Appreciating Rocky

First topic message reminder :

Morning

Since this fighter is one of the most beloved/underrated/overrated on the board I'd like to take an opportunity, once and for all , to memorialise some thoughts on him.

From what I've read and learned about Rocky Marciano over the many years in the beginning he was an acquired taste; it took a long time. But, even the sceptics soon become Marciano believers. He apparently was clumsier in sparring than many could imagine a ham-‘n’-egger against most half-decent boxers in the gym wearing his 16-ounce gloves that looked like the fluffy pillows from Debenhams the wife keeps buying for some reason each week. I see the flaws what the doubters see on tape don't get me wrong, but every guy who looked like they boxed rings around him, the ones who pinned his ears back, the ones never missed him with jabs, came out of the ring looking like he was dropped from a 10-story building and landed flat-footed. Rocky's cuffing, pawing, mauling, grazing shots, flicks to the sides when he was tied-up on the inside, impacted them like they'd been bumped by a rhino. From ringside many reporters said when Rocky landed, the only evidence was an "OOPH!" grimace and quiver.

Rocky was ponderous. Fighters could see the punches. They weren't surprised; they were beat down, every sparring partner who looked sensational against him, said the same thing exiting the ring: "I hurt all over." The wonderkinds and Robinson-clones that watched Rocky in the gym or at the Garden and licked their lips at a future match thought of him like cancer: He could only happen to the other guy.

Off a stat sheet, any number of guys now would be favoured over him, but doing it in the ring proved it would be a sobering experience. The lads yesterday Jeff, Windy, Chris etc mentioned how Archie one of the toughest creatures on earth held Rocky in the highest esteem.

There are certain dimensions to his game, that are not immediately obvious, that quickly became apparent to anybody who shared a ring with him from Louis to Ali.

I cant remember who said "it hurt to bump into him", but they probably summed it up best. He could seemingly make an oponent hurt for every second of every round, and he was a lot more unpredictable than people think.

This is one fighter who definitely had the devil inside him.

I tend to rate him in the listings higher than most, Rocky is my number 3, not the most glamorous c.v I accept, however his undefeated feat and winning streak is yet to be replicated in any era at the heavyweights top level, that is proof to me thats how difficult it is.

Thanks and have a great day.

Windy, no-one is disputing Rocky could pack a wallop. So could earnie shavers. If Shavers fought in Rock's era he possibly would have been undefeated.

Pipino Cuevas hit very hard. But he got found out. Obviously no-one found out Rocky as he fought in a very weak era. Rock was ok(ish) but as great he wasn't imo.

Bit early but I'll have another gatorade.

azania wrote:
Holmes took on THE GREATEST HW who ever lived. Record books say that. What record books dont say was that Ali was worse than shot.

But then you go on about other guys and who they've beaten without putting those fights in context.

I'm having a Ladyboy- a pint of bitter because that's a man's drink ,mixed with a Bailey's, a woman's drink.
Cheers. Ah, ladyboys.I've forgotten all about this argument now.Hic...Azania...yer my best f-f-Flip pal

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:
Holmes took on THE GREATEST HW who ever lived. Record books say that. What record books dont say was that Ali was worse than shot.

But then you go on about other guys and who they've beaten without putting those fights in context.

If I put everything in context I'd be posting forever. I'm certain not many would want to read me drone on forever.

Pint of the black stuff for me Andy, can't beat a Bovril

andygf wrote:I'm having a Ladyboy- a pint of bitter because that's a man's drink ,mixed with a Bailey's, a woman's drink.
Cheers. Ah, ladyboys.I've forgotten all about this argument now.Hic...Azania...yer my best f-f-Flip pal

rowley, dont tell me you like marmite also!

andygf wrote:I'm having a Ladyboy

Back to the modern heavies and man boobs, then.

why don't Marmite bow to pressure and mass release their Guinness flavoured recipe?It's been done, it exists.
Get Ricky Hatton to do an advert.Why not,Dempsey advertised "shredded wheat"-fact.I'll download a link sometime of it.

Today's heavies could endorse Marmite.

They are, after all, accustomed to being spread out.

