Rocky Marciano vs the 80s heavyweights.

Other than Weaver (who he also drew with) what was Dokes signature win, John L Gardner?

i was not impressed with his Dokes two fights with Tex Cobb and the split decision over Ossie Ocasio. Every thing else was a losing fight. That's it!

At least Layne beat two linear champions! Walcott and Charles. How about that? As well Layne also has notable wins over guys that are names like Turkey Thompson, Cesar Brion, Joe Kahut, Henry Hall and Bob Satterfeild.

 

The only thing slim about Dokes was his resume.

But he did have skill. Pitty he did not reach his potential.

 

Marciano rocks and roars right through the 80's who were a very inconsistent bunch, just look at Holmes top contenders 10 fight guys, 12 fight guys,13,14,15, fight guys, they all get lumped up by the Rock

 

Inconsistancy is the middle name for the 50's heavyweights! They played pass the parcel with wins and losses!

 

Thanks for confirming that prime Dokes beats all those 50's contenders I named.:good

Who beat who is immaterial and irrelevant A, beats B but loses to C is not how the game works. E.G. Baker beat Layne but lost by ko to Satterfield ,who Layne beat, its of no value to this discussion.

 

We have the same issue with both era's to be honest.

What separates them, is that the 50s did produce people outside of the dominant champion of the day, who had a pretty deep body of work.

The 80s has a Marcianio, but it doesn't really have a Walcott, or a Charles, or even a Moore.

It is an era of Layne's, and Valdez's.

 

Hall won 5 fights at heavyweight.
Of Kahut's 58 wins 28 were heavyweights, and who were they? Thompson and Brion were really just fringe contenders
Satterfield was as consistant as a random wind.

 

But it is those championing the 50's playing the consistancy card.
Dokes
Berbick
Coetzee
Weaver
Holmes
****ey
Page
Witherspoon
Tucker
Tubbs
Bruno
Tate
Thomas
Spinks
Williams
Smith

Would all be rated in the 50's.
How many of the 50's contenders would be rated in the 80's?:think

 

All the guys we are talking about, would be rated in either era.

The question's are how long for, and what sort of body of work they would put together.

I am not saying that the 80s crowd were no good, I happen to think that the decade was on the cusp of being something special, but it was a decade of underachievers.

There was no Walcott or Charles, to put between the Marciano and LaStarza.

 

Which only speaks to the wanting of that era of heavyweights. You only go to prove my argument.

 

Agreed. I said the same thing on post #84.

"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 6 times. 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."

 

Your logic is so circular, your head must be spinning.

Resume has to count for something, because it is the only certainty.

 

There have been far worse eras in the Heavyweifht division than the 50s

 

That's exactly right. Baker and layne etc were not World beaters either and neither were the 1980s belt guys. Nobody was good enough to dominate another era.

It's just as silly to say a Berbick or any other 80s guy equally as good (take your pick Witherspoon, snipes, Coetzee they're all the same) could dominate in the 1950s as it is to say Laynne or Valdes clean out the 80s.

Only Resumes seperate them.