the extra weight woud make it worth losing his edge.

[PowerPuncher]

I think that's a given.

You're presuming a bit much for my taste here, especially the speed-weight training part. I'm far from convinced that this is the case.

Agree with you that it would stunt his output though, and as an ATG pressure fighter, you've got to wonder if the extra weight woud make it worth losing his edge.

Not if he has a good sports scientist help him add the weight. If he only explosive training focusing on developing white twitch muscle fibre is used and hypertrophy/bodybuilding training is avoided he will become more explosive. 99.9% of boxers don't know what they're doing in adding weight, but you can become quicker.

[McGrain]

Not if he has a good sports scientist help him add the weight. If he only explosive training focusing on developing white twitch muscle fibre is used and hypertrophy/bodybuilding training is avoided he will become more explosive. 99.9% of boxers don't know what they're doing in adding weight, but you can become quicker.

Maybe.

Jones is the most explosively quick fighter of recent times. He never trained with weights, according to what I have.

Toney, on the other hand, who does, has become slower as he has moved up in weight, which is what I expect to see.

[Nemesis]

...........Heavyweight-schmeavyweight. They suck by definition. :smoke

The point is, there is no way to prove who had the best stamina any more than we can prove who had the best chin, or even the most power. It's a ridiculous argument from the word go.

your wrong just accept it :good

[Muchmoore]

Maybe.

Toney, on the other hand, who does, has become slower as he has moved up in weight, which is what I expect to see.

That's probably due to him training on Cake and Doughnuts.

[McGrain]

Just a quick post for those who say "Marciano beat Moore in 9, but Patterson beat Moore in 5". This is a ridiculous argument. Ali beat Shavers in 15, Quarry beaat Shavers in 1. Does that mean that Jerry Quarry is 15 times better than Muhammad Ali?

No.

But both Marciano and Patterson are punching swarmers. So there is a more meaningful comparison.

[mcvey]

Carmine Vingo weighed 189 when he fought Marciano not 220 Marciano was 1801/ only 8 3/4 lbs disparity there ,Vingo was not a huge heavyweight he was tall 6 4 but around 190 for most of his fights .Mathews was 179 when he fought Marciano ,only 5 lbs above LH,The heaviest man Marciano defended againsr was Cockell at 205 ,20 lbs of which was around his middle.If there is one thing Marciano was NEVER proved against it was Big Heavyweights of class ie 220lbs in their prime.Your post is hero worship but has more holes than a swiss cheese.

[McGrain]

Ok. Joe Frazier beat Jimmy Ellis in 5, Shavers did it in 1. This doesn't mean Shavers was better than Frazier. Of course I could come up with 100 examples. These comparisons are meaningless, even if the fighters have the same style.

Shavers hits harder, is a possible lesson we could draw here, although of course we need to investigate it further.

Further investiagion bares it out 100%.

Not all of these results are meaningless.

[Bokaj]

Tunney fought Greb at light heavyweight. Why does this matter anyway? He was a great fighter in any weight class. He beat a 31 year-old Dempsey, hardly past-prime. He also beat other legends like Carpentier and Gibbons. Ali's best 3 opponents (Foreman, Frazier, and Norton) do not measure up to the talent of Greb-Dempsey-Gibbons.

Jack Sharkey was a joke. Look at his record and you will laugh. Just because he won the title (on a hometown decision) doesn't mean he was great. He lost the title on his first defense to Carnera. His record is 38-14. Tunney was ready to fight him, but Sharkey lost the title eliminator to Dempsey, and so Tunney had to fight Dempsey.

Are you for real? The names you bring forward are relevant when comparing Ali and Tunney on a p4p basis, not when when comparing them as HW's.

Tunney's resume at HW consists more or less of convinicingly beating an aging Dempsey, who had been inactive for more than 3 years, twice. Ali's consists of beating Liston twice, beating Frazier twice (while past his prime), beating a peak Foreman while past his prime, as well as beating Patterson twice, Quarry twice, Chuvalo twice, Ellis, Folley, Bonavena, Terrell, Lyle etc, etc.

He also beat Foster, the oustanding LHW of the era. But you probably won't rate him anyway since he didn't beat Monzon... :yep

If you want to rate Tunney higher p4p you might have a case, but saying that his accomplishments at HW in any way can compare to Ali's is just making a fool out of yourself.

[Loewe]

Tunney fought Greb at light heavyweight. Why does this matter anyway? He was a great fighter in any weight class. He beat a 31 year-old Dempsey, hardly past-prime. He also beat other legends like Carpentier and Gibbons. Ali's best 3 opponents (Foreman, Frazier, and Norton) do not measure up to the talent of Greb-Dempsey-Gibbons.

Jack Sharkey was a joke. Look at his record and you will laugh. Just because he won the title (on a hometown decision) doesn't mean he was great. He lost the title on his first defense to Carnera. His record is 38-14. Tunney was ready to fight him, but Sharkey lost the title eliminator to Dempsey, and so Tunney had to fight Dempsey.

:nut Jack Sharkey was inconsistent throughout his career but he fought the best of his days and beat quite a few of them. Sharkey was far away from beeing a joke.

[groove]

This guy groove is the same turkey from youtube who posts on all the marciano videos talking shit about how patterson was better than marciano and destroyed moore. bla bla bla. bonehead.
fuck you. i dunno what you're going on about. i only talk about boxing on this forum. i've never left comments on utube. name me a great heavy rocky beat that weighed the same or a devastating heavy puncher as a Liston or a Foreman?

[mcvey]

What are your sources for this info? According to East Side Boxing's "Rocky Marciano - The Unstoppable Force" web article, Carmine Vingo weighed 220 lbs when he fought Marciano. Watch the short video on youtube of the Vingo-Marciano fight, and you can see how big he was. I could say that all Marciano nay-sayers are just incapable of accepting the 0 in his record, but I'm not going to act like a child.
Vingo scaled his heaviest at 195 in 1949 ,when he met Ernie Conyer ,Conyer had a record of Won 5 lost 4,most of Vingo's opponents had losing records,in fact Vingo NEVER beat a rated Heavyweight.My source? BOx Rec .com .You should check it out before making anymore absurd statements.Ps I own the Marciano v Vingo fight.

[PowerPuncher]

Tunney fought Greb at light heavyweight. Why does this matter anyway? He was a great fighter in any weight class. He beat a 31 year-old Dempsey, hardly past-prime. He also beat other legends like Carpentier and Gibbons. Ali's best 3 opponents (Foreman, Frazier, and Norton) do not measure up to the talent of Greb-Dempsey-Gibbons.

Jack Sharkey was a joke. Look at his record and you will laugh. Just because he won the title (on a hometown decision) doesn't mean he was great. He lost the title on his first defense to Carnera. His record is 38-14. Tunney was ready to fight him, but Sharkey lost the title eliminator to Dempsey, and so Tunney had to fight Dempsey.

:lol: Ok fair play, you're on a wind up, have fun :good

[OLD FOGEY]

This is a very good point actually. But both Ali and Louis had beaten more ranked opponents at 32 than Marciano, hadn't they?

Yes, they had. Records up to age 32 (Mauriello fight for Louis, Foreman fight for Ali)

Top three (champion, #1 or #2 contenders at heavy or lightheavy at some point in career)

Ali fought 11 such men. He went 14-2 with 10 ko's, losing to Frazier and Norton.

Louis fought 14 such men. He went 17-1 with 14 ko's.

Marciano fought 9 such men. He went 11-0 with 10 ko's.

Top five (champion, #1, #2, #3, or #4 contenders at heavy or lightheavy at some point in career)

Ali fought 17 such men. He went 22-2 with 16 ko's.

Louis fought 22 such men. He went 25-1 with 22 ko's.

Marciano fought 10 such men. He went 13-0 with 11 ko's.

Comment--Louis fought a ton more rated fighters, but a strong case can be made that Marciano's top five opponents would be better than Joe's.
Also, while Marciano may not stack up well against against Louis or Ali, who stand out a great deal on this competition measurement, he holds his own with other ATG's. Foreman for example, was 7-4 with 6 ko's against top three contenders and 9-4 with 8 ko's against top five fighters over a much longer career.

[natonic]

I tend to think Marciano is underrated and that the fact that he never lost is glossed over on occasion. I do think it's a tough case to put him at number 1. Top 5 definitely though.

[he grant]

Vingo definately weighed far less than 200. There is no question Marciano , other than the old Joe Louis who was 216 or so, never fought a large heavyweight. I don't know why people can't simply accept him as a great fighter and pass on the super human stuff. It's really over the top ...

[salsanchezfan]

Did you read thaat somewhere or did you pull it out of a hat?


................I just read that he weighed 189.

[Bokaj]

Tunney and Ali are both light heavies who became heavies.

100% of Ali's pro career was at HW. Was even 10% of Tunney's at HW?

So Ali did much more at HW, but Tunney did much more at LHW. Of course this is mainly a p4p discussion, but since Tunney did also become HW champ, it's more than just that.

What he accomplished at other division makes him greater p4p, not a greater HW.

Today we are all making predictions for the light heavyweight Calzaghe based mainly on his SMW achievements, since Jones is only his 2nd fight at LHW. Similarly, we can judge Tunney as a HW and base our conclusions on what he did as a LHW. It's not as absurd as you make it seem.

There is 8 lbs between SMW and LHW. Ali was usually 35-45 lbs over the LHW limit. If you like Tunney's chances against Ali in a h2h scenario, fine, but claiming he's a greater HW based on what he achieved against MWs and LHWs is ridicolous.

I don't think anyone would have Calzaghe as a greater LHW than for example Charles, Spinks or Moore, even if he had achieved a lot more at SMW. A weight class just 8 lbs below theirs.

And by the standard you use Charles must be the greatest HW ever. He has an extremely good LHW record and a solid one at HW as well.

[SuzieQ49]

Vingo definately weighed far less than 200. There is no question Marciano , other than the old Joe Louis who was 216 or so, never fought a large heavyweight. I don't know why people can't simply accept him as a great fighter and pass on the super human stuff. It's really over the top ...

Ive watched studied and read newspaper clips on the 1950s version of Joe Louis, and although far past his prime I would still pick the 1950s version of joe Louis to beat any of the big heavyweights dempsey ever fought. Louis would easily jab firpo to death, he would tee off on morris, old rusted willard would be like louis practicing on the heavy bag, and fulton would be louis toughest test but even then I expect the more skilled better jabber louis to beat fulton and possibly knock him out if he connects on fultons weak chin.



other than the old Joe Louis who was 216 or so, never fought a large heavyweight.



42-11 6'2 230lb Big Bill Wilson......Marciano knocked him out in 1

Respected Fringe Contender 6'5 220lb Johnny Skhor(i have various articles, he is really 6'5, incorrectly listed as 6'2.)......Marciano gave him a one sided beating ended his career. a guy like skhor was just as good as say a carl morris.


Vingo definately weighed far less than 200.


Your right Vingo weighed in the 190s, but he was 6'4 young and had a terrific punch, a very highly rated prospect.

[SuzieQ49]

No.

But both Marciano and Patterson are punching swarmers. So there is a more meaningful comparison.


2 points mcgrain


1. If patterson struggles so much with a B level strong swarmer like hurricane jackson in split decision, how in the world is floyd ever going to be competitive with marciano in 56?

2. Patterson fought moore AFTER marciano already gave moore a horrible beatings. watch the film, moores upperbody movement is non existent in the patterson fight compared to the marciano fight, and watch how flatfooted moore is vs patterson compare to the mobile moore of the marciano fight.

[SuzieQ49]

If there is one thing Marciano was NEVER proved against it was Big Heavyweights of class ie 220lbs in their prime.


He proved himself against world class 215lb Heavyweight Joe Louis. Ill pick that version of louis over the unskilled big blubbery 220lbers dempsey beat.

[SuzieQ49]

I think that Marciano did have freakish strength, but it is not only weight that is an issue. I know you don't particularly care for him, but I think that the footage backs my claim that Lewis is a pretty fine defincive fighter in such situations. Against old-Tyson, he proved very good at getting his weight onto the smaller man, pushing down, draining him. Height is an advantage, same as weight.

Let me ask you, do you think 210lb Maricano would be a better fighter or worse?


Lewis would be a very hard fight for rock, but once again i think it takes the very best superheavyweights in history to beat him, even the good ones wont be able to beat him.



Let me ask you, do you think 210lb Maricano would be a better fighter or worse?[/

better my friend! ur looking at a prime tua/tyson physique!!!

[mcvey]

He proved himself against world class 215lb Heavyweight Joe Louis. Ill pick that version of louis over the unskilled big blubbery 220lbers dempsey beat.
Louis weighed 213 3/4 for Marciano 13 3/4 lbs over his best weight ,and he was 36 years old,HE WAS NOT IN HIS PRIME.

[SuzieQ49]

Louis weighed 213 3/4 for Marciano 13 3/4 lbs over his best weight ,and he was 36 years old,HE WAS NOT IN HIS PRIME.



Yes, but even at 36 years old and past his prime, louis was still better than firpo, fulton, willard, morris.

Louis filled out naturally with age, its not like he put on 13lb of fat, he was a rock solid 214lb.

[mcvey]

Ive watched studied and read newspaper clips on the 1950s version of Joe Louis, and although far past his prime I would still pick the 1950s version of joe Louis to beat any of the big heavyweights dempsey ever fought. Louis would easily jab firpo to death, he would tee off on morris, old rusted willard would be like louis practicing on the heavy bag, and fulton would be louis toughest test but even then I expect the more skilled better jabber louis to beat fulton and possibly knock him out if he connects on fultons weak chin.







42-11 6'2 230lb Big Bill Wilson......Marciano knocked him out in 1

Respected Fringe Contender 6'5 220lb Johnny Skhor(i have various articles, he is really 6'5, incorrectly listed as 6'2.)......Marciano gave him a one sided beating ended his career. a guy like skhor was just as good as say a carl morris.





Your right Vingo weighed in the 190s, but he was 6'4 young and had a terrific punch, a very highly rated prospect.
MARCIANO DID NOT KO WILSON .The fight was stopped in the 1st round because Wilson sustained a badly cut left eye.NO KO AND NO KNOCKDOWNS.
Prior to this fight Wilson had been stopped 4 times,lost two of his last 4, one to Danny Nardico who at 177 was really a LH.SHKOR a fringe contender? I don't think so,his record was w 29 l 18 and he had been kod 3 times,in fact he had been banged out by Walcott in the 1 st round ,in his last fight,Shkor,like Wilson NEVER BEAT A CONTENDER,and he is listed as 6' 2''.Neither of these men qualify as MEN OF CLASS. AND LOUIS WAS NOT IN HIS PRIME SO MY STATEMENT IS CORRECT.

[mcvey]

Yes, but even at 36 years old and past his prime, louis was still better than firpo, fulton, willard, morris.

Louis filled out naturally with age, its not like he put on 13lb of fat, he was a rock solid 214lb.
I have a picture of Louis in his prime skipping rope ,it hangs in my Hall alongside it is picture of him during the Marciano fight ,the difference in body tone and stomach muscles is VERY CLEAR.Louis was still a formidable opponent ,but his reflexes were shot ,he hardly threw his right hand ,relying on his jab and left hooks ,he was clearly past his best,any one who thinks other wise is a fool.

[SuzieQ49]

MARCIANO DID NOT KO WILSON .The fight was stopped in the 1st round because Wilson sustained a badly cut left eye.NO KO AND NO KNOCKDOWNS.
Prior to this fight Wilson had been stopped 4 times,lost two of his last 4, one to Danny Nardico who at 177 was really a LH.SHKOR a fringe contender? I don't think so,his record was w 29 l 18 and he had been kod 3 times,in fact he had been banged out by Walcott in the 1 st round ,in his last fight,Shkor,like Wilson NEVER BEAT A CONTENDER,and he is listed as 6' 2''.Neither of these men qualify as MEN OF CLASS. AND LOUIS WAS NOT IN HIS PRIME SO MY STATEMENT IS CORRECT.


SHKOR a fringe contender? I don't think so,his record was w 29 l 18 and he had been kod 3 times,in fact he had been banged out by Walcott in the 1 st round ,in his last fight,Shkor,like Wilson NEVER BEAT A CONTENDER


THIS STATEMENT IS INCORRECT! In a big upset, Johnny Skhor upset top rated contender tami mauriello in 1947. Johnny skhor in 1950 also beat black contender left hooker rusty payne, who managed to break the monthly ring magazine top 10 heavyweight ratings at the time.

Thats 2 contender skhor beat!


and he is listed as 6' 2''


Incorrect, I have 2 newspaper articles both of which list skhor as being 6'4 and 6'5!!!!!! I will dig them up and post em here





Neither of these men qualify as MEN OF CLASS.


extremley crude Firpo, old shot willard, and the clown they call a fighter carl morris certainly dont qualify as class!!!!

[SuzieQ49]

MARCIANO DID NOT KO WILSON .The fight was stopped in the 1st round because Wilson sustained a badly cut left eye.NO KO AND NO KNOCKDOWNS.

yes but fact remains he didnt get that cut from bending over to tie his shoelaces, he got cut by one vicious marciano left hook which left hoom a bleeding hulk staggering around the ring!

[he grant]

Not just that he weighted 189 but guess what guys .... he staggered Marciano twice during the bout ... that's right, staggered him .... twice ...

[Mendoza]

MARCIANO DID NOT KO WILSON .The fight was stopped in the 1st round because Wilson sustained a badly cut left eye.NO KO AND NO KNOCKDOWNS.

Prior to this fight Wilson had been stopped 4 times,lost two of his last 4, one to Danny Nardico who at 177 was really a LH.SHKOR a fringe contender? I don't think so,his record was w 29 l 18 and he had been kod 3 times,in fact he had been banged out by Walcott in the 1 st round ,in his last fight,Shkor,like Wilson NEVER BEAT A CONTENDER,and he is listed as 6' 2''.Neither of these men qualify as MEN OF CLASS. AND LOUIS WAS NOT IN HIS PRIME SO MY STATEMENT IS CORRECT.

I think Mcvey is getting better.

[SuzieQ49]

how mendoza? have I not already proven 2 facts of his statement to be incorrect? skhor was 6'5, not incorrectly 6'2. also skhor beat two ring magazine contenders mauriello and payne, something mcvey said he did not do!

[SuzieQ49]

Fitchburg Sentinel Described Shkor on Feb. 11 1942 as "six foot four 215lber"




Post-Standard - October 25, 1951, Syracuse, New York described Shkor as "6'4 220lber"


The Lima News - March 14, 1950 described Shkor as "King Sized"






Charleston Gazette - October 25, 1951

"I fought Johnny Shkor and he was 6-foot 4 and about 220 pounds. That won't bother me....."- A small Piece spoken by ROCKY MARCIANO in a interview talking about fighting the much bigger Joe Louis tomorrow.

[SuzieQ49]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Johnny Shkor "the fighting Sailor" 6'4 225lb.

[SuzieQ49]

Here are the ring magazine ratings when Shkor beat payne


Ring Magazine Ratings 1949

1. Jersey Joe Walcott
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Lee Savold
4. Johnny Flynn
5. Joey Maxim
6. Jimmy Bivins
7. Joe Kahut
8. Rusty Payne
9. Pat Valentino
10. Freddie Beshore




Johnny Shkor upset Top Contender Tami Mauriello in 1947, Mauriello was 15-1 in his last 16 fights going into the shkor fight.

1947 Ring Magazine heavyweight ratings the same year skhor beat Mauriello


Joe Louis, Champion

1. Tami Mauriello
2. Elmer Ray
3. Jersey Joe Walcott
4. Bruce Woodcock
5. Lee Q Murray
6. Curtis Sheppard
7. Melio Bettina
8. Joe Baksi
9. Joe Kahut
10. Joey Maxim


* outside of losing to ATG joe louis, mauriello had done nothing to lose that top 10 spot. shkor took it from him!