HumanWindmill wrote:Today's heavies could endorse Marmite.

They are, after all, accustomed to being spread out.

Exactly, Ricky Hatton!
To be serious for one second, I put Rock somewhere roundabout number ten in my list,possibly just outside.
I take Jeff's point about Wlad comparison in how they are perceived- however if we polled a Marciano v Wlad fight here, I reckon Rock would get about 90 percent of the vote,at least.

Marciano belongs in the top five heavyweights of all time alongside Ali, Louis, Holmes and Johnson. I don't really see a case for his exclusion outside of that group.

Regardless of what your personal opinion on the man is, he was a great heavyweight champion - his victory against Charles - rescued from the jaws of defeat underlined how special the man was. The Charles and Walcott wins are also underrated- those were two extremely difficult opponents who could really fight.

You could floor him, cut him and outbox him but he refused to be denied.

HumanWindmill wrote:What a pity Rocky couldn't have faced the calibre of challenger faced by Holmes :


Alfredo Evangelista, Osvaldo "Ossie" Ocasio, Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Lorenzo Zanon, Leroy Jones, Scott LeDoux, a shot - to - smithereens Muhammad Ali, Trevor Berbick, Leon Spinks, Renaldo Snipes, Gerry Cooney, Tex Cobb, Lucien Rodriguez, a green - as - grass Tim Witherspoon, Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, James "Bonecrusher" Smith, David Bey and Carl "Truth" Williams

World beaters, every one of them.

While Rock is no way a favourite of mine and infact the oppisite.

It is nice to see a list of Larry's challengers - many with under 14 fights. Larry was a busy champion but somehow missed fights with Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon(rematch), Gerrie Coetzee, John Tate, Michael Dokes and Pinklon Thomas. There are alot of legitimate contenders missing off his resume during the 1978 to 1985 period that he was at the top.
Some might say they were busy losing and swapping belts like 'pass the parcel', but they were losing the belts to guys Holmes wasn't facing.

WelshDevilRob wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:What a pity Rocky couldn't have faced the calibre of challenger faced by Holmes :


Alfredo Evangelista, Osvaldo "Ossie" Ocasio, Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Lorenzo Zanon, Leroy Jones, Scott LeDoux, a shot - to - smithereens Muhammad Ali, Trevor Berbick, Leon Spinks, Renaldo Snipes, Gerry Cooney, Tex Cobb, Lucien Rodriguez, a green - as - grass Tim Witherspoon, Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, James "Bonecrusher" Smith, David Bey and Carl "Truth" Williams

World beaters, every one of them.

While Rock is no way a favourite of mine and infact the oppisite.

It is nice to see a list of Larry's challengers - many with under 14 fights. Larry was a busy champion but somehow missed fights with Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon(rematch), Gerrie Coetzee, John Tate, Michael Dokes and Pinklon Thomas. There are alot of legitimate contenders missing off his resume during the 1978 to 1985 period that he was at the top.
Some might say they were busy losing and swapping belts like 'pass the parcel', but they were losing the belts to guys Holmes wasn't facing.

Good point. Out of that bucnh, Page had the most ability I believe. Absolutely wonderful boxer as an amateur and early pro days. Then believed his hype. Tubbs has extremely fast hands. Dokes was talented and Tim was very well rounded. They all fought each other and swapped wins/defeats.

He refused to fight Coetzee due to apartheid which for me adds more credibility to Holmes as a man.

WelshDevilRob wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:What a pity Rocky couldn't have faced the calibre of challenger faced by Holmes :


Alfredo Evangelista, Osvaldo "Ossie" Ocasio, Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Lorenzo Zanon, Leroy Jones, Scott LeDoux, a shot - to - smithereens Muhammad Ali, Trevor Berbick, Leon Spinks, Renaldo Snipes, Gerry Cooney, Tex Cobb, Lucien Rodriguez, a green - as - grass Tim Witherspoon, Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, James "Bonecrusher" Smith, David Bey and Carl "Truth" Williams

World beaters, every one of them.

While Rock is no way a favourite of mine and infact the oppisite.

