More Punching Power : Marciano or Tyson.

:good .....WIPEOUT

 

This is such a good point. We see the old champions only against
world class opposition. Tyson looks a world-beater against tomato-
cans and it was part of the buildup orchestrated by Jacobs and
Cayton to juxtapose film of a Tyson blowout against Louis, for example,
needing punch after punch to put down Max Baer. We must remember
that Baer might have had the toughest chin in the world at the time.
When Tyson moved up in competition against James Tillis, for one
example, he came down to earth.

 

Not only did Marciano hit harder, he bit harder. Tyson barely made it through another man's dainty ear; Marciano bit through an entire slice of Mama Marciano's day-old meatball lasagna in one chomp and even managed to smile while doing it.

 

There is one yawning difference between Tyson and Marciano. When
you name names that Marciano struggled with, you are generally
naming second raters. He is the only puncher in boxing history that
I am aware of who actually improved his KO percentage as the level
of opposition improved. He fought 13 fights against 10 men who at
one time or another were ranked #2 contender or higher. He won all
these fights, eleven by knockout and knocked out every man in either
the initial fight or a rematch.
Tyson is more like the norm, spectacular, as are many, at blowing away
second-raters but as the skills and toughness of the opposition rises,
his knockout percentage declines. I think the key here is Marciano's
exceptional ability to carry his power into the later rounds.

 

I would also like to note that Applegate was the only fighter Marciano ever failed to stop who had previously been stopped on an average of more than once every 45 fights! LaStarza had never been stopped(0 in 37 fights), Mogard had never been stopped(0 in 23 fights), Lowry had only been stopped twice in 115+ fights(an average of about once every 60 fights), and Charles had only been stopped twice in 90+ fights(an average of about once every 45 fights). That really speaks to just how effective a knockout artist Marciano was. I don't know what happened against Applegate, but I would bet he was just in there to survive(and even he was reasonably seldom stopped, at three times in 29 recorded fights, none of them clean KOs).
For comparison, young Tyson failed to stop Tillis, who had already been stopped three times in 39 fights, Smith, who had already been stopped twice in 24 fights, and Douglas, who had already been stopped three times in 34 fights.

 

You're the one that's lying. You did say that Primo Carnera was a great heavyweight. That is the actual terminology that you used. And you did say that LaStarza was one of the greatest defensive heavyweights of all-time. You did say that. Don't try to pull the old "lie" card on me, when you did actually say those things in those words.

 

Who those dangerous full-sized heavyweights? List them, please. Ten Hoff`ses :rofl :rofl :rofl ? Shkor? :rofl :rofl :rofl
Only compare them to likes of Briggs, Wlad Kiltschko and other I listed some time ago. atsch

Because McCall DURABLE AGAINST HEAVYWEIGHTS while Walcott or Charles were more or less DURABLE AGAINST LHW and CW or very mediocre HW. Do you understand the difference here?

 

Walcott only ONE time fought with weight more than 200 pounds. So we can easily deduce - he wasnt heavyweight.
Well, such approach is rather artificial, so we can exclude Walcotts weight and include wights of his opponents. And we`ll see that Walcoot NEVER fought even good not old heavyweight >200 pounds. Thats all.

He fought noone good heavyweight with exceptions of faded Louis.

Who those people? List those hard-hitting HW`s KOed by 80 kg boxers :rofl :rofl :rofl

Tyson was first who stop Tubbs. Then in the age of 34 and higher he was even more ugly fatted and stopped by very good 100+ kg punchers. For example hard hitting Thunder and Bowe failed to stop him. Listed Butler is terrific puncher. Walcott NEVER fought HWs even close to Butler in terms of POWER and RAW strength.

Yeah, Charles was KOed by lesser 82 kg guys
:rofl :rofl Butler will kill those brotherhood of hobbits by one shot. Even those 80 kg HOFamers. Cause the boxers fight, not the titles.

Becuse Smith, for example, when he was still able to box, was KOd only by Ruddock one of the most hard-hitting HWs all-time. A terrific and furiest 100+ kg puncher. While Layne, for example was KOd by <85 kg guys. Do you understand the difference?

If the guy weighting over 200 pounds KOed by or lost to <85 guys than he mediocre HW, at best. Also do you know why the limit of the HW division exist? Why HW is not absolute division? Because size is matter. No one want see how small Layne or Bivins will be killed in the ring by half-shot of Ruddock.

 

Your position is anachronistic. Someone like Walcott, and most of his
top opposition, were indeed a good sized heavyweights for their time.
Anyone over 175 was a heavyweight and there was no cruiserweight
division.
The problem with viewing modern size as the norm is that it is a
reflection of improved nutrition and medical care in the general
population, as well as specific supplements, such as steroids and
growth hormones unavailable to past generations. I doubt if Shannon
Briggs would have anything like the size he is if he were born in 1915
and fought in the forties and fifties.
I see your view as sort of like saying a modern general if obviously
better than Alexander or Caesar because his troops have machine
guns and would have mowed down the Macedonian phalanx or the
Roman legions.

 

So what? This is never suggests that he hit harder, cause those guys were LHWs, CWs, and a few HWs bums. While Tyson stopped gyus 100+ kg by one shot, while Marciano landed on 85 kg Charles with no effect :hey :hey

The key here - is the quality of HEAVYWEIGHTs in opposition. I think Tyson also could carry his power to later round against 85 kg Tarver or Spinks :rofl

 

FOR HIS TIME. But topic is concerned of absolute value.
OMG.

You doubt about virtual Briggs of 1915, while I saw that Marciano KOd small guys while Tyson KOs big guys. Thats all. Read the topic question.

No, I dont think such way.

 

There is no such thing as absolute value. Any achievement is only in
its own time and place. I remember a radio talk show in which Rick
Barry was the host. The caller maintained that the fans should not be
too harsh on the Oakland Raiders of that year, who were lousy and
losing every game, because the Raiders would have been able to beat
the Pittsburg Steelers of the 1970's or the Packers of the 1960's.
Barry replied that a team is great or awful only in the context of what
it does against other teams of its own time.
So with this discussion. All these men were heavyweights. All fought
big men as big men were defined in their time and place. Marciano
ended up with a better knockout percentage than Tyson, so he was
the more effective puncher.

 

Write please a list of decent HW punchers who test Baer chin. If you want.

 

Max Schmeling, Pat Comiskey, Tony Galento, and Hank Hankinson.
Primo Carnera was probably a better puncher than is generally accepted today.
There were a lot of middle level punchers such as DeKuh, Santa,
Munsell, Schaaf, Griffith, etc.
You have a point about the punching power of Baer's oppostion, but
Baer still certainly had a far better chin than the early tomato-can
opponents Tyson knocked out on film.

 

Do you rate
Max Schmeling, Pat Comiskey, Tony Galento, and Hank Hankinson as punchers
higher than
Briggs, Morrison, Ruddock, Tua, Bruno etc? :hey

As tomato-chinned Holmes, Ruddock, Thomas, Spinks, Williams etc? :rofl
Well I know about Galento opposition, and how he failed to KO a number of 80 kg bums, while self weighting at 100 kg. :hey Pat Comiskey and Hank Hankinson tested Baer chin very carefully in 1 round. :good Schmelling? Yaeh good small puncher who test Max chin. So, Baer indeed has most iron-chinned head of all-time! Because Max Shmelling failed to KO him! atsch