Question:Why some have Rocky overJack?

Not in terms of pure power, just multiple different aspects and layers of what makes a puncher. Tyson was one of the best, ever. I have no qualms admitting it and no hipster logic is going to change it. Foreman rejected several offers to fight Tyson during the 1990s even though Tyson's alledged fear of him makes for a good tale. It is a bit humorous however, that Tyson loses to Foreman based on styles and similarities to Frazier. But pit him against Ali and they're suddenly nothing alike (and aside from being short, stocky come-forward Heavyweights, they really aren't). I suppose the basis of the argument in that is Ali was arguably the most difficult heavyweight in history to stop, and that Tyson wouldn't have the stamina, work rate and 'heart' to beat him in the same fashion. It's an easy cop out to say Ali would simply break Tyson mentally and be done with it without having to address Tyson's ability to match Ali's speed of hand and foot, his propensity for leaving his hands down, and susceptibility to getting tagged with left hooks. Frazier's may of been better in terms of putting it in regular working order, his bread and butter, but it sure as hell didn't pack the same type of wallop. Does Ali survive whatever Tyson brings at him to secure a clear points win? Probably. He may even stop him late. But it's by no means a win by default.

 

Fair enough...Sounds like you answered your own questions. It seems like you and I have heard two very different tales on Foreman/Tyson...I think old George wanted him...it problably wouldn't have ended well for George at that point...but young George? He plows Tyson...I'll buy your reasoning on Ali/Tyson. Not a default win for Ali, but nonetheless a probable decision win. You are also correct in saying Frazier and Tyson are different...Tyson is faster, more powerful, better defensively and dynamic. Frazier is more consistent, much better inside fighter, and has a higher workrate...the longer a fight goes, Frazier either maintains or accelerates pace...Tyson starts fast then it seems becomes more methodical...I would pick Tyson to beat Frazier, but if it goes past six, I'd say that Frazier's odds just improved quite a bit.

 

That's because I don't have the nerve to outright predict a Tyson win based on Ali's far greater opposition defeated. Tyson has a lot of holes in his case for greatness, but his talent is something I won't ever sell short. He could beat anyone. Too bad for him he didn't get the majority of his legacy fights when he had the necessary ability and skills to perform.

In regards to the Foreman stuff, it's based on a few sources poster ironchamp dug up:

1st offer was for $5,000,000 in 1990.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...95/1/index.htm

2nd offer was for $20,000,000 in 1991.
http://www.thesweetscience.com/news/...1991-markarian

3rd offer was $15,000,000 with a winner take all that could total $80,000,000 in 1995.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_17445393/

4th offer was for $20,000,000 in 1999.
http://boxing.about.com/gi/dynamic/o...man/index.html

Although that fourth link may be dead.

I'd be inclined to add: physically stronger, better counter-puncher, superior combination punching, finishing ability, one punch KO power. :yep

With Tyson in fantasy fights, it seems like if he doesn't KO his man then he stands little chance of winning. There's evidence for it, but he took his share of decision wins in his prime years and some by wide margins. His aggressive style, fast hands and ability to slip punches are feasibly just as effective at outworking, outlanding and outpointing opponents as they are for knocking them senseless -- and at the very least jumping out to a wide lead for when his work rate inevitably begins to slow down. Fights like Tucker and Smith are often pointed out as failures when they were hardly even close.

 

Well, on a style basis I'd say probably neither does. I thought I did in the post you're replying to. But if I didn't. Lower center of gravity, better puncher, more durable, better conditioned. Basically Dempsey has to take him out early. I guess it's feasible Dempsey beats Marciano to the punch and batters him but it seems incredibly unlikely considering Dempsey's own flaws and vulnerabilities in regards to reckless and defense, particularly considering how open he was to Marciano's best punch... a right hand.

Errrrr no. Now, if you believe this then you somehow have to believe Marciano is exponentially better in the chin, stamina, and IQ department considering he had take so many more punches than Dempsey. This of course all depends on whether you believe his defense is more polished. For a fighter that has his detractors for having such bad skin (Grossly overstated, may I add), Rocky never had to have someone walk him across the ring to shake his opponents hand because both of his eyes were closed shut. Yeah, that Dempsey was over the hill. I can list the other versions if you really like.

