Rocky Marciano has a legendary reputation in Boxing. My question for this thread is....what is it based on?
Now most people openly admit that the versions of Charles and Walcott that he fought were far from prime (The Joe Louis fight really doesn't even deserve to be brought up). So it isn't the quality of Rocky's competition that his reputation is based on among the greats, it is that famous record 49-0. If Rocky's 49-0 record is the basis of his greatness then the fighters on that record should be the very best that were available. But by my reckoning that is the furthest thing from the truth. Infact when you look at the highest ranked fighters of the era, and then you look at his record, it's scandalous how many he didn't fight. Many of the ones he DID choose to fight are just as scandalous.
Top fighters Marciano definitely should have fought that he didn't.
1) Nino Valdez
2) Tommy Jackson
3) Bob Baker
4) Dan Bucceroni
Those are just the definites, we could add many other names (like Clarence Henry or even Jimmy Bivins ) that while not as good, are definitely better than some of the guys he DID fight that make up that "legendary" record. Guys like these
Gilbert Cardone (career record 0-4)
Humphrey Jackon (Career Record 4-3)
Johnnie Pretzie (Career Record 10-13)
Jimmy Weeks (Career Record 0-1)
Bob Jefferson (Career Record 4-10)
Gilley Freron (Career Record 3-7)
Tommy DiGiorgio (Career Record 9-16)
Harry Haft (career Record 13-8)
James Patrick Connoly (career record 12-9)
Keene Simmons (Career Record 9-22).
Jimmy Walls (Career record 19-41)
Bill Hardemon (Career Record 1-6)
Harold Mitchell (Career Record 3-16)
Art Henri (career Record 18-29)
Willis Applegate (Career record 12-16)
Eldridge Eatman (career record 22-21)
None of these guys beat anyone of note as far as I know.
Many of these guys he even fought pretty far into his career when there were obviously alternatives.
To top if off, he didn't even stay around for Sonny Liston.
In light of this should this 49-0 record be as revered as it is to some?
Now most people openly admit that the versions of Charles and Walcott that he fought were far from prime (The Joe Louis fight really doesn't even deserve to be brought up). So it isn't the quality of Rocky's competition that his reputation is based on among the greats, it is that famous record 49-0. If Rocky's 49-0 record is the basis of his greatness then the fighters on that record should be the very best that were available. But by my reckoning that is the furthest thing from the truth. Infact when you look at the highest ranked fighters of the era, and then you look at his record, it's scandalous how many he didn't fight. Many of the ones he DID choose to fight are just as scandalous.
Top fighters Marciano definitely should have fought that he didn't.
1) Nino Valdez
2) Tommy Jackson
3) Bob Baker
4) Dan Bucceroni
Those are just the definites, we could add many other names (like Clarence Henry or even Jimmy Bivins ) that while not as good, are definitely better than some of the guys he DID fight that make up that "legendary" record. Guys like these
Gilbert Cardone (career record 0-4)
Humphrey Jackon (Career Record 4-3)
Johnnie Pretzie (Career Record 10-13)
Jimmy Weeks (Career Record 0-1)
Bob Jefferson (Career Record 4-10)
Gilley Freron (Career Record 3-7)
Tommy DiGiorgio (Career Record 9-16)
Harry Haft (career Record 13-8)
James Patrick Connoly (career record 12-9)
Keene Simmons (Career Record 9-22).
Jimmy Walls (Career record 19-41)
Bill Hardemon (Career Record 1-6)
Harold Mitchell (Career Record 3-16)
Art Henri (career Record 18-29)
Willis Applegate (Career record 12-16)
Eldridge Eatman (career record 22-21)
None of these guys beat anyone of note as far as I know.
Many of these guys he even fought pretty far into his career when there were obviously alternatives.
To top if off, he didn't even stay around for Sonny Liston.
In light of this should this 49-0 record be as revered as it is to some?
Comment