Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

What drivell, you discredit any boxing knowledge you had by claiming Ruiz is a tougher challenge than Vitali. Would you pick Ruiz to give a 37yo Lewis problems? I wouldnt

Anyway Vitali destroyed Kirk Johnson who was beating Ruiz until he was unfairly disqualified

The odd thing about Ruiz is that he always found a way to win. No skill, no athleticism, and he ended up winning anyway. Very strange. Although it's a bit off topic, I would not COMPLETELY discount his chances against Vitali--not because I believe him to be on the same level, but because I'm still leery of the "Ruiz Curse".

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

I'm not disagreeing with you here, and in fact I think you make some very good points about Moore and his acheivments at heavyweight. I'm just curious however, as to why you feel that it was exceedingly more difficult to acheive higher KO percentages in those days.

1. They didn't stop the fight as quickly.
2. You could be saved by the bell
3. The fighters, on the whole, had a great deal more professional experience and as the referee let the fights go on when a man was hurt, the fighters learned the tricks necessary to survive when hurt. On film they seem much better at slipping and rolling with punches, clinching well when hurt, etc.
4. There was no three knockdown rule. As a fighter did not have to worry about the fight being precipitously stopped, a savvy boxer could "take a count" to buy time to recover. Nat Fleischer criticized the three knockdown rule on the basis that more fighters might be severely injured as they would have to try to stay on their feet when badly hurt.
5. Somewhat like three, but slightly different, is that the more experienced and savvy fighters of the past knew how to avoid the big hitters. I remember when Foreman fought Peralta the first time, a wise old boxing head said that even though Peralta was an old, puffed up lightheavy, he would take Foreman the distance. He said something like this. "Peralta has had 100 fights. He has learned how to fight. He knows the subtle moves. Foreman will find him too close, or too far away, or too much to one side, or to the other. Foreman will never be in position to land a good shot. When Foreman does get into position, Peralta will know it and clinch right away and Peralta will know how and when to clinch. Foreman will become very frustrated." If you have seen the film of the fight, you know the old geezer was right on.
6. The biggest reason is that the best frequently fought the best, so they were more likely to have tough fights, to have been hurt and have had to fight out of it, to have been taken deep into a fight and learn how to survive when fatigued.
On this point, one thing I've noticed is that in the old days the cream came to the top. If you wrote down the won-lost records and the knockout percentages with no names attached, the outstanding records belong to the outstanding fighters--Louis, Robinson, Pep, Marciano. Do it for modern heavyweights, and someone like Lewis might not be particularly outstanding. Looking at just the raw statistical data without a name attached, could you pick him out from Brian Nielsen, Juan Carlos Gomez, Gary Mason, Zeljko Mirovic, Shannon Briggs, or Vitali Klitschko. All have daunting winning and knockout percentages.
We are in an era in which fighters can stay active and near the top of the ratings literally for decades while hardly ever fighting top men. It was much different in the old days. A Lamar Clark might run up a most impressive knockout record against corpses out in the boondocks, but fight fans knew he was a joke. Now every joke with a flashy record against nobodies gets posters willing to dub him an ATG.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

1. They didn't stop the fight as quickly.
2. You could be saved by the bell
3. The fighters, on the whole, had a great deal more professional experience and as the referee let the fights go on when a man was hurt, the fighters learned the tricks necessary to survive when hurt. On film they seem much better at slipping and rolling with punches, clinching well when hurt, etc.
4. There was no three knockdown rule. As a fighter did not have to worry about the fight being precipitously stopped, a savvy boxer could "take a count" to buy time to recover. Nat Fleischer criticized the three knockdown rule on the basis that more fighters might be severely injured as they would have to try to stay on their feet when badly hurt.
5. Somewhat like three, but slightly different, is that the more experienced and savvy fighters of the past knew how to avoid the big hitters. I remember when Foreman fought Peralta the first time, a wise old boxing head said that even though Peralta was an old, puffed up lightheavy, he would take Foreman the distance. He said something like this. "Peralta has had 100 fights. He has learned how to fight. He knows the subtle moves. Foreman will find him too close, or too far away, or too much to one side, or to the other. Foreman will never be in position to land a good shot. When Foreman does get into position, Peralta will know it and clinch right away and Peralta will know how and when to clinch. Foreman will become very frustrated." If you have seen the film of the fight, you know the old geezer was right on.
6. The biggest reason is that the best frequently fought the best, so they were more likely to have tough fights, to have been hurt and have had to fight out of it, to have been taken deep into a fight and learn how to survive when fatigued.
On this point, one thing I've noticed is that in the old days the cream came to the top. If you wrote down the won-lost records and the knockout percentages with no names attached, the outstanding records belong to the outstanding fighters--Louis, Robinson, Pep, Marciano. Do it for modern heavyweights, and someone like Lewis might not be particularly outstanding. Looking at just the raw statistical data without a name attached, could you pick him out from Brian Nielsen, Juan Carlos Gomez, Gary Mason, Zeljko Mirovic, Shannon Briggs, or Vitali Klitschko. All have daunting winning and knockout percentages.
We are in an era in which fighters can stay active and near the ratings literally for decades while hardly ever fighting top men. It was much different in the old days. A Lamar Clark might run up a more impressive knockout record against corpses out in the boondocks, but fight fans knew he was a joke. Now every joke with a flashy record against nobodies gets posters willing to dub him an ATG.

