Rocky Marciano vs the 80s heavyweights.

I can always concur with an honest man.:good

 

The fact that Moore is credible as a marginal great heavyweight speaks volumes.

I don't think that any of the 80s heavyweights, mentioned in the op are.

 

The problem here is both McVey and Jeannete held their own with Langford so ,unless he was **** too ,we would have to acknowledge that the old films are not a reliable source when it comes to evaluating those who fought during those times.
Conn was rated no 2 when Walcott was rated no9 1945.

 

Who says he is credible as a marginal great heavyweight?

Which signature victories cement this claim?

 

He established himself as a very dominant contender, like Walcott going into the first Louis fight.

It was obvious that there was only one guy, that it was worth Marciano fighting.

I don't think that you could say that about any of the 80s crew.

 

Perhaps because the 1980's heavyweight division was so much deeper and filled with highly competitive full size, young heavyweights.

 

6 pages of nostalgia waxing by posters who were born on the average 30 years after his unfortunate demise.

The most talented fighter of the 80's at Heavyweight is Michael Gerard Tyson and he would put good ol' Marciano down so hard that congressional investigations would be held because of the brutality of the KO.

The End.

 

I always have trouble picturing a 5'10", 185 pound guy beating massive, modern heavyweights.

I think Rocky would do best against Weaver (very hittable), Berbick (sluggish, erratic, light puncher for his size), and would possiblly get flattened by the rest.

 

Rocky never had an easy fight and if he took on a handful of 1980s heavyweights he would not have an easy fight either. But the man was a winner with unique and awkward assets that he knew how to use to his advantage. He proberbly only ever had 6 great fights in him anyway but he was a guy who knew how to use what he had.

Outside of Holmes and Tyson the 1980s did not produce champions who could beat more than one rated fighter before losing again. Witherspoon, page, snipes,coetzee, Thomas and Berbick were no better than each other. With few exceptions (Bruno, Tillis) everyone who challenged for belt not owned by Holmes wound up being champion! Talk about pass the parcel!

Marciano was born with about six great wins in him. Put him amongst guys who only ever had one good win in them and he comes out on top. If fight number 7 for Rocky comes against one of those guys it would be a bridge too far but outside of Holmes and Tyson there is nobody from the 1980s who would string top wins together or dominate any era.

 

If you took Marciano and transplanted him into the 80's his lack of height and weight would burn him out real fast against such big men. Again though if he was in the 1980's he would be a Cruiserweight. If you just line him up and say on his best night he has one fight with each selected fighter of the 80's, I could see him doing fair.
I could see him defeating Berbick, Dokes, coetZer and Smith. Although Smith could really punh and might take Rocky out.

 

I think it's about consistency and seasoning. Those guys were just as likely to lose to any guy they beat who had a 20-0 fights. Take their best win give them a rematch with the same guy and they could not ever replicate that form. And it's because they were fighting another guy with just twenty fights experience. A lot if manufactured records. Kids mostly. That's how Weaver had somewhat of an edge. As vulnerable as weaver was (lost to both Bobick brothers) he had at least been around. No. These guys, with a diluted championship system just did not progress the required amount by the time they made the grade to beat even a great little guy who had never been knocked out. Far too sloppy, no consistency, the size advantage would not eclipse the short fall in experience, hard 15 round pace and ATG savvy.

I am excluding Holmes from this of course because he was the real champ. Above the others of his era. He stands some chance and most will argue even marciano-Holmes is at least a 50-50 fight.

 

You feel Rocky could beat Tucker, Witherspoon and ****ey? I think the size difference would be too much with those guys. I am open to be persuaded though I do respect Rocky as an all time great.

 

Yes because it's not just about size. In the scheme of things these guys were just contenders. One good win in them but not quite greatness. Kept losing. Few competitive wins. They wound up passing belts around that meant nothing more than being "#1 contender to Holmes".

If it was just about size it's not enough. would you expect a decent tall middleweight contender to beat a natural sized ATG welterweight? Is Mark Kaylor beating Sugar Ray Leonard?

 

Being a dominant contender in one era does not translate to another do you agree? I don't call either Walcott or Charles great heavyweights and I think both beat Moore like a drum. That's my position. By the way it wasn't that obvious because
Moore spent a year campaigning with" wanted posters" beating the publicity drum ie" Marciano Wanted For Title Fight by Sheriff Archie Moore". before the Ring magazine got behind him. I've Ring's with Moore on the cover, arms outstretched running after a crown with wings. Moore's fight before Marciano was defending his lhvy crown against middle weight Bobo Olson.

How saleable would the equivalent fight be in1980?

Larry Holmes defending his title against Saad Muhammad who had just kod Marvin Hagler? I suggest it would never have got off the ground. So the two eras are not directly comparable.

 

You've saved me typing this.:good
It is precisely because there was much more depth to the 80s heavyweight pool that there was no dominant challenger.

Archie Moore, a 39 years old light heavyweight is the dominant challenger for the heavyweight title what does this tell us?
I say
Coetzee
Tucker
Tubbs
Page
Berbick
Bruno
Thomas
Williams
C***ey
Weaver
Dokes

And several others beat:
Layne
C*ckell
Lastarza
Mathews
Wallace
Gardner
Norkus
Slade
Bucceroni
Walls