I would like to know your thoughts on who would win in a dream match between Mike Tyson and Rocky Marciano, but not exactly focusing on their primes but rather the Tyson that destroyed Michael Spinks 90 seconds into the first round vs the Rocky Marciano who drilled Joe Walcott in the first round. Who would win and why?:boxing:

what the **** there is a fantasy fights forum you know.....and this particular match up has been debated to hell already. I say fanman wins by ko round 27 (bare knuckle rules) and then challenges riddick bowe and evander holyfield at the same time.

Tyson. Why? For many reasons but I'll give you one. Because, Jake La Mota told Tyson at 20: "your a bigger and stronger Marciano, there's no question about it."

maricano's size is talked about so much, but people forget
joe louis regularly fought at or near 215. so, my point is
if marciano can beat a 215lbs fighter of joe louis' caliber
he can beat the 225lbs guys of today.

Just picked this quote up of another thread dealing with this same issue. Is there really boxing fans this stupid and blind on this forum? LOL

i think tyson would start too fast for marciano and beat him, that siad after 3-4 rounds tyson would start to slow and marciano would just be starting to come on!

Well I'm going to respond, but afterward I'm done with all the Marciano/Tyson stuff.

Lets look at their styles first - Mike Tyson. He's a straight ahead swarming puncher, with good handspeed, who has good defense via the constant head movement and bobbing and weaving. He comes at you and waits for his openings and unleashes powerful combinations but at the same time is hard to hit because of his defense. Also has a good chin and can take a hard punch. Has trouble with fighters who show no fear, and take the fight to him. Especially fighters with an excellent jab and decent movement. Known to get frustrated after the early rounds, get away from the aforementionedand revert to head hunting.

Would everyone agree with this assesment?

Marciano - also a swarmer and bruiser who only moves forward. Has a very deceptive defense where as he is always moving, bending and bobbing and ducking. He comes at you and throws powerful punches relentlessly, opening or not, hitting you anywhere and everywhere. Tireless and gets stronger as the bout goes on. Good chin and can take a hard punch. Has trouble with slick boxers and technicians, and guys who can stay on the outside and stick and move with good fundamental skills.

Would everyone agree with this assesment?


Going from these assesments it wouldn't be easy for either man. I think this wouldn't be a difficult match up for both sides. I think the chin of either man somewhat negates the power of the other one.

Tyson would come out and find someone who wouldn't back up or give him an inch and stay on top of him, and also someone who is deceptively hard to hit with a clean punch. Marciano would also find someone who comes at him, who uses good defensive head and body movement thus making him hard to hit cleanly, and someone who uses crisp and fast punches in combination.

I think it would play out in one of two ways. First scenario. Tyson comes out and engages in an all out slugfest with Marciano. His punches finding their mark and bloodying Rocky. Marciano trying to counter-attack but not effectively being able to so. I could see Tyson stopping Marciano early (within the first 3 rounds) on cuts or possibly ref stoppage. I don't think he outright knocks Marciano cold, but a ref stoppage or doctor stoppage would be entirely possible.

Second, Marciano weathers the early storm and takes Tyson in the later rounds. Because of Tyson's frustration at not taking him out early he gets sloppy, becomes a headhunter and starts getting tagged with Marciano's relentless onslaught and is worn down. It's entirely possible that Tyson loses by decision or is stopped by TKO or KO in the late rounds. Unlike Marciano we have seen Tyson wilt under a constant offensive onslaught against him and get KO'd so it's a plausible outcome.

Regardless, it would be a war and something to see.

-Hawk

Lets look at their styles first - Mike Tyson. He's a straight ahead swarming puncher, with good handspeed, who has good defense via the constant head movement and bobbing and weaving. He comes at you and waits for his openings and unleashes powerful combinations but at the same time is hard to hit because of his defense. Also has a good chin and can take a hard punch. Has trouble with fighters who show no fear, and take the fight to him. Especially fighters with an excellent jab and decent movement. Known to get frustrated after the early rounds, get away from the aforementionedand revert to head hunting.

Tyson did not have trouble with guys who did not fear him, that only happened later on in his career.

Holmes and Seldon did not fear him, yet the same brutal outcome.

another thing, although Tyson pushes the most in the first 3 rounds, he still keeps up the pressure up untill even round 12.


Marciano is tough, smaller, doesn't hit as hard and has good stamina, if we are going with your theory of "boxers would benefit with the tech of today" then he might have a chance, a Direct comparison is probably a 1st or second round knockout, as marciano is to slow and probably couldn't hurt Tyson.

It's been stated before that Marciano wasn't the hardest hitter of his time, only the most relentless.

Being 186 lbs he weighed less than Tyson's heavy bag, and we all know how he tossed that thing around.

Seldon did not fear him

You just invalidated your whole argument with that statement right there. Which in turn tells me you have never seen Tyson/Seldon. That man looked like he was 2 seconds away from pissing in his trunks. He didn't even ATTEMPT to fight back. He looked like a deer caught in headlights.

Well I'm going to respond, but afterward I'm done with all the Marciano/Tyson stuff.

Lets look at their styles first - Mike Tyson. He's a straight ahead swarming puncher, with good handspeed, who has good defense via the constant head movement and bobbing and weaving. He comes at you and waits for his openings and unleashes powerful combinations but at the same time is hard to hit because of his defense. Also has a good chin and can take a hard punch. Has trouble with fighters who show no fear, and take the fight to him. Especially fighters with an excellent jab and decent movement. Known to get frustrated after the early rounds, get away from the aforementionedand revert to head hunting.

Would everyone agree with this assesment?

Marciano - also a swarmer and bruiser who only moves forward. Has a very deceptive defense where as he is always moving, bending and bobbing and ducking. He comes at you and throws powerful punches relentlessly, opening or not, hitting you anywhere and everywhere. Tireless and gets stronger as the bout goes on. Good chin and can take a hard punch. Has trouble with slick boxers and technicians, and guys who can stay on the outside and stick and move with good fundamental skills.

Would everyone agree with this assesment?


Going from these assesments it wouldn't be easy for either man. I think this wouldn't be a difficult match up for both sides. I think the chin of either man somewhat negates the power of the other one.

Tyson would come out and find someone who wouldn't back up or give him an inch and stay on top of him, and also someone who is deceptively hard to hit with a clean punch. Marciano would also find someone who comes at him, who uses good defensive head and body movement thus making him hard to hit cleanly, and someone who uses crisp and fast punches in combination.

I think it would play out in one of two ways. First scenario. Tyson comes out and engages in an all out slugfest with Marciano. His punches finding their mark and bloodying Rocky. Marciano trying to counter-attack but not effectively being able to so. I could see Tyson stopping Marciano early (within the first 3 rounds) on cuts or possibly ref stoppage. I don't think he outright knocks Marciano cold, but a ref stoppage or doctor stoppage would be entirely possible.

Second, Marciano weathers the early storm and takes Tyson in the later rounds. Because of Tyson's frustration at not taking him out early he gets sloppy, becomes a headhunter and starts getting tagged with Marciano's relentless onslaught and is worn down. It's entirely possible that Tyson loses by decision or is stopped by TKO or KO in the late rounds. Unlike Marciano we have seen Tyson wilt under a constant offensive onslaught against him and get KO'd so it's a plausible outcome.

Regardless, it would be a war and something to see.

-Hawk

We disagree on a few things but some things we see exactly the same.
Your mark for the assesment and outcome of this fight.

A+ or 10/10 which ever you prefer.

I couldn't have put it any better. I'd love to come round your house and watch loads of old fights I think it would be a pretty cool night.

I have seen it, He looked like he was laughing at mike, or maybe I'm thinking of a different fight..but I don't think I am.


What about Berbick, he attempted to fight back but got owned, in the press release before the fight he had his hopes high just as Spinks did also.


Holmes talked so much smack about Tyson and even mocked him in the ring..

Holmes talked so much smack about Tyson and even mocked him in the ring..

No disrespect, but anyone who uses Bruce "I Once Got Knocked Down By The Wind From A Punch" Seldon as validity in an argument, shoots themselves in the foot.

Hey I love Larry and what I'm going to say isn't meant to invalidate Tyson in the least but I have thought, and always will think, Holmes was there for Mike for nothing more than a payday. As for the talking ****. Thats just Larry. What did you expect him to kiss Mike's ass? Of course he's going to talk smack.

I never have thought Larry took the fight all that serious other than the greenbacks he got from cashing the check. Not a knock on Tyson, but more to Larry's mindset.

We disagree on a few things but some things we see exactly the same.
Your mark for the assesment and outcome of this fight.

A+ or 10/10 which ever you prefer.

I couldn't have put it any better. I'd love to come round your house and watch loads of old fights I think it would be a pretty cool night.

Too bad the Atlantic Ocean is in the way or I'd welcome you any time. I have a fairly large collection of fights too :boxing:

As for the fight assesment, I think its a more than fair take on what could happen :) But thats what makes these forums so much fun. Different takes on things and intelligent conversation.

Tyson did not have trouble with guys who did not fear him, that only happened later on in his career.

Holmes and Seldon did not fear him, yet the same brutal outcome.

another thing, although Tyson pushes the most in the first 3 rounds, he still keeps up the pressure up untill even round 12.


Marciano is tough, smaller, doesn't hit as hard and has good stamina, if we are going with your theory of "boxers would benefit with the tech of today" then he might have a chance, a Direct comparison is probably a 1st or second round knockout, as marciano is to slow and probably couldn't hurt Tyson.

It's been stated before that Marciano wasn't the hardest hitter of his time, only the most relentless.
Being 186 lbs he weighed less than Tyson's heavy bag, and we all know how he tossed that thing around.

by which authority on the subject?

marciano in all likelyhood hit HARDER than tyson but less frequently.

tyson does slow down after the first 3 rounds often quite consideribly assuming marciano survives he would be getting stronger and would start to dominate.

almost everyone tyson faced feared him with the possible exceptions of
buster douglas
evander holfield

i'll give you holmes he didn't fear tyson but he was nearing 40! he still made a good go of it in the first few rounds.

the prime tyson was in a weak era no stronger than marciano's

I think when assessing Mike Tyson as a fighter in comparison to other fighters, you need to stop at the Spinks fight. After that fight he was rid of Rooney, calling all the shots, and training the way he felt like. You just know none of those guys got on him like Kevin did. They were lucky to be there making that money and everything else that came with training the heavyweight champion. Tyson at that age was the kind of person that needed that type of discipline he got from Kevin, especially at that age. Plain and simple, he got rid of Kevin because he didn't want to listen to him anymore. The Tyson story is real, there was a downfall that came way before he was ever defeated or else he wouldn't have been defeated so soon. Douglas never would have beaten him, and if Tyson fought Holyfield early on (w/Kevin) he would have knocked him out early. If Stewart could hurt Holyfield, Tyson could kill him. So, to say Tyson failed when other fighters stood up to him is actually true, but to the second Tyson not the first. If we go by the first Tyson, Marciano only could have made it out of the first round if he spent the entire round bent over like he did. Sooner or later Marciano would have to come up to hit Mike and that would be the end. I'm not saying everyone, but all the crap Tyson talked in recent years will forever haunt him when people compare him to other greats of the past. Most people hate him rather they admit it or not, especially whites. He made too many hurtful racial comments in the past. Here's a funny one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3m5c213Nkg&mode=related&search=

That's exactly how I view people that actually think Marciano could have beet Mike. It's a ridiculous comparison. This isn't Solly directed at Hawkins, it's just the stuff that comes to mind when I hear this crap, especially from guys that understand Boxing. I don't think Tyson was the greatest ever. I think anyone that argues Ali, Foreman, or Holmes could have beaten him, has a valid argument. But to say Marciano could beet him is a bunch of crap. IMHO

marciano in all likelyhood hit HARDER than tyson but less frequently.

tyson does slow down after the first 3 rounds often quite consideribly assuming marciano survives he would be getting stronger and would start to dominate.

Marciano hit harder than Tyson? LOL That's a first.

It's not called slowing down, it's called settling down and pacing yourself for a long fight. Tyson's style was to come at you early, if he couldn't knock an opponent out early he settled and paced himself. Foreman is a perfect fighter to make that statement about, not Tyson.

I think when assessing Mike Tyson as a fighter in comparison to other fighters, you need to stop at the Spinks fight. After that fight he was rid of Rooney, calling all the shots, and training the way he felt like. You just know none of those guys got on him like Kevin did. They were lucky to be there making that money and everything else that came with training the heavyweight champion. Tyson at that age was the kind of person that needed that type of discipline he got from Kevin, especially at that age. Plain and simple, he got rid of Kevin because he didn't want to listen to him anymore. The Tyson story is real, there was a downfall that came way before he was ever defeated or else he wouldn't have been defeated so soon. Douglas never would have beaten him, and if Tyson fought Holyfield early on (w/Kevin) he would have knocked him out early. If Stewart could hurt Holyfield, Tyson could kill him. So, to say Tyson failed when other fighters stood up to him is actually true, but to the second Tyson not the first. If we go by the first Tyson, Marciano only could have made it out of the first round if he spent the entire round bent over like he did. Sooner or later Marciano would have to come up to hit Mike and that would be the end. I'm not saying everyone, but all the crap Tyson talked in recent years will forever haunt him when people compare him to other greats of the past. Most people hate him rather they admit it or not, especially whites. He made too many hurtful racial comments in the past. Here's a funny one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3m5c213Nkg&mode=related&search=

That's exactly how I view people that actually think Marciano could have beet Mike. It's a ridiculous comparison. This isn't Solly directed at Hawkins, it's just the stuff that comes to mind when I hear this crap, especially from guys that understand Boxing. I don't think Tyson was the greatest ever. I think anyone that argues Ali, Foreman, or Holmes could have beaten him, has a valid argument. But to say Marciano could beet him is a bunch of crap. IMHO


So basically you're saying the trainer is what made Tyson, not Tyson himself? That sure sounds like what you're saying. If thats the case then you're screwing yourself out of your own argument. What you're saying is oxymoronic in the fact you are stating that you should rate Tyson only on the good part of his career and forget the rest.

Well here is a newsflash - Buster Douglas beat a prime Mike Tyson - Evander Holyfield beat a Tyson that was supposed to steamroll him and like it nor not that plays into the overall picture of ranking Mike Tyson.

It's really funny because before Holyfield knocked him out we heard how Mike was close to where he used to be and Holy was washed up yet after the fight alot of people were saying Mike was the one over the hill. Can't have it both ways fellas.

Just by my defending a white fighter, you assume I'm white? Classic, says alot in and of itself. For you to bring race into this discussion is ridiculous. Nowhere have I seen anyone else base any analysis on race. Race has nothing to do with it. A good fighter is a good fighter, regardless if hes black, white, blue or green.

Furthermore if you can find any statement where I said Marciano would beat Tyson hands down then I'll buy your beer for a year. The only thing you'll see from is an analysis on styles of fighters and how it could have played out (if you'll read it it clearly states how I envision a victory for either one). The only reason I have defended Marciano is because all of you guys dismiss him as an afterthought when comparing him to Tyson and that is an unintelligent and unknowledgable way to analyze fighters from different eras.

So basically you're saying the trainer is what made Tyson, not Tyson himself? That sure sounds like what you're saying. If thats the case then you're screwing yourself out of your own argument.
Yes, I'm saying that "family" (Cus, Jacobs, and Rooney) is what helped make Tyson the great fighter he was. And I'll admit he needed them to have a successful career. Tyson (IMO) didn't have the character to be a great champion on his own. Either that or it was too much too soon, might have been both.

What you're saying is oxymoronic in the fact you are stating that you should rate Tyson only on the good part of his career and forget the rest.
No, I'm saying if your going to compare Tyson at his best against Marciano at his best, then you do just that. Your starting to compare careers which isn't what this thread is about. Your also using fights that Tyson fought after his down fall as examples of how a prime Tyson was and that's just not right.

Well here is a newsflash - Buster Douglas beat a prime Mike Tyson
O.K. maybe in your opinion, but Tyson wasn't with Rooney, wasn't training properly, and you could see it in the fight that something wasn't there. This is all known and has even been mentioned in many documentaries. But your opinion is your opinion.

Evander Holyfield beat a Tyson that was supposed to steamroll him and like it nor not that plays into the overall picture of ranking Mike Tyson.
Again, he was way passed his prime but yeah, it does hurt his overall rankings when assessing his entire career. His career turned into a big mess, everyone knows that but that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at how Tyson and Marciano fought in their primes and discussing how a fight between the two would have turned out from what I remember.

It's really funny because before Holyfield knocked him out we heard how Mike was close to where he used to be and Holy was washed up yet after the fight a lot of people we saying Mike was the one over the hill. Can't have it both ways fellas.
Your absolutely right but I wasn't one of them.

Just by my defending a white fighter, you assume I'm white? Classic, says alot in and of itself. For you to bring race into this discussion is ridiculous. Nowhere have I seen anyone else base any analysis on race. Race has nothing to do with it. A good fighter is a good fighter, regardless if hes black, white, blue or green.
Did you even read what I said? LOL Here's exactly what I said: "I'm not saying everyone, but all the crap Tyson talked in recent years will forever haunt him when people compare him to other greats of the past. Most people hate him rather they admit it or not, especially whites. He made too many hurtful racial comments in the past." It's also a fact that many white Americans hated Muhammad Ali in the 60's for his comments about "white devils" just to name one. If you had asked them at that time if Ali could have beaten Marciano, you think they would have said yes? LOL Saying Tyson would have beat Marciano because he was white would be ridiculous. But, leaving out prejudicms against fighters like Mike (because of the racial comments he's made in the past) is being unrealistic.

Furthermore if you can find any statement where I said Marciano would beat Tyson hands down then I'll buy your beer for a year. The only thing you'll see from is an analysis on styles of fighters and how it could have played out (if you'll read it it clearly states how I envision a victory for either one). The only reason I have defended Marciano is because all of you guys dismiss him as an afterthought when comparing him to Tyson and that is an intelligent and unknowledgable way to analyze fighters from different eras.
Your right about that, I just didn't think it was fare to compare careers when predicting who would win a fight. Many guys had greater careers than Tyson, but it doesn't mean they would have beat him.

Like I have been saying, Rocky had a much better career, BUT if they ever fought each other, I would put my money on Tyson.

When I rate a boxer, I go by his whole career, not just a few years. If you rate them at their best, then that would be all together different.

Yes, I'm saying that "family" (Cus, Jacobs, and Rooney) is what helped make Tyson the great fighter he was. And I'll admit he needed them to have a successful career. Tyson (IMO) didn't have the character to be a great champion on his own. Either that or it was too much too soon, might have been both.

For the record I agree, and have said as much myself. I was baseless in assuming it was an excuse from your end especially since I have said as much myself. Mike was/is an emotionally fragile individual. When he got away from those that truly loved him he imploded.


No, I'm saying if your going to compare Tyson at his best against Marciano at his best, then you do just that. Your starting to compare careers which isn't what this thread is about. Your also using fights that Tyson fought after his down fall as examples of how a prime Tyson was and that's just not right.

To be honest, when I do a head to head match up I try to take the fighter from the period I thought they were best. Doesn't mean I don't factor in some of the weaknesses (I mean you have to if you want to find away for someone else to defeat said person). But I get what you're saying and I agree.


O.K. maybe in your opinion, but Tyson wasn't with Rooney, wasn't training properly, and you could see it in the fight that something wasn't there. This is all known and has even been mentioned in many documentaries. But your opinion is your opinion.

Hey didn't have the same desire maybe, nor the training...but Mike, ultimately did that to himself, besides he was still in his physical prime. We can all blame Don King for Mike not being able to redeem himself against Buster.


Again, he was way passed his prime but yeah, it does hurt his overall rankings when assessing his entire career. His career turned into a big mess, everyone knows that but that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at how Tyson and Marciano fought in their primes and discussing how a fight between the two would have turned out from what I remember.

Well it wasn't a retort for the Marciano comparison it was more from standpoint that you (not meaning you, but Tyson fans) can't dismiss Marciano for fighting allegedly over the hill fighters when at the time Tyson was doing the same? The reason? They were legit contenders and were the top guys around.



Did you even read what I said? LOL Here's exactly what I said: "I'm not saying everyone, but all the crap Tyson talked in recent years will forever haunt him when people compare him to other greats of the past. Most people hate him rather they admit it or not, especially whites. He made too many hurtful racial comments in the past." It's also a fact that many white Americans hated Muhammad Ali in the 60's for his comments about "white devils" just to name one. If you had asked them at that time if Ali could have beaten Marciano, you think they would have said yes? LOL Saying Tyson would have beat Marciano because he was white would be ridiculous. But, leaving out prejudicms against fighters like Mike (because of the racial comments he's made in the past) is being unrealistic.

You're right. I didn't read it thoroughly. Thats what I get for trying to do 10 things at once..I usually make myself look like an ass. But in defense of hardcore students of the fight game I think its more the casual observer that spews the racial garbage.


Your right about that, I just didn't think it was fare to compare careers when predicting who would win a fight. Many guys had greater careers than Tyson, but it doesn't mean they would have beat him.

