Marciano vs Holyfield @Cruiserweight

[dempseyfire]

Dempseyfire: Of course they're people who overtly romantisize Marciano, some for ethnic and racial reasons. But let's assume the good users of this board are beyond any of that.

Hi Dempseyfire. There is no reason for assuming that. There are dozens of boxing message boards and I find that this is what drives people's passions. Before there were message boards or computers, my father's generation used to brag ugly on Marciano. They revered him, they said, "Man, the Rock, he sure is some kind of person killer." Even as a tiny boy I winced at such remarks. So the good users of this board are not above this type of thinking, neither are the two of us. Every person can let emotive agendas taint their fundamental assessments of anything, but particularly prizefighting.

I will be the first to say Holyfield has a better resume then Marciano.

That's good, because he does.

But I think saying "oh. b/c Holyfiled beat 235 lb Bowe, he'd surely beat 185 ;b Rocky" is really bad comparison.

I agree. But I never said this, and if any other person did say or imply this, i agree with you. I think Holyfield beats Rocky because he's better than Rocky, and being bigger and more skilled are aspects of why he is better.

Rocky may have never beaten a good big HW, but what great small HW did Holyfield ever beat??

There are no great small heavyweights today, as being big in this era is a bedrock prerequisite to being great. Tyson is really only 5-10. Sure, he's stout, but I would call him a small heavy, and Holyfield beat him twice.

One of Holyfield's big attributes was that he could outspeed and importantly out-stamina his bigger and more bulky opponents, thus his success vs Lewis, Foreman, Tyson, Moorer 11.

Sorry, Dempseyfire, but Moorer came out of the Kronk at lightheavy. He had murderous power at that weight. He was a smallish heavy, by any standards.

I think on the other end I believe a 195 lb Ezzard Charles beats Tyson, Foreman, Bowe worse then Holy ever did.

Charles was truly great at lightheavy, perhaps the best that ever lived, but he would have his hands full with Michael Spinks, forget Tyson or Bowe or Foreman! We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Charles would have a great plan for the young Tyson, but like Tyson used to say, they all got a plan, until they get hit. Charles had a suspect chin, to put it politely.

While Marciano's style would serve him bad against guys like Holmes or Liston, Evander would also find more trouble in the era of 195 lb HWs who came to fight for 15 rounds.

Not because these heavyweights were smaller, but just because they were generally better. But Marciano would have had more trouble, too, which is why he really retired. Looming on the horizon were Patterson, Williams, Liston, Folley, Machen. And they were young and starving for success. I wouldn't wish that murderer's row on the Rock.

Hell, minus your Hepatitis C instance in the 3rd Bowe fight, Holyfield was in the greatest trouble of his career vs little Bert Cooper and James Toney. The era and size thing works both ways.

Holyfield took a hard right from Cooper, but he was never really in trouble in that fight. Coop had no bottom, all Holyfield had to do is hang tough and let the rounds bring Cooper to him. As far as Toney goes, why not say Louis couldn't handle Marciano. That was an old and spent Louis. Fighting to pay off his tax debt. That was an old Holyfield. The Holyfield of 1990 knocks Toney cold.

Thanks for the post, Dempseyfire.

The reason they aren't any good HWs right now weighing 190-220 ( with the big exceptions of Chris Byrd, Monte Barrett and if he was fighting Juan Carlos Gomez) is that they are too lazy to get in proper shape. If Rahman, Tua, Kirk Johnson, James Toney had the discipline and work ethic of the old schoolers, they'd all be under 220. Moorer in the rematch came into the fight weighing 225, and this is a guy who should be weighing 210. Holyfield beat many of his opponents on heart and conditioning and not skill. Moorer showed in the 1st fight and parts of the 2nd he could outbox Evander, but Holyfield outgutted him.
I admit Marciano is tough to judge. 49-0 but not against the toughest of opponents. I do believe the late 50s crew of Machen, Williams, and def. Liston would be his toughest tests and some would stain that perfect record. But I think as much as some people raise him up too high they are others who put him down too low.

[Professor X]

Liston had a good jab (so did Douglas, Bowe, Lewis and converted righty Michael Moorer) and was powerful.

But, you know, Tyson and Bowe, both disrespectful of the old man, opened up full bore on Holyfeld from the openening bell looking for a first round blowout.

So I don't think Holyfield would get bounced around the ring a'la Patterson.

And, man, the left-hooks Holyfield put on Bowe, Mercer and Lewis weren't to be immediately answered by anybody....anybody. If Holyfield landed that on Liston, Liston would have to either cover up, hold on or go down. He wouldn't see it coming (prime Holyfield is quite a bit faster than Toney, whoever keep's bringng up Toney-Holyfield).

But I didn't see all of Liston's career (especially post-Clay I would have liked to have seen) with my own eye's...I've only seen him on tape's. Was Liston a bit stiff, like Foreman, because Holyfield would eventually turn up the heat and take the fight inside.

Another great fight. I'll tentatively pick Holyfield. Holyfield could lose to some heavyweight greats...but Holyfield could also win a heavyweight greats tournament. Holyfield is a winner and a first class champion. You're computer program has never even once had Holyfield winning that mythical tournament, alrightjim?
Holyfield was multi-dimensional...he could hang with a great boxer (Lewis) or a great brawler (Tyson), so why couldn't he hang with Johnson or Marciano or Charles or Frazier?

[alrightjim]

Dempseyfire: The reason they aren't any good HWs right now weighing 190-220 ( with the big exceptions of Chris Byrd, Monte Barrett and if he was fighting Juan Carlos Gomez) is that they are too lazy to get in proper shape. If Rahman, Tua, Kirk Johnson, James Toney had the discipline and work ethic of the old schoolers, they'd all be under 220.

This is a terrific point and really hard to argue against. So I won't. But I would add that heavies are becoming bigger as a general rule, even if they are also lazy and fat and lack the skill of past generations. If we go back to the 1890's the champion is Jeffries. A big, powerful man in any era and a tough test for any heavy of any era. But then you have 170 pound Joe Choynski, and he is the rule, rather than the exception. There will always be curious types like Tom Sharkey, so damn tough and mean he can fight a 250 pound man of solid muscle to a standstill but still get dropped by a left hook from 165 pound Kid McCoy.

