BoxRec

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

My question was to name fighters that Marciano fought that were known for their punch power, Walcotts name doesn't spring to mind .

walcott could really wack, his name springs to my mind as the obvious choice. i mean walcott could really hit. contempories all spoke highly of walcotts power as did many of the fighters of that era.

check out film, walcotts demonstrates the abilit to knock GREAT fighters flat on there back with just 1 punch.


louis could still hit hard even at 37, and he was a big guy 215lb, lot of force in that punch. check on youtube for his knockout out pat valentino just 1 year prior to marciano fight, you will see he still had a some amo left in the gun.


rex layne 34-1(25ko) was known as a thunderous puncher with that right hand.


archie moore was the all time KO king, and heavyweights tiger ted lowry and hacthetman sheppard who fought all the BIG powerful heavyweights of the 1940s claimed archie moore was the hardest hitter they ever faced.


no once again, holyfield was not a puncher so why bring this up?? wuts the big deal about marciano fighting a puncher? holyfield wasnt one.

Whoa calm down mate. This topic came up because people were saying Marciano would KO Holyfield. My point was Holyfield fought guys who punched as hard, and harder than Marciano so why could Marciano KO him when bigger fighters with bigger punches couldn't?

Holyfields chin has been tested by bigger punchers than Marciano. Holyfield was also a decent puncher too. He stopped granite chinned Qawi, stopped several 'named' heavyweights including ko'ing Douglas with one punch, something Tyson couldn't do. I would even go as far as saying Holyfield would have been one of the hardest punchers Marciano would have ever faced.

Louis was a deadly puncher, mainly because he was fast, deadly accurate and a good combination puncher. He had lost the speed and wasn't anywhere near the fighter he was. Remember he retired 3 and a half years earlier after beating Walcott. He was on the decline then and only came back for the money.

Foreman was pure power. No quick combination punches from him, just raw power. That you don't loose, especially when your three stone heavier than you were in your prime.

In my opinion Holyfield faced bigger punchers full stop. I listed five, I could have listed 10, could you?

Holyfield walked through Tysons punches, would Marciano do the same?

Like I said before Louis always gets mentioned as being a great win for Marciano, although it is known Louis was past it. Tyson on the other hand KOs Holmes (who was never previously or after stopped ) and gets no praise for it.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Marciano IMO never faced a young, big punching, decent fighter. He fought good fighters but battle worn, old and ones coming near to the end of their careers.

wut is ur definition of decent? does fringe contender 6'5 220lb 29 year old johnny skhor who marciano slaughtered in 6 fit the defintioin??

or perhaps marcianos 1 round annihalation of young 6'3 230lb 42-11(35ko) big bill wilson in 1 round?

actually marciano fought great fighters(yes these were still great fighters i dont care how old they were) and the only reason those fighters came to the end of there careers was being marciano SENT THEM TO IT, he ruined those guys. you must look at marcianos opponents records coming into the marciano fight, rather than post marciano fight.

notice how even 26 year old layne, 20 year old carmine vingo, 23 year old lastarza, 26 year old cockell, 29 year old mathews careers went into horrible droughts to retirement after facing marciano......marciano ruined the young guys as well as the old guys


are u honestly trying to crtisize marciano for not fighting 29 year old 6'3 215lb nino valdez or 28 year old 6'2 220lb bob baker

these names would look good as victims huh?? well then perhaps you should give archie moore more credit cause he flattened these "big young studs"(that marciano never could beat right? ).


would marciano have beaten these "young" powerful decent fighters? maybe maybe not its all opinion.

in my opinion he would have rather easily, for i feel is style is made to destroy these type of fighters and he has more trouble with the speedy slick boxers. again just my opinion. i feel marciano was at a stylistic disadvantage most of his career(lastarza, walcott, charles, moore) and when you put him in with a big slugger(louis, layne) he had easier times.

Johnny Shkor was not a decent fighter IMO. His record shows that. He lost numerous fights and was coming off a one round KO defeat when he fought Marciano. Just because he was big and tall doesn't mean a thing, look at Michael Grant.

Bill Wilson was not a decent fighter either. Who did he ever beat and he was stopped on a cut anyway.

Carmine Vingo. Yes Marciano said he was the hardest opponent but who did Vingo ever beat?

