The free-for-all "Cleverly at HW/Calzaghe would beat Wlad/Rocky Marciano was Rubbish/Mimsy" Thread

[Boxtthis]

First topic message reminder :

Just read this on boxing scene:

http://www.boxingscene.com/team-cleverly-nathan-wants-fight-heavyweight--55352

Clev's dad saying that he's filling out and wants to fight as a HW one day. Could be the lightest punching HW in history! I wonder if there's any nurses in the HW division?

C'mon Nathan, how about you fight someone decent at LHW first? His record as a title holder is becoming embarrassing.

In light of Gordy's chat I've changed the title of the thread so that it gives a more accurate representation of it's content!

[Rowley]

Yes without a shadow of a doubt.

[Gentleman01]

I've read it.

It still seems as though you rank Marciano outside the top 20 as you think he'd be beaten by more than 20 other HW boxers throughout history.

It's a fair enough argument and I understand it perfectly. I won't even argue with you too much over that, although I think you're wrong I can at least understand the reasoning behind it. I choose to consider actual achievements, longevity, influence, level of opposition etc. as well when ranking boxers. Those are tangible facts.

Following on from that, and with regards to the Bonavera example, I think you're straying too far in to the hypotheticals. Unfortunately, we can only rate a guy on what he has achieved, rather than what he might have achieved if born in a different era. I'm not about to credit Bonavera with an imaginary 49-0 career just because it is possible, or even probable, that he would have achieved it had he been born when Marciano was. Marciano actually did it, however in doing so I don't think he beat a particularly high standard of opposition in comparison with, say Muhammad Ali, for example and these are factors I take in to consideration when ranking Marciano.

If you're going to now claim that you also take in to consideration all available factors when ranking Marciano (longevity, achievement, perceived ability etc. etc.) then I'll want to see a top 20 list based on all these factors, not just a list of 'who would beat Marciano'.

Without such a list, like I said before, the argument is a non-starter.

[manos de piedra]

I think Marciano could bulk up, but the presumption would be that the more above 185lbs he went, the further from his optimum fighting weight he would be. Holyfield had to compete with the giants so he had to bulk up.

I also think that Marciano was just a smallish natural heavyweight. Even at 185 he was fairly squat, thickset and not the quickest. Im not sure if even more bulk would suit him. His reach is also cripplingly short if we are comparing to how he fares against the really big heavyweights. 68 inches compared to Lewis for example who would have 84 inches.

I agree with all this, my point is simply that you must look beyond weight alone to judge a fighter's size. Take all the fat off Toney, Chambers and Byrd and they're smaller than Rocky. Byrd is Wlad's best or second best win. If Marciano had their training ethic he'd be another ball wearing gloves, instead he was a sharp athlete.

True, but would it matter head to head against one of the giants? I think Byrd, Chambers and Toney are better suited to lower weights in this era but back in Marcianos day they could come come in a trim 180-190 if they wanted and be all the better for it. Against the gigantic heavies I think they need that extra mass although clearly in the case of Toney for instance its just lard rather a controlled effort to bulk up. Haye, Holy etc would be the more professional attempt at it.

[manos de piedra]

Jeffries and Dempsey rules similarly weak eras for me and also had the color line in place.

Would also chuck Johnson into that mix, the names he beat once champion were truly dreadful and unlike most other guys that commonly populate the top tens the guys Johnson were beating most assuredly did not represent the best fighters available.

True, though I think he beat the better fighters on the way up. Championship reign alone I agree its fairly miserable.

[John Bloody Wayne]

@Manos
I think it shows he'd be competitive at least. The reach is the thing that hurts him most, but when you have smaller, poorer conditioned and comparatively feather fisted heavies impersonating the best possible opposition today I don't see Marciano being anybody's whipping boy.

He was actually more difficult to hit in close than his reputation suggests, so providing the ref doesn't allow elbowing the top of you're opponents head he'd be the number 1 contender at least.

