Does Tyson run through Marcianos resume unbeaten ?

Vitali Klitschko didn't win ONE round and get knocked out. He was leading the fight and was stopped on cuts.

Charles won ONE ROUND. AND HE WAS KNOCKED OUT. Not stopped on cuts. Beaten into the floor.

If Vitali Klitschko had only won a single round in a fight and had been beaten into the floor, I wouldn't consider it a stellar evening. No.

Your comparisons don't compare.:roll:

Back to back LOSSES to Marciano weren't the best performance of Charles' career. C'mon.:verysad

 

Now you might like to look at how many punches Tyson threw per round in the Douglas fight!

I think that he was in double figures just, for most rounds.

Marciano averaged around 85 per round in the first Charles figth!

 

So you would expect Tyson to fight Ezzard Charles the way that he fought Buster Douglas? If so I don't follow the logic. Why are you fighting so hard to ignore the obvious differences and their obvious relevance?

 

He did? I'd love to count them for myself. Where did you watch all 15 rounds of Marciano-Charles 1?

What was Rocky's connect rate?

:roll:

And how many times did Mike Tyson fight Buster Douglas?

Like I said last night ... your whole argument is IF IF IF.

IF the Mike Tyson who fought Buster Douglas showed up ...

IF IF IF Ezzard Charles suddenly grew three inches and put on 40 pounds ...

IF IF IF the referee didn't blow the count like he did when Douglas was on the floor for 11 seconds in the eighth round ...

IF IF IF.

IF the Mike Tyson who fought Buster Douglas showed up against the Ezzard Charles who Marciano fought twice, Mike Tyson knocks out Ezzard Charles twice.

IF the Mike Tyson who showed up against Spinks, against Bruno, against Williams, against Tillman, against Stewart, against Ruddock ...any combination you want ... Mike Tyson knocks out Ezzard Charles.

Because Ezzard Charles was DONE. From the year before he fought Marciano until the end of his career, he was a sub-500 fighter. Because Mike Tyson would be fighting a guy his own size ... who he didn't have to lunge after and who he could just pound on the inside. Because Charles had nothing to keep Tyson off of him ... and Charles wasn't strong enough to tie him up.

And please don't post false stats about the average punches of a 15-round fight that you haven't even seen.

 

The Classicists argument to a T. Pit a poor, compromised version of the modern fighter against some conjured, imagined version of the old timer. Meets applause every time.

 

Its become so obvious Walcott, Charles, and Moore TKO 10 1988 Tyson.

There end thread.

 

atsch

 

:good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7uDh8vS5AY

 

:good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaF9l69D-F8


There now end thread.

 

He's 180 pounds. You guys are unreal. If they gave out prizes for stopping Bob Satterfield...a lot of 175-185-lb men would have prizes.

 

Ah yes, Ezzard vs. the light heavy he actually didn't lose to that year. :roll:

One of his two wins sandwiched between four losses.

 

Yeah, you can't compare how Tyson looked vs. Pinklon Thomas or Larry Holmes or anyone like that ... but comparing how Ezzard Charles looked against light heavy/25 loss Satterfield is valid (and not the four losses around that win).

If Tyson hit Ezzard with the uppercut that stopped Bruno and floored Douglas ... or the temple shot that dropped Berbick a half dozen times or wiped out Tubbs... or the combos that obliterated Thomas ... or any of the shots that left Holmes in a heap ...

There wouldn't have been a need for a rematch.

Early 20s Tyson vs mid 1950s Charles would've lasted as long as Liston-Patterson.

 

Great ****ogy.

 

I said end thread. Just because you guys are too immature to see Walcott, Charles, Moore, Bob Satterfield, and SRR. There is nothing that can help you.

 

I'm 51. Early 20s, 10 title defenses Mike Tyson beats the Ezzard Charles who lost more than he won from 1953 on.

Early 20s, 10 title defenses Mike Tyson beats everyone who Rocky Marciano beat.

And he'd beat them the same way ... only quicker.

:hi: