Mike Tyson vs Rocky Marciano

[Hawkins]

Holmes talked so much smack about Tyson and even mocked him in the ring..

No disrespect, but anyone who uses Bruce "I Once Got Knocked Down By The Wind From A Punch" Seldon as validity in an argument, shoots themselves in the foot.

Hey I love Larry and what I'm going to say isn't meant to invalidate Tyson in the least but I have thought, and always will think, Holmes was there for Mike for nothing more than a payday. As for the talking ****. Thats just Larry. What did you expect him to kiss Mike's ass? Of course he's going to talk smack.

I never have thought Larry took the fight all that serious other than the greenbacks he got from cashing the check. Not a knock on Tyson, but more to Larry's mindset.

[Hawkins]

We disagree on a few things but some things we see exactly the same.
Your mark for the assesment and outcome of this fight.

A+ or 10/10 which ever you prefer.

I couldn't have put it any better. I'd love to come round your house and watch loads of old fights I think it would be a pretty cool night.

Too bad the Atlantic Ocean is in the way or I'd welcome you any time. I have a fairly large collection of fights too

As for the fight assesment, I think its a more than fair take on what could happen But thats what makes these forums so much fun. Different takes on things and intelligent conversation.

[hemichromis]

Tyson did not have trouble with guys who did not fear him, that only happened later on in his career.

Holmes and Seldon did not fear him, yet the same brutal outcome.

another thing, although Tyson pushes the most in the first 3 rounds, he still keeps up the pressure up untill even round 12.


Marciano is tough, smaller, doesn't hit as hard and has good stamina, if we are going with your theory of "boxers would benefit with the tech of today" then he might have a chance, a Direct comparison is probably a 1st or second round knockout, as marciano is to slow and probably couldn't hurt Tyson.

It's been stated before that Marciano wasn't the hardest hitter of his time, only the most relentless.
Being 186 lbs he weighed less than Tyson's heavy bag, and we all know how he tossed that thing around.

by which authority on the subject?

marciano in all likelyhood hit HARDER than tyson but less frequently.

tyson does slow down after the first 3 rounds often quite consideribly assuming marciano survives he would be getting stronger and would start to dominate.

almost everyone tyson faced feared him with the possible exceptions of
buster douglas
evander holfield

i'll give you holmes he didn't fear tyson but he was nearing 40! he still made a good go of it in the first few rounds.

the prime tyson was in a weak era no stronger than marciano's

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

I think when assessing Mike Tyson as a fighter in comparison to other fighters, you need to stop at the Spinks fight. After that fight he was rid of Rooney, calling all the shots, and training the way he felt like. You just know none of those guys got on him like Kevin did. They were lucky to be there making that money and everything else that came with training the heavyweight champion. Tyson at that age was the kind of person that needed that type of discipline he got from Kevin, especially at that age. Plain and simple, he got rid of Kevin because he didn't want to listen to him anymore. The Tyson story is real, there was a downfall that came way before he was ever defeated or else he wouldn't have been defeated so soon. Douglas never would have beaten him, and if Tyson fought Holyfield early on (w/Kevin) he would have knocked him out early. If Stewart could hurt Holyfield, Tyson could kill him. So, to say Tyson failed when other fighters stood up to him is actually true, but to the second Tyson not the first. If we go by the first Tyson, Marciano only could have made it out of the first round if he spent the entire round bent over like he did. Sooner or later Marciano would have to come up to hit Mike and that would be the end. I'm not saying everyone, but all the crap Tyson talked in recent years will forever haunt him when people compare him to other greats of the past. Most people hate him rather they admit it or not, especially whites. He made too many hurtful racial comments in the past. Here's a funny one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3m5c...elated&search=

That's exactly how I view people that actually think Marciano could have beet Mike. It's a ridiculous comparison. This isn't Solly directed at Hawkins, it's just the stuff that comes to mind when I hear this crap, especially from guys that understand Boxing. I don't think Tyson was the greatest ever. I think anyone that argues Ali, Foreman, or Holmes could have beaten him, has a valid argument. But to say Marciano could beet him is a bunch of crap. IMHO

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

marciano in all likelyhood hit HARDER than tyson but less frequently.

tyson does slow down after the first 3 rounds often quite consideribly assuming marciano survives he would be getting stronger and would start to dominate.

Marciano hit harder than Tyson? LOL That's a first.

It's not called slowing down, it's called settling down and pacing yourself for a long fight. Tyson's style was to come at you early, if he couldn't knock an opponent out early he settled and paced himself. Foreman is a perfect fighter to make that statement about, not Tyson.