Holyfield beat many of his opponents on heart and conditioning and not skill. Moorer showed in the 1st fight and parts of the 2nd he could outbox Evander, but Holyfield outgutted him.

Can't argue with this, either.

I admit Marciano is tough to judge. 49-0 but not against the toughest of opponents. I do believe the late 50s crew of Machen, Williams, and def. Liston would be his toughest tests and some would stain that perfect record. But I think as much as some people raise him up too high they are others who put him down too low.

Marciano was a great fighter. Arguably the best heavy under 200 pounds ever, but it is quite a heated argument, lots of competition. Holmes saying Marciano couldn't carry his jock strap was asinine. It should be like Frazier said when being interviewed ringside at the Rumble in the Jungle. He said, when it came to the fight game, he respected any man "that got two hands."

All of the following are true:

Heavyweights have become fat and lazy.
Heavyweights are bigger than previous generations.
Marciano was a great fighter.
People romanticize fighters that reflect their ethnic and cultural persuasion.

Nice post, Dempseyfire. It made me think a bit.

[alrightjim]

Professor X: But I didn't see all of Liston's career (especially post-Clay I would have liked to have seen) with my own eye's...I've only seen him on tape's. Was Liston a bit stiff, like Foreman, because Holyfield would eventually turn up the heat and take the fight inside.

Hi Professor. No, Liston was not stiff like Foreman. He was a huge man but he was really a pretty bright guy. He seemed stiff because of two reasons. He was fighting Ali at his quickest and Liston was actually older than his listed age. I should fight Liston against Holyfield in my game just to see what happens.

Holyfield is a winner and a first class champion. You're computer program has never even once had Holyfield winning that mythical tournament, alrightjim?
Holyfield was multi-dimensional...he could hang with a great boxer (Lewis) or a great brawler (Tyson), so why couldn't he hang with Johnson or Marciano or Charles or Frazier?

He sure could. But Foreman keeps winning every time. He knocked out Joe Frazier in the last final. What keeps happening to Holyfield is he keeps running into a numbing puncher like Louis and gets shocked when he is winning the fight. A big right hand can find his jaw and when Witherspoon throws it he survives but when Peter Jackson or Louis throws it, he falls. Maybe he wins the next tournament.

[Marciano Frazier]

Professor X: Who did Marciano face in his tenth pro fight?

Hi Professor. A guy named Bob Jefferson, a 172 pounder had a record of 1-2. Bob went on to finish his career at 1-9, seven of those losses were by knockout.

Professor X:[/b] Holyfield -who also throws a wicked uppercut...to the chest- by tenth or eleventh round TKO in a rugged, not ragged, encounter.

Two things. Qawi was a lot harder to hit than Marciano. Marciano was a much busier fighter and Holyfield was pushed to the wall stamina wise by Qawi in that early fght. And boy could Marciano punch. So it would be a different fight. But why should Holyfield have to fight a Marciano in his tenth pro fight when Marciano got to fight a Bob Jefferson? Marciano would have knocked Holyfield out.

Wait another ten fights. Marciano fought a guy named Tommy Giorgio, weighed in at 184, had a record of 10-9. Better than Bob Jefferson. Giorgino went on to post a 10-16 career record, ten of those losses by knockout. Not as pathetic as Bob Jefferson but nothing to brag about. Holyfield actually got Qawi in his 12th pro fight but in his 20th pro fight he fought Pinklon Thomas. Thomas quit on his tool after the seventh round. No comparison.

The two fighters who knocked Marciano down, Walcott and Moore, were both pushing forty, their best years well behind them. They could still fight, but they are not the same test as the Lewis Bowe or Tyson whom Holyfield faced.

I am not saying Marciano was a stiff and couldn't fight or a "racist delusion" as some other poster accused me of implying. I am just saying we have to be frank and objective when assessing his abilities and accomplishments. I loved the guy, he was my old man's hero. But I won't romanticize him as a prizefighter.

"Two things. Qawi was a lot harder to hit than Marciano. Marciano was a much busier fighter and Holyfield was pushed to the wall stamina wise by Qawi in that early fght. And boy could Marciano punch. So it would be a different fight. But why should Holyfield have to fight a Marciano in his tenth pro fight when Marciano got to fight a Bob Jefferson? Marciano would have knocked Holyfield out.

Wait another ten fights. Marciano fought a guy named Tommy Giorgio, weighed in at 184, had a record of 10-9. Better than Bob Jefferson. Giorgino went on to post a 10-16 career record, ten of those losses by knockout. Not as pathetic as Bob Jefferson but nothing to brag about. Holyfield actually got Qawi in his 12th pro fight but in his 20th pro fight he fought Pinklon Thomas. Thomas quit on his tool after the seventh round. No comparison. "
You see, this concept that Marciano was some babied fighter with a puffed-up record who just looks good because his promoter brought him along just right IS NOT TRUE.

Of COURSE Holyfield would have been moved along much more quickly in his career. Holyfield was fighting since he was a little kid, had a HUGE amateur career, and should have been an Olympic gold medalist.

Marciano, on the other hand, didn't even get started in the first training for amateur boxing when he was already in his twenties. He had a total of 12 amateur fights, going 8-4 as an amateur. And you're acting like he somehow had it soft while Holyfield had it much tougher? Marciano was literally like an inexperienced amateur fighter facing pros(albeit highly mediocre ones) early in his career.

And if you notice, while Marciano was given some very easy opponents in about his 6th-20th fights, in just his fourth and fifth pro fights he was put in with two far more experienced, undefeated fighters in a row, expected to lose by the very guy who set up the fights, Sam Silverman. Marciano was first put in with 8-0 Bobby Quinn, who he took out in three, and then in his very next fight, Marciano faced Eddie Ross, who was 26-0(23 KO's), expected to be cannonfodder, a set-up easy win for Ross, and Marciano knocked Ross out in 63 seconds of round one.

It is just completely unfair to think that somehow Marciano was an inflated record, a babied fighter, based on the fact that he fought a lot of mediocre opponents to build experience and work on his boxing. He had to be moved along slowly, as any prospect with only 12 amateur fights should be. It's a miracle that a Marciano who had just turned pro and had had no professional training whatsoever actually managed to make it through those early fights undefeated when he was twice in a row fed to prospects as an easy win and twice in a row blew them out.

