Why do champions rarely mention Marciano among the greats?

[spacetime]

Whenever I hear Ali, Foreman, Tyson, talk about the greats they mention the usual suspects but never Rocky.

It's not a white thing either because Dempsey is always in the discussion.

I get that Dempsey had a greater impact on the public eye but champion level boxers should know that Marciano was arguably better. Dempsey more or less said so himself, at least when it comes to power. Even Louis didn't think he could have EVER beaten Marciano. Whether that's true or not, it shows how respected Rocky Marciano was.

 

[Seano]

I see him on the majority of all time great HW lists.

That said, his resume is sort of thin.

 

[spacetime]

I see him on the majority of all time great HW lists.

That said, his resume is sort of thin.

Read the thread titel again, champions lists, not analysts..

 

[spacetime]

That said, his resume is sort of thin.

Dempsey's is any better??

 

[Seano]

Dempsey's is any better??

Not really, but I usually don't see Dempsey rated that high either.

 

[burningspear]

49-0 doesnt mean shit, its the competition, who he fought, when he fought them. Floyd fans find this hard to grasp.

 

[spacetime]

Not really, but I usually don't see Dempsey rated that high either.

I am talking about in the fighters opinions. Always hear them bringing up Dempsey. Never Rocky

 

[spacetime]

49-0 doesnt mean shit, its the competition, who he fought, when he fought them. Floyd fans find this hard to grasp.

He fought many exceptional boxers

 

[spacetime]

La Starza was 37-0 when he faced Marciano. Jersey Joe Wallcott was very dangerous. Archie Moore was still respectable etc.
He had a great resume

 

[Monte Moku]

The answer is in the question

I get that Dempsey had a greater impact on the public eye

 

[spacetime]

I guarantee you that a 38 year old Archie Moore, Wallcott, Charles, were tougher than Trevor Berbick and Tony Tucker in Tysons. era. Spinks didn't even want to fight and took a dive, so I don't count him.

Marciano had a much better resume than Tyson

 

[Ancient Warrior]

He’s definitely on the greats list and had a great record, even though some of his biggest wins were against light heavyweights or fighters that were definitely past it.

I don’t think he gets mentioned much because the guy was 185 lbs and was around before the real monsters came along.

 

[Seano]

Read the thread titel again, champions lists, not analysts..

The answer is the same, IMO. He beat a bunch of guys that fans like but old versions of them.

 

[spacetime]

The answer is the same, IMO. He beat a bunch of guys that fans like but old versions of them.

They were still stronger than any young guy Tyson beat.

 

[spacetime]

definitely past it.

I don’t think he gets mentioned much because the guy was 185 lbs and was around before the real monsters came along.

Again, Jack Dempsey fought far weaker opposition

 

[Seano]

They were still stronger than any young guy Tyson beat.

Meh. About the same.
But Tyson had an aura that MArciano didn't have. MArciano was a nice guy, not a shit talker. He didn't have the Incredible Hulk image that Tyson had.

 

[Ancient Warrior]

Again, Jack Dempsey fought far weaker opposition

Not that far, if you’re not considering name recognition.

 

[spacetime]

Meh. About the same.
But Tyson had an aura that MArciano didn't have. MArciano was a nice guy, not a shit talker. He didn't have the Incredible Hulk image that Tyson had.

No way. I'd also add that Archie was in far superior physical condition than Holmes, at the time they had their fights.

The 50 and 60s were the strongest HW eras of boxing ever. People always talk about the 70s only because the top was a little bit more crowded than usual , but the middle of the road competitors were not very good. Earnie Shavers was not a particularly good boxer. Norton wasn't anywhere near as though as the 50 and 60s guys either. He crumbled at the sight of big punchers.

 

[Seano]

No way. I'd also add that Archie was in far superior physical condition than Holmes, at the time they had their fights.

The 50 and 60s were the strongest HW eras of boxing ever. People always talk about the 70s only because the top was a little bit more crowded than usual , but the middle of the road competitors were not very good. Earnie Shavers was not a particularly good boxer. Norton wasn't anywhere near as though as the 50 and 60s guys either. He crumbled at the sight of big punchers.

Tyson gets laughed at for beating Holmes, but we're going to pretend Moore, Louis and Charles were fresh? Why wasn't Spinks a great win when Charles was?

 

[spacetime]

Tyson gets laughed at for beating Holmes, but we're going to pretend Moore, Louis and Charles were fresh? Why wasn't Spinks a great win when Charles was?

Look at Holmes body compared to Moore, that alone should tell you it was a publicity fight. He had two months to prepare and was a shadow of his former self. Compare their performance too. Moore had a war, while a semi out of shape Holmes mostly tried to stall Tyson. The whipping jab Holmes was famous for was gone and looked extremely mediocre when he unleashed it in the third round.

Spinks fell for the Tyson hype, took a dive and did it for the paycheck, retiring afterwards. Watch the fight, he wasn't even struck cleanly.