Talk:Rocky Marciano: Difference between revisions

Boxing Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Boxing "To Do": edit history watch purge → Help pick the next article for collaboration. FA Noms: Review: New: Expand: Hasim Rahman | Gabriel Elorde | Gerry Peñalosa | Ike Quartey | Joel Casamayor | Jean-Marc Mormeck | Odlanier Solís | Yuriorkis Gamboa Collaborate: Boxing Discuss: Annotate: Muhammad Ali | Sugar Ray Robinson | Oscar De La Hoya | Jack Dempsey | Rocky Marciano | Joe Louis | George Foreman | Roy Jones Jr. | Marvin Hagler | Lennox Lewis | Evander Holyfield | Manny Pacquiao | Érik Morales Assess: Create:

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

"It's not how many times you get knocked down, it's how many times you get back up." Anyone have a source for this? I have also seen it attributed to Vince Lombardi, among others. Fumblebruschi 20:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googled this, and, outside of the geocities page cited here, there is no mention of "rocky day" besides those on wikipedia and its mirrors. Considering that information on "Rocky Day" was originally added by a user who is now blocked (and has multiple blocked sockpuppets), I think it's almost certainly made up, and am removing it. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 10:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments by appending 4 tildes (~~~~) to the end, thanks. Herostratus 03:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few months back I read an obituary in the New York Times of a man named Coley Wallace. In that obituary, in Wallace's entry on Wikipedia, and in a number of other sources, he is noted as the only man to ever knock out Rocky Marciano in a New York Golden Gloves tournament as an amateur. Not only is that fight not even noted in this article, although it seems fairly significant, all the accounts I've read of that fight say that the knockout came in 1948. If Rocky turned pro March 17, 1947, which numerous sources cite, then why and how would he lose an amateur fight in 1948? Furthermore, when I read that obituary, I came to this article to see if there was more about that fight. Finding that there was no mention of Coley Wallace, I arbitrarily added what I found in the obituary. That has since been removed. Why? If it was the only knockout of his career, doesn't it warrant at least a sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.74.63 (talk • contribs)

I'm pretty sure that Marciano was not the subject of the movie Rocky as this article claims. Check http://imdb.com/title/tt0075148/trivia and notice "Stallone based his Rocky character on a little-known New Jersey club boxer named Chuck Wepner. In March 1975, Wepner challenged the then-heavyweight champ Muhammad Ali to a title fight in Cleveland, Ohio. He lasted almost the entire fifteen rounds and became one of the few challengers to Ali to knock him to the ground." The imdb trivia page does not mention Marciano.Template:Unsigned:148.85.226.147

The article is discussing two movies there, but the wording could be clearer. I'll play with it. iMeowbot~Mw 04:53, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

reply: Well the movie Rocky is not on Rocky Marciano. Its on Rocky Balboa. In the start of the movie there is a the bout dated 25th November 1975, Phaledalphia. Don't you people see things before talking. This is not the right platform to talk this. Its Rocky Marciano's page. Vivek 09:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply:

Well, both Rocky movies are not good enough and many things are missing, we still need to make a good movie. ROcky Day info: http://geocities.com/georgereevesproject/Rockyday.txt

Valuev is undefeated also. and yet he is not mentioned on this page at all. can someone fix this please? i would but in my part of the world its 2am

Correcting/clarifying this entry: "The boxer was Henry Lester, a Golden Gloves champion. Rocky did not seem to care that his opponent was an award-winning amateur and took on Lester. Rocky was lucky it wasn't an official bout because, according to people present, he was on his way to defeat when he hit Lester in the groin and was disqualified. Rocky was so embarrassed by this fight and the newspapers' accounts of it, that when he went back to the military facilities, he started concentrating solely on his boxing training."

The kicking in the groin incident is not true. Lester was kicked in the abdomen by Rocky after a spectator shouted from the audience "Rock, if you can't hit him, kick him!", but the 'groin angle' makes for a better story.

-- David van Leesten, son of Henry Lester (real name Hendrik van Leesten, b. 1913- d.1999) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.2.120.11 (talk • contribs)

The article states that "Legend has it that center Rocky once intercepted a pass and ran 60 yards with the ball to score a touchdown." Centers are on the offense; it is simply not possible for a center to intercept a pass. I am pointing this out rather than correcting it because I don't know the proper version of this "legend". -Rwv37 02:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The newyork times, made a mistake, Coley Wallace never knockout Marciano, Wallace won a 3 round points desion over Marciano in the Golden Gloves, but most ring siders felt Marciano won that fight. However, it could be called a draw.

When Marciano died, Glen Farley wrote a tribute to him that was published in the Brockton Enterprise. The paper reran it annually for some years. Can anyone find that tribute and post it here? I have searched the net pretty well, found several references to the tribute, but no copy of the text. Jm546 20:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got the bright idea of just writing to the newspaper and asking for the tribute. Did so several days ago, no answer. Jm546 02:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valdes, I would never say Marciano SHOULD have fought Nino in 1956, as he had drop off of the top ten by that time. And was loseing of couse. Marciano never duck Vales, Moore beat him, and it was Moore, Not Nino who got the shot. Marciano had ALREADY plan for the Moore fight to be his last fight, as he was ring wear, and bad back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.90 (talk • contribs)

Valdes fought Moore 15 rounds, after 12 he was winning or drawing, if he was not so foolish, he would have taken 12 rounds as it was the norm and got a shot at the Rock. Valdes was leading on points after 12 rounds.

We need new photo with Marciano, try to get it from 1956. I dont know why other one was deleted, as usual nothing makes sense on wikipedia...

I believe the current biography is very precise and should not be tempered with or altered. And the links are rare and great.

-Chopin fan

I've reverted back to User:Curps' version, since the tone and style of writing is much more suitable for an encyclopaedia article on Marciano. For example, consider the opening paragraph:

Marciano had to fight practically since the start of his life in Brockton, Massachusetts. He contracted pneumonia when he was one year old, and he almost did not survive. But Marciano was a strong baby, and he was able to overcome the infection. His mother's sister gave him lots of hot soup to drink, even forcing him and within days he was better. It was considered a miracle.

The statements that Marciano "had to fight" and "was a strong baby", and that his recovery was "considered a miracle" after being given "lots of hot soup to drink" are all examples of subjective and creative writing. It sounds like a decent introduction to a book or short story about Marciano, but not for an encyclopaedia article.

If there are any specific facts that you think are missing, then of course feel free to (re-)add them. But a wholesale reversion of the article isn't warranted. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One last thought - rewriting the article is most certainly not vandalism, and it is a bit disingenuous to claim otherwise in your edit summaries. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you do not know the story of Rocky and to you everything is subjective, curbs not only took that thing about soup away but so many, many other facts and people associated with Marciano. It is not subjective, since everything is and was according to books written on Marciano, do not expect me to tear those pages and paste them here, after scanning them. This currect version is ok, of course if there are some little things which need changing or of course... some spelling, be my guest, otherwise, buzz off and stop vandalising the site, it was great for a long time and the above statement Association with Rocky means this current version before Curbs vandalized it!

