Re: All Hail, The King! shocking pics showing his True Invincibility
I don't agree with @Max Power wholesale, but gotta admit that Marciano would be destroyed by Klitschko. Not because Marciano wasn't good, but simply that he would be too small. P4P he's great, but with his size, he can't even hit Wlad in the chin. Wlad would lean on him and flatten him by accident in the process. See what happned to Mormeck? Povetkin? It would be like that, but worse. Worse I say!
Even prime Mike Tyson would have troubles with getting held, leaned on, and tied up because of his small stature.
So in summary, Marciano = great tough fighter, but - just - too - small.
Re: All Hail, The King! shocking pics showing his True Invincibility
Quote:
What? Like Arreola against Adamek and Stiverne? Like Fury against Cunningham and Pajkic? Like Adamek against Cunningham and Chambers? Like Haye against Valuev? Like Pulev against Thompson? Like Helenius against Chisora? When do these heavyweights look good? When they are in with complete bums. They wouldn't have a chance against all time greats like Klits, Lewis, Tyson, Ali, Foreman etc.
When any fighter, modern or old is in with someone at his own level, the result is a competitive fight. As soon as Tyson stopped fighting bums he had close competitive fights and didn't look so good. When Lennox Lewis came in not in form, he didn't look so good. Lewis struggled against Mercer and Bruno!
Whenever Foreman fought a decent opponent he lost everytime except once by luck
Ali struggled and got bashed from pillar to post in nearly ALL of his fights against opponents who couldn't hold a candle to any of Wlad's.
FACT!
Wlad's opponents are on the whole better than anything in the 70's.
I concede though that on the whole I think the Lennox Lewis era had better opponents than today.
Re: All Hail, The King! shocking pics showing his True Invincibility
size does not equal level.
Re: All Hail, The King! shocking pics showing his True Invincibility
Weight does not equate to level that is true, but when we are regarding top level boxing, the skills may differ but they are all world ranked so size plays a major factor. And statistically it turns out that weight differences play the most important part historically in who the winner is, the greater the weight difference being the greater the chances of the heftier guy winning. Weight can sometimes trump skills. Of course this is not always the case (duh) otherwise there'd be no point in boxing. And it's a no-brainer really because that is the reason why there are no "speed-divisions" or "height-divisions" or "footwork-divisions" but there are "weight-divisions".
"Quality of opposition" in my opinion is determined by assessing the opponents record with respect not just to the weights of their opponents, but their records as well.
That is why I not only delete CW's off the records of old timers to make a fair comparison, I delete BUMS as well. (I define CW as being sub200lbs and BUM as being a guy who's lost a quarter or more of his fights) and also greens (who had less than 10 fights).
Otherwise MArciano and Butterbean are the best boxers in history, even though Rocky barely fought a real HW and Eric barely fought a decent opponent. That's why the records MUST be "un-padded".
Marciano's "HW" record, sans, bums and cruisers... is not 49-0... it's 0-0! Fact!