Well like I said, when making head to head comparison I try to do it with the prime versions of both fighters in mind. Totally unfair otherwise. I respect your opinions that Tyson would defeat Marciano, we all see different things when we watch fights. I think it could very well go that way myself, however I don't think it would such a cakewalk. I think for Tyson to beat Marciano it would be a war of attrition and a physically tasking fight for both men.

On a sidenote, I think the way you would have dominate Tyson in his prime would take a page from Tony Tuckers playbook but add a jab using some authority. Tucker got the best of Tyson in some of those early rounds using mostly that left uppercut and a straight right over the top when Tyson came inside.

Why do I think it was effective? Because Tyson was doing as much clinching in the early rounds as was Tucker, especially after Tucker stung him with that uppercut in the first round. The point being that a fight with someone like Marciano wouldn't be the key way to beat Mike Tyson. Put two swarmers together and you have a shootout, not a technical way to beat someone.

Hawkins, you responded like a man. Do you know how many *****es get all tore up over simple debates? LOL

Hawkins, you responded like a man. Do you know how many *****es get all tore up over simple debates? LOL


Trust me. I know all too well. It's the main reason I stayed away from forums for a few years. Too many young kids (and some older ones as well) think its cool to curse you out on the 'net and flame people because their opinion's differ. Can't mix immaturity with adult level conversation. ;)

Ok Hawkins i agree with your assesment Mostly. Although i cant see Marciano winning, he has a good chin yes, but has any1 hit him as hard and as oftern as tyson would?! no. Marciano had no Jab at all so he wouldnt disturb tysons rythm. It would be over within 5. I cant see this going to distance its totally wrong for marciano, tyson would have been hit much harder and he can take a fair deal of Punishment. As for seldon not being scared please, he was ****ting himself. You may be getting confused with Razor Ruddock.

One a sidenote, as far as brute force goes I think Rocky Marciano's Suzy Q right was harder than any punch Tyson threw. However I think Tyson's power isn't far behind.

But having said that, Tyson's punching power isn't what made him a beast. It was hand speed and fast combinations with power that did the damage. Yes Tyson hit hard, but it's the speed that did the trick.

I agree that his Power and Accuracy was something that most hard hitters didnt have. But i dont agree that Marciano Hit harder

One a sidenote, as far as brute force goes I think Rocky Marciano's Suzy Q right was harder than any punch Tyson threw. However I think Tyson's power isn't far behind.

But having said that, Tyson's punching power isn't what made him a beast. It was hand speed and fast combinations with power that did the damage. Yes Tyson hit hard, but it's the speed that did the trick.


I agree with the last part, BUT IMO Tyson hit harder then Rocky. The picture you have of Rocky hitting Walcott, that wasn't the KO punch. That punch that you have took place several rounds before thev ending.

Tyson was an animal, and he hit hard and fast. He had 22 first rounds KO's, 23 if you count McNeeley compared to 11 for Rocky. Tyson stopped much Bigger boxers then Rocky ever did.

The picture you have of Rocky hitting Walcott, that wasn't the KO punch. That punch that you have took place several rounds before thev ending.

I know, I have both. I liked this one better because it was a much closer picture.

If Marciano fought today or even in Tyson's time, he wouldn't have even been a full fledged cruiserweight, so it's hardly a fair comparison. Plus a few of his fights would have been stopped today because of cuts, so further edge to Tyson there. But any talk of Tyson KOing him in the first round in any time at any weight at any age is rediculous.

If Marciano fought today or even in Tyson's time, he wouldn't have even been a full fledged cruiserweight, so it's hardly a fair comparison. Plus a few of his fights would have been stopped today because of cuts, so further edge to Tyson there. But any talk of Tyson KOing him in the first round in any time at any weight at any age is rediculous.


If Tyson caught Rocky early and Rocky tried to fight back instead of trying to last the round, I could see Tyson winning by a 1st round KO.

I see both coming out quickly, BUT Tyson was so much faster and like you stated Rocky would be only a Cruiserweight if he fought today. Tyson would outweigh Rocky by 30 pounds. It would be the speed of Tyson's punches, his power and weight advantage, plus Rocky would never back up and that would be his down fall.

totally agree with you Henry. A first round KO isnt a massive exagertation nor is it bias. Its totally realistic

marciano in all likelyhood hit HARDER than tyson but less frequently.

tyson does slow down after the first 3 rounds often quite consideribly assuming marciano survives he would be getting stronger and would start to dominate.

almost everyone tyson faced feared him with the possible exceptions of
buster douglas
evander holfield

i'll give you holmes he didn't fear tyson but he was nearing 40! he still made a good go of it in the first few rounds.

the prime tyson was in a weak era no stronger than marciano's

you have no proof of anything you just said, just a solid Bias.

Marciano hitting harder than Mike is very, very unlikely, even watching his fights against guys his size his punches don't impact any where near the same kind of power. I have no idea where you came to the assumption that Marciano hit harder than Mike.

Mike's era wasn't the best, but Marciano's was far worse. I have a strong feeling Lewis Dodged Tyson during their younger years after realizing what he was like in the sparring ring a few years before. Lewis stated himself in an interview Tyson was nothing compared to his former Glory, but it was still a bench mark for him.

Marciano's era was jam packed full of bum's more so than Tyson, Tyson fought bigger names than Marciano.

Yes Seldon sucked, I should not have used him as an example.

But Spinks, Bruno, Tucker, Ruddock and Holmes are all notable tough fighter's

you say Holmes was pushing 40, well Ali was pushing 40 when he fought Foreman, and he beat him.

@ Hawkins, I must agree you have been a good sport with the Tyson fans.

you have no proof of anything you just said, just a solid Bias.

Marciano hitting harder than Mike is very, very unlikely, even watching his fights against guys his size his punches don't impact any where near the same kind of power. I have no idea where you came to the assumption that Marciano hit harder than Mike.

You guys know that Marciano had arguably the hardest right hand in the division's history right? And you're also aware that he had a left with good power too? The way you guys talk it's as if Marciano's power is nowhere comparable and that's just wrong. Marciano had more than enough power to put Mike on his butt

Mike's era wasn't the best, but Marciano's was far worse. I have a strong feeling Lewis Dodged Tyson during their younger years after realizing what he was like in the sparring ring a few years before. Lewis stated himself in an interview Tyson was nothing compared to his former Glory, but it was still a bench mark for him.

Marciano's era was jam packed full of bum's more so than Tyson, Tyson fought bigger names than Marciano.

Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Joe Walcott & Ezzard Charles are bums? Hmm..first I've heard of this.


you say Holmes was pushing 40, well Ali was pushing 40 when he fought Foreman, and he beat him.


Ali was 31 or 32. Not pushing 40.

Ali was 31 or 32. Not pushing 40.

Oh yea he was 32..my bad

but he had Parkinson's! (alright I'm just desperate now, but it's another factor you should consider)

Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Joe Walcott & Ezzard Charles are bums? Hmm..first I've heard of this.


Never said they were bum's

Archie Moore, Joe Louis and Joe Walcott where all "Older" fighter's.

You guys know that Marciano had arguably the hardest right hand in the division's history right? And you're also aware that he had a left with good power too? The way you guys talk it's as if Marciano's power is nowhere comparable and that's just wrong. Marciano had more than enough power to put Mike on his butt

Marciano had power for his time, but I highly doubt he had the power, especially using todays gloves, to seriously Hurt Tyson.

Tyson weighs 220, his neck is near 20 inches, he's trained by the late cus d' amato, who boasts he was the best fighter he has ever trained. A living example is the large amount of first round KO's Tyson scored on guys bigger than him. So in all honesty, how is a smaller, technically inferior and slower fighter going to have a chance.

Not to back away from a debate, I'm just going to bow out of the whole Marciano/Tyson debate because it has become redundant and is taking it up way too much space. By now everyone knows my standpoint, and I theirs, so thats where I leave it.

-Hawk

Well, there's no doubt Tyson would have been too much for Rocky. Too much speed, too much power, and too much technical skill. It's hard for me to see that little guy coming strait forward in Tysons face and making it out of the first round alive. LOL I think comparing Marciano to Dempsy might be more even.

Well, there's no doubt Tyson would have been too much for Rocky. Too much speed, too much power, and too much technical skill. It's hard for me to see that little guy coming strait forward in Tysons face and making it out of the first round alive. LOL I think comparing Marciano to Dempsy might be more even.

A realistic statement for once, that would be a way better match up, Dempsey vs Marciano.

you have no proof of anything you just said, just a solid Bias.

Marciano hitting harder than Mike is very, very unlikely, even watching his fights against guys his size his punches don't impact any where near the same kind of power. I have no idea where you came to the assumption that Marciano hit harder than Mike.

Mike's era wasn't the best, but Marciano's was far worse. I have a strong feeling Lewis Dodged Tyson during their younger years after realizing what he was like in the sparring ring a few years before. Lewis stated himself in an interview Tyson was nothing compared to his former Glory, but it was still a bench mark for him.

Marciano's era was jam packed full of bum's more so than Tyson, Tyson fought bigger names than Marciano.

Yes Seldon sucked, I should not have used him as an example.

But Spinks, Bruno, Tucker, Ruddock and Holmes are all notable tough fighter's

you say Holmes was pushing 40, well Ali was pushing 40 when he fought Foreman, and he beat him.

@ Hawkins, I must agree you have been a good sport with the Tyson fans.

its not a bias at all i've watched every single tyson fight and about 15 marciano fights and thats the conclusion i came up with.

tyson didn;t fight bigger names he simply fought more recent ones that people recognise. do you think people will recognise the name tucker in 50 years?

holmes was well past his prime whereas ali was only just starting to fade. this happens differently to different people.
ali didn;t bat foreman with his atheletism he beat him with his will power and ringe intelligence.

ishould say i actually prefer tyson and i beleive he would win this match up

Not to back away from a debate, I'm just going to bow out of the whole Marciano/Tyson debate because it has become redundant and is taking it up way too much space. By now everyone knows my standpoint, and I theirs, so thats where I leave it.

-Hawk

it certainly is starting to get boring!!

Well I'm going to respond, but afterward I'm done with all the Marciano/Tyson stuff.

Lets look at their styles first - Mike Tyson. He's a straight ahead swarming puncher, with good handspeed, who has good defense via the constant head movement and bobbing and weaving. He comes at you and waits for his openings and unleashes powerful combinations but at the same time is hard to hit because of his defense. Also has a good chin and can take a hard punch. Has trouble with fighters who show no fear, and take the fight to him. Especially fighters with an excellent jab and decent movement. Known to get frustrated after the early rounds, get away from the aforementionedand revert to head hunting.

Would everyone agree with this assesment?

Marciano - also a swarmer and bruiser who only moves forward. Has a very deceptive defense where as he is always moving, bending and bobbing and ducking. He comes at you and throws powerful punches relentlessly, opening or not, hitting you anywhere and everywhere. Tireless and gets stronger as the bout goes on. Good chin and can take a hard punch. Has trouble with slick boxers and technicians, and guys who can stay on the outside and stick and move with good fundamental skills.

Would everyone agree with this assesment?


Going from these assesments it wouldn't be easy for either man. I think this wouldn't be a difficult match up for both sides. I think the chin of either man somewhat negates the power of the other one.

Tyson would come out and find someone who wouldn't back up or give him an inch and stay on top of him, and also someone who is deceptively hard to hit with a clean punch. Marciano would also find someone who comes at him, who uses good defensive head and body movement thus making him hard to hit cleanly, and someone who uses crisp and fast punches in combination.

I think it would play out in one of two ways. First scenario. Tyson comes out and engages in an all out slug fest with Marciano. His punches finding their mark and bloodying Rocky. Marciano trying to counter-attack but not effectively being able to so. I could see Tyson stopping Marciano early (within the first 3 rounds) on cuts or possibly ref stoppage. I don't think he outright knocks Marciano cold, but a ref stoppage or doctor stoppage would be entirely possible.

Second, Marciano weathers the early storm and takes Tyson in the later rounds. Because of Tyson's frustration at not taking him out early he gets sloppy, becomes a headhunter and starts getting tagged with Marciano's relentless onslaught and is worn down. It's entirely possible that Tyson loses by decision or is stopped by TKO or KO in the late rounds. Unlike Marciano we have seen Tyson wilt under a constant offensive onslaught against him and get KO'd so it's a plausible outcome.

Regardless, it would be a war and something to see.

-Hawk

I think your complete assessment of Tyson in the end is that of a post prison Tyson and a typical thought at that. Tyson went to the body the complete fight, with Tucker Tillis Smith etc, he relentlessly attacked the body, then came up to the head. All of these man took Tyson the distance because of one thing! They tried to throw him off his game by clinching. All of these man stood inches taller than Tyson with much longer reaches, not to mention their natural size. Marciano would have been in way over his head to step into the ring with most of these guys of Tyson's era. Tyson was a bigger stronger version of Marciano, and this saying of Marciano's side to side head movement is another complete bogus attempt to further state your argument on fictional thoughts, Marciano had no damn head movement. He stayed in a low crouch with his head leaned to the side. Tyson was a crouch with his head standing above his legs with a side to side head movement plus he always engaged thus giving him the opportunities to counter without getting hit! Marciano always got hit, mainly due to the fact that he never fought a suitable heavyweight, (excluding a very ****ing old Joe Louis, who might I add wasn't even fighting for the soul purpose of what he passionately fights for, honor and respect. Louis was screwed by the Army what would you expect him to do) Marciano never fought a legit heavyweight contender, or at least someone who posed a real threat. LaStarza? Come on give me a ****ing break people!!!! How much did that guy weight? 180something?!! Anyway besides the point, Marciano never looked good at 220 and that is what he would need to compete against a fighter like Tyson. Marciano wouldn't be playing that let me lay on your chest **** with Tyson. He wouldn't even get that close for that matter, Tyson would be too much of a physical specimen for Marciano. Your foolish to think that every fighter who applied pressure on Mike and didn't want to back up beat him, Reggie Gross who opened up on Tyson got smashed with one punch, Mike came out of a weave with a vicious left hook that sent Gross to the canvas. In all honesty, I think amongst a short list of fighters that would defeat Marciano through out history Tyson would have been first on that list. I'm just saying that, you don't get first round knockouts for being a slow starter. Tyson finished all of his opponents in the first round, because most of them tried to light up on him, run. If you weren't trying to box Tyson in a smart manner than you aren't beating him or at least going the distance. Marciano had no boxing skill, rather a brawler puncher who relied on his relentless attack and later round beatings to get by. Marciano isn't a fast starter and was never given the pressure early in a fight like Tyson would give him, so how are you to know how Marciano would react? He has never been pushed back to fight, and if he was he was leaning on your chest taking slow steps backwards, that is how Marciano fought. Tyson was a real relentless fighter, a fighter who would stalk and press constantly with combinations and a defense that will get you to think you can't hit the guy no matter how hard you tried. I think for one Tyson would be too powerful for Marciano to man handle and two Tyson's none stop pressure early in the fights along with his combination punching real immaculate puncher, along side his great defense. Rocky will soon realize that damn, the 80's fighters are just too far ahead with the future than we are here in the 50's. Marciano would lose and that is that!

I think your complete assessment of Tyson in the end is that of a post prison Tyson and a typical thought at that. Tyson went to the body the complete fight, with Tucker Tillis Smith etc, he relentlessly attacked the body, then came up to the head. All of these man took Tyson the distance because of one thing! They tried to throw him off his game by clinching.


Well I said I'm not going to talk Tyson/Marciano anymore and I'm not. I just need to ask one question...did you even see the Tyson/Tucker fight?

Seriously, in the earlier rounds Tyson was initiating the clinch just as much as Tucker. There was one part in round one where Tyson got caught with a huge uppercut that kind buckled him followed by a right hand straight over the top.

Afer that just about anytime Mike came inside Tucker threw that right hand over the top. Because of this Mike initiated the clinch just as much. For whatever reason after round 4-5, I forget which, Tucker stopped using the right hand like he had been (it is alleged he broke it) and clinched to survive.

He lost the fight, but Tucker had alot of early success against Tyson. If I wanted to beat Tyson that is the strategy I would use but I would also add a stiff jab to the mix.

You guys know that Marciano had arguably the hardest right hand in the division's history right? And you're also aware that he had a left with good power too? The way you guys talk it's as if Marciano's power is nowhere comparable and that's just wrong. Marciano had more than enough power to put Mike on his butt



Archie Moore, Joe Louis, Joe Walcott & Ezzard Charles are bums? Hmm..first I've heard of this.




Ali was 31 or 32. Not pushing 40.

Arguably the best right in the history and the percentage is about 1% of the population leaning on that argument. Give me a break buddy!

Well I said I'm not going to talk Tyson/Marciano anymore and I'm not. I just need to ask one question...did you even see the Tyson/Tucker fight?

Seriously, in the earlier rounds Tyson was initiating the clinch just as much as Tucker. There was one part in round one where Tyson got caught with a huge uppercut that kind buckled him followed by a right hand straight over the top.

Afer that just about anytime Mike came inside Tucker threw that right hand over the top. Because of this Mike initiated the clinch just as much. For whatever reason after round 4-5, I forget which, Tucker stopped using the right hand like he had been (it is alleged he broke it) and clinched to survive.

He lost the fight, but Tucker had alot of early success against Tyson. If I wanted to beat Tyson that is the strategy I would use but I would also add a stiff jab to the mix.

Bull, I watch the fight over and over, its one of my favorites, it shows Tyson at his worst but still winning every round. You forget pal that Tucker wasn't vulnerable, he was unbeaten and with a bigger record than Tyson at the time. Tucker had a chance to become someone like Tyson did, he didn't know what it was like to lose and always had the mental physique to win....up until he lost to Tyson. Tucker had a title was undefeated never knocked down in his 35 fights, tell me how much of a chance Tucker had in that fight, that Tucker would have put Marciano on his ass, your delusional to the point pal! No way in hell was Tucker landing an over hand right let alone an under hand right. He was getting pummeled the whole time, he was clinching more than he was throwing. For one of the worst performances of Mike's young career this had to have been one of the hugest statements to his credibility at that age. He was easily rocked by Tucker on a few occasions but did that stop Mike? No, it didn't. He shook it off and kept doing what he was suppose to......attack.. attack..attack!!! If it hadn't been for Tucker's constant clinching I don't think he would have lasted. Remember when Tyson caught him with that vicious left hook in the 12th round, then immediately grabbed Tyson for dear life and nodded his head? Yeah usually indicating that it hurt like hell!!! Oh yeah for the statement you made with Tucker breaking his right hand and not using it? That is just a testament of how strong Tyson's chin was and the size of his neck being the factor. Tucker broke it because he put so much power into it and got nothing in return. After that fight Tucker himself said, I couldn't take him out and I gave him everything I had, It was like I was fighting a bull in there.

Also, Tyson was out jabbing Tucker in that fight. Damn your delusional pal!

Bull, I watch the fight over and over, its one of my favorites, it shows Tyson at his worst but still winning every round. You forget pal that Tucker wasn't vulnerable, he was unbeaten and with a bigger record than Tyson at the time. Tucker had a chance to become someone like Tyson did, he didn't know what it was like to lose and always had the mental physique to win....up until he lost to Tyson. Tucker had a title was undefeated never knocked down in his 35 fights, tell me how much of a chance Tucker had in that fight, that Tucker would have put Marciano on his ass, your delusional to the point pal! No way in hell was Tucker landing an over hand right let alone an under hand right. He was getting pummeled the whole time, he was clinching more than he was throwing. For one of the worst performances of Mike's young career this had to have been one of the hugest statements to his credibility at that age. He was easily rocked by Tucker on a few occasions but did that stop Mike? No, it didn't. He shook it off and kept doing what he was suppose to......attack.. attack..attack!!! If it hadn't been for Tucker's constant clinching I don't think he would have lasted. Remember when Tyson caught him with that vicious left hook in the 12th round, then immediately grabbed Tyson for dear life and nodded his head? Yeah usually indicating that it hurt like hell!!! Oh yeah for the statement you made with Tucker breaking his right hand and not using it? That is just a testament of how strong Tyson's chin was and the size of his neck being the factor. Tucker broke it because he put so much power into it and got nothing in return. After that fight Tucker himself said, I couldn't take him out and I gave him everything I had, It was like I was fighting a bull in there.

Also, Tyson was out jabbing Tucker in that fight. Damn your delusional pal!

What the hell? You'e the delusional one. You write some of the most asinine things I have ever read on any boxing site. I mean not only do you an unhealthy obsessive fixation on Tyson you must have such a dyslexic view of boxing that you say things no one else does. From the Floyd Patterson accusations and to the 'Ezzard Charles was just a decent light heavy' it makes you out to unknoweldgable.

Case in point----Oh yeah for the statement you made with Tucker breaking his right hand and not using it? That is just a testament of how strong Tyson's chin was and the size of his neck being the factor. Tucker broke it because he put so much power into it and got nothing in return

I mean who says things like that? Because Tyson can take a punch and has thick neck muscles? Your blind man love for Tyson is beginning to wear a little thin.

Besides did you see anywhere that I said Tucker even remotely won the fight or was going to? Read it again because I sure don't recall that. I made an observation - that is all.