Cockell. Sorry not a great fighter.

Comparing Holyfields record with Marcianos isn't a good idea. He fought far more beter fighters than Marciano did. Fighters who were young, undefeated, big punching, contenders and world champions, past and present.

Holfield UD.

granberry wrote:3) Foreman who was a decade past his prime

What the 42 year old Foreman, who was probably still younger than Archie Moore was when he fought Marciano?

Tyson on the other hand KOs Holmes (who was never previously or after stopped ) and gets no praise for it.

actually if u know my posts, u would see i give tyson alot more credit than most for beating holmes.

Johnny Shkor was not a decent fighter IMO. His record shows that. He lost numerous fights and was coming off a one round KO defeat when he fought Marciano. Just because he was big and tall doesn't mean a thing, look at Michael Grant.

i agree with this. on a sidenote that 1 round knockout defeat was to hall of famer jersey joe walcott, so surely thats not a bad mark. right before he fought marciano, skhor outpointed top 15 contender in the world black fighter helluva left hooker rusty payne.

Controversial wrote:

granberry wrote:3) Foreman who was a decade past his prime

What the 42 year old Foreman, who was probably still younger than Archie Moore was when he fought Marciano?

moore was 38 when he fought marciano, marciano was also 32 meaning he was only 6 years younger than moore.


holy was 28 a good 14 years younger than 42 year old foreman


we have also established foremans prime as the 1970s. holyfield fought foreman in 1991 20 years later.


there is no established prime of archie moore, as his prime ranged anywhere from the 1940s to the mid 1950s. marciano fought moore in 1955.


if we were to compare moore-foreman comparison, that would mean marciano would fight moore in 1975!!!

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Marciano IMO never faced a young, big punching, decent fighter. He fought good fighters but battle worn, old and ones coming near to the end of their careers.

wut is ur definition of decent? does fringe contender 6'5 220lb 29 year old johnny skhor who marciano slaughtered in 6 fit the defintioin??

or perhaps marcianos 1 round annihalation of young 6'3 230lb 42-11(35ko) big bill wilson in 1 round?

actually marciano fought great fighters(yes these were still great fighters i dont care how old they were) and the only reason those fighters came to the end of there careers was being marciano SENT THEM TO IT, he ruined those guys. you must look at marcianos opponents records coming into the marciano fight, rather than post marciano fight.

notice how even 26 year old layne, 20 year old carmine vingo, 23 year old lastarza, 26 year old cockell, 29 year old mathews careers went into horrible droughts to retirement after facing marciano......marciano ruined the young guys as well as the old guys


are u honestly trying to crtisize marciano for not fighting 29 year old 6'3 215lb nino valdez or 28 year old 6'2 220lb bob baker

these names would look good as victims huh?? well then perhaps you should give archie moore more credit cause he flattened these "big young studs"(that marciano never could beat right? ).


would marciano have beaten these "young" powerful decent fighters? maybe maybe not its all opinion.

in my opinion he would have rather easily, for i feel is style is made to destroy these type of fighters and he has more trouble with the speedy slick boxers. again just my opinion. i feel marciano was at a stylistic disadvantage most of his career(lastarza, walcott, charles, moore) and when you put him in with a big slugger(louis, layne) he had easier times.

Johnny Shkor was not a decent fighter IMO. His record shows that. He lost numerous fights and was coming off a one round KO defeat when he fought Marciano. Just because he was big and tall doesn't mean a thing, look at Michael Grant.

Bill Wilson was not a decent fighter either. Who did he ever beat and he was stopped on a cut anyway.

Carmine Vingo. Yes Marciano said he was the hardest opponent but who did Vingo ever beat?

Cockell. Sorry not a great fighter.

Comparing Holyfields record with Marcianos isn't a good idea. He fought far more beter fighters than Marciano did. Fighters who were young, undefeated, big punching, contenders and world champions, past and present.

