Boxrec All-Time P4P

megadodge

He beat three guys off your list. But of course now you say they were past it and all of that when he beat them.

Some guys can't win with some people.

The guy was a winner all through his career and got it done against eveybody he ever met. We don't know that Holyfield could have taken Rocky's shots either, the Suzi-Q was a very unique punch.

How did I know that old lazy excuse would come up.
If you really believe it let's analyse those actual victories, rather than just "hey he beat them, he must be great"

Joe Louis was on a money-induced comeback after the IRS shamefully hounded him ignoring all his charitable donations to war funds during WW2. He was a complete shadow of himself. He was 37 years of age which in those days was ancient - it still is. He never fought again. Are you seriously saying that Joe Louis was as good as a Louis of 10 years previous?

As for his reign, well here it is - He won the title off a 38 year old, defended again against him (when he was obviously even older), next defence was against a man he beat before. La Starza, who only 3 fights before Rocky lost to a fighter with a 14-8-2 record !! Two very tough fights against Ezzard Charles, who was a great fighter, but was a natural MIDDLEWEIGHT and well past his best at 33, then Don Cockell who was just a very fat light-heavy, and finally Archie Moore yet another natural MIDDLEWEIGHT and 39 years of age at the time.

That's it. It doesn't stand up to any honest scrutiny IMO.

As for Holyfield. If he stood up to Tyson's punches he definitely could stand up to Rocky's and he would box rings about him for round after round, but in fairness Rocky's excellent conditioning and heart would make him keep going, but I just can't see him coming anywhere close to Holyfield.

megadodge

What about the fights between JMM and Pacman, did you think Manny had cakewalks in both fights or something? Do you actually think he clearly won either fight? I don't think he won either fight, I personally believe that Marquez beat him and maybe twice.

On Mayweather, its always the same with unbeaten fighters. Guys say they fought nobody or they only fought them when they were past it.
While they are unstoppable in the ring, they just can't win with some people outside the ring.

I actually agree with you about the Pacman / JMM fights. Both very close but I thought JMM nicked both. However, they were close enough to not be "bad" decisions. But Pacman was a natural FLYWEIGHT who sought out the very best fighters in all divisions he fought in - and beat them.

What I would like you to do though is say why you think his career north of super-feather is so impressive when there are so many obvious excellent fighters he just didn't take on while taking on fighters who were way past it (Gatti, Mitchell who were never hectic to begin with) and others who had never proven themselves (Brusseles, N'dou).

Can you tell me why he didn't fight Tsyzu or Cotto at light-welter?

Why didn't he fight Mosely, Williams, Margarito or Cotto at welter?

I can honestly say if he beat all those I would have to seriously consider him as the greatest ever, but he didn't even fight one of them. They were just too dangerous.

Compare that to Duran who detroyed all lightweight contenders then jumped two weights to meet a peak SRL, a fabulously talented dangerous fighter.

There's no doubt he's a great fighter but there are just too many unanswered questions about Mayweather for me to put him in my top 10, not to mind top of the heap.

eagle eye

megadodge wrote: »

How did I know that old lazy excuse would come up.
If you really believe it let's analyse those actual victories, rather than just "hey he beat them, he must be great"

Joe Louis was on a money-induced comeback after the IRS shamefully hounded him ignoring all his charitable donations to war funds during WW2. He was a complete shadow of himself. He was 37 years of age which in those days was ancient - it still is. He never fought again. Are you seriously saying that Joe Louis was as good as a Louis of 10 years previous?

As for his reign, well here it is - He won the title off a 38 year old, defended again against him (when he was obviously even older), next defence was against a man he beat before. La Starza, who only 3 fights before Rocky lost to a fighter with a 14-8-2 record !! Two very tough fights against Ezzard Charles, who was a great fighter, but was a natural MIDDLEWEIGHT and well past his best at 33, then Don Cockell who was just a very fat light-heavy, and finally Archie Moore yet another natural MIDDLEWEIGHT and 39 years of age at the time.

That's it. It doesn't stand up to any honest scrutiny IMO.

As for Holyfield. If he stood up to Tyson's punches he definitely could stand up to Rocky's and he would box rings about him for round after round, but in fairness Rocky's excellent conditioning and heart would make him keep going, but I just can't see him coming anywhere close to Holyfield.