[mcvey]

Source for Shkor's height being 6 5 please Suzie.Mauriello was rated in1946 but he met Shkor in 1947.Payne was briefly rated no 8 in 1948 ,but he met Shkor in 1949. Payne who ended up with a record of w43 l 23 had lost 2 of his last 3 fights when he went in with Shkor ,and would lose his next 2 to Al Spalding whose record was w 15 l 17 and w 16 l 17 ,not contender material.You seem to add and subtract height from Boxers to suit your argument Suzie ,your last post has Shkor at 6 4 ,before that he was ,according to you 6 5 ,for the record he is listed as 6 2,You do this with JOE LOUIS ,WHO WAS ,ACCORDING TO HIM 6' 1 1/2''.

[mcvey]

Here are the ring magazine ratings when Shkor beat payne


Ring Magazine Ratings 1949

1. Jersey Joe Walcott
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Lee Savold
4. Johnny Flynn
5. Joey Maxim
6. Jimmy Bivins
7. Joe Kahut
8. Rusty Payne
9. Pat Valentino
10. Freddie Beshore




Johnny Shkor upset Top Contender Tami Mauriello in 1947, Mauriello was 15-1 in his last 16 fights going into the shkor fight.

1947 Ring Magazine heavyweight ratings the same year skhor beat Mauriello


Joe Louis, Champion

1. Tami Mauriello
2. Elmer Ray
3. Jersey Joe Walcott
4. Bruce Woodcock
5. Lee Q Murray
6. Curtis Sheppard
7. Melio Bettina
8. Joe Baksi
9. Joe Kahut
10. Joey Maxim


* outside of losing to ATG joe louis, mauriello had done nothing to lose that top 10 spot. shkor took it from him!
Shkor took the top spot from Mauriello?When was Shkor ever rated?

[SuzieQ49]

Fitchburg Sentinel Described Shkor on Feb. 11 1942 as "six foot four 215lber"




Post-Standard - October 25, 1951, Syracuse, New York described Shkor as "6'4 220lber"


The Lima News - March 14, 1950 described Shkor as "King Sized"






Charleston Gazette - October 25, 1951

"I fought Johnny Shkor and he was 6-foot 4 and about 220 pounds. That won't bother me....."- A small Piece spoken by ROCKY MARCIANO in a interview talking about fighting the much bigger Joe Louis tomorrow.





Mcvey i just emailed boxrec, and with these articles they are switching shkors height to 6'4. will you now admit skhor WAS NOT 6'2?

[SuzieQ49]

Shkor took the top spot from Mauriello?When was Shkor ever rated?


Yes shkor was the ONLY man to beat top rated Mauriello outside of Champion joe louis in a title defense. Shkor APPEARED in the monthly ratings top 10 at least a couple times during the late 1940s.


Shkor style was described as a "very big and strong rough and tough fighter from boston who loved to maul his opponents."

[Mendoza]

Source for Shkor's height being 6 5 please Suzie.Mauriello was rated in1946 but he met Shkor in 1947.Payne was briefly rated no 8 in 1948 ,but he met Shkor in 1949. Payne who ended up with a record of w43 l 23 had lost 2 of his last 3 fights when he went in with Shkor ,and would lose his next 2 to Al Spalding whose record was w 15 l 17 and w 16 l 17 ,not contender material.You seem to add and subtract height from Boxers to suit your argument Suzie ,your last post has Shkor at 6 4 ,before that he was ,according to you 6 5 ,for the record he is listed as 6 2,You do this with JOE LOUIS ,WHO WAS ,ACCORDING TO HIM 6' 1 1/2''.

Like I said, McVey is getting better.

[SuzieQ49]

"Walcott knocked out Baltimore's Johnny Shkor in the first round tonight at the arena. ... Walcott came out at the bell, danced around his six foot, four inch opponent ..." Portland Press Herald (Newspaper) - March 14, 1950, Portland, Maine

[SuzieQ49]

Like I said, McVey is getting better.


getting better or getting schooled?

let me ponder 2 question for mendoza


1. Is there not enough sources to verify that shkor indeed at least 6'4?

2. Mcvey said shkor was 6'2, would that not make him incorrect?


3. Now go back to the joe frazier thread, where the MF gave you a schooling.

[SuzieQ49]

Mendoza and mcvey,

will you both conceed to the point that Johnny Skhor was NOT 6'2 and admit I got the better of that arguement?

[Mendoza]

getting better or getting schooled?

let me ponder 2 question for mendoza


1. Is there not enough sources to verify that shkor indeed at least 6'4?

2. Mcvey said shkor was 6'2, would that not make him incorrect?

3. Now go back to the joe frazier thread, where the MF gave you a schooling.

Neither of you were correct on the numbers on Shkor. I made no comment on Shkor, so how could I be mistaken?

However, McVey analysis on records, and going behind the circumstances and numbers is getting better. McVey is also spot on when he says you often make guys you like bigger. Those were my points.

Marciano_Frazier has his points on Frazier, and so do I. The difference is I will concede some of his points, and agree with them, where he less likely to do the same for my points in the Frazier thread. I like Marciano_Frazier because I can learn a thing or two from his posts whether I agree or disagree with him, and I betcha he'd say the same of me.

[SuzieQ49]

Neither of you were correct on the numbers on Shkor. I made no comment on Shkor, so how could I be mistaken?



Question. Are you attempting to claim my 5 sources each and everyone of them listing skhor as 6'4 is incorrect?


However, McVey analysis on records, and going behind the circumstances and numbers is getting better. McVey is also spot on when he says you often make guys you like bigger. Those were my points.


Good for Him, I dont see the revelance. The point was to determine shkors height, in which I thought I clearly demonstrated shkor was INDEED taller than 6'2




Marciano_Frazier has his points on Frazier, and so do I. The difference is I will concede some of his points, and agree with them, where he less likely to do the same for my points in the Frazier thread. I like Marciano_Frazier because I can learn a thing or two from his posts whether I agree or disagree with him, and I betcha he'd say the same of me.


w/e man. In a few years ill be protecting guys like you going on the most dangerous missions in the world if i get through BUD/S training and get on seal team, so I am not going to talk smack about you anymore.

[OLD FOGEY]

how mendoza? have I not already proven 2 facts of his statement to be incorrect? skhor was 6'5, not incorrectly 6'2. also skhor beat two ring magazine contenders mauriello and payne, something mcvey said he did not do!

Shkor defeated four fighters who at one time or another were rated in the Ring yearly top ten ratings. Mauriello and Payne, whom you have mentioned, and also Johnny Flynn, who was the #4 contender in 1948
and Big Boy Brown, who was the #6 contender in 1942 and I believe was recognized by some state boxing commissions as the interim champion. I think you are correct that Shkor was briefly rated in the late 1940's.

Tami Mauriello was highly rated when he fought Shkor. Off the New York Times, there is an implication he was viewed as a/the top contender.

Shkor, in my judgement, could best be described as a fringe contender. I think a good more recent comp is Chuck Wepner. Shkor was erratic and lost a lot, but pulled off wins over Mauriello, Flynn, Payne, Brown, Joe Matisi, and Marty Clark. Wepner has a slightly better won-lost record, but Shkor has a slightly more impressive resume. It comes out close.

It is true Shklor lost to Walcott before fighting Marciano. It is also true he defeated Payne, ranked the #8 heavyweight in 1948, in the fight immediately before the Walcott fight.

By the way, Big Bill Wilson had victories over Gunnar Barlund, Buddy Scott, and Eddie Mader, all of whom were ranked at one time in the Ring's yearly top tens.

[mcvey]

Shkor defeated four fighters who at one time or another were rated in the Ring yearly top ten ratings. Mauriello and Payne, whom you have mentioned, and also Johnny Flynn, who was the #4 contender in 1948
and Big Boy Brown, who was the #6 contender in 1942 and I believe was recognized by some state boxing commissions as the interim champion. I think you are correct that Shkor was briefly rated in the late 1940's.

Tami Mauriello was highly rated when he fought Shkor. Off the New York Times, there is an implication he was viewed as a/the top contender.

Shkor, in my judgement, could best be described as a fringe contender. I think a good more recent comp is Chuck Wepner. Shkor was erratic and lost a lot, but pulled off wins over Mauriello, Flynn, Payne, Brown, Joe Matisi, and Marty Clark. Wepner has a slightly better won-lost record, but Shkor has a slightly more impressive resume. It comes out close.

It is true Shklor lost to Walcott before fighting Marciano. It is also true he defeated Payne, ranked the #8 heavyweight in 1948, in the fight immediately before the Walcott fight.

By the way, Big Bill Wilson had victories over Gunnar Barlund, Buddy Scott, and Eddie Mader, all of whom were ranked at one time in the Ring's yearly top tens.
Not when they fought Shkor.

[mcvey]

Question. Are you attempting to claim my 5 sources each and everyone of them listing skhor as 6'4 is incorrect?





Good for Him, I dont see the revelance. The point was to determine shkors height, in which I thought I clearly demonstrated shkor was INDEED taller than 6'2







w/e man. In a few years ill be protecting guys like you going on the most dangerous missions in the world if i get through BUD/S training and get on seal team, so I am not going to talk smack about you anymore.
"I eat breakfast every day" ,how does the rest go?,No offence Suzie,but you did remind me of Jack Nicholson then.

[mcvey]

Fitchburg Sentinel Described Shkor on Feb. 11 1942 as "six foot four 215lber"




Post-Standard - October 25, 1951, Syracuse, New York described Shkor as "6'4 220lber"


The Lima News - March 14, 1950 described Shkor as "King Sized"






Charleston Gazette - October 25, 1951

"I fought Johnny Shkor and he was 6-foot 4 and about 220 pounds. That won't bother me....."- A small Piece spoken by ROCKY MARCIANO in a interview talking about fighting the much bigger Joe Louis tomorrow.





Mcvey i just emailed boxrec, and with these articles they are switching shkors height to 6'4. will you now admit skhor WAS NOT 6'2?
If they revise his Height I will cheerfully do so ,Stay Well.

[mcvey]

Any more lip from you and I will take a plane and school you "Wrestler Boy".:shock:

[SuzieQ49]

Mcvey you always school me,.... at least let me bake for 5 minutes in the sunlight of my one shining moment!!!!

[SuzieQ49]

Shkor defeated four fighters who at one time or another were rated in the Ring yearly top ten ratings. Mauriello and Payne, whom you have mentioned, and also Johnny Flynn, who was the #4 contender in 1948
and Big Boy Brown, who was the #6 contender in 1942 and I believe was recognized by some state boxing commissions as the interim champion. I think you are correct that Shkor was briefly rated in the late 1940's.

Tami Mauriello was highly rated when he fought Shkor. Off the New York Times, there is an implication he was viewed as a/the top contender.

Shkor, in my judgement, could best be described as a fringe contender. I think a good more recent comp is Chuck Wepner. Shkor was erratic and lost a lot, but pulled off wins over Mauriello, Flynn, Payne, Brown, Joe Matisi, and Marty Clark. Wepner has a slightly better won-lost record, but Shkor has a slightly more impressive resume. It comes out close.

It is true Shklor lost to Walcott before fighting Marciano. It is also true he defeated Payne, ranked the #8 heavyweight in 1948, in the fight immediately before the Walcott fight.

By the way, Big Bill Wilson had victories over Gunnar Barlund, Buddy Scott, and Eddie Mader, all of whom were ranked at one time in the Ring's yearly top tens.


Good Stuff, forgout how Flynn and Brown. Proves my point even further. Wilson and Shkor were no stiffs.

[mcvey]

Mcvey you always school me,.... at least let me bake for 5 minutes in the sunlight of my one shining moment!!!!
You are one of the Premier posters on here ,and I admire your commitment and passion for the sport.I am , however getting a lttle concerned about the frequency that Mendoza is in agreement with me.Time to dig old Jim Jeffries up again I think!

[SuzieQ49]

I know right! usually on 95% of things, me and you are in agreement!

[OLD FOGEY]

If they revise his Height I will cheerfully do so ,Stay Well.

New York Times March 13, 1950

WALCOTT TRIUMPHS BY KNOCKOUT IN FIRST

Philadelpha (AP)--Jersey Joe Walcott, 36 year old, Camden, New Jersey heavyweight, knocked out Baltimore's Johnny Shkor in 1:34 of the first round tonight at the Arena. Walcott weighed 197 and Shkor 216 for the scheduled ten-rounder.
Walcott came out at the bell, danced around his 6-foot-4-inch opponent for a minute or so and then struck with a right to the jaw that floored Shkor as if he had been hit with a blackjack.
The big Polish-American fell flat on his back. At the count of six he started to rise, but pitched forward on his face.
Shkor's handlers and Pennsylvania commission physician Dr Joseph I Leary jumped into the fing and spent five minutes reviving the stricken fighter.

[OLD FOGEY]

Not when they fought Shkor.

New York Times March 14, 1947

Boston (AP)--Johnny Shkor, towering Boston heavyweight, weathered a furious storm to gain an upset eight-round knockout over Tami Mauriello of New York, rated just below Joe Lous, in their scheduled 10 round feature bout tonight at the Arena.


New York Times March 16, 1947

Boston (UPI)--Promtoter Anthony (Rip) Valenti of the Goodman A C today announced that he had offered heavyweight champion Joe Louis $100,000 or 40% of the gate to stake his title against Johnny Shkor of Boston here this summer.
Valenti asserted that Shkor earned the title bid as a result of an 8th round technical knockout over Tami Mauriello of New York in a riotous bout last night. Mauriello had been carded as the #1 contender, despite the one-round knockout suffered at the hands of the Brown Bomber last fall.

[mcvey]

O .F ,have you a source that shows Shkor as a rated fighter I have never seen one ?

[OLD FOGEY]

O .F ,have you a source that shows Shkor as a rated fighter I have never seen one ?

Only what could be a failing memory of one of those old Ring Magazine lists when they give the ratings for a given month.

Shkor was never rated in the yearly ratings.

[Bummy Davis]

Marciano fought 8 years. Louis fought 8 years prior to WWII. Marciano went 49-0 with 43 knockouts. Louis went 56-1 with 48 knockouts. Louis was badly beaten by Schmeling in their first fight. Marciano was never beaten at all. You might argue that Marciano had a couple of close fights with LaStarza and Lawry, but then so did Louis with Pastor, Godoy, and Adolph Wiater. It is a tough sell to me that Louis had necessarily beaten better fighters than Walcott, Charles, Moore, and an old Joe Louis. I would agree that he clearly had beaten more second-tier fighters.

Louis did continue fighting after WWII, but few agreed with the decision in his first fight with Walcott and he lost to Charles and Marciano.

Marciano retired at 32 having proved himself clearly better than every single man he fought. Ali at 32 had split with Frazier and Norton and there had also been a tight fight with Jones. Ali did beat Frazier in a third fight, and also Norton, but the Norton victory was another highly disputed fight. As against Louis, Marciano was more dominant to the age he retired and had proven himself superior to each and every one of his opponents. The same can not be said for Ali.

There is a case, I think. If a man is more dominant than any other fighter ever has been, he must be considered at or near the top.

Liston did fight in that era and lost in it to an ordinary lightheavyweight. I think Dempsey fought in a weaker era and he lost several times in that one and had a number of draws, including a newspaper "draw" with Miske in 1918. Frazier both beat Ali and lost four other times to Ali and Foreman, but other than those two I don't see his competition as being as good as Marciano's. No one had Marciano down twice like Bonavena did. It is certainly no cinch that Frazier sweeps the Marciano era.


Good Post and great logic, not one that swims with the tide but factual

[groove]

your comparisons are crap. ali won the title as a youngster and after only 20 fights. lets compare that with rocky LOL. get fukin real. ali had more defences of the title than rocky when he was only 25 years old and then stripped of the title. ali fights were against better opposition. rocky was fighting tomatoe cans for his first 30 fights. Ali was fighting title championship fights when the rock was only dreaming about it.

[Maxmomer]

Marciano fought 8 years. Louis fought 8 years prior to WWII. Marciano went 49-0 with 43 knockouts. Louis went 56-1 with 48 knockouts. Louis was badly beaten by Schmeling in their first fight. Marciano was never beaten at all. You might argue that Marciano had a couple of close fights with LaStarza and Lawry, but then so did Louis with Pastor, Godoy, and Adolph Wiater. It is a tough sell to me that Louis had necessarily beaten better fighters than Walcott, Charles, Moore, and an old Joe Louis. I would agree that he clearly had beaten more second-tier fighters.

Louis did continue fighting after WWII, but few agreed with the decision in his first fight with Walcott and he lost to Charles and Marciano.

Marciano retired at 32 having proved himself clearly better than every single man he fought. Ali at 32 had split with Frazier and Norton and there had also been a tight fight with Jones. Ali did beat Frazier in a third fight, and also Norton, but the Norton victory was another highly disputed fight. As against Louis, Marciano was more dominant to the age he retired and had proven himself superior to each and every one of his opponents. The same can not be said for Ali.

There is a case, I think. If a man is more dominant than any other fighter ever has been, he must be considered at or near the top.

Liston did fight in that era and lost in it to an ordinary lightheavyweight. I think Dempsey fought in a weaker era and he lost several times in that one and had a number of draws, including a newspaper "draw" with Miske in 1918. Frazier both beat Ali and lost four other times to Ali and Foreman, but other than those two I don't see his competition as being as good as Marciano's. No one had Marciano down twice like Bonavena did. It is certainly no cinch that Frazier sweeps the Marciano era.

I don't agree. Marciano barely fought past his prime, when Ali fought past his he beat two top 10 heavyweights, regained the title and defended it several times against good opposition. Ali beat better opposition during his second career, even after having diminished from three years away from the game, than Marciano did in his entire career. He beat more good/great fighters, he beat more fighters in general and he made more defenses. Same with Joe Louis. Ali and Louis' losses both came against ATG opposition at the top of their game when they themselves were not 100%. Marciano never even fought someone as good as Schmeling was on the night he beat Louis, or Frazier when he beat Ali. I don't rate Marciano highly because I don't care about him being undefeated, it doesn't matter, what matters is who he beat and how he did it. Louis and Ali both beat better fighters and in more impressive fashion.

[Holmes' Jab]

Top 3, maybe: but best ever is a big stretch.

[mcvey]

Only what could be a failing memory of one of those old Ring Magazine lists when they give the ratings for a given month.

Shkor was never rated in the yearly ratings.
I have Ring Magazines back to when Walcott was Champ ,I'll have to go through them.

[mcvey]

Ali fought way past his prime Marciano did not.If Marciano took 3 1/2 years off and came back to meet Patterson how would he do? Lastarza was moved very well by his Manager,he had good ,but not great wins over Cesar Brion and Dan BUcceroni and a split dec over Rex Layne,conspicuous by their absence on his record, are wins over the top black fighters of the period .Lastarza would have been Champ if Marciano never existed ONLY if he continued to avoid these men.Where in any post has someone suggested that Marciano met only chumps? What has been stated is that his best defences as Champion were over a man 38 , a former LH who was nearly 33 ,a LH who was 38 or 40 depending on if you beleived him or his Mother .All these men were a bit past their prime , two of them dropped him , and he was in danger of being tkod by the other .Marciano beat what was around,,mostly,I think he would have beaten Valdes too ,but we don't know for sure .Ali during his first reign eclipsed every challenger ,and he went into there backyards to do it. In his later reigns he kod BIG POWERFUL heavyweights who were ranked.Marciano did not.

[Bokaj]

The paradox we continue to read on this thread is that somehow Marciano went through his entire career fighting only chumps. This means that for 8 years, there was only one decent HW boxer on planet Earth: Rocky Marciano.

Of course this is impossible. It never happened and never will. Why does 49-0 have to mean that the 49 guys were all chumps? Can't it just mean that the guy who beat them was better?

The logic of the Marciano critics is being repeated by today's critics. They said Jeff Lacy was the new Mike Tyson and that he would KO Joe Calzaghe. Then after the fight, all of a sudden Lacy became a chump. They now say, "Lacy wasn't what he was cracked up to be." Undefeated fighters are always underrated because it is automatically assumed that all of their opponents were phonies. So similarly, Calzaghe will never be appreciated like Ray Robinson is. And Marciano will never be appreciated like Ali is.

