Tyson vs. Marciano: The myth of "intagibles"

This is a solid analysis but the issues are not as straightforward as you make out. In a real world fight things don't efortlesly fall into place the way they do in a fantasy fight and a number of other factors come into play.

Just pretend for a seacond that this is a real fight that is gioing to take place tomorrow and everybody on the forum is going to see how good or bad your prediction is. Even if you were confident a week ago certain doubts would be creeping into your mind right now.

What are they?

 

I could argue that the best oponents Marciano beat were better than the best that Tyson beat.

Who on Tysons record would you rate better than Walcott, Charles, Moore or even a shot Louis?

His best wins were a shot ex champ (Holmes) and a LHW (Spinks).

 

I can argue that head to head, tucker, ruddock, and several of those other ex abc champs that tyson beat were better than the other people on marciano's record in a head to head sense. I mean don cockell is horrible.

The michael Spinks that tyson beat was a better win than the moore and ezzard that rocky beat and tyson blew him out in 1 round.

 

The Michael Spinks that beat Cooney might have been arguably better than the Charles or Moore that the Rock beat, but the Spinks that Tyson beat was terrified dry. It's all irrelevant though because resumes won't come into play. None of the fighters mentioned are of any consequence since they didn't fight like the participants of this match.

Generally, go-forward fighters who are slow starters will lose against Iron Mike Tyson. That's an absurd combination going against Tyson.

 

I have never been sold on the idea that Rocky was a slow starter. While his style was one of cumulative atrition he did beat some of his better oponents in the first two rounds.

 

That is a remarkable choice of words, especially defending Marciano.

You're calling Spinks a LHW but so were Charles & Moore. You're calling Holmes shot, he wasn't shot, he was aging but very well prepared and most people thought he beat Spinks in the rematch. Louis was old but not shot either. Walcott was just as old as Holmes.

Marciano's wins are a bit better but Tyson has more depth. Of course, Tyson also has more losses. Achievement-wise, Marciano should rate higher (i have him at #4), but head to head i think Mike takes it.

 

Lets not forget Tyson would feel Rocky power and if he went in aggressively he would feel it early, I have seen Tyson rocked early in fights(Tucker) Smith, Lewis and was reluctant to pursue recklessly, with Marciano he could not pursue recklessly because he could get hurt but Marciano was a differcult guy to hit with 3 punches in a row without getting hit back,even pinpointboxer/punchers like WALCOTT AND CHARLES could not do this. Tyson was at his best and looked good KOing the scared and the cannon fodder type but against guys that came to fight like Holyfield,Lewis,Douglas,Williams,McBride he had a change of heart. a fight with Marciano would be early danger for both men and both guys had solid JAWS but I think this battle would start to unfold depending on the pace after the 7-8th round and Marciano has the better track record after the mid rounds. I think the early Tyson was on a roll to be one of the ATG's but fell off the mark to being the best that he can be and I got to tell you, he had everything but being the bad guy and the bully caught up with him(once Cus went away) and showed a different side(Holyfield fights) and the Williams, Mcbride and Lewis fights stick in my head. He did not get going when the going got tough, and never got off the floor to win, Marciano did

 

Frank bruno rocked a prime or near prime bruno,so for me for people to say marciano aint got a chance is rubbish,it would be a vicious battle though,id say if they had 3 bouts,they may get a win each and maybe a draw,or tyson just takes the other.

 

Where was that workrate late in the 1st Walcott fight? Alas, this whole point is a myth that Marciano nuthuggers want everyone to believe to make him look better than he really was. He didn't show such ability on any even semi-regular basis to believe it would come into play in any matchup vs big superheavyweights who will wear him down (with his lack of any good defense it'll be easy) to the point where he can't hold his hands up anymore, even less so increase his workrate.

 

As I pointed out long time ago, citing multiple newspaper reports, Moore did not show such ability in his life against heavyweights of 210+, it always took him a continued beat-down, usually a lot of punches to the body and then some more punishment to the head to finally drop then and even then they often got up and the fight was stopped by the referee while they were still on their feet. This is just another myth by uneducated Marciano nut-huggers.

 

anThe trouble with all theoretical Tyson matchups is that everyone rates Tyson based on his prime. Mike's prime lasted about 2-3 years. The rest of his career he was just not that good. He lost twice to Holyfield, a blown-up cruiserweight. He got KOd by Douglas and lost almost eveyr round! He got totally humilated against Lennox Lewis. 4/5ths of Tyson's career, he was basically a contender or a jailbird, not a champ.

Just watch the footage, the difference between the Tyson who unified the division, and later Tyson, was as clear as night & day. Prime Tyson had great defence, incredible hand speed, great combinations, good footwork, great stamina. Normal Tyson had non-existent footwork, no body movement, was easy to hit, his speed was much lower, his combos far less common. Under Cus he trained intensely and had great will to win; from Douglas on, he trained half-assed and his mind wasn't all there.

Prime Tyson IMO would be extremely difficult for any fighter, only a small handful could beat him (Ali, Louis, Foreman, possibly Liston and Holmes i.e. really dangerous true champion heavyweights). But "normal" Tyson was definitely beatable even by journeymen like Douglas. Maricano never entered a fight in anything less than top condition, he would annihilate "normal" Tyson with the latter's total lack of training & discipline. But prime Tyson would be a different story altogether.

You can't judge a guy from his prime 2-3 years, versus someone who sustained their prime for 5 years +. You have to compare their whole careers. Say over 3 fights, prime Tyson would win the first, then after slacking off he would get beat on the 2nd and humilated McBride style in the 3rd.

Overall, based on total career/consistency, Marciano is the better fighter and would win head to head in a best of 3.

 

Apparently Larry accepted Bill's draw vs Holyfield however as well as his mere 6 point buffer vs Norton. He was also satisfied that Bill had the cards even whilst waiting for The Mallard to rise from the last KD vs Tyson (He'd chalked up his 4th round card as Larry hit the canvas, knowing full well the mighty Mallard was a shoe in to rise and last the few seconds needed, only to see, much to his horror, 4 men jump on Larry's chest making it impossible for him to get up)

 

Given your love and support for smaller fighters being able to whip bigger fighters of similar standard (147 Walcott beating Bob Foster, Fitzimmons having good chances vs Lewis etc) i'm surprised that you fob Spinks off as a mere LHW Janitor. It goes entirely against your normal view.

But of course i wholeheartedly agree, Spinks was indeed a bit light on at Heavyweight and only beat Holmes because of Holmes penchant to take seemingly lesser challengers for granted as well as Mike's excellent effort and strategy. In Tyson's defense i'll add many many people including the experts gave Spinks a helluva chance of the upset here.