[John Bloody Wayne]

I always considered Dempsey's title challengers pretty good.

[TheMackemMawler]

Mackem you can't comment on my very correct assertion that azs views on Marciano are racially motivated as you haven't had to put up with it for over a year.

Fair enough.

[Rowley]

Jeffries and Dempsey rules similarly weak eras for me and also had the color line in place.

Would also chuck Johnson into that mix, the names he beat once champion were truly dreadful and unlike most other guys that commonly populate the top tens the guys Johnson were beating most assuredly did not represent the best fighters available.

True, though I think he beat the better fighters on the way up. Championship reign alone I agree its fairly miserable.

It does demonstrate though how easy it is to dump one of the regulars out of the top ten, if I chose to put a huge amount of weighing in my consideration to whether a fighter fought the best of their era it would be all too easy to dump Johnson out, which even as somone who doesn't care for the man I realise is pretty ridiculous, just underscores the point that has been made several times tonight of the need to strike a sensible balance in the criteria you consider these things on.

[manos de piedra]

@Manos
I think it shows he'd be competitive at least. The reach is the thing that hurts him most, but when you have smaller, poorer conditioned and comparatively feather fisted heavies impersonating the best possible opposition today I don't see Marciano being anybody's whipping boy.

He was actually more difficult to hit in close than his reputation suggests, so providing the ref doesn't allow elbowing the top of you're opponents head he'd be the number 1 contender at least.

I agree with you, when I talk about the giants Im really refering to the ones I consider not just large but also talented. Lewis, Bowe, Klitschkos etc. Head to head would be a struggle for Marciano in these contests I think.

I dont see the Povetkins, Peters, Chisoras, Ruiz, Rahmans etc being anything like a bridge too far. They have bulk on him but Id fancy Marciano to be able to punch a hole through them.

One thing that concerns me with Marciano is his durability. Hes traditionally held as one of the models of durability but he wasnt facing big punchers in his era for the most part. Louis was in his day, but he couldnt pull the trigger as effectively by Marciano. But Walcott, Charles and Moore I dont think were big hitters as heavyweights go.

Even taking someone limited but with a big punch around in the last few years like a Tua or a Rahman, you dont want take too many punches off them and with Marciano being quite easy to hit I do think hes vulnerable to the odd KO loss amongst era's that boasted more powerful heavyweights.

[Rodney]

Bottom line is; Is Rocky one of the best 30 HW in history?

That's a bit like asking my wife if she would like a new pair of shoes!

Of course he is, Ive rarely read a top ten list without Rocky in the the top 10, he is without doubt in history a top 10 fighter where on that list is debatable, you're basing your list on fantasy head to head matchups, it doesn't work.

Cheers. Rodders

[azania]

Yes without a shadow of a doubt.

Fair enough. Needless to say I totally disagree.

[manos de piedra]

I always considered Dempsey's title challengers pretty good.

Id have to disagree there, at least within the context of Marciano who is often accused of fighting blown ups and has beens. I think the same can apply to Dempsey.

I think Willard and Carpentiers were two of the most overrated fighters ever. Willard was average and ancient when Dempsey beat him. Carpentier was never a heavyweight, and like Willard I dont think he was as good as his reputation dictated. A washed up Louis and a blown up Moore were better than a washed up Willard and a blown up Carpentier.

Brennan and Firpo were just ordinary contendards, fairly similar to to Layne.

Gibbons, Miske and Sharkey were good but wouldnt say they outstrip Charles, LaStarza and Walcott neccessarily. If so, not by a great deal.

Not a great deal in it for me.

[azania]

I've read it.

It still seems as though you rank Marciano outside the top 20 as you think he'd be beaten by more than 20 other HW boxers throughout history.

It's a fair enough argument and I understand it perfectly. I won't even argue with you too much over that, although I think you're wrong I can at least understand the reasoning behind it. I choose to consider actual achievements, longevity, influence, level of opposition etc. as well when ranking boxers. Those are tangible facts.