I made that statement because if I had to face Mike Tyson it would be a strategy I would use based on what I saw.

What the hell? You'e the delusional one. You write some of the most asinine things I have ever read on any boxing site. I mean not only do you an unhealthy obsessive fixation on Tyson you must have such a dyslexic view of boxing that you say things no one else does. From the Floyd Patterson accusations and to the 'Ezzard Charles was just a decent light heavy' it makes you out to unknoweldgable.

Case in point----

I mean who says things like that? Because Tyson can take a punch and has thick neck muscles? Your blind man love for Tyson is beginning to wear a little thin.

Besides did you see anywhere that I said Tucker even remotely won the fight or was going to? Read it again because I sure don't recall that. I made an observation - that is all.

I made that statement because if I had to face Mike Tyson it would be a strategy I would use based on what I saw.

Just like my strategy on Marciano would be to apply pressure back with elusiveness and combinations. His defense is too open to miss!

I'm beginning to think that you have some fascination with the fact that I am a Tyson fan, turning it into something you only wish was of existence. Pure gayness kid, maybe you should jump off the dick of old dead Marciano and look at what is going on now a days buddy!

Just like my strategy on Marciano would be to apply pressure back with elusiveness and combinations. His defense is too open to miss!

I'm beginning to think that you have some fascination with the fact that I am a Tyson fan, turning it into something you only wish was of existence. Pure gayness kid, maybe you should jump off the dick of old dead Marciano and look at what is going on now a days buddy!


Anyone that has read your posts can see your blind allegiance. Besides, I'm a Tyson fan but I can see the factual from the delusional. Nowhere on this site will you see me make the same kind of over-the-top uninformed statements about any fighter like the kind you attribute to Tyson.

It's amazing the lengths you go to discredit other fighters in an effort to make Tyson out to be more than he was.

Anyone that has read your posts can see your blind allegiance. Besides, I'm a Tyson fan but I can see the factual from the delusional. Nowhere on this site will you see me make the same kind of over-the-top uninformed statements about any fighter like the kind you attribute to Tyson.

It's amazing the lengths you go to discredit other fighters in an effort to make Tyson out to be more than he was.
It seems to be a common theme with the Tysonettes.

We'll never know who would have won that fight, but we do know that Marciano was an historical true great. Sadly, Tyson's career is marred with disgrace. For this reason, he will never be in the same class as Marciano.

Anyone that has read your posts can see your blind allegiance. Besides, I'm a Tyson fan but I can see the factual from the delusional. Nowhere on this site will you see me make the same kind of over-the-top uninformed statements about any fighter like the kind you attribute to Tyson.

It's amazing the lengths you go to discredit other fighters in an effort to make Tyson out to be more than he was.


Yea but in all honesty, what he said was true, the only thing Marciano has going for him is his fame. His defense was garbage and would crumble to any self respecting boxer from the 70's and on.

Yea but in all honesty, what he said was true, the only thing Marciano has going for him is his fame. His defense was garbage and would crumble to any self respecting boxer from the 70's and on.

That may well be so, but we'll never know. All we have is our own imaginations. However, Marciano had the one intangible that you can never measure and thats heart. Hearts will keep you neck deep in a fight when all else looks bleak.

As for metal, he can make a good point but its usually buried under so much other nonsense its hard to see.

edit: damn, I feel like ray leonard. I keep saying I'm not going to respond to Marciano/Tyson anymore but here I am.

Yea but in all honesty, what he said was true, the only thing Marciano has going for him is his fame. His defense was garbage and would crumble to any self respecting boxer from the 70's and on.

while sparring with a 40 year old marciano cassius ckay (ALI) remarked that he was very difficult to hit.

That may well be so, but we'll never know. All we have is our own imaginations. However, Marciano had the one intangible that you can never measure and thats heart. Hearts will keep you neck deep in a fight when all else looks bleak.

As for metal, he can make a good point but its usually buried under so much other nonsense its hard to see.edit: damn, I feel like ray leonard. I keep saying I'm not going to respond to Marciano/Tyson anymore but here I am.


he talks so much he has to get it right on the odd occasion

I watched some Tyson fights today and something hit me. As bad as I hate to say it, I think alot of you are right when you say Mike could put Rock down in the early rounds.

Three reasons for this.

Tyson is in the mold of Jack Dempsey. Start fast and furious and totall destroy whomever is standing across the ring from you. He comes at you with lightning fast combinations that are packed with TNT.

Marciano is a legendary slow starter. He usually doesn't get cookin' until about round 7-8.

Marciano, as much as I love him, is also very sloppy in the ring. A bar brawler in every sense. He throws alot of haymakers and is off-balance alot. Be off balance and vulnerable would be lethal in this matchup.

So yes, I can see your standpoint gentleman.

I would like to know your thoughts on who would win in a dream match between Mike Tyson and Rocky Marciano, but not exactly focusing on their primes but rather the Tyson that destroyed Michael Spinks 90 seconds into the first round vs the Rocky Marciano who drilled Joe Walcott in the first round. Who would win and why?:boxing:

1. Spinks was a washed up light heavyweight.
2. Spinks was quoted as saying "to tell you the truth, I'm not crazy about getting in the ring with that man."
3. Spinks was 212 lbs for the fight, heavier than he'd ever fought.
4. Spinks' only fights at heavyweight were an aging Holmes, Steven Tangstaad (??????) and Gerry Cooney.
5. Spinks doesn't try to box Tyson, doesn't try to evade him, doesn't really jab him, no lateral movement, and doesn't throw any bombs at him.
6. Spinks was just in there to collect his huge paycheck and retire.

I always feel Immature rooting for Tyson constantly since he's treated like a childhood hero, but he seems to get the better half of most match ups.

1. Spinks was a washed up light heavyweight.
2. Spinks was quoted as saying "to tell you the truth, I'm not crazy about getting in the ring with that man."
3. Spinks was 212 lbs for the fight, heavier than he'd ever fought.
4. Spinks' only fights at heavyweight were an aging Holmes, Steven Tangstaad (??????) and Gerry Cooney.
5. Spinks doesn't try to box Tyson, doesn't try to evade him, doesn't really jab him, no lateral movement, and doesn't throw any bombs at him.
6. Spinks was just in there to collect his huge paycheck and retire.
you forgot number 7: you don't give Mike Tyson any credit, even when it's needed.

while sparring with a 40 year old marciano cassius ckay (ALI) remarked that he was very difficult to hit.

It's too bad Rocky had that scum sucking manager and had to retire early like he did rather than pay that thief another cent.

I always feel Immature rooting for Tyson constantly since he's treated like a childhood hero, but he seems to get the better half of most match ups.


you forgot number 7: you don't give Mike Tyson any credit, even when it's needed.

Of course I do, but when so many people on here are acting like he's the greatest fighter that ever lived......I was a big fan of Tyson's back in the late 80's, he was a very exciting fighter to watch and had that aura of invinciblity about him. As it turned out he was hyped up just a bit too much and his chin and stamina turned out to be problems. As it is now, I'm sooooooo tired of hearing excuses for his ko losses to Douglas and Holyfield, when he was 30 or under, and how he could've beat ANYBODY.

It's too bad Rocky had that scum sucking manager and had to retire early like he did rather than pay that thief another cent.

Yea, thats what sucks. An all too common practice, even today. Still it would have been nice to see him come out and crush Ingemar Johansson.

Yea, thats what sucks. An all too common practice, even today. Still it would have been nice to see him come out and crush Ingemar Johansson.

He still should have come back and fought Patterson though. Floyd was a better boxer, but I think the Rock could have gotten to that chin eventually.

He still should have come back and fought Patterson though. Floyd was a better boxer, but I think the Rock could have gotten to that chin eventually.

Yeah, Rocky would have gotten to Floyd IMO as well. Suzie Q would have been like a hot knife thru butter on Floyd's chin,

Of course I do, but when so many people on here are acting like he's the greatest fighter that ever lived......I was a big fan of Tyson's back in the late 80's, he was a very exciting fighter to watch and had that aura of invinciblity about him. As it turned out he was hyped up just a bit too much and his chin and stamina turned out to be problems. As it is now, I'm sooooooo tired of hearing excuses for his ko losses to Douglas and Holyfield, when he was 30 or under, and how he could've beat ANYBODY.


How can you honestly say he had poor stamina and a chin? Lewis has one of the hardest right hands in History and Tyson lasted 8 rounds of punishment, even past his prime. Even Lewis said he was shocked at the kind of punches Tyson took..and he even hurt his hand.

Also, I never saw Tyson tire during his prime. He always went 12 rounds without dropping the pressure.

Yes everyone does make excuses for the Douglas fight, a loss is a loss..if Tyson decides to party and not train then that was his fault for being a mentally weak fighter, thus proving him to not be the greatest ever. With Rooney in his corner though, I will say other wise, because he was unmatched.

I don't like to nuthug, but Tyson was a VERY good boxer during his reign, but he clearly had mental problems to stay champion for so long.

That man looked like he was 2 seconds away from pissing in his trunks. He didn't even ATTEMPT to fight back. He looked like a deer caught in headlights.




For good reason to.

How can you honestly say he had poor stamina and a chin? Lewis has one of the hardest right hands in History and Tyson lasted 8 rounds of punishment, even past his prime. Even Lewis said he was shocked at the kind of punches Tyson took..and he even hurt his hand.

Also, I never saw Tyson tire during his prime. He always went 12 rounds without dropping the pressure.

Yes everyone does make excuses for the Douglas fight, a loss is a loss..if Tyson decides to party and not train then that was his fault for being a mentally weak fighter, thus proving him to not be the greatest ever. With Rooney in his corner though, I will say other wise, because he was unmatched.

I don't like to nuthug, but Tyson was a VERY good boxer during his reign, but he clearly had mental problems to stay champion for so long.

The think is, Douglas was a BUM, a 42-1 underdog, and Tyson was in his PRIME. And people that say he was past it at 30 when Holyfield stopped him, damn, is Mayweather PAST it too?

As little as I like Tyson and as big of a fan of Marciano's as I am, if the fight happened today, it would most likely be stopped on cuts, or an accumulation of knockdowns, with Tyson winning by TKO prob around rd 7 or 8. But if Marciano fought today, he wouldn't even be a cruiserweight, and would be forced to fight light heavy, where I like his chances a lot better against an old Hopkins.

The think is, Douglas was a BUM, a 42-1 underdog, and Tyson was in his PRIME. And people that say he was past it at 30 when Holyfield stopped him, damn, is Mayweather PAST it too?

Correction, before the fight Holyfield was given little chance. He was over-the-hill and past his prime at 34. It was until after the fight that people said Tyson was done.

Danny Williams Knocked out Tyson......need I say more? Tyson fights a fighter with a smidgen of talent he cant win....we all know it just admit it!

Danny Williams Knocked out Tyson......need I say more? Tyson fights a fighter with a smidgen of talent he cant win....we all know it just admit it!

Well, I'm not Tyson defender. And I have been very critical of him, however, to use this analogy is completely baseless. Tyson was way past it, not motivated and just there for the payday.

I'd give Prime Tyson a good chance against any heavyweight within the first 4 rounds or so.

Danny Williams Knocked out Tyson......need I say more? Tyson fights a fighter with a smidgen of talent he cant win....we all know it just admit it!

whats the logic behind this? That's like me saying Berbick Beat Ali so Ali must suck.

Mike Tyson didn't naturally "lose his prime" he could have fought longer and beat more opponent,s but the truth is, he didn't want to..his training regime was a joke, he fired his good trainer and partied a lot more. The stuff he says after his fights are so degrading to other fighter's such as "It's ludacris that these mortals attempt to even enter my realm" and stuff like that.

However, it's his fault that he was stupid, thus making him around number 10 on people's ATG lists, if on it at all.

During his reign however, he was undeniably one of the the best boxers that ever stepped in the ring, and I would side with him in most heavy weight match ups for a winner.

I think its unfair for Marciano to be put up against other heavys especially the greats. He wasnt a great fighter, it was his heart, and determination and his 49-0 record (in probably the worst era) that has him in the top 20 mayb 10 atg. He wouldnt beat any other of the atg. Sorry to say it, as i love watching his fights (wen i can) but thats just fact. These topics arent ment to put fighters down and i see it too mch against tyson so i just felt i should say this

The think is, Douglas was a BUM, a 42-1 underdog, and Tyson was in his PRIME. And people that say he was past it at 30 when Holyfield stopped him, damn, is Mayweather PAST it too?
Tyson wasn't in his prime. For Tyson, being in or out of his prime had nothing to do with age like most fighters, it was frame of mind. Barrera (SP?) was 29 and out of his prime when he was stopped by Pac man. Many wars during his career was the cause not age.

1. Spinks was a washed up light heavyweight.
No, he just looked washed up when matched up against Tyson. He would have looked a lot better at LH.

2. Spinks was quoted as saying "to tell you the truth, I'm not crazy about getting in the ring with that man."
No question he was scared.

3. Spinks was 212 lbs for the fight, heavier than he'd ever fought.
He didn't belong at heavyweight anyway but did better there than most could have.

4. Spinks' only fights at heavyweight were an aging Holmes, Steven Tangstaad (??????) and Gerry Cooney.
Good point.

5. Spinks doesn't try to box Tyson, doesn't try to evade him, doesn't really jab him, no lateral movement, and doesn't throw any bombs at him.
He threw his bombs, they just didn't land and weren't hard enough anyway. Look back at the fight.

6. Spinks was just in there to collect his huge paycheck and retire.
I honestly think he tried, he was just way in over his head. Anyway, that was a prime Tyson. That's when he looked his best. Ali looked at his best when he fought Williams who was passed his prime as well.

Tyson wasn't in his prime. For Tyson, being in or out of his prime had nothing to do with age like most fighters, it was frame of mind.

I don't think thats a fair estimation to make. If you go by that assumption you can make excuses for lots of guys who weren't in the right frame of mind when they were defeated.

I think the more appropriate definition of physical prime would be knowing what you need to do but aren't physically able to anymore. Take the Marciano/Charles II fight. There were times when you could clearly see that Ezz saw the openings, yet was unable to pull the trigger. Or he clearly saw the punches coming, yet was unable to avoid them.

Tyson on the other hand was very capable of doing what he had done but he was distracted and he severely underestimated Douglas to the point where he hardly trained.

I could maybe understand that argument if Tyson had been a vast majority of wars where the accumulation of punishment had contributed to advanced wear and tear. But the fact was thats not the case, up until that point he hadn't been in one single fight even close to that. So to say he wasn't in his prime becase he wasn't in the right frame of mind should not be used to explain his loss to Buster.

I don't think thats a fair estimation to make. If you go by that assumption you can make excuses for lots of guys who weren't in the right frame of mind when they were defeated.

I think the more appropriate definition of physical prime would be knowing what you need to do but aren't physically able to anymore. Take the Marciano/Charles II fight. There were times when you could clearly see that Ezz saw the openings, yet was unable to pull the trigger. Or he clearly saw the punches coming, yet was unable to avoid them.

Tyson on the other hand was very capable of doing what he had done but he was distracted and he severely underestimated Douglas to the point where he hardly trained.

I could maybe understand that argument if Tyson had been a vast majority of wars where the accumulation of punishment had contributed to advanced wear and tear. But the fact was thats not the case, up until that point he hadn't been in one single fight even close to that. So to say he wasn't in his prime becase he wasn't in the right frame of mind should not be used to explain his loss to Buster.
Basically I agree with all of what you said besides what the word "prime" means to you. To me it's not when your physically at your best but when your at your best. lol Being in the wrong frame of mind or distracted for any reason is not what I consider being at your best. It can be for both reasons why someone is out of their prime, old or mentally not there. IMO I think most would agree that Tyson was at his best when he was with Keven Rooney.

Basically I agree with all of what you said besides what the word "prime" means to you. To me it's not when your physically at your best but when your at your best. lol Being in the wrong frame of mind or distracted for any reason is not what I consider being at your best. It can be for both reasons why someone is out of their prime, old or mentally not there. IMO I think most would agree that Tyson was at his best when he was with Keven Rooney.

Let me ask you this : Fighter A loses to Fighter B evan though Fighter A is the overwhelming favorite. Afterward its revealed that Fighter A had been distracted by things from outside the ring. In the rematch Fighter A dominates Fighter B because he is no longer distracted.

Going by the above, does that mean for one fight Fighter A was out of his prime but since he regained his mental stability he was back in his prime for the rematch?

Let me ask you this : Fighter A loses to Fighter B evan though Fighter A is the overwhelming favorite. Afterward its revealed that Fighter A had been distracted by things from outside the ring. In the rematch Fighter A dominates Fighter B because he is no longer distracted.

Going by the above, does that mean for one fight Fighter A was out of his prime but since he regained his mental stability he was back in his prime for the rematch?
Say that was in 1980 and in the fallowing years 81 and on he went down hill. We would say he was in his prime in 1980 but when describing when he was at his best, we wouldn't use that particular fight to judge his weaknesses by other than he could be distracted sometimes. My point is Tyson was out of his prime when he met Douglass. Using his weaknesses in that fight to describe how a prime Tyson fought is an inaccurate analysis. IMO

Say that was in 1980 and in the fallowing years 81 and on he went down hill. We would say he was in his prime in 1980 but when describing when he was at his best, we wouldn't use that particular fight to judge his weaknesses by other than he could be distracted sometimes. My point is Tyson was out of his prime when he met Douglass. Using his weaknesses in that fight to describe how a prime Tyson fought is an inaccurate analysis. IMO

I just don't follow that logic. For one, just because a fighter isn't in the right frame of mind has little to do with physical prime. Mike was 24, or there about, when Douglas beat him. He was clearly in his prime. Does that mean he was at his best? No, because he was lazy towards Douglas, regardless of the reasons he was lazy. Thus he got defeated.

But to say because he wasn't in the right mindframe his prime was past isn't an accurate depiction. Like I said, if its the case, then lots of fighters weren't in their primes for one or two fights.

I just don't follow that logic. For one, just because a fighter isn't in the right frame of mind has little to do with physical prime.
Yeah, but we're talking about "prime" not "Physical prime". If you agree boxing is just as important mentally than physically, then why would you judge a fighter based on a physical standpoint? Looking at something in just one way doesn't work when evaluating a human being. We have brains too you know. lol

Mike was 24, or there about, when Douglas beat him. He was clearly in his prime. Does that mean he was at his best? No, because he was lazy towards Douglas, regardless of the reasons he was lazy. Thus he got defeated.
I can't argue he wasn't in his "physical prime" but I will argue he was in his "prime".

But to say because he wasn't in the right mindframe his prime was past isn't an accurate depiction.
No, I said it was because he wasn't with Rooney anymore, to keep it short. Without going into the same discussion again, there were a lot of negative things that transpired in Tysons life since the Spinks fight. A fighter doesn't have to dwindle physically to say he's not in his prime anymore. It can happen mentally but most of the time it's physically. Comparing Tyson to the average fighter will never work.

No, I said it was because he wasn't with Rooney anymore, to keep it short. Without going into the same discussion again, there were a lot of negative things that transpired in Tysons life since the Spinks fight. A fighter doesn't have to dwindle physically to say he's not in his prime anymore. It can happen mentally but most of the time it's physically. Comparing Tyson to the average fighter will never work.

Maybe I've just been burning the candle at both ends too much lately to comprehend your point. However you never answered my question :

Let me ask you this : Fighter A loses to Fighter B evan though Fighter A is the overwhelming favorite. Afterward its revealed that Fighter A had been distracted by things from outside the ring. In the rematch Fighter A dominates Fighter B because he is no longer distracted.

Going by the above, does that mean for one fight Fighter A was out of his prime but since he regained his mental stability he was back in his prime for the rematch?

Prime means a place in time when a fighter does best.

example: Lennox Lewis did better when he got older, he even said so himself "fine wine".

Prime means a place in time when a fighter does best.

example: Lennox Lewis did better when he got older, he even said so himself "fine wine".

Well I reckon Emanuel Steward had a lot to do with that. At the end though, against Vitali, you have to admit he was going downhill.

However you never answered my question :
I thought I did. Look above your post, I wrote this:
Say that was in 1980 and in the fallowing years 81 and on he went down hill. We would say he was in his prime in 1980 but when describing when he was at his best, we wouldn't use that particular fight to judge his weaknesses by other than he could be distracted sometimes. My point is Tyson was out of his prime when he met Douglass. Using his weaknesses in that fight to describe how a prime Tyson fought is an inaccurate analysis. IMO
Sorry, I just couldn't answer that type of question with a yes or no. lol

I thought I did. Look above your post, I wrote this:

Sorry, I just couldn't answer that type of question with a yes or no. lol

A fighter's prime should be longer than 1 year to be considered any type of great, would you agree?

Say that was in 1980 and in the fallowing years 81 and on he went down hill. We would say he was in his prime in 1980 but when describing when he was at his best, we wouldn't use that particular fight to judge his weaknesses by other than he could be distracted sometimes. My point is Tyson was out of his prime when he met Douglass. Using his weaknesses in that fight to describe how a prime Tyson fought is an inaccurate analysis. IMO

Buster Douglas used the weakness he displayed in every other fight, put it together and knocked him out. I'm sorry, but truthfully, what you are saying seems just like another excuse. Don't use the Douglas fight because he wasn't in his prime? I don't see the logic. Sorry.

