What is your opinion of the Cockell-Marciano fight?

And there is no way to justify an era being good when a guy like Holmes chooses to defend against the Zanons, Ledouxs and Cobbs of the world. The point is STILL that Marciano did a good job at fighting guys at or near the top whereas Holmes ran from them.

 

You want to focus on the zanons, Ledouxs, and cobbs while ignoring the Witherspoons, Nortons, Cooneys, Shavers, Williams, etc.

Prime Ledoux probably would've been Marciano's 7th or 8th best opponent of his whole career.

 

As you are ignoring Charles, Walcott, Moore...

Most of those guys you named were not the best available...even Norton was almost 35 and Witherspoon only 13 fights in. The big wins aren't there, exacerbated by the fact that Holmes did not unify or fight #1s.

 

I never ignored Charles, Walcott, or Moore. I've written plenty about his bouts with these 3 men. Specifically, how they were good wins on paper where Rocky displayed plenty of heart and grit digging deep to win. Only problem is, all 3 boxers were pretty small, old, and shopworn. Which again points to how weak the era was when multiple older fighters with tons of wear and tear are the dominant fighters of the era. This is only made worse by the fact Charles and Moore were blown up light heavies. Whenever you see light heavies brazenly moving up and having their way with the HW division, it's a weak era.

For some reason whenever people point out these irrefutable facts, Rocky fans dig their heels in and refuse to concede these points. Which is hilarious because, again, Holmes was the complete opposite: an older fighter with wear and tear facing prime athletic boxers a decade younger than him.

"These guys weren't the best available, even Norton". Norton was the champion when Holmes fought him; meaning Norton was quite literally the best available. Are you stupid? Witherspoon, Cooney, Shavers, Weaver, and Williams were all ranked.

 

Even Norton was almost 35. He was the champion awarded in the board room, and was a couple of years older than Charles when Marciano fought him. You do understand that he never successfully won or defended the title?

Holmes didn't fight unifications or #1s. The older man argument doesn't matter.

I am not stupid, Holmes just didn't fight unifications of #1 contenders. That is a matter of history.

And it really belittle's yourself to use this language, especially regarding something so obvious. The man bragged about ducking.

 

You do understand that you're being incredibly hypocritical right now?

Norton was younger than THREE of Rocky's best opponents who were pushing 40 (Moore, Walcott, Louis).

In this very thread, not too long ago, you rigorously defended Don Cockell as a legitimate opponent who earned his #2 ranking because that's what the sanctioning bodies decided. Yet you make disparaging remarks about Norton winning the title...even though that's what the sanctioning bodies decided.

The names I mentioned who Holmes defeated were mostly prime, undefeated fighters ranked in the top 10, yet you are saying they--along with Norton who was the CHAMPION---"weren't the best fighters available". Apparently it's okay for Rocky to fight Cockell since he was one of the best available, but it's not okay for Holmes to fight someone ranked in the top 5 of his division?

So yes, you look pretty stupid and hypocritical right now.