BoxRec

The thing about Tyson to me is that it has always been hard to gauge just how great he was. Watching his fights in the 80s, it's obvious he has great skills. Unfortunately, the Tyson of the 80s was never in the ring with anyone better than an old Larry Holmes and an undersized Michael Spinks. This was mainly because there was no one great in the heavyweight division during Tyson's peak. I think that the combination of his speed, strength, and aggressiveness would allow Tyson to floor the smaller Marciano several times in the early rounds. I don't think Tyson would flat out KO Rocky, but I do think that the ref would stop the fight within the first 4 rounds. Once again though, the thing about Tyson is, unlike the other great heavyweights, there really isn't a defining fight in Tyson's pre-Buster Douglas days that shows how great he is. It is very possible that Tyson was never mentally strong enough to be a great fighter, and it just so happened that he was a very good fighter that blew away all the crap in the heavyweight division in the 80s. I really would have loved to see Tyson fight someone that wasn't scared of him in his prime.

I'm not sure that I agree with you there. Holyfield record was becoming spotty but he was fighting very tough competition. Yeah, possibly you could say he was ring worn from so many tough fights but I don't know if his skills were diminishing (if that makes any sense, sounds kinda contradictory).

Tyson on the other hand spent 3 years in prison. Then he returns and in one year has four fights for a total of eight rounds with Frank Bruno being the best of the lot (which should tell you something). Bruce Seldon, Buster Mathis Jr. Peter McNeeley. And he wasn't even the same fighter before he went to prison that he was during that stretch of figths between Berbick and Spinks.

So I don't know if I agree that Tyson was closer to being in his prime than Holyfield was when they fought. I just don't think fight fans knew it at the time because the perception was that Holyfield was the shot fighter. But I totally agree that one of the main reasons Holyfield beat Tyson was because he wasn't afraid of him (which is why he would've given him an extremely tough fight 6 years earlier).

Ezzard wrote:I don't want to start a whole "what is a fighters prime" debate again as that has been covered on the Tyson-Holmes thread.

As I see it Tyson didn't lose to Holyfield because a lack of skill or because of physical deterioration. He lost to Holyfield because Holy wasn't scared of him, because Tyson was mentally weak and because Tyson could not overcome adversity in the ring. These factors hold true no matter what version of Tyson you want to bring into the ring.

When you think about the 2 Holyfield fights then Holyfield was more ring worn, naturally smaller and had nothing to prove. Tyson was the one 'destined' for greatness. He might have been a little rusty but he'd just had a long break from fighting. I take your point on the head movement not being there etc... But Holyfield beat him at his own game. Up until then it was considered to be suicide to meet Tyson on the inside and attempt to outmuscle him. Even with the skills fading Tyson ought to have won the fights.

Thats probably why this debate is so intriguing because you can really say the same for Marciano. He never beat a great fighter in his prime, in fact, most of the big names he fought were VERY old (Louis - 36. Walcott - 38-39, Moore - 42). Charles was the closest (eventhough he had lost 2 out of his last 4 fights when he faced Marciano) and he gave Rocky all kinds of trouble in their two fights.

So both faced questionable competition in their prime so you have to do a lot of speculation regarding how they'd fare against top quality, "in their prime" fighters.

iceman21287 wrote:The thing about Tyson to me is that it has always been hard to gauge just how great he was. Watching his fights in the 80s, it's obvious he has great skills. Unfortunately, the Tyson of the 80s was never in the ring with anyone better than an old Larry Holmes and an undersized Michael Spinks. This was mainly because there was no one great in the heavyweight division during Tyson's peak. I think that the combination of his speed, strength, and aggressiveness would allow Tyson to floor the smaller Marciano several times in the early rounds. I don't think Tyson would flat out KO Rocky, but I do think that the ref would stop the fight within the first 4 rounds. Once again though, the thing about Tyson is, unlike the other great heavyweights, there really isn't a defining fight in Tyson's pre-Buster Douglas days that shows how great he is. It is very possible that Tyson was never mentally strong enough to be a great fighter, and it just so happened that he was a very good fighter that blew away all the crap in the heavyweight division in the 80s. I really would have loved to see Tyson fight someone that wasn't scared of him in his prime.

