well maybe its just me, but if forced to choose i'd much rather be the guy 9 inches taller/15 inches longer reach/40 pounds heavier instead of being the guy giving up that much size
btw , just for perspective, theres a gif there of 'smaller' pov vs bigger aj, and that was considered a size difference fight, but in height, reach, and weight your looking at not even half the difference youd see in for wilder-rock
the disparities would be just so totally extreme, so i question whether even the typical short vs tall stuff applies
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 03:04
by Yuzo
jamamb wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 02:47
well maybe its just me, but if forced to choose i'd much rather be the guy 9 inches taller/15 inches longer reach/40 pounds heavier instead of being the guy giving up that much size
btw , just for perspective, theres a gif there of 'smaller' pov vs bigger aj, and that was considered a size difference fight, but in height, reach, and weight your looking at not even half the difference youd see in for wilder-rock
the disparities would be just so totally extreme, so i question whether even the typical short vs tall stuff applies
george foreman had a 10 inch height advantage over dwight muhammad qawi.
qawi hit foreman plenty.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 03:07
by jamamb
ya, although only 7 inches in reach rather then 15
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 03:17
by Yuzo
jamamb wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 03:07
ya, although only 7 inches in reach rather then 15
and when he got near you, his shorter reach becomes his advantage, just as your greater reach is turned on its head into your disadvantage. boxing is not so cut and dry.
Controversial wrote: ↑29 Oct 2018, 15:33
Marciano is physically more on a par with current LHW champ Artur Beterbiev (5'11", 73' reach and 175lbs). although Beterbiev is slightly taller and has a longer reach than Marciano. Beterbiev must weigh around 190+lbs on fight night. If Beterbiev said he was fighting Wilder next are people seriously suggesting the size difference wouldn't be a factor?
Do you think that two boxers being a similar height & reach makes them broadly equivalent in talent? Bert Cooper and Mike Tyson are the same size; I suppose they should have the same results against common opponents? Similar careers?
Roy Jones at 193 shook up John Ruiz, yet Hasim Rahman's right hand made no dent in him and Nikolay Valuev with a 90lb weight advantage never troubled him in any way. It's almost as if something more than height, weight and reach decides a boxing match that involves someone exceptional. Retards here scoffing at Rock remind me of the Boxrec know it alls who were absolutely convinced that Jones was doomed vs Ruiz--it's physics! they roared. Talent cannot overcome physics! Apparently abstract things like talent can overcome physics.
I never said anything about skill, I'm talking about physical size. Marciano was small, there's no point pretending he wasn't. In one book a family member of his said he was closer to 5'9". He had short arms and small hands. He won fights by using his physical strength, fitness, power, ability to take a punch and pressure. He wasn't particularly skilful, more awkward. Thats all well and good when your opponent is of a similar size to you, not so beneficial when your opponent is much taller and heavier and equally as strong or stronger. Marciano only had two fights in his entire career against 'good' fighters over 200lbs, Don Cockell (205lbs) and Joe Louis (214lbs). Cockell was a LHW and quite chubby at HW and Louis was past his best. He was said to be lucky to get the wins over LaStarza (198lbs) and Lowry (177lbs), he certainly didn't dominate everyone, he was often in hard fights.
Roy Jones picked Ruiz as he was the least dangerous option at HW. Styles make fights and he didn't dare hang about to fight guys like Lewis, why was a that?
Of course talent can overcome size but let's not get carried away, he wasn't fast and elusive like Roy Jones. His only option would be to try and move forward and slug it out.
Had Marciano fought in any era from the 1960s onwards do you honestly believe he would have remained undefeated?
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 04:40
by Tuan_Jim
I'll try make this as simple as possible. Rock's weight was from training and fighting in a totally alien culture and era where cruisers didn't exist, nor did the dubious concepts of weight lifting, adding mass, and using PEDs.
So again, WHEN does this fight take place? In the 1950s, where Wilder is 210lb or less? Or does it take place today, where Rock gets all the same 'benefits' Wilder does in training and comes in above 200lb?
