Marciano and Generational Bias

[holmcall]

Generational Bias

I have always adhered to two principles. The first one is to train hard
and get in the best possible physical condition. The second is to forget all about the other fellow until you face him in the ring and the bell sounds for the fight.
–Rocky Marciano

The latest is the greatest
–Anonymous
　
I loved Rocky Marciano for any number of reasons not the least of
which is that he was from my era and my generation. That he was an Italian didn’t hurt much either. I also thought he was a great fighter who did what he had to do against everyone they put in from of him. After all, 49-0 is a perfect record.
　
Of course, looking through the prism of nostalgia makes everything
seem better and I like to play out old school memories just like
other old timers. However, I also try to be thoughtful and objective
when making comparisons between the past and the present–and that’s where the issue of generational prejudice comes in (some call it “era” prejudice). And that’s where comparisons between The Rock and modern fighters come in as well.
　
Should he be compared to recent heavyweights in the mold of Ali,
George Foreman or Wladimir Klitschko? Of course not. He simply was not big enough, but how about comparing him to the likes of the following who fight at Cruiserweight (175-200 lb (90.72 kg):

O’Neil Bell
Enzo Maccarinelli
Vadim Tokarev
Jean Marc Mormeck
David Haye
Emmanuel Nwodo
Matt Godfrey
Steve Cunningham
Rico Hoye
Krzysztof Wlodarczyk
Marco Huck
Grigory Drozd
Pietro Aurino
Johnathon Banks
BJ Flores
Felix Cora Jr.
Dale Brown
Valery Brudov
Wayne Braithwaite
Guillermo Jones
Chris Bryd

Rocky fought at a disciplined 183-188 for the most part which places him in the middle of the cruiserweight limit. Looking back, how would he have done against guys like Marvin Camel, Lee Roy Murphy, Carlos Deleon, Dwight Braxton, Boone Pultz, Ralf Rocchigiani Bobby Czyz, Orlin Norris, Fabrice Tiozzo, Vassily Jirov, Virgil Hill, and James Toney? Perhaps the best matches would have been against Evander Holyfield (when he was a cruiserweight champion) and Dariuz Michalczewski.

When I compare Marciano to the top cruiserweights, I am comparing
apples to apples except for the difference in era. The task, however, is to engage facts before nostalgia. The lesson is to take into account all essential variables when making comparisons between old and modern. Variable such as number of fights, era (for example, the 70‘s were a great time for heavyweights and the 80‘s for middleweights), stamina, training techniques and methodology, records, style, chin, KO percentages, skill-sets, entire body of work,quality of opposition, management, etc.

When this is done, myth is stripped away from facts. When this is done, you are not engaging generational prejudice. Of course, I must confess when I do this; Rocky Marciano quickly becomes the greatest cruiserweight in history.
　

[holmcall]

Yes

[CFH]

Sorry for deleting my post, I reread your article and was forming a different response when you replied. If I'd known you had replied, I would've left it up there.

So you feel Marciano would have beaten the likes of Holyfield, Toney etc. at CW?

Regardless, there's still a huge difference between being considered the best Cruiser of all time and the best Heavy of all time, I think that's what people take issue with.

[holmcall]

Probably so, but I am not saying he is the best Heavy of all time. I am trying to strip away any bias my geneeration mught have influenced me with and look at this in objective terms. Would he have beaten a 230 pound Holyfield? Doubt it. Would he have beaten a Holyfield who beat The Camden Buzzsaw? Yes, I have no doubt he would have.

[holmcall]

Aside from some evolutionaty factors, the heavweight division is the only one that has been variable--as fighters get bigger and bigger. The other weight classes have remained fixed.

[CFH]

I suppose I should've given my opinion as well.

Like I said before, I don't know all that much about Marciano aside from his reputation. I think I've seen footage of two of his fights, so I'm far from an expert.

However, based upon what I do know, I think with an even playing field he would have a decent shot of defeating any Cruiserweight I can think of.

As I also said before, I think his detractors main problem with him is that he's referred to as the greatest Heavyweight of all time, which frankly is not true.

[generalbulldog]

I think another problem many people also have with Marciano is that his opposition wasn't that strong, they aren't going to get swayed by that undefeated record.

However he beat everyone in his path and took on all comers and you can only fight who's in front of you. He is an all time hw great, just not the greatest.

[holmcall]

I saw him fight (or heard the radio account) many times. He was a relentless killer in the ring with incredible stamina, tenacity, determination, and will. As for skills, he had deceptive ones including decent head movement and solid inside stuff, but technical skills were clearly not his forte. His power was both one punch and accumulative. He could ruin an opponent by hitting him on the arms and/or elbows as he did with LaStarza or simply destroy someone as he did with Lee Savold, Carmine Vingo, or Rex Layne. In my opinion, his two toughgest fights were both with Ted Lowery who fought out of New Bedford, Massachusetts. Lowry finished with an amazing 67-67-10 mark.

His first fight with Charles is a study of his courage.

Rocky was built strange (like a billy goat) and his neck was unbelievably strong which gave him a solid chin. He had sloping shoulders that he used to deflect punches. He also was a very fine all-around athlete which helped him in the ring. He also was a pretty sharp guy who had a very deceptively high ring IQ and knew where and what he was about all the time.

[Spicoli]

I dont think it's bias so much as being stuck in what you-we know,what you can put your finger on at the moment.Happens all of the time with past fighters.And in todays media we are a bit spoiled,everything is at the touch of a finger.When you see a fighter....live, his rise and fall and length of entire career,there is nothing like that in the world and every generation thinks that they are seeing the very best....it sticks with you.What we cannot see is whats down the road in relation to the sport.New rules,new divisions,etc etc.We get a general idea but have to wait on that good ol' hindsight.....Maybe I'm off the reservation but by saying Marciano is the best Cruiser its to blur what he was at the time.Cruisers literally did not exist.In stature and in weight,he would have been categorized as one by todays standards but we did not know then what we know now.Times change,we evolve as do sports.Compare ANY athlete of a major sport during the 40's 50's and there is quite a contrast to todays athletes?Shite,off on a ramble here.