Following on from that, and with regards to the Bonavera example, I think you're straying too far in to the hypotheticals. Unfortunately, we can only rate a guy on what he has achieved, rather than what he might have achieved if born in a different era. I'm not about to credit Bonavera with an imaginary 49-0 career just because it is possible, or even probable, that he would have achieved it had he been born when Marciano was. Marciano actually did it, however in doing so I don't think he beat a particularly high standard of opposition in comparison with, say Muhammad Ali, for example and these are factors I take in to consideration when ranking Marciano.

If you're going to now claim that you also take in to consideration all available factors when ranking Marciano (longevity, achievement, perceived ability etc. etc.) then I'll want to see a top 20 list based on all these factors, not just a list of 'who would beat Marciano'.

Without such a list, like I said before, the argument is a non-starter.

His level of opposition was dire.

Achievement? He's done it. No argument there.

Longevity? 5 years at the top says a lot. But lok at his opposition in those 5 years. 4 different guys and not one who was at his peak or any good.

[azania]

Ali
Louis (with a pulse rate)
Dempsey
Holmes
Frazier
Liston
Cooney
Norton
Foreman
Tyson
Holyfield (and Evan Fields)
Lewis
Wlad
Vitali
Bob Foster
Roy Jones
Cleveland Williams
Witherspoon
Bruno
Michael Spinks

20 who would beat Rocky

Others who would have a very good shout over the last 20 years
British

Haye
Chisora
Fury
Price
Calzaghe
-------------------------

Non British[/u]

Ike Ibeabuchi
Tua
Dokes
Pinklon
Bonecrusher
Tubbs
Ward
Toney

I could go on. All would be too good and intelligent for Rocky's crude style.

I could even throw in Audley as being far too big and skilled and Rocky wouldn't get close.

[azania]

Bottom line is; Is Rocky one of the best 30 HW in history?

That's a bit like asking my wife if she would like a new pair of shoes!

Of course he is, Ive rarely read a top ten list without Rocky in the the top 10, he is without doubt in history a top 10 fighter where on that list is debatable, you're basing your list on fantasy head to head matchups, it doesn't work.

Cheers. Rodders

Why shouldn't he be ranked #1?

[TheMackemMawler]

I'm sorry if I offend anyone with this rather sweeping statement (which isn't strictly true in all cases) but most coloured fighters can increase muscle mass easier than white fighters. They also tend to be more successful when they go through the weights.

I wouldn't take it as certain, that Marciano could bulk up more and be just as succesful. He may be able to bulk up and be a world beater but I just don't know. His body shape strikes me as similar to Arthur Abraham, only bigger. I can't see Abe bulking up to cruiser and doing much (yes I know Rocky is in another league but I'm just illustrating a point using a mesomorph who is proportionally comparative, but on a smaller scale).


I agree that ranking is more than pitting one fighter against another. I like to imagine sports science was available to all generations, together with the same technical and tactical knowledge which has evolved over the years. I also accept that achievements and opposition should be factored in. The weight should be the same though (rather than the word)

People are saying I can't compare Rocky to Light Heavies because Heavyweights have got bigger? That rocky boxed at heavyweight, and so he should be compared to only heavyweights. Perhaps they are right? I don't know........

But if you flip that on its head, and use the same logic, then who am I supposed to compare Carlos de leon to? He is an ATG cruiserweight but who do I consider him against from 1949?

I mean, if i can only compare a 1949 Heavyweight (Rocky) to Present Day Heavyweights, then by the same logic I can only compare a Present Day Cruiserweight to a 1949 Cruiserweight. BUT WHAT???? There wasn't a cruiserweight in 1949!!!!????? OMG!! Then I will have to compare Carlos de leon to someone of a similar weight from 1949...but who??...oh yeah there were lots of heavies around at that weight about then.

Comparisons should be made of people who are the same weight, because words like cruiser are just words that serve only as barriers to reason.