Marciano's opposition is underrated by people who don't research. If you dig deep into the careers of Marciano's opponents, you'll notice many of them stopped fighting or lost their capability after fighting Marciano. Marciano faced several hard-hitting opponents, like Joe Walcott and Rex Layne. He also faced some great chins, like LaStarza, Layne and Vingo. Of course there is no George Foreman or Muhammad Ali on Marciano's resume. That's because Marciano plowed through everyone who fought him, ending the careers of 14 opponents. Carmine Vingo was 15-1 with 7 KO's, which is remarkable considering his fights always had a 4 or 6 round limit. His only loss was a 4-round decision. Marciano said he was the toughest fighter he ever faced, probably because he got up twice after terrible punishment. Marciano was staggered but never fell. We'll never know what would have happened to lots of Marciano's victims, whose careers were cut short by him. In 1953, fastboy Roland LaStarza was 53-3 and had beaten all of his previous opponents except for Marciano who beat him on a SD in 1950. After the rematch, LaStarza had to have surgery on his arms to remove pieces of chipped bone. This guy would have been champ if not for Marciano.

A truly great fighter eclipses everyone else, leaving no room in the public mind for Fraziers and Nortons. Marciano did this. Ali did not. Paradoxically, Ali is considered better than Marciano not because of his wins, but because of his two losses to Frazier and Norton. Fans somehow deduce that since those two guys beat Ali, they must have been great, and therefore Ali fought in the best era.

Now you're making more sense.

But you're forgetting one thing when comparing with Ali. His losses all came after a 3,5 year exile. Before the exile he was (as you know) undefeated, and had probably beaten almost as many ranked opponents as Marciano did in his career. And he had twice beaten an opponent that was considered invincible before Ali beat him.

It's very possible that Ali's achievements before the exile measures up to Marciano's whole career. He was 29-0-0 (with 23 KO's, which is impressive for a boxer like him) and had easily dominated fighters like Liston, Patterson, Terrell etc.

If you then add what Ali did after coming back from an exile that stole his best years and some of his physical assets...

But I agree with you that Marciano gets sold short sometimes. You can only beat those that are around to be beat, and he did that. Probably my nr. 3 HW.

[Bokaj]

Ali came back from exile at age 29 and lost to Frazier. If Marciano took 3 years off and came back at age 29, he would have KO'd the man.

This I find highly unlikely. Such a lay-off would have lessened Rocky's stamina, dulled his timing and reflexes etc. Under these conditions no one has an easy time against a peak Frazier IMO. I would be surprised if Rocky lasted the distance.

[Grinder]

I think Marciano is often underrated. He KTFO Louis. Was Lewis' chin much worse because he was older? I think if you asked Joe Louis he would tell you that the Rock was one very tough fighter. If he was totally honest, he might even admit that he would have found it tough to beat him on any day.

I think Marciano can be overrated, after all how does he take a shot from prime Tyson, Foreman or even Wlad given that he was smaller than those guys?

In the end it is all extrapolation and we can not be sure. However, when I watch those old fights of Marciano, it is hard to tell if someone has been rocked with a prior punch. Marciano just seems to throw a couple of shots that land and then suddenly his opponent is on the ground. Are these one punch KOs or are they accumulation?

If he is really KTFO these guys with one or two punches, I would start to lay claim that he is #1. After all, who can KO the Rock? Assuming that it will be hard for Foreman, Tyson, Wlad and the rest of the big punchers to land cleanly (Rock's head movement and relentless pressure) then he is going to KO any of those guys. Imagine Rock connecting with Wlad. He might need a step ladder to do it, but if he did Wlad wouldn't wake up for a while.

I think it all depends on whether the Rock's chin could take the big punches from the biggest punchers. If so, he is #1 because he can KO almost anyone in history. Reminder: his chin is considered granite.

We need no argument about his stamina.

[SuzieQ49]

Marciano never even fought someone as good as Schmeling was on the night he beat Louis, or Frazier when he beat Ali.

Maxomer,


I think Walcott was better than schmeling, including the schmeling of that fight. Walcott fought brilliantly too.

[mcvey]

Ali came back from exile at age 29 and lost to Frazier. If Marciano took 3 years off and came back at age 29, he would have KO'd the man (Patterson or anyone else).

It's true that LaStarza never fought Walcott or Charles, but when a champion doesn't fight someone, you should suspect him and not the contender. LaStarza beat everyone he fought from 1947-1953, except for Marciano. It's possible that Walcott and Charles wanted no part of a fast guy who could dance circles around them, and who almost beat Marciano (one judge scored the fight for LaStarza). I'm not suggesting that's the case, but if we are going to be suspicious, we should do it both ways.

The fact you continue to cite Marciano's wins over Walcott and Moore shows that you ignore 95% of his career, choosing to concentrate on the 2 old guys. The "Rocky only fought old guys" nonsense is only ignorance due to the fact that ESPN only shows the Louis, Walcott and Moore fights, usually failing to air the LaStarza, Layne and Matthews fights, which were his best wins (along with the two wins over 33 year-old Ezzard Charles). If you get all your info from ESPN and HBO, then of course you're going to think Marciano only fought old guys. The fact is that the large majority of his fights were against young guys. All fighters have to fight old guys, it's inevitable if they're contenders.

Marciano was floored twice for 2 seconds. The guys were old but power stays with age. In any case, the guys were 2 current world champs. Ali was floored by Sonny Banks and Henry Cooper, in his prime. What's worse?

Marciano detractors ride one of two trains: the "he only fought old guys" train or the "his iopponents all sucked" train, both of which are easy to prove as absurd.
I am not a Marciano detractor ,neither do I think he was Superman.In claiming Marciano's best wins were over Layne and Mathews I think you will stand alone.Lastarza not only failed to fight Champions Charles and Walcott,he failed to fight Baker ,Satterfield,Gilliam,Valdes,Henry,Wallace .Idon't take my information from ESPN ,and object to being referred to as ignorant ,especially by a Fan Boy who made spurious claims about opponents being 220 lbs and didnt have the courtesy to admit he was wrong.I take my information about Marciano from films of his fights against Layne,Mathews Walcott x2 ,Charles x2 Moore , and Cockell,also clips from earlier fights .Plus Ring magazine reports of the fights as they happened ,and several books on the man ,also the fact that I lived through his reign .Not because I have an Italian name and am biased in his favour.MARCiANO NEVER PROVED HIMSELF AGAINST BIG RATED HEAVYWEIGHTS IN THEIR PRIME,I made that statement and I stand by it,the nearest he came to it was a 214lbs 36 year old Louis who was clearly no longer the" Brown Bomber".

[Bummy Davis]

Maxomer,


I think Walcott was better than schmeling, including the schmeling of that fight. Walcott fought brilliantly too.

Walcott was a fighter if he was around in the 60's and 70's...he would have caused a lot of problems for the Foremans, Lyles and Shaver types. If Jimmy Young handled all of them and he was a guy who had no power, Walcott was much better than Young...Young even Closed Ali...what would Walcott or Charles have done to them...Old ...Walcott was a late bloomer but take that version of JJ and put him in the 70's and watch out boys

[mcvey]

Ali came back from exile at age 29 and lost to Frazier. If Marciano took 3 years off and came back at age 29, he would have KO'd the man (Patterson or anyone else).

It's true that LaStarza never fought Walcott or Charles, but when a champion doesn't fight someone, you should suspect him and not the contender. LaStarza beat everyone he fought from 1947-1953, except for Marciano. It's possible that Walcott and Charles wanted no part of a fast guy who could dance circles around them, and who almost beat Marciano (one judge scored the fight for LaStarza). I'm not suggesting that's the case, but if we are going to be suspicious, we should do it both ways.

The fact you continue to cite Marciano's wins over Walcott and Moore shows that you ignore 95% of his career, choosing to concentrate on the 2 old guys. The "Rocky only fought old guys" nonsense is only ignorance due to the fact that ESPN only shows the Louis, Walcott and Moore fights, usually failing to air the LaStarza, Layne and Matthews fights, which were his best wins (along with the two wins over 33 year-old Ezzard Charles). If you get all your info from ESPN and HBO, then of course you're going to think Marciano only fought old guys. The fact is that the large majority of his fights were against young guys. All fighters have to fight old guys, it's inevitable if they're contenders.

Marciano was floored twice for 2 seconds. The guys were old but power stays with age. In any case, the guys were 2 current world champs. Ali was floored by Sonny Banks and Henry Cooper, in his prime. What's worse?

Marciano detractors ride one of two trains: the "he only fought old guys" train or the "his iopponents all sucked" train, both of which are easy to prove as absurd.
Your claim that Ali was in his prime against Banks and Cooper is nonsense.Cooper himself said that when he fought Ali the second time he was startled by his marked improvement at in fighting and his strength.At the time of both those fights Ali was still maturing ,mentally and physically,the Banks fight was only his 10th pro fight, At 20, NO WAY WAS HE IN HIS PRIME.

[SuzieQ49]

Carmelo Modica, I like your enthusiasm, but ur not doing rock any favors with your arguements. Vingo 220? lastarza his best win? wtf????

[SuzieQ49]

I side with you mcvey

[groove]

Walcott was a late bloomer but take that version of JJ and put him in the 70's and watch out boys

good for u. i'm sure frazier, holmes and foreman would be scared. funny that walcott picked ali as the best heavy tho :yep

[SuzieQ49]

good for u. i'm sure frazier, holmes and foreman would be scared. funny that walcott picked ali as the best heavy tho


Louis said Walcott would beat Ali

[groove]

and he also picked a shot Cleveland Williams to win and plenty others that lost to ali ;)

[Bokaj]

Carmelo, you never answered my response to you.

How would you compare Ali's first career (pre-exile) to Marciano's whole career? Ali was after all 29-0-0 with 23 KO's, and had convincing wins over Liston, Patterson, Terrell and Folley among others.

[mr. magoo]

Carmelo, you never answered my response to you.

How would you compare Ali's first career (pre-exile) to Marciano's whole career? Ali was after all 29-0-0 with 23 KO's, and had convincing wins over Liston, Patterson, Terrell and Folley among others.

I'll chime in, even though this was intended for Carmelo.

I think that if Ali had never returned from exhile, his resume from the 1960's would have sized up well with Marciano's. He was an olympic gold medalist who won all of his 29 fights, and compiled a very respectable 9 title defenses, making him 10-0 in world title bouts, as opposed to Marciano's 7-0. While Rocky may have fought a few more guys who were #1 ranked, I think Clay had some substantial wins over Liston, patterson, Folley, Terrel, Chuvalo and a few others. We also have to remember that Ali was only something like 22 years old when he won the title, and went into exhile around age 25. For him to have accompished what he did so young, is surely note worthy of comparison to any great champion, even without his extended career in the 1970's...

[Maxmomer]

Maxomer,


I think Walcott was better than schmeling, including the schmeling of that fight. Walcott fought brilliantly too.

It's close, but I disagree.

[Superfuzz]

The paradox we continue to read on this thread is that somehow Marciano went through his entire career fighting only chumps. This means that for 8 years, there was only one decent HW boxer on planet Earth: Rocky Marciano.

Of course this is impossible. It never happened and never will. Why does 49-0 have to mean that the 49 guys were all chumps? Can't it just mean that the guy who beat them was better?

The logic of the Marciano critics is being repeated by today's critics. They said Jeff Lacy was the new Mike Tyson and that he would KO Joe Calzaghe. Then after the fight, all of a sudden Lacy became a chump. They now say, "Lacy wasn't what he was cracked up to be." Undefeated fighters are always underrated because it is automatically assumed that all of their opponents were phonies. So similarly, Calzaghe will never be appreciated like Ray Robinson is. And Marciano will never be appreciated like Ali is.

Marciano's opposition is underrated by people who don't research. If you dig deep into the careers of Marciano's opponents, you'll notice many of them stopped fighting or lost their capability after fighting Marciano. Marciano faced several hard-hitting opponents, like Joe Walcott and Rex Layne. He also faced some great chins, like LaStarza, Layne and Vingo. Of course there is no George Foreman or Muhammad Ali on Marciano's resume. That's because Marciano plowed through everyone who fought him, ending the careers of 14 opponents. Carmine Vingo was 15-1 with 7 KO's, which is remarkable considering his fights always had a 4 or 6 round limit. His only loss was a 4-round decision. Marciano said he was the toughest fighter he ever faced, probably because he got up twice after terrible punishment. Marciano was staggered but never fell. We'll never know what would have happened to lots of Marciano's victims, whose careers were cut short by him. In 1953, fastboy Roland LaStarza was 53-3 and had beaten all of his previous opponents except for Marciano who beat him on a SD in 1950. After the rematch, LaStarza had to have surgery on his arms to remove pieces of chipped bone. This guy would have been champ if not for Marciano.

A truly great fighter eclipses everyone else, leaving no room in the public mind for Fraziers and Nortons. Marciano did this. Ali did not. Paradoxically, Ali is considered better than Marciano not because of his wins, but because of his two losses to Frazier and Norton. Fans somehow deduce that since those two guys beat Ali, they must have been great, and therefore Ali fought in the best era.This is a good post. Some of you guys are professional boxing fans, that's great.

[mr. magoo]

=Carmelo Modica]First, Liston was considered unbeatable only by people who didn't know that Sonny had already lost once (to Marty Marshall).



The Marshall fight came in his seventh pro bout, long before he had reached world class status. I believe that it is possible for fans and experts to view a man as unbeatable, despite having knowledge of a previous loss that occurred at a different stage in the man's career.



His pre-exile period is not as impressive as it looks at first glance. He did not beat the prime Liston. He beat a guy who was almost 40 years old.

Liston was reported as being 32 years of age, but due to shoty record keeping, may have been more like 35. But, saying that he was near 40 is stretching things a bit..


Watch the clips from older Liston fights, he had a jab that snapped into your face, like a snake. Against Ali, his punches were very slow.

But, you make no concensions for the fact that Ali was some 22 years old, had 19 fights, and untterly destroyed the man who nobody could beat?


Patterson was dominated by Ali because he just could not take punches. Marciano would have plowed right through him, but Floyd didn't move up to HW until after Rocky retired. Ali did have good power, and Patterson had a glass chin.


Glass chin or not, Patterson was a two time world champion with impressive skills, good power, and the heart to get up off the canvas when hurt. He was stll a very good win for Ali, and would have been a good win Marciano ass well.


I would not even remotely compare a past-prime Liston, glass-chinned Floyd, and a prime Earnie Terrell to Charles, LaStarza, Walcott (who was slightly past his prime), Matthews and Layne.



I think using the expression " not even remotely ", is getting carried away, and certainly not giving that first list of fighters much justice. Liston in his early to mid thirties, was still quite a bit younger than some of the biggest names that Marciano fought. Plus he was coming off the best set of wins of his career from the Patterson fights. Marciano showed that he had the tendency to get floored early by fighters, as seen in the Walcott and Moore fights. Therefore, the possibility of even an aging Sonny giving him some trouble, is not out of the question.



But Foreman could not get past stick-and-move boxers, and Frazier did not have the stamina to measure up to the top ATGs.


The general pattern that I'm seeing in some of your posts, is that you seem to be creating excuses for Ali's best opponents losing, and then taking these conclusions to make Marciano's opposition look better. Ex. Liston was old, patterson had no chin, Foreman was no good against boxers, Frazier did not have the stamina for all time greats, etc. This is flaud logic, as every single one of the aformentioned names were all time greats, and most were either at or near their primes. By the way, I disagree with your claim that Frazier had stamina problems. He went a combined 31 rounds with Ali, and even beat him once. When did he ever completely gas in a fight?

[Bokaj]

First, Liston was considered unbeatable only by people who didn't know that Sonny had already lost once (to Marty Marshall).

I agree that his KO rate is impressive considering he was a stick-and-move boxer. He did have good power, more than Tunney who was his prototype.

His pre-exile period is not as impressive as it looks at first glance. He did not beat the prime Liston. He beat a guy who was almost 40 years old. Watch the clips from older Liston fights, he had a jab that snapped into your face, like a snake. Against Ali, his punches were very slow.

Patterson was dominated by Ali because he just could not take punches. Marciano would have plowed right through him, but Floyd didn't move up to HW until after Rocky retired. Ali did have good power, and Patterson had a glass chin.

I would not even remotely compare a past-prime Liston, glass-chinned Floyd, and a prime Earnie Terrell to Charles, LaStarza, Walcott (who was slightly past his prime), Matthews and Layne.

What Ali did later was remarkable because it was entertaining. But Foreman could not get past stick-and-move boxers, and Frazier did not have the stamina to measure up to the top ATGs.

Ha, ha, ha, ha. Man, you're great! You get pissed that people doesn't give Marciano's victory over 38 year old Walcott it's due, but discount Ali's victory over Liston. Liston had totally cleaned out the division over the previous 5 years, what had Walcott done that compares to that? He didn't have a loss in the previous 10, Walcott had plenty.

And I think most would have Patterson and Charles as pretty equal at HW, only Patterson was younger the first time he faced Ali than Charles was when he faced Marciano. (Granted Floyd had back problems, but he was taking a beating before that became an issue). And Terrell and Folley had both been top contenders for years when Ali beat them, in which way was LaStarza, Mattews and Layne that much better?

You would not "even remotely compare" Liston (32), Patterson (30), and Earnie Terrell, to Charles (almost 33), LaStarza, Walcott (38 years old), Matthews and Layne? You really are a riot. Keep it up!

[mcvey]

You're levelling false charges at me. I didn't call you ignorant, I think you misinterpreted a very generic sentence I wrote. I also never wrote Vingo was 220 lbs, I wrote "According to East Side Boxing's "Rocky Marciano - The Unstoppable Force" web article, Carmine Vingo weighed 220 lbs when he fought Marciano, who was 185."

You're right, LaStarza did not fight every single boxer of his generation, in fact no one ever did that. Ali didn't fight Eddie Machen, Frazier never faced Shavers or Lyle. Who ducked who? Who cares, let's judge boxers on who they fought, the politics of boxing are very complicated and sometimes you can't know who ducked who.

Marciano faced big heavyweights, but I think that means nothing. The best boxers were rather small.
Lastarza not only didnt fight every single boxer of his generation he fought VERY FEW rated ones,as I demonstrated ,to say he would have been Champion without Marciano is a long stretch,and thats why I challenged your statement.You said Ali was in his prime when he was floored by Banks and Cooper I pointed out that against Banks he was 20 years old and in his 10 th fight ,and that Cooper remarked on Ali's physical improvement and ring smarts in their second fight,NO response from you on that .MARCIANO WAS DOWN FOR 3 AGAINST WALCOTT AND 2 AGAINST MOORE.You denigrate Patterson yet even when he retired at 37 he was younger than Moore and Walcott when they fought Rocky.Floyd was knocked down plenty of times ,But how many people kept him on the floor for 10? Terrell was the no1 challenger when he was outclassed by Ali ,indeed he owned a version of the crown,and beat the likes of Chuvalo,Foster,Williams ,Machen and Jones.Many people felt Terrell would be a very stern test for Ali ,The Ring magazine carried articles boosting up his long left jab and his 6 6 height ,and pondering how Ali would deal with it,he was certainly in his prime ,which is more than can be said for Louis and Charles.Lastarza would not live with Liston ,imo.Mathews was really a LH,I don't see anything about them that makes them superior to Ali's opponents.Marciano faced big heavyweights ,but not big RATED heavyweights.

[SuzieQ49]

It's close, but I disagree.

Actually its not that close.......

if you watch the film you will see Walcott has far better footwork, much better mobility, much faster foot and handspeed, much better jab, more scientific and tricky, better chin, harder puncher with both fists, much stronger physically, and he had better infighting ability.

Truth be told i rate walcott higher than most, but film doesnt lie and i think walcott has the clear edge h2h


if you question as to whose the harder puncher all you need to do is pop in the louis fights. it took schmeling nearly a hundred right hands to put louis down, Walcott needed only ONE right hand to knock him down each of the three times. louis said walcott was the harder puncher.

