Prime Mike Tyson VS Prime Rocky Marciano

[Kalan]

Fitz was knocked out twice by a much bigger man named Jeffries.. He broke down quickly but hung on for several rounds as Jeff toyed with him.. Fitz vs Lewis is a ludicrous match-up -- worse than Tyson-Marciano.. When Tyson got a big boy going he liked to talk to him as well.. Somebody like Ruddick. He told him he was going to kiss him on the lips.. I never did like sadists and there are plenty of them in Boxing.. One thing I could never picture is Marciano making fun of his opponent after he got him hurt.. He was way too decent for that.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think people probably have better training methods today than in the past. Usain Bolt obviously has a choice in how he trains but he would probably have access to better training methods than men of the past.

[Cojimar 1946]

Also, I think head to head comparisons are a bit difficult given the difference in athletes performances. There are people outside the top 10 that are faster to say nothing of Bolt himself.

[Ambling Alp II]

If Bolt had to back to 1936, and wear similar shoes as Owens, the same track, no starting blocks, no access to drugs, wouldn't the race be a lot closer?

Even if Bolt could still smoke him, does that mean that every world class sprinter cold do it?

Even if you believe that, isn't being a sprinter a little different than being a boxer? In boxing you have take into consideration all sorts of skills, stamina, defense, chin, heart, strategy etc.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Course I get the effing point!

No you effing don't.

You seem to be some kind of little fascist, a control freak, fornicate off.

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.

So, if there are no such things as 'time machines' why bother? It's a waste of time, the reality is 185lbs Marciano wouldn't stand a chance against Mike Tyson at 220lbs.

That's it, the end. The only way that fight could be competitive is if they both had similar grounding in diet, advanced training techniques, steroids etc etc.

Bollox. What reasons specifically? You have no scientific evidence, you just THINK Marciano would be bigger and heavier.

Because people are bigger and heavier than they are now, heavyweight fighters are bigger and heavier than they were in 1956 - what, do you need evidence?

Wrong again, the wankfest is when folks come up with mythical Marciano's like you just did above.

Yeah, but because we are having an academic debate about this and factors such as diet, training etc are factors, it's allowed, you don't like it? fornicate off!

What effing FACT, again it is just what you think might happen.

He would be a small cruiserweight, he wouldn't stand a chance. There's the fact, I bet you aren't putting the house on Tony Bellew next month, yeah, I thought not.

There have always been bigger Heavyweights than the other guys in EVERY era.

Yes, but the average weight for a heavyweight these days is 17 stone - whereas back then - it was 14 stone - around three stone difference.

How else do you explain the difference in size between Lewis and Tyson who were born 9 months apart? It is pure shite to assume Marciano would have been bigger than than he was had he been fighting in the 80's. What he would have been is a boiled down Light Heavy, or a Cruiser.

Well there have always been height differences - the weight difference is 14lbs - a stone - seeing as Tyson was 5ft 11 and Lewis was 6ft 5ins - it is rather negligible.

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 only nonsense to you - you need to get this through your head and get a grip. In a debate about who fights who - anything can be brought into debate, you having a tantrum isn't going to shut me up, so fornicate off. 'Golden Oldie'? Act your fornicating age, I doubt it's five.

Theories are merely that, evidence is what is required.

It's a theory based around logic - you could ask any sports scientist this and see what they would say, how would Jack Dempsey do against Vitali Klitcscko.

Access to what exactly? Nutrition? People have always eaten healthily, just as they always eaten unhealthily. It is a choice, and always has been.

Your argument is now getting ridiculous, in those days, people didn't have access to the range of food we now have, people ate what they could, it wasn't a matter of choice, it was a matter of actually getting something to eat, FACT - we eat 30 percent more calories than we did 30 years ago and around 50% than before world war 2 - this is why there is an obesity epidemic but it would also explain why people are bigger, taller and stronger.

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

Well, just check their PB's - that'll settle it surely.

It counts for something in it's own time. It counts for nothing today. See above about nutrition and training techniques.

Now we're agreeing with each other, THIS HAS BEEN MY POINT ALL ALONG.

I'm not the one trying to compare guys from bygone era's to the present time. I KNOW the modern guys would piss all over them. It is the numpties who want to create a mythical version of the oldies who are trying to compare.

