Marciano facing Tyson (question)

You also don’t need 15 round stamina in a 12 round era. Part of the reason I believe HWs are heavier...because they can be with less repercussions

 

You're delusional sorry so is your calculator wow, curios why do i exceed some of my max stats at a lower weight? there is not an ounce of proof Tyson really benched all that also... I've seen photos of Tyson and film at such a tender age and he was just that quite a muscly yet quite chubby boy nothing special he was fat by his own word... do you really think in an era ripe with steroids a known drug fiend would deny himself of a PED how noble yet be as lowly as to resort to biting off a piece of another combatants ear?

I don't need to have a hot test for proof look at the man you blind, blind fool he had more muscle then Evander one of the most obvious PED abusers in the sport...

 

There's a gene that certain people have that rapidly produces muscle. People who have it are far more muscular. It's possible Tyson has this gene

The 275 for 10 story could be a Tyson myth spread by his camp or could be entirely true. He was known to be huge even as a boy

 

The gene in question lowers myostatin production inside the body

 

It could be exaggerated or mistaken, though it also seems on the edge of plausibility...
For someone with both the right genes, & they reached puberty early enough.

The Myostatin altering gene is very rare. Unless I am mistaking it with something else, it also is maladptive in almost all circusmatances in "the wild"...Because these people metabolize fat so quickly it is hard for them to get enough calories. They would never get chubby like Tyson has.
But they have freakish strength from INFANCY.

But being relatively "fat" does not mean he could not have done it.
He could still have had enough muscle that it is possible-recall that at his peak he must have been able to lift a set for somewhat more.
And having some extra body fat would actually add a little to his lifts-though detrimental to his overall fitness. That is why the top weight categories seem to come in with a body fat in to thirties (in percentage).

 

I'm laughing out loud. You NEVER use this argument when it's Liston vs a modern heavy in which you (shocker) pick Liston to lose. Now that it's Marciano going up against someone he can't beat (and you know it, hence this pathetic response) now it's "they can't fight because they're from different eras."

 

Actually I have picked Liston many times over modern fighters. Most recently over Ike Ibeabuchi. I rate Liston as a great and proven fighter.

It works both ways, so long as both men are proven within their own time zone, I use that rule with all incomparable eras. Put Ike Ibeabuchi in Sonny Listons era and he is less physically imposing. Put Sonny in the 1990s and he’s more physically imposing. Just like everyone else.

Nobody could disagree.

Something changed. There is a visible cut off point where you have to recognise that supplemental enhancement went on within an era. The men from the first 70 years of the last century were great but they were great without it. And should be measured for that.

All great fighters who come after the mid 1980s are great fighters in their own right too. And they are therefore only comparatively comparable with each other. For that reason.

If you want to make modern comparisons with eras before this then you have to make allowances for what the earlier guys did not have.

 

Yeah, that's ridiculous. What I had read is that he benched over 200 at 12.

The bottomline is that both Marciano and Tyson were small heavies, tho Tyson was significantly bigger. None other than Evander Holyfield pointed this out in an interview, talking of the magic act that Tyson pulled on the division, being a tiny heavy who dominated much bigger opponents. He was able to do this thru speed of hand, speed of foot and speed of upperbody movement. Even if we throw out the size and strength comparison, Marciano does not have the attributes to pull off this magic act. He simply was not well-balanced and was not quick in any of the regards mentioned above.

 

Tyson was a marvellous fighter. Well drilled and with cat like reactions. Fast hands. Excellent footwork.

However, Marciano was astonishingly effective against men, who in an aesthetic respect, are always regarded as technically advanced fighters.

balance in a boxing specific sense simply implies the ability to position yourself to deliver perfect punches that land. And Marciano did this.

a discrepancy of speed never prevented Marciano from out landing blows upon his opponents.

so whilst speed aesthetically appears to have great value, ultimately landing more blows is a great deal more important in winning fights.

 

I've seen you say Liston would lose to the Klitschkos because of his size but that's beside the point. You picked Liston to beat Ibeabuchi despite them being in different eras. Why can't you do the same for this match up?

 

Good Lord, that's a textbook example of evading reality. Speed is merely aesthetic? Pray tell, in which sport is Speed merely an aesthetic attribute? Name me the trainer who would agree with this?

The only way Tyson was able to do what he did for as long as he did was his speed, the culmination of ballerina-like balance, fast-twitch genetics and rigorous technical training. And even then, he could only sustain it for a few years. Don't tell me some fighter of similar size (which Marciano was 30 pounds lighter) could pull it off without the above. That is beyond intellectually dishonest and goes in the face of his opponents' comments on his fighting effectiveness.

 

Pretty sure all short swarmer types have short careers on top. Marciano and Frazier not excluded. Although you’re purposefully ignoring Choks point. Speed isn’t a NECESSITY to be successful in boxing no matter your height. It’s a nice attribute to have but not something Foreman, Liston, Marciano, and many others needed to be successful. What he lacked in speed he made up for in Power, Stamina, Style, two handed power, and corner. This isn’t the best matchup in the world for Marciano but it’s not an unwinnable one. Tyson tends to get hyped up more then Marciano or Primo. He wasn’t unstoppable

 

Christ almighty. Are really comparing Foreman (6-3 1/2, 79" reach) and Liston (6-1, 84" reach) to Marciano (5-11, 68" reach)? Speed is not a NECESSITY when you have dominant physical assets. Foreman and Liston didn't need to close the gap. They CONTROLLED the gap, both with the sort of insane power jabs that Marciano never faced, and that, frankly, were an issue for Tyson as well.

This is reviewing Boxing 101 and becoming extremely tedious. I am frankly a bit shocked that some of this requires mentioning.