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.

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:I would agree with you that Rocky was crude but he was the best so called crude fighter in history.

I'll give you that one.

The No1 P4P of crude fighters ATGs.

you gave Rocky some credit

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

prettyboy1304 wrote:I would agree with you that Rocky was crude but he was the best so called crude fighter in history.

I'll give you that one.

The No1 P4P of crude fighters ATGs.

you gave Rocky some credit

YOu gotta give credit where its due mate.

Me and Rocky

That's why we like you Az always fair and balanced

prettyboy1304 wrote:That's why we like you Az always fair and balanced

Yep. I'm like Fox News. Fair and balanced as long as you agree with me.

Your completely missing the point as per usual and to say Hatton isn't crude is just plain wrong. His only line of defence is his face, how is that anything other than crude?

Their seems to be a thought that if you say someone is crude it's disrespectful. It's not OK Rocky was no Pernell Whittaker but still an ATG.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your completely missing the point as per usual and to say Hatton isn't crude is just plain wrong. His only line of defence is his face, how is that anything other than crude?

Sorry Atom, Hatton was not crude. And to say the only line of defence he had was his face is quite frankly ridiculous. Yes he was beaten by the 2 best fighters in the world. He had very good head movement and footwork to get into position and quite fast hands. He was also a tremendous body puncher who beat a still quite goof Tzyzu. You dont do that if you are a face first fighter.

prettyboy1304 wrote:Their seems to be a thought that if you say someone is crude it's disrespectful. It's not OK Rocky was no Pernell Whittaker but still an ATG.

Agreed. Except for the last bit of course

Head movement, what head movement? In all his biggest fights he got nailed big and very very often, even against Tzuyu if you judge the fight neutrally he should have been done on the cards going into the final round.

Once Hatton reached the top level he literally jumped into his opponents and wrestled them, if that's not crude i'm not sure what is.

Oh you mean the same Tzuyu who was older than Charles, therefore must be a past it old man surely?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your completely missing the point as per usual and to say Hatton isn't crude is just plain wrong. His only line of defence is his face, how is that anything other than crude?

Sorry Atom, Hatton was not crude. And to say the only line of defence he had was his face is quite frankly ridiculous. Yes he was beaten by the 2 best fighters in the world. He had very good head movement and footwork to get into position and quite fast hands. He was also a tremendous body puncher who beat a still quite goof Tzyzu. You dont do that if you are a face first fighter.

Hatton was a very limited fighter who done exceptionally well with his limited talent. He was a tremendous body puncher his defence wasn't great. He had decent head movement and footwork. Overrating him a bit their AZ.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Head movement, what head movement? In all his biggest fights he got nailed big and very very often, even against Tzuyu if you judge the fight neutrally he should have been done on the cards going into the final round.

Once Hatton reached the top level he literally jumped into his opponents and wrestled them, if that's not crude i'm not sure what is.

Oh you mean the same Tzuyu who was older than Charles, therefore must be a past it old man surely?

Good grief. Look at hatton as he literally bounced around opponents looking to land hurtful hooks to the body. Of course he got hit. He was a close up fighter. You're bound to get hit as you come close. But his movement meant he didn't get hit too often.

And Kotsya was a very good champion. Not at his peak but still good. I judged the fight neutrally and had Hatton ahead. At least he could jump unlike Rocky who dragged his trail leg like a dead weight.

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Your completely missing the point as per usual and to say Hatton isn't crude is just plain wrong. His only line of defence is his face, how is that anything other than crude?

Sorry Atom, Hatton was not crude. And to say the only line of defence he had was his face is quite frankly ridiculous. Yes he was beaten by the 2 best fighters in the world. He had very good head movement and footwork to get into position and quite fast hands. He was also a tremendous body puncher who beat a still quite goof Tzyzu. You dont do that if you are a face first fighter.

Hatton was a very limited fighter who done exceptionally well with his limited talent. He was a tremendous body puncher his defence wasn't great. He had decent head movement and footwork. Overrating him a bit their AZ.