It is nice to see a list of Larry's challengers - many with under 14 fights. Larry was a busy champion but somehow missed fights with Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon(rematch), Gerrie Coetzee, John Tate, Michael Dokes and Pinklon Thomas. There are alot of legitimate contenders missing off his resume during the 1978 to 1985 period that he was at the top.
Some might say they were busy losing and swapping belts like 'pass the parcel', but they were losing the belts to guys Holmes wasn't facing.

Exactly, WDR.

Marciano, by comparison, rematched LaStarza, who had earlier given him trouble ; Walcott, from whom he had taken the title in a come - from - behind win ; Charles, who gave him a great fight, prompting a rematch, and then Cockell and Moore.

Cockell was the only one not to be a HOFer and world champion, and Charles was nowhere near as shot as many others who have contested the title before, or since.

A bit disappointed that I didn't get in on this one earlier. As Jimmy started off by saying, there aren't many other fighters who can split opinion the way Marciano does, however some of the absolutely shocking critisism he has been receiving from a certain poster (I'll give you all three guesses, but reckon you'll only need one) has been outrageous and verging on the insane.

Marciano, in my mind, is a certain top ten Heavyweight of all time, although he ranks at the lower end of such a list (number eight or nine in my opinion). Let's get the argument's 'against' him out of the way; yes, he was, compared to some others, a bit on the crude side. Style and aesthetics weren't his strong points. He had more or less only one style of fighting, which he rarely (if ever) strayed from. At around 5'10" and 185 lb - 190 lb, he was small even for a fifties Heavyweight, and would be positively tiny compared to some of today's breed.

However, you need to strip all of that away. Lauding technical ability and size is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't always necessarily mean winning fights. I'll say it once and I'll say it again; boxing is, eseentially, a results-based business. Who was the more aesthetically pleasing and sylish boxer out of Hector Camacho and Julio Cesar Chavez? Camacho. But who was the greater fighter out of that pair? Chavez, by a country mile. I don't see anyone denying Chavez's greatness on the basis of him not having blur-fast hands, not being able to jab and dance and not being particularly big for his weight, so why should we use such factors against Marciano?

There hasn't been a fighter born yet who could do everything absolutely perfectly. Regardless of what areas they are strong or weak in, it is incumbent on a fighter to make the most of what they have and maximize it to give themselves the best chance of victory - and few fighters in history have done this as well as Marciano did.

Now personally, I don't think that Marciano would have gone a whole career without a loss had he campaigned in certain other eras. However, I also don't buy this idea that the likes of Ali, Louis, Johnson, Holmes, Lewis, Liston or Dempsey would have beaten him every single time they faced him for a single second, either. Contrary to what many people will say, by the end of his career Marciano had developed in to a fairly rounded fighter, and still maintained that absolutely murderous punch.

I think a lot of people who pass such a poor judgement on Marciano have never actually bothered to watch any of his fights properly. Towards the end of his career, anyone who takes the time to properly examine them can see that Marciano's defence had improved greatly, and with his crouching stance and stalking movement, he actually didn't take as much punishment as some people claim. A common example of people blagging on the subject is when they point to the Moore fight and use it as evidence for how 'rubbish' Marciano was. He was caught cold early on and decked (for a two count, mind you) but people then talk as if Moore (who was in the form of his life, let's not forget) gave Rocky the hardest fight of his career, and that he took him to hell and back. The truth is, after that early mishap, Marciano gave Moore a slow and painful beat down for the rest of the fight.

And of course I (as I'm sure many others are) am still awaiting an answer to this question; if Marciano was so poor, so lucky, and so overrated, then why has no other Heavyweight emulated his 49-0 feat, despite them apparently being massively more talented and, in several cases, facing opposition no better than Marciano's?

Marciano isn't a contender to be THE greatest Heavyweight in my eyes - but there is no doubting at all that the man was, by any measuring stick, still great.

Good post Chris. Suffice to say I dont agree with much of it. But I'll ask you to name me 5-10 decent heavies who would have been beaten by Rocky. I'm not talking about blown up light heavies. If you rank him in the top 10, who would you omit from that list in favour of Rocky?

azania wrote:If you rank him in the top 10, who would you omit from that list in favour of Rocky?

