Tyson V Marciano's Challengers?

49-0 49 KOs. Tyson was murder against guys smaller than he.

 

I did answer the post. I think Tyson on his best night would do very well against all of them. He wins each fight that way. but on a fight by fight basis where he had a bonecrusher Smith night, a Tucker and Thomas night rather than just Biggs, Spinks and Berbick nights I think Charles and Walcott (who by the way were superior to everyone Tyson defended against when they fought Marciano) could have been too much, Moore less so.

I don't think Tony Tucker could really do anything Charles could not. Was Tucker really that physical with Tyson? Did his size tell? He boxed with Tyson. Managed to keep it to boxing.

Being under 190 does seem like suicide against Tyson but Charles was tough,fast and experienced enough to adapt to any sutuation. Charles boxed at close range meeting Rocky on the way in. He had a superb strategy and if you watch closely his inside work negated the use of strength within a clinch. Turning and using the parry counter. Tyson was no expert inside. Tyson rather lost focus becoming frustrated inside.

Tyson was more of an expert at drawing the lead, beating the guy to the punch attacking at angles on the way in with his combination punching. Once inside he really fumed until he could get his hands free. For somebody as savy as Charles it would not be rocket science to work out. Tyson was a kid after all, albeit a talented kid with an intimidating aura.

The way Tyson bought the feints that Douglas threw Mike with once Tyson finally came up against a confident seasoned challenger was something of a shock at the time... and certainly nothing Charles could not do in the pocket.

Walcott pulled out every last drop against Marciano. Tyson did not face such driven, determined fighters putting it all on the line like that when he was champion.

This in contrast to the men who made it look easy for Tyson. Tubbs had a trainer walk out in disgust, Holmes was dug up, rehab Thomas. Spinks froze. Etc etc.

Tyson was a great fighter. I think for a short time Tyson was as good as he looked. but it wasn't as easy as it looked in a two way street.

 

You're comparing 185-lb men to 6'4/6'5 220/235-lb men with 82-inch reaches. Seems pretty obvious why a short heavyweight might have an easier time with the former than the latter.

 

Not necessarily, Tillis and Holyfield were both lighter than Tyson and weighed under 200 pounds for chunks of their careers.

 

Gee, well, that's nice, picking the very best version and stretching him through an entire career. So you're taking:

The best version of Tyson vs Marciano opponents when Rocky was green

and

The best version of Tyson vs Marciano opponents when Rocky was older

:huh

Somehow, I sense an agenda. :think

In real life Tyson's prime was almost a flash in the pan it was so short. Post prison Tyson would have had an uphill battle vs Marciano's resume.

 

Nah, he was a little taller and reachier.

Charles was usually listed at 6 or 6'1" with a never less than 74 inch wingspan.

I'm not sure why boxrec recently downgraded his reach.

Tillis in the Tyson fight was listed at 76 inch reach, which isn't that much greater. Weird boxrec listing Tillis at freakish 80 inch now, not sure why that is.

 

Exceptional fighters can be an exception to the rule.

It's not alwaye as simple as saying this guy can't win because the tape measure says this and the scales say that. Walcott, Moore and Charles flattened big men with ratings.

Great fights make great fighters.

These big tall guys, the 6'5" 82" 230 dudes did they win great fights before they fought Tyson?

 

post #51 has all the answers for you.

 

When did I say anything like "this guy can't win because the tape measure says this and the scales say that"? That being said, completely ignoring size and physical attributes when thinking about potential matchups and how they might unfold is just as silly.

If you don't already understand why Tyson might have a harder time knocking out 6'5" 82" 230-lb men who are fighting to survive than much smaller but more skilled men, then I really don't know what to say.

 

Yeah, agree with Choklab. Otherwise we could take Tokyo Douglas, stretch him over Tyson's career and proclaim him The Greatest :roll:

The problem with comparing a "prime" fighter vs another fighter's entire career is that it demeans the incredibly hard work that somebody like a Marciano put into being in top shape for every fight. It seems a little unfair to me.

Why don't we take "prime" Marciano and pit him against every opponent Dempsey ever faced and see what computes? Methinks McVey would not like that result :hey

 

Tyson vs that version of Douglas ends only one way.