Holfield UD.

u misread my post. in no way was i talking up a fighter like don cockell, i was simply pointing out the reason it looked like marciano fought opponents at the end of there careers was because marciano ruined fighters........he sent them into retirement with there beatings. not all of them were at the end of there careers......marciano simply sent them to the end of there careers with the beatings he lay upon them.


i pointed out that to you that marciano not only did it to the older fighters but also the younger fighters too!! even the 25 year old fighters marciano sent them into retirement! marciano was essentially the greatest "ruiner" of all time, something his detractors look past.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Johnny Shkor was not a decent fighter IMO. His record shows that. He lost numerous fights and was coming off a one round KO defeat when he fought Marciano. Just because he was big and tall doesn't mean a thing, look at Michael Grant.

i agree with this. on a sidenote that 1 round knockout defeat was to hall of famer jersey joe walcott, so surely thats not a bad mark. right before he fought marciano, skhor outpointed top 15 contender in the world black fighter helluva left hooker rusty payne.

Well if you agree with me then why list Shkor as a decent opponent? He lost to many fighters, it just so happens Walcott ko'ed quickly I fail to see the relevence of that. Payne was a fighter on the decline, his long list of defeats after losing to Shkor show that.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: wut is ur definition of decent? does fringe contender 6'5 220lb 29 year old johnny skhor who marciano slaughtered in 6 fit the defintioin??

or perhaps marcianos 1 round annihalation of young 6'3 230lb 42-11(35ko) big bill wilson in 1 round?

actually marciano fought great fighters(yes these were still great fighters i dont care how old they were) and the only reason those fighters came to the end of there careers was being marciano SENT THEM TO IT, he ruined those guys. you must look at marcianos opponents records coming into the marciano fight, rather than post marciano fight.

notice how even 26 year old layne, 20 year old carmine vingo, 23 year old lastarza, 26 year old cockell, 29 year old mathews careers went into horrible droughts to retirement after facing marciano......marciano ruined the young guys as well as the old guys


are u honestly trying to crtisize marciano for not fighting 29 year old 6'3 215lb nino valdez or 28 year old 6'2 220lb bob baker

these names would look good as victims huh?? well then perhaps you should give archie moore more credit cause he flattened these "big young studs"(that marciano never could beat right? ).


would marciano have beaten these "young" powerful decent fighters? maybe maybe not its all opinion.

in my opinion he would have rather easily, for i feel is style is made to destroy these type of fighters and he has more trouble with the speedy slick boxers. again just my opinion. i feel marciano was at a stylistic disadvantage most of his career(lastarza, walcott, charles, moore) and when you put him in with a big slugger(louis, layne) he had easier times.

Johnny Shkor was not a decent fighter IMO. His record shows that. He lost numerous fights and was coming off a one round KO defeat when he fought Marciano. Just because he was big and tall doesn't mean a thing, look at Michael Grant.

Bill Wilson was not a decent fighter either. Who did he ever beat and he was stopped on a cut anyway.

Carmine Vingo. Yes Marciano said he was the hardest opponent but who did Vingo ever beat?

Cockell. Sorry not a great fighter.

Comparing Holyfields record with Marcianos isn't a good idea. He fought far more beter fighters than Marciano did. Fighters who were young, undefeated, big punching, contenders and world champions, past and present.

Holfield UD.

u misread my post. in no way was i talking up a fighter like don cockell, i was simply pointing out the reason it looked like marciano fought opponents at the end of there careers was because marciano ruined fighters........he sent them into retirement with there beatings. not all of them were at the end of there careers......marciano simply sent them to the end of there careers with the beatings he lay upon them.


i pointed out that to you that marciano not only did it to the older fighters but also the younger fighters too!! even the 25 year old fighters marciano sent them into retirement! marciano was essentially the greatest "ruiner" of all time, something his detractors look past.

I dont agree that Marciano ruined fighters, to me thats a good excuse as to why those fighters either retired soon after or continued to get beat. The only fighter he ruined was Vingo, a fighter that may or may not have been decent. His record up to that point didn't suggest he was anything special.

You have to surely concede that Holyfield fought a better list of fighters and punchers than Marciano did. Several of Holyfields opponents were much bigger, stronger and were either undefeated or on winning streaks. Not many fighters that Marciano fought fit that description.

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Johnny Shkor was not a decent fighter IMO. His record shows that. He lost numerous fights and was coming off a one round KO defeat when he fought Marciano. Just because he was big and tall doesn't mean a thing, look at Michael Grant.

i agree with this. on a sidenote that 1 round knockout defeat was to hall of famer jersey joe walcott, so surely thats not a bad mark. right before he fought marciano, skhor outpointed top 15 contender in the world black fighter helluva left hooker rusty payne.

