BoxRec

Size advantage certainly is not always important but in matchups between fighters at a similar level I could see it possibly making a difference.

silkov

If you really think Marcinao was the greatest fighter of all time then fine but just don't expect everyone else to feel the same way and stop with the childish ' you don respect Marciano'.... its ridiculous!.

once again putting words into my mouth. i never said he was the greatest. i said joe louis was the greatest, and u suprisingly had joe louis as the 4th greatest heavyweight of all time

i rate marciano at # 3 all time and i think other heavyweight greats would beat him, but i dont think frazier or especially jeffries would beat him.


i know about a lot of other guys silkov, and if u have read some of my other posts u would see i talked about fighters from all weights. i only talk about marciano when someone rates him low and doesnt have any decicive reasons.

if u had noticed, i even made a 32 man heavyweight computer tournament with anaylisis that took me 4 hours to make. did u see that??? and now i am working on a 32 man middleweight tournament that will prob take me a little longer.

Dnahar,

I have been studying up on the old timers, and i think highly of some old timers and i dont think highly of other old timers. its opinion.

i think all the old timers are still the toughest guys around and i use some of their training methods for strentgth.

i think guys liek johnson and dempsey are all time greats and could compete in any era, i also think bob fitzimmons at middelweight or light-H could compete at any era and he was one of the hardest hitters pounf for pound. i think stanley ketchel on of the greatest middlewights of all time.

some other fighters i dont think highly of. and its based on a lot of things. some guys i feel were made for that era and didnt have the skill or strentgh to compete with some of the all time greats.

for example , in the battling nelson vs joe gans match, neslon knocked gans down many times while gans knocked nelson down a couple times and EACH TIME HELPED HIM UP. now what can i think of that????? why would he help him up??

or how bout bhack then where guys got to stand over the other man then poun him right when he gets up. perhaps their would have been les knock outs or beatings if that wasnt the case.

i think jimmy wilde was the greatest straweight or flyweight ever. i think he would have knocked out modern day king ricardo lopez. he was one of the most hardest hitters pound ofr pound all time and i have been studying him quite clearly.


as for wrestling, the national tournament starts next week on tuedsay. got to fly to fargo, ND. training camp was brutal, it felt like the scene in junction boys where there dying of heat exchaustion but they have to kep going. right now im trying to make weight at juinior lightweight or 130 lol. i have 10 pounds to go in 7 days. i feel almost as sucked out as harry greb in the first fight with mickey walker.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:do u know why some people on the forum dont like you???? cause ur a rude guy who attacks everyone personally for no reason.

u have no class sometimes.

...or maybe you're just a poor sport, unwilling to accept the fact that Marciano couldn't beat everybody...unwilling to accept anything that doesn't prop Marciano on some kind of pedestal...with very limited knowledge of heavyweights of the past...I think somebody already nailed it...the only books on boxing you really read and study...are the ones about Marciano...

NEWS FLASH: There were a lot of great heavyweights...get some new books already!!!

sweet scientist wrote

unwilling to accept the fact that Marciano couldn't beat everybody.

i think ive said many times marciano couldnt beat everyone, i simply said he beats more all time greats than u think.
i probably have more books on boxing than u do. i collect them, i have a special shelf in my room just for them. thats my hobby.
and i know a lot about other heavyweights. i study a lot of all time greats, ive studied louis, ali, more than i have marciano. ive read books on all the heavyweight greats.
did u not see me make my double elimination 32 man heavyweight tourney with analysis??????? a lot of people liked it. i simply defen marciano all the time because he deserves it and i never see someone stepping in to defend him, so i do.
i understand u love heavyweights like holmes and liston. ive never seen u point out their flaws or critizize them. and ive never seen u argue in marcianos favor since u dont think much of him. all the heavyweights i have pointed about their good parts and bad parts. and i do respect old timers. and i rate many of them high.


just cause everyones been on ur case lately in both current scene and boxers of the past, doesnt mean u have the right to take ur anger and rude attitude out on me.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:sweet scientist wrote

unwilling to accept the fact that Marciano couldn't beat everybody.

i think ive said many times marciano couldnt beat everyone, i simply said he beats more all time greats than u think.
i probably have more books on boxing than u do. i collect them, i have a special shelf in my room just for them. thats my hobby.
and i know a lot about other heavyweights. i study a lot of all time greats, ive studied louis, ali, more than i have marciano. ive read books on all the heavyweight greats.
did u not see me make my double elimination 32 man heavyweight tourney with analysis??????? a lot of people liked it. i simply defen marciano all the time because he deserves it and i never see someone stepping in to defend him, so i do.
i understand u love heavyweights like holmes and liston. ive never seen u point out their flaws or critizize them. and ive never seen u argue in marcianos favor since u dont think much of him. all the heavyweights i have pointed about their good parts and bad parts. and i do respect old timers. and i rate many of them high.


just cause everyones been on ur case lately in both current scene and boxers of the past, doesnt mean u have the right to take ur anger and rude attitude out on me.

Just grow up kid, you're getting very boring.

Just out of interest BB49, and I have no in-depth knowledge of Marciano whatsoever but clearly you do, which all-time heavies do you fancy would beat Marciano? And I'm not trying to catch you out.

i would take marciano anyday, ive been collecting some of his fights on film and i have fallen in love with him.. of course hes noowhere near braddock in my heart but then again no other boxer is.. marciano in a mid round ko, jeffries never faced a rocky marciano, few have



sry just wanted to see what it would look like with all these guys throwing jabs haha

There seems to be a lot of young guys out there these days with a remarkably keen interest in boxers from decades ago.

joe louis, muhammad ali, mike tyson, george foreman toss up, is they fought 10 times i think foreman would KO him early 5 times while marciano stops him late 5 times. ive changed my viewing and think jack johnson would have beaten rocky, simply because rocky had trouble with defensive fighters and slick boxers but johnson would have to prevent being caught.

so louis, ali, tyson, johnson, and foremans a toss up.




so in my top ten list, rocky loses to 4 or 5 and beats the rest. i rate marciano # 3 all time. not # 1.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:so in my top ten list, rocky loses to 4 or 5 and beats the rest. i rate marciano # 3 all time. not # 1.

Hang on, he can't be #3 if he loses to 4 or 5 other guys!

sure he can. everyone loses a fight. well haha except for marciano. but ali lost to frazier that doesnt mean frazier isa better then him, and if u bring up the arguement that he won the series, 2-1 then fine, holmes destroyed him, that doesnt mean holmes is better than ali. some fighters dont match up against other fighters as well.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:sweet scientist wrote

unwilling to accept the fact that Marciano couldn't beat everybody.

i think ive said many times marciano couldnt beat everyone, i simply said he beats more all time greats than u think.
i probably have more books on boxing than u do. i collect them, i have a special shelf in my room just for them. thats my hobby.
and i know a lot about other heavyweights. i study a lot of all time greats, ive studied louis, ali, more than i have marciano. ive read books on all the heavyweight greats.
did u not see me make my double elimination 32 man heavyweight tourney with analysis??????? a lot of people liked it. i simply defen marciano all the time because he deserves it and i never see someone stepping in to defend him, so i do.
i understand u love heavyweights like holmes and liston. ive never seen u point out their flaws or critizize them. and ive never seen u argue in marcianos favor since u dont think much of him. all the heavyweights i have pointed about their good parts and bad parts. and i do respect old timers. and i rate many of them high.


just cause everyones been on ur case lately in both current scene and boxers of the past, doesnt mean u have the right to take ur anger and rude attitude out on me.

...everyone's on my case...everyone: You (an 18 year old Marciano worshiper)...Grimm (who made 20 posts insisting that Wilt Chamberlain would have beaten Ali)...cultus (who advocates the fall of Western Civilization so it can be replaced by something "more beautiful")...and wlvrne (out of 60 career posts, over 30 were bitching about a moderator who deleted his post...a post he made that suggested he fucked the moderator's mother)...now that's a foursome I really feel bad about getting 'on my case'...

I do notice that there are many posts that challenge your assessment of Marciano in these 'fantasy matchups'...but you prefer to argue with me...feel free...I can take the heat...

Hesketh Vampire wrote:

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:so in my top ten list, rocky loses to 4 or 5 and beats the rest. i rate marciano # 3 all time. not # 1.

Hang on, he can't be #3 if he loses to 4 or 5 other guys!

He's good at wrestling...not at math...

