View Full Version : Marciano VS More Recent Heavyweights


BrazJJ
04-27-2005, 03:18 PM
Like I've said in another reply, saying that fighters of old would actually lose to the fighters today seems to be blasphemy in boxing. I respect Marciano. I respect his record, his punching power, his heart, etc., etc..

But lets face it. Marciano - at 185 pounds - simply wouldn't have been able to last with the likes of Ali, Tyson, Tua, Foreman, or Lewis. There's a point where simple physics would take over. At his size, Marciano simply would not have been able to withstand the punishment from these guys.

Kid Achilles
04-27-2005, 04:24 PM
Braz,

This thing has been fought to death and just the idea of bringing it up again gives me a headache. There are people from both sides of the argument that are willing to fiercely defend their side and no one ever really yields or learns anything new in these debates.

Until the day we invent the time machine, we'll never really know. That's the best answer you're going to get.

BrazJJ
04-27-2005, 10:12 PM
I bet it has. Bare with me, though. I'm new and just trying to start conversation. Thanks for the reply.

franker01
04-28-2005, 09:39 PM
Like I've said in another reply, saying that fighters of old would actually lose to the fighters today seems to be blasphemy in boxing. I respect Marciano. I respect his record, his punching power, his heart, etc., etc..

But lets face it. Marciano - at 185 pounds - simply wouldn't have been able to last with the likes of Ali, Tyson, Tua, Foreman, or Lewis. There's a point where simple physics would take over. At his size, Marciano simply would not have been able to withstand the punishment from these guys.

I've seen this point made time and time again and I question it for the following reasons:

Mike Tyson was roughly the same height and probably the same frame as Marciano but I think we all agree he had a lot less heart and chin. Would Tyson in his prime have had a lot of trouble with today's big heavyweights?

Have you seen Marciano's physique? He was built that way before steroids, supplements, modern training techniques, modern nutrition. etc.

Is there reason to believe that a modern Marciano would not be bulked up to 200 or 210 or 220? (Or, conversely, placed back in time wouldn't today's big heavys weigh 20 to 40 pounds less?}

And do you really think that a fighter with the heart and skills of Marciano weighing in at 210 plus would have a lot to fear from the guys you mention?

I don't think so.

The Troll
04-28-2005, 09:57 PM
I've seen this point made time and time again and I question it for the following reasons:

Mike Tyson was roughly the same height and probably the same frame as Marciano but I think we all agree he had a lot less heart and chin. Would Tyson in his prime have had a lot of trouble with today's big heavyweights?

Have you seen Marciano's physique? He was built that way before steroids, supplements, modern training techniques, modern nutrition. etc.

Is there reason to believe that a modern Marciano would not be bulked up to 200 or 210 or 220? (Or, conversely, placed back in time wouldn't today's big heavys weigh 20 to 40 pounds less?}

And do you really think that a fighter with the heart and skills of Marciano weighing in at 210 plus would have a lot to fear from the guys you mention?

I don't think so.

So what if Marciano was 185 190, Holyfield did not weight more than that for a period at heavyweight he is no doubt one of the most successfull boxers of the early 90's and late 80's. And Mike Tyson when in perfect condition weighs in at 216, So Marciano is not that small when compare him to 2 of the most dominant heavyweights in recent history. Being smaller was something of an advantage in the days of 15 rounds. Maciano's low weight is what gave him the stamina to bang and attack and plod for 15 rounds. Its more of an advantage to be bigger now that fights are only 12 rounds. If Marciano fought today he would probably put on 20 pounds.

franker01
04-28-2005, 10:09 PM
So what if Marciano was 185 190, Holyfield did not weight more than that for a period at heavyweight he is no doubt one of the most successfull boxers of the early 90's and late 80's. And Mike Tyson when in perfect condition weighs in at 216, So Marciano is not that small when compare him to 2 of the most dominant heavyweights in recent history. Being smaller was something of an advantage in the days of 15 rounds. Maciano's low weight is what gave him the stamina to bang and attack and plod for 15 rounds. Its more of an advantage to be bigger now that fights are only 12 rounds. If Marciano fought today he would probably put on 20 pounds.

Right.

The point is, you can put on a lot of muscle mass depending on training, nutrition and supplements and I think today Rocky would be comfortable and effective weighing 210 or so.

Imira
04-28-2005, 11:14 PM
The "He's too small" argument is usually a fall back argument used by posters who have no knowlege of the old legend in question. (Louis, Marciano, etc.) Size just doesn't make that big a difference in the HW division.

Rockin'
04-29-2005, 01:38 AM
Size is a big matter in the case. The heavyweights of yesterday were much smaller than those of today. Look back at Primo Carnerra. He was sold to the public as a great by the press because of his enormous size. Today he would only be slightly larger than many of the heavyweights out there. I know whats up with boxing and the size would make a huge difference. Carnerra couldnt fight very well, the heavyweights today are big like him but have some good skill behind the size. In my opinion Marciano would have been manhandled by some of the heavyweights of today, or more so by the heavyweights of the 80's and 90's.............Rockin' :boxing:

Kid Achilles
04-29-2005, 11:27 AM
I disagree about Carnera somewhat. He was a mediocre fighter (mostly due to his weak punch and suspect chin; his skills were better than Grant's) but he would be considered a giant even by today's standard. Though only 6'6" or so, he was 260-270 lbs in shape. McCline is 260 lbs with a gut. If Carnera were in McCline's condition he would weigh about 300 lbs. Considering that the guys thighs were 31 inches witout any weight training, and didn't look especially big on him (meaning his overall body was that huge to make 31" thighs seem normal) I would say he would still be freakishly huge and strong even by today's standards.

Heavyweights are bigger these days, but not THAT much bigger. Consider that Lewis was just 6'5" and yet had a significant reach and height advantage on nearly everyone he fought. I remember that on another forum someone posted the heights of leading contenders in either the 40's or 50's and then the contenders of modern times (this was in 2002 I think). It turns out the average heavyweight from those times was only about a half of an inch shorter than the average heavyweight in 2002.

phallus
04-29-2005, 10:38 PM
I disagree about Carnera somewhat. He was a mediocre fighter (mostly due to his weak punch and suspect chin; his skills were better than Grant's) but he would be considered a giant even by today's standard. Though only 6'6" or so, he was 260-270 lbs in shape. McCline is 260 lbs with a gut. If Carnera were in McCline's condition he would weigh about 300 lbs. Considering that the guys thighs were 31 inches witout any weight training, and didn't look especially big on him (meaning his overall body was that huge to make 31" thighs seem normal) I would say he would still be freakishly huge and strong even by today's standards.

Heavyweights are bigger these days, but not THAT much bigger. Consider that Lewis was just 6'5" and yet had a significant reach and height advantage on nearly everyone he fought. I remember that on another forum someone posted the heights of leading contenders in either the 40's or 50's and then the contenders of modern times (this was in 2002 I think). It turns out the average heavyweight from those times was only about a half of an inch shorter than the average heavyweight in 2002.



go to the boxing hall of fame, read the tale of the tape - for the last 100 years hw champs have been roughly the same height but weights have increased dramatically. jack dempsey ( hw champ from 1919 to the mid 1920's ) was 6'1" and about 190 lbs, jack johnson ( hw champ from 1908 - 1915 ) was also 6'1". from the 1930's the average hw champ was 6'2" ( joe louis, max baer, j.j. braddock ), ezzard charles (40's) was 6'0", walcott was 6'1", ali was 6'3", foreman 6'3" or 6'4"...it's not like the champs of yesterday were ****ing dwarfs, with today's nutrition they'd be the same as today's guys