redoing Marciano's 49-0 record with other champions.

The 49-0 thing is not that relevent. there was easily 15 learning fights in there that all fighters get and they did not mean much. You could scratch them and then its not 49-0. For all fighters there is a window where they have reached their best and need to land all the right fights in that period before they go off the boil. Marcianos grooming was perfect and he landed the important fights at just the right time. If he did not he would not he would not be 49-0 and neither would anyone else. A fighter should be measured only on his world class, main event, contender years. If rocky lost an early fight before he reached that level would it mean he was less of a champion if he still cleaned out like he did in the big league? Marciano did not flunk the big fights but he still knew he was near the end of his rope when he jacked it in. As an obsesive type, Rocky knew anything longer than a 6 month break would ruin his chances of maintaining what he had left so he retired. He was not prepared to fight at anything less than the best he could be, most boxers are just not like that. They delude themselves and ignore signs of deteriation.

Mike Tyson was less of a pro in that his window of personal stabilty was always going to be tiny. It was a team effort keeping that mad man-child on the rails. Put Tyson in any strong era and he becomes champion for 2 years tops. Once he was fighting less than 5 times a year he was always going to find trouble and underacheive.

 

In that same time frame that Marciano fought these gentlemen I can name adleast 5 other guys that can do it. Marciano fought nobody that was great and in there prime at the same time. Prime Louis..Charles...Walcott all beat him.

 

That goes for Tyson far more than it goes for marciano. Tubbs, Thomas, Holmes, spinks and Bruno had not beat rated fighters for years before Tyson met them where as joe louis, walcott, charles and Moore were still taking out elite contenders right up untill facing Marciano. Career timing enhances all champions but even the greatest slip up. Take joe Louis (my#1 HW champ) he flunked schmeling. On paper walcott, charles and moore were better than the version of max schmeling who beat the greatest inch perfect heavyweight ever filmed.

 

Louis could have won every fight Marciano won and, IMO, would have. He's one of the 5 most consistent boxers of all time.

 

This is a really, really fair point. Although, I'd say they were all probably less shop worn. Tubbs was more-or-less a tune up fight for big money in Tokyo. Not a rated fighter. Bruno would actually improve years later. Holmes was lured out of retirement, although it's a pretty solid win in hindsight considering nobody would stop him before or after, much less in four. It certainly helps that he came back an entire four years later and bested an undefeated Mercer and gave prime Holyfield a fight. He was no older than Louis or Walcott. Thomas had rebounded from his loss to Berbick with a few wins over unknowns. That was a matter of Tyson fighting the highest rated fighter he could've (sans Lineal Spinks) like Smith and Berbick before him, Tucker after him.

 

All records can be attacked. The point still stands if marciano only beat old men who was the great in prime fighter (who was still actively beating rated fighters) that Tyson beat?

Tyson was a great fighter he beat what was there, he is my #9 Atg HW but we must use the same microscope and set of rules used on marciano's resume.

 

I wasn't making that argument, chok. I love Marciano and rate him higher than Tyson as he was more consistent and never bested in the ring. Both of them fought the highest rated fighters available to them in their own time during their primary runs. That's all you can do as a Heavyweight, and others haven't. They cleaned it out -- Tyson essentially beat four #1s (with the exception of himself) over a span of nine months. It's not really his fault Butch Lewis was holding out and angling for a higher payday before he got Spinks in the ring. It's not his fault Duva felt Holyfield wasn't ready when Tyson blasted out the #2 rated Carl Williams in 93 seconds. Another instance post-Douglas: Who, with the exception of then-champ Holyfield could Tyson of possibly fought that was rated higher than Ruddock at the time, whom he beat twice? A whole lot of Nobody. :good

 

An interesting point to discuss about Tyson's reluctance to stay focused might deal with him getting too comfortable at the top and not having a viable opponent to challenge him on the horizon. Holyfield was viewed as a blown up cruiser. Ruddock was scheduled after Williams in late '89 but wasn't seen as a threat. Foreman hadn't fought Cooney yet. The '88 Olympians were way too green. It was completely the wrong mentality to have but Tyson felt after beating Spinks there were no more mountains to climb and no big challenges in the near future.

Obviously he was very wrong.

 

Yeah, wrong in the form that for all he's ostracized, Buster Douglas was a super-heavyweight much bigger than Mike Tyson with great skills and his only drawback being an inconsistent, often poor work ethic; a rated contender -- not a bum -- coming off six consecutive wins and extraordinary motivation to perform.

 

And that's why I don't see Tyson losing to anyone on Marciano's list. He doesn't lose to the smaller guy. Never.

 

How about Holmes?