[azania]

Gatti and Vinny Pazienza would disprove your theory. They both successfully added on weight and were successful. In Vinny's case he went from Lightweight to Middleweight. Pure muscle. I'm suspect as to how he did it, but he did.

[TheMackemMawler]

Gatti and Vinny Pazienza would disprove your theory. They both successfully added on weight and were successful. In Vinny's case he went from Lightweight to Middleweight. Pure muscle. I'm suspect as to how he did it, but he did.

I think i covered my back for such eventualities by saying...

I'm sorry if I offend anyone with this rather sweeping statement (which isn't strictly true in all cases).

[fearlessBamber]

but most coloured fighters can increase muscle mass easier than white ...

I could even throw in Audley as being far too big and skilled and Rocky wouldn't get close.

Bed time ?

[manos de piedra]

I'm sorry if I offend anyone with this rather sweeping statement (which isn't strictly true in all cases) but most coloured fighters can increase muscle mass easier than white fighters. They also tend to be more successful when they go through the weights.

I wouldn't take it as certain, that Marciano could bulk up more and be just as succesful. He may be able to bulk up and be a world beater but I just don't know. His body shape strikes me as similar to Arthur Abraham, only bigger. I can't see Abe bulking up to cruiser and doing much (yes I know Rocky is in another league but I'm just illustrating a point using a mesomorph who is proportionally comparative, but on a smaller scale).


I agree that ranking is more than pitting one fighter against another. I like to imagine sports science was available to all generations, together with the same technical and tactical knowledge which has evolved over the years. I also accept that achievements and opposition should be factored in. The weight should be the same though (rather than the word)

People are saying I can't compare Rocky to Light Heavies because Heavyweights have got bigger? That rocky boxed at heavyweight, and so he should be compared to only heavyweights. Perhaps they are right? I don't know........

But if you flip that on its head, and use the same logic, then who am I supposed to compare Carlos de leon to? He is an ATG cruiserweight but who do I consider him against from 1949?

I mean, if i can only compare a 1949 Heavyweight (Rocky) to Present Day Heavyweights, then by the same logic I can only compare a Present Day Cruiserweight to a 1949 Cruiserweight. BUT WHAT???? There wasn't a cruiserweight in 1949!!!!????? OMG!! Then I will have to compare Carlos de leon to someone of a similar weight from 1949...but who??...oh yeah there were lots of heavies around at that weight about then.

Comparisons should be made of people who are the same weight, because words like cruiser are just words that serve only as barriers to reason.

I would say that by all mean compare fighters from different divisions head to head. But in terms of ranking fighters divisionally then I think you are stuck to ranking and contrasting the fighters in the division that they operated in. Rocky can really only be rated at heavyweight, but I dont see the issue with speculating how he would fare head to head with cruisers/light heavies/heavies from other eras.

[TheMackemMawler]

I'm sorry if I offend anyone with this rather sweeping statement (which isn't strictly true in all cases) but most coloured fighters can increase muscle mass easier than white fighters. They also tend to be more successful when they go through the weights.

I wouldn't take it as certain, that Marciano could bulk up more and be just as succesful. He may be able to bulk up and be a world beater but I just don't know. His body shape strikes me as similar to Arthur Abraham, only bigger. I can't see Abe bulking up to cruiser and doing much (yes I know Rocky is in another league but I'm just illustrating a point using a mesomorph who is proportionally comparative, but on a smaller scale).


I agree that ranking is more than pitting one fighter against another. I like to imagine sports science was available to all generations, together with the same technical and tactical knowledge which has evolved over the years. I also accept that achievements and opposition should be factored in. The weight should be the same though (rather than the word)

People are saying I can't compare Rocky to Light Heavies because Heavyweights have got bigger? That rocky boxed at heavyweight, and so he should be compared to only heavyweights. Perhaps they are right? I don't know........

But if you flip that on its head, and use the same logic, then who am I supposed to compare Carlos de leon to? He is an ATG cruiserweight but who do I consider him against from 1949?