You're the biggest numpty here, trying to control debate with your shit arguments.

Simple as this - no small cruiserweight would beat Mike Tyson - and not at 185lbs. That's the only thing I have ever said - for it to be equal, they would have to be in the same era and that's that.

Bolts times beat anything Owens EVER did. Are we getting it now?

See, you are taking in my argument - Bolt is better isn't he, however - it has to be said Owens was a champion in his own time and therefore - if they had the same advantages - it would be closer - and YES - we can debate this - I don't know who would have won, I don't know who would have won between a 6ft 1ins Marciano at 220lbs and a modern Tyson but it would be a lot closer than the two rounds it would have gone between 185lbs Marciano and Tyson.

So you are now saying Bolts competitors DO NOT have access to EXACTLY the same things he eats or drinks. It doesn't get much sillier than that.

Don't be a prat all your life, we are talking about Jesse Owens - as you can see with the following comments which you reply to.

Access to calories did not suddenly arrive in the 1940's. See above for people's eating habits over centuries, never mind since the second world war.

Quality and Quantity of calories are vastly different between now and world war 2 - I'll get you scientific reports on all this, it won't take me two minutes.

1. Are you now claiming Bolt is faster than Owens purely because he doesn't smoke?

2. Are you further claiming there are no top class athletes performing in the world today who do smoke?

It's one factor out of many - it's all about lifestyle habits that favour Bolt because of advanced medical knowledge.

Does Usain Bolt smoke?

I would be offended if they did, as they are like politicians. Any given 3 of them will give you different answers to the same question.

YOU know more than THEM - now I have heard it ALL.

Everything you mention here from nutrition to diet is a matter of choice, and ALWAYS has been.

No it is NOT - this is where your argument falls to pieces, are you this ignorant about this subject? Really.

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.

In Louis case, it was about three fighters, in Marcianos case, they were all roughly about the same size, there were very few who were fighting at 225lbs and above - which would be a small heavyweight today.

Joe Louis had 36 fights out of 69 in which he weighed over 200 lbs, that would make him a Heavyweight in any era.

He weighed in an average of 207lbs for the remainder of those fights and it would make him a VERY SMALL heavyweight - in such a way, it would be very hard for him to compete today.

Wrong again, see above.

You're wrong on more or less everything, some advice, start wearing a hat when you go out, the sun is getting to you.

[Kalan]

If Bolt had to back to 1936, and wear similar shoes as Owens, the same track, no starting blocks, no access to drugs, wouldn't the race be a lot closer?

Even if Bolt could still smoke him, does that mean that every world class sprinter cold do it?

Even if you believe that, isn't being a sprinter a little different than being a boxer? In boxing you have take into consideration all sorts of skills, stamina, defense, chin, heart, strategy etc.

There's no access to drugs today because they test for everything. There was all access to any drug you thought could help you in 1936. Many were used and all were perfectly legal ... and athletes weren't tested.

Sprinting takes stamina, heart, strategy, and even skill.. You shave your time down by improving your start, acceleration, and sprinting form... This takes experience and skill. Boxing also keeps improving on technique, equipment, better nutritionists and better strength trainers, all to help you box better. The world population is over 4 times what it was in Owen's day so the likelihood of the world producing more great athletes is over 4 times as great. Especially since pro boxing exists in many parts of the world that did NOT have Boxing in 1936. This is why Olympic records from Jesse Owen's day have been obliterated and the best boxers of 2017 are miles better than in 1936, over 80 years ago.

[Kalan]

BTW... Women today run faster than Jesse Owen did. They've broken his Olympic record.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

If Bolt had to back to 1936, and wear similar shoes as Owens, the same track, no starting blocks, no access to drugs, wouldn't the race be a lot closer?

Even if Bolt could still smoke him, does that mean that every world class sprinter cold do it?

Even if you believe that, isn't being a sprinter a little different than being a boxer? In boxing you have take into consideration all sorts of skills, stamina, defense, chin, heart, strategy etc.

There's no access to drugs today because they test for everything. There was all access to any drug you thought could help you in 1936. Many were used and all were perfectly legal ... and athletes weren't tested.