Okay, I'm not going to revert this article (again) for the moment. Instead, I've added a {{tone}} tag to the beginning of the article to notify readers that we're trying to write a better version. Now, are there any specific changes between the two versions that you don't like? Were there any factual details left out? If so, then we can look at putting them back in.

Do you have any thoughts on my original objections (above, under the title "Unencyclopaedic tone")? It may very well be true that the previous (before Curps' edits) version was a true story of Marciano, however it was told in a very informal tone. It read like a book, not like an encyclopaedia entry. To maintain a neutral point of view, Wikipedia entries should not have unnecessarily colourful or evocative wording - it's usually best to just stick to the facts, and let the reader decide things for themselves.

So for instance, instead of saying

But Marciano was a strong baby, and he was able to overcome the infection. His mother's sister gave him lots of hot soup to drink, even forcing him and within days he was better. It was considered a miracle.

it's better to say something more like

After a long and difficult recovery, Marciano finally overcame the infection.

The former version is full of imagery, the latter presents the situation in a more neutral light. Thoughts? --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, everything was ok, before vandals reverted this, but if you dont like strong baby, if that is subjective to you, why not just delete everything because then we would have to proove every little word and every word would require a link! Ok, but it's the fact, he overcame infection and so on, how do you want to put it, in what light, this is wikipedia, COMPLETELLY UNJUST ENCYCLOPEDIA I WILL NEVER USE FOR MY RESEARCH, but still it's written by volunteers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.162 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried twice now to explain my thoughts on this, and both times you have only responded with some variation of "everything was okay before, stop changing things." Clearly, everything was not okay before, or else no other editor would have changed it. None of this is a reflection on you, or on Marciano, as people - it's just a matter of reaching a compromise for the tone of this one article. If you'd like to calmly discuss the contents of the article, then this talk page is open, and of course you can reach me individually on my talk page. Otherwise, it seems consensus is for keeping the alternate version, since several users have already reverted your changes. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 08:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<Reply to vandalism>

Final warning

==Reply== Everything was ok and this biography is here to stay and I will keep on reverting it until kingdom come, it was all ok, you do not know history of Marciano, I know, and I am a boxing fan, THE ONLY PERSON WHO KEEPS ON REVERTING THIS IS VANDAL 'CURPS' ok, he shortened it so badly that everything was missing, do know, the websites, pdf files are private contribution, if this gets reverted, I will contact thos people AND BECAUSE OF YOUR IGNORANCE THEY WILL TAKE THOSE SITES DOWN, SO ALL YOU WILL HAVE WILL BE HIS BOXING RECORD,(very rare material) stay away from what you dont know, as I said, few words which make no sense, yea, i agree, but what you are doign is pure vandalism with complete rv! Then when I try to reply here, I am blocked, IP's will be no problem for us, vandals like curps can not block 1000 IP's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.3.167 (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia's definition of vandalism before accusing others of engaging in this activity. Also, threats are both unnecessary, and unwelcome. If you would like to see the content changed, you are welcome to discuss the changes here, and be heard with an open mind so long as you remain civil and talk things through rationally. It would also greatly help things if you signed your posts, and stopped typing IN ALL CAPS - a simple exclamation point will do! See? --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 04:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is different from the rest, of what is true vandalism and that is yours, as of tomorrow THE RARE LINKS ON MARCIANO WILL BE GONE, THE WEBMASTERS WILL BE INFORMED, THANX TO YOUR VANDALISM YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO READ THEM, YOU CAN NOT RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE'S TIME, THEREFORE WE WILL MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE INFORMED (OVER TIME) NEVER TO TRUST YOUR LOUSY SITES!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.3.126 (talk • contribs)

Leave this site like it is, INSTEAD, WHY DONT U LOAD A NICE PHOTO WE ARE MISSING?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.27.81 (talk • contribs)

EVERYBODY, LOOK UNDER REVERSION FOR CORRECT BIO, ONCE THIS BECOMES UNBLOCKED, i will BE BACK, ALSO ENJOY THIS WEBSITE, SINCE WE CAN NOT DO IT HERE, NOW, WHEN IT'S IN THE SEARCH ENGINES, YOU CAN NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, PERIOD AND NOW EVERYBODY WILL SEE IT, SO SUCK ON THIS YOU PATHETIC VANDALS...

http://geocities.com/georgereevesproject/rockymarciano.html http://geocities.com/georgereevesproject/wikipedia

Signed: THE BIO PROTECTORS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.116.40.112 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-09 19:11:03 (UTC)

OK, PAGE IS BLOCKED/NEW BIO HAS BEEN WRITTEN EVERYBODY, LOOK UNDER REVERSION FOR CORRECT BIO, ONCE THIS BECOMES UNBLOCKED, i will BE BACK, ALSO ENJOY THIS WEBSITE, SINCE WE CAN NOT DO IT HERE, NOW, WHEN IT'S IN THE SEARCH ENGINES, YOU CAN NOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, PERIOD AND NOW EVERYBODY WILL SEE IT, SO HAVE FUN NOW AND GO THANK YOUR CURPS...VANDALS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.176 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE CONTACTED THE WEBMASTER OF THAT SITE AND TOLD OF WIKI VANDALISM, AND THEY TOOK IT DOWN! NO MORE RARE LINKS, LOOK UNDER MARCIANO LINKS, THE RARE PDF FILES WITH HIS TOUR AND 50TH FIGHT ARE GONE FOREVER, HOPE YOU ALL HAPPY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.27.86 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop typing in all caps. Thanks. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 22:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU DONT HAVE THE RARE PDF FILES, YOUR BIO IS PATHETIC AND PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TOLD NOT TO EVER USE YOUR SITE... WITH SITES WHICH ARE GOING TO ALL THE SEARCH ENGINES LIKE THIS: YOU CAN THANK CURPS FOR THIS... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.5.118 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please? Stop typing in all caps? 'Twould be ever so much appreciated. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 06:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I posted and added many thigns, you deleted, now you dont have pdf and also, last line... his mom continue to live, so... WHEN DID SHE DIE, you erase everything else like 10 months span and leave other things to ponder, what's up with that... grow up vandals!

Why is this page protected, because of Colombo's death, according to the U.S. Death Index, Colombo died on January 7th 1969 as the previous version correctly indicated. As far as bouts go they seem to be correct as well.

