Does Tyson run through Marcianos resume unbeaten ?

Excuse me. Are you the guy who writes the blog hyping the Klitschkos who once wrote that Jean Marc Mormeck would've been the best fighter Muhammad Ali ever fought?

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/4082...imir-klitschko-vs-jean-marc-mormeck#more-4082

I ask because you started another thread today with a link to that blog.

If so, please don't come hear saying we're "overrating" Marciano and Tyson's opponents ... if it's your contention Jean Marc Mormeck was better than anyone Muhammad Ali ever fought.

:roll:atsch

 

Mormeck WAS better than anybody Ali ever fought ... at playing tiddlywinks

 

I think Archie Moore has as good a chance as Walcott has.
Most likely Tyson goes 49-0. Because even if he has a bad night he probably has the style and certainly the firepower to bail himself out.

 

No that's definitely not me I disagree with that blog a lot. Just wanted to see what some other thought of it. Heck, I don't even know who Jean Marc Mormeck is.

 

I think the blog makes some plausible, if debatable, points about Tyson's difficulties stopping talented big men and how this might translate into him having serious difficulties against the Brothers K.

 

Yes but only to a certain extent.

Remember these are past prime versions of LHW-CW sized fighters.

And the best candidate for success is a man who sat down in round 1 and didn't get back up again.

 

I think that people are very quick to take these past prime LHW/cruiserweight fighters for granted.

They were the kind of tricksters that posed a dangerous problem for virtually anybody, and that you needed to be on the ball against.

Once you start to become sloppy in your preparations against these kind of fighters, you are an accident waiting to happen.

 

And youre taking a below peak Tyson for granted.

He abandoned his gameplan, not his strength, speed or physique. How on earth is a past his best 0.5 Charles meant to stand up to that kind of power?

 

What kind of problems did that trickster Ezzard Charles cause for 177-lb Harold Johnson and 8-loss Nino Valdes?

 

He doesn't.

 

Easy.

He sees it coming.

 

Exactly. And in 23 rounds against Marciano over two fights, Charles won SEVEN total rounds on one card and SIX total rounds on two others.

So Charles didn't win 17 of the 23 rounds on two cards ... and he was dropped multiple times and stopped on top of that ... against a 31-year-old Marciano who would retire the next year.

But Charles was "trickster" enough that he was going to whip a 21 or 22-year-old Mike Tyson if Tyson had showed up instead?

:roll:

No. :deal

From August 1953 (the Valdes fight) on ... Charles lost more than a won. He wasn't "tricking" anyone at that point. The wheels had basically come off and he couldn't put them back on.

 

This is pure fantasy.