BoxRec

Ezzard wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I'd bet that from the 1980s onwards that there's barely been a handful of top 10 contenders who haven't taken something at some time or another. You might say it's only speculation but then again it can only speculation that they haven't...

Well you could use the argument that IF they were all taking something then they are all on a level playing field anyway, no one has an advantage.

That's exactly how I see it.

What would you do? Complain to the boxing's toothless authorities or get some for yourself?

There is a problem though when comparing old time fighters with contemporary fighters.

Watching boxing these days with guys who are really only casual fans and watching fights from 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s they are surprised by the stamina of previous generations. As one guy put it to me: these days boxers only seem built for power.

If only we could have 15 rounds again...

We are talking about Holyfield though. A fighter who was very fit, not one of these fat out of shape heavyweights.

Remember Holyfield fought and beat Qawi over 15 rounds and that was after having just 11 fights. That is some feat especially considering Holyfield had never been past 8 rounds before that. Qawi was no mug, durable and tough.

Controversial wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Controversial wrote: Well you could use the argument that IF they were all taking something then they are all on a level playing field anyway, no one has an advantage.

That's exactly how I see it.

What would you do? Complain to the boxing's toothless authorities or get some for yourself?

There is a problem though when comparing old time fighters with contemporary fighters.

Watching boxing these days with guys who are really only casual fans and watching fights from 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s they are surprised by the stamina of previous generations. As one guy put it to me: these days boxers only seem built for power.

If only we could have 15 rounds again...

We are talking about Holyfield though. A fighter who was very fit, not one of these fat out of shape heavyweights.

Remember Holyfield fought and beat Qawi over 15 rounds and that was after having just 11 fights. That is some feat especially considering Holyfield had never been past 8 rounds before that. Qawi was no mug, durable and tough.

Holyfield would have been a great fighter in any era.

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

rex layne 34-1 entering the marciano fight, 16-17 after the horrific marciano beat. notice the trend?

all these young fighters were wreacking havoc in the division until marciano fought them. then all of a sudden after facing marciano all there careers went into terribly nosedives.......can u explain this??? why did all these young fighters careers go such down hill after suffering brutal KO losses to marciano?? my opinios is marciano ruined these guys physically and most importantly physologically.

.

Hey Brock, Im still waiting for you to explain your theory on the 'ruined' Layne who managed to get a decision over Ezzard Charles TWO YEARS after Marciano 'ruined' him. Charles didn't fight Marciano for another two years after losing to Layne.

And the 'ruined' Layne dropping a close decision to LaStarza TWO TEARS after being 'ruined' by Marciano. LaStarza then went on to fight Marciano after this fight.

I'm guessing he managed to un-ruin himself !!!

Hey Brock, Im still waiting for you to explain your theory on the 'ruined' Layne who managed to get a decision over Ezzard Charles TWO YEARS after Marciano 'ruined' him. Charles didn't fight Marciano for another two years after losing to Layne.

layne was completley ruined after suffering horrible back to back beatings against marciano and charles in 1951. layne was 34-1 before fighting marciano, then 16-17 after fighting marciano and he put on a lot of weight.

layne may have "got" the decision over ezzard charles in 1952, but he didnt win the fight. it was a HORRIBLE hometown decision where the referee laynes friend jack dempsey scored the fight a bizarre 2 rounds to 1 with 7 even. he didnt even keep track of his scorecard throughout the fight, he just kinda made one up as the bell rang. everyone in the press thought charles clearly won. a big time robbery.

same thing as harold johnson-ezzard charles 1953, horrible decision. i scored the fight charles 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even. charles knocked him down.



laynee once said "i never was the same after the marciano fight"




marciano ruined every ranked contender he ever fought. he was the greatest ruiner of all time. look at all there records pre maricano fight, then compare there records after the marciano fight. its all there, the facts back my case up.

Holyfield wins it by TKO 12 or UD, take your pick.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
same thing as harold johnson-ezzard charles 1953, horrible decision. i scored the fight charles 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even. charles knocked him down.

Harold Johnson was twice fast as Charles.

Johnson's counterpunches started almost before Charles threw his own punches.

Johnson hurt Charles badly at least six different times, with lightning right hands and one time with a left hook.

As commentator Don Dunphy points out, Charles grabbed and held on for dear life each time he was hurt.

Charles ate Johnson's jab all night long.

Charles looked like he was moving in slow motion as compared to Johnson.

Harold Johnson won that fight by a mile.

Harold Johnson had an amazing physique.