The additional nickname is sourced from A&E Biography. I've personally heard it used by residents of Massachusetts (including Brockton) and Rhode Island. — Greentryst ^T_C 15:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know stallone made the movie after ali fight but somebody should find link to stallone's claims that rocky was inspired after marciano, after all in the movie rocky had picture of marciano hanging on his wall and he said rock was his favorite boxer.

I commented out this part of the 'Legacy' section

Rocky was knocked down to the canvas only twice — for a total of few seconds — in his entire professional career. On both occasions, he rose to knock his opponent out. Of the heavyweight champions, only Gene Tunney and Vitali Klitschko were knocked down less than twice; although George Chuvalo was never knocked down in his professional career, he was never champion.

because at least two more heavyweight champions - Oliver McCall and Nicolay Valuev have never been knocked down so far. --AGP 10:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, Valuev never had any real opponents, he could be beaten on points easy, but you need the proper method, anyways what about Baby Mesi? He is 33-0. Valuev is big, so a huge punch is needed. Also, I added Sugar Ray Robinson here, and vandals like Makemi deleted that, wow, that is wrong information, amazing.

It is truly amazing that the comment: Sugar Ray Robinson was undefeated as an amateur 85-0 was removed and not only that, that was called vandalism, this clearly shows stupidity of people who run this site. Correct things were deleted and reversed. Comment on 50th bout, only a suggestion by some groups, no prove it happened, sugar ray robinson 85-0 is a fact.

Rocky movie was inspired after Wepner, true enough, to make the movie, we all agree, the name and the title comes after marciano who was tough as nails and also any boxing historian (good ones) will rate rocky in top 10. Rocky title is inspiration, name itself is championic and sounds tough. Also, do not put words into my mouth, this statement was here since 2004 AND IT CLEARY SAYS ONE OF THE GREATESTS, NO SUCH THING AS THE GREATEST, READ AND THINK FIRST BEFORE REPLYING.

There were many, many more rockies... Simple evidence is this... superfight rocky vs ali, same concept was user in a rocky movie. Again, I will remove inspired by rocky but will add partially inspired, also, i suggest you stop vandalizing this page and be more accurate.

That's not evidence. Name one other thing in any Rocky movie that has anything to do with Marciano. The movie wasn't even partially inspired by Marciano. Until you give me something like a quote from Stallone talking about the inspiration, then I'm taking it out because it isn't true. And what I'm doing isn't "vandalism." I'm simply making sure the article is accurate. You insist on inserting items in the article that simply aren't true. You may want to read other articles in Wikipedia to get an idea about what is opinion and what is fact. The items you insert are not factually accurate. MKil 20:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

The following has been written by Chuck Johnson in USA today: "The plot centers on an aging Balboa still feeling he has something to prove when a computer fight, pairing champions from different eras, declares him the winner over the current champion. Stallone copied the computer fight idea from one between Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano in 1970. "After all the data was put into the computer, Marciano won by a 13th-round knockout, and that proceeded to create a lot of uproar among fans," Stallone says. "We wanted to duplicate that." I need nothing more to add. May be this will shut your ignorant ways?

I don't believe name-calling is allowed here. However, I already agreed that the computer fight tournament was an homage to the Marciano-Ali tournament. So what? Name any other similarity to Marciano in the Rocky movies. An Italian journeyman from Philadelphia with twenty losses getting a gift shot at the title (Rocky movies) vs. an Italian undefeated heavyweight champion who earned his way to the championship. How is that similar? MKil 20:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

You are taking this to a new level now, sure, but do not forget they can not use name of Rocky in the movie, not Marciano at least, there are legal complications. Besides read above on the rocky movie, long before you became pest here.

Also keep in mind, always and in life, not all things in life can be explained 100% and you are not grasping any concept of understanding.I mean, there is always an excuse, only those who are on your side will side with you!But still wrong!

Yes, read about the Rocky movie above and you'll see clearly that it is not inspired by Rocky Marciano. And please write more clearly -- your poor writing here makes you very difficult to understand. You should also sign your comments to avoid confusion. MKil 20:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

If you are going to say that "others consider Rocky the greatest," then you need to provide a source. I've seen no credible source that argues that Marciano was the greatest. To assert otherwise is simply inserting your opinion into this article. MKil 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

There u go again...

Fine, then provide some evidence to back up your assertion. The article you used to justify your claim that some call Marciano the greatest was an article about how tough Ezzard Charles was. Give a ranking from Ring magazine, SI, Boxing Illustrated, the IBRO, etc. MKil 20:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

You were given answers, you are beating around bush, going against logic of boxing history, the article also says about rocky's greatness, you are complete time waster.

Yes, the article says that Marciano was great (no one is disputing that), but it does not say he was the greatest (a superlative which means better than all others), as you are saying. Until you actually produce some proof of your opinion, I'm taking it out. MKil 20:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I am taking it back, I believe i was very impartial, as I left your stuff in there, you are not to play around this or you will be blocked and you are reverting what's generally accepted by many as the fact. In the boxing world. WHEN I SAID... SOME SAY HE IS GREATEST, I AM NOT POINT OUT AS THE GREATEST, GET YOUR FACTS TOGETHER.

"Some say" is a violation of Wikipedia's "weasel words" policy. Read up on it before you violate it again. So you are going to block me, huh? Whatever. I think your using two different IPs to edit and violations of the "weasel words" policy won't endear you to editors. Furthermore, it is certainly not generally accepted by many in the boxing world that Marciano was "the greatest." Great, yes, but greatest? No. I have provided two sources for Marciano's ranking in history. You have provided a poorly written article from the Internet that is mostly about Ezzard Charles. Just provide a source for your idea that Marciano is the greatest and this will go away. MKil 21:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Well, again, link is there and you keep on insisting same old story, i never said he is greatest, nobody is, impossible to answer. Besides you are putting words into my mouth i never said.

Simple request: please point out in the article you linked to where anyone said that Marciano was the greatest or to anything that backs up your assertion that some undefined "others" think he is the greatest. That's all I'm asking. MKil 21:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I said and pointed all there is, you are simply repeating yourself and beating around the bush.

No, I am genuinely asking you for proof that backs up your assertion. I read the article and did not see what you said was there. So I'm asking you to point it out to me. It's not an unreasonable request. Just pull a quote from the article that says what you assert. MKil 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

In both articles word greatest was used, i will not point you to that.And my assertions are not what you are trying to imply. again and again.

In the Charles article, the word "greatest" was used, but it was in reference to Charles when the author said that Charles was "one of the greatest of all time." It was also used in reference to Archie Moore at light heavyweight. In the Lou Duva interview, he says that Marciano was the greatest, but the points out that he thinks this because Marciano was a personal friend. I read both articles and they simply do not say what you think. Re-read them and point out where I'm wrong. MKil 22:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

That's right, in charles article, it says marciano could have been greatest, but he was modest, in duva article duva says rocky was greatest because rm was his friend AND BECAUSE HE WAS UNDEFEATED, EXACTLY THE WAY I WROTE IT. You are simply overdoing it, it's there and it's there, also I said more more than I should have, also, is greatness measured by simple word greatest? What about time and memory of the fighter, there are many examples./Also, stop twisting truth and saying half truths.

