Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

I would certainly pick Marciano to KO a 37 year old Holyfield. Evander had seen far, far better days. Many would share my opinion on the matter.

Holyfield had lost to Moorer and Bowe and been through gruelling wars throughout his career. Louis, by contrast, had been able to blitz most of his opposition, and those that weren't blitzed were not generally massive punchers.

Yes, but I don't think Holyfield aged much better than Louis did. And if he did, he still took a lot more punishment along the way.

 

Dempsey roared out of his corner and often started fights with a ballistic early-round assault. Marciano, on the other hand, was simply more steady and workmanlike all night long. Hence, his knockouts are more evenly distributed by rounds. However, he still knocked out a much higher percentage of his overall opponents than Dempsey did.

I disagree here. In all of Dempsey's filmed fights, his only real one-punch knockout is the Sharkey fight(and note that Sharkey was somewhat distracted at the time the one punch landed). Marciano has resounding one-punch knockouts over Layne and both times against Walcott, and a two-punch knockout over Matthews. Dempsey himself said that he considered Marciano a harder hitter than he had been because Marciano was better able to end a fight with a single punch.

 

It was his skill at picking punches that turned him into the fearsome puncher he was. Still, you have a point. We should pick two guys with the same style rather than a "slugger/swarmer" and a "boxer/puncher"

 

Louis was nowhere near as near to his prime Holyfield was. Louis was near shot and Holyfield wasnt too far from prime. Unless you think Holyfield miracolously became shot between 1997-1999

 

No i wouldn't agreew that they where the same when joe louis fought rocky he was well past it and had already lost to charles the year before. He wasn't exactly fighing great guys in between and note that most of his fight's after chalres where ud rather than tko or ko's that he had through out the rest of his career.

 

No, this is a misconception that gets passed around sometimes. Louis had been very active, had fought 8 times in the last 11 months before facing Marciano, and was penciled in to fight Charles in a title rematch a few months later provided both got past their respective opposition(Louis past Marciano and Charles past Walcott- as it happened, Charles won but got swollen/cut up and had to postpone a rematch with Louis, and then Louis lost to Marciano).

 

Yeah, but Holyfield's wins were hardly masterclasses compared to his earlier wins either. He had lost to Bowe and Moorer, just as Louis had lost to Charles and (arguably) Walcott.

But their records are equally impressive. Louis was only a mediocre fighter compared to what he had once been--he was still head and shoulders above most of the fighters of the time, just as Holyfield was before Lewis.

 

I won't argue about who hit harder, but Lewis would out box Marciano

 

1. Many would not. Holyfield as 1 the better boxer. Hes the bigger man, with a far bigger reach and inches in height with faster hands. Hes stronger. He has a similar workrate and he had an undentable chin

2. Yes and after those defeats pulled out the best performance of his career against Tyson. Hence he was near to his prime. Bowe was a bad style match up, as was Moorer. But against Moorer Holyfield suffered heart problems. He had bad health in the third Bowe fight. These were somewhat misleading losses as when his health was back he was back to his best

3. He obviously aged a hell of allot better he was coming off career best wins.

 

He had fought fighter's to ud and hardly got any ko or tko and conisdering he was one of the best boxer/puncher's of all time this doesn't suggest he was in his best form does it.

 

Most of these advantages were the same ones Louis had against Marciano. His chin wasn't undentable (and his body was vulnerable), his workrate was lower, and he wasn't that much stronger.

1. Tyson was past it as well.

2. Louis rebounded from Charles and Walcott by beating several top 10 ranked guys, so the two are again comparable.

3. I am always a tad skeptical about Holyfield's numerous health problems. They may be legitimate, but I've never been able to entirely make up my mind.

Louis stayed on top for 12 years, so I'd say he proved he could age relatively well. He was also much better than Holyfield to begin with, and he had similar performances beforehand.

So how exactly is he a much less challenging fighter than Holyfield?