Rocky Marciano v Larry Holmes

thunderfromdownunder · Post by **thunderfromdownunder** » 12 Jan 2006, 00:16

okay, got the idea for this thread from rorys thread about holmes.
i rate both fighters very highly in my top ten, both of them sit between
3-5.
i think both fighers are overated and undrated by many people for reasons that wre discussed indepth on the other thead.
so whats eveyone think?

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 12 Jan 2006, 05:35

Larry Holmes would batter Rocky Marciano, too big, too skilled, mid-late rounds TKO

RazorKO · Post by **RazorKO** » 12 Jan 2006, 08:40

Absolutley no contest, Holmes would keep him at the end of his jab and finish him early like he did when he knocked out Leon Spinks, if old Walcott was able to nearly beat Marciano..then Holmes would destroy him.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Jan 2006, 11:01

come on be realistic, this is a bout between two all time great heavies, its going to be a close competitive fight, no way will marciano be stopped.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 12 Jan 2006, 11:47

i rank holmes 3 and marciano 4.stylewise the consensus seems to be that larry is all wrong for marciano.i believe its the other way round!rocky is a hard matchup for larry,he would be under constant pressure and a maniacal workrate from marciano would have him exhausted.whoever wins i feel would only do so by a wafer thin margin.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Jan 2006, 12:13

both had traits that will trouble one another. holmes jab, reach and boxing skills will give marciano lots of problems. marciano had trouble with slick boxers like walcott and holmes was a step above walcott. holmes uppercut could also be a big factor as well. on the other side, marcianos constant pressure and non stop punching will have holmes bewildered and on the defense and holmes wont be able to get back to his game because hes too busy dealing with marciano. and holmes vunerablity to right hands and marciano had one of the best right hands in history of heavyweight division.

it would be a great battle that i think would go the distance because of eachothers great chins and heart

i can picture this bout turning into a slugout in the championship rounds like marciano-charles I or norton-holmes

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Jan 2006, 12:39

i am going to go watch tapes and then come to conclusion on who i think the winner is which i will post tonight

1953 5'11 185lb rocky marciano vs 1981 6'3 212lb larry holmes

tapes i will analzye of marciano with opponents who closest resemble holmes size or style

- roland lastarza II - because lastarza was a textbook perfect boxer who moved around the ring and kept his hands very high. this was marcianos peak fight IMO so its a must view. im also interested to how he deals with good movement

- archie moore- moore had a very long 79", so its good to see how marciano deals with a long reach because holmes has a 82" reach

- walcott I - walcott was a ring technician with great boxing skills but he also could punch very hard and threw mean uppercuts. walcott also had a very good jab which marciano will have to deal with against holmes. holmes probably most resembled walcott out of all marcianos opponents.

maybe i will check out the louis fight as well because louis at 6'2 215lb was the closest of marciano opponents on film of same size as holmes plus louis still had his jab close to 100% and louis had one of the greatest jabs of all time

tapes i will analalyize of holmes

- mike weaver I- weaver was smaller 6'1 200lb and like rocky was a very hard puncher and weaver put a lot of pressure on you.

-shavers- he was smaller and had a big right hand and he was a pressure fighter and slugger

im trying to think of other fights to watch

anyone know which holmes opponents fought out of a crouch?

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 12 Jan 2006, 15:26

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i am going to go watch tapes and then come to conclusion on who i think the winner is which i will post tonight

1953 5'11 185lb rocky marciano vs 1981 6'3 212lb larry holmes

tapes i will analzye of marciano with opponents who closest resemble holmes size or style

- roland lastarza II - because lastarza was a textbook perfect boxer who moved around the ring and kept his hands very high. this was marcianos peak fight IMO so its a must view. im also interested to how he deals with good movement

- archie moore- moore had a very long 79", so its good to see how marciano deals with a long reach because holmes has a 82" reach

- walcott I - walcott was a ring technician with great boxing skills but he also could punch very hard and threw mean uppercuts. walcott also had a very good jab which marciano will have to deal with against holmes. holmes probably most resembled walcott out of all marcianos opponents.

maybe i will check out the louis fight as well because louis at 6'2 215lb was the closest of marciano opponents on film of same size as holmes plus louis still had his jab close to 100% and louis had one of the greatest jabs of all time

tapes i will analalyize of holmes

- mike weaver I- weaver was smaller 6'1 200lb and like rocky was a very hard puncher and weaver put a lot of pressure on you.

-shavers- he was smaller and had a big right hand and he was a pressure fighter and slugger

im trying to think of other fights to watch

anyone know which holmes opponents fought out of a crouch?

If you want to see what Holmes did to smallish guys in his prime, watch the Leon Spinks fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Jan 2006, 17:42

Collins2000 wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i am going to go watch tapes and then come to conclusion on who i think the winner is which i will post tonight

1953 5'11 185lb rocky marciano vs 1981 6'3 212lb larry holmes

tapes i will analzye of marciano with opponents who closest resemble holmes size or style

- roland lastarza II - because lastarza was a textbook perfect boxer who moved around the ring and kept his hands very high. this was marcianos peak fight IMO so its a must view. im also interested to how he deals with good movement

- archie moore- moore had a very long 79", so its good to see how marciano deals with a long reach because holmes has a 82" reach

- walcott I - walcott was a ring technician with great boxing skills but he also could punch very hard and threw mean uppercuts. walcott also had a very good jab which marciano will have to deal with against holmes. holmes probably most resembled walcott out of all marcianos opponents.

maybe i will check out the louis fight as well because louis at 6'2 215lb was the closest of marciano opponents on film of same size as holmes plus louis still had his jab close to 100% and louis had one of the greatest jabs of all time

tapes i will analalyize of holmes

- mike weaver I- weaver was smaller 6'1 200lb and like rocky was a very hard puncher and weaver put a lot of pressure on you.

-shavers- he was smaller and had a big right hand and he was a pressure fighter and slugger

im trying to think of other fights to watch

anyone know which holmes opponents fought out of a crouch?

If you want to see what Holmes did to smallish guys in his prime, watch the Leon Spinks fight.

that was a devastating knockout, complete domination. many think this was holmes peak fight.

theone · Post by **theone** » 12 Jan 2006, 18:54

No contest. Holmes should not have said Marciano couldnt carry his strap out of respect, but he was sorta right nonetheless.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 12 Jan 2006, 20:47

theone wrote:No contest. Holmes should not have said Marciano couldnt carry his strap out of respect, but he was sorta right nonetheless.

no contest??? what do u think marciano is, a tex cobb?? u make him look like a small wimp who would lay down against the bigger man

theone · Post by **theone** » 12 Jan 2006, 21:17

no contest??? what do u think marciano is, a tex cobb?? u make him look like a small wimp who would lay down against the bigger man

Marciano wouldnt lay down for anybody. But Holmes would lay him out. Marciano is no doubt better than Cobb, but Marciano could not take the punishment Cobb took from Holmes.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 12 Jan 2006, 21:19

Larry Holmes was a very, very powerful slugger, but he was also slow and had virtually no boxing ability. He also couldn't take what he could dish out - Holmes' chin was fairly weak.

Rocky Marciano was much more slick and while he didn't possess a powerful punch, his handspeed, combinations and footwork were dazzling. He would keep the aggressive Holmes at bay with a long, smooth jab and pepper him from long range.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 12 Jan 2006, 21:35

Double M - Do you have Marciano and Holmes names mixed up? I'v never heard anyone refer to Marciano's footwork as dazzling before.

I have Holmes as my # 7 heavyweight and Marciano as # 8. I understand why many people think that Holmes style would give Marciano problems. At times it would probably seem that he was hitting Marciano almost at will. However I think it would be competitive fight. Marciano would occasionally be able to get through Holmes jab and do some damage. He would be able to pressure Holmes at times, which Holmes wasn't accustomed to.

You have to give atleast give Marciano a remote puncher's chance to score a knockout.
Holmes could also win inside the distance, by stopping Marciano late, but the most likely result would be Holmes winning a decison something like 9-6.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 12 Jan 2006, 21:47

Ambling Alp wrote:Double M - Do you have Marciano and Holmes names mixed up?

No

thunderfromdownunder · Post by **thunderfromdownunder** » 12 Jan 2006, 23:34

DoubleM wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:Double M - Do you have Marciano and Holmes names mixed up?
No

are you sure?
larry holmes had no boxing abbilty eh?
marciano couldnt punch very hard?

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Jan 2006, 00:44

thunderfromdownunder wrote:
DoubleM wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:Double M - Do you have Marciano and Holmes names mixed up?
No
are you sure?
larry holmes had no boxing abbilty eh?
marciano couldnt punch very hard?

Rocky couldn't punch too hard but he made up for it with supreme boxing skills.

Axe · Post by **Axe** » 13 Jan 2006, 02:54

DoubleM wrote:Larry Holmes was a very, very powerful slugger, but he was also slow and had virtually no boxing ability. He also couldn't take what he could dish out - Holmes' chin was fairly weak.

Rocky Marciano was much more slick and while he didn't possess a powerful punch, his handspeed, combinations and footwork were dazzling. He would keep the aggressive Holmes at bay with a long, smooth jab and pepper him from long range.

This tops the "lattitude" post for dumbest post of of the year!

Anyhoo, I agree with theone. Holmes wouldve put Marciano to sleep, via absolutely dominating him throughout the fight. Holmes would beat Rocky with his jab alone, literally.

RazorKO · Post by **RazorKO** » 13 Jan 2006, 09:47

Buster Douglas in shape when he fought against Tyson or even Tony Tucker would beat Marciano comfortably, sticking out his jab which Rocky would fail to avoid.

dalek · Post by **dalek** » 13 Jan 2006, 10:52

douglas even in shape would struggle to last 15 hard rounds.tucker would have gone into his shell.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Jan 2006, 11:02

RazorKO wrote:Buster Douglas in shape when he fought against Tyson or even Tony Tucker would beat Marciano comfortably, sticking out his jab which Rocky would fail to avoid.

the question is in your case would marciano beat tony tucker or buster douglas?

well my question to you is do whales live in the ocean?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Jan 2006, 11:03

doublm knows his boxing, hes just fooling around with you guys.

no but seriosely doublm, did u see the way marciano used his incredible long jab to knock out osscie osacio

and u better watch out for holmes suzie Q powerful right hand

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Jan 2006, 11:14

Axe wrote:
DoubleM wrote:Larry Holmes was a very, very powerful slugger, but he was also slow and had virtually no boxing ability. He also couldn't take what he could dish out - Holmes' chin was fairly weak.

Rocky Marciano was much more slick and while he didn't possess a powerful punch, his handspeed, combinations and footwork were dazzling. He would keep the aggressive Holmes at bay with a long, smooth jab and pepper him from long range.

This tops the "lattitude" post for dumbest post of of the year!

Or maybe your post qualifies for the dumbest of the year, since you never figured out I was joking!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 13 Jan 2006, 11:24

DoubleM wrote:
Axe wrote:
DoubleM wrote:Larry Holmes was a very, very powerful slugger, but he was also slow and had virtually no boxing ability. He also couldn't take what he could dish out - Holmes' chin was fairly weak.

Rocky Marciano was much more slick and while he didn't possess a powerful punch, his handspeed, combinations and footwork were dazzling. He would keep the aggressive Holmes at bay with a long, smooth jab and pepper him from long range.

This tops the "lattitude" post for dumbest post of of the year!
Or maybe your post qualifies for the dumbest of the year, since you never figured out I was joking!

owned

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 13 Jan 2006, 11:51