Evander Holyfield vs Rocky Marciano, primes....

[yancey]

What happens?



If this has already been done recently, my apology. I did a limited search and didn't see anything.

[BoxBuzz]

Lot of heart=Lot of hurt.

[Controversial]

At heavyweight or cruiserweight?

Either way as much as I love Marciano I think Holyfield would have been too much for him. Holyfield had a granite chin so I don't think Marciano would stop him. EH also had good boxing skills, and Marciano could be outboxed. I reckon Holyfield on points.

[yancey]

At heavyweight or cruiserweight?

Either way as much as I love Marciano I think Holyfield would have been too much for him. Holyfield had a granite chin so I don't think Marciano would stop him. EH also had good boxing skills, and Marciano could be outboxed. I reckon Holyfield on points.

At heavyweight.

Agree, I see it as Holyfield by decision.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

At heavyweight or cruiserweight?

Either way as much as I love Marciano I think Holyfield would have been too much for him. Holyfield had a granite chin so I don't think Marciano would stop him. EH also had good boxing skills, and Marciano could be outboxed. I reckon Holyfield on points.

- If Rocky got into Mr. Field's vitamins, Mr. Field would be toast, let's not kid ourselves.

Mr. Field was barely able to hang with a bloated Qawi at the end of his pomp, so prime Rock would've been through Field like a plate of mama's lasagne.

Not fair comparing the still developing Field you say? See my opening statement.

[boxerbob]

if its a slugfest then its closer but holyfields speed and combinations punching win the fight for him 8-6-1

if holyfield boxes marciano , uses his jab , movement , speed and combinations then its a 10-5 fight

marciano and holyfield are great great fighters

holyfield wins though , just a all round better boxer

[dempseyfire]

Marciano by late stoppage.

Holyfield's defensive lapses are his doom vs the ATG pressure punchers like Rocky and Frazier

[Ezzard]

I think this is to the wire. Can't see either man getting stopped.

Marciano would lose the early rounds but from the 5th onwards he would be giving it his all for every 3 mins. Holyfield would take a few rounds off here and there. It's an 8-7 on rounds kind of fight which to me means pick your own winner.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I think this is to the wire. Can't see either man getting stopped.

Marciano would lose the early rounds but from the 5th onwards he would be giving it his all for every 3 mins. Holyfield would take a few rounds off here and there. It's an 8-7 on rounds kind of fight which to me means pick your own winner.

Bang-on. All Holyfield early (too fast, too versatile, plenty strong in the clinch), all Marciano late (inexorable as the tide, heavy-handed to the end, high volume puncher).

Holyfield can't keep step with Marciano's pace, especially over fifteen, but I think he has terrific success with his speed, size & boxing ability while fresh. Close decision, either way.

[Mr E]

Holyfield liked to rest in the middle of rounds, middle of fights, and Marciano wouldn't have let him get away with that. I'd bet on the Blockbuster by decision.

[gregor]

I would go with Holyfield at HW, and Marziano at CW. It is not only about size, but the thing is that Holyfield was still quite inexperienced at CW and I do not think his style (spending too much energy) would be good against Marziano.

[Controversial]

At heavyweight or cruiserweight?

Either way as much as I love Marciano I think Holyfield would have been too much for him. Holyfield had a granite chin so I don't think Marciano would stop him. EH also had good boxing skills, and Marciano could be outboxed. I reckon Holyfield on points.

- If Rocky got into Mr. Field's vitamins, Mr. Field would be toast, let's not kid ourselves.

Mr. Field was barely able to hang with a bloated Qawi at the end of his pomp, so prime Rock would've been through Field like a plate of mama's lasagne.

Not fair comparing the still developing Field you say? See my opening statement.

Come off it. Holyfield was a mere novice against Qawi, he was only 11-0 and had never been past 8 rounds before. To go 15 rounds with a tough nut like Qawi and beat him speaks volumes about Holyfield's ability. If Holyfield could walk through Tyson's best punches then I can't see how Marciano's would have any better effect either?