i'd probably take marciano. tyson was great at his time, but he never fought anyone near marciano. marciano was a smart fighter with an underrated Defense, i think he woulda worn out tyson. tyson didnt fight smart and he'd probly come out looking for a 1st round KO maybe rocky could pull some rope-a-dope?

mistachill wrote

hats probably why this debate is so intriguing because you can really say the same for Marciano. He never beat a great fighter in his prime, in fact, most of the big names he fought were VERY old (Louis - 36. Walcott - 38-39, Moore - 42). Charles was the closest (eventhough he had lost 2 out of his last 4 fights when he faced Marciano) and he gave Rocky all kinds of trouble in their two fights.

So both faced questionable competition in their prime so you have to do a lot of speculation regarding how they'd fare against top quality, "in their prime" fighters.

first of, walcott and charles gave the rock so much trouble cause they were master boxers and greta counterpunches with speed which rock had trouble with. u put nino valdez in there with him, and rock would KO him inside of 5 rounds. its styles. thats why rocky tore apart rex layne so easily.
ok now i have to back the rock up after u said that. first of all i do think tyson would have stopepd marciano early cause unlike some of the other big power punchers, marciano will be getting hit with just as much power but more speed coming from the punches and he would prob stop the rock. rock just had a bad style for him.

now then mistachill, u say rcoky lost 2 of his last 4 fights before facing marciano well i could say he won 11 out of his last 13????
but the truth is this, ezzard had shown in some of his previous fights he slipped and aged a little, but for this fight, because so much was at stake he wanted his respect and trained very hard and gave one of his best preformances at heavyweight. ezzard craved for respect and beating marciano would give him it. and ezzard knew it was his last chance and at 33 he got himself into the best possible physical and mental shape and came out firing like his old self against marciano in the first fight. he then got worn down by the rocks punches and rock won a close unanimous decision but the fight was a gurelling 15 rounder. charles left everything in the ringthat night and was never the same, and jaclem can probably attest to that. in fact, charles could have gained more respect for a strong preformance in that fight than any other fight in his career. the 2nd fight was one sided until charles connected with the elbow and naerly made marciano bleed ot death. but marciano was dominating the 2nd ifght. charles wasnt the same in the 2dn fight, he was 12 pounds heavier and slower.

and walcott was 1 year removed from winning the title with a spectacular KO of charles and in the 1st fight he showed he was still at his best.

as for louis, he was still joe louis and joe louis even at 36 was still a top contender comingo off a KO of lee savold. he had a decent size advantage on the rock but rock bullied louis the whole fight while louis won a couple rounds with his jab.

as for archie moore, he wasnt far from his prime. if u dont believe me, he was comingo off winning the light-H title over maxim, a spectacular TKO victory over HOF harold johnson, a knockout win over bobo olsen, and a decision win over top contender big nino valdez. those were considered his best wins and biggest years so i would say he was still himself. and he was a bernard hopkins, a guy who matured late. archie was still tough at 40 and didnt really lose that much when he faced marciano besides his stamina a little.


i dont want to get carried away lets stick to the subject. im just trying to point out to mistachill that walcott and moore was basically in their primes, and charles thought not at his best was still very dangerous(at least for the fights) fact is, i think tyson has to much handspeed to go along iwth his power for marciano to survive the early rounds. the ref would prob stop it. marciano didnt have a good style for him early on and i dont think he could last.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Walcott and Louis's last fights of their career was against Marciano. Hard to imagine that happening if they were indeed so close to their primes, especially in the case of Walcott. And given Louis' financial situation, I can't see him retiring if he really had anything left.

Regarding Moore, 42 is still 42. Does he own a victory over any major heavyweights?

Regarding Charles, I'm a bit more lenient with him. He was still at an age where it could suck it up for one more prime time effort in the ring, and you see what happened.