Alll good points, and I can't disagree.

I will say however, that you get just a tad carried away the claim that every joke with a flashy record against nobodies gets posters willing to dub him as an all time great. While I think men like Mason, Klitschko etc, are not greats, Lennox Lewis certainly is, and there is a lot of substance to that record than just mere numbers. In only 44 pro fights, Lewis defeated some 25 ranked contenders, which is far more than what say, Marciano, Jim Jeffries, Joe Frazier, Floyd Patterson or even Jack Dempsey ever beat, or at least so I think. Of course I understand your reasoning that its difficult to separate the greats from the pretenders today due to padded records, whereas the cream definately rose to the top in decades past.

Nevertheless, I agree with your explanation.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

What drivell, you discredit any boxing knowledge you had by claiming Ruiz is a tougher challenge than Vitali. Would you pick Ruiz to give a 37yo Lewis problems? I wouldnt

Anyway Vitali destroyed Kirk Johnson who was beating Ruiz until he was unfairly disqualified

Ruiz was ahead on all the judges cards against Johnson. Ruiz's victories over Holyfield, Rahman, and Golota are certainly in a higher class than anything Vitali has done. I do not go into ectasy over proving oneself better than fat Corrie Sanders or fatter Danny Williams. Ruiz gave Valuev a very close fight and many thought he won it and Valuev is much bigger than Klitschko. He also went to a split decision with Chagaev. His only ko defeat was to Tua, who you yourself pump as an all time great puncher.
Klitschko just has not beaten much of anyone other than fringe contenders. He was stopped on cuts by a 38 year old Lewis. If you want to carry water for Klitschko, go ahead, but don't give me some sort of pompous Voice of God ukase that Ruiz doesn't have a chance.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

Alll good points, and I can't disagree.

I will say however, that you get just a tad carried away the claim that every joke with a flashy record against nobodies gets posters willing to dub him as an all time great. While I think men like Mason, Klitschko etc, are not greats, Lennox Lewis certainly is, and there is a lot of substance to that record than just mere numbers. In only 44 pro fights, Lewis defeated some 25 ranked contenders, which is far more than what say, Marciano, Jim Jeffries, Joe Frazier, Floyd Patterson or even Jack Dempsey ever beat, or at least so I think. Of course I understand your reasoning that its difficult to separate the greats from the pretenders today due to padded records, whereas the cream definately rose to the top in decades past.

Nevertheless, I agree with your explanation.

I rate Lewis #4 all time, but didn't I specifically say that his record does not stand out statistically from many of his contemporaries. That was my point. Lewis fought top men. Most of his peers do not.

I think you are correct that Lewis beat more ranked contenders than the men named, and you could certainly add Liston and Foreman to the list.

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

I rate Lewis #4 all time, but didn't I specifically say that his record does not stand out statistically from many of his contemporaries. That was my point. Lewis fought top men. Most of his peers do not.

I think you are correct that Lewis beat more ranked contenders than the men named, and you could certainly add Liston to the list.

I had edited my original post to acknowledge your point abou this, but you had already read the first one.

[OLD FOGEY]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

I had edited my original post to acknowledge your point abou this, but you had already read the first one.

No problem.

[Bigcat]

No statistics can evaluate any fighters power.. You have to have either met both men or know of someone that has trained both men..