"The two fighters who knocked Marciano down, Walcott and Moore, were both pushing forty, their best years well behind them. They could still fight, but they are not the same test as the Lewis Bowe or Tyson whom Holyfield faced."
"their best years well behind them."
This is just not true. First, let's look at Walcott. When were his best years, in your opinion? Was it when he was a young up-and-comer with no amateur experience who was dirt poor and living largely on welfare while taking dives to get money for food and being knocked out by guys like Tiger Jack Fox and Abe Simon? Or was it around when he turned thirty, when he was taking whole years off and coming in and out of retirement while searching for a method to support his wife and six children?

The only time that can reasonably be suggested as being the beginning of Walcott's prime is around 1947 at the earliest, which was after he'd finally gotten a manager and taken some fights to shake off the ring rust. At that time, he came out of essential obscurity to split two fights with Joe Louis(forget the judges in the first one). That's about when Walcott reached his prime- at the age of 33 or 34.

So when do you think he became past it? How can you reasonably say his best years were well behind him when he faced Marciano? He had just won the title with a stunning knockout of a great fighter in his prime and had then beaten that fighter again in their fourth meeting. Possibly excluding the first Joe Louis fight(which is debatable because Louis was past his peak when he fought Walcott), those were the two biggest wins of Walcott's career, RIGHT BEFORE HE FOUGHT MARCIANO.

Now, in what way do you think Walcott had declined when he fought Marciano? Was he slowed and lacking of his former reflexes? Walcott was fast as lightning and counter punching beautifully in that match. Was he fat and overweight, having put on the pounds that come with the passing of your prime? Again, that's ridiculous. Walcott was hard as nails and ripped, with a very heavily muscled upper body. Was his stamina declining? Again, no way. Walcott fought hard the whole way for 12 rounds and was still looking relatively fresh and moving around the ring very well even at the time of the knockout.

Now, with Archie Moore, that's not even debatable. Moore was light heavyweight champion for four more years after facing Marciano, with multiple wins over heavyweight contenders. He hadn't lost in literally dozens of fights, and went on to go a dozen more afterward without another loss. Many of Moore's most memorable fights were still ahead of him, and he was always recognized as "The Ageless Warrior" or a variation, as some called him.

In other words, while, say, Joe Louis, for instance, was fat, slow, and lacking of stamina for his fight with Marciano, clearly long past his best, Walcott and Moore were like Hopkins and Lewis. They aged gracefully and improved as they got older.

[Iron Mike]

Dempseyfire: Of course they're people who overtly romantisize Marciano, some for ethnic and racial reasons. But let's assume the good users of this board are beyond any of that.

Hi Dempseyfire. There is no reason for assuming that. There are dozens of boxing message boards and I find that this is what drives people's passions. Before there were message boards or computers, my father's generation used to brag ugly on Marciano. They revered him, they said, "Man, the Rock, he sure is some kind of person killer." Even as a tiny boy I winced at such remarks. So the good users of this board are not above this type of thinking, neither are the two of us. Every person can let emotive agendas taint their fundamental assessments of anything, but particularly prizefighting.

I will be the first to say Holyfield has a better resume then Marciano.

That's good, because he does.

But I think saying "oh. b/c Holyfiled beat 235 lb Bowe, he'd surely beat 185 ;b Rocky" is really bad comparison.

I agree. But I never said this, and if any other person did say or imply this, i agree with you. I think Holyfield beats Rocky because he's better than Rocky, and being bigger and more skilled are aspects of why he is better.

Rocky may have never beaten a good big HW, but what great small HW did Holyfield ever beat??

There are no great small heavyweights today, as being big in this era is a bedrock prerequisite to being great. Tyson is really only 5-10. Sure, he's stout, but I would call him a small heavy, and Holyfield beat him twice.

One of Holyfield's big attributes was that he could outspeed and importantly out-stamina his bigger and more bulky opponents, thus his success vs Lewis, Foreman, Tyson, Moorer 11.

Sorry, Dempseyfire, but Moorer came out of the Kronk at lightheavy. He had murderous power at that weight. He was a smallish heavy, by any standards.

I think on the other end I believe a 195 lb Ezzard Charles beats Tyson, Foreman, Bowe worse then Holy ever did.

Charles was truly great at lightheavy, perhaps the best that ever lived, but he would have his hands full with Michael Spinks, forget Tyson or Bowe or Foreman! We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Charles would have a great plan for the young Tyson, but like Tyson used to say, they all got a plan, until they get hit. Charles had a suspect chin, to put it politely.

While Marciano's style would serve him bad against guys like Holmes or Liston, Evander would also find more trouble in the era of 195 lb HWs who came to fight for 15 rounds.

Not because these heavyweights were smaller, but just because they were generally better. But Marciano would have had more trouble, too, which is why he really retired. Looming on the horizon were Patterson, Williams, Liston, Folley, Machen. And they were young and starving for success. I wouldn't wish that murderer's row on the Rock.

Hell, minus your Hepatitis C instance in the 3rd Bowe fight, Holyfield was in the greatest trouble of his career vs little Bert Cooper and James Toney. The era and size thing works both ways.

Holyfield took a hard right from Cooper, but he was never really in trouble in that fight. Coop had no bottom, all Holyfield had to do is hang tough and let the rounds bring Cooper to him. As far as Toney goes, why not say Louis couldn't handle Marciano. That was an old and spent Louis. Fighting to pay off his tax debt. That was an old Holyfield. The Holyfield of 1990 knocks Toney cold.

Thanks for the post, Dempseyfire.

Great post from top to bottom. Anyways I think Holyfield outboxes him pretty clearly, and while I respect what Marciano could do with his fists, this is the real deal we're talking about, don't see a stoppage in this one.

[dempseyfire]

Dempseyfire: The reason they aren't any good HWs right now weighing 190-220 ( with the big exceptions of Chris Byrd, Monte Barrett and if he was fighting Juan Carlos Gomez) is that they are too lazy to get in proper shape. If Rahman, Tua, Kirk Johnson, James Toney had the discipline and work ethic of the old schoolers, they'd all be under 220.

