Prime Mike Tyson VS Prime Rocky Marciano

[Tomasino]

At 8.5 stone I knocked out a 17 stone contender for the Scottish heavyweight title.

I'll stop arguing with you then

I'm just saying it can happen, I'm not the biggest puncher but it was a peach of a right hand after a jab in the throat

Just saying I reckon Rocky was freakish where power was concerned, like Bob Fitz for instance. Jack Johnson said Choynski was the hardest hitter he fought. A middleweight basically.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'd say Marciano at least equals Tyson in power, speed would be the problem.

[davie]

I'd say Marciano at least equals Tyson in power, speed would be the problem.

Another thing worth considering is that Rocky generated that power by starting his punches from his arsehole and putting everything into so many of his shots. The one thing that astounds me about Rocky is that engine, I've never seen anyone throw so many shots, put so much into every shot and just keep on slinging.

But back to the power, Tyson could throw a 6" punch with the power of a hayemaker. Don't get me wrong some were wild but he could generate huge power with short shots. Combine that with the hand speed and I can see him countering many of the looping Marciano shots.

Hitability (is that a word?) has to be a factor.
Tysons low rolling defense with the high guard combined with how open Rocky was doesn't bode well for the Rock IMO.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'd say Marciano at least equals Tyson in power, speed would be the problem.

Another thing worth considering is that Rocky generated that power by starting his punches from his arsehole and putting everything into so many of his shots. The one thing that astounds me about Rocky is that engine, I've never seen anyone throw so many shots, put so much into every shot and just keep on slinging.

But back to the power, Tyson could throw a 6" punch with the power of a hayemaker. Don't get me wrong some were wild but he could generate huge power with short shots. Combine that with the hand speed and I can see him countering many of the looping Marciano shots.

Hitability (is that a word?) has to be a factor.
Tysons low rolling defense with the high guard combined with how open Rocky was doesn't bode well for the Rock IMO.

All of Rocky's shots weren't wide. Tyson's defense is incredibly overrated. He was a well programmed robot but the head movement was just for his programmed attack. He wasn't reactionary at all. I actually like Mike inside 6 rounds here, but if it's still going it's trouble. The size everyone is focusing on could work against him because Marciano was miles better in tight.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

A Rocky Marciano who is 5ft 10ins and 13 st 4lbs wouldn't last two rounds with Tyson but if we just imagine he trained in the present day and was on a weights regime, proper diet and grew up with good food - he would probably be around six foot and 220lbs?

That would be a different proposition, I certainly take on board Crease's scenario about Holyfield - the difference between him and Marciano is that Marciano cut easy, I have to say this though, it's certainly not a gimmee for Tyson if Marciano had been a bigger person than what he was in the fifties. My money is still on Tyson to KO him though, it would be a cracking fight.

???????????????

The thread wouldn't be called prime Tyson v prime Marciano then though, would it?

Rocky Marciano at 185lbs and 5ft 10ins wouldn't beat Mike Tyson in anyway shape or form, so it makes these comparisons redundant.

If Rocky Marciano had been brought up in a more modern time - as in he was able to face Mike Tyson - where he had access to better food, more of it and a more advanced training regime - especially regarding weight training, protein supplements and dare I say it - steroids - he wouldn't be 185lbs, and he certainly wouldn't be facing Tyson at 185lbs.

And yes, if Mike Tyson was fighting Rocky Marciano being born in 1935 and not having the same access to food, training regime etc - he would be around the same size as Floyd Patterson - that would be fair enough?

It's like comparing Jesse Owens to Usain Bolt - who's going to win? Who do you thinks going to win?

[Kalan]

>>>No one built as powerfully as tyson existed in boxing until sonny Liston hit the scene.<<<


Just an example of a very well built fighter of the 1910s. Of course there are many, many, many more!

http://www.antekprizering.com/kearnssoldierff.jpeg

theone, you really should start doing some reading and researching about pre-1920 boxing because it is very obvious that you know very little about the time, which is not meant as an insult, it’s just a suggestion because the statements that you make about the time are not only clueless, but most of the time they are just plainly wrong.


