Charles was at the end of a long career that saw him take on some of the best fighters in history. Had it been 5 or 6 years earlier Ezzard may very well had won. Walcott was 38 and 39 and in his 70th and 71st fights, his last fights. Moore was 39 with well over 150 at that time I believe.
I am not trying to discredit Rocky, the man was great. But I think Tyson edges him by a few spots. Spinks was the lineal heavyweight champ at the time and the man who stopped Holmes from breaking Marciano's record (though controversially) and Holmes I would bet was still a top 10 fighter at the time and better than the 38 year old version of Walcott. When I combine this as well as the fact that Tyson was the youngest titlist ever.....it becomes my opinion that he edges Rocky all time. That isn't even taking in how I think they match up head to head.
Charles was the number two ranked heavyweight. Walcott was the legitimate champion, after beating Charles twice. Moore was the reigning light heavyweight champion and the number one ranked contender, in the year he fought Marciano.
Ranking Tyson ahead of Marciano is debatable but understandable. I can see why you would. I was just commenting on this:
"Tysons wins over Spinks and Holmes are on par with Rocky's biggest wins"
Charles was the number two ranked heavyweight. Walcott was the legitimate champion, after beating Charles twice. Moore was the reigning light heavyweight champion and the number one ranked contender, in the year he fought Marciano.
This to me is an indication of just how weak the era was when you take the factors I pointed out into consideration.
Ranking Tyson ahead of Marciano is debatable but understandable. I can see why you would. I was just commenting on this:
"Tysons wins over Spinks and Holmes are on par with Rocky's biggest wins"
It's ALL debatable my friend. I could just as easily make an argument going the other direction, but this is what my heart and head tells me is right. I wouldn't ask everyone to agree, only to understand the logic behind my argument. Peace.
It's ALL debatable my friend. I could just as easily make an argument going the other direction, but this is what my heart and head tells me is right. I wouldn't ask everyone to agree, only to understand the logic behind my argument. Peace.
True. I just felt that you were really discrediting Marciano.
If you look at the HW title in the 20th century and the dominant fighters I always think:
Johnson
Dempsey
Louis
Marciano
Ali
Holmes
Tyson
I think Holmes sits very well in that company
I feel bad for the guy, he came into his own right after the era of Ali, Frazier, and Foreman, so really the only top profile guys from that era he got to fight were Ken Norton and Ernie Shavers. Top 5, anyone that has him lower than 10 is a hater.
- - Heh, heh, same age as George and trained initially by Ali and Dundee.
What, not good enough, so let's fast track him into top 10?
What, not good enough for the Olympic team after Dwayne Bobick KOed him in the trials?
I rank Homes very highly. Probably too highly. His biggest issue was being open for right hands. Few that he fought had the ability and speed to slip that jab and counter but ATG heavyweights COULD. I believe even at his best Dempsey, Louis, Marciano and Tyson knock him out.
There is really only one reason to overrate Holmes--his jab--and that is exactly what happens in my opinion. His jab mesmerizes memory almost as long and well as a one-punch knockout, and happened a lot more often. Definitely, I would say he is in the top half of heavyweight champs, not the bottom half.
Comment