Well if you agree with me then why list Shkor as a decent opponent? He lost to many fighters, it just so happens Walcott ko'ed quickly I fail to see the relevence of that. Payne was a fighter on the decline, his long list of defeats after losing to Shkor show that.

i didnt list skhor as a decent opponent. i simply asked for you to define your definition of "decent"

coming into the skhor fight, payne had just beaten willie bean, sid peaks, hatchetman sheppard, and knocked tiger ted lowry out cold(lowry never knocked out before).......payne certainly was not on the decline!
in fact going into the skhor fight, payne was 12-3 in his last 15 fights and was ranked top 10 in the world right before skhor fought him!

btw, with all this critism surrounding marciano why dont u start critisizing holyfield? i hadvnt heard u yet harp on his loss to michael moorer

I dont agree that Marciano ruined fighters, to me thats a good excuse as to why those fighters either retired soon after or continued to get beat. The only fighter he ruined was Vingo, a fighter that may or may not have been decent. His record up to that point didn't suggest he was anything special

so ur saying he didnt ruin cockell, mathews, layne, lastarza? then please explain why these young fighters went into such droughts after fighting marciano?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: i agree with this. on a sidenote that 1 round knockout defeat was to hall of famer jersey joe walcott, so surely thats not a bad mark. right before he fought marciano, skhor outpointed top 15 contender in the world black fighter helluva left hooker rusty payne.

Well if you agree with me then why list Shkor as a decent opponent? He lost to many fighters, it just so happens Walcott ko'ed quickly I fail to see the relevence of that. Payne was a fighter on the decline, his long list of defeats after losing to Shkor show that.

i didnt list skhor as a decent opponent. i simply asked for you to define your definition of "decent"

coming into the skhor fight, payne had just beaten willie bean, sid peaks, hatchetman sheppard, and knocked tiger ted lowry out cold(lowry never knocked out before).......payne certainly was not on the decline!
in fact going into the skhor fight, payne was 12-3 in his last 15 fights and was ranked top 10 in the world right before skhor fought him!

btw, with all this critism surrounding marciano why dont u start critisizing holyfield? i hadvnt heard u yet harp on his loss to michael moorer

I guess then as Payne went 15 fights - 4 wins - 10 losses - 1NC after losing to Shkor its because Shkor riuned him? You dont mention that Sheppard retired for good after losing to Payne. Lowry a durable fighter yet frequently beat, again his record shows that. A long list of straight defeats after losing to Payne.

I can criticise Holyfield, he's not perfect but neither was Marciano. Im comparing the two records. Holyfield fought bigger and better fighters than Marciano did. He was tested by bigger punchers than Marciano was.

Holyfield UD.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

I dont agree that Marciano ruined fighters, to me thats a good excuse as to why those fighters either retired soon after or continued to get beat. The only fighter he ruined was Vingo, a fighter that may or may not have been decent. His record up to that point didn't suggest he was anything special

so ur saying he didnt ruin cockell, mathews, layne, lastarza? then please explain why these young fighters went into such droughts after fighting marciano?

Cockell wasn't a great fighter anyway, average at best. Marciano fought a very dirty fight and hit Cockell with everything, he didn't look good that night. LaStarza went on a long winning run after losing to Marciano the first time so he couldn't have ruined him that much. Matthews was stopped very quickly, he wasn't involved in a brutal fight that ruins fighters.

I can criticise Holyfield, he's not perfect but neither was Marciano. Im comparing the two records. Holyfield fought bigger and better fighters than Marciano did. He was tested by bigger punchers than Marciano was.

so wut marciano was tested vs better boxers and more skilled fighters than holyfield was. wuts the big deal with the punchers? its alot tougher to defeat a skillful boxer than a slow plodding puncher

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

I dont agree that Marciano ruined fighters, to me thats a good excuse as to why those fighters either retired soon after or continued to get beat. The only fighter he ruined was Vingo, a fighter that may or may not have been decent. His record up to that point didn't suggest he was anything special

so ur saying he didnt ruin cockell, mathews, layne, lastarza? then please explain why these young fighters went into such droughts after fighting marciano?