Probably nine of yours.

HumanWindmill wrote:

WelshDevilRob wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:What a pity Rocky couldn't have faced the calibre of challenger faced by Holmes :


Alfredo Evangelista, Osvaldo "Ossie" Ocasio, Mike Weaver, Earnie Shavers, Lorenzo Zanon, Leroy Jones, Scott LeDoux, a shot - to - smithereens Muhammad Ali, Trevor Berbick, Leon Spinks, Renaldo Snipes, Gerry Cooney, Tex Cobb, Lucien Rodriguez, a green - as - grass Tim Witherspoon, Scott Frank, Marvis Frazier, James "Bonecrusher" Smith, David Bey and Carl "Truth" Williams

World beaters, every one of them.

While Rock is no way a favourite of mine and infact the oppisite.

It is nice to see a list of Larry's challengers - many with under 14 fights. Larry was a busy champion but somehow missed fights with Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon(rematch), Gerrie Coetzee, John Tate, Michael Dokes and Pinklon Thomas. There are alot of legitimate contenders missing off his resume during the 1978 to 1985 period that he was at the top.
Some might say they were busy losing and swapping belts like 'pass the parcel', but they were losing the belts to guys Holmes wasn't facing.

Exactly, WDR.

Marciano, by comparison, rematched LaStarza, who had earlier given him trouble ; Walcott, from whom he had taken the title in a come - from - behind win ; Charles, who gave him a great fight, prompting a rematch, and then Cockell and Moore.

Cockell was the only one not to be a HOFer and world champion, and Charles was nowhere near as shot as many others who have contested the title before, or since.

Charles was shot. Holmes was shot when Tyson beat him regardless of what he did after that beating.

azania wrote:Charles was shot. Holmes was shot when Tyson beat him regardless of what he did after that beating.

Have you seen the Charles v Marciano fights, complete ?

Calendar logic again.

Come on windy. I've given a list of heavies who I believe would beat Rocky and who are not considered ATGs also.

Az ranking fighters is about more than head to head, because on his best night (Toyko) Buster Douglas is one hell of a fighter and wins more than he loses but that is very much an isolated evening and he does not have a body of work that befits his performance that night.

It is also about longevity, who they beat, final record etc. However even allowing for that whilst I am not saying Rocky beats all and sundry on his night it is not beyond the realms he beats a lot of greats. Take Lewis for example, he could occasionally be prone to lapses in concentration or a less than stellar approach to his preparation, if he comes in in the same frame of mind as he did against Rahman first time round against Marciano he is in a world of trouble.

Personallly weighing all things that should be weighed, not just head to head the only guys I feel are nailed on to be above Rocky are Ali, Dempsey, Louis and Jeffries. When it comes to the other guys such as Holmes, Johnson Lewis Foreman etc I can go either way depending on my mood at the time.

Nope. Not complete. I cant sit through it. But I've seen edited highlights of it. And its not calender logic. I've seen older Charles fights and if he were not shot, he would have handed Rocky his rear end. Another win over an old ATG means little when that old ATG is past it and shot.

azania wrote:Come on windy. I've given a list of heavies who I believe would beat Rocky and who are not considered ATGs also.

Yes I know you have, az, and you have every right to.

I also have the right to question whether your view is informed, and whether you have any more than a very basic grasp of the fighters from the era, since your comments suggest that you don't.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Come on windy. I've given a list of heavies who I believe would beat Rocky and who are not considered ATGs also.

Yes I know you have, az, and you have every right to.

I also have the right to question whether your view is informed, and whether you have any more than a very basic grasp of the fighters from the era, since your comments suggest that you don't.

That depends on what you mean by informed. For instance I believe Dempsey would have the beating of Rocky. Charles also if they fought earlier. Liston would have destroyed him. Patterson would have been KO'd. Moore at any time would have lost. I have seen these fighters and maintain that Rocky is perhaps the most over-rated fighter in history. Right place at the right time and now an icon beyond criticism or critique.

rowley wrote:Az ranking fighters is about more than head to head, because on his best night (Toyko) Buster Douglas is one hell of a fighter and wins more than he loses but that is very much an isolated evening and he does not have a body of work that befits his performance that night.

