Thread: Marciano didn't "nurse" his '0' losses

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by Freedom

Originally Posted by Master

Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.

The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.

Walcott was HW champion at the time, he had a late prime. When he fought Rocky, he was younger than Wladimir Klitschko, and younger than Vitali was for his last several dominating performances.

You know better diets and training regime means boxers today box longer. Walcotts age is equivalent to 50 year old by today's standard.

Sports medicine was unheard of at that time. Many of the guys fighting today would have had very short careers. Marciano had his career in eight years, 1947-1955!
A great fighter and a hell of a man. Fact as Fenster says.

I would not say he was a great fighter but he had great heart.

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by Freedom

Originally Posted by Master

Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.

The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.

Walcott was HW champion at the time, he had a late prime. When he fought Rocky, he was younger than Wladimir Klitschko, and younger than Vitali was for his last several dominating performances.

You know better diets and training regime means boxers today box longer. Walcotts age is equivalent to 50 year old by today's standard.

Sports medicine was unheard of at that time. Many of the guys fighting today would have had very short careers. Marciano had his career in eight years, 1947-1955!
A great fighter and a hell of a man. Fact as Fenster says.

Master's logic defies reason, don't bother.

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by Freedom

Originally Posted by Master

Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.

The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.

Walcott was HW champion at the time, he had a late prime. When he fought Rocky, he was younger than Wladimir Klitschko, and younger than Vitali was for his last several dominating performances.

You know better diets and training regime means boxers today box longer. Walcotts age is equivalent to 50 year old by today's standard.

Sports medicine was unheard of at that time. Many of the guys fighting today would have had very short careers. Marciano had his career in eight years, 1947-1955!
A great fighter and a hell of a man. Fact as Fenster says.

Master's logic defies reason, don't bother.

Be quiet Bill, I mean Brock.

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by Freedom

Originally Posted by Master

Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.

The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.

Walcott was HW champion at the time, he had a late prime. When he fought Rocky, he was younger than Wladimir Klitschko, and younger than Vitali was for his last several dominating performances.

You know better diets and training regime means boxers today box longer. Walcotts age is equivalent to 50 year old by today's standard.

Sports medicine was unheard of at that time. Many of the guys fighting today would have had very short careers. Marciano had his career in eight years, 1947-1955!
A great fighter and a hell of a man. Fact as Fenster says.

Master's logic defies reason, don't bother.

Be quiet Bill, I mean Brock.

"Oh come on now, Master. You know that Cassius Clay would have had a few ~ribs~ cracked early in the fight with Marciano."

marcianobodyshotcockell.jpg

Originally Posted by Master

Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.

The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.

Having the same trouble with lightheavy Ezzard Charles and old Moore was not a good sign either for a great champion.

Rocky didn't give a shit if you were young, old, light in the ass or just plain stupid he'd kick the shit out of you if you got in the ring with him. Like when Hopkins got in the ring with Kovalev or Floyd Patterson fought Pete Rademacher, it's about the money.

Originally Posted by Master

Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.

The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.

Having the same trouble with lightheavy Ezzard Charles and old Moore was not a good sign either for a great champion.

This is very true.

Lets get real.

How many of us have rocky in our top 5?

He was around at the perfect time to beat fighters on the slide and there is always the rumourmill of the mafia helping him along the way.

A great fighter but would possibly struggle in even todays heavyweights..

@Master

if you only knew what Joe Louis, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, and Roland la Starza said about Marciano

Originally Posted by beenKOed

Originally Posted by Master

Being undefeated is no reason to be regarded as a great fighter just look at Sven Ottke for an example of that reasoning.

The fact that old Walcott an dropped and gave Rocky so much trouble in their first fight is not a sign of greatness but coming back from the jaws of defeat was.

Having the same trouble with lightheavy Ezzard Charles and old Moore was not a good sign either for a great champion.

Rocky didn't give a shit if you were young, old, light in the ass or just plain stupid he'd kick the shit out of you if you got in the ring with him. Like when Hopkins got in the ring with Kovalev or Floyd Patterson fought Pete Rademacher, it's about the money.

I accept he fought the best opposition at the time but I do not think they were fighters at their peak. Rocky title defences and reign as champion was not long enough to be considered a great fighter in anyone top 10.

bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.

Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.

Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.

Troll.

6 defenses is more than alot of Top 10 ATGs.

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

bullshit. 6 title defenses is pretty good.

Pathetic for a top 10 greatest heavyweight of all time.

Troll.

6 defenses is more than alot of Top 10 ATGs.

Name 1 on your list.

Would rocky have beaten frazier?

Originally Posted by imp

Would rocky have beaten frazier?

Frazier bigger, stronger and fitter.

Originally Posted by imp

Would rocky have beaten frazier?

No Chance. Not in a month of Sundays.