BoxRec

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

spudder56 wrote:

jameswilson wrote:I reckon a Prime Holmes would have been a hell of a test for every heavyweight in history.

Yes a prime Larry Holmes is arguably the best of all time IMO

I think the same, he has a very strong case.

Me too,at his peak he was a very difficult fighter to beat and in fact nobody managed to do it.excellent movement,brilliant hurtful jab,great stamina,great chin what more can i say.

Holmes had some excellent attributes and could be under motivated and could be outboxed and outworked, some so so contenders gave him a hell of a go. You can't just look at the best of Holmes and imagine all his career was like that.

palooka wrote:Holmes had some excellent attributes and could be under motivated and could be outboxed and outworked, some so so contenders gave him a hell of a go. You can't just look at the best of Holmes and imagine all his career was like that.

Yes that's right,David Bey for instance troubled him and really shouldn't have,Snipes almost beat him,so did a young Witherspoon,still my favourite though.

bigjack wrote:

palooka wrote:Holmes had some excellent attributes and could be under motivated and could be outboxed and outworked, some so so contenders gave him a hell of a go. You can't just look at the best of Holmes and imagine all his career was like that.

Yes that's right,David Bey for instance troubled him and really shouldn't have,Snipes almost beat him,so did a young Witherspoon,still my favourite though.

Oh, I enjoyed watching him and he was a fantastic boxer but some go a little overboard, you've to judge him on his career and overall efforts not just on the 15th round v Norton.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:Rocky had heart Tyson could never dream to have. He had great power, a better chin, and better conditioning.

I'd take Rocky over Tyson.

Absolutely no chance. Rocky was a slow starter and was slow of hand and foot, he won by a war of attrition. He never faced a puncher like Tyson, - he was fortunate to be around in the post Louis era, when most of the talent around was past their best. Tyson was one of the fastest and most dangerous starters in the history of division, as tough as Maricano was, no way would he have been able to get into his groove against Tyson, he would have been stopped early in the fight.

Rocky isn't David Jaco or Mike Jameson. Tyson didn't do well against guys who didn't crap their pants early against him. The only heart/chin combo he faced that was close to Rocky was Evander; we know how that went. Tyson was also fortunate to come after prime Holmes and before Lewis. When Rocky didn't wilt (or slow down) Tyson would start questioning himself. Rocky either stops him or makes him quit.

Old bones Ian wrote:

Rexob wrote:

Old bones Ian wrote:Tyson never won a fight he was losing, as time goes by I rate him less in the all time great heavy list

Yawn

Superb retort, I now stand corrected.

Ohh that's good then

Love the post by the guy that said it's irrelevant who he fought in those first few fights. Totally spot on. His greatness is measured in wins over charles, walcott etc.

When it comes to Rocky vs Tyson, it's a tricky one. Mike is bigger, faster and you'd think by that rational, he'd just charge in and waste Rocky. However, sport is not that simple. Rocky was hard to hit and was totally fearless. He also had brutal power of his own. I'd see Mike finding Rocky harder to hit than he thought and getting ground down in the later rounds.

As for holmes the best ever? no way at all!! dont get me wrong, he was a great fighter and defo all time top 5 but he had lots of trouble with the likes of norton and shavers, not to mention the spoon and a few others. He was great but his resume isn't in the same league as ali's imo. Nor Louis actually who prob would have had 40 defences without WW2. Stunning jab holmes had tho....stunning.

Coco wrote:Tyson was a small heavy but still way to big for Marciano

Marciano was actually marginally taller than Tyson.
And as for weight, well I think that is a function of training. Marciano was a renowned trojan.
Weight could also be a function of nutrition/supplements/the-other-stuff-we-dare-not-mention.
There is 43 years between their birth dates, which spanned an era where the ancillaries available to athletes changed vastly.

palooka wrote:Holmes had some excellent attributes and could be under motivated and could be outboxed and outworked, some so so contenders gave him a hell of a go. You can't just look at the best of Holmes and imagine all his career was like that.

You could say that about any fighter. Everyone has off nights.

Even on his worst performances, none of those young pretenders actually managed to beat him. Spinks was an incredibly awkward fighter, and Larry was just that little past his best by then.

cfang wrote:Love the post by the guy that said it's irrelevant who he fought in those first few fights. Totally spot on. His greatness is measured in wins over charles, walcott etc.

When it comes to Rocky vs Tyson, it's a tricky one. Mike is bigger, faster and you'd think by that rational, he'd just charge in and waste Rocky. However, sport is not that simple. Rocky was hard to hit and was totally fearless. He also had brutal power of his own. I'd see Mike finding Rocky harder to hit than he thought and getting ground down in the later rounds.

As for holmes the best ever? no way at all!! dont get me wrong, he was a great fighter and defo all time top 5 but he had lots of trouble with the likes of norton and shavers, not to mention the spoon and a few others. He was great but his resume isn't in the same league as ali's imo. Nor Louis actually who prob would have had 40 defences without WW2. Stunning jab holmes had tho....stunning.

What, Ali didn't struggle with Norton? Ali should have had at least one, and probably two decisions go against him.

Louis had some very poor opponents crammed into his resume.

