He was quite a bit better functional boxer than Walcott, quite a bit better heavyweight boxer than Moore and quite a bit better boxer in any regards than the version of Charles that Marciano met. Do you think that Marciano would last long enough against one of the most skilled heavies who ever lived and one who brought the proper size to the division? Marciano himself was bumbling into the ropes against Walcott before Walcott's ancient gas tank ran dry. Marciano had numerous rounds against Walcott where his punch count was under 40. Everyone likes to tout how effective Marciano would be in deep waters. The problem is that old, undersized guy with no tread on the tires were able to take Marciano to the brink. How is he going to swim himself when taking the pace and abuse of a prime Holmes? Do not fall for the cognitive dissonance. Wear and tear and pace work both ways. This is nonsense. You only have to look at Marciano's swollen eye after the fight to see what his jab did. And comparing the jab of a mummified Louis who was only fighting to pay off the tax man, who had no business in a championship ring, who had no right cross or uppercut to worry about or work with his jab, to a prime version of what is possibly the greatest jabber ever is again pure cognitive dissonance. It is utterly absurd. Yes, he was slow. His own trainer said he was slow. Calling him the "best of a poor group of heavyweights" Jack Sharkey said that Marciano was slow. Louis said that Marciano was slow. Worse than being just slow, Marciano had awful balance and footwork. He was constantly off balance, slowing down his reactions and attack even more. Holmes was liquid fast. He would be catching Marciano out of position constantly. Faster reflexes, better balance, longer reach atop young legs. That's a miserable recipe for the Rock.
Do you seriously think in all honesty that Holmes had as much power as Marciano as stated by Seamus? Just one of many gems.
That's between you and Seamus. My post is 100% valid in proving that rocky was a sloppy volume puncher. He hit hard obviously but people exaggerate it.
If you recall there were actual light heavy weights that beat Holmes. Let alone Holmes failing to KO them...and he wasn’t a p4p top ten guy either. What fighter did Holmes beat that fought like Marciano? He beat a real green think he has zero problems handling his size and you over exaggerate his speed. He was quick but he wasn’t Ali quick. Walcott one he was blind most of the fight and still did what he had to. Holmes lost to a light heavy weight. I don’t want hear how he would somehow dominate any smaller man who dared hopped into a ring with him. It’s fanboyism at its worst...Holmistas And for gods sake it’s a boxing fight having a black eye doesn’t mean u lost the fight lol this isn’t middle school. Maybe you should actually watch the fight because it sounds as if you never have or haven’t in years
Tonto said his right hand was non existent. You said that means his success must be attributed to his jab. Again ladies and gentlemen, things are being said here indirectly without being explicitly stated. You can't agree with him old Louis' success was primarily due to his jab and that he lacked a right hand then claim his success against marciano WASN'T due to his left! Basic reading comprehension. Are you suggesting that during the 9 fights of his comeback he lacked a right hand then all of a sudden he redisvovers it and becomes well rounded again just for the marciano fight? An even more shopworn and older fighter reigniting his artillery? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? My opinion on these comparisons is irrelevant. You contradicted yourself. In one post you say Holmes/Louis is a valid comparison if shavers/marciano is valid. Then you literally say shavers and marciano are nothing alike. THEREFORE, according to YOU, Louis cannot be compared to Holmes if you believe both of your statements!
All of those are facts but apparently we hate marciano. The old school writers/trainers/ringside observers and fellow fighters of his own f***ing era described him that way but what do they know? I love Ali but I do not hesitate to point out his lack of body punching, weakness to hooks, etc as factors in a h2h matchup. I don't mind accepting that wilder can be sloppy and doesnt pace himself well, mayweather's lack of power, hearns chin, toney's poor discipline, etc. Some Marciano fans tend to be physically incapable of admitting the truth and will become incredibly stubborn and disingenuous. They start to short circuit and burn up like pouring water on the wicked witch of the west. My post that helped spark this sh**storm, the one about how rocky took longer than his contemporaries to stop the same common opponent, had absolutely nothing to do with my own opinions/feelings about the fighters/etc. It was literally just pure numbers demonstrating facts that seemed to indicate rocky was more of a volume puncher. This of course was triggering and met with much resisitence. People use triangle theories when it suits them. They conveniently put holmes in the category of "boxer/mover" and since "durrhurr swarmer beats boxer" then it's as clear as day marciano crowds Holmes and breaks him down. But for some strange reason when people discuss foreman vs marciano (brawler vs swarmer) it gets what, 50 pages with opposition from some of the same people? Hypocrisy? People (correctly) point out that Louis gained weight from simply getting older and wasnt a true 210+ pound fighter (his average weight for the majority of his career was below 200, let alone 210+). In other words, it wasn't functional strength; he didnt start gulping creatine shakes or doing weight training. This is all basic, common sense information that is easy to verify. Yet the usual suspects (janitor, choklab, etc) insist on using this idiotic example no matter how many times it gets debunked. Because people can't accept that Rocky simply never fought any true modern sized fighters. Does that mean he COULDN'T beat any modern sized fighters? Not necessarily, but don't use invalid examples and insult other people's intelligence.
Marciano at his best was an attrition puncher. I'm sure Holmes hit as hard as an attrition puncher. He tried that swing for the fences act when he reached what was considered elite in his day. It didn't work too well. Hell, he tried it on Don Cockell and it didn't work. That's why he became more an attrition fighter. It was the only stylistic choice he had being a midget. The only difference in their KO record was that Holmes had stylistic options, including being a first rate boxer and thus having 6 times the career length as Marciano and earning a whole lot more money. That's the main difference, and that Holmes was aiming at better, younger, bigger targets than Marciano.
Ok let me ask you this. Do you think a diseased and absolutely shot Ali goes 10 rounds with a prime Marciano without ever being remotely hurt or damaged while offering no resistance whatsoever?
As I said, he's better than Walcott. For technique as well. He could get sloppy with his swings but so could Ezzard Charles. It doesn't take much to be more skilled than Rocky
If getting his jaw broken by a journeymen is a skill then at least he has one category over Marciano.
None of the above even remotely addresses the question that I asked! I asked you who was better from a standpoint of technique alone.
