The Myth everyone rated Tyson as an ATG HW after Spinks fight (Video evidence inside)

[marbleheadmaui]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

But it ain't about FAME, it's about greatness, isn't it?

H was responding to Jaz who was talking about how big they were in their time, not great.

Anyway, Tyson would have wrecked Jack Dempsey and Marciano, you seriously think differently?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Both he and the 185lb Marciano would have been done inside 4 rounds.

Marciano's resume is pretty weak, his era was worse than the one the Klitschkos have dominated for the past decade.

What part of "post Doc Kearns" didn't you understand? The horseshoe thing was funny.

The era Marciano was in had Ezzard and Walcott who would have decimated today's heavies.

OK, I predict Tyson would have bitten both their ears and been DQ'd.

[marbleheadmaui]

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history.... Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson.

This statement is not only self-contradictory, but also non-factual.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Not only that but he only made something like 6 title defences in 7 years, which for that era is abysmal... Even more so when you consider his activity leading up to his title shot. This was while avoiding Willis and Greb and actually avoiding ANY fighter who wasn't white all during which, He went missing for 3 years only to return and loose twice to Tunney.

Shit fighter, protected fighter. Complete Hype Job... 1st of a kind indeed!

I'm messing, he really wasn't shite. Quite phenomenal actually but as a champion he gets overrated way too much.... Actaully that's a lie.... 98% of the people that probably were guilty of overrating him are probably now dead.

The other 2% are Burt Sugar and maybe some people on this forum

Dempsey had six defenses in seven years which you say is unusual for that era. REALLY? Willard had one in four years and Jack Johnson had seven in seven years. It was the NORM in that era.

Heavy champs back then made HUGE money doing traveling exhibitions and making movies etc. Hell even later Jimmy Braddock didn't fight for two years after Baer and before Louis just making dough off his name.

In some ways I shouldn't complain so much about fight schedules today. Had I been around and a heavy devotee from WWI-Joe Louis? I might have become a serial killer of inactive heavyweight champions

[BIG H]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

But it ain't about FAME, it's about greatness, isn't it?

H was responding to Jaz who was talking about how big they were in their time, not great.

Anyway, Tyson would have wrecked Jack Dempsey and Marciano, you seriously think differently?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Both he and the 185lb Marciano would have been done inside 4 rounds.

Marciano's resume is pretty weak, his era was worse than the one the Klitschkos have dominated for the past decade.

What part of "post Doc Kearns" didn't you understand? The horseshoe thing was funny.

The era Marciano was in had Ezzard and Walcott who would have decimated today's heavies.

OK, I predict Tyson would have bitten both their ears and been DQ'd.

And Berbwick's era had Ali Charles had had 100 or so fights when he fought The Rock, JJW had about 80- and was 80 years old Agreed that TCC or JJW been huge if they were around today.

[marbleheadmaui]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

But it ain't about FAME, it's about greatness, isn't it?

H was responding to Jaz who was talking about how big they were in their time, not great.

Anyway, Tyson would have wrecked Jack Dempsey and Marciano, you seriously think differently?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Both he and the 185lb Marciano would have been done inside 4 rounds.

Marciano's resume is pretty weak, his era was worse than the one the Klitschkos have dominated for the past decade.

What part of "post Doc Kearns" didn't you understand? The horseshoe thing was funny.

The era Marciano was in had Ezzard and Walcott who would have decimated today's heavies.

OK, I predict Tyson would have bitten both their ears and been DQ'd.

And Berbwick's era had Ali Charles had had 100 or so fights when he fought The Rock, JJW had about 80- and was 80 years old Agreed that TCC or JJW been huge if they were around today.

Here is a fascinating historical nugget.

From 1925-1955 when a champion won a title? He had, on average, 70 fights and had fought around 400 rounds. Think those guys were tempered a little?

From 1965-1975 (post TV intro) those numbers fell to 40ish and 300 rounds

By 1985, and on until today? The average "champion" has 25 or so fights and 150ish rounds of experience.

