-Well, the debate was concerning the supposed "prime" of Marciano's opponents. A necessary argument as Charles may have been greater than Holyfield and of a similar style and size. We don't have footage of this alleged two year Ezzard Charles prime when he was in his mid 20s to judge for ourselves but the writers that did see him his entire career said the Marciano fight was one of his best performances. Wilfrid Smith: "Charles unquestionably offered the greatest fight of his long career" W.J. McGoogan "You wander what Charles could possibly do in September or any other time that he did not do on June 17. He fought a wonderful fight, possibly the best in his career of about seventeen years". (credit to Rock of His Times) From the footage we do have of Charles dating back to 1950 or so, there doesn't seem to be a huge drop off. His few unfilmed losses at the time certainly suggest a decline in consistency in hard schedules though he was well prepared for Marciano and certainly fought to the best of his ability. -Neither was Holyfield until he added bulk through modern means. Something I wouldn't rule out for all three men in the present as even the bigger HWs carried less pounds then. -He has a larger listed height and wingspan that I don't exactly take at word value. Not sure about this strength advantge, Charles apparently held his own despite giving up 30 lbs to the mauling Baski. Holyfield didn't take on that type of challenge until he was well beefed up. [url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19481221&id=S_hOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IU4DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2051,229643[/url] -Holyfield didn't do much clinch work in his prime at CW or HW. He exchanged on the inside against Cooper and Qawi. I favor Marciano but find it difficult to rule out either man. Both thrived in such underdog circumstances. I don't know maybe the hulking clinching older Holyfield could beat Rocky by wrestling him like he did Tyson, I don't like older Holyfield's stamina but maye he could impose his fight on Marciano. It's an interesting unknown to consider, but the boxing/brawling Evander..nah, we've seen that tried.
I skimmed through your post and will give it the benefit of the doubt that it was good. You're right. Both men have a good chance :good
There wasn't any real template from Holyield though really? Tyson was far too rushed in the first round, no jabs, no poise? Lunging in and falling into clinches - Holy did little in retaliation in the first couple of rounds really other timing him and leaning in? For both guys it was just a case of fling one or two big punches and try to get yours in first basically and their combined momentum a were just resulting in constant clinches? And Tyson was literally running into Holy's punches - no real method whatsoever just banking everything on just out powering Holyfield when Holy went shot for shot which was silly. But to be fair Holy wasn't dominating himself tho, just continually holding as Tyson rushed in but at least he tried to pick his shots even if only a little bit? And that's all it required really? Holyfield wasn't doing anything cute - he didn't need to? He was just stepping back waiting for Tyson to inevitably fall in or simply retaliated when he could? Anyone who retaliated with anything at that stage, regularly enough would've had Tyson at that point - and Tyson looked gassed from halfway through the 4th round? Evander probably had to do less in this fight than most to break Mike down?
Without his steroids and GH Holy was only a 195lb fighter. Both men being 100% natural/drug free it would be at most a 10lb advantage for Holy. Marciano would win after an epic brawl.
You can't just erase the fact that he spent two thirds of his career weighing over 200 lbs, or the accomplishments that he achieved there. If you're going to make a fantasy fight, you at least have to take the fighters for what they actually WERE and not change the whole universe with " what ifs?"
Exactly, Holyfeild was artificially enhanced. It effected his workrate and turned him into a spurt fighter. Pack 30 pounds onto Ezzard Charles and he would still lose to marciano. It would slow him down too.
it wasn't JUST the PED's. Evander naturally had the type of frame that was conducive to supporting muscle gain and he was very dedicated to training and proper nutrition. Without the aid of PED's he probably wouldn't have packed on as much mass, but regardless he was still a very strong and muscular specimen.
I want to know how Holyfield gained two inches of height in his late 20s...He went from 6'1" to 6'3"! And he hasn't stopped growing, In that Taco Bell commerical, he looked at least 6'8". I bet if he fought Lewis now it would be a different story.
In the amateurs they had him listed as 6'1". for most of his pro career he was 6'2 1/2". I'm thinking it was somewhere in between.
Evander had too small head and hands for the rest of his body. He was out of proportion like all body builders are. His size did not make evander great. Only holyfeilds boxing skills allowed him to be the great fighter he was. And he had those skills with extra speed and stamina a the lower weight. The point is he hit no harder when he was bigger. It just enabled him to maul better with larger men inside, it slowed him down tremendously.
I'm sorry and no disrespect intended, but I'm going to disregard this entire post as I feel it to be way off base.
Tyson was always listed as 5'11 and 3 quarter" but my mate met him in Vegas and he swears he's no bigger than 5'8" he had a photo next to him and my mate is 6ft and he was easy 4 inches taller which kinda backed up why he was saying - but I've heard that a lot so that's no surprise - plus yeah I'd say Holy is a shad over 6 feet approx - met him last year
Met Evander too though many years ago and I agree. Very wide shoulders, looked like a powerful man, but not as tall as I expected him to be. Lewis was there as well, certainly a legit 6'5" abouts.
Vander is 6-1 at least. And he's built like a brick **** house. He carries 215 well. His dimensions and limbs are quite a bit larger than Marciano's were... total homo.