Tony Tucker vs Rocky Marciano

Perhaps because one of those eras was not like the other.

The heavyweight division, in particular, progressed after the mid-50's... just like every sport wherein bigger, stronger, faster is at a premium.

 

No Cockell couldn’t go 4 rounds with Lewis and in all honesty I don’t think Rocky would last long with Lennox either. But I DO think that Over the years Marciano has fallen into this default category of always losing to fighters who came after him. Some of the arguments have merit as he was significantly smaller in stature to many of his successors as well as having the tendency to cut and bleed. But sometimes I read these threads and wonder if the critics have REALLY seen him fight OR even his hypothetical opponents for that matter.. over the course of this lengthy thread some posters have managed to turn Rocky Marciano into an obscure club fighter with crude skills at best while revisionously touting Tony Tucker as a classic great of boundless talent. I won’t argue the actual topic any further other than saying that NEITHER were true...

 

But Tucker went the distance!

 

Oh the heavyweight division in particular... where is the factual evidence for this...or is this just a theory of yours?

I dont remember anyone particularly celebrating the 1980s heavyweights as a golden age.

mostly known as the “lost generation” as I recall.

if you have evidence of The “Tony Tubbs-Greg Page” era proving progressive, vast superiority over all other previous heavyweight decades I want to hear all about it.

 

so did Levi Billups and Mavrovick

 

So what’s your problem you muppet?

 

No Marciano does not lose to all who came after him ,prime for prime he beats Patterson,Johannson .LeonSpinks, Mike Spinks,Frazier and Moorer,imo .
I think he loses badly to Ali and Holmes,gets murdered by Liston.,Foreman,and Tyson.Loses a barn burner to Holyfield,loses in a competitive fight to Bowe,loses to the Douglas that beat Tyson, and loses to the Klits.
I'm not going to evaluate still active fighters. Tucker was never a great fighter or even close to it ,but he was durable ,and a big man with skills ,and a decent puncher, and he would do better against those mentioned because of his physical advantages compared to Marciano,imo.
I don't see that as a slur on Rocky,it's just my opinion that there are very, very few men under 190lbs, and under 6 feet who would have a realistic chance against those I mentioned.

 

Reported.

 

Fair enough

 

Marciano was a great fighter.Tucker was not.
Bob Fitzsimmons was a great fighter,Tim Witherspoon was not, if they met prime for prime I would guess most would bet on Tim.

 

In general agreement here but there is no way in hell Marciano sees the distance against prime Bowe, the uppercuts alone....the nasty body punches......it makes me cringe just thinking about it, it will be a epic beat down......Futch would agree with me, Bowe ,without doubt , would stop Marciano......you foegot Lewis , he would do a number on Rocky too.

As far as Tucker is concerned, Tyson / Lewis were faster and hit way harder then Rocky, IMO Tucker will fight more aggressive because the incoming is not the same as the incoming from the above.

I am also a firm believer that Marciano is not a huge puncher against genuine top notch modern Heavies.

Moorer was a murderous puncher at Light Heavy.....average at best at Heavy.......Holyfield also good at cruiser but severely lacking at Heavy.....Foster.....I rest my case.

 

Nice word. Not very PC.

 

I didn't specify he goes the distance with Bowe ,just that it would be competitive. The Hagler v Hearns fight was competitive.