Joe Louis beat everybody in sight with the exception of Ezzard Charles in that 'comeback', he never was out of the ring that long in fairness.
Whats notable is that the man was only stopped twice over his career, and thats by Max Schmelling and Rocky Marciano. Regardless of anything else that shows just how powerful Rocky Marciano was. I'm not going to say the 'Brown Bomber' was still at his peak but he was still at the top end of heavyweight boxing and you can't dispute that.

Another thing is that Lee Savold was considered the World Champion by the BBBC after he beat Woodcock. Marciano agreed to meet Savold but he lost in the meantime to Louis. So Marciano fought Louis then, but the BBBC had already decided to declare Ezzard Charles as World Champion.

Ezzard Charles was still rated as one of the top heavyweights when he fought Rocky, he was considered by many at the time to be the man to end his unbeaten record, Rocky beat him over the distance and then ko'd him the second time. As you say he was only 33 at the time but you stress he was well past it, because he was still young in boxing terms at the time.

Archie Moore held the World heavyweight title after Rocky retired and went on to be Light-heavyweight champion after that. You intimate that he was past it or that he wasn't up to the heavyweight category. I think his results after the Rocky fight prove just how flawed your argument is.

Basically there are many flaws in your arguments, all these legends were still at the top of the fight game when they face Marciano. Louis proved that when he beat Savold. Marciano beat both of them. Charles was considered some sort of linear champ by the bbbc and Rocky ended that. Thats why he fought Cockell was because of the same bbbc also. And Archie Moore was at the top of the game and considered by almost everybody to be the best out there when Marciano beat him. To say that Moore was past it, or not up to it at heavyweight is all wrong.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

age at the time.

As for Holyfield. If he stood up to Tyson's punches he definitely could stand up to Rocky's and he would box rings about him for round after round, but in fairness Rocky's excellent conditioning and heart would make him keep going, but I just can't see him coming anywhere close to Holyfield.

This is p4p and when Holy was taking Tyson's shots and even Bowe's and Cooper's shots, Holy was 200+ lbs. Are you telling me a 190 lb cruiserweight Holy would have lasted the distance with Bowe or Tyson?

So, I am saying whilst weighing at the weight Rocky weighed for his reign, which was between 185 and 190, Holy doesn't have the power or strength to beat Marciano. He would be broke mid to late by the harder and stronger 185-190 lb Marciano.

Now, if we take the 1990-1992 Holy who was MORE than a stone heavier, then yes, he has a great chance as he was stronger, heavier and more mature.

But, p4p, Maciano at 185-190 vs. Holyfield at 185-190 is a win for Rocky!

I have seen all Holy's pre heavyweight fights and he was very impressive, but not up to beating a peak Marciano!

eagle eye

megadodge wrote: »

I actually agree with you about the Pacman / JMM fights. Both very close but I thought JMM nicked both. However, they were close enough to not be "bad" decisions. But Pacman was a natural FLYWEIGHT who sought out the very best fighters in all divisions he fought in - and beat them.

What I would like you to do though is say why you think his career north of super-feather is so impressive when there are so many obvious excellent fighters he just didn't take on while taking on fighters who were way past it (Gatti, Mitchell who were never hectic to begin with) and others who had never proven themselves (Brusseles, N'dou).

Can you tell me why he didn't fight Tsyzu or Cotto at light-welter?

Why didn't he fight Mosely, Williams, Margarito or Cotto at welter?

I can honestly say if he beat all those I would have to seriously consider him as the greatest ever, but he didn't even fight one of them. They were just too dangerous.

Compare that to Duran who detroyed all lightweight contenders then jumped two weights to meet a peak SRL, a fabulously talented dangerous fighter.

There's no doubt he's a great fighter but there are just too many unanswered questions about Mayweather for me to put him in my top 10, not to mind top of the heap.

Duran jumped two weights to fight Leonard. Now he skipped neatly by Aaron Pryor in that jump. I don't want to dish either of these two greats but in all fairnes they both ducked Pryor.

walshb

eagle eye wrote: »

Duran jumped two weights to fight Leonard. Now he skipped neatly by Aaron Pryor in that jump. I don't want to dish either of these two greats but in all fairnes they both ducked Pryor.

