Rocky Marciano vs the 80s heavyweights.

All the new divisions were invented for money and politics. Their ****.

 

No guys that were nothing more than contenders in the 1950s had quite an edge in seasoning and were able to string wins together among their own level compared to the 1980s guys. Difference was guys like Marciano, Charles, Walcott and Moore were even better.

The 1980s were Kids on 16 fights that would lose a step up fight against a champ. Or kids who Win a belt at 20-0 having won just one comparative fight then drop their next fight never again to find a win streak at world level. And there us nothing wrong with that. They were just contenders in the scheme of things not world beaters.

Bob Baker, Nino Valdes and Rex Layne would have done quite well. They're not dominating. They could compete 50-50 with 80s guys. Just as big too.

I don't see where a 1980s contender would go more than 50-50 against six 1950s contenders because there just wasn't a domination run in any of them. Like the 1950s guys they were just contenders. Only they were erratic. I don't see Scott Frank or Marvis Frazier being viable in the 1950s.

Tommy Huricane Jackson is basically a transplanted 1980s guy career-wise because he was thrown into the ratings at about the 16 fight stage. He was a victim of the advent of TV fights. Had absolutely no more consistency than an 1980s guy because of it. This was a rare thing at that time.

Why should a contender "find" a domination run in an earlier era?

 

Rex layne was 6'1 195lb. He was not just as big. He had atrocious defense, and fought flat footed. The big athletic talented long armed men of the 80s would have ate him alive. Layne would have done well at cruiserweight tho.

Scott frank and Marcia frazier weren't even top 10 fighters of the 80s.

The legitimate contenders witherspoon Thomas tubbs tucker page Coetzee dokes Tate weaver douglas would have been too much for the 50s guys. These guys were a lot better than frank and frazier.

 

Only on their best night were they better than Frazier and Frank! Each one of them dropped silly fights when matched to win. We both know that. Each of them barely had a signature win then leveled out. Why would they dominate? I guesse they win one fight each and blow the rest just like in real life.

 

Yes they were better than frank and frazier!

 

they were not as big, 15lbs is still bigger, it matters

we simply disagree, well it depends if you are saying the 50's and pre 50's dudes would have beat the 80's dudes more often than vice versa then we disagree,,, if your point is that a few of the old timers would surprise some of the 80's dudes then I would agree with that.

 

I think the non champion 50s guys do just as well against the 80s belt Holder types as they would against the 50s guys.

Of course size counts but other stuff counts against them and it levels out.

Progression did not occur like in other sports. Application and competition levels changed. Promotional and political set up diluted a lot of stuff.

In defence of the 1980s guys I think the system screwed them. They did not develop into the best fighters they could be. None of them did. So you can't base their worth on a potential they did not reach.

The split titles era diluted the ranks like never before. moved kids up too quick because there were so many title fights per year to fill. At least the 50s guys (with the exception of Jackson) all got to be as good as they could be before breaking into the ranks.

 

There has never been an era so weak, or a fighter so great, that they could succeed with a poor work ethic.

 

I would like it to be so.

But the HW division allows folks who are much bigger than before to come in to prominence.

If you go back far enough a man who is very talented & large with a poor work ethic might well be champion for a spell.

Especially between the ATGs.

I mean even someone WITH a terrible work ethic years ago like Galento had much success including getting a title shot with Louis.

Those 80's guys...How many of them trained so poorly or got so fat? It disgusted Dempsey-who himself went Hollywood & relatively moribund at his peak, for years.

 

you make a decent argument, I admit :good

 

There has never been a heavyweight champion, who developed poor training habits, that didn't get their head handed to them.

The deal with the 80s contenders is this:

Some of them were talented, but had a poor work ethic.

Some of them had a good work ethic, but were not particularly talented.

A few of them had good talent and work ethic, but had another fatal weakness, such as a weak chin.

That to my mind, is why none of them emerged as a particularly outstanding contender.

 

My point exactly. If Tyson and Holmes had not existed there never would have been a single heavyweight who could dominate the 1980s.

If you took Charles, Walcott and Maciano out of the 1950s I still think Archie Moore would have cleaned house within the heavyweight division. I don't think under those circumstances Archie would even have bothered with the light heavyweight division.

 

i dont think so if his fight were where they were, most thought Valuev lost to many of the men he fought but was given the nod. He was rocked badly by a cautious Haye and Chagaev was more of a boxer plodder than a puncher but beat him. Valuev was beatable on neutral ground

 

Valuev was more limited by his size than anything, he was incredibly slow of hand and foot, clumsy, and couldn't seem to generate much leverage with his punches. I guess his big skull was tough to hurt but small HW Haye rocked him pretty good. What helped him get past the level of a Mike White type was he actually had a good ring IQ and skillset that allowed him to be successful in spite of not because of his freakish size.

He didn't exactly ever make it to top. He was a carefully managed belt holder and that was about it. Many feel he was gifted or at the very least performed poorly against Ruiz, Donald, and very Old Holyfield.