Tyson vs. Marciano: The myth of "intagibles"

Well, if RJJ can wobble Ruiz with one punch, then it's not necessarily out of the question that Marciano-who generated a hell of a lot of power for someone his size, could hurt a heavyweight if he catches them right. And, while Tyson possessed a good defense at his best, he was still far from unhittable, even at his best.

 

I don't remember Jones 'ruling' the heavyweight division for a start. Jones was successful against the much bigger man but he picked his mark, Ruiz being one of the worst champs of recent times. Also, Jones, if we're honest, is one of the most skilled fighters of all-time. The more skilled and elusive you are the more chance you've got against the bigger talents (I'm talking talents here not fat, soft lemons). Jones himself admitted that a fight with Lewis was never seriously on the cards. He was too big, too skilled, too hard a hitter. Something Ruiz wasn't.

 

The point I was making was that 25 lbs, while a definite size advantage, isn't that big, and that Marciano was a big enough puncher to take out a fighter of Tyson's size. Nothing more.

For the record, I pick would pick Lewis to beat Marciano, based on style, as well as size.

 

I don't know where you get that from. Rocky threw many very short, and very FAST punches. Where is your proof Tyson threw anything that was 4x faster... If Rocky was that slow, I doubt his punches would have had the power they so obviously had - in fact it would be very nearly impossible

 

At times Marciano had above-average speed, but nothing, absolutely nothing Marciano threw would be considered "very fast".

 

A don't know, some of those little taps he threw didn't look like much until one noticed the head of his victim snapping back at lightning speed. You have to have a pretty fast punch to hit as hard as Rocky.

 

Wasn't so much his handspeed as his abnormaly short reach combined with the fact that many of his punches were prety compact anyway.

More than one oponent said that his punches were imposible to time and track because his arms were like propelors.

 

I think Rocky was a tremendous fighter with a lot of tools and a variety to his arsenal. He was tough from both a physical and mental standpoint, and could hit harder than most heavyweights, especially for a man his size. Rocky could beat you in a variety of ways. He could knock you out early, He could pound you to submission, or he could take you to the scorecards and come out on top. Additionally, he was exciting to watch, which is probably the most important trait a fighter could have, because let's face it, these guys make their money fighting for the fans. As a fight fan, I enjoy watching old films of the Rock. He truley was one of history's best.

As for how he'd do against champions of previous or future eras? I don't know. I don't think it's important really. The point is that the man rose to greatness when it was his time to do so. The same way that Dempsey, Jeffries, Johnson, Louis or Ali did. It doesn't matter to me how he'd do against Mike Tyson or anyone else.

History has already been written, and the Rock's name cemented in it's pages. People will be praising the man long after we're all dead.

 

WELL SAID:good

 

I agree 100% :good

 

Shouldn't the titles of Spinks, Holy, Moorer, Jones and Toney put to rest this myth that bigger is always better?

 

Most taller fighter meaning fighters over 6'3 very rarely have the ability to possess the skill of there smaller counter part, most tall fighters seem to look awkward and lack balance in the ring. Fighters like Louis and Ali are the definition of boxing everything they did in the ring was very smooth and almost perfect, they dont make them like that anymore.

 

I must comment on the weak division argument. Why wasn't anyone else able to exploit this alleged weakness? Marciano stands all by himself from his era going undefeated with an 88% knockout rate. Give me one other heavyweight of his time who comes anywhere close to going undefeated or running up this kind of knockout percentage.

I think the "weak era" argument boils down to the last line of attack on a champion one wishes to put down. The Louis era has a young champion fighting young challengers. Critics charge it is a weak era.
The Marciano era has several aging challengers who still dominate their opposition, so that causes the era to be called weak. Did it become weak because Moore was able to beat Johnson, Valdes, Baker, and Henry?
The seventies, on the other hand, is "strong" although an aging and fading Ali regains the title at the same age as Charles when he failed against Marciano and then holds on while obviously going back during the rest of the decade. The supposedly outstanding challengers, mostly erratic or aging themselves, can not defeat him. The also supposedly powerful nineties see a 45 year old ex-champion regain the title and hold it several years. Why does this not prove this era weak?

 

Lovely post Old Fogey.

How anyone could dispute that Marciano was not a puncher or knockout artist baffles me. It's entirely preposterous.

About all these so-called light heavyweights he faced - what did Marciano weigh again? 185 or thereabouts?
Moore weighed 188, Maricano the same in ther title bout. Charles was around 182, Walcott around 190-195. Lastarza, Cockell, they were both a little bigger (or at least heavier) than Marciano. In fact, most his opponents were.

That's the equivalent of Wladimir Klitschko facing an opponent of the same or bigger size in most his fights, and still ending up with an 88% knockout ratio at the end of his career.

Marciano could knock you flat with either hand, or take you out with volume. Either way, only 5 different men lasted to the final bell in 49 fights.