[SuzieQ49]

And I think most would have Patterson and Charles as pretty equal at HW, only Patterson was younger the first time he faced Ali than Charles was when he faced Marciano. (Granted Floyd had back problems, but he was taking a beating before that became an issue).

actually patterson had a crippling back injury when he faced ali in 66. he shouldnt even have been granted a boxing liscense. patterson from the first bell could be seen hunched over in tremendous pain

[SuzieQ49]

Marciano faced big heavyweights ,but not big RATED heavyweights.

This is incorrect. Joe Louis was the # 1 rated heavyweight contender by Ring Magazine when rocky fought him. Louis was 6'2 214lb

[SuzieQ49]

Marciano showed that he had the tendency to get floored early by fighters, as seen in the Walcott and Moore fights.

So getting floored for off balance FLASH knockdowns just 2 times in 49 pro fights by the Ring Magazine # 4 and # 66 greatest punchers of all time shows vunerability???

[Bokaj]

actually patterson had a crippling back injury when he faced ali in 66. he shouldnt even have been granted a boxing liscense. patterson from the first bell could be seen hunched over in tremendous pain

He had problems with his back his whole career. But in this fight he pulled it bad when he missed with a hook in th 5:th (I think it was). This is what he himself says about in "King of the world". He wasn't bothered by it to begin with.

Actually, Dundee thinks it was Ali's stiff, persistent jab that caused it. I don't know how he figures, but he said it used to happen to Ali's sparring partners.

[OLD FOGEY]

your comparisons are crap. ali won the title as a youngster and after only 20 fights. lets compare that with rocky LOL. get fukin real. ali had more defences of the title than rocky when he was only 25 years old and then stripped of the title. ali fights were against better opposition. rocky was fighting tomatoe cans for his first 30 fights. Ali was fighting title championship fights when the rock was only dreaming about it.

To be fair to both men, Ali did better as a young fighter in his early twenties because he started in his teens and fought to 25 without break. Marciano started fighting at 24 after serving 4 years in the military during WWII. Ali later had to overcome a 3 1/2 year layoff. Marciano had to overcome a very late start.

Because he got off to such a late start and had such a truncated amateur career, Marciano had to learn basics as a professional. As an Olympic champion, Ali was much better grounded.

[Maxmomer]

if you question as to whose the harder puncher all you need to do is pop in the louis fights. it took schmeling nearly a hundred right hands to put louis down, Walcott needed only ONE right hand to knock him down each of the three times. louis said walcott was the harder puncher.
May be the case, but did he KO Louis? Or even beat him? Arguably, yeah, but Schmeling left no doubt, and he fought a Louis closer to his prime. Even if I were to rate Walcott over Schmeling (and for me they're close, based on resume and head to head, both top 15, as close as one spot away from each other) I think that the Schmeling that fought Louis was closer to his prime than the Walcott that fought Marciano. I would also dispute that Walcott had a better chin.

[mcvey]

For the last time VINGO WEIGHED 189 to MARCIANO@S 180 1/4.Look for yourself on [Only registered and activated users can see links] for Christ sake don't keep repeating yourself.Scores for the first Lastarza /Marciano fight
Referee Jack Watson 9-6 Marciano,Judge Arthur Shwartz 5-4 Marciano.judge Artie Aidala 4-5 in favour of Lastarza.Lastarza was down for a count of 4 in the 7th round .A point to remember ,Marciano had a point deducted in the 8th for a low blow.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't agree. Marciano barely fought past his prime, when Ali fought past his he beat two top 10 heavyweights, regained the title and defended it several times against good opposition. Ali beat better opposition during his second career, even after having diminished from three years away from the game, than Marciano did in his entire career. He beat more good/great fighters, he beat more fighters in general and he made more defenses. Same with Joe Louis. Ali and Louis' losses both came against ATG opposition at the top of their game when they themselves were not 100%. Marciano never even fought someone as good as Schmeling was on the night he beat Louis, or Frazier when he beat Ali. I don't rate Marciano highly because I don't care about him being undefeated, it doesn't matter, what matters is who he beat and how he did it. Louis and Ali both beat better fighters and in more impressive fashion.

1. "Marciano never even fought someone as good as Schmeling was on the night he beat Louis"
This is a circular argument that I do not find persuasive. In comparing fighters such as Louis, Marciano, and Ali, I would stick only to what their opposition did against other fighters. Otherwise you are giving Louis extra credit for losing to Schmeling. If Schmeling had never fought Louis and Walcott had never fought Marciano, I think few would consider Schmeling equal to Walcott. Walcott would still have his great effort against Louis, his ko of Charles, his ko of Johnson, and his wins over Elmer Ray. Schmeling? His win over Sharkey was on a foul in a fight in which he was trailing. Mickey Walker was small and aging. He was slaughtered in his prime by Baer. The evidence is certainly pretty scanty that he constituted "ATG opposition".
2. Beating more fighters in general. Well, according to the stats on such things kept by the Boxing Register, Emile Griffith had 36 victories over rated fighters. In contrast, Sugar Ray Leonard went 17-3-1 against rated opponents. Carlos Monzon went 15-0-0. Marvin Hagler went 14-2-1. So Griffith beat as many rated opponents as any two of the others combined. Do you therefore judge Griffith as clearly better than Leonard, Monzon, and Hagler?
Among lightheavies, Moore had 44 victories over rated fighters. Charles had 40. In contrast, Michael Spinks went 13-1 against rated opponents and Bob Foster went 13-6-1. Do you therefore conclude that Moore and Charles are clearly so much better than Spinks and Foster that there is nothing to debate. Even Joey Maxim had 22 wins over rated opponents.
Defeating scads of rated fighters is certainly one mark of greatness and I can't imagine a mediocre fighter doing it, but the Maxim example should give you some pause. I do know that defeating 30 or more rated fighters has been accomplished far more often than having at least 10 fights against rated opponents and sweeping them. Only Monzon, Marciano, and Salvador Sanchez fought as many as ten rated opponents and swept them.

[mcvey]

.
Foreman allways got owned by slick boxers? Like Gregorio Peralta? Ali had trouble with swarmers? One beat him once ,Ali was nearly 36 when he beat Shavers by U DEC.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't agree. Marciano barely fought past his prime, when Ali fought past his he beat two top 10 heavyweights, regained the title and defended it several times against good opposition. Ali beat better opposition during his second career, even after having diminished from three years away from the game, than Marciano did in his entire career. He beat more good/great fighters, he beat more fighters in general and he made more defenses. Same with Joe Louis. Ali and Louis' losses both came against ATG opposition at the top of their game when they themselves were not 100%. Marciano never even fought someone as good as Schmeling was on the night he beat Louis, or Frazier when he beat Ali. I don't rate Marciano highly because I don't care about him being undefeated, it doesn't matter, what matters is who he beat and how he did it. Louis and Ali both beat better fighters and in more impressive fashion.

1. "I don't rate Marciano highly because I don't care about him being undefeated" nor knocking out every rated or ever rated fighter he fought, nor sweeping his Hall-of-Famers, and of course, champions, nor ko'ing the longest reigning heavyweight and lightheavyweight champions of the 20th century. Marciano's top four opponents, reigned 25 years as champions and in championship fights not against Marciano or each other went 40-1 with 32 knockouts.

2. "Louis and Ali both beat better fighters and in more impressive fashion." Nonsense. Ali lost five times and had several controversial decisions against the likes of Norton, Young, and Jones, after which he did not clear the air by cleanly winning a rematch. Louis was more dominant, but also lost three times, being stopped twice and knocked down 10 times, and had more close decisions than Marciano. Marciano had close fights with LaStarza and Lowry, but defeated both cleanly in rematches. I consider a knockout about as impressive as a victory can get as it leaves no doubt as to who was better and Marciano knocked out all his top and even second-tier opponents.

[SuzieQ49]

This is a circular argument that I do not find persuasive. In comparing fighters such as Louis, Marciano, and Ali, I would stick only to what their opposition did against other fighters. Otherwise you are giving Louis extra credit for losing to Schmeling. If Schmeling had never fought Louis and Walcott had never fought Marciano, I think few would consider Schmeling equal to Walcott. Walcott would still have his great effort against Louis, his ko of Charles, his ko of Johnson, and his wins over Elmer Ray. Schmeling? His win over Sharkey was on a foul in a fight in which he was trailing. Mickey Walker was small and aging. He was slaughtered in his prime by Baer. The evidence is certainly pretty scanty that he constituted "ATG opposition".

good point. sometimes I chuckle how wise you are.

[Maxmomer]

1. "Marciano never even fought someone as good as Schmeling was on the night he beat Louis"
This is a circular argument that I do not find persuasive. In comparing fighters such as Louis, Marciano, and Ali, I would stick only to what their opposition did against other fighters. Otherwise you are giving Louis extra credit for losing to Schmeling. If Schmeling had never fought Louis and Walcott had never fought Marciano, I think few would consider Schmeling equal to Walcott. Walcott would still have his great effort against Louis, his ko of Charles, his ko of Johnson, and his wins over Elmer Ray. Schmeling? His win over Sharkey was on a foul in a fight in which he was trailing. Mickey Walker was small and aging. He was slaughtered in his prime by Baer. The evidence is certainly pretty scanty that he constituted "ATG opposition".

Schmeling would still have wins against Stribling, Uzcudun, Hamas and his robbery against Sharkey in their second bout. I certainly wouldn't place them all that far apart even if you took away their fights with Louis and Marciano. As is, though, Schmeling proved how good he was like he never was able in any of his other fights against Louis, I see no reason to disregard that fight.


2. Beating more fighters in general. Well, according to the stats on such things kept by the Boxing Register, Emile Griffith had 36 victories over rated fighters. In contrast, Sugar Ray Leonard went 17-3-1 against rated opponents. Carlos Monzon went 15-0-0. Marvin Hagler went 14-2-1. So Griffith beat as many rated opponents as any two of the others combined. Do you therefore judge Griffith as clearly better than Leonard, Monzon, and Hagler?
Among lightheavies, Moore had 44 victories over rated fighters. Charles had 40. In contrast, Michael Spinks went 13-1 against rated opponents and Bob Foster went 13-6-1. Do you therefore conclude that Moore and Charles are clearly so much better than Spinks and Foster that there is nothing to debate. Even Joey Maxim had 22 wins over rated opponents.
Defeating scads of rated fighters is certainly one mark of greatness and I can't imagine a mediocre fighter doing it, but the Maxim example should give you some pause. I do know that defeating 30 or more rated fighters has been accomplished far more often than having at least 10 fights against rated opponents and sweeping them. Only Monzon, Marciano, and Salvador Sanchez fought as many as ten rated opponents and swept them.

Ali and Louis both beat more good/great fighters than Marciano did and often in more impressive fashion. So Marciano swept 10 fighters rated at the time? I don't care. Ali beat three fighters in my personal top 10 all time heavyweight list and more good/excellent opposition over the course of his career than Marciano did. He also did a lot of that when he was past his best. Louis likewise beat more, better fighters than Marciano did. Not only that, but I feel they would both beat Marciano in a head to head match up.

[OLD FOGEY]

This I find highly unlikely. Such a lay-off would have lessened Rocky's stamina, dulled his timing and reflexes etc. Under these conditions no one has an easy time against a peak Frazier IMO. I would be surprised if Rocky lasted the distance.

On the other hand, if Ali had not laid off, he probably would have fought his trilogy against Frazier between 1969 and 1971 or 1972 or so. If he had fought Frazier at that point, it is also conceivable that Frazier might have edged two of three. I think Joe went back faster than Ali. Swarmers tend to age faster. Fighting at advanced ages might have been to Ali's benefit more than Frazier's.

[OLD FOGEY]

good point. sometimes I chuckle how wise you are.

Nice try, but my kids are getting my money when I kick off. Keep trying, though.

[Maxmomer]

1. "I don't rate Marciano highly because I don't care about him being undefeated" nor knocking out every rated or ever rated fighter he fought nor sweeping his Hall-of-Famers, and of course, champions, nor ko'ing the longest reigning heavyweight and lightheavyweight champions of the 20th century. Marciano's top four opponents, reigned 25 years as champions and in championship fights not against Marciano or each other went 40-1 with 32 knockouts.

Those are all the reasons he's in my top 10.

2. "Louis and Ali both beat better fighters and in more impressive fashion." Nonsense. Ali lost five times and had several controversial decisions against the likes of Norton, Young, and Jones, after which he did not clear the air by cleanly winning a rematch. Louis was more dominant, but also lost three times, being stopped twice and knocked down 10 times, and had more close decisions than Marciano. Marciano had close fights with LaStarza and Lowry, but defeated both cleanly in rematches. I consider a knockout about as impressive as a victory can get as it leaves no doubt as to who was better and Marciano knocked out all his top and even second-tier opponents.

Ali lost 5 times all when he was past his prime after 3 1/2 year lay off from boxing. All of Ali's wonky decisions came when he was shot or close to it, as were three of his losses. His other two losses still came when he was past his prime. Who did Marciano fight past his prime? Prime Joe Frazier? No, 42 year old Archie Moore. Louis lost once to an ATG in Schmeling, when he himself was still green. Schmeling executed a perfect gameplan and put on probably the best performance of his life. I still think Schmeling of that night was better than anyone Marciano fought in his entire career. Louis other two losses came when he was in his mid 30's after a two year lay-off, they have no bearing on his legacy. And yeah, he was KD'd more than Marciano, but he proved he could stand up to punchers like the Baer brothers and Galento without getting KO'd. I'm not arguing that Marciano shouldn't be a top 3-10 heavyweight, but I find it laughable placing him above Louis or Ali.

[mr. magoo]

Nice try, but my kids are getting my money when I kick off. Keep trying, though.

:lol:

Though not addressed to me, that line made me smile.

[OLD FOGEY]

Schmeling would still have wins against Stribling, Uzcudun, Hamas and his robbery against Sharkey in their second bout. I certainly wouldn't place them all that far apart even if you took away their fights with Louis and Marciano. As is, though, Schmeling proved how good he was like he never was able in any of his other fights against Louis, I see no reason to disregard that fight.




Ali and Louis both beat more good/great fighters than Marciano did and often in more impressive fashion. So Marciano swept 10 fighters rated at the time? I don't care. Ali beat three fighters in my personal top 10 all time heavyweight list and more good/excellent opposition over the course of his career than Marciano did. He also did a lot of that when he was past his best. Louis likewise beat more, better fighters than Marciano did. Not only that, but I feel they would both beat Marciano in a head to head match up.

"Schmeling would still have his wins against Stribling, Uzcudun, Hamas, and his robbery against Sharkey in his second fight"

Why would any of these prove he was better than, say, Tommy Loughran, who defeated all of these men and many more.

I would challenge that Louis beat better fighters. He certainly did beat more "good" fighters. But in the end, Louis and Ali also suffered defeats. Custer won more battles than Alexander the Great, but losses also matter.

Your claim that Louis and Ali won in more impressive fashion-true, except when they didn't or when they lost.

[OLD FOGEY]

Those are all the reasons he's in my top 10.



Ali lost 5 times all when he was past his prime after 3 1/2 year lay off from boxing. All of Ali's wonky decisions came when he was shot or close to it, as were three of his losses. His other two losses still came when he was past his prime. Who did Marciano fight past his prime? Prime Joe Frazier? No, 42 year old Archie Moore. Louis lost once to an ATG in Schmeling, when he himself was still green. Schmeling executed a perfect gameplan and put on probably the best performance of his life. I still think Schmeling of that night was better than anyone Marciano fought in his entire career. Louis other two losses came when he was in his mid 30's after a two year lay-off, they have no bearing on his legacy. And yeah, he was KD'd more than Marciano, but he proved he could stand up to punchers like the Baer brothers and Galento without getting KO'd. I'm not arguing that Marciano shouldn't be a top 3-10 heavyweight, but I find it laughable placing him above Louis or Ali.

Remember that I rate Marciano #3 behind Ali and Louis. But the issue on the board is can a good case be made.

That said, Moore was 38 off the census info that has been posted on this board.

I don't know how green Louis was supposed to be. He had had 54 amateur fights and 27 professional fights and had beaten two former world champions who were still in their primes, as well as quite a number of ranked contenders.

There have been plenty of reports that Louis was poorly focused and overconfident going into the Schmeling bout. I repeat my point again. You are basically giving extra credit to Louis because he lost to Schmeling by spinning Schmeling as therefore a greater fighter than the rest of his career would justify. Walcott, who you claim was over the hill, came into the Marciano bout following a victory three months earlier over Ezzard Charles. Other than Louis, whom did Schmeling defeat at any point in his career who was as good as Charles.

The Jones fight came before his layoff.

"Who did Marciano fight past his prime?"--You say Ali was past his prime in the month he turned 29. So Marciano was past his prime for both Walcott fights, the second LaStarza fight, the two Charles fights, the Cockell fight, and the Moore fight. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[SuzieQ49]

Schmeling would still have wins against Stribling, Uzcudun, Hamas and his robbery against Sharkey in their second bout. I certainly wouldn't place them all that far apart even if you took away their fights with Louis and Marciano

I still think walcott has the clear edge. walcott beat Charles 2x, ray, murray, bivins, Johnson, baksi, maxim 2x, hoff, sheppard, reddish, gomez.

honestly charles ray murray johnson and bivins alone are head and shoulders above those you mention(with the exception of sharkey)

[Bummy Davis]

1. "I don't rate Marciano highly because I don't care about him being undefeated" nor knocking out every rated or ever rated fighter he fought, nor sweeping his Hall-of-Famers, and of course, champions, nor ko'ing the longest reigning heavyweight and lightheavyweight champions of the 20th century. Marciano's top four opponents, reigned 25 years as champions and in championship fights not against Marciano or each other went 40-1 with 32 knockouts.

2. "Louis and Ali both beat better fighters and in more impressive fashion." Nonsense. Ali lost five times and had several controversial decisions against the likes of Norton, Young, and Jones, after which he did not clear the air by cleanly winning a rematch. Louis was more dominant, but also lost three times, being stopped twice and knocked down 10 times, and had more close decisions than Marciano. Marciano had close fights with LaStarza and Lowry, but defeated both cleanly in rematches. I consider a knockout about as impressive as a victory can get as it leaves no doubt as to who was better and Marciano knocked out all his top and even second-tier opponents.

:good

[Bummy Davis]

I close friend of mine was best friends with Patterson, he told me before the Ali fight that Floyd had the style to beat Ali, I looked at him like he was crazy. When I saw the fight and the punches Floyd landed with an injured back, I looked at myself and scracted my head, My Friend told me that although he felt Patterson had the stlye to beat Ali. They avoided fighting Marciano because Rocky was a solid guy took a great shot and hit too Hard for Floyd, he was the wrong style for Floyd....Floyd used to get tense in the ring, anxiety but after the Liston loses and the humility, almost like Foreman, he came back more relaxed and was able to fight good punchers like a green Quarry,Ellis(tricky but hard right hand) and Bonevena( decent clubber)...Floyd learned to relax a little like Vlad is now learning to do...sometimes it comes with age.

[sugarkills]

A very good case for #1? What are you talking about...he IS number 1, THE BEST EVER! You people can fantasize all you want, but facts are facts. He never lost, and he destroyed (by destroy I mean put into retirement or put in the hospital) everyone that was put in front of him. He was also smart enough to retire at the right time, unlike all the other losers (they are losers because they aren't the best, haha) you mention in this thread.

[groove]

keep dreaming people and keep on doing your worthless crap comparisons fogey. they mean fuck all when you consider all the circumstances.

[sugarkills]

keep dreaming people and keep on doing your worthless crap comparisons fogey. they mean fuck all when you consider all the circumstances.

Yeah, because we all know Marciano's the best in the history of forever!

