Mike Tyson vs Rocky Marciano

[Jim Jeffries]

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.

[Thoth]

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.

[Jim Jeffries]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[Brockton Lip]

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.

[them_apples]

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!

[Hawkins]

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.

[Mike Tyson77]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[Jim Jeffries]

Athletes don't get worse with time!

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