Rocky Marciano vs the 80s heavyweights.

Marciano was 5'11 same height as Norris

 

Uh there are some distinct reasons why Norris could fight bigger men. Byrd and Chambers share those reasons. Rocky doesn't.

 

Norris didn't do anything against Tucker, Marciano didn't do.

Rocky is better equipped, he could hurt bigger men.

 

Are you even familiar with Norris? Watch how he fought against tall men. Then get back.:good

 

That's true.
But he's 6'5 with an 82 inch reach. If he was any good he'd be able to convincingly beat a 5'10 inch guy with no power.

Tucker was a mediocre heavyweight.

The 1980s was full of mediocre heavyweights. Revisionist history has does wonders for that "lost generation".

 

That's why there were so many heavyweights under 6 foot in the top ten rankings during the 80's.:good

 

It was a significantly better era than the 50's imo.

 

Whatever way you try to spin it your original statement:

"Shorter than Marciano, same reach, "

IS JUST PLAIN WRONG !
The fact that you can't bring yourself to admit it doesn't change that!:-(

 

About the same.

But Marciano was a stand out fighter.
Apart from prime Holmes c. 1980, and prime Tyson in the mid/late 80s, there were few HWs of the era, if any, who'd stand any hope against Marciano.

 

Marciano was given life and death by two men past prime Walcott and Charles, and he may well have been fortunate to get the dec against moderate Lastarza in their first encounter.

Let's not pretend he rolled over these guys like Germany did Poland .
It works both ways
How many heavies of the 50's would have much chance against prime Holmes and Tyson?:think

 

He won the fights, usually by KO. Walcott was KTFO. Charles was beaten up badly to a clear decision and stopped in rematch.
LaStarza is one fight, a questionable decision apparently. Again, stopped in rematch.

But guys like Berbick and Snipes and Douglas were getting beat by non-entities.
Fighters like C00ney and Tucker rarely even fought other contenders.

I agree.
I don't see anyone saying that most the 50s contenders would beat Holmes and Tyson.
Yet I do see people suggesting Marciano would be beaten by some very ordinary 80s contenders.

 

Marciano was 5'11.

Norris is listed at 5'9" and 5'10" and 5'11". How do we know which one is right? I was using the on screen "tale of the tape" listing for the actual fight we were talking about. Do I have to admit that was wrong even though it was officially listed as such on TV? or do you want me to admit Norris was also listed neglegabley taller than 5'9" on occasion but never listed taller than Rocky was? I can do that if you want.

I think Norris was no taller than Rocky because he was never listed talker than Rocky, proberbly shorter than Rocky otherwise why did they list him at 5'9" against Tucker?

 

Marciano was 5'10.5"and his reach was 68".You keep on being in denial I'm not wasting any more time on it ,or you.:hi:

 

5.10.5 and 5.11. Have been listed fir Rocky, Yes marciano had a 68" reach..Norris was listed 5.9, 5.10 and 5.11 with a 70"reach. It's all very negligible. You get within an inch your talking who cut their fingernails or hair shorter. It's splitting hairs. Literally.

 

Actually, watching the Tucker-Norris fight, the commentators note that Norris achieved "213" at the weigh in while wearing clothes, chains, a big heavy rolex watch, and whatever else he had on or in his pockets.

Probably closer to 200.