Sprinting takes stamina, heart, strategy, and even skill.. You shave your time down by improving your start, acceleration, and sprinting form... This takes experience and skill. Boxing also keeps improving on technique, equipment, better nutritionists and better strength trainers, all to help you box better. The world population is over 4 times what it was in Owen's day so the likelihood of the world producing more great athletes is over 4 times as great. Especially since pro boxing exists in many parts of the world that did NOT have Boxing in 1936. This is why Olympic records from Jesse Owen's day have been obliterated and the best boxers of 2017 are miles better than in 1936, over 80 years ago.

This is a good point as well, boxing is now a global sport - the world heavyweight championship was contested mainly around 10 countries - at the absolute most.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Pot meet kettle. Go eff yourself.

Do you know what 'pot meet kettle' means? Sounds like you don't man - go and look it up and come back to me - you are the one trying to control debate around here, you nasty little online fascist.

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.

We can discuss and visualise such a fact, course I can - who's going to stop me? YOU.

So, if there are no such things as 'time machines' why bother? It's a waste of time, the reality is 185lbs Marciano wouldn't stand a chance against Mike Tyson at 220lbs.

Perhaps your not quite as dumb as you seem after all.

Yeah, but you are though.

That's it, the end. The only way that fight could be competitive is if they both had similar grounding in diet, advanced training techniques, steroids etc etc.
Then again perhaps you are.

You probably are going to put money on Bellew beating Haye - a sucker every minute and all that.

That applies to the population as a whole. There is no way of proving an individual would be bigger than he was. Answer why Tyson was 6" shorter in height, with a 13" shorter wingspan than Lewis when both were born in the 60's.

Course it applies to the population as a whole, which would include Rocky Marciano, why wouldn't it?

Why is Tyson shorter than Lewis? Because some people people are taller than others. But surely I don't have to tell a boxing expert like you that fighters are classed on weight and not height. The difference between Lewis and Tyson was a stone and Tyson was still a good 16 and a half stone - he would have been heavier than the vast majority of fighters who fought Marciano. Just checked, the heaviest fighter Marciano fought was one Humphrey Jackson at 254 who was 4-2 and he fought three other fighters over 15 and a half stone in 49 wins.

There were plenty of BIG Heavyweights around in every decade since 1900, they are not hard to find if you just look for them. Willard, Baer. Abe Simon, Carnera, are just a few of the higher rated ones.

Not true, Carnera was something of a freak, that is how he got into the fight game - he was a circus strongman - most heavyweights - in fact, the vast majority of them were around 6ft and around 13 and a half to 14 stone. Max Baer was 6ft 2ins and around 14st 10lbs - hardly a giant but then - a boxing expert like you should know all this, why am I telling you?

More bollox from you as is to be expected, as you seem to know less than eff all about boxing.

I know more than you in my sleep.

There are no such things as a standard diets, or standard training methods. Each fighter does what is best for him, with some preferring old school methods, and some preferring the latest technology. It might come as surprise to you but some fighters eat junk food between fights, and even during training camps, and they do quite well out of it. Archie Moore for instance always chewed steak to suck all the juices out of it then spat out the meat, to keep his weight down. This was in the 40's. So what the eff are you waffling about when you say that diet is more significant today than it was then?

That was because Archie Moore was trying to make light heavyweight. When he wasn't - he ate the steak normally.

Yes, I know some fighters eat junk food during fights - I don't think Tony Tubbs eats tofu salad daily - but the thing is, their training regimes, their strength and size and the latest in nutritional knowledge values them, as does the availability of a wide ranges of foods, which weren't around then.

See you can be quite clever when you try.

You probably think Bellew will win though.

The average weight in Tyson's day was NOT 17 stone.

Tyson fought in two eras, in the mid to late 80's - his opponents were around 15 and a half to 16 stone, in his latter career he rarely fought people under 17 stone - it's all there, go and look it up.

There have always been weight differences too, that is why the Heavyweight division existed for guys who simply couldn't make Light Heavy then Cruiser when that came into being. I have no idea what you are getting at with your weight difference figures. Tyson's optimum fighting weight was 218 - 220, Lewis's was in the 240's

Tyson fought Lewis at around 234lbs - he was at 16 and a half stone, now YOU'RE going back in the fornicating time machine with Tysons weight Honestly, what are you like?