As to Marciano –vs- Tyson…There are two possible outcomes in my opinion. One would be Tyson winning early because of his speed and crushing power, but if Tyson did not score an early knock out in the first, or second round then Marciano comes on to inflict some serious damage to the body and head for several rounds until Tyson collapsed in the 13, or 14th round, because Marciano had crushing power as well. It should also be mentioned, if it hasn’t already that Tyson’s best fighting weight was around 215-218 and Marciano 187-189, which isn’t really much difference at the heavyweight level with the very top fighters. Of course if the bout occurred today, Marciano would probably come into the bout between 210 and 220. One thing is certain, no one, ever trained as hard and as diligently as Marciano, they didn’t come any tougher and none had the will to win that Marciano carried.

Your first scenario is realistic.. Tyson's size, speed, and power crushes Marciano.. Your 2nd scenario isn't realisic.. Kovalev wouldn't try to fight Joshua.

I vividly remember the run-up to the Frazier-Foreman fight.. Frazier was favored big time.. People said George had never fought anyone.. They said George would get discouraged when he couldn't hurt Frazier.. They said Frazier had big fights - on the big stage - and Foreman would be stage struck and all kinds of ridiculous nonsense.. The real deal was that Foreman was much bigger and stronger than Frazier.. Joe had 1 way to fight.. He as successful because he took everything and overpowered everybody.. Frazier would have to come and get Foreman and that's Mission Impossible. Marciano also had 1 way to fight. If Rocky could box it would be different. But he couldn't -- so it's over before it starts because styles make fights.

[davie]

Kovalev wouldn't try to fight Joshua.

To be fair this isn't realistic either (and this coming from myself, who has used the size argument consistently throughout)

Kovalev is probably 6" shorter than Joshua and up to 75lbs lighter

Mike and Rocky we're much the same height and 30-35 lb different.

I know what your saying, the size difference is significant but the example you gave probably not a fair comparison

[Kalan]

And people are big and strong or they're not... It doesn't make any difference when they're born.. It's like saying Lomachenko would be a MIddleweight if he fought 100 years from now because of all the advances in nutrition that will occur.. Jim Jeffries won all his prime fights and a lot of it was due to his size and strength.. He was a lot bigger than Marciano..

Jeffries wouldn't be a lot bigger and stronger if he fought today.. The world population is about 5 times what it was in Jeffries' day so their are many more big and powerful athletes -- and the sport is in many more countries worldwide.

[Kalan]

Kovalev wouldn't try to fight Joshua.

To be fair this isn't realistic either (and this coming from myself, who has used the size argument consistently throughout)

Kovalev is probably 6" shorter than Joshua and up to 75lbs lighter

Mike and Rocky we're much the same height and 30-35 lb different.

I know what your saying, the size difference is significant but the example you gave probably not a fair comparison

Kovalev would weigh about 195 for Heavyweight so he would give up 50 pounds... Marciano's best weight was 184 so you're right.. He would give up 35 pounds.. Floyd Patterson gave up 25 pounds to Sonny Liston and didn't have a snowball's chance in Hell.. Frazier give up 3 pounds to Foreman -- but if they were at their true weights Frazier would have weighed about 200,.. He was a little chubby - so realistically it was 17 pounds.

[Kalan]

But the basic idea is the styles... Two guys going head to head the bigger and stronger man wins... Patterson came right at Liston and Frazier came right at Foreman because that's how they fought.. Jimmy Young boxed you.. Frazier actually liked guys who boxed (and couldn't hit too hard) so did Tyson.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

My point is fantasy fights can be quite interesting but we can only base them on the available evidence. It doesn't matter whether it's- from Jack Johnson's time up until the 90's.

It is beyond fantasy to say well Lennox Lewis is only allowed to be 6' 1" and 225lbs because he would have been that size and weight in the 40's.
Or Marciano is suddenly allowed to be 6' 2" and weigh 218 because he would have done so had he been born 35 years later.

Those are not fantasy fights, they are matches between mythical characters.