Rory McCloskey wrote: holmes destroyed him, that doesnt mean holmes is better than ali. some fighters dont match up against other fighters as well.

It wasn't that Ali 'didn't match up against Holmes as well'...it was that Ali was 38 years old, hadn't fought in 2 years...and was 13 years past his prime, and 5 years past the last time he could still fight highly effectively...nothing to do with 'not matching up well'...everything to do with being way too damn old to still be in the ring...it also had something to do with a $9,000,000 purse...

when i rate top ten i dont just rate on "fantasy" matchups, i rate on what u REALLY did in ur career. marciano only undefeated heavyweight champion who also cleaned out his heavyweight division beating the best deserves mention for what he did. also i thought he would have beat most of hevayweight greats, and marciano had the power and strentgh and courage and toughness and heart.
and marciano has the highest KO percentage of all heavyweight champions. by KO percenmtage i mean total knockouts divided by total bouts. so 43/49 = .88 or 88 % KO percentage for marciano. in comparison foreman 68/81 bouts = .84 or 84 %. if u go by
knockouts/wins foreman has the best at 89% to marcianos 88 % .


ali lost to frazier in their only match where both still were in their primes, and frazier won. i still rate ali over frazier.

and i wouldnt rate foreman so high if he didnt come back and win the title 20 years later because thats a big accomplishment. i rate foreman at 5.

i rate ali at 2, not jsut of what he did in his prime but because he won the the title 3 times and even out his prime dominated the heavyweight division in the heavyweights best era the 70s. and ali got lucky in some of those decisions too. i still rate him # 2.

why i dont rate holmes so high as others, he racked up most of his title defenses against journeymen and not top contenders. he never bothered to unify the title and never held all 3 belts even though he was recognized as undisputed champ. id rather he fight 7 fights agianst top contenders than defend 20 times against bums. holmes also had a lot of trouble against never ggreat heavyweights and nearly lost his title a couple times to guys that werent the best out there.
but i stil think holmes would have beaten foreman whom i rate higher than holmes.

i rate tyson high because unlike holmes, in tysons prime he fought the best contenders and dominated them all easily and they were never knocked out before. tyson was a wrecking force like weve never seen before.

i think a guy like lennox might have always beaten tyson, but i dont rate lennox in my top ten and i rate tyson 4.

and johnson while he defended the title chsoe not to defend it against the best opposition. why didnt he give guys like langford, or mcvey or jeannete a shot??? perhaps johnsons reign might have ended sooner. instead he defeneded it against not the best contenders and even against a couple middewights.
i stil lthink he had the skills to adjust his style and fight in any era. and he would have beat mnany all time greats. but i rate him 7th all time.

frazier gets 6th because he dominated competetion and was the first man to beat ali. he also held the title and remained a to contender in the divisions toughest era.

BB--I don't mean this as an insult, but you are still at the stage where you are constantly changing your lists of all-time greats, which is good, it means that you are trying to learn more about all of these other fighters, but you really need to lighten up on the Marciano threads...Marciano was an all-time great, but he also came around at a time when there was a definate lull in the overall competition that was in the heavyweight division of which he prospered immensely, now he may have been just as successful had he fought at any time, but that is something that will never be known. Keep studying the old fighters and keep buying books, but don't take every word as definate fact because a lot of people just don't know what their talking about, yet somehow they have a book published on the topic, but the best kind of research that you can do is reading old fight reports from newspapers and articles from newspapers and magazsines from the exact time that a certain fighter actually fought. Something you will notice about boxing history books, they all pretty much just repeat the same stuff over and over and rarely does anyone every add anything new, I have three book cases full of books on boxing and I can tell you that other than biographies, you will just read the same material over and over about the all-time greats in the books that just have a little mini-thumbnail biography of the fighters, so go to newspapers and old ring magazines, or any other old boxing publications...thats when you will really start to learn new things because books alone will not do it and they will often tell you things that turn out to be incorrect because the writer did a half-ass job of researching the book.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:when i rate top ten i dont just rate on "fantasy" matchups, i rate on what u REALLY did in ur career. marciano only undefeated heavyweight champion who also cleaned out his heavyweight division beating the best deserves mention for what he did. also i thought he would have beat most of hevayweight greats, and marciano had the power and strentgh and courage and toughness and heart.
and marciano has the highest KO percentage of all heavyweight champions. by KO percenmtage i mean total knockouts divided by total bouts. so 43/49 = .88 or 88 % KO percentage for marciano. in comparison foreman 68/81 bouts = .84 or 84 %. if u go by
knockouts/wins foreman has the best at 89% to marcianos 88 % .


