Tyson vs. Marciano: The myth of "intagibles"

Could be that there were a lot of excellent fighters during that era. It's kind of hard to win every fight with so much talent. :smoke

 

Yes, but they were nothing close to as successful against their best or their not so best opponents as Marciano was. Here's the records against rated opponents.

Charles (40-17-1)
Moore (44-15-4)
Robinson (45-15-2)
Gavilan (21-19-2)
Carter (8-16-3)
Saddler (18-11)

They all fought more rated opponents by far than Marciano, but he went 11-0. Also, all lost to non-rated opponents, sometimes frequently.
Here's some other Hall-of-Fame heavyweights and their records against rated opponents given by the BOXING REGISTER:

Schmeling (6-4)
Louis (31-3)
Walcott (12-13)
Patterson (14-8-1)
Johansson (3-2)
Liston (8-4)
Ali (33-5)
Frazier (9-4)
Foreman (7-4)
Norton (4-7-1)

Other than Louis and Ali, Marciano is fairly competitive and certainly more consistent.

Two things wrong with the single loss thesis. He did not have a single loss, so it's just a big IF. Well, what if Jeff lost to Sharkey, or Dempsey to Firpo, etc, etc, etc. I prefer to deal with what did happen.
Also, I disagree that one loss, especially in an early fight, would make that much difference. Do you downgrade Monzon because of his early losses? Dempsey? Walcott?

 

Good points,

Even of Marciano had lost a close decision to say Roland Lastarza in their first meeting, I think that gaining retribution in the second match, would have erased a lot of the doubt as to Marciano's greatness.

 

Good for us he didn't lose; so the point of him losing Lastarza I is deemed irrelevent.

Just think of it, if Rocky wouldn't have went 49-0-0 there wouldn't be so much debate about him today! His greatness will last another century based on the fact he never lost as a pro.

 

The undefeated record definately makes Rocky stand out from the crowd, but I don't necessarily think that he had to go undefeated to be viewed as a great fighter. In fact, I often wonder if the 49-0 record is something that entices critics to look for reasons to give him a lower rating. I know it sounds obsurd, but it's all too common for people to find something broken with that which isn't.

 

Doesn't really sound absurd at all, MM! It's natural for people to find fault in a perfect record. Even me, who thinks a great deal of Marciano, believes he would have lost in the 70s - but a rematch would likely have went his way against whomever he lost to.

 

TYSON AT AGE 12 WAS BIGGER THAN MARCIANO IN HIS PRIME. Speed alone would be the deciding factor, Mike was light years ahead of Rocky in this department. Mike could throw a 4-5 punch combo in 3 seconds with devastating power. Rocky threw his punches to the tune of a Lawrence Welk record...one and a two and a three...Plus Rocky's power was mostly tested against men of similar size. How vaunted would that power be against much bigger modern fighters anywhere from Tyson's size to Vlad K's size. I love Marciano as much as any fight fan but I have to think with my head and not with my heart on this one. A good analogy would be a WWII Sherman tank going up against a modern Abrams tank. I think we all know what would happen there right? Tyson has too much speed and too much firepower for Rocky even if you don't take the size difference into consideration. Intangibles such as heart/courage etc..would'nt come into play here because it would be over before Rocky could get the chance to demonstrate these qualities that he truly posessed. Speed kills and it would in this fight for sure.

 

Tyson's speed did not kill Mitch Green or Quick Tillis or Holyfield and later on Lewis Mcbride and Williams, early on Mike feasted on mostly cannon Fodder, NO question Mike could hit but there really was not much of a Height difference but a weight Difference, Mike fought in the under 200 lb weight limit in the unpaid ranks but blew up 15-20 LBS of muscle quick, Berbick was also Muscled up, Mike was a puncher, Berbick was not, Muscles and weight does not make a puncher and TODAY fighters seem to have a magic potion for instant weight gain and muscles. Tyson could throw off punches with speed but Rocky could fire pretty fast also, he beat Jersey Joe with the right hand in the famous 13th and I think Walcott would give Tyson a ton of problems at any stage of his career. Thing is Tyson's best wins were over Rudduck,Spinks and Holmes....Tucker shook him early and kept him honest after that, Mike respected power and he would have had plenty of it with Marciano, NO this fight would not be a 4 round blow out, and if Mike fought in the 50's there were no steriods and weights so his weight would be different and If Marciano was on ROIDS, I could only imagine what kind of beast he would be.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head Magoo. For some people, that 49-0 record is like a red flag to a bull.

 

Is Henry Hascup entirely sure his film of all these rounds is unedited and complete? I had over 90 punches for round 15 of the first Charles match... The Kurgan said he'd counted 95 as well. I also had over 80 for Marciano-LaStarza round 9. I think Hascup is selling Rocky a little short in these counts, especially given the obviously negative tone he takes towards Marciano throughout the rest of the posts.

In round 6 of the Moore fight, Marciano throws approx. 110 punches, in the two minutes of round 7 that I have, he throws approx. 60 punches, and in the two minutes of round 8 that I have, he throws over 50 punches. He also exceeds 100 punches thrown in the eighth against Cockell and a couple against Savold. He threw in excess of 80 punches in several different rounds of the first Charles fight. Note that I'm not saying Marciano did this sort of thing every round or every fight- in the fights where he's going for more pure one-punch pay-off rather than gradually battering his opponents down, like Walcott I, and in fights where opponents have awkward styles/clinch and run, or he's not really on his rhythm, Marciano's punch output does sometimes sag. However, the pace he was capable of throwing and sustaining, especially with the level of commitment he was throwing at, is absolutely stunning. And I don't *think he'd be at any particular loss for punching position against Tyson, who was similarly short-armed and would be fighting with him at a comfortable range.

 

I have checked a few of those rounds and came at a similar figure, so i took them as trustable. Obviously you might miss a few here and there. Sometimes a punch is thrown, sometimes it's between a paw (range finder, feint, whatever) and a punch, this makes for some discrepancies.

 

"When someone is undefeated, there's something wrong."-Billy Conn.

 

And when Evander transitioned from a 15 round champion to one facing no more than a 12 round limit, his weight inflated drastically.

 

These type of quotes are just dumb. So the better the record, the more likely something is "wrong." It follows that something would have been wrong with Pep when he was undefeated, and something is wrong with Louis losing only once up to his first retirement versus fellows who lost many more, something was wrong with Ali and Frazier in 1970, etc.,
and something becomes wrong with Monzon when he goes from losing and drawing with nobodies to sweeping the best in the world.

What is "wrong" is the same thing that is wrong with Wilt Chamberlain scoring 100 points in an NBA game, or Jim Brown averaging 5.2 yards per carry for an NFL career, or Ted Williams hitting for a .406 batting average. The athlete performed at a level other athletes are unable to match.

 

He's just too small!