This is a terrific point and really hard to argue against. So I won't. But I would add that heavies are becoming bigger as a general rule, even if they are also lazy and fat and lack the skill of past generations. If we go back to the 1890's the champion is Jeffries. A big, powerful man in any era and a tough test for any heavy of any era. But then you have 170 pound Joe Choynski, and he is the rule, rather than the exception. There will always be curious types like Tom Sharkey, so damn tough and mean he can fight a 250 pound man of solid muscle to a standstill but still get dropped by a left hook from 165 pound Kid McCoy.

Holyfield beat many of his opponents on heart and conditioning and not skill. Moorer showed in the 1st fight and parts of the 2nd he could outbox Evander, but Holyfield outgutted him.

Can't argue with this, either.

I admit Marciano is tough to judge. 49-0 but not against the toughest of opponents. I do believe the late 50s crew of Machen, Williams, and def. Liston would be his toughest tests and some would stain that perfect record. But I think as much as some people raise him up too high they are others who put him down too low.

Marciano was a great fighter. Arguably the best heavy under 200 pounds ever, but it is quite a heated argument, lots of competition. Holmes saying Marciano couldn't carry his jock strap was asinine. It should be like Frazier said when being interviewed ringside at the Rumble in the Jungle. He said, when it came to the fight game, he respected any man "that got two hands."

All of the following are true:

Heavyweights have become fat and lazy.
Heavyweights are bigger than previous generations.
Marciano was a great fighter.
People romanticize fighters that reflect their ethnic and cultural persuasion.

Nice post, Dempseyfire. It made me think a bit.

Thanks for the compliment. I'd like to add that HWs are not getting bigger just fatter. If you look at height of the top 10 contenders from the teens till now, it has remained remarkably consistent in the past 100 years.
19teens- guys 6-6'2 (Dempsey, Gunboat Smith, Bill Brennan) 6'3-6'7 (Fred Fulton, Jess Williard, Carl Morris, Luther McCarthy)
1930s-40s- 6'-6'2 (Louis, Sharkey, Schmeling) 6'3-6'7 (Max Baer, Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, Nino Valdez, Primo Carnera)
1990s-6'-6'2 (Holyfield, Tyson, Mercer, Rahman) 6'3-6'7 (Lewis, Bowe, Briggs)
The weights also remain consistent until the mid-late 80s:

[aliwasthegreatest]

Holyfield was phenominal at cruiserweight and had a much more potent punch than he had to try to carry up to heavyweight. I give this fight to him by fairly close decision bnecause he thinks it out and can brawl all night with marciano

[alrightjim]

Marciano Frazier: Marciano, on the other hand, didn't even get started in the first training for amateur boxing when he was already in his twenties. He had a total of 12 amateur fights, going 8-4 as an amateur. And you're acting like he somehow had it soft while Holyfield had it much tougher?

Who said I was acting? It doesn't matter WHY Marciano was getting relatively easier opponents than Holyfield, he just was. It doesn't matter what the reasons his management had. He still fought relatively softer guys than Holyfield at every stage of his career.

Marciano was literally like an inexperienced amateur fighter facing pros(albeit highly mediocre ones) early in his career.

Thanks for making my point so well.

And if you notice, while Marciano was given some very easy opponents in about his 6th-20th fights, in just his fourth and fifth pro fights he was put in with two far more experienced, undefeated fighters in a row, expected to lose by the very guy who set up the fights, Sam Silverman. Marciano was first put in with 8-0 Bobby Quinn, who he took out in three, and then in his very next fight, Marciano faced Eddie Ross, who was 26-0(23 KO's), expected to be cannonfodder, a set-up easy win for Ross, and Marciano knocked Ross out in 63 seconds of round one.

I'll give you Bobby Quinn. Not a great fighter but a tough test at that stage of Marciano's career. But Eddie Ross, you get wrong. He wasn't 26-0, he was 15-0-1, and he fought his entire career as a lightheavy. His record got padded to make Marciano look good, say, wasn't that the whole point I was making?

It is just completely unfair to think that somehow Marciano was an inflated record, a babied fighter, based on the fact that he fought a lot of mediocre opponents to build experience and work on his boxing.

No, it isn't. But I can understand why you want to characterize it unfair, and why it pisses you off. Marciano had talent and he was a great fighter, but he also had an inflated record. If he fought a lot of mediocre opponents to "build experience and work on his boxing" how does that change anything? Again, it doesn't matter what his excuse was, fact is, he fought softer guys. He could have been in prison and not picked up the gloves until he was, say, 25 or so. That wouldn't matter. He could have been born with a withered arm or something and not boxed at all. So what. Your explanations are excuses with intent to deceive and change nothing.

He had to be moved along slowly, as any prospect with only 12 amateur fights should be. It's a miracle that a Marciano who had just turned pro and had had no professional training whatsoever actually managed to make it through those early fights undefeated when he was twice in a row fed to prospects as an easy win and twice in a row blew them out.

That's a miracle? Miracles are the US hockey time beating the Soviets at Lake Placid in 1980 or the Apollo 13 astronauts getting back from the far side of the moon or Moses parting the Red Sea. Marciano's early boxing career is no "miracle."

In other words, while, say, Joe Louis, for instance, was fat, slow, and lacking of stamina for his fight with Marciano, clearly long past his best, Walcott and Moore were like Hopkins and Lewis. They aged gracefully and improved as they got older.

I would be more inclined to buy your arguments if you weren't defending these guys just to inflate Marciano's accomplishments, or if your handle was Walcott Charles instead of Marciano Frazier.

People get old sooner or later. Moore may have enjoyed success against lightheavies into his forties but his best years were still five years behind him. Same with Walcott. And Charles was not a great fighter in his peak years when Marciano fought him. Charles was in his mid-thirties and his reflexes and skills were definitely on the decline.

Look, your boy was a great fighter, okay? But he wasn't the fighter you wish him to be. He was mollycoddled, for WHATEVER REASON YOU GIVE, doesn't matter. He fought as bravely and as gamely as he could given the guys they threw at him, but he should have faced off against a young, hungry black heavyweight in 1956 and then retired. He was younger when he retired than Charles was when you claim Charles was at his peak, and Charles had a lot more boxing mileage on him than the Rock did. He was much younger than Moore, younger than Walcott, and if he aged less gracefully than these men as a prizefighter well then that would be his tough luck, just another reason why other heavyweight champs were better than he was.

