Marciano In Tyson's Era

I wish you could name at least one opponent Marciano had who was of similar physical dimensions and actually of championship calibre. And that sad destroyed puppet of Louis whose marionette strings were falling all around him... he certainly does not count.

Does it ever strike you as strange that no sub 200, let alone sub 190 slugger has done a damn thing in the division since 1980? And discounting Bonavena's modest successes, since 1960? Frazier would be your best argument but he had better movement and more output... and still his applecart was upset by the bigger heavies.

 

M Spinks, Holyfiled, Moore, Toney, and Jones Jr comes to mind.

Its not Marciano's fault that Archie Moore and co were defeating the gaints of his era. I am pretty sure Marciano would have beaten Valez, like Moore did.

 

Michael Spinks did nothing as a heavyweight puncher. He cleverly stole a fight from Holmes and then get gifted the second fight. In the interim he KO'd a stale alcoholic cokehead. His legacy as a heavyweight puncher is nil.

Holyfield was 6-2 and one half and 208, with a 78 inch reach, a solid heavyweight, who was a boxer puncher, not a seek and destroy puncher like lil' Rock. Wrong again.

Moore was lightheavy who got shots at the championship but lost to two cruiserweights. Really proved little as a heavyweight puncher

Toney and Jones were slicksters, not punchers at this weight. Neither proved a lot, other than that clever matchmaking against less skilled bigger opponents is the best chance to bring better results. Again, I am looking for someone in the model of the Rock who relies on landing big shots to take out opponents, not a guy like these who are built on skill, tricks and reflexes, who steal away exchanges.

Fail on all accounts.

 

Yeah, I agree, but it's about degrees which was my point.

 

You're still operating with these blatant double standards when it comes to comparing the quality of an over-the-hill Joe Louis against the quality of the likes of Tyrell Biggs, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, Michael Spinks etc.

Biggs was a drug addict who had gone life-and-death with David Bey a few months before fighting Tyson, a top amateur who was struggling in the pro ranks.

Thomas was very close to being a washed-up fighter at 29, it was said at the time. He also had a long history of drug abuse. He'd looked horrible in his last three fight - against third-rate and fourth-rate opposition.

Tubbs had looked bad too. He hadn't looked good for 3 years. He didn't like to train. He liked to indulge doughnuts ice cream - AND COCAINE. His trainer walked out on him a week before the Tyson fight, saying Tubbs was staying out at night and not wanting to do any work.
Bad form.

Bruno - inactive for 16 months going in to the Tyson fight, he'd been sitting on a "number 1 ranking" from the WBC for over a year, his management scared to put him in with anyone and risk blowing the Tyson fight. His best wins had been against fat washed-up payday-seeking versions of Coetzee and Bugner. The Ring magazine didn't even have him in the top 10.

Spinks - in your own words "He cleverly stole a fight from Holmes and then get gifted the second fight. In the interim he KO'd a stale alcoholic cokehead. His legacy as a heavyweight puncher is nil." ........ I'd also like to add that he hadn't fought in a year since that KO over the "stale alcoholic cokehead" (so you recognize inactivity and drug issues when they belong to fighters other than Tyson's MEDIOCRE title opponents ?), and had avoiding fighting any young ranked heavyweight ever.

Tony Tucker - another cokehead. A fighter with a 35-0 record against almost exclusively third-rate opposition and a long history of injury and endless management contract troubles and team changes. His career was "saved" by Don King, who managed to get him a number 1 ranking and a chance to contest the IBF title. He was one of Tyson's better opponents though - at least he was coming off a good win. But the old curse of injury resurface the week before the fight. I guess Tucker was just a bit unlucky.

Larry Holmes - a has-been. At least 6 years past his peak, probably 10. Coming off 21 month absence. Even older than Joe Louis was against Marciano. The sanctioning bodies allowing this fight was a very controversial issue.

Trevor Berbick and Bonecrusher Smith were coming off good wins when they fought Tyson, and they were strong men, but their quality as technical good boxers is sorely lacking. Berbick was better than Smith, IMO, but Berbick couldn't punch.
Both of them were "surprise" champions even in that weak era.