If Hatton was limited, I'd hate to hear your description of Rocky then.

Yes he was shellacked, but by the very best. No shame in that.

Now your just saying things that aren't true to try and prove a point, he got hit hard and often just watch the fights. Good pressure fighters normally get up close without getting smashed over and over again but thats ok for Hatton but not Marciano, good grief your showing yourself up again.

Tzuyu was 36 and had fought 3 rounds in over 2 years hardly the signs of a top quality active fighter whereas Charles at 33 was finished right?

I never said their was any shame in Hatton being beaten by the best. But you can't argue he was limited. So was Marciano he couldn't fight like a Pep but uys like Pep couldn't fight like him different styles. Marciano was the gretest exponent of his style and for that alone he is an ATG.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Now your just saying things that aren't true to try and prove a point, he got hit hard and often just watch the fights. Good pressure fighters normally get up close without getting smashed over and over again but thats ok for Hatton but not Marciano, good grief your showing yourself up again.

Tzuyu was 36 and had fought 3 rounds in over 2 years hardly the signs of a top quality active fighter whereas Charles at 33 was finished right?

Hatton wasn't smashed over and over.

How many title defences did Rocky has and how long was his reign? What was the average of the fighters he fought during his reign.

I have said 2 posts ago that Kostya was not at his prime. Why are you reiterating the point again on something we actually on, only you know. Pressure fighters take punishment as they get close. That's why their careers are shorter that others.

prettyboy1304 wrote:I never said their was any shame in Hatton being beaten by the best. But you can't argue he was limited. So was Marciano he couldn't fight like a Pep but uys like Pep couldn't fight like him different styles. Marciano was the gretest exponent of his style and for that alone he is an ATG.

Depends on your definition of limited.

Was Rocky limited?

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Now your just saying things that aren't true to try and prove a point, he got hit hard and often just watch the fights. Good pressure fighters normally get up close without getting smashed over and over again but thats ok for Hatton but not Marciano, good grief your showing yourself up again.

Tzuyu was 36 and had fought 3 rounds in over 2 years hardly the signs of a top quality active fighter whereas Charles at 33 was finished right?

Hatton wasn't smashed over and over.

How many title defences did Rocky has and how long was his reign? What was the average of the fighters he fought during his reign.

I have said 2 posts ago that Kostya was not at his prime. Why are you reiterating the point again on something we actually on, only you know. Pressure fighters take punishment as they get close. That's why their careers are shorter that others.

That's obvious age isn't relevent miles on the clock is ie. how much punishment a fighter has taken over his career is more relevant than age.

6 titles defences against 6 number one contenders, that statistic in itself is unique.

Previous wins over top ranked guys like LaStarza, Savold, Layne, Louis and Matthews are also worth a mention. So all in all he has 12 wins over opponents who ranked in the top at the time, how many other boxers can claim that?

How many defences did the less crude Hatton make and against whom?
Not like he got beaten by a former flyweight and a former super featherweight or anything is it. Regardless of their immense quality Marciano beat two higher ranked p4p guys.

The Mighty Atom wrote:6 titles defences against 6 number one contenders, that statistic in itself is unique.

Previous wins over top ranked guys like LaStarza, Savold, Layne, Louis and Matthews are also worth a mention. So all in all he has 12 wins over opponents who ranked in the top at the time, how many other boxers can claim that?

How many defences did the less crude Hatton make and against whom?
Not like he got beaten by a former flyweight and a former super featherweight or anything is it. Regardless of their immense quality Marciano beat two higher ranked p4p guys.

Ha. And the length of his reign? Its fine having such a unique stat when one of the No 1 contenders happen to be Cockell. Cockell (fine bloke by all accounts) would never be No 1 in any era. What a freaking joke.

Yep, Hatton got blown away by Pac and Floyd. Rock fought past it and has beens. No argument from me there.

Don Cockell as Number 1 contender.

[quote="The Mighty Atom"]
Not like he got beaten by a former flyweight and a former super featherweight or anything is it.quote]

Disrespectful to Hatton they are the 2 best boxers of their generation. You could make a case for Mayweather being top 25 ATG and Manny not far behind.

[quote="prettyboy1304"]

The Mighty Atom wrote:
Not like he got beaten by a former flyweight and a former super featherweight or anything is it.quote]

Disrespectful to Hatton they are the 2 best boxers of their generation. You could make a case for Mayweather being top 25 ATG and Manny not far behind.

Its ok for some to be disrespctful against modern fighters.

Actually I wouldn't put Floyd in my top 25 ATG. Not yet anyway and he's too inactive to be included.

Showing yourself up again Azania

Cockell got to be number one contender by beating the rest of the ranked guys out there at the time, you can laugh all you want but you don't end up undefeated holding 6 wins over hall of famers without having a fair bit of ability.

Marcianos crudeness got him somewhere whereas those with more 'ability' got nowhere against lesser opponents, makes little sense to me.

I was saying Atom was disrespectful to Hatton he only lost to the best of his time no shame in that. I would have Floyd top 25 in my ATG list I'm a big fan. If you wouldn't by now you never will Az.

prettyboy1304 wrote:I was saying Atom was disrespectful to Hatton he only lost to the best of his time no shame in that. I would have Floyd top 25 in my ATG list I'm a big fan. If you wouldn't by now you never will Az.

With a name like yours its pretty obvious you're a Floyd fan. So am I. He has it all imo, but should have been more active. When he beats Pac, it will add much to his legacy, but imo Pac is more hype than anything else.

Oh and I understood the point you were making. I wish there was a tongue in cheek smiley.

Not being disrespectful at all, just showing that the grass isn't always greener. In very few eras would Pacquiao be top of the Welterweight division, go back ten years and he has prime guys like Mosley, De La Hoya, Trinidad and Quartey to contend with. Every division has dips but you can't use that to fully discredit someone.

I'm only called Prettyboy because I'm a pretty boy. We do need a new smiley.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Showing yourself up again Azania

Cockell got to be number one contender by beating the rest of the ranked guys out there at the time, you can laugh all you want but you don't end up undefeated holding 6 wins over hall of famers without having a fair bit of ability.

Marcianos crudeness got him somewhere whereas those with more 'ability' got nowhere against lesser opponents, makes little sense to me.

It doesn't matter how he got to #1. Only during that period could a Cockell get to be #1 contender. It just proves my point about the limited talent pool then.

I'll agree with you Atom. Rocky was not crude. He was not a plodder. He didn't drag his trail leg behind. Stylistically he was brilliant.

I'm done with this. Double standard are rife here. Simply laughable.

Go ahead, have the last word.

The Mighty Atom wrote:Not being disrespectful at all, just showing that the grass isn't always greener. In very few eras would Pacquiao be top of the Welterweight division, go back ten years and he has prime guys like Mosley, De La Hoya, Trinidad and Quartey to contend with. Every division has dips but you can't use that to fully discredit someone.

100% agreed. But somehow a guy like Don Cockell being the number 1 contender at heavyweight proved the richness of the depth of the division at that time? Simply laughable.

Definately the last post from me on this thread. Unless........

The only thing thats laughable is your perception that you know better than anyone else, I never apply double standards I just highlight yours.

You really have no intelligence in the slightest, time and time again you assume things that aren't to be assumed, use some common sense, think about whats been written then reply before jumping straight in with false assumptions.

If you can't understand the point I was making then good riddance, i'm bored of you

The Mighty Atom wrote:The only thing thats laughable is your perception that you know better than anyone else, I never apply double standards I just highlight yours.

Oh jeez. I've never known to know better that anyone else. That again is your assumption in which you are incorrectly attributing to me. But if it makes you feel better, go for it and make some more.

Dammit, no more.

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Not being disrespectful at all, just showing that the grass isn't always greener. In very few eras would Pacquiao be top of the Welterweight division, go back ten years and he has prime guys like Mosley, De La Hoya, Trinidad and Quartey to contend with. Every division has dips but you can't use that to fully discredit someone.

100% agreed. But somehow a guy like Don Cockell being the number 1 contender at heavyweight proved the richness of the depth of the division at that time? Simply laughable.

Definately the last post from me on this thread. Unless........

Az you do have double standards when talk about Rocky. You say he isn't an ATG heavyweight because of lack of good victories on his records, but you rate Joe Calzaghe as Britains greatest ever fighter. Where are the big names in the prime of their careers on JC's record? Kessler aside their are none that is a contradiction mate.

Match point.

The Mighty Atom wrote:You really have no intelligence in the slightest, time and time again you assume things that aren't to be assumed, use some common sense, think about whats been written then reply before jumping straight in with false assumptions.

If you can't understand the point I was making then good riddance, i'm bored of you

Insults once again. So predictable.

I never insulted you and you never answered my point

prettyboy1304 wrote:

azania wrote:

The Mighty Atom wrote:Not being disrespectful at all, just showing that the grass isn't always greener. In very few eras would Pacquiao be top of the Welterweight division, go back ten years and he has prime guys like Mosley, De La Hoya, Trinidad and Quartey to contend with. Every division has dips but you can't use that to fully discredit someone.

100% agreed. But somehow a guy like Don Cockell being the number 1 contender at heavyweight proved the richness of the depth of the division at that time? Simply laughable.

Definately the last post from me on this thread. Unless........

Az you do have double standards when talk about Rocky. You say he isn't an ATG heavyweight because of lack of good victories on his records, but you rate Joe Calzaghe as Britains greatest ever fighter. Where are the big names in the prime of their careers on JC's record? Kessler aside their are none that is a contradiction mate.

Match point.

OK, let me clarify that/ On a post of mine on this very thread, I stated that I would place Rocky high in my ATG list based on his achievement. His achievement alone and not some hypothetical H2H contests. If Vit went 50-0 he also would be very in the ATG list (assuming he was the only HW champ).

But based on talent, I wouldn't put Rocky anywhere near the top 1000 ATG. If he had fought and beated a live opponent once in his entire career, I would rank him top 5 HW in history. He didn't. All he could do was to beat those who were the best at the time. That the best were past it, old and an old LHW is very relevant. And those past it HW he beat would have beaten him if they had fought 2 years earlier.

JC beat those put in front of him. I discount his fight with RJJ for obvious reasons. He won his fights with relative ease and was head and shoulders the best in his division. With the exception of RJJ, I cant see another SPW who was better than JC in the history of the division and that division has had some serious talent. I will also add that I am in no way a fan of JC and wanted him to lose to Eubank, Hop and RJJ. But I recognise his talent and skills.

Fair enough I don't agree with your thoughts on Rocky top 1000 ATG he certainly is. Not a JC fan either his 0 is a myth all nobodies and has beens and a debatable win over Bhop.

Az, Hatton was limited, and he was crude. You're showing some bad double standards here if you rate Hatton so highly based on one win. Against an 'old man', too. Nothing wrong though with being limited and crude, if it works. Hell, people still buy Harley-Davidsons, don't they..?

Strewth, this one still going ?

az, one of your principle arguments is that Marciano fought weak opposition as champion, right ?

Well, let's see.

I won't even try to compare Marciano's reign to his predecessors, since you regard everybody pre Clay / Ali as a bum, anyway, so let's look at Ali's first reign.

After taking the title from Liston, Ali defends against :

LISTON ( rematch )

Nobody alive knows the truth about this fight but EVERYBODY knows that the fight was a farce, and that this wasn't the REAL Sonny Liston. ( Clay's ) win over Liston to take the title was magnificent, but this rematch was a non - fight.

PATTERSON

Floyd was still gun shy after the annihilations by Liston and, to top it off, injured his back during the fight.

CHUVALO

Excellent opponent and competitive fight.

COOPER

Need we say anything ?

LONDON

????????

