What's More Impressive, Tyson's 36-0 or Marciano's 49-0?

Tyson's career starting record was 37-0. Not 36-0. Secondly, Rocky only spent a small portion of his career facing the upper tier of the division, whereas Tyson was beating ranked opponents much earlier, had more title fights, fought more men in their primes, beat athletes who were bigger, won in more destructive fashion, etc.. If we're looking at a mere statistic, then okay, Marciano's unbeaten "0" will always hold some value. But if we're looking at a resume from a depth standpoint, then Tyson has a stronger argument.

 

Bear in mind that we are talking about the period up to Tyson meeting Douglas only here.

Were the oponents he fought in that time frame really better than the guys that Marciano built his resume against?

Is old Holmes better than old Louis?

Is Spinks better than Charles?

Is Tucker better than Walcott?

And so forth.

 

I think Tyson eats through these guys with much less difficulty than Marciano did. Would the same happen in Rocky's case with Tyson's opponents?

 

Good question.

The answer is that for the most part Tyson would probably look more impresive against both group A and group B.

I could imagine Marciano doing better against fighters like Tucker and Smith simply because he was a better infighter and harder to tie up in close. Perhaps for this reason he gets to them before the final bell.

The bottom line is that Rocky would probably get the win somehow against the first 37 Tyson oponents and then trump him by pulling out the win against the 38th.

The tough task for Tyson in Marciano's era is going to be staying focused after the has won the title. If he dosn't then sombody is going to have him sooner or later.

 

very true some differcult experience fighters in that group and none to take lightly

 

Put under the spot light Marciano's 49-0 was very padded aside from the top wins, you need to drill down and look at the ranked title opposition

Marciano:

Old/Shot? Louis
Past prime Charles x2
Past Prime Walcott x2
Older Moore
Lastarza x2
Rex Layne

Not sure if they were ranked:

Harry Matthews?
Cockell
Savold

Tyson's pre-loss wins over contenders:

Past Prime Holmes
Spinks - past prime?
Thomas - prime?
Prime Bruno
Smith
Williams
Biggs
Tucker
Tubbs
Berbick

1s Im unsure whether they were ranked

Tillis
Mitch Green
Ribalta
Frazier
Ferguson

Tyson's from an approx count has more contenders, more depth, different styles, fought bigger/stronger men, bigger punchers and some pretty slick cookies in Thomas/Holmes.

Theres an assumption Marciano stayed at the top longer than Tyson. Marciano fought his first contender in 1950 in Lestarza, stepped his opposition down for 16months after only scraping an SD until he faced Layne in '51, he would continue to face top contenders until 55, but 51-55 is only 4years, he clearly looked past prime in 55. Tyson fought top contenders from '86-1990, which is also 4years

 

Tyson NEVER IN HIS LIFE won a fight where the opponant fought back w/ power. He folded up his tent and went home. If he couldn't get the early ko he started fighting 1 punch at a time and gladly settled for the decision. The conception of tyson as this great warrior is bogus. He was the classic bully who back down EVERYTIME intestinal fortitude and tenacity was needed to win.:rasta

 

The problem here is that you have set the bar a lot lower for getting onto Tysons list than onto Marciano's list.

Virtualy everybody you put on Marciano's list was ranked in the top 2 by Ring Magazine either when he fought them or around the time he fought them.

If you are going to list fighters like Mitch Green for Tyson then you would have to include fighters like Shkor, Reynolds and Beshore on Marciano's list.

 

Reynolds had lost 4 out of 6 coming into the Rocky fight, Beshore 8 out of 11, Shkor had lost 9 out of his previous 15. Definately not top contenders

I'm not calling Green a ranked contender, I was questioning if he was and he was quite a good contender skill wise if you watch him on film.

 

stop embarassing yourself. go watch the first bruno fight or the tucker fight. and the two brawls he had with ruddock. fought more punchers the marciano for sure. you need to do some research.

 

Holmes may have been better than that version of Louis (Holmes and Louis also never fought opponents at the level of Charles/Marciano and Spinks/Tyson so age was a factor but styles as well) but I think Charles was better Heavyweight even at 32 than Spinks ( although Spinks froze in that fight vs Tyson) and did not get a chance to land 1 punch. I think the Marciano 1 version of Joe Walcott would have
been a more differcult fight for Tyson than Tucker. Tucker was bigger but Walcott had much better ring savy and one punch power than Tucker IMO

 

Obviously nobody is being more dominant than Tyson is/was. But, if the record is what we're looking for. I edge with Marciano. If we account Tyson's dominance, then perhaps his streak rivals anything anyone has ever done in the HW division. But looking at the record and the names, I pick Rocky.