So where do you rank Marciano among the all-time great heavyweights and which great fighters do you think he'd defeat and which ones he'd lose to?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:first of, walcott and charles gave the rock so much trouble cause they were master boxers and greta counterpunches with speed which rock had trouble with. u put nino valdez in there with him, and rock would KO him inside of 5 rounds. its styles. thats why rocky tore apart rex layne so easily.
ok now i have to back the rock up after u said that. first of all i do think tyson would have stopepd marciano early cause unlike some of the other big power punchers, marciano will be getting hit with just as much power but more speed coming from the punches and he would prob stop the rock. rock just had a bad style for him.

now then mistachill, u say rcoky lost 2 of his last 4 fights before facing marciano well i could say he won 11 out of his last 13????
but the truth is this, ezzard had shown in some of his previous fights he slipped and aged a little, but for this fight, because so much was at stake he wanted his respect and trained very hard and gave one of his best preformances at heavyweight. ezzard craved for respect and beating marciano would give him it. and ezzard knew it was his last chance and at 33 he got himself into the best possible physical and mental shape and came out firing like his old self against marciano in the first fight. he then got worn down by the rocks punches and rock won a close unanimous decision but the fight was a gurelling 15 rounder. charles left everything in the ringthat night and was never the same, and jaclem can probably attest to that. in fact, charles could have gained more respect for a strong preformance in that fight than any other fight in his career. the 2nd fight was one sided until charles connected with the elbow and naerly made marciano bleed ot death. but marciano was dominating the 2nd ifght. charles wasnt the same in the 2dn fight, he was 12 pounds heavier and slower.

and walcott was 1 year removed from winning the title with a spectacular KO of charles and in the 1st fight he showed he was still at his best.

as for louis, he was still joe louis and joe louis even at 36 was still a top contender comingo off a KO of lee savold. he had a decent size advantage on the rock but rock bullied louis the whole fight while louis won a couple rounds with his jab.

as for archie moore, he wasnt far from his prime. if u dont believe me, he was comingo off winning the light-H title over maxim, a spectacular TKO victory over HOF harold johnson, a knockout win over bobo olsen, and a decision win over top contender big nino valdez. those were considered his best wins and biggest years so i would say he was still himself. and he was a bernard hopkins, a guy who matured late. archie was still tough at 40 and didnt really lose that much when he faced marciano besides his stamina a little.


i dont want to get carried away lets stick to the subject. im just trying to point out to mistachill that walcott and moore was basically in their primes, and charles thought not at his best was still very dangerous(at least for the fights) fact is, i think tyson has to much handspeed to go along iwth his power for marciano to survive the early rounds. the ref would prob stop it. marciano didnt have a good style for him early on and i dont think he could last.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:mistachill wrote

hats probably why this debate is so intriguing because you can really say the same for Marciano. He never beat a great fighter in his prime, in fact, most of the big names he fought were VERY old (Louis - 36. Walcott - 38-39, Moore - 42). Charles was the closest (eventhough he had lost 2 out of his last 4 fights when he faced Marciano) and he gave Rocky all kinds of trouble in their two fights.

So both faced questionable competition in their prime so you have to do a lot of speculation regarding how they'd fare against top quality, "in their prime" fighters.

first of, walcott and charles gave the rock so much trouble cause they were master boxers and greta counterpunches with speed which rock had trouble with. u put nino valdez in there with him, and rock would KO him inside of 5 rounds. its styles. thats why rocky tore apart rex layne so easily.
ok now i have to back the rock up after u said that. first of all i do think tyson would have stopepd marciano early cause unlike some of the other big power punchers, marciano will be getting hit with just as much power but more speed coming from the punches and he would prob stop the rock. rock just had a bad style for him.

now then mistachill, u say rcoky lost 2 of his last 4 fights before facing marciano well i could say he won 11 out of his last 13????
but the truth is this, ezzard had shown in some of his previous fights he slipped and aged a little, but for this fight, because so much was at stake he wanted his respect and trained very hard and gave one of his best preformances at heavyweight. ezzard craved for respect and beating marciano would give him it. and ezzard knew it was his last chance and at 33 he got himself into the best possible physical and mental shape and came out firing like his old self against marciano in the first fight. he then got worn down by the rocks punches and rock won a close unanimous decision but the fight was a gurelling 15 rounder. charles left everything in the ringthat night and was never the same, and jaclem can probably attest to that. in fact, charles could have gained more respect for a strong preformance in that fight than any other fight in his career. the 2nd fight was one sided until charles connected with the elbow and naerly made marciano bleed ot death. but marciano was dominating the 2nd ifght. charles wasnt the same in the 2dn fight, he was 12 pounds heavier and slower.

