Deontay Wilder vs Rocky Marciano

how so? picking rocky v wilder is pretty easy, but with the 34-0 versions both bring similar records and big questions along with their positives.

i wanted more time to think how i would pick that, and as wrong as i would probably be, with the information available i would pick wilder.

p.s unless you have been arguing for wilder all along, i didn't read the whole thread.

 

on one hand it is just one of the few good things they can say about him for promotion, and tbf in general terms he does seem to be a decent athlete.

on the other hand it means he isn't a fat ****, which is a good thing for fighting, and a differentiator in the modern hw landscape

 

That, has got nothing to do with being athletic.

 

He doesn't display a lot of athleticism. His balance sucks. His reflexes aren't that good. He can whack if his opponent stands still.... and we really don't know how good that quality translates to better heavyweights because he hasn't really taken one out.

I can see the athleticism in Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Marciano... even Lewis and Wlad.

I don't see it in Deontay. He looks physically flawed, at least for boxing. It's a lazy descriptor based silly stereotyping.

 

I admire your vigilance against stereotypes but I think you're way off with Wilder. He was a serious multi-sport athlete before boxing and every coach/trainer who has ever worked with him has raved about his athletcism. I think that his lack of skills still limit him from getting the most out of his athleticism in some instances, but I disagree with your description of him as fawn-like and physically flawed.

 

Maybe he is better suited to other sports where his athleticism shines. But it certainly doesn't shine in boxing.

He seems to display every bad attribute of tall boxers: bad balance, poor footwork, wide openings, lazy combos... I am pretty sure is a reason he has been so farcically matched.