I would have thought that jumping two weights to fight a guy who would have KO'd Pryor within 5 rds would be considered very highly.

Duran would have beaten Pryor and did not duck him. He opted for the bigger fight and harder fight and got it and won it

I cannot see how Ray, who was a natural and legit welter, ducked a man that started off as a LW and moved to 140 lbs because he couldn't get a crack at the LW title.

A 1976 Amateur Leonard would have been a handful for Pryor, never mind the
1979-1981 Leonard!

eagle eye

walshb wrote: »

I would have thought that jumping two weights to fight a guy who would have KO'd Pryor within 5 rds would be considered very highly.

Duran would have beaten Pryor and did not duck him. He opted for the bigger fight and harder fight and got it and won it

I cannot see how Ray, who was a natural and legit welter, ducked a man that started off as a LW and moved to 140 lbs because he couldn't get a crack at the LW title.

A 1976 Amateur Leonard would have been a handful for Pryor, never mind the
1979-1981 Leonard!

Look I'm not going into an argument about who would have won a fight but in all fairness he called Leonard out and Leonard refused.
So one was ducked and the other was never called out but never came looking either.
You just can't say he was not a good enough fighter not to be a big fight for either of them but neither wanted to fight him.

And nobody says that Floyd Mayweather ducked anybody either because he kept himself in big fights. They just pick out those he did not fight, like Cotto when was he supposed to fight Cotto, I'd say it would have happened if not for the Golden Boy stepping in with the huge payday. And then he got another big payday with the Hatton fight. And he has not been seen since until this fight with Marquez. And that looks like its certain to set up a fight with Pacman. So what are people going to say if he wins those two fights? They will still say the he didn't face this guy or that guy. It never ends for unbeaten fighters with the naysayers.

Its just that you always get these arguments with unbeaten fighters. Rocky didn't face anyone decent, they were all past their prime.:rolleyes: Floyd didn't face anyone decent:rolleyes:
And Calzaghe didn't face anyone decent, they were all past their prime.:rolleyes:

walshb

eagle eye wrote: »

Look I'm not going into an argument about who would have won a fight but in all fairness he called Leonard out and Leonard refused.
So one was ducked and the other was never called out but never came looking either.
You just can't say he was not a good enough fighter not to be a big fight for either of them but neither wanted to fight him.

And nobody says that Floyd Mayweather ducked anybody either because he kept himself in big fights. They just pick out those he did not fight, like Cotto when was he supposed to fight Cotto, I'd say it would have happened if not for the Golden Boy stepping in with the huge payday. And then he got another big payday with the Hatton fight. And he has not been seen since until this fight with Marquez. And that looks like its certain to set up a fight with Pacman. So what are people going to say if he wins those two fights? They will still say the he didn't face this guy or that guy. It never ends for unbeaten fighters with the naysayers.

Its just that you always get these arguments with unbeaten fighters. Rocky didn't face anyone decent, they were all past their prime.:rolleyes: Floyd didn't face anyone decent:rolleyes:
And Calzaghe didn't face anyone decent, they were all past their prime.:rolleyes:

Yeah, Pryor may have called out ANYONE; this doesn't mean he gets the fight.

Ray didn't duck Aaron. Aaron wasn't needed or ever on Ray's radar, nor Duran's.
Ray was the WELTERWEIGHT and Aaron the JWW, and you could tell!

Pryor didn't do anything at 147 to warrant a fight with Ray. Duran campaigned for two
years at 147 lbs before he met Ray

As for Rocky. He met the best that was around. I'm with you on
that.. Floyd is a great fighter, but he didn't meet the best when the
best were available. Floyd chose the money route and is still doing so!

cowzerp

eagle eye wrote: »

It never ends for unbeaten fighters with the naysayers.