Lastly, I know this is an imaginary fight, but can the fighters at least box in their real world style? There's no point going on about Wilder's reach when Wilder has never been a Larry Holmes or Lennox Lewis with a consistent and intelligent jab. He's an uncoordinated guy who tosses out one jab just to follow it with his big telegraphed right--while his chin hangs in the air. That's who he is, that's what's on all his videos, so stop pretending his reach is a factor when he doesn't have the talent to use his reach and fighters with shorter reaches constantly close the gap and hit him.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 04:59
by Controversial
Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 04:40
So again, WHEN does this fight take place? In the 1950s, where Wilder is 210lb or less? Or does it take place today, where Rock gets all the same 'benefits' Wilder does in training and comes in above 200lb?
Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 04:40
So again, WHEN does this fight take place? In the 1950s, where Wilder is 210lb or less? Or does it take place today, where Rock gets all the same 'benefits' Wilder does in training and comes in above 200lb?
So weight makes a difference then?
You're arguing a straw man. I didn't say that weight doesn't make a difference. I said that weight isn't the be all and end all, and that talent trumps it. Take a look through all of boxing history for corroboration.
I just don't understand why Rocky is expected to tackle a modern heavyweight challenge by coming in circa 190. Holyfield didn't.
Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 04:40
So again, WHEN does this fight take place? In the 1950s, where Wilder is 210lb or less? Or does it take place today, where Rock gets all the same 'benefits' Wilder does in training and comes in above 200lb?
So weight makes a difference then?
You're arguing a straw man. I didn't say that weight doesn't make a difference. I said that weight isn't the be all and end all, and that talent trumps it. Take a look through all of boxing history for corroboration.
I just don't understand why Rocky is expected to tackle a modern heavyweight challenge by coming in circa 190. Holyfield didn't.
Yes of course talent makes a difference but Marciano wasn't a boxing genius. He was awkward but still got hit a lot and could only fight one way which was to plow forward and club fighters to defeat. He wasn't fast or elusive or able to outbox bigger guys with pure boxing ability. He was a slugger and that style has it limitations.
Holyfield had the frame to add bulk, he was taller and naturally bigger. Maybe Marciano could add 20lbs but would that make him any better? Holyfield had to add bulk to be able to match the bigger guys in strength but he had good boxing skill to back it up.
You're arguing a straw man. I didn't say that weight doesn't make a difference. I said that weight isn't the be all and end all, and that talent trumps it. Take a look through all of boxing history for corroboration.
I just don't understand why Rocky is expected to tackle a modern heavyweight challenge by coming in circa 190. Holyfield didn't.
Yes of course talent makes a difference but Marciano wasn't a boxing genius. He was awkward but still got hit a lot and could only fight one way which was to plow forward and club fighters to defeat. He wasn't fast or elusive or able to outbox bigger guys with pure boxing ability. He was a slugger and that style has it limitations.
Holyfield had the frame to add bulk, he was taller and naturally bigger. Maybe Marciano could add 20lbs but would that make him any better? Holyfield had to add bulk to be able to match the bigger guys in strength but he had good boxing skill to back it up.
But Marciano is, in my opinion, much more talented than Wilder, and was highly effective in a crude barbaric way against some real boxing wizards, who while not giants presented more challenging fistic puzzles than: here's one pokey jab, my chin's in the air, my right is cocked, guess what I'm about to wing at you!. Wilder is not a difficult riddle to solve.
To go back to your question about whether Marciano would be 49-0 in subsequent eras (answer: I don't know), is there an era prior to this one where a Deontay Wilder would be 40-0 with 7 defences of the WBC title and counting? (I do know the answer to that one.)
You're arguing a straw man. I didn't say that weight doesn't make a difference. I said that weight isn't the be all and end all, and that talent trumps it. Take a look through all of boxing history for corroboration.
I just don't understand why Rocky is expected to tackle a modern heavyweight challenge by coming in circa 190. Holyfield didn't.
