Tyson vs. Marciano: The myth of "intagibles"

Why would seasoned professional fighters (in some cases world champions) be reduced to simply "looking for a way out", "never thinking they could win", if not because they realized they were up against a true knockout threat in the awesome specimen that was young Tyson? When Larry Holmes is visibly intimidated for the only time in his career and left defenseless on the canvas, it is clear he faced a great talent.

True. Whoever beats peak Tyson needs to exert tremendous self-control and channel fear into fire. But Douglas and Holy also had the physical and technical tools to beat these subpar versions of Tyson. And it is clear from the film that, while Douglas was in a sublime state that night in Tokyo, Tyson showed nothing close to his best, say like when he won the title against Berbick.

The argument is "intangibles" can only get you so far. You also need the physical and technical tools. When imagining fantasy fights, we assume both fighters are mentally all there, inspired: Tyson by his love for Cus, Marciano as the people's champion. None of these ATGs are wimps, Tyson included of course. No young man who faces down grown men all the way to the title and worldwide awe is a wimp. So it first comes down to a technical analysis.

We cannot, based on "intangibles", say Marciano would do more than he ever showed on film. The film shows Tyson had faster hands, equally devastating power in both hands, and a greater variety of stunning blows. Marciano had a powerful straight right, yet needed 13 rounds to dispose of the oldest champ in history at the time. Tyson knocked larger men out for ten counts inside of 1, 4, 6 rounds. And, again, Walcott floored Marciano in the first round with a punch I do not believe more powerful than the Thomas straight right Tyson shook off in the first round in 1987.

Yes, Tyson became rattled when losing and always would. But, based on film analysis, I don't believe Marciano would be the one to put him in that situation.

 

Tyson didnt have the defenses of say a Walcott of Charles, and on the films, it seem Marciano was landed pretty consistently on them. Marciano was not the guy that misss and misss as legend would make one belive. Marciano would land some thundaring shots on Tyson.

 

I still am not noticing anybody addressing the fact that Marciano would have been lower than Tyson for this one, and going downstairs, to the body, arms, or whatever part of Tyson happened to be in the way of Rocky's fists.

Regarding the punching power Rocky prevailed against, Vingo was no slouch. Cockell dropped Matthews three times in one match. Decisioned him in another, and stopped him in a final encounter. Twice, he beat Matthews in the Kid's own Seattle. He'd also decisioned LaStarza, and won over the 15 round distance twice.

Walcott dropped Louis three times, and took out Charles with a single hookercut, a shot which dropped Marciano for just a couple seconds.

After Frazier's first match with Bonavena, Jimmy Cannon wrote about the similarities in the approach to training taken by both Marciano and Frazier. Cannon also noted that Smoke didn't quite have the chin necessary to support his style, where as Rocky did. Still, nobody ever counted ten over Frazier, regardless of his physical condition, or how badly he was getting beaten. The same cannot be said for Tyson.

Marciano withstood a severe beating in his title winning effort against Walcott, and was not deterred. He came from behind to overtake Charles in Ezz's performance of a lifetime. Tyson never prevailed in such a situation.

Marciano was a bleeder, but his eyes did not swell shut, and Goldman was an experienced cut man. No matter what Tyson did, Rocky would keep coming (just as a shot Frazier kept getting up against Foreman).

Tyson never prevailed after sustaining the sort of beating Walcott administered to Marciano the first time.

Bonecrusher Smith rocked Tyson at the end of 12. If that match had been for 15 rounds, Tyson would not have reached the final bell. (However, Smith should have been disqualified, and his purses withheld before the end of his matches with Bruno and Tyson, for not being competitive. Against Walcott, Rocky never stopped trying, and neither did Weaver against Tate, as Big John aggressively smothered Hercules.)

How would Tyson react to a shorter bodypunching opponent who would be coming up with his blows? Tyson was used to being the shorter man with the lower center of gravity.

Charley Goldman wrote PART FOUR of Rocky Marciano's Book of Boxing and Bodybuilding titled, "How We Would Whip Floyd Patterson." This is revealing, because Patterson of course was a Cus D'Amato protege, just like Tyson. Goldman and Marciano make it clear that Patterson's arms would indeed be a target. They also make it a point to mention how Marciano would block Patterson's right uppercut with his own right forearm. (Against Rex Layne, Rocky demonstrates extremely well how he would have neutralized Tyson's uppercut in this way.) They also emphasize how they would go after Patterson's body, an interesting fixation considering that Patterson's glass jaw had already been exposed by French MW Jacques Royer Crecy (the first match of Floyd's run to the title). Goldman and Marciano acknowledge Patterson's tremendous edge in speed, an advantage they also would have taken into account for Tyson.

Check out all the footage of Marciano's low center of gravity, and how he smothered Layne inside. (Also the speed with which he came back after a miss.) Tyson's body was considerably wider than Layne's, and thus an easier target.

