Rocky Marciano vs Joe Louis or Mike Tyson vs Larry Holmes?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by MrPook, Feb 19, 2015.


  1. MrPook

    MrPook Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,321
    3,330
    Apr 15, 2007
    Which is the better win?
     
  2. Webbiano

    Webbiano Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,587
    2,493
    Nov 6, 2011
    Larry probably had more to offer than an old Louis, but Joe had rounds under his belt against ok competition. Tyson finished the job quicker, but he was a stylistic nightmare for that version of Holmes (or any IMO). There's no question Louis performed better against his counterpart and we must consider Tyson had effectively reached his peak by this point, Marciano not quite there himself. Then again look at what Larry did afterwards, obviously this was Louis last bout.

    Flip a coin maybe?
     
  3. Phil_Ivey_76

    Phil_Ivey_76 Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,823
    175
    Aug 26, 2013
    Rocky Marciano vs Joe Louis BY A LONG WAY
     
  4. Sangria

    Sangria You bleed like Mylee Full Member

    9,019
    3,844
    Nov 13, 2010
    Tyson over Holmes. Because Joe Louis retired after Marciano. Holmes had a lot left in the tank. Obviously Louis did not.
     
  5. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,643
    18,446
    Jun 25, 2014
    Tyson over Holmes.

    Larry turned pro 15 years before meeting Tyson and retired 14 years after meeting Tyson, and nobody did that to him before or after.

    Schmeling took a young Louis apart in similar fashion years earlier.
     
  6. RockysSplitNose

    RockysSplitNose Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,271
    62
    Jul 15, 2007
    :deal Marciano v Louis by a good distance

    Holmes was over rated massively in his prime by too many people anyway for me - whereas Louis was formerly one of the 2 greatest heavyweights of all time at the time and was genuinely trying to make a fight of it and had been active and winning against some decent names - Holmes in his best fight in his prime struggled to the wire with an end of the line Norton? And was given very close fights as champion by Witherspoon (who Bruno dominated until he gassed) and guys like Berbick and The Truth? Tyson would've murdered Holmes in his aswell IMO so can't really give him massive props for beating an old and totally out of shape and un prepared late notice retired Holmes? Holmes was basically in there to survive for as long as he could - he had a snowflakes hope in hell of winning that fight - in hindsight Louis also had no hope by that stage but at least he had something more to offer than half a round of a phoney Ali impression before he got starched
     
  7. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,566
    46,164
    Feb 11, 2005
    Tyson v Holmes by quite a distance.

    Louis was a one-handed mummy desperately fighting for change in his last fight. Holmes had all his weapons and would go on to be a factor in the division for a few years, earning another title shot.

    Louis had been KO'd before and on the deck more than a few times. Holmes had never been KO'd and would never be KO'd over the next 14 years of fighting. He had only been down twice. Tyson put him down and out.
     
  8. RockysSplitNose

    RockysSplitNose Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,271
    62
    Jul 15, 2007
    Holmes didn't have anything to offer in that fight? He shouldn't have been in there really - he said himself he was in no kinda shape whatsoever he agreed to take the fight if he had enough time to train and when he agreed they turned around and basically said you're fighting in two weeks - or words to that effect? He didn't even have any warm up fights and don't be fooled by the knockouts thing - it's all about levels - Shavers should have stopped him easily when he had him down but Shavers didn't have a clue how to finish him - same with Snipes more so with Snipes - who else did he beat after Tyson? Mercer? When he managed dredge up a for one night only thing - gunna watch that fight again aswell coz I wasn't convinced last time I watched it but even still he shouldn't have got the shot at Holy and got the drubbing everyone was expecting was anyone at the time really expecting Holy to knock him out anyway? I know I wasn't and the vast majority around me at the time were just saying it will be a boring distance fight etc etc - he made an effort against McCall but McCall was basically a bit of a journeyman who got lucky big time - he lost the title to an ancient Frank Bruno for cristssake?
     
  9. Halfordscream

    Halfordscream Global Full Member

    327
    11
    Aug 29, 2012
    I guess it depends upon the way you frame "better win" .. from who's vantage point? I suppose you mean is it a better win for Rocky or a better win for Mike.

    I pick Marciano because comparatively I think even an old and shot Louis might have a good performance in him to allow for a competitive fight even against a physically prime version of Marciano because prime for prime I don't have any doubt about who would be the winner. I think the gulf is wide ...

    So, it is always a better win for Marciano (than for Tyson) from my perspective. It is certainly not a "good" win however. It was meaningless in terms of an accomplishment for any quality or talented fighter that much younger and in their physical prime.


    OTOH, I didn't give Larry even a 1% chance of winning and so it could never be a good win for Tyson. All he could do was what was expected ... That it took a prime Tyson even a little while to finish an out of shape and old Holmes (nearing 40, hadn't fought in almost two years) only made it a little less satisfactory in relation to how obvious the outcome was.

    On an ancillary point, it means nothing to me that Holmes (and Foreman similarly) fought on and were competitive with other fighters in their old age. That is merely evidence of how poor the sport had become (or how poor it was relative to other major sports at the same time with high participation rates), how thin the ranks were, and meager the talent was from the on-going years of low participation rates of youth in the US.

    Just as with Marciano, it was certainly not a "good" win for Tyson. It was meaningless in terms of an accomplishment for a quality or talented fighter that much younger and in their physical prime.


    In both cases these are fights that were better off never happening. No point to having physically prime athletes meeting old shadows of once great fighters (so clearly diminished from their best days and years).
     
  10. Dubblechin

    Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    24,643
    18,446
    Jun 25, 2014
    No they didn't.

    The Holmes-Tyson fight was agreed to before Tyson fought Biggs. HBO interviewed Holmes a few minutes after Tyson stopped Tyrell.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m861f99Nkvk

    The press conference announcing Tyson-Holmes took place two months before the fight.

    There was no "two weeks notice" or anything like that.

    I think you're a little biased ... RockySplitNose ... :roll::good