Keep in mind, if anybody selects you as the top 10, that means you may be the greatest at one time or another.

Greatness is not in a word, you can not demand evidence via some link, that does not prove much, however undefeated/untied record in the heavyweight division speaks for itself, end of story. It's self evident, a given.User_talk: BoxingWear This is definitely true. When someone holds the “greatest record” this is generally a good indicator that they can be considered the greatest.Thedeparted123 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few attempts to improve the writing of the article. Unfortunately, BoxingWear continues to revert these edits with no explanation given. So let me just ask, what is the better written paragraph:

BoxingWear: "Then came former World Heavyweight champion Ezzard Charles, whom Marciano beat by a decision in their first bout. Ezzard Charles was the only man to ever last fifteen rounds against Marciano, and the champ later praised him as one of the toughest men he ever fought in his life. After having his nose split in round six of the rematch, Marciano retained the title with an eighth-round knockout win. Then Marciano met British and European champion Don Cockell and beat him in nine rounds. In his last bout, Marciano got up off the canvas in round two to retain his title by a knockout in nine against the equally-legendary Light-Heavyweight Champion of the World Archie Moore (Moore was saved by the bell in the 6th round).

"Rocky was named fighter of the year by Ring Magazine three times. His three championship fights between 1952-54 were named fights of the year by the same magazine. Rocky's last title bout was against Archie Moore on September 21st 1955. The bout was originally scheduled for Tuesday, September 20th but because of hurricane warnings it had to be moved to the 21st. Rocky knocked out Archie in the 9th round; Archie was saved by the bell at the end of 6th round. There was a game before the boxing match and all the fights started late. When Rocky was proclaimed winner, it was already September 22nd"

Or

MKil: "Then came former World Heavyweight champion Ezzard Charles, whom Marciano beat by a decision in their first bout. Ezzard Charles was the only man to ever last fifteen rounds against Marciano, and the champ later praised him as one of the toughest men he ever fought in his life. After having his nose split in round six of the rematch, Marciano retained the title with an eighth-round knockout win. Then Marciano met British and European champion Don Cockell and beat him in nine rounds.

"Rocky's last title bout was against Archie Moore on September 21st 1955. The bout was originally scheduled for Tuesday, September 20th but because of hurricane warnings it had to be moved to the 21st. Rocky knocked out Archie in the 9th round; Archie was saved by the bell at the end of 6th round. There was a game before the boxing match and all the fights started late. When Rocky was proclaimed winner, it was already September 22nd."

Or here:

BoxingWear: "Rocky had a professional record of 49-0 with forty-three knockouts. On December 7, 1955, Bob "The Grinder" Baker[2] defeated Cuban heavy weight champ Nino Valdez[3] and the winner to face Rocky. Rocky was originally scheduled to fight Bob Baker or Nino Valdez in his last fight in the evening of January 1 or January 2[4] 1956 (there were plans for Nino Valdez bout in Cuba for June 1956), but that fight, originally planned for Miami Beach, Florida, never took place.

"Both Baker and Valdez eliminated themselves by a terrible performance; the bout was almost called a no contest, however, Baker won the 10 rounds by UD, thus giving him a very respectable 45-5 record. Many wonder how come Rocky did not wait around for Floyd Patterson, here was some talk about Floyd Patterson fighting Rocky on Wednesday Night Fights; either on January 11, 1956 or on January 4, 1956 (Floyd's 21st birthday)(probably 2.5 minutes exhibition rounds)But there was no public interest. Floyd was not a contender for a heavyweight title and he was not a ranked heavyweight. Floyd was moved to heavy weight rankings on May 2nd 1956, after Rocky retired. Floyd Patterson was a logical contender for Archie Moore's light heavyweight title. Another possible contender near the end of Marciano's career was Tommy 'Hurricane' Jackson. Floyd Patterson was not yet ready to take on Marciano and wanted a shot at the light-heavyweight championship first. Floyd had no plans to fight Rocky before 1957."

Or

MKil: "Rocky had a professional record of 49-0 with forty-three knockouts. On December 7, 1955, Bob "The Grinder" Baker defeated Cuban heavyweight champion Nino Valdez. The winner was expected to face Marciano. That fight, originally planned for Miami Beach, Florida, never took place. Both Baker and Valdez eliminated themselves by a terrible performance. The bout was almost called a no contest, although Baker won the 10 rounds by unanimous decision.

"Many wonder how come Rocky did not wait around for Floyd Patterson, here was some talk about Floyd Patterson fighting Rocky on Wednesday Night Fights; either on January 11, 1956, or on January 4, 1956, (Floyd's 21st birthday), possibly with two-minute exhibition rounds. But again, there was no public interest. Floyd was not a contender for a heavyweight title and he was not a ranked heavyweight. Floyd was moved to heavyweight rankings on May 2, 1956, after Rocky retired. At the time of Marciano's retirment, Patterson was a logical contender for Archie Moore's light heavyweight title. Floyd Patterson was not yet ready to take on Marciano and wanted a shot at the light-heavyweight championship first. Floyd had no plans to fight Rocky before 1957. Another possible contender near the end of Marciano's career was Tommy 'Hurricane' Jackson."

And is not this sentence a blatant violation of the weasel words policy: "Many light weight fighters remain undefeated for a long time because the punches they give and receive do not carry the power of destruction as in the heavy-weight division."

I put this here for comparison because my language keeps getting reverted. I ask others to judge. I'm not going to play the revert game any longer. MKil 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

All of this has been discussed, I do not have time to reply for every concern, you are simply adding tons of information, you are simply rewriting everything in your own manner, again, we do not mind if you fix bad writing, i did not write all of that, i simply corrected few things, you simply reverted everything claiming it's bad writing, now, you are also a 58 user, leavin yourself a message on your talk page, come on man, i want to work together, but not like this, do not destroy other people's work, you are a sophisticated person, you have your own way around, you simply correct few things, kill everything else (mkil no wonder you have that name) and then add your own stuff, and delete everything else, then you say you are correcting things, no, nobody, nobody is doing this here, remember that, you are simply trying to find a way, a sophisticated vandal. Just let it be. ok. Again, we should all improve any article, but do not kill other people's work. I never said you are wrong on some corrections, but you are just beating around the bush,around your own corrections, you never mention when you are wrong, you are simply pushing your own way, honestly, how long can somebody stand that man, i mean, you have excuse after excse and after excuse. -BoxingWear

I'll simply let your poor writing and violation of Wikipedia's weasel words policy speak for itself. Here's a gem of a sentence that you just added: "This Los Angeles, CA bout may have used two-and-a-half minutes exhibition, 2 rounds format, originally planned for Los Angeles, CA." That sentence makes absolutely no sense. That kind of writing is what I am trying to correct.

