rocky marciano vs larry holmes

Why can't Marciano win on points?

There have been many cases of pressure fighters beating technical boxers on points.

It might even be one of the more likely outcomes!

The same advantage that Joe Frazier had over Muhammad Ali.

A swarmer has a stylistics advantage over a technical boxer.

This is very basic stuff in terms of boxing technique.

Holmes is arguably more vulnerable to criticism of his opposition to be honest.

How does he achieve this?

Simple.

Pressure, pressure, and more pressure.

Keep on Holmes throwing eighty plus punches per round, and smother him, so that he can't do what he wants to do.

Break him down gradually over the course of the fight.

Maybe it works, and maybe it doesn't, but Holmes is in for a very dangerous night!

 

Rocky beat Charles by decision, arguably the best fighter ever. It's not impossible for him to beat Holmes by decision, if anything it's more likely than the stoppage on either side. Of course Holmes could decision Rocky too, both are great fighters at their best.

 

Frazier won 1 of the 3 fights he had with Ali and imo he would not have won that if Ali hadn't been out for nearly 4 years!
Marciano's skin wont take that jab for 15rounds he aint winning this on points. Louis turned his face into a gargoyle and he was an old man!
The kryptonite for a slowish swarmer is the jab who had a better one than Holmes?
The best weapon for the croucher is the uppercut,who had a better one than Holmes? Now stick your "rubbish" comments up your ass!

 

I think of Holmes Shavers I, and even though Shavers was never in the same galaxy as Marciano (outside of explosive power, which Earnie had Rocky beat on). Holmes looked like an ATG even then imo. It's rare you'll see such pugilistic beauty as Holmes in that fight.

To a lesser degree, same with the Norton fight (which became a slugfest way more often than the Holmes camp wanted). I don't see Marciano getting around that foot and hand speed, the adroitness (something Rocky never had...to be fair he rarely needed it).

Holmes was too slick in 1977-1978. It'd be similar to Ali (60s Ali outpoints RM). But Holmes would, like he did Shavers I, keep laying it on heavier and heavier until toward the end Rocky is bashed from ring post to ring post, last round of the fight.

This more Ali-esque Holmes (whom mostly disappeared, to Larry's fighting advantage, after the Norton fight) was second only to 60s Ali in terms of the above speed (I'm not convinced Patterson was faster than either, really...he would have done far better against Liston if that were true), and indeed was significantly ahead of Ali as quality of fighter at that time.

Can anyone really see Marciano keeping up with that era Holmes? Much less landing flush...count how many times Shavers did it, and Shavers didn't come full on and pressure/swarm with the intensity and perseverance Rocky had.

Again, I have huge respect for Rocky's record and having retired undefeated (neither were ever repeated).

 

Charles was a great light heavy, he was not a great heavy,and he had over 100 fights on his clock having lost 2 of his last 4, he was neither as tough as Holmes nor as big, nor did he have his jab and durability.

 

Larry's my favorite fighter, but I'd have to give that to Foreman and Bowe. However, Larry's was faster and more accurate than either, and not particularly far away in power.

Larry was far more capable of making the uppercut a "phantom"/won't-see-it-coming punch than the other two did, as well. Which made it even more dangerous as far as that goes.

 

Ali was arguably the greatest heavyweigth of all time, and Frazier had him on the verge of disaster throughout all their fights, even when he was further gone than Ali.

Was he simply so much more dangerous than all Ali's other opponents, or was there a stylistic factor at play?

A stoppage on cuts is possible, but would you ever bet money on a cuts stoppage, on a fight that was happening tomorrow?

I don't think that you would.

He might well win on points.

Many of the the great swarmer over boxer wins of history have been on points!

No it isn't.

Swarmers specialize in beating technical boxers, and all of them have a jab.

Their entire mode of fighting is based on negating the jab!

The uppercut is a good weapon against a swarmer, but again it is part of what a swarmer has to deal with.

Holes had a good one, but many men had a harder one.

 

Again, only Bowe and Foreman, really.

 

I think Holmes jab is the best the division has seen and neither Foreman's or Bowe's make my top 4 which would be
Holmes
Ali
Louis
Liston
Just my opinion.

 

Frazier only once had Ali near defeat imo in the 11th round of their 1st fight.Ali had no problems in their 2nd fight having Frazier near to going down in the 2nd rd, and would have stopped Frazier if they had sent him back out in their last bout. And that was not a prime Ali we are talking about Holmes in his prime.Marciano couldn't negate old Joe Louis' jab !"I just had to take them" he ain't negating Holmes'.
I would bet on Holmes tkoing Marciano on cuts if they fought in their prime this coming Saturday ,and I wouldn't be surprised if Larry had him down at some point.I don't see that Walcott or Moore had appreciably more power than Larry and certainly neither had his chin!

 

I meant uppercut my friend. I agree with your jab list btw.

 

What about the 15th round of the FOTC? Ali got knocked down and didn't overall look too great there, either.

I had Frazier beating Ali in the second fight, and tbh I don't think Joe was as hurt as so many people seem to think in the 2nd round. Hurt, but he wasn't staggering all over the place.

 

He slowed near the end of loads of earlier fights.

 

I have to admit though, after being on here I went back and watched as many Walcott fights as I could...Jersey Joe was amazing!!!

 

I'd have to put Jack Johnson's uppercut in there and Louis'.