Larry Holmes vs. Rocky Marciano

He had a very close fight against an old Norton, in which Norton IMO deserved at least a draw, beating guys like Jones, Snipes, Witherspoon (with 15 fights only), etc. isn´t that impressive like you try to make it, Mendoza...

 

Always felt the big, devasting hitting champions like Foreman,Liston etc woulda been too much for the Rock.But Marciano aginst the Ali, Holmes type,he would fare much better.Marciano would probably be playing catch up after the first round,but always boring in.Rock was a helluva finisher,if he got to Holmes like Shavers and Snipes did,he doesn't let him off the hook.

 

Good post,

I want to clearify that I still hold Holmes in very high regard, and in fact will always have him in my top 6 or 7. He had one of the best jabs in history, along with incredible heart, guts, stamina, footwork, and even power that is commonly unacknowledeged. My only critcism coincides greatly with yours, and that is the long string of underqualified contenders who in many eras, probably wouldn't be elevated much higher than journeyman or fringe contender status. For the life of me, I never saw the justification in giving men like Scott Ledoux, David Bey, Tex Cobb, Ossie Ocasio, or Lucien Rodriguez title shots. I find it comparable to giving a Mercedes Benz to an underage driver, who can't even ride a bicycle.

I disagree however, with the previous poster's claim that Jack Johnson, James Jeffries or Jack Dempsey should be ranked higher than Holmes. Jeffries had but 17 victories in his whole career, and not all of his wins came against great fighters. Plus he had 2 draws. Jack Johnson's legacy of winning the colored title followed by his winning the lineal title, and his seemingly eternal career, buy him a top slot. His competition however, was no different than that of Holmes, and in fact often fought men who were worse. For example, he took the crown from Tommy Burns, who was 5'7" and weighed 168 Lbs. What the hell was this guy doing with the heavyweight title? I doubt this feat surpasses that of Holmes taking the belt from Norton, despite Ken being slightly past it. Jack Dempsey defended his title 6 times in 7 years, and failed to defend against challenger Harry Wills because he was black. In fact, Dempsey only fought 4 black fighters in his entire career, none of whom were rated. Marciano had a tremendous reign and great legacy, but 6 title defenses against past prime versions of Walcott, Moore, and Charles, along with Don Cockell, does not earn a top five spot on my watch.

I haven't done a top ten list in quite some time, and for all I know may never actually do one again. If I were to create such a list however, I'm guessing that Larry would probably fall in at about #6.

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Good post, and frankly I agree with all of it. Cooney, Shavers and Smith were not very talented per say, but in the power department, they possesed every bit of sting as Rocky. Marciano had a style that could have given Holmes trouble, but not the physical tools. He never faced a 6'3" 215 Pound fighter in his prime. Charles, Walcott and Moore were great fighters, but up there in age, and two of them began their careers at lower weight classes. Sure, Holmes was floored by Shavers, Weaver and Snipes, but getting decked by Jersey Joe, wasn't much more flattering if even at all. You also had a good point, that Rocky's record in his first 40 fights was a bit padded, and in fact may have gotten a gift decision in his first meeting with Roland Lastarza.

 

Who gives a flying **** about them being black?Seriously..wtf does it matter?

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Rex Layne was a pretty hard puncher, As was Walcott. I think the Rock's chin is proven. And so what if he had to fight over 9 rounds in title matchs?? He was not fighting David Bey or Joe Smoe. Charles, Walcott, and even Archie Moore are hard men to knockout. And in order to do so, you need to pound on em for a series of Rounds. Shavers is not going to walk in and blast Moore or Charles out in 1 or 2 rounds. I pretty sure Marciano can look impressive vs the Harry Kid Matthews of the world, knocking em out in 1 or 2 rounds. But he went after the top fighters in his rein. I cant say the same for Holmes.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Dempsey1238 responded very good, I answer now only with some points:

Norton looked good in this fight, no doubt, but you can´t honestly say better than the Charles and Walcott for example in their 1st encounter with Marciano. Shavers and Cooney were/ are both very overrated punchers, especially Gerry, they KO´d almost only bums or old washed up contenders, Marciano KO´d almost everyone he faced, incl. great opponents. Holmes was undefeated in 48 fights, correct, and I really respect that, but he never faced anyone nearly as good as Walcott for example.

 

Good point and all, but so far you have yet to say much good about Holmes in our debates. I might just not remember or notice it though. I will read the whole post 95% of the time.

 

Weaver didn't drop Holmes, but had him hurt a few times. The only reason Marciano won the LaStarza fight was because he knocked him down. No knock down, LaStarza wins.

 

Okay,

I seem to remember Holmes falling and preventing himself from going all the way down by grabbing the ropes with his right hand. It was pretty close though, and I don't remember if he took a standing eight or not. I haven't seen the fight in a lot of years.

 

Our debates have all been about Holmes ducking fighters and taking easy options latter career Bill, that's why. On that point no, i don't have much good to say at all. I'd be a fool (Not to mention not in possession of the facts) to deny it.

 

This is what makes the marciano debate fascinating because he was undefeated and small,but had tremendous heart,power,stamina,and durability, so this will be debated for a long time to come because people will always try to figure out how they could beat who wasnt beaten.

 

The knock down sealed it but Lastarza was 37-0 and Marciano DID indeed Knock him down. The thing about Rocky is he always found a way to win and in this case an undefeated man who never lost and the rematch against the 53-3 Lastarza who beat every man that ever beat him except Marciano was a beatdown

 

Exactly, the Walcott that defended vs Rocky or the 1st fight Charles were better fighter than any of Holmes opponents, who was his best opponent, an old Norton, Cooney,Spinks,Tyson,Weaver,Shavers,Snipes