Larry Holmes had a much harder 48-0 than Rocky Marciano

And people ask why I think Jim Jeffries was so great!

 

Exactly Janitor - the great stuff I suppose does have to be tempered with a bit of the less glamourous reality side - but the above stuff about Larry was just to illustrate that we can pick holes in most all fighters records really - with Larry he did have an amateur background and his people obviously knew just how much potential he had and the natural ability what with all the extra experience as sparring partner for the likes of Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier etc so you would've thought he wouldn't have been put in with some of the BUM guys he was put in with - it was unnecersary - at least Marciano was really an unknown quantity early on and a work in progress with the two left feet crudeness to iron out etc etc so he could be forgiven in one sense to be brought along a bit but even still at least he was being put in with SERIOUSLY EXPERIENCED GUYS as well - guys like Tiger Ted Lowry who'd had over a hundred, Phil Muscato who'd had 76 fights, Roland Lastarza was 37-0, Eldridge Eatman who'd had 47 fights, Gino Bounouvino had had 40, Johnny Shkor had had 50, 230 pound Bill Wilson had had 56 fights winning 43, Rex Layne was favourite at 34-1-2, obviously the great Joe Louis was 66-2 overall, Lee Savold had had 136 fights (!!), Bernie Reynolds had had 61 fights and Kid Matthews was 81-3-5 so I'd have to say that Marciano had far more depth to be honest - no they were far from all being world beaters but they had so much experience - for christs sake the most 'experienced' guy Larry fought was Butterbean!! After that it was Ali but come onatsch

 

Holmes was much better and fought tougher dude's, too........ But try telling that to some old farts age 75 and older and your plea will fall upon deaf ears.....

MR.BILL:deal

 

Both great fighters in their own rights and in reality there's probably not a vast difference between the top 15 heavyweight champs in terms of how they would do against eachother (I don't really think any of them would be MUCH better than any of the others TBH) - but I would be VERY interested to hear which of Larry's first 48 opponents you consider as better fighters then the Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore??? And outside of Shavers/Norton/(arguably)Weaver who else really compares in terms of the best of the rest of his opponents just out of interest? In terms of facing experienced veterans/crossing paths with other live contenders/coming in as the underdog/facing former champs on the way up or former title challengers etc?? I'm sure if you look things in one sense you could quite easily say Marciano's first 48 was more testing - consider also that, in hindsight, of all the (undefeated) winning title challengers in history Marciano was made to wait the longest of all of them (in terms of number of fights he went through) before he was even granted his shot at the title - Holmes got his shot at the title after only 27 fights and his only real opponent of note prior was Shavers (his 27th opponent!!)?

 

People tend to forget that Holmes also worked hard and took his lumps as chief sparring partner for "Frazier and Ali." That must account for something.?.? When Holmes fought Norton in '78 for the WBC title, Holmes had learned his trade rather well..... Holmes sweet Holmes is for real......

MR.BILL

 

No doubt about it Larry Holmes was absolute class but the above was just to illustrate that it's not cut and dryed in one sense - those who might think Larry's is 'much' better or that Larry's record on paper is 'much' better are not really seeing everything - he fought all the usual tomato cans that everyone fights but he also didn't really fight any extremely experienced veterans before his shot and other than Shavers in the last fight before fighting Norton he hadn't even faced any ranked contenders let alone crossed paths with any live contenders whereas Marciano had faced up and coming contenders like Vingo, LaStarza and Layne - for what it's worth Marciano had also faced arguably the greatest 'former' champion in history in Joe Louis - obviously Larry hadn't faced ANY former champions on his way up and got a relatively early shot after 27 fights giving him that extra to go at as far as amassing defences whereas Marciano got his shot at the late age of 29 after travelling 42 fights already - obviously a fighter in his mould doesn't last quite as long because of the demands on the body that his style and stature made - so it is difficult to compare but they were both great fighters but you would've thought tutoring doesn't come any better than being spar mate for Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier certainly

 

Louis was an ole assed man. So was Walcott. Charles was a very very good MIDDLEWEIGHT. LaStarza is a nobody.

I'd take Holmes' wins over Norton, Cooney and Williams over Marciano's best wins any day of the week.

I totally agree with the OP. Holmes had a harder time getting to 48-0 than Marciano did. Holmes, on his way to 48-0, had *21* title fights. How many did Marciano have? Something like 7?

Holmes > Marciano

 

Marciano had it harder.. He struggled like hell with past prime light heavyweight and cruiserweight sized fighters who damn near beat him some of the time.. A 49-0 record well earned..

 

Wrong thread

 

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_immolation[/ame]

 

You are correct his first 26 fights were against nobody's but Don King got caught paying off Ring magazines John Ort to build up Tom Prater (Holmes opponent , he paid for a higher rating...combine that with opponents with slightly over 10 fights...Spinks 10-2-2, Marvis 10-0, Ocasio 13-0,Bey 14-0-1, Smith 14-1, Witherspoon 15-0 and Williams 16-0 Weaver 18-9, add that to a list of names such as Evangelista,Zanon,Jones,Rodriguez,Cobb,Scott Frank

Even Berbick had 18 fights and Snipes 22,Cobb 22, Frank had 20, Cooney was one of the most experienced with 25 fights but never fought beyond 8rds

 

[url]Intellectual Masturbation[/url]

 

i dont think holmes had a much harder 48-0 than rocky at all.
marciano didnt fight novices like marvis frazier when he was champion in his 45th fight. it wouldnt have happened, no promoter would have attempted to sell such a farce.

ones like scott frank, lucien rodrigues, scott ledoux, evangelistas, zanun ... they are like the 'bums' marciano was fighting over in New england before he was champion.

even cooney and witherspoon were too green to be considred a great challenge

 

Marciano fought the better list of named opponents, while Holmes spent a much larger portion of his career defending a title and fighting men who were near the top.. While its true that a lot of his challengers were less than impressive and in some cases, not even deserving of a title shot, it still can't be easy maintaining a 7 year reign and defending a belt 20 times.. Its valid to point out that Witherspoon and Williams had very few fights or that Mike Weaver's record wasn't exactly pretty, but lets face it. Can anyone see Marciano having an easy time with these guys? They were big, strong, motivated, well trained, and when their records are sized to that of 1950's challengers, it can also get misleading... Fighters of the 80's started early in childhood during the amateurs and learned basic fundamentals at an early age.. They were also generally bigger fellas than the average heavy's of earlier periods... Furthermore, Holmes was in his 30's facing guys in their 20's, as well as more often, whereas it was the other way around for Marciano....

Not sure who had the harder journey to their final record, but neither man's run should be labeled as easy..

 

Holmes was in his 30's fighting guys in there 20's(Some times with less than ten fights or 15 fights)

Buts its a myth that Marciano was in his 20's fighting guys in there 30's.

He won the title at 29, than defended the title at age 30, 31, and 32, and retire at 33.

So Marciano was no spring chicken either.