Its just that you always get these arguments with unbeaten fighters. Rocky didn't face anyone decent, they were all past their prime.:rolleyes: Floyd didn't face anyone decent:rolleyes:
And Calzaghe didn't face anyone decent, they were all past their prime.:rolleyes:

I cant believe that your comparing the opponents that PBF faced to the 1's Calzaghe faced! PBF faced corrales, castillo twice, gatti, judah, DLH and Ricky and is now facing 1 of the LB 4 LB best in Marquez, Take out the well past it RJJ and past it BHOP and your left with a very poor list that should not be compared to PBF.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

I cant believe that your comparing the opponents that PBF faced to the 1's Calzaghe faced! PBF faced corrales, castillo twice, gatti, judah, DLH and Ricky and is now facing 1 of the LB 4 LB best in Marquez, Take out the well past it RJJ and past it BHOP and your left with a very poor list that should not be compared to PBF.

Paul, I'd personally take Ricky out of the list. He was a JWW and was easily exposed as very one dimensional. As a fan of Hatton's earlier work, he was later exposed. I don't consider him as a real test for PBF.

Castillo deserved the nod big time in fight 1, Gatti was a shell of his former self, which wasn't all that great anyway.

Judah? Hey, slick and fast and he did give PBF hell and could have won that
fight. Judah was never great.

Corralles was PBF's best display. Absolute sublime.

PBF did not face the best when the best were available. He chose a faded Oscar and IMO, lost to a faded Oscar. He didn't meet Cotto or Margarito and now he won't meet a legit welter.

Calzaghe beat his fair share of decent fighters, Kessler and Mitchell and Bika were
every bit as hard as Gatti and Hatton and Judah!

The Jones and HOP fight were when both were past it, but so was Joe really.
Lacy was hyped, but not by Joe, by the U.S. and Britain!

I like PBF and think he was a superb fighter, but above LW, his career is damn ordinary.

Paul, also, you mention Marquez as being now faced by PBF?

PBF is a welter facing a man who has never even fought at 140 lbs and is not even
a legit LW.

That would be similar to Cal coming out of retirement later this
year to meet Mosley? Would that impress you? It doesn't impress
me one bit!

eagle eye

cowzerp wrote: »

I cant believe that your comparing the opponents that PBF faced to the 1's Calzaghe faced! PBF faced corrales, castillo twice, gatti, judah, DLH and Ricky and is now facing 1 of the LB 4 LB best in Marquez, Take out the well past it RJJ and past it BHOP and your left with a very poor list that should not be compared to PBF.

I'm not comparing opponents. I rate Calzhaghe very highly but not on the same level as Floyd or RJJ at their very best.
I'm comparing unbeaten fighters and the way the argument is always the same.

colly10

eagle eye wrote: »

What about the fights between JMM and Pacman, did you think Manny had cakewalks in both fights or something? Do you actually think he clearly won either fight? I don't think he won either fight, I personally believe that Marquez beat him and maybe twice.

On Mayweather, its always the same with unbeaten fighters. Guys say they fought nobody or they only fought them when they were past it.
While they are unstoppable in the ring, they just can't win with some people outside the ring.
You get it with Calzaghe, he only beat them past their best and he fought nobody. Marciano the same.

I have a thorough dislike for the Mayweather as a person but as a fighter he was imperious imo.

I never said anything about pacquiao finding the marquez fight easy. I do wonder why he's fighting him though. I find it hard to believe that it will generate more sales than a Mosley fight or a Cotto fight.
I would not pay to see Mayweather fight JMM as it should be a non contest. I don't believe that there is any reason that FMJ is fighting him except for it being an easier option

megadodge

You say MY argument is flawed immediately after saying...

Archie Moore held the World heavyweight title after Rocky retired

If you know that little, I'm most likely wasting my time.... but I'm a martyr for punishment, so....

Lee Savold fought Rocky when he was (guess what's coming) nearly 37 years of age with... wait for it.... THIRTY NINE LOSSES ON HIS RECORD !!!
That's not a misprint. Rocky handed him his 40th loss and you say MY argument is flawed ??

Well, actually it proves my point by showing that the standard at the top of the heavyeight division at the time was extremely poor, probably the poorest ever.

Joe Louis retired after an unimpressive rematch win over Jersey Joe Walcott following his hugely controversial (read "unfair") win over him first time round. He had already been showing serious signs of decline and decided to quit, however as I said he was forced back thanks to the IRS boys and the only decent fighters he met on the comeback trail (Charles & Rocky) he lost to.

As you say he was only 33 at the time but you stress he was well past it, because he was still young in boxing terms at the time.

