What's More Impressive, Tyson's 36-0 or Marciano's 49-0? - Page 4

Nay_Sayer · 12-24-2009, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mongoose

You think Tiger Jack's KO of Walcott devalues Marciano's. You have no grasp of context and make strawman arguments. End of discussion, your not worth my time. The story of Walcott is one of the greatest and most inspiring in boxing and you are clearly ignorant of it. Educate yourself, I'm not going to do it for you. If you want to make a case for Mike, by all means do so, you don't have to debate me to express your opinion. There is always an argument to be made but I've seen nothing that would indicate you would bring a fair and interesting one to the table.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I didn't say one god damned word about Walcott in this thread. This thread in about the comparison between the records of Mike Tyson and Rocky Marciano. Did you not see the title before you came inside?

We were talking about Rocky and Mike before you pulled this Walcott Red Herring out of your ass.

I realize you can't make an argument for your hero using the facts so you have to resort to trickeration. Not going to work.

Get a clue and take your meds, ole man....

The Mongoose · 12-24-2009, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nay_Sayer

What the fuck are you talking about?

I didn't say one god damned word about Walcott in this thread. This thread in about the comparison between the records of Mike Tyson and Rocky Marciano. Did you not see the title before you came inside?

We were talking about Rocky and Mike before you pulled this Walcott Red Herring out of your ass.

I realize you can't make an argument for your hero using the facts so you have to resort to trickeration. Not going to work.

Get a clue and take your meds, ole man....

I'm not going to ignore your recent poorly constructed criticisms on a related topic as if they didn't happen just because we are in another thread. And Archie Moore is my hero, buy a hint.

Have a Merry Christmas.

Nay_Sayer · 12-24-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Mongoose

I'm not going to ignore your recent poorly constructed criticisms on a related topic as if they didn't happen just because we are in another thread. And Archie Moore is my hero, buy a hint.

Have a Merry Christmas.

And Merry Christmas to you too.

Now go take your medication like a good ole man....

MrMarvel · 12-24-2009, 03:02 PM

Tyson. Hands down. During that period he was awesome. Beating Holmes, even at Holmes' age, especially considering the career Holmes had after that, is worth Marciano's top competition. But in addition to Holmes, Tyson destroyed Michael Spinks and Pinklon Thomas. You can't compare Walcott or Charles to Spinks or Holmes. Even in their primes, Walcott and Charles weren't the heavyweights Spinks and Holmes were. This isnt to take anything away from Charles as a light heavyweight; he was phenomenal (maybe the best ever). But Charles was lucky to be prime when he was. And Walcott is overrated. Put Tyson in Marciano's era and it would be like the Hulk leaping from the pages of Marvel comics, rampaging through the heavyweight division. And he would have kept on rampaging until he ran into Sonny Liston. Depending on how many fights between then and Liston, Tyson could easily have broken Marciano's record. So would Holmes and Spinks. Or Ali, for that matter.

Marciano's record is not golden or anything. It is a product of the times. Marciano could not have produced that record in any period after the one he fought in. He simply wasn't good enough to have competed with the likes of Liston, Ali, and Frazier.

Bummy Davis · 12-24-2009, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMarvel

Tyson. Hands down. During that period he was awesome. Beating Holmes, even at Holmes' age, especially considering the career Holmes had after that, is worth Marciano's top competition. But in addition to Holmes, Tyson destroyed Michael Spinks and Pinklon Thomas. You can't compare Walcott or Charles to Spinks or Holmes. Even in their primes, Walcott and Charles weren't the heavyweights Spinks and Holmes were. This isnt to take anything away from Charles as a light heavyweight; he was phenomenal (maybe the best ever). But Charles was lucky to be prime when he was. And Walcott is overrated. Put Tyson in Marciano's era and it would be like the Hulk leaping from the pages of Marvel comics, rampaging through the heavyweight division. And he would have kept on rampaging until he ran into Sonny Liston. Depending on how many fights between then and Liston, Tyson could easily have broken Marciano's record. So would Holmes and Spinks. Or Ali, for that matter.

Marciano's record is not golden or anything. It is a product of the times. Marciano could not have produced that record in any period after the one he fought in. He simply wasn't good enough to have competed with the likes of Liston, Ali, and Frazier.

Spinks in the full of his career was No where near Charles. Charles was a better Heavyweight and was tried and tested against some very capable and experienced fighters and punchers. Spinks best opponent was Qwawi and Charles was fighting the likes of Moore,Etc...can not compare the 2...As far as Holmes, lets face it the man avoided the best of his era and never unified, Walcott had to go through Murderers row to get a title shot. JJW fought the best black and white fighters to get to Louis and the 37 yr old Walcott that fought Marciano was a fit specimen a (B-Hop with POWER and poise) Holmes at that point of his career was begger not a choser but when he was a choser, he avoided the best. Walcott and Charles had a unified title and fought their number 1 contenders.

Canibus81 · 12-25-2009, 12:56 AM

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRdV1n-TG0A&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Marciano wish he had the speed and ferocity that Tyson had. It's not even close. Oh and Tyson fought much better comp. Ain't just Bonecrusher smith(who's actually the worse of the bunch that Tyson beat and was nothing more than a big puncher) that would of beatin him from Mike's era.

Ted Spoon · 12-25-2009, 06:46 AM

Tyson's mid-late eighties blast was beyond doubt a sizzling run but Marciano's vaunted 49-0, while not able to make as jaw-shattering an impression, encompasses a broader timescale of the hurdles that every champion needs to see himself through.

From slugging Vingo to dismantling Moore, Marciano holds the upper hand.

12-24-2009, 03:02 PM	#49
MrMarvel Contender ESB Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 899 vCash: 1000	Re: What's More Impressive, Tyson's 36-0 or Marciano's 49-0? Tyson. Hands down. During that period he was awesome. Beating Holmes, even at Holmes' age, especially considering the career Holmes had after that, is worth Marciano's top competition. But in addition to Holmes, Tyson destroyed Michael Spinks and Pinklon Thomas. You can't compare Walcott or Charles to Spinks or Holmes. Even in their primes, Walcott and Charles weren't the heavyweights Spinks and Holmes were. This isnt to take anything away from Charles as a light heavyweight; he was phenomenal (maybe the best ever). But Charles was lucky to be prime when he was. And Walcott is overrated. Put Tyson in Marciano's era and it would be like the Hulk leaping from the pages of Marvel comics, rampaging through the heavyweight division. And he would have kept on rampaging until he ran into Sonny Liston. Depending on how many fights between then and Liston, Tyson could easily have broken Marciano's record. So would Holmes and Spinks. Or Ali, for that matter. Marciano's record is not golden or anything. It is a product of the times. Marciano could not have produced that record in any period after the one he fought in. He simply wasn't good enough to have competed with the likes of Liston, Ali, and Frazier.
Top

12-25-2009, 12:56 AM	#51
Canibus81 Belt holder ESB Addict Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 3,914 vCash: 1000	Re: What's More Impressive, Tyson's 36-0 or Marciano's 49-0? [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRdV1n-TG0A&feature=player_embedded[/ame] Marciano wish he had the speed and ferocity that Tyson had. It's not even close. Oh and Tyson fought much better comp. Ain't just Bonecrusher smith(who's actually the worse of the bunch that Tyson beat and was nothing more than a big puncher) that would of beatin him from Mike's era.
Top

12-25-2009, 06:46 AM	#52
Ted Spoon Contender ESB Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 785 vCash: 1000	Re: What's More Impressive, Tyson's 36-0 or Marciano's 49-0? Tyson's mid-late eighties blast was beyond doubt a sizzling run but Marciano's vaunted 49-0, while not able to make as jaw-shattering an impression, encompasses a broader timescale of the hurdles that every champion needs to see himself through. From slugging Vingo to dismantling Moore, Marciano holds the upper hand.
Top