Grow up ffs moron, they are matches between guys who fought at the times they fought pitted against each other. You can eff and blind as much as you like you will get it back with interest, idiot.

No, you grow up you absolute tit, you trying to control the debate - fornicate off - you can't stop anyone debating point - don't like it, fornicate off? What are you going to do if I bring it up again and again.

Stupidity in and of itself isn't so bad, wearing it like a medal the way you do is laughable. Are you seriously saying people NEVER had access to red meat, white meat, fresh fruit and vegetables, or poultry until the 1960's? Do you believe Brits just invented the observations " They are overfed, over sexed, and over here " in reference to G.I's during WW2?

You can't be so stupid and be so ignorant of history, people eat more calories today than ever, people have a wider variety of fruits and vegetables than ever before, people eat 30% more calories today than they did in 1970 - never mind 1940 - people didn't have the access to the amount of food and the volume of food - they didn't - Jack Dempsey was a hobo all throughout his childhood - do you think he got three quality meals a day riding the rails? Did he bollix

By the way wasn't Marciano a G.I.? What part of " the amount of calories people consume is, and always has been a matter of personal choice? "

No, people eating three quality meals a day is a rather modern concept. People back in the 1930's and 40's were poor and they couldn't afford to eat all that well, have you heard 'The Great Depression'? James J. Braddock went without meals as he was fighting - he always struggled to put on an extra stone to be effective at heavyweight because he couldn't ge tthe right kind of food nor the volume - which would have made him 13 and a half stone.

You seem really ignorant of history, both boxing and social, go and read a book.

Exactly. Owens or Lewis are nowhere near Bolt. The problem here is you are assuming it is purely down to nutrition and training. That is bollox.

Owens was a champion and he wasn't beaten in his prime, it counts for something and I think I have already said this in the first post - there are lots of factors - they're just two.

We are far from agreeing,

We are - you think we're not because you're not that smart. I claimed that

as stated above you claim modern athletes improvements are ONLY down to nutrition and methods of training. I believe you also mentioned lifestyle, as if you think all modern athletes don't smoke or drink booze. Some do.

I made this claim:

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


If he was on the gear, as most heavyweights these days are - he wouldn't be 185lbs!

I'm not the one trying to compare guys from bygone era's to the present time. I KNOW the modern guys would piss all over them. It is the numpties who want to create a mythical version of the oldies who are trying to compare.

Awwwwwwwwwwww - diddums - well, nothing you can do about, go and suck on a werthers original and try and chill out yeah? be thankful for being in Spain and having a happy life in the sunshine alongside all your Brit neighbours in Communidad Valencia.

'I don't live anywhere near the Brits...' Course you don't

If I thought a muppet like you had an opinion worth more than pig shite I might be bothered by it. As you don't I couldn't care less.

That's why you spend half an hour typing up a response - because you're not bothered Are you like this with your grandkids and the missus? I bet you are!

You really are clueless about the game aren't you. Your argument might have some foundation if Marciano hadn't beaten ANY guys over 200lbs with significant height and reach advantages over him. Tyson beats him because he is too, fast, hits too hard, and is too skillful for Marciano, NOT simply because he was born in the 60's.

One minute you saying he doesn't stand a chance and now you are saying he does. You aren't cut out for this debating lark are you?

Marciano fought ONE MAN in 49 fights who was over 16 stone - and none of his title defences were against anyone over 14 stone 4lbs - except for Don Cockell - a light heavyweight with a glandular problem.

Do you usually catch the Sunshine bus?

This coming from the man who can't use the quote function.

Exactly which 6' 1inch 220lb Marciano would this be then?

The one I made up, what are you going to do about it?

One who exists in your head perhaps? Why stop there, just make him 6' 10" and 270lb, so he can deal with Lewis, the K2 brothers, Tyson Fury, or any other giants that might come along in the near future.

Now you are being silly. Mind you, I think all this who would beat who from different eras is silly, why not add some complex debate? I know you don't like it, because you are nothing but a control freak, some kind of online fascist - probably was a traffic warden before you retired to Spain.