He started late and he quit early and he never fought the young dangerous lions that might have shut critics like me the hell up.

[dempseyfire]

Hi Professor. A guy named Bob Jefferson, a 172 pounder had a record of 1-2. Bob went on to finish his career at 1-9, seven of those losses were by knockout.

Two things. Qawi was a lot harder to hit than Marciano. Marciano was a much busier fighter and Holyfield was pushed to the wall stamina wise by Qawi in that early fght. And boy could Marciano punch. So it would be a different fight. But why should Holyfield have to fight a Marciano in his tenth pro fight when Marciano got to fight a Bob Jefferson? Marciano would have knocked Holyfield out.

Wait another ten fights. Marciano fought a guy named Tommy Giorgio, weighed in at 184, had a record of 10-9. Better than Bob Jefferson. Giorgino went on to post a 10-16 career record, ten of those losses by knockout. Not as pathetic as Bob Jefferson but nothing to brag about. Holyfield actually got Qawi in his 12th pro fight but in his 20th pro fight he fought Pinklon Thomas. Thomas quit on his tool after the seventh round. No comparison.

The two fighters who knocked Marciano down, Walcott and Moore, were both pushing forty, their best years well behind them. They could still fight, but they are not the same test as the Lewis Bowe or Tyson whom Holyfield faced.

I am not saying Marciano was a stiff and couldn't fight or a "racist delusion" as some other poster accused me of implying. I am just saying we have to be frank and objective when assessing his abilities and accomplishments. I loved the guy, he was my old man's hero. But I won't romanticize him as a prizefighter.

"Two things. Qawi was a lot harder to hit than Marciano. Marciano was a much busier fighter and Holyfield was pushed to the wall stamina wise by Qawi in that early fght. And boy could Marciano punch. So it would be a different fight. But why should Holyfield have to fight a Marciano in his tenth pro fight when Marciano got to fight a Bob Jefferson? Marciano would have knocked Holyfield out.

Wait another ten fights. Marciano fought a guy named Tommy Giorgio, weighed in at 184, had a record of 10-9. Better than Bob Jefferson. Giorgino went on to post a 10-16 career record, ten of those losses by knockout. Not as pathetic as Bob Jefferson but nothing to brag about. Holyfield actually got Qawi in his 12th pro fight but in his 20th pro fight he fought Pinklon Thomas. Thomas quit on his tool after the seventh round. No comparison. "
You see, this concept that Marciano was some babied fighter with a puffed-up record who just looks good because his promoter brought him along just right IS NOT TRUE.

Of COURSE Holyfield would have been moved along much more quickly in his career. Holyfield was fighting since he was a little kid, had a HUGE amateur career, and should have been an Olympic gold medalist.

Marciano, on the other hand, didn't even get started in the first training for amateur boxing when he was already in his twenties. He had a total of 12 amateur fights, going 8-4 as an amateur. And you're acting like he somehow had it soft while Holyfield had it much tougher? Marciano was literally like an inexperienced amateur fighter facing pros(albeit highly mediocre ones) early in his career.

And if you notice, while Marciano was given some very easy opponents in about his 6th-20th fights, in just his fourth and fifth pro fights he was put in with two far more experienced, undefeated fighters in a row, expected to lose by the very guy who set up the fights, Sam Silverman. Marciano was first put in with 8-0 Bobby Quinn, who he took out in three, and then in his very next fight, Marciano faced Eddie Ross, who was 26-0(23 KO's), expected to be cannonfodder, a set-up easy win for Ross, and Marciano knocked Ross out in 63 seconds of round one.

It is just completely unfair to think that somehow Marciano was an inflated record, a babied fighter, based on the fact that he fought a lot of mediocre opponents to build experience and work on his boxing. He had to be moved along slowly, as any prospect with only 12 amateur fights should be. It's a miracle that a Marciano who had just turned pro and had had no professional training whatsoever actually managed to make it through those early fights undefeated when he was twice in a row fed to prospects as an easy win and twice in a row blew them out.

"The two fighters who knocked Marciano down, Walcott and Moore, were both pushing forty, their best years well behind them. They could still fight, but they are not the same test as the Lewis Bowe or Tyson whom Holyfield faced."
"their best years well behind them."
This is just not true. First, let's look at Walcott. When were his best years, in your opinion? Was it when he was a young up-and-comer with no amateur experience who was dirt poor and living largely on welfare while taking dives to get money for food and being knocked out by guys like Tiger Jack Fox and Abe Simon? Or was it around when he turned thirty, when he was taking whole years off and coming in and out of retirement while searching for a method to support his wife and six children?

The only time that can reasonably be suggested as being the beginning of Walcott's prime is around 1947 at the earliest, which was after he'd finally gotten a manager and taken some fights to shake off the ring rust. At that time, he came out of essential obscurity to split two fights with Joe Louis(forget the judges in the first one). That's about when Walcott reached his prime- at the age of 33 or 34.

So when do you think he became past it? How can you reasonably say his best years were well behind him when he faced Marciano? He had just won the title with a stunning knockout of a great fighter in his prime and had then beaten that fighter again in their fourth meeting. Possibly excluding the first Joe Louis fight(which is debatable because Louis was past his peak when he fought Walcott), those were the two biggest wins of Walcott's career, RIGHT BEFORE HE FOUGHT MARCIANO.

Now, in what way do you think Walcott had declined when he fought Marciano? Was he slowed and lacking of his former reflexes? Walcott was fast as lightning and counter punching beautifully in that match. Was he fat and overweight, having put on the pounds that come with the passing of your prime? Again, that's ridiculous. Walcott was hard as nails and ripped, with a very heavily muscled upper body. Was his stamina declining? Again, no way. Walcott fought hard the whole way for 12 rounds and was still looking relatively fresh and moving around the ring very well even at the time of the knockout.