I do not revert "everything," as you claim; I attempt to rewrite poorly written articles and remove weasel words such as "many claim" or "it is rumored." Anyone who reads what I write and what you write can clearly see why I do what I do. MKil 19:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Already explained many times! -Boxingwear

You say I "killed tons of info." What info did I kill? Do you even read my revisions or simply revert because you see that I did something? I kept the new information you provided and just cleaned up the language. Instead of automatically reverting, read what I wrote. You'll see that I removed no information. MKil 19:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

You have time buddy, you have all the time you need to screw with me, i agree with your last edit, but this is not same vandalism you did with others. Now, you simply look for ways out.

According to this rocky article... There was some talk about Rocky fighting Bob Baker or Valdez, but they simply eliminated themselves. I have received some emails on this subject and I would like to share this story. I believe there was no interest. But On January 11th Bob Satterfield lost to tall John Holman, this is it. But here's the mistake. On February 3 1956, Baker fought Jackson and Baker lost, MD 101/10. Stupid, they should have arranged Baker-Holman, Baker wins, as he won in May of 1956 in Miami Beach 12/12. So, Baker goes 46-5, best record for a heavy-weight at that time. Whatever, their choice. I am simply asking (I read an article on this on internet) why fight Hurricane Feb 56, get Holman, beat him and have a fight in May. IT goes to show Al Weill, Rocky's manager was smart, but did not look ahead too well. I do not blame Rocky, only a little bit, but why wait, they should have signed agreement with Both Baker and Valdez before December 7 1955 and go for it. New Year's day it does not get any better. I wonder if Baker drew or beat Hurricane on that faithful February day... Rocky, out of pride, must give Baker a shot. So, we have 50-0. But I am confident first 5 rounds go to Baker.- The late april 1956 ratings, again, point out Rocky had no logical challenger. So, the more you wait, this happens. After reading some of these articles, I wonder... End of the year 1955, finish it with a bang! Jim Norris, ibc's president wanted baker to fight rocky on february 3rd. Boxingwear

Cool. I don't doubt you. I'm just asking for the source. What article were you reading that said this? Also, any source on the Patterson-Marciano bout? I'm especially interested in the mention that they would use an exhibition-style format. MKil 22:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I am not sure if the following is pov or not, let's vote on it...

It's a popular opininon that many light weight fighters remain undefeated for a long time because the punches they give and receive do not carry the power of destruction as in the heavy-weight division.

NOT POV,well a little bit, not that much- because the record of 63, 98-0 speaks for itself, sure there are tough fighters, but only some of them have hard punches, usually only few boxers in the fly weight category will deliver damage. ALso, money, it is a neutral term, but it is also plural, were or was returned? ````Boxingwear

It's completely POV. Yes, some lighter weight boxers have undefeated records, but that's because of the skill of those particular boxers. Those records don't "speak for themselves." Lighter weight fighters punch quite hard. In fact, Ring magazine in 2003 ranked the hardest punchers in boxing history and Jimmy Wilde, a flyweight, was #3, Sandy Saddler was #5, Ray Robinson was #11, Wilfred Benitez was #13, Khaosai Galaxy was #19, and Alexis Arguello was #19. In recent times, we have both Humberto Gonzalez and Michael Carbajal to put to rest the notion that lighter weight guys don't punch.

As far as the issue on "money," the word is singular, not plural, and so "was" is the correct term to use, not "were." MKil 14:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Enough!All explained, you demand perfection and time waste!And I dont care what ring rates, that is in the article and i am not disputing that, again and again you put words into my mouth!-Boxingwear

BoxingWear contends that many, including Lou Dova (actually he means Lou Duva, the boxing trainer), think that Marciano is the best heavyweight fighter. He produces one cite that has Duva saying this because Marciano was undefeated and because Marciano was his friend. However, at this site -- http://sportsline.com/boxing/story/5981682 -- Duva says that Louis was better than Marciano. Since BoxingWear gives no other evidence that Marciano is considered the greatest HW champ, and since Duva's stance on this issue is unclear, I'm removing it. MKil 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

You are a total hypocrite, you do not deserve any more of my time. So did Charles Goldman say that at some time in his life, you have nothing better but to screw around and search, i already explained everything 100 times over. This is about greatness and some user who emailed me long time about you, complained about you, you are doing same thing, but changing it the way you do it, your vandalism. Boxingwear

Then provide a cite, that's all I ask. MKil 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

BoxingWear coninues to revert my edits and calls them "vandalism." These are the edits I made to remove redundant information which BoxingWear reverted (I remove the text in bold:

"There was talk of Marciano fighting Bob "The Grinder" Baker or Nino Valdez in his last fight in the evening of January 1 or January 2[1] 1956 but that fight, originally planned for Miami Beach Auditorium, Florida, never took place. Both Baker and Valdez eliminated themselves by a terrible performance. Baker won 10 rounds boyt by unanimous. After this bout was almost called a no contest. At the time Baker had most respectable record in the heavy-weight division with 45-5 record. There was also discussion of a bout with Nino Valdez in Cuba for June 1956,^{[citation needed]} but that also failed to take place. citation needed]) but that fight, originally planned for Miami Beach, Florida, never took place.

"Both Baker and Valdez eliminated themselves by a terrible performance. The bout was almost called a no contest, although Baker won the 10 rounds by unanimous decision, thus giving him a very respectable 45-5 record. After his retirement Rocky received some criticism about not fighting Floyd. The question was how come Rocky did not wait around for Floyd Patterson?"

As anyone can clearly see, I was merely removing redundant information. This certainly is not vandalism. MKil 22:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

You removed too much,again too much and greatness is measured by time, by other facotrs, and again 49-0-0 speaks volumes.

You fail to answer why you revert my attempts to remove redundant information. As I have clearly shown, the sentences I deleted were redundant. If you don't like my edits, follow Wikipedia policy and change them. Don't just mindlessly revert because the edits were made by me. MKil 00:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

PullToOpen (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (MKil)

I am trying to clean up the writing of this article and remove unsourced POV language. However, I find my attempts to do so continually being reverted by BoxingWear. As described in the talk page here, I attempted to clean up redundant language. One sentence is repeated in two paragraphs. There is another sentence that has a sentence fragment as part of it. I clean it up, and BoxingWear calls it "vandalism" and reverts it. I've also tried to remove the unsourced view that "many" view Marciano as the greatest champion. No source I have found claims this. The one source quoted by BoxingWear -- of Lou Duva (or Dova, as BoxingWear calls him) -- contradicts another statement made by Duva, so I took it out. Again, it was reverted.

