Marciano, Walcott and Charles

[TBear]

Well....As a Munster's fan I would rather see Gwen as Herman M.... Seriously great post as usual. Holyfield was great with respect to endurance, swarming, etc. But seems to me he was strictly in and out with very little in the way of lateral movement. Arnold Cream and Charles had lateral movement HENCE more economy of footwork...which one can do when they properly utilize lateral movement.

A younger Holyfield did have lateral movement. Remember the first bout with Qawi and his early heavyweight bouts with Tillis and Pinklon Thomas.

[Sugarj]

They would all struggle badly against the "moderns" aka 60s on up. It's just how it is. Walcott's best win is probably being knocked out by Rocky Marciano. Imagine if even a guy like Mercer or Ruddock got hold of him.

Heavens, its true that Walcott looked terrific in defeat several times (Louis 1 & 2, Layne, Charles). Marciano 1 was not his best form......he certainly was good that night and ahead on points, but you might want to check out some of his earlier fights to get a real taste of how skilled the guy actually was.

Mercer or Ruddock had the power to knock him out, but technically both were eclipsed; after watching old Holmes educate Mercer I'd bet Walcott on his best form would look dominant too. Ruddock's left was fearfully powerful, but you can bet he'd be made to miss embarrassingly round after round till he did manage to land it!

[billeau2]

A younger Holyfield did have lateral movement. Remember the first bout with Qawi and his early heavyweight bouts with Tillis and Pinklon Thomas.

Ok. Maybe saying that Holyfield was strictly in and out is pushing it i can cop to that. But the sophistication and degree of lateral movement utilized by Holly was nowhere near the level of guys who move well. Frankly I think Holyfield's weakness was against a good boxer who could find a way to stay away from his swarms. Toney, M moore for example.

I do have to say though that Holyfield is very coachable. He beat Bowe and Tyson by moving as told by his corner. It just was not second nature to him and his fallback position always seemed to cover and swarm in.

[Scott9945]

Heavens, its true that Walcott looked terrific in defeat several times (Louis 1 & 2, Layne, Charles). Marciano 1 was not his best form......he certainly was good that night and ahead on points, but you might want to check out some of his earlier fights to get a real taste of how skilled the guy actually was.

Mercer or Ruddock had the power to knock him out, but technically both were eclipsed; after watching old Holmes educate Mercer I'd bet Walcott on his best form would look dominant too. Ruddock's left was fearfully powerful, but you can bet he'd be made to miss embarrassingly round after round till he did manage to land it!

I'd pick Walcott to comfortably outbox Mercer. He certainly was a lot better than Jesse Ferguson. Walcott could beat Ruddock, but if he gets caught clean he'd have a serious problem.

[Layzie Kidd]

I dont see any of these modern boxers doing anything against these guys, all of which where more skilled than their modern counterparts. Even Marciano, who was often considered just a brute. Jesery Joe had one of the sneakiest trickiest styles and good set ups, and he was already aged by the time he had his run.

[StarshipTrooper]

I stopped reading when I saw the "Walcott got KTFO by a tomato can named Marciano, imagine what Ray Mercer would have done to him" post

[billeau2]

I stopped reading when I saw the "Walcott got KTFO by a tomato can named Marciano, imagine what Ray Mercer would have done to him" post

I hear you....we get those, to the order of: "Well because human beings are geneticlly evolved (in 200 years time mind you) a mere journeyman like Tito Oriz would defeat every fighter of the day." why did you know that by today's standards Holyfield would be a giant and that Louis would be a mere middle weight!?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I'd pick Walcott to comfortably outbox Mercer. He certainly was a lot better than Jesse Ferguson. Walcott could beat Ruddock, but if he gets caught clean he'd have a serious problem.

I agree with you to a certain extent,,, using the fergueson fight is not wise though as it was clear that mercer was in no shape to fight... The mercer that fought holyfield, morrison, lewis would have a much better chance vs walcott, and i think mercer when in shape, is a tough out for anyone in history of boxing

[Scott9945]

I agree with you to a certain extent,,, using the fergueson fight is not wise though as it was clear that mercer was in no shape to fight... The mercer that fought holyfield, morrison, lewis would have a much better chance vs walcott, and i think mercer when in shape, is a tough out for anyone in history of boxing

I've always felt Mercer's performances depended on his opponent as much or more than his conditioning. Mercer had a terrible time with clever boxers. Holyfield, Morrison, and Lewis slugged with him which is his wheelhouse. When he faced disciplined boxers he struggled. Even if you allow for poor conditioning for the Ferguson fight, Mercer barely won the rematch. Basically, I don't have as high of an opinion of Ray Mercer as most do.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I've always felt Mercer's performances depended on his opponent as much or more than his conditioning. Mercer had a terrible time with clever boxers. Holyfield, Morrison, and Lewis slugged with him which is his wheelhouse. When he faced disciplined boxers he struggled. Even if you allow for poor conditioning for the Ferguson fight, Mercer barely won the rematch. Basically, I don't have as high of an opinion of Ray Mercer as most do.

Forgot about the rematch... That's a valid point, maybe Jesse just had his number...

What other clever boxers did he face,, I thought prime he only lost to Jesse, holy, and Lennox...
Honestly can't remember any clever boxers off the top,of my head he faced.. What fights you referring to besides the ones mentioned...I believe what your saying just curious what fights you refer to, I'm drawing a blank