Tyson's preferred distance is mid range. Marciano would close quickly inside that, and make his own shorter arms an asset, not giving Tyson room to breathe. Rocky would be under Tyson's overhand right, forcing Tyson to rely on his hook more than usual. Tyson would also need to be aware of Marciano's elbows when he followed through.

Marciano prevailed over a greater number of far more experienced competitors than Tyson did. He would not have been intimidated by Tyson, who had many of his victims beaten before they even stepped in the ring with him. No matter what Tyson did, Marciano would never stop coming.

 

This is the big uncertainty for Tyson.

How he would handel a small pressure fighter who worked in the no mans land between his optimum punching distence (mid range) and his chin.

That was the area where Tyson was most vulnerable.

 

I said the same thing about 9 months ago, and I was called a nuthugger for that. Glad to see I'm not alone on this issue.:good

 

To be brutaly honest I would not feel comfortable betting on either of them and the closer the fight came the less comfortable I would feel.

Please do not think that this is a simple match up. It might well be a short match up but there are a lot of unknowns.

 

Vingo was a weak puncher, even though he was a cruiserweight himself and never fought a single heavyweight by modern standards (200lb+).
Cockell was a blown-up light heavyweight with not a very good punch either and a weak chin (still it took Marciano 9 rounds to stop him, so much for his supposed punching power, blah).
Walcott got Charles only once in 4 fights, by a lucky punch, despite landing often in their slug-fests, and despite Charles' weak chin.
Marciano prefered mid-range, not the close-range. This won't be an issue at all.
Also, even though Tyson and Patterson used similar defense, but their offensive style was clearly different.

 

Intangibles are no myth.

Mike Tyson is perhaps the most naturaly talented heavyweight who ever breathed and he did not fulfill his full potential.

Evander Holyfield is not a hard puncher or a master boxer but he often won through against physicaly superior oponents and arguably did more than Tyson on paper.

If you could put Holyfields heat on Tysons shoulders you would have the ultimate frankensteins monster of the heavyweight division.

 

What contemporary opinion? The guy was a feather-fisted cruiserweight.
Cockell started as a middleweight. His natural/best weight should be around 180, he was no true heavyweight at all. Well, just like many other Marciano's opponents.
Several other fighters stopped Cockell quicker than Marciano. Tyson would need less than 1 round to stop him, that's absolutely certain.
Walcott had how many rounds to drop Charles? How many times has he done that, despite their bouts consisting mostly of mutual slugging at mid and close range.
Like who, exactly, he came shoulder to shoulder?

 

:good :good Good post

 

I find myself wondering here if you've ever seen most of Marciano's big fights. It was a continual pattern that he would lose the first few rounds to top opponents with difficult styles for him, but would gradually break them down and turn the tide as the fight progressed. Walcott was shellacking him at the beginning of their match and was outboxing him for much of its main body, but Marciano rallied to knock him out. LaStarza was ahead through six in the rematch, but Marciano broke him down and stopped him. Charles was soundly outboxing Marciano during the first five to six rounds of their first fight, but Marciano's endless pressure broke him down to where he was gasping for breath and sagging all around the ring by the final bell. Moore came out strong and had an early knockdown on Rocky, but was unable to cope with the volume and force of Marciano's punches for more than 5-6 rounds and broke down to be KO'd in nine.

Walcott, LaStarza, Charles and Moore were all men who had displayed excellent stamina during their careers and were capable of fighting a hard 15 rounds, let alone 12. If we follow your logic, then, since they won the first few rounds against Marciano, they should have continued to dominate and won the fights.

The problem here is that you clearly don't understand the way Marciano's style operated. You might have some skills or physical assets that would allow you to outfight him for a round or two or three, but he would never tire or slow down or be discouraged by your punches, while his punches and his offense would be taking a heavy toll on you.

Let me draw you an analogy; I'm a long-distance runner. There are quite a few guys I run against who can run a faster 100, 800 or even 1600 meters than I can, but who I beat every time in a race three miles or longer- and I'm doing more or less the exact same thing the whole race. If those guys could outrun me for the first half-mile or mile, and I don't change what I'm doing, why shouldn't they continue beating me? Because even though I'm running about the same speed the entire time and they can outrun me for a given distance, they can't hang with the pace I set for the entire race.

No one could fight Marciano at Marciano's pace for a whole 15 rounds without breaking down, and no one could match him in a contest of wills. The only real way to beat Marciano is not to be drawn into that sort of scenario.

Tyson was a guy who was very dangerous for the first six to seven rounds, but lost steam after that(NOTE: your premise that he could fight hard for 12 rounds is somewhat false). He had only one stoppage after seven rounds in his entire career, that being against the mediocre Ribalta.

If Marciano was a distance runner, Tyson was a sprinter. And a distance runner always beats a sprinter over an extended race- and that's even more pronounced in a boxing match such as this one, because Marciano's extremely physical and rugged style physically sapped the strength of his opponents and broke down their wills. If Tyson is going to win, he needs to make it a sprint and take Marciano in the first lap, because even though he's capable of mounting a more impressive short spurt of fighting, he's terribly outmatched over the long haul.