[holmcall]

I think another problem many people also have with Marciano is that his opposition wasn't that strong, they aren't going to get swayed by that undefeated record.

However he beat everyone in his path and took on all comers and you can only fight who's in front of you. He is an all time hw great, just not the greatest.

And I'll be happy to argue the opposition point any time, because he fought the best they had out there. Guys like Phil Muscato, Rex Layne, Moore (IBHF), Charles (IBHF), Walcott (IBHF), Louis (IBHF), LaStarza (57-9), Harry Matthews (90-7-6), and many other rugged hombres.

It was a era where fighters continued to take on the top flight opposition right to the end of their careers.

[holmcall]

I dont think it's bias so much as being stuck in what you-we know,what you can put your finger on at the moment.Happens all of the time with past fighters.And in todays media we are a bit spoiled,everything is at the touch of a finger.When you see a fighter....live, his rise and fall and length of entire career,there is nothing like that in the world and every generation thinks that they are seeing the very best....it sticks with you.What we cannot see is whats down the road in relation to the sport.New rules,new divisions,etc etc.We get a general idea but have to wait on that good ol' hindsight.....Maybe I'm off the reservation but by saying Marciano is the best Cruiser its to blur what he was at the time.Cruisers literally did not exist.In stature and in weight,he would have been categorized as one by todays standards but we did not know then what we know now.Times change,we evolve as do sports.Compare ANY athlete of a major sport during the 40's 50's and there is quite a contrast to todays athletes?Shite,off on a ramble here.

I don't buy that. I'll concede the heavyweight point, but in a million years will I go so far as to say he was less than the elite when it came or comes to his weight today.

[holmcall]

Am I being truculent?

[jamiebhoy]

I try to keep away from some of the what if this guy fought that guy scenarios as it can drive you as mad as the is there a God question!
But this thread is a bit more of an open question than a direct comparison between two fighters.

I was watching Marciano on the train on the way home last night. I think he was a lot more clever than he often gets credit for , what he lacked in polish he doubled in balls, so he made up for fighting the more stylish fighters by not trying to match them but simply outwork them and by also doing the unexpected like mentioned before he could simply beat your arms to death to get you !

If you look at the usual things like training techniques and nutrition and even the ability to study oponents like you can in the modern era, then I think he holds his own with any of the Cruisers.

[Spicoli]

I dont think it's bias so much as being stuck in what you-we know,what you can put your finger on at the moment.Happens all of the time with past fighters.And in todays media we are a bit spoiled,everything is at the touch of a finger.When you see a fighter....live, his rise and fall and length of entire career,there is nothing like that in the world and every generation thinks that they are seeing the very best....it sticks with you.What we cannot see is whats down the road in relation to the sport.New rules,new divisions,etc etc.We get a general idea but have to wait on that good ol' hindsight.....Maybe I'm off the reservation but by saying Marciano is the best Cruiser its to blur what he was at the time.Cruisers literally did not exist.In stature and in weight,he would have been categorized as one by todays standards but we did not know then what we know now.Times change,we evolve as do sports.Compare ANY athlete of a major sport during the 40's 50's and there is quite a contrast to todays athletes?Shite,off on a ramble here.

I don't buy that. I'll concede the heavyweight point, but in a million years will I go so far as to say he was less than the elite when it came or comes to his weight today.

How'd you get there?My man I'm speaking to the bigger picture,not dismissing the man.What I'm saying is that don't we question him on a broader scale by just re categorizing him?The man was a heavyweight for his era,a great one....but could they ever imagine size wise the top hvys of the last 10 + years.I'm not dismissing him as a fighter on the intangibles but heavyweight are not what they once were.Hence the Marciano vs Holyfield at cruiser ehh?Remember...bigger is not always better

Oh and I like Holyfield by TKO late,many cuts

[generalbulldog]

I think another problem many people also have with Marciano is that his opposition wasn't that strong, they aren't going to get swayed by that undefeated record.

However he beat everyone in his path and took on all comers and you can only fight who's in front of you. He is an all time hw great, just not the greatest.

And I'll be happy to argue the opposition point any time, because he fought the best they had out there. Guys like Phil Muscato, Rex Layne, Moore (IBHF), Charles (IBHF), Walcott (IBHF), Louis (IBHF), LaStarza (57-9), Harry Matthews (90-7-6), and many other rugged hombres.

It was a era where fighters continued to take on the top flight opposition right to the end of their careers.

Like I said he was a great HW, just not the greatest and his opposition wasn't that good. You list guys like Charles, Walcott, Moore, and the great Joe Louis. But what age and condition were they in when Marciano beat them?

Charles was around 38 or 39 with many ring wars same with Walcott and Moore who started his career at middleweight that went on to become a great LHW. And Joe Louis was 37 and a shot fighter when he fought Marciano. Does that victory even count? That's like Larry Holmes beating up on a 38 year old and shot Muhammad ALi. Hell even Larry Holmes fans don't even count that victory.

A lot of the Hall of Fame guys Marciano fought that supposedly made him the greatest HW were either shot or old as hell, let's put that in the equation too.

And let's be honest now the only great and in his prime HW that Marciano fought was Muhammad ALi and that wasn't even a real fight but a simulation that had him knocking out ALi! I mean that's pretty sad that the best fight Marciano was in was a simulation.