if holmes had stopped at 48-0 or beat spinks to go to 49-0, how would his undefeated hw record have fared against marciano's? which would have been better?
The undefeated stature changes it all. Impossible to say. I want to say "Marciano ever so slightly," but at the same time, it very well likely would be Holmes.
Due to the fact that people think that the club fighters of yesteryear who ran records up to 115-27 fighting guys who were getting off work after a 16 hour shift at the freight yard then stopped at the arena after the pub for their title fight, I gotta go with the Rock. Holmes, undoubtedly fought his share of club fighters, but not nearly enough of em had 132 fights against other boxcar willies. So the Rock, for sure.
a lot is made of marciano having the undefeated record, but his opponents he beat were not that great. joe louis was 137 years old when he fought rocky marciano, a hundred and thirty seven.
Charles, Walcott and Moore were great fighters, but all were old and well past their primes when he fought them.
Holmes had something like 20 or 21 title defenses and if I remember correctly, Marciano had like 6... Holmes also fought a lot of undefeated challengers...I rate Holmes higher as it stands now...And I mean no disrespect to the Rock...
yeah, thats what i was meaning. joe louis, joe walcott, archie moore and ezzard charles were great fighters, no doubt, but walcott was 38 when marciano beat him, ezzard charles was 33, louis was 137 and archie moore was way past his best when he was beaten.
I always thought Louis was 32/33 when he fought Marciano. And if you go by that than Holmes fought a 984 y/o Ali.