The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

You guys are really struggling with the conditional hypotheticals.

 

You guys are being extremely hypocritical. I can find posts of yours where you praise Louis how he peppered Marciano w his jab even gave him a black eye. In the next sentence he was the walking dead. I’m not sure why u guys aren’t capable of understanding. Men like Foreman, Patterson, Holmes, Louis, Ali, Holyfield etc were so good that even when they were far from prime they were capable of beating second raters. Still able to make top ten lists in their late 30s. Even though they were far from their glory days they were still decent wins for the men that beat them as they were all able to still beat top ten men. That’s all anyone is saying here. Louis still had the tools to beat top ten men so should be considered a good win. Whether u want to admit it or not doesn’t matter. I understand the game and it’s filled w old lions beating young lions. Old lions r still quality wins. I’m not sure I can break down my opinion on Louis v Marciano More than that. Louis was not an inactive fighter for two years coming off a losing streak. We have footage of him holding his own against ranked opposition. Wether they were good or not matters little. The division is always filled w fodder and men who don’t deserve to be there.

 

I agree. Agramonte passed the eye test for me in his filmed fights with Henry and Louis.

He was fast, elusive, athletic, had a reasonable punch, and could box.

"Lost 13 of 20"

Look whom he lost to. 11 of these 13 were highly rated at one point or another. Louis, Baker, and Henry beat Agramonte twice each during this run. He would end in 1953 with losses to Cleveland Williams and Nino Valdes.

My take is such a good fighter losing so often shows the depth of heavyweight talent at the time, and shows how tough they were matched.

Much different than today.

 

"A win over Savold at that time should be regarded as a decent win. By a still capable contender. Which it was." Savold was a gatekeeper.

 

If you think Agramonte looked good against Louis (or that Louis looked to be anything but a mummy) you need to follow a different sport.

 

Point out when I mentioned Holmes in the 66 pages this has run?

 

"Agramonte was on the canvas once-but he wasn't put there by Lous. He slipped, and rested on one knee for a two count."

This must be from their other fight, because it is not what the film shows.

"has lost top punch"

This is critiquing the old Louis with the young Louis. The young Louis was a great puncher and finisher. The old Louis was not. Old Holmes doesn't have the problem of being critiqued with his younger self to the same extent because he never had a top punch.

For example, how did Louis do in his eight fight comeback? He stopped three opponents and beat the other five by very decisive decisions. But just beating Agramonte, Brion, and Bivins by wide decisions is not enough for Louis. He was expected to score knockouts.

Notice no one brings up Holmes going the full distance with Art Card (career 10-11 with 8 KO defeats) or Garing Lane (career record 22-39-2 with 9 KO defeats). Few expect Holmes to necessarily KO anyone. So we get only cheers.

My take is the old Louis was a very big man for his era, a good boxer with a fine jab, and a Holmes level left hook and right. He was still a good fighter but far from the young Louis.

(aside--I rate Louis #2 and Holmes #5 all time)

 

Others have.

 

Were you or were you not answering my Liebling post?

 

Louis' last stoppage win was over gatekeeper Savold who was as used up as he was.

 

No he didnt still have the tools to beat up top men that's why he wasnt fighting them.

 

That comment wasn't really about anything Liebling wrote.

It was a sarcastic comment on those who obsess on maintaining that experience means nothing but being shopworn. I don't know if you are among those. I think experience is always valuable and a lack of experience is not a big positive.

 

But he did. He literally did.

 

And this proves exactly what? No one is denying Louis didn't beat Charles and Marciano. But seven of the eight men he beat decisively were rated, or had recently been rated, or would be rated in the future.

If the Holmes of the Tyson fight had done the same most would say he proved he could still fight.

My take is there is overkill on criticizing the 1951 Louis.

 

Savold wasn't considered used up by most until the Louis fight. So I find this argument circular.

"gatekeeper"

This is more to the point. Savold always lost to the top men. No reason to think any version of Savold would ever have done better with Louis or Marciano.

Savold was a second-tier contender who in fairness beat a lot of pretty good opponents and stayed in the ratings a very long time.