It is also about longevity, who they beat, final record etc. However even allowing for that whilst I am not saying Rocky beats all and sundry on his night it is not beyond the realms he beats a lot of greats. Take Lewis for example, he could occasionally be prone to lapses in concentration or a less than stellar approach to his preparation, if he comes in in the same frame of mind as he did against Rahman first time round against Marciano he is in a world of trouble.

Personallly weighing all things that should be weighed, not just head to head the only guys I feel are nailed on to be above Rocky are Ali, Dempsey, Louis and Jeffries. When it comes to the other guys such as Holmes, Johnson Lewis Foreman etc I can go either way depending on my mood at the time.

Hi rowley. Why do you always give me trouble? With a punch that he had, it is not beyond reasoning that he would beat lots of greats if he landed. The same can be applied to Earnie Shavers. The difference is that shavers fought during a period where there were many great heavies. Rocky did not. Shavers I believe would have sent Rocky into orbit.

azania wrote:Good post Chris. Suffice to say I dont agree with much of it. But I'll ask you to name me 5-10 decent heavies who would have been beaten by Rocky. I'm not talking about blown up light heavies. If you rank him in the top 10, who would you omit from that list in favour of Rocky?

Well first off Azania, I don't believe that greatness should be defined simply by hypothetical head-to-head match ups. But since you asked, I'd heavily favour Marciano to beat (more often than not) Schmeling, Norton, Patterson, Burns, Holyfield (though that one is marginal) and Wladimir. I'm sure that even you will concede that they all at least meet your criteria of being 'decent' Heavyweights. We already know that he beat Charles and Walcott. I'll accept that Charles was at best a 175 lb man, but I'm not interested in hearing anymore about how rubbish the Walcott wins were. Walcott may have been thirty-eight but it's an absolute fact that he was in the form of his life at that point, and that for twelve rounds against Marciano he was boxing with the legs of a twenty-one year old.

I think Marciano comes out no worse that 1-2 down in a three fight series with any of Frazier, make him the underdog (but still could win now and then) against Dempsey, Louis and Ali, but think that Liston, Foreman and Tyson would make short work of him. All in all, I'd say that the ledger is fairly balanced there.

But as I said, to me, it's not all about who would beat who. Marciano's record, to this day, stands out as unique amongst all the great Heavyweight champions, which surely has to count for more than who we THINK would win had he been around in the same era as some of the other men I've just mentioned.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Come on windy. I've given a list of heavies who I believe would beat Rocky and who are not considered ATGs also.

Yes I know you have, az, and you have every right to.

I also have the right to question whether your view is informed, and whether you have any more than a very basic grasp of the fighters from the era, since your comments suggest that you don't.

That depends on what you mean by informed. For instance I believe Dempsey would have the beating of Rocky. Charles also if they fought earlier. Liston would have destroyed him. Patterson would have been KO'd. Moore at any time would have lost. I have seen these fighters and maintain that Rocky is perhaps the most over-rated fighter in history. Right place at the right time and now an icon beyond criticism or critique.

I believe Dempsey beats him, too. However, in your case that doesn't say very much since you don't believe Dempsey to be worth any more than Solis' sparring partner. Liston might certainly be capable of beating Marciano, but that doesn't make Rocky a bad fighter, either.

Is Frazier a bum because Foreman upended him ? Have you checked Foreman's credentials at the highest level, and HIS challengers ?

Difference is Az, Shavers lacked so few of the other gifts Rocky had, lacked his stamina (and then some) virtually no upper body movement in comparison amongst many other things. Rocky had power no doubt but for me he was so much more than that.

