Better fighter........Marciano or Holyfield?

Holyfield slightly

 

Holyfield was the most versatile heavyweight in history along with Joe Louis, and his level of competition far exceeds that of Marciano, although he did lose a few. Overall, I'm going with Holyfield.

 

Evan Fields

 

Define "better".

 

Holyfield. Just more well-rounded as a fighter for me. He is also one of the very few whose intangibles match up very well with Rocky.
He beat a longer list of good fighters, even though he lost to a few as well.

 

Edit. Double post.

 

If the term involved some definition of completeness as a fighter, then the argument would swing strongly in Holyfield’s favour.

If you hung it more on greatness, resume or head to head, then Marciano would have a stronger case.

Then there is the question of how you define head to head.

You might think that Marciano would do better in a straight up fight between them, but that Holyfield would do better against a wider range of opponents.

 

Which one are you talking about?

 

holyfield was more balanced

 

Holyfield was the visually more impressive fighter, and I don't just mean physically. He could do a bit of everything, box, brawl, play dirty, had great heart.

Marciano had one trick, really, but boy was it a good one.

I'll go with 49-0.

 

Marciano went 49-0 (43) overall, 7-0 (6) in HW World Title fights, and 6-0 (5) vs. Hall of Famers. He beat 3 Lineal HW Champs. Some of his best wins were LaStarza W10 and KO11, Layne KO6, Louis KO8, Savold KO6, Reynolds KO3, Matthews KO2, Walcott KO13 and KO1, Charles W15 and KO8, C0ckell KO9, and Moore KO9. Under 6', under 190 Lbs., and his reach was under 70". He fought over 190 Lbs. just a handful of times. Marciano had good power in both hands and he possessed that power for a full 15 rounds. His strength, conditioning, and durability were top notch. He had a never say die attitude and he fought thru cuts and a couple of knockdowns and still won in impressive fashion. He wasn't an elusive fighter, he lived by the "the best defense is a good offense" set... and it worked for him every time. If he couldn't land a clean punch it didn't matter, he'd land one on his opponents head, neck, shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip... and he usually would break his opponent down for a KO.

Holyfield went undefeated they the first 8 years of his career (age 22-30). He fought for a World Title in just his 12 the pro fight vs. a Hall of Famer, W15 Qawi. He went 28-0 (22) overall, 10-0 (7) in World Title fights, 5-0 (2) vs. Hall of Famers, and had defeated 3 Lineal HW Champs before his first loss. Under 6'3", with a reach under 78", and less than 220 Lbs. in his prime. He was quick, strong, had good footwork, good stamina, a good chin, and decent power in both hands. He beat Qawi x2, DeLeon, Thomas, Dokes, Douglas, Foreman, and Holmes at this point. He did a lot after age 30... even age 35. At age 46 he was robbed vs. Valuev. He went on to beat Bowe, Moorer, Mercer, Tyson x2, draw with Lewis, beat Ruiz, Rahman, Oquendo, Savarese, Botha, and others. He beat 7 Lineal HW Champs, no one else has done that.

 

Holyfield..

He was one of the most well rounded of all the heavyweight champions. He could box or slug and was a great counter puncher. His desire to win and guts to walk thru fire to obtain victory was nearly unparalleled, though Rocky was a monster too.. Overall Holyfield was simply more polished and did everything "atleast" good and many things great. He had no real weakness. This doesn't mean he was unbeatable by any means but in terms of this question hes ahead of the Rock IMO.