Tyson vs. Marciano: The myth of "intagibles"

Marciano won and held the championship for 3 years, and, excepting the 1st LaStarza fight, fought at top level only 4 years. Do I need to give a list of names of champions with similar achievements at some point of their career (4 or more years at top level, 3 years of championship, undefeated)?

I think it is Liebling in 'Sweet Science' who said something about the irony of the situation of Louis winning the championship from againg veterans and then him having to defend it against young fighters while he himself turned into aged veteran. But unlike late 1930's in 1940's young talented contenders were lacking.

Are you trying to persuade me that the so-called "Golden age of heavyweights" was not that strong afterall? You don't have to, because that's exactly what I have been saying ever since I've been on this forum. The 1970's heavyweights are vastly overrated.

 

Tyson is biger, stronger and faster. The best style for beating Tyson was jab and grab, every now and than throw a stright right or left depnding on the stance taken. That's not how Marciano fought.
You can talk about hart all you want. Marciano will be there for Tyson to hit.
I can see Marciano's hart allowing him yo last a few rounds but I don't see it lasting more than six rounds.

 

Good point I think a lot of people that post here and most Marciano detractors and critics do not use the same measuring stick for other eras, they are looking real hard to find something wrong. Marciano always found a way to win and defended against the dominant and top contenders 6 times. and got out when he still had a few good fights left but did not have it in him (love for the sport) to give us his best anymore so he retired while on top with no real challenges left.........quite a legasy

 

:good Shavers would only have a rare punchers chance at most but he lost to light heavy Stan Johnson and could not stop Vincente Rondon who(Bob Foster took out in 2) Charles, Walcott, Moore would stop Shavers and outclass him

 

Actually,

George Foreman and Vitali Klitschko both have a higher win/knockout ratio, although this was a good post.

 

I think he meant the KO-% from all fights,


Marciano: 49 fights, 43 KO´s
Vitaly: 37 fights, 34 KO´s
Foreman: 81 fights, 68 KO´s


But I think Vitaly has a bit higher KO%, but I´m too lazy to calculate now...

 

I do it ko''s per fight. Marciano is ahead of Foreman. I forgot about Vitali. I should have said in the 20th century.

 

The number of champions who won all their fights to any point and ran up an 88% knockout ratio for any period at all would be short.
Jeffries--he did go undefeated in his prime, but had two draws and his KO percentage is far below Marciano's even though he was a 220 lb man fighting men smaller on the whole than Marciano fought.
Johnson--Lost several times
Dempsey--Lost several times. Even taking only peak of career, comes no where near matching Marciano
Louis--Is close if you take 1934 to 1942 period of his prime--56-1 with 48 knockouts, but still has loss to Schmeling and slightly lower ko %. I rate Louis ahead of Marciano.
Foreman--Taking first career, would have slightly higher ko percentage, but lost to Ali and Young.
That leaves Ali and Holmes. Ali was just as successful in his own way before his suspension, but lost at 29. I rate Ali above Marciano.
Holmes-Went undefeated for greater period of time before eventually losing. Food for debate certainly, but Marciano's supporters can point out that when he retired there was no doubt he had proven his superiority to every opponent, giving the ones who troubled him rematches and then decisively defeating them. Holmes did not do this with Norton and Witherspoon.
Tyson--You could argue is as dominant as Marciano until he gets knocked out by Douglas. That is a big fly in the ointment, though.
Holyfield--Loses twice to Bowe and to Moorer.
Lewis--dominance broken by ko defeats to McCall and Rahman, which didn't happen to Marciano.

Seriously, of all champions, how many proved they were better than everyone they fought, even up to Marciano's age at retirement. It would be a pretty short list. Only Foreman and Vitaly Klitschko reached the same ko level and both had two defeats as relatively young men.

 

There are more divisions than just heavyweight. And KO ratio doesn't represent strong or weak epochs.

 

I agree with everything you're saying, and I can certainly appreciate the point you're trying to make. However, I'm sure you'll also agree that every champion's accomplishments have to be judged on an individual basis. Jeffries for example, didn't have that many fights, and even picked up a couple draws along the way, as you mentioned, but it was also pretty darn impressive that he won the world title with only something like 9 pro fights? He also defeated pretty much every good fighter of his immediate era, including some of the top black fighters, which previous champions had skipped over.

That said, I still concur with everything you said about Marciano.

 

I don't believe in weak eras. As I said, this is usually just a last desperate line of attack.

My challenge in bringing up Marciano's perfect record and high knockout percentage is that he was all by itself in his time. If the era was "weak" as you claim, why did not some other young fighter at least approach his stats? Lennox Lewis, for example, was 41-2-1 with 32 KO's. But that is not unique in his era. Several men have similar winning percentages and some even better KO percentages.

Other divisions: Here is the number of defeats suffered by top champions during the Marciano era down to featherweight.
Marciano (0)
Charles (25)
Moore (26)
Robinson (19)
Gavilan (30)
Carter (30)
Saddler (16)

Robinson's total is a distortion, but even he had lost 3 times to the age of 31. The others would all have been well into double figures while still relatively young men. I will repeat my original question. If the era was all that weak, why weren't others able to better exploit the weakness?

 

You are, of course, aware that Marciano's opposition is nowhere even close to the fighters you listed. For Marciano a single loss would have degraded him to "just another ordinary heavyweight champion", for the fighters you listed one or even several losses wouldn't have changed much, they fought more often and much better opposition so it could be excused.

 

A lost would not have degraded Marciano to other ordinary champion. If that was the case, than why are Dempsey, Jeff, and Sullvian held in high regard??

Marciano was no Ingo, Sharkey, or Schemling, these guys won the title, and lost it in about there next defense of the title. Non of these guys prove they were "King of the Hill". Marciano did. And that alone should have put Rocky Marciano in the top ten.