[groove]

at fighting good fighters under 190 pounds he certainly was :D

[prime]

for the reasons posted by Carmelo Modica:


My list of the top 5 heavyweights is:

1. Marciano, and in the next four positions, in no particular order: Dempsey, Louis, Tunney, Ali.

It isn't apparent at first, but when you start comparing Marciano's fights to any of the 70's boxers, you start to see what made Marciano almost unbeatable. He had virtually endless stamina, in fact he had the best stamina in boxing history. He punched for 15 rounds and never got tired. He would never give his opponent a second to catch his breath. Could you imagine if Ali had fought Marciano instead of Frazier? There would be no "cruising" through a round to recover energy. Ali would have been KO'd if he slowed down even for one second against Marciano. Watch the first Ezzard Charles-Rocky Marciano fight. No cruising allowed. Plus he was small enough to hit anyone on the chin. His bigger opponents were all brutalized. I would give George Foreman little chance against him. To beat Marciano, it would take a fast, smaller man like Gene Tunney, to outbox him and win a decision. But it would have to be Tunney on his best day ever. Marciano had better stamina than Dempsey. You would have to hit Rocky frequently to win points, but each time you hit, he would have a good chance to hit you with his stronger punches. Two guys tried to stick-and-move Marciano: Roland LaStarza and Harry Kid Matthews. They were both KO'd. LaStarza lost by SD the first time, but even there he was floored for 7. Marciano had lost a round for a low blow, or it would have been unanimous.

Every strategy has been tried against Marciano. Joe Walcott tried to give him everything he had in round one, in an attempt to knock him out early. Marciano was floored for 2 seconds and got up as if nothing had happened, and proceeded with his usual slow-but-steady demolition.

I think Tunney, LaStarza and Ali would have been capable of beating Marciano on points in maybe one out of five fights. But no more than that. Watch the LaStarza and Matthews fights on youtube and you'll see why I'm so pessimistic.

Very few, if any, reputable sources have ever considered Rocky Marciano the greatest heavyweight champion ever. (The 1967 computer doesn't count.) Top 5 seems to me was a more-or-less general consensus back in the '70s when I was growing up.

Never having lost in 49 pro fights is an extraordinary achievement and only the truest and purest champion at heart can accomplish such a feat.

Now, looking at his opposition, I see the pattern of Marciano's being vulnerable to being decisioned by a strong boxer or boxer/puncher. LaStarza and Walcott, though coming close, couldn't pull it off; however, this by no means seems to me the resume of the greatest heavyweight ever. A LaStarza is no Ali or even Tunney. A 37-year-old Walcott is no Louis or even Langford. It doesn't add up to say Marciano was the best, a notion probably brought on by that wonderful "0" in his loss column.

I would say with all due respect Marciano is a bit overrated, a bit overly glorified because of his undefeated record. He certainly belongs among the greatest, but, under analysis, he doesn't look the part of the most dominant champion ever. If it is wins over all-time greats we seek, Rocky's record looks brilliant: he defeated three all-time greats in Walcott, Charles and Moore, but they were 37, 33 and 39, respectively, in a time when a 32-year-old heavyweight began to feel the effects of aging at the highest level. Rocky's other defenses against Cockell and LaStarza were very good, but they simply don't show me the dominance the best heavyweight ever must show. Cockell had lost 11 times and LaStarza, no Tony Tucker just in terms of physical equipment, lasted into the 11th round in this rematch.

Just in terms of dominance and skill demonstrated in the ring, not just fighting heart, I would say Ali showed a better level of both in his pre-exile reign, never having been cut or floored as Marciano was, over 9 defenses.

And with the advent of mammoth 'roided heavyweights, I think it unrealistic to believe the cruiserweight-light Marciano could finish them all off.

Rocky Marciano was great, even very great, but certainly not the greatest.

[sugarkills]

at fighting good fighters under 190 pounds he certainly was :D

Not only that, he beat washed-up fighters really well too so :D back at you!

[Bokaj]

As for Ali, ok he was floored in his 10th fight, when he was still not ripe. But every boxer has early fights, when he isn't ripe. The difference is Marciano was never floored in his early fights, and Ali was. In any case, when you're young you should make no excuses, you're faster and your reflexes should be better.

So you mean it's better for a fighter to be floored in his prime? Like Marciano was, against a LHW.

Which punchers did Marciano meet that was even remotely close to Liston, Foreman and Shavers in power?

Floyd was 37 when he retired, and that proves he could not keep his prime the way Moore and Walcott did. Those guys were champs at age 37. See the difference?

When Floyd met Ali for the first time he was to fight at a world class level for another 7 years. How long did Walcott stay active at that level after losing to Marciano? And Moore was LHW champ, never HW champ.

Terrell fought in an era where Ali was the only great challenge. Chuvalo was not great. He was too slow. Look at his resume.

I don't see why that era should seen as less competitive than Marciano's. Probably more or less the same.

You keep talking about how big opponents should be. Why would that matter? Once you're a HW, the smaller you are, the better. See Dempsey and Marciano for illustrations.

Yeah, it's really lucky for Klitschko and all the other big guys that the 185 lbs fighters are all stuck at cruiserweight, nowadays.

[sugarkills]

Which punchers did Marciano meet that was even remotely close to Liston, Foreman and Shavers in power?

He fought Ancient Archie, who has the most knockouts in history....and what happened to Archie? Thats right, Rocky beat the shit outta him. He also fought Joe Louis, the BEST heavyweight puncher ever.....and what happened to Joe? He got his shit ruined right through the ropes into retirement.

[sugarkills]

This is snake oil arithmetics. I could do the same with Ali and have many more examples to choose from. Example: since Ali won a decision to Duke Sabedong, who was 15-11, then certainly Ali would have lost to Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano, since they were much better than Sabedong.

It's a senseless argument when you apply it to Ali, just like it is when you apply it to Marciano. No matter what style you pick, whether it's a swarmer or slick boxer, I can pick an example from Ali's resume that fits it.
Actually it makes a lot of sense. Because Ali got his ass whooped by Rocky in their computer fight :lol:

You guys just face it. All this frustration will stop when you accept the fact that Rocky Marciano is the Greatest.

[Maxmomer]

Yeah, because we all know Marciano's the best in the history of forever!

Are you fucking insane?

[sugarkills]

Are you fucking insane?

No, but you're insane if you don't agree with me :D

[mcvey]

LaStarza was a risk that some guys didn't take. To his credit: he fought Marciano to a near-draw, won a title eliminator against Rex Layne, and then lost a title fight to Marciano. He obviously wasn't afraid of anyone, since he did fight Marciano immediately after Vingo was put into a coma. You can see he's good just by the loss to Marciano. He was ahead on points in round 6.

As for Ali, ok he was floored in his 10th fight, when he was still not ripe. But every boxer has early fights, when he isn't ripe. The difference is Marciano was never floored in his early fights, and Ali was. In any case, when you're young you should make no excuses, you're faster and your reflexes should be better.

Cooper said Ali was much better in their 2nd fight, ok. LaStarza said the same about Marciano. The difference is, Marciano didn't get floored in either fight.

Floyd was 37 when he retired, and that proves he could not keep his prime the way Moore and Walcott did. Those guys were champs at age 37. See the difference?

Terrell fought in an era where Ali was the only great challenge. Chuvalo was not great. He was too slow. Look at his resume.

You keep talking about how big opponents should be. Why would that matter? Once you're a HW, the smaller you are, the better. See Dempsey and Marciano for illustrations.
So all the fights Lastarza didn't have,Bob Baker,Bob Satterfiled,DannyNardico,Bill Gilliam,Coley Wallace,Clarence Henry,Nino Valdes,were because they were afraid to fight him? 50's Ring magazines have editorials by Fleischer ,blasting Lastarza and his manager for not meeting dangerous opponents .FIrst of all you say Ali was in his prime when he fought Banks in his 10th fight ,now he was "not ripe" which is it?You change direction so many times to avoid addressing the truth you will be dissapearing up your own orifice soon!

[Maxmomer]

No, but you're insane if you don't agree with me :D

...But...



Shit!

[he grant]

Man there is some really poor logic being throw here ... this post should be put to sleep ... it reads like high school ...

[mcvey]

Ali was 20 years old in his 10 th pro fight.Heavyweights mature late,Ali weighed 194 1/2 for Banks.I dont think we saw ||Ali's prime ,it was during the 3 1/2 years in exile,but His best preformance ,imo,was his demolition of Williams ,Ali had 15 more fights under his belt ,including 6 title defences ,and was at 212 3/4carrying 18 1/4 pounds more of solid muscle.Prime Ripe ,whatever way you slice it Ali was NOT Prime for Banks,so your original statement was wrong.NO ONE IS SPLIT WHEN IT COMES TO CALLING THE 20 YEAR OLD 194 1/2 lbs ALI PRIME .Find anyone else who agrees with you.

[mr. magoo]

Very few, if any, reputable sources have ever considered Rocky Marciano the greatest heavyweight champion ever. (The 1967 computer doesn't count.) Top 5 seems to me was a more-or-less general consensus back in the '70s when I was growing up.

Never having lost in 49 pro fights is an extraordinary achievement and only the truest and purest champion at heart can accomplish such a feat.

Now, looking at his opposition, I see the pattern of Marciano's being vulnerable to being decisioned by a strong boxer or boxer/puncher. LaStarza and Walcott, though coming close, couldn't pull it off; however, this by no means seems to me the resume of the greatest heavyweight ever. A LaStarza is no Ali or even Tunney. A 37-year-old Walcott is no Louis or even Langford. It doesn't add up to say Marciano was the best, a notion probably brought on by that wonderful "0" in his loss column.

I would say with all due respect Marciano is a bit overrated, a bit overly glorified because of his undefeated record. He certainly belongs among the greatest, but, under analysis, he doesn't look the part of the most dominant champion ever. If it is wins over all-time greats we seek, Rocky's record looks brilliant: he defeated three all-time greats in Walcott, Charles and Moore, but they were 37, 33 and 39, respectively, in a time when a 32-year-old heavyweight began to feel the effects of aging at the highest level. Rocky's other defenses against Cockell and LaStarza were very good, but they simply don't show me the dominance the best heavyweight ever must show. Cockell had lost 11 times and LaStarza, no Tony Tucker just in terms of physical equipment, lasted into the 11th round in this rematch.

Just in terms of dominance and skill demonstrated in the ring, not just fighting heart, I would say Ali showed a better level of both in his pre-exile reign, never having been cut or floored as Marciano was, over 9 defenses.

And with the advent of mammoth 'roided heavyweights, I think it unrealistic to believe the cruiserweight-light Marciano could finish them all off.

Rocky Marciano was great, even very great, but certainly not the greatest.

A reasonable post.

[sugarkills]

Man there is some really poor logic being throw here ... this post should be put to sleep ... it reads like high school ...
Why should this post be put to sleep? Its about the greatest heavyweight ever. Obviously I'm just having fun on this thread too. If you wanna seriously argue about Rocky not being the best....then I sure wanna hear your "logic" and see who YOU think is #1. Ali? Louis? :rofl

[Bokaj]

Responding to Bokaj:

So you mean it's better for a fighter to be floored in his prime? Like Marciano was, against a LHW.

---First of all, you're repeating a falsehood most Marciano-haters make. He never fought a LHW. Here's the rule, students: HEAVYWEIGHTS CAN ONLY FIGHT HEAVYWEIGHTS. Got it? Archie Moore was not a LHW when he fought Marciano. In fact, Moore weighed more than Marciano. And it doesn't matter whether you get floored at age 20 or 30. A fighter is generally in his prime from the start of his pro career until about age 33 or 34. After that, they are past-prime. To me there is no pre-prime. If you're young, you're faster and that compensates for the lack of experience. There are some exceptions, depending on the physique and style of the boxer, some boxers maintained their prime until age 38, like Lennox and Walcott. Marciano and Ali were both floored in their prime, Rocky twice and Muhammad 3 times.

Which punchers did Marciano meet that was even remotely close to Liston, Foreman and Shavers in power?

---Walcott could have put all three of those guys to sleep.

When Floyd met Ali for the first time he was to fight at a world class level for another 7 years. How long did Walcott stay active at that level after losing to Marciano? And Moore was LHW champ, never HW champ.

---Boxers who fought Marciano usually were never the same again. 14 retired immediately following their encounter with Rocky. Your argument isn't valid when you talk about a devastating puncher like Marciano. Yes, Moore was LHW champ, never HW. I never stated otherwise. The reason he was never HW champ is he couldn't get past Charles and Marciano.

I don't see why that era should seen as less competitive than Marciano's. Probably more or less the same.

---Ezzard Charles would have cleaned up that era.

Yeah, it's really lucky for Klitschko and all the other big guys that the 185 lbs fighters are all stuck at cruiserweight, nowadays.

---Klitschko would have his head knocked off by Marciano. Wlad would have to punch down, hitting Rocky on the skull (where he felt nothing). Marciano would have an easy time hitting Wlad's chin from below. Wlad cannot cope with the excessive pressure Marciano would bring on. Marciano vs Vingo was similar.

This discussion is just getting more and more stupid. So I think I'll bow out here.

Before I go though: I think you have genuine case about many underrating Marciano, but you're ridicolous way of making him into a superhuman and trying to denigrate other great fighters to lift him up, just makes it kind of sad, though.

[mr. magoo]

=OLD FOGEY]2. "Louis and Ali both beat better fighters and in more impressive fashion." Nonsense. Ali lost five times and had several controversial decisions against the likes of Norton, Young, and Jones, after which he did not clear the air by cleanly winning a rematch. Louis was more dominant, but also lost three times, being stopped twice and knocked down 10 times, and had more close decisions than Marciano.
In all fairness, If Marciano had returned to the ring around 1959 at the age of 37, to fight either Patterson or Liston, and lost, would you use these defeats as a beacon when comparing him to other great fighters?

[groove]

ofcourse he would cuz his comparisons have no logic or make any sense. comparing a fighter who retired at the top and only at 32 against fighters who make comebacks and fight another career is ridiculous and means nada. they say one of rockys best wins is against an old past it louis who they think was in his prime. that says it all for me.

[OLD FOGEY]

In all fairness, If Marciano had returned to the ring around 1959 at the age of 37, to fight either Patterson or Liston, and lost, would you use these defeats as a beacon when comparing him to other great fighters?

Fair enough point about the old age defeats--but Louis lost to Schmeling when an experienced 22. Ali lost to Frazier at 29, the age at which Marciano won the championship, and to Norton at 31, the age at which Marciano ko'd Charles. Those defeats are harder to slough off.

[groove]

yeah after a comeback. when did rocky ever make a comeback? your doing it yet again. who cares if he was 29. he had been out of the sport since he was 25 years old and he was fighting a man at his peak who was unbeaten - he was not fighting a washed up louis or a 37 year old walcott or a lhw 38 year old moore who was 188 pounds.

[mr. magoo]

Fair enough point about the old age defeats--but Louis lost to Schmeling when an experienced 22. Ali lost to Frazier at 29, the age at which Marciano won the championship, and to Norton at 31, the age at which Marciano ko'd Charles. Those defeats are harder to slough off.

Agreed. There really can't be any excuses made for Louis losing to Schmeling. He had a rather extensive amateur career along with a competant managment team-two things that were rare advantages in those days. Additionally, He was 27-0 and coming off of wins over at least two former champions that I can think of. Meanwhile, Schmeling had spent most of his career at lightheavyweight and was off for a full year prior to facing Louis. As for Ali's earlier losses to Frazier, well I'll agree that his actual age can't be used as an excuse to make any concessions, however I think its possible that the four year leave of abscence may have diminished some of his abilities a tad, but this is just speculation on my part..

[OLD FOGEY]

yeah after a comeback. when did rocky ever make a comeback? your doing it yet again. who cares if he was 29. he had been out of the sport since he was 25 years old and he was fighting a man at his peak who was unbeaten - he was not fighting a washed up louis or a 37 year old walcott or a lhw 38 year old moore who was 188 pounds.


And did Ali ever start a career at 24?

By the way, does the layoff excuse also count for the Norton fight?

[groove]

norton won fair and square. broken jaw didn't help or undertraining. but i think ali that fought Terrell would win a UD quite easy say 9 rounds to 6. in the rematch ali won the first 6 rounds by dancing. his legs were much better in 73 than they were in 71 when he fought frazier. but 66/7 ali legs were the best.

[Bokaj]

By the way, does the layoff excuse also count for the Norton fight?

I don't see what's so controversial with saying that Ali never was quite the same after the lay-off. Would you say that Dempsey was as sharp as ever in his fights with Tunney and Sharkey?

3,5 years of inactivity takes its toll on an athlete, there's just no way around that.

[groove]

yeah i've heard people on this forum saying that 3 year break is a good thing for a fighter. some live in fantasy land.

[Bokaj]

You need to point out examples, or else you're just shooting your mouth off. If you've been given the impression that Marciano was superhuman, you did it to yourself, because I just wrote about his fights.

"Marciano would easily beat FOTC Frazier after 3,5 years lay-off" "He would knock W. Klitscko's head off"

"Walcott would KO Frazier, Foreman and Shavers" "Charles would clear out an era consisting of Liston, Patterson, Machen, Folley, Williams, Terrell etc" "Ali was in his physical prime at 20 against Banks"

These are just some things you said to build up Marciano as invincible. To claim all this with dead certainity is just not serious.

[mcvey]

Ali's prime is when he was in exile? How on earth can you possibly know that? This is bordering on science fiction. Just because some ESPN "expert" said it a few years ago, everyone repeats it over and over again. I could say that Marciano would have been mass murderer if he had started his career earlier, instead of at age 26. But it would be based on nothing.

And I repeat, Ali was in his prime from the beginning of his career up until the Foreman fight. The Cleveland Williams win is no more impressive than the Liston and Foreman wins. At least Foreman and Liston didn't have a bullet in their stomach.
You have finally convinced me that further debate with you is pointless.I have allready explained to you how I formulate my opinions of fighters .I explained that ESPN has no input in my thinking,but you choose to repeat your asinine statements about where peope get there opinions.For the record I beleive I am the only one on this site to venture in print stating that Ali's 3.5 years in exile were his prime years,I am unaware of any theory on this on ESPN.You are the only boxing fan, I won't use any other words,who states that Ali was in his prime from the start of his career to the Foreman fight.Your arguments are fatuous,illogical ,and unresearched drivel.ADIOS!

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't see what's so controversial with saying that Ali never was quite the same after the lay-off. Would you say that Dempsey was as sharp as ever in his fights with Tunney and Sharkey?

3,5 years of inactivity takes its toll on an athlete, there's just no way around that.

Does boxing history back you up?

Sugar Ray Leonard--off from May 11, 1984 (this fight came after a two year layoff) to April 6, 1987--Result: Without any warmup bouts Leonard defeats Marvelous Marvin Hagler for the middleweight title.
Comment--Leonard is actually close to 31, two years older than Ali, and with only 9 rounds of boxing in five years is able to take Hagler.

Eder Jofre--off from June 6, 1966 to August 27, 1969--Result: Went undefeated for the next 25 fights of his career until he retired, winning recognition as featherweight champion.
Comment--Also much older than Ali. No evidence harmed at all by layoff. Successful at higher weight class.

Ezzard Charles--off from March 31, 1943 to Feb 18, 1946--Result: Returns to be perhaps the greatest p4p fighter from 1946-1951, even over Robinson, winning 39 or 40 and reversing his one close loss to the larger Elmer Ray by knockout.
Comment: Actually performed better after layoff. Fair to point out was much younger than Ali, returning before his 25th birthday.

Gus Lesnevich--off from March 11, 1942 to Jan 11, 1946--Result: Returned with mixed results his first year. At 5' 9", a natural lightheavy, he ko'd lightheavy contender Joe Kahut in his first bout back and later that year ko'd Freddie Mills at London in a title defense. Lost to larger heavies Lee Oma and Bruce Woodcock by ko. In 1947 had his best year and was selected fighter of the year with four strong wins--ko of Billy Fox, ko of Melio Bettina, dec over Tami Mauriello, and ko of Mauriello.
Comment--31 in 1946, he also is older than Ali. No evidence the layoff hurt him.