Wrong again, you are the prat, with reading difficulties. I clearly stated that BOLT'S competitors have exactly the same access to the foods and training methods he has. Yet he blows them away.

Who cares what YOU stated, I was comparing what Bolt and Owens may or may not have ate, it doesn't matter what Bolts competitors do or don't - they can't beat him but guess what? Nor did Owens competitors back in his day.

Yeah, and no doubt with a little bit of research I'll find another scientific report by a different group of scientists refuting that one.

Except you won't - you can make one up of course that people in the 1930's had the same access to good nutrition as they do now, I wonder who will publish it?

1. Are you now claiming Bolt is faster than Owens purely because he doesn't smoke?

2. Are you further claiming there are no top class athletes performing in the world today who do smoke?

I am claiming there are myriad of factors that help Bolt over Owens - that's one but there are many many others.

Yes, and those lifestyle habits are a matter of personal choice as they have ALWAYS been for millennia. Some athletes smoke, some booze, some do dope, others take nothing.

Bolt - Owens - other athletes - not important - understood?

I have no idea or interest.

Noooooooooooooooooooo he does not.

I would be offended if they did, as they are like politicians. Any given 3 of them will give you different answers to the same question.

Why would he lie about not smoking if he doesn't.

Typical girlish reaction, to a fact. Which is sports scientists, and nutritionists can't even agree among each other.

Whereas your reaction is typical miserable auld git reaction - something an ex traffic warden would write up because it isn't in his very narrow parameters of logic.

You're not a sports scientist and you aren't a nutritionist. So you're argument regards this is moot. To say they haven't any clue what they are talking about when you slapped parking tickets on cars on double yellow lines for the last remaining years of your working life just won't do.

Everything you mention here from nutrition to diet is a matter of choice, and ALWAYS has been.

Go and read a book about the Great Depression, The Jarrow March, about Britain in the 30's - or after the war when there was rationing for TEN YEARS in the UK.

The ignorance is purely yours. Obesity isn't a natural phenomenon it is a matter of choice.

There was very little obesity in the 1930's.

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.

This is where your argument falls doing AGAIN - we're not talking about bigger guys who are inferior (what of them there were - very few) we are talking about match up where he is fighting his peers.

The number of fights is irrelevant. A fighter can only beat what ids in front of him, and these guys did exactly that, because they were better fighters, size had nothing to do with it.

Well no, because there was very little difference in size between the fighters.

Tyson was a small heavyweight in his era, he did quite well for himself up until Douglas. Similarly there are and always have been " big " Heavies who simply are not, or were not good enough to get to the top.

Nooooooooooooo - Tyson was a short heavyweight, his weight, strength and build was about normal for a heavyweight in the mid 80's - around 218-220lbs.

Wrong again, see above.

When have you been right?

Thanks for that, luckily enough I have the sun and the ability to make that choice. Here is some advice for you. Study up on the fight game before you post such rubbish concerning fighters and their ability, instead of obsessing about what they eat.

What you need to do is

Read some books, not the Beano Annual of 1971

Learn to use the quote function on posts

And find some logic somewhere - ask the hamster running on the wheel in yer head.

[Ambling Alp II]

If Bolt had to back to 1936, and wear similar shoes as Owens, the same track, no starting blocks, no access to drugs, wouldn't the race be a lot closer?

Even if Bolt could still smoke him, does that mean that every world class sprinter cold do it?

Even if you believe that, isn't being a sprinter a little different than being a boxer? In boxing you have take into consideration all sorts of skills, stamina, defense, chin, heart, strategy etc.

There's no access to drugs today because they test for everything. There was all access to any drug you thought could help you in 1936. Many were used and all were perfectly legal ... and athletes weren't tested.

Sprinting takes stamina, heart, strategy, and even skill.. You shave your time down by improving your start, acceleration, and sprinting form... This takes experience and skill. Boxing also keeps improving on technique, equipment, better nutritionists and better strength trainers, all to help you box better. The world population is over 4 times what it was in Owen's day so the likelihood of the world producing more great athletes is over 4 times as great. Especially since pro boxing exists in many parts of the world that did NOT have Boxing in 1936. This is why Olympic records from Jesse Owen's day have been obliterated and the best boxers of 2017 are miles better than in 1936, over 80 years ago.

