Prime Rocky Marciano vs Prime Mike Tyson

[billeau2]

It's not weak at all. They have weight classes in boxing for a reason. And the adage that a good big man will usually beat a good little man didn't materialize out of thin air.

Does that mean that big guys are always bigger punchers? No. But it does mean that this is the general trend that one would expect.

Moore has the most KOs in history but if you use that stat then you have to be honest about it and point out that the majority of those KO's came in divisions below heavyweight.

As far as what the old timers thought of Marciano's skills I can find several quotes for you if needed. ( Lou Duva was not alive to see the great champions that came before Marciano. He is hardly what I would consider an old timer. )

Let's go with a quote from Nat Fleischer for now:

"crude, wild swinging, awkward and missed heavily. In his bout with light heavyweight champion Archie Moore, for example, he missed almost two-thirds of the 50-odd punches he threw when he had Archie against the ropes, a perfect target for the kill."

First part of post: I just find it amusing because you are qualifying a statement in one manner where it needs to be qualified in in another manner. 1) The heavyweight division is an open division, so weight differences are not used in the exact same way as in the lower divisions. 2) In an "all is equal" situation where a good big man versus a good small man then yes, size will be important...But so would any other advantage! Speed, power, chin, etc. This little aphorism has always bugged me for this reason...If all is equal in a fight between two men, then the slightest thing that is an advantage would loom large, does not have to be size.

The real issue should be what qualities afforded an advantage, result in a significant advantage for the fighter? And again, its a fact that there is no correlation between size and success in the heavyweight division. Sometimes there might be correlation with a hard puncher and weight, but for every Lennox Lewis, is a Nicolie Valuev.

Moore had enough power and carry over that imo one could make a case that he hit as hard as another converted light heavy/cruiser we know as Holyfield.

Regarding the trainers who were around, Duva saw Marciano plenty though and come on Shoulder you have to give me at least one round on the fact that Holly's own trainer, who was there for one of his finest victories, is on record as saying "Marciano was the best there ever was and would beat them all." I didn't say that lol, but Don Turner did!

I also had said before that "some boxing pundits did not see much in Marciano." I will do you one better, and I know this is true, I am sure you would agree: Marciano's name is not brought up in the mix typically for a consideration of who the best heavyweight was.

[ShoulderRoll]

First part of post: I just find it amusing because you are qualifying a statement in one manner where it needs to be qualified in in another manner. 1) The heavyweight division is an open division, so weight differences are not used in the exact same way as in the lower divisions. 2) In an "all is equal" situation where a good big man versus a good small man then yes, size will be important...But so would any other advantage! Speed, power, chin, etc. This little aphorism has always bugged me for this reason...If all is equal in a fight between two men, then the slightest thing that is an advantage would loom large, does not have to be size.

The real issue should be what qualities afforded an advantage, result in a significant advantage for the fighter? And again, its a fact that there is no correlation between size and success in the heavyweight division. Sometimes there might be correlation with a hard puncher and weight, but for every Lennox Lewis, is a Nicolie Valuev.

Moore had enough power and carry over that imo one could make a case that he hit as hard as another converted light heavy/cruiser we know as Holyfield.

Regarding the trainers who were around, Duva saw Marciano plenty though and come on Shoulder you have to give me at least one round on the fact that Holly's own trainer, who was there for one of his finest victories, is on record as saying "Marciano was the best there ever was and would beat them all." I didn't say that lol, but Don Turner did!

I also had said before that "some boxing pundits did not see much in Marciano." I will do you one better, and I know this is true, I am sure you would agree: Marciano's name is not brought up in the mix typically for a consideration of who the best heavyweight was.

All other things being equal the good big man tends to beat the good smaller man. Because size is a significant factor. The old boxing men who coined the saying knew this to be true based on experience.

Archie Moore racked up his KOs at middleweight not just light heavyweight. Can a case be made that Moore hit harder than Evander? Maybe, but more proof would be needed than just saying out of context that he has the all-time KO record.

Duva and Turner seem to have been high on Marciano for whatever reason, likely based on the environments they were around as they came up in the sport. I can't speak to that.

But as you acknowledge...the boxing insiders who were alive to witness the great champions before Marciano never ranked Rocky as being on that same level. And the reasons given usually revolved around the crudeness of Marciano's skills.

[QueensburyRules]

It's not weak at all. They have weight classes in boxing for a reason. And the adage that a good big man will usually beat a good little man didn't materialize out of thin air.

Does that mean that big guys are always bigger punchers? No. But it does mean that this is the general trend that one would expect.

Moore has the most KOs in history but if you use that stat then you have to be honest about it and point out that the majority of those KO's came in divisions below heavyweight.

As far as what the old timers thought of Marciano's skills I can find several quotes for you if needed. ( Lou Duva was not alive to see the great champions that came before Marciano. He is hardly what I would consider an old timer. )

Let's go with a quote from Nat Fleischer for now:

"crude, wild swinging, awkward and missed heavily. In his bout with light heavyweight champion Archie Moore, for example, he missed almost two-thirds of the 50-odd punches he threw when he had Archie against the ropes, a perfect target for the kill."

- -Bottomline: Nat had Rocky in his top 10, not Ali nor Joe.

[billeau2]

All other things being equal the good big man tends to beat the good smaller man. Because size is a significant factor. The old boxing men who coined the saying knew this to be true based on experience.

Archie Moore racked up his KOs at middleweight not just light heavyweight. Can a case be made that Moore hit harder than Evander? Maybe, but more proof would be needed than just saying out of context that he has the all-time KO record.

Duva and Turner seem to have been high on Marciano for whatever reason, likely based on the environments they were around as they came up in the sport. I can't speak to that.

But as you acknowledge...the boxing insiders who were alive to witness the great champions before Marciano never ranked Rocky as being on that same level. And the reasons given usually revolved around the crudeness of Marciano's skills.

The saying has its place but more as common sense, not as a principal that has been validated. I say this for all the reasons we have been debating. We also hear things like speed kills...and skill beats brawn. These are aphorisms, not something I would stake an opinion upon. Also, just size is not alone significant, even the saying tells us that when all other factors are equal. Im going to just have to disagree with you on the logic to this indicating size is significant.

With Moore, will concede that point. Its kind of interesting because Moore really was not necessarily known as a hard puncher so much as a very tricky, technically well versed fighter.

I guess what it comes down with to me is that the Rock had his fans...as said including a man who knows Holly well... And at the end of the day what made Marciano perhaps less appealing was his crude delivery and lack of refinement...And what made Marciano one in seven to others, the ultimate, was his crude delivery and his lack of refinement. He found a way to fight in a manner that suited him and made him very succesful. There is a considerable method to his madness so to speak.

From what I can tell from studying him, physiologically he found a way to hit down which is nature's way, as opposed to the way of a trained fighter. He could do this so well that he beat up guys like Ezzard Charles who was an incredible fighter.

[ShoulderRoll]

The saying has its place but more as common sense, not as a principal that has been validated. I say this for all the reasons we have been debating. We also hear things like speed kills...and skill beats brawn. These are aphorisms, not something I would stake an opinion upon. Also, just size is not alone significant, even the saying tells us that when all other factors are equal. Im going to just have to disagree with you on the logic to this indicating size is significant.

With Moore, will concede that point. Its kind of interesting because Moore really was not necessarily known as a hard puncher so much as a very tricky, technically well versed fighter.

I guess what it comes down with to me is that the Rock had his fans...as said including a man who knows Holly well... And at the end of the day what made Marciano perhaps less appealing was his crude delivery and lack of refinement...And what made Marciano one in seven to others, the ultimate, was his crude delivery and his lack of refinement. He found a way to fight in a manner that suited him and made him very succesful. There is a considerable method to his madness so to speak.

From what I can tell from studying him, physiologically he found a way to hit down which is nature's way, as opposed to the way of a trained fighter. He could do this so well that he beat up guys like Ezzard Charles who was an incredible fighter.

Ezzard Charles was certainly an incredible fighter but he too was a natural light heavyweight just like Moore. So it's no surprise that he got beat up by the bigger Marciano (despite showing superior skills to Rocky for most of their two fights.) There's that good big man/good little man truism popping up again.

Sure, The Rock has his fans. But I would say the opinion that he could beat Tyson is in the minority. Both among regular posters and among boxing cognoscenti. Shame there wasn't a poll included with this thread.

We've both plead our case so I'll leave it at that. With just one final quote, from boxing historian Monte Cox. This in regards to the unbeaten record that causes some to rank Marciano highly:

"When looking at Marciano’s opponents one must ask the question “Is there one person that Marciano beat that Joe Frazier would not beat?” The answer is clearly no. Joe Frazier would have little trouble with Marciano’s opponents and would easily have gone 49-0 against them."

[Anthony342]

The Rock says know your damn role. I doubt the boxer would have ever been as brash as the wrestler with the same nickname.