Tony Zale--off from Feb 13, 1942 to Jan 7, 1946--Result: comes back to win 16 out of 17 between 1946 and 1948, including ko of Graziano in 1946. Loses to Graziano in oven fight in 1947, but handles him easily in third go in 1948 to regain his title. Then loses badly to Cerdan.
Comment--Much older than Ali, Zale is 33 in 1946. Nevertheless, there is little evidence he was much harmed by the layoff. When he lost, old age could be considered as much of a factor.

Billy Conn--off from Feb 13, 1942 to June 19, 1946--Result: Is ko'd by Louis who also laid off four years.
Comment--about same age as Ali, but also lost to Louis in 1941. The excuse is the layoff killed him off but not the older Louis. Did not have any more serious fights to judge one way or the other.

Conclusion--Claiming Ali lost it as a result of laying off and therefore dismissing his subsequent defeats is an excuse and not a persuasive one, as a glance at boxing history shows.

[Bokaj]

Does boxing history back you up?

Sugar Ray Leonard--off from May 11, 1984 (this fight came after a two year layoff) to April 6, 1987--Result: Without any warmup bouts Leonard defeats Marvelous Marvin Hagler for the middleweight title.
Comment--Leonard is actually close to 31, two years older than Ali, and with only 9 rounds of boxing in five years is able to take Hagler.

Eder Jofre--off from June 6, 1966 to August 27, 1969--Result: Went undefeated for the next 25 fights of his career until he retired, winning recognition as featherweight champion.
Comment--Also much older than Ali. No evidence harmed at all by layoff. Successful at higher weight class.

Ezzard Charles--off from March 31, 1943 to Feb 18, 1946--Result: Returns to be perhaps the greatest p4p fighter from 1946-1951, even over Robinson, winning 39 or 40 and reversing his one close loss to the larger Elmer Ray by knockout.
Comment: Actually performed better after layoff. Fair to point out was much younger than Ali, returning before his 25th birthday.

Gus Lesnevich--off from March 11, 1942 to Jan 11, 1946--Result: Returned with mixed results his first year. At 5' 9", a natural lightheavy, he ko'd lightheavy contender Joe Kahut in his first bout back and later that year ko'd Freddie Mills at London in a title defense. Lost to larger heavies Lee Oma and Bruce Woodcock by ko. In 1947 had his best year and was selected fighter of the year with four strong wins--ko of Billy Fox, ko of Melio Bettina, dec over Tami Mauriello, and ko of Mauriello.
Comment--30 in 1946, he also is older than Ali. No evidence the layoff hurt him.

Tony Zale--off from Feb 13, 1942 to Jan 7, 1946--Result: comes back to win 16 out of 17 between 1946 and 1948, including ko of Graziano in 1946. Loses to Graziano in oven fight in 1947, but handles him easily in third go in 1948 to regain his title. Then loses badly to Cerdan.
Comment--Much older than Ali, Zale is 33 in 1946. Nevertheless, there is little evidence he was much harmed by the layoff. When he lost, old age could be considered as much of a factor.

Billy Conn--off from Feb 13, 1942 to June 19, 1946--Result: Is ko'd by Louis who also laid off four years.
Comment--about same age as Ali, but also lost to Louis in 1941. The excuse is the layoff killed him off but not the older Louis. Did not have any more serious fights to judge one way or the other.

Conclusion--Claiming Ali lost it as a result of laying off and therefore dismissing his subsequent defeats is an excuse and not a persuasive one, as a glance at boxing history shows.

As impressed as I am by this summation there are some points to be made. SRL was never the same again. His victory over Hagler is tremendous, but so is Ali's over Foreman.

Most of the other guys you mention was inactive over WWII. Well, most of their opposition had been inactive during those years as well, and those that hadn't been were just starting out.

And wouldn't you say that Dempsey, Louis and SRR was harmed by their respective inactivities?

Furthermore, you only have to compare how Ali looked post-exile to pre-exile to see the difference. He was a bit heavier, slower and tired a bit quicker in his second career. It's there to be seen.

I don't think anyone truly believes a 66-67 version of Ali would be as stationary as he was in FOTC. It's a no-brainer really.

[mcvey]

Does boxing history back you up?

Sugar Ray Leonard--off from May 11, 1984 (this fight came after a two year layoff) to April 6, 1987--Result: Without any warmup bouts Leonard defeats Marvelous Marvin Hagler for the middleweight title.
Comment--Leonard is actually close to 31, two years older than Ali, and with only 9 rounds of boxing in five years is able to take Hagler.

Eder Jofre--off from June 6, 1966 to August 27, 1969--Result: Went undefeated for the next 25 fights of his career until he retired, winning recognition as featherweight champion.
Comment--Also much older than Ali. No evidence harmed at all by layoff. Successful at higher weight class.

Ezzard Charles--off from March 31, 1943 to Feb 18, 1946--Result: Returns to be perhaps the greatest p4p fighter from 1946-1951, even over Robinson, winning 39 or 40 and reversing his one close loss to the larger Elmer Ray by knockout.
Comment: Actually performed better after layoff. Fair to point out was much younger than Ali, returning before his 25th birthday.

Gus Lesnevich--off from March 11, 1942 to Jan 11, 1946--Result: Returned with mixed results his first year. At 5' 9", a natural lightheavy, he ko'd lightheavy contender Joe Kahut in his first bout back and later that year ko'd Freddie Mills at London in a title defense. Lost to larger heavies Lee Oma and Bruce Woodcock by ko. In 1947 had his best year and was selected fighter of the year with four strong wins--ko of Billy Fox, ko of Melio Bettina, dec over Tami Mauriello, and ko of Mauriello.
Comment--30 in 1946, he also is older than Ali. No evidence the layoff hurt him.

Tony Zale--off from Feb 13, 1942 to Jan 7, 1946--Result: comes back to win 16 out of 17 between 1946 and 1948, including ko of Graziano in 1946. Loses to Graziano in oven fight in 1947, but handles him easily in third go in 1948 to regain his title. Then loses badly to Cerdan.
Comment--Much older than Ali, Zale is 33 in 1946. Nevertheless, there is little evidence he was much harmed by the layoff. When he lost, old age could be considered as much of a factor.

Billy Conn--off from Feb 13, 1942 to June 19, 1946--Result: Is ko'd by Louis who also laid off four years.
Comment--about same age as Ali, but also lost to Louis in 1941. The excuse is the layoff killed him off but not the older Louis. Did not have any more serious fights to judge one way or the other.

Conclusion--Claiming Ali lost it as a result of laying off and therefore dismissing his subsequent defeats is an excuse and not a persuasive one, as a glance at boxing history shows.
You neglected to mention that Hagler was fading too.Jofre much the same as ever? I think he had lost quite a bit really,a great fighter , reduced to a very good one.I think Lesnevich 's skills were eroding ,that's why he came for an easy one over Mills rather than fight,the likes of Lloyd Marshall,who had kod Mills.

[OLD FOGEY]

As impressed as I am by this summation there are some points to be made. SRL was never the same again. His victory over Hagler is tremendous, but so is Ali's over Foreman.

Most of the other guys you mention was inactive over WWII. Well, most of their opposition had been inactive during those years as well, and those that hadn't been were just starting out.

And wouldn't you say that Dempsey, Louis and SRR was harmed by their respective inactivities?

Furthermore, you only have to compare how Ali looked post-exile to pre-exile to see the difference. He was a bit heavier, slower and tired a bit quicker in his second career. It's there to be seen.

I don't think anyone truly believes a 66-67 version of Ali would be as stationary as he was in FOTC. It's a no-brainer really.

1. Leonard never being the same again--He might not have been the same if he never laid off. He was moving into his thirties.

2. Louis, SRR, and Dempsey--Robinson was 33 when he launched his comeback. Would he actually have performed better from 1955 to 1958 if he had never laid off? Who knows? Louis was also getting long in the tooth when he returned. He still had enough left to handle Walcott in 1948 and Walcott might have been the best man he ever defeated.

Dempsey and Ali have something in common in that they ran into a better fighter coming back than they had ever fought. Some might argue Liston over Frazier, but I do not concur. Not the Liston of 1964, certainly. He had not fought out of the first round in three years. I think he no longer had the sharpness and stamina to give Ali a real good go. In contrast, Frazier was prime.

3. I don't think the opponents were inactive during WWII argument is on the whole accurate. Without looking it up, Bivins, Moore, Marshall, Ray, Mills, Fox, Mauriello, Bettina, and Graziano, the major opponents of the war years stars I mentioned, were active every year of the war. I guess it was a question of a wife and children to support, and relative age, and Graziano was tossed out of the army for striking an officer.

4. How Ali looked. He was older. He may have moved around quicker when younger, but he always came down off his toes after a few rounds. His opponents on the whole couldn't take advantage of it. Jones did though. And Chuvalo belabored him on the ropes. Frazier and Norton just had more to offer--firepower in Frazier's case, and size as well as skill in Norton's.

[OLD FOGEY]

You neglected to mention that Hagler was fading too.Jofre much the same as ever? I think he had lost quite a bit really,a great fighter , reduced to a very good one.I think Lesnevich 's skills were eroding ,that's why he came for an easy one over Mills rather than fight,the likes of Lloyd Marshall,who had kod Mills.

Hagler was active, though. Jofre was past 35 for many of these fights. What is the evidence that the layoff hurt him? Marshall was not in the yearly rankings at all in 1946. Mills was upset by a fading Marshall in 1948 but still got a rematch with Lesnevich. Lesnevich was never a super fighter, after all. Did he or did he not perform at the top of his game in 1947?

All these men were aging fighters. I am certain their skills were eroding as they do with all aging fighters. What is the evidence, though, that the layoffs actually accelerated the process? I don't think there is any.

[OLD FOGEY]

From wikipedia:

Leonard had a very long training camp for the Hagler fight. After the Hagler fight, it was revealed that Leonard had a number of full 12 round fights behind closed doors. These were officially sparring sessions, but with a few major differences. There were no headguards used, small gloves and the sparring partners were told to try their best to win over the full 12 rounds. They were basically REAL fights.

Two of the sparring were Quincy Taylor, future WBC World Middleweight Champion, and Anthony Fletcher (who was a southpaw). Taylor floored Leonard during one of these 'fights'.

And I'll add that although Leonard was 31, Hagler was 33, and age shows on a rough brawler before it does on a slick boxer.

Leonard did a good job of preparing. But Ali was younger and had actually had two warm-up fights, one of which went 15 rounds with the tough Bonavena. I assume Ali was preparing too. He had the same trainer Leonard later had.

Hagler may have seen better days, but he was still a formidable opponent and he had been active.

[Bokaj]

[quote]Dempsey and Ali have something in common in that they ran into a better fighter coming back than they had ever fought. Some might argue Liston over Frazier, but I do not concur. Not the Liston of 1964, certainly. He had not fought out of the first round in three years. I think he no longer had the sharpness and stamina to give Ali a real good go. In contrast, Frazier was prime.

Aren't you contradicting yourself badly there? Liston looses sharpness and stamina by not fighting enough rounds in three years, but Ali doesn't loose any but not fighting at all? This shows how faulty your logic is, really.

I think you're just skirting the obvious. Ask any athlete or physician, expert whatever, and they will tell you that a lay-off hurts a fighter.

I think it's no coincidence that Dempsey looked bad after his inactivity, but if you only think it had to do with better opposition, you can't rank him very highly.

4. How Ali looked. He was older. He may have moved around quicker when younger, but he always came down off his toes after a few rounds. His opponents on the whole couldn't take advantage of it. Jones did though. And Chuvalo belabored him on the ropes. Frazier and Norton just had more to offer--firepower in Frazier's case, and size as well as skill in Norton's.

As for Ali, he was 28 when he came back. That should be his physical prime, not old age. He showed more detoriation between 25 and 28 than between 28 and 31. That should tell you something. Do you seriously think he would have looked against Bonavena in 1967 (when they were first scheduled to meet) as he did in 1970? I sure as hell don't.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=OLD FOGEY]

Aren't you contradicting yourself badly there? Liston looses sharpness and stamina by not fighting enough rounds in three years, but Ali doesn't loose any but not fighting at all? This shows how faulty your logic is, really.

I think you're just skirting the obvious. Ask any athlete or physician, expert whatever, and they will tell you that a lay-off hurts a fighter.

I think it's no coincidence that Dempsey looked bad after his inactivity, but if you only think it had to do with better opposition, you can't rank him very highly.



As for Ali, he was 28 when he came back. That should be his physical prime, not old age. He showed more detoriation between 25 and 28 than between 28 and 31. That should tell you something. Do you seriously think he would have looked against Bonavena in 1967 (when they were first scheduled to meet) as he did in 1970? I sure as hell don't.

1. On Liston--Liston was also older. I don't think the Liston of 1960 beats Ali, but by 1964 Liston was four years older and had not fought enough rounds to slow the erosion. My point was that Frazier was the tougher opponent and I stand by it.

2. Who knows if Ali would have had an easier time with Bonavena in 1967. Very few had easy times with Bonavena. Mildenberger, who proved no where near as good as Bonavena, gave Ali some problems in 1966.

3. Why not judge off fighters who actually fought the same man before and after their layoffs.
A. Sugar Ray Robinson--beat Bobo Olson by close decision in 1952. Robinson had to put on a strong rally to insure the verdict. Olson was active and impressive over the years when Robinson was inactive. In 1955 and 1956 Robinson destoys Olson in 2 and 4 rounds respectively. The layoff did not seem to hurt Robinson versus the much younger and active Olson.
B. Gus Lesnevich--In 1941, at his physical peak, Gus Lesnevich twice goes 15 rounds against the 18 year old Tami Mauriello. The first fight is hotly disputed and the second close. In 1947, when Mauriello is 24 and Lesnevich is 32, and Lesnevich has had his four year layoff while Mauriello was active, Lesnevich defeats Mauriello in 10 and then ko's him in 7. The layoff did not seem to hurt Lesnevich.
C. Muhammad Ali--fought Patterson in 1965 and Chuvalo in 1966. Well, Patterson was injured in the first fight so any comparision is difficult. I have seen both of the Chuvalo fights and I would say George did much better in the first one. He had gone back too far to really press Ali by the second fight.
D. Eder Jofre--drew with Manny Elias in 10 in 1966. After a long layoff, came back and defeated Elias in 10 in 1970.
E. Sugar Ray Leonard--ko'd Hearns in 14 in 1981. Drew with Hearns in 12 in 1988. This might be adduced as evidence for your side, but Hearns would have won in 12 in 1981. Leonard had also split with Duran in 1980, and won in 12 in 1989. The Duran example only points to age being more important than layoffs.

4. Ali showed more deterioration between 25 and 28 than between 28 and 31. I don't accept that. He looked pretty vulnerable against Norton.

[Bummy Davis]

[quote=Bokaj]

1. On Liston--Liston was also older. I don't think the Liston of 1960 beats Ali, but by 1964 Liston was four years older and had not fought enough rounds to slow the erosion. My point was that Frazier was the tougher opponent and I stand by it.

2. Who knows if Ali would have had an easier time with Bonavena in 1967. Very few had easy times with Bonavena. Mildenberger, who proved no where near as good as Bonavena, gave Ali some problems in 1966.

3. Why not judge off fighters who actually fought the same man before and after their layoffs.
A. Sugar Ray Robinson--beat Bobo Olson by close decision in 1952. Robinson had to put on a strong rally to insure the verdict. Olson was active and impressive over the years when Robinson was inactive. In 1955 and 1956 Robinson destoys Olson in 2 and 4 rounds respectively. The layoff did not seem to hurt Robinson versus the much younger and active Olson.
B. Gus Lesnevich--In 1941, at his physical peak, Gus Lesnevich twice goes 15 rounds against the 18 year old Tami Mauriello. The first fight is hotly disputed and the second close. In 1947, when Mauriello is 24 and Lesnevich is 32, and Lesnevich has had his four year layoff while Mauriello was active, Lesnevich defeats Mauriello in 10 and then ko'd him in 7. The layoff did not seem to hurt Lesnevich.
C. Muhammad Ali--fought Patterson in 1965 and Chuvalo in 1966. Well, Patterson was injured in the first fight so any comparision is difficult. I have seen both of the Chuvalo fights and I would say George did much better in the first one. He had gone back too far to really press Ali by the second fight.
D. Eder Jofre--drew with Manny Elias in 10 in 1966. After a long layoff, came back and defeated Elias in 10 in 1970.
E. Sugar Ray Leonard--ko'd Hearns in 14 in 1981. Drew with Hearns in 12 in 1988. This might be adduced as evidence for your side, but Hearns would have won in 12 in 1981. Leonard had also split with Duran in 1980, and won in 12 in 1989. The Duran example only points to age being more important than layoffs.

4. Ali showed more deterioration between 25 and 28 than between 28 and 31. I don't accept that. He looked pretty vulnerable against Norton.



Good Post, I think Ali came back much stronger after the layoff and don't think the younger version would have gone 15 vs the Smokin Joe of there 1st fight. Frazier was a tougher fight than the Listons that Ali fought, a brutal pace and relentless attack, hurt Ali badly in the 11th and 15th. I think that was the last prime version of Frazier we would see and a combination of the fame and a reduced work ethic made Frazier slip after that one. I think its easy to say Ali had 3 years off and it effected him but who did Ali fight as good as Frazier before the comeback. Also very good point about Bonevena, Ali had a hard time with shorter guys Mildenburger gave him trouble before comeback and Bonevena was a much stronger guy that Karl

[MagnificentMatt]

This guy sounds like an old school nuthugger to me..Apparently Tunney and Dempsey are better than say Lewis and Holmes?

[groove]

Good Post, I think Ali came back much stronger after the layoff and don't think the younger version would have gone 15 vs the Smokin Joe of there 1st fight.
haha your the funniest comedian i've heard in years. i tell you what i love your posts. entertainment is what i like.

[SuzieQ49]

hey groove why dont u tell us all how floyd patterson is better than rocky marciano. lol.

[groove]

2. Who knows if Ali would have had an easier time with Bonavena in 1967. Very few had easy times with Bonavena. Mildenberger, who proved no where near as good as Bonavena, gave Ali some problems in 1966.

Fogey gimme something better. Jimmy Ellis gave Bonavena a boxing lesson. He was nowhere near the same class as Ali in 1967. How many fights did Ali have in 66? Mildenburger never lasted the distance so he must have been a tough fight for ali. that's the best you can come up with. you dissappoint me.

[groove]

in think rocky is better than patterson. one thing i give rocky credit for is will power and i think that is very important cuz a less skilled fighter can beat a better one with that one skill as rocky proved time and time again. don't underestimate will power but ali was great in that department aswell.

[SuzieQ49]

wait so ur not the youtube poster named "groove" whos been posting on marciano videos talking shit about how marciano ducked floyd cause floyd would have kayoed him?

[groove]

no my username is 'grooveharder'.

[OLD FOGEY]

Fogey gimme something better. Jimmy Ellis gave Bonavena a boxing lesson. He was nowhere near the same class as Ali in 1967. How many fights did Ali have in 66? Mildenburger never lasted the distance so he must have been a tough fight for ali. that's the best you can come up with. you dissappoint me.

Mildenberger wasn't that tough of a fight. But then how tough really was Bonavena in 1970. Ali would have won it by a wide decision.

Ellis did make Bonavena look bad, but Bonavena looked much better than Ellis did against Frazier in 1966 and 1968, and he also looked better against Ali. Bonavena was noted as a guy who liked partying more than training. He might have taken Ellis lightly, or perhaps it was just one of those things with Ellis having the perfect style to handle Bonavena.

[groove]

yeah ali woulda won oscar easy by UD in 67 but not in 1970 after 3 1/2 years out. to think otherwise is foolish - he got lucky in the 15th but the rest of the fight tells its own story. ali never came close to losing his title before the lay-off. ellis wouldn't stand a chance against that ali but he had no trouble with bonavena. ellis and ali were quite similar in style just ellis was lighter.

[Bummy Davis]

haha your the funniest comedian i've heard in years. i tell you what i love your posts. entertainment is what i like.

