BoxRec

A peak Marciano is such a better fighter and more dangerous than a 1996 Tyson it's not even funny.

Bringing up the size of Evander's opposition is missing the point. Heavy hitters are heavy hitters, and styles make guys dangerous or not. Lewis fought an old Evander completly wary of getting caught with a huge punch, and never had Holyfield close to being down. Whereas the much smaller Cooper put a peak Holyfield on the canvas seriously hurt. And Moorer (who is naturally no bigger than Rocky) shook up Holyfield several times as well.

Counter-puncher wrote: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.

- Silly boy, only you know of what you blather about as you play with your silly putty figures.

The point of the split decision is that everyone agreed Qawi/Field 1 was close. It was an all action fight with Mr. Field backing down when Qawi slipped under the gap between them to do his inside work. Qawi lost a technical split in a fight he had more gas in the tank at the finish, not a "beating" like Mr. Field supporters claim he would deliver on Rocky.

With the Manny/JMM rematch, also closely contested, JMM was battered down once, should've been ruled twice when he had to grab the ropes to keep from going down the 2nd time. That would've been another clear UD for Manny but for official incompetence as also admitted to in the first fight. Nobody but you mentioned changing the results, it JMM does have a deluded band of supporters that somehow think being blasted to the canvas to many times to count and battered so badly that he tries to go to Manny's corner at the bell means that JMM won both fights handily.

JMM was game, but the lessor fighter.

Controversial wrote: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.

Agree completely with this post.

That Marciano-Cockell fight was a sad thing to watch, imo.

Controversial wrote: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.

- No, I don't see Mr. Field being champ of anything in that era.

The only reason he became champ was because the vacuum left by Tyson. It started off as a weak era and grew into one of the stronger eras as Lewis/Morrison/Mercer/Golota/Moorer/Bowe and the rest got on board.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: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.

The point of the split decision is that everyone agreed Qawi/Field 1 was close. It was an all action fight with Mr. Field backing down when Qawi slipped under the gap between them to do his inside work. Qawi lost a technical split in a fight he had more gas in the tank at the finish, not a "beating" like Mr. Field supporters claim he would deliver on Rocky.

So your comparing Marciano to Qawi then? Holyfield was a novice pro who had never been past 8 rounds before. He fought a very experianced and tough champ and beat him. I can't see the relevance of Holyfield and Marciano unless Im missing the point as Holyfield only got better after the Qawi fight.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Controversial wrote: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.

- No, I don't see Mr. Field being champ of anything in that era.

The only reason he became champ was because the vacuum left by Tyson. It started off as a weak era and grew into one of the stronger eras as Lewis/Morrison/Mercer/Golota/Moorer/Bowe and the rest got on board.

I dont see Marciano being champ in the 60s or 70s either.

Holyfield by decision

Ellis was a 70's champion I would absolutely pick Marciano to defeat for the title. Marciano's odds would be damn near even-money against Frazier, & a post-Manila Ali isn't going to cope with his work-rate, IMO (Hell, maybe Marciano wins Manila, where Frazier does not). Spinks was champ, too, & he would've fallen.

There were opportunities for Marciano to be the titleist in the 70's.

Controversial wrote: So your comparing Marciano to Qawi then? Holyfield was a novice pro who had never been past 8 rounds before. He fought a very experianced and tough champ and beat him. I can't see the relevance of Holyfield and Marciano unless Im missing the point as Holyfield only got better after the Qawi fight.

- I'd think it would be obvious to even a blind aardvark that there is more style overlap between Rocky and Qawi than 99% of the rest of the heavies out there.

If you can't see the relevence of Mr. Field and Rocky, please do refer to the thread header and ask yourself, "Where am I?"

Mr. Field was 12-0 after Qawi, and 30-10-2 since then. Perhaps you can pick your "prime" Mr. Field for us. Everyone already knows when Rocky's prime is.

dempseyfire wrote:A peak Marciano is such a better fighter and more dangerous than a 1996 Tyson it's not even funny.

