Who do you rate higher: Marciano or Tyson?

[Yacob]

its Larry Holmes, top 5 HW AT

Ew....

 

[burningspear]

Ew....

Ali/Louis aside, Prime Larry beats them all.

 

[borntoloseNOT]

Ali/Louis aside, Prime Larry beats them all.

Weird because he wasn't far removed from his prime when Tyson took his soul, I would say Holmes is highly underappreciated but that Tyson fight showed an apparent difference in class and is an undervalued win for Mike.

 

[borntoloseNOT]

Here is a question: if Larry Holmes jab couldn't deter prime Tyson, do you all believe Lewis with his jab, were he to have met Tyson during the unification as the youngest years, been able to stop Tyson or even have gotten the win at all like he did when they fought way later in their careers?

 

[JayE]

Tyson has the better list of wins, but Marciano was undefeated. Head to head, I don't think many would take Marciano. I could see it going a few different ways, but I might lean towards Tyson. Marciano really didn't have a long run at the elite level, all things considered (not really his fault, as injuries cut his career pretty short).

 

[JayE]

Rock wasn't fast, medium level speed, but he was tough and hard hitting gentleman. Due to reach and not rarerly also weight disatvantage, he was forced to be highly technical. He didn't had that impressive prime years speed that had prime Mike or Ali, Morrison, also didn't had Ali and some others champs reach.

So from pshyical parameters Dempsey, Rocky had far more difficulties to get into HW top than other guys.
Mike at least had brilliant speed and mobility, beautiful coaches ( young Dempsey didn't had Cus & Co team ) and he was in developed media era too.

I'd argue that Marciano wasn't as crude as some would suggest, but he's not a guy I'd ever call highly technical. Honestly, of the two, Tyson was clearly the cleaner technically. Marciano's big advantage over Tyson was his freak stamina and ability to carry his punch every round of the fight.

 

[JayE]

What Seano said. Its pretty hard to rate an undefeated guy lower than a guy who lost so many over close to the same number of fights. Rocky didn’t know how to lose. Mike found ways to fail.

An undefeated record definitely does matter, but Tyson was fighting at the world level from the time he was 20 in around his 25th fight. Marciano wasn't facing true world level guys until he he was 28 and nearly in his 40th fight. Tyson's sporadic form really does count against him, but if we're talking simply wins on paper and in context, I'd definitely take Tyson's win list over Marciano's. You do have to weigh the losses as well, though, and that makes it genuinely close.

 

[burningspear]

Weird because he wasn't far removed from his prime when Tyson took his soul, I would say Holmes is highly underappreciated but that Tyson fight showed an apparent difference in class and is an undervalued win for Mike.

How can an out of retirement Larry be close to prime?
And if Lennox had took that shot from Shavers, he'd have been out for a week.

 

[I am your real dad]

Tyson did not fight many big names and when he did he lost.

Marciano fought big names and beat them.

 

[djacobox372]

Tyson did not fight many big names and when he did he lost.

Marciano fought big names and beat them.

Charles was the only great fighter he beat that wasn't pushing 40yo, and he was robbed in their last fight.

Old farts Walcott and Moorer both nearly knocked Marciano out.

 

[eternaldarkness]

He was tough as nails and hit like a truck. Technical is one of the last ways Id describe Rocky.

had the best "active" parry in the business, moved his head really well and was sneaky as fuck setting his shots up. ever wondered how someone can load up a massive right hand and still land it. rocky is one of the most underrated fighters of all time, when it comes to technique. no one closed the gap and stayed on top of his opponents as well as marciano, except maybe henry armstrong. his entries where miles better than mikes, who relied heavily on his speed to close the gap.
mike was highly predictable in the way he set his shots up, if you had the balls to fight him, and stand your ground. watch him struggle against holyfield and douglas, or even an extremely overmatched don halpin. halpin had him continuously walking onto right hand leads, because tyson queued off the 1-2 to slip in with his left hook. tyson was extremely flawed as a boxer, but his incredible physical attributes went a long way to masking these flaws.

 

[eternaldarkness]

Charles was the only great fighter he beat that wasn't pushing 40yo, and he was robbed in their last fight.

Old farts Walcott and Moorer both nearly knocked Marciano out.

and a "can" like douglas, did knock tyson out. a young mike tyson.

 

[eternaldarkness]

Ali/Louis aside, Prime Larry beats them all.

i wouldn't even favour louis or ali to beat holmes. the guys criminally underrated.