ali lost to frazier in their only match where both still were in their primes, and frazier won. i still rate ali over frazier.

and i wouldnt rate foreman so high if he didnt come back and win the title 20 years later because thats a big accomplishment. i rate foreman at 5.

i rate ali at 2, not jsut of what he did in his prime but because he won the the title 3 times and even out his prime dominated the heavyweight division in the heavyweights best era the 70s. and ali got lucky in some of those decisions too. i still rate him # 2.

why i dont rate holmes so high as others, he racked up most of his title defenses against journeymen and not top contenders. he never bothered to unify the title and never held all 3 belts even though he was recognized as undisputed champ. id rather he fight 7 fights agianst top contenders than defend 20 times against bums. holmes also had a lot of trouble against never ggreat heavyweights and nearly lost his title a couple times to guys that werent the best out there.
but i stil think holmes would have beaten foreman whom i rate higher than holmes.

i rate tyson high because unlike holmes, in tysons prime he fought the best contenders and dominated them all easily and they were never knocked out before. tyson was a wrecking force like weve never seen before.

i think a guy like lennox might have always beaten tyson, but i dont rate lennox in my top ten and i rate tyson 4.

and johnson while he defended the title chsoe not to defend it against the best opposition. why didnt he give guys like langford, or mcvey or jeannete a shot??? perhaps johnsons reign might have ended sooner. instead he defeneded it against not the best contenders and even against a couple middewights.
i stil lthink he had the skills to adjust his style and fight in any era. and he would have beat mnany all time greats. but i rate him 7th all time.

frazier gets 6th because he dominated competetion and was the first man to beat ali. he also held the title and remained a to contender in the divisions toughest era.

Do you post here just to preach?

I ask because all of your 'point making' has been challenged by numerous posters here, but you still insist that you are never wrong...

a few cases in point...

You say Ali lost to Frazier 'when both were in their primes'...but that Tyson was not in his 'prime' when he lost to Douglas...Ali came off a 3 1/2 year layoff to fight Frazier...Ali no longer had the footspeed he could have utilized against Frazier...Ali didn't have the footspeed against Bonavena a couple months earlier...Ali was never the same fighter after the layoff, although he was still a highly successful fighter...after his prime...

But Tyson, all of a sudden, was not in his prime fighting Douglas...at age 24, everyone thought he was in his prime, he was a 40-1 favorite...until he lost..then, of course, he couldn't have been in his prime since he lost, right?

Jack Johnson beat everyone you mentioned...but since he didn't beat them when you wanted him to, they apparently don't count...

Tyson did not fight the best contenders and dominate them like you say...he lost to Douglas...and he lost twice to the best contender, Holyfield...never mind that it came 6 years after the original plans in '90...Holyfield woud have beat him in '90 too...Douglas had already beat him...and exposed his ass...(Holyfield was supposed to fight Tyson next after Buster, in a way-it's a shame Holyfield didn't get to beat him first) and Holyfield wasn't as good in '96/'97 as he was in '90/'91...he was good enough to beat Iron Mike though....and he was always good enough to beat Tyson...

Your 'disrespect' (as you like to put it) of Larry Holmes is astounding...Larry Holmes didn't hold all the belts because of politics, fool...not because he didn't fight the best contenders...read up on the IBF, WBC & WBA in the mid '80's, the beginnings of alphabet soup...20 defenses against bums? Tyson could've defended 20 times, if he was truly great...but he got upset by Douglas and never came back from that defeat

...you miss the 'fine points' in fighters you know about...and others, well...I don't think you know much about at all...

...but you know Marciano is #3...even though you say 4 or 5 could beat him...I think you're back peddling...

