Marciano In Tyson's Era

More classic Berbick ;

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu9te2GPTxE&feature=related[/ame]

 

The classic approach of "Pick the worst performance from FIGHTER A's career to prove how he would be beat by FIGHTER B."

A+ for predictability and ignoring the nuance of my argument.

 

No, with all due respect, you're wrong. The videos I posted show the fighters in question in averge to above-average performances for them.

1. Berbick's showing against Thomas was perhaps his BEST performance.
2. Thomas's performance against Berbick was certainly no worse than how he was when he fought Tyson !
3. Marvis Frazier's performance against Smith was perhaps his BEST performance.
4. Smith's performance against Frazier was average for him. In defence of Smith, the decision could have gone his way.
5. The Tubbs highlight is him at his peak, against a guy called Jerry Williams. It's shows his mobility. This is a quicker-footed Tubbs than the one who faced Tyson.
6. Berbick v Snipes was a good heavyweight battle. A loss for Berbick but not an awful performance, and surely no worse than his performance against Tyson.

I'm sorry, but that is what those fighters fought like. They weren't awful, but they weren't great boxers or fighters by any means.
If you feel those are below-par showings for them, I would suggest you are remembering them with rose-tinted glasses. The 1980s heavyweights were a mediocre bunch, fighters not without talent but who specialized in uneven performances, almost exclusively - that has been common knowledge for some time. I'm not sure how this revisionism came about.

 

Tucker, Thomas, Bruno, and Douglas would be tough match ups for Rocky. I think he looses once here, possibly twice. Rocky probably could win the title during Tyson's title reign, but I do not think he would hold it for as long as Tyson did vs. the same opponents.

 

Berbick's performances against an undefeated Greg Page, former title holder John Tate and Larry Holmes were all better performances ... That being said Berbick was inconsistent ... he might outmuscle Rocky all over the ring and out maul him or he might get out worked and dropped along the way ... it is an interesting match up ...

 

Tucker stopped a very good Buster Douglas and took the best shots of Tyson and Lennox Lewis ... he actually gave a prime Tyson a competitive fight .. Tyson used his 220 pounds and exceptional speed to outwork Tony ... I don't se it being so easy for the much smaller, slower Rocky ...

 

I think Thomas was his biggest win, and as good a performance as any of his.
But whatever, he looked pretty much the same in all those fights.
There's nothing he shows to think would defeat Marciano.
He's bound to brawl with Rocky and get knocked out.

 

If you think Tucker would stop Marciano like he stopped Douglas, that's up to you. I don't think so.

As for Tyson-Tucker, I didn't think "TNT" used his 7 inch height and massive reasch advantages particularly well, and not because of "Tyson's speed".
Tyson was actually plodding forward for the vast majority of that fight :

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlS-Xrtnqok&feature=related[/ame]

 

I did not say he would stop him like he did Douglas. I said he was impressive in beating a very good Douglas ... as far as his Tyson loss it is clear that Tyson used his strength, speed and power to defeat him.

 

From what I've seen of Tucker, Marciano is very likely to beat him.
Tyson spent the most part of 12 rounds just walking him down and throwing one punch at a time from way out of yonder.
Tucker failed to use his height and reach to much effect other than regular clinching.
I didn't think the fight was particularly close, although Tucker got his shots in when he made an occassional effort.

 

Tucker fought a survival fight against Tyson and that is what he was good at he was a good fighter at the most. Marciano would hit Berbick early and I see a KO over Berbick. Thomas could make it interesting because he had a great jab but he would fade from the Rocks pressure and body shots. Size alone would not do it for them. Greatness alone would do it for Rocky, he always found a way to win.

 

I guess we can't agree that Bonecrusher, Tucker and Bruno hit harder than Charles, Walcott and Moore. Crazy idea, I know.

 

I think the argument has become about who can hit harder. Definitely impossible to gauge given the size and overall difference in the game. But honestly how hard you can hit doesnt really matter for much. What's pretty clear is that those three even as old as **** as they were had better finishing ability in general.

I can't wait for PP to explain to me how Frank Bruno is a better hitter than boxing's official KO record holder

 

Most people see 'being bigger' as just about 'being able to hit harder', it's not, size has far more implications:

Range/height makes it easier to outbox an opponent

On average you have better durability if you're bigger

Leaning on an opponent when your heavier tires them out

You can hurt an opponent with arm punches when your bigger, you can

Bigger men can push smaller men back much easier, than vice versa,
A smaller man gets tired quicker trying to push a bigger man back

Your guard is harder to budge and absorbs punches better if you have bigger stronger forearms

And yes if a bigger man does get all his weight behind a punch he can score brutal KOs

And yes Bruno hit far harder than Archie Moore, most of Moore's KOs were below HW

 

Oh, so now you've reduced the whole debate down to "who hit harder ?" ...

I think Bonecrusher Smith may have been among the hardest hitting mofos to have ever walked this earth.
I also think he was a mediocre fighter and a poor boxer.