Rocky was NOT had to hit, - he relied on incredible durability, not something you'd want to be doing against Tyson.

punchoutsb wrote:Rocky had heart Tyson could never dream to have. He had great power, a better chin, and better conditioning.

I'd take Rocky over Tyson.

Me too. Tyson struggled with fighters who had no fear of him. Expzzard Charles, Joe Louis and Walcott all said Rocky hit incredibly hard. Too much chin, too much power and far more guts than Mike had. Maybe mike wins one out of five. Rocky just kept on coming, full tilt, could fight on the inside unlike Tyson and never initiated clinches. Mike loved a clinch so he could get a rest. Rocky never gave any quarter nor asked for any in return. Mike would be trying to bite his ears off.

There is no way a face first brawler like Marciano at 187ish pound is beating a 220 pound solid Tyson? it would just be a mess sorry Marciano fans, Tyson would win all day long every time.

These hypothetical match-ups are a load of twaddle anyway, Marciano had been retired 10 years before Tyson was even born however one thing we can conclude is that Rocky was the best of his era, Tyson not so much.

banjo wrote:These hypothetical match-ups are a load of twaddle anyway, Marciano had been retired 10 years before Tyson was even born however one thing we can conclude is that Rocky was the best of his era, Tyson not so much.

Well of course they are, however, they are fun things to debate.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

banjo wrote:These hypothetical match-ups are a load of twaddle anyway, Marciano had been retired 10 years before Tyson was even born however one thing we can conclude is that Rocky was the best of his era, Tyson not so much.

Well of course they are, however, they are fun things to debate.

Not when people start taking it too seriously though

banjo wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

banjo wrote:These hypothetical match-ups are a load of twaddle anyway, Marciano had been retired 10 years before Tyson was even born however one thing we can conclude is that Rocky was the best of his era, Tyson not so much.

Well of course they are, however, they are fun things to debate.

Not when people start taking it too seriously though

Well, no point arranging to meet up and have a fist fight over obviously. So long as everyone agrees with me, it's all fine.

Hi Gents,

back to the original post/question. As I remember reading-up on the subject, Marciano turned pro under the name of "Rocky Mac" and lost a decision to Coley Wallace. His management blotted this fight from his record as he went back to the amateurs and then turned pro for a second time as Rocky Marciano.

My favourite sentence on this subject was by an author called Gerald Suster: "Does this matter? It only matters if the truth matters - and it does!" however, there are varying reports as to whether the Wallace fight was as a pro or when he was already back in the amateurs.

Does make for good debate though :-)

"T.M.K"/Col

Marciano was the greatest heavyweight of his time and built up a genuine 49-0 record as a pro (43 knockouts). The sneering dismissal, the scandalous accusations, the breathtaking ignorance dislayed on this thread is the internet at its absolute lowest.

bennie wrote:Marciano was the greatest heavyweight of his time and built up a genuine 49-0 record as a pro (43 knockouts). The sneering dismissal, the scandalous accusations, the breathtaking ignorance dislayed on this thread is the internet at its absolute lowest.

I understand holding that point of view generally and it is one that I share however I do not think this thread is an example of it. As a boxing fan of a few decades now who has been reading books, triva, magazines for a long time, like many here, I have read these rumours of the early loss, going back to the amateurs etc in articles by very respected journalists in very reputable magazines and in the days before the internet.

Rocky WAS hard to hit. Just cos he took some damage from superfast clinical punchers like Charles doesn't mean he was some face first guy with no defence. His crouch made him hard to catch clean. He had to get close to win fights due to his freakish short reach.

Ali said he was very hard to hit in his sparring session/computer match up. Marciano was very very well schooled by one of the greatest trainers of all time!

Rocky beats Tyson for me.

If rocky cane back now - what weight division would he compete in ?

palooka wrote:

bigjack wrote:

palooka wrote:Holmes had some excellent attributes and could be under motivated and could be outboxed and outworked, some so so contenders gave him a hell of a go. You can't just look at the best of Holmes and imagine all his career was like that.

Yes that's right,David Bey for instance troubled him and really shouldn't have,Snipes almost beat him,so did a young Witherspoon,still my favourite though.

Oh, I enjoyed watching him and he was a fantastic boxer but some go a little overboard, you've to judge him on his career and overall efforts not just on the 15th round v Norton.

Same with Tyson. Very poor career overall. A pure front runner who never came back from defeat, never won a rematch, who had to resort to biting a better mans ear of rather than fight like a man. Holyfield would have taken him to the cleaners anytime they fought. Just not enough mental strength for the best of the best. He could make lesser fighters look terrible though.

REEVE wrote:If rocky cane back now - what weight division would he compete in ?

Whatever one he wanted, Cruiser or heavyweight. He'd have the option to take gear like Tyson, Adamek, Holyfield, Roy Jones etc etc. he could bulk up to 200lbs and would wipe the floor with today's crop of gutless heavyweights.

Rexob wrote:There is no way a face first brawler like Marciano at 187ish pound is beating a 220 pound solid Tyson? it would just be a mess sorry Marciano fans, Tyson would win all day long every time.

I always think those who reside in Tysons asshole know least about boxing. Who did Tyson ever beat on par with Charles and Walcott? Who did he beat with chin, heart and bone breaking power.

Do you think Tyson was a good inside fighter Rexob?

I think Tyson was a good inside fighter