I mean, if i can only compare a 1949 Heavyweight (Rocky) to Present Day Heavyweights, then by the same logic I can only compare a Present Day Cruiserweight to a 1949 Cruiserweight. BUT WHAT???? There wasn't a cruiserweight in 1949!!!!????? OMG!! Then I will have to compare Carlos de leon to someone of a similar weight from 1949...but who??...oh yeah there were lots of heavies around at that weight about then.

Comparisons should be made of people who are the same weight, because words like cruiser are just words that serve only as barriers to reason.

I would say that by all mean compare fighters from different divisions head to head. But in terms of ranking fighters divisionally then I think you are stuck to ranking and contrasting the fighters in the division that they operated in. Rocky can really only be rated at heavyweight, but I dont see the issue with speculating how he would fare head to head with cruisers/light heavies/heavies from other eras.

I can't argue with that Manos.

To everyone else...I feel Cr%p about the excerpt that fearless bambi just quoted. Sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't mean it in that context.

[Rodney]

I could even throw in Audley as being far too big and skilled and Rocky wouldn't get close.

Yes because Audley's has a record to back this up his best win is Michael Sprott ! Dereck Chisora best win is Sam Sexton.

As bad as you think Marciano record is, neither of the men you mentioned have beat anyone close to the skill of a Walcott for goodness sake, putting Harrison in with Marciano would be cruelty to children.

Rodders

[Boxtthis]

I keep returning to this thread in the same way that your eyes are drawn to a car crash.

There's actually no point in debating it any more. As always, Az will either a) Ignore other people's responses, b) Decide that other people's responses said something different from what they actually did, c) Stick doggedly to a point of argument that other people are not even addressing, d) Make wildly exaggerated comments (e.g. Audley would beat/deserves to be ranked higher than Rocky) e) A combination of any of the above.

Az is either completely devoid of logical reasoning power or he's on the wind up. For me, it's as simple as that.

Just to be clear though: According to the way you rank fighters Az - you have Audley Harrison above Rocky Marciano? Is that what I'm hearing here? If so, we can put it in the Az soundbite bank along with "the Klitschko Brothers are worse than John Gotti" and a few other gems.

[Gentleman01]

Ali
Louis (with a pulse rate)
Dempsey
Holmes
Frazier
Liston
Cooney
Norton
Foreman
Tyson
Holyfield (and Evan Fields)
Lewis
Wlad
Vitali
Bob Foster
Roy Jones
Cleveland Williams
Witherspoon
Bruno
Michael Spinks

20 who would beat Rocky

Others who would have a very good shout over the last 20 years
British

Haye
Chisora
Fury
Price
Calzaghe
-------------------------

Non British[/u]

Ike Ibeabuchi
Tua
Dokes
Pinklon
Bonecrusher
Tubbs
Ward
Toney

I could go on. All would be too good and intelligent for Rocky's crude style.

I could even throw in Audley as being far too big and skilled and Rocky wouldn't get close.

I didn't ask for this. I asked for boxers who, taking in to consideration all available criteria, can claim to be ranked higher than Marciano in an all-time great list NOT a head-to-head list.

I even explicitly stated that I wouldn't argue that there are 20 HW who could beat Marciano. I explicitly stated that.

To me it still appears that we are using completely different criteria and, as such, not even debating the same thing. If you place Marciano outside a top 20 based purely on head-to-head, then I can understand that reasoning.

If you place him outside a top 20, based on all the aforementioned criteria, then I can't unerstand your reasoning. Part of the reason I can't see any reasoning is that I haven't yet seen a list. I explicitly stated, did I not, that I didn't care to see a list of "guys who could beat Marciano"

If you are either unable or unwilling to apply all criteria and produce a top 20 based on said criteria then that is fair enough. It's no problem. You base your rankings on your opinion of percieved head-to-head match-ups. I base mine on a number of factors. It is not surprising then that we reach vastly different conclusions if we apply vastly different methods of ranking the same fighter. I have already said that as well.

