Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

I don't agree with that 100% it all depends on where you hit someone, if you hit someone clean on the chin or on the temple with smaller gloves you will have more chance of a ko than with bigger gloves.

 

1. Louis no longer had the desire, he was there for the money. Plus he didn't have the workrate or strength Holyfield had. Louis had lost his power, footwork - allot basically. Fighters age slower today because of supplements/nutrition (probably Roids in Holyfields case)

A. He wasnt prime, but this Tyson was still a menace and 1 of the greatest in history
B. He didn't beat anyone of particularly note. Would any rank in the top 100 HWs of all time? No I dont think so.
C. He was rushed to the hospital with a heart attack - if it was faked he made a damn good job of it. And who wants to admit they have hepatitis?

2. Louis was at the top for 12 years YES and this is exactly why he was so faded. Its just hard to keep the body going at the top level for that long.

3. Louis was shot Holyfield was not - that can be your mantra :yep

BASICALLY NO WAY MARCIANO STOPS 1999 HOLYFIELD

 

I know becuase i have trained mma and used there gloves as well as boxing gloves, also why do people spar with bigger gloves if they don't stop the power?

 

1. His speed and reflexs were still better than Marcianos. He beat Ruiz in the first fight and would lose to Ruiz 2 years after the fist Lennox fight, but maybe Lennox ruined him to an extent? Holyfield took a huge amount of punnishment in that 1

2. Because the Tyson win was a more devastating 1 and Tyson was better than Bowe, Bowe was tough stylistic match up. But lets not forget Bowe in the rematch had eaten himself into a blubber weight

3. 40yo versions of Holmes and Foreman better than a 30yo Tyson? OK

 

On the other hand, Marcano proved his durability by withstanding all those punches from less padded gloves coming back at him.

Maybe Lewis would have been KO'd more often if he had to receive punches from less padded gloves?

My take on Lewis vs Rocky is that Lewis had greater potential in many areas than most HW fighters who ever lived; but guys like Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali and Frazier just seemed far more determined to give their all to winning. It wouldn't surprise me too much if Lewis could beat Marciano more often than not, I guess...but I would be rooting for Rocky (or any of the other ATGs I mentioned) every time.

Anyway, guys, with a universe of knowledge out here on the internet, I can't quite understand why I am enjoying this quaint little debate so much.

 

I will comment only on this point because i more or less agree on the others.

I am from Holland and as such i don't know a single thing about Football (i have played some rugby in the past, that's as close as my knowledge gets). I had never even heard the term "gridiron football" before you brought it up, here. I take it that means American football? I am sorry but i have no idea what a running back is so i cannot really understand this analogy.

About Jones, Spinks, Holyfield and Toney:
None of them fought the big guys at 180lb, they all bulked up to make the size difference smaller. Jones was actually 198lb for the Ruiz fight, this has been documented.
At any rate, Jones pulled off one impressive win but Ruiz was hardly a very skilled fighter and what's more - the referee didn't allow him to do any infighting, close combat, holding and pushing or any of that. Very smart of Jones' camp to insist on that referee. Absolutely no one thought Jones had a chance against Lennox Lewis, who was 37 years old at that time and was not highly regarded at all because of his lack of popularity, but he was still highly favored. So were the Klitschko's and most of the other big cannons.

Jones himself must have known this as well, as he escaped back to the lower weights where a lot less money (and legacy) is to be made.

I would hardly call Toney succesful at heavyweight. His record against heavyweight contenders is 1-1-1-1, the only win coming against a 42 year old Holyfield. He had a close fight against Samuel Peter but took horrific shots in the proces and payed the price: he lost a lot of ability that night which was clearly evident in the rematch as Peter now beat him with striking ease. Peter had improved a bit, but Toney had lost much more ability than Peter gained as was also evident when he barely got by a journeyman in his next fight.

Holyfield had a lot of succes but again, he was not 180lb when he achieved all of this. He is one of the few fighters to succesfully bulk up and be cut at 212lb. Still, his record against skilled superheavies is 1-4.

Spinks had succes against an old Holmes, but in my opinion that was a case of being at the right place at the right time. Holmes was in very bad shape and looked rusty as hell. When Holmes got in great shape in the rematch, he beat Spinks comfortably (despite being older than in their first fight, showing that it was due to his bad conditioning) if not for an appaling judging job. When he met a true, big heavyweight puncher in his prime, he lasted only 91 seconds.
And Again, Spinks did not fight those fights at 175lb.

 

Yes i do. Not with 4 oz gloves though.

 

I noticed it because of your good post! :thumbsup May I ask you in which weight class?

 

Savold -- Rated #2 when Louis beat him
Brion -- Rated #7 when Louis beat him...twice
Bivins -- Rated #10 the year after Louis beat him

Also defeated four other guys in the same period.

He did all of this in the space of a single year. To put it in perspective, Holyfield would have had to beat: Michael Grant, Ike Ibeabuchi x2, and Hasim Rahman, plus four other journeymen, in the year before he fought Lewis. And Moorer was only considered great because he beat Holyfield--and on an off-night at that.

Odds are that you'll say that Grant, Ibeabuchi, and Rahman are better than the guys Louis beat...well, the rankings don't vary from era to era, so you're already assuming that Marciano's period was inferior. Which is, in part, what this thread is supposed to determine in the first place.

We can argue all day about whether Marciano would beat an old Holyfield, but we'll each come away with different opinions. One thing that's pretty certain, though: in terms of numbers (as opposed to hypothetical matchups), Louis and Holyfield are VERY similar here.

I'm not talking just about the heart attack, but every "off" night Holyfield has that he suffers some sort of ailment. And if the steroids were responsible, then we can discount the fight entirely one way or another.

He hadn't taken the kind of punishment Holyfield did, either. Louis looked as good against Marciano (relative to his prime) as Holyfield did against Lewis. I don't think this is that contentious a point. :think

How about "Switch the names and they'd look the same"

"Each out of their prime, each by the same time"

"And let's not forgetter that Louis was better"

Okay, fine. The last one was terrible.

Interesting as the theory is (we could make a poll to determine consensus, if you like) it cannot take the place of the stats. On paper, Holyfield and Louis are equivalent.

 

Tyson in the first fight was about the same as Bowe from the first fight (Tyson was greater to begin with, but had declined more). By the second fight, Tyson had declined a bit, and lost control of the fight faster (the cut didn't help).

In any event, the Tyson fight came almost two years before Holyfield faced Lewis. Louis's last championship came about two and a half years before his fight with Marciano, so there's less of a difference. Louis just packed far more fights in during that time.

30 y.o. Tyson was better, but I'd agree that Holyfield's physical prime came comparatively earlier, with the Bowe fights. When he went into the Tyson fight, it was his gameplan and cunning (not his superior skill and athleticism) that won the day. Would you not agree?

 

By 'stagnated', I meant that there was no gradual/traceable increase over time. You're right that certain gene pools were taller than others.

 

Holyfield took much worse punishment in plenty of fights than he did against Lewis. If you're going to think of fights that ruin a guy to some extent, think of, say, Holyfield-Bowe III.

Yes, but Bowe was in his prime, hadn't recently had a four-year lay-off, and was champion, and Bowe had a tougher style for Holyfield than Tyson did. Tyson is my #12 all-time heavyweight, and Bowe is my #17. I consider beating a prime Bowe to be substantially more noteworthy than beating a considerably-declined Tyson.

So "effectively on par" means "better" to you?