Now, with Archie Moore, that's not even debatable. Moore was light heavyweight champion for four more years after facing Marciano, with multiple wins over heavyweight contenders. He hadn't lost in literally dozens of fights, and went on to go a dozen more afterward without another loss. Many of Moore's most memorable fights were still ahead of him, and he was always recognized as "The Ageless Warrior" or a variation, as some called him.

In other words, while, say, Joe Louis, for instance, was fat, slow, and lacking of stamina for his fight with Marciano, clearly long past his best, Walcott and Moore were like Hopkins and Lewis. They aged gracefully and improved as they got older.

MF, I have to dis-agree about Moore and Walcott. Just b/c they were able to get better management and have success in their old years doesn't mean they were 'better' at 38 and 39 compared to 28 or even 34. Look at Walcott vs Louis both fights and then Marciano-Walcott and tell me Joe hadn't slipped a good deal. Still a very dangerous fighter for pretty much any HW in history, but not at his best.

[harley_man]

In your efforts to one-up each other, you've moved away from some of the astute points made early in the thread. Are we talking who was better or who would win?

I think you could argue that Holyfield would win via TKO on cuts today. There's no way Rock drops Holyfield so an active and accurate young Holyfield would win by attrition - today.

I'll go back to my grandfather on this one, always a font of wisdom. He argues Marciano's knockdowns were flash kds caused by the force of a good punch. They were not concussive blows that derived him of his senses. Gramps has always argued, and I've seen many boxing scribes argue similarly, that the smaller gloves in that era meant more kds but not more KOs. Stat for stat it is tough to compare the old timers with today's fighters because the old guys were down often but not necessarily out. Like the unblemished record, the never-been-down badge is a relatively new hallmark of a so-called great fighter. The old timers - and fans alike - couldn't care about those stats. So I don't like seeing that argument made in these scenarios. Thankfully, most of you have stayed away from that.

Back to the gloves. The KO to kd ratio changed as gloves got bigger. I'm no medical man but I'll buy the science I've read: the greater the surface area the greater the trauma to the brain, thus the greater the probability of the true knock out. Some have said today's HWs who can take a punch - and there aren't many - can really take a punch because of this. Would Rock have held up? I don't know.

All this to argue that Holyfield would have been in no danger of being KOd in this fight. Would Rock? Hard to say. He wasn't down often but he did get hit a lot. Would the 12 ounce gloves on the end of a CW Holyfield punch have shortcircuited his brain? You tell me (though I'm inclined to argue this is the unknowable fun of fantasy threads).

I still say a 190 lb Holy against a 49-0 Marciano would have been a brawl Holyfield might not have won on the cards. But I think it stops on cuts.

But an early HW-to-Tyson I era Holyfield - with cuts and glove size somehow magically removed from the scenario - beats Rock on the cards, 12 or 15 rounds. My take. With help from gramps.

[alrightjim]

Harley-Man: Are we talking who was better or who would win?

It is assumed since this is a fantasy fight we could have fair refs and judges? If so, then the better man and the man who would win are the SAME man.

Gramps has always argued, and I've seen many boxing scribes argue similarly, that the smaller gloves in that era meant more kds but not more KOs.

So far, so good.

The KO to kd ratio changed as gloves got bigger. I'm no medical man but I'll buy the science I've read: the greater the surface area the greater the trauma to the brain, thus the greater the probability of the true knock out.

These two statements contradict one another. The Germans call it the schwerpunkt, the striking point, and when concentrated in bare fists it results in more physical damage as opposed to making some guy step in post holes. The larger the surface the greater the concussive force to the brain, and so a large glove delivered by a large man knocks people down. But the same science that makes the man fall also knocks him out--the two CANNOT be separated, your Gramps sage wisdom aside. They are caused by the same dynamic, so Gramps will have to redo the math on that one. To argue that more knockdowns resulted because men were not as hurt as bad doesn't wash logically. Every increment of damage would be increased uniformily, so that blows that WOULDN'T have knocked down a fighter a generation ago, now knock him down. No increase in knockdowns would result.

All this to argue that Holyfield would have been in no danger of being KOd in this fight.

Yeah, getting to where you need to minor in math in science to figure out a prizefight. I disagree with you. A man is ALWAYS in danger of being knocked out when he steps through the ropes against a world class opponent, especially at heavyweight.

It all comes back to this, Holyfield by cut induced TKO.

[harley_man]

I'll try explaining it better so that it does not contradict with good ole gramps.

Today's fighters, because of the bigger gloves, get knocked out from punches that would not necessarily have done so in eras past the argument goes. Perhaps I should not have implied that the larger surface area does more damage. That was a poor choice of words. Big gloves actually save fighters from a lot of superficial and/or structural damage.

But the larger surface area is more likely to cause a "short circuit" in the brain's neurons (and I'm paraphrasing the good doctors and scientists who've written on this) thus causing a knock "out", which might be in conjunction with a knock down but could also result in a guy being out on his feet. The argument is that a punch with a smaller glove minimizes the point of impact and is not as brain-jarring, unless it hits a sweet spot of course, and these can be different from fighter to fighter. It would take a truly big shot or shot combined with other circumstances - off balance recipient, perfectly timed counter, etc. - to knock a guy with a bonafide good chin off his feet - the Rock or a Holyfield, for instance. I'm defending them both here.

That's the ratio I'm refering to. You don't see the same sort of multiple kds like you did in the era of smaller gloves. I'd argue, as have others, that this is because guys today don't get a chance to get back up. A blow from an 8 oz glove that may have knocked them off their feet is more likely to be a knockout than a knock down if delivered by a 12 oz glove. Thus, knock down numbers go down as they often tend to be knock out punches as well.

That's not to say Lennox Lewis would have gotten up and dusted himself off after the McCall or Rahman punches if they were fighting in 1950 - or bare fisted for that matter. But I think we can argue that CW and early HW Holyfield proved he was not susceptible to brain short circuiting from 12 oz gloves, and that that likely means he'd hold up to the punches the old timey fighters were throwing with little gloves. Maybe he'd be more susceptible to cuts and broken bones and would get retired himself by a ref. Perhaps. But Rocky wouldn't knock him out. I don't know if there's an argument in the other direction for the Rock.