Bringing up the size of Evander's opposition is missing the point. Heavy hitters are heavy hitters, and styles make guys dangerous or not. Lewis fought an old Evander completly wary of getting caught with a huge punch, and never had Holyfield close to being down. Whereas the much smaller Cooper put a peak Holyfield on the canvas seriously hurt. And Moorer (who is naturally no bigger than Rocky) shook up Holyfield several times as well.

these are good points if you want to forget about rocky being knocked down by an ancient archie moore and a 39 yr old walcott. rocky has great names on his record but they were all old when he fought them. he never faced anyone like a prime holyfield. holyfield takes a hell of a shot and was a much better boxer that rocky. evander by wide dec or late stoppage.

with that said, both of these guys had big time heart and would rather be carried out of the ring than lose.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: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.

- Silly boy, only you know of what you blather about as you play with your silly putty figures.

The point of the split decision is that everyone agreed Qawi/Field 1 was close. It was an all action fight with Mr. Field backing down when Qawi slipped under the gap between them

the point of the Marquez - Pacquiao (2) split decision was... guess what? all action fight, Pac backing down when JMM slipped under the gap between them etc etc etc

admit it, when you said 'Holyfield didn't even beat Qawi' simply because 1 judge gave it to Qawi in a close fight, you said something ridiculous which, as with so many of your obscene generalisations, when extended to its (il)logical conclusion, can be applied to just about any Split Decision win

the real reason you discredit Holyfield's win over Qawi, but refuse to apply the same standards for Pacquiao - Marquez 2 (which was the fight i was talking about, whilst you witter on about the first fight WHICH WASN'T EVEN A SPLIT DECISION, we are talking split decisions here old boy do keep up) is simple:

you like Pacquiao therefore his SD wins are valid to you

you don't like Holyfield and seek to discredit him at every opportunity therefore you try to discredit his SD win.

so don't make ridiculous statements like 'holyfield never won he only got a split decision' if fighters that you do not wish to discredit hold split decision wins.

you have to apply standards equally otherwise they are not standards. you'll note i've managed to abstain from your childish namecalling too, see if you can act like a grownup will you?

He is a troll who pulls this for the amusement of his own mind.

You're all fools for playing along.

i can't help it

bjermaine wrote: these are good points if you want to forget about rocky being knocked down by an ancient archie moore and a 39 yr old walcott. rocky has great names on his record but they were all old when he fought them.

Walcott and Moore peaked old, beating them when he did does not detract from Marcianos legacy.

They peaked old, but that peak had come & gone before Marciano met them.

Those still stand as very good victories, though --- make no mistake about that.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

Controversial wrote: So your comparing Marciano to Qawi then? Holyfield was a novice pro who had never been past 8 rounds before. He fought a very experianced and tough champ and beat him. I can't see the relevance of Holyfield and Marciano unless Im missing the point as Holyfield only got better after the Qawi fight.

- I'd think it would be obvious to even a blind aardvark that there is more style overlap between Rocky and Qawi than 99% of the rest of the heavies out there.

If you can't see the relevence of Mr. Field and Rocky, please do refer to the thread header and ask yourself, "Where am I?"

Mr. Field was 12-0 after Qawi, and 30-10-2 since then. Perhaps you can pick your "prime" Mr. Field for us. Everyone already knows when Rocky's prime is.

Its obvious to even a blind aarvark that Holyfield should have retired years ago. So because Qawi and Marciano had similar styles that proves Marciano would beat Holyfield? Ha ha ha genius. I can do the Ali shuffle, doesn't mean Im Muhammed Ali though.

You are criticing Holyfield was BEATING Qawi. A world champion in his 12th fight by beating a decent fighter. I can't see how he can be critized for that?

Holyfield has pretty much fought world rated fighters all his career, he ducked no one. Marciano on the otherhand was carefully guided through his career and most of his opponents had several losses, on losing streaks or were average journeymen at best.

Marciano was 25-0 before fighting anyone half decent and that fight many thought he lost. But Marciano won by split decision the very same decision you are criticizing Holyfield for beating a world champion by. After that dubious win Marciano continued fighting a diet of past it boxers or nobodies.

