Who is the biggest person Rocky Marciano fought?

The thread starter in his infinite wisdom, was asking us to critically analyse how Marciano might perform against modern sized heavyweights, based on the opposition he actually fought.

In the context that he bestowed upon us, I suggest that older Louis only validates him against the medium sized heavyweight.

 

Fair enough.

 

Fair enough.

Compared to modern guys, Louis might even be regarded (and probably is)
as small.

I don't think there is anyone Marciano could have fought which would have validated him against modern giants. Potgieter was bigger than anyone, but not very good.

I must say for myself, I don't think beating any of the big men of the old days, Carnera, Willard, or Jeffries, proves much as to how a fighter would fare against Lewis or the Klitschkos.

 

Here I disagree.

I don’t back Dempsey and Louis against Lewis and the Klitschko’s because they beat Willlard and Carnera, I back them because they could have beaten both in the same night!

These guys were good enough to test their ability to deal with the style.

 

It was easy to be reckless against giant oafish farmhands, pituitary cases and circus strong men... It's quite another to pull off those devastations against the post modern archetype of the superheavy. The revolution was televised. Those still staring at their Victrola's probably didn't catch it, tho...

 

He fought a couple really big guys... but they were turds!

 

Size isn't everything but when you add good overall skills, strength, punching power, durability, and a good trainer to it... then you really have something.

Bowe, Lewis, V. and W. Klitschko. Big, skilled, strong, powerful punchers, etc.

Great fighters who were a little smaller but highly skilled would be able to compete and maybe even beat them all because they had the right combination of height, reach, weight, strength, durability, and skill... lots of skill. I'm talking about Ali, Foreman, and Holmes.

Then you have Holyfield and Tyson. They proved they had it too despite being a little bit shorter (Holyfield) or even a good bit shorter (Tyson). No doubt they'd do better than anybody I haven't mentioned yet... vs. the above mentioned fighters.

What about Louis, Marciano, and Frazier? Louis was the tallest of these 3 but he wasn't as bulky as Tyson. 6'2" at the most and in really good shape at around 200 Lbs. Yes, he was smaller than Holyfield. Marciano was under 6' and under 190 Lbs. Frazier was under 6' and under 210 Lbs. at his best (I think he was 206 vs. Ali in their first fight). Frazier's upper body wasn't real thick, a lot of his weight was in his legs.

Guys like Charles, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, and others? 6', 6'1" and about 190 Lbs or less... IDK man, kinda small.

Walcott was 6' and solid at 200Lbs. He'd look good at CW... but even there, dudes are 6'3" and cutting down from 220 already solid Lbs. I think Walcott had enough skill to beat most of the CWs who ever fought, not Holyfield though.

 

good post EM good memory :good

 

Some great pictures there - I had not seen most of the Louis-Marciano fight pictures before. Thanks for posting the link!

I had never heard about the shoulder tumor. I had often wondered about Louis' right, especially during the Marciano fight. He seemed to use it only for defensive purposes.

 

What about some big modern HWs who won't be remembered as great, but probably would kick a lot of ass back in the old days?

David Tua- (short but thick) Strong, huge puncher with either hand and for 12 rounds, very durable

Ike Ibeabuchi- big, tall, long reach, strong, big power, durable, stamina

Hasim Rahman, Frank Bruno, Andrew Golota

What about guys who either had good skills, a lot of power, or a great chin, or a combo of two or more of these qualities? How about-

Ray Mercer, Tommy Morrison, Michael Moorer, Chris Byrd, James Toney, John Ruiz, Jameel McCline, Michael Grant, who else?

 

nice gallery of The Rock

 

Louis was a shell of a shell of his former self. Ray Leonard looked fit and trim against Camacho, also.

Louis had no right hand. Zero. According to next day reports on his Bivens' victory the fight before, he also had NO right hand. He was a one handed mummy in it for a paycheck.

 

So how would Ali have coped with the modern superheavy? He seems to get a bye on this forum compared to other similar sized fighters.

Sure, Ali was fast but he also had less power than Louis, Frazier or Liston; fighters that are dismissed as "too small" by many on here.

If big, athletic Norton can give Ali hell, surely the modern athletes would crush him? Why is Ali not judged the same as fighters who beat him?

If size is the predominant factor it should apply to all or nobody.

 

Ali was a huge guy. Got the privilege of meeting him in 92. He was a bit out of it but damn, he was a big dude.

Please stop with by simplifying this to a "size is everything" argument. Of course it is not. But when you are discussing two elite world class opponents it becomes an advantage when one is 50 pounds heavier, 6" taller and has a 15" reach edge. Sorry, them's the facts… not all the facts but a accounting of them.

In the end, there is a good reason for weight divisions. I have fought dudes out of my division and sometimes schooled them and sometimes felt smothered by strength and power and had nowhere to go. It's a helluva ace in the hole to be bigger and stronger.

 

Tyson WAS THE MOST OVERRATED heavyweight in history:deal, COULDN'T AGREE MORE...