Tyson vs. Marciano: The myth of "intagibles"

Unlike Jeffries and Sullivan, Marciano was supposedly still near his peak when he retired. And they are not held in that high of a regard, alas, details of their carees have been largely forgotten and the names of many of their opponents don't mean much to ordinary boxing fans. Not the case with Marciano.

 

MArciano was hitting 33. Lets not forget his back was going out also. That was the perfect time to get out. And Corbett?? Fitz?? Sharkey are forgoting??? There just as rember as Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott and Archie Moore.

 

Corbett and Fitz are also names without much knowledge of their career or their opponents for most fans, and Sharkey is not thought to be much by most, although I've seen people hold the two fights between Jeffries and Sharkey against Jim, actually, because they are not aware of details of them (such as arm injury and that even though some spectators hissed at the decision, but experts and sports editors agreed that the decision was correct). Charles, Walcott and Moore are more recognizable names, they have more names on their resumes that are recognized by ordinary boxing fans.

 

True, Marciano was a great champion in his own right; nobody gave him anything, and he turned back all the true contenders. If he, through blood, sweat and tears, earned that coveted "0" after 49 fights, it is his privilege forever to enjoy that legendary status of undefeated heavyweight champion. It sure lends itself to a bit of myth, but that's OK. The Rock earned it. He never lost as a pro.

 

Fitz?? First 3 divsion champ(Middleweight, Heavyweight and Lightheayweight)
Today, he is pretty well known. And espn classic keeps showing that short clip of Fitz knocking out Corbett on the stylist boxing best. Lets also rember he bomb out Sharkey, and beat Jack Dempsey for the middleweight title. Was shot when he lost to Johnson.

Corbett, who had fought Jeff, His biggest win was over Sullivan in 1892. I think Corbett is well known for his losses though. to Fitz and Jim and Shakrey.

Sharkey the sailor, one of the top contenders during Jeff's early rein. fought Jeff 2 times, both 20 rounders. I belive all 3 are in the hall of fame.

 

It depends whether you mean knockout percentage or KO percentage.

Marciano holds one record and Foreman holds the other.

 

People may look at boxrec, but they won't recognize most of the names of their opponents. Ordinary fans don't have much film of their fights either, except for those short highlights, and even if they take a look at them on youtube, the quality is already not very good, but on youtube it's even worse, so they get a very bad impression about the fighters. Ask people to describe styles of some of their opponents or give details of fights, and you will only hear what they can find on boxrec or on google, because there's no film of almost none of them, and because people don't buy books and don't pay to spend many hours every week to research them on newspaperarchive or anywhere.
Corbett-Sullivan. People will look at boxrec, see Sullivan undefeated and deside that win means a whole lot, and even if Sullivan was old, he was undefeated and the champ of the world, so they'll give more importance to it than should really be given. Similar for fights like Peter Jackson vs Jeffries or Jeffries vs Jackson (where the existing film only makes impression worse and makes them think Jeffries was extremely poor boxer).
You do know about these fighters, but ask the rest of the forum and 95% of them don't know much or don't care at all, but they have heard Marciano's name a lot, they recognize the names on his record, they have seen his fights in pretty good condition and the fights of some of his opponents, they surely have heard about Louis, Charles, Moore and Walcott and have an idea about their style and skills. They don't have all that for fighters of 1890-1900's.

 

So now this in base on film now?? Of couse we have no ideal what Sullivan look like in his prime, or Paddy Ryan or Joe Gross. But there still big names for the sport. And they do have bios. Sure we may not have any ideal how one fought, but we do have reports that give us some what of a ideal. And drawings of the fights.

I just saying that if Marciano lost on the way up, or stay around to long to lose to Liston(I dont see Ingo or Patterson doing it) From 1952-58 or 59. Marciano would still be view as a great champ. Because of him ruleing the divison with a iron fist. Which is the reasons why Jeff or Dempsey are rember as great champs.

 

Films or TV-broadcast or live attendance of the fight means a lot to get an idea about style and strong or weak points of fighters. But that's not the point. Most people on forums only get information about that far back from third-rate sources, which are VERY OFTEN affected by historical revisionism and guesses, or by tendency to like the past more than the modern time, the farther back and the more obscure it is, the more legends appear further distorting it. But at some points it gets too general and people can no longer estimate the status of a fighter unless they go and study primary sources, or otherwise they don't have any opinion of their own anymore, they can only repeat other people's words or cite those short bio's that can be found all around internet and that contain a whole lot of factual errors and don't cite anything other than other third-rate sources or opinions of 'experts'.
As an example, Sullivan got knocked down by middleweight Mitchell, wow, he drew with some unknown tomato can, more wow's. The guy was clearly overated then. Talk like that happened on this very forum a while ago.

 

Mitchell was a great fighter, and that knockdown was more of the rules, We dont know if Mitchell thown Sullivan or punch him down. Under the Old London prize rules, Being thown down counts just as much as being knockdown. And the round ends. So a fighter may go down that 30 scond rest. As may be the case with Mitchell and Sullivan.

 

My guess is you haven't read Adam Pollack's book about Sullivan then?

 

Nope. But sense thowing was a big part of the London prize rules. I am going to give Sullian the benefit here. Mitchell could have done a double punch, trip thown move there. I belive both of there fights were barekucks,

 

According to boxrec and the BOXING REGISTER the first fight with Mitchell was under Marquis of Queensberry rules. Sullivan weighed 190 and Mitchell 150. Sullivan knocked Mitchell down three times in the first and then was in turn knocked down himself. By the third, he had pounded Mitchell into helplessness when the police intervened.

In 1888, the two men fought a 39 round bareknuckle draw.

 

Was sure the gloves were legal, but Barekucks not.