Holyfield by decision.

Fan of both. Rocky wins this one though, by wearing Holyfield down and stopping him late. Rocky is, in my opinion (and I know this may sound odd), very underrated. The reason being people really bash his era. Its not as bad as usually described, and Rocky would have been the champ had he came in ten years later or ten years earlier.

punchoutsb wrote:Fan of both. Rocky wins this one though, by wearing Holyfield down and stopping him late. Rocky is, in my opinion (and I know this may sound odd), very underrated. The reason being people really bash his era. Its not as bad as usually described, and Rocky would have been the champ had he came in ten years later or ten years earlier.

"Rocky would have been the champ had he came in ten years later or ten years earlier"

Let's see, Rocky became champ in '52, so you are saying Rocky beats '42 Louis or '62 Liston?

Uh, no.

Not only no, but no chance in hell no.

yancey wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Fan of both. Rocky wins this one though, by wearing Holyfield down and stopping him late. Rocky is, in my opinion (and I know this may sound odd), very underrated. The reason being people really bash his era. Its not as bad as usually described, and Rocky would have been the champ had he came in ten years later or ten years earlier.

"Rocky would have been the champ had he came in ten years later or ten years earlier"

Let's see, Rocky became champ in '52, so you are saying Rocky beats '42 Louis or '62 Liston?

Uh, no.

Not only no, but no chance in hell no.

Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. Rocky beat an old Joe Louis, but a prime Joe wouldn't have fared much better. Liston was a bully in almost every sense of the word in the ring. His heart was not big enough to win against a fighter like Rocky.

A 'prime Louis wouldn't have fared much better?"

Ridiculous comment.

dempseyfire wrote:A 'prime Louis wouldn't have fared much better?"

Ridiculous comment.

"I had a bad weakness I kept hid throughout my career. I didn't like to be crowded, and Marciano always crowded his opponents. That's why I say I could never have beaten him." - Joe Louis.

source?

raylawpc wrote:source?

A fertile imagination. D

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote:source?

A fertile imagination. D

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Aren ... cky13.html

It is attributed to the May 1990 edition of Boxing Illustrated, so its obviously an older quote than that, considering Louis was dead by then.

Joe Louis respect and admiration for Rocky is really pretty well documented. You should try reading up on it a little.

Anything more witty to add?

Marciano, for my liking, has only a fairly slim chance against Liston --- the shot is there, though, & who better to expose long-odds against them than perhaps the toughest nut of them all? Still, I do favour Liston fairly heavily. His long, bruising jab would damage Marciano something awful, irrespective of who you believe would win.

On the other hand, I give Marciano virtually no shot against the peak Louis. I mean, when you go down the list of attributes, & one guy has the advantage in almost every department, you're gonna tell me you'll turn around & pick the other guy!?

Height, weight, reach, handspeed, combinations, offensive arsenal, punch-variety, punching accuracy, tactical adaptability, ring generalship, finishing prowess --- Joe, Joe, & more Joe.

About the only edges I can honestly find in Marciano's favour (off the top of my head) were chin, heart, raw power, endurance. Of those, his lead over Louis in power, heart, & endurance are not by a whole lot. That's three of the four where the disparity is not great. Not too many areas, on the other hand, where Louis has the advantage, & it's not by much.

Still, I think we should bear in mind the essential point PunchOutSB was making --- Marciano was a great, great champion, &, with that, I can heartily agree. A fight with Holyfield would've been splendid viewing.

punchoutsb wrote:

yancey wrote:

raylawpc wrote:source?

A fertile imagination. D

http://www.geocities.com/Colosseum/Aren ... cky13.html

It is attributed to the May 1990 edition of Boxing Illustrated, so its obviously an older quote than that, considering Louis was dead by then.

Joe Louis respect and admiration for Rocky is really pretty well documented. You should try reading up on it a little.

Anything more witty to add?

No, I'll do poetry this time....



Roses are red,

Violets are blue,

Sonny kicks Rocky's

Ass in two.


D