Do you think the Ali that fought Frazier and Bonavena would have been dropped by Cooper, I think Ali felt stronger,was stronger and even tried to mix more. The best Ali I ever saw was vs Liston 1 (but what was up with Liston) Frazier 1 and the best for me was the Foreman fight, how he used his smarts but other than Liston he fights his pre comeback were not as good as his comeback opponents....thats my opinion Ali is one of my top 3 but is he GOD, No, was he Superman, No, Now if that makes you laugh or that makes you cry...have fun

[OLD FOGEY]

yeah ali woulda won oscar easy by UD in 67 but not in 1970 after 3 1/2 years out. to think otherwise is foolish - he got lucky in the 15th but the rest of the fight tells its own story. ali never came close to losing his title before the lay-off. ellis wouldn't stand a chance against that ali but he had no trouble with bonavena. ellis and ali were quite similar in style just ellis was lighter.

Ellis showed he had no chance against the post-layoff Ali either. Nor against Frazier. Bonavena did better against both.

[bernie4366]

Rocky Marciano couldn't carry Holmes' jockstrap. Larry was correct.

Rocky worshippers are completely delusional.

[Mega Lamps]

Rocky Marciano couldn't carry Holmes' jockstrap. Larry was correct.

Rocky worshippers are completely delusional.

Actually Holmes apologized for that and said he did not mean to put Marciano down like that. He was just feeling good about himself and was confident, so he said that. He did not mean it about Marciano.

[sugarkills]

Rocky Marciano couldn't carry Holmes' jockstrap. Larry was correct.

Rocky worshippers are completely delusional.
Larry is just jealous of the greatest fighter in history. The truth is Holmes' couldn't carry Rocky's jockstrap because its too heavy for him. Rocky, aside from being the best, also had the largest balls in boxing history as well.

Larry should kept his flabby mouth shut. 48-1 doesn't compare to 49-0 :D

There is NOTHING delusional about a Rocky fan. The fact remains he is the ONLY undefeated heavyweight champ ever, while Larry just keeps making a fool of himself. I'm glad Tyson knocked him on his fatass.

[Bokaj]

[quote=Bokaj]

1. On Liston--Liston was also older. I don't think the Liston of 1960 beats Ali, but by 1964 Liston was four years older and had not fought enough rounds to slow the erosion. My point was that Frazier was the tougher opponent and I stand by it.

You might very well be right about Frazier. But you did suggest that Liston's low activity for 3 years hurt him, and by that standard 3,5 years of no activity should definitely hurt Ali.


C. Muhammad Ali--fought Patterson in 1965 and Chuvalo in 1966. Well, Patterson was injured in the first fight so any comparision is difficult. I have seen both of the Chuvalo fights and I would say George did much better in the first one. He had gone back too far to really press Ali by the second fight.

Both Chuvalo and Patterson said Ali was better pre-exile than post-exile.


4. Ali showed more deterioration between 25 and 28 than between 28 and 31. I don't accept that. He looked pretty vulnerable against Norton.

He was not very well trained, got his jaw broke and still gave the guy who took a prime Holmes to hell at 34, a good fight.

And I actually think Ali looked better in the rematch against Frazier than in FOTC. In absolutely no way had Ali detoriated more between his first and second meeting with Frazier, than he did between his fight with Folley and FOTC.

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED WHY ALI WOULD AGE BETWEEN 25 AND 28! A fighter that took as little punishment as he did is by no means old at 28, quite the opposite. 28 would probably have been around his absolute peak if not for the exile. Dundee said Ali was still evolving physically when he was forced into exile.

I can't even see this as a serious discussion, it's just so obvious that the exile took its toll on Ali. I think I've made some compelling arguments for this being the case, but it's also something that he himself, his trainer, his opponents and just about all boxing experts agree upon.

That's about what I have to say about this subject. Anymore would just be a waste of time.

[SuzieQ49]

Rocky Marciano couldn't carry Holmes' jockstrap. Larry was correct.

but renaldo snipes could?

[PowerPuncher]

Does boxing history back you up?

Sugar Ray Leonard--off from May 11, 1984 (this fight came after a two year layoff) to April 6, 1987--Result: Without any warmup bouts Leonard defeats Marvelous Marvin Hagler for the middleweight title.
Comment--Leonard is actually close to 31, two years older than Ali, and with only 9 rounds of boxing in five years is able to take Hagler.

Eder Jofre--off from June 6, 1966 to August 27, 1969--Result: Went undefeated for the next 25 fights of his career until he retired, winning recognition as featherweight champion.
Comment--Also much older than Ali. No evidence harmed at all by layoff. Successful at higher weight class.

Ezzard Charles--off from March 31, 1943 to Feb 18, 1946--Result: Returns to be perhaps the greatest p4p fighter from 1946-1951, even over Robinson, winning 39 or 40 and reversing his one close loss to the larger Elmer Ray by knockout.
Comment: Actually performed better after layoff. Fair to point out was much younger than Ali, returning before his 25th birthday.

Gus Lesnevich--off from March 11, 1942 to Jan 11, 1946--Result: Returned with mixed results his first year. At 5' 9", a natural lightheavy, he ko'd lightheavy contender Joe Kahut in his first bout back and later that year ko'd Freddie Mills at London in a title defense. Lost to larger heavies Lee Oma and Bruce Woodcock by ko. In 1947 had his best year and was selected fighter of the year with four strong wins--ko of Billy Fox, ko of Melio Bettina, dec over Tami Mauriello, and ko of Mauriello.
Comment--31 in 1946, he also is older than Ali. No evidence the layoff hurt him.

Tony Zale--off from Feb 13, 1942 to Jan 7, 1946--Result: comes back to win 16 out of 17 between 1946 and 1948, including ko of Graziano in 1946. Loses to Graziano in oven fight in 1947, but handles him easily in third go in 1948 to regain his title. Then loses badly to Cerdan.
Comment--Much older than Ali, Zale is 33 in 1946. Nevertheless, there is little evidence he was much harmed by the layoff. When he lost, old age could be considered as much of a factor.

Billy Conn--off from Feb 13, 1942 to June 19, 1946--Result: Is ko'd by Louis who also laid off four years.
Comment--about same age as Ali, but also lost to Louis in 1941. The excuse is the layoff killed him off but not the older Louis. Did not have any more serious fights to judge one way or the other.

Conclusion--Claiming Ali lost it as a result of laying off and therefore dismissing his subsequent defeats is an excuse and not a persuasive one, as a glance at boxing history shows.

How about:

Sugar Ray Robinson - (3years and lost left right and centre, losing 6 fights in 4years)

Jim Jeffries - 6years

Dempsey - 3years, loses twice and got lucky against Sharkey

Tyson -3years in the can, becomes a shadow of his former self

Tito Trinidad - 3years

[Bummy Davis]

Larry is just jealous of the greatest fighter in history. The truth is Holmes' couldn't carry Rocky's jockstrap because its too heavy for him. Rocky, aside from being the best, also had the largest balls in boxing history as well.

Larry should kept his flabby mouth shut. 48-1 doesn't compare to 49-0 :D

There is NOTHING delusional about a Rocky fan. The fact remains he is the ONLY undefeated heavyweight champ ever, while Larry just keeps making a fool of himself. I'm glad Tyson knocked him on his fatass.

The only reason Larry said that was because he had a short people phobia...Nick Wells who Ko'd him 2 times in the finals for the NATIONALS and he was about 5"10 and Tyson was another 5"10 1/2 dude that smoked Larry.....so I guess they couldn't carry his Jock strap but they knew how to KNOCK a sucker out...Thats where Larrys short phobia comes from, from those short rights hands from Shorty's

[prime]

This is the reason Marciano is underrated. Since a bunch of so-called critics say Ali was the best, the fans are conditioned and automatically think he was. But the critics are always going to love a boxer who makes them rich. Ali was always shooting his mouth off and conceded long, bizzarre interviews, giving journalists and critics plenty to qrite about. Magazines and newspapers sold lots of extra copies thanks to Ali. The least the journalists could do to repay Ali was call him "the greatest".

Let's stick to our own opinions, we're smart enough to figure things out for ourselves. If we say Ali was the best just because other people say it, that doesn't mean anything.

This is snake oil arithmetics. I could do the same with Ali and have many more examples to choose from. Example: since Ali won a decision over Duke Sabedong, who was 15-11, then certainly Ali would have lost to Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano, since they were much better than Sabedong.

It's a senseless argument when you apply it to Ali, just like it is when you apply it to Marciano. No matter what style you pick, whether it's a swarmer or slick boxer, I can pick an example from Ali's resume that fits it.

Sometimes boxers fight to the level of his opponent. So you wonder how on earth Ali had a close decision with Doug Jones and then KO'd George Foreman. What matters is the result, whether he won or lost.


You seem to believe fans are gullible Pavlov dogs and journalists manipulative mercenaries, while holding your own viewpoint in towering regard.

The early-career Clay decision victory over Sabedong has nothing to do with Marciano's being pushed near the limit by a 37-year-old champion who had retired 6 times before winning the crown he was defending against his odds-on favorite challenger.

A result reveals much if it is studied in context: in his signature fights, Marciano struggled too much in the way of trailing on points, cuts and even early knockdowns, against older fighters.

The greatest heavyweight champion of all time must display a dominance, in context, that puts him head-and-shoulders above his opposition.

Glorification begins when a guy has life and death, tooth and nail, against, in the context of heavyweight history, relatively small (LaStarza), old (Louis) and weak (Cockell) opposition, scoring spectacular nail-biting, come-from-behind, edge-of-your-seat victories, and then seen as being able to do the same against much, much better foes in fantasy fights.

The key part of Rocky's career:
No. 25: Carmine Vingo. 16-1. 189 lbs. KO 6
No. 26: Roland LaStarza. 37-0. 187 lbs. SD 10
No. 27: Eldrige Eatman. 15-19-3. 206 lbs. TKO 3
No. 28: Gino Buonvino. 22-11-7. 199 lbs. TKO 10
No. 29: Johnny Shkor. 29-18-2. 220 lbs. TKO 6
No. 30: Ted Lowry. 62-56-10. 180 lbs. UD 10
No. 31: Bill Wilson. 42-11-2. 229 lbs. TKO 1
No. 32: Keene Simmons. 8-8-1. 200 lbs. TKO 8
No. 33: Harold Mitchell. 3-12-3- 181 lbs. TKO 2
No. 34: Art Henri. 13-15-1. 184 lbs. TKO 9
No. 35: Red Applegate. 10-14-2. 196 lbs. UD 10
No. 36: Rex Layne. 34-1-2. 193 lbs. KO 6
No. 37: Freddie Beshore. 30-12-1. 196 lbs. KO 4
No. 38: Joe Louis. 65-2. 213 lbs. KO 8
No. 39: Lee Savold. 93-39-3. 200 lbs. TKO 7
No. 40: Gino Buonvino. 24-14-8. 196 lbs. KO 2
No. 41: Bernie Reynolds. 51-9-2. 185 lbs. KO 3
No. 42: Harry Matthews. 81-3-5. 179 lbs. KO 2
No. 43: Jersey Joe Walcott. 51-16-2. 196 lbs. KO 13
No. 44: Jersey Joe Walcott. 51-17-2. 197 lbs. KO 1
No. 45: Roland LaStarza. 53-3. 184 lbs. TKO 11
No. 46: Ezzard Charles. 80-10-1. 185 lbs. UD 15
No. 47: Ezzard Charles. 80-11-1. 192 lbs. KO 8
No. 48: Don Cockell. 66-11-1. 205 lbs. TKO 9
No. 49: Archie Moore. 148-19-9. 188 lbs. KO 9

Rocky was consistent, never gave up, and had great stamina and power. I greatly respect his undefeated record. It speaks of his understanding what is meant to be a champion. I can understand why his generation idolizes him.

But there have been other great champions in heavyweight history, with just as impressive credentials. Rocky never lost in 49 fights, but he only had 6 defenses. Louis had 25, Holmes 20, Ali 19, Frazier 9. Tunney, Jeffries, Ali, even Lewis, also retired as champions not having lost the title in the ring.

It is Rocky's calibre of opposition, and his showing against it, that is weakness all-time. He won, but he struggled, not in the context of fighting down to an opponent's level, but in that of going all out and banging out victories or quite barely winning against the LaStarzas, Walcotts, Charleses, and Moores that are no Alis, Tysons, Dempseys or Louises.

With respect to head-to-head, Rocky's Aquiles' heel would be his slowness and thus predictability. He could not deliver enough volume at enough speed to catch a prime Ali and would drop a decision, while Tyson would get to him much faster with powershots than vice versa, while effectively telegraphing his own intentions.

For much the same reason, I favor Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Frazier and even Holmes over him.

There is a wealth of talent in the heavyweight ranks. A well-placed goose egg and hero worship should not blind us to it.

[Rubber Warrior]

It has always amazed me how some fighters are perched upon an Olympian pedestal whereas others will give you every last drop of their soul - over time while making notable if extraordinary accomplishment - yet still not get rated as highly as others.

Rocky is an all-time great, I'm just surprised at how many have him fitted for cape and tights whenever discussion of past great heavy kings is brought up.

I'm surprised they haven't created a comic book about him after all these years.......

[prime]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Bummy Davis]

You seem to believe fans are gullible Pavlov dogs and journalists manipulative mercenaries, while holding your own viewpoint in towering regard.

The early-career Clay decision victory over Sabedong has nothing to do with Marciano's being pushed near the limit by a 37-year-old champion who had retired 6 times before winning the crown he was defending against his odds-on favorite challenger.

A result reveals much if it is studied in context: in his signature fights, Marciano struggled too much in the way of trailing on points, cuts and even early knockdowns, against older fighters.

The greatest heavyweight champion of all time must display a dominance, in context, that puts him head-and-shoulders above his opposition.

Glorification begins when a guy has life and death, tooth and nail, against, in the context of heavyweight history, relatively small (LaStarza), old (Louis) and weak (Cockell) opposition, scoring spectacular nail-biting, come-from-behind, edge-of-your-seat victories, and then seen as being able to do the same against much, much better foes in fantasy fights.

The key part of Rocky's career:
No. 25: Carmine Vingo. 16-1. 189 lbs. KO 6
No. 26: Roland LaStarza. 37-0. 187 lbs. SD 10
No. 27: Eldrige Eatman. 15-19-3. 206 lbs. TKO 3
No. 28: Gino Buonvino. 22-11-7. 199 lbs. TKO 10
No. 29: Johnny Shkor. 29-18-2. 220 lbs. TKO 6
No. 30: Ted Lowry. 62-56-10. 180 lbs. UD 10
No. 31: Bill Wilson. 42-11-2. 229 lbs. TKO 1
No. 32: Keene Simmons. 8-8-1. 200 lbs. TKO 8
No. 33: Harold Mitchell. 3-12-3- 181 lbs. TKO 2
No. 34: Art Henri. 13-15-1. 184 lbs. TKO 9
No. 35: Red Applegate. 10-14-2. 196 lbs. UD 10
No. 36: Rex Layne. 34-1-2. 193 lbs. KO 6
No. 37: Freddie Beshore. 30-12-1. 196 lbs. KO 4
No. 38: Joe Louis. 65-2. 213 lbs. KO 8
No. 39: Lee Savold. 93-39-3. 200 lbs. TKO 7
No. 40: Gino Buonvino. 24-14-8. 196 lbs. KO 2
No. 41: Bernie Reynolds. 51-9-2. 185 lbs. KO 3
No. 42: Harry Matthews. 81-3-5. 179 lbs. KO 2
No. 43: Jersey Joe Walcott. 51-16-2. 196 lbs. KO 13
No. 44: Jersey Joe Walcott. 51-17-2. 197 lbs. KO 1
No. 45: Roland LaStarza. 53-3. 184 lbs. TKO 11
No. 46: Ezzard Charles. 80-10-1. 185 lbs. UD 15
No. 47: Ezzard Charles. 80-11-1. 192 lbs. KO 8
No. 48: Don Cockell. 66-11-1. 205 lbs. TKO 9
No. 49: Archie Moore. 148-19-9. 188 lbs. KO 9

Rocky was consistent, never gave up, and had great stamina and power. I greatly respect his undefeated record. It speaks of his understanding what is meant to be a champion. I can understand why his generation idolizes him.

But there have been other great champions in heavyweight history, with just as impressive credentials. Rocky never lost in 49 fights, but he only had 6 defenses. Louis had 25, Holmes 20, Ali 19, Frazier 9. Tunney, Jeffries, Ali, even Lewis, also retired as champions not having lost the title in the ring.

It is Rocky's calibre of opposition, and his showing against it, that is weakness all-time. He won, but he struggled, not in the context of fighting down to an opponent's level, but in that of going all out and banging out victories or quite barely winning against the LaStarzas, Walcotts, Charleses, and Moores that are no Alis, Tysons, Dempseys or Louises.

With respect to head-to-head, Rocky's Aquiles' heel would be his slowness and thus predictability. He could not deliver enough volume at enough speed to catch a prime Ali and would drop a decision, while Tyson would get to him much faster with powershots than vice versa, while effectively telegraphing his own intentions.

For much the same reason, I favor Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Frazier and even Holmes over him.

There is a wealth of talent in the heavyweight ranks. A well-placed goose egg and hero worship should not blind us to it.


Walcott 1 was a tough fight but Rocky Knocked him out, That same Walcott would have given anyone fits including Ali. Walcott gave Louis a tough time in both fights and had Louis on the floor 3 times, Charles was another fighter who would have given anyone a tough fight. Do you not think Charles was a better fighter than Doug Jones. Title defences can be decieving in Holmes case he had a split crown and a lot of the fighters he gave title shots to were really just build up fights, very few of them were really title shot materiel, so his defence record is padded and he avoided(for Whatever reason) too many high rated contenders or title unification fights and never rematched tough fights. Marciano was a dominant Champion and he fought his #1 contender 5 times out of 6 defences and fought the # 2 contender Don Cokell 1 time. Now if you think Marciano struggled with Cockel, I would advise you to watch that fight again...Cockell had heart and fought it out getting up(he reconized the opportunity, but the fight was not a struggle. Again Marciano was just a man not a superman but none of the Heavyweight Champs you mentioned are either, they are just men, not GODS or Superheros....Marciano would not be an easy fight for anyone

[Bokaj]

Monte Cox is a very poor source of boxing analysis. He's famous, but his analysis is based on myths and urban legends, like "big guys beat smaller guys". He ignores facts. The history of boxing is proof that smaller HWs are better than big ones. All the best HW champions were avg 200 lbs, and almost always won the title from a heavier guy.

The quote at the beginning of the page should give you a clue as to what you are about to read: second hand nonsense. I would respect him much more if he actually gave me his opinion, rather than re-hashing what other people may have blurted out.

You still haven't answered my question. What has happened to the 185-190 lbs world beaters today? Why was Marciano the last dominant HW under 200 lbs and why was Patterson the last HW champion under 200, period?

[Bummy Davis]

You still haven't answered my question. What has happened to the 185-190 lbs world beaters today? Why was Marciano the last dominant HW under 200 lbs and why was Patterson the last HW champion under 200, period?

Heavyweight don't train to make weight anymore...Marciano used to run 10 miles or more a day, he ate like an animal but ran and worked it off. He used to punch a 300 lb bag. One thing I can tell you the pace of his fights were in fast motion compared to today. and they were 15 rounders. I think the Heavyweights today just muscle up and gain weight but can not fight 6-8 active rds....but again do you think James Toney should weigh over 230, he was 210 vs Holyfield and then again of all the all -time greats how many weighed over 220....have not been too many when the 15 rounders were still in affect

[Bokaj]

Heavyweight don't train to make weight anymore...Marciano used to run 10 miles or more a day, he ate like an animal but ran and worked it off. He used to punch a 300 lb bag.

Wladimir K is hardly fat. Perhaps he could lose another 10 lbs (but only perhaps), but he would still be huge. The same can be said of Lewis and many others of the modern superheavies.

One thing I can tell you the pace of his fights were in fast motion compared to today. and they were 15 rounders. I think the Heavyweights today just muscle up and gain weight but can not fight 6-8 active rds....but again do you think James Toney should weigh over 230, he was 210 vs Holyfield and then again of all the all -time greats how many weighed over 220....have not been too many when the 15 rounders were still in affect

Yes, 12 rounds benefit the big guys without a doubt. But you could see the change already when there was still 15 rounds. After Patterson every champion was 200+ lbs even when 15 rounds was still in effect, and in most cases 210-220 (Liston, Ali, Foreman, Holmes). And I hardly think that the 50 or so lbs that separate Marciano from most of the best HWs today only is down to three rounds.

[groove]

Since Marciano’s claim to greatness is based largely on his unbeaten record one must put his quality of opponents under the microscope. It is true that most of Rocky’s best opponents were past their prime when he faced them. Jersey Joe Walcott was 38-39 years old, Ezzard Charles was 32-33 and was at his peak at light-heavyweight and 175 pound champion Archie Moore was 42. One of the best men Marciano defeated prior to winning the title was Rex Layne. Layne lost often when he stepped up in competition. Another of the top contenders Marciano faced was Lee Savold whose career record was 89-37-3, hardly inspiring. Rocky came up in one of the weakest periods in heavyweight history, in fact the only era that is weaker than the early mid 50's amongst heavyweights is the current crop.

Joe Louis was the biggest name on Marciano’s resume, but he was 37 years old and had lost much. By the time of their fight the once legendary Louis had “long since lost his once devastating punch” as Nat Fleischer wrote. This is true because Louis depended greatly on speed, timing and sense of distance for his hitting power. His lost reflexes robbed him of his explosiveness and therefore his punching power. Louis still was a solid fighter when Marciano beat him because he was fundamentally sound, but he lacked the speed and power that he once possessed.

In a comparison Joe Louis fought much better competition than did Rocky Marciano. Marciano never fought the big 200 pounds plus hitters and giants that Louis did. The only top notch heavyweights that Marciano defeated who weighed over 200 pounds were a fat Don Cockell who weighed 205, and Joe Louis in his last fight. Louis, on the other hand, defeated Primo Carnera who was 6’6” 260 pounds, Max Baer 6’ 3” 210 pounds, Buddy Baer 6’5” 237 pounds, and Abe Simon 6’4” 260 pounds. Louis was at his absolute best against the big men because of his speed and explosive power. Rocky’s chin was never tested against a really big first tier heavyweight puncher. The two best punchers that he did fight, Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore both put him on the canvas. Marciano would be favored over the giants that Louis defeated, but he simply never faced anyone of such size and strength in his career. Could Marciano make 25 successful title defenses against Louis competition? Possibly, but he would have struggled more doing so. He made only 6 title defenses and decided to rest on his laurels.

When looking at Marciano’s opponents one must ask the question “Is there one person that Marciano beat that Joe Frazier would not beat?” The answer is clearly no. Joe Frazier would have little trouble with Marciano’s opponents and would easily have gone 49-0 against them. Frazier’s only career defeats were to Muhammad Ali and George Foreman. How would Marciano have fared against Frazier’s opponents? Marciano would be an underdog to Ali and would likely lose a decision. Ali was more susceptible to a left hook, Frazier’s bread and butter punch, than he was to a right hand, which was Rocky’s best shot. Cus D’Amato once said that, “No swarming heavyweight who ever lived could beat George Foreman coming to him.” Marciano would have had the same trouble trying to get inside George’s long arms and massive uppercuts, as did the bobbing and weaving Frazier. It seems highly unlikely that Marciano could overcome the freakish power of the much larger Foreman in a slugfest. Frazier holds a win over Muhammad Ali and defeated other quality heavyweights such as Jerry Quarry who were superior to most of Marciano's competition. Had the two all time greats switched era's Frazier would have been 49-0 and Marciano would likely have had losses to Ali and Foreman on his record.

After the LaStarza fight Marciano's handlers were afraid to put him in with anyone who could fight. His next opponent was Eldridge Eatman who had lost 8 of his last 9 fights. Tiger Ted Lowry who had a career record of 60-54-9, went the distance with Marciano. Others such as Harold (Kid) Mitchell, Art Henri, and Willis Red Applegate all had losing records. It is little wonder that Rex Layne was a 9-5 favorite over Marciano when Rocky finally stepped up in competition. It should be noted that Layne was no world beater, like most of Marciano's top opponents Layne weighed well under 200 pounds and he finished with a career record of 50-17-3.

Consider that in the Dec. 1962 Ring magazine poll of 40 boxing experts it was Jack Dempsey that was rated the # 1 Heavyweight of all time with Joe Louis 2nd, Jack Johnson 3rd and Marciano finishing a distant 7th, way behind Dempsey. If he was considered 7th in 1962 how does he propel to the top 5, when since then we have had Muhammad Ali who faced much tougher competition, the big power hitting George Foreman, Larry Holmes who made 20 title defenses, the bigger, faster and more powerful Mike Tyson, and the giant Lennox Lewis who at 6’5” 245 pounds would enjoy a 60 pound weight advantage over Marciano? This is a key point. Nat Fleischer rated Marciano at # 10, Charley Rose rated him at # 8, McCallum's survey of old-timers had him at # 9. No major historian who saw Maricano in their lifetime thought he was a top 5 all time heavyweight and 50 years have passed since Rocky retired as champion.

The caliber of opponents is most important in evaluating greatness.

nice read monte.

[Muchmoore]

nice read monte.

BS. Walcott, Charles, Moore were all very good/great fighters that Marciano knocked out, faulting him and dropping him down half a dozen notches simply because his resume doesn't have a Frazier is absurd when the man goes unbeaten. I guess if he lost and then avenged the defeat it would move him ahead in Cox's eyes.

I like reading Montes stuff I've been reading it a lot lately in fact, but he doesn't give Marciano his due.

[Bokaj]

Bummy Davis really put it nicely in his last post. I'll add that it's not a question of just fat, because like you pointed out, Wlad is not fat. It's a matter of speed and chin vulnerability. It's easier to hit a tall guy on the chin than it is to hit a short guy. And there is no way Wlad could be faster than Marciano. Carrying all that weight he would be a sitting duck to Marciano's uppercuts.

You keep saying that, but why hasn't any small HWs stepped up and just beat Wladimir? Why haven't we seen a dominant HW under 200 lbs for more than 50 years?

[OLD FOGEY]

You still haven't answered my question. What has happened to the 185-190 lbs world beaters today? Why was Marciano the last dominant HW under 200 lbs and why was Patterson the last HW champion under 200, period?

The same thing that has happened to the 210 lb world-beaters like Ali. Fighters are getting bigger.

[Bummy Davis]

The same thing that has happened to the 210 lb world-beaters like Ali. Fighters are getting bigger.


:good Fighters are getting bigger and the distance has gotten shorter, Vlad is a great conditioned heavy and so was Lennox but I do not think either had a Superheavyweight Chin and I do not think either would like a to get hit flush by Marciano, Louis or Dempsey dispite the weight factor

[Muchmoore]

:good Fighters are getting bigger and the distance has gotten shorter, Vlad is a great conditioned heavy and so was Lennox but I do not think either had a Superheavyweight Chin and I do not think either would like a to get hit flush by Marciano, Louis or Dempsey dispite the weight factor

Obviously not but they wouldn't want to get hit by Wlad/Lewis either.

[Bummy Davis]

Obviously not but they wouldn't want to get hit by Wlad/Lewis either.

I am sure they wouldn't but the point is that they were 189lb -200 lb fighter that had freaky power for that size ask some of there bigger opponents

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=OLD FOGEY]

You might very well be right about Frazier. But you did suggest that Liston's low activity for 3 years hurt him, and by that standard 3,5 years of no activity should definitely hurt Ali.



Both Chuvalo and Patterson said Ali was better pre-exile than post-exile.




He was not very well trained, got his jaw broke and still gave the guy who took a prime Holmes to hell at 34, a good fight.

And I actually think Ali looked better in the rematch against Frazier than in FOTC. In absolutely no way had Ali detoriated more between his first and second meeting with Frazier, than he did between his fight with Folley and FOTC.

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED WHY ALI WOULD AGE BETWEEN 25 AND 28! A fighter that took as little punishment as he did is by no means old at 28, quite the opposite. 28 would probably have been around his absolute peak if not for the exile. Dundee said Ali was still evolving physically when he was forced into exile.

I can't even see this as a serious discussion, it's just so obvious that the exile took its toll on Ali. I think I've made some compelling arguments for this being the case, but it's also something that he himself, his trainer, his opponents and just about all boxing experts agree upon.

That's about what I have to say about this subject. Anymore would just be a waste of time.

If I might suggest, your premise is your conclusion so you are arguing around in a circle. You take it as self-evident that Ali was badly deteriorated. Offer evidence.

Ali dominated his opposition of 1965 to 1967 because it was not that good. Liston was faded. Patterson hurt. Cooper aging and ordinary. London third-rate. Chuvalo and Mildenberger so-so. Williams a memory. Folley was a veteran contender who even at his best never beat the top men and who would lose a few months later to Brian London. Only Terrell might have been a test, but he suffered an early eye injury which hampered him thereafter.

Ali came back to beat Quarry more easily and to dominate him much more easily than he did most of the 1966-1967 bunch. Bonavena was awkward and often made good fighters look bad, but Ali certainly did not struggle. He won 12 of 14 rounds on one card, 10 or 14 on a second, and 8 on the third, before stopping Bonavena for the only time in his life in the 15th. Then came the FOTC in which Ali looked great early before Frazier came on in the late rounds. The next fight Ali completely swept Ellis. In my judgement, Quarry, Bonavena, and Ellis were better than the 1966 & 1967 crowd, and possibly even better than Patterson & Liston who were perhaps not at their best for these fights.

You ask about Ali deteriorating between 25 and 28, but what about Joe Frazier? Off the evidence of the eyes or the evidence of the record book, Frazier regressed badly between 25 when he crushed Quarry and 1972. He did not look good by 1972 against Stander and Daniels, was crushed by Foreman in Jan of 1973 and looked so-so against Bugner later that year. Frazier deteriorated more rapidly at that age in spite of remaining active throughout.

[OLD FOGEY]

How about:

Sugar Ray Robinson - (3years and lost left right and centre, losing 6 fights in 4years)

Jim Jeffries - 6years

Dempsey - 3years, loses twice and got lucky against Sharkey

Tyson -3years in the can, becomes a shadow of his former self

Tito Trinidad - 3years

1. Robinson--had lost 2 of his last 5 before retiring and did not look that good in any of them. Turpin beat him badly in London. Robinson stopped Turpin in New York but was badly cut. It was a tough fight and Robinson did not offer Turpin a rubber match. Olson went 15 to lose a close decision. Robinson got rid of the overrated Graziano in 3 but was knocked down. Robinson is stopped by Maxim.

Coming back Robinson actually wins 10 of 13 between 1955 and 1958 as he is growing older. Olson, who lasted 12 in 1950 & 15 in 1952, is blown away in 2 and 4. Fullmer beats Robinson but is taken out in the return. Basilio wins a close split decision, but loses the rematch. I think close scrutiny of Robinson indicates that moving up to middleweight is what gave him difficulty, not necessarily the layoff. He was fighting bigger men.

Frankly, I don't see that Robinson proves your point.

2. Tyson--Comes back with four crushing knockouts over McNeeley, Mathis, Bruno, and Selden, before he comes a cropper against Holyfield. But Holyfield is arguably the best man he has fought. Douglas had stopped Tyson in '90 before the layoff and Holyfield had blown Douglas away easily. Holyfield was actually older. What is the evidence that Tyson would have done better against Holyfield before the layoff?

Frankly, I don't see that Tyson proves your point.

3. Dempsey--Another guy who met his best opponents after the layoff, but what is the evidence he would have beaten Tunney if they had fought earlier or if he had never laid off. He only stopped Miske and Gibbons 1 out of 4 fights and I think Tunney was much better.

Frankly, I don't see that Dempsey proves your point.

I don't know enough about Tito to want to comment.

Jeffries--Another who ran into a better fighter than he had ever fought. Would Jeff had won this if he had stayed active between 1904 and 1910. I think that is quite a stretch.

[Bummy Davis]

[quote=Bokaj]

If I might suggest, your premise is your conclusion so you are arguing around in a circle. You take it as self-evident that Ali was badly deteriorated. Offer evidence.

Ali dominated his opposition of 1965 to 1967 because it was not that good. Liston was faded. Patterson hurt. Cooper aging and ordinary. London third-rate. Chuvalo and Mildenberger so-so. Williams a memory. Folley was a veteran contender who even at his best never beat the top men and who would lose a few months later to Brian London. Only Terrell might have been a test, but he suffered an early eye injury which hampered him thereafter.

Ali came back to beat Quarry more easily and to dominate him much more easily than he did most of the 1966-1967 bunch. Bonavena was awkward and often made good fighters look bad, but Ali certainly did not struggle. He won 12 of 14 rounds on one card, 10 or 14 on a second, and 8 on the third, before stopping Bonavena for the only time in his life in the 15th. Then came the FOTC in which Ali looked great early before Frazier came on in the late rounds. The next fight Ali completely swept Ellis. In my judgement, Quarry, Bonavena, and Ellis were better than the 1966 & 1967 crowd, and possibly even better than Patterson & Liston who were perhaps not at their best for these fights.

You ask about Ali deteriorating between 25 and 28, but what about Joe Frazier? Off the evidence of the eyes or the evidence of the record book, Frazier regressed badly between 25 when he crushed Quarry and 1972. He did not look good by 1972 against Stsnder and Daniels, was crushed by Foreman in Jan of 1973 and looked so-so against Bugner later that year. Frazier deteriorated more rapidly at that age in spite of remaining active throughout.

:good True That

[sugarkills]

Rocky Marciano is only a great heavyweight if you ask racist white boys who cant get over the fact 185 pounds isnt a heavyweight. You ask any other race and they will tell you that Maricano, Dempsey and Tunney were overrated pieces of trash.

Well I'm not a racist white boy, and I think Marciano is the greatest of all time. I think he would smash any heavyweight in any era, and if you disagree then your wrong. :D

[sugarkills]

Marciano would mop the floors with any of today's boxers, one round each. Charley Goldman would not allow him to indulge in cheese.

Finally, someone that makes sense. :thumbsup

[bernie4366]

but renaldo snipes could?

Hate to be the one to break it to you, but Snipes/Marciano is a pick em fight. Rocky is HUGELY overrated. Slow, small, poor technique.

He would get murdered by dozens and dozens of heavyweights before him and after him. Very weak era.

[bernie4366]

Tommy Morrison would knock his ass thru the ropes. Believe that.

[groove]

If I might suggest, your premise is your conclusion so you are arguing around in a circle. You take it as self-evident that Ali was badly deteriorated. Offer evidence.

Ali dominated his opposition of 1965 to 1967 because it was not that good. Liston was faded. Patterson hurt. Cooper aging and ordinary. London third-rate. Chuvalo and Mildenberger so-so. Williams a memory. Folley was a veteran contender who even at his best never beat the top men and who would lose a few months later to Brian London. Only Terrell might have been a test, but he suffered an early eye injury which hampered him thereafter.

Ali came back to beat Quarry more easily and to dominate him much more easily than he did most of the 1966-1967 bunch. Bonavena was awkward and often made good fighters look bad, but Ali certainly did not struggle. He won 12 of 14 rounds on one card, 10 or 14 on a second, and 8 on the third, before stopping Bonavena for the only time in his life in the 15th. Then came the FOTC in which Ali looked great early before Frazier came on in the late rounds. The next fight Ali completely swept Ellis. In my judgement, Quarry, Bonavena, and Ellis were better than the 1966 & 1967 crowd, and possibly even better than Patterson & Liston who were perhaps not at their best for these fights.

You ask about Ali deteriorating between 25 and 28, but what about Joe Frazier? Off the evidence of the eyes or the evidence of the record book, Frazier regressed badly between 25 when he crushed Quarry and 1972. He did not look good by 1972 against Stander and Daniels, was crushed by Foreman in Jan of 1973 and looked so-so against Bugner later that year. Frazier deteriorated more rapidly at that age in spite of remaining active throughout.

Here we go again. Most normal people look at the fight films of ali before and after exile to realize how much he suffered. But not you, you try and do comparisons like usual. Every eye witness can say ali before exile was much better than the comeback version. watch the films and get back to me. compare the angles, the footwork, the speed.................even commentators like Cossell knew it. Cuz Dmato knew it. every boxing expert could see it except old fogey and delusional rocky fans.

[OLD FOGEY]

Here we go again. Most normal people look at the fight films of ali before and after exile to realize how much he suffered. But not you, you try and do comparisons like usual. Every eye witness can say ali before exile was much better than the comeback version. watch the films and get back to me. compare the angles, the footwork, the speed.................even commentators like Cossell knew it. Cuz Dmato knew it. every boxing expert could see it except old fogey and delusional rocky fans.

I not only have watched and rewatched the films, I saw the fights when they were originally fought and were replayed on the Wide World of Sports. I just don't agree with you.

I will give you this, Ali looked better against Liston than he did in 1971, but whether the layoff had anything to do with that or it was just a normal aging process, who knows. I think Marciano looked better in 1951 and 1952 than he did in 1954 or 1955. Louis looked better in 1935-38, other than the first Schmeling bout, than he did in 1940-42. Just my take.

When did these men look the best in my judgement:
Louis--Max Baer (1935) & Max Schmeling (1938)
Marciano--Joe Louis (1951) & Harry Matthews (1952)
Ali--Liston (1965) & Williams (1966)

[Bokaj]

[quote=Bokaj]

If I might suggest, your premise is your conclusion so you are arguing around in a circle. You take it as self-evident that Ali was badly deteriorated. Offer evidence.

Ali dominated his opposition of 1965 to 1967 because it was not that good. Liston was faded. Patterson hurt. Cooper aging and ordinary. London third-rate. Chuvalo and Mildenberger so-so. Williams a memory. Folley was a veteran contender who even at his best never beat the top men and who would lose a few months later to Brian London. Only Terrell might have been a test, but he suffered an early eye injury which hampered him thereafter.

Ali came back to beat Quarry more easily and to dominate him much more easily than he did most of the 1966-1967 bunch. Bonavena was awkward and often made good fighters look bad, but Ali certainly did not struggle. He won 12 of 14 rounds on one card, 10 or 14 on a second, and 8 on the third, before stopping Bonavena for the only time in his life in the 15th. Then came the FOTC in which Ali looked great early before Frazier came on in the late rounds. The next fight Ali completely swept Ellis. In my judgement, Quarry, Bonavena, and Ellis were better than the 1966 & 1967 crowd, and possibly even better than Patterson & Liston who were perhaps not at their best for these fights.

You ask about Ali deteriorating between 25 and 28, but what about Joe Frazier? Off the evidence of the eyes or the evidence of the record book, Frazier regressed badly between 25 when he crushed Quarry and 1972. He did not look good by 1972 against Stander and Daniels, was crushed by Foreman in Jan of 1973 and looked so-so against Bugner later that year. Frazier deteriorated more rapidly at that age in spite of remaining active throughout.

We obviously disagree. For me it's as plain as day that Ali was quicker and had better stamina before the exile, and I think most agree with me here. The Quarry fight ended by a cut in rd 3, at which point Ali himself admitted he was tiring badly. He was schocked that his conditioning wasn't better.

Not in a milion years would the 66-67 version of Ali be as stationary as he was against Bonavena and Frazier (in FOTC). Show me one fight pre-exile where he was!

Cosell commented on how stationary he was against Bonavena and Dumphy did the same in FOTC.

Frazier didn't start to detoriate at 25, and you know that. After FOTC (where he took a lot of punishment) he started to show signs of detoriation, though, but then he was 27. And swarmers like him always age more rapidly due to amount of punishment they take. Ali hardly took any punches at all pre-exile. Why on earth would a guy like him age between 25 and 28, but then look just as good, or better, at 32 than he did at 28-29?

Enough of this. I've said my piece.