There is no access to drugs? Are you frikkin kidding? His teammate in the relays just caught and he, bolt, and their two teammates got stripped of their gold medal! Usually you can get away with it, but once in a while someone gets caught.

And no, sprinting doesn't take anywhere near the strategy, heart and skill that boxing does.
And if you really believe that crap about boxing being better than ever, then don;t post on Boxing History. Go to the Current Scene.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

The total sum of your boxing knowledge could be written on a pinhead and still leave room for Tolstoy's War and Peace. I stopped reading your moronic garbage with your insistence that the best version of Tyson was only 14lbs lighter than the best version of Lewis.

I have decided you are a Walter Mitty character so I will address you as Walter

You do realise the average height of the American male was 68.5 inches in 1912, but 69.9 inches in 2012, don't you Walter? But you just keep convincing your stupid self that Marciano would really have been 6' 2" had he been born a few decades later, or if he had shovelled more calories down his neck.

Here is a tip to get you started on your voyage of learning about boxing. Look up a guy called Buddy Baer, brother of Max, who also fought Joe Louis 7 years after Max. Surprise surprise you will discover he was 6' 6" weighed over 230 lbs with a wingspan of 84".

Here is another tip, look for pictures of Marciano when he wasn't in training. You will discover he just looks like your username. He is still under 6 feet tall and he still has stumpy little arms. He is merely fatter.

You're a bit of a cretin as far as boxing goes aren't you Walter?

I thought you weren't bothered about debating me Uncle Albert - so why are you debating me...

I'm not bovvered, I don't care meeeeeeeeeeeeh.

OK - I'm Walter Mitty and you can be Blakey from On the Buses it was between Blakey and Uncle Albert but seeing as I have found this - you'll now be knows as Blakey!




I know you'll reply because you're not bovvered.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

You do realise the average height of the American male was 68.5 inches in 1912, but 69.9 inches in 2012, don't you Walter? But you just keep convincing your stupid self that Marciano would really have been 6' 2" had he been born a few decades later, or if he had shovelled more calories down his neck.

Just for the sake of clarity, I have just checked out your bullshit claim about American average height for men - and it's 71 inches (5ft 9ins and a half) according to the latest figures, could you do me a favour and post your links on here, especially for the 1912 studies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _worldwide

https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43861419/PDF

This is interesting, the average high weight for a 6ft 2ins and a half (75 inches) man then was a mere 195lbs, the lowest was 165lbs.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

You do realise the average height of the American male was 68.5 inches in 1912, but 69.9 inches in 2012, don't you Walter? But you just keep convincing your stupid self that Marciano would really have been 6' 2" had he been born a few decades later, or if he had shovelled more calories down his neck.

Just for the sake of clarity, I have just checked out your bullshit claim about American average height for men - and it's 71 inches (5ft 9ins and a half) according to the latest figures, could you do me a favour and post your links on here, especially for the 1912 studies?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... _worldwide

Effing hell, not are you stupid as far as boxing goes Walter, numeration is also too difficult for you.

What part of 69.9 inches as opposed to 5' 9" and a half, is so hard for you to understand Walter? I might have to change you name to Tim, as in Tim nice but dim.

By the way 71 inches is 5' 11"

71 inches is over 5ft 9ins. Blakey, get out of the sun, it's not doing you any good.

http://www.theunitconverter.com/inches- ... -feet.html

'I'm not bovvered...'

fornicate off blakey.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Effing hell, not are you stupid as far as boxing goes Walter, numeration is also too difficult for you.

What part of 69.9 inches as opposed to 5' 9" and a half, is so hard for you to understand Walter? I might have to change you name to Tim, as in Tim nice but dim.

By the way 71 inches is 5' 11"

71 inches is over 5ft 9ins. Blakey, get out of the sun, it's not doing you any good.

http://www.theunitconverter.com/inches- ... -feet.html

'I'm not bovvered...'

eff off blakey.

Of course it is Tim, which is why you are dim enough to have written 5 feet nine and a half in brackets behind 71 inches.

Now run along and stand in the corner with the other dunces.

I know - who said I didn't?

You sound dead angry - what's the matter luv? Those pesky Spanish people not doing what you want the way you want?

