Mike Tyson, Top Ten Worthy?

Marciano has a poor resume, Charles and Walcott gave him fits at an old age and out of their best weights.

And I'm a Marciano fan!

Tyson beat what was there at the time, and it's clear to see that he was displaying none of the skill he had used to get to the top by the time he beat Douglas. Oh, well, he came back and beat some other half-decent guys, and then came back again and lost his big fights, and was then completely shot and lost against Williams and McBride.

These things happen. In his day he beat some half-decent champs, and returning or not, is still the only man to have ever stopped Larry Holmes, who carried on fighting way after Tyson.

 

TYson's win over HOlmes is easily as decent as Marciano's over Louis IMO

 

that is a great comparsion

 

you do have great point about Marciano, he did fight guys who were done aka (Joe Louis 65-2-0-) (Jersey Joe Walcott 51-17-2 twice -)(Roland LaStarza 53-3-0)- (Ezzard Charles 83-11-1 twice)(Archie Moore 148-19-9) ali also fought archie moore when moore was 184-22-11 , that was like fighting your grandfather in his rocking chair.

 

Thanks kolcade4, I assume you're not being sarcastic?

 

your follwing post shows me you are not, :good

 

not at all, im assuming youre not giving tyson hardly any credit for beating a washed up almost finished holmes, just as the rock did with archie moore. it sucks that some fighters meet in the time that they do. i always refer to the ever elusive boxing time machine that i have been hinting my wife to get me.

 

Well....SOME credit, but not a huge amount. Just think that if the thread starter is trying to prove that Tyson is not one of the greatest HW's of all time, then using Marciano as an example is not a good idea, as he ranks below Iron Mike IMO, and H2H would be smashed to bits within one or two rounds.

 

yet i still have marciano ranked #2 all time due to his record of 49-0 even though it is not the greatest resume as you said which is true i do feel that nobody can ignore his undefeated record. i would have liked to see jersey joe in his prime against the rock though. or in fact all of those i mentioned in the previous thread.

 

Nahhhh, an undefeated record with a patchy resume isn't as good as a fighter with losses who beat some immeasurable odds IMO. Otherwise Calzaghe would be one of the greatest fighters of all time, but he's not.

 

now your playing an if game. i know that tyson would more than likely mop the floor with marciano but that involves a time machine. im looking at the fact that marciano beat who was placed in front of him and i am in total agreement about the resume part. tyson cracks the top 5 in the era of his prime 86-89 but that is not the fact .tyson fumbled the football. i would ve ranked holmes higher as well if he beats tyson at his old age but he didnt.

 

Look, Marciano outright sturggled with past-prime (but admittedly wiley) fighters.

You say you'd give more credit to Larry holmes if he beat Tyson but tell me not to play the 'if' game? THat's an if.

Put it this way, if Marciano had come back and beaten Patterson, he'd prove himself. The fact of the matter is Marciano never beat anyone who could have beaten him, and guys he should've beaten easily (past prime 'blown-up' fighters) he nearly lost too (2nd Charles fight for instance)

I'd rank Marciano above Dempsey, but still only about no.7 or no.8.

My top 5 is

1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Foreman
4. Holmes
5. Lewis

 

you were making the comparison for tyson and marciano that's the reason i used the holmes reference . which they actually did fight. foreman at 3 ?

 

Foreman at three due to the way he destroyed undefeated Joe Frazier, and also how he came back (against admittedly middling opposition) but reclaimed the title. Apart from being one of the most hurtful punchers in HW history he also has one of the most solid chins, well demonstrated in his comeback.

3,4 and 5 are admittedly interchangable. But as man for ranks MArciano at no.2 you have no right to belittle my judgements.

What I was referring to was this 'i would ve ranked holmes higher as well if he beats tyson at his old age but he didnt. ' that's what you said a couple of threads back, even you you said that there was no point 'using a time machine'. I then said I'd rank Marciano higher if he'd beaten Floyd Patterson, showing you the same rule applies there.

No hard feelings I think we just got our wires crossed.

 

The winner of Witherspoon/Smith was next to fight Tyson. Smith knocked Witherspoon out in one round; thus, he got the shot at Tyson. It wasn't that Tyson avoided Witherspoon; Witherspoon lost to Smith and eliminated himself.