Well if you got a time machine, by all means! It’s not that hard for me to see him winning against SHWs from the modern era. He had ridiculous stamina, a high punch output, could maneuver on the inside, and used pressure tactics that were, and would be, incredibly hard for any fighter to deal with. He was also a great puncher. Muhammad Ali said he believed that Rocky would be his toughest fight. That’s a pretty high accolade to receive from the best HW in boxing history. I mean, if most of us agree that Rocky is the best sub-200lb fighter to ever box, is it really that hard to conceive that he would find success against bigger fighters? RJJ eeked out a belt. David Haye was one of Wlads biggest matchups. And other guys who started at less than 200 have made some serious HW runs. Now we’re talking about the best sub-200 fighter. Ain’t nothing to sneeze at.
Ok well I can at least respect you being consistent and not back peddling. Let's address a few things. 1) 24 lbs doesn't mean much if one guy is elite and the other is a bum or journeyman. But if both guys are elite and those 24 lbs are functional muscle weight and not just fat or pretty aesthetic type muscles it definitely does make a difference. There are several examples of this: Holyfield vs Lennox and Bowe, Wladmir vs Povetkin, Bowe vs Hide, Ali vs Foster, Byrd vs Ike, Fury vs Wilder, in all those examples the lighter man was at a major disadvantage in the clinch and lost due to going up against a brick wall who didn't budge. And the lighter men were all prime and world class. So long as they aren't muscle heads who gas out early, having strength and weight advantages make a HUGE difference in sports. 5-10 lbs is one thing but 20 is a lot. I don't know anyone on the planet whose competed in any sport that would disagree. 2-Tyson vs Andy Ruiz: I already addressed that. In boxing simply weighing more isn't enough, you have to have skill to go along with it. Ruiz is skilled but not proven outside of maybe 2 decent wins at the world level. Tyson has a way better resume so far along with better body punching, defense, combinations, timing, ring IQ, etc. If Ruiz were to come back and beat Fury and Wilder to become undisputed I would actually consider changing my mind on this match up. But as of now Tyson has beaten way better fighters than Ruiz, including some who were taller and stronger than him like Bruno, Smith, etc. Remember I'm saying weight and Strength matters when all other factors like skill and experience are close to being equal. Someone like Marius Wach who doesn't have much other than sheer size and durability would get demolished by a prime Joe Louis. 3-where is your proof that weight suddenly stops mattering after the oddly specific 180 lbs? I have already given you about 8 examples proving this is false and can give you more. 4-Charles, Patterson, Dempsey and other old school heavies did not beat modern sized guys who ALSO had modern day skill. That is not even up for debate. There were no Wladmir Klitschko or Larry Holmes or even Liston sized elite heavies pre 1960 who had comparable modern day world class skill along with size and functional strength and durability. 5-to say "the extra weight didn't bother Marciano" is ignoring the fact the very small number of 6 ft 200+ boxers he faced weren't very durable, prime or the most elite fighters in terms of skill. We've just gone over this. And there's a big difference between a 37 year old heavily shopworn 207 pound Joe Louis why lost his legs and right hand power and a 25 year old 240 pound Bowe. You are kidding yourself if you think Bowe's additional 33 lbs make no difference. 6-i don't really need to find "proof" Rocky would be bothered by a 30-40 pound weight difference. That's basic physics and not a single athlete on Earth would agree with what you're saying. We keep taking 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards. I am NOT saying weight is the end all be all and guaranteed any random modern boxer a win over Marciano simply by being heavier and taller. I am referring to boxers who can match or surpass him in skill, ring IQ, hand speed, power, combinations, defense, timing, etc. If a boxer can match him in several those categories why on Earth would you say an additional 30-40 lbs of muscle makes no difference in the outcome...??? When has that ever been true in the history of sports between two equally matched opponents?
No, their were many heavyweights after him , and at least one before him that would've beaten him convincingly. I wouldn't go as far as calling Marciano overrated. But he's clearly benefited from, good fortune of great timing or coming along at the perfect time for him, a undefeated record, though the best of his championship opponents were well past prime, or natural Lt. Heavyweights, or both. And his complexion , the most unfortunate reason.
