Who ranks higher on the Heavyweight list - Evander Holyfield or Rocky Marciano?

I've always liked Holyfield....but..Marciano was a force of nature...

 

Marciano was a force of nature...the great one punch victory over Walcott is immortal. The great 49-0 is immortal as well.

 

:dead

 

Evander happened to fight in an era where the guys were in a wide ranges of styles and sizes. Foreman one fight and then Bert Cooper the next. Lennox Lewis with a right hand and Bowe with the left hook. So many different style and sizes that it would be very difficult to keep winning with big guys like that. He did not have the power of Marciano, so he had to rely on skill and his combinations. Much more difficult. If they were all near his weight he could have just had to deal with the style issue, but the size issues made him have to be much more versatile than Marciano. Tyson was more dominant against his opponents than Evander, but look what happened head to head when Evander fought Mike.

No fighting everyone is not enough. And yes you have to beat the guys to be greater. You have to t, and he did. You said breaking even is what he did, Duran did not break even. Duran was 1-5 against the greats. Most guys beat him. Evander split fights with great fighters. And Larry Holmes he beat also. Not in the same fashion Tyson did, but he beat him.

It is hard to apply what I said in one thread and put it to another one since all fighters are different. But I think I explained. When Duran fought the best guys he ever did he was moving up in weight, so he loses to them all and has excuses. He did not split two fights with Hearns he lost the fight, and he lost to Benitez, and Hagler and Leonard he did win a fight, but Ray came back and beat him. My point was Duran to be 1-5 ATG had to do much more than fight greats, he had to beat them. What makes him that great? A mediocre lightweight reign which was dominant an then losing to the greats when he moved up? Something is midding.

This thread was about who was greater, Evander or Marciano. Not as big of an accomplishment is needed comparing two guys. Marciano dominant with weaker opponents and Evander wins and losses vs. greats but getting I think 4 titles?

And about Bowe and Lennox that second fight I thought he showed much heart and could have edged it. Yet the scores were further apart then the first. Duran against a Lewis would have lost the first fight big and then said he was out of shape. Bowe he beat in 1993. Much different fights and Evander beat guys who were great. Even Michael Moorer, Evander lost the first fight and came back and won. He always persevered and put out his all. Something Duran did not do in his losses.

Fighting a great is better than not fighting a great, but when it came to Duran, does fighting greats make him 1-5 ATG? That has to be done by beating them. If it is that Duran is great? Yes Duran is great, but I always said 20-25 ATG and not 1-5. Wins are needed for that. Leonard has the wins for that ranking, not Duran by a long shot.

 

glad to get that cleared up mag. just felt your initial statement was a little thin! no need to go back into the duran debate, that's done.

i really like the arguments for holyfield being ranked above marciano, just not covinced that they're definitive. i actually think that holyfield and marciano had many similar strengths - both had champion attitudes for example. what is your top ten heavyweight list?

 

If you look at the top ten when marciano joined the rankings and when he left the rankings he prety much beat all of them, those he did not beat personaly his victims did. He beat the guys who beat the guys and knocked out all the active champions throughtout the duration of his career.

Holyfeild beat good guys, he fought them all, but its not so close to what marciano did in a less diluted one champ, one title era. evander was not beter than bowe or Lewis and he also lost against moorer.

Marciano was 4-0 against real world champions. evander faced 6 real world champions and 2 were over 40 years old. That leaves Tyson, bowe, lewis and Moorer but three of them beat evander. Even based on competition its just not as good.

 

I think it's fair to say that Evander fought the tougher competition but that doesn't necessarily mean that he should be ranked higher. Most boxing experts seem to agree that the 50's were a rather dull era for HW's. Joe Louis was way past it. Rex Layne was overrated. Charles and Moore were ATG's but LHW's stepping up in weight. LaStarza was good but not much more. Who else was there to really light things up? Savold? Lowry? Compare those fellows to Bowe, Lewis, Tyson, Mercer, Foreman and Holmes and I think it puts things in perspective. The best of Marciano's time was Walcott who was very good but getting on in years himself. I don't have a problem rating Rocky over Evander based on what he did in his own time but I don't think he should be rated higher due to level of competition which I might add isn't Marciano's fault.

 

You ****ing ask people for their opinion and then insult them. obviously you know your stuff ( some of it) but you can't diss people for having a different opinion then you, ****ing idiot atsch

 

I love you too, sweety. :smooch

 

What's wrong with what he wrote?

 

Your missing another key point ... Rocky was a young man fighting old men ... Holyfield was already pushing 32 when he first started fighting Riddick, Tyson, Lewis, Moorer and Mercer ... he was the older fighter, fighting these guys at an age when Rocky was either about to retire or was retired ...

Evander fought much better fighters in their physical prime other than Foreman and Holmes who were easily as good or better than the Charles, Louis and Moorer Rocky fought ... all you fellas standng on Rocly's record are looking at it, as usual, through rose colored lenses ...

 

Holyfield Hooooook!

:hat

 

It's becoming his M.O.

I liked how he started a thread about Pacquiao/Holyfield and how they rank (twice when he didn't get what he wanted the first time) and speaking of their resumes, whose was better, he maintained, even with a good, two-sided debate going on that it was Holy's and it wasn't even close. D.T. ...I salute you.