However what you are alleging is that althought Tyson was in his physical prime, but because he wasn't in the game mentally, it shouldn't be counted as a prime loss?

So because Lennox Lewis got knocked out by Rahman, because his mind wasn't in it as he himself stated, he was out of his prime? Yet, the very next fight, when his mind was in the fight and he won, he was in his prime again?

Maybe I'm missing your point, but what you're saying equates to the above equation.

Buster Douglas used the weakness he displayed in every other fight, put it together and knocked him out. I'm sorry, but truthfully, what you are saying seems just like another excuse. Don't use the Douglas fight because he wasn't in his prime? I don't see the logic. Sorry.

However what you are alleging is that althought Tyson was in his physical prime, but because he wasn't in the game mentally, it shouldn't be counted as a prime loss?

So because Lennox Lewis got knocked out by Rahman, because his mind wasn't in it as he himself stated, he was out of his prime? Yet, the very next fight, when his mind was in the fight and he won, he was in his prime again?

Maybe I'm missing your point, but what you're saying equates to the above equation.


So you think the same Tyson that unifyed the belts in 87' would also lose to Douglas???

A fighter's prime should be longer than 1 year to be considered any type of great, would you agree?
Not when comparing how one would have done against the other. But, I'll admit just the fact that Tysons prime was so short lived, his career is out done by lesser fighters.

So you think the same Tyson that unifyed the belts in 87' would also lose to Douglas???

That wasn't my point. My point was you can't just say Tyson wasn't in his prime because his head wasn't in the fight. He insinuated that you couldn't use that weakness against Tyson I disagree. It points to a lack of mental toughness.

Buster Douglas used the weakness he displayed in every other fight, put it together and knocked him out. I'm sorry, but truthfully, what you are saying seems just like another excuse. Don't use the Douglas fight because he wasn't in his prime? I don't see the logic. Sorry.

However what you are alleging is that althought Tyson was in his physical prime, but because he wasn't in the game mentally, it shouldn't be counted as a prime loss?

So because Lennox Lewis got knocked out by Rahman, because his mind wasn't in it as he himself stated, he was out of his prime? Yet, the very next fight, when his mind was in the fight and he won, he was in his prime again?

Maybe I'm missing your point, but what you're saying equates to the above equation.
We will probably always disagree here. You consider a prime a time frame. I consider it when the fighter was fighting at his best. You consider it when there at their best physically, going by age. I'm saying it has just as much to do with mentally than physically. There is a human factor involved that you are not taking into consideration. Until you do, you'll never truly understand the sport of boxing. lol

We will probably always disagree here. You consider a prime a time frame. I consider it when the fighter was fighting at his best. You consider it when there at their best physically, going by age. I'm saying it has just as much to do with mentally than physically. There is a human factor involved that you are not taking into consideration. Until you do, you'll never truly understand the sport of boxing. lol

What your saying doesn't make sense. Going by what you say, someone can come in and out of their prime depending on the frame of mind they are in for a particular fight. Your mental approach is alot different than the physical. Once its gone physically it's gone but you can regain the mental aspect.

That wasn't my point. My point was you can't just say Tyson wasn't in his prime because his head wasn't in the fight. He insinuated that you couldn't use that weakness against Tyson I disagree. It points to a lack of mental toughness.
That frame of mind he was in during that fight was no where to be seen in other fights when he was on top of his game. You are adding a weakness that came after the fact to further your cause, which is a lack of good boxing knowledge on your part. lol

That frame of mind he was in during that fight was no where to be seen in other fights when he was on top of his game. You are adding a weakness that came after the fact to further your cause, which is a lack of good boxing knowledge on your part. lol

A weakness that came after the fact? My boy, if Tyson was that mentally unstable it was there all along.

BTW You never answered my question. You sidestepped it.

I'll give you a better analogy. What if Tyson had gone back to Rooney after the Douglas fight and regained his prior form. Would that indicate he was 'prime' Tyson again?

What your saying doesn't make sense. Going by what you say, someone can come in and out of their prime depending on the frame of mind they are in for a particular fight.
What is it about that, that doesn't make sense? Wouldn't you agree a fighter in his prime has it together mentally and physically? But more importantly, you need explain what you consider a prime. A period in time? A certain age? What? Please explain so I can thoroughly dissect your definition of prime and use it against you like your trying to use mine against me. lol

Your mental approach is alot different than the physical.
That's because they are two totally different things.

What is it about that, that doesn't make sense? Wouldn't you agree a fighter in his prime has it together mentally and physically? But more importantly, you need explain what you consider a prime. A period in time? A certain age? What? Please explain so I can thoroughly dissect your definition of prime and use it against you like your trying to use mine against me. lol


That's because they are two totally different things.


What is an athletes prime? Its the years in an athletes life where their body is at its physical peak. Peak reflexes, peak reaction times peak recovery etc.
It's generally between the ages of 22 - 28 I believe.

On a sidenote, I'm not trying to use it against you I'm trying to understand exactly what the hell you're saying LOL :boxing:

A weakness that came after the fact? My boy, if Tyson was that mentally unstable it was there all along.
But we're talking about how he was at his best, not how he came in during the Douglas fight. Comparing the Tyson from the Douglas fight against other fighters, is like comparing the Ali that fought Mathis against Foreman. Howard Cosell did that and was dead wrong when Ali knocked out foreman. Are you seeing the light yet? How many great points must I make before it sinks in? LOL (you know I'm playin)

BTW You never answered my question. You sidestepped it.
What question, I'm trying to answer them all. Sidestep my ass. lol

I'll give you a better analogy. What if Tyson had gone back to Rooney after the Douglas fight and regained his prior form. Would that indicate he was 'prime' Tyson again?
Yeah, if he was completely back. But what the heck are you getting at? lol

Yeah, if he was completely back. But what the heck are you getting at? lol

I'm not sure anymore.

****, now I'm confused. :smashfrea


Oh now I remember LOL You can't just 'morph' in and out of your 'prime' because of your mental state. If thats the case there some fighters that are in and out of their prime on a regular basis.

Maybe we should just agree to disagree. Agreeable Optimus? :D

What is an athletes prime? Its the years in an athletes life where their body is at its physical peak. Peak reflexes, peak reaction times peak recovery etc.
It's generally between the ages of 22 - 28 I believe.
Your right about that but for me I also look at the human part of boxing, which is the mental aspect. Everyone else does too but I won't hold that against you, only when we get in these types of debates. lol

On a sidenote, I'm not trying to use it against you I'm trying to understand exactly what the hell you're saying LOL :boxing:
Well, you sure have a funny way of putting it. lol

You can't just 'morph' in and out of your 'prime' because of your mental state.
You can if your as screwed up as Tyson. LOL

Just for the record, I'm cracking up here every time I submit a post. LOL

Your right about that but for me I also look at the human part of boxing, which is the mental aspect. Everyone else does too but I won't hold that against you, only when we get in these types of debates. lol

I'll bet most objective *cough*cough* Tyson fans would agree that Tyson was in his prime when he tripped and fell over Douglas :D

Just for the record, I'm cracking up here every time I submit a post. LOL

Same here. :D

Tyson was in his prime when he tripped and fell over Douglas
I like that. We should use that for now on. lol

I like that. We should use that for now on. lol

Hey I don't know about you but as I watched that fight unfold that night I was speechless. Seriously, Tyson was my hero back then and I was stunned. Even now when you think back about it it still seems unreal. Especially considering what a pedestal Tyson was on compared to everyone else.

Hey I don't know about you but as I watched that fight unfold that night I was speechless. Seriously, Tyson was my hero back then and I was stunned. Even now when you think back about it it still seems unreal. Especially considering what a pedestal Tyson was on compared to everyone else.

My biggest let down ever in terms of watching a fight.
Just for the record it is my greatest prediction ever and I won a lot of money on that.

It was such a let down because I couldn't get anywhere to watch the fight.
I had to wait till the following morning and watch a re-run which is better than nothing. So there are me and three mates and we sit down and turn the tv on, and whatever was on was just finishing and were all talking about what we think the result will be and the guy that introduces the programs say's something like and coming next a chance to see last nights fight and the biggest upset in boxing history. I'll never forgive him or the tv channel for that as long as I live. That was an important part of history and I missed out on watching the greatest upset ever unfold. I won a lot of money on that fight, but even if I had won £20,000 I'd gladly swap it all just for a chance of watching that fight with out knowing the result before hand.

Just for the record it is my greatest prediction ever and I won a lot of money on that.

So YOU were the guy that bet on Douglas to beat Tyson?

My biggest let down ever in terms of watching a fight.
Just for the record it is my greatest prediction ever and I won a lot of money on that.

It was such a let down because I couldn't get anywhere to watch the fight.
I had to wait till the following morning and watch a re-run which is better than nothing. So there are me and three mates and we sit down and turn the tv on, and whatever was on was just finishing and were all talking about what we think the result will be and the guy that introduces the programs say's something like and coming next a chance to see last nights fight and the biggest upset in boxing history. I'll never forgive him or the tv channel for that as long as I live. That was an important part of history and I missed out on watching the greatest upset ever unfold. I won a lot of money on that fight, but even if I had won £20,000 I'd gladly swap it all just for a chance of watching that fight with out knowing the result before hand.

Well, like the stupid fanboy I was, I bet with my school buds on Tyson. Most of them didn't watch boxing and most didn't like Tyson because he was so popular. I lost about two weeks pay from McDonalds back in '91 because of that fight :D

I would like to know your thoughts on who would win in a dream match between Mike Tyson and Rocky Marciano, but not exactly focusing on their primes but rather the Tyson that destroyed Michael Spinks 90 seconds into the first round vs the Rocky Marciano who drilled Joe Walcott in the first round. Who would win and why?:boxing:

Tyson wins he has better defense quicker hands and hits harder it would be Cruiserweight vs Heavyweight.

Tyson did not have trouble with guys who did not fear him, that only happened later on in his career.

Holmes and Seldon did not fear him, yet the same brutal outcome.

another thing, although Tyson pushes the most in the first 3 rounds, he still keeps up the pressure up untill even round 12.


Marciano is tough, smaller, doesn't hit as hard and has good stamina, if we are going with your theory of "boxers would benefit with the tech of today" then he might have a chance, a Direct comparison is probably a 1st or second round knockout, as marciano is to slow and probably couldn't hurt Tyson.

It's been stated before that Marciano wasn't the hardest hitter of his time, only the most relentless.

Being 186 lbs he weighed less than Tyson's heavy bag, and we all know how he tossed that thing around.
Actually Holmes admitted for the first time in his career he was scared against Tyson and Seldon wern't scared ?? he went down on a punch that didn't even land he was so scared it looked like he was going to pass out.

That wasn't my point. My point was you can't just say Tyson wasn't in his prime because his head wasn't in the fight. He insinuated that you couldn't use that weakness against Tyson I disagree. It points to a lack of mental toughness.

Im not Tyson fan at all but that was nowhere near prime Tyson his timing was way off and one of his best weapons his head movement was not there at all he was a punching bag.

Im not Tyson fan at all but that was nowhere near prime Tyson his timing was way off and one of his best weapons his head movement was not there at all he was a punching bag.


You can read dozens of posts that state that I wholeheartedly disagree.

Tyson wins he has better defense quicker hands and hits harder it would be Cruiserweight vs Heavyweight.

Yeah, sort of like Tyson against Holyfield.

But Holyfields weight was Heavyweight at the time...and Marciano fights nothing like Holyfield..and we are talking tyson at his best

But Holyfields weight was Heavyweight at the time...and Marciano fights nothing like Holyfield..and we are talking tyson at his best

You're right. Holyfield was a great boxer, who could brawl when needed, plus his fearlessness and counter punching is what really gave him the edge on Mike. Aside from the fearless aspect, Marciano was nothing like that at all.

Hey I don't know about you but as I watched that fight unfold that night I was speechless. Seriously, Tyson was my hero back then and I was stunned. Even now when you think back about it it still seems unreal. Especially considering what a pedestal Tyson was on compared to everyone else.
Yeah, I was shocked too. Me, my mom and dad were watching it together. All I can remember was, telling them he wasn't doing anything, he's going to get knocked out. When Tyson knocked Douglas down, I don't think I ever jumped so high. lol To most people, his loss was shocking but not a big deal. To me, it felt like something had been damaged in my life. lol If anyone was a bigger Tyson fan than me, it couldn't have been by much. I watched his fights over and over until I memorized everything they said. Tyson is the biggest letdown in boxing history, no doubt.

Yeah, I was shocked too. Me, my mom and dad were watching it together. All I can remember was, telling them he wasn't doing anything, he's going to get knocked out. When Tyson knocked Douglas down, I don't think I ever jumped so high. lol To most people, his loss was shocking but not a big deal. To me, it felt like something had been damaged in my life. lol If anyone was a bigger Tyson fan than me, it couldn't have been by much. I watched his fights over and over until I memorized everything they said. Tyson is the biggest letdown in boxing history, no doubt.

The sad part is, during his comeback after prison, you could see some of the old Tysom emerging (esp. in the Mathis/Golota fights). Some of the head/upper body movement was back and he wasn't wasting punches. Unfortunately it didn't last.

Actually Holmes admitted for the first time in his career he was scared against Tyson and Seldon wern't scared ?? he went down on a punch that didn't even land he was so scared it looked like he was going to pass out.
Seldon went down from a punch that landed high on the head, which effects balance. He then got clocked flush with a left hook to put him down again. I think it was his chin that was suspect more than anything else. Holmes like everyone else probably was scared but didn't fight that way. I think Berbick is a better example of not fighting scared then Seldon.

The sad part is, during his comeback after prison, you could see some of the old Tysom emerging (esp. in the Mathis/Golota fights). Some of the head/upper body movement was back and he wasn't wasting punches. Unfortunately it didn't last.
Yeah, true. He was teasing us. lol

But Holyfields weight was Heavyweight at the time...and Marciano fights nothing like Holyfield..and we are talking tyson at his best

Yes but common agreements state that Tyson is naturally larger since he always fought at heavy, hit harder than Holyfield, had faster hands than Holyfield; and Holyfield was considered past his best as well. Marciano has similar heart, stamina, and chin compared to Holyfield but hits harder and has underrated defense. So there are quite a few similarities.

Yes but common agreements state that Tyson is naturally larger since he always fought at heavy, hit harder than Holyfield, had faster hands than Holyfield;
Holyfield didn't just eat more taco's to become a heavyweight. He probably put on more muscle mass than any other fighter in history to move up. The "common agreements" pertain to normal fighters that move up. Holyfields way of moving up was far supirior to any other cruiser or LH that ever moved up. At the time, Holyfields regimen was far superior to Tysons.

and Holyfield was considered past his best as well.
But, Holyfield remained active all those years Tyson was in prison. That's a huge advantage.

Marciano has similar heart, stamina, and chin compared to Holyfield but hits harder and has underrated defense. So there are quite a few similarities.
But there was a huge difference in technical skills. Go ask someone that understands boxing about that. lol It's funny how you guys like to pull out examples of Tyson after his downfall. It's your only ways of making points against him which shows either your lack of character, or your lack of knowledge pertaining to Tysons boxing career. Maybe it's just a lack of overall boxing knowledge, but it's a lack of something to think that way. No doubt.

But there was a huge difference in technical skills. Go ask someone that understands boxing about that. lol It's funny how you guys like to pull out examples of Tyson after his downfall. It's your only ways of making points against him which shows either your lack of character, or your lack of knowledge pertaining to Tysons boxing career. Maybe it's just a lack of overall boxing knowledge, but it's a lack of something to think that way. No doubt.

To be fair its not like Tyson just lost his technique. He chose to use it because he thought he was far more superior than everyeone else. Listen to alot his interviews. I agree it was a different Tyson because Rooney was gone, however Tyson had been training the same way since he was what? 13? He knew what to do, he just didn't.

But comparing Holyfield to Marciano is akin to comparing a Mack truck to a Ferrari. True they are both wheeled vehicles but are set up for two totally different things.

Yes but common agreements state that Tyson is naturally larger since he always fought at heavy, hit harder than Holyfield, had faster hands than Holyfield; and Holyfield was considered past his best as well. Marciano has similar heart, stamina, and chin compared to Holyfield but hits harder and has underrated defense. So there are quite a few similarities.

It doesnt work that way, he was a totally different fighter, Marciano has never been hit by some1 like Tyson, tyson would much too fast for him too strong for him. Its not like Marciano is gonna try and counter punch tyson or tie him up! he will come at tyson and get beat to the punch with 5 punches.

To be fair its not like Tyson just lost his technique. He chose to use it because he thought he was far more superior than everyeone else. Listen to alot his interviews. I agree it was a different Tyson because Rooney was gone, however Tyson had been training the same way since he was what? 13? He knew what to do, he just didn't.
I'm not sure which part of my comments your arguing because you didn't add my quotes on Tyson, just the one about Holyfield Marciano.

But comparing Holyfield to Marciano is akin to comparing a Mack truck to a Ferrari. True they are both wheeled vehicles but are set up for two totally different things.
I agree, I was making the same point but degrading the completely overrated Marciano in the proses. LOL

I'm not sure which part of my comments your arguing because you didn't add my quotes on Tyson, just the one about Holyfield Marciano.

This one -

But there was a huge difference in technical skills. Go ask someone that understands boxing about that. lol It's funny how you guys like to pull out examples of Tyson after his downfall. It's your only ways of making points against him which shows either your lack of character, or your lack of knowledge pertaining to Tysons boxing career. Maybe it's just a lack of overall boxing knowledge, but it's a lack of something to think that way. No doubt.

That can both ways ;) It's awful funny how there is 100 different excuses for Tyson's losses. My point was (also referencing our earlier *ahem* discussion on the matter ) just because Tyson didn't perform up to snuff doesn't signify he couldn't he chose not to. Why? He perceived Buster as an easy piece of work.

Tysom had the ability, as well as the knowledge, to box like he always had. True Rooney wasn't there to hold his hand, but that shouldn't have stopped him from doing things like he knew how to.

It's awful funny how there is 100 different excuses for Tyson's losses.
Yeah, I see what you mean. It's because there were so many different things involved, and it keeps coming up because all the Tyson haters choose to use fights after his downfall as examples of why he would have lost to certain fighters. I think if your going to compare how a fight would have been between two fighters, you must match them in your mind when they were fighting at their best. No one takes the Ali Mathis fight as an example of his weaknesses. If we used that, we could say Tyson would have overwhelmed him. But we all know that's just not so. That's why I look so down on the Douglas and Holyfield examples. And you know, it's not just those two fights he looked bad in. He looked bad in a lot of fights that he won, and never looked as sharp, or as good defensively than he had before. The only thing he retained was his power and maybe speed.

just because Tyson didn't perform up to snuff doesn't signify he couldn't he chose not to. Why? He perceived Buster as an easy piece of work.
That and a whole hand full of other things. Like I said before, he didn't have the character to be a great champion on his own. When he started calling the shot's, it all fell to ****. I also think he lost a lot of desire, after all, he fulfilled Cus' dream by becoming the youngest heavyweight champion in history. It was soley up to him if he wanted to work toward becoming the greatest ever.

Tyson had the ability, as well as the knowledge, to box like he always had. True Rooney wasn't there to hold his hand, but that shouldn't have stopped him from doing things like he knew how to.
True, and my answer to this is written above. A lot of the reason why I use Rooney as an example is because it's easier. There's just so much crap that happened, and the argument keeps coming up over and over, that it's just ridiculous to go into detail all the time.

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's because there were so many different things involved, and it keeps coming up because all the Tyson haters choose to use fights after his downfall as examples of why he would have lost to certain fighters. I think if your going to compare how a fight would have been between two fighters, you must match them in your mind when they were fighting at their best. No one takes the Ali Mathis fight as an example of his weaknesses. If we used that, we could say Tyson would have overwhelmed him. But we all know that's just not so. That's why I look so down on the Douglas and Holyfield examples. And you know, it's not just those two fights he looked bad in. He looked bad in a lot of fights that he won, and never looked as sharp, or as good defensively than he had before. The only thing he retained was his power and maybe speed.

You can use the Ali/Mathis fight as an example in saying it was a bad night during Ali's comeback..his second prime if you will. He may have looked bad, but he still had plenty of gas in the tank.

Tyson may have looked bad, and lost, but it doesn't mean he wasn't capable of more. I could see it if we were arguing the Williams/McBride debacles in which he wanted to do more but it just wasn't there but we're not. We're talking about a 24 year old fighter who had a major ego trip, which in turn led him to not train like he should.

Furthermore anyone that knows a thing about Tyson knows he is an astute student of the game and its history as well as having a vast amount of boxing knowledge. You know as well as I do he knew exactly what had to be done but chose not to do so because he thought he would go threw Douglas like a hot knife thru butter.

I know I know, he was distracted. His mind was on other things but in turn he is a professional fighter. Lots of fighters go thru similar distractions and personal tragedies and are able to maintain a level of order in keeping their lives outside the ring seperate from their profession inside it.