Marciano weathers in early storm and batters Dempsey with heavier artillery, and more overwhelming activity.

You make it sound like this is forgone. No fighter really went at Marciano and had success. At least not in the way Dempsey would. Walcott had quite a bit of success, but this was unexpected, and Walcott was a rather cutey. So even an aggressive Walcott is much different than how Dempsey would be. How did Marciano handle a more conventional brawler coming after him like Rex Layne? Yes a very very poor man's Dempsey.

I'm not convinced of this. It seems we just value different attributes. I think durability, power, stamina, and defense are far more important in this type of fight than speed and footwork. Excuse me...

 

You make a striking point in regards to Tyson-Frazier. The problem is in this case the Frazier has the advantages in stamina, defense, durability, and two handed power. In reality, Frazier only has a stamina advantage over Tyson. Anyone wagering that Frazier would win because of advantages in durability, defense, or power would ultimately destroy their own credibility.

I guess a slow starter vs a fast starter is a style advantage early on. Maybe just a style advantage assuming the fast fighter can finish him. Otherwise, I don't quite see it. Like I said earlier, Goldman stated that "No man comes at Marciano and wins." This is the crux of the thinking in terms of styles.

 

I like a prime Dempsey to stop Marciano on cuts. Walcott was landing basically at will against the Rock in their first fight.

While a fine puncher in his own right, Walcott is no Dempsey in the power punching department. Dempsey's handspeed though is right there with Jersey Joe's for sure.

It wouldn't surprise me if Marciano, with his supreme conditioning, ring intelligence, indomitable will to win, etc. came back to kayo Jack later in the fight after having some rough going early.

The slightly more likely scenario for me though is that Dempsey with his tougher skin, similiar punching power coupled with much greater speed would prevail here prime on prime.

Dempsey TKO 9

 

Meh what's the point really?

Arguing in circles when clearly no side is gonna give way.

 

Probably because the examples are not alike

Tyson is bigger than Frazier (Dempsey is not bigger than Marciano)

Harder hitting (Dempsey is not harder punching)

More durable (Dempsey is not more durable)

And IMO is on another level when it comes to skill, accuracy, head movement and combination punching. (Compared to Dempsey that is)

 

That Jess victory was one of the most overrated in history.. like seriously way overrated. Dempsey lived in a era where writing about sports figrues was more like poetry. The adjectives just keep coming over and over again. Yet, that doesn't mean we take those words literally and at face value. We have the tools and the means to examine his career as a whole. When doing so, we can see beyond a shadow of doubt he was overrated in his own time and even well after his time. His resume is paltry and can't even compare to Marciano's let alone some of HW that have existed. When I look at this fight I see Rocky doing more stuff better... with a better resume... to me that is case closed..

 

I don't understand how someone who backs themselves on Greb by recounting his ring record can rate Dempsey so highly. Be consistent and rank those who won against the best as the best, rather than listening to fairy tales about a nation's favourite son.

 

This.

 

What does him fighting Marciano have to do with how Dempsey fairs against a real tall man that has no ring iq or boxing skills? **** all, whereas Dempsey fighting someone like Tunney, who can actually box and had a good ring IQ whether Dempsey was at his best or not. Don't get me wrong Marciano was no Tunney in terms of boxing abilities, but he had good ring IQ and comparing him to the likes of Willard is a disgrace.

Your so ****ing focused on Dempsey's whole career and how he had 25 first round KOs against mainly journeyman at best and it simply isn't relevant. Where did Willard get this 'iron' chin from. He was stopped on his stool by a nobody before Dempsey and KOed afterwards and the only people of significance he fought were a way past Johnson and Dempsey himself.

THIS IS A H2H THREAD. WE ARE NOT COMPARING THEIR GREATNESS OR WHO HAS THE BEST ACHIEVEMENTS. Maybe if you weren't so subjective towards Dempsey and had your head 3 foot up his ass you'd realise that, so start using relevant information that shows Dempsey would match up well against Marciano or how he wouldn't match up well, although we know that won't happened because you made your mind up before you even made the thread