Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

I understand what your saying about styles BUT I think your relying a bit too much on the Frazier fight to make the comparison. Tyson had better movement coming in the Frazier, wasnt as straight up, and closed the distance much faster and got his shots off much faster. Foreman couldn't get his shots off as quick in the 90s too. Foreman in close taking a barrage of punches would have the same stylistic problems the likes of Bruno and Rudduck had

I think Tyson also beats Foreman prime for prime. I also see Foreman-Dempsey is a 50-50 - I don't think Dempsey has quite the shot Tyson does because he has less strength to back Foreman up.

 

Your discrediting all of Tuas wins the way Marcianos wins get discredited.

Moorer was slightly past prime - not by much at all and was on a winning comeback and he'd KO Jirov years later.

Ruiz had 28 fights under his belt - he was prime or very near prime. Ruiz would get ko'd sooner or later than the faster Tua

Rahman was prime. As for the Rahman fight 'protect yourself at all times'

 

Rahman schooled Tua in their 1st fight, until that punch, and he normally beat Tua in the 2nd fight. Moorer wasn´t slightly past prime, didn´t you see how he looked? He looked totally ill, I thaught immediately "OMG, what´s up with him?" and my worries were right. Why should I don´t like Tua now? He´s an amazing fighter to watch, I have absolutely nothing against him, always when someone don´t agree with some of you people, you come with that "You don´t like him"- ****, usally I´m the bad racist, now when I say in my honest opinion that Rahman won this fight you come with the thing that I dislike Tua, wtf? And to Ruiz, I don´t hate him, but I also don´t like him watching (what a surprise), but he totally changed his style after this defeat, and IMO he would have been the favourite if they would have fought again...

 

We're not talking about Tua being an ATG, Tua often got outboxed until he scored the KO, he was 5'9 after all. We are talking about him beign an ATG puncher which he clearly was. Tuas power was sickening. Yes some fighters may not have been prime - but look what he did to them, look at the 1st round KOs. Look at how he only needed 1 clean left hook to KO his man.

Tua was also past prime after Lennox Lewis and had allot of problems with his weight after

Still 1 of Lennoxs best wins.

 

I only criticize your attitude, Charles or Moore were just blown up LHW´s and no good wins for Marciano for example, but Moorer on the other side was such a good win for Tua... read your whole posts in this thread for example, than you know perhaps what I mean, you´re using one double standard after the other...

 

I'm actually not basing my hypothesis on the Frazier fight as much as you might think, although it is one example of how Foreman typically handled fighters of that similar style and physical description. In most cases, Foreman handeled the shorter swarmers and sluggers without much difficulty. Keep in mind, we're not talking about the 1987 version of Tyson who beat pinklon Thomas, but rather a mid 1990's Tyson who was out of the game for 4 years, and who was dominated by an aging Evander Holyfield. Incidentaly, Foreman gave a better fight to a better prime Holyfield in 1991 ( not that it matters ).

I also disagree that Foreman would have had the same issues as Ruddock and Bruno. Neither of those men had the quality defense that Foreman had on the inside nor the abilty to catch a short slugger with the kind of upper cut shots that Goerge did. I also think that Foreman's power, although close in comparability might have been a bit more destructive than those guys.

If I had to put my money on one of them, I'd probably pick Tyson. All I'm saying is that we simply can't right off a fantasy matchup between two all time great punchers as going in one way or another. Especially when one of the fighters had stylistic components that historically matched up well with that of the other guy.

 

Marciano is a top10 HW, Tua is a Top30-Top40 HW, Marciano has to be held to a higher standard because of this. Moorer was bigger than Charles & Moore at 220lbs, 6'2, 78inch reach though and he was also younger. Charles and Moore are very good wins but they are small men and a top HW should beat them

Many people pick Tua to beat Marciano - I think it would be a war that could go either way.

 

But, what is this? I gave you an example because I criticized you for using always double standards, and now you say "Moorer weighed 220 lbs, 6´2 big, etc.", that´s not relevant. Moore and Charles were much better fighters than a prime Moorer, even at their stage of careers (especially when we´re talking about the Moorer who faced Tua)...

 

You may be right, but in boxing your atl atl example would only apply to a wide, looping shot that Marciano-Frazier described. While such a punch may be more mechanically efficient (I suspect you're correct on this point) it is not often thrown because it is tactically a bad idea.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you here, and in fact I think you make some very good points about Moore and his acheivments at heavyweight. I'm just curious however, as to why you feel that it was exceedingly more difficult to acheive higher KO percentages in those days.

 

I assume drug-testing for all hypothetical matchups.

In fact, since you are the leading expert on training in the Classic forum, I hereby appoint you as Official Steroid Tester of the ATG's.

Still, you must admit that he's rather unlucky for a man who is as in-shape as he is--although if it's steroids, then we'll have to downgrade his legacy a bit.

What if Lennox was taking steroids as well?

And again, the hypothetical Marciano vs. Holyfield would be fought with equal access to steroids from BOTH men. That would change the equation somewhat...

More than Holyfield...but those were mostly single shots. He very seldom took the kind of sustained beatings Holyfield did...especially if you believe that his opponents were taking steroids as well (thus increasing their punching power and therefore damage). Compare Bowe Holyfield I-III with Louis-Walcott or Louis Charles, and it's no contest.

Ah....Now I see where you're coming from. :good

I would disagree. Charles was as slick a fighter as they come and had a decent run of title defenses. If he gained a few more pounds of fat and trained a bit less intensely, he'd be Byrd-sized. But unlike Byrd, Charles represents the pinnacle of skill in his weightclass.

This is exactly the sort of fighter who would beat a 36 y.o. Holyfield--frustrating, slick, and not much smaller than Holy.

According to a few posters above, he was going to get a title shot against Charles if he beat Marciano. I myself recall Marciano/Louis being touted as an eliminator. So he clearly had a lot to gain.

He might not have had the motivation he did in the old days, but he still managed to beat the top contenders. And like I said, he was better than Holyfield to begin with.

Fights aren't fought on paper--they're fought in the real world. Unfortunately, we can't take Holyfield and have him fight a man who's been dead for years. Paper is a great alternative under these circumstances.

Yeah, Holyfield's chin was excellent. But his stamina, workrate, and speed had declined, even in a 12-rounder. He didn't take punches to the body well, and he wasn't comfortable against better inside fighters. This does not bode well for him against Marciano. If Marciano is allowed to take the same steroids Holyfield does (or if Holyfield is not permitted to use steroids) the discrepancy will be even greater.

Mind you, Marciano would get knocked out by Lewis. But Holyfield doesn't have the size or the style to do so.

 

What drivell, you discredit any boxing knowledge you had by claiming Ruiz is a tougher challenge than Vitali. Would you pick Ruiz to give a 37yo Lewis problems? I wouldnt

Anyway Vitali destroyed Kirk Johnson who was beating Ruiz until he was unfairly disqualified