Yes of course talent makes a difference but Marciano wasn't a boxing genius. He was awkward but still got hit a lot and could only fight one way which was to plow forward and club fighters to defeat. He wasn't fast or elusive or able to outbox bigger guys with pure boxing ability. He was a slugger and that style has it limitations.
Holyfield had the frame to add bulk, he was taller and naturally bigger. Maybe Marciano could add 20lbs but would that make him any better? Holyfield had to add bulk to be able to match the bigger guys in strength but he had good boxing skill to back it up.
But Marciano is, in my opinion, much more talented than Wilder, and was highly effective in a crude barbaric way against some real boxing wizards, who while not giants presented more challenging fistic puzzles than: here's one pokey jab, my chin's in the air, my right is cocked, guess what I'm about to wing at you!. Wilder is not a difficult riddle to solve.
To go back to your question about whether Marciano would be 49-0 in subsequent eras (answer: I don't know), is there an era prior to this one where a Deontay Wilder would be 40-0 with 7 defences of the WBC title and counting? (I do know the answer to that one.)
What makes Wilder dangerous though is he has true on punch KO power. He puts guys lights out fast. He is also unorthodox in his own way, I don't think many smaller guys could stand and trade with him. He has improved too, Fury mimics him but I don't agree he just walks around with his right arm cocked in the air, he actually has a very decent straight right, see the one he dropped Stiverne with. Yes he may paw with the jab but lots of HWs do that. We will see what a good mover like Fury will do, maybe he will make Wilder look very average but Marciano wasn't a mover or 6'9" and 18+ stone.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 08:30
by Tuan_Jim
I don't think being 6'9'' or 18+ stone will be an advantage versus Wilder, I think it will be a liability. Marciano doesn't present such a huge target and, as someone else pointed out, boxes out of a crouch. I see Wilder knocking Fury out.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 08:43
by Controversial
Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 08:30
I don't think being 6'9'' or 18+ stone will be an advantage versus Wilder, I think it will be a liability. Marciano doesn't present such a huge target and, as someone else pointed out, boxes out of a crouch. I see Wilder knocking Fury out.
I can see it going two ways, Wilder knocks him out quick or Fury frustrates and mauls and outpoints him. My head is leaning towards a Wilder win though.
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Oct 2018, 15:44
Well Wilder has beat what is it now, 18 straight opponents who have outweighed him?
It's almost like a weight advantage can actually be overcome.
This time he would have to beat someone who is smaller than him.
In fantasy fights, the bigger fighter almost gets picked to win.
In real life, historically, a great smaller fighter going up against a fighter who is much bigger than him has won how often? Well just about every single time in real life.
So yeah, I think Marciano somehow would have a shot.
It’s not only weight though, Wilder was still the taller guy with the longer reach even when outweighed. At some point size has an impact, someone like Valuev would never had been a champ had he not been such a physical freak. The sheer size difference between Marciano and Wilder would favour Wilder. If we saw Wilder in the ring against someone of Marcianos weight and stature it would look like a mismatch.
Why would the sheer size advantage favor Wilder? People always assume it does.
But does it? In real life, in real fights, a great heavyweight has almost always beaten a much larger fighter. We did a post a couple of years ago. We actually looked at real results in these situations. I think the smaller guy won something like 27 times and the bigger guy twice.
Valuev was not real champ and we saw from his career that he struggled with mediocre guys much smaller than him.
We always assume that reach is an advantage. Well, for one thing you have to assume that the guy with the better reach knows how to use it and keep the other guy at bay. That often is not the can. Also, usually, the taller guy is not as good on the inside. A pressure fighter like Marciano is going to eventually get to him on the inside at some point.
In over 30 years of the sport, the heaviest guy has never been the best. Neither has the tallest.
You can't just look at things like height, weight, and reach. In the real world, it doesn't work that way. How good you are is a much bigger factor. Speed, power, chin, stamina, toughness, smartness etc. wins fights.
The scale and the tape measure doesn't win it.
The other wildcard with Wilder is we simply don't know how good he is. He has not faced a real test yet. Maybe he is the best thing since sliced bread. Maybe he has a glass jaw, or will fall apart with his game plan doesn't work. We will know more after the Fury fight.
