Rocky Marciano vs Evander Holyfield

-Yeah, its absurd to leap frog 13 years. How many fit 32 year olds are going to get contrasted to the 45 year old Foreman who beat Moorer?

-What does true HW even mean. And Moore packed a HW punch.

-Standards have changed. Win/Loss records mean more and are protected more. Do you think Leapai would have only one loss if he was mixing it up with top contenders on a regular basis in the 40s and 50? If Povetkin, Haye, and Chambers were forced to fight each other 4 times a piece, would they have near unblemished records?

-The Walcott of the second fight was finished, his outstanding performance in the first fight begs to differ.

-Why describe the GOAT LHW and former HW Champion in such a demeaning way as "former middleweight."

 

Because thats what he was?

Would it be demeaning to describe the SRR who fought Terry Downes as a former welterweight?

The bottom line is were Charles ,Walcott,Louis and Moore prime when they fought Marciano? Everyone knows the answer, but apparently not everyone will admit it.

 

When did Holyfield ever get bruised to ****. Maricano got bruised agianst bums, its stupid as hell point to make.

If the implication is that Holyfield would beat Louis without taking a punch, I beg to differ, Holyfield always took punches.

 

Not many, given that he was better than a lot of them

In Marciano's day? a 5'10" 188 lbs man.. In Evander's day? You'd have to go a bit bigger

Klitschko's legacy doesn't ride on the shoulder's of a win over Leapai though. And Walcott's losses weren't always attributed to fighting quality men either.

He was finished. He looked good against a man who's shortcummings complemented his strengths.

Am I incorrect?

 

The implication is that Marciano took Louis's jabs because he could not avoid them ,and that's why he was so badly marked up against a slow, shot 37years old man having his last fight.
Now, do you want to debate the respective merits of the two protagonists or continue making snide comments?

 

What exactly does "prime" mean?

It seems whenever a great fighter loses, it was not their best effort or ill prepared. You could spin this argument around on Holyfield's best wins.

 

Sure. Even Seamus McDonaugh hit Holyfield. Didn't mean Evander had to make an entire evening of the affair.

 

-So you are now suggesting a 45 year old Foreman was better than a 32 year old Charles?

-Evan Fields knows all about that.

-Are we arguing Klitschko's resume against Marcianos?

-Ah, the "glass half empty" argument. Walcott's abilities were an illusion because Marciano was so bad.

-Am I incorrect?

 

One was 37 and getting by on the remnants of his jab,one was 33 and had enough mileage on him for three boxers and his best days were at LHVy ,the other was 42 and his legs were gone this is from his own mouth.And, like the other his best days were at 175lbs.The other was 37 and 38 years old , in his last year as a boxer and had won just two of his last 4 fights.
That's what prime means ,what these four men were emphatically not in.

 

Theadereno x 2:good

 

Maricano didn't make an entire evening of Louis' jab either.

 

No. If you go back to the first time I commented on the subject, I said that Charles, Walcott and Moore were still good as old men, in the same way that Foreman and Holmes were against holy. Incidentally, I think old George would have had a good chance of taking rocky out.

Well at least Evan found a way to meet the standard and was still beating men larger than himself.

Not sure where you're going with this.

Lets reverse that and say Walcott MUST have been so good to give rocky problems right?

 

Only 8 rounds and a swollen face. :good

 

We've had this argument before and you couldn't define what Moore's prime was. What exactly was his best days at 175 lbs, capturing the title and beating Harold Johnson and Olsen literally right before the Maricano fight.

 

Were Charles and Moore "prime" at heavyweight then?