[Hawkins]

I think when assessing Mike Tyson as a fighter in comparison to other fighters, you need to stop at the Spinks fight. After that fight he was rid of Rooney, calling all the shots, and training the way he felt like. You just know none of those guys got on him like Kevin did. They were lucky to be there making that money and everything else that came with training the heavyweight champion. Tyson at that age was the kind of person that needed that type of discipline he got from Kevin, especially at that age. Plain and simple, he got rid of Kevin because he didn't want to listen to him anymore. The Tyson story is real, there was a downfall that came way before he was ever defeated or else he wouldn't have been defeated so soon. Douglas never would have beaten him, and if Tyson fought Holyfield early on (w/Kevin) he would have knocked him out early. If Stewart could hurt Holyfield, Tyson could kill him. So, to say Tyson failed when other fighters stood up to him is actually true, but to the second Tyson not the first. If we go by the first Tyson, Marciano only could have made it out of the first round if he spent the entire round bent over like he did. Sooner or later Marciano would have to come up to hit Mike and that would be the end. I'm not saying everyone, but all the crap Tyson talked in recent years will forever haunt him when people compare him to other greats of the past. Most people hate him rather they admit it or not, especially whites. He made too many hurtful racial comments in the past. Here's a funny one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3m5c...elated&search=

That's exactly how I view people that actually think Marciano could have beet Mike. It's a ridiculous comparison. This isn't Solly directed at Hawkins, it's just the stuff that comes to mind when I hear this crap, especially from guys that understand Boxing. I don't think Tyson was the greatest ever. I think anyone that argues Ali, Foreman, or Holmes could have beaten him, has a valid argument. But to say Marciano could beet him is a bunch of crap. IMHO

So basically you're saying the trainer is what made Tyson, not Tyson himself? That sure sounds like what you're saying. If thats the case then you're screwing yourself out of your own argument. What you're saying is oxymoronic in the fact you are stating that you should rate Tyson only on the good part of his career and forget the rest.

Well here is a newsflash - Buster Douglas beat a prime Mike Tyson - Evander Holyfield beat a Tyson that was supposed to steamroll him and like it nor not that plays into the overall picture of ranking Mike Tyson.

It's really funny because before Holyfield knocked him out we heard how Mike was close to where he used to be and Holy was washed up yet after the fight alot of people were saying Mike was the one over the hill. Can't have it both ways fellas.

Just by my defending a white fighter, you assume I'm white? Classic, says alot in and of itself. For you to bring race into this discussion is ridiculous. Nowhere have I seen anyone else base any analysis on race. Race has nothing to do with it. A good fighter is a good fighter, regardless if hes black, white, blue or green.

Furthermore if you can find any statement where I said Marciano would beat Tyson hands down then I'll buy your beer for a year. The only thing you'll see from is an analysis on styles of fighters and how it could have played out (if you'll read it it clearly states how I envision a victory for either one). The only reason I have defended Marciano is because all of you guys dismiss him as an afterthought when comparing him to Tyson and that is an unintelligent and unknowledgable way to analyze fighters from different eras.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

So basically you're saying the trainer is what made Tyson, not Tyson himself? That sure sounds like what you're saying. If thats the case then you're screwing yourself out of your own argument.

Yes, I'm saying that "family" (Cus, Jacobs, and Rooney) is what helped make Tyson the great fighter he was. And I'll admit he needed them to have a successful career. Tyson (IMO) didn't have the character to be a great champion on his own. Either that or it was too much too soon, might have been both.

What you're saying is oxymoronic in the fact you are stating that you should rate Tyson only on the good part of his career and forget the rest.

No, I'm saying if your going to compare Tyson at his best against Marciano at his best, then you do just that. Your starting to compare careers which isn't what this thread is about. Your also using fights that Tyson fought after his down fall as examples of how a prime Tyson was and that's just not right.

Well here is a newsflash - Buster Douglas beat a prime Mike Tyson

O.K. maybe in your opinion, but Tyson wasn't with Rooney, wasn't training properly, and you could see it in the fight that something wasn't there. This is all known and has even been mentioned in many documentaries. But your opinion is your opinion.

Evander Holyfield beat a Tyson that was supposed to steamroll him and like it nor not that plays into the overall picture of ranking Mike Tyson.

Again, he was way passed his prime but yeah, it does hurt his overall rankings when assessing his entire career. His career turned into a big mess, everyone knows that but that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at how Tyson and Marciano fought in their primes and discussing how a fight between the two would have turned out from what I remember.

It's really funny because before Holyfield knocked him out we heard how Mike was close to where he used to be and Holy was washed up yet after the fight a lot of people we saying Mike was the one over the hill. Can't have it both ways fellas.

Your absolutely right but I wasn't one of them.

Just by my defending a white fighter, you assume I'm white? Classic, says alot in and of itself. For you to bring race into this discussion is ridiculous. Nowhere have I seen anyone else base any analysis on race. Race has nothing to do with it. A good fighter is a good fighter, regardless if hes black, white, blue or green.

Did you even read what I said? LOL Here's exactly what I said: "I'm not saying everyone, but all the crap Tyson talked in recent years will forever haunt him when people compare him to other greats of the past. Most people hate him rather they admit it or not, especially whites. He made too many hurtful racial comments in the past." It's also a fact that many white Americans hated Muhammad Ali in the 60's for his comments about "white devils" just to name one. If you had asked them at that time if Ali could have beaten Marciano, you think they would have said yes? LOL Saying Tyson would have beat Marciano because he was white would be ridiculous. But, leaving out prejudicms against fighters like Mike (because of the racial comments he's made in the past) is being unrealistic.

