Could Marciani carry Holmes jock strap? Holmes vs Marciano

Please provide reasons for your statement, as I have.Or are you just parroting something you read?

ps Holmes has an all time great uppercut, the perfect weapon for the short croucher.

 

This is where it just gets to Twilight Zone material... Apparently, Holmes is the one who is overrated in this match-up.

Furthermore, I like how Marciano is always "crowding all night" in these match-ups, even when he would be facing an offensive arsenal the likes of which he never experienced, and even tho he eeked out his best wins against Walcott and Charles and tasted the canvas against Moore, even tho he was cut and bruised in every major fight he had... he would still wade through what was arguably the greatest jab the division ever saw and one of the greatest uppercuts it ever saw and a guy with a highly functioning right hand... even though...

And Holmes is the one being overrated.

 

Styles make fights. Boxer beats slugger beats swarmer beats boxer.

 

Except for 67 Ali ,Leonard and robinson they would beat any swarmer the most of times

 

I can provide dozens of instances where this is proven false.
You've made a statement, now explain specifically why a swarmer must beat a boxer?

 

Add to those.
Loughran
Giardello
Driscoll
B Leonard
Mayweather
Pender
And a couple of hundred more!

 

Not saying you can't overcome your stylistic disadvantage. Just saying it will not be a walk in the park.

 

Going to steal a post from @McGrain

 

Saddler
Armstrong
Greb
Marciano
Were more than swarmers, they regularly added illegal tactics to their repertoires. Saddler beat Pep 2 out of three but in their other fight he was comprehensively outboxed .How could that happen?
How did Giardello beat Tiger,Fullmer,Hank Carter?
How did Loughran beat Greb, Walker, Lomski?

 

Of course a swarmer will not always beat a boxer.

It generally holds true however, that a swarmer will over perform relative to what he is against a boxer, and a boxer will under perform relative to what he is against a boxer.

If this was not the case, then there would probably never have been a successful swarmer in the history of the sport!

I also feel that we have to distinguish between a pressure fighter (a fairly broad category), and a full on swarmer like Armstrong or Marciano.

 

It was this quote that I objected to. And if the reverse was not just as often the case no boxer would have ever beaten a swarmer and we know that is not the case!

 

Holmes by UD , Rocky wins maybe a couple rounds

 

My point is that all of the major styles have prospered, precisely because they are effective against another major style, and therefore offer a potential route to the top.

If a swarmer under performed against every style, as you seem to be implying, then nobody would invest time and effort in becoming a swarmer.

The swarmer has prospered as a type, precisely because of their ability to disrupt the game of a classic boxer.

 

I'm implying nothing, I am categorically stating a swarmer does not have an inherent advantage over a boxer just because of his style.Clear enough?

 

Clear, but completely wrong.