Could Marciani carry Holmes jock strap? Holmes vs Marciano

Here I must strongly disagree.

I think that one possible scenario, and perhaps a quite likely one, is that both men are left standing at the end, and Marciano gets the decision based on work rate, effective aggression, and simply frustrating Holmes with his pressure.

 

If he hadn't stopped Walcott who would have won the decision?
Marciano isn't going 15 rounds with Holmes jab without cutting.
In Holmes era a couple of Rocky's fights would have been stopped and he tko'd.

 

You certainly aren't doing yourself any favors here.

 

Larry demonstrated amazing stamina and heart in his career. I would contend he surpassed Marciano in both categories. Marciano came off the floor to continue against a couple powderpuff heavy punchers. Holmes did this against the hardest puncher the division ever saw. Holmes had to stage a 15th round rally with a partially torn bicep against a formidable real heavyweight in Ken Norton. Holmes had to wade through a crowd of "n*****" chants, death threats and personal attacks just to defend his title.

Yeah, I'll take Holmes.

 

Maybe.

Certainly not

 

I'll say he matches Marciano and any other heavyweight for heart!

 

Sad? Maybe you meant, you missed being amused?

 

Given that Marciano was never stopped, and that Holmes was a hurtful puncher but not a dynamite one, a judges decision outcome is very much on the cards (excuse the pun).

Now Marciano would have the higher punch output, but Holmes would likely land the cleaner punches.

The decision would most likely turn on who was more successful at imposing their fight upon the other.

I could see Marciano taking it on effective aggression, or sealing the deal with a couple of knockdowns, or a dominant performance in the last few rounds.

 

It's a very safe contention that prime Holmes was a significantly harder puncher than any opponent Marciano faced, in the versions that he faced them. Still, ancient lightheavy Moore and Methuselah Walcott had Marciano on the canvas. The real likelihood here is that Holmes, a combination of quickness, youth, skill and size that Marciano never faced, would have him there likewise, and at some point have him there for good... if not the bout being stopped earlier due to facial damage incurred by Marciano, something he had in all of his championship fights.

I would again argue this. Against the crafty but wizened Walcott, Marciano's output was nothing exceptional. Holmes is also very crafty and enforces his range with a long, exceptionally quick and stinging jab. My point being is that a fighter is able to throw as much as his opponent allows him to throw.

I see Marciano taking a pretty frightful beating and either being saved by his corner, the doctor or a ref.

 

Sell this to me.

They say that power is the last thing to leave a fighter, so why would Holmes hit harder than even an older version of Louis?

Does his record really suggest that his power was a whole category above Walcott's?

Why would you think that he had more pure power than a slugger like Layne?

The problem is that you are trying to make Holmes out to be Lennox Lewis here, and he simply wasn't.

His size and punching power, were not very far outside what Marciano had proved himself against, and frankly look manageable from Marciano's point of view.

Marciano averaged 80+ punches per round in the second Charles fight.

That is going to be a lot for Holmes to contend with over fifteen rounds.

 

37 year old Louis = Can’t be compared to Holmes. Old, no power, no speed, etc

40 year old Foreman = S u p e r m a n

 

How long did Superman fight? What did he accomplish afterwards?
How long did Louis fight? What did he accomplish afterwards?

Another apples to lightbulb attempt?

 

Who cares? Nobody is arguing for an imaginary 40 year old Louis fighter.

The point is that Louis at 36/37 was fighting at an insane rate, going through many opponents, winning almost all his matches. Yet the Marciano hate club wants to drag this version of Louis through the mud. Their diagnosis is he was too old. Although neither the performances nor the results back this theory up.

The same guys have no problem having the upmost praise for a man 5 years his senior competing at a similar level of the sport.

That's the double standard, that's the point. Comeback Foreman has prestige. “Old” Louis is looked at as a shell, although the results don’t back this up! People are still living the day-after narrative of that fight. Before Rocky was even a champion and widely known. And when prominent sportswriters fulfilled their duty to contextualize the event by strengthening Louis’s legacy after such a defeat.

The only real reason to trash 37 Louis is to throw Rocky under the bus. It’s obvious. Which would be fine, if it were accurate. But it isn’t. What do we stand for, truth or skewed agendas?

 

Not at all. Holmes isn't remembered as a great puncher by any standard. There's a reason why Jersey Joe Walcott is listed on the ring mag's 100 greatest punchers list but Holmes is not.

 

Those who were present for Louis' last fights said he had lost his right hand. Do I need to quote those observer's again or does the fact that 180 pound Bivins, who had been stopped 5 times previously, lasted 10 with Louis, or that Agramonte, 5 times before KO'd, lasted 20 rounds against Joe, or that utterly hapless Andy Walker, stopped 4 times before the 4th lasted 10 with Louis.

Holmes had 34 (?) KO's in his first 47 fights. Walcott ended up with 32 in 71 fights. And I include his later work as so many here demand that he was peaking when he fought Marciano.

Because he KO'd better heavyweights. Layne was a dough boy is such sorry physical condition that Dempsey gave up on him. He also ended up with 34 KO's in 70 fights.

No, being Larry Holmes is sufficient to the argument.

Holmes could have averaged 200 punches against Ali. The opponent provides relief for the output both in quality and quantity. There is a reason Charles was not even a .500 fighter for his remaining days. He was shot.