Fantasy fights can be interesting if the fighters actually match up physically and are within a similar timeframe of history. the facts are Marciano at the size he was wouldn't have stood much of a chance against Mike Tyson as he was, no more than Bob Fitzsimmons or Tommy Burns would have stood much of a chance against Rocky Marciano.

Lennox Lewis could have been any size he wanted to be if he had been active in the 1940's but Primo Canera was a crowd stopping giant - but these days - he would be a slightly above average size for a heavyweight boxer, Sonny Liston was a bear - these days he would be a small heavyweight - it's a factor - which is why I don't get involved with who would beat who - it would have to be where everything was somewhat equal.

All I say - like my dad tells me - they were the best around at their respective times.

[Ambling Alp II]

A Rocky Marciano who is 5ft 10ins and 13 st 4lbs wouldn't last two rounds with Tyson but if we just imagine he trained in the present day and was on a weights regime, proper diet and grew up with good food - he would probably be around six foot and 220lbs?

That would be a different proposition, I certainly take on board Crease's scenario about Holyfield - the difference between him and Marciano is that Marciano cut easy, I have to say this though, it's certainly not a gimmee for Tyson if Marciano had been a bigger person than what he was in the fifties. My money is still on Tyson to KO him though, it would be a cracking fight.

???????????????

The thread wouldn't be called prime Tyson v prime Marciano then though, would it?

Rocky Marciano at 185lbs and 5ft 10ins wouldn't beat Mike Tyson in anyway shape or form, so it makes these comparisons redundant.

If Rocky Marciano had been brought up in a more modern time - as in he was able to face Mike Tyson - where he had access to better food, more of it and a more advanced training regime - especially regarding weight training, protein supplements and dare I say it - steroids - he wouldn't be 185lbs, and he certainly wouldn't be facing Tyson at 185lbs.

And yes, if Mike Tyson was fighting Rocky Marciano being born in 1935 and not having the same access to food, training regime etc - he would be around the same size as Floyd Patterson - that would be fair enough?

It's like comparing Jesse Owens to Usain Bolt - who's going to win? Who do you thinks going to win?

What medal did Bolt win in the long jump? Owens won the gold.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Sorry, but in the Heavyweight division all things NEVER have to be equal. Hence a short arsed stumpy armed 71" reach Tyson can fight a 6' 5" 250lb 84" reach Lewis in actuality, never mind silly fantasy fights. Trying to create a completely different version of a fighter is beyond nonsense. Where does it end? Do we say for the benefit of fantasy fights Manny Pac wasn't a dirt poor under nourished Flyweight living on the streets of General Santos City, rather he is a 5' 10" well nourished full blown Middleweight just so we can claim he beats every Welter, Middleweight, and probably 50% of all the great Light Heavies who ever lived?

It is beyond stupid to try to re invent people from who they actually are, or were?

Obviously, not everything is going to be 'equal' regards certain aspects such as height, reach, handspeed etc. However, there is equality regarding training, methods, supplements, food, clean water, STEROIDS etc etc... that's what I am talking about regards equality. I didn't actually create that fighter, all I said was - if Rocky Marciano had been of the same era as Mike Tyson as to fight him - he wouldn't be 5ft 10ins and 185lbs. As it is - 5ft 10ins and 185lbs Marciano doesn't last long against Tyson - none of it is complicated.

What is actually stupid is to get two fighters (at heavyweight) from two wholly different generations and expect that to be a fair match - that's stupid. I know, let's have a fantasy match of Larry Holmes vs Tommy Burns, Jack Dempsey vs Vitali Klitsckho, Bob Fitzsimmons vs Lennox Lewis - people would go 'well, that's stupid' well why is it? They were all world heavyweight champions and the reasons I stated would come to the fore as in why these fantasy match-ups are stupid, it's as simple as that.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

What medal did Bolt win in the long jump? Owens won the gold.

And your point is?

I'll tell you my point when you wake up.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

You are simply not getting the point FG. That is EXACTLY the idea of fantasy fights.

Course I get the fornicating point!