Hey...maybe you are learning something after all...

sweet scientist. ali was not over the hill when he foguth frazier, but he wanst at his peak. ali was certianly better in frazier 1 then aginst norton or when he won the title from foreman.

if u hadnt noticed already, tyson was never the same fighter after his beating he gave to spinks. u keep tryiing to make it look like douglas was amazing but in facthe wasnt. he was one of tysons worst challengers to the date. tyson was completely out of shape, was mentally wrecked, had no desire for the fight, had not been training under rooneys tutalege, and douglas fought his peak fight and was still practically knocked out in the 8th with that slow count and also the fight was dead even going into the tenth.

disrespect for holmes???? SS go back and look at all my posts, i have always said i respected holmes as a great champion. just because i dont rate him in the top 5 like u do doesnt mean i dont think he was an all time great, cause i do. i have the right to think he isnt a top 5 heavyweight and i have legit reasons. thats an opinion, not disrespect.

i tend to think u miss the fine aspects of a lot of heavyweights. but u never want to hear them, theirs no changing ur opinion.

Sweet scientist wrote

Holyfield woud have beat him in '90 too.

holyfield would have been knocked out in less than 3 rounds by the 88 tyson. and douglas exposaed tyson??? hahaha buster was the worst of all tyson challengers, he didnt expose anyone, u make it sound like douglas is a master boxer with the ring brains of archie moore. tyson beat himself mentally and physically, tyson looked terible in that fight not because of douglas. if u look at tysons past fights, u will know what i mean. put a 88 tyson with rooney in their against same buster, and buster gets knocked out.

maybe thats why johnson didnt give them a shot at the title, because they gave him good fights and he was afraid he might lose it to a joe jeanette. i would have liked to se johnson give them a shot and beat them when it really counted. perhaps a langford or jeannete or mvcey would trian a lot harder and come in totally prepared and more determined in a title fight. i just owuld have liked to see what would have happen if they fought for the title rather than in non title no Decision bouts.


u say im learning something because i think 4 or 5 heavyweights would beat marciano?? well ill say this, when u pick marciano to beat at least 1 or the top ten heavyweight which u dont, ill say ur learning something to.

marcianos the only heavyweight that u have never defended. i defend all the heavyweights if i dont think their getting enough credit. u just think hes very overated. i also noticed about tyson too, u neve give him as much credit even though its my opinion at his peak he would bbeat most of the heavyweights of all time.

yeah i know what u mean barry, ur right. most books say the same thing over and over again. thats why i collect a lot of magazines, biographies, and old time memorabeila and articles. and of course tapes and current boxer DVDs.


and i would like to add, if u look at all the topics i been starting, only 1 or 2 were focused on marciano. all the rest were about other weights and other fighters and i gave many lists out including top 20 greatest fighters, top 25 hardest punchers, 32 man heavyweight double elimination tourney. i only tlak about marciano in topics other people starrted and users would post against marciano and i come to marcianos defense since i disagree with the post against marciano. i am usually one of the only ones defending him besides some other users that think higly of him.
if u guys showed frazier or foreman the lack of credit, i would be at their side in a heartbeat but u dont.


id just like to say this guy sent me a pm how he rates marciano really high and thinks highly of him but he doesnt post here, and only reads the posts because no one else would agree with him, and he doesnt want to be alone. he doesnt want to be attacked personally by guys that think his opinion is way off about marciano and hes afraid to post. he wanted to thank me for having the courage to step up against all the disbelievers.

i usually always post into topics where i feel the guy i think would win is being give nthe lack of credit, so if its frazier vs lewis and i think frazier owuld win, but everyone else is saying lewis would beat frazier decisevly, then i stepp up in fraziers defense. i am not on of those followers who after ten people say they think lewis will win, i agree so i can get on their side i wont be the lone one in the pack. i like argueing against many people and im not afraid to give my opinion when eveyrone else doesnt agree with it. i will keep posting back until i can get to their head a little bit and make them think twice. i like posting in defense of the guy who everyone saying will lose and its when i think the losing guy stands a good chance of winning.

usuualy i dont make freinds doing it that way, since im disagreeing alot but i have had only two people that dont like me in silkov and sweet scientist. everyone else doesnt seem to mind my energy.

my goal is to be a succesful boxing historian or "boxing expert or analayst" or work for HBO boxing or ring magazine. one of those things will workout.

why do i post here so much??? becuase my favorite hobby i never get to talk about with anyone but my dad and grandad. no one in my former high school knew anythig about boxing or who was the heavyweight champion. so hard to find guys my age with any knowledge. their amazed i can name every heavyweight title fight in order and how many rounds it went. i dont think of that as a big deal. just have very good memory.