Marciano was outboxed by guys far less skilful than Holyfield (Lowry and LaStarza spring to mind).

Using the 'vitamins' argument you could similarly argue that boxing in the 50's was mob ruled and many fights fixed. Maybe you should read the book about ex-Marciano opponent Harry Haft who claimed he was visited in his dressing room before his fight by gangster types telling him he had to throw the fight. Fight fixing wasn't unusual in those days and even Ted Lowry claimed that he only lost the fight against Marciano due to Al Weill's "connections" as many ringsiders thought he clearly beat Marciano.

A tough fight all the same but Holyfield gets the edge in my opinion.

[hhaehre]

Using the 'vitamins' argument you could similarly argue that boxing in the 50's was mob ruled and many fights fixed. Maybe you should read the book about ex-Marciano opponent Harry Haft who claimed he was visited in his dressing room before his fight by gangster types telling him he had to throw the fight. Fight fixing wasn't unusual in those days and even Ted Lowry claimed that he only lost the fight against Marciano due to Al Weill's "connections" as many ringsiders thought he clearly beat Marciano.

The vitamin argument is entirely valid as Holyfield would most likely not have been a heavyweight without them, let alone won the title. Are you suggesting that Rocky won the title because he was connected ? I've never hear anyone make that claim before. Or are you perhaps suggesting that Holyfield was not on the juice ?

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

At heavyweight or cruiserweight?

Either way as much as I love Marciano I think Holyfield would have been too much for him. Holyfield had a granite chin so I don't think Marciano would stop him. EH also had good boxing skills, and Marciano could be outboxed. I reckon Holyfield on points.

- If Rocky got into Mr. Field's vitamins, Mr. Field would be toast, let's not kid ourselves.

Mr. Field was barely able to hang with a bloated Qawi at the end of his pomp, so prime Rock would've been through Field like a plate of mama's lasagne.

Not fair comparing the still developing Field you say? See my opening statement.

Come off it. Holyfield was a mere novice against Qawi, he was only 11-0 and had never been past 8 rounds before. To go 15 rounds with a tough nut like Qawi and beat him speaks volumes about Holyfield's ability. If Holyfield could walk through Tyson's best punches then I can't see how Marciano's would have any better effect either?

Marciano was outboxed by guys far less skilful than Holyfield (Lowry and LaStarza spring to mind).

Using the 'vitamins' argument you could similarly argue that boxing in the 50's was mob ruled and many fights fixed. Maybe you should read the book about ex-Marciano opponent Harry Haft who claimed he was visited in his dressing room before his fight by gangster types telling him he had to throw the fight. Fight fixing wasn't unusual in those days and even Ted Lowry claimed that he only lost the fight against Marciano due to Al Weill's "connections" as many ringsiders thought he clearly beat Marciano.

A tough fight all the same but Holyfield gets the edge in my opinion.

- Ah, no shortage of elbows and opinions showing on this forum, but boxing analysis more than a bit spare.

I could argue that not only was Mr. Field vitamin ruled, but Don King ruled as well. Everything about every projected and actual fights with Tyson indicates that DK fixed Tyson's bank account so that it became King's personal treasury while Tyson was sent off to be federally rehabbed for some 5 yrs.

Mr. Field only 11-0 against a bloated LH stump on his last legs? Last I checked he was a storied Olympian with a chestful of medals from his 160-14 ama record before he was 11-0, not exactly a blushing virgin, he. Oh, and he never "beat" Qawi, he scored a technical split over him in a fight he almost keeled over in. Sorta makes you wonder how he would beat Tyson 100% of the time at any point in the calendar as the soft lads are want to claim, but hey, these are miracle vitamins after all, not your grandfather's dreary ol' milquetoast vitamins and soft lads are seen leaping tall buildings and knocking out assorted monsters in new virtual realities............ 8)

[gregor]

Mr. Field only 11-0 against a bloated LH stump on his last legs? Last I checked he was a storied Olympian with a chestful of medals from his 160-14 ama record before he was 11-0, not exactly a blushing virgin, he. Oh, and he never "beat" Qawi, he scored a technical split over him in a fight he almost keeled over in. Sorta makes you wonder how he would beat Tyson 100% of the time

I am not saying he would beat Tyson 100% of the time, but if you do not see the difference between Holy style against Quawi and Tyson than you shouldn't complain about the lack of boxing analysis on the forum. That was the main reason I went with (mature) Holy at HW and Marziano at CW.

