Rocky how overrated is he

[Mr140]

Does anyone know what was up with the second fight that rocky had with Walcott.

[ICB]

Yeah that was just the first one I saw and the first time I'd seen it in real time from that view. The picture is still tops though.

Right on the button. Have you seen the whole fight?

Yes i have i got it on dvd good fight you would enjoy.

[Canvasback]

Does anyone know what was up with the second fight that rocky had with Walcott.

May 15, 1953, Chicago, Illinois, Marciano KO'D Walcott in the first round.

[Dav]

I think Rocky gets underrated sometimes because he lacked the finesse and pretty boxing skills of, say, Ali or Patterson. Therefore, because Rocky's strengths were his heart and raw power, and he looked kinda clumsy, people assume he is overrated (if that makes any sense??). But in my book, anybody who retires as undefeated heavyweight champion at 49-0 (and hasn't ducked anybody in the process) deserves all the praise that can be heaped on them. IMO Rocky deserves top 10 status because of his record alone. As a few of the guys have already said, in many of his fights he has had a boxing lesson for maybe 10 rounds of the fight..... but the fight is scheduled for 15 rounds - and with Rocky you always knew he was gonna catch up with them at some point.

[bigragu]

While we are on the Walcott fight what in gods name happened the second time weird how Walcott acted he seem to be their enough to continue but got up after 10 count like he waited or something.

would you want to get hit like that a couple more times?......how do you keep your composure when you hit a man with everything you have and he still keeps coming?! And hit like a mack truck to boot.....eventually that thin called "heart" slowly starts to die.....Rocky had more "heart" than anyone he ever faced...he was pretty much willing to die to beat you.....how do you beat someone like that?...I guess Rocky's record tells us the answer to that question...you don't.....welcome to the forum...this is by far the best boxing site on the internet.....

[southakron314]

Rocky Marciano was one of the all time greats. He gave up inches and pounds& he beat everyone that was put in front of him. Not to many can say that.Not Ali, Frazier or Foreman.Back then there were smaller rings and lighter gloves.The refs let you really swat it out. Todays men wouldnt have the records in yesteryears boxing.

[Unknowndonor]

Considering how he is rated in most boxing experts top heavies, I wouldn't say he is overrated. Most have him in their top 15, or top 10.. Very few seem to have him in their top five, because of competition. Which can be debated, and people can argue that he fought guys past their prime, or they were cans of corn. With that said, noone at heavyweight has equaled his record yet. Not even the "king of fighting cans of corn"-Valuev. Still Rocky doesn't rate in alot of top fives. Also because of pure boxing skill. I don't consider him the best heavy, but I will give him his credit, because even if it's padded, it takes a beast to go undefeated, regardless of competition. And, the big three that everyone says was past their prime(totally agree), would have still whipped an average, to an above average fighter.

Cons-Not the greatest comp, or skills......Pros-Great chin, heart,power, and did go undefeated= top 10 for sure, probably top five. IMO, I feel he is judged fairly. Can't call him a bum, that's for sure.

[Beanflicker]

I think he is overrated, but it is no knock on Rocky. The fact that he retired without losing leads a lot of people to overrate the guy IMO. I mean I've seen him on so many top 3 HW lists with the only reasoning being provided is that "he never lost" and he "hit hard". I think its a tremendous accomplishment to retire undefeated as champ. But I think most people look at the record to judge him instead of his fights. His biggest supporters have the problem that because they never seen him lose, they can't picture him losing. If you look at his fights, he was a great puncher and an extremly durable guy who was always in shape. He had premendous punching power. But he also showed that he was quite 1-dimensional and didn't have great boxing skills. A lot of guys gave him a lot of problems. His best wins were against guys well past their primes.

I also have to laugh at the notion of him being the #1 hardest hitter in history. I don't buy it. He had tremendous power for his size, but in the scheme of things I don't believe he could match the power punchers of the future, guys with 20-30lbs of GOOD weight on him. I mean just watch Marciano teeing off on 200lb punching bag Don Cockell (who in a newspaper interview interview after the fight claimed Marciano was a tremendously hard hitter but not the hardest puncher he faced). Do you believe that Cockell would have been able to take that many flush shots against guys like Foreman, Shavers, Liston or Tyson? I doubt it.

[sexydarin]

of course not. just like no light heavyweight today could take the punching power of foreman ali tyson shavers. Rock was a light heayweight by today's standards. So compare him against other light heavyweights.

[Lance Uppercut]

Rocky is a tough guy to rate, because he didn't have a Frazier, or a Jeffries or a Holyfield to beat. He dominated, and he ALWAYS did what it took to get the W.

[amat]

Rocky is a tough guy to rate, because he didn't have a Frazier, or a Jeffries or a Holyfield to beat.

That is a very good point, CC. Very important, I think Larry Holmes had the same type of dilemma. Much like Marciano, his biggest win was probably over a great fighter fighting well past his prime.

It's one thing if there are other great fighters and you lose to them, it's another if there are just no great fighters who are fighting in and around their primes. Louis, Walcott and Charles are all all time greats, but they were all past it.