Why would the sheer size advantage favor Wilder? People always assume it does.
But does it? In real life, in real fights, a great heavyweight has almost always beaten a much larger fighter. We did a post a couple of years ago. We actually looked at real results in these situations. I think the smaller guy won something like 27 times and the bigger guy twice.
Valuev was not real champ and we saw from his career that he struggled with mediocre guys much smaller than him.
We always assume that reach is an advantage. Well, for one thing you have to assume that the guy with the better reach knows how to use it and keep the other guy at bay. That often is not the can. Also, usually, the taller guy is not as good on the inside. A pressure fighter like Marciano is going to eventually get to him on the inside at some point.
In over 30 years of the sport, the heaviest guy has never been the best. Neither has the tallest.
You can't just look at things like height, weight, and reach. In the real world, it doesn't work that way. How good you are is a much bigger factor. Speed, power, chin, stamina, toughness, smartness etc. wins fights.
The scale and the tape measure doesn't win it.
The other wildcard with Wilder is we simply don't know how good he is. He has not faced a real test yet. Maybe he is the best thing since sliced bread. Maybe he has a glass jaw, or will fall apart with his game plan doesn't work. We will know more after the Fury fight.
Thats not exactly what you posted unless you are talking about another post?
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑09 Sep 2013, 13:48
So I thought I would do a little research. I looked at the weights of each fighter in every heavyweight title fight from 1892(Sullivan-Corbett) to 1992. I wanted to see how much more often the heavier fighter won.
There are of course grey areas. For example I counted all the WBC, WBA, and IBF title fights from 1978-1992.
There were a few draws, no-decisions, that threw out. Like Ezzard, I also threw out fights where the fighters were within a pound.
Anyway, here are the results:
The heavier fighter won 84 times.
The lighter fighter won...... 84 times.
That's right, it's an exact tie. The lighter heavyweight won exactly the same amount of times as the heavier man did!
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Sep 2013, 17:26
In one of my later posts I did take out fights where the heavier man was in my opinion out of shape. (All I can do is base this on opinion.) Even after throwing those fights out, there still is is only a slight advantage for the heavier fighter.
I will some time and go through and check the results when the bigger man had a small weight advantage, a moderate weight advantage, and large weight advantage. Maybe there will be a stage where the heavier man is at a big advantage. I really don't know how that will shake out.
Of course you can nitpick any kind of study. However, I still maintain that given the decent sample size, the length of time this covers, and the importance of the bouts that the results of this is worthwhile information.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 16:32
by Ambling Alp II
That was another post; I remember that one as well.
The one where is was 84-84 was taking the title fights in a 100-year period. Obviously sometimes the fighters were great and sometimes not. The difference in weight could be not much or quite a bit.
The post I was just referring to (which was something something like 27-2 in favor of the much smaller guy) was more recent. In that one, a great fighter had to be under 200 and his opponent had to be over 220, or something like that. (I believe Primo Carnera had both the wins for the big men.). Didn't have to be a title fight.
Both show that weight is way overrated in regard to heavyweights.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 17:04
by Tantum
Alp, any disparities when the difference is significant?
i.e. When the weight difference is >20lb, is it still even?
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 18:26
by Controversial
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 16:32
That was another post; I remember that one as well.
The one where is was 84-84 was taking the title fights in a 100-year period. Obviously sometimes the fighters were great and sometimes not. The difference in weight could be not much or quite a bit.
The post I was just referring to (which was something something like 27-2 in favor of the much smaller guy) was more recent. In that one, a great fighter had to be under 200 and his opponent had to be over 220, or something like that. (I believe Primo Carnera had both the wins for the big men.). Didn't have to be a title fight.
Both show that weight is way overrated in regard to heavyweights.
There were only 29 fights, what criteria were the stats based on and over what period? Also do you mean any opponent over 220lb no matter how bad they were? If so yes of course there are plenty of 'big' poor HWs, Charley Burley beat a 220lb HW who outweighed him by 70lb. I'm sure Canelo could beat a few HWs too. I reserve judgement on your stats until I see what the results are based on.
