More Punching Power : Marciano or Tyson.

a) Tyson was heavier because he had a larger, more muscled frame, but at the same time was a much speedier puncher. This uncommon combination trumps Marciano in power.

b) The film is clear in showing Tyson brutalized bigger men, much more quickly and easily, while Marciano, as has been said many times, was an attrition fighter, having to hit you again and again over the long haul.

c) Tyson’s right is more powerful and considerably more versatile than Marciano’s Suzy-Q. Tyson’s left is way more powerful and versatile than Marciano’s short left.

 

I agree that speed contributes to power - but muscle? After a threshold of weight class, I'm not so sure. You'd agree the more muscular Jameel McCline doesn't hit as hard as Rocky or Mike Tyson. Tyson's extra weight doesn't necessarily mean he hits harder than Rocky IMO.

That was also a stylistic issue though and general fighter attribute rather than sole focus on punching power. I shall start a thread to address the second point - you've got me curious.

I'm not sure if any of Tyson's rights were considerably harder than that one punch that KO'd Walcott. Additionally, I'd wager that Marciano probably also KO'd more worthy contenders with 1 punch than Mike Tyson (not D or C level fighters). At the same time, I'm not too familiar with Marciano as I have only seen 3 or 4 fights - I can gauge him as fighter from the defining fights I saw but not his career. Some guys have remote knowledge of a laundry list of opponents with knowledge from a book rather than as a fan and they like to spew esoteric names and cursorily thought out perspectives.

 

:rofl :rofl :rofl
Look at single left hook that KOed Berbick
Look at single right cross that KOed Botha
Look at left hook landed on Tubbs. Thats gyus are significantly bigger than great journeyman Walcott :yep

Tyson significantly better puncher with prefect versatility with nearly 45% of KD and KO by left hook, 40% by rightcross, 10% by uppercutts from both hands and nearly 5% by body punches.

 

He was stronger and faster and had better skills than Rocky.

 

It is extremely ignorant of you to laud Tyson for stopping a series of mediocre opponents like Berbick, Botha and Tony Tubbs, then mockingly dismiss a Hall-of-Fame world heavyweight champion like Walcott(who, by the way, had fought nearly all the hardest hitters of the era and had only been stopped once in the last 12 years when Marciano knocked him out colder than a doorknob with a single punch). None of those guys was even close to Walcott, and even then, Tyson didn't knock them out stone cold for several ten-counts' worth with a single shot.
And if size is all that matters to you, Marciano was 5-0 with 5 knockouts(3 in the first round) against opponents weighing over 210.

 

At first Duran is HOFamer, so can Hearns hit as hard as Tyson? Never. So I dont care about fact that Walcott is HOFer cause its not caomparable to TKO Ruddock type boxers and Walcott type. Just look how Tyson destroyed iron-chinned LHW M.Spinks and how Marciano landed on Charles in first encounter. Charles was 85 kg and KOed by likes of wrestler Simon :yep Marciano landed on Ezzard more and more with no effect. It took one punch for Mike to took out 100+ Botha cold. Botha who ate a number of bombs from Wlad Klitschko, Moorer, Briggs and others. While Marciano landed on KOdable 85 kg body with no effect. I told you - dont compare LHW an HW its not clever :good

 

A lot of these guys dont appreciate the value of a master boxer and all-time great like Charles and Walcott and what great boxers they were. Tyson had trouble getting a Ko with Quick Tillis,James Smith,Mitch Green could you imagine how Walcott would have made that ring a Maze for him

 

While Marciano landed but coudnt out such KOable LHWs like 80+ Lowry, Charles, Applegate etc. This gyus comparable with 16-yrs Tillis, Smith, Green etc. :rofl :rofl :rofl And doesnt matter if they are HOFes :hey

 

Since when plays weight such a big part in success? It´s better to be 190 lbs like Charles was, ripped, in top shape with almost no fat instead of +230 lbs. fat guys like Botha, who carry ca. 35 lbs superfluous fat with them, listen to guys like Marciano_Frazier and Bummy Davis, they have much knowledge...

 

OMG, please go to the General Boxing Forum, there you find immediately alignment...


this are these double standards I hate, Charles or Marciano are critiziced because of their weight (ca. 185 lbs.), but Ali, with his 207 lbs. ca. is the greatest ever, what a logic...

 

At first look how quickly MT ripped iron-chinned LHW Spinks and how "quickly" he take out real HWs likes of Thomas, Ruddock etc. Then tell me that mass didnt count. :yep

 

man, i know how to box and i dont need to read how some Jones defeated some Tomas at 1794. With respect Denny :thumbsup

 

I dont care what you hate and I will post where I want, man :thumbsup

 

You know why I almost always answer when it comes to mass and stuff like that? Because I box myself and make bodybuilding, I´m relatively small but I´m a HW. Mass is an advantage, but nothing more. Spinks was a proven LHW, but at HW his resume is too thin to take him as a good example, Ruddock and Thomas were both talented HW´s, but both are in another league than a Walcott for excample, head-to-head and legacy-wise...

 

Are you kidding man? :yep In such case Walcott has no overall resume above cruisreweight limit. He fought a several real but C\D-level HWs. And lost by KO to wrestler Simon :rofl Dont joke with me

very-very arguable question. Especially in terms of power that the boxer need to KO Ruddock, Thomas and LHW Walcoot. If you understand :smoke