on the homepage, and is that Monte Cox being straightforward and impartial? The two jackasses and anyone else that thinks Marciano could beat Tyson should be imprisoned and beaten to death. Marciano by the old rules would go into a comma, but today's rules it'd be an early round stoppage, with Marciano lying unconscious on the floor. Forget my bias about this, there is absolutely 0 ways that Marciano could beat Tyson in any fashion, 0.
Marciano was twice the fighter Tyson was. As for who'd win? Take that to the MM forum and waste your time bitching about it there.
If this relates to a fightbeat.com article post the link here otherwise someone like Faintin' Gerry Payton will do something really unhelpful and move the thread to mythical matchups. PS......Tyson could never fight from a downside. Once you got him, you had him.
visit the homepage:nono: marciano would have a chance in hell like Rubio has a chance winning a beauty pagaent
post the link here or I'll ask for your thread to be moved. I only have 1024MB of Ram I ain't opening new pages manually.
Marciano has nothing over Tyson except heart. Tyson gets discouraged when he cannot land cleanly on you not when you ''stand up'' to him like so many fools believe. Douglas and Holyfield beat Tyson by frustrating him jabbing him and clinching at the right times. Tyson would be landing on Rocky at will. Rocky on the other hand with his relativelly slow handspeed would have a lot of trouble landing cleanly on Tyson. Tyson wins by UD .
For once I agreed completely with Monte Cox' take, though I am still not convinced about the levitation part
dsimon writes: A couple of good points in the Cox article. He is absolutely right about Dempsey and Marciano... very different styles. Holyfield is a pedegree of Marciano and Tyson a pedigree of Dempsey. I also think most boxing people agree that Marciano fought at a time when the division was weak.
Tyson outweighed Marciano by 40lbs. He was bigger, stronger, faster and had more power too (IMO). He was also much more skilled and had a better defence. He was, simply put, a better ring technician. The only thing Marciano possesses over Tyson is heart. But hey, Clifford Etienne had hard too and that didn't stop him getting banged out in 49 seconds. Tyson has beaten 5'10-6'6 200-260lbs men with ease. Some of these men were incredibly well schooled athletes, some had great power, chins, heart, skills and determination. To say that a 5'9, 185lb man (who would be a cruiserweight by today's standards in all fairness) would beat a 5'11, 220lb finely tuned athlete with amazing power, speed, skills, reflexes and defence who was the most feared, brutal and intimidating HW of all time is irresponsible, not to mention outright moronic. People get too sentimental when it comes to old time fighters. Time to put down the rose-tinted spectacles and face reality. There are very few HWs out there who could have beaten a prime, focused 1986-1988 Mike Tyson no matter how much skill, heart, power or chin they had. Infact, I only pick Ali to beat Mike Tyson. The rest will get beaten. ________ Vapir air one vaporizer
:clap: Damn right. I don't know why people are just completely written off just because they fought in another era or cause they're a bit smaller.:dunno:
Yeah, just because a guy is much slower, 35lbs lighter and has out-dated techniques shouldn't mean a disadvantage
:dunno: How could Rocky of had any advantage (legally) that is available today? Rocky was in better shape than any heavyweight today, Rocky had more stamina than any heavyweight today, what new technique developed in boxing could've improved him?
Teddy Atlas has Larry Holmes in his top 10 all-time heavyweights, below Rocky Marciano. And yet, according to many, Rocky wasn't able to carry Holme's jock-strap. Can anyone help me reconcile? Or is Teddy just an idiot?
Teddy's ANOTHER Sort that just ASSumes ANY Old School,Black & White Era Fighter would have his WAY w/ANY Contemporary Fighter... N EVERY Single OTHER Sport,the Athletes Get BETTER Over Time,but Apparently,Boxing is the Exception... REED
I guess he is comparing them on basis of how good they were complared to their own timers. For example Tunney's techniques were far ahead of most of his opponents. At least, this is the only even almost logical reason to rank him over Tyson or Lewis
dsimon writes: Truthfully I don't know why people can't just look at this issue on a case by case basis. Boxing is a sport that has changed a lot, but not necessarily evolved. If baseball evolved like boxing did games would be 5 innings and the bats would be bigger!:: In this case quite a few people didn't even read Cox's article at least not the one I read where Cox so much as said that Tyson would beat Marciano.
dsimon writes: These comparisons should always be qualified. For example: Could Tunney have beat Ray Mercer? Quite a few people would probably say that he would have. Mercer decisioned Lewis in the eyes of many people.