[BIG H]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

But it ain't about FAME, it's about greatness, isn't it?

H was responding to Jaz who was talking about how big they were in their time, not great.

Anyway, Tyson would have wrecked Jack Dempsey and Marciano, you seriously think differently?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Both he and the 185lb Marciano would have been done inside 4 rounds.

Marciano's resume is pretty weak, his era was worse than the one the Klitschkos have dominated for the past decade.

What part of "post Doc Kearns" didn't you understand? The horseshoe thing was funny.

The era Marciano was in had Ezzard and Walcott who would have decimated today's heavies.

OK, I predict Tyson would have bitten both their ears and been DQ'd.

And Berbwick's era had Ali Charles had had 100 or so fights when he fought The Rock, JJW had about 80- and was 80 years old Agreed that TCC or JJW been huge if they were around today.

Here is a fascinating historical nugget.

From 1925-1955 when a champion won a title? He had, on average, 70 fights and had fought around 400 rounds. Think those guys were tempered a little?

From 1965-1975 (post TV intro) those numbers fell to 40ish and 300 rounds

By 1985, and on until today? The average "champion" has 25 or so fights and 150ish rounds of experience.

Still fair to say that Charles and Walcott were done by the time they fought The Rock though mate. Charles struggled on losing to bums for a few more years, JJW never fought again. I've said loads of times, I just don't know how good Marciano was becuase his opposition was so poor. The worst of any heavyweight that is considered anywhere near great. And that's (as Fenster would say) a fact!

His best win (taking everything into consideration is LaStarza imo.

[X]

Just to get back to the point of the thread, there is either some selective memory going on here, or not everyone was actually around back in Tyson's day, or people are dedging up a single sentence they once said and building their own myth about how they were right and everyone else was wrong about Tyson.

When he was flattening people in his own highlights reel and after he wasted Spinks, all the boxing press were doing imaginary matchups against the greats for him (and mainly picking him against them all), the national press were full of articles about him as the Second Coming of Liston, and even manstream sports fans would say he was one of the most famous people on the planet. His fights were 'events' that normal people - not die hard fight fans - broke box office records to see him slaughter the next ritual sacrifice

Trainers and fighters also rated him right up there.

[JazMerkin]

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

Well, it might help him that the vast majority of those alive when Johnson, Dempsey & Louis were fighting are now dead. Tyson is still alive. 20 years after all those guys retired, those guys were all huge names just as big as Tyson now & that's without the aid of the internet.

You said there was more excitement about him than all those guys. Sorry to sound like Marble, but read up on this. In fact, it doesn't have to be a boxing book. Johnson, Dempsey & Louis are all frequently used as examples in Universities of the importance of sporting heroes on the American psyche. Although Tyson was exciting & huge at the time, he never had the cultural impact that they & Ali had, simply because by the 80s boxing & baseball had begun to be replaced as the major American sports by american football & basketball

I actually agree with most of the rest of your argument. I personally don't have Tyson that high, but I do rate him above Marciano. I think to say that no one thought he was great is absolute rubbish. However, I don't think that just because he was rated the 4th best HW ever in 1988 means he has to be rated there now. In just 2001, there were many people seriously talking about if Felix Trinidad would have beaten Ray Robinson & his place as one of the best fighters of all time. Does that mean he has to be rated as such now? Rating anyone 'in the moment' is always going to lead to going too far one way or the other imo.

[Nameless]

I don'T believe that Tyson was better than Ali or Louis. Was he great? I think so. Was he one of the greatest? In my opinion, no.
The thing with Tyson is that he came at the "beginning of the new era of boxing" and has been in the medias more than any other boxers since Ali, combine that with the fact that his career has been guided by Don King like if he was a WWE wrestling superstar and you have a huge part of the reason why most "12-45" years old have his name in their mouth when it comes to "name me one boxer". Tyson was strong, fast and a real bad ass but so much publicity has been made around his bad ass persona that it did create a mythe even bigger than the mythe himself. Would Tyson have fought 40 years ago, he wouldn't be reminded as strongly because it was not as much an era of power medias, same would he have fought at Louis' era.

