Apologies if I'm missing any. But I think the best are you, John, Mcvey, Cobra (both Red, and Glass City), McGrain, Garfield, and SolomonDeedes.
Primo Carnera and Buddy Baer were the size of Lennox Lewis and many would pick Marciano to beat them.
You probably would pick Rocky against B. Baer, Primo Carnera, Jess Willard and Abe Simon. All of whom were L. Lewis size.
Perry's argument was actually reasonable though. That a crouch means Lennox would have to give up his height advantage to hit the smaller man and open himself up. Now I still think Marciano stands little chance of winning for other reasons but the reasoning is well thought out. Best to debate the post/idea and not the poster.
I'm going to go crazy and pick him over Leon Spinks. It's interesting how popular opinion has changed. In the early 00s, most internet posters had Ali and Marciano as top 3
Disagree. If you're discussing boxing with a poster who is incapable - literally incapable - of seeing matters any way but one, you absolutely must debate him within that frame. Because all he does is watch for things that brook that one argument. No different to a priest talking about God.
I don't see how Lewis punching down is anymore of a handicap than Marciano punching up, trying to land on Lennox's chin.Lewis had no problems landing on short guys like Tua and Tyson.Old Louis jabbed Marciano almost at will till his legs gave out.I didnt resurrect this old thread of mine ,but Ill say now I think Lewis beats the ever-loving **** out of Marciano and stops him before the halfway stage,and that's no disrespect to Rocky.He just has too much size, weight ,reach, power, and skills to give away here.
With the emergence of Lewis, Holyfield, and Tyson,Marciano, dropped out of my top ten along with Frazier.They now are 11 &12 respectively.
They’re all great fighters. The problem is there are more than ten champions good enough to make a top ten. Ali and Joe Louis should make the top two, after that there are an awful lot of excellent candidates including Lewis, Foreman, Holmes, Holyfield as well as older favourites like Johnson, Marciano and Dempsey. It all depends how much weight you give to dominance and historical longevity. I admire Holyfield but was he ever regarded the best heavyweight in the world? I remember when he was not in Tyson’s shadow he was losing to Bowe or Moorer and sharing that era with Lewis. There was no “Holyfield era”. because that period was shared with Bowe and Lewis. Just like Foreman shared with Ali and Frazier. Patterson shared with Ingo and Liston. Charles shared with Walcott. Schmeling shared with Carnera, Baer and Sharkey. It does not make them un-great. But the historical significance won’t be the same. But there really was a Louis era, a Marciano era, a Tyson era, a Johnson era and a Dempsey era. There was never any disputing who’s era it was when those guys were champions. That has to go a long way. Larry Holmes suffered a bit with the alphabet era but there was no disputing him being the dominant heavyweight of his time. All in all it’s a personal matter how one constructs a top ten and not really as simple as saying the emergence of recent champions bumps the established hero’s out of the top ten. They can match them without bumping them.
I think Marciano does better then Tyson and Tua but he losses a decision. If Tua and Holyfield can go the distance I don’t see why Marciano wouldn’t. Always the chance of a KO for Marciano if Lewis comes in not at his best which he did on occasion but on his best day out points him.
