Mike Tyson vs Rocky Marciano

[them_apples]

@ 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!

[Brockton Lip]

@ 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."

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

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.

[Hawkins]

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.

[Hawkins]

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

[them_apples]

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.

[Mike Tyson77]

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??????????????

[Hawkins]

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.