Rocky Marciano vs Evander Holyfield

The superior skill set of those fighters ( and this is just for argument sake that they actually WERE superior ) obviously wasn't what was needed to beat him. What Evander would bring to the table is someone who could best him physically and outlast him.. And I am confident that he would.

 

Exactly.:good

Holyfeild is good enough to give Rocky life and death like Charles did but evander needs to be better to beat him.

 

I don't think there is little doubt Charles had a superior skill set to Holyfield, arguably a top 2 or 3 P4P fighter all time and the LHW GOAT, so yeah, not much argument.

Physically, I don't see an argument for Evander, its not like he's Foreman or Lewis and a case could be made that he would overwhelm Rocky with his size. A CW Holyfield is about the same size as the men Marciano actually beat and a 205-217 Holyfield though in great condition wasn't the same machine that went 15 hard rounds against Qawi. That's my outlook on the matter. As great as Evander was, he just doesn't seem cut out for this, not superior in skill to Maricano's victims and not as drastic a physical presence to alter the landscape. Still, an imposing mixture of these things and it would be one hell of a war.

 

Charles, Moore and Walcott were diminished when they fought Marciano. Yes they were still servicable fighters but probably in the same or similar fashion that Holmes was when he beat Mercer or Foreman when he beat Moorer. They weren't prime.. I don't know why this argument constantly gets recycled over and over and over and over and over, when the obvious fact is as clear as day. Holyfield was bigger, stronger, more athletic and more durable than those men were even in their primes, much less when Rocky fought them.. His record proves it and so does theres. He was also very skilled and threw the type of jab, hook, cross etc, that would have landed on rocky and put him in the deck. He survived wars with Bowe, Tyson, Lewis, Moorer, Foreman, Dokes, among others.. His fights against Tyson and Cooper prove that he was well suited for a man of Rocky's style. Its a no brainer for me..

 

-Absolutely not. Why compare a 45 and 43 year old Foreman to a 32/33 year old Charles? That is a bit absurd. Moore was 38 but on one of the greatest runs of any fighter in history, hardly a servicable old man that exploited a single good match up, that comparision would be more fitting of the Lavorate fight.

-It gets recycled because that isn't a certainy.

-Charles used those same combinations and had difficutly stringing them together agianst Maricano's awkward stance and movements.

-Cooper and Tyson are the only names dropped that interest me on there in regards to a Marciano fight, and I don't find them all that convincing.

 

And I would take a prime Holyfield to take a diminished 37 years old, one handed Louis out without getting both his eyes blacked and his face bruised to ****.

 

Threadereno :good

 

Holyfield didn't bruise so easily, I'm sure he would walk into the occassional jab or right hand as he was prone to doing.

 

Why?

It was kind of a dumb post.

 

I don't think either a 100 fight vet in Charles or a Walcott in his last two fights was anywhere near a prime Holyfield in the ability or the elusive "skill" departments.

 

So absurd that one of them fought the undefeated prime reigning champion and knocked him TFO, while the other beat a top contender and nearly lifted McCall's title?

Still not a prime fighter. Not a true heavyweight and put him on the deck.

Common.. If Wladimir Klitschko fought and struggled mightily with a 38 year old veteran with 16 career losses and in the last couple fights of his career, you'd never let him live it down, regardless of how skilled that fighter looked or what his credentials were on paper. Walcott was finished and not as formidable as a prime Holyfield would be.

Yet being a former middleweight past his prime, he took him fifteen rounds the first time and very nearly forced a stoppage the second time around.

I find them plenty convincing. They bore very similar styles to the rock, were both bigger men and might even have punched harder. Holyfield took them both apart. As for the others, I mentioned them because they were big modern day heavy's, some of whom in their primes, and Evander withstood their best shots over many rounds enroute to either victory or a close defeat. Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis would hospitalize Marciano

NOTE: I realize you fancy arguments especially when the opportunity to present oneself as a contrarian comes about.. But common..

 

Would you not pick a prime Holyfield to take apart a 37 year old one handed Louis without getting both of his eyes bruised to ****?

 

Apparently there are some who think they were.

 

Not as dumb as the one it rebutted.

Holyfield twice beat a 30 years old Tyson by being too strong and durable for him, the premise that he will fold under Marciano's slower , more measured attack is flawed.

 

Agreed. While its true that Holy and Tyson fought when both were past it, The template for beating Tyson is similar to that of beating Marciano. Rocky would be over powered in the clinches and would get tagged from every angle. In the event that he landed a big shot or two, it would be landing on one of the best chins of all time, and while some fighters folded when they got hit with big punches, Evander tended to turn up the heat and go after his foes with a vengeance.