That a better take on the science? There's nothing wrong with the logic. A punch that is capable of knocking a guy off his feet is not necessarily a knock OUT punch. Force alone can do that. The science of glove size, though, can change the equation. A knock DOWN-worthy punch with a larger surface area is more likely to also cause a loss of senses or equilibrium.

[Eric the Viking]

Somewhat off topic, but I had to ask:

I'm a breed Indian guy from South Dakota. There's never been a decent breed Indian prizefighter.

Isn't Virgil Hill at least half-indian?

[glittermonkey]

Somewhat off topic, but I had to ask:

I'm a breed Indian guy from South Dakota. There's never been a decent breed Indian prizefighter.

Isn't Virgil Hill at least half-indian?

He maybe at least half-indian, but he's also only half-decent.

[harley_man]

Somewhat off topic, but I had to ask:

I'm a breed Indian guy from South Dakota. There's never been a decent breed Indian prizefighter.

Isn't Virgil Hill at least half-indian?

Yes, but only the bottom half.

[6 Pack]

I am going with Holyfield by decision.

Holyfield had a great chin, great speed, decent power (dropped Bowe, TYson and Mercer with one left hook each, all had great chins), stayed moving on his feet, great heart, great stamina.

His draw back is he was undersized. But that is obviously not a problem with Rocky.

ROcky the other had also had a great chin, heart, and had great power. I just think Holyfield's size, speed and movement would make the difference and win him a decision.

[alrightjim]

Eric the Viking: Isn't Virgil Hill at least half-indian?

[/quote]

I know he's adopted, ETV, and I won't speculate on whether he has Indian blood, or from what tribe. If he is an Indian guy, that would be a good thing. I liked Joe"The Boss" Hipp. He was from Browning, Montana, better known for their basketball players, but he was no Virgil Hill skillwise.

Heck, I don't know why I say there are no breed Indians boxing at a world class level. Most of the Latin fighters are Indians of one kind or another, Duran, Chavez, even most of the Puerto Rican fighters are a mixture of Spanish, African and Carib indian blood. But there hasn't been too many Indians from the USA making the big time.

I live in Western South Dakota, and most of the amateurs with skill are breeds, although we call breeds Iyeska around here. They never seem to go pro. Most iyeska fight the same way, boxer punchers, moderate power, high pressure, ordinary chin but high pain threshold. They are fearless competitors but one thing I've noticed only the Hispanic trainers around here really stress pro style skills, particularly the left hook. So, they never learn these things properly. That may have something to do with it.

[alrightjim]

Hi Harley_Man. I apologize for not making my point more clearly in my last post. You posted:

But the larger surface area is more likely to cause a "short circuit" in the brain's neurons (and I'm paraphrasing the good doctors and scientists who've written on this) thus causing a knock "out", which might be in conjunction with a knock down but could also result in a guy being out on his feet.

I am in agreement so far.

The argument is that a punch with a smaller glove minimizes the point of impact and is not as brain-jarring, unless it hits a sweet spot of course, and these can be different from fighter to fighter.

Still in agreement.

It would take a truly big shot or shot combined with other circumstances - off balance recipient, perfectly timed counter, etc. - to knock a guy with a bonafide good chin off his feet - the Rock or a Holyfield, for instance. I'm defending them both here.

We're still on the same page.

That's the ratio I'm refering to. You don't see the same sort of multiple kds like you did in the era of smaller gloves. I'd argue, as have others, that this is because guys today don't get a chance to get back up. A blow from an 8 oz glove that may have knocked them off their feet is more likely to be a knockout than a knock down if delivered by a 12 oz glove. Thus, knock down numbers go down as they often tend to be knock out punches as well.

Now we come to the problem. Gramps is assuming increased knockouts would mean increased knockdowns. He thinks the fighters that would have been knocked out today were only knocked down in Marciano's time. This isn't logical. It is offset by the number of fighters who will now be knocked down by 12 ounce gloves who wouldn't have been knocked down by the 8 ounce glove. If a fighter is more apt to be knocked out, he is also more apt to be knocked down. Let us say 40 percent are knocked out by a given power punch in 1955, but in 1995 it is 65 percent. Since the process that causes a fighter to be "hurt," wobbly, queer street, post holes, whatever term you have for it, is the EXACT SAME PROCESS that causes a fighter to be knocked down or out, knockdowns MUST increase the same percentage as knockouts. They are not separate things, Harley, but consequences from the same external action, that being a concussive level blow to the head by 12 ounce boxing gloves.

In order for what you contend to be true, knockouts must be a separate phenomena from being hurt or knocked down and they aren't. They are all caused by the exact same process. To the extent a fighter's ability to knockout opponents is increased by 12 ounce gloves, so too is his ability to stun and knockdown an opponent. Hope this helps.

[harley_man]

Virgil Hill is part Cherokee, Scandinavian and French Canadian. If he were living here, some folks would call him Metis. We'd be glad to have him.

[Eric the Viking]

Isn't Virgil Hill at least half-indian?

I know he's adopted, ETV, and I won't speculate on whether he has Indian blood, or from what tribe.

Virgil Hill's website:

http://www.virgilhill.itgo.com/index.htm

If you click to the "personal Biography" link on the site:

http://www.virgilhill.itgo.com/about.htm

Virgil is of French Canadian, Norwegian, Scandinavian, German, and Native American (Cherokee) ancestry.

It doesn't say anything about his being adopted, and in fact there definitely seems to be a resemblance between him and his parents. From the pics I'm guessing the Cherokee blood comes from his Dad's side.

[alrightjim]

Erik the Viking: Virgil is of French Canadian, Norwegian, Scandinavian, German, and Native American (Cherokee) ancestry.

What about African-American? It is obvious he is clearly of this ancestry. I would take all that website info with a grain of salt. Every person and their dog claims to have a Cherokee grandmother.

It doesn't say anything about his being adopted, and in fact there definitely seems to be a resemblance between him and his parents. From the pics I'm guessing the Cherokee blood comes from his Dad's side

He's adopted. I worked in Mandan, ND for a time. Good friend of mine was the head librarian there. Her boy went to school with Virgil up in Grand Forks. She knew the family.

Friend of mine from Mandan, Terry Pudwill, fought Hill in the amatuers, even knocked him down. Terry's boy Tocker fought professionally. Still might be, although he's getting into his mid-thirties. Hill being adopted was common knowledge.