MILDENBERGER

Decent Euro level fighter who gave Ali some problems to solve. As good as Moore, a slightly faded Charles, or Walcott ? Resoundingly, NO.

WILLIAMS

Shot - to - smithereens. At least five years past his best. Chopped down twice by Liston when he WAS at his best, and came into this fight having been out for a year after being shot in the kidney.

TERRELL

Excellent opponent, and great performance by Ali.

FOLLEY

Also past his best, and described by some historians as a ' poor man's Ezzard Charles, ' though I can't see the resemblance, in all honesty.


Am I trashing Ali ? Of course not. I love Ali, always did and always will, but his comp in his first reign is poorer than Rocky's, in my opinion.

Finally, does anybody doubt Foreman's greatness ? Well, he managed a paltry THREE title defences, spread over both reigns. José ' King ' Roman. Ken Norton and Axel Schulz. This pales in comparison to Rocky's comp.

If Liston were around at the time of Rocky, we would never be having this debate. If Rocky had fought Terrell, his 0 would have gone.

Many of Ali's opponents were genuine, live HW. Rock's opponents were neither anywhere near their prime or actually geunuine HW. Take Holmes for example. After Tyson beat him everyone said the result would have been different (myself included) were Holmes near his peak. But look what he did afterwards? Took Holy the distance and beat Mercer who gave Lewis fits. It doesn't change the fact that Tyson beat a shot Holmes.

So Moore, Charles and Walcott were shot but Tzuyu is a good win? Or am I misunderstanding your BS?

The Mighty Atom wrote:So Moore, Charles and Walcott were shot but Tzuyu is a good win? Or am I misunderstanding your BS?

I suggest you re-read what I said about Tszyu. I said he was past his best. Charles and Walcott were past their best. Moore was a LHW. Cockell should never have been there but every champ deserves a gimme defence.

I can apply the same logic here. If Hatton retired just before Floyd and Pac, would he have been considered an ATG even though he was the recognised #1 at his weight and retired with a 0? He had many successful defences and a 2 weight champ. For me to suggest that would be laughable.

There are strong cases to be made for or against Marciano and as most of them have already been made I wont get into that.

I tend to come down in the middle with him.

Certainly I think Charles was fairly shot when he fought Marciano and the fact he was never really a heavyweight to begin with deserves acknowledgement. He had lost a couple fights prior to the Marciano fight and never had a big win after them. In fact his record after the Marciano fight is pretty shocking. When you consider all these factors I think it it does diminish the wins for Rocky fairly significantly.

Moore is different. Although a natural Lightheavy and fairly long in the tooth there wasnt a great deal to suggest he was washed up by any stretch. His record going into the fight was and he hadnt lost many in the years before it and would go on to recapture the title at lightheavy a few times after the defeat. However it was a straight step up to the heavyweight title shot and there is legitimate argument to say Moore was nowhere near as effective at heavyweight as he was at lightheavyweight and was stopped by the three best heavies he faced (although the Ali fight meant little).

Walcott is maybe the hardest of the three to judge. He was more experienced at heavyweight than the others but he was almost 40 for the fights and retired straight after so I think its fair to assume he was past his best. I know the argument that "age is just a number" but to be honest I think at 40y old you just cant be as good. There are freak exceptions maybe but it isnt the norm. And when you consider the number of hard fights and rounds they boxed back then its more likely to by an old 40yr old rather than a young 40yr old. Being blasted out in the first round would to me suggest that Walcott was past it in the second fight anyway.

I think its tricky to say what level these guys were at in comparison to other contenders in subsequent eras. Obviously they are bigger legends at great fighters in their pomp (and natural weight). But certainly in the case of Charles and Walcott I think theres a valid argument to say the level they were at was some way below their best and might not cut it against the top contenders in other eras. This is just trying to look at objectively without going into the whole modern/older is better and just trying to ascertain the level these guys were at when they fought Rocky.