Because of Tyson's carelessness within his career it cost him in the eyes of the fans, the historians, the experts and the boxing public. He lost in a huge upset at a time when he should have been at the peak of his powers with no one to blame but Mike himself.


That and a whole hand full of other things. Like I said before, he didn't have the character to be a great champion on his own. When he started calling the shot's, it all fell to ****. I also think he lost a lot of desire, after all, he fulfilled Cus' dream by becoming the youngest heavyweight champion in history. It was soley up to him if he wanted to work toward becoming the greatest ever.

But because of that you can't just say Douglas victory doesn't mean as much because Tyson wasn't the way he should be. He was aptly capable of doing the same things he had always done but he chose the easy (or so he thought) road and it all fell apart. Bottomline is Mike dropped the ball because his eyes were on the $$$$ not his reputation or how his legacy would be affected.


True, and my answer to this is written above. A lot of the reason why I use Rooney as an example is because it's easier. There's just so much crap that happened, and the argument keeps coming up over and over, that it's just ridiculous to go into detail all the time.[/QUOTE]


Well its a neverending process. We have Tyson fans that claim anything after Spinks is not 'Tyson' and should be astericked on his record as an anomoly. None of it should could against him alot of them say which is crap.

Tyson wasn't a 36 year old champ trying to grasp at straws. He was a prime young heavyweight champion who got caught up in his own hoopla and paid the price with his career.

Tysom had the ability, as well as the knowledge, to box like he always had. True Rooney wasn't there to hold his hand, but that shouldn't have stopped him from doing things like he knew how to.

This is true and upsetting, he of course had the ability, but he had no respect for the trainers. Rooney was stated saying tyson knew more than the trainers themselves. Tyson after the bruno fight even said he didnt listen and he performs better wen he does. Its Arrogance, its him thinking he is unbeatable, especially with the yes men that started to surround him. It happens to everyone who gets too mch too young, Paul Gascoigne, Micheal Jackson, Maradona the list goes on. Tyson is boxings example of this. Too much too young, wrong people get to you. And you start thinking you can do anything, they forget all the hard work they put into it to become the best.

This is true and upsetting, he of course had the ability, but he had no respect for the trainers. Rooney was stated saying tyson knew more than the trainers themselves. Tyson after the bruno fight even said he didnt listen and he performs better wen he does. Its Arrogance, its him thinking he is unbeatable, especially with the yes men that started to surround him. It happens to everyone who gets too mch too young, Paul Gascoigne, Micheal Jackson, Maradona the list goes on. Tyson is boxings example of this. Too much too young, wrong people get to you. And you start thinking you can do anything, they forget all the hard work they put into it to become the best.

It's very upsetting, I agree. Tyson was on a path that few boxers get to traverse and it all came crashing down. Don't know what you got til it's gone I guess.

However, my original point( and I did a fairly terrible job of making it I might add) was that when it came to boxing Tyson was not an idiot. That is one thing he knew rightside up and upside down. True, in other parts of life he was lacking but when it came to boxing Tyson had a great mind.

Mike Tyson is the prime example of why Don King should be tried, convicted and thrown under then nearest jail.

Random thought - why does Tyson always get compared, and placed against, Marciano? it seems to be the better comparison and and match-up would be Dempsey.

Tysons boxing knowladge was amazing, ive seen plenty of interviews were he rants on about old time boxers what they were like and such. But arrogance can over take this, and if he watched some of his fights now he would think "what the **** was i doing!!". I agree with Don King aswell, tyson sued him once but could have done alot more damage. He has destroyed many boxers lives.

Random thought - why does Tyson always get compared, and placed against, Marciano? it seems to be the better comparison and and match-up would be Dempsey.

Marciano is probably more widley known and recognised than Dempsey. My Opinion is he would beat both of them. Marciano is a very common choice to pit up against other greats!!

You can use the Ali/Mathis fight as an example in saying it was a bad night during Ali's comeback..his second prime if you will. He may have looked bad, but he still had plenty of gas in the tank.
I disagree, the Ali we seen in the Mathis fight was far from the Ali we seen in the 3rd Ali Frazier fight. Whether it was no gas or lack of training, he definitely wasn't throwing punches with anything behind them later in the fight as he was in the later rounds against Frazier. I know you like to look at entire eras (or comebacks in this case) and generalize them, but that doesn't work in boxing like it does in team sports. I think you've been watching too much Sports Center. LOL

Tyson may have looked bad, and lost, but it doesn't mean he wasn't capable of more.
I could see it if we were arguing the Williams/McBride debacles in which he wanted to do more but it just wasn't there but we're not. We're talking about a 24 year old fighter who had a major ego trip, which in turn led him to not train like he should.
And this is exactly why I'm saying this fight can't be used to gage Tysons skills against another fighter. He was better than this.

Furthermore anyone that knows a thing about Tyson knows he is an astute student of the game and its history as well as having a vast amount of boxing knowledge. You know as well as I do he knew exactly what had to be done but chose not to do so because he thought he would go threw Douglas like a hot knife thru butter.
No argument there.

I know I know, he was distracted. His mind was on other things but in turn he is a professional fighter. Lots of fighters go thru similar distractions and personal tragedies and are able to maintain a level of order in keeping their lives outside the ring seperate from their profession inside it.
I agree here too.

Because of Tyson's carelessness within his career it cost him in the eyes of the fans, the historians, the experts and the boxing public. He lost in a huge upset at a time when he should have been at the peak of his powers with no one to blame but Mike himself.
True.

But because of that you can't just say Douglas victory doesn't mean as much because Tyson wasn't the way he should be. He was aptly capable of doing the same things he had always done but he chose the easy (or so he thought) road and it all fell apart. Bottomline is Mike dropped the ball because his eyes were on the $$$$ not his reputation or how his legacy would be affected.
Of coarse I can. LOL Just like I can say the only reason why Holyfield knocked Douglas out so early was because that was a different Douglas than the one against Tyson. The Douglas that fought Tyson was far better than the one that fought Holyfield. Everyone knows that for Pete sakes! LOL

Well its a neverending process. We have Tyson fans that claim anything after Spinks is not 'Tyson' and should be astericked on his record as an anomoly. None of it should could against him alot of them say which is crap.
I feel if your going to compare fighters careers, then you have to count Tysons entire career. Guys like Ali, Holmes, and Louis, had it all together to keep it going in the long run. Tyson didn't. But, when matching how two fighters would have done against each other, longevity or stats has nothing to do with it.

Tyson wasn't a 36 year old champ trying to grasp at straws. He was a prime young heavyweight champion who got caught up in his own hoopla and paid the price with his career.
You won't get an argument there, but I'm sure it won't be long until you do. LOL

I disagree, the Ali we seen in the Mathis fight was far from the Ali we seen in the 3rd Ali Frazier fight. Whether it was no gas or lack of training, he definitely wasn't throwing punches with anything behind them later in the fight as he was in the later rounds against Frazier. I know you like to look at entire eras (or comebacks in this case) and generalize them, but that doesn't work in boxing like it does in team sports. I think you've been watching too much Sports Center. LOL

A fighter's prime fighting time is a certain period. A fighter can't come in and out of his prime based on the way he trained or his mindset. Take the good with the bad. Ali looked like crap in a few fights during the period of time when he was best. You can't just say "well his mind wasn't right so we can't judge him by that performance".

You base your judgement on a fighter on a period of time when he was physically able to do something. Take Douglas for example - if we go by your mode of think his absolute peak was one fight and any comparison done should be done based around the Tyson fight. Nevermind the years he wasted being lazy etc.

Tyson looked like crap in a few fights, and lost one, all in the prime period of his life. That is why it is so harshly leveled against him.


And this is exactly why I'm saying this fight can't be used to gage Tysons skills against another fighter. He was better than this.

Exactly, he was better but he let his ego get in the way and he got demolished.

I feel if your going to compare fighters careers, then you have to count Tysons entire career. Guys like Ali, Holmes, and Louis, had it all together to keep it going in the long run. Tyson didn't. But, when matching how two fighters would have done against each other, longevity or stats has nothing to do with it.

You take entire careers up to a point. The point where they are physically devoid of all their key attributes. Ali would be the 3rd Frazier. Holmes the 2nd Spinks fight. Louis, at his first retirement. Tyson the first Holyfield fight.

Anything after this shouldn't be held against them in an analytical sense.

Random thought - why does Tyson always get compared, and placed against, Marciano? it seems to be the better comparison and and match-up would be Dempsey.

Probably with Marciano retiring undefeated, people like to talk about who could have taken away that 0. But yeah, Jeffries, Dempsey, Liston, Foreman, Lewis, Louis and Ali are all a lot better matchups against Tyson.

A fighter's prime fighting time is a certain period. A fighter can't come in and out of his prime based on the way he trained or his mindset. Take the good with the bad. Ali looked like crap in a few fights during the period of time when he was best. You can't just say "well his mind wasn't right so we can't judge him by that performance".
It's O.K. to look at it like this if your comparing careers not how fighters would have fought against each other.

You base your judgement on a fighter on a period of time when he was physically able to do something.
Yes, but only when comparing the two against each other in a match. For example, you can't take the Tyson that fought Douglas along with the Tyson that fought Spinks as a whole and compare him to Marciano. The weaknesses that Tyson displayed against Douglas were not there against Spinks or anyone else before him. It's either one way he fought or the other. But your trying to find as many weaknesses in Tyson to further your cause that Marciano might have beat him. You can't just nit pick here and there. It's like us using an inexperienced Marciano at age 20 and comparing him to Tyson at 20. Marciano wasn't the same fighter at that age as he was later. It's not fare because Marciano wasnt at his best. Whether it's mentally or physically, you need the two to be successful in boxing. Put a pole out and ask if being in a fight mentally is just as important as being there physically, and you'll get your answer.

Take Douglas for example - if we go by your mode of think his absolute peak was one fight and any comparison done should be done based around the Tyson fight. Nevermind the years he wasted being lazy etc.
The difference is, Tyson maintained his peak for a few fights at least. Douglas IMO rose to the occasion because of the death of his mother. So, to me it was special circumstances that allowed Douglas to fight at that level. That act can happen only once, so it throws the whole so called "prime" Douglas out when matching him against anyone else. That example doesn't work for that reason IMO. So, your right about the Douglas example but not about the mode of thinking part. LOL

Tyson looked like crap in a few fights, and lost one, all in the prime period of his life. That is why it is so harshly leveled against him.
I agree, that's one reason why I say he was such a let down.

Exactly, he was better but he let his ego get in the way and he got demolished.
Yep, and that's another sign of his character flaw that ultimetly ended his path to greatness.

You take entire careers up to a point. The point where they are physically devoid of all their key attributes. Anything after this shouldn't be held against them in an analytical sense.
Only when matching them at their best in a hypothetical way. That's how everyone does it, you stand alone. Everyone knows when Marciano beat Louis, it was because Louis wasn't the same fighter he was. You believe that was Louis fighting in that ring so that was Louis, and Marciano was greater than Louis because he beat him. If you argue against that, then your arguing against all the points you've made so far. How do ya like that. LOL

Yeah, sort of like Tyson against Holyfield.

What has Holyfield got to do with this though ?? that wasn't prime Tyson all i know is this.

Marciano would be Cruiserweight by today's standards and was knocked down by natural Lightheavyweight Archie Moore and Marciano has no defence.

Tyson is about 25 pounds heavier atleast has much better defence probably hits harder because Marciano is a Cruiserweight and has much better technique than Marciano and is much quicker he basically does everyone better than Marciano except Marciano has bigger heart but i don't care how big his heart is i would be surprised if he lasted 6 rounds because he has no defence and has habit of getting knocked down early.

Yes but common agreements state that Tyson is naturally larger since he always fought at heavy, hit harder than Holyfield, had faster hands than Holyfield; and Holyfield was considered past his best as well. Marciano has similar heart, stamina, and chin compared to Holyfield but hits harder and has underrated defense. So there are quite a few similarities.

There nothing alike in boxing style Holyfield held on to Tyson constantly to beat Tyson Marciano would not do the same Holyfield has better footwork than Marciano and has much quicker hands you cannot even compare Holyfield to Marciano plus Tyson wasn't in his prime.

It's like us using an inexperienced Marciano at age 20 and comparing him to Tyson at 20. Marciano wasn't the same fighter at that age as he was later. It's not fare because Marciano wasnt at his best.

That would be really nasty since Marciano had never touched a glove at 20 and didn't turn pro until 23 after a miniscule amatuer career. I read where in one of his amatuer bouts he boxed himself out, couldn't lift his gloves, and ended up kicking the other guy in the balls and lost on disqualification. It was one reason he trained so hard later in his career.

Random thought - why does Tyson always get compared, and placed against, Marciano? it seems to be the better comparison and and match-up would be Dempsey.

Time's a funny thing.

It's unfortunate though that more people don't remember Jack Dempsey. Look at it this way though, Tyson's the closest anyone will probably ever come to being the second coming of Dempsey. And there still remains a reverence for the young Mike Tyson regardless of everything that happened to him. So I figure, that's a way to appreciate the man who crafted and perfected the style/stance/movements Mike used to such great effect.

Personally I think Dempsey beats Tyson, but either way that would be one for the ages.

Time's a funny thing.

It's unfortunate though that more people don't remember Jack Dempsey. Look at it this way though, Tyson's the closest anyone will probably ever come to being the second coming of Dempsey. And there still remains a reverence for the young Mike Tyson regardless of everything that happened to him. So I figure, that's a way to appreciate the man who crafted and perfected the style/stance/movements Mike used to such great effect.

Personally I think Dempsey beats Tyson, but either way that would be one for the ages.

Not that big of a weight difference between Tyson and Dempsey, with Dempsey weighing as much as 197 in his prime and Tyson being at his best at 215. Saying this 18 pound difference gives Dempsey no chance is the same as saying Tyson has no chance against a much heavier, stronger David Tua.

Yes, but only when comparing the two against each other in a match. For example, you can't take the Tyson that fought Douglas along with the Tyson that fought Spinks as a whole and compare him to Marciano. The weaknesses that Tyson displayed against Douglas were not there against Spinks or anyone else before him. It's either one way he fought or the other. But your trying to find as many weaknesses in Tyson to further your cause that Marciano might have beat him. You can't just nit pick here and there. It's like us using an inexperienced Marciano at age 20 and comparing him to Tyson at 20. Marciano wasn't the same fighter at that age as he was later. It's not fare because Marciano wasnt at his best. Whether it's mentally or physically, you need the two to be successful in boxing. Put a pole out and ask if being in a fight mentally is just as important as being there physically, and you'll get your answer.

When you do a hypothetical match-up against Tyson you have to look at what happened in the Douglas fight.There used to whispers about his will to win and his mental toughness at a certain point within a fight. This was before everything went down that seperated him from Rooney and everyone else.

Comes to find out, alot of those rumors were true. I remember reading about Teddy Atlas saying ata certain Olympic trial Mike didn't eliminate the guy in the first couple of rounds and became so frustrated and aggitated he almost quit. Rooney even confirmed this type of behavior while Mike was a pro. So yes, I think the Douglas fight is a culmination of the weakness Mike displayed throughout his career with the added bonus of his ballooning ego.



Only when matching them at their best in a hypothetical way. That's how everyone does it, you stand alone. Everyone knows when Marciano beat Louis, it was because Louis wasn't the same fighter he was. You believe that was Louis fighting in that ring so that was Louis, and Marciano was greater than Louis because he beat him. If you argue against that, then your arguing against all the points you've made so far. How do ya like that. LOL

The Marciano/Louis analogy is falsely used here because I've never alleged that Marciano beating an old Louis was a major accomplishment. True an old Louis was technically superior to all but about 5 fighters Marciano had ever faced but otherwise he was done.

Like it or not, the vast majority of unbiased boxing fans will tell you what I've been saying - from Mike's pro debut until his loss to Evander is considered the prime part of his career. Thats two fights he should have won and he didn't. Hence the reason he doesn't make most top 10 lists.

Styles were not the point. Tyson was the favorite against Holyfield, as Tyson usually is on forums as well, but Holyfield's intangible qualities and skill beat Tyson not only once, but twice. How can the intangibles and similar traits not be compared? Its compared many times.
This thread is ridiculous though, this same topic has come up a countless number of times.

Not that big of a weight difference between Tyson and Dempsey, with Dempsey weighing as much as 197 in his prime and Tyson being at his best at 215. Saying this 18 pound difference gives Dempsey no chance is the same as saying Tyson has no chance against a much heavier, stronger David Tua.

Tyson was 215 at the age of 16, he was 217-220 most of his career, thats more than a 20 lbs weight difference, AND dempsey could be sloppy at times.

I still put Dempsey on my ATG list because he was extremely innovative for his time and helped with the boxing movement.

But Tyson is a better/bigger version of dempsey, he's faster, hits harder etc

Athletes don't get worse with time!

Time's a funny thing.

It's unfortunate though that more people don't remember Jack Dempsey. Look at it this way though, Tyson's the closest anyone will probably ever come to being the second coming of Dempsey. And there still remains a reverence for the young Mike Tyson regardless of everything that happened to him. So I figure, that's a way to appreciate the man who crafted and perfected the style/stance/movements Mike used to such great effect.

Personally I think Dempsey beats Tyson, but either way that would be one for the ages.

Well Dempsey has always been the guy I compare to Tyson and wonder what a fight between the two could have been like. I think Dempsey had the savagery and killer instinct of Tyson but multiplied by about 2 or 3.

Until I got to this forum I never spent alot of time comparing Tyson and Marciano. But you hit the nail on the head, Dempsey/Tyson would been one savage fight that would have been a must see event.

Styles were not the point. Tyson was the favorite against Holyfield, as Tyson usually is on forums as well, but Holyfield's intangible qualities and skill beat Tyson not only once, but twice. How can the intangibles and similar traits not be compared? Its compared many times.
This thread is ridiculous though, this same topic has come up a countless number of times.


That was a 30 year old, 3 year layoff Tyson. Not "Iron" Mike of the 80's.

That was a 30 year old, 3 year layoff Tyson. Not "Iron" Mike of the 80's.

Oh really????

Funny how no one said that BEFORE the fight. Before it was Evander that was washed up and Tyson was going to steamroll him. However once Tyson gets handily beaten it becomes - 'Oh Tyson was washed up'

And whats this 3 year lay off? Tyson had 4 times in something like an 18 month span leading up to the Holyfield fight. You guys can't have it both ways.

Athletes don't get worse with time!

True, today's basketball players are leaps and bounds better and more athletic than Michael Jordan was.

@ gavins,

Michael Jordan quit in 2003, He's not even an "Old" athlete, training techniques have been relatively the same since 1980's and up (aside from some enhancements)

That's why when Guys like Holmes and Tyson and even Holyfield hit the ring they were above and beyond what boxer's of the previous time were.

But Dempsey's time? Hell everyone smoked a pack of cigarette's a day and it was considered healthy!

@ gavins,

Michael Jordan quit in 2003, He's not even an "Old" athlete, training techniques have been relatively the same since 1980's and up (aside from some enhancements)

But Dempsey's time? Hell everyone smoked a pack of cigarette's a day and it was considered healthy!

On the contrary, in Dempsey's book he states, "I neither smoked nor drank before I became champion. I would not preach to others that they likewise should refrain from tobacco and alcohol. However, I believe that my avoidance of smoking and drinking gave me that extra bit of stamina which enabled me to win several hard fights by the narrowest of margins."

When you do a hypothetical match-up against Tyson you have to look at what happened in the Douglas fight.
Just like Ali punching like a six year old late in the fight against Mathis? He did in that fight but he didn't when he was fighting good. If you would have been around back then you probably would have picked Ali to lose against Foreman and Frazier. The smart thing to say is, Tyson could have come in against Marciano like he did against Douglas and lose the fight. Not, he would have lost because when someone stands up to the bully, the bully backs down. LOL That mentality is very entertaining to me. LOL

There used to whispers about his will to win and his mental toughness at a certain point within a fight. This was before everything went down that seperated him from Rooney and everyone else.
Where the heck did you here this?LOL Not that it surprises me, every fighter has his critics. What you have to look at is if it was ever evidenced in the ring up until the Spinks fight.

