Could Evander Holyfield make it 49-0 in the 50s?

Probably not.

I don't think pharmaceutical technology was sufficiently developed to allow Holy that level of success in Marciano's day.

 

Well then it sounds like that age difference isn't the decisive factor in the argument.

 

The bulk of Marciano's fights were against club circuit ham-and-eggers. It was only his last dozen fights that he really began facing what passed for top tier in his day. And even then, these guys were nowhere near the danger of a Bowe, Moorer or Tyson. So, replicating Marciano's career trajectory would be cake for Holy.

 

Holy didn't go undefeated against Bowe.

Nor Moorer.

Going undefeated in any era requires a degree of consistency that Holy might not have had.

We need to know how much of him was Holy and how much was exotic chemicals, before even hazarding a guess as to how he would fare against a Charles, a Moore, a Walcott or even an older but still dangerous Louis.

 

I think Walcott/Bowe would be a good scrap. Bowe said he thought Walcott would give him trouble, may even get ahead on the cards, but that he'd stop Walcott late. I agree with that assessment.

 

Why do you say and I quote "Archie was made to ruin him" end quote?

 

Or would we??????

 

Would Rocky go 28-0 until the loss against Bowe?

Yes.

who Was the second best fighter that Bowe beat? Nobody can tell me this.

 

No steroids back then , I'd say no

 

Isn’t that the case for most fighters?

Evander was an Olympian cutting his teeth in a new division devoid of much interest or talent. So he was justifiably fast tracked.

But as you know usually fighters are groomed much more carefully Because they operate in a real established division. Look at Foreman’s first 30 fights.

you have to remember Cruiser weight in the 1980s was almost not really a thing.

 

Archies style would give Evander fits. Defense counter punching and power.