Why do so many people hate on peek-a-boo style heavyweights?

[La_Vibora]

There isn't a day that passes by where I don't read a thread about Tyson, Marciano, or Dempsey being overrated, and how big heavyweights today would stomp them all. Hell, the only one that doesn't get that much "hate" is Joe Frazier, and that is only because he beat Muhammed Ali. Rather than looking at the amazing speed, power, ability to manuever in without getting hit, people only seem to see their size as a weakness, rather than as the advantage that these guys utilized it as. So I just want to know why is there always such hate for this style of heavyweight? Hell, I am positive in 30 years, I am going to be arguing with some young boxing fan who will be telling me that there is no way that Mike Tyson could have fought in the division of that day because he is too small, and I will give him the same look that the old timers give us when people say the same about Marciano and Dempsey.

[joeytrimble]

i didnt know marciano had a peek aboo style

[La_Vibora]

i didnt know marciano had a peek aboo style

I'll let you be the judge:

[The Noose]

I dont think people critisize them for their style.
Tyson gets critisized for being heartless and building a record fighting nobodies.
People say Marciano is too small compared to todays heavies.
And i dont hear too much against Dempsey.

Apart from that u have Foreman who was still effective at 40. Lewis who fought everyone and beat everyone.
Louis who also cannot be faulted for his opposition or record.

I think Marciano may be overrated by some because of his record. And Tyson is still often called the best fighter ever. Which is obviously a little bias and dumb.

[La_Vibora]

I dont think people critisize them for their style.
Tyson gets critisized for being heartless and building a record fighting nobodies.
People say Marciano is too small compared to todays heavies.
And i dont hear too much against Dempsey.

Apart from that u have Foreman who was still effective at 40. Lewis who fought everyone and beat everyone.
Louis who also cannot be faulted for his opposition or record.

I think Marciano may be overrated by some because of his record. And Tyson is still often called the best fighter ever. Which is obviously a little bias and dumb.

People say the same thing about Tyson that they say about Marciano, that they built up their careers beating past thier prime fighters and blown up heavyweights. I honestly think Marciano is more underrated than anything, especially with the way some make it seem as if he would be a nobody if he were around today.

As for Dempsey, there was a big discussion in a thread yesterday, where some were refering to him as "a wild brawler" and as being "unskilled", not to mention his skills being called "primitive", also some were saying that he would be too small to be effective today, and that he is overrated.

On the other hand, you don't see people criticizing Lennox Lewis who was KOed by one shot twice, and never defeated a great fighter in his prime. You don't see people talk about the "safe" road George took on his comeback or for being heartless when he left boxing the first time around(and returning coincidentally when Larry Holmes was out of the picture as champion). Yet, I see the criticism towards the little guys quite often.

[Abe Attell]

George was burnt out...he couldn't get a rematch with Ali and he was being driven crazy by feeling insecure, or so they say...the best thing for a fighter like Foreman would have been able to get that rematch with Ali as soon as possible, that would of probably saved him, but not having that chance to redeem himself was slowly killing him. He couldn't concentrate on any other fighter than Ali and that is why he appeared unfocused for the other fights after the loss.

[The Noose]

Id say maybe they (Tyson, Marciano, Dempsy) are victims of their own success.
Because they were so dominant they were believed to have not fought any quality opponents.

Im probably the wrong person to ask because i agree with u.
I think Dempsy was far from primitive. He was actually a pinoeer of that style. Most boxers fought upright, he ducked down and was difficult to keep off.
Marciano beat everyone who was around and also would be very difficult for a big heavyweight to hit and keep away from. These big heavyweights tire quite easily and are slower. Marciano i believe could wear them down.
And Tyson would KO any of the top fighters toady. He was too quick for the giant heavies, and would still be able to land very fast hard right hands as he did back in his prime.

[The Noose]

Lewis although being KO'd avenged his losses. Tyson never did. So people will always say that Douglas, Holyfeild and Lewis would always have beaten him. (Which i disagree with).

Foreman destroyed Frazier, Norton, Chuvalo which cant really be argued with as they were all considered very good fighters at the time.

[Abe Attell]

Not all Tyson's fault: Tyson wanted the rematch with Douglas but Douglas wanted 20+ million, and King said "NO"...Tyson supposedly told King he didn't care about the money, but King said forget it. I think Douglas ended up getting 25 million for fighting Holyfield.

It's an old argument, but Tyson's skills were never the same after he left Rooney, though I still think he would of taken Douglas in the rematch if he came in decent shape like he did for Ruddock.


For Holyfield, Mike probably had a better chance at beating him before he went to prison... at least he still used some body punching,which I always felt Evander had some problems with taken, and some timing left...Tyson did hurt Evander in their fight to the body, but he didn't follow up with body punches...Rooney made sure Tyson would combo up that body on up to the head. You have to fight Evander to the body, not the head.

For Lewis, he got tougher to fight when Emanuel took over...Lewis had a lethal uppercut so he had a weapon that could hurt Tyson...add the height, intelligence, patience, it could be some trouble for prime Tyson. I never bought into Lewis's stamina though: most big guys tend to have stamina issues when having to fight at a faster pace...Lewis was just so great at using the jab he could dictate the pace, except for the Vitali fight, but his stamina may have looked bad more from age than fast pace fighting. Lewis still didn't have a Foreman like chin, though it isn't as bad as people make it out to be...both shots that knocked him out were big, solid, punches right on the chin.

[butterfly1964]

There isn't a day that passes by where I don't read a thread about Tyson, Marciano, or Dempsey being overrated, and how big heavyweights today would stomp them all. Hell, the only one that doesn't get that much "hate" is Joe Frazier, and that is only because he beat Muhammed Ali. Rather than looking at the amazing speed, power, ability to manuever in without getting hit, people only seem to see their size as a weakness, rather than as the advantage that these guys utilized it as. So I just want to know why is there always such hate for this style of heavyweight? Hell, I am positive in 30 years, I am going to be arguing with some young boxing fan who will be telling me that there is no way that Mike Tyson could have fought in the division of that day because he is too small, and I will give him the same look that the old timers give us when people say the same about Marciano and Dempsey.

Because, they boxed so long ago that people don't really know about them and assume that they weren't that good.