Cockell wasn't a great fighter anyway, average at best. Marciano fought a very dirty fight and hit Cockell with everything, he didn't look good that night. Matthews was stopped very quickly, he wasn't involved in a brutal fight that ruins fighters.

yes i realize that. i never even said cockell was good(cause i dont think he was). marciano's worst fight of his career was against cockell, it was the fight where he showed signs of aging.....think of cockell as holmes luis rodriguez.

LaStarza went on a long winning run after losing to Marciano the first time so he couldn't have ruined him that much.

i was clearly talking about the 2nd time when lastarza still only 26 years old was beaten so severely by marciano he suffered broken blood vessels in his arms and blood clots that required 6 different surgeries and severe facial damage. after that lastarza went 5-9. i think its fair to say lastarza permant physical damage ruined him by the beating marciano gave him.


don cockell only 26, fought just two times after suffering horrible physical damage in the marciano fight


harry kid mathews 51-0 in his last 51 fights entering marciano fight.......only 4-4 post marciano fight. you dont think marciano ruined him physcologically?

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. marciano woulkd break you(even sparring partners felt this) marciano turned young fighters into old men overnight and sent great fighters into retirement.

i have a first hand story from john garfield who told me big nino valdez once sparred with rocky marciano.....and when the bell rang ending the session valdez walked back to the corner with a horrified look on his face like hed been through hell and that he looked physically drained. he looked broken down according to garfield. marciano had that effect on people.


some of these men marciano fought were old(in age) but these old men were tearing up the division until they ran into marciano. then suddenly after facing marciano there careers plummeted downhill.

virtually every contender marciano ever faced he completley ruined them...i mean ruined them. they were never the same again. this is why i rate marciano in the top 5. the best ruiner of all time hands down.....again just my opinion.


i feel controversial you would give marciano more respect had he beaten nino valdez or bob baker.

I would favor Rocky. Also this depends on a drug test as well. Holyfield is a cheat and a juicer. Outside of the Qawi fight, which I believe wholeheartedly that Holy juiced for, he had trouble going 3 hard mintues for 12 rounds. Rocky didn't and Holy had more skill but he loved to brawl and that's what it would be. I see Holy getting dropped late and Rocky winning a hard fought UD. Holyfield might lose a td because he used his big ugly dome to open rocky's face when the going gets tough.

I would favor Rocky. Also this depends on a drug test as well. Holyfield is a cheat and a juicer.

i agree. imagine giving rocky steroids like evanders been doing, god what an animal rocky would be!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

I can criticise Holyfield, he's not perfect but neither was Marciano. Im comparing the two records. Holyfield fought bigger and better fighters than Marciano did. He was tested by bigger punchers than Marciano was.

so wut marciano was tested vs better boxers and more skilled fighters than holyfield was. wuts the big deal with the punchers? its alot tougher to defeat a skillful boxer than a slow plodding puncher

The big deal about Holyfield fighting punchers is that Marciano was a puncher (duh)

Bigger and better punchers fought Holyfield. Holyfield in his prime would have been a hard fight for any fighter, including Marciano. Yes Marciano would have been a hard fight for Holyfield but Holyfield was a better all round boxer and puncher than the vast majority of people Marciano fought.

Holyfield UD.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

I would favor Rocky. Also this depends on a drug test as well. Holyfield is a cheat and a juicer.

i agree. imagine giving rocky steroids like evanders been doing, god what an animal rocky would be!

Thats a rumour.

You know like Marcianos link with the Mob, his manager and promotors links with the Mob. Did you know that one Marciano opponent Harry Haft even wrote a book claiming he was visited by three men before the fight and told to take a dive?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:

Controversial wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
so ur saying he didnt ruin cockell, mathews, layne, lastarza? then please explain why these young fighters went into such droughts after fighting marciano?

Cockell wasn't a great fighter anyway, average at best. Marciano fought a very dirty fight and hit Cockell with everything, he didn't look good that night. Matthews was stopped very quickly, he wasn't involved in a brutal fight that ruins fighters.

yes i realize that. i never even said cockell was good(cause i dont think he was). marciano's worst fight of his career was against cockell, it was the fight where he showed signs of aging.....think of cockell as holmes luis rodriguez.