IMO Lewis has much heavier hands but either way the Marciano has enough power to knock any heavyweight out.. It doesn't much matter but for the record Lewis has the better power because of his natural size and technique..

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by Bigcat

No statistics can evaluate any fighters power.. You have to have either met both men or know of someone that has trained both men..

IMO Lewis has much heavier hands but either way the Marciano has enough power to knock any heavyweight out.. It doesn't much matter but for the record Lewis has the better power because of his natural size and technique..

I'm neither agreeing nor disgreeing with your claim that Lewis had more power, but I have to question your comment about him having more power due to technique. Lewis was a bit more of a boxer/puncher type to me, who used more unplanted footwork and often operated from behind the jab. Marciano was more planted and often through punches while coming up at his opponents. If we looked at the mechanics of these two techniques, wouldn''t you say that Rocky's style might suggest a better method for generating more power in a single punch?

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY

Ruiz was ahead of all the judges cards against Johnson. Ruiz's victories over Holyfield, Rahman, and Golota are certainly in a higher class than anything Vitali has done. I do not go into ectasy over proving oneself better than fat Corrie Sanders or fatter Danny Williams. Ruiz gave Valuev a very close fight and many thought he won it and Valuev is much bigger than Klitschko. He also went to a split decision with Chagaev. His only ko defeat was to Tua, who you yourself pump as an all time great puncher.
Klitschko just has not beaten much of anyone other than fringe contenders. He was stopped on cuts by a 38 year old Lewis. If you want to carry water for Klitschko, go ahead, but don't give me some sort of pompous Voice of God ukase that Ruiz doesn't have a chance.

I'm an official Vitali hater so I hate you make me sit here and defend him But he'd take Ruizs jab away with his 1-2 and speed.

When Ruiz had someone quicker than him he usually lost - RJJ, Toney, Tua - quick fighters. Vitali was on par speed wise and had the longer reach taking away Ruizs jab.

Ruiz chin is suspect and Vitali had good power.

Vitali was considered elite, Ruiz was not.

Resume wise Ruiz is better, ability wise its comparing different divisions. The 1 common opponent was taken out by Vitali in 2 rounds - Ruiz was getting outboxed (up on the cards or not) and faked a low blow to get a DQ - That shows Vitali as outragously superior. Vitali does have good wins - Sanders was a massive puncher with amazing speed with poor stamina. Williams had beat Tyson. Donald, Hide, Hoffman, were all decent fringe contenders and disposed of easily. Vitali has a massive KO and Win percentage. Vitali was easily beating Byrd until he retired with a should injury.

I officially hate you - you've turned me into DR Z But Ruiz does not stand a chance - how does he win? He cant

[mr. magoo]

I officially hate you - you've turned me into DR Z But Ruiz does not stand a chance - how does he win? He cant

If you like, I can start calling you Z-Puncher or perhaps Dr. Power.

We'll try em' both out for a couple days and see which one you like better

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by cross_trainer

1. I assume drug-testing for all hypothetical matchups. In fact, since you are the leading expert on training in the Classic forum, I hereby appoint you as Official Steroid Tester of the ATG's.

2. 'How many times was Louis down?' More than Holyfield...but those were mostly single shots. He very seldom took the kind of sustained beatings Holyfield did...

3. Charles is exactly the sort of fighter who would beat a 36 y.o. Holyfield--frustrating, slick, and not much smaller than Holy.

4. Yeah, Holyfield's chin was excellent. But his stamina, workrate, and speed had declined, even in a 12-rounder. He didn't take punches to the body well, and he wasn't comfortable against better inside fighters. This does not bode well for him against Marciano. If Marciano is allowed to take the same steroids Holyfield does (or if Holyfield is not permitted to use steroids) the discrepancy will be even greater.

Mind you, Marciano would get knocked out by Lewis. But Holyfield doesn't have the size or the style to do so.

1. Its impossible to catch a drugs cheat unless you do random tests on them year round and have access to them year round and do urine and blood tests. Pre-fight urine tests are easy to get round

2. Actually I think Louis has taken allot of punnishment - the Schmelling beating was murderous. Walcott gave him a beat down in 1. Not to mention all the random KDs

3. Disgree, I think 36yo Holyfield takes Charles on aggression. But it would be a more scrappy contest.

4. So we finally agree Holyfield has a much better chin than Louis and hence is hard to stop than Louis? Seriously Holyfield took some murderous shots in the first fight, which if Louis took I don't think he'd finnish the fight. I dont think we'll agree who wins this 1 - I'd pick Holy to have a very close contest and edge it but I certainly see it going the distance. He ws taking shots from ATG punchers in Lennox, Moorer, Tyson and coming back with fire.

