holy was better from a distance, BUT HOLY WAS NOT A BETTER INSIDE FIGHTER THAN MARCIANO. marcianos specialty was the inside. he had far more leverage than holy did with thos short stubby arms of his. marciano battered opponents to a bloodly pulp on the inside. marciano hit harder, was the greater all around puncher than holy, and was stronger than holyfield. marcianos physical benifits are more superior on the inside than evanders. evander would get busted up on the inside. marciano would hit evander anywhere and everywhere on the inside. marciano also had an underated uppercut which holy was very suceptible too. look at the way coke a dokes slugged with holyfield. look at how many punches he landed on evander. holy cant fight on the inside and come out alive against marciano.Holyfield was a better inside fighter and better from a distance than Marciano.
I think Holyfield showed more incredible recooperative powers than Marciano, who we don't really get to see in that light because the powers that be will not let us see the rounds where Marciano is wobbled by Charles in the first fight.
pleasseeeee.....marciano was not badly wobbled by charles. this is just plain overblown hogwash! PEOPLE EXAGGERATE THINGS. many papers have made claims that so and so are hurt and when u watch the film they actually wernt really hurt. charles hit marciano with some of his best counter right hands and left hooks in the rounds we have film and marciano took them without blinking. marciano faced harder punchers in walcott, moore, old louis, and even layne and none of these guys seriousely wobbled marciano on film. i dare u find one piece of film that shows marciano glasssy eyes, on rubbery legs, or out on his feet. U WONT FIND ANY.
marciano clearly showed his recup powers in the moore and walcott fights. both hit harder than charles. walcott hit marciano with the exact same left hook that he hit ezzard with(ezzard KTFO!!!!) and marciano was up at 3 on steady legs. that punch would have knocked out any other heavyweight in the world. marciano took a flush straight counter right hand from moore. marciano was up at 2 .....his recup powers were extradorinary.even in the louis fight louis nails marciano with a hard left hook at the end of round 1....marciano freezes for a sexcond then out of nohwere comes back with a huge overhand right which buckles louis knees.
though holy faced a much better group of punchers than marciano faced.....i think both have equal recup powers.
yes lou duva does compare holys conditioning to rocky marciano, but duva doesnt compare holys stamina to marciano. i seen a prime holyfield dead tired in some fights.Holyfield in his prime was one of the best conditioned boxers in history. His training regimine is stuff of legends and so was his stamina. I think you are gauging '94-'99 Holyfield rather than '89 to '93, which was his peak at heavyweight.
holy was about to drop dead in the qawi fight. holy made it look like going 15 hard rounds was life and death.......when old timers used to go 15 hard rounds all the time. marciano after 15 gruelling rounds with ezzard charles was fine, he could have kept going. holy collasped and was done after 15 rounds with qawi. dont tell me that holy had more stamina than marciano. marciano didnt fall to the floor and after to go to the hospital cause he was so dead tired after charles I or walcott I
dont worry i know when a prime holy was. im talking about the 89-93' holyfield who struggled in a lot of his fights and lost to the first very good opponent he faced(bowe nearly knocked him out too).
If they went to war, I'd favor Holyfield to be the fresher fighter in the championship rounds
thats ridiculous. marciano is probably the best championship round fighter in HW history . he carried his power late as good as any champion ever. marciano would unqestionably be fresher by the championship rounds. marciano showed he could go 15 gruelling rounds and still not be dead(charles I). holy showed after 15 hard rounds with qawi he was about to die. holy was about to die after the bowe I and moorer fights. wheres this legendery stamina?
holy certainly didnt look fresh in bowe I where he was dead tired and nearly fell down in the late rounds due to exhaustion. or how bout the michael moorer fight where moorer took over in the late rounds? i know i know holys heart. he had a lot of exuses for his losses. marciano had no exuses for any of his preformances. btw i have done a lot of research on evander and read all his books......i know a good deal about him and how many exuses he made for his preformances.
Holyfield was just as capable (and probably more so) as Marciano at throwing non-stop punches. His fights against Charles, at least what are shown on film, do not show the relentless punch count that so many people claim. His highest output on film against Charles was 82 in the final round of the first fight.
sorry but marciano was a non stop human punching machine when he had the other guy hurt. holy has not shown this on film. in the 6th round of the moore fight.....for literally 1 min straight marciano threw non stop punches, literally non stop until moore finally went down. it was an incredible punch rate something ive never seen holy do in a round before.
i counted 96 punches in the 15th round of the charles fight and this was after 14 gruelling rounds. AND MOST OF THEM WERE POWER PUNCHES!
Oh forgot to say earlier, Walcott was not a better heavyweight than Charles. Walcott had a very inconsistent career with some nice wins, but was only able to score a couple huge wins in his career. Both of those were against Charles, the first a one-punch KO and then second a controversial decision. Walcott was KO'd by a similarly washed up Joe Louis who Ezzard Charles easily defeated.
we will take this to a different thread. one comment. DONT EVER COMPARE THE JOE LOUIS OF 1948 TO THE JOE LOUIS OF 1950 THAT CHARLES FOUGHT. LOUIS AGED DRAMATICALLY AFTER THE WALCOTT FIGHTS
- the 1946-48 joe louis was past his prime but was still a great fighter. WALCOTT BEAT JOE LOUIS IN 1947 ......A MUCH BETTER VERSION OF LOUIS THAN CHARLES FOUGHT. also dont forget walcott was far ahead on points when louis landed perhaps the best combination of his career to put walcott away.
- the 1950-51 version of louis WAS FAR FAR PAST HIS PRIME AND NO LONGER GREAT. louis aged dramatically after the walcott fights. louis had his power and punching arsenal in the walcott fights.....he didnt have it in the charles fights. louis reflexes and timing were way off in the charles fights. louis was horribly rusty. in fact, i think the 1951 joe louis was better than the louis charles beat . watch louis of the savold fight....his reflexes timing were much better and faster. too bad joe louis didnt get a rematch vs charles in 1951.
walcott only a couple huge wins in his career?
walcott beat better competition at heavyweight than charles did......
walcott beat
ezzard charles
joe louis 1947- this huge robbery counts as a win....he beat a much better version of louis than charles beat too.
Lee Q murray
PRIME jimmy bivins
harold johnson
willie reddish
joey maxim
elmer ray
hacthetman sheppard
tommy gomez
joe baksi
lee oma
hein ten hoff
lorenzo pack
omelio agramonte
freddie fiducia
thats better HW competition than charles beat
walcott in a span of 1945-47 completley cleaned out the division. he beat 8 top 10 ranked fighters during those 3 years including the top 2 contenders of the division. walcott unquestionably by 1947 established himself as the # 1 heavyweight contender.
but lets take this subject to another thead. i belive walcott was the better heavyweight. joe louis said walcott was better than charles.
walcott beat joe louis though in 1947. the series was really 1-1. could charles have gone 2-0 vs louis in 1947-48??? maybe. also dont forget walcott was schooling louis in 48 before louis caught him with an incredible 6 punch combo.but I would favor Charles to have beaten the Louis that KO'd Walcott.