Tokyo Douglas vs Rocky Marciano

When did they get better though? Of course it's flat out wrong to say a better fighter is worse just because the division is worse. I'm saying a better fighter looks better if his opponents cannot overcome a reach disadvantage. Fighters like Haye started at a lighter weight. I think of all the guys you mentioned vitali was the only one that started pro over 230lb the others built up to it. It has been proven. Holyfeild beat Douglas and others to a jab. Moorer out boxed taller guys. It's the recent oafs.

It used to closer than it is now though wasn't it? Today the klitchko era heavyweight boxing is almost another kind of sport.

Yes but what Vladimir has is bags of experience over the opposition. He's created a format where providing he is in shape he can control a pace to suit him and have a picnic with just about anyone he choses. It works, but it's nit good. These ten year prospects, older contenders with fewer competative fights to fall back on. Wilder at least is in shape but he's learning on the job. All those build up fights and no real experience. Reach has become the biggest thing in heavyweight boxing. It overcomes everything.

 

That's the key though "nothing coming back". People excuse the "nothing coming back" with Tyson not being in shape. I think it was because Tyson was confused. He was so programmed he instinctively fought one way and had so much faith in it he literally couldn't understand why he was getting hit. He had to stop and think and when he stopped he got hit. He was nit used to thinking. Fights went his way. He took a beating because he was so confused.

I don't think any other ATG would have become so confused and frustrated, no other champion had been so young.

when things were going his way Tyson was a beast. No doubt about it. He was brave, and he never stopped trying but the fact is once he was losing he lost. That's just not the case with Marciano. His prowess did not diminish because he was losing rounds. I think that needs to be taken into consideration. Mike Tyson was Mike Tyson when he was winning. Rocky Marciano was always Rocky Marciano.

They were both hard to hit but one was easier to hit once he became confused.

Well I actually think that is not necessarily impossible because Douglas was really magnificent in Tokyo. He did a number on a great fighter and showed every move and tool required to dismantle Tyson. But he also did a number on a confused kid who happened to be the world's greatest fighter all at the same time.

 

yes I have considered this. Rocky looked good without the advantage of reach against faster sharper boxers who had experience on him. The bigger guys could have been a bigger target. With smaller gloves and a longer distance it suited him too. I think Rocky would have struggled more with the same big guy under today's rules because with less rounds the bigger guy can exert himself that bit more earlier and with bigger gloves it is harder to make the same impression. I accept that. But under his rules less so.

Yes but there are tall heavyweights using the jab, taking a break, here and there and the shorter guy not taking advantages of the break because he's too slow to get past a straight punch. Off the top of my head I'm thinking chisora and Stiverne in their last fights.

Do you think it could be because they are so big?

Indeed.

 

Another thing I said was heavyweights used to be able to beat guys with longer arms. I also used Stivern and chisora as examples.

And whilst that would certainly be a challenge for Rocky it certainly was not so rare for heavyweights before 1998 to overcome a reach disadvantage as it is now. Also there's the pace issue for the bigger man set for a 15 round fight getting hit with smaller gloves.

You said "the heavyweight division is bad now though. There are bad quality fighters in it" yet Lewis and the Klitchko boys are the best since 1998 and would be tough for anyone.

I agree with both points too. The division is bad and the klitchko boys and Lewis were as good and as hard to beat as anyone who came before. But I do think they look better in a bad division. Just my opinion.:good

 

On that night Douglas would have been a very big handful for any heavyweight.
His jab and one twos were spot on. I have to wonder how many of them Marciano could have absorbed before his face split open .

 

Yes Lewis had a great division. I've felt the 1990s were under rated at the time and the 1970s a little over rated. Sandwiched in the middle was the 1980s where because of monopolies, confusion and politics did not quite pan out but had good fighters too. The 2000s by comparison just kind of underwhelmed.

As good as the 1990s were for entertainment value it is still almost unbelievable that two Atg heavyweights from the 1970s were able to be relevent within it at all? Was it the slower pace slipping in that allowed age to be less of a disadvantage? The experimental period bulking up, spurt fighting suiting an older veterans pace? I can't think of what the equivalent would be in the 1940s or 1970s heavyweight division of a Holmes and Foreman being around in the 1990s?

 

That's a very good answer but I think Holmes and Foreman were more relevent in the 1990s than Moore was in the 1960s heavyweight division. I know there was more title opportunity in the 1990s but Moore was not really as close to being a threat. Archie had fair wins against good contenders though, I accept that. I'm just thinking about other generations like the 1970s that was celebrated as a top heavyweight decade, what could the equivalent been then of 1990s Foreman and Holmes? Would it be like Ingo and Patterson breaking through in the 1970s?

 

I would say that the success of older versions of Foreman and Holmes in the 90s poses a big challenge, both to those who say that the 90s was one of the strongest eras, and to those who exalt the dreadnought punchers of that era.

Why is this the single era, where the past prime greats of the previous generation, didn't get obliterated?

 

This is a good question. I think there is a case that the 1990s was a transitional period of experimentation in pace, training and body building. It still counts as an entertaining decade because there was room for anything to happen.