[Boxtthis]

I even explicitly stated that I wouldn't argue that there are 20 HW who could beat Marciano. I explicitly stated that.

Therein lies the beauty of the Az debating style. Your explicit statements have been ignored and modified to suit.

[TopHat24/7]

Of course there is no evidence. Its an opinion and one I can back up.

[Lumbering_Jack]

This really is some of the best wummery I have seen. Not the most subtle but drawing in people like a moth to a flame. Bravo

[bhb001]

If I knocked out 49, fat, blind, one-armed 8yo girls in welterweight fights between 1958 and 1968 (..and didn't get beat once) [/b]

Big if that one. Those girls can be really mean and tricky

[Rowley]

I even explicitly stated that I wouldn't argue that there are 20 HW who could beat Marciano. I explicitly stated that.

Therein lies the beauty of the Az debating style. Your explicit statements have been ignored and modified to suit.

You're not going to get a list, because there is no list, there is not a list of 20 heavyweight who deserve, based on a balance of the criteria we have all outlined, to be ranked above Marciano, and constantly dredging up a list of 20 guys you believe may have beat him does not change that, until someone mans up and either produces the list or admits they were talking out of their back passage there really is no point in continuing with this. You may be able to come up with ten, fifteen at an absolute push and even then I would guess many could be argued but 20 is into the realms of the ridiculous

[Lumbering_Jack]

I think it is hilarious personally. I mean Audley to beat Marciano. This is the guy that lost to Rogan, yet he would beat Rocky.

It really is comedy gold.

[azania]

For me its simple. Being classified as a top 10 ATG means you are one of the best 10 fighters in that division throught its history. I have always maintained that view. I am not ignoring the views of others. I just do not agree with their methodology. It ignores simple basics ie who is the better fighter?

I like the way people focussed on Audley as I threw you guys a bone and you snapped. So predictable.

In my opinion, Rocky fought stifs, bums and past it former greats. Joe Louis 5 years prior would have caned him. Charles would have schooled him, Walcott was very hit and miss at the best of times but he was on his last legs when they clashed. Its fine to say that the punch that mash up Walcott would have done the same to any other HW in history. Well so would Audley's left hook that KO'd Sprott. These are big guys and when they land people usually go down.

Also how can you rank someone in the top 10 ATG who in all probability is not as good as up 30 other fighters in that division's history?

My list is not about HWs who are greater, but HW who imo would have beaten Rocky had they met.

[Gentleman01]

My list is not about HWs who are greater, but HW who imo would have beaten Rocky had they met.

Exactly. Therein lies the confusion.

You know that, in applying multiple criteria, it is likely to lead you to conclude that Marciano could, or even should, rank above someone like, say, Liston. However, as you believe that Liston would absolutely hammer Rocky were they ever to meet, you are uncomfortable having Rocky ahead of him in the rankings. As such, you choose to base all rankings on your own opinion of how a head-to-head match-up might go.

That's a perfectly reasonable method to rank boxers, it's just not the method I (or many others) use. Using my methods it would be nigh impossible to have Marciano outside a top 15, yet, using yours it is entirely possible.

I consider this issue completely resolved. Next time I see you rank Marciano 50th in an ATG Heavyweight list I won't ask you to explain how you can come to such a conclusion as I will already understand. Conversely, next time you see Jeff or manos, or Chris, or TopHat etc. rank Marciano in the top 10, you will understand how and why they have reached that conclusion, and will not feel the need to tell them that they are wrong and, in doing so, start this whole debate all over again.

[TheMackemMawler]

Im bored of this now. I have changed my position. Sportsmen progress, so much so that who beats who can't tell us much.

Mark "The Shark" Spitz is not only one of the greatest swimmers of all, he is one of the greatest Olympians to have walked the planet. During the 1972 Olympics he smashed the 100m freestyle world record in 51seconds.

Stefan Nystrand is the guy that came last in the 2008 Olympic final. He demolished Spitz' record (in a time of 48 sec).