LaStarza went on a long winning run after losing to Marciano the first time so he couldn't have ruined him that much.

i was clearly talking about the 2nd time when lastarza still only 26 years old was beaten so severely by marciano he suffered broken blood vessels in his arms and blood clots that required 6 different surgeries and severe facial damage. after that lastarza went 5-9. i think its fair to say lastarza permant physical damage ruined him by the beating marciano gave him.


don cockell only 26, fought just two times after suffering horrible physical damage in the marciano fight


harry kid mathews 51-0 in his last 51 fights entering marciano fight.......only 4-4 post marciano fight. you dont think marciano ruined him physcologically?

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. marciano woulkd break you(even sparring partners felt this) marciano turned young fighters into old men overnight and sent great fighters into retirement.

i have a first hand story from john garfield who told me big nino valdez once sparred with rocky marciano.....and when the bell rang ending the session valdez walked back to the corner with a horrified look on his face like hed been through hell and that he looked physically drained. he looked broken down according to garfield. marciano had that effect on people.


some of these men marciano fought were old(in age) but these old men were tearing up the division until they ran into marciano. then suddenly after facing marciano there careers plummeted downhill.

virtually every contender marciano ever faced he completley ruined them...i mean ruined them. they were never the same again. this is why i rate marciano in the top 5. the best ruiner of all time hands down.....again just my opinion.


i feel controversial you would give marciano more respect had he beaten nino valdez or bob baker.

Absolute rubbish. Youre telling me a two round ko ruins Matthews so much that hes never the same fighter again.....you surely don't believe that do you.

Don Cockell, as you agreed anyway, wasn't a good fighter. Yes Marciano punished him but most of the time with illegal punches and illegal tactics. He didn't give him a boxing lesson he just beat him with what he could to win. I'm surprised he didn't try a drop kick or clothes line on him.

Its interesting you say Layne was ruined considering he managed to get a decision win over Ezzard Charles two years after the Marciano defeat. If he was ruined was does that say about the condition of Charles who didn't fight Marciano for yet another two years. And the ruined Layne also lost a split decision to LaStarza two years after losing to Marciano. LaStarza then fought Marciano, so using your argument LaStarza must have been on the decline as well.

People on this board pick and choose their "cheats". Talk about double standards...

If a fighter can gain an advantage in the ring by butting, pushing, holding, etc... then so be it. The ref is there to deduct points and disqualify. If he doesn't do it then the ref should be banned. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to see cheating but a fight's a fight. I don't like to lose and do whatever I have to do when competing in anything. The problem really is that the big money makers of the sport seem to have always gotten away with their dirty tricks whilst lesser names don't have that advantage.

As for Holyfield's steroids... Morrison admitted to it and said it was rife in the sport. Jones got caught out on a test. Pryor and Holmes apparently had special 'bottles' in the corner. Look at how fighters jump up and down the weight classes putting on solid muscle...you're naive if you really don't think something's going on. Nobody is talking about these guys all-time rankings going down. Tyson bit a man's ear and brought the sport to it's knees in a way never seen before or since, but Mike's popular so that's okay...

Ezzard wrote:People on this board pick and choose their "cheats". Talk about double standards...

If a fighter can gain an advantage in the ring by butting, pushing, holding, etc... then so be it. The ref is there to deduct points and disqualify. If he doesn't do it then the ref should be banned. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to see cheating but a fight's a fight. I don't like to lose and do whatever I have to do when competing in anything. The problem really is that the big money makers of the sport seem to have always gotten away with their dirty tricks whilst lesser names don't have that advantage.

As for Holyfield's steroids... Morrison admitted to it and said it was rife in the sport. Jones got caught out on a test. Pryor and Holmes apparently had special 'bottles' in the corner. Look at how fighters jump up and down the weight classes putting on solid muscle...you're naive if you really don't think something's going on. Nobody is talking about these guys all-time rankings going down. Tyson bit a man's ear and brought the sport to it's knees in a way never seen before or since, but Mike's popular so that's okay...

This was bought up because someone said Holyfield was a dirty fighter and wouldn't have got away with it it days of 'legitimate boxing' (whatever that means). My point was Marciano was as dirty a fighter than most. I'm not saying Holyfield wasn't dirty either but you can't argue this point when comparing him to Marciano.

Nothings been proved about Holyfield. He was a fanatical trainer and although muscular wasn't huge, still around the 15.7 stone region, thats not big when compared to some heavys out there. He was still ripped and muscular when he was much younger.

