Originally posted by hectari
I like Rocky, and I am not one to always mention size because sometimes it can be the most overrated thing, but Tyson was bigger, stronger, faster, more accurate with his punches, just basically a better fighter all around, at least in his prime.
There was a good article on another webiste that had Dempsey vs Marciano, why Dempsey would win...it was pretty convincing...I expect the same for Tyson.
Lets not forget that Walcott was giving Marciano all that he could handle in the first fight, and Walcott was absorbing Marciano's punches, many landing flush from about the 6th round on.
I don't think Tyson would of took that long in beating a faded, balding, Joe Louis either.
Roland LaStarza also gave him trouble in the first fight...some even believe Rocky lost that fight.
Rocky fought a lot of fighters that though are "Great" fighters, are really light-heavyweights, at the most cruiserweights. you could also use that old argument that they used even around his time, that he was fighting "older" fighters.
Lets just say that a lot of these fighters took more poundings than Paris Hilton's vagina
I am not bashing him at all, just stating a few things to those that want to make everybody that is undefeated like they are some type of God.
Ask yourself this, if Maricano fought Louis in his prime, Ali, Dempsey, Foreman, Tyson, etc. would he still be undefeated?
and yes, the same goes for Tyson


Comment