Comes to find out, alot of those rumors were true. I remember reading about Teddy Atlas saying ata certain Olympic trial Mike didn't eliminate the guy in the first couple of rounds and became so frustrated and aggitated he almost quit. Rooney even confirmed this type of behavior while Mike was a pro. So yes, I think the Douglas fight is a culmination of the weakness Mike displayed throughout his career with the added bonus of his ballooning ego.
What Atlas said could have been true but it doesn't mean a thing. Every fighter gets those kinds of thoughts whether someone mentions it or not. It's a part of being human. Can you show me where Rooney ever said that? Not that I think your lying but maybe your sours is questionable. It doesn't seem like Rooney was dumb enough to leak that type of negative information about his fighter, and we never seen it evidenced in the ring until the second Holyfield fight. There were a lot of fights that didn't go Tysons way earlier in his career and he never acted like that big baby we seen against Holyfield. But just curious, what exact weaknesses are you talking about? Do you really know what your talking about when you say that? Even in the first Holyfield fight, Tyson was getting his ass whooped. Remember how hurt he was at the end of round ten? He still came out to fight round 11 with absolutely no legs at all. Just that example deflates any of the ridiculous points you made in the quote above. Tyson should have given up right there and he didn't. And that wasn't even when he was in his prime. If your going to make a point, be sure you know what your talking about. LOL Also, how does that have anything to do with the so called weaknesses he displayed against Douglas? Tyson took his beating like a man and never gave up. He could have also quit in between rounds in that fight after he was hurt in the tenth, but he fought to the end. But no, the second Holyfield fight was the true Mike Tyson because that's where we can make our points at. LOL

The Marciano/Louis analogy is falsely used here because I've never alleged that Marciano beating an old Louis was a major accomplishment. True an old Louis was technically superior to all but about 5 fighters Marciano had ever faced but otherwise he was done.
It's not falsely used because you use the Douglas fight to gage Tysons weaknesses when he clearly wasn't fighting at his peak. To you there's no such thing as a fighter not performing up to his level, he's always the same as long as he is who he is. Your alone when looking only at the physicality's of the sport. Men are humans not machines. BTW I know that's not what you said but if your going to use that mind of thought to describe Tyson, then you have to use it with everyone else or your a hypocrite. LOL

Like it or not, the vast majority of unbiased boxing fans will tell you what I've been saying - from Mike's pro debut until his loss to Evander is considered the prime part of his career. Thats two fights he should have won and he didn't. Hence the reason he doesn't make most top 10 lists.
You are the first and I've never heard anyone say Mike was in his prime after prison. Hawkins, that's a complete joke! LOL You know I got you. You've danced around so many points that I've made that it's to the point that you look like you can't admit when your wrong. Plain and simple, Mike Tyson was too big and too strong and too fast for Rocky Marciano.

I can go on quoting you forever. Your whole argument is that Tysons prime extended into the Douglas fight and beyond. The reason, because you are so desperately trying to justify a Marciano beating a Tyson. So just to cut all the crap I'll say this, Tyson would have beat Marciano even out of what I call his prime (up until the Spinks fight). In Tysons physical prime, he would have always beaten Marciano. Tyson was always too big and too strong for Marciano no matter how great he was. Marciano was just a smaller version of Foreman. A pure puncher with limited boxing skills. Don't get me wrong, he was good but he didn't stand up there with the top 5 heavyweights in history. Only career wise.

Oh really????

Funny how no one said that BEFORE the fight. Before it was Evander that was washed up and Tyson was going to steamroll him. However once Tyson gets handily beaten it becomes - 'Oh Tyson was washed up'
First off this is just rediculouse to mention when none of us said it our selves.

And whats this 3 year lay off? Tyson had 4 times in something like an 18 month span leading up to the Holyfield fight. You guys can't have it both ways.
And this is even more ridiculous (LOL) because Holyfield remained active all those years Tyson was in prison. Those 4 fights in that 18 month span you use as your great example (LOL) only amounted to less than 8 rounds. That's not even a whole fight. It was a big mistake period to throw Tyson into a title fight with 4 rounds under his belt. But no, he was in his prime. LOL

That would be really nasty since Marciano had never touched a glove at 20 and didn't turn pro until 23 after a miniscule amatuer career. I read where in one of his amatuer bouts he boxed himself out, couldn't lift his gloves, and ended up kicking the other guy in the balls and lost on disqualification. It was one reason he trained so hard later in his career.
Wow, that says a lot about Marcianos experience.

Just like Ali punching like a six year old late in the fight against Mathis? He did in that fight but he didn't when he was fighting good. If you would have been around back then you probably would have picked Ali to lose against Foreman and Frazier. The smart thing to say is, Tyson could have come in against Marciano like he did against Douglas and lose the fight. Not, he would have lost because when someone stands up to the bully, the bully backs down. LOL That mentality is very entertaining to me.

No, you look at what happened in the Douglas fight because it points to mental weakness, a lack of will in the face of adversity and an overinflated ego. It may not have been Tyson at his best but it showcased many of the faults that had been leveled against him for years. He just had yet to face anyone who brought them to the forefront.


Where the heck did you here this?LOL Not that it surprises me, every fighter has his critics. What you have to look at is if it was ever evidenced in the ring up until the Spinks fight.

Where did I get that there were rumors about his will to win and mental toughness? They were speculated for years going back to his amateur days. At the time I read about them I dismissed them but they were ultimately proven correct. Once Tyson cant impose his will on an opponent he becomes a different fighter, deviates from the overall game plan and his will dwindles as the fight goes on. Sure he may have his moments due to the head-hunting nature but ultimately he's lost in the later in the rounds.


What Atlas said could have been true but it doesn't mean a thing. Every fighter gets those kinds of thoughts whether someone mentions it or not. It's a part of being human. Can you show me where Rooney ever said that? Not that I think your lying but maybe your sours is questionable. It doesn't seem like Rooney was dumb enough to leak that type of negative information about his fighter, and we never seen it evidenced in the ring until the second Holyfield fight. There were a lot of fights that didn't go Tysons way earlier in his career and he never acted like that big baby we seen against Holyfield. But just curious, what exact weaknesses are you talking about? Do you really know what your talking about when you say that? Even in the first Holyfield fight, Tyson was getting his ass whooped. Remember how hurt he was at the end of round ten? He still came out to fight round 11 with absolutely no legs at all. Just that example deflates any of the ridiculous points your making in this thread. Tyson should have given up right there and he didn't. And that wasn't even when he was in his prime.

Well I always take what Atlas says against Tyson with a grain of salt because of their history. But anyway...

What weakness am I talking about? Which weaknesses have I detailed in this lengthy thread? Lack of will and mental toughness,of course they could be seen as the same thing. Kevin Rooney said, and I will have to find the source because it was an interview with Rooney himself, that when he was training Tyson he always trained him for 15 rounds to make sure he had enough stamina. However, Rooney also stated, that Tyson would get very aggitated when he couldn't knock his man out in the first few rounds and he would have fight him tooth and nail not to deviate from his strategy because he seemingly lost the inclination to fight. That alone points to a lack of mental toughness and without Rooney it became evident. Sure he came back into the ring in the Holyfield fight, just like he did in the Douglas fight, because he is a warrior.

It's not falsely used because you use the Douglas fight to gage Tysons weaknesses when he clearly wasn't fighting at his peak. To you there's no such thing as a fighter not performing up to his level, he's always the same as long as he's the right age. Your alone when not taking the mental makeup of a fighter into consideration.

Please explain to me how Marciano/Louis is anything close to Douglas/Tyson? Louis was an old washed up fighter. Using that as an example is truly reaching.

You are the first and I've never heard anyone say Mike was in his prime after prison. Hawkins, that's a complete joke! LOL You know I got you. You've danced around so many points that I've made that it's to the point that you look like you can't admit when your wrong. Plain and simple, Mike Tyson was too big and too strong and too fast for Rocky Marciano.

I can go on quoting you forever. Your whole argument is that Tysons prime extended into the Douglas fight and beyond. The reason, because you are so desperately trying to justify a Marciano beating a Tyson. So just to cut all the crap I'll say this, Tyson would have beat Marciano even out of what I call his prime (up until the Spinks fight). In Tysons physical prime, he would have always beaten Marciano. Tyson was always too big and too strong for Marciano no matter how great he was. Marciano was just a smaller version of Foreman. A pure puncher with limited boxing skills. Don't get me wrong, he was good but he didn't stand up there with the top 5 heavyweights in history. Only career wise.

Oh so Mike was completely and utterly washed up prior to the Holyfield fight that no one gave him a chance in hell? No one, the experts nor anyone else, declared that after he annihilated Holyfield that he would rightfully reclaim his throne as king? Tyson may not have been 25 again, but he still had plenty of gas left in the tank and could have come close to replicating what he had done before, or so everyone claimed. To say anyone gave Holyfield a chance is out and out untrue.

And as for the Marciano statements, if you'll go back and read what I said about Marciano/Tyson you'll see my re-evaluation of the fight. Tyson has the edge on Marciano in just about everything but toughness, heart and conditioning to go all out for the full fight. I admit I left out some key analysis upon my first assesment but hey I'm not perfect. But to say I danced around your points is baseless, I have acknowledged each and every 'point' you have declared.

However this 'argument' is not to justify Marciano beating Tyson (even though it is a Marciano/Tyson thread) but its that you can't just dismiss the Douglas fight as 'not Tyson in his prime'. Nor can a fight come in and out of his prime just because of his mental state. Thats the whole point of this.

First off this is just rediculouse to mention when none of us said it our selves.

And this is even more ridiculous (LOL) because Holyfield remained active all those years Tyson was in prison. Those 4 fights in that 18 month span you use as your great example (LOL) only amounted to less than 8 rounds. That's not even a whole fight. It was a big mistake period to throw Tyson into a title fight with 4 rounds under his belt. But no, he was in his prime. LOL

I didn't mean you as in you personally. I meant everyone leading up to the Holyfield fight.

True, but Tyson had ben training..in fights and had even won a belt prior to meeting Holyfield. So you can't make it like he just came straight out of prison and fought Evander. So what it amounted to rounds? Just points to the fact that Tyson fought very subpar opposition.

He was more in his prime that Holyfield was ;)

I can go on quoting you forever. Your whole argument is that Tysons prime extended into the Douglas fight and beyond. The reason, because you are so desperately trying to justify a Marciano beating a Tyson. So just to cut all the crap I'll say this, Tyson would have beat Marciano even out of what I call his prime (up until the Spinks fight). In Tysons physical prime, he would have always beaten Marciano. Tyson was always too big and too strong for Marciano no matter how great he was. Marciano was just a smaller version of Foreman. A pure puncher with limited boxing skills. Don't get me wrong, he was good but he didn't stand up there with the top 5 heavyweights in history. Only career wise.

This is a good statement, the only thing Marciano has on his profile is his "career numbers" you can not honestly watch a Marciano fight and say he would have beaten a prime Tyson. Mike was so much more powerful than Marciano, Marciano was just a tough guy brawler who pounded on guys (his size) round after round until they dropped..hardly what I call "one of the hardest punchers". It's an early round knock out no matter which way you spin it, what advantage would Marciano have? Boxing heart won't matter when you get rocked by a 220 lb knockout artist. Marciano is slower on the outside and inside, he can't hit as hard, he's smaller and although his stamina was great Tyson could go 12 rounds to on any given day, and a Tired Tyson was still quicker than a fresh rocky.

my 2 cents.

Oh really????

Funny how no one said that BEFORE the fight. Before it was Evander that was washed up and Tyson was going to steamroll him. However once Tyson gets handily beaten it becomes - 'Oh Tyson was washed up'

And whats this 3 year lay off? Tyson had 4 times in something like an 18 month span leading up to the Holyfield fight. You guys can't have it both ways.



So you think a 30 or 31 year old Tyson with 8 rounds under his belt in four years was in his prime??????????????

So you think a 30 or 31 year old Tyson with 8 rounds under his belt in four years was in his prime??????????????

I'm not rehashing this a dozen times. If you want know then go back and read the things I have posted regarding this.

No, you look at what happened in the Douglas fight because it points to mental weakness, a lack of will in the face of adversity and an overinflated ego.
I disagree, there wouldn't have been adversity had Tyson come in right.

It may not have been Tyson at his best but it showcased many of the faults that had been leveled against him for years. He just had yet to face anyone who brought them to the forefront.
Douglas didn't bring any type of weakness out, Tyson did. And what faults are you talking about?

Where did I get that there were rumors about his will to win and mental toughness? They were speculated for years going back to his amateur days. At the time I read about them I dismissed them but they were ultimately proven correct. Once Tyson cant impose his will on an opponent he becomes a different fighter, deviates from the overall game plan and his will dwindles as the fight goes on. Sure he may have his moments due to the head-hunting nature but ultimately he's lost in the later in the rounds.
O.K. you read about it, that answers my question. Now, your looking real ignorant (LOL) to the fact that there was a time that Tyson had it together mentally. The fights you keep referring to were outside that time. In your haste to be correct, your looking desperate by analyzing a Tyson past his prime.

What weakness am I talking about? Which weaknesses have I detailed in this lengthy thread? Lack of will and mental toughness
That's the problem, your using that for the past prime Tyson against Douglas. I understand about lack of will in that fight, but there's nothing to suggest there was even an ounce of mental toughness lacking in that fight. He fought to the end.

Rooney also stated, that Tyson would get very aggitated when he couldn't knock his man out in the first few rounds and he would have fight him tooth and nail not to deviate from his strategy because he seemingly lost the inclination to fight. That alone points to a lack of mental toughness and without Rooney it became evident. Sure he came back into the ring in the Holyfield fight, just like he did in the Douglas fight, because he is a warrior.
First of all, you can't use the terms "lack of mental toughness" and "warrior" to describe a person. Both meanings contradict each other. The fact that Mike fought to the end and never quite in between rounds, points to his mental toughness.IMO You can believe what you want, actions speak louder than words, and Tyson never showed any of this when he was focused. My whole argument is about describing a prime Tyson, I do believe he showed a lot of what you have mentioned after his prime.

Please explain to me how Marciano/Louis is anything close to Douglas/Tyson? Louis was an old washed up fighter. Using that as an example is truly reaching.
I used that as an example to show you how truly ridiculous your argument is here.LOL For the fact that you don't want to recognize the Tyson that fought Douglas wasn't the "best" Tyson then Louis shouldn't have an excuse against Marciano. Just trying to show you how ridiculous your argument is to me. You'll give Louis an excuse for not being in his prime because he wasn't there physically. But you won't give Tyson an excuse for not being in his prime because he wasn't there mentally. Like I've stated over and over, the two are just as important for a fighter to have in the ring.

Oh so Mike was completely and utterly washed up prior to the Holyfield fight that no one gave him a chance in hell? No one, the experts nor anyone else, declared that after he annihilated Holyfield that he would rightfully reclaim his throne as king? Tyson may not have been 25 again, but he still had plenty of gas left in the tank and could have come close to replicating what he had done before, or so everyone claimed. To say anyone gave Holyfield a chance is out and out untrue.
If you think you just countered my argument with a point your wrong.LOL Dancing around the issue again I see. How do you expect to have a debate and make a countering point if you don't stick to the issue? I said he was out of his prime not completely washed up. Address what I'm saying, not what others said at the time. You seem stressed about the whole media thing surrounding that fight. Maybe should stop reading the papers or stay away from Sports Center like I mentioned earlier. LOL

But to say I danced around your points is baseless, I have acknowledged each and every 'point' you have declared.
Without going back and quoting every answer you've given be, I can say your answers have all been very indirect to the questions I presented. I see it as your way of dancing around the issues so you don't have to admit your ever wrong. That's what happens when one becomes heated in a debate, they won't give an inch. I know your not completely pissed though, because you haven't called me kid yet. LOL

However this 'argument' is not to justify Marciano beating Tyson (even though it is a Marciano/Tyson thread) but its that you can't just dismiss the Douglas fight as 'not Tyson in his prime'.
You believe prime=physically. I believe prime=mentally & physically, so does the rest of the boxing world.

Nor can a fight come in and out of his prime just because of his mental state. Thats the whole point of this.
I've clearly said over and over the Spinks fight was the last fight we seen Tyson at his prime. You say his prime lasted all the way until the Holyfield fight, therefor when I say Tyson wasn't right mentally during the Douglas fight, you take "YOUR" opinion of what his prime was (not mine) and look at it as him going in and out of his prime. There, is the picture clear now? LOL BTW sorry if I'm sounding like an ass here.:kiss:

This is a good statement, the only thing Marciano has on his profile is his "career numbers" you can not honestly watch a Marciano fight and say he would have beaten a prime Tyson. Mike was so much more powerful than Marciano, Marciano was just a tough guy brawler who pounded on guys (his size) round after round until they dropped..hardly what I call "one of the hardest punchers". It's an early round knock out no matter which way you spin it, what advantage would Marciano have? Boxing heart won't matter when you get rocked by a 220 lb knockout artist. Marciano is slower on the outside and inside, he can't hit as hard, he's smaller and although his stamina was great Tyson could go 12 rounds to on any given day, and a Tired Tyson was still quicker than a fresh rocky.

my 2 cents.
I totally agree with all that. One example that heart for Marciano has nothing to do with it, is the Frazier Foreman fight. We all know Frazier had a tremendous heart, but it didn't keep Foremans fists from knocking him out.

First of all, you can't use the terms "lack of mental toughness" and "warrior" to describe a person. Both meanings contradict each other. The fact that Mike fought to the end and never quite in between rounds, points to his mental toughness.IMO You can believe what you want, actions speak louder than words, and Tyson never showed any of this when he was focused. My whole argument is about describing a prime Tyson, I do believe he showed a lot of what you have mentioned after his prime.

How so? Heart is immeasurable. Mental toughness is holding up under adversity and sticking to certain things, such as gameplans and strategy and not becoming shaken. Yet that didn't happen. Heart is another way of saying you get up and continuing when no one else thinks you could. Two distinctly different things.


I used that as an example to show you how truly ridiculous your argument is here.LOL For the fact that you don't want to recognize the Tyson that fought Douglas wasn't the "best" Tyson then Louis shouldn't have an excuse against Marciano. Just trying to show you how ridiculous your argument is to me. You'll give Louis an excuse for not being in his prime because he wasn't there physically. But you won't give Tyson an excuse for not being in his prime because he wasn't there mentally. Like I've stated over and over, the two are just as important for a fighter to have in the ring.

Where did I say Tyson was at his very best? I think I have clearly said many times his head wasn't on the fight. Yet, you can't turn around and say it wasn't in his prime as a fighter.


If you think you just countered my argument with a point your wrong.LOL Dancing around the issue again I see. How do you expect to have a debate and make a countering point if you don't stick to the issue? I said he was out of his prime not completely washed up. Address what I'm saying, not what others said at the time. You seem stressed about the whole media thing surrounding that fight. Maybe should stop reading the papers or stay away from Sports Center like I mentioned earlier.

And again I ask you which point did I not address? Which question Did I not answer?


Without going back and quoting every answer you've given be, I can say your answers have all been very indirect to the questions I presented. I see it as your way of dancing around the issues so you don't have to admit your ever wrong. That's what happens when one becomes heated in a debate, they won't give an inch. I know your not completely pissed though, because you haven't called me kid yet. LOL

Well, I didn't think it was a heated debate LOL And if I EVER get pissed because of something said on a message board it's time to hang it up. Getting pissed off over this is silly. Nuttin' but love :kiss: But, in all honesty, I don't see where I have been indirect.


You believe prime=physically. I believe prime=mentally & physically, so does the rest of the boxing world.

I can see your point BUT I think you have it twisted. Being at your absolute best may = prime + mentality, but your prime is still the physical age at which you are physically at your peak.


I've clearly said over and over the Spinks fight was the last fight we seen Tyson at his prime. You say his prime lasted all the way until the Holyfield fight, therefor when I say Tyson wasn't right mentally during the Douglas fight, you take "YOUR" opinion of what his prime was (not mine) and look at it as him going in and out of his prime. There, is the picture clear now? LOL BTW sorry if I'm sounding like an ass here.:kiss:

Do I think Tyson of the first Holyfield fight was at his absolute prime? No, I don't. But I do think he still had some very good years left in him had he decided to stay on the right path. Especially when compared to a battle worn Evander. The Spinks fight was the last good fight of the Rooney Tyson and was at the very beginning of his downfall, the difference being he would have been able to get it all back had he pulled his head out of his ass.

The fact that a 34 year old, battle worn Holyfield, could stop a 30 year old Tyson suggests to me that he could have done the same when they were both younger.

I'm not rehashing this a dozen times. If you want know then go back and read the things I have posted regarding this.


You really seem like the guy that thinks Tyson, Jones Jr, Mayweather,Wlad, all suck because they didnt fight in the 20's. That golden age of boxing.:smashfrea

The fact that a 34 year old, battle worn Holyfield, could stop a 30 year old Tyson suggests to me that he could have done the same when they were both younger.

It surely doesent suggest that to me.

You really seem like the guy that thinks Tyson, Jones Jr, Mayweather,Wlad, all suck because they didnt fight in the 20's. That golden age of boxing.:smashfrea

really? All because I choose not to bow down at the alter of Mike Tyson?

really? All because I choose not to bow down at the alter of Mike Tyson?



Better than bowing down to that alter of Jack Sharky that you did.

Better than bowing down to that alter of Jack Sharky that you did.

Ummm..sure thing pal.

Ummm..sure thing pal.



I just wanna know why you hate Tyson and Jones Jr. What did they do to you?:thinking:

I just wanna know why you hate Tyson and Jones Jr. What did they do to you?:thinking:

Where do you get that I hate them? I have never said that anywhere. I just dont understand the total blind allegiance to a fighter. I don't hate any fighter. I respect anyone who gets into the ring.

Bruce Lee via 1st round KO. Haven't you idiots seen his movies? Duke took on 100 guys at the same time.