So you're just going to completely ignore the part where I said the only 2 elite guys over 200 lbs that Rocky faced weren't particularly great fighters even by his own era's standards...? Cokkel was fat, 5'11 and moving up from light heavy. He was not a difficult man to stop with 9 KO losses. Louis was 37, shopworn and gunshy and retired immediately afterwards. If that's enough to convince you Rocky wouldn't be bothered by champion calibre guys half a foot taller with a foot in reach and 30-40 lbs heavier than you clearly aren't basing your opinion on stats or resume. Imagine if for just one fight, Sugar Ray Leonard beat 175 pound shopworn Mike Quarry at the end of his career and that was his only world class opponent at that weight. Would you then entertain the idea of Leonard beating Roy Jones or Andre Ward? I am not doubting Rocky is one of the best for his size. I can entertain the thought of Ali or Holmes hanging with a modern sized fighter since they were so damn fast, had chins of granite, and were 2 of the most skilled, high IQ fighters of all time, not just at heavy. They also knew how to fight backing up, had great footwork, reflexes, and would be giving up 10-20 lbs and 2-3 inches in height. In contrast Rocky can only fight coming forward, could get real wild and sloppy, wasn't hard to hit, wasn't particularly fast, and would be giving up 30-40 lbs and 5-7 inches in height. I mean is it untrue to say that his determination, chin, high stamina, and inside ability were X factors that he had to rely on to bail himself out while getting outboxed and made to look like an amateur by men in their late 30's who were UNDER 200 lbs and who WEREN'T towering over him with much longer arms...? The fact he struggled with men who would be considered overweight light heavies or underweight cruiserweights despite all his power and stamina should logically indicate that he'd reach his ceiling at some point going up against modern sized guys. I mean Rocky's most die hard fans will tell you his rugged style and Spartan training were his greatest strengths and also his biggest weakness since it broke his body down and led to a relatively short career. If fighting smaller older fighters like Moore and Charles led to him retiring early due to his body falling apart, how on Earth would he keep up with guys who can match Moore, Charles, Walcott in skill while simultaneously being bigger, stronger, and faster?
I addressed it by my time machine comment. And my argument doesn't stem from him beating those guys, nor does it mention them. No, they did not make him look like an amateur. The rest of the statement mostly works, but it doesn't equate to Rocky doing worse against bigger guys. Is it untrue to say that some HWs had tougher fights against smaller men? Just one example: Tyson Fury may be the most skilled big man. Who dropped him? A former CW, and a 212lb fighter. Moore, Charles, and Walcott weren't average fighters. Two were HW champions, and the other an elite, all time p4p fighter. RJJ was an all time p4p fighter. He started at 155, and got a HW title. Toney grabbed a title at HW, and had himself a little career up there. David Haye moved up from 190 and beat a 316lb legitimate HW fighter. Holyfield started in the 170's, did his thing, and became one of the best HWs of all time. What more can a 170lb fighter do to prove that it's possible? And no it's not because Holyfield was 6'2. And it wasn't because he had great balance, and Rocky didn't. Or that he had longer reach, and Rocky didn't. It's because Holyfield had truly special talent, made up of an amalgamation of various traits conducive to one's success on that level. Rocky had the same thing, except his traits were made up from different parts. He did exactly what you would expect from a top 10 HW against the fighters that he fought. He completely wiped them out.
Didn’t claim to, but it’s widely accepted by most to be the best of Joe and it’s also a widely accepted fact that Ali’s exile played a huge role in his 70s run.
NO, on all fighters absolute best nights, Mike Tyson is the destroyer. if he, Tyson, is stretched into the late middle rounds, then Joe Louis is top.
I said after 180 because that’s what used to be the limit and there is a very long list of fighters who Were top guys that weighed in between 180-200 in the heavy weight division. My question to you was how come the heavier guys didn’t dominate the day? Why did it take the emergence of steroids and shorter championship fights for the heavier man to compete? During Rocks day the two best big men Baker and Nino weren’t good enough to earn a title fight. Losing to men like Archie Moore and Harold Johnson. Men are fighters of their times I think it’s easier to say that the best fighting today couldn’t compete 70 years ago with out steroids then saying men like Rocky or Louis couldn’t fight today with the help of steroids. They would both respectively weigh more if competing at HW because they’d be able to add functioning weight. It would like you say help them in the clinches add to power without depleting stamina (shorter fights anyway). Lewis and Wlad as great as they were did lose to shorter fighters. As did Ali and Holmes. I like to look at the skill set as opposed to the weight because every generation is gonna weigh more or less depending on when the fought and training. If you’re taking guys as they were exactly Rocky would do fine against anyone under 230. Over that I have my doubts he would be able to hold position and not be thrown off balance without gaining a considerable amount of weight. Mainly because he only had like one or two fights over that amount.
