Tougher opponents throughout there career. Tyson or Marciano

That`s true. Charles was one of the greatest fighters of alltime and still a very good heavyweight. People may overlook his greatness because he wasn`t a spectacular performer but he was just effective.

 

"Louis had really no business fighting Rocky."

Well, if Walcott hadn't upset Charles, Louis would have been fighting Charles for the championship. That fight was penciled in for that September. Marciano was the fall back opponent.

Louis had won eight in a row, seven against rated contenders of the era.

He had certainly gone back, and was 37.

But then how old is the best heavyweight in the world today?

Louis was actually a 7-5 favorite over Marciano.

 

Does Marciano perhaps deserve some credit for that?

After all, Louis was fighting a man who never lost to anyone and made all sorts of opponents look bad.

 

He was the #1 rated HW, Rocky had to fight him to get in line for a title shot.

Holmes was simply brought out of retirement for loads of cash to make Tyson look good. Holmes at least to his credit came back a few years later and made a decent impression. For that reason only, I will put these wins on the level.

 

Are we? I am arguing who beat the better heavyweights head to head. We are only talking about a 35 year time difference, a generation, but it is patently obvious that Tyson was fighting a different breed of heavyweight, in size, in age and in many cases ability.

Marciano, for all gifts as a natural born fighter, must be given most credit for timing his prime to coincide with the softest underbelly the division ever presented.

 

-Well on paper, Douglas has one of the single best wins in history with the Tyson upset. Beyond that, Kockell and Douglas are on fairly even terms in both got their title shots by beating fringe contenders and faded former contenders.

-But at any rate, I said I'll spot you Douglas on the Layne tier. But even if we elevated Tokyo Douglas to Holyfield and Lewis' level, most of us are still left with the same conclusion. Tyson fought but lost to the better fighters, while Marciano still holds the better wins.

-Timing his prime? I doubt he had much choice in that. Can't agree. Layne, LaStarza, old Louis, Matthews, and a remarkably game Walcott isn't a soft road to the title by any means, let alone the softest. Not even sure how you could come to such a conclusion, beating 4 rated fighters and a Hall of Fame Champion is a soft underbelly, unless you just unrealisticlaly imagine these guys losing in fantasy fights to every other contender in history hmmmmm..

 

Love the Rock he wasn't near as skilled as Tyson, but I have to say I feel Tyson had the better opponents overall.

Caveat that with Marciano had the tougher fights, I think that once fighters either saw Rocky fight or were in the ring with him they saw how small and akward he was and got overconfident.

Tyson on the other hand had his opponents half beaten before they got in the ring

 

"softest underbelly the division ever presented."

Oh, there have been a lot of soft underbellies and plenty were softer than the one Marciano cut through.

Let's take the worst of his contenders, Don C.

Do you maintain he couldn't beat any of the challengers Jeffries defended against? Johnson defended against? Dempsey defended against?

I favor him over Munroe, the 1903 Corbett, and give him at least an even money chance against Ruhlin.

I favor Don C as a heavyweight over Carpentier for certain, and also over Brennan, whose record looks totally hollow to me.

I favor Don C over Flynn, and going in over Ketchel, who does have a puncher's chance. I rate him even against Moran.

One could argue there were better men out there for these old champs--Johnson for Jeff, Langford for Johnson, Wills or perhaps Godfrey for Dempsey. But, so what, they didn't defend against these men. Marciano did against his toughest contenders.

"We are talking about a 35 year difference"

Yes, a drop in the bucket. It certainly is an interesting question why things changed so much in the size of athletes over such a short time. In my lifetime I remember NBA champions with 6' 7" star centers (the 1956 Philadelphia Warriers-Neil Johnston), NFL champions with the biggest man at 260 lbs (the 1960's Green Bay Packers -Ron Kostelnik), and decades in which most heavyweight champions were in the 180's--Charles, Marciano, Patterson.

Just guessing, but probably antibiotics play a crucial role. Get an infection and it got knocked out right away. In the old days the body had to fight it off, or they just cut off a limb. There is also inoculations, and improved nutrition.

Whatever the reason, this size explosion between those born before WWII and those born after WWII is a fact.

"a different breed of heavyweight, in size, in age, and in many cases ability"

Size-yes. Ability-not to my eyes on film. Age? Well, I watched footage of the 1954 Marciano-Charles I fight last night, and also the 1996 Holyfield-Tyson I fight. Marciano was a year older than Tyson. Charles was a year younger than Holyfield. Both Charles and Holyfield had shown signs of wear in previous fights. Charles had lost 2 of his last 7. Holyfield 3 of his last 7.

An even bigger gap in age (4 yrs. versus 2 yrs.) didn't stop Holyfield from dominating and stopping Tyson.

Size (or at least weight) had grossly changed, but the two opponents were equally matched in both eras.

 

Joe Louis was only popular because of his lighter skin complexion. He was washed up. He fought so many bums they started calling them the bum of the month club.

Archie Moore was a blown up middleweight who turned pro in 1935 and up until 1944 stayed at middleweight or so weight. Moore had over 150 bouts when he faced Marciano and was knocked down countless times and knocked out various times and was clearly passed his best and was as I said smaller than Marciano naturally.

Charles was great? No he was good. There isn't much footage of him but because you heard he was great then he must be right? The so called boxing experts call him great to make it seem like Marciano fought somebody great. Then you realized Charles was passes his prime as well as being a natural 175 or so pound fighter.

Jersey Joe Walcott was what? 190 pounds so not heavyweight by modern standards. Came in to the ring with maybe 16 plus loses and been stopped 4 times all quicker than Marciano stopped him. Also just like Archie Moore , Walcott was pushing 40 and had years of wear and tear on his body.

It is funny how even to this day so many whites still live in this fantasy world trying to put Marciano as one of the best heavyweights of all time.

Even though Marciano wasn't a heavyweight by modern standards. Never beat a heavyweight of modern standards, never got hit by a heavyweight of modern standards. or hit on by modern standards. He wasn't a heavyweight his punching power is overrated even for 180 pound standards.

Marciano is to whites as Mayweather is to black boxing fans.

 

Alex Stewart's wife was also crying at ringside just before his fight with Tyson.