Rocky Marciano In The 70's?

Try reading the post.... I favor him over Ali and Foreman. (only by a sliver) I also favor him over Frazier except for the peak Frazier in the 1st Ali bout.

 

Oh, another Klit boys shout out. atsch It's not 'nutrition', etc. you're trying to trowel out as an excuse, it's ERAS!
OK, 'ya got me'! Example: an early 20's Dempsey gets 'wiped' by the 21st century Klits.
A Dempsey born in 1970 vs. the Klits born in 1898-1902???
I'll take your bet and walk to the frigging bank with a smile on my face...ERAS!!!

The end.

 

Good post choke!

 

you are absolutely correct

 

:good This is fair.

 

You avoided my question. If you put Rocky in the 70's (born later) and the 70's contenders (born earlier) your whole argument has to be re-evaluated. I mention ERAS and IMO that is a legitimate perspective. The only time I give way to eras is when the fighters are fairly close to each other. Given that, I always thought a prime early 60's Rock and a prime early 60's Smokin' Joe would have been a ringside delight....
No disrespect intended.

 

I see Rocky in close competitive fights against the likes of Frazier, Quarry, Bonavena, Shavers and yes even Patterson with Rocky winning most of them. As far as Ali and Holmes goes I just can't envision Marciano winning. Too much height, speed and reach to contend with, not to mention 2 of the best jabs in the history of the division. I liken it to a dive bomber attacking a tank. How does Rocky get close enough consistently to do any significant damage? It's not so much the difference in height but reach. 67" is ridiculously short for a HW, especially a modern one going up against skilled big men with 80" reaches and great jabs. Like one poster wrote, Marciano would do well and not embarrass himself in the 70's and I agree.

 

He wouldn't do as well, probably a top 5 contender tops, but his Gabe Kaplan would do fine.

 

a very valid response, the problem with these fantasy match-ups is that it is a double edged sword. For many size is the issue comparing the era's but the Big guys have not really been successful in the past era's so you are correct, bring Lennox and the Klitschko back in time to the 50's and they may go the same way that the big guys went in the 50's and 40's 30's and 20's, you can not just take the positives of an era to you benefit, you have to either add them to the time traveler or subtract them.

 

I dont know take away the modern growth and muscle builders and put him back in time and put him in with experience guys and it may change outcomes.

Evander and Mercer were the more experienced guy he fought and they were tough fights for him add that to the fact that McCall and Rahman could punch but nothing in the elite class and they both one-punch KO'd him....IMO if Lennox could make it to the top he may find himself in with pin-point punchers with experience and have his chin fail on him.

remember like Jowcol inferred and I stated said "time travelers have to either subtract or add size or weight depending on the era

Louis may have to give up to much time traveling to the 40's 50's 60's

no one really knows

 

As I said, no disrespect intended but:
You've said you judge each fight as he was then as his best?
Then you, basically, win the debate. Take your trophy home and put it on your mantle.
Rocky was, basically, 190'ish, to have him born later and been a 205 or soer, would that take away his STAMINA/WORKRATE? Or to say that would have made him nothing more than a Rex Layne?? If anything is b*llocks that certainly is. atsch
Dempsey? Same answer. A 2000 prime Jack would have been bigger but to say his attributes would not be what they were back then is b*llocks as well.
As to why the f**k I answer every one of these mythical posts is obvious.
The Klits destroy Dempsey.
Foreman destroys Louis.
The 70's Heavies walk thru Patterson like melted butter.
Tex Cobb has a war with the Rock.
Mayweather has his way with Henry Armstrong.
Roy Jones takes Carlos Monzon/Rodrigo Valdez apart.
Any of the modern bantems/flys take Eder Jofre to school??? etc., etc.. atsch
The argument IMO is inane.
The question that continues to go unanswered is putting these modern fighters 60-70 years earlier in that era of prime and telling me that they would be the same 'ball wreckers' as they are now.
I'm getting whacked because I position the old guys in the modern eras and being told that their skills would, somehow, dry up with an additional 15 pounds of musculature given modern technique and training not to mention the lack of musculature, technique and training afforded the modern boys had they had to fight in the old eras. Final point: Didn't the old boys fight, at least, monthly? Mayweather's milked a 40 fight career over 19 years. After the St. Valentine's Day massacre of Lamotta, The Sugar had a record of 131-1-1!!! Ten years 132 fights? Do the math. Sugar Ray is IMO THE greatest pfp fighter in the history of the sport. Not to mention his comeback as a 'geezer' at MW with some of the most exciting fights in boxing history.
The end...