My argument does. Hence me asking why you ignored it. His resume against larger heavies is thin even by old school standards. Ergo, I have doubts that he could use his aggressive plow forward style whilst giving up 30+ lbs. Yeah I don't remember Rocky being 6'7 and 212 lbs. You're reaching more than Dhalsim from Street Fighter with that comparison. My argument wasn't that we know for a fact Rocky does worse against big skilled guys, it's that his resume doesn't give us much to work with. Never said they were "average". I said they were older and shopworn and barely larger than Rocky yet Rocky went life and death with them. 2 were 38 years old and the other had been in dozens of wars across multiple weight classes. So it begs the question of how he'd do against someone who can match Walcott/Moore/etc in terms of skill while also being in their physical prime and much taller and stronger. There isn't anything complicated here. Rocky struggled with older fighters who would barely be cruiserweight today. Repeat after me: Weight and size matter WHEN ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE EQUAL. Roy Jones only had ONE heavyweight win over a mediocre champion. It was an amazing achievement, but he had more skill, better speed, better technique, better timing, better defense than Ruiz. Toney actually did pretty horrible having gone life and death with a flat footed obese slugger in Sam Peter and couldn't convincingly beat him DESPITE having ATG defense, skill, and counter punching. That actually hurts your argument. The only decent heavies he beat were Ruiz who I've already explained was inferior to Toney and Jones in everything except strength and power, and a shopworn old Holyfield way past his prime. Toney and Jones did not beat a single modern sized skilled heavy in their prime. Valuev was garbage. Haye was a dozen times faster, more athletic, and skilled. What? You can't just ignore the fact Holyfield was 3 inches taller with longer arms and was 25 lbs heavier than Rocky and say they had nothing to do with his success. That's nonsense. I do agree that his toughness, conditioning, hardcore training and heart were things he had in common with Rocky and were big factors to help him succeed but to ignore the fact he was larger than Rocky doesn't make any sense. Holyfield was also faster, more athletic, had a good jab, and better technique by a landslide. He had more means of attack than just slugging it out or pressuring like Rocky. He Would not have been as successful otherwise. The similarly sized Herbie Hide had plenty of heart but couldn't hang with the big boys like Holyfield did because he wasn't as multi faceted and well rounded. Or you could look at Shawn Porter whose actually quite similar to Rocky in many ways. He struggles heavily at the elite level lately because of his short height, t rex arms and only having 2 approaches. Brook, Thurman, and Spence all did the same thing for the most part and neutralized him.
180 wasn't the limit. Jesse Willard was well over 200 lbs and that was way before Rocky. I still want you to explain why weight suddenly stops mattering after 180. There is no scientific or athletic evidence for this. No athlete or coach on the planet would agree with you, including boxing. Humans weren't as tall as they were back then on average. I think the average guy in America was like 5'7 and hence why they thought Jim Jefferies was gigantic. They also weren't as athletic. A lot of the really really tall guys over 6'2 went into professional wrestling, power lifting, basketball, etc. That still happens today but people are becoming taller and more athletic on average. You see some 13 year olds who are 6 ft tall and 200 lbs who are stocky and muscular and not due to obesity. Might be something in our food or environment, who knows. But guys like LeBron James just seemed to start showing up out of nowhere and athletic big men are much more common now. It wasn't until coaches like Emmanuel Steward who really started taking big guys to the next elite level. That's another factor. And also until the 90's boxers were discouraged from lifting weights and e encouraged to compete in the lowest weight class possible for better stamina and speed. This was encouraged even with heavyweights as Ali and Rocky himself explain his biography that their coaches told them not to lift weights when they got caught doing it. Foreman was infamously dehydrated and told to follow a strict regiment to make sure he doesn't get too big. He Would walk around at 230+ and forced to burn another 5-10 lbs for some bizarre reason. I agree with your last part that Louis, Dempsey, or even Rocky could probably gain functional weight and compete. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The only problem is we don't know how they'd look at 200+ lbs. Would they be able to maintain their high work rate, speed, and stamina? Hard to say. People mainly have an issue when someone says Rocky could show up in the ring as he was back then at 185 lbs and do just fine giving up 30+ lbs and that is simply illogical. Skill and weight both matter. Doesn't matter how skilled a lineman is in football if he's half the size of the other guy, he's getting knocked over.
I read something about it being in human genes that off spring are supposed to be better suited to survive, ie: bigger, stronger, more athletic. Supposedly apart of our DNA so we can evolve. It also said that there's always going to be exceptions, and that's pretty obvious. It makes sense, but it could just be a load of bollocks. I'll try and dig it out.
Def agree with the last part. HW limit was 176 plus sorry not 180. But I said 180 because you have a history there. A well documented history. And the best men were in the range of 180-200 for some time. Till maybe Liston. There was a lot of good big men as well before although I agree not as many. We don’t know how lower weight guys would compete today because of the creation of cruiser weight division. But on average I agree with your last statement men are so big mainly because of weight lifting and steroid training.
No. I think Rocky is great. He has a great story and did great things. I also think he was a physical phenomenon; tough as reworked, wrought iron, who could punch well above his weight. But there are limits and, since he was a small heavyweight for his own time, I find it difficult to imagine what he'd be considered amongst the 6'6'' 250lbs giants of the modern era. (But, who cares? He kicked ass in the 50s and that's all I really give a **** about.)
