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

If you're so sensitive and immature that you can't tolerate a different opinion than yours then don't ask a question for a thread cupcake.:nono

 

Marciano was not that young, winning the title at 28, than defended it up to age 33.

It was not like he was a 20 young something. He was close to 30 than most give him.

 

Marciano ranks higher! But Evander is close.

 

point is that Archie Moore the night he fought Marciano was in great shape and fought one of his great fights and was in the midst of a great run etc etc - he was not old in the sense of say Foreman who could barely stand up straight to throw a punch with nearly going off balance and having the figure of a sumo wrestler etc - George really was ANCIENT and Larry lost a contact lense against Holy!!! Jeeez that really is ANCIENT and again Larry was grossly out of shape - Archie had great from, balance, technique, dip, brilliant footwork, fluidity, great poise, great acuracy, incredible stamina.heart and bravery - Foreman and Holmes on their nights against Holy were nowhere near Archie Moore against Marciano - Moore was a great great fighter - a good number of people thought Moore would really do a number on Marciano - noone gave Foreman or Holmes more than very very very long shot of somehow pulling an upset

Ezzard Charles was a million miles ahead of what Foreman and Holmes were Charles was a magnificent fighter against Marciano absolutely brilliant - one of the true greats and what 32/33 not old ie 42

Walcott again in defense of his title was magnificent - probably his greatest night as a fighter and again he was in incredible condition - you have to look at the fighters as exactly how they were on the night - don't just go solely on the ages

look at how fights went as well - yes Louis was a shell of himself but Marciano never let him get into the fight whatsoever he continuously pushed him back and Louis couldn't do anything - different to say Holy struggling and being a bit shown up and embarrassed at times by fat old 42 year olds how could barely swing a punch without throwing themselves off balance or losing contact lenses - Larry Holmes himself said Holyfield couldn;t fiht saying he was strong as hell but didn't know how to fight

AGAIN HOLYFIELD WAS IN NO WAY A FOUR TIME HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMP - PAPER CROWNS MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING:good

 

Coming from a VITLAY nut-hugger that's ****ing hilarious.

 

In my opinion Holyfield has the better wins......But it´s close......

 

Well, he fought mostly just bums and tomato cans but he dominated them. Gotta respect that.

 

Too much to bother with a serious answer.


Somebody made a thread about the age difference between the great hws and their opponents. Surprisingly, there were plenty of fighters with a greater difference between their age and their opponent´s than Rocky.

 

This is a myth.

Both charles and Moore were established heavyweights when marciano beat them. Between them they each knocked out enough 1980s sized rated heavyweight contenders like joe baksi, nino valdes, coley walace, bob baker To prove they were real heavyweights.

Charles only ever featured in the lightheavyweight rankings for two years 1946-1947, before that he was absent during the war and always less than 169lb. so he was a LH for a very short time.

Even 1947 is stretching it, of the 12 times he fought in 1947 only 4 of the opponents Ezzard faced scaled within the lightheavyweight limit when he fought them - the rest all being heavyweights. By 1953 charles had fought and beat more heavyweight contenders than most ATG's.


Back then a lightheavy was regarded as a small heavyweight. If a small heavyweight was good enough he was big enough and the real heavyweight title was the goal.

How many genuine heavyweight contenders did Hollyfeild KO? Not as many as charles and moore.

 

That's fine but changes nothing ... Rocky was much younger than three of his top four opponents (Louis, Walcott, Moore) and two years younger with a ton less mileage than Charles ....

Holyfield fought much better fighters far closer to their primes at a more advanced age .. not even a close comparison on this point ...

 

The only Marciano opponent who has a realistic shot at Holyfield is Walcott

Holyfield opponents who have a realistic shot against Marciano: Bowe, Lewis, Tyson

 

What are you blabbering about 'Marciano never let Louis into the fight' What a crock of ****, Louis won a good few rounds making Rocky look foolish at times. Tell me something did Rocky never let Walcott in their fight either RSN

Moore was in much better shape but only a 180lb weakling, Holmes/Foreman were far bigger/stronger and both arguably had better wins around that time in Moorer/Mercer than Moore ever achieved at the weight

 

Both Charles and Moore have a record at hw that´s better than most other "true" hws and both had more fights at hw than, for example, Bowe or Lewis. So, people talking about them beeing lhws should just stfu before they humilate themselves even further.

 

They were certainly proven as the best HWs of their era, but they were natural LHWs too, then again Dempsey was, Holyfield fought in the era of elite SHWs. Charles was also past his prime and had lost his legs, 1 thing that made him the fighter he was