These are just the two most recent examples. BoxingWear reverts almost any edit I make on this page, labelig it vandalism. I try to explain what I am doing, and he refuses to discuss changes. I attempt to point out Wikipedia policies I believe I am following (I put a couple on his talk page) and he removes them from his talk page. I thought I'd seek a third opinion to see if I'm doing something wrong here or what another may think. MKil 00:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Viewpoint by (Boxingwear)

....

By goodness, this already took over 24 hours of my time, ok, at least it's up for the vote, so I will try to present the case in a true and proper light.

I never revert anything that is of importance. If there are citations needed, i ecnourage it, see recent edits. If I make a mistake here and there, I maks sure to correct everything, AGAIN, i do not have time to argue with mkil, i am also requestion a protection against him NEVER TO LEAVE ME HIS SILLY MESSAGES ON HIS TALK PAGE. This truly takes a lot of time, but this time, here we go, i will say more... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rocky_Marciano#The_Greatest.3F As you can see, the original problem started with greatness, again I have to repeat myself, rocky is in the top 10, there are people like Lou Duva who consider him greatest, there are many, many others. I have big big problems with this individual, he is after me, puts words into my mouth, tells me rocky is not the greatest, i simply expanded on that paragraph adding that he is one of the greatest and there are many who think he is greatest... http://www.youngvictorboxing.com.au/jimamato_news.htm you have to look for words like: "Rocky Marciano was the most exciting and best heavyweight to come along in years. He was considered a great heavyweight champion." Now, in recent edits Mkil vandal claims this is all redundant... information about baker and valdez eliminating themselves. He kills that, why, I do not know, he is a vandal, a very sophisticated individual who keeps on pointing to different websites (which he simply finds to justify his cause), then links to wiki policies and God knows what else, which make no sense at all, since they are not on the subject. Then when I threatened him I will report him, he gives me link about not threatening others, well in fact, I am reporting him to administrators, something must be done abotu this person... here's history of his vandalim or almost vandalism... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR He has been reverting things, go under his contribution history, he reverts anything that seems pov. And here's some evidence on Baker vs Valdez 1955... NOTE... THIS INFORMATION WAS COPIED FROM HISTORICAL NEWSPAPERS, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED IT OVER THERE, I HAVE OLD NEWSPAPERS TO PROVE MY POINT ON EVERY SINGLE THING I WRITE. Here's what has been reported in the newspapers for December 7th 1955 fight...

Bob Baker vs. Nino Valdes II
1955-12-07 : Arena, Cleveland, OH, USA : Nino Valdes lost to Bob
Baker by UD in round 10 of 10
Referee: Tony LaBranch
Judges: Herb Williams, Charley Bill
Weights: Baker 213½; Valdes 207

Referee LaBranch scored the fight 97-95, judges Williams and Bill scored it 99-91 and 98-92 respectively for Baker. The Associated Press described the fight as a "dull 10-rounder, fought to the tune of 'Jingle Bells' and 'Let me call you sweetheart' and a steady chorus of boos from the 8,380 fans who paid $63,392 to see the Cleveland News' annual Christmas fund show." The winner was to fight Rocky Marciano on New Year's day. Since the fans booed the fight, the interest waned. This was Baker's 13th straight victory. UD 10/10. Aka Baker's Dozen.

So, I simply added information from there, giving more facts about VERY VERY IMPORTANT FIGHT, Jan 2, Feb 3, plans were made to have that 50th fight, but it did not happen. Then I add information On Baker, why was he 50th opponent, if you check boxing records of the fighters of that time, baker was 45-5 and one draw(included). So, it's important to let people know that, also may i remind you, all these things have been here before, they have been checked by historians and nobody had any problem,only minor thigns were corrected. So, as you can see, i called him a vandal for a purpose, he knew I have no time, he reverted information, so when I asked him not to post things on my site, he kept on doing that, he kept on reverting things and adding things, changing one story with another, so do not tell me it will cost me, also learn to wait, because i did not want to reply until tomorrow. I do not deserve block, i did what was best and again,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoxingWear#Amazing.2C_reverting_over_greatest_on_marciano he can not even argue in regards to the greatest, whatever is given, whatever belongs in the world is true, correspondence theory of thruth does not apply to boxingwear and many people here, he is objecting to self evident truth, but if others can not understand this, what can they understand, nothing@-Boxingwear

Third opinion by PullToOpen

Both of you have violated WP:3RR, and may be handed blocks for it. The other editor has left a message on my talk page, which gives me enough backround to give a 3O here. BoxingWear is unilateraly and arbitrarily reverting your edits, calling them vandalism; this is BAD. BoxingWear failed to assume good faith, and this time, it will cost him. Users who try to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia should never be accused of vandalism. His accusations of vandalism are also a violation of WP:POINT, so his block will probably be 3 days to a week or more. MKil, it's unfortunate that you have been caught up in this, but you may also be handed a 3RR block for about 24 hours. Just remember, never edit war. Try to discuss your changes with the user first, and if he or she refuses to talk to you, then you can go try some other steps of dispute resolution. Cheers, PTO 00:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Thanks for your opinion. I'll try to avoid edit wars in the future. I'll discuss changes I make on the talk page and go to dispute resolution in the future if that does not take. Thanks again. MKil 00:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cbrown1023#Problem_reply

Twice I told Cbrown1023 i will get into trouble over this, i said i have no intentions, i will not do any edit wars, but i fully reject that statement, it was not edit war, i simply wanted to fix things and people can not listen, as usual. I added everything that is correct and i stand behind all my words and proper action. Also, again, this is costing my time. Why did user Pulltoopen not wait 24 hours before i replied, you are violating wiki policy, i had no idea this poll is happening, so imagine if i did not reply today, i would be blocked 3 days, then how do i reply? Come on PulltoOpen, you are not fair towards me. I MEAN, YOU LEFT YOUR THIRD OPINION WITHOUT MY REPLY, WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THAT? I am a former boxer and kickboxer, I know few things on boxing, i was around... May I remind everybody that user Mkil was warned, i did not call him any names, once he became pain in the neck, what was I supposed to do, i mean, ah..well, it was explained again and again. Keep in mind, mkil had problems before, and I believe current rocky version should stay. -Boxingwear User_talk: BoxingWear

While "Both Baker and Valdez eliminated themselves by a terrible performance." might be a spiffy quote to cite, it probably doesn't need to be repeated twice within a few sentences of each repetition. Probably just a formatting thing, but someone should consolidate and clean that up a little. Bitnine 01:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I tried to eliminate it numerous times, but BoxingWear reverted my edits and called them vandalism. However, now that someone else noticed it, he goes along. Whatever it takes. As long as the redundant information is gone. MKil 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Done, i also added info on baker and valdez boxing date, lol, an article without introduction, i just noticed that, wow, well, all those edits by people like mkil will certainly take away some info! -Boxingwear

Rocky Marciano is aguably the greatest heavyweight champion in proffesional boxing history. This should be mentioned in the article.