Hawkins doesnt hate tyson, i have seen him defend him many times in other topics, for example Marciano Tyson. its not the matter of liking or hating its just you opinion!

Where do you get that I hate them? I have never said that anywhere. I just dont understand the total blind allegiance to a fighter. I don't hate any fighter. I respect anyone who gets into the ring.



I have a "blind allegiance" to Tyson because he gave me this sport. If it wasnt for him I wouldnt be here right now. I wouldnt know who Jack Johnson or Rocky Marciano was. I love boxing and had a great time tonight watching Cotto vs Mosley.


Thanks Mike for giving me boxing. I hope I can repay the favor some day.

I have a "blind allegiance" to Tyson because he gave me this sport. If it wasnt for him I wouldnt be here right now. I wouldnt know who Jack Johnson or Rocky Marciano was. I love boxing and had a great time tonight watching Cotto vs Mosley.


Thanks Mike for giving me boxing. I hope I can repay the favor some day.

Ok, then. :ugh:

Ok, then. :ugh:



You just dont get it man. Boxing is about passion.

You just dont get it man. Boxing is about passion.

Oh, I don't get it? I'm glad you informed me. It may be about passion, but it should also be about intelligence and not distorting things or putting others down to elevate someone else.

I've loved nothing but boxing for almost 25 years so I don't think you can tell me much about what it is. Trust me, I am as passionate for boxing as anyone. I just don't let it blind me.

Oh, I don't get it? I'm glad you informed me. It may be about passion, but it should also be about intelligence and not distorting things or putting others down to elevate someone else.

I've loved nothing but boxing for almost 25 years so I don't think you can tell me much about what it is. Trust me, I am as passionate for boxing as anyone. I just don't let it blind me.


You seem to know alot about boxing, that's easy to see.


Just guess I relate to Tyson, very few can/would say that.

You seem to know alot about boxing, that's easy to see.


Just guess I relate to Tyson, very few can/would say that.

There was no bigger Tyson fan in the 80's than me. But I don't pretend he's something that hes not.

There was no bigger Tyson fan in the 80's than me. But I don't pretend he's something that hes not.



Im not saying Tyson is God or anything. But he's one of the All Time Greatest Heavyweight Champions in my book.

tyson would be too strong and powerful for marciano

Who cares about that, that's the real question that need to be answered :
http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2470226#post2470226

A case could be made for either fighter in this fight.

Mike Tyson would of course be bigger, faster and more skilled than Rocky Marciano. He had a very solid chin and incredible punching power. Considering his way of coming out fast, I can envision Tyson overwhelming the slowstarting Marciano to win by early stoppage. Facing Jersey Joe Walcott, Marciano seemed uncomfortable with Walcott going after him like he did, and he was sent to the canvas. Walcotts early onslaught would be a walk in the park compared to a prime Tyson...

Marciano on the other hand, would make this an awkward fight for Tyson, being the shorter man, something Tysons style was not well suited for. Tyson also liked best chasing his foe, and there is no way Marciano would be backpaddling. He would stand his ground, dishing out his own wrecking punches.

This fight would be a slugfest from the get go, with Tyson jumping on Marciano with fast and powerful combos. Marciano would hang on for dear life, covering up, trying to use his crouching style as best he could. I believe that Marcianos chin would pass the test, and help him survive the first couple of rounds. Then the question would be if Tysons heart could provide enough courage for him to go into a painful and dangerous war against a human steamroller like Marciano. I am not convinced. Marciano on the other hand, liked nothing better than going toe to toe. In fact, he loved it. He was also relentless, had stamina to die for and kept his power throughout the fight. His chin was solid as well, and considering his size and style of fighting, I cannot see Tyson being able to take full advantage of his own assets.

I have discussed and visioned this fight for many, many years, and I am still not sure who would win. There are so many obvisous reasons to pick Tyson, but at the same time, I cannot help but think that Marciano could pull an upset.

Either Mike Tyson by tko2 or,

Rocky Marciano by late tko.

A case could be made for either fighter in this fight.

Mike Tyson would of course be bigger, faster and more skilled than Rocky Marciano. He had a very solid chin and incredible punching power. Considering his way of coming out fast, I can envision Tyson overwhelming the slowstarting Marciano to win by early stoppage. Facing Jersey Joe Walcott, Marciano seemed uncomfortable with Walcott going after him like he did, and he was sent to the canvas. Walcotts early onslaught would be a walk in the park compared to a prime Tyson...

Marciano on the other hand, would make this an awkward fight for Tyson, being the shorter man, something Tysons style was not well suited for. Tyson also liked best chasing his foe, and there is no way Marciano would be backpaddling. He would stand his ground, dishing out his own wrecking punches.

This fight would be a slugfest from the get go, with Tyson jumping on Marciano with fast and powerful combos. Marciano would hang on for dear life, covering up, trying to use his crouching style as best he could. I believe that Marcianos chin would pass the test, and help him survive the first couple of rounds. Then the question would be if Tysons heart could provide enough courage for him to go into a painful and dangerous war against a human steamroller like Marciano. I am not convinced. Marciano on the other hand, liked nothing better than going toe to toe. In fact, he loved it. He was also relentless, had stamina to die for and kept his power throughout the fight. His chin was solid as well, and considering his size and style of fighting, I cannot see Tyson being able to take full advantage of his own assets.

I have discussed and visioned this fight for many, many years, and I am still not sure who would win. There are so many obvisous reasons to pick Tyson, but at the same time, I cannot help but think that Marciano could pull an upset.

Either Mike Tyson by tko2 or,

Rocky Marciano by late tko.

good post, but Marciano and Tyson were both 5'10" as far as I know.

A case could be made for either fighter in this fight.

Mike Tyson would of course be bigger, faster and more skilled than Rocky Marciano. He had a very solid chin and incredible punching power. Considering his way of coming out fast, I can envision Tyson overwhelming the slowstarting Marciano to win by early stoppage. Facing Jersey Joe Walcott, Marciano seemed uncomfortable with Walcott going after him like he did, and he was sent to the canvas. Walcotts early onslaught would be a walk in the park compared to a prime Tyson...

Marciano on the other hand, would make this an awkward fight for Tyson, being the shorter man, something Tysons style was not well suited for. Tyson also liked best chasing his foe, and there is no way Marciano would be backpaddling. He would stand his ground, dishing out his own wrecking punches.

This fight would be a slugfest from the get go, with Tyson jumping on Marciano with fast and powerful combos. Marciano would hang on for dear life, covering up, trying to use his crouching style as best he could. I believe that Marcianos chin would pass the test, and help him survive the first couple of rounds. Then the question would be if Tysons heart could provide enough courage for him to go into a painful and dangerous war against a human steamroller like Marciano. I am not convinced. Marciano on the other hand, liked nothing better than going toe to toe. In fact, he loved it. He was also relentless, had stamina to die for and kept his power throughout the fight. His chin was solid as well, and considering his size and style of fighting, I cannot see Tyson being able to take full advantage of his own assets.

I have discussed and visioned this fight for many, many years, and I am still not sure who would win. There are so many obvisous reasons to pick Tyson, but at the same time, I cannot help but think that Marciano could pull an upset.

Either Mike Tyson by tko2 or,

Rocky Marciano by late tko.



I agree, this is not very far from my own assesment. However I think there is one key factor that may play a key role. Marciano's tendency to throw those wild shots and get himself off balance. That would open a whole world for Tyson who was good at throwing fast hard shots when he had an opening.

good post, but Marciano and Tyson were both 5'10" as far as I know.

Tyson was 5'11.5"

http://img419.imageshack.us/img419/2103/sheight9yg.png

Tyson was 5'11.5"

http://img419.imageshack.us/img419/2103/sheight9yg.png

I'm not sure that image really proves much other than to make him seem taller than he is. a couple of years ago Tyson himself said he was 5'10 plus in the mid 80's it was said he was 5'9...

When Mike stands up straight he was always 5'11, there are plenty of references on that.

Besides Marciano is 186 lbs Tyson is 220

How about fan man comes into the ring and KO's both fighters. Now the issue is closed.

I just never, and still don't understand, why lots of people resort to insulting fighters in an effort to build their favorites up. Especially in a fantasy matchu-up that could never take place.

I'm not sure that image really proves much other than to make him seem taller than he is. a couple of years ago Tyson himself said he was 5'10 plus in the mid 80's it was said he was 5'9...

I saw a video of Tyson explaining that he's 5'11 and a half. So thats enough evidence.

I saw a video of Tyson explaining that he's 5'11 and a half. So thats enough evidence.

Well the most recent video I saw he said he was a 'pathetic' 5'10. Not that it matters either way.

Its fact he was 5 11 and a half..many question that but they measured him and its true. The way he fought made him appear smaller

Well, fan man couldnt close thread. Theirs only on great fighter that can.


Golden Schlong falls outta the sky and KO's both fighters.


I consider the matter closed.

Well, fan man couldnt close thread. Theirs only on great fighter that can.


Golden Schlong falls outta the sky and KO's both fighters.


I consider the matter closed.


Thats a shame too. After all of the quality you have injected into this thread, to go and want it closed like that.

Thats a shame too. After all of the quality you have injected into this thread, to go and want it closed like that.

Why you gotta disrespect me like that?


Can you at lest give me respect for saying that this subject is silly? Theirs no way we can know who would win between Rocco and Mike.


And this thread belongs in the fanasty fights section friends.

Well the most recent video I saw he said he was a 'pathetic' 5'10. Not that it matters either way.

Wheres the link?

Why you gotta disrespect me like that?


Can you at lest give me respect for saying that this subject is silly? Theirs no way we can know who would win between Rocco and Mike.


And this thread belongs in the fanasty fights section friends.

Well come on man, talking about golden schlongs? How is that adding anything? It wasn't a dis..more an observation.

Well come on man, talking about golden schlongs? How is that adding anything? It wasn't a dis..more an observation.

I believe he means Antonio Margarito's recent opponent but I understand your point. I was quite impressed with Antonio's performance, quite a few thought it would be a close fight, I didn't see anyone who said it would end in that manner.
And back on topic...

Wheres the link?

I'd have to dig it up because this was from like 2005. He did the measurement himself.

Well come on man, talking about golden schlongs? How is that adding anything? It wasn't a dis..more an observation.

Golden Schlong was the "top contender" Antonio Margarito fought last night.

Golden Schlong was the "top contender" Antonio Margarito fought last night.

I didn't see the fight. Are you serious? His name is Golden Schlong?

google mike Tyson height, the first link should be 5'11

I didn't see the fight. Are you serious? His name is Golden Schlong?

Hah, in a way. His name is Golden Johnson.

Hah, in a way. His name is Golden Johnson.

Oh I was wondering. I know Golden Johnson. LOL

I didn't see the fight. Are you serious? His name is Golden Schlong?



His name is Golden Johnson, so we all call him Golden Schlong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yQb5nx5-w8

there it shows that picture was infact, not promotional

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yQb5nx5-w8

there it shows that picture was infact, not promotional

Oh its cool. I believe you, I was just making the point that he's been several different heights over the years.

Yeh during his first 10 fights or so he was written down to be 6ft

I saw a video of Tyson explaining that he's 5'11 and a half. So thats enough evidence.

and you believe anything a drug addict, rapist s.o.b says?

and you believe anything a drug addict, rapist s.o.b says?


Those that want to judge, cast the first stone.

How so? Heart is immeasurable. Mental toughness is holding up under adversity and sticking to certain things, such as gameplans and strategy and not becoming shaken. Yet that didn't happen. Heart is another way of saying you get up and continuing when no one else thinks you could. Two distinctly different things..
"Heart" wasn't the word you originally used so I won't comment on that. The way I've always looked at it, "mental toughness" meant not quiting or giving up in a fight, or not letting someone push you around or intimidate you to the point that it's effecting your boxing."Warrior" falls along those same lines. To me it doesn't make sense to describe a person as being a warrior but then having a lack of mental toughness. Maybe your meanings are different. Anyway you originally stated this
Rooney also stated, that Tyson would get very aggitated when he couldn't knock his man out in the first few rounds and he would have fight him tooth and nail not to deviate from his strategy because he seemingly lost the inclination to fight. That alone points to a lack of mental toughness
If he said that that was BS because Tyson never showed that until he bit Holyfield. That's why I said "actions speak louder than words" earlier. I don't agree mental toughness should be the word used here, it should be frustrated.

Where did I say Tyson was at his very best? I think I have clearly said many times his head wasn't on the fight. Yet, you can't turn around and say it wasn't in his prime as a fighter.
I've already stated many times that because he was out of the game mentally, I no longer considered him in his prime. Me and every one else on the face of the earth besides the Tyson haters.LOL If you don't take every aspect of the game into consideration then your final analysis is flawed, wrong, or incorrect. The mental aspect of the game is one of the issues you've been sidestepping. It leaves the impression you agree with me on it but if you admit it you'll admit your argument has been wrong. God knows we couldn't have that. LOL just playin

And again I ask you which point did I not address? Which question Did I not answer?
And again, I refer you to the quote above. LOL

Well, I didn't think it was a heated debate LOL And if I EVER get pissed because of something said on a message board it's time to hang it up. Getting pissed off over this is silly. Nuttin' but love :kiss: But, in all honesty, I don't see where I have been indirect.
That might have been the wrong word to use, but God knows I won't admit it wasn't.LOL I more less meant not acknowledging certain points that I've made against points you keep making, like the mental aspect of the game and that being in your prime has to do with that and not just the physicality's alone.

I can see your point BUT I think you have it twisted. Being at your absolute best may = prime + mentality, but your prime is still the physical age at which you are physically at your peak.
O.k. if you look at being in your prime like that, no wonder you disagree. I can't change your views but your inability to look at boxing thoroughly, limits your understanding of this sport. But hey, we're not all born with those types of analytical abilities, so I won't hold it against you.LOL

Do I think Tyson of the first Holyfield fight was at his absolute prime? No, I don't. But I do think he still had some very good years left in him had he decided to stay on the right path. Especially when compared to a battle worn Evander. The Spinks fight was the last good fight of the Rooney Tyson and was at the very beginning of his downfall, the difference being he would have been able to get it all back had he pulled his head out of his ass.
I still think by that time it would have been too late. The main reason was the 4 years of complete inactivity. He was 29 in his first fight out of prison. It would have taken him at least a couple of years to get even close to what he was but he would have been too old by that time. Tysons style required him to be young. I think even 29 wouldn't have been prime years physically. He was 30 or 31 in the Holyfield fights, I no way consider that a prime age for boxing. Being in your prime at 30 or 31 requires a fighter to be seasoned, Tyson wasn't.

O.k. if you look at being in your prime like that, no wonder you disagree. I can't change your views but your inability to look at boxing thoroughly, limits your understanding of this sport. But hey, we're not all born with those types of analytical abilities, so I won't hold it against you.LOL


I still think by that time it would have been too late. The main reason was the 4 years of complete inactivity. He was 29 in his first fight out of prison. It would have taken him at least a couple of years to get even close to what he was but he would have been too old by that time. Tysons style required him to be young. I think even 29 wouldn't have been prime years physically. He was 30 or 31 in the Holyfield fights, I no way consider that a prime age for boxing. Being in your prime at 30 or 31 requires a fighter to be seasoned, Tyson wasn't.

I think, in all honesty we've run our course with this. But I will say I think the major sticking point is what exactly defines your prime years? To me it has always been about your physical peak. I agree being mentally prepared and mentally fit plays apart in being at your best, but I think it is seperate from your prime. Unlike your physical skills, your mentality typical doesn't erode over time.

Another sticking point. Is mental toughness and heart the same thing? By your description they are. But being able to get up or continue when you shouldn't be able too are totally different from being mentally in the game when faced with adversity or something that throws you off your game. Mike had plenty of heart, kept going in the face of a beating. But, that is vasty different from sticking to your guns when the other guy is imposing his will upon you.

I still don't see where I have dodged anything from you. But as far as Holyfield fight, no Mike could never got truly back to pre-pison form BUT he wasn't totally shot to the point he was after the williams/mcbride debacles. Mike still had plenty of gas in his tank. But you can't deny that at that point Holyfield was much more worn. Look at some of the wars he had been in? Tyson losing that fight is a huge mark against him in the respect of his overall standings in the pantheon of greats because that makes two fights where he was upset by the so called underdog.

Cmon, Marciano was a small heavyweight. The dude was like...190 lbs soaking wet.

Tyson would obliterate him in about 2 minutes.

I think, in all honesty we've run our course with this. But I will say I think the major sticking point is what exactly defines your prime years? To me it has always been about your physical peak. I agree being mentally prepared and mentally fit plays apart in being at your best, but I think it is seperate from your prime. Unlike your physical skills, your mentality typical doesn't erode over time.

Another sticking point. Is mental toughness and heart the same thing? By your description they are. But being able to get up or continue when you shouldn't be able too are totally different from being mentally in the game when faced with adversity or something that throws you off your game. Mike had plenty of heart, kept going in the face of a beating. But, that is vasty different from sticking to your guns when the other guy is imposing his will upon you.

I still don't see where I have dodged anything from you. But as far as Holyfield fight, no Mike could never got truly back to pre-pison form BUT he wasn't totally shot to the point he was after the williams/mcbride debacles. Mike still had plenty of gas in his tank. But you can't deny that at that point Holyfield was much more worn. Look at some of the wars he had been in? Tyson losing that fight is a huge mark against him in the respect of his overall standings in the pantheon of greats because that makes two fights where he was upset by the so called underdog.


So who was your pick?

So who was your pick?

Here, it is. My prediction(s)

Lets look at their styles first - Mike Tyson. He's a straight ahead swarming puncher, with good handspeed, who has good defense via the constant head movement and bobbing and weaving. He comes at you and waits for his openings and unleashes powerful combinations but at the same time is hard to hit because of his defense. Also has a good chin and can take a hard punch. Has trouble with fighters who show no fear, and take the fight to him. Especially fighters with an excellent jab and decent movement. Known to get frustrated after the early rounds, get away from the aforementionedand revert to head hunting.

Would everyone agree with this assesment?

Marciano - also a swarmer and bruiser who only moves forward. Has a very deceptive defense where as he is always moving, bending and bobbing and ducking. He comes at you and throws powerful punches relentlessly, opening or not, hitting you anywhere and everywhere. Tireless and gets stronger as the bout goes on. Good chin and can take a hard punch. Has trouble with slick boxers and technicians, and guys who can stay on the outside and stick and move with good fundamental skills.

Would everyone agree with this assesment?


Going from these assesments it wouldn't be easy for either man. I think this wouldn't be a difficult match up for both sides. I think the chin of either man somewhat negates the power of the other one.

Tyson would come out and find someone who wouldn't back up or give him an inch and stay on top of him, and also someone who is deceptively hard to hit with a clean punch. Marciano would also find someone who comes at him, who uses good defensive head and body movement thus making him hard to hit cleanly, and someone who uses crisp and fast punches in combination.

I think it would play out in one of two ways. First scenario. Tyson comes out and engages in an all out slug fest with Marciano. His punches finding their mark and bloodying Rocky. Marciano trying to counter-attack but not effectively being able to so. I could see Tyson stopping Marciano early (within the first 3 rounds) on cuts or possibly ref stoppage. I don't think he outright knocks Marciano cold, but a ref stoppage or doctor stoppage would be entirely possible.

Second, Marciano weathers the early storm and takes Tyson in the later rounds. Because of Tyson's frustration at not taking him out early he gets sloppy, becomes a headhunter and starts getting tagged with Marciano's relentless onslaught and is worn down. It's entirely possible that Tyson loses by decision or is stopped by TKO or KO in the late rounds. Unlike Marciano we have seen Tyson wilt under a constant offensive onslaught against him and get KO'd so it's a plausible outcome.

Regardless, it would be a war and something to see.

I think, in all honesty we've run our course with this. But I will say I think the major sticking point is what exactly defines your prime years? To me it has always been about your physical peak. I agree being mentally prepared and mentally fit plays apart in being at your best, but I think it is seperate from your prime. Unlike your physical skills, your mentality typical doesn't erode over time.
I think it will be about a day before we get into this again.LOL Tyson wasn't typical, so if your a person looking at how all other fighters did in their primes then look at Tyson and try to apply their patterns to his, you'll be way off. I think the whole disagreement boils down to where the cut off point was for his prime. I and a lot of other experts seen problems starting in his first Bruno fight. And it wasn't just a coincidence that that was his first fight under new trainers. I think the majority of guys that fallowed Tyson would agree that the Spinks fight was the last great Tyson we seen. You've stated that that cut off was somewhere around the Holyfield fight. You have got to be alone in that. :nana:

Another sticking point. Is mental toughness and heart the same thing? By your description they are. But being able to get up or continue when you shouldn't be able too are totally different from being mentally in the game when faced with adversity or something that throws you off your game. Mike had plenty of heart, kept going in the face of a beating. But, that is vasty different from sticking to your guns when the other guy is imposing his will upon you.
Your using one aspect of mental toughness that means more than just one thing, and using it as an example why it's different from "heart" that we're not even talking about. We were talking about "warrior" not "heart". But besides all that it seems like your implying that Tyson got off his game plan somewhere in one of those fights with Douglas or Holyfield or both. If you are, name specifically where and how.

