Larry Holmes vs Rocky Marciano

Dempsey got knocked out in one round by a fat unskilled journeyman. Out cold too

 

Moore by his own admission had gone back considerably he said in a taped interview that his legs were gone when he faced Marciano.NO man is in his prime at near 40 .

His results in his late years merely illustrate how good he was in his prime which was at 175lbs .
And no amount of spin to the contrary,[ blatantly designed to boost Marciano,] is going to change that.
Charles too was at his best at 175lbs and everyone who has even cursorily covered the period knows it.

Neither Charles or Moore were great heavyweights and I would call Walcott very good rather than great too.
This doesn't disparage Marciano in any way, he fought what was available it just puts its career in the context in which it belongs.

 

that's your opinion but the fact is Marciano beat men as tall as 6"5 and 6"4 and 6"2 and 250lbs and Layne who was 6'1 leading up to the title, he dispatched the big men pretty well. The older experienced men beat the younger bigger guys because of their skill and experience and they all had a lot left prior to Marciano. We can always look for hairs to pluck but fighting the best in your era is a rarity in any era (Holmes did not do it) unifying the the title these days is a rarity (Vlad has tried and done well ) and staying unbeaten is something only Floyd M has done and fighting tough rematches is something only Louis and Ali and Marciano have done, throw in Evander so IMO Marciano is a lot better than he looked and the proof is in the pudding.

Marciano was a freak like Langford only Marciano was bigger and stronger. While I was a fan of Larry's during his era I was mad that he or his promoter avoided the best, I always wanted to see him with a right hand banger that could cut off the ring and apply pressure. The Tyson fight showed me what I expected had Larry fought the best of his era....Larry was the most complete and conditioned of these opponents but there was ample window opportunity and money to be made and he simply avoided them.

Marciano did everything that was asked of a champ, he had no challengers left and Patterson and Cus were staying clear of him, he may have had another 3-4 fights left but he could not take Al Weill anymore

Ali, Holmes,Frazier,Louis and Dempsey all spoke very highly of Marciano as well as many of the other great fighters, they recognized him as a special fighter with more strengths than flaws

 

That fat unskilled journeyman beat:
Norton
Ross
Squires
Sullivan
Morris
Gardner

And a fella named Sam Langford.:think

 

The fact is Marciano never beat any quality big men of those dimensions.
It doesn't mean he couldn't , but it does mean that he is unproven against them.
You are as good as you look, there is no magic formula that will transcend the actual reality of your performances.
He was raw and often off balance when he missed punches.

He beat better skilled men by sheer dogged ruggedness ,superior condition, and youth.
.I've given Marciano his props ,he beat what was there, lets not pretend he sh*t thunder and threw cannon b*lls.

 

What an embarrassing loss. Marciano never lost by the way..and was never knocked out cold in 1 round by an average fighter

 

Lets also not overlook the fact that while Holmes fought guys with zero experience 2 men with 10 wins, one with 13 fights, 2 men with 14 fights, a 15 fight guy and a 16 fight guy and the European group of 3, and others with no experience or talent and he fought for his life in many of those fights. Most important point is Larry missed 9 fights that should have happened, never unified and gave up a title not to fight Page....these are facts not fantasy's

 

Dempsey never beat quality big men. The big men he beat would have been lucky to win 1 round against jersey Joe Walcott or Archie Moore

 

The proof is in the pudding. Moore was 46-1 in his last 45 fights. He beat number one contender nino valdes(whom people thought Marciano was ducking) he easily beat top 5 contender Clarence henry(whom some thought Marciano was ducking) knocked out bob baker( one of the best of the era he had size and skills) and knocked out a prime Harold Johnson one of the best fighters of all time.

To go on a winning streak like that...you HAD to be at the top of your game

 

Moore by his own admission had gone back considerably he said in a taped interview that his legs were gone when he faced Marciano.NO man is in his prime at near 40 .

His results in his late years merely illustrate how good he was in his prime which was at 175lbs .
And no amount of spin to the contrary,[ blatantly designed to boost Marciano,] is going to change that.
Charles too was at his best at 175lbs and everyone who has even cursorily covered the period knows it.

Neither Charles or Moore were great heavyweights and I would call Walcott very good rather than great too.
This doesn't disparage Marciano in any way, he fought what was available it just puts its career in the context in which it belongs. - McVey

This is too much data for McVey to absorb. It won't penetrate his biased skull.

Just imagine if Rocky was English or black. Then our Mc would like him much better...I guarantee it.

 

The end game for Marcianists, given that he was so diminutive and bereft of quickness, is that he was a once in a century type athlete who was able to overcome these deficiencies through other attributes that he possessed far in excess of any other athlete we have ever seen. And we are led to believe that such was his possession of these "other attributes" that not only did he succeed in an era where his deficiencies were less pronounced but that he would succeed in eras where they would be almost grotesque.

Well, I ain't buying it. He overachieved in his era and would not do as well in later eras. No one is Superman.

 

in that fight he was built like a brick sh/it house ,..if i could add a photo i would add the one of him uppercutting Louis into retirement if you think that arm is fouteen inches you would be the only one.

 

That's right.

You've paraphrased one poster, "we've never seen anyone with these specific attributes" and to paraphrase another "reach and size is quite unimportant particularly at heavyweight - as it only matters in the lower divisions".

It is an interesting contention that the perfect (and quite extraordinary) combination is to be less than quick, less than tall, 188 lbs, and have a 67 inch (170 cm) reach. The only thing better may well be if Rock had a 63 inch reach by extension. Seems prudent to be on the look out for the next similarly configured athlete. Wladimir's comparatively inferior physical configuration is a (temporary) blip in the division's direction.

And, recent scientific publications do add support to Rock having a striking similarity to an optimal form for hunting the biggest opposition ever produced as evidenced in the long success of the most famous apex predator on record (not merely the very old at the very least in an_lyzing Rocky's actual record), though while Rock may be best suited for tackling the division's largest or longest - past or present - the smallest may pose some great challenges to his dominance if archaeological video is to be believed and applied ...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWoM8Fr1z4w


Further actual study and testing is warranted ... to be certain.

 

I see you've diluted it from," a fat and unskilled journeyman":think
Dempsey was 22 and was fighting wherever and whenever he could. He had sharks for managers at the start of his career
Marciano turned pro at 24 with an amateur background to fall back on and very careful matchmaking in front of him on his own turf..
Your comparison is downright stupid.

 

And I am not even saying he wasn't an incredible athlete to do so well given some of his shortcomings... or that all measures of athleticism are measurable in a static way... but he would have to be so ridiculously off-the-charts incredible in the more fluid and non-static aspects to be as good as he is given credit for being by some.

And again, I ain't buying it.