And don’t ask me for a magazine article to verify this statement. Like Ali and Louis, he received an acomidation from a major boxing institution. Only this was in the form of the his record.

He is the only undefeated/untied heavyweight champion the sport has ever known. And generally if one has the “greatest” record in a sport, they can be justifiably considered the sport’s “greatest.” Thedeparted123 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. An undefeated record is good, but there have been a number of boxing historians who feel the quality of opposition beaten by Marciano was not the same as Louis's or Ali's. It is certainly an arguable point, though, as you point out.

For an opinion such as who is the greatest, it's good to have a verifiable source to point to. For example, the IBRO calls Louis the greatest. The Ring calls Ali the greatest. These are important to give an opinion the weight of some authority. Without it, you can have the situation where the partisan fans of any boxer say he is "regarded as the greatest." I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who think that Tyson was the greatest HW ever, but no boxing expert thinks so.

Because of this, my opninion is that any attempt to label a boxer as "the greatest" should be backed up by a good source and should be labeled as reflecting the opinion of that source. MKil 14:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I do think that some verification should be given, not necessarily in the sense that the statement needs to be justified, but that it results in a better, stronger article about Marciano. And that's certainly worth poking around and finding a source, no? And I'd tend to think that it'd be fine to keep it 'arguably' if a couple of good sources can be found; citing them would certainly show that the argument can and has been made, and you can glance down to see a couple of for examples. Bitnine 14:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Marciano fans that say he's the greatest is that there are few unbiased sources that say this. I've had this problem with people putting the note that "many think Marciano was the greatest." When I challeneged them to produce proof that "many" think so, the only source we got was that his friend, boxing trainer, Lou Duva, called him the greatest (and someone else found that elsewhere Duva said Louis was greater than Marciano). I'm all for including the claim on the Marciano page if someone can produce a solid cite that says it. No one has been able to do so yet, however. MKil 15:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

This has been replied, also the word many, i wanted to change to some, there are some people like Lou Duva, again mkil has no point, again, everything explained above, again, mkil willfind a new way to change things his way, he should never be allowed to touch this page. I personally like Marciano, but I do not care much about him, however, if you beat best fighters of your era, go unbeaten, what more can anybody say thruoughout history?!
I have no problem with the word arguably, some time ago i put a similar word but mkil reverted that too.

Thedeparted123, thank you for some logic, this is exact problem i had with mkil, i was almost suspended because of these reverts, again, it would not surprise me,usually doing good gets me in trouble. But yea, i mean, some things in the world, which are given, accepted by time and generation you simply KNOW, you can not prove it, it's like you love somebody, you do not know how to say it. I mean, yea, come on now. Mkil had problems with others users, they left me a message on my talk page in regards to this greatest problem, rocky is not the greatest, nobody is, but people like him are arguably greatest and why not and he never said he was the greatest, but he said he beat the greatest Joe Louis. Note, Joe was not in his prime, but he was still good, before loosing to Rock, he won 9 straight bouts. What else? Of course for some people, there is no end... The other problem with people like mkil, they view everything as pov. I can not believe how can some people argue a given, ignorance no doubt, psychological issues as well. -Boxingwear

Well, I mainly want to see things cited because I think the article is a great start, but I'd sorta hate to see it stuck at "Start class" assessment, you know? I don't suppose a line like "Marciano greatly impressed his manager, Lou Duva, who characterized him as the greatest champion of all time [citation here]" might work as a compromise? It could easily be changed as soon any other references could be found, but in the meantime I think it might more firmly serve the article and let it bump up that ladder. What do you think? Bitnine 23:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, i put a similar line, this guy mkil kept on reverting that, i mean, we do not need a link to quote some guy duva thinks rocky is greatest, and i already replied why is that many, many times.Boxingwear

I have no problem saying that some people think Marciano is the best, as long as we can find a source that says it. I found one from Ring magazine in 1977 that said he was the best Italian-American fighter and put that in. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any source that says that any boxing historians regard Marciano as the greates. Until such a source is produced, I think such a claim should stay out.

The problem with the Duva source is that in another interview he said that Louis was better than Marciano (see http://sportsline.com/boxing/story/5981682), so we can't really use that. If we can come up with a cite for Marciano's designatio of "greatest," let's include it. BoxingWear does not seem to understand this, and his writing is so poor that I don't know what he is trying to get at in his posts above, so I can't comment on his view of the issue. MKil 04:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I don't think that that's a problem that makes a previous statement unusable. A minor modification including the qualifier "at the time" should suffice, no? Bitnine 18:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the two contradictory Duva interviews were given at around the same time from what I can tell, so the only way the statement could be accurate is to say this: "In one interview, Marciano's friend, Lou Duva, stated that he considered Marciano the greatest, although he at other times has listed Joe Louis as better." Even if Duva were consistent on this matter, I'm not so sure he meets Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. After all, part of the reason given as to why he considers Marciano the greatest is that they were friends. MKil 18:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Actually, part of my rewording above was to make him a fairly reliable source. Whereas there might be some issues with direct conclusions drawn from statements he's made, noting his own opinion or estimation explicitly as such means that he's only speaking towards the context of his estimation. In any event, I'd strike "friend" for at the very least "trainer and friend," as the former can be taken as somewhat marginalizing, whereas the latter speaks of a substantive position. So long as care is taken to present things accurately and neutrally to a reader, you can rely on them to draw their own conclusions and evaluations without couching too much. Additionally, you seem to be using the singular case for the Marciano interview and plural for Louis - do you have multiple interviews in which Duva mentioned Louis as being better?

So how about something close to: "In an interview Lou Duva, Marciano's friend and trainer, characterized Marciano as the greatest champion of all time, although he would later mention he considered boxer Joe Louis to be better.[1][2]" I think it's worth mentioning that such praise was received, and this states such in proper context and is sourced, allowing the user to evaluate its weight. Bitnine 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mis-wrote -- I have only that one interview that discusses the Louis situation. Your sentence is pretty good, although I'd characterize Duva as "boxing trainer and friend of Marciano" since Duva did not train Marciano. Putting this modified sentence at the end of the first paragraph in the legacy section wouldn't see any objection from me. MKil 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