Think people get bogged down with his style (or lack of it) whereas his real gift was in getting the absolute best of what he had and not trying to reinvent himself as something he wasn't. He worked with what he had and developed a better than credited defence, almost unbeatable fitness and a relentlessness that has been seldom equalled. There are plenty I would have no issue with people picking head to head over Rocky but with the caveat nobody ever has an easy nights work with him and he picks up more than his fair share of wins along the way.

rowley wrote:Difference is Az, Shavers lacked so few of the other gifts Rocky had, lacked his stamina (and then some) virtually no upper body movement in comparison amongst many other things. Rocky had power no doubt but for me he was so much more than that.

Think people get bogged down with his style (or lack of it) whereas his real gift was in getting the absolute best of what he had and not trying to reinvent himself as something he wasn't. He worked with what he had and developed a better than credited defence, almost unbeatable fitness and a relentlessness that has been seldom equalled. There are plenty I would have no issue with people picking head to head over Rocky but with the caveat nobody ever has an easy nights work with him and he picks up more than his fair share of wins along the way.

Rocky has power stamina and a crouch. He was made for Shavers imo. But I get your point. Other than a big punch, shavers proved nothing in world terms. He made the best out of his limited ability. I am not and have never denied that. But in world terms, I'd rank him lower top 40 at heavy. In terms of achievement he has to be No 1.

azania wrote:Rocky has power stamina and a crouch. He was made for Shavers imo. But I get your point. Other than a big punch, shavers proved nothing in world terms. He made the best out of his limited ability. I am not and have never denied that. But in world terms, I'd rank him lower top 40 at heavy. In terms of achievement he has to be No 1.

Who, ( lower top forty, ) Shavers or Marciano ?

A durable guy with great stamina, head movement and a punch, unbeaten and for a few years the only champion, outside the top 30? Very funny.

Scottrf wrote:A durable guy with great stamina, head movement and a punch, unbeaten and for a few years the only champion, outside the top 30? Very funny.

Especially since we've only HAD about forty lineal heavyweight champs. Maybe the belt holders like Michael Bentt rate higher than Rocky, eh ?

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Come on windy. I've given a list of heavies who I believe would beat Rocky and who are not considered ATGs also.

Yes I know you have, az, and you have every right to.

I also have the right to question whether your view is informed, and whether you have any more than a very basic grasp of the fighters from the era, since your comments suggest that you don't.

That depends on what you mean by informed. For instance I believe Dempsey would have the beating of Rocky. Charles also if they fought earlier. Liston would have destroyed him. Patterson would have been KO'd. Moore at any time would have lost. I have seen these fighters and maintain that Rocky is perhaps the most over-rated fighter in history. Right place at the right time and now an icon beyond criticism or critique.

I believe Dempsey beats him, too. However, in your case that doesn't say very much since you don't believe Dempsey to be worth any more than Solis' sparring partner. Liston might certainly be capable of beating Marciano, but that doesn't make Rocky a bad fighter, either.

Is Frazier a bum because Foreman upended him ? Have you checked Foreman's credentials at the highest level, and HIS challengers ?

Which Solis are you referring to? The FW or the Cuban who busted his knee recently? Rocky would be better off fighting the FW Solis.

There are many fighters who I would put ahead of Rocky in a H2H clash who are not as great as Frazier or that ilk.

Solis' sparring partner for Vitali was David Price wasn't it? Not to give you any ideas but 6 Foot 8, 250 pounds.

Let me clarify something here before we all go over-board. As an ATG, due to his achievement Rocky is a nailed on ATG. No-one has retired unbeaten. But he beat old men and LHW. Beat absolutely no good boxer in their prime. But ATG are judged differently and he has achieved a lot. Right place, right time.

But in terms of who would have beaten him, I can name over 50 heavies who I believe would have absolutely destroyed him or run him close. Rocky was decidely average in terms of talent.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Rocky has power stamina and a crouch. He was made for Shavers imo. But I get your point. Other than a big punch, shavers proved nothing in world terms. He made the best out of his limited ability. I am not and have never denied that. But in world terms, I'd rank him lower top 40 at heavy. In terms of achievement he has to be No 1.

Who, ( lower top forty, ) Shavers or Marciano ?

Rocky

Sorry but this is getting ridiculous now. I am willing to accept people think Rocky is overrated or got a bit lucky through the era he was in, although I personally don't agree but to have him anywhere outside the top 15 is just nonsense and to be honest outside the top ten does him a huge disservice.

