rocky marciano vs larry holmes

Issue is the average fighter could not get around / time his jab. A Marciano, Dempsey or Tyson level fighter wont have such a problem. At a very high level major mistakes are capitalized upon. Holmes dropping his left to his hip leaves him open for Marciano’s best KO blow. His right hand. Marciano could generate power like hew others.

 

Where that argument falls down, is in the fact that the old men were the best opponents available at the time, and the young men were not!

 

I always say that. If my 84 year old grandfather was beating all of the top 20 something to early 30s contenders, then despite his age, he is still the better fighter and if say, Wilder fought the younger man, he wouldn't be fighting the better man

 

Walcott was born in January of 1914 so he wouldn't have turned 100 until January of 2014. Joe Louis was born May of 1914 so he wouldn't be 142 until May of 2056. 37 years from now.

 

I'm not talking about the quality of opponents I am talking about their ages and the mileage on their clocks.The quote by the way, originally came from Holmes.
Marciano could have fought younger guys.
Baker
Satterfield
Walls
Henry
Holman
Walls
Dunlap
Bucceroni
Jackson
Harrison
Valdes
Lets not have that old saw Moore eliminated them.
Did Parker eliminate Ruiz Jnr?

 

Dropping your left hand after you jab is a fundamental error. But Holmes didn't drop his left because he forgot to keep it up. It was a part of his style. Upper body movement is a more advanced form of defence when compared to the fundamental defence where one uses his arms. If you keep your hands up, you're fine. If your hands are low, you better have something to compensate for that. Holmes had great reflexes, timing, and sense of distance. Why did Holmes keep his left hand low?

• As I said earlier, this was Larry's style. He'd float like a butterfly and sting like a bee. If you watch all the great movers in boxing history, whether it's Tunney, Pep, SRR, SRL, Ali etc. they kept their hands lower than you're supposed to. Why's that? Lowering your upper limbs actually lowers your centre of gravity. Lower centre of gravity allows for better balance and stability. If you ever tried to mimic Ali, you'd realize it's very difficult to do so with your hands high (it's difficult as it is tbf). Keeping your left hand low allows you to move more freely, especially to your left.

• Low lead means your left hand is somewhat outside your opponent's visual field. Since Larry kept his right hand higher than his left, it made it difficult for his opponents to see the jab. No one stares at their opponents hip when they fight. And that flicking/snapping jab Larry threw came at an upward angle. Not straight out like a normal jab. Larry had an intelligent jab and it was highly accurate, he'd make you look for the jab and then make you pay with his right hand. Every fighter Larry fought knew about that weakness. Yet, no one was able to exploit it consistently. The reason was Larry's IQ, movement, and defence. He had great lateral movement which allowed him to jab from different angles. He could stand right in front of you and jab your face in and you couldn't do a thing about the low lead. Because Larry had great reflexes and head movement.

This content is protected

Lastly, I just don't see Marciano timing Larry's jab. How many times have you seen Larry's jab getting timed by a right hand? I'd have to go back and watch all his fights tbh. Shavers and Snipes dropped Holmes but neither dropped him by timing his jab.

Holmes made a bad choice trying to time Shavers with a rear uppercut. Shavers kept boring in with right hooks to the body. Holmes planted his feet and threw a right uppercut but this time Shavers went up top and nailed Holmes. What went wrong? Holmes didn't use his jab here. In the earlier rounds, Holmes would land his jab, Earnie would throw a right counter, Holmes leaned back and avoided the right and came back with a right uppercut. That was an effective tactic. You can just throw a jab before you throw the rear uppercut. Just so you stop your opponent in his tracks before you unleash the uppercut. Throwing a naked right uppercut is a very risky move and Holmes paid for it.

Same thing against Snipes, Holmes didn't get dropped because Snipes timed his jab. Snipes caught Holmes with his own beautiful set-up. Snipes jabbed to the chest, he'd jab to the head, he'd double it up (chest/head) but it was all to set up the right hand. Snipes threw a double jab where neither jab landed but it forced Holmes to brings his hands up. Holmes' left hand was high but it was outward (away from his face) which usually means a fighter is anticipating a looping right or an overhand right. Snipes threw a right straighter than an arrow and caught Holmes clean on the chin. Funnily, this was basically the same set-up Rahman used to upset Lewis.

How does Marciano time Holmes with a right hand? I have no clue to be honest. No disrespect to Rocky but Holmes isn't getting caught by someone who lacks height/reach and speed. Holmes can jab and drop his lead hand every single time, I don't think Rocky catches him. It's all about distance management. Holmes kept his opponents at the end of his jab, so if you're the shorter fighter, you got a lot of ground to cover to get to Holmes. I feel like this is elementary boxing. If you have an excellent jab and you fight someone who's much shorter than you, you try and maintain that distance between you and your opponent. With a big reach difference, there will be a big gap between the two fighters. If I can keep you at the end of my jab, that means I can see everything you do. Imagine me throwing a golfball at you from 4 feet and 6 feet. It'll be easier to avoid the ball from 6 feet because there's more distance to travel giving your more time to react. A fighter like Larry won't let Marciano get close too often. He'll keep pumping the jab and he'll keep moving. He'll drop the left hand and hit you again before you can even see the opening. Larry was very very quick. Let's not forget that. And then there's his notorious right uppercut. Maybe Marciano can time that and catch Holmes. That's the only way I see Marciano catching Holmes clean. But I believe Holmes could take Rocky's best shot without hitting the canvas. So, I don't see Rocky winning this one.