Again if people are trying to slander Holyfield I could use the same argument about the Mob ties with Marcianos camp and associated allegations.

Controversial wrote:

Ezzard wrote:People on this board pick and choose their "cheats". Talk about double standards...

If a fighter can gain an advantage in the ring by butting, pushing, holding, etc... then so be it. The ref is there to deduct points and disqualify. If he doesn't do it then the ref should be banned. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to see cheating but a fight's a fight. I don't like to lose and do whatever I have to do when competing in anything. The problem really is that the big money makers of the sport seem to have always gotten away with their dirty tricks whilst lesser names don't have that advantage.

As for Holyfield's steroids... Morrison admitted to it and said it was rife in the sport. Jones got caught out on a test. Pryor and Holmes apparently had special 'bottles' in the corner. Look at how fighters jump up and down the weight classes putting on solid muscle...you're naive if you really don't think something's going on. Nobody is talking about these guys all-time rankings going down. Tyson bit a man's ear and brought the sport to it's knees in a way never seen before or since, but Mike's popular so that's okay...

This was bought up because someone said Holyfield was a dirty fighter and wouldn't have got away with it it days of 'legitimate boxing' (whatever that means). My point was Marciano was as dirty a fighter than most. I'm not saying Holyfield wasn't dirty either but you can't argue this point when comparing him to Marciano.

Nothings been proved about Holyfield. He was a fanatical trainer and although muscular wasn't huge, still around the 15.7 stone region, thats not big when compared to some heavys out there. He was still ripped and muscular when he was much younger.

Again if people are trying to slander Holyfield I could use the same argument about the Mob ties with Marcianos camp and associated allegations.

My comments were aimed at everyone picking and choosing who was dirty and who is a cheat. I agree that Rocky was a dirty fighter too. I think you raised a good point. Two dirty fighters from the 1980s who never get called on it were Michael Spinks and Ray Leonard. I don't remember either of them as much as ever losing a point. I wouldn't rank them down for it and don't think any lesser of them for it but they were dirty fighters.

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...

Ezzard wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Ezzard wrote:People on this board pick and choose their "cheats". Talk about double standards...

If a fighter can gain an advantage in the ring by butting, pushing, holding, etc... then so be it. The ref is there to deduct points and disqualify. If he doesn't do it then the ref should be banned. Don't get me wrong, I don't like to see cheating but a fight's a fight. I don't like to lose and do whatever I have to do when competing in anything. The problem really is that the big money makers of the sport seem to have always gotten away with their dirty tricks whilst lesser names don't have that advantage.

As for Holyfield's steroids... Morrison admitted to it and said it was rife in the sport. Jones got caught out on a test. Pryor and Holmes apparently had special 'bottles' in the corner. Look at how fighters jump up and down the weight classes putting on solid muscle...you're naive if you really don't think something's going on. Nobody is talking about these guys all-time rankings going down. Tyson bit a man's ear and brought the sport to it's knees in a way never seen before or since, but Mike's popular so that's okay...

This was bought up because someone said Holyfield was a dirty fighter and wouldn't have got away with it it days of 'legitimate boxing' (whatever that means). My point was Marciano was as dirty a fighter than most. I'm not saying Holyfield wasn't dirty either but you can't argue this point when comparing him to Marciano.

Nothings been proved about Holyfield. He was a fanatical trainer and although muscular wasn't huge, still around the 15.7 stone region, thats not big when compared to some heavys out there. He was still ripped and muscular when he was much younger.

Again if people are trying to slander Holyfield I could use the same argument about the Mob ties with Marcianos camp and associated allegations.

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.

Controversial wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Controversial wrote: This was bought up because someone said Holyfield was a dirty fighter and wouldn't have got away with it it days of 'legitimate boxing' (whatever that means). My point was Marciano was as dirty a fighter than most. I'm not saying Holyfield wasn't dirty either but you can't argue this point when comparing him to Marciano.

Nothings been proved about Holyfield. He was a fanatical trainer and although muscular wasn't huge, still around the 15.7 stone region, thats not big when compared to some heavys out there. He was still ripped and muscular when he was much younger.

Again if people are trying to slander Holyfield I could use the same argument about the Mob ties with Marcianos camp and associated allegations.

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...