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

Originally Posted by Greenbeanz

Originally Posted by imp

Would rocky have beaten frazier?

No Chance. Not in a month of Sundays.

Exactly.

Rocky is a Top 15-20 heavyweight and it just goes to show that the big 0 doesn't always mean your the best.

JC was undefeated and would have been a problem for any super middleweight in any era but the same can't be said for rocky.

Originally Posted by Master

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.

George Foreman

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Originally Posted by Master

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.

George Foreman

There were exceptional reasons for that. The greatest heavyweight of all time beat him.

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Originally Posted by Master

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.

George Foreman

There were exceptional reasons for that. The greatest heavyweight of all time beat him.

You asked, I gave you one, now you are squirming out of it.

'Nuff said.

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Originally Posted by Master

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Originally Posted by Master

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.

George Foreman

There were exceptional reasons for that. The greatest heavyweight of all time beat him.

You asked, I gave you one, now you are squirming out of it.

'Nuff said.

Name another.

Originally Posted by Master

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.

He was fortunate to fight in a not-so-great era, when the best guys were past their prime.

I don't think he would have been undefeated if he came 10 years later and had to fight the likes of Patterson, Liston or Ali.

He'd be fighting at 175, maybe even 168 if he was around today.

No doubt there are guys who fight at 168 today who are 180-185 on fight night like he was.

Calzaghe would run rings around him.

Originally Posted by imp

Calzaghe would run rings around him.

onion rings

To be a guy on Roacky Marcino resume you have to be past your prime or a fucking unknown fight Rocky was ok fighter with power and came at a time were they were not great guys out there. Charles had a fucking sick which people forget and he was youngest at 32 which fucking lame.

Mafia made most of rockys fights winnable.

Rocky was champ for 3 years, Mayweather has been champ for 17 years!

Originally Posted by Master

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.

What's going on Master? Why are you trying to piss off your most loyal supporter? LOL

Originally Posted by Master

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

Back in those days, nutrition was actually better than today.

People ate healthy, balanced home-cooked meals with vegetables and fresh meat. I remember when I was a child, many men in their 70s and even 80s were still very physically healthy and active.

Nowadays, people eat too much sugary junk food, and lots of high-sodium fast food.