 

Marciano could not avoid 37 years old Louis' jab, he wont be avoiding prime Holmes'
Could Marciano generate more power than Shavers?

 

At a high level major technical flaws are exposed. The punch to hit Holmes was a right hand and he would be facing an opponent with a crushing right hand.

Dropping your left jab every time you throw it to hip level is never a good idea against terrific ATG right hand punchers.

Marciano would give both Ali and Holmes a tough fight. I could see him beating both in actuality. Holmes by KO and Ali by decision.

 

I am more concerned about a fighters ranking than their age.

If Marciano had fought these younger men, then he would have been criticized for not fighting the best contenders, and far more justifiably so in my opinion.

So what if he had fought them?

Most of them would probably have gone more quickly then the men that he actually fought, because they were much less elusive.

Henry and Valdez would have been interesting fights, and it is a shame in some ways that the stars did not align for Marciano Valdez.

 

If Shavers couldn't stop Holmes ,Marciano isn't turning the trick!

 

My point is that there were plenty of young ranked contenders when Marciano himself was one, and he didn't fight any of those I listed. Nobody knows how those fights would have turned out.

 

It took marciano 13 rounds to time a 38 year old 6 foot walcott who had tons of mileage on the clock.

13 rounds.

Yet people are confident rocky definitely lands a suzie Q on a prime 6'3 81' reach Holmes whose gonna be sticking and moving? Where is the logic? And even if he did, remember Holmes got up every time he was down, even against a prime tyson he had to be dropped multiple times.

A 37 year old Joe Louis kept Marciano at the end of his jab for 8 rounds. Marciano himself said he had no choice but to take them and his swelling tells the story. Marciano's face marked up easily and Holmes had a nasty, sharp, piston like jab (possibly the best), so where is the logic that marciano will simply "find a way"...?

People keep saying holmes had a technical flaw but golden feather already explained that he made that style work obviously. It isn't as simple as just timing him with a right. And like it or not, yes the enormous difference in speed and reach will tip the scales in holmes favor. I remind you once again, walcott only had a 74' reach and was pretty shopworn but he put on a clinic against marciano.

 

The problem with that argument, is that the stylistic dynamic does not favor Holmes here.

That is an example of a series that looks one sided on paper, but where the fights were generally very competitive.

The trouble is that boxing is not a Top Trumps game.

Styles make fights, and being 5% better at everything on paper, doesn't necessarily mean that you are going to win.

As I have said previously, it is in the nature of being a swarmer, that you are generally fighting opponents with technical and physical advantages.

If this was not the case, then you are probably not going to choose this style.

Be in no doubt however that it is very effective, and very hard to beat.

What do Rocky Marciano and Joe Frazier have in common, apart from being swarmers.

Neither of them lost to anybody who was not a great fighter.

The worst men who beat them, and the best who failed to bet them, are better than the worst who beat the men we rank above them!

Their limitations are that they were never going to win the longevity game, and were probably never going to overcome certain styles.

I doubt that the GOAT heavyweight will ever be a swarmer for these reasons, but do not underestimate this style!

 

Ever wondered how Marciano would do against the 48/49 versions of Walcott and Charles?
The 51/52 version of Moore?

 

Thats a bold blanket statement with nothing to back it up. You havent actually made a convincing case explaining why the matchup favors rocky.

I'm not going to repeat what me and at least 4 others have posted on the strengths and weaknesses of both fighters.

1/6=17%. Thats an F by school standards. In other words, a one sided series of bouts.

5%?

In terms of hands speed, defense, timing, and footwork Holmes is at 50-60% better than rocky and that's a conservative estimate.

Literally the only advantages rocky has are volume and power. Even stamina and chin are debatable!

Rocky no other option as a man under 6 feet with incredibly short arms. Thats the only style that would have worked for him and the only one relevant to rhe discussion in a fight with Holmes. Its exactly why he'd lose, Holmes would know exactly what he was going to do and wouldn't have to think twice.

It can be very effective and has been in the past. At heavyweight, the style only works of youre able to either A) overwhelm and break the opponent down with volume/pressure or B) out work them and get the decision based on workrate and aggression.

Holmes was not easy to break down and he wasnt easy to out work! Him and Ali were anomalies in thay regard because they were incredibly tough for outside technicians. If we were talking about someone like Billy conn or tyrell Biggs id favor marciano without hesitation.