Larry Holmes Vs. Rocky Marciano

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 04 Jun 2005, 02:39

Man, I almost hate to jump back into this one. Let me just say, though, that if you read my previous posts in this thread, you'll note that I never disrespected Marciano. At this point, I just find it funny the extent to which some of you will go to defend him (at least in regard to the topic of this thread) as if those of us who suggest he wouldn't have enough for a prime Larry Holmes is like an attack against you personally ...

Which is why, since coming on board, I have so far and will always offer up whatever ideas I feel like sharing based on what I believe to be sound reasoning. Then if you all get all worked up about it, that's your fault -- not mine.

Some of you seem to think it's just blasphemy for anyone to think Holmes would handle Marciano with relative ease, as in fact I do. As I've already stated, I don't see a guy Marciano's size being able to handle a guy Holmes size and with Holmes skills. I also don't see Marciano coming up through the decade of the '70s and matching his 49-0 on a steady diet of who was around during that particular era.

Now I ask you, Is having that opinion really a disrespect of Rocky Marciano? Not at all. The idea of trying to compare HWs across so many decades removed is rather silly, anyway, because of what I was already saying earlier. Athletes are changing. They're getting bigger. And, yes, I agree the increase in size doesn't mean they're also getting better, but you put a 185-pound guy in the ring with a 215-pound guy of equivalent skills and it's no secret who I'm betting on.

Rocky Marciano beat everyone put before him and therefore he's the greatest HW of his time. Why do we have to take it any farther than that? Someone poses the question, "Holmes-Marciano, who wins?" and we all jump in with all our "All Time Greatest" lists all worked out in our heads, as if there's any way to validate such a list ...

Brockton ... you're clearly a Marciano guy and I can see you'll defend him with the utmost loyalty. Just keep in mind one thing. If Holmes really could beat Marciano, it doesn't diminish what you're guy accomplished in his own place in time.

Manos ... you're clearly a spokesperson for the little guy and I can see you'll defend him against anyone who says size trumps all. But as soon as you introduce skills in the discussion, a 215-pound Holmes with a tremendous height and reach advantage becomes one hell of a hurdle for a 185-pound Marciano to get over.

OUT!!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jun 2005, 02:57

I don't see a guy Marciano's size being able to handle a guy Holmes size and with Holmes skills. I also don't see Marciano coming up through the decade of the '70s and matching his 49-0 on a steady diet of who was around during that particular era.

u mention size again. Size doesnt matter that much when both fighters have equal strentgh like marciano and holmes do. just like Grimm stated, size differential can give an advatage for both fighters. and Holmes did not fight the 70s era of heahyweights. so ur wrong about holmes opposition .He fought the early 1980's bums of leon spinks, lorenzo zanon, alfredo evengalista. guys like mike weaver and trevor berbick werent nearly as good as an ezzard charles or jersey joe. REMEMBER THIS, holmes is a sucker for overhand rights. and Marciano throws a fast and mean right hand. I have no doubt he would catch holmes with it.

Kingpawn, the only reason i respond and defend him is when people like u come on here and make stupid dumb comments how holmes would beat him easy because hes 6 inches taller and 35 pounds heavier. thats such bullshit. u dont even realize how holmes is a sucker for a right or that his jab is harder to land when having to reach down into marcianos coruch. or that if marciano got inside him he would do damage to the body. ur all about size buddy and thats why u HAVE NO IDEA WHAT UR TALKING ABOUT.

Athletes are changing. They're getting bigger. And, yes, I agree the increase in size doesn't mean they're also getting better, but you put a 185-pound guy in the ring with a 215-pound guy of equivalent skills and it's no secret who I'm betting on.

Yes athletes are getting bigger, and more uncoordinated, and fatter, and more out of shape, and not as tough, and LESS SKILLED. i THINK 80S HEAVYWEIGHTS AND NINETIES HEAVYWEIGHTS ARE OUT OF SHAPE FAT GUYS WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS. u think their stronger and more powerful but their actually not. gUYS THAT ARE around 190-200 in shape like a joe louis, mmarciano, frazier, dempsey, walcott they all have as much power and strentgh .

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 04 Jun 2005, 03:57

This is getting skewed. The reason my last post reads a bit nippy is because I don't think people are looking at the whole setup here. It's like they've got a picture of Marciano and a picture of Holmes in their head, and they're simply comparing them side by side. The problem is that the pictures are showing old, worn out brush strokes that we've all seen painted a million times before. It's predictable and tiresome.

Styles - finding a niche - is what makes the fight, not the size. It would be a factor, but no way would it be the be-all and end-all of the fight. Think back to your sparring sessions in the gym (if you've had any). People online seem to get all caught up in weight divisions and stats, but from my 'real life' experience they don't count for half as much as people think.

Holmes showed loads of times he was open to a strong right hand - Tyson, Snipes, Shavers have all been mentioned already, and all practically kayo'd him. I'm tempted to go through his fights and mark down the exact times of every round he was shown vulnerable to it, but can't be bothered.

Holmes didn't have the punch variation or grace in combinations; and he certainly didn't have anywhere near the footwork of Walcott. His style seemed to a tribute to Ali. The thing to note is that just like Ali, his defence could be rather leaky. He'd often hang that left hand low, never mind after the jab, but also when standing in mid range. Open your eyes. Look.

kingpawn · Post by **kingpawn** » 04 Jun 2005, 04:06

Brockton ... First things first. I never called any of your comments bullshit or stupid or dumb, nor have I said you don't know what you're talking about. I just don't happen to agree with you.

Second of all, Holmes WAS part of the 70s generation. His career began in 1973. We don't see him as a 70s guy because he was still basically a rookie when Frazier and Foreman were wearing the belt. Holmes was a sparring partner for Ali and fought both Shavers and Norton in '78 and Shavers again in '79.

All this Holmes v. Marciano talk is just hypothetical, anyway. But you go ahead and keep taking your shots. I'm not going to be dragged down to your level. I've presented all that I have to say on the matter and did a pretty good job of it, I think, and now I'm finished in this thread.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 04 Jun 2005, 12:02

Marciano's "victory" over Louis is just as bad as Holmes' over Ali...

And no, Manos.... Beating up over the hill light heavyweights is not the same as beating up heavyweight contenders.

Would you be more impressed if Vitali knocked out Rahman, Brewster, and Byrd... Or if he knocked out Jones, Johnson, and Michalczewski??

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jun 2005, 13:38

Kingpawn Ur arguments are all bullshit dude. No offense. Ur comparing apples and oranges when u compare boxing and football. obviosely, iun football, size matters more and thats why players back then might not be able to play now a days. However boxing is different, and size isnt as aimportant s skill toughness, power and strentgh which marciano has more of thenn holmes. U think 50s heavywegiths guys liek charles walcott and marciano cant stand up to the big out of shape, flabby. slow and uncorrdinated heavyweigths now???

Tantum, Archie Moore weiged just as much as marciano in his tittle fight both 188, so even though marciano was stronger and big boned, he wasnt giving up size to archie moore. Marciano was also slipping and was 32 and was showing signs up slowing down. Archie moore had a lot of snap in his punches that night and really got himself pumped. Ezzard charles weighed the same as marciano in their first fight and 192 in the 2nd so marciano even though he looked bigger wasnt giving up any weight. ANd unlike ali, joe louis still had some snap left in his jab. Muhammad ali was shot, he was done he had completely nothing left.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 04 Jun 2005, 15:55

Tantum wrote:Marciano's "victory" over Louis is just as bad as Holmes' over Ali...

And no, Manos.... Beating up over the hill light heavyweights is not the same as beating up heavyweight contenders.

Would you be more impressed if Vitali knocked out Rahman, Brewster, and Byrd... Or if he knocked out Jones, Johnson, and Michalczewski??

Will have to agree to disagree. But for what it's worth I don't rank any of the three 175's you mention to be of the same calibre as the ones Marciano fought. Perhaps Jones, but he was really a natural super-middle who went to rule light heavy because of the risk/reward factor.

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 04 Jun 2005, 17:22

Man oh man, the BOTP forum has been invaded by idiots.

People now think that maricano's awesome 7 fight reign ALL AGAINST old men and lightheavys was as good as Holmes 2nd most defences of all time.

You sad people.

I suggest you go and find some of Overhand Rights posts on fighters of the 80's and how good they where, I would pick the likes of Snipes over Rocky the turd any day of the weak.

BBB49, why not educate us with tales of Marciano's illegal fighting and dirty tactics against aging, non-heavyweight opposition?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jun 2005, 17:44

I would pick the likes of Snipes over Rocky the turd any day of the weak.

u make comments like that and expect people to agree with u?? that comment alone should prove how much of an idiot u are. Its clear u have something either against marciano, or that era of heavyweights because their so logical explanation for u thinking holmes opponents would beat a ezzard charles jersey joe walcott.
I have come to realize no matter what i say, i cant have a debate with u. u will always have a grudge against those heavyweights and i cant reason with u because ur too stupid and have a clear lack of knowledge. Why dont u go find another topic to debate about. u have embarrassed ur self enough with ur comments on this post.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 04 Jun 2005, 18:37

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: u really sound like an idiot with those comments. I NEVER SEE AN EXPERT RATE GERRY COONEYS POWER AS GOOD AS ROCKY MARCIANOS.

I've heard people say that Cooney hit harder than Tyson.

The best thing to do is ask Holmes or Spinks.

I'm sure they'll clear that up pretty well.

LMAO.

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 04 Jun 2005, 19:13

Grimm wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: u really sound like an idiot with those comments. I NEVER SEE AN EXPERT RATE GERRY COONEYS POWER AS GOOD AS ROCKY MARCIANOS.

I've heard people say that Cooney hit harder than Tyson.

The best thing to do is ask Holmes or Spinks.

I'm sure they'll clear that up pretty well.

LMAO.

Having power and scoring KNOCKOUTS is to very different things.

Are you saying that Lamon Brewster COULDNT knockout Cliff Etienne if he connected?

Its clear you are ignorant of the principles of boxing, and the talent that the Heavyweight division pocessed in the 80's compared with the crap now, and during Rocky's all time great 7 defences.

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 04 Jun 2005, 19:17

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
I would pick the likes of Snipes over Rocky the turd any day of the weak.
u make comments like that and expect people to agree with u?? that comment alone should prove how much of an idiot u are. Its clear u have something either against marciano, or that era of heavyweights because their so logical explanation for u thinking holmes opponents would beat a ezzard charles jersey joe walcott.
I have come to realize no matter what i say, i cant have a debate with u. u will always have a grudge against those heavyweights and i cant reason with u because ur too stupid and have a clear lack of knowledge. Why dont u go find another topic to debate about. u have embarrassed ur self enough with ur comments on this post.

.

YO im so intelligent thn u coz i dnt lke to spel corectly.

Of crse mi mre intelligent that u.

how bout we meet up l8er to tlk about the sport?

Moron.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 04 Jun 2005, 20:31

The_Power wrote:
Grimm wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: u really sound like an idiot with those comments. I NEVER SEE AN EXPERT RATE GERRY COONEYS POWER AS GOOD AS ROCKY MARCIANOS.

I've heard people say that Cooney hit harder than Tyson.

The best thing to do is ask Holmes or Spinks.

I'm sure they'll clear that up pretty well.

LMAO.

Having power and scoring KNOCKOUTS is to very different things.

Are you saying that Lamon Brewster COULDNT knockout Cliff Etienne if he connected?

Its clear you are ignorant of the principles of boxing, and the talent that the Heavyweight division pocessed in the 80's compared with the crap now, and during Rocky's all time great 7 defences.

It is clear you are ignorant of my point.

I just named 2 common opponents of Cooney and Tyson, if they were hit clean or not they still have tasted Tyson and Cooney's power.

That is why the best thing to do is get the opinion of them.

Did you see Cooney Holmes?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jun 2005, 20:43

Power Wrote

Its clear you are ignorant of the principles of boxing, and the talent that the Heavyweight division pocessed in the 80's compared with the crap now, and during Rocky's all time great 7 defences.

Power, what is with u and the 80's heavyweights. Do u have a crush on big flabby men like cooney and leroy jones??? Because other than holmes and tyson, the rest of the 80's heavyweights did not have nearly the talent of the other heavyweights generations. They were all just contenders who kept taking the belt away form each other until a real heavyweight in tyson beat them all.

The_Power · Post by **The_Power** » 04 Jun 2005, 22:17

Grimm wrote:
The_Power wrote:
Grimm wrote: I've heard people say that Cooney hit harder than Tyson.

The best thing to do is ask Holmes or Spinks.

I'm sure they'll clear that up pretty well.

LMAO.

Having power and scoring KNOCKOUTS is to very different things.

Are you saying that Lamon Brewster COULDNT knockout Cliff Etienne if he connected?

Its clear you are ignorant of the principles of boxing, and the talent that the Heavyweight division pocessed in the 80's compared with the crap now, and during Rocky's all time great 7 defences.
It is clear you are ignorant of my point.

I just named 2 common opponents of Cooney and Tyson, if they were hit clean or not they still have tasted Tyson and Cooney's power.

That is why the best thing to do is get the opinion of them.

Did you see Cooney Holmes?

Holmes has stated many times that he ranks Cooney's left more powerful than Tyson, along with shavers as well.

Ill be back with quotes soon.

Once again proving that Holmes fought Guys who easily hit as hard as the human weed marciano.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 04 Jun 2005, 22:42

The_Power wrote:
Grimm wrote:
The_Power wrote:
Having power and scoring KNOCKOUTS is to very different things.

Are you saying that Lamon Brewster COULDNT knockout Cliff Etienne if he connected?

Its clear you are ignorant of the principles of boxing, and the talent that the Heavyweight division pocessed in the 80's compared with the crap now, and during Rocky's all time great 7 defences.
It is clear you are ignorant of my point.

I just named 2 common opponents of Cooney and Tyson, if they were hit clean or not they still have tasted Tyson and Cooney's power.

That is why the best thing to do is get the opinion of them.

Did you see Cooney Holmes?
Holmes has stated many times that he ranks Cooney's left more powerful than Tyson, along with shavers as well.

Ill be back with quotes soon.

Once again proving that Holmes fought Guys who easily hit as hard as the human weed marciano.

Well that's one.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 05 Jun 2005, 01:31

kingpawn wrote:Brockton ... First things first. I never called any of your comments bullshit or stupid or dumb, nor have I said you don't know what you're talking about. I just don't happen to agree with you.

Second of all, Holmes WAS part of the 70s generation. His career began in 1973. We don't see him as a 70s guy because he was still basically a rookie when Frazier and Foreman were wearing the belt. Holmes was a sparring partner for Ali and fought both Shavers and Norton in '78 and Shavers again in '79.

All this Holmes v. Marciano talk is just hypothetical, anyway. But you go ahead and keep taking your shots. I'm not going to be dragged down to your level. I've presented all that I have to say on the matter and did a pretty good job of it, I think, and now I'm finished in this thread.

It's all in fun at the end of the day, kingpawn. Brockton is obviously very passionate about Rocky, but he makes some really good points when you look at what he's getting at. The_Power responded wrongly, IMO, because instead of dealing specifically with the points Brockton was making, he got riled up by the emotional way those points were put across and responded with a post that was all about getting a reaction, rather than trying to convince Brockton he was wrong through facts/stats/etc. He knew calling Marciano a 'micky mouse' heavyweight, saying he was a 'dirty' fighter, and a 'weak and puny' 'cruiserweight', would get Brockton's back up. He can't argue logically because his prediction for this fight is based on who he is a bigger fan of.