It is the type of guys you have mentioned above as they actually were, versus guys from later era's as they actually were. There are no such things as time machines to invent mythical versions of the fighters from the 20's, 30's, 40's, etc, etc. It is the more fanatical followers of these guys who believe their heroes would compete with or get the better of fighters from the 60's up until the present day who resort to saying " Oh no my guy has to be considerably bigger or heavier " when their arguments have been shot down by folks who back the latter day fighters.

No-one is talking about re-inventing anyone - all I said was - and it's really simple - is that Rocky Marciano if he was in a position to fight Tyson in 1986 - he wouldn't be 5ft 10ins and 185lbs for a lot of reasons - now if you want to take part in the wankfest of a fantasy fight and actually transport someone from 1956 to take on someone from 1986 - then he isn't going to win - especially when there are 30lbs and other factors at play.

Marciano at 185lbs does not stand a chance no more than Tommy Burns would stand a chance against Larry Holmes BUT if they were in a position to fight these people as in they were brought up in a latter time, they wouldn't be under six feet and under fourteen stone - I don't know why this FACT upsets you. They would be more competitive, they were the best fighters in their time - it counts for something.

People simply can't have it both ways. They either believe the likes of Dempsey, Marciano. Louis ( whoever ) beat the likes of Tyson, Lewis, Holmes, the K2 brothers, or they don't. Re inventing a bigger, stronger, heavier version is nonsense.

It's not nonsense, it's a theory that can be explored, fornicate off - who has made you a judge?

184lbs Dempsey doesn't stand a chance against Lennox Lewis - it ends it, but if we take the factor that he was the best (by far) around his time, we can say 'hey, you know what? Maybe if he had the access to what Lennox Lewis had - then the fight would be more competitive' what's wrong with that? Nothing, that's what.

Similarly people either think Jesse Owens, or even Carl Lewis beats Usain Bolt or they don't.

Well, they don't - because there's times you can see where both Lewis and Owens would see Bolts heels, it's a lot more easier to work that out because the best time Lewis and Owens could conjure up isn't as good as Bolts fastest time, but you know what, if they ALL the same advantages regards up to the point nutrition, the latest training techniques etc - it would be different - again - Owens and Lewis don't lose to Bolt because they are inferior - because they were the best around at their own time - IT COUNTS FOR SOMETHING.

There is no guarantee that Owens would be just as powerful or fast as Bolt had he been born in the 80's,

There isn't - so why compare?

after all none of the guys he competes with today appear able to beat him do they?

But nobody beat Owens in his prime - who says Bolt would have done? It didn't happen then back in 1936 - are we getting it now?

Yet they have the same access to everything Bolt absorbs into his body.

COURSE THEY DON'T - DON'T BE SO RIDICULOUS.

The amount of calories a man in 1936 consumed is completely and utterly different than a man today does, the kind kind of calories a man consumed in 1936 is different to what a man consumes today as is the kind the training as are habits - Owens was a smoker as were most men in these days - you cannot compare Owens to Bolt - I'll tell you something, there would be no sports scientist or nutritionist would agree with you.

Compare the times of the guys who finish last in the Olympic 100 meters today with Owens best times, yet they are nowhere near good enough to catch Bolt.

Bolt has advantages of nutrition, lifestyle habits, training techniques, diet - we're comparing champions here - Owens was a champion and Bolt was a champion - to say one would beat another is to ignore every other factor, and they all count.

In exactly the way Jesse Owens was superior to everyone he competes against in the 30's, Bolt is superior today. It is the same with boxing, each era throws up one Heavyweight superior to the rest. If it were " solely " about size, weight and strength Louis wouldn't have beaten guys bigger, heavier or stronger than him, neither would Marciano. or Tyson, but they did.

Yes, but there were very few who were smaller than him, the average weight of the opposition of Joe Louis was 14 stone - which would make them today - yup - crusierweights. I don't think he fought anyone over 17 stone apart from around Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera and Salvatore Impertelli - these days, 17 stones fighters are common.