When Moore fought Rocky he showed he was still a force at lightheavy at least and even after could drop back down and capture the title so he could still operate well at lightheavy at least. However its hard to measure how good he was as a heavy as he basically came up short against the top guys and never impacted the division to any real extent.

Charles and Walcott in my opinion were most likely very much on the way out and above their division and met Rocky after long, hard careers. Neither of them managed anything of note afterwards so the wins have to be put in perspective. Im not sure one could say with any real authority that at that stage they would have been contenders in any era. Thats very debateable and I suspect they mightnt be contenders in many eras subsequent.

None of this proves Rocky couldnt hack it with other champs. I think its obvious he had devastating power for any era. But in looking at his title reign I can fully understand the argument that its overated. My gut feeling is though that the rest of his game would find him struggling against many of the subsequent champs. Not because he was 50s fighter, but simply due to style, technique and size. He could perhaps have been an awesome lightheavy or cruiser in any era with his bulldozing style as he essentially proved against other legendary lightheavies, but at heavyweight Im not so sure.

Hatton: Tzuyu & Castillo
Marciano: Louis, Moore, Walcott and Charles

Worlds apart, 6 wins over 4 genuine albeit past it all time greats is far superior to two wins over 2 very good fighters

Cockell for your information is most probably britains 4th greatest heavyweight so hardly a nobody like you try to suggest, far better than a win over Cooper

I dont really seee the point of comparing Hatton and Marciano really.

They are being judged against different backdrops ultimately.

Marciano is measured in stricter terms because he is a massive legend and icon of the sport that usually given a top ten heavy of all time berth.

Hatton is considered a good fighter but not held in anywhere near the same esteem as Rocky.

Tszyu is considered a great win for Hatton against the backdrop of how he is generally rated but nobody really considers Hatton an all time great on the level that Marciano is considered.

manos de piedra wrote:There are strong cases to be made for or against Marciano and as most of them have already been made I wont get into that.

I tend to come down in the middle with him.

Certainly I think Charles was fairly shot when he fought Marciano and the fact he was never really a heavyweight to begin with deserves acknowledgement. He had lost a couple fights prior to the Marciano fight and never had a big win after them. In fact his record after the Marciano fight is pretty shocking. When you consider all these factors I think it it does diminish the wins for Rocky fairly significantly.

Moore is different. Although a natural Lightheavy and fairly long in the tooth there wasnt a great deal to suggest he was washed up by any stretch. His record going into the fight was and he hadnt lost many in the years before it and would go on to recapture the title at lightheavy a few times after the defeat. However it was a straight step up to the heavyweight title shot and there is legitimate argument to say Moore was nowhere near as effective at heavyweight as he was at lightheavyweight and was stopped by the three best heavies he faced (although the Ali fight meant little).

Walcott is maybe the hardest of the three to judge. He was more experienced at heavyweight than the others but he was almost 40 for the fights and retired straight after so I think its fair to assume he was past his best. I know the argument that "age is just a number" but to be honest I think at 40y old you just cant be as good. There are freak exceptions maybe but it isnt the norm. And when you consider the number of hard fights and rounds they boxed back then its more likely to by an old 40yr old rather than a young 40yr old. Being blasted out in the first round would to me suggest that Walcott was past it in the second fight anyway.

I think its tricky to say what level these guys were at in comparison to other contenders in subsequent eras. Obviously they are bigger legends at great fighters in their pomp (and natural weight). But certainly in the case of Charles and Walcott I think theres a valid argument to say the level they were at was some way below their best and might not cut it against the top contenders in other eras. This is just trying to look at objectively without going into the whole modern/older is better and just trying to ascertain the level these guys were at when they fought Rocky.

When Moore fought Rocky he showed he was still a force at lightheavy at least and even after could drop back down and capture the title so he could still operate well at lightheavy at least. However its hard to measure how good he was as a heavy as he basically came up short against the top guys and never impacted the division to any real extent.

Charles and Walcott in my opinion were most likely very much on the way out and above their division and met Rocky after long, hard careers. Neither of them managed anything of note afterwards so the wins have to be put in perspective. Im not sure one could say with any real authority that at that stage they would have been contenders in any era. Thats very debateable and I suspect they mightnt be contenders in many eras subsequent.

None of this proves Rocky couldnt hack it with other champs. I think its obvious he had devastating power for any era. But in looking at his title reign I can fully understand the argument that its overated. My gut feeling is though that the rest of his game would find him struggling against many of the subsequent champs. Not because he was 50s fighter, but simply due to style, technique and size. He could perhaps have been an awesome lightheavy or cruiser in any era with his bulldozing style as he essentially proved against other legendary lightheavies, but at heavyweight Im not so sure.

I suggest the Rocky fanbots read this post as I cannot add anything to it. It's taken 640 posts to get to this point. Thanks for this manos even though you have said in one post what I didn't in 300 posts making me look a complete tool.

azania wrote:If Liston were around at the time of Rocky, we would never be having this debate. If Rocky had fought Terrell, his 0 would have gone.

Many of Ali's opponents were genuine, live HW. Rock's opponents were neither anywhere near their prime or actually geunuine HW. Take Holmes for example. After Tyson beat him everyone said the result would have been different (myself included) were Holmes near his peak. But look what he did afterwards? Took Holy the distance and beat Mercer who gave Lewis fits. It doesn't change the fact that Tyson beat a shot Holmes.

The Liston point is moot.

Maybe if Ali had been born ten years later we would never have heard of Larry Holmes. Context is everything. Bearing said context in mind, how can you argue that Ali's opponents during his FIRST reign were top notch ? Can you refute the points I made, above ?

Walcott was certainly at his best for the first Rocky fight, and we don't require revisionist history to say so. It was commonly accepted at the time, and he was favourite going in. Many believe that Walcott took the easy route in the second fight and that, having been served a reminder of Rocky's power by a more confident Marciano, Jersey Joe gave up the ghost.

Charles WAS slightly faded, and the two Marciano fights finished him, just as Manila probably finished Ali as well as Frazier. Notwithstanding, just as Morales proved over the weekend, a faded fighter can often pull off one last, blood and guts inspired effort. Charles did it twice, but was never to be the same again.

azania wrote:

manos de piedra wrote:There are strong cases to be made for or against Marciano and as most of them have already been made I wont get into that.

I tend to come down in the middle with him.

Certainly I think Charles was fairly shot when he fought Marciano and the fact he was never really a heavyweight to begin with deserves acknowledgement. He had lost a couple fights prior to the Marciano fight and never had a big win after them. In fact his record after the Marciano fight is pretty shocking. When you consider all these factors I think it it does diminish the wins for Rocky fairly significantly.

Moore is different. Although a natural Lightheavy and fairly long in the tooth there wasnt a great deal to suggest he was washed up by any stretch. His record going into the fight was and he hadnt lost many in the years before it and would go on to recapture the title at lightheavy a few times after the defeat. However it was a straight step up to the heavyweight title shot and there is legitimate argument to say Moore was nowhere near as effective at heavyweight as he was at lightheavyweight and was stopped by the three best heavies he faced (although the Ali fight meant little).

Walcott is maybe the hardest of the three to judge. He was more experienced at heavyweight than the others but he was almost 40 for the fights and retired straight after so I think its fair to assume he was past his best. I know the argument that "age is just a number" but to be honest I think at 40y old you just cant be as good. There are freak exceptions maybe but it isnt the norm. And when you consider the number of hard fights and rounds they boxed back then its more likely to by an old 40yr old rather than a young 40yr old. Being blasted out in the first round would to me suggest that Walcott was past it in the second fight anyway.

I think its tricky to say what level these guys were at in comparison to other contenders in subsequent eras. Obviously they are bigger legends at great fighters in their pomp (and natural weight). But certainly in the case of Charles and Walcott I think theres a valid argument to say the level they were at was some way below their best and might not cut it against the top contenders in other eras. This is just trying to look at objectively without going into the whole modern/older is better and just trying to ascertain the level these guys were at when they fought Rocky.

When Moore fought Rocky he showed he was still a force at lightheavy at least and even after could drop back down and capture the title so he could still operate well at lightheavy at least. However its hard to measure how good he was as a heavy as he basically came up short against the top guys and never impacted the division to any real extent.

Charles and Walcott in my opinion were most likely very much on the way out and above their division and met Rocky after long, hard careers. Neither of them managed anything of note afterwards so the wins have to be put in perspective. Im not sure one could say with any real authority that at that stage they would have been contenders in any era. Thats very debateable and I suspect they mightnt be contenders in many eras subsequent.

None of this proves Rocky couldnt hack it with other champs. I think its obvious he had devastating power for any era. But in looking at his title reign I can fully understand the argument that its overated. My gut feeling is though that the rest of his game would find him struggling against many of the subsequent champs. Not because he was 50s fighter, but simply due to style, technique and size. He could perhaps have been an awesome lightheavy or cruiser in any era with his bulldozing style as he essentially proved against other legendary lightheavies, but at heavyweight Im not so sure.

I suggest the Rocky fanbots read this post as I cannot add anything to it. It's taken 640 posts to get to this point. Thanks for this manos even though you have said in one post what I didn't in 300 posts making me look a complete tool.

It's not a question of being ' fanbots.'

There are grounds for debate, here, and your arbitrary dismissal of the opinions of others is unbecoming, and particularly since you haven't in any way proven your argument yet.

Oh, and one other point, az.

640 posts have failed to convince ANYBODY that Marciano doesn't make a top forty, so your rejoicing would appear to be even more inappropriate.

azania wrote:If Liston were around at the time of Rocky, we would never be having this debate. If Rocky had fought Terrell, his 0 would have gone.

Many of Ali's opponents were genuine, live HW. Rock's opponents were neither anywhere near their prime or actually geunuine HW. Take Holmes for example. After Tyson beat him everyone said the result would have been different (myself included) were Holmes near his peak. But look what he did afterwards? Took Holy the distance and beat Mercer who gave Lewis fits. It doesn't change the fact that Tyson beat a shot Holmes.

You talk about 'actually genuine' heavyweights, but look at the heavyweight scene today and two of the biggest names in that division started out at cruiser and light heavy. Look at Holyfield-made his mark at heavy, but didn't start his career there. I think you're laying too much importance on this whole 'genuine' aspect. If we take your logic and apply it to all boxers, then we have relatively few who are 'genuine' at the weight they presently compete at. Mayweather, Pacquiao, JMM, Hopkins, Donaire, Cotto, Martinez, Haye, Adamek, Pascal, Khan...none of these would be considered 'genuine' at their present weights...

BALTIMORA wrote:

azania wrote:If Liston were around at the time of Rocky, we would never be having this debate. If Rocky had fought Terrell, his 0 would have gone.

Many of Ali's opponents were genuine, live HW. Rock's opponents were neither anywhere near their prime or actually geunuine HW. Take Holmes for example. After Tyson beat him everyone said the result would have been different (myself included) were Holmes near his peak. But look what he did afterwards? Took Holy the distance and beat Mercer who gave Lewis fits. It doesn't change the fact that Tyson beat a shot Holmes.

You talk about 'actually genuine' heavyweights, but look at the heavyweight scene today and two of the biggest names in that division started out at cruiser and light heavy. Look at Holyfield-made his mark at heavy, but didn't start his career there. I think you're laying too much importance on this whole 'genuine' aspect. If we take your logic and apply it to all boxers, then we have relatively few who are 'genuine' at the weight they presently compete at. Mayweather, Pacquiao, JMM, Hopkins, Donaire, Cotto, Martinez, Haye, Adamek, Pascal, Khan...none of these would be considered 'genuine' at their present weights...

Particularly apt, given that Marciano weighed around 185lb.

The size disparity between Ali and Patterson and Cooper was much greater than any size disparity between Marciano and his contenders.