Mike Tyson vs Rocky Marciano

[Hawkins]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[The Iron Man]

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.

[The Iron Man]

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!!

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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

[Hawkins]

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.

[Jim Jeffries]

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.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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

[Burning Desire]

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.

[Burning Desire]

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.