Joe Louis was a very big man back in 1940 - but now, he would be a cruiserweight. None of this is particularly complicated.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Training is far inferior now, either that or modern boxers are simply pansies. Of all the ridiculous shit I read on here...Modern training, nutrition, etc.. takes the cake.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Training is far inferior now, either that or modern boxers are simply pansies. Of all the ridiculous poo I read on here...Modern training, nutrition, etc.. takes the cake.

[Ambling Alp II]

What medal did Bolt win in the long jump? Owens won the gold.

And your point is?

I'll tell you my point when you wake up.

You said Bolt was better. I was being sarcastic. Obviously I know that Bolt only ran and didn't do the long jump.
I just think it's silly to say that since Bolt was faster than Owens that Tyson would beat Marciano.
Track and boxing are two vastly different things.
If you think Tyson would win, fine. However base it on what they could do in the ring; not the athletes in my time are always better BS.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

What medal did Bolt win in the long jump? Owens won the gold.

And your point is?

I'll tell you my point when you wake up.

You said Bolt was better. I was being sarcastic. Obviously I know that Bolt only ran and didn't do the long jump.
I just think it's silly to say that since Bolt was faster than Owens that Tyson would beat Marciano.
Track and boxing are two vastly different things.
If you think Tyson would win, fine. However base it on what they could do in the ring; not the athletes in my time are always better BS.

But they're the only things we can go on.

If you want to compare two different athletes - it's what they did in the ring and against whom but there are also a myriad of factors behind their career total.

Personally, I wouldn't compare a to b from two wholly different generations.

It's not going to stop anyone though I have to say.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well of course you can compare them. fighters careers overlap, you can certainly compare Fighter A who started his career slightly before fighter B. Then compare him to Fighter C who started slightly after B. If you can compare both A and C to B, you compare A and C to each other.

Some people like to throw up their hands and say it can't be done when of course it can.

Other people don't want to think about it and just go with the modern athletes.
With boxing, you can't go by numbers. They are often very deceiving. Just because a guy was bigger doesn't mean he was better. That has been shown over and over. Title defenses and win/loss records are often deceiving as well.
The tough thing is not to be biased. Many people seem to think a sport began the day they got interested. Some times the guy from way back was better, and sometimes he wasn't.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Well of course you can compare them. fighters careers overlap, you can certainly compare Fighter A who started his career slightly before fighter B. Then compare him to Fighter C who started slightly after B. If you can compare both A and C to B, you compare A and C to each other.

Some people like to throw up their hands and say it can't be done when of course it can.

Other people don't want to think about it and just go with the modern athletes.
With boxing, you can't go by numbers. They are often very deceiving. Just because a guy was bigger doesn't mean he was better. That has been shown over and over. Title defenses and win/loss records are often deceiving as well.
The tough thing is not to be biased. Many people seem to think a sport began the day they got interested. Some times the guy from way back was better, and sometimes he wasn't.

Sure - its easier to compare Rocky Marciano to Joe Frazier than it is Bob Fitzsimmons to Lennox Lewis.

How would Bob Fitzsimmons do against Lennox Lewis - and that's badly, why would anyone want to guess how a fight between these two great pugilists would go is anyones guess.

As I said - comparing two fighters from wholly different generations is a folly - again, no-one is stopping you if you do.

The 'bigger vs better' theory only really applicable with heavyweights and weight is a factor (someone brought up Foreman vs Frazier as an example) especially 30 pounds worth of weight.

With flyweights, middleweights or any other weight where a boxer has to make weight, it is wholly different, there is little change between a flyweight today and a flyweight back in 1936.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well of course you can compare them. fighters careers overlap, you can certainly compare Fighter A who started his career slightly before fighter B. Then compare him to Fighter C who started slightly after B. If you can compare both A and C to B, you compare A and C to each other.

Some people like to throw up their hands and say it can't be done when of course it can.