Holy fought like an amateur in some of his CW fights in the sense he used so much energy like he was going to fight 3 rounds - and of course it did not matter as long as he fought opponents who were indeed KO'd early or were not fighting back too hard. But it did matter against Quawi, and it would matter even more against Marziano.

In HW... well, if Holy sticks to his gameplan, I do not see him being outboxed by 5'10'' Marziano.

[Counter-puncher]

Oh, and he never "beat" Qawi, he scored a technical split over him in a fight he almost keeled over in.

right. one judge doesn't vote for Holyfield = he never beat Qawi.

on that basis i assume that you don't say Pacquiao beat Marquez, then?

in fact do we have to wipe every single SD win of all time off the record books?

[The Great John L]

There have been some interesting comments on this topic.

Holy may have "walked through" Tyson's punches, but Tyson at his best was never the volume puncher that Marciano was. I personally think Tyson was much quicker, stronger and harder hitting, but Rocky could fight all night long and Tyson even at his best could not. And the Tyson that fought Holyfield was far from his best.

Yes, there were fights fixed in the 50’s. And guess what? There are still fixed fights now. They’re probably not as prevalent as in the 40’s and 50’s, but there are also a lot less pro fights than there were in the 40’s and 50’s.

BTW, I’d go with either Rocky by a late rounds come from behind stoppage or a Holyfield decision. Over 12 rds, I’d go with the later, 15 rds with the former.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

I am not saying he would beat Tyson 100% of the time, but if you do not see the difference between Holy style against Quawi and Tyson than you shouldn't complain about the lack of boxing analysis on the forum.

- Ho-Ho, maybe I need to complain to your alt, Controversial now is it?

No surprises that some need all the help they can get to bolster their elbows and opinions. I'll remind your alt(s) that this match is proposed against the most beatable of heavy champs since Mike Weaver last wore his belts and the only unbeaten, untied heavy champ in history.

I'm not saying that I see all, but that for the purposes of this board, I know all, or at least as much as needed to lay down the parameters of this fight, and if you can't see the difference between Rocky without Mr. Field's vitamins and Rocky with Mr. Fields vitamins than I shall note the lack of boxing analysis of you and your alt(s).

[Counter-puncher]

Mr Rules Refuge please confirm whether or not all Split Decision wins should be changed to a no-contest on your 'special' rules, meaning for example that Manny never beat JMM second time rounds.

[Controversial]

Qawi was a tough and world class fighter who even Foreman couldn't knock over two years later. Just because someone had an good amateur record doesn't mean they are going to be great pros so I can't see your point. Any yes he did beat Qawi, split decision or not.

At the end of the day Holyfield was far superior in boxing ability than Marciano. Even if you take 'vitamins' that doesn't make you a good figher the ability needs to be there and Holyfield had the ability.

Marciano fought in a very weak heavyweight era, anyone with an ounce of boxing knowledge knows that. He also got away with murder in the ring, the ref in the Cockell fight might as well have been wearing a 'Team Marciano' shirt.

If Marciano was around when Ali, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, Norton, Liston, Foreman etc.. were around do you honestly think he would have stayed unbeaten. Of course not.

Holyfield by decision.

[Controversial]

There have been some interesting comments on this topic.

Holy may have "walked through" Tyson's punches, but Tyson at his best was never the volume puncher that Marciano was. I personally think Tyson was much quicker, stronger and harder hitting, but Rocky could fight all night long and Tyson even at his best could not. And the Tyson that fought Holyfield was far from his best.

Yes, there were fights fixed in the 50’s. And guess what? There are still fixed fights now. They’re probably not as prevalent as in the 40’s and 50’s, but there are also a lot less pro fights than there were in the 40’s and 50’s.

BTW, I’d go with either Rocky by a late rounds come from behind stoppage or a Holyfield decision. Over 12 rds, I’d go with the later, 15 rds with the former.

Tyson might not be the volume puncher like Rocky but he punched harder than Marciano. Tyson actually outweighed Holyfield by half a stone in their first fight and his punches still had no effect on Evander. Holyfield is considered a small heavyweight and fought many guys much bigger than him so I think fighting someone even smaller, like Marciano, he would have a big big advantage.

[The Great John L]

If Marciano was around when Ali, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, Norton, Liston, Foreman etc.. were around do you honestly think he would have stayed unbeaten. Of course not.

Yes, I agree. On the other hand, given their styles, I'm having a hard time envisioning Holyfield beating any of the guys you mention. Even at his best he was too easy to hit for me to give him much of a chance of surviving Shavers, Lyle, Liston or a prime Foreman. Ali would have been way too fast and slick, and Frazier probably would have worn him down over a long fight. On second thought, I’d probably favor him over Norton. I do think he would stand a chance against Shavers and Lyle, but I would still make him an underdog, because they were both HUGE hitters.

[The Great John L]

There have been some interesting comments on this topic.

Holy may have "walked through" Tyson's punches, but Tyson at his best was never the volume puncher that Marciano was. I personally think Tyson was much quicker, stronger and harder hitting, but Rocky could fight all night long and Tyson even at his best could not. And the Tyson that fought Holyfield was far from his best.

Yes, there were fights fixed in the 50’s. And guess what? There are still fixed fights now. They’re probably not as prevalent as in the 40’s and 50’s, but there are also a lot less pro fights than there were in the 40’s and 50’s.

BTW, I’d go with either Rocky by a late rounds come from behind stoppage or a Holyfield decision. Over 12 rds, I’d go with the later, 15 rds with the former.

Tyson might not be the volume puncher like Rocky but he punched harder than Marciano. Tyson actually outweighed Holyfield by half a stone in their first fight and his punches still had no effect on Evander. Holyfield is considered a small heavyweight and fought many guys much bigger than him so I think fighting someone even smaller, like Marciano, he would have a big big advantage.

Yes, if you read my post I acknowledged that Tyson was not only a harder hitter, but also faster and stronger. That wasn’t my point.

[Controversial]

If Marciano was around when Ali, Frazier, Shavers, Lyle, Norton, Liston, Foreman etc.. were around do you honestly think he would have stayed unbeaten. Of course not.

Yes, I agree. On the other hand, given their styles, I'm having a hard time envisioning Holyfield beating any of the guys you mention. Even at his best he was too easy to hit for me to give him much of a chance of surviving Shavers, Lyle, Liston or a prime Foreman. Ali would have been way too fast and slick, and Frazier probably would have worn him down over a long fight. On second thought, I’d probably favor him over Norton. I do think he would stand a chance against Shavers and Lyle, but I would still make him an underdog, because they were both HUGE hitters.

Its a good way of judging a fighters overall ability. Top fighters from the 60-70's would be competitive in any era. As good as Marciano was the same rule cannot be applied. I love watching Marciano fight but I'm not so delusional to think he was unbeatable like some fans do. He fought very few world class opponents and was close to being beaten on a few occassions. The great thing about Maricano was he never did lose (offically anyway), he made some great comebacks in fights, not stopped fighting and was exciting to watch.

[The Great John L]

Its a good way of judging a fighters overall ability. Top fighters from the 60-70's would be competitive in any era. As good as Marciano was the same rule cannot be applied. I love watching Marciano fight but I'm not so delusional to think he was unbeatable like some fans do. He fought very few world class opponents and was close to being beaten on a few occassions. The great thing about Maricano was he never did lose (offically anyway), he made some great comebacks in fights, not stopped fighting and was exciting to watch.

Yes, he was fun to watch and was definitely beatable. Of course, as you noted, he never did actually lose a pro fight.