rocky marciano vs larry holmes

A fighters KO% declines when they get older, because their reflexes are dulled.

They cannot exploit openings that they could in their younger years, and opponents can anticipate them better.

George Foreman's KO% was markedly less in his later career, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't bang when he pinned you down.

It should be noted that even an older Louis dispatched Lee Savold more convincingly than Rocky Marciano did.

Also we have to look at precisely what is being argued here.

I am not using the fact that Louis couldn't stop Marciano as evidence of his durability.

I am using the fact that Louis's jab didn't slow him down much, and evidence that Holmes isn't going to keep him at bay just by sticking a jab in his face.

The one thing that everybody seems to agree that old Louis had left, was a very sold jab.

He was winning most of his fights with his jab, because his right was impaired, and this was the punch that kept him relevant as a contender.

Either way I doubt that Louis went from being the most dangerous puncher in the history of the division, to being feather fisted, in a space of a few years.

It is normal enough practice to use the opponents that a champion did fight, to try to draw inferences about what might trouble them in a fighter that they did not fight.

Using an older Louis as a model for Holmes, is no worse than using Ernie Shavers as a model for Rocky Marciano.

The bottom line is that neither of these fighters fought anybody particularly like the other, so we have to use the best examples that we have.

 

Horrible logic there, because they are nothing alike stylistically.

What you mean is "If Ernie Shavers couldn't keep Holmes down for a ten count, then Marciano isn't doing in in the same way."

 

Foreman stopped 26 of his 34 opponents in his comeback!

 

I'm referring to power I should have thought that only too obvious!
Here is something else for you to ponder.
If Shavers had landed that right hand on Marciano would he have gotten up to win? Would he have even gotten up?

 

His right wasn't impaired, it was non existant!
You're right Shavers was bigger by 20lbs ,and hit harder than Marciano!

 

Yes, because he fought a whole heap of tomato cans, while Louis only bothered with contenders.

Against legitimate opponents, he was generally going the distance.

 

Nobody is suggesting that Marciano would win on power alone.

The argument is that he could win by sustained pressure over the duration of the fight, and might perhaps in one scenario, stop Holmes due to accumulated attrition.

I don't know, but I do know that if Marciano hits Shavers clean, he is going to stay hit!

 

Then we must surely attribute whatever success Louis had at this stage to his jab!

 

What

 

You just basically admitted Louis WAS keeping marciano at bay with just his jab for 8 rounds.

 

No I didn't.

I said that if Louis's right hand was impaired during this phase of his career, then whatever success he was having in nay of his fights, must reflect that he still had an effective left!

 

Do you think that using old Louis and a model for Holmes, is inherently any worse than using Shavers as a model for Marciano?

You seem to be decrying the former, while doing the latter!

 

Most reasonable argument I've seen so far for Holmes. The others which suggest Marciano won't win one round and that Holmes is somehow more powerful is laughable to me.

 

Seamus posted that Holmes had just as much power as Marciano if I'm not mistaken. That eroded all his credibility in my eyes.

 

I wouldn’t say Tyson hit harder then Shavers. When Marciano wears down Holmes over the course of the fight he would fall. And Marciano never suffered a knock down till he met Walcott and the second of his career was to Moore. His last fight. The knock downs totaled about 8 seconds maybe less. I’d say Marciano had a solid chin.