I must admit, now, this conversation is making some sense, mkil did reply proper like, but that was not his initial stand, his language is, shall I say, lawyer like, really knows his way around, keep in mind we are more or less simple folks. Like I said I personally do not care that much about marciano, but again, 49 or whatever his real record is UNDEFEATED and no draws. But mkil had these problems before, e.g. I was approached: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoxingWear#Amazing.2C_reverting_over_greatest_on_marciano He beat the best in his times, today only Valuev may have some chance of finishing 50-0-1. But I doubt he will get 49 straight. We shall see. But, there are many statements about marciano or louis, who is the greatest, i do not think we should say Lou Duva consideres Rocky greatest. I do not care if he is the greatest or not, the bottom line is there are many people out there who over years and decades (especially italian community and people above 50 years of age) considered him and will always consider him the greatest. I remember watching the HBO 1985 special,(don't ask me to send you tape_but you can buy it) at the end of that special, the guy who interviewed Rocky's mother and his brothers simply finished with the following logical statement..."Over the years people have argued who is the greatest, I will simply leave it at this... HE WAS UNDEFEATED AS A WORLD HEAVY-WEIGHT BOXIN CHAMPION" How simple can I make it. We should not add the statement abotu Louis the greatest, we can simply add... Marciano, together with Louis and Ali are considered the greatest heavy-weight boxing champions ever. Now, let the greatness be shared. Ok, now... There are other problems with mkil, I mean, read above in my second opinion reply. To this person, everything is pov, of course in his recent replies, he sounds fair and neutral, but that is not how it was, he kept on challenging me to discussion, to talk, to some silly web sites, evidence, proof, etc, etc, I also replied to that and every time he came up with some new conclusion, new edit, and new excuse. I mean, he may have richness of words, still he is not right. I think to keep the peace, mkil should not touch marciano site, except suggest ideas. Again, I usually check wiki every third day, because of mkil i had to find time to log on twice a day. Mkil=marciano killer?!! Boxingwear

Any attempt to insert an opinion here needs to be backed up by a source. If all these people think Marciano is the greatest, BoxingWear, then why haven't you been able to find any source that says that outside the compromised Duva cite? As I've always said, if you can find a reliable source, then I'm happy with using it.

As to your attempts to slander me by saying I'm unreasonable, let me remind you that on this very talk page you were strongly reprimanded for arbitrarily and unilaterally reverting my edits and violating Wikipedia policy. MKil 20:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

This has been explained, self evident truth needs no sources, it's like mkil doing his old tricks, asking me...hey boxingwear how do i know you breath, we all breath, but can you send the link you breath, this is enough, marciano is THE ONE OF THE GREATEST EVER AND POSSIBLY THE GREATEST EVER, THIS MUST STAY, MKIL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO TOUCH THIS SITE, EVER. I reverted your edits, because you are putting words into my mouth, you have talent for argument, like i mentioned above, you will use wiki excuses, links and so on. In law, we have statutes of limitations, there is a limit for everything, YOU HAVE NO LIMIT, no wiki policy have been violated by me and only by you!Also, there are clear instructions there about you and I am also not leaving messages for you.Boxingwear

To quote PTO above, "BoxingWear is unilateraly and arbitrarily reverting your edits, calling them vandalism; this is BAD. BoxingWear failed to assume good faith, and this time, it will cost him. Users who try to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia should never be accused of vandalism. His accusations of vandalism are also a violation of WP:POINT, . . ."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BoxingWear#Message_for_Mkil This guy is a lawyer or somebody who does nothing but adds and adds on and builds on one single point, but never, ever gives praise for something else, something good of his opponent. If it's not vandalism, then it's close, if it's not, then it was, if not always, sometimes he did do it.<>

I'll certainly admit that Rocky is one of the best heavyweights ever, but no boxing historian or publication that I have ever seen ranks him as the greatest. To say that in this article would be false. It's certainly not "self-evident" that he was the greatest. That's like saying it's self-evident that Sven Ottke is the greatest super middleweight champ because he retired undefeated. An undefeated record is important, but in itself it does not make its holder "the greatest." MKil 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

Let's not forget my...third opinion above story-This will go on FOREVER, self evident is if it's 49-0, again, and again and again, i did not say and I NEVER EVER SAID HE IS THE GREATEST AND NOBODY IS, I said, SOME CONSIDER HIM THE GREATEST BECAUSE OF THAT RECORD.

Again, you do not need publication to call him greatest and I also replied in regards to that above, he simply did not mention it, as he wants to get his point across, he does not belong here, he is going against logical common sense time after time after time and he has other tricks under his sleeve. Above (I will not give again) are some links, new ones, on greatness, he will think about this and reply again, but again, reply to all his future replies are given, of course, he will change topic a little bit to make it look different. I better not say what I think of that and that ignorance because he will give me some wiki link i am violating... _boxingwear

As I've said many times, the "some people consider him the greatest" formulation is a violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View Policy which states:

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognised authority)." (bolding mine in order to point out exactly why BoxingWear's formulation is in error). MKil 20:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

More excuses Mikil hey, keep it up buddy, why don't you write a book on it here?

You know how to. Substantially and within subjectivity you are again milking it. And I did not say believe, because believe is more in the realm of faith, you do not see, but you believe in Jesus, Alla, Jehovah, whoever, thinking is derived from observing facts and coming to a conclusion by observation and thru empirical values.

Product Description video:
Boxing Writers of America select the best fighters of all time in each weight division, leading up to their selection of The Greatest Fighter Of All Time. Includes action footage of Sugar Ray Robinson, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali and more!

Of course, people like mkil will say that is not a link but pov! Also, again, proves my point, he will link some wiki articles to prove his point, listen, some of those wiki links are not 100% as well, again, this is encyclopedia, not policy reminder place. -boxingweaer

If you can't read the clear language of the Wikipedia Neutrality policy, then I'm not sure we have much to discuss. "Some people think" and "some people believe" both violate the policy. Bitnine and I agreed on some good language. Why can't you agree to it, too? MKil 21:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)MKil[reply]

No comment, keep on talking, you will find a way to make your point, but again, to all other readers, read my previous comments, not worth it. This remind me of a statement by a new guy who replaced rumsfeld... of course, we are talking about war now... "Gates says Iraq resolution 'emboldens' enemy" I wonder, the enemy have their mind set, they have nowhere to go,how can they be emboldened when they have plan ready, when they know the reality in iraq is civil war, when they are the onew who are gaining the upper hand, similar case with mkil, he is only gaining upper hand in milking things from a to z-Boxingwear

The article has been protected for a couple days, giving everybody a chance to discuss issues and come up with a solution. If any of you need any help, don't be afraid to file a mediation request at WP:MEDCAB and a user will come help mediate the disagreement. Cheers, PTO 23:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could an administrator put {{Protected}} on top of this page? Thanks, PTO 23:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry, forgot that. Viridae^Talk 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all the time mkil has on his hands, it's impossible to keep up with him, that has been all explained in detail by my posts, also after this is resolved, talk should be moved to archives and mkil should not be allowed to touch marciano page, except talk, not even that...It's not nice to destroy work of others, we are arguing about greatest now, but he did much more than that.Boxingwear