 

[SandisLL]

Marciano wasn't facing true world level guys until he he was 28

Media wasn't that developed in Rocky era ( of course in Dempsey era to be noticed was even FAR more difficult than in Rocky era ).
Pro boxing heavily depends from 1. Media 2. Matchmakers 3. Promoters 4. Managers
Modern pro boxing is accompanied by media PR specialists too to get athlete more lucrative for public to see.

his entries where miles better than mikes, who relied heavily on his speed to close the gap.

Yes plus Mike most likely in his true prime was the fastest ( legs ) HW boxer world ever had & had good height change mechanics.

tyson was extremely flawed as a boxer, but his incredible physical attributes went a long way to masking these flaws.

I think that he was lucky to have beautiful team, sadly he changed coaches and then ….Irone Mike relatively quickly becomed slower.
Maybe another exercises programm etc stuff?

 

[SandisLL]

I'd argue that Marciano wasn't as crude

Wasn't because otherwise he had been beated heavily and hard outgunned while closed distance.

Mike was 22 years old in true prime when he won 39 ( 40 ) years old out of prime Holmes….
Mike lost bouts to Holyfield that was only 4 years older than Mike.

 

[eternaldarkness]

Media wasn't that developed in Rocky era ( of course in Dempsey era to be noticed was even FAR more difficult than in Rocky era ).
Pro boxing heavily depends from 1. Media 2. Matchmakers 3. Promoters 4. Managers
Modern pro boxing is accompanied by media PR specialists too to get athlete more lucrative for public to see.


Yes plus Mike most likely in his true prime was the fastest ( legs ) HW boxer world ever had & had good height change mechanics.


I think that he was lucky to have beautiful team, sadly he changed coaches and then ….Irone Mike relatively quickly becomed slower.
Maybe another exercises programm etc stuff?

i agree with you about tyson's foot speed, it was exceptional. mike wasn't as good at drawing a lead as rocky, but he was brilliant at making his opponents panic punch (throw punches, from to far out without proper set ups). if someone overextended against tyson they were dead meat. tyson didn't deal well with people that he couldn't back up and this is the main reason i would heavily favour foreman over tyson in a theoretical matchup.

 

[TeenageMutantLesnarTurtle]

Its apples to oranges kind of because there was a lot of advancement in the sport between their eras. Head to head Tyson would have murdered Rocky, and the level of competition in Tysons era was better, but again, its relative to the times.

 

[SandisLL]

level of competition in Tysons era was better.

Partially.
Mike won 39 ( 40 ) years old Holmes out of prime,
Holmes at 31 years of age won seriously ill Ali that was barely part of shadow from previous Ali.
Non shadow Ali didn't had easy wons ower Fraizer or Foreman or Shavers.

Prime Fraizer most likely KOed prime Mike, if he was in ring instead of 39 (40 ) years old Holmes against 22 years old Mike.
Ali had better reach than Tyson and his hands weren't slower than prime Tyson's hands ( legs I think prime Tyson had faster than Ali )…..
And Fraizer seriously " improved " his Health permanently…..
Shavers, OMG, and Foreman too.

These three boxers : Fraizer, Foreman and Shavers I look like possible hardest road for prime 22 years old Mike, not 39 years old out of prime Holmes.
30 years old Holmes most likely KOed Mike….

 

[eternaldarkness]

to compare tyson to american football, he was like the team that runs only half a dozen plays, with very little variation, but the plays are so good very few teams can stop them. fighters like this are extremely dangerous in form, but tend to look bad when their opponents figure them out. i have seen fighters do everything right against marciano and still lose (walcott and charles). when someone took the fight to tyson he usually lost. bruno and ruddock are the only two people i have seen mike beat that actually put up a fight, even tillis was starting to lace tyson towards the end of the match. there are worlds between tyson and marciano.

 

[borntoloseNOT]

to compare tyson to american football, he was like the team that runs only half a dozen plays, with very little variation, but the plays are so good very few teams can stop them. fighters like this are extremely dangerous in form, but tend to look bad when their opponents figure them out. i have seen fighters do everything right against marciano and still lose (walcott and charles). when someone took the fight to tyson he usually lost. bruno and ruddock are the only two people i have seen mike beat that actually put up a fight, even tillis was starting to lace tyson towards the end of the match. there are worlds between tyson and marciano.

Why didn't Spinks or the super experienced Holmes figure Mike out then? They were at the top of the division, if Mike was going to get figured out by being too unvaried wouldn't this class of fighter?