No, no. Marciano in modern times.
Once again....

Unless you're saying that Marciano would be "dubious" in the HW division today?
In which case, I dunno....Joe Frazier?Aaron Pryor?Mike Tyson? Gennady Golovkin???
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, no. Marciano in modern times.
While it's true that he never faced "quality" opponents, and that he had a wild, primitive swinging style (he missed a lot, and better opponents might have capitalized on it) he went undefeated for 49 fights, was hugely popular, and is one of the greatest heavyweights in history by virtue of those things-not to mention making good fights.I am saying you only praise guys like Marciano after the fact. It worked for him. At least that's my contention. His opponents were past their prime or mediocre.
That's my point. TMA is not like that to the same degree.
While it's true that he never faced "quality" opponents, and that he had a wild, primitive swinging style (he missed a lot, and better opponents might have capitalized on it) he went undefeated for 49 fights, was hugely popular, and is one of the greatest heavyweights in history by virtue of those things-not to mention making good fights.
Pure defensive boxing, ala Mayweather, does not make for great fights, as evidenced by....well, all of his fights....
Tma should be judged on function and not form if fighting is considered not a beauty contest.
Mayweather is a master class and does not get hit. Anybody complaining about that needs to seriously think things over. Should he adopt his style and lose, simply for the publics sake??!
Intelligent fighters should be praised.
He's really good at what he does-none better. That said, he should be praised, if you haven't fallen asleep before the 12th round....
That's because you wrongly assume you can't have both function and form at the same time.
I assume you said the same thing about Machida then? Just asking for a bit of consistency.![]()
Don't recall ever saying anything about Machida.I assume you said the same thing about Machida then? Just asking for a bit of consistency.![]()
Don't recall ever saying anything about Machida.
I like Machida. The outcome for a "strategic" MMA fight is more likely to be different from boxing, in that there's more potential for the fight to be finished, rather than going to the judges.I am asking if you did. If not, why? Was he anymore entertaining overall. Some of his fights in his prime were often quite strategical and many people complained. I liked him actually. And I like Mayweather too.
Once again....
View attachment 19303
Unless you're saying that Marciano would be "dubious" in the HW division today?
In which case, I dunno....Joe Frazier?Aaron Pryor?Mike Tyson? Gennady Golovkin???
Dubious as a "heavyweight," certainly, but his (very exciting and successful) fighting style is very much that of an in-fighter....Yes the latter would be dubious, unless he has been on extreme weight gain supplements.
Dubious as a "heavyweight," certainly, but his (very exciting and successful) fighting style is very much that of an in-fighter....
Boxing is a specialized style of fighting. It's training is often not pretty and certainly not user friendly, not even a little bit. It's competitive aspect raises the level even more so. The opinions of boxing, and boxers for that matter, vary, from the casual fan, to the serious fan, to the fighters in other arts, and to the people who actually box. I like to listen to the opinions of people who box. At least when it comes to boxing.
As a guy who grew up as a fan of boxing as a wee lad, and grew up as a karate fighter, I had more than a pretty good idea about boxing - and then I boxed. I think it's like watching someone swim before you learned to swim.....you kind of know how the arm movement goes, and what the legs do.
Then there's that God damn water.