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

What?:huh

 

You are absolutely right. Lastarza isn't even a sparring partner for Tyson.

 

Marciano beat better fighters than Lastarza but roland came to fight a whole lot more than spinks, bonecrusher and tubbs ever did against Tyson. The hype really got to them. A fighter giving his all is never easy to beat where as a more talented fighter giving a luke warm effort whos heart is not in it will be easy meat.

Lastarza was a good fighter! If you watch Lastarzas moves and how he handled himself he was an elite fighter. I would bet hard cash Roland would beat the likes of seldon, mathis, marvis frazier, tilman and especialy mcbride! what are youy on? Mcbride was nobody.. and it was Tysons last fight!! if I was defending TYson I wouldnt mention mcbride!!

 

While there is a lot the that can be re-litigate regarding Marciano's incredible feat, I actually did a thread a while back that touches on this subject; I'll bump the thread and hopefully we can continue the discussion.'

I think it put in perspective what the Rock accomplished in his day.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=275827

 

So, LaStarza's best pelt by a mile is the great one-two plodder Rex Layne but he's going to beat the guy who beat Bruno x2, Holmes, Thomas, Tubbs, Spinks, Berbick, Ruddock x2, Smith, Tucker, Botha, Seldon?

Makes sense to me.










On second thought, I would pick each and everyone of those just mentioned to beat LaStarza and bet the mortgage on it.

 

They may not have been great, but LaStarza would not even have been good in the 80's or 90's. 188 pound fancy dan's with no power didn't go too far in the real heavyweight division. Who was the last 190 pound guy to Tyson any trouble whatsoever? And don't even compare LaStarza to Holyfield because they were completely different levels of fighters, huge gaps in ability, grit, power, athleticism...

 

Holyfield was a shredded 215+ when he fought Tyson.

 

Dempsey, Tunney, Charles would NOT go undefeated

This is completely untrue. Not to mention it would be hard to find better versions of Walcott and Moore than the night they fought Marciano. Moore couldn't have done any better than in 1955 when he was a solid 185lb on a 45-1 winning streak. Walcott fought the fight of his life in 52 and was heavyweight champion. You could make a case prime charles beats marciano, but after seeing the gooftrooper valentino outhustle a prime charles in 1949, I go with Marciano.

 

I think Walcott might have been better going in to the Louis fight. He had been on a winning streak, including ending Bivins own streak, and had only lost to close decisions to Maxim and Elmer Ray, both of which he avenged.

 

you forgot steroids...

 

I am a big fan of Tyson but against Tyson even both spinks and Holmes dont stand up that well... literally!

Holmes had was 0-2 over about 3 years.
Spinks never beat a heavyweight contender.

 

Tyson beats lastarza but watch lastarza fight and check his record. He could punch and box well against an ATG fighter. Marciano prevented roland from being remembered as a good fighter as much as Tyson did with Tyrell biggs. Roland beat better fighters than biggs.

 

Going 0-2 over about 3 years is of no consequence. It doesn't change the fact that he's a great fighter. 4 years later Holmes upsets Ray Mercer (fresh of his win over Morrison) and later extends Holyfield the full 12 picking up 4 rounds in the process. He obviously had something in the tank the night he fought Tyson, he was just in there with a fighter who stylistically was always going to give him problems.

Spinks beat the Heavyweight Champion. Twice.