Like I said, post as much as you want as long as it's relevant to boxing, just try not to take the fact that others disagree about things so personally, I've read the posts and I don't see where either s.scientist, or silkov is disrespecting Marciano, they just don't think that he would beat certain fighters and there are certain fighters that I don't think Marciano would beat and the same thing the other way around, there's fighters that me, or the other guys don't think could beat Marciano...it's nothing to take personally, but I understand your obvious repsect for Marciano!

I mean this as a compliment, but it sounds like you'd be a better lawyer than a boxing historian with your persistence.

Now about that boxing knowledge...

Quote:
u keep tryiing to make it look like douglas was amazing but in facthe wasnt. he was one of tysons worst challengers to the date. tyson was completely out of shape, was mentally wrecked, had no desire for the fight, had not been training under rooneys tutalege, and douglas fought his peak fight and was still practically knocked out in the 8th with that slow count and also the fight was dead even going into the tenth.

douglas exposaed tyson??? hahaha buster was the worst of all tyson challengers, he didnt expose anyone


I challenged this before, and I'll challenge it again. Douglas was most certainly not Tyson's worst challenger and the Douglas that faced Tyson would have beat all of Tyson's challengers pre-prison. Don't throw something out and expect it not to be challenged. You can read my post and reasons in the Holmes-Marciano thread on this where I addressed this and you claimed you did not say it. And if you really think the Tyson-Douglas fight was even going into the 10th round, you should be banned from judging a fight in your lifetime. Douglas was not close to being knocked out in that 8th round, regardless of the count, read Sports Illustrated, watch the fight again, or read the newspaper accounts right after the fight. It's like you are counting on hearsay and slight mentions rather than really knowing what you are talking about.

exactley, i disagree about their opinion and unlike others, they seem to think marciano was overhated and could not at all compete with other greats. i am simply trying to give them a different view which will possibly give them more credit to marciano and posssibly even change their opinion. if more people were to defend my views on marciano which some have, it will help even more to change their views.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:sweet scientist. ali was not over the hill when he foguth frazier, but he wanst at his peak. ali was certianly better in frazier 1 then aginst norton or when he won the title from foreman.

Now you say 'he wasn't at his peak'...earlier, you said 'they were both (Frazier and Ali) in their primes'...make up your mind already...you can't have it both ways...WTF?

if u hadnt noticed already, tyson was never the same fighter after his beating he gave to spinks. u keep tryiing to make it look like douglas was amazing but in facthe wasnt. he was one of tysons worst challengers to the date.

Of course I know that Douglas 'wasn't amazing'...that's the whole point of why Tyson isn't that great, he lost in his prime, age 24, 37-0-0, a 40-1 favorite, to Buster Douglas, for God's sake...doesn't that tell you something about how good he really was?

tyson was completely out of shape, was mentally wrecked, had no desire for the fight, had not been training under rooneys tutalege,

...more excuses again...Kid, you live in a society that craves winners, not excuses...you'll find that out someday, I'm sure...

and douglas fought his peak fight and was still practically knocked out in the 8th with that slow count and also the fight was dead even going into the tenth.

more excuses again, huh Kid?...'slow count' 'practically knocked out'...and no way in hell was that fight even going into the 10th unless you're a blind Tyson fan...dead even my ass...

disrespect for holmes???? SS go back and look at all my posts, i have always said i respected holmes as a great champion. just because i dont rate him in the top 5 like u do doesnt mean i dont think he was an all time great, cause i do. i have the right to think he isnt a top 5 heavyweight and i have legit reasons. thats an opinion, not disrespect.

you said he defended against '20 bums' ...I (and many others here) say Marciano's best fights were against guys past their primes and you scream 'disrespect for Marciano'

i tend to think u miss the fine aspects of a lot of heavyweights. but u never want to hear them, theirs no changing ur opinion.

It's not just my opinion that Marciano doesn't match up well against the all time greats...read some more books...stop the hero worship...I study the 'fine points' of the greats...you study the 'fine points' of Marciano...but you're so biased, you can't see anything else but Marciano beating all these guys...Rocky had trouble against almost everybody he fought...Moore, Charles, Walcott, even old, slow Joe Louis gave him trouble for a while...Marciano didn't exactly dominate those guys...

holyfield would have been knocked out in less than 3 rounds by the 88 tyson. and douglas exposaed tyson??? hahaha buster was the worst of all tyson challengers, he didnt expose anyone, u make it sound like douglas is a master boxer with the ring brains of archie moore.

