Tyson V Marciano's Challengers?

It's not running them down anymore than those who are saying Marciano only fought old men. Former light heavyweights. That he never fought class tall guys.

It is exactly the same.

 

Yes, I agree that each generation stands on its predecessors shoulders. However, I have heard prior generations lament a lack of quality coaching and teaching today. This helps those arguing regularly in h2h discussions allowing for more seamless intergenerational competition than would be reasonable in other sports.

I don't know how much the suprise of innovation plays a role of top level fighters fighting in an age with modern communication. I could see it as having played a much larger role before film or video. It also makes me wonder how much of an all the access we have today is a benefit. I know some in the jui jitsu world argue that the prevalence of media has caused an explosion in technique advancements.

 

- Bruno?- Later Tyson destroyed the reigning champion Bruno easier in 1996. (Tyson won every round
against Bruno.I hope you don't try to prove Bruno was better when Tyson beat Bruno easier
than others (including the unbeaten Lennox Lewis.)
- Maybe Holmes wasn't perfect but Tyson destroyed him an his firsrt beater Spinks easily.
Big chance Tyson was better than the 1985/86 version Holmes.
- Tubbs ? Say an example when Tubbs was ripped and muscular !
- Thomas ? Tyson destroyed him and his first beater Bebick easily.
Sorry don't get me wrong but you proved nothing in Tyson's case.

 

Tyson would run right through them all except for Walcott and Charles. He'd win decisions there but with Walcott you never know, he'd either win a decision or get ktfo. I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

Definitely helpful.
But then you see someone like Pep...

 

I don't care how many George Foreman videos you've got to watch, and prepare with.
Once the man is in the ring with you, reality takes over. Reality in this case coming in the form of punching power.

Such would be the case with Louis.
That's cool that you see he's looking to land the OH right, but can you actually do anything about it?

 

lol @ JJW winning a decision. Tyson creams the lot of them. None of them could take an Iron Mike punch , including Rocky himself.

 

I think a prime Tyson would make light work of all of them - except Charles. Charles was good enough to stand up to Tyson and use his skills to take it into the later rounds. I don't know if Charles would have won but if he survived the early onslaught he'd have a pretty decent chance.

 

Walcott pretty much has a technicians chance against anybody.

Give him an unfocused version of Tyson, and I might well put a fiver on him!

 

Big George isn't exactly what I'd call a tricky fighter.

I get your point better with the Louis example, but I don't really think you've considered the depth of what I've said. It's not simply knowledge of what's going on. Mike Tyson's training was influenced by Rocky Marciano's performances. Without that influence is it safe to say Mike Tyson boxes like Mike Tyson or does he box more like other fighters that existed during or prior to Marciano?

I'm not saying boxing is progressive, as best I can tell it's cyclical. I'm saying there is far more to consider than just who beat who or who was particularly good at what.

Consider this, If it's the early 18th century Mike can't be champion because the public won't allow it. He can fight for the belt, win by 30 second KO and still not be champion. All he can do is beat the **** out of Cribb and be cheated. Not because Mike's the wrong race, he is, but because he's the wrong nationality.

Put Cribb in 86 in it's an easy one rounder for Tyson. Put Tyson in 1810 and he loses by the crowd beating and biting him while the official calls it a KO because Mike can't carry a crowd of grown men to the scratch.

I get that I went to an extreme to make my point, but to just disregard time and any advantages or disadvantages it brings itself is just as big an extreme and it's the norm.

What would be honestly interesting is if time was part of the criteria. For example, how well does Mike do as a Marciano replacement in the 50's? How well does Marciano's opposition do against Mike in the 80's? How about Marciano's opponents vs Mike Tyson in 2017? 1917? 1971? The first century AD with roman wraps and very few rules? 1720's what when one round you might lose by having your knee broken by cudgel before the pugilism even began, or the mid 1800's when fighters wore steel cleats and no gloves, the cross-buttocks was legal, and elbow drops were commonplace.