'Shurrup - I am not bovvered'

All right Blakey - you're not bothered - write another post to this to show me how not bothered you are.

[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.

You will get nowhere with the kind of people who convince themselves fighting is all about sports science and or nutrition.

I clearly stated Tyson always beats Marciano because he hit too fast, too hard, and too accurately for the Brockton man. Unfortunately there will always be those who will claim that isn't the case. It is simply a matter of Tyson being naturally heavier.

You mean in the same way Tyson beat Holyfield because he hit too fast, too hard and too accurately against the comparatively plodding, absolutely shot Holyfield...

Oh hang on!

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

You will get nowhere with the kind of people who convince themselves fighting is all about sports science and or nutrition.

I clearly stated Tyson always beats Marciano because he hit too fast, too hard, and too accurately for the Brockton man. Unfortunately there will always be those who will claim that isn't the case. It is simply a matter of Tyson being naturally heavier.

You mean in the same way Tyson beat Holyfield because he hit too fast, too hard and too accurately against the comparatively plodding, absolutely shot Holyfield...

Oh hang on!

You reckon live in China. The best thing you can do is find if they manufacture cheap copies of JCB's like they do most other things. You need one to get you out of the whole you insist on digging.

Ffs man go and learn ANYTHING about boxing instead of continually making yourself look a prick.

1. Holyfield was far from shot, the Tyson camp just thought he was due to rumours of heart problems, and a crap performance against Bobby Czyz.

2. Holyfield also beats Marciano.

Do you get that Tim nb dim?

Holyfield was SHOT.

Check out the betting odds before the first fight why don't you.

Though Tyson was over the hill - he was still seen as a force and was a heavy betting favourite.

Nobody that I knew picked Holyfield over Tyson - now go on, find those betting odds for their first fight.

[davie]

Has this thread perhaps run it's course?

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Now I know you were actually born an idiot, because you couldn't as stupid as you purely by working at it.

I can only assume Mummy and Daddy must have paid for you to be as well travelled as you claim to be.

It is impossible for someone as idiotic as you to have done so on merit.

So betting underdogs in fights have to be SHOT now.

I suppose 42 -1 Douglas was SHOT too was he?

I got 11 to 1 on Holyfied, but guess what poohead? The odds were coming in by then.

You pathetic cretin.

Seriously, go and follow tiddlywinks, or doodle and buck, because you know less than eff all about the fight game.

Holyfield was shot - Douglas was a mediocre fighter who raised his game for the biggest boxing shock of the century.

Holyfields performances vs Foreman, Vaughn Bean and Czyz as well as the public advice from his doctors to retire were the catalyst for him to be 25-1 AGAINST before the fight.

He was seen as a shot fighter before that fight.

And still Tyson had

Faster hands than Holyfield
Quicker feet than Holyfield
A more dynamic puncher than Holyfield with better recent wins before the fight

And he lost - still - so all those reasons you stated why Marciano would lose to Tyson counted for nothing when Holyfield fought Mike Tyson.

Now, are you able to conduct this debate like an adult or are you going to carry on acting like a 10 year old.

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Has this thread perhaps run it's course?

The cretinous 'Golden Oldie' has certainly runs his course.

[davie]

Has this thread perhaps run it's course?

The cretinous 'Golden Oldie' has certainly runs his course.

Aye, it's descended into a bit of a shit slinging contest now, you wonder what it takes for a poster to get a warning or a thread to get closed on this board???

[el_grande_mauro_mina]

Has this thread perhaps run it's course?

The cretinous 'Golden Oldie' has certainly runs his course.

Aye, it's descended into a bit of a poo slinging contest now, you wonder what it takes for a poster to get a warning or a thread to get closed on this board???

Well, I have said my piece on this Davie, so I'll exit the doors, hope you are well!

[Cojimar 1946]

Yet unlike Holyfield Marciano somehow managed to beat the best of his era and retire undefeated, must have been doing something right

[Cojimar 1946]

I'm still curious as to how Holyfield lost to a guy who was thrashed twice by Andrew Golota.

[Ambling Alp II]

If you are referring to Riddick Bowe, he was 2-0 against Golota.

[Cojimar 1946]

Golota seemed to get the better of both fights to me, how did you score it?