Was Marciano superior defensively to Tyson, and Frazier?

You tell Swag to "Grow up" and that he just insults people but here you are calling people children. I never once insulted you in this thread Gazelle. Isn't that a bit hypocritical? Not that I'm offended or anything, just pointing it out.

My response was to challenge your assertion that Moore's string of wins were similar to Frazier's string of wins. The reason I asked if you wanted to make a poll is because that would be a HUGE thread that has very little to do with this one. It wasn't about me not willing to engage in the discussion. I do not think Moore's wins were comparable to Frazier's and I stand by that. If you want to debate it make another thread. This is about Rocky's defense as it compares to Tyson and Frazier.

And if you don't care about what the rest of us think, why are you even arguing? That doesn't even make sense. If people disagree with you and you aren't interested in attempting to change their minds or dispute their claims what's the point? Just state your case and leave disappear when challenged like Rockyjim if you don't care what we think lol. You keep acting like these punch stat numbers are "facts" comparable to fight results on boxrec like we just need to get with the program.

 

Maybe because...and let's not get our feelings hurt here...

He. Never. EVER. Fought an athletic prime skilled ranked boxer who didn't have a dozen losses and tons of mileage on the clock. That could have something to do with why Rocky didn't get into as many wars as Frazier and Tyson.

 

Tyson was great at slipping punches...the first few rounds but as most know he had stamina issues. When it went to the later rounds his slips became fewer and fewer. It takes a lot of energy to play defense the way Tyson and Frazier did. Frazier’s motor was incredible on a side note. Marcianos crouch and lean style used less energy. Didn’t look as flashy but was more then affective.

Side note not only was Lastarza and Layne in prime Matthews Cockell and Moore were on the best runs of their careers and at their peaks. Moore was possibly slightly better a year or two prior but he was basically unstoppable for the five years prior. I don’t dispute that Tysons and Frazier’s competition overall were better but let’s not put down Marcianos to the point of just saying they were old men...also schkor fight wasn’t filmed and isn’t part of the compubox stats neither was Lowry. Only his filmed fights Louis, Layne, Savold, Matthews, Walcott x2, Charles x2, Lastarza, Moore, Cockell were used. That’s a pretty good group one way or the other. There are no Ron Standers there. There are no bums on that list. That’s his best competition in all different stages of his career. And like I’ve stated. If it was off by like one to three percent I probably wouldn’t mention it. But five percent is a lot. Once again Tyson and Frazier were excellent defensively this not a shot at them. It’s just proven that Marciano was hit less percentage wise then they were. Meaning his defense over the course of a career was better.

 

My apologies. Thought you were being condescending in regards to the Moore thread. If your idea was to actually have a discussion on it that’s fine. The punch stats are what they are. They are literally the only thing one can use when determining the effectiveness of defense. You can factor in other variables all you want but it doesn’t really matter when it’s that wide a gap.

 

That is only true of post prison Tyson. 80's Tyson did not have stamina issues and went the distance with Tucker and Ruddock, 2 very formidable guys who were ranked. He could slip and dodge punches even in the later rounds.

I agree Rocky's crouch and lean took less energy. Completely disagree that it was more effective than Frazier's bobbing. Trainers teach their infighters how to bob and weave like Frazier 50 years after Frazier's retirement. No one is teaching their boxers how to crouch and lean like Rocky.

If Stander is a bum, then Schkor and Lowry definitely were too.

Moore being on a "good run" doesn't change the fact he was 38 and had heavy mileage. Do you not understand that as you age your reflexes, timing, accuracy, etc are going to get worse and you will be less durable? It is objectively easier to slip and dodge punches from a 38 year old boxer whose had a very long career than to slip and dodge punches from a 28 year old boxer. That's the part you're not getting. I am not trying to insult Moore or call him a bum, just pointing out that while some of Rocky's opponents were indeed very skilled technically and had put together a good string of wins, their athleticism and speed had declined. That is a fact.

So to keep going on bout how Rocky was hit less...you're looking at the tree and failing to notice the whole forest. MANY of Rocky's opponents had declined athletically and were less durable, quick, and accurate in comparison to many of Tyson and Frazier's best opponents. So it's going to skew the numbers. I really don't get why you object to this.

 

I don't have to try to come up with reasons why. I already stated why and you said it was "obvious".

 

You make a fair point here..and I wholeheartedly agree with it. The aesthetics of Tysons technique was more refined. Frazier’s rhythm smoother.