I still don't see where I have dodged anything from you. But as far as Holyfield fight, no Mike could never got truly back to pre-pison form BUT he wasn't totally shot to the point he was after the williams/mcbride debacles. Mike still had plenty of gas in his tank. But you can't deny that at that point Holyfield was much more worn. Look at some of the wars he had been in? Tyson losing that fight is a huge mark against him in the respect of his overall standings in the pantheon of greats because that makes two fights where he was upset by the so called underdog.
It means something to you and you alone my friend.LOL Enough said about that. :nana:

Here, it is. My prediction(s)
Oh, he knocks Marciano out cold with his left foot twitching. LOL There's no two ways about it, Marciano down and out quick. Too small period. Like fighting a twelve year old!

Cmon, Marciano was a small heavyweight. The dude was like...190 lbs soaking wet.

Tyson would obliterate him in about 2 minutes.
Finally, someone with some sense.LOL

I think it will be about a day before we get into this again.LOL Tyson wasn't typical, so if your a person looking at how all other fighters did in their primes then look at Tyson and try to apply their patterns to his, you'll be way off. I think the whole disagreement boils down to where the cut off point was for his prime. I and a lot of other experts seen problems starting in his first Bruno fight. And it wasn't just a coincidence that that was his first fight under new trainers. I think the majority of guys that fallowed Tyson would agree that the Spinks fight was the last great Tyson we seen. You've stated that that cut off was somewhere around the Holyfield fight. You have got to be alone in that.

Well you're saying Tyson wasn't at his best. Which is true, if you look at the way he was against Spinks, Berbick, Thomas etc. However, you can't compare him to other swarmers because up until the Douglas fight he had never been a truly grueling fight that most fighters of his type have to endure. That is builds up the wear and tear on a fighter.

You bring up trainers, well for the record Aaron Snowell (the Don King stooge) sucks. He had no clue how to handle Tyson. Tyson would come inside and leave huge openings for his opponent. His chin was exposed. Very careless instruction from his corner.

For the record, I agree that losing Rooney was a huge blow (one I think Tyson regretted after the fact) and that played a major part in his downfall because Rooney was well versed in the teachings and training style of Cus. Snowell would be lucky to train a dog to sit from the way it looks. Again our only major conflict on this is the definition of 'prime'.


Your using one aspect of mental toughness that means more than just one thing, and using it as an example why it's different from "heart" that we're not even talking about. We were talking about "warrior" not "heart". But besides all that it seems like your implying that Tyson got off his game plan somewhere in one of those fights with Douglas or Holyfield or both. If you are, name specifically where and how.

To being a 'warrior' is akin to saying someone has 'heart'. As for the Douglas/Holyfield bouts. Tyson wasn't anywhere near the same in the Douglas fight however he did have moments in the early goings but just slowly dwindled into a one shot head hunter.

Holyfield fight the same deal. He started decently but once Evander got in his face he wilted mentally. When someone isn't intimidated Mike loses his disposition. That is mental toughness. Totally different 'heart' 'warrior' 'heart of a warrior' - whatever lol

Cmon, Marciano was a small heavyweight. The dude was like...190 lbs soaking wet.

Tyson would obliterate him in about 2 minutes.

So I guess a 250 pound David Tua SMOKES Tyson in like 90 seconds, RIGHT?

So I guess a 250 pound David Tua SMOKES Tyson in like 90 seconds, RIGHT?

If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.

So I guess a 250 pound David Tua SMOKES Tyson in like 90 seconds, RIGHT?
Tua had more body fat than Tyson, that's why he weighed more.

Tua had more body fat than Tyson, that's why he weighed more.

Okay, then a 320 pound Valuev OBLITERATES Tyson. Point is weight doesn't mean that much.

Well you're saying Tyson wasn't at his best. Which is true, if you look at the way he was against Spinks, Berbick, Thomas etc. However, you can't compare him to other swarmers because up until the Douglas fight he had never been a truly grueling fight that most fighters of his type have to endure. That is builds up the wear and tear on a fighter.

You bring up trainers, well for the record Aaron Snowell (the Don King stooge) sucks. He had no clue how to handle Tyson. Tyson would come inside and leave huge openings for his opponent. His chin was exposed. Very careless instruction from his corner.

For the record, I agree that losing Rooney was a huge blow (one I think Tyson regretted after the fact) and that played a major part in his downfall because Rooney was well versed in the teachings and training style of Cus. Snowell would be lucky to train a dog to sit from the way it looks. Again our only major conflict on this is the definition of 'prime'.




To being a 'warrior' is akin to saying someone has 'heart'. As for the Douglas/Holyfield bouts. Tyson wasn't anywhere near the same in the Douglas fight however he did have moments in the early goings but just slowly dwindled into a one shot head hunter.

Holyfield fight the same deal. He started decently but once Evander got in his face he wilted mentally. When someone isn't intimidated Mike loses his disposition. That is mental toughness. Totally different 'heart' 'warrior' 'heart of a warrior' - whatever lol
Marciano was never in a war with another brawler with a lot of power was he? I don't know his career as well as you guys, but what I do know is guys like Moore and Walcot were no Tysons. I know you have to see proof Hawkins but just because guys like Tyson and Jones were not ever tested in their primes doesn't mean we should dismiss them for it. I think most greats were never really tested anyway besides Ali. When was Johnson, Marciano, Dempsey, and Louis really tested. None of them had ever fought anyone the caliber of Tyson, but they were great? Tell me! Tell me now!!!!:boxing:

If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.

Holyfield was 208 when he KOd a 246 lb Buster Douglas that had KOd Tyson IN HIS PRIME 8 months earlier. Weight doesn't mean that much.

Marciano was never in a war with another brawler with a lot of power was he? I don't know his career as well as you guys, but what I do know is guys like Moore and Walcot were no Tysons. I know you have to see proof Hawkins but just because guys like Tyson and Jones were not ever tested in their primes doesn't mean we should dismiss them for it. I think most greats were never really tested anyway besides Ali. When was Johnson, Marciano, Dempsey, and Louis really tested. None of them had ever fought anyone the caliber of Tyson, but they were great? Tell me! Tell me now!!!!:boxing:

Tyson was tested IN HIS PRIME by the greatest bum of all time BUSTER DOUGLAS and was KNOCKED THE %$#& OUT ! ! !:boxing:

Okay, then a 320 pound Valuev OBLITERATES Tyson. Point is weight doesn't mean that much.
That's a ridiculous comparison and point. You use it all the time because no one here knows how to argue against it but it's simple. When you talk about punching power, there's just as much skill involved in generating that power. That guy doesn't only not have the skill to deliver that type of punch, but he doesn't have the speed and power to. When you compare great punchers like Marciano and Tyson that both have great skill and the type of speed required, size does matter. We're not talking about only ten pounds here. We're talking like 30 pounds right?

Tyson was tested IN HIS PRIME by the greatest bum of all time BUSTER DOUGLAS and was KNOCKED THE %$#& OUT ! ! !:boxing:
LOL Nice try.

Holyfield was 208 when he KOd a 246 lb Buster Douglas that had KOd Tyson IN HIS PRIME 8 months earlier. Weight doesn't mean that much.
You seriously have no clue.LOL

That's a ridiculous comparison and point. You use it all the time because no one here knows how to argue against it but it's simple. When you talk about punching power, there's just as much skill involved in generating that power. That guy doesn't only not have the skill to deliver that type of punch, but he doesn't have the speed and power to. When you compare great punchers like Marciano and Tyson that both have great skill and the type of speed required, size does matter. We're not talking about only ten pounds here. We're talking like 30 pounds right?

So I guess Bruce Lee couldn't have generated much power right? I mean he was ONLY 145 pounds.

So I guess Bruce Lee couldn't have generated much power right? I mean he was ONLY 145 pounds.
OK man, you got me there.LOL That guy could take 50 guys down one right after another. Good thing Ali never fought him.LOL

Marciano was never in a war with another brawler with a lot of power was he? I don't know his career as well as you guys, but what I do know is guys like Moore and Walcot were no Tysons. I know you have to see proof Hawkins but just because guys like Tyson and Jones were not ever tested in their primes doesn't mean we should dismiss them for it. I think most greats were never really tested anyway besides Ali. When was Johnson, Marciano, Dempsey, and Louis really tested. None of them had ever fought anyone the caliber of Tyson, but they were great? Tell me! Tell me now!!!!:boxing:

Well Marciano was in lots of fights one could classify as wars. Louis as well was in a few grueling fights of his own. But the difference is none of these were upset in the prime of their career nor were they soundly beaten by fighters they were supposed to defeat (unless you count Schelling for Jpe but he avenged that in devestating fashion).

But the entire point was never absorbed massive amounts of punishment so the wear and tear on his body was minimal by the time Evander fought him.

You seriously have no clue.LOL

I guess Sam Langford who had 130 KOs (quite a few against heavyweights) and held his own with Jack Johnson when he weighed 156 pounds couldn't possible have had any power.

Holyfield was 208 when he KOd a 246 lb Buster Douglas that had KOd Tyson IN HIS PRIME 8 months earlier. Weight doesn't mean that much.


It's different when you get below a certain weight though. I think Marciano was 180ish. Against Tyson? No way. He'd get punched across the goddamn ring. Sorry.

OK man, you got me there.LOL That guy could take 50 guys down one right after another. Good thing Ali never fought him.LOL

In a street fight you're damn right.:boxing:

I guess Sam Langford who had 130 KOs (quite a few against heavyweights) and held his own with Jack Johnson when he weighed 156 pounds couldn't possible have had any power.

You're right. There have been a few lower weight guys who could effectively lower the boom on a heavyweight. Stanley Ketchel and Sam Langford are two of the more well known ones.

It's different when you get below a certain weight though. I think Marciano was 180ish. Against Tyson? No way. He'd get punched across the goddamn ring. Sorry.

Rocky fought as heavy as 192 in his prime, and would have fought a lot heavier with today's training and diet, it's not inconceivable that he could fight as high as 210-215. Tyson weighed 215 at his best, like against Holmes.

Well Marciano was in lots of fights one could classify as wars. Louis as well was in a few grueling fights of his own. But the difference is none of these were upset in the prime of their career nor were they soundly beaten by fighters they were supposed to defeat (unless you count Schelling for Jpe but he avenged that in devestating fashion).

But the entire point was never absorbed massive amounts of punishment so the wear and tear on his body was minimal by the time Evander fought him.
OK I give up, Tysons fights with Douglas and Holyfield were while he was in his prime and the mental aspect of the sport is just a figment of my imagination.LOL:hail:

Rocky fought as heavy as 192 in his prime, and would have fought a lot heavier with today's training and diet, it's not inconceivable that he could fight as high as 210-215. Tyson weighed 215 at his best, like against Holmes.

I find its usually fruitless to bring up when you do these matchups from different eras you have to level the playing field. No one listens tho'.

I guess Sam Langford who had 130 KOs (quite a few against heavyweights) and held his own with Jack Johnson when he weighed 156 pounds couldn't possible have had any power.
Not at all.:boxing:

OK I give up, Tysons fights with Douglas and Holyfield were while he was in his prime and the mental aspect of the sport is just a figment of my imagination.LOL:hail:

LMAO

man, made me choke on my Heineken. :nonono:

Rocky fought as heavy as 192 in his prime, and would have fought a lot heavier with today's training and diet, it's not inconceivable that he could fight as high as 210-215. Tyson weighed 215 at his best, like against Holmes.
That's right, put Marciano on steroids to prove your point.LOL:boxing:

LMAO

man, made me choke on my Heineken. :nonono:
LOL I know, the little guy bowing makes it funnier.

That's right, put Marciano on steroids to prove your point.LOL:boxing:

Oh sure, Holyfield used steroids, not a fitness expert to come up from Cruiserweight at 190 right? And I guess Roy Jones must have really been on roids to come up from 160 to fight at heavyweight right?:ugh:

LOL I know, the little guy bowing makes it funnier.

I know. Had beer coming out of my nose! LOL self :owned:


When you do matchups from different eras of the sport do you just take them as they were?

I know. Had beer coming out of my nose! LOL self :owned:


When you do matchups from different eras of the sport do you just take them as they were?
What do you mean?

What do you mean?



Well I mean do you out the older fighters in this era and give them the benefit of everthing thats modern? Medicinal? Training? Nutrition?

I mean if you took someone like Dempsey and placed him in todays world more than likely he'd weight just as much as everyone else. He'd benefit from everything we do and be on an even keel.

To be fair you really can't match them without doing it like that IMO.

Well I mean do you out the older fighters in this era and give them the benefit of everthing thats modern? Medicinal? Training? Nutrition?

I mean if you took someone like Dempsey and placed him in todays world more than likely he'd weight just as much as everyone else. He'd benefit from everything we do and be on an even keel.

To be fair you really can't match them without doing it like that IMO.
Tomorrow then

Tyson by TKO!

Well I mean do you out the older fighters in this era and give them the benefit of everthing thats modern? Medicinal? Training? Nutrition?

I mean if you took someone like Dempsey and placed him in todays world more than likely he'd weight just as much as everyone else. He'd benefit from everything we do and be on an even keel.

To be fair you really can't match them without doing it like that IMO.
The thing is, if you take that all into consideration, how much of an advantage do you give modern fighters? And how can you really know how much of an advantage they have? What if you over gage the advantage? It will throw everything off. I don't think it's as big a factor as some people might think. In boxing you still need to know how to fight, have a good chin, and be dedicated to be an outstanding fighter. I think just for the fact that the heavyweight division isn't in that great of shape shows what I'm saying is true. Where's all the Mike Tysons and Evander Holyfields? There's a big motivating factor for everyone to be a non stoppable machine (MONEY) but we still don't see any evidence that modern medicine, nutrition, and training have a huge advantage. Don't get me wrong, there may be advantages but I think when taking that into consideration you can't over gage it because you'll short change some of our modern fighters that were very good regardless. I think the best example of this modern advantage would be Holyfield when he went up in weight from Cruiser to Heavy. I wouldn't count Tyson because he looked like that at 15. And this isn't any kind of an argument against you (yet lol) it's just where I stand on the subject. I'm not really sure where you stand on it though. For me, it's hard to classify Marciano, Dempsey, and Johnson with other champions because of special circumstances from those times that made them who they are. If we get into all that, this thread will get out of hand. I think we should wait until right thread comes up and then duke it out there.:boxing: LOL

The thing is, if you take that all into consideration, how much of an advantage do you give modern fighters? And how can you really know how much of an advantage they have? What if you over gage the advantage? It will throw everything off. I don't think it's as big a factor as some people might think. In boxing you still need to know how to fight, have a good chin, and be dedicated to be an outstanding fighter. I think just for the fact that the heavyweight division isn't in that great of shape shows what I'm saying is true. Where's all the Mike Tysons and Evander Holyfields? There's a big motivating factor for everyone to be a non stoppable machine (MONEY) but we still don't see any evidence that modern medicine, nutrition, and training have a huge advantage. Don't get me wrong, there may be advantages but I think when taking that into consideration you can't over gage it because you'll short change some of our modern fighters that were very good regardless. I think the best example of this modern advantage would be Holyfield when he went up in weight from Cruiser to Heavy. I wouldn't count Tyson because he looked like that at 15. And this isn't any kind of an argument against you (yet lol) it's just where I stand on the subject. I'm not really sure where you stand on it though. For me, it's hard to classify Marciano, Dempsey, and Johnson with other champions because of special circumstances from those times that made them who they are. If we get into all that, this thread will get out of hand. I think we should wait until right thread comes up and then duke it out there.:boxing: LOL

Well I think the reason alot of the heavyweights are so substantial is because lack of experience. I think alot of them forsake an amateur career in order to get the money of a pro career. I'm sure thats not all of it, but I think it plays a huge part.

Alot of the guys in the past had good amateur experience prior to turning pro but nowadays the division is so...welll, ****ty...that any heavy with a decent pro can turn pro and make some $$$$.

But as far as matching eras, I do it for one reason. To take the huge weight advantages out of the picture. That alone should tell us how advanced alot of things have become because weight has gone up across the board. Guys are bigger, just a part of evolution in modern society.

However, to back to what I was saying..I don't touch the reach advantages or height..but I do downplay the weight issue and base it more on the fighters overall skill-level and the things I have seen.

Of course, if you take Marciano from 1952 and put him in 2007 he's going to look puny. Look at far training and nutrition alone have come. I just think it is more fair to base fighters on skill level alone instead of factoring in the whole weight issue..otherwise the matchups would be no fun. Everyone does it differently, I just prefer it that way.

Well I think the reason alot of the heavyweights are so substantial is because lack of experience. I think alot of them forsake an amateur career in order to get the money of a pro career. I'm sure thats not all of it, but I think it plays a huge part.

Alot of the guys in the past had good amateur experience prior to turning pro but nowadays the division is so...welll, ****ty...that any heavy with a decent pro can turn pro and make some $$$$.

But as far as matching eras, I do it for one reason. To take the huge weight advantages out of the picture. That alone should tell us how advanced alot of things have become because weight has gone up across the board. Guys are bigger, just a part of evolution in modern society.

However, to back to what I was saying..I don't touch the reach advantages or height..but I do downplay the weight issue and base it more on the fighters overall skill-level and the things I have seen.

Of course, if you take Marciano from 1952 and put him in 2007 he's going to look puny. Look at far training and nutrition alone have come. I just think it is more fair to base fighters on skill level alone instead of factoring in the whole weight issue..otherwise the matchups would be no fun. Everyone does it differently, I just prefer it that way.
Oh I completely disagree, no not really. I think your looking at things the right way. I still cant wait to see your top ten. I can see it now, Rocky Marciano......greatest of all time.LOL

Oh I completely disagree, no not really. I think your looking at things the right way. I still cant wait to see your top ten. I can see it now, Rocky Marciano......greatest of all time.LOL

Rocky Marciano...followed by George Chuvalo...Henry Cooper..Tommy Jackson lol

Based on skill? and What skill did Marciano have over Tyson?, and how can you forget physical attributes..in that case Foreman is the worst boxer ever.

Based on skill? and What skill did Marciano have over Tyson?, and how can you forget physical attributes..in that case Foreman is the worst boxer ever.

:cop: Move along, nothing to see here.

:cop: Move along, nothing to see here.
Oh!!!! He got you good Hawkins, he got you good.:banana:

Oh!!!! He got you good Hawkins, he got you good.:banana:

How, he didn't read my post at all (which is the norm) because nowhere in that post did I say to totally discard physical attributes. That is absurd.

Hence the dismissal.

How, he didn't read my post at all (which is the norm) because nowhere in that post did I say to totally discard physical attributes. That is absurd.

Hence the dismissal.
I still say he got you:banana: LOL

Tyson wasn't just a little stronger than Marciano, he was way stronger than Marciano. In that case, it's senseless to go on with an analysis when matching two brawlers. It's a different story when the weaker fighter moves away from the power. Put it this way, Marciano wasn't stupid and he wasn't superman either. Mike would have had Marciano backing away from him which would have been new territory for the Rock. Marciano wasn't Ali, so he would have had a tough time getting leverage on his punches while moving back. In that case the fight might have gone 3 rounds, but if Marciano tried to be Superman, he would be stopped in the first. No question.:boxing: LOL

I still say he got you:banana: LOL

Tyson wasn't just a little stronger than Marciano, he was way stronger than Marciano. In that case, it's senseless to go on with an analysis when matching two brawlers. It's a different story when the weaker fighter moves away from the power. Put it this way, Marciano wasn't stupid and he wasn't superman either. Mike would have had Marciano backing away from him which would have been new territory for the Rock. Marciano wasn't Ali, so he would have had a tough time getting leverage on his punches while moving back. In that case the fight might have gone 3 rounds, but if Marciano tried to be Superman, he would be stopped in the first. No question.:boxing: LOL

Find anywhere on any of these forums that I have said otherwise, I clearly gave Tyson the edge in many catergories. Yes I said I think Rocky hit harder because take away Tyson's speed and it diminishes the basis of his knockout power.

Tyson has the edge in strength and technique but Marciano has the edge in will, conditioning, toughness and guile. Some fights aren't won on physicality alone it's the intangibles sweety :kiss:

If, and judging by your posting its a rather large if, you read my analysis I clearly state alot of the facts you bring out. If Marciano survived the early rounds his chances go up dramatically. :boxing:

Find anywhere on any of these forums that I have said otherwise, I clearly gave Tyson the edge in many catergories. Yes I said I think Rocky hit harder because take away Tyson's speed and it diminishes the basis of his knockout power.

Tyson has the edge in strength and technique but Marciano has the edge in will, conditioning, toughness and guile. Some fights aren't won on physicality alone it's the intangibles sweety :kiss:

If, and judging by your posting its a rather large if, you read my analysis I clearly state alot of the facts you bring out. If Marciano survived the early rounds his chances go up dramatically. :boxing:
Take away Tysons speed? It figures you would handicap the guy to make a point.LOL Ok I get it take away Tysons speed, make him hop on one foot with one hand tied behind his back and there's no way he could have beat Marciano.LOL:banana: :fing02: