Was Marciano superior defensively to Tyson, and Frazier?

I’m glad you saw it was tongue in cheek.

 

I don't believe in compubox stats. I'm saying that they're often wrong and misguided, and their margin for error is as big as my own would be if I watched a fight and clicked a button every time a punch was thrown, and then another a split second later if it landed.

I don't accept that as factual evidence. If you do, then super. Don't force me into it.

Regardless, it is absolutely ****ing bonkers to say that Tyson and Frazier had "slightly" better competition. Their competition was world's above Marciano's. Marciano never fought a Holyfield or a Lewis, or an Ali or a Foreman. Hell, he never even fought a Buster Douglas.

Furthermore, I'd wager that a difference of six punches landed for every hundred thrown is very small. Especially when those 100 punches are coming from fighters the calibre of an old Joe Louis, or a prime Muhammad Ali.

I don't know how long you've been following the sport but I'm sure it's more than a year or so. That means you have absolutely no excuse for using age as an example of someone's prime. They're not one and the same and the fact that Frazier had a much harder group of fighters to face as a pro, started as at a much younger age than Marciano and had a long and fruitful amateur career is why he was much further past his prime at age thirty-two than Marciano was. What's great about this little episode, is that if age = prime and thirty-two is the cut off point for prime, then Marciano has literally zero wins of note over prime opponents.

Finally, you don't see any Marciano fights where he's easy to hit? Have you watched any of them? There's a reason why he was so entertaining. He was easy to hit! Watch him vs Walcott, where he was hit constantly. Or vs Moore, where he was hit constantly. Or vs Layne where he was hit constantly. Or in either fight with Charles, where he was - you guessed it - hit constantly.

The idea that Marciano was some defensive wizard, is people taking one idea and running way too far with it. Marciano's defence was a little better than it used to be given credit for, but now, it's way overrated. A constantly moving, high energy guy who's short, makes himself shorter and likes to get up close is going to provide a challenge for the 35 ham and eggers he fought. When he fought real competition, he was hit clean and often.

It's there on film.

 

Frazier fought an excellent level of opponent. Ali, Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena were his generation. And he beat them all. So Frazier’s comp was cast iron. Tyson? I’m not so sure. He did everything he could have given the situation... which is all anyone can do, but it’s not like Holmes, Bruno, Thomas, Tubbs or Biggs were actually beating contenders to earn their shot. I mean if you look at the circumstances of Tucker becoming champion. They basically promoted an NABF title fight into a IBF vacant title. All these names look good but the facts of the back story to those fights really cannot stand up under the same kind of scrutiny as Marciano title challengers. LaStarza had to beat Layne. Charles had to beat Satterfeild. Cokkell had to beat Lastarza. Moore had to beat Valdes then defend his own title before being stripped. Nobody was dug up from retirement or sitting on the back burner of Alphabet limbo.

agreed. Who ever hit Rocky wound up getting more back than they dished out.

 

Some of what you said I agree with some I don’t. Yes only slightly better competition. Archie Moore would be Tysons and Frazier’s second best win. Walcott or Charles would be there third best win. Rocky did lack that top dog killer that the other two do have on their resumes.
I won’t try to convince you to accept the same standards of compubox that all of them were subject too. It’s your loss. And maybe rewatch some of those fights. He wasn’t easy to hit at all. Had trouble with the ATG Louis jab (which was the only thing working well for him). But that was before prime as was the Layne fight. Even then it’s not like he took a beating. Against Walcott he had that terrible round 1 but regained his composure after that. Against Moore he looked great. Even Archie the man he fought said he was hard to hit. Idk why you’d argue with him.
As far as Marciano being a “defensive wizard” don’t put words in my mouth. I just said he was a solid defender and better then the names mentioned...which he was. Tysons defense was always good but plenty of people have over rated it.
Lastly I didn’t bring up age swag did. Was just informing him of the facts. And if we are being honest all those “old” fighters Marciano knocked out were at the top of the field. All coming off solid wins. Let’s not act as if they were retired for two years and made a comeback for a title fight at a late age.