Every guy in that final would have anhilated Spitz. No one would argue Stefan Nystrand (who?) is a greater swimmer than the Spitz. Remember, Spitz is the man who, in '72, won seven olympic gold medals by breaking 7 world records. He was a Phenom.

Bowe would beat Marciano. So what. Proves nothing. Case shut?

[superflyweight]

Ali
Louis (with a pulse rate)
Dempsey
Holmes
Frazier
Liston
Cooney
Norton
Foreman
Tyson
Holyfield (and Evan Fields)
Lewis
Wlad
Vitali
Bob Foster
Roy Jones
Cleveland Williams
Witherspoon
Bruno
Michael Spinks

20 who would beat Rocky

Others who would have a very good shout over the last 20 years
British

Haye
Chisora
Fury
Price
Calzaghe
-------------------------

Non British[/u]

Ike Ibeabuchi
Tua
Dokes
Pinklon
Bonecrusher
Tubbs
Ward
Toney

I could go on. All would be too good and intelligent for Rocky's crude style.

I could even throw in Audley as being far too big and skilled and Rocky wouldn't get close.

I think we've identified the mimsy referred to in the title of this thread.

[TopHat24/7]

Out of interest Az, as you rank based on one criteria only (being head-to-head likely win outcome), does your top10 ATG list read the same as your top10 HW list?

That Eder Jofre lad was a bit tasty but I'm sure he'd get flattened by any one of a number of heavyweights, therefore on a head-to-head basis (being your basis of measurement) he can't occupy a top10 spot, no?

[Rodney]

Out of interest Az, as you rank based on one criteria only (being head-to-head likely win outcome), does your top10 ATG list read the same as your top10 HW list?

That Eder Jofre lad was a bit tasty but I'm sure he'd get flattened by any one of a number of heavyweights, therefore on a head-to-head basis (being your basis of measurement) he can't occupy a top10 spot, no?

Az actually voted Ray Leonard as his no 1 ATG, because his theory is if you put a 100lb on Leonard he would beat everyone on a head to head basis, the theory you rank fighters on I'm afraid to say Az is that of a small child just beginning to watch the sport.

You can't simply ignore achievement, it doesn't matter how weak you perceive and era as, it's still remarkable for a fighter to be the number 1 in the sport in the world in a one on one basis and remain undefeated.

Most of what you write is complete utter nonsense, im all for contrasting opinions, but every thread you have something silly to say to be controversial.

Cheers

Rodders

[azania]

No rodders. I rated SRL as # because he is te best boxer I have ever seen and beating 4 legit ATG at WW and MW is better than all other fighters including SRR. I'd back Leonard to beat SRR also.

Why isn't Rocky #1 based on achievement and Pac #2?

Answer is because there are other factors. My issue is that too much emphasis is placed on achievements and not enough on opposition quality and how good the fighter was. And very little is places in comparison to other fighters in the past of who came after Rocky.

I still have not had an answer as to how a boxer who is not as good as at least 20 other fighters either prior or post him can be ranked at one of the top 10 best fighters in his division. Someone answer the question and respond as if someone other than myself is asking.

[azania]

Mackem/Gent

There is greatness and there is best. I have never denied Rocky being a great. My argument is that he is not the top 10 best ever at HW. Furthermore bear in mind that ATG means All Time GREAT. Yet P4P ATG means best P4P. As an ATG he is up there. As for being P4P he is way down.

[TopHat24/7]

I still have not had an answer as to how a boxer who is not as good as at least 20 other fighters either prior or post him can be ranked at one of the top 10 best fighters in his division. Someone answer the question and respond as if someone other than myself is asking.

Because nobody agrees with you Az.

[azania]

I still have not had an answer as to how a boxer who is not as good as at least 20 other fighters either prior or post him can be ranked at one of the top 10 best fighters in his division. Someone answer the question and respond as if someone other than myself is asking.

Because nobody agrees with you Az.

