Does Tyson run through Marcianos resume unbeaten ?

I agree that Tyson would have been highly motivated for the Walcott fight.

He saw the lineal title as the ultimate prize, so this is where we would see him at his brilliant best.

I will offer this up as a possible timeline:

Walcott defends his title against Tyson, and puts up a good fight, only to get walked down in the middle rounds somewhere.

By the time of the rematch, Walcott is already thinking about getting out of the game, and he is put away quickly.

Tyson sacks Charlie Goldman, and starts to believe what the papers are writing about him.

He turns up to the LaStarza fight unmotivated and undertrained, and despite a lacklustre showing his power bails him out.

Emboldened by this, he tries the same stunt in the Ezzard Charles fight.

Charles turns up highly motivated, and puts on a master class.

Tyson comes out lethargically and Charles starts to pile up rounds.

At the end of the fight Charles’s hand is raised, and he has become the first fighter to regain the heavyweight title.

Tyson is devastated by the loss of his title, and starts training diligently for the rematch.

Unfortunately before the fight can take place, he is indicted by the Un-American Activities Committee, leaving the title to pass to Valdez, and later Moore.

 

See in my mind Tyson got bored and unmotivated after destroying Spinks.

Bruno, Williams and Douglas fought the head hunting lesser version of Tyson.

The timeline sees them replaced by Charles, ****ell and Moore.

I still don't see those 3 beating Mike. I can't envision it at all. Who's after that?

Patterson, Ingo, Folley, Machen, Valdes, Liston. Only one of those scores the upset in my mind.

 

If he got bored after winning the lineal title then:

Spinks = Walcott I
Bruno = Walcott II
Williams = LaStarza
Douglas = Charles I
Tilman = Charles II
Stewart = ****ell
Ruddock I = Moore

 

That's one way of looking at it from a bored because of the lineal title viewpoint.

Another way I'd bored of that long at the top, he was a top HW for 4 years, so 4 years after the break through fight against Louis puts him at Charles.

 

Will the referee in the first Mike Tyson-Ezzard Charles fight not pick up the count when Tyson drops Charles, too? (While the official timekeeper counts to 11?)

Charles was a sub-500 fighter from 1953 on. He couldn't beat Marciano. He couldn't beat Harold Johnson. He couldn't beat Nino Valdes. He's not suddenly beating a 22 or 23-year-old Mike Tyson.

This is a dozen pages of nonsense.

In his first 46 fights, Mike Tyson dominated much bigger, stronger often more skilled heavyweights ... including a couple hall of famers.

He lost once, in a fight against a 6'4" 230 pound boxer/puncher, who Tyson also dropped in the eighth round for an 11-count by the official timekeeper.

99.9 percent of the time, the ref picks up the count and Tyson walks away from that poor outing with an eighth round knockout.

No matter how you try to paint it, Mike Tyson bombs out all the same guys Rocky Marciano bombed out - even on Tyson's OFF night (unless all the referees refuse to pick up counts).

A 30-something Marciano wasn't better than a young 20s Mike Tyson at anything.

Rocky's team didn't match him with guys who had the size and style to beat Rocky. And, subsequently, none of them had the size or style to beat a young Tyson, either.

Mike Tyson would've had a field day fighting guys his own size or smaller.

Everybody knows it. Can we stop now?:hi:

 

No.

 

I love Marciano and Tyson threads the extreme overrating of both makes for some great arguments.

 

No comparison.

 

Yes, there is pretty much the same thing happens. Rocky opponents get overrated as master boxers. Tyson's get overrated by beating fast skilled big men. Same thing. Tyson's opponents are nowhere near as good as you and some others are making them out to be.

 

Not at all. Marciano fans dispute even his most obvious traits (his slowness, his crudeness, etc.) and resort to all manner of logical fallacy to pretend that his accomplishments against his opponents demonstrate that he would beat bigger modern opponents.

My posts weren't about how "good" Tyson's opponents were; they were about the obvious fact that mobile big men with jabs are more difficult for little sluggers to overwhelm than the type of men Marciano fought were.

 

Like I said still the same overestimating Rocky and his opponents. As well as Tysons your posts may not have been how good they're but you're still overestimating how tough these mythical mobile big men are also I wasn't just talking about your posts. All the threads with either of these men happen this way sadly.