Firstly, I didn's say he was "only" 33. I said he was past it at 33, which virtually all fighters are, meaning he was quite OLD in boxing terms. Secondly I did say he was a natural MIDDLEWEIGHT and the fact that he was campaigning at the top end of the heavy division is part tribute to his skill and part to the paucity of talent there.

I'm not making these things up. You're trying to dress up Marciano's record into something it's not. Yes, he remained undefeated and that is a serious achievement, however, it's sure made a lot easier when the standard of opposition consists mainly of either much smaller men, much older men or often both. Don't be fooled by paper records. A little bit of homework goes a long way.

eagle eye

megadodge wrote: »

You say MY argument is flawed immediately after saying...



If you know that little, I'm most likely wasting my time.... but I'm a martyr for punishment, so....

Apologies I meant Light-Heavyweight title regarding Archie Moore. Edit, I just read back and I don't know how I said that.

I know who next champion was and in my fathers estimation, he was the greatest heavyweight of them all, Mr Floyd Patterson. He rates him ahead of Ali.

megadodge wrote: »

Lee Savold fought Rocky when he was (guess what's coming) nearly 37 years of age with... wait for it.... THIRTY NINE LOSSES ON HIS RECORD !!!
That's not a misprint. Rocky handed him his 40th loss and you say MY argument is flawed ??

Well, actually it proves my point by showing that the standard at the top of the heavyeight division at the time was extremely poor, probably the poorest ever.

Joe Louis retired after an unimpressive rematch win over Jersey Joe Walcott following his hugely controversial (read "unfair") win over him first time round. He had already been showing serious signs of decline and decided to quit, however as I said he was forced back thanks to the IRS boys and the only decent fighters he met on the comeback trail (Charles & Rocky) he lost to.

Did I say that Lee Savold was a top class fighter? I was just explaining why he fought both of them.
My main point is that Louis was only stopped twice in his career and thats by Schmelling and Rocky.

megadodge wrote: »

Firstly, I didn's say he was "only" 33. I said he was past it at 33, which virtually all fighters are, meaning he was quite OLD in boxing terms. Secondly I did say he was a natural MIDDLEWEIGHT and the fact that he was campaigning at the top end of the heavy division is part tribute to his skill and part to the paucity of talent there.

I'm not making these things up. You're trying to dress up Marciano's record into something it's not. Yes, he remained undefeated and that is a serious achievement, however, it's sure made a lot easier when the standard of opposition consists mainly of either much smaller men, much older men or often both. Don't be fooled by paper records. A little bit of homework goes a long way.

At the end of the day we have a boxer who won every fight he ever fought and showed more power than anybody that Joe Louis fought with the possible exception of Max Schmelling.
Its always the same when a guy is undefeated, people question the opposition and question if he would have beaten other champions. They question his power.
He beat the pretenders too like Le Starza and Rex Layne. Unfortunately when a guy is unbeaten some people cannot accept it and the only way to go about it is by question the opposition. I mean for instance, Joe Louis was only beaten three times in his career, you rate Charles as top notch but don't rate Schmelling or Rocky the two guys who ko'd him.
You rate Archie Moore, but you want to detract from Rocky by saying Moore was past it. Hold on there a moment though, to rate Archie Moore so highly you have to take into account that light-heavyweight spell which was after Rocky.
Or are you leaving that out as well?

megadodge

I can only surmise two things from your argument –
1. You genuinely seem to have difficulty understanding the term ‘pound for pound’.
2. Your father had an unhealthy influence on your opinions of boxers.

(I’ll exaggerate for the purpose of explanation, so don’t take it too seriously)
If Manny Pacquiao (the current p4p king) moved all the way up to heavyweight to fight Vladimir Klithcko and lost, by your logic, Klitchko should be commended for this win and would then be known as the best pound for pound fighter on the planet, despite the fact that his opponent was A SMALLER MAN, so bloody small in fact that he once ruled the flyweights of the world.

Rocky Marciano = Heavyweight all career
Archie Moore = Middleweight for first NINE YEARS of his career, then light-heavy for majority of the remaining 19 odd years.

Now in weight terms Heavy > Light Heavy > Middle, which means Marciano was a BIGGER man than Moore.

