Marciano or Holmes ? Who rates higher ?

And you won't!

 

Unlike you I can admit when I’m wrong. It was a ReMATCH Ninos manager refused. Which probably would have earned him a title shot had he won. Nino was an unknown who had lost four fights the year before. He wasn’t considered a threat nor was he considered a draw. Stop trying to rewrite history like he was some killer. Can’t imagine if Don C had four losses the year before and got a title shot. You’d be spewing that out of your ass all day long.

 

Oh I can admit when I am wrong, you just havent been capable of showing it yet! lol

Stating Valdes was the number one contender in1953 and 1954 and Marciano did not fight him ,but instead chose to fight the man he had defeated[Charles,] isn't making Valdes out to be a killer,its just stating stone cold facts.Whether you can accept them or not is entirely your problem,not mine!
Don C? Remind me how long he lasted with Valdes?LOL!
Explain to me why Valdes needed to rematch Charles to earn a title shot when he was
already the NUMBER ONE CONTENDER ?
Explain to me why Charles who had lost 2 OF HIS LAST 4 FIGHTS ONE OF THEM AGAINST VALDES,got the title shot that should have gone to Nino?
Big Draws?
Do you think the Don C fight was a big draw?
Do you think he was perceived as having any sort of a chance?
You are FULL OF IT!

 

Because he had lost four of his last six matches genius. No one thought he was a worthy number 1. Nor would he have been a draw. He could have actually earned the spot but he choose not to and got spanked by Satterfield later on (whom Charles beat) Baker Archie Moore etc. he was only a killer in your mind that was worth “avoiding”

 

The Ring thought he was a worthy number one contender, and whats more, when Moore beat him2 years later Moore took his number one spot! After beating the number 2 contender Charles ,[Walcott was no 1 until he retired,] Valdes took the top spot he also beat two top ten ranked contenders that year.Neuhaus no8 and Sys no 9 that' s 3 top ten contenders .
How many more did he need to beat to qualify for a title shot would you say?
How do you know Valdes would have not have been a draw?

What's your basis for stating this?
Do you subscribe to the idea that a champion should only defend against big drawing challengers and that it's okay to avoid the number one contender ?
ANY CHAMPION THAT DOES NOT DEFEND AGAINST HIS NUMBER ONE CHALLENGER FOR TWO YEARS IS DUCKING/AVOIDING HIM
There is simply no getting around that fact, and no matter how many BS excuses you pull out of your top hat, that will not change that fact!
Quit now GP, you've begun to embarrass yourself.lol

 

Rocky:

Pros

-Total dominance over a very brief period of time in a fairly mediocre era.
-Crushed his mandatories and cleared out most of the division
-Crowd pleasing punching power and amazing determination in rough spots
-undefeated with little controversy and won the vast majority of his fights decisively

Cons

-Dock a few points for retiring very early (although he had valid reasons)
-Some of his best opponents were fairly shopworn and old.
-Lots of filler on his way to the title.


Holmes:

-Very long reign over a mediocre era
-Excellent ambassador of the sweet science with an ATG jab and good ring IQ
-beat multiple fighters what would go on to become champs
-Bonus points for doing well as an old man against young lions

Cons

-Missed some mandatories and unifications.
-had some dubious decisions and close calls.
-has a losing record against ATGs (although he was past it for some of these).


Neither fighter is way ahead of the other honestly, it's kinda close. I think Holmes just barely edges it for my personal taste for his longevity and fighting younger men.

 

How do you avoid someone who was given an opportunity in an eliminator to a LHW champ who already beat him? Maybe Moore shouldn’t have been subject to waste his time a second time.
How do I know Nino wouldn’t be a draw? Well Tonto the manager is setting up a fight. Do you pick the relatively unknown Cuban who lost four of his last eight fights? Or do you give it to the former champ who was coming off a better win? It’s not rocket science.
Stop your bias nonsense it’s nauseating and obvious

 

A great fighter knows his limitations.

 

Do you pick the number one contender ,or do you pick the man he has beaten?
We know what Marciano's camp did,don't we!
BTW I'm not suggesting Marciano was afraid of Valdes, I don't believe he was ever afraid of any man,but I don't think Al Weill his manager wanted any part of Valdes and his swerving him proves it!
H2H I'd pick Marciano to beat Valdes,but that isn't the point.
You screaming bias as a pathetic rebuttal to facts I present to you is very reminiscent of Trump and his supporters shouting "fake news" everytime they are caught out by the truth. Swerving Valdes ultimately did Rocky a grave disservice imo.If he had faced him and ,as I believe he would have done, beaten him,the con against his record ,that he never fought a big prime class heavy would not be applicable!

 

I actually agree with most of what you wrote. I think had Marciano and everyone alive then had known seventy years in the future there would be size queens galore maybe he would have finished his career with Baker or taken on Valdez earlier. Instead of fighting the truly best. Once again had Valdez been worthy he would have earned it by beating Moore. Just so happened he couldn’t get it done. Would have been an interesting fight but I don’t think it would have been as good as Moore was.
I think if you think you don’t have a Marciano bias you’re fooling yourself. In the 90s the number 1/2 rarely ever fought. Historically speaking it doesn’t happen more then a few times a decade. You acting as if Marciano avoided a guy that was given a chance to get a shot is ridiculously biased. The fact that you’ve never micro analyzed anyone else’s record like you do Marcianos is proof positive. Try looking at Holmes record. It’s a pathetic excuse for a title
Reign against mostly inexperienced scrubs. If you were actually honest and balanced in this regard more would take your argument more seriously. But alas more and more see through your bias everyday.

 

If you are the number one contender for two years running you are worthy, there is absolutely no debate about that.Getting beat a year later means jack **** ,and emphatically does not excuse the fact that the champion did not defend against you!
All you have in response to facts are personal insults,Im guessing you never made the debating team at your school! lol .
You aren't demeaning me sunshine, you're demeaning yourself!

 

P4P: Marciano
Amongst Heavyweights: Holmes

 

Do you really feel that Holmes beat Norton and Witherspoon? Maybe he did, but I would like to hear your opinion.
Marciano, maybe, received one gift decision. But he kept getting better and took on all-comers. Can't say the same for Holmes. I am huge fan of Holmes, but I feel it's important we're honest about his record.

 

This has got a Holmes wide UD written all over it for me I'm afraid.