Mike Tyson vs Rocky Marciano

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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

[Brockton Lip]

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.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[The Iron Man]

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.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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

[Hawkins]

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.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[The Iron Man]

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.