Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 92

Thread: Rocky Marciano's ranking among the greats

  1. #31
    jyoungfan2
    Guest

    size

    according to boxrec Ali was 6'3 and foreman 6'3 & 1/2.
    how would rocky do against
    holmes 6'3
    witherspoon 6'3
    lyle 6'3
    shannon briggs 6'4
    cooney 6'7 (boxrec must be wrong)
    m spinks 6'3
    bonecrusher smith 6'4
    oliver mccall 6'2?

  2. #32
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Myth

    [[[[how would rocky do against]]]]]]
    =================

    Rocky fans say he beats their arms down and knocks them out.

    The best days of those fighters listed will beat Rocky. Half of them could be beat by Rocky at their worsts. I love Rock and his record and his legacy, but he just doesn't match well with big strong guys stylistically.

    The fight I'd really like to see is against Johnson. That would be a good match with completely opposite styles that would explode when combined in the ring IMO.

  3. #33
    walsh b
    Guest

    Re: Myth

    TKO, I apologise if I failed to answer your question but where you get this childish response from me makes me wonder??...p4p I would say Evander Holyfield was 2nd only to The Rock below 200lbs and above 185....I said I believe the Rock would have beat any man below 200lbs thru history. He was really that special and as a Heavyweight in his era, he was the Greatest. Now if you say to me that he'd whack a Klitscho without even trying to give Klitschko a chance or refusing to give the guy the slightest bit of praise for becoming the champ of the world, you are simply saying to me that size does not matter in the fight game. I say 40-50 lbs and 7 inches in height with maybe 13 inches of extra reach damn well matter, even if it's against your really 'poor' champion called Klitschko.

    You are making out as if The Rock would just have to turn up and he wins, how disrespectful is that and how ignorant is that towards Klitschlo. I don't rate him as one of the great great champs but he would have been tough opposition for any of them and even tougher opposition for the champs below the 195lb era.....It's nature that says weight and size plays a role in success or failure...Finally I want to say that the Rock has definitely a chance to beat Klitschko, but he'd have to be on top of his game and his character, stamina, heart and will to win will stand to him I'm sure...that is how amazing he was

  4. #34
    TKO11
    Guest

    Hmmmmmm

    Again, entire point missed....

    If, as you just said, Rocky was the best ever under 200, and Holyfield fought top-level until he was 27 under 200, then you're saying Rocky was better than Evander. Now Holyfield moved up (and roided up, IMO) and was able to stand toe-to-toe with Bowe, one of the best big men ever, for 31 rounds and more than hold his own. The same Holyfield that KOed Mike Tyson when well past his best, and fought nearly evenly with a best-era Lewis for 24 rounds. All when past his best, which occurred around 188 pounds.

    So if Holyfield can do all this, all past his best, and Rocky is BETTER than Holyfield (by your own admission), why can't Rock? Best Holyfield is worlds better than Klitschko, and would mush him. Ditto Rocky.

    And please stop the silly attempts to ridicule my position as well, thank you very much. I don't know if it's fooling anyone, but it's an annoying habit of many who refuse to take arguemnts at face value. Me saying that a true world-champ, who always fought his guts out and was in perfect condition, beats a stamina-poor, oversized galoot with way-overated power and virtually no defense or speed, somehow equates to, "Rocky only has to drag his bones into the ring and it's over." Amazing. It would seem to me that all along I've been talking about best versions of everyone. Not just "turning up".

    While I'm on it, why would have have "the slightest bit of praise" for Klitschko? Is this disrespectful to Ivan? A guy you call "champ of the world"? A man who had his shot and got cut up to ratshit, then "won" his "champ of the world" status by beating up on a perrenially terrified hammerhead like Johnson, not being able to put away a flabbly Sanders who hadn't thrown a punch in the almost 5 rounds, and has only defended it against a guy that wouldn't have been a top 20 fighter in any other era.

    Sorry for my disrespect to Dr. Ironhead. I mean Fist. The guy has never done a damned thing except be in a spot where he had incredibly fortunate timing, showed he could take a beating, and lose to the very best he ever fought. What a legend. Yeah, he creams Rocky.....

  5. #35
    walsh b
    Guest

    Re: Hmmmmmm

    No, you are missing the point...how I do not know. The Rock was superb for a guy of 5ft 10 and 190lbs, more than likely the best ever. Look Evander was also superb and you say how he was so good because of his achievements against Bowe and Lewis and Tyson. Holyfield was at least 3 inches taller than Rocky and when he faced Tyson and those guys he was weighing approx 210 lbs, not 190lbs. That's the bloody point, if Evander stayed at 190 or Cruiser, his task of beating those guys would increase considerably. I'm simply saying that if Rocky entered the ring at his peak weight of no more than 190lbs, he has a huge task in trying to beat Klitsch or Lewis or Foreman etc....However if he suddenly put on 3-4 inches and 20 or so lbs, he stands a better chance, but that's not gonna' happen. Again I say that if Evander and the Rock fought at Cruiser or 190 lbs, I'd put my money on the Rock, however if Evander of 1991 met the Rock of 1952, then Evander may beat him....purely because he upped his weight and was stronger and a harder puncher at this new weight.

    I hope this seems more plausible to you now. The Rock was superb, but in todays standards he was really a Cruiser and to dismiss 40 lbs and 7 inches in height seems foolish to me

  6. #36
    HEGrant
    Guest

    Re: Hmmmmmm

    I don't think Rocky was the best under 200. I think he should be ranked there as one of the best...you do have Dempsey, Tunney, Langford and the young Louis I'd rate above him. However, without question, he would be dangerous for all and much more competitive at that weight.

  7. #37
    walsh b
    Guest

    Re: Hmmmmmm

    HE, I wasn't aware Dempsey was actually below 200, though even still I say the Rock would have beat Louis and Dempsey...as for Langford I cannot see him going the distance with Rocky......I suppose it's a matter of opinion really but you are right when you say he'd be a lot more competitive fighting the guys below 200, rather than those well above....just Physics really

  8. #38
    TKO11
    Guest

    Points

    I am not missing your points walsh, I simply think you're 100% wrong. Size only matter if skills are comparable. Klitschko has very few tools. Nothing taught me that with greater emphasis than Jones/Ruiz. I actually think Rock has lots of trouble with a prime Louis and Dempsey, but no trouble at all with Klitschko, Nino Valdes, Gerry Cooney or Bernardo Mercado. All very big men with limited skills. And all roughly as good as the next one. Skill puts you one step above the mediocre, and almost always shows. Rock kills Klitschko, not Lewis. Or Holmes or Ali or Foreman. Big and great beats small and great. Small and great beats "galoot" every time.

  9. #39
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Size vs Skills

    [[[[[Size only matter if skills are comparable. Klitschko has very few tools. Nothing ]]]]]
    ======================

    You make it sound like Vitali was some kind of destitute homeless boxer. Jess Willard did not have anything close to the skills or experience against Johnson, but he had all the basics a huge man needs to win most of his fights, reach, chin, a good jab, overhand right, and strength.

    Joe Frazier had more skills than Foreman. It did nothing for him because his style was all wrong for Foreman. Rocky's style would be even worse whether it be Vitali or Foreman or Willard.

  10. #40
    walsh b
    Guest

    Re: Points

    Fair enough TKO, you do agree with me that a good big one has the advantage over a good little one. You really do think Vitaly was that poor. I don't and I still think he has too much physical advantages in reserve to maybe make up for the fact that he was no Foreman or Ali.....

  11. #41
    HEGrant
    Guest

    Re: Points

    Walsh: Everyone is entitled to his opinion...you may very well be right.

  12. #42
    Mr E
    Guest
    No question size and strength matter a whole lot, which is why we have weight classes in the first place. No one thinks Sugar Ray Robinson could have defeated Vitaly Klitschko, I don't believe.

    IMO, there are very few "cruiserweights" in history who were so great that they could give up 40-50 pounds and compete with anyone, ever. IMO, Rocky Marciano was one of those elite cruiserweights. Others include (chron order): Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney and Joe Louis. Just my opinion.

  13. #43
    HEGrant
    Guest
    I think Marciano moves up poorly because of his lack of size and speed...they are huge items to give up against much bigger and stronger men.

  14. #44
    JimmyShimmy
    Guest

    I think

    It's interesting the way some fans are convinced Marciano could not beat certain 'big' fighter's or other greats when in not one film he showed he could be neutralized.

    He was always on his opponents-an ever present danger that changed gears quickly and kept on motoring for the long haul. Cleverly slithering his way inside their guard getting them to trade with him as he forced them to punch in an attempt to give themselves some space to operate, but they were now just playing into his hands.

    I consider 'Jersey' Joe Walcott a very excellent puncher. Crisp n' powerful-he floored a helluva lot of opponents that he never finished (often due to his laid back style).

    He hurt and floored the Rock, but also never stopped him coming forward after hitting him with a load of other corkers.

    Rocky's tenacious nature, awkward style and tremendous physical gifts would provide any opponent with a serious problem. Any fighter can be beat on any given day (boxing is a see-saw battle of wills and jigsaw esque style clashes), but Marciano's 49-0 (above all else) represents he came into every fight with the intentions to do everything in his very great power to come through the victor.

    It's a scary mentality he possessed that few had.

    Marciano criticism is thick and often. It always will be due to many reasons.

    Allot of it is perfectly acceptable/constructive, but the general gripes (I find) is a contagious perception derived from inaccurately told legend and the Rocks misleading appearance.

    I.e.:

    -The Walcott fight is now depicted as a shutout where the puncher finally connects with one of his wild swings. Far from the truth to my liking. History has spewed out an inaccurate dramatic tale.

    -The dopey face, the unorthodox (very open) looking stance and the fact the man is immortalized by his heart/power helps steer further away from the fact he was an effective technician who was very hard to nail clean.

    Simply put you don't do what the Rock did if you use your face for a shield.

  15. #45
    HEGrant
    Guest

    Re: I think

    No one is knocking Jersey Joe ... there is no getting away from the fact that he was 38 years old when he engaged Marciano in a life and death battle...Moore was forty or so...Louis was 37...his competition was all past their best days. That is the first basis point.

  16. #46
    JimmyShimmy
    Guest

    I believe

    The statistics are misleading:

    Look at Moore's record prior to facing Marciano. He was on the most impressive winning streak of his career. Apart from age there is nothing to suggest he was past his best because his record and performance in the Marciano fight was brilliant.

    You could make a case for Walcott being past his best (looking better in the Louis fight's perhaps), but he was still performing at the top of his game (there was nothing demonstrated prior to suggest he was slipping), he was HW champion of the world and gave Marciano a brutal fight before getting caught.

    Many believe Charles became a jaded fighter after killing Sam Baroudi, but on the other hand many believe his showing against Marciano in the first fight was his best ever performance. It's likely his best days were gone, but it's also plausible that was his greatest ring effort ever.

    To suggest they were all worn is (to my liking) turning a blind eye to the film. Declined fighters just don't go through what they did with Marciano-they all obviously still had allot to offer and the Rock was imfamous for recking fighters.

  17. #47
    HEGrant
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Jimmy - they were the ages that they were...there is no getting around the fact...part of the reasons they all looked god for their ages was that they were fighting Marciano, a small, slowish, hittable heavyweight. Just as there's no denying his heart, chin , stamina or power there is no denying the rest of his package.

  18. #48
    greek1237
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Than why did Walcott look good vs Charles???

    Or Archie Moore looking good in that 3 round blowout vs Olson?? Before his fight with Rock?? Or even old Archie looking good vs Maxie in 52?

  19. #49
    HEGrant
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    No one is saying they did not look good...I am saying that no qualifies as an all time best heavyweight champ simply based on beating any version of the heavyweight Ezzard Charles or anyone KOing Bobo Olsen ... decent accomplishments but not the biggest or the best.

  20. #50
    DEEAGLE
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Long time since I last posted here. 1st Marciano was as tough as everyone is saying, no doubt, but realistically he could'nt handle the faster, bigger guys. That 49-0 43 K.o's certainly looks wonderful & it is wonderful, except the average age of a Marciano opponent was over 33 years old, & most guys were much smaller then the Listons,Alis,Foremans,Tysons,Holmes etc. Also to be considered is this, Rocks style was not a pretty style by no means, brawling & grit & an awkwardness were his strong suit. There are those here that mentioned Rock was the best cruiser ever, that is not true at all, if you're going to consider Rock as a cruiser then I would say Dempsey,Louis, Holy all were better more complete fighters then Marciano. Not saying that Rocky has no chance against these greats, simply he would be out gunned & out sped by these men, & in Ali's case, I don't think the Rock would finish on his feet. Yeah I said it, Ali would chop him up, hit him 20 times to 1. Furthermore the Holyfield that ransacked Dokes,Douglas,Steward & Thomas would've beaten Marciano everday of the week & 3 times on Sunday. The only chance the Rock would have against these better hwts would be the punchers chance, & in these cases they're slim & none. Also how could the Rock take a PRIME Tyson? The speed of that man & the power was unreal. Liston? he would've seriously hurt the Rock, as would've Foreman & Bowe. Not to mention Lummox Lewis.

  21. #51
    greek1237
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    oh come on, We all know Holyfiled cant beat Marciano evey day of the week and 3 times on Sundays, the Rock was not a weakling.


    If anything Marciano would take Holyfied to hell and back.
    And I think Marciano would get the better of Tyson in the clichs, Marciano was a GREAT inside fighter, something Tyson seem to lack, when one sees Douglas and Holyfiled controlling the clichs.

    Ali was not able to hit Joe Fraizer 20 times to 1 shot, and the Rock had a better defense than Fraizer's bobbing and weaving.

    Marciano would lean away from the jab, and slip the punch and get it, imo. Marciano would also parry the jab when he can. He slip plenty of Walcott's jabs, I counted over 10 or so slips in round 8.

    Very underated defense.

  22. #52
    DEEAGLE
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Hey greek, Marciano at best is a cruiserweight, you really think he could take those fast hard Holy combos? Or really get to Ali? Man Marciano was slower then Chuvalo & Ali hit Chuvalo at least 20 to 1. Marciano also bled a lot, Ali would cut him up rather easy. I think the Rock was a tough S,O.B, but he was'nt in the same league as an Ali,Holy,or a PRIME TYSON. I mean Tyson was much faster & hit so much harder then Marciano, I think you're forgetting how Walcott dropped him, & Charles was right there with him. Hell Charles weighed what? 169LBS? Tyson might've put him in the hospital & Ali would've made him look like a RANK AMATEUR, not to mention Holmes who would've had a field day on the Rock.

  23. #53
    HEGrant
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Look I don't think anyone here is saying that Marciano was not a very tough guy...he was also a true champion...he was very tough, he did not break down when pounded by faster, talented men like Walcott and Charles...yes Walcott and Charles were very tough guys and Rocky beat them ... However, he did get hit a lot, he was not fast and he was small. Those are major issues to overcome when he would have to step up and fight better, bigger men that Walcott and Charles...I simply think too much...

    He was definately a top ten cruiser and that is a tremendous accomplishment in it's own right..however, too much is made of his retiring undefeated...it's who he had to beat that is the major determining factor to me and he simply did not beat a higher degree of top guys...there was no one there for him...it's not his fault but it has also worked to his benefit and stuffed up his legend a bit...

    too many Marciano guys say he never got hurt or never got tired and that's bull .. he did but was able to beat the men he fought...I simply do not see him beating guys like Ali or Holmes...I see him getting stopped by the Liston's, the Foreman's , the Tysons simply because they were stylistic suicides for him based on his size and skills...

    I would have loved to see him fight Dempsey and Frazier and Holyfield...while I feel all three were too much for him...you never know...however, I say he beats the Sharkeys , the Schmelings, the and many , many others close to his size..

    I really woner how he would have done against a Max Baer...

  24. #54
    kikibalt
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Imo Holyfield does not beat Marciano, an Charles did not weight 169 lbs when he fought Marciano

    Frank B.

  25. #55
    greek1237
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Charles weight 187 in both matchs.

    That was way over the 169 or so you think, now your making em lighter than they EVEN were. Marciano was not beating up middleweights when he defended his title.

  26. #56
    greek1237
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    "Hey greek, Marciano at best is a cruiserweight, you really think he could take those fast hard Holy combos? "

    Marciano was sure taking the combos Walcott and Charles were landed. And Walcott was a pretty good combo puncher.
    I belive he would had taking it, or duck,slip. weave, and made Holyfiled miss in there fight.



    "Or really get to Ali? Man Marciano was slower then Chuvalo & Ali hit Chuvalo at least 20 to 1. Marciano also bled a lot, Ali would cut him up rather easy. "

    Marciano was not that slow like people claim, he was pretty decent on his feet, and at times had fast hands(Beating Walcott 2 the punch.

    I belive Marciano was faster than Chuvalo, or even Lewis. Not on the speed of Ali of couse. and Yes I belive Marciano would be able to slip in and get in on Ali(I think Ali wins, but its a close fight.)

    As for the cut thing, Marciano was not relly a bleeder, The nose thing was a elbow,
    And Marciano had a cut in his 8th pro fight, and the wound never healed right, and thus the cut was reopen on later fights, the most famos case is when Charles reopen the cut in there 15 round classic. Marciano was not relly a bleeder like I said, and he had few fights were he was cut badly.

    "I think the Rock was a tough S,O.B, but he was'nt in the same league as an Ali,Holy,or a PRIME TYSON. I mean Tyson was much faster & hit so much harder then Marciano,"

    Maybe Tyson is faster, But he wount be after Rock ties him up and controls the pace of the fight. And yes Marcinao was in the same league as these guys.

    "I think you're forgetting how Walcott dropped him, & Charles was right there with him. Hell Charles weighed what? 169LBS?"

    Both these guys were soilded punchers, And yes Walcott did drop him, but Marciano was not hurt by the knockdown, he was down for 3 sconds, Ali was dropped by Cooper, and Tyson was down vs Holyfiled and Douglas and Lewis, among other fighters.
    You get on Marciano being drop, but yet forget other fighters were drop.

    And dont forget Holyfiled was drop by Cooper, and yet he took Tyson's bombs pretty well.



    "Tyson might've put him in the hospital & Ali would've made him look like a RANK AMATEUR, not to mention Holmes who would've had a field day on the Rock. "

    I think Marciano matchs up pretty well vs these guys

    Marciano would take out Holmes most used weapon the jab, and getting though and landed his own bombs on the inside., and making it a close fight imo.

    Same with Ali. Ali would not make Marciano look like a Amateur. If Moore or Charles were unable to do it, Than Ali would not make Marciano look like a Amateur.

  27. #57
    DEEAGLE
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Hey Greek,please don't compare the punching power of Charles or Walcott to a Tyson or for that matter Ali. Both men hit harder, faster & with more precise combos then Walcott or Charles. Lets also not forget Holy who could throw 20,30 40 punch combos straight. I've NEVER seen Charles or Walcott that active & I might add they certainly did'nt have the chin of a PRIME Evander. As for Tyson, he was a MUCH bigger banger then Marciano, much quicker & at 218lbs would've outweighed the Rock by 33lbs. Ali would make him look like a rank amateur as would Holmes, that is not a knock on the Rock, Ali made all the slow guys look ridiculous, as did Holmes. What exactly would Rock have in his favor? Nothing not even heart, because NO ONE has a bigger heart then ALI only Evander could lay claim in that area. Rock was at best with slower guys & guys that he could BULL & MAUL, certainly not with guys of the speed of an Ali,Tyson or a Holmes. And I still say Tyson would put the Rock in the hospital, he might even break Rocks great heart.

  28. #58
    greek1237
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Charles killed a guy in the ring,

    And Walcott was known for the left hand.

    Tyson hit harder than both men, But I cant put Ali over Charles or Walcott in punching power.

    Watch Louis Charles, 2 see Charles tee off on Louis, Charles landed some nice combos, and even stagger Louis in round 14.
    I felt Charles almost drop or had Louis on the go, Now this was a shot Louis of couse.

    Knocking out the Frank Brunos, Toney Tubbs and Trevor Berbick is differnt than knocking greats like Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott or Archie Moore.

  29. #59
    DEEAGLE
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Yeah well Charles could'nt stop an old decrepit Louis & I might add Louis was not a guy with a steel chin. I really don't think either Walcott or Charles was a better puncher then Ali. And I really think you're over rating both men, at best Charles was a great lgt hwt,as a hwt he was basically to put it mildly AVERAGE. Walcott was tough no doubt, but really do you think he would last more then 3 rounds with a Prime Tyson? And thats giving him the benefit of the doubt. Tyson was just a wrecking machine, BTW Berbick was not a bad fighter, & neither was Tucker. Not saying they were greats, but both guys were pros who could hurt you. And speaking of Walcott & Charles, they really were the best guys Rocky fought, sorry to say that was'nt exactly the creme de la creme of past hwts. Many of the guys Ali beat were superior in everyway to Walcott & Charles. I know you're not going to like to hear this, but Floyd Patterson in his prime probably beats Marciano. Watch out now!!!!:lol

  30. #60
    greek1237
    Guest

    Re: I believe

    Patterson was ko by INGO, for crying out loud, and was drop by Pete Rachmaker, who was makeing his first pro fight for the heavyweight title.

    Marciano would NEVER be drop by a guy making his first pro fight, or even defend the title against such a guy.

    Ingo only had a good right hand, and lack the movement of Rocky Marciano, I dont see Patterson beating Marciano at all, Patterson was drop more times than any other lineal heavyweight champion.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home