[billeau2]

Ezzard Charles was certainly an incredible fighter but he too was a natural light heavyweight just like Moore. So it's no surprise that he got beat up by the bigger Marciano (despite showing superior skills to Rocky for most of their two fights.) There's that good big man/good little man truism popping up again.

Sure, The Rock has his fans. But I would say the opinion that he could beat Tyson is in the minority. Both among regular posters and among boxing cognoscenti. Shame there wasn't a poll included with this thread.

We've both plead our case so I'll leave it at that. With just one final quote, from boxing historian Monte Cox. This in regards to the unbeaten record that causes some to rank Marciano highly:

"When looking at Marciano’s opponents one must ask the question “Is there one person that Marciano beat that Joe Frazier would not beat?” The answer is clearly no. Joe Frazier would have little trouble with Marciano’s opponents and would easily have gone 49-0 against them."

Yeah truth is im not a big fan of heralding "unbeaten records" as evidence of greatness. I just hold up the great Ottke as evidence of that assertion

[Jax teller]

- -When did Rocky ever fight below heavy?

Answer-NEVER, and why would he when he was knocking out heavies like crazy?

Do you ever think about the difference in boxing then and now 60 yr later?

Well?

What? I'm not sure if you're not understanding me or I don't understand you?

My point is Marciano is small enough to be a LHW most of the guys he was fighting were also smallish at 5-10 - 6-0 and his best wins were usually around age 38 or LHW like Ezzard Charles.

As far as I understand it he never really come up against the likes of Tyson or 210+ guys in their prime with all their reflexes and speed or proved he could hang with 6'5+ monsters as they wasn't on the scene.

Tyson had a career fighting guys larger than Marciano and most of Marciano's opponents as well.

I think the era was levels apart and this would show if they fought like a good shorter LHW/CW vs an elite HW, no disrespect to Marciano intended though.

[GhostofDempsey]

As with most of these mythical fights, there is often more than one way to consider the outcome. Rocky fought the better opposition, better P4P boxers—Charles, Walcott, Moore, and was closer to their size. Walcott, Louis amd Moore we’re past their primes, and Charles was never the same fighter after killing a man in the ring prior to his fights with Rocky. During his prime in which he still retired, he was relentless. Great stamina, chin, upper body movement and power. He wore down his opponents with body and head shots and constant pressure.

Tyson too was a small HW, but he typically fought much larger opponents. Tyson was fast, powerful, had unmatched head movement and tremendous power. He had a solid chin and could handle much larger opponents power. He too was a pressure fighter and a great finisher. At his best he was nearly unstoppable. At 220+ lbs he had about 35 or more pounds on Rocky.

Neither man faced anyone like the other during their careers. IMO, if Rocky could survive the first six rounds, he has a chance to make it the distance. Tyson tended to slow down in the later rounds. Having followed Tyson’s career and studied Rocky’s fights on film, I have to favor Tyson in this one. I can’t imagine Rocky holding up over 12 rounds while taking Mike’s best punches. Rocky took too many punches in order to land his own, he lunged too often and left himself wide open for counters, and in a war of attrition I think Tyson would be too strong and just as relentless. Not an easy fight for Tyson, he would come away lumpy and battered, but Rocky either gets stopped inside the distance or goes life and death just to survive to the final bell and lose by a narrow margin, maybe split decision.

[QueensburyRules]

What? I'm not sure if you're not understanding me or I don't understand you?

My point is Marciano is small enough to be a LHW most of the guys he was fighting were also smallish at 5-10 - 6-0 and his best wins were usually around age 38 or LHW like Ezzard Charles.

As far as I understand it he never really come up against the likes of Tyson or 210+ guys in their prime with all their reflexes and speed or proved he could hang with 6'5+ monsters as they wasn't on the scene.

Tyson had a career fighting guys larger than Marciano and most of Marciano's opponents as well.

I think the era was levels apart and this would show if they fought like a good shorter LHW/CW vs an elite HW, no disrespect to Marciano intended though.

- -Pt is you just made your point that you're not sure.

I'm saying Rock a full heavy trained down in the 15 rd era where fighters were also dehydrated because of training beliefs of the day.

Different rules in 12 rd era where KDs are scored and fighters hydrate to their maximum and have added good use of blubber to enhance durability.

Rocky fought in 6 oz horsehair gloves where moderns in 12 oz foams with few exceptions.

In short, a heavy is still a heavy by any other name.