Furthermore if you can find any statement where I said Marciano would beat Tyson hands down then I'll buy your beer for a year. The only thing you'll see from is an analysis on styles of fighters and how it could have played out (if you'll read it it clearly states how I envision a victory for either one). The only reason I have defended Marciano is because all of you guys dismiss him as an afterthought when comparing him to Tyson and that is an intelligent and unknowledgable way to analyze fighters from different eras.

Your right about that, I just didn't think it was fare to compare careers when predicting who would win a fight. Many guys had greater careers than Tyson, but it doesn't mean they would have beat him.

[hhascup]

Like I have been saying, Rocky had a much better career, BUT if they ever fought each other, I would put my money on Tyson.

When I rate a boxer, I go by his whole career, not just a few years. If you rate them at their best, then that would be all together different.

[Hawkins]

Yes, I'm saying that "family" (Cus, Jacobs, and Rooney) is what helped make Tyson the great fighter he was. And I'll admit he needed them to have a successful career. Tyson (IMO) didn't have the character to be a great champion on his own. Either that or it was too much too soon, might have been both.

For the record I agree, and have said as much myself. I was baseless in assuming it was an excuse from your end especially since I have said as much myself. Mike was/is an emotionally fragile individual. When he got away from those that truly loved him he imploded.

No, I'm saying if your going to compare Tyson at his best against Marciano at his best, then you do just that. Your starting to compare careers which isn't what this thread is about. Your also using fights that Tyson fought after his down fall as examples of how a prime Tyson was and that's just not right.

To be honest, when I do a head to head match up I try to take the fighter from the period I thought they were best. Doesn't mean I don't factor in some of the weaknesses (I mean you have to if you want to find away for someone else to defeat said person). But I get what you're saying and I agree.

O.K. maybe in your opinion, but Tyson wasn't with Rooney, wasn't training properly, and you could see it in the fight that something wasn't there. This is all known and has even been mentioned in many documentaries. But your opinion is your opinion.

Hey didn't have the same desire maybe, nor the training...but Mike, ultimately did that to himself, besides he was still in his physical prime. We can all blame Don King for Mike not being able to redeem himself against Buster.

Again, he was way passed his prime but yeah, it does hurt his overall rankings when assessing his entire career. His career turned into a big mess, everyone knows that but that's not what we're looking at. We're looking at how Tyson and Marciano fought in their primes and discussing how a fight between the two would have turned out from what I remember.

Well it wasn't a retort for the Marciano comparison it was more from standpoint that you (not meaning you, but Tyson fans) can't dismiss Marciano for fighting allegedly over the hill fighters when at the time Tyson was doing the same? The reason? They were legit contenders and were the top guys around.

Did you even read what I said? LOL Here's exactly what I said: "I'm not saying everyone, but all the crap Tyson talked in recent years will forever haunt him when people compare him to other greats of the past. Most people hate him rather they admit it or not, especially whites. He made too many hurtful racial comments in the past." It's also a fact that many white Americans hated Muhammad Ali in the 60's for his comments about "white devils" just to name one. If you had asked them at that time if Ali could have beaten Marciano, you think they would have said yes? LOL Saying Tyson would have beat Marciano because he was white would be ridiculous. But, leaving out prejudicms against fighters like Mike (because of the racial comments he's made in the past) is being unrealistic.

You're right. I didn't read it thoroughly. Thats what I get for trying to do 10 things at once..I usually make myself look like an ass. But in defense of hardcore students of the fight game I think its more the casual observer that spews the racial garbage.

Your right about that, I just didn't think it was fare to compare careers when predicting who would win a fight. Many guys had greater careers than Tyson, but it doesn't mean they would have beat him.

Well like I said, when making head to head comparison I try to do it with the prime versions of both fighters in mind. Totally unfair otherwise. I respect your opinions that Tyson would defeat Marciano, we all see different things when we watch fights. I think it could very well go that way myself, however I don't think it would such a cakewalk. I think for Tyson to beat Marciano it would be a war of attrition and a physically tasking fight for both men.

On a sidenote, I think the way you would have dominate Tyson in his prime would take a page from Tony Tuckers playbook but add a jab using some authority. Tucker got the best of Tyson in some of those early rounds using mostly that left uppercut and a straight right over the top when Tyson came inside.

Why do I think it was effective? Because Tyson was doing as much clinching in the early rounds as was Tucker, especially after Tucker stung him with that uppercut in the first round. The point being that a fight with someone like Marciano wouldn't be the key way to beat Mike Tyson. Put two swarmers together and you have a shootout, not a technical way to beat someone.

[ROSS CALIFORNIA]

Hawkins, you responded like a man. Do you know how many bitches get all tore up over simple debates? LOL