Remember the CW division is 40 years old, you don't get the big weight and size discrepancies that Marciano and Wilder would be, guys over 175lbs fighting big HWs. Thats why the CW division was created. At the end of the day boxing has weight divisions for a reason, otherwise you might as well chuck Canelo in with Wilder and see how he gets on. How many world class HWs have there been in recent years that are 5'9"-5'10" and close to 200lbs? Surely if being small is an advantage then there should be a few.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 20:45
by Ambling Alp II
The criteria was the the smaller guy had to be a great fighter and under 200. The bigger guy had had to be over 220 if I remember correctly.
Lennox Lewis and for a shorter time Riddick Bowe are the only superheavyweights that have been great. So not surprisingly, they aren't going to do well as a group. The point is that skill is a lot more important than size.
As for the cruiserweight division, it was created like all weight class by the WBS organizations. The more titles, the more $ they make.
Wilder has weighed in the 220s for most of his fights. The last one he weighed 214. How many heavyweights are there that weigh 214 anymore? Yet, the one guy who does not weigh a ton just happens to be 40-0, 39 kos and has been outweighed in his last 18 fights. Think about that.
Roy Jones was the last under 200 to fight for the title. He won.
Spinks weighed 200 when he beat Holmes.
We keep hearing that the lighter guys have no chance. Yet what actually has happened?
Yes heavyweights have gotton bigger. Instead of just assuming that bigger is better we should ask, should they do that? The answer so far has been for the most part, no.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 30 Oct 2018, 20:52
by HomicideHenry
Well, all I can guarantee is this.... if Marciano lost.... Wilder still will be pissing blood after the fight. Those body shots of Marciano's was absolutely brutal, and his ability to get inside is so vastly underrated.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 31 Oct 2018, 01:33
by Cojimar 1946
Even if Wilder doesn't go down in history as a legend many might pick him over more accomplished guys on the basis of his era being stronger. We regularly see guys who are more accomplished on paper not being picked in matchups with less accomplished fighters on the basis of fighting in supposedly stronger eras. A top contender today is not necessarily of the same calibre as one from the 1950s.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 31 Oct 2018, 03:38
by keithmoonhangover
Height ain't everything. If it was, Mark Breland and Raul Perez wouldn't have got beat.
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 31 Oct 2018, 05:58
by Controversial
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 20:45
Wilder has weighed in the 220s for most of his fights. The last one he weighed 214. How many heavyweights are there that weigh 214 anymore? Yet, the one guy who does not weigh a ton just happens to be 40-0, 39 kos and has been outweighed in his last 18 fights. Think about that.
Roy Jones was the last under 200 to fight for the title. He won.
Spinks weighed 200 when he beat Holmes.
We keep hearing that the lighter guys have no chance. Yet what actually has happened?
Yes heavyweights have gotton bigger. Instead of just assuming that bigger is better we should ask, should they do that? The answer so far has been for the most part, no.
Once again I'm not saying weight is the be all and end all and I'm not saying bigger is always better. Yes Wilder is light in comparison to others today but he carries no fat and the difference is he has the height, reach and power to pose other dangers.
Roy Jones was 5'11" with a 74" reach.
John Ruiz was 6'2" with a 77" reach
Spinks was 6'2.5" with a 76" reach
Holmes was 6'3" with a 81" reach
Physically there wasn't a lot in it. What Jones and Spinks had in common was they had combinations of fast hands, good boxing skills and movement, thats what won them the fights, not because that there were marginally smaller. Styles make fights. If Jones was such a good HW why did he not stay at HW where the big money was?
Marciano didn't have fast hands or good movement, his one strategy in every fight was to stand in front of his opponent and hit them until they fell. Thats fine when your opponent is physically weaker or of a similar size to you. Not such a good game plan when every physical advantage, weight and power is on your opponents side.
