Who ranks higher as a all time heavyweight Rocky Marciano or Evander Holyfield?

This is true but Rocco must garner more points simply due to his not being caught in the scandal of his pseudonym Rick Marse being named as a PED user ala Evan Fields.

Evan is a better p4p fighter but I do temper just how highly I rate him because I can't ignore that a significant part of his greatness is stained with the lingering questions of "Did he?"

 

Past their best light heavyweights being the top of the era is a weak era tbh compared to Holyfield fighting and beating actual heavyweights many of whom were bigger then him

 

I actually rank Marciano higher P4P, regardless. Simply in the sense that Charles and Moore were better P4P wins than they were strictly HW wins. Marciano just outright beat two top 30 P4P greats while not being much bigger than either. Most tend to forget this. They just also happened to be very good/borderline great at HW, and his bouts with Rocky are remembered as strictly HW bouts.

And personally, I don't hold the steroids against Holyfield all that much. I highly doubt he was the only top Heavyweight on the juice back then.

 

To me there isn't any question. He had HGH shipped to his house. That is MORE definitive than a drug test, as there can be false positives.

 

Holyfield. Holyfield might have been gifted title shots he didn't deserve but that doesn't mean he wasn't close to the top level. Hes overrated because he got punished less for losses than others in his position and got access to more accolades with the 3 belts. But take all that away and Holyfield still fought well against all the elite guys and was giving the biggest HW champ ever problems when he was in his late 40s. He might have been unfairly elevated above it but hes still an elite HW.

Marciano fought in the easiest and smallest modern era and his 14 fights at the top level were as easy as they could have been. Whether that be catching legends past their best, the size of his opponents etc. And theres really nothing that suggests Marciano could hack it at HW at any time since 1960.

Holyfield would be way below .500 against the best 20 or so HWs of the last 65 years but he'd still usually go the distance and get at least 3 rounds. Marciano would not only probably go winless its hard to see him being competitive with any world champ since his retirement. Marciano doesn't really hit hard enough to change the course of a match hes outclassed in with one punch so he might not even have a punchers chance.

 

Everybody he fought.

 

I have never seen a ranking made by the media (Bert Sugar, Ring Magazine, etc...) in which Holyfield is ahead of Marciano among the best heavyweights of all time, and I agree with these rankings.

The reason is simply that Marciano dominated his era. Wasn't it one of the best eras of heavyweights? That's true but he dominated it. Among the fighters defeated by Rocky we must also mention two good prospects like Rex Layne (given as the favorite by the bookmakers in '51 against Marciano) and Roland LaStarza (who was undefeated in the first match with Rocky in '50 and lost only by SD in a very close fight). Walcott and Charles had passed their best days but they gave Marciano a lot of work.

Holyfield (obviously we are talking about a great champion) on the other hand never dominated his era, in which there were certainly better fighters than in the early '50s (clearly considering that Louis, Walcott and Charles when they faced Rocky were past their prime). For me, Real Deal's best win is against Bowe (against whom he lost 2 matches), with the other strongest fighter he faced he has a defeat and a controversial draw (in reality he lost twice with Lewis). Then he also lost against Moorer (1994), then the increasingly clear decline with Ruiz, Byrd, Toney and Donald. So too many stops and a negative balance with the best of his generation (Bowe and Lewis) to stay ahead of Marciano in my opinion. With all due respect to Holyfield who faced everyone who was there for many years, I want to say this.

 

I do hold the steroids against Evan and could see arguments for Marciano. I am mindful that he doesn't have a LHW record, moving up to HW and beating and competing with the likes of Bowie, Old Foreman, Lewis, Tyson, beating Douglas etc. to fall back on like Evan does, but that he destroyed most men he stepped in the ring with, stands him in good light.

I personally do hold the drugs against Evan. I accept that if we want fighters to be bigger, stronger, faster and fight more frequently something has to give and if one's doing them, they should all have access and be 'allowed' to do it as controversial as that sounds. However, when comparing the absolute elite of today Vs the absolute elite of yesterday, how can you compare today's fighter who's caught with juice in the cookie jar with legends like Louis, Ricco, Patterson, Ali, Holmes etc. where there is much less likelihood of them taking drugs that made them stronger or quicker? Ali tried taking something in his twilight of career to lose weight and looked like a zombie in there. Evan took something to put on size and ended up losing his hair and having all of these strange health issues for a while during his arguable HW prime.

Does Evan deserve more slack - down to where you fall but I do apply the same logic to Floyd Mayweather using diuretics and other fighters that have knowingly done what they shouldn't have. I understand it and it doesn't overly detract from their greatness but it is a discerning factor when comparing the very elite.

 

No, you're 100% right

What always got me was how lazy the fake name was ... Evan Fields is crazy work. What happened to good old John Smith or Mike Jones? Who? Mike Jones ...

 

There's no argument at all, really. Certainly not for me. The thread is talking greatness i believe, thru the mention of "all time." Were Holyfields challengers rated in the heavyweight division when they fought? Marciano's were, and highly. Marciano was beating top contenders, guys rated near or mostly at the top of the open division. He was beating the best of his day, guys that had no weight restrictions.

I don't recall any of Holyfields victims at cruiser doing much of anything in the open division. Usyk is the same. His cruiser opponents weren't rated heavyweights.

 

Good point. It is just the weights make it a bit shaky.

I am not sure how many of Holyfield cruiser opponents were ranked at least in the top 20 or 10 that might be helpful to know.

 

I am a believer that weather it's Holyfield or Ali or the Kiltschko's or Fury or Joshua etc etc they were all using PED's it's professional sports.

 

I'd say none of them mate. I'd be pretty much certain none were top 10 and i highly doubt any were top 20, certainly in the real world.

 

Good discussion.. depends on what criteria you favour I mean Holyfield probably fought more Hall of Fame fighters.. I'd say Holyfield has the overall deeper resume too but he lost quite a bit.. Marciano would crush Moorer, Byrd, Ruiz, Toney etc.. but i think hed struggle with the SHWs badly because he wasn't much bigger than a middleweight.. Marciano had distinct physical disadvantages here like a featherweights reach & fought long before the PED eras unlike Holyfield.. & before ya'll start with the he only beat old Fighters one .. Rex Layne was 23 a betting favourite, had beaten Walcott & would go on to beat Ezzard Charles.. & Charles was hardly ancient either when Marciano fought him.. Moore, Walcott, Charles, Layne, Louis etc versus Tyson, Bowe, Moorer, Holmes, Foreman.. its close but overall I'd say Marciano. The guy just refused to beat.

 

Marciano was basically a LHW.