...Listen and pay attention HE DIDN'T HAVE TO BE...watch the fight...If he was the worst of all challengers, Tyson should have destroyed him, not vice versa...WAKE UP...stop the excuse machine already...Douglas exposed Tyson as vulnerable to someone who would stand up to him, someone who would not be 'out bullied', someone who would stick his jab in Tyson's face all night long...and this was Buster Douglas...just think of Ali or Holmes in there against him...a slaughter it would be!...

tyson beat himself mentally and physically, tyson looked terible in that fight not because of douglas.

It doesn't matter what the damn reason is...he got beat...and he never came back from that defeat...that means something...it means Tyson was mentally weak...not true all time championship calibre...period

if u look at tysons past fights, u will know what i mean.

Kid, I watched Mike Tyson fight before you were born, don't tell me to watch the fights...been there, done that...I still occasionally watch a Tyson fight...

put a 88 tyson with rooney in their against same buster, and buster gets knocked out.

Mike was going to fold sooner or later...he was mentally destined to fail...couldn't handle success...and he dumped Rooney...Tyson was one of the most immature big time celebrities I've ever watched, not just as a boxer, as a person...

maybe thats why johnson didnt give them a shot at the title, because they gave him good fights and he was afraid he might lose it to a joe jeanette. i would have liked to se johnson give them a shot and beat them when it really counted. perhaps a langford or jeannete or mvcey would trian a lot harder and come in totally prepared and more determined in a title fight. i just owuld have liked to see what would have happen if they fought for the title rather than in non title no Decision bouts.

Maybe Johnson made a whole lot more money fighting white guys...the 'Great White Hope' thing...making money is what it's all about..then and now...and again, he beat all those guys, he didn't duck them

u say im learning something because i think 4 or 5 heavyweights would beat marciano?? well ill say this, when u pick marciano to beat at least 1 or the top ten heavyweight which u dont, ill say ur learning something to.

I have already said (if you ever paid attention to anything but your own posts) that Marciano could get an upset or 2...he just wouldn't be 'favored' by me...upsets are always possible...

marcianos the only heavyweight that u have never defended.

that's not entirely true...I mentioned earlier that I loved Marciano...I just don't put him on a pedestal

i defend all the heavyweights if i dont think their getting enough credit.

They really don't need you to 'defend' them...they did a good enough job on their own when they fought...and their accomplishments speak for themselves...both good and bad...

u just think hes very overated.

not really...but overrated byyou, most definitely...

i also noticed about tyson too, u neve give him as much credit even though its my opinion at his peak he would bbeat most of the heavyweights of all time.

Tyson was a self destructive nut case who squandered away his enormous God given talent...you want me to pick someone Rocky would beat...TYSON...Marciano would destroy him, first mentally...then physically...Marciano would never be out bullied by Tyson...
There, how's that for 'defending' your idol...

It just took me about 20 minutes or so to read through this thread from the beginning. One thing that strikes me is the continuous reference to all-time ratings and lists, which is a common theme in a lot of other threads.

Just wonder sometimes what the fascination is with these lists, like out of all the great fighters who have ever fought, it's such an imperative to have a list so that someone can be deemed "the best" and everyone else falls in descending order of historical significance or importance ... or whatever it is that this list actually manages to accomplish.

I myself am a Marciano fan. Not as much as Brockton, though. I think I can still be objective about his chances against other great fighters. But I recognize that, while he's certainly earned his way somewhere on any top 10 list, boxing is such a sport that any decent contender with a good punch and a little luck on a given night could, in fact, pull the upset and beat a Marciano ... or a Louis ... or a Holmes ...

I prefer to appreciate and enjoy what every great fighter did within his own era against whoever fighters were there at the time, and that's good enough for me. Fantasy matchups are great fun, but a real good, well thought out top 10 list does little to convince me that an "8" couldn't beat a "2" or that a contender that most people have probably forgotten over the years couldn't rise up and beat a top 10 all timer.

An extraneous thought, given what's been discussed so far, but just thought I'd throw that in.