 

Here's one myth we can lay to rest, Marciano or Tyson? Which one really benefited from an "age advantage" against 30+ year old opposition.

Wins:
Trevor Berbick 32/ Tyson 20 12+ years
James Smith 34/ Tyson 20 14+ years
Larry Holmes 38 /Tyson 21 17+ years
Michael Spinks 32/ Tyson 22 10+ years

Average age: 34/ Average Diff: 13 YEARS!!!

Losses:
Evander Holyfiled 34 Tyson 30 4+ years
Lennox Lewis 36 Tyson 35 1+ years



Joe Louis 37 Marciano 28 9+ years
Joe Walcott 38 Marciano 29 9+ years
Ezzard Charles 33 Marciano 30 3+ years
Archie Moore 38 Marciano 32 6+ years

Average Age: 37 Average Diff: 7 years

What does this data tell us? Marciano's wins came against just slightly older men but he was also much closer in age to his opposition. Tyson nearly doubles the average age advantage of Marciano with a startling decade+ gap and worse he went 0-3 against older fighters closer to his own age.

:think

 

Aside from the fact that Joe Louis lost more than those guys would ever have...Lets braek this down:


Come Back Joe Louis: Top 10 Record 3-1 1 KO
Ring Ranking #1
Notable Wins: Lee Savold, Ceaser Brion x2, Jimmy Bivins.
Notable Losses: Ezzard Charles

Bone Crusher Smith: Top 10 Record: 2-3 2 KOs
Ring Ranking#2
Notable Wins: Weaver, Witherspoon
Notable Losses: Tubbs, Holmes, Witherspoon, M. Frazier.

Tony Tucker: Top 10 Record 1-0 1 KO
Ring Ranking #8
Notable Wins: Buster Douglas

Frank Bruno Top 10 Record 0-2 :-(
****

Razor Ruddock: Top 10 Record 1-0 1 KO
Ring Ranking: #3
Notable Wins: Dokes, Smith
Notable Losses: Jaco

What about these guys makes them that much more impressive than the declined Joe Louis. Smith was the most experienced but less consistent. Tucker and Ruddock were probably the best fighters of the bunch, but these are the same type of unproven contenders people endlessly ***** and groan about today. Bruno....what more needs to be said about this pretender?

 

This works well if you throw out Tyson's wins against younger opponents+ being 22 doesn't necessarily give you an advantage over someone 5-10 years older.

 

Tony Tucker 28
Tyrell Biggs 27
Razor Ruddock 28
Frank Bruno 28
Carl Williams 30
Alex Stewart, Bruce Seldon ... the list goes on and on ....

 

It tells us you're a Marciano knob jocky, literally throwing out all of Tyson's younger opponents to suit your mad statistical agenda that convinces no one but yourself

As for the age differences, are you actually pretending Rocky was past prime in these fights? Otherwise what does the differences in age have to do with anything? Other than 'it makes Rocky look better than he was'

 

This is again ridiculous logic as Tyson was by definition a prodigy, the youngest champ ever in the division, thus the age gap would of course be larger! If anything, it is even more impressive that this man-child was beating grown-ass men in their primes.

Christ almighty, it is embarrassing the absurd lengths people go to in order to bolster their lil' Italo midget champ on this board. I thought Jack Johnson was sacrosanct in these parts, but woe to the humble observer who might suggest the Rock's farts smell of anything but blessed roses!

 

This Board has some hardcore Marciano fanatics. They are a different breed than Marciano fans. You are seeing it for yourself. This character routinely presents arguments this flawed and then becomes an infant when you challenge him on it ... just watch his responses .. he cannot help himself.

 

:rofl

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duOUcH7xFrg&feature=related[/ame]

 

As well as throw out Marciano's wins against younger opponents.

5-10 years...uh, can't you read dip****. More like 10-17 year advantge.

 

I also threw out all of Marciano's younger opponents and listed clear barometers. Why would you ignore this fact and comment as if I did no such thing? Are you trying to convince yourself of something?