In the magic world of pound for pound, all fighters weigh the same, but retain their relative strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, a monstrously strong flyweight, who in real terms would be obliterated by the weakest heavyweight, would in p4p land be stronger than any heavy.

That’s why Marciano beating naturally SMALLER men (who were also very old) is not the great p4p achievement you want it to be.

As for the assertion that Floyd Patterson could be better than Muhammad Ali…..
Where do I start ?
Maybe by saying that Patterson should be in the bottom 5 heavy champs of all time, if you analyse his reign even from a distance. Think of a heavyweight Amir Khan – very fast hands, good punch and absolutely abominable chin. Anybody who could hit him could floor him!! Rocky Marciano would have decapitated him if Suzie Q even half landed. His reign consisted of some of the most cynical matchmaking ever (including making a world heavyweight title defence against a man making his professional debut!!), until he himself decided (against Cus D’Amato’s wishes) he had to take on a credible opponent – Sonny Liston. Boom. LKO1 (x2). The same Sonny that Ali hammered (x2).

eagle eye

megadodge wrote: »

I can only surmise two things from your argument –
1. You genuinely seem to have difficulty understanding the term ‘pound for pound’.
2. Your father had an unhealthy influence on your opinions of boxers.

After these two insulting comments and especially the second one, I don't wish to have any further discussion with you. Suffice to say I have my own mind. As to your assertions regarding Patterson, I said that was my father's view and the man seen both Patterson and Ali fight in the flesh on a couple of occasions. I respect his opinion but don't necessarily agree with it.
On P4P, we are talking about a man who never let the same boxer go the distance twice with him. He had a huge war with Charles but ko'd him the second time. He was clearly a smart fighter who could figure out opponents quickly based on his ko record. So basically I see Rocky Marciano being tough enough to take shots from most boxers in history including the likes of Charles and Moore and still finding a way to beat his opponent.
Now I'm finished, if you want to get personal with insults, you can discuss it with somebody else.

mikethemouth

megadodge wrote: »

I can only surmise two things from your argument –
1. You genuinely seem to have difficulty understanding the term ‘pound for pound’.
2. Your father had an unhealthy influence on your opinions of boxers.

this is bang out of order. the way your disemminate your rhetric protrays ur own personal ignorance.

some of the statements you make in this thread are hilarious which lead me think your just here to rise dedicated boxing fans or are genuinely clueless about boxing.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

I can only surmise two things from your argument –
1. You genuinely seem to have difficulty understanding the term ‘pound for pound’.
2. Your father had an unhealthy influence on your opinions of boxers.

Mega, in fairness, you yourself said something along the lines that
if Holyfield could take Tysonś shots, then he would have no problem taking
Marcianoś. Well, that to me showed a lack of understanding
for the p4p term, considering Mike was approx 220 lbs when Holy met him and Marciano
fought at 185 lbs

So, to use that as an argument as to why Holy takes Marcianos shots is inaccurate.

Holy was weighing well above 200 lbs when he was taking shots off a 200+ Tyson

That is totally different than Holy weighing 185 lbs and taking Marcianos shots

walshb

I realise Charles started out as a middle, but that was aged 19 or so. Charles and Rocky
were separated by a few lbs here and there and by a couple of years in age, Charles being the older and Charles was 2-3 inches taller.

I don't really believe that Charles was naturally smaller. He weighed lighter than Rocky for most of his career, but in terms of overall size, Rocky was not much bigger at all.

Jersey Joe was also as big, if not bigger than the Rock.

Louis was too. Rex Layne was definitely bigger.

I don't see Rocky having any real physical advantages over these.
He still beat them, which is why, p4p, the Rock was a menace.

I still maintain, that up to 190 lbs, no man in
history beats him, including a 190 lb Evander.

megadodge

Listen Eagle Eye, despite how it looked I honestly wasn’t trying to insult you. Looking back I certainly could have worded things better, but there was no intent there, so I apologise for any offence caused. Even on an anonymous forum I don’t like to fall out with people.

The tone of the post was caused by genuine frustration at your failure to acknowledge the ‘naturally smaller man’ issue. That’s all.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Mega, in fairness, you yourself said something along the lines that
if Holyfield could take Tysonś shots, then he would have no problem taking
Marcianoś. Well, that to me showed a lack of understanding
for the p4p term, considering Mike was approx 220 lbs when Holy met him and Marciano
fought at 185 lbs

So, to use that as an argument as to why Holy takes Marcianos shots is inaccurate.

Holy was weighing well above 200 lbs when he was taking shots off a 200+ Tyson

That is totally different than Holy weighing 185 lbs and taking Marcianos shots

Walshb, by that logic, what you’re saying is - the more weight you put on the better your chin gets ???

Get Amir up to heavyweight as soon as possible then. 

Any coach will tell you that you can't put mucles on a chin. He might have had a heavyweight body v Tyson, but his chin was still the same as it was at cruiser !!

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

I realise Charles started out as a middle, but that was aged 19 or so. Charles and Rocky
were separated by a few lbs here and there and by a couple of years in age, Charles being the older and Charles was 2-3 inches taller.

I don't really believe that Charles was naturally smaller. He weighed lighter than Rocky for most of his career, but in terms of overall size, Rocky was not much bigger at all.

Jersey Joe was also as big, if not bigger than the Rock.

Louis was too. Rex Layne was definitely bigger.

I don't see Rocky having any real physical advantages over these.
He still beat them, which is why, p4p, the Rock was a menace.

I still maintain, that up to 190 lbs, no man in
history beats him, including a 190 lb Evander.

Ezzard's first 28 fights were at middleweight !! Some boxers have won and lost world titles and retired in 28 fights. He beat some top notch middles during that time including two over the great Charlie Burley (who Archie Moore rated the best he ever saw). So I don't think it's a stretch to call him a smaller man.

Boxing has weight divisions not height division, so how tall he was has nothing to do with it.

megadodge

mikethemouth wrote: »

this is bang out of order. the way your disemminate your rhetric protrays ur own personal ignorance.

some of the statements you make in this thread are hilarious which lead me think your just here to rise dedicated boxing fans or are genuinely clueless about boxing.

Would you care to expand ?

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Walshb, by that logic, what you’re saying is - the more weight you put on the better your chin gets ???

Get Amir up to heavyweight as soon as possible then. 

Any coach will tell you that you can't put mucles on a chin. He might have had a heavyweight body v Tyson, but his chin was still the same as it was at cruiser !!

Holy has a great chin. I am not disputing that.

Simple question. Would a 190 lb Holy have taken Tyson or Bowe's
shots? I say NO way. Why? Well, because he was too
'small' and light and hadn't fully matured

Another case. Would Duran have survived Barkley or Hagler
if Duran was weighing 135 lbs? No way!

Weight does affect a man's ability to take a shot

Chins generally do not improve, but the ability to absorb a heavier shot
and recuperate are affected by a few things, and weight is one.

Maturity is another.

So, you using Holy whilst weighing a fair few lbs above 200 and being a fair few years more mature as a barometer that he automatically takes
Rocky's shots is inaccurate. I agree he probably takes them if HE (Holy) is
200+ lbs. I see him being ko'd when he weighs equal to Rocky, 185 lbs.

p4p Evander was a better fighter as a cruiser than a heavy. He had more
speed and ability and was more untouchable.

Now, the reason he bulked up wasn't for improvements sake or to become
a better fighter, it was simply to allow himself a better chance to absorb a heavier
shot from the heavyweights. Point proven.

Effective increased weight will
help a man absorb a shot better. Holy knew that for an effective assault
at heavy, he would need to increase his weight

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Ezzard's first 28 fights were at middleweight !! Some boxers have won and lost world titles and retired in 28 fights. He beat some top notch middles during that time including two over the great Charlie Burley (who Archie Moore rated the best he ever saw). So I don't think it's a stretch to call him a smaller man.

Boxing has weight divisions not height division, so how tall he was has nothing to do with it.

So, of those 28 fights, weighing above 160 lbs is now considered a middleweight?:rolleyes: He weighed above middle for the vast majority
of the bouts and aged 25 approx, he had moved to LH.

Rocky and Ezz were very close physically and Ezz outweighed him in one of the bouts

Take both men in their mid-late 20's and both were heavies

Rocky aged 25 fought a couple of times weighing
178 lbs.

Ezzard aged 25/26 was weighing at 175 lbs for some fights.

Wow, such a difference, NOT!