Rocky Marciano vs Evander Holyfield

I'd pick Charles to beat Marciano.
Charles of 1950

 

The Charles of the first Maricano fight was noted as a throwback performance. I don't see anything about the 1950 Louis fight that makes me believe he could do any better. Marciano's power, punching out put, and unorthdox two handed attacks may very well always be too overwhelming.

Barone supposedly gave Charles a hard fight in 1950 as well.

 

In 1950, stocky LHW challenger Nick Barone apparently had success pressuring Charles and attacking his body before Ezzard turned the tables on him late. Not sure that is happening against Rocky Marciano.


[url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1915&dat=19501206&id=GUkuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=p3EFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1073,3810802[/url]

 

205 Holy of the first Bowe fight and 185 Marciano of the Charles fight, Rock is more proven against a fighter of similar (natural) stature and style etc than Holy is with anyone close to Marciano's size and style etc.

Plus Marciano never EVER got discouraged or frustrated?

And he was never rushing or looking for ridiculous shots.

He was also not a fat old 42 year old man who could barely stay balanced enough to throw punches properly?

He was also not a fat anchient 42 year old contact lensless Holmes?

Or a fat partied out Swan diving version of the 42-1 underdog journeyman Buster Douglas?

Or the trial horse last minute 2nd substitute Bert Cooper?

Or the half hearted version of Bowe?

I think Marciano is far too consistent a fighter for Holy - or Holy too inconsistent - or both. Marciano was also too powerful a one punch hitter aswell. Holy was the best trained fighter in heavyweight history but Marciano matched him in that respect as well?

Marciano also dealt with MUCH better boxers and movers and more pinpoint hitters and just harder hitters than Holy - and in emphatic fashion?

Also Holy was much more regularly been in really bad spots in fights - and and much worse states than I've ever seen Marciano even close too? And against worser fighters than Marciano battled?

I see Marciano and Holy being an amazing fight though possibly a distance fight - for all te times he was hurt Holy usually took guys the distance even in the fights he lost - although Marciano won all his top fights, bar Ez Charles I by KO so I'm seeing either points or late for Marciano probably similarish to Ez Charles just based on the styles dynamic

 

Marciano's best four scalps are over men past prime. One nearly stopped him on cuts , one was in front going into the 13 th rd.Two of them dropped him.Marciano was also in danger of being stopped on cuts by journeyman Keene Simmons. Those that pick Holyfield can at least say he was tested against big heavyweights.

 

I have to agree. While I have all the respect in the world for Marciano and feel that critics all too often over simplify his accomplishments as " beating old men", I think a prime Evander Holyfield at the height of his powers might prove more formidable than a 38 year old Joe Walcott in the last two fights of his career.

 

All 4 of those 'old men' were better al round fighters than Holy though, better punchers, more precise, vastly more skilled, hugely more experienced and 3 of the 4 produced amongst their finest performances against Rocky?

You say one nearly stopped him on a cut I assume you're refering to Rockyssplitnose which is utterly ridiculous - that cut was as much of an anomaly as has has occurred in boxing history - that was a SUPER FREaKIsH injury - to use that as some kind of point towards Marciano being prone to cuts is laughable? You may aswell say that guys whose ear was split in Hal a few years back is probe to being stopped on split ears??

Plus Marciano was not 'very nearly stopped' on a cut against Keene Simmons? He got a cut eye end of? The same cut Ez reopened in the 15 rounder and again Rock was never EVER in danger I being stopped on a cut in that one? you didn't just get pulled out at the first sign of blood in the 50's? You don't now??

Plus Walcott was only edging it going into the 13th (after producing what he said himself was the fight of his career?) and anyway that's a bit of a mute point when it's a 15 round fight and Marciano nearly kills Wally in the 13th with the best punch ever?

Wally and Arch were both much better one punch merchants than Holy - and if you think they were old men what the hell were Foreman & Holmes? They were old men!?? 42 and both grossly overweight with awful balance Wally and Arch were like 20 year olds compared to them?

 

Walcott I was the best fight/performance of Walcott's career?? Walcott said this himself?? And the films bare this out?

 

But does that single showing of Walcott represent a greater challenge than Evander Holyfield at his best, which spanned longer than one evening?

 

I don't think they were better all round fighters at the time that Marciano fought them. I would take Holyfield to beat all four of them at that stage of their careers.
In fact I would take Holyfield to beat the best Walcott and the best Charles.He would beat a prime Moore too imo ,let alone the 42 years old one that dropped MARCIANO.



Being one punch hitters is only a small percent of the equation.

Your opinion on the likelyhood of Marciano being stopped in the fights I mentioned is at odds with both the referees concerned and Marciano's own account.
The referee in the Simmons fight,Sharkey Buannano went on record stating he considered the possibility of stopping the fight, as did Al Berl the third man in the second Charles fight.

Tyson, Bowe,Lewis ,Moorer and Douglas were not old men when Holyfield fought them ,neither were Mercer, or Dokes.

 

Holy of the first Bowe fight, a fight in which he was undisciplined and lost, was the best version of Holy? I think not.

Look at the lot of gray beards who were attempting to discourage him. Also, when exactly was Holyfield discouraged over his 20+ year career against, at times, giant super heavies? I can't think of one.

Yes, he did often look for ridiculous shots and miss them by a country mile. Look at the C o c k ell tape for one, but it's something he does in almost every fight to an extent. Ultimately, his pressure and physicality wore down his opponent, but that may be a case of his opponents' weaknesses rather than his inspired tactics

Well, neither was Holyfield the one handed shuffling mummy that Louis was.

Or a fat middleweight with questionable power who needed to be fouled into submission.

You are just making up **** here. In which of the three fights against Bowe did Riddick show up "half-hearted"? Please remind us of this. Was there a 4th fight I did not see?

This is your best argument.

Marciano never faced hitters in the league of Bowe, Foreman, Tyson, Cooper or Lewis. Not even close. That is just a laughable assertion.

 

I think it is about pace. Holyfeild at his natural weight stands more chance against Marciano than he does at 207 plus pounds.. As a cruiser Holy did 15 good rounds.as a heavyweight he struggled over 12.

The extra weight effected Evanders output, he always encouraged close exchanges where he would play to Rockys strengths anyway. So I think With more stamina and a faster pace he can live with Marciano. As a stronger, heavier man he lost speed and pace. He became a spurt fighter.

The guy who allowed Bert Cooper to climb up close to him, another natural 185 pounder, and whom he kept having to catch his wind against when he could not finish him off, would be open to Rocky.

At heavyweight Evander was a spurt fighter, he had to take off part of a round. Holyfeild needs a full 3 minutes work against Rocky.

 

I would take a fit and game 37 year old Joe Louis over a fat Buster Douglas that was just happy to be there.

 

Walcott was alot more elusive than Holyfield with his educated feet and tricky feints. Even at 38, he likely had quicker hands.

Holyfield was a superior combination puncher than Walcott and much more aggressive. I think Charles is a more fitting analogy.

And would Holyfield be a greater challenge than Charles. I'm not sure, certainly in some respects, maybe not so much in others.