I am reminded of two other Indian fighters I spaced out last post. Greg Haugen's mother is from my mother's reservation, in Southern South Dakota. His Lakota Sicangu blood doesn't show but it's there. Marvin Camel is from Joe Hipp's neck of the woods.

[harley_man]

Jim - Nope, still not on the same page. It's not a direct correlation. I'm not saying a KO from a 12 oz glove = a KD in 1950. You're hung up on process here.

What I'm saying, and what gramps said from his own experience, is guys were often knocked down in his day (1920s) but getting knocked down did not have nearly the same relationship to getting knocked silly. Guys were often off their feet but not out of their heads.

If I punch you in the head with a bare fist and the conditions are right, you might fall down from the sheer force of the blow (say I caught you missing wildly with a hook and landed a shot that while you were off balance) without losing your senses at all.

Now, if I hit you with an 8 oz glove, the likelihood of that blow producing an interruption in the firing neurons in your brain increases because the blow is spread out over a larger surface area making it a wholly different kind of impact. So you might go down, not from the force of the blow but because of the "knock out" effect. Or you might stay on your feet but be "out."

Increase the size of the glove - 10 oz, 12 oz - and the likelihood of a blow producing the required conditions for a "knock out" increase as well. That's the science. I've never heard it argued that gloves alone - bigger, smaller or non-existent - cause more knockdowns. What I'm saying is a punch from a bare fist to a glove to a glove of a different size have wholly different physiological effects, and do not relate straight up.

Today's knock down that is part of a knockout does not mean it would have been just a knock down in 1950, or more likely to have been a KD. I realize that part of my argument might have been less artfully stated than I'd hoped. We're caught up on KDs and KO blows. It is more to the point to say all punches from a larger glove produce a different physiological effect, period.

Point still being that guys don't get the opportunity to get up from those blows as they might have from a blow from a smaller glove - which might never have led to a KD at all, which is the point I think you were trying to get me to see.

I'll finish by saying I have been knocked off my feet but never out by a bare fist. But I've been knocked silly by a boxing glove (also wearing head gear), both on my feet and on my back.

[harley_man]

Erik the Viking: Virgil is of French Canadian, Norwegian, Scandinavian, German, and Native American (Cherokee) ancestry.

What about African-American? It is obvious he is clearly of this ancestry. I would take all that website info with a grain of salt. Every person and their dog claims to have a Cherokee grandmother.

It doesn't say anything about his being adopted, and in fact there definitely seems to be a resemblance between him and his parents. From the pics I'm guessing the Cherokee blood comes from his Dad's side

He's adopted. I worked in Mandan, ND for a time. Good friend of mine was the head librarian there. Her boy went to school with Virgil up in Grand Forks. She knew the family.

Friend of mine from Mandan, Terry Pudwill, fought Hill in the amatuers, even knocked him down. Terry's boy Tocker fought professionally. Still might be, although he's getting into his mid-thirties. Hill being adopted was common knowledge.

I am reminded of two other Indian fighters I spaced out last post. Greg Haugen's mother is from my mother's reservation, in Southern South Dakota. His Lakota Sicangu blood doesn't show but it's there. Marvin Camel is from Joe Hipp's neck of the woods.

Can't comment on the adoption thing but I first became a fan years ago when I found out he was a mixed blood guy like me. As for the black-Cherokee connection, a lot has been written in identity studies about post-slavery African Americans finding shelter in Cherokee communities and their descendants later choosing to live as black when that identity became less contentious than Indian. There have been several cases of people raised black (or mulato more precisely) who later found out they were more Cherokee than black.

Maybe Virgil has some of this.

[dempseyfire]

Jim - Nope, still not on the same page. It's not a direct correlation. I'm not saying a KO from a 12 oz glove = a KD in 1950. You're hung up on process here.

What I'm saying, and what gramps said from his own experience, is guys were often knocked down in his day (1920s) but getting knocked down did not have nearly the same relationship to getting knocked silly. Guys were often off their feet but not out of their heads.

If I punch you in the head with a bare fist and the conditions are right, you might fall down from the sheer force of the blow (say I caught you missing wildly with a hook and landed a shot that while you were off balance) without losing your senses at all.

Now, if I hit you with an 8 oz glove, the likelihood of that blow producing an interruption in the firing neurons in your brain increases because the blow is spread out over a larger surface area making it a wholly different kind of impact. So you might go down, not from the force of the blow but because of the "knock out" effect. Or you might stay on your feet but be "out."

Increase the size of the glove - 10 oz, 12 oz - and the likelihood of a blow producing the required conditions for a "knock out" increase as well. That's the science. I've never heard it argued that gloves alone - bigger, smaller or non-existent - cause more knockdowns. What I'm saying is a punch from a bare fist to a glove to a glove of a different size have wholly different physiological effects, and do not relate straight up.

Today's knock down that is part of a knockout does not mean it would have been just a knock down in 1950, or more likely to have been a KD. I realize that part of my argument might have been less artfully stated than I'd hoped. We're caught up on KDs and KO blows. It is more to the point to say all punches from a larger glove produce a different physiological effect, period.

Point still being that guys don't get the opportunity to get up from those blows as they might have from a blow from a smaller glove - which might never have led to a KD at all, which is the point I think you were trying to get me to see.

I'll finish by saying I have been knocked off my feet but never out by a bare fist. But I've been knocked silly by a boxing glove (also wearing head gear), both on my feet and on my back.

From my own sparring experience, the bigger the glove, the easier it is to absorb the blow. I see what you're saying about the difference between a bare fist and a glove (a fist is more likely to cut you up and hurt you while a glove produces more of that 'KD' effect) but at the same time in a fist fight guys usually aren't trading blows like in a boxing match, notably b/c a true knockout blow from a bare fist will likely break the puncher's hand. But with gloves,I've never thought that the bigger the glove the more likely a KD punch would occur. I'm pretty sure that is the case. Why would everyone spar with bigger gloves if guys were going to get knocked down or out more???? I've seen guys spar with 16 ounces and be fine, but in fights with 12 or 10 ounce gloves they are flailing all over the place,