 

people forget that when Tyson fought holyfeild, Evander was coming off a loss to Bowe and a win over an unranked Bobby Cyz. No matter how much further appreciated Evander became, at that point his credentials were not taken seriously. People feared for Evander. Myself included. So the face value of this challenge was low. So sure Tyson fought a Holyfield. He was supposed to win it. Bowe and Moorer had already beat him and he had not looked good in his last fight against cyz. Marciano never fought long enough to be in the desperate position Tyson was challenging Lennox Lewis beyond his prime. What a sad state of affairs that was.

no Marciano did not fight an Ali or a Foreman. But the equivalent to Ali, a recent former champion, was probably Charles. I think when Foreman lost to Ali, Muhammad was of a similar age and stage of career as Charles was facing Marciano. A legitimate challenger who earned this title fight beating Joe Frazier. Well Charles was legit too. He had beat two legitimate contenders to earn that title shot. And Marciano won that fight. Frazier and Foreman didn’t beat their Ezzard Charles. Rocky did. You can only beat the guy there. And the guy there earned it as much as Ali had.

Yeah, I don’t think Marciano was ever 33-1 or whatever wide odds Tysin was supposed to be to beat Buster Douglas. I imagine if Marciano was given those kinds of odds to succeed in a title fight he would probably win. I am scratching my head to think who was low enough considered to beat Marciano at those kinds of odds that Tyson had over Douglas. Heinz Neuhaus?

With Fighters like Tyson Marciano and Frazier the defence is built into the style..a consequence of the offence itself. The question of their ability as defensive fighters is unfair. When they win fights it was because they got hit less than the guy they beat. The question of whom was the greater defensive wizard was posted by a buffoon who is sore that his other poll went the wrong way.

And so is the number of punches Marciano took in return for landing blows. It’s less than the number of blows Rocky landed on the men he beat and also less than the number of times Frazier and Tyson were hit in title fights.

 

GP, I've said my piece on everything you've just wrote. I can only say I completely disagree with almost everything you've said in that post. It's midnight and tbh I couldn't give enough of a **** to actually go into why I disagree. Look after yourself, mate.

And Choklab, I'm afraid I have a few requirements for dealing with people. The main two being coherency and intellectual honesty. I'm afraid saying Holyfield wasn't a challenge for Tyson even in hindsight definitely violates the second rule. Nor does comparing an old Charles to a prime Ali, or acting as if Buster Douglas wasn't an awesome fighter that night in Tokyo. That said, I hope all is well and carries on to be. Good night.

 

Marciano had his moments where he looked better defensively than Tyson and Frazier but overall I don't think he was better defensively than either.

 

well I disagree

 

As the literal Saint Preems most devote follower I can confirm that Rocky is utter garbage and a modern SMW.

 

Thank you. I also hope all is well and carries on to be with you also.

now hang on, I merely offered an alternative view. Evander Holyfield and Muhammad Ali are all time great fighters but they might not necessarily have been the absolute best versions of themselves when Tyson and Frazier fought them, which is a popular opinion about the Ezzard that Rocky fought. I personally feel that both were indeed capable of duplicating prime results even if they were not quite at their zenith...which regardless of them being greater to Ezzard Charles...is a factor true of Charles’s stage of career when he fought Marciano. I even said Charles, as ex champion, had done as much as Holyfield and Ali had to earn a shot, which he had. That isn’t dishonest. Look at who Charles beat to get that fight. Is it really that uncomparable to what Holyfield did to challenge Tyson and what Ali did to challenge Frazier and Foreman?

but the whole point is I wasn’t talking about hindsight was I? I was talking about face value.The situation at the time without the benefit of hindsight. It is the truth that Tyson was expected to win. That there were fears about Evanders heart problems. I even said “even though Evander went onto better things”. I am allowed to present a different way of seeing things without it having to be deliberately dishonest.

what is so dishonest in saying Charles and Ali were of a similar age when challenging for titles as the ex champion? I was thinking more of Ali vs Foreman. Both Ali and Charles represented a legitimate threat at that time.

I am a huge fan of how good Douglas turned out to be in Tokyo. I have always agreed with this. But there is nothing dishonest in mentioning that on face value, knowing all there was to know going into that fight, that Tyson was expected to win that fight by all the experts. And at huge odds.

 

I still disagree