His record, achievements and opposition beaten have to have him in the top ten and for me he absolutely deserves to be in the conversation when assessing the top five.

azania wrote:Which Solis are you referring to? The FW or the Cuban who busted his knee recently? Rocky would be better off fighting the FW Solis.

There are many fighters who I would put ahead of Rocky in a H2H clash who are not as great as Frazier or that ilk.

How'd the injury happen, az. Aren't these guys supposed to be the genetically engineered ' wunderkinder ' of boxing ? Wassup, didn't the milk shakes work ? Rowing machine broken ? Creosote, or whatever that stuff is, supplies dried up ?

Or is Solis just a fat, unmotivated, useless blob whom Marciano would squash like a tick ?

Let me guess. All your top heavies were born after January 1st. 1940, right ? Why, by the time they were in the ring chaps were fighting in colour !

How nice.

azania wrote:Rocky was decidely average in terms of talent.

Aren't his brilliant stamina, power, durability etc classed as talent?

azania wrote:I can name over 50 heavies who I believe would have absolutely destroyed him or run him close. Rocky was decidely average in terms of talent.

Not without BoxRec and a calendar, you couldn't.

HumanWindmill wrote:

Scottrf wrote:A durable guy with great stamina, head movement and a punch, unbeaten and for a few years the only champion, outside the top 30? Very funny.

Especially since we've only HAD about forty lineal heavyweight champs. Maybe the belt holders like Michael Bentt rate higher than Rocky, eh ?

The Klits, Lewis, Haye (possibly), Bowe, Tubby, Douglas (when motivated or half awake), Ike, Tua (what a slugfest), Shavers and many more are HW who I believe would have beaten Rocky.

Scottrf wrote:Solis' sparring partner for Vitali was David Price wasn't it? Not to give you any ideas but 6 Foot 8, 250 pounds.

Should have had Katie Price...proabably did (most have...'cept Wlad and we all know why)

Rating fighters across eras based on how they’d do against one another is impossible and, to a large extent, pointless. No-one can say for certain who would come out on top in an imaginary fight between Marciano and Dempsey and, whilst a bit of light fun, shouldn’t be used as a measuring stick to judge a fighter’s greatness.

Merely stating that you think this one and that one would do for Rocky doesn't mean squat, with all respect.

When rating the all-time heavyweights one should look at:

Length of championship reign and number of title defences (and we’re talking about the true heavyweight crown here, not some alphabet title tenure).
Quality of opposition/challengers faced.

Also: quality of performance, with emphasis on how a fighter did in the face of adversity.

Summing up: How great were they in their own particular era?

When judging against that criteria, Marciano stands up as one of the very best heavyweight champs from history.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I can name over 50 heavies who I believe would have absolutely destroyed him or run him close. Rocky was decidely average in terms of talent.

Not without BoxRec and a calendar, you couldn't.

Actually I will. But you will have to wait til tomorrow.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:I can name over 50 heavies who I believe would have absolutely destroyed him or run him close. Rocky was decidely average in terms of talent.

Not without BoxRec and a calendar, you couldn't.

Actually I will. But you will have to wait til tomorrow.

While you trawl through BoxRec, calendar in one hand and protein shake in the other.

Nope. I wont need boxing rec. I cant access it at work and its family night tonight.

azania wrote:Nope. I wont need boxing rec. I cant access it at work and its family night tonight.

Enjoy it, mate.

Evening chaps,after a few "Ladyboy"s and "Blue Nuns", good to see the debate is still raging.
Now a concern I have for The Rock in my Top Ten slot, is this- that he defended the title six times.Is that really enough?Defended against Walcott- who he mullered- and two against Charles.Now don't get me wrong, Walcott Charles and Moore is an incredible resume.Contrast it though with Louis's long reign.
By his own admission Rock was a late developer and some of his earlier fights were horribly crude affairs...42 fights before he was a champion,and didn't stick around long.
For me anyway, he belongs somewhere outside of the elite handful, but agree with Rowley's maxim that he would be a handful for anyone.