Tokyo Douglas vs Marciano

In the words of the immortal John McEnroe, "you cannot be serious!!!!!!!!".

Tyson cut a swathe thru the division the likes of which has rarely if ever been seen. He was belting anyone and everyone and you are questioning who he fought? Recently you were spending hour after hour defending Larry Holmes whose post Cooney reign is utterly indefensible for anyone on the level.

Tucker was a belt holder and Spinks was considered the most dangerous heavyweight available. Pink had lost one fight in his life, a close one to Berbick (who took Pink's title) who was then beat by Tyson. At least Tyson gave Thomas his day in the sun when Holmes flat out refused. Holmes was the almost mandatory passing of the (Heavyweight) baton which so many greats have, Holmes and Marciano included.

Tubbs had lost one fight in his entire career, an MD to Witherspoon.

You're letting emotion get the better of you. By all means try and argue they weren't good fighters but attacking their substance to challenge will make you look utterly foolish. Stating Tyson was fighting "rusty hand picked fodder" is beyond absurd.

 

I'm not knocking Tyson, those guys were the guys to beat in order to establish greatness AT that time. Tyson absolutely cut a swath through the division. I agree.

I'm just saying, in relation to Marciano guys being old and small the Tyson guys were often rusty in world level opposition.

If you go through Marciano with a fine tooth comb that's what you get. If you go through Tyson with a fine tooth comb THAT is also what you get.

 

You also claimed they were "hand picked".

 

Larry Holmes was certainly hand picked. Tubbs and Thomas were names but they were hardly knocking on he door of world title fights at that time with serious wins were they? The last rated guy Larry beat was Williams that was a long time ago. Tubbs was proberbly Page and Thomas was Weaver. I think Tyson was barely in the pro ranks when Holmes, Tubbs and Thomas score wins over Williams, Page and Weaver.

 

Archie Moore said his legs were gone not me, you can confirm this by reading his taped interview in," InThis Corner,"do you think I make this up? The average age of Marciano's best opponents is correct so how is it an insult to mention it. Tubbs, Tucker ,and Thomas would absolutely sh*t all over Lastarza and Cockell and anyone who doesn't think so is a fool!
Lastarza had been dropped and beaten by a lightheavyweight journeyman whose record was 14-9-2, just 11 months prior to getting a world title shot! C*ckell had been kod by a middleweight 3 years before he got his title shot, who had he beaten to deserve a title shot? Lastarza who was damaged goods and who was never much to start with and a hyped light heavyweight in Mathews. Tyson Fury won the heavyweight title without ever beating a rated top ten heavyweight! Anthony Joshua hadn't beaten a top ten rated heavyweight when he beat Martin for a version of the title! What exactly is the significance of that! Your post is a nonsensical ramble that goes nowhere and addresses no points.

 

For me, there's nothing mysterious about it.
Styles make fights.
And Mike Tyson was overrated.
Douglas fought to the best of his ability.

I don't consider "all-time great" to be necessarily a stamp of head-to-head superiority in all cases.
In fact, fighters generally get to be viewed as "all-time great" due to consistency over a career, not some special stamp of quality that automatically means they will see off anyone who won't end up in the same ATG club.

 

is it insulting to mention most of Tysons best victims were rusty of world level experience?

The rusty Tokyo version of Tubbs (who his trainer walked out on because #1, he said Tony was in no shape to fight Tyson, #2 Tony blew a bonus in order to prove he was in no shape to fight) would be a poor opponent for any rated fighter. Not that it was Tysons fault. I can't imagine the retired Homes that Tyson beat up doing much better against Walcott, Moore or Charles than he did against Tyson. Thomas too. Each were inadequately prepared in recent fights.

But the problem is Mathews, Lastarza and Cockell are never regarded among Rockys strongest challengers are they?

Where as Tubbs, Thomas and Holmes are often regarded as equally worthy as Berbick, Smith and Douglas were. In truth Tubbs, Thomas and Larry were really doing less toward challenging Tyson than the others.

your post was highlighting the short comings of Marcianos opponents. Two can play at that game. It works for each and every great champion.

In the case of Tyson he was inadequately prepared for a difficult fight because a lot of his challengers were big names rusty of world class fights.

In the case of Rocky, whilst they were beating rated fighters, his best opponents were not giant sized or young and unbeaten.

 

You used the term insulting and I took exception to it and still do. You're the one doing the cherry picking here not me.Tyson's opponents aren't really relevant to a head to head match up between Douglas and Marciano so why you keep worrying at it like a dog with a bone is beyond me.

 

Well maybe I should not have used the word insulting then. No offence intended.

I still think it a pity that the documented facts to do with Tokyo Tubbs preparations for example get far less print than say the age and size of better prepared Marciano opponents.

 

Maybe it is because Tubbs NEVER got himself into top level shape against anybody. Despite that fact, he beat a number of elite fighters (Young, Page, Bonecrusher, Orlin Norris), and gave Hall of Fame Inductee Riddick Bowe and Tim Witherspoon (who may get in) hell. He was able to compete at this high level due to his hand speed and skill.

Tyson went through Tubbs like a hot knife through butter. Nobody had ever done that to Tubbs before, and, nobody did it again until years later when Tubbs had drug problems.

 

When your trainer walks out on you a week before the fight saying he can't be connected with a guy who doesn't want to work, that's fairly serious.
It's true that half of Tyson's title opponents had some pretty dreadful preparation and circumstances or some very unconvincing recent form going into those fights. Normally that wouldn't really warrant much mention, such is boxing, but considering Tyson's lack of preparation for the Douglas fight gets about twenty epic volumes of dedicated attention then it's fair to point out the obvious.

 

I'm talking about Marciano. Nobody beats Rocky on size alone.

 

The problem is Tyson of a 5'10 stature needed timing moreso then anyone to give up such reach disadvantages with fast athletic tall boxers . Douglas in my book was the best big man boxer /puncher of the 80's not including Tyson, what he lacked was desire to be the best , i believe Douglas of 1990 was the best Douglss we saw , he could have defeated Tucker who took a prime Lewis or young Lewis the distance . This should be a good indicator of how difficult it was for a under trained Tyson to deal with Douglas that night . I honestly dont see Marciano a threat at all at 5'9 and 60 something inch reach /shortest ever HW champion . The jab of Douglas rivals that of Holmes /Lewis , he was better than both throwing it while on the move , Marciano never gets near him.

Looking back at how sharp and mean Tyson came back against Williams ,this man was definatly not overatted ,that Tyson k.os Douglas in under 3 rnds .

 

I tend to agree with most of this.

I'd give Marciano a good chance though, based on the fact that Douglas was put down hard by Tyson and the possibility that Marciano's style would prove more awkward for Douglas to figure.

But, ultimately, Douglas did prove to me that he was adept at using all his physical tools and advantages against a short-arm, short aggressive fighter, and that doesn't bode well for Marciano at all.

 

I'd also like to state again that Buster Douglas was an undisputed heavyweight champion in his own right, on his own merits, and not by some "accident" or "fluke", so people who say he doesn't deserve comparison to the ATG Rocky Marciano should consider that.