Tyson V Marciano's Challengers?

Well, it depends what you mean by flush.
Flush can be used to mean landing solid, but more precisely I'd say it means landing in completely the right spot, not an inch out (from the meaning craftsmen and skilled workers use the word).

I think he landed some good solid shots on C0ckell but Marciano was notoriously inaccurate with his punches, he didn't seem to aim for vital points, he'd just hit anything. It produced a painful prolonged mauling effect.

I don't know the context in which Swagdelfadel made the statement, I must have missed it, and perhaps you are right, I don't know.
But on the face of it, it seems like a reasonable statement.

 

you were saying 6'5", 82" 230lb was harder to beat. what part of that are you saying big fighters don't always beat smaller ones?

controlling range can be done with reach or better boxing. It's not only size. Angelo Dundee best describes it during the commentary during Holmes vs Witherspoon.

The suppressing you talk about is physical, the holding a man down in order to rest is leaning on. Officially illegal and precisely not what I said Tucker was doing. It is physical isn't it?

Many of Tysons Opponents possessed a combination of size, jab, and ability to control distance. Douglas was the first confident, fully seasoned challenger among them. He succeeded because he had more commitment and ring savy.

You say the feints worked because the jab was already established. If a feint and stutter step was not required in order to establish the jab and control distance how come all the many 6'5" 82" good jabbing guys like Ribalta, Mitch Green, Tucker, Williams and Biggs were unable to establish a jab??

Boxing beat Tyson. Douglas drew Tyson into buying a feint. This is not exclusive to 82" reach and 230 pound fighters.

 

I'm sure on his best night Tyson should be afforded favorite status over Charles. Anything less than best night from Tyson and the Charles that Marciano fought, who brought an extremely capable performance into their fight, could surprise Tyson.

Tyson has speed. His explosive power was due mostly to technique and landing punches the other man did not have time to react to or even see. He could beat Charles to the punch.

Tyson has weight on Charles but I don't see where this advantage wears him down if you agree Tyson is not necessarily stronger than Rocky. Charles was a razor sharp ring wise master prepared for any situation.

Tyson would need to be his best.

 

1) 1 inch, 12 lbs. two inches in reach and 10 years. Individually = not much; collectively = dead.

2) Yes, he tried to draw a DQ for a very good reason. He just took the hardest punch of his career.

3) Tillis and Holyfied were not "blown up crusierweights." Tillis was bigger than Joe Louis, and Holyfield was a "science enhanced" ex cruiserweight. Evander was as much a cruiserweight as Manny Paquiao is a flyweight.

Michael Spinks was the best LHW I ever saw and was better than anyone Marciano fought. He got steamrolled in one round in his prime and a prime Ezzard Charles might have lasted three. The Charles Marciano fought would have gone out in the first round.

 

Some interesting views here.....

 

The Tyson of late 1986 to Mid 1988 could have wiped out that entire list of 6-7 guys in about 18-20 months. I won't claim the man was invincible as he clearly wasn't and in truth there are some champions I'd favor to beat even THAT version of Tyson. But the men on Rocky's list aren't cut from that cloth. It would be exceedingly worse for some of them too if the ring size for some of those fights was on the smaller end. I'll also edit this post and add that even the Tokyo version of Tyson shouldn't be counted out either to beat those guys. Remember he was facing a 6'4", 230 lbs man who was 29 years old with decent power, good boxing skills and fronting the best performance of his career. it still took him 10 rounds of dealing a sustained beating to Tyson and he even had to rise off the canvas to get the win.

 

Good point.

But you can't keep trotting out the one great performance Tyson had over and over if you are considering a string of tricky opponents like Walcott, Moore and Charles who all came to win against Marciano.


Tubbs came to lose. His coach walked out on him because he wasn't in any kind of shape to fight.

Larry was dug up out of retirement. He was not fighting. Was not ranked. Larry had not won a fight for years.

Bruno was rusty. He still troubled Tyson.

"Rehab Thomas" was rusty and faded, he never beat any rated fighters for years.

Smith, did he come to win? He grabbed and hung on like crazy.

Spinks never showed up.

That leaves Douglas, Tucker, Williams, Biggs and Berbick as legitimate fights against guys who turned up to fight. Five fights. Three were impressive.

Tyson went 4-1 with them.

Against Champions Tyson was 0-3 against Holyfield and Lewis.

Rocky went 5-0 against champions in title fights.

 

Wow, and you know how many times Golovkin hits opponents flush and they still stand?
Louis? Tyson? Foreman? Any power puncher who ever lived?

Sometimes you don't put everything into a shot. You just want to land on first.

But again, Rockniphobes put Marciano on trial because he can't shoot lightning bolts from his hand, and can't pull King Arthurs sword from the slab of stone.

 

Great post!

 

Good post.

 

It's a pity you don't credit your countryman giving his all and going beyond the call of duty for his nation. Poor Don left it all the ring. You know he was good for nothing after it.

Let's not forget Don was a very nice boxer. Unbeaten as a heavyweight. Fast hands. Don had everything you love about Tony Tubbs and he put up more effort than that "Tub of Tony" did against Tyson.

 

Is this forum a joke? How the hell can we make any comparisons between Tyson and Marciano when they wouldn't even be in the same fcuking weight class?!?!?