Who has the best single win? Marciano or Tyson ???

good luck proving anything that you say in the forum

 

Ah but you see I can prove that Marciano’s opponents had better resume’s on paper.

That would be fairly straightforward.

 

No ****. Sherlock.

 

Marciano

 

But yeah yeah tyson would destroy marciano brutally. Too strong,fast and too much everything for rocky. Now... If they were of the same size and weight who would you pick? Honestly

 

It depends what you feel is more impressive: Rocky's come from behind KO of JJW, or Tyson's complete and utter dominance of Spinks, Holmes or Berbick. Of course in the Walcott rematch the Rock destroyed him in 1.

 

It's difficult to say what Marciano's best win is. Same is true of Tyson.

I'd be tempted to say Marciano's KO of Moore was his best win.
And Tyson's would be the KO of Berbick.
Both were utterly brutal.

 

Tyson ko 4 Holmes...

 

Spinks hadn't just beat Holmes?? He took the title 3 years before but he had beat ****ey last time out but he'd been off the scene for about a year - at the time I thought he'd retired and it was basically like he was coming back to fight Tyson.

And Walcott fought probably his best ever fight against Marciano?? Walcott was in probably his best form ever also having become champion and won back to back versus the great Ezzard Charles included stevie-one-bombing him - something nobody in like a hundred and whatever fights ever did - Walcott is leagues ahead of Spinks full stop and even further ahead than the inactive and terrified one that Tyson - I'd say Rocky's knockout of Walcott in the the rematch was more of a fight and also a better finish than the Tyson Spinks - Spinks put up no fight whatsoever and Walcott had a great chin

 

Tyson

Marciano biggest name victims were well past their best.

 

One of the few threads I'm commenting on that I'm not even bothering to read the responses. I'm somewhat annoyed that there are 3 pages to the thread indicating some level of debate. It's a complete no brainer and not legitimately debatable, Marciano by far (unless you are talking H2H). Louis is a vastly bigger legacy win than Holmes (even shot Louis vs mostly shot Holmes). Charles and Walcott are bigger prime-ish legacy wins than any Tyson win (Spinks would be about the only one even worthy of debate on that score, and Spinks isn't even close).

The only argument you could make is H2H, in which case, sure, an era featuring few to no 6'3, 215 lb plus contenders is going to have a champ with easier h2h wins than an era where that is about the average size of a contender. But on legacy, its a slam dunk and laughable to argue otherwise.

 

why u lying? - holmes proved he had much better longevity than Louis.

why u lying about their comparative longevities?

spinks is as big as ezzard, and a better performance.

Walcott was even older than Holmes for Tyson!! really not better than the holmes win or prime champion destructions.

so why u lying? cos Marciano is whyte yeh?

 

Oh wow, this post explains so much, on so many levels ^

 

I guess the brass tacks look like this at the end of the day.

If you were to rank the men they beat, without making any allowance for them being outside their primes, the list would look like this:

1. Louis
2. Holmes
3. Charles
4. Walcott
5. Spinks
6. Moore or Tucker perhaps

The question of how far past their respective peaks they were is subjective, but I think it would be fair to say that Walcott was the best of the bunch on paper. He had just lifted and retained the title, and anybody you could rank above him on that list, was significantly further removed from their peak.

This gives you four logical answers to this question.

1. You say Marciano in the first Walcott fight, on the basis that this represents a win over the best opponent on the list.

2. You say Marciano of the second Walcott fight, because that was a more dominant win, and take a gamble on what version of Walcott showed up.

3. You say Tyson in the Spinks fight, based on the dominant nature of the win, combined with Spink’s standing at the time.

4. You say Tyson in the Holmes fight, based on the dominant nature of the win, and take a gamble on what version of Holmes showed up.

Personally I see it as being between options 1 and 3.

 

Agree with every word.