Tyson V Marciano's Challengers?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mcvey, Jan 20, 2016.



  1. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,511
    7,384
    Dec 31, 2009
    Tyson started fast against Spinks and was allowed to start fast. Spinks was unable to produce anything at all to nip it in the bud. Douglas did. He was able to use tools to prevent himself becoming totally overwhelmed.

    Berbick was a less impressive performance, he offered resistance but didn't have quite what was required. Douglas was able to get Tyson to buy a feint.

    Tyson wiped out Carl Williams because the stuff he did worked out. I don't think Tyson was any worse against Douglas.
     
    louis54 likes this.
  2. Nighttrain

    Nighttrain 'BOUT IT 'BOUT IT Full Member

    5,291
    967
    Nov 7, 2011
    I disagree, I think there was a steady decline following Spinks with fewer combinations and less head movement.
     
    louis54 likes this.
  3. louis54

    louis54 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,187
    1,295
    Mar 20, 2013
    I've seen Tyson workout....Tyson's main problem was lack of infighting and a chin like a rock...Tyson was forever fighting guys 6 2 or more and you need both a Frazier like body attack and a chin like a petrolle or warmed up Frazier...Tyson did not have a great chin...still he was obviously good enough...
     
  4. GlaukosTheHammer

    GlaukosTheHammer Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,818
    1,213
    Nov 7, 2017
    Walcott was a tricky fighter what with his shoulder rolls and shuffles. By the 70s what Joe was being innovative with was being duplicated and by the 80s commonplace in training. The shuffle has to be the most famous even if it's more cute than useful. A Walcott move made famous by Ali. Clearly Mike benefits from having come after it's famous. Who knows how he'd've reacted or how anyone would react to a shuffle if they'd never heard or seen it, but in a post Ali world Walcott's shuffle isn't anything but a homage to The Greatest.

    I might be misremembering but didn't Fury give Wlad a shuffle or two? Well....how is Joe meant to have the same effect against Tyson as he did when he was active if Tyson's been looking up to it his whole life and the guys he was fighting had never seen it?

    Who can Joe surprise with his Sucka Punch that was trained in an era able to reflect on his Sucka Punch?
     
    choklab likes this.
  5. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,511
    7,384
    Dec 31, 2009
    The Spinks fight was a very short fight. Practically nothing came back at Tyson to make him think. Also Tyson smelled fear. It turned him on to destruction mode. HE was going full steam there. So it was not a hard assignment.

    Pinklon Thomas was not intimidated. There were spells in that fight where mike lost focus while he was trying to work him out. This was before the Spinks fight. He salvaged that situation. All anyone remembers is the finish.
     
  6. thistle

    thistle Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,515
    5,514
    Dec 21, 2016
    Tyson beats them ALL at the time they fought Marciano.

    Tyson is arguably the GREATEST P4P Heavyweight who ever lived.

    Tyson should beat almost every heavyweight who graced the ring, EXCLUDING Some of the GIANTS because their NOT Heavyweights... but he'd beat many of them too.

    Tyson could be beat and would lose some too, especially 'IF' he fought in the 40s with a 100 fight or more schedule, certainly Louis could, and pairing them in a series over a couple of year period would have been huge box office.

    Prime for Prime, Louis, Walcott, Charles and LaStarza are the real HWs here, in Tyson's time, Mathews & C*ckell would have fought at L-HW.

    I'd favour Tyson over them all, but could see Louis, Walcott & Charles get a win if they met enough.
     
  7. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member Full Member

    47,903
    34,359
    Apr 27, 2005
    You've got an excuse for every Tyson performance that was good.

    As i've said to you before you just make it up as you go along. Once the agenda is set (in this case discredit Tyson in order to prop up personally more favored fighters) you are unwavering.

    You find the wildest ways to make Tyson challengers irrelevant but reverse tact and attempt to big up the challengers of guys like Marciano in the most bizarre ways.
     
  8. Joe E

    Joe E Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,361
    42
    May 12, 2007
    The Charles of the 1st Marciano fight, and certainly prime Charles, stands a very good chance against Tyson. The Walcott of the 1st Marciano fight, or the Wacott of the 1st Louis fight, also stands a very good chance against Tyson. Why? The explaination has everything to do with Tyson's style. Tyson was a predictable fighter. Stalking, rarely fighting at angles and relying almost totally on his hand speed and punching power to prevail. He was also a "front runner" That is to say that he was expected by all to win his bouts. Which always leads to a fighter becoming over confident, and in Tyson's case, frustration, and ultimately lead to his downfall. The first boxer he faced, Quick Tillis, a Man that used a jab and the Ring, he had problems with. The second Man that used those tactics, Buster Douglas, he lost to, while still prime. Both Walcott and Charles would've seen that and reacted in appropiate fashion. Thus either standing a good chance at winning.
     
  9. Sting like a bean

    Sting like a bean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    2,047
    1,581
    Apr 9, 2017
    There are a lot of legitimate criticisms to be made of Tyson, but the curious notion that his competition was particularly weak is just straightforwardly a clean miss, and really shouldn't require a word of discussion, let alone disputation.
     
  10. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member Full Member

    47,903
    34,359
    Apr 27, 2005
    Bingo.
     
  11. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    69,970
    23,858
    Feb 15, 2006
    It was a lot like Marciano's competition really.

    The best that could be managed, in a transitional era.
     
  12. Nighttrain

    Nighttrain 'BOUT IT 'BOUT IT Full Member

    5,291
    967
    Nov 7, 2011
    Bottomline H2H prior era fighter lose an edge due to a lack novelty. I don't know how much weight I would give it, but I am not a big h2h believer anyhow. Interesting.
     
  13. GlaukosTheHammer

    GlaukosTheHammer Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,818
    1,213
    Nov 7, 2017
    Yes, sorry, I'm a wordy ******* but yeah you've it in a line. I wouldn't call it novelty, novelty dies with the boxer. Things that inspire others to continue the practice are innovations not novelties, but that's splitting hairs.

    Wouldn't weight depend on how much the fighter in question depends on their tricks?

    No one ever figured out Mendoza his whole career. He lost by being cheated and was so hated the public was happy about it. Jackson grabbed Daniel by the ponytail and beat his face in...not exactly a translatable L to a fresh era. Stripping him of his suprise means he'd've never been champion in any era. Granting someone knowledge of the surprise is like saying I believe this man is innately more cunning than the whole 1790s boxing industry. Him having something you are not prepared for is his whole gambit, not his power, not his speed, but his mind. Everyone who comes after should beat him readily because his tricks are what they train for.

    Mike Tyson comes directly off the back of the HW Golden Era while Roland predates it. I'd say that has a significant affect on how they fought, trained, and reacted in the ring.
     
  14. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,511
    7,384
    Dec 31, 2009
    There's nothing made up about Tubbs ignoring the incentive of a bonus to come in shape or Tubbs trainer walking out on him.

    Nothing made up about Holmes going three years without winning.

    Nothing made up about Thomas going two years since beating a live, rated opponent.

    Nothing made up about Bruno not fighting for 16 months.

    this is not to say Tyson was not a great fighter though. It's just that these points are factual and NOT made up.

    It's a lot easier for a champion to win under these circumstances isn't it? When did Rocky defend against 4 challengers who had not beat rated opposition for at least 16 months?
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2017
  15. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 VIP Member Full Member

    47,903
    34,359
    Apr 27, 2005
    Don't stop there. You also run down Spinks, Berbick, etc etc etc etc