So what did you make of Tyson when he couldn’t slip or draw punches against Douglas? Mightn’t Tyson have fared better if he resorted to “overwhelming people” at that point? And wouldn’t it have reduced the number of punches Tyson took cleanly in that fight?

I agree. It is fair to say Those guys were fresh..as in they were young and in career primes. But you can’t write off proven veterans who are still winning legitimate fights at world level either. Larry Holmes beat Ray Mercer to earn a fight legitimately with Holyfield. That made him a better opponent that time around than he was for Tyson. Well Walcott and Moore and Charles they were all younger than this and even more proven.

No there is nothing unfair in being skeptical of Rockys ability to slip, block and evade. I quite agree. But “not when we examine who was up against” is a little unfair...when most of his challengers were good enough to test Tyson and Frazier too. Moore, Charles and Walcott were better equipped to fight than any of Tysons challengers were. Tucker was unknown. Biggs untested. Thomas and Tubbs were had gone stale on alphabet limbo. Holmes was retired. Bruno was inactive. Frazier’s guys? At least he beat Ali and Quarry. I don’t need to mention Stander, Daniels, Ramos and Zygglewich do I?

I am happy to agree on much of what you say but Knocking the level of opposition is a matter of opinion...it really avoids the factual question of punches being taken in Title fights. and really if we are talking about strength of opposition and Marciano best wins being over former light heavyweights who were over 30 Spinks was a light heavyweight who was over 30 as well!!! And Spinks was probably the best Tyson beat in his championship run. Ellis was a former middleweight. Bob Foster was a light heavyweight. We can all play this game with fighters records.

 

If anything the amount of punches taken should be more coming from faster smaller men. It’s a poor argument to bring up when it comes to defense because weight doesn’t help you land more punches accurately.

 

Lowry and Schkohr were bums lol I don’t dispute that. Everyone has bums on their resume.

yes Moore Charles and Walcott were not prime but were very skilled and very good opponents. Just as wins over non prime Holmes and Spinks were very good wins over old opponents. Like I’ve stated Tysons opponents were older on average then Marciano. Age shouldn’t be brought up because of this. But I do agree with you. Quality of opposition should play a part in grading on a curve right? Question is how much? Like I’ve stated if it was one to three percentage points i would agree with you. I think that accounts for strength of opposition and human error. But five percentage points is a lot in this world. And at the very least one should admit Marciano was more then ok in the defense department and shouldn’t be labeled as “easy to hit” or “poor defensevily” when every stat says otherwise. Again I agree Tyson and Frazier fought better opposition but other tangible outliers can be laid out for each man. Like only Rocky’s best opponents are on film and Tyson and Frazier have a lot more bums on theirs even though they have more filmed fights. Or that Tyson fought a lot longer then Frazier or Marciano (untrue that Frazier did they retired same age but Marciano didn’t run into Foreman or Ali). So the argument can be for either side to curve one way or the other so I’m fine with a five point difference I think it’s enough of a gap to justify my opinion. It won’t convince you one way or the other but I’m just explaining my stance on the issue.

 

I didn't ask you to speculate on how he would do against Ali or Douglas.

The point is he faced opponents who were past their prime, shopworn, and with worse reflexes and speed yet still took plenty of punishment. I mean do you think it was harder to dodge a prime Ali jab or a 38 year old Louis jab?

Gazelle Punch's compubox stats don't make sense for a number of reasons:

-if you include fights where Tyson and Frazier are past their prime but ignore the fact Rocky retired in his prime. That is intellectual dishonesty.

-The numbers shouldn't be close at all considering Frazier and Tyson WERE fighting prime ranked athletic guys and still had impressive displays of defense in spite of that.

 

They ALL fought past prime fighters. And you ignore the fact that Marciano started fighting when most fighters are in their prime. He never had a true prime where his physical peak was in line with boxing experience. Frazier and Marciano were the same age when they retired and Marciano had more fights (won’t count that one fight comeback). And like I said Tysons opponents were older on average. See how many factors can be construed to fit that narrative? In the end the averages don’t lie.

 

Do we know the numbers of Tyson from Tillis to his Douglas? Or Frazier from Mathis to the Foreman I?

If you believe in stats, these are the ones which would be comparable to Marciano's. Given that Marciano retired while slightly on the slip, but there was no film of him up until he was a contender.