Marciano averaged 186.5lbs (13.3 stone) in his title fights, Wilder has averaged 223.6lbs (15.10 stone). When that is coupled with a 10" height advantage and 15" reach advantage, faster hands and a bigger punch the fight looks a lot tougher and any advantages Marciano would have would become less significant.
Many HWs of the older years would be todays CWs. How many CWs have successfully gone on to have successful HW careers. Only Holyfield. I'm discounting Haye as he failed at the top level, many say he wasn't big enough to compete with Klitschko.
How many short and light HWs are successful at the top level today. None, why is that?
Re: Rocky Marciano vs Deontay Wilder
Posted: 31 Oct 2018, 06:20
by jamamb
ya, why do people keep bringing up these other fights where the size differences werent even close to wilder-marciano and the style clash is totally different ?
ya, rock would pull a roy jones with his awe inspiring hand speed and reflexes and elusiveness right
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑30 Oct 2018, 20:45
Wilder has weighed in the 220s for most of his fights. The last one he weighed 214. How many heavyweights are there that weigh 214 anymore? Yet, the one guy who does not weigh a ton just happens to be 40-0, 39 kos and has been outweighed in his last 18 fights. Think about that.
Roy Jones was the last under 200 to fight for the title. He won.
Spinks weighed 200 when he beat Holmes.
We keep hearing that the lighter guys have no chance. Yet what actually has happened?
Yes heavyweights have gotton bigger. Instead of just assuming that bigger is better we should ask, should they do that? The answer so far has been for the most part, no.
Once again I'm not saying weight is the be all and end all and I'm not saying bigger is always better. Yes Wilder is light in comparison to others today but he carries no fat and the difference is he has the height, reach and power to pose other dangers.
Roy Jones was 5'11" with a 74" reach.
John Ruiz was 6'2" with a 77" reach
Spinks was 6'2.5" with a 76" reach
Holmes was 6'3" with a 81" reach
Physically there wasn't a lot in it. What Jones and Spinks had in common was they had combinations of fast hands, good boxing skills and movement, thats what won them the fights, not because that there were marginally smaller. Styles make fights. If Jones was such a good HW why did he not stay at HW where the big money was?
Marciano didn't have fast hands or good movement, his one strategy in every fight was to stand in front of his opponent and hit them until they fell. Thats fine when your opponent is physically weaker or of a similar size to you. Not such a good game plan when every physical advantage, weight and power is on your opponents side.
Marciano averaged 186.5lbs (13.3 stone) in his title fights, Wilder has averaged 223.6lbs (15.10 stone). When that is coupled with a 10" height advantage and 15" reach advantage, faster hands and a bigger punch the fight looks a lot tougher and any advantages Marciano would have would become less significant.
Many HWs of the older years would be todays CWs. How many CWs have successfully gone on to have successful HW careers. Only Holyfield. I'm discounting Haye as he failed at the top level, many say he wasn't big enough to compete with Klitschko.
How many short and light HWs are successful at the top level today. None, why is that?
Makes you wonder how Mike Tyson disarmed all those big guys, given that apparently it's impossible.
Tyson, 5'10'', 71'' reach, stubby little guy, not only outjabbed but also repeatedly got inside:
For the umpteenth time, I ask why is it people think Wilder jabs like Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes? All available footage of him contradicts any idea that he has a disciplined, persistent or intelligent jab. He paws one--one!--just to 'mask' the big crazy right, over and over again. His reach is not the factor it should be because he doesn't have the ring IQ or physical coordination to make it count. Thus a Marciano-type opponent is going to get close to him, and being a big tall guy isn't an advantage when the short guy who can hit is up close. See the above Tyson fights. And what's Wilder's inside fighting form? Extremely poor. Bowe he is not.
From Fitzsimmons to Dempsey to Carnera to Valuev we've seen either 10, 11, 12 inch height advantages, and/or 50, 60, 60, 80lb (and bigger) weight advantages come to nought because none of these advantages are contained in the jawbone. Wilder is not special and Marciano is. 1950s, Wilder is at a lower weight. Modern day Marciano is a higher weight. Either way he closes the gap and grinds the Windmilling One down.