So Rocky is one of the top 10 best HW in history even though there are 30 other HWs in history who could have beaten him.

[TopHat24/7]

People would disagree there are 30 (or even 20) that would have beaten, is the point you're choosing to ignore.

[88Chris05]

I still have not had an answer as to how a boxer who is not as good as at least 20 other fighters either prior or post him can be ranked at one of the top 10 best fighters in his divison.

That's. Because. Nobody. Else. Thinks. That. There. Are. Twenty. Or. More. Other. Heavyweights. Who. Are. 'Better.' Than. Marciano. And. Who. Would. Beat. Him. In. A. One. Off. Fight. Az.

[Rowley]

Woudl guess Az the reasons are two fold, firstly that many disagree with the certainty you have that there are 20 guys who definitely beat him and secondly that even if there are people who agree they realise the Rock achieved far more than them and the reality is boxing like all sports is about winning and acheivement. Would probably also add they don't agree with your assertions about his opposition or certainly not when put up against many of the other fighters we regularly see in the top tens. I am not going to pretend the likes of Moore or Charles were in their absolute pomp but do I consider them much worse than many Dempsey or Johnson fought during their reigns, no I don't so that is a factor I cannot mark the Rock down without doing the same to those guys, amongst others I could name.

[azania]

Who out of this list do you think Rocky would beat.

1. Ali
2. Liston.
3 Tyson
4. Lewis
5. Wlad
6. Vitali
7. Foreman
8. Frazier
9. Louis - live version
10. Holyfield

That list is for those who believe he is one of the best 10 ever.

[Gentleman01]

Mackem/Gent

There is greatness and there is best. I have never denied Rocky being a great. My argument is that he is not the top 10 best ever at HW. Furthermore bear in mind that ATG means All Time GREAT. Yet P4P ATG means best P4P. As an ATG he is up there. As for being P4P he is way down.

Read Mackem's response above. It sums it up perfectly. Spitz is one of the greatest ever no matter how many swimmers since his '72 have swum faster times.

I don't care if there are 50, or even 100, Heavy's who could beat Marciano, leaving aside the fact that it is completely impossible to know with any certainty anyway, it makes no difference as Marciano's achievements mark him out as a great in the same way that Spitz's achievements mark him out.

That is how I come to the conclusion that, when I rank my top 20 ATG Heavys, Marciano is always a nailed on top 15er. I don't see what is so difficult to comprehend. You've all but admitted that Marciano is an ATG now anyway, so what are we even debating?

[88Chris05]

Marciano was certainly capable of beating, from the ten you've provided there, Holyfield and Frazier. In fact I'd have Frazier-Marciano as a 50:50.

[Rowley]

Marciano was certainly capable of beating, from the ten you've provided there, Holyfield and Frazier. In fact I'd have Frazier-Marciano as a 50:50.

Wlad is also not beyond the realms, Wlad is not exactly iron jawed and has not faced anyone of Rocky's ferocity, tenacity or sheer persistence, not a gimme but if Rocky can get in range he has the power to take him out.

[88Chris05]

I agree, Rowley. I'd back Wladimir to beat Marciano more often than not, but if they fought enough times I think Marciano would stop him late on eventually. Still Wlad's fight to lose for the most part, though.

Holyfield and Frazier, of the names which Az gave us, still jump out as the most viable opportunities for a win for Rocky.

[TopHat24/7]

Would love to see a Marciano-Tyson match-up.

[Rodney]

Who out of this list do you think Rocky would beat.

1. Ali
2. Liston.
3 Tyson
4. Lewis
5. Wlad
6. Vitali
7. Foreman
8. Frazier
9. Louis - live version
10. Holyfield That list is for those who believe he is one of the best 10 ever.

As Jeff and Chris mentioned some names in that list that Marciano would topple, but at least it's a improvement on your last list of Audley and Chisora beating him.

That might rank up there with Jamie Moore beating Ray Robinson.


Cheers

Rodders.

[Sponsored content]