Rocky Marciano vs the 80s heavyweights.

THe 1980s guys were big powerful athletic and fast. Talented too. They would have been too much for most of the pre 1970 Heavyweight contenders.

Greg Page in his prime would have destroyed Lastarza

Dokes would have demolished layne

Witherspoon would have schooled baker

Thomas would have smashed Valdes

Tucker would have manhandled Pastrano

Coetzee would have humiliated cokkell

Tubbs decisions Louis

Walcott Charles Moore would have competed with anyone except Holmes

F

 

You need to stop looking at which fighter looks more imposing in a thong, and start looking at what they actually did, in the real physical universe.

Not wanting to be mean here.

 

But not world beaters in any era. And you know it.

 

Any era before 1960 they would be world beaters. Except when facing Louis and Marciano

 

You need to start looking at the TALENT SKILLS ATHLETICISM these big men post 1970 possessed compared to the unathletic untalented unskilled big men of the 10s 20s 30s 40s. It's quite evident on film the difference.

These smaller skilled fighters couldn't handle bigger men who also possessed skills speed and athleticism. There are exceptions Louis Dempsey Johnson Tunney Schmeling charles walcott moore. Rare exceptions. But the rest would get creamed by guys like tucker Thomas Norton Douglas etc

 

not wanting to be mean ? lol

well you could of left out the "thong" comment :smooch

Suzie feels like I do, the bigger guys of the 80's would give the smaller guys before that more problems than vice versa. Not across the board, just more problems than vice versa. What is so hard about that concept? Look at all sports the last 50 years and you will see that bigger stronger guys are getting better and better rather than vice versa.

I used to box at about 175lbs. I wasn't very good but I was ok. I could spar with some top WW's and MW's giving them a decent sparring session but not so against top Light Heavy's. The reason? I had a few extra very solid pounds on them and usually a few extra inches in height and reach which was a huge advantage for me to give them a good sparring. If many things are equal then size can matter a lot. If the bigger guy is total **** then not so much obviously.

Your comment creates the perception that size is all just looks and that simply is not true. If it was there would be no weight limits whatsoever.

Take Valuev for instance, he was slow and not talented but because of his huge size he made it to the top. Could any boxer with Valuevs skills make it as far as he did if he was not 7 foot and 300lbs?

He was successful for the most part because of his size :good

 

Thank you

There is a reason the 80s top ten at heavyweightvwas guys only 6'2+ 210lb +. While in the early 1900s 165lbers like choynski and Fitzimmons could crack the top echelon.

Choyynski and Fitz would have gotten creamed against the 80s crop.

 

yep too many guys get "offended" at the argument that size is a advantage, I think what confuses so many is that nobody is saying size is the ONLY thing yet that's how too many picture it being said. Thus they confuse themselves and start claiming size doesn't matter what so ever when it is a real advantage.

 

Lastarza
****ell
Layne
Mathews
Brion
Bucceroni
Baker
Satterfield
Would get beat up in the 80's and Moore would not be number one contender at any time.

 

Baker would do ok. Nice size 6'2 215 fast hands, good skills, sharp punches on offense. He outboxed Valdes convincingly, watch the film

The rest would get pummeled I agree

Archie would break into the top 5 beat a lot of good men but lose to Thomas Witherspoon Page and Tucker

Off topic but Everyone from the 20s outside of Dempsey and Wills get crushed in the 80s. Fulton firpo Willard wouldn't break the top 10.

 

No there really weren't and certainly the 1980's were not among them.

 

Yes there were.

The early 1900s 1910s 1920s you are going to tell me those guys looked better on film than Ezzard Charles Sonny Liston Joe Walcott Archie Moore Floyd Patterson Harold Johnson Rocky Marciano???

I'd love you to describe in detail how fighters from those eras on film showcased better fundamentals than the names I mentioned above ?

 

Oh, I agree. It's called the evolution of the sport.

But also consider that Charles was a raggedy assed former great by the time he faced Marciano, Liston was a verfiable nobody, Walcott packed it in he was so old and shopworn, Moore was a lightheavy opportunist and Patterson was barely even on the radar.

 

Marciano beats all the 200 plus pound pretenders.

And if he doesnt and loses to guys with 30 and 40 lb advantages from 30 years in a high protein diet future ....so what?

 

Everybody together now:

IF SIZE DIDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE, THERE WOULDN'T BE WEIGHT CLASSES.