and walcott was 1 year removed from winning the title with a spectacular KO of charles and in the 1st fight he showed he was still at his best.

as for louis, he was still joe louis and joe louis even at 36 was still a top contender comingo off a KO of lee savold. he had a decent size advantage on the rock but rock bullied louis the whole fight while louis won a couple rounds with his jab.

as for archie moore, he wasnt far from his prime. if u dont believe me, he was comingo off winning the light-H title over maxim, a spectacular TKO victory over HOF harold johnson, a knockout win over bobo olsen, and a decision win over top contender big nino valdez. those were considered his best wins and biggest years so i would say he was still himself. and he was a bernard hopkins, a guy who matured late. archie was still tough at 40 and didnt really lose that much when he faced marciano besides his stamina a little.


i dont want to get carried away lets stick to the subject. im just trying to point out to mistachill that walcott and moore was basically in their primes, and charles thought not at his best was still very dangerous(at least for the fights) fact is, i think tyson has to much handspeed to go along iwth his power for marciano to survive the early rounds. the ref would prob stop it. marciano didnt have a good style for him early on and i dont think he could last.

I'm surprised that your not sticking with your man Rocky here Block don't you think his heart and strength would carry him through?.... 8)

I agree with Blocky. You don't beat Tyson by going in and beating him up on the inside, though with these two we would see the best, bar none inside fighting in the history of the Heavyweight division. And the Punchers chance in this war would be so in play that everyone should know that ANYTHING could happen.

But if you run all the probables a hundred times I think Mike wins more than he loses in this theoretical.

first of mistachill, i never said louis was in his prime, cause he wasnt. louis was defintely past his prime. but he was still a top contender cause he was joe louis and even a past his prime joe louis is pretty good. however, walcott matured late and did fight his best fights from 33-38 years of age. walcott was the champion and still in his best years.
why did walcott retire?????
cause he lost the rematch to marciano in one round and had nothing left to prove and he prob wasnt going to get a 3rd shot after the 2nd fight. walcott had just won the title from charles at 37 and then even outpointed charles in his first defense. in his 2nd defense he faced marciano and hadnt really showed signs of againg at all and was only 1 year from winning the title, and proved it by outboxing marciano and outsmarting him and then of course he got knocked out in the famous 13th round. walcott then gave it one more try and marciano put him out fast in a controversial finish in one round. walcott was smart and retired on that note. a lot of experts actually think walcott fought his best or at leats one of his best fights against marciano in that first fight.

ezzard should have retired after he lossed to marciano for the 2nd time. he had nothing left after those two fights. and he ended up winning only 10 of his last 23.

as for archie moore his best wins came when he was after 40. during that span before he faced marciano, he beat joey maxim twice and knocked out harold johnson and bobo olsen. then right before he faced marciano he defeated 6'3 220 lb top heavyweight nino valdez in an eliminater. so u ask which top heavyweights he beat?? archi8e beat nino valdez a big heavyweight, pretty easily on points. archie reminds me of hopkins, cause both fighters still fight great at 40. they dont call him ageless archie for nothing.


as for tyson vs marciano, i jsut think tysons handspeed wouldnt allow marciano to escape him early. unlike some other big bombers that threw long slow looping punches, tyson threw short powerful punches and marciano wouldnt be able to counter those punches inside. and marciano was a clow starter while tyson wasnt. its just marciano will have to beat tyson on the inside and thats hard to do since tyson has the better speed. but if the ref doesnt stop the fight early nad marciano survives past 5, marciano will give tyson the biggest beating of his life for the next 7 rounds until tyson quits.

the thing is silkov the more u talk of heart and toughness, the more i am thinking maybe marciano would be able to survive early and KO tyson later.
silkov wrote

I thinkTyson would possibly be intimidated by Rocky... he certainly would be frustrated and angered by Rockys rough house tactics and this could provoke Tyson to fallapart too.

this point right here is a good point and is making me second gues my judgement that maybe rocky has a much better chance than i think.