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

I'm an official Vitali hater so I hate you make me sit here and defend him But he'd take Ruizs jab away with his 1-2 and speed.

When Ruiz had someone quicker than him he usually lost - RJJ, Toney, Tua - quick fighters. Vitali was on par speed wise and had the longer reach taking away Ruizs jab.

Ruiz chin is suspect and Vitali had good power.

Vitali was considered elite, Ruiz was not.

Resume wise Ruiz is better, ability wise its comparing different divisions. The 1 common opponent was taken out by Vitali in 2 rounds - Ruiz was getting outboxed (up on the cards or not) and faked a low blow to get a DQ - That shows Vitali as outragously superior. Vitali does have good wins - Sanders was a massive puncher with amazing speed with poor stamina. Williams had beat Tyson. Donald, Hide, Hoffman, were all decent fringe contenders and disposed of easily. Vitali has a massive KO and Win percentage. Vitali was easily beating Byrd until he retired with a should injury.

I officially hate you - you've turned me into DR Z But Ruiz does not stand a chance - how does he win? He cant

How did he EVER win, though? He was always unskilled and incompetent compared to his opponents.

Like I said, The Curse has a chance of striking vs. Vitali. Ruiz found a way to win against extremely good opposition.

[cross_trainer]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

1. Its impossible to catch a drugs cheat unless you do random tests on them year round and have access to them year round and do urine and blood tests. Pre-fight urine tests are easy to get round.

If we're going through the trouble to build a time machine and match these guys up, I'm sure we can take the time to do year-round steroid tests.

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

2. Actually I think Louis has taken allot of punnishment - the Schmelling beating was murderous. Walcott gave him a beat down in 1. Not to mention all the random KDs.

Walcott didn't exactly beat him down in his fight. The Schmeling fight was a murderous beating, but after that Louis was never beaten remotely as badly. The closest anyone came was lightheavyweight Billy Conn!

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

3. Disgree, I think 36yo Holyfield takes Charles on aggression. But it would be a more scrappy contest.

Perhaps. I see it more as a competitive version of Holyfield-Byrd, with Holyfield being outfoxed.

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

4. So we finally agree Holyfield has a much better chin than Louis and hence is hard to stop than Louis? .

Of course he has a better chin!

My point was that they were roughly of similar quality. Holyfield had the chin, but Louis had other characteristics that made him equally hard to defeat by knockout.

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

(Seriously Holyfield took some murderous shots in the first fight, which if Louis took I don't think he'd finnish the fight. I dont think we'll agree who wins this 1 - I'd pick Holy to have a very close contest and edge it but I certainly see it going the distance. He ws taking shots from ATG punchers in Lennox, Moorer, Tyson and coming back with fire.

Yep, but when one of those ATG heavyweights started going after the body (Tyson), it helped him--until he switched back to headhunting. Marciano was far more consistent, and the smaller gloves in this hypothetical matchup will help him to get those punches through.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by cross_trainer

How did he EVER win, though? He was always unskilled and incompetent compared to his opponents.

Like I said, The Curse has a chance of striking vs. Vitali. Ruiz found a way to win against extremely good opposition.

Ruiz followed boxing rule number 1 - learn the jab, throw the jab consistently and beat your opponent to the punch with it. Vitali had the longer jab and didnt neglect it. The long right hand is the perfect counter for the jab. Vitali had a greater workrate. How doe you see Ruiz realistically winning and WTF are we talking about Ruiz and Vitali I've forgot

But many said he lost 3 to Holyfield, got a gift DQ against Johnson, lost to Golotta, lost to oaf Valuev and Chageev. Not to mention landslide losses to Toney, RJJ and Tua. Most of Ruiz beat wins are controversal and the guys he beat are not very good - Past Prime Holyfield (1 razor thin win out of 3 fights), 37yo Golota, pretending to be low blowed against Johnson and those are his best 2 wins.

Do you think the Curse of Ruiz will work on Marciano too?