Other people don't want to think about it and just go with the modern athletes.
With boxing, you can't go by numbers. They are often very deceiving. Just because a guy was bigger doesn't mean he was better. That has been shown over and over. Title defenses and win/loss records are often deceiving as well.
The tough thing is not to be biased. Many people seem to think a sport began the day they got interested. Some times the guy from way back was better, and sometimes he wasn't.

Sure - its easier to compare Rocky Marciano to Joe Frazier than it is Bob Fitzsimmons to Lennox Lewis.

How would Bob Fitzsimmons do against Lennox Lewis - and that's badly, why would anyone want to guess how a fight between these two great pugilists would go is anyones guess.

As I said - comparing two fighters from wholly different generations is a folly - again, no-one is stopping you if you do.



The 'bigger vs better' theory only really applicable with heavyweights and weight is a factor (someone brought up Foreman vs Frazier as an example) especially 30 pounds worth of weight.

With flyweights, middleweights or any other weight where a boxer has to make weight, it is wholly different, there is little change between a flyweight today and a flyweight back in 1936.

I think Lewis would beat Fitzsimmons. Lewis was a better heavyweight. Fitz would have beaten some heavyweight champs between himself and Lewis. Lewis would have beaten more; but certainly not all of them.
Foreman only outweighed Frazier by 3 and half pounds. Weight was not the reason he won.

The mistake that many people make is that assume that a much larger man would win. This guy weighs 240, the other guy weighs only 210. Nothing more to see here. They assume that the bigger weight is always an advantage. It's usually not. History has shown over and over that a smaller great fighter almost always beats a bigger fighter. We had a different thread on that. If you actually look at what has happened in the ring, you may be very surprised.

Weight is an advantage up to a point, at a later point it becomes a disadvantage.

[Kalan]

...No one built as powerfully as tyson existed in boxing until sonny Liston hit the scene.

You don't really believe this do you?

Nobody would believe that crap... Carnera was a very powerfully built man but lacked the skill, elusiveness, and athleticism of Tyson... Jim Jeffries and Tom Sharkey were powerfully built men although Sharkey was extremely short for a Heavyweight... They fought 25 rounds inflicting enormous punishment on each other.. That was their 2nd meeting. Their 1st was a mere 20-rounder. Dempsey was a more slender version of a powerhouse.

Marciano didn't have an impressive physique at all.. In fact, nothing about Rocky was very impressive except his professional boxing record.. It is odd how few really powerfully built men came to the sport of Boxing before 1950. A prime Sonny Liston certainly stood out among his peers, and Rocky was lucky he never crossed paths with Liston... Floyd Patterson wasn't so lucky -- although he successfully waited Liston out for several years.

[Kalan]

Serving time in prison also took a toll on Liston in terms of years.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Well of course you can compare them. fighters careers overlap, you can certainly compare Fighter A who started his career slightly before fighter B. Then compare him to Fighter C who started slightly after B. If you can compare both A and C to B, you compare A and C to each other.

Some people like to throw up their hands and say it can't be done when of course it can.

Other people don't want to think about it and just go with the modern athletes.
With boxing, you can't go by numbers. They are often very deceiving. Just because a guy was bigger doesn't mean he was better. That has been shown over and over. Title defenses and win/loss records are often deceiving as well.
The tough thing is not to be biased. Many people seem to think a sport began the day they got interested. Some times the guy from way back was better, and sometimes he wasn't.

Sure - its easier to compare Rocky Marciano to Joe Frazier than it is Bob Fitzsimmons to Lennox Lewis.

How would Bob Fitzsimmons do against Lennox Lewis - and that's badly, why would anyone want to guess how a fight between these two great pugilists would go is anyones guess.

As I said - comparing two fighters from wholly different generations is a folly - again, no-one is stopping you if you do.

The 'bigger vs better' theory only really applicable with heavyweights and weight is a factor (someone brought up Foreman vs Frazier as an example) especially 30 pounds worth of weight.

With flyweights, middleweights or any other weight where a boxer has to make weight, it is wholly different, there is little change between a flyweight today and a flyweight back in 1936.

Guys in 1936 had same day weigh ins. Not the same weight class at all. May as well be Fitz/Lewis if you're talking flyweights.