this is a good debate keep it up.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:first of mistachill, i never said louis was in his prime, cause he wasnt. louis was defintely past his prime. but he was still a top contender cause he was joe louis and even a past his prime joe louis is pretty good. however, walcott matured late and did fight his best fights from 33-38 years of age. walcott was the champion and still in his best years.
why did walcott retire?????
cause he lost the rematch to marciano in one round and had nothing left to prove and he prob wasnt going to get a 3rd shot after the 2nd fight. walcott had just won the title from charles at 37 and then even outpointed charles in his first defense. in his 2nd defense he faced marciano and hadnt really showed signs of againg at all and was only 1 year from winning the title, and proved it by outboxing marciano and outsmarting him and then of course he got knocked out in the famous 13th round. walcott then gave it one more try and marciano put him out fast in a controversial finish in one round. walcott was smart and retired on that note. a lot of experts actually think walcott fought his best or at leats one of his best fights against marciano in that first fight.

ezzard should have retired after he lossed to marciano for the 2nd time. he had nothing left after those two fights. and he ended up winning only 10 of his last 23.

as for archie moore his best wins came when he was after 40. during that span before he faced marciano, he beat joey maxim twice and knocked out harold johnson and bobo olsen. then right before he faced marciano he defeated 6'3 220 lb top heavyweight nino valdez in an eliminater. so u ask which top heavyweights he beat?? archi8e beat nino valdez a big heavyweight, pretty easily on points. archie reminds me of hopkins, cause both fighters still fight great at 40. they dont call him ageless archie for nothing.


as for tyson vs marciano, i jsut think tysons handspeed wouldnt allow marciano to escape him early. unlike some other big bombers that threw long slow looping punches, tyson threw short powerful punches and marciano wouldnt be able to counter those punches inside. and marciano was a clow starter while tyson wasnt. its just marciano will have to beat tyson on the inside and thats hard to do since tyson has the better speed. but if the ref doesnt stop the fight early nad marciano survives past 5, marciano will give tyson the biggest beating of his life for the next 7 rounds until tyson quits.

the thing is silkov the more u talk of heart and toughness, the more i am thinking maybe marciano would be able to survive early and KO tyson later.
silkov wrote

I thinkTyson would possibly be intimidated by Rocky... he certainly would be frustrated and angered by Rockys rough house tactics and this could provoke Tyson to fallapart too.

this point right here is a good point and is making me second gues my judgement that maybe rocky has a much better chance than i think.


this is a good debate keep it up.

Thats my point Block, I really think Rocky could take Tyson. I doubt that Tyson was stronger than Rocky, he would not beat him on heart or stamina, and for punch power I would say that they are about equal too.
The only real advantage Tyson would have would be handspeed, but once Rcoky got inside he would nulifiy this. Tyson was not a good inside fighter, despite his size he always liked to have room to launch his punches and combinations. Also Rocky would push tyson back... Rocky would be the boss on the inside and Tyson could never fight going backwards. Rocky would just be too strong imo...

i think if tyson was to win this fight he would have to knock rocky clean out sometime before round 5(which is very possible). i recently watched some marciano fights and i was impressed with his incredible stamina, his arms never stopped swining, he was like a big jeff fenech!
if the fight goes past 6 rounds mike will become fustrated, and with rockys arms constatly swinging theres no way iron mike could win a decision.

thunderfromdownunder wrote:i think if tyson was to win this fight he would have to knock rocky clean out sometime before round 5(which is very possible). i recently watched some marciano fights and i was impressed with his incredible stamina, his arms never stopped swining, he was like a big jeff fenech!
if the fight goes past 6 rounds mike will become fustrated, and with rockys arms constatly swinging theres no way iron mike could win a decision.

I don't see Tyson being able to knock Rocky clean out early... Rocky was too strong for that. Though he was dropped by Walcott and Moore he always recovered quickly and was never at the point where he was out o his feet. For a fighter of a simular style to beat Rocky they would have to keep the pressure on Rocky into the later rounds and prove themselves stronger and more durable down the stretch... I can see Joe Frazier being able to do this but not Tyson.

Here ya go Rory.