[BIG H]

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

Well, it might help him that the vast majority of those alive when Johnson, Dempsey & Louis were fighting are now dead. Tyson is still alive. 20 years after all those guys retired, those guys were all huge names just as big as Tyson now & that's without the aid of the internet.

You said there was more excitement about him than all those guys. Sorry to sound like Marble, but read up on this. In fact, it doesn't have to be a boxing book. Johnson, Dempsey & Louis are all frequently used as examples in Universities of the importance of sporting heroes on the American psyche. Although Tyson was exciting & huge at the time, he never had the cultural impact that they & Ali had, simply because by the 80s boxing & baseball had begun to be replaced as the major American sports by american football & basketball

I actually agree with most of the rest of your argument. I personally don't have Tyson that high, but I do rate him above Marciano. I think to say that no one thought he was great is absolute rubbish. However, I don't think that just because he was rated the 4th best HW ever in 1988 means he has to be rated there now. In just 2001, there were many people seriously talking about if Felix Trinidad would have beaten Ray Robinson & his place as one of the best fighters of all time. Does that mean he has to be rated as such now? Rating anyone 'in the moment' is always going to lead to going too far one way or the other imo.

William Shakespear, Michaelangelo, Jesus Christ, Adolf Hitler, Marilyn Monroe, The Virgin Mary

Not been a twat - but get my point?

[marbleheadmaui]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

But it ain't about FAME, it's about greatness, isn't it?

H was responding to Jaz who was talking about how big they were in their time, not great.

Anyway, Tyson would have wrecked Jack Dempsey and Marciano, you seriously think differently?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Both he and the 185lb Marciano would have been done inside 4 rounds.

Marciano's resume is pretty weak, his era was worse than the one the Klitschkos have dominated for the past decade.

What part of "post Doc Kearns" didn't you understand? The horseshoe thing was funny.

The era Marciano was in had Ezzard and Walcott who would have decimated today's heavies.

OK, I predict Tyson would have bitten both their ears and been DQ'd.

And Berbwick's era had Ali Charles had had 100 or so fights when he fought The Rock, JJW had about 80- and was 80 years old Agreed that TCC or JJW been huge if they were around today.

Here is a fascinating historical nugget.

From 1925-1955 when a champion won a title? He had, on average, 70 fights and had fought around 400 rounds. Think those guys were tempered a little?

From 1965-1975 (post TV intro) those numbers fell to 40ish and 300 rounds

By 1985, and on until today? The average "champion" has 25 or so fights and 150ish rounds of experience.

Still fair to say that Charles and Walcott were done by the time they fought The Rock though mate. Charles struggled on losing to bums for a few more years, JJW never fought again. I've said loads of times, I just don't know how good Marciano was becuase his opposition was so poor. The worst of any heavyweight that is considered anywhere near great. And that's (as Fenster would say) a fact!

His best win (taking everything into consideration is LaStarza imo.

I'm going to go drop the "go watch the fights" on you. Ezzard in the first fight was magnificent. I'm convinced Marciano ruined him that night. Then I'll ask you to go find me a fight where Joe Walcott fought better than he did against Marciano the first time out. I think Walcott was near or at his very best that night. I own about a dozen Walcott fights and I can't find one where he was better, including the first Joe Louis fight.

A great era? Hardly. But Marciano did everyhting one could have asked. That earns him big points with me.

[BIG H]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

But it ain't about FAME, it's about greatness, isn't it?

H was responding to Jaz who was talking about how big they were in their time, not great.

Anyway, Tyson would have wrecked Jack Dempsey and Marciano, you seriously think differently?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Both he and the 185lb Marciano would have been done inside 4 rounds.

Marciano's resume is pretty weak, his era was worse than the one the Klitschkos have dominated for the past decade.

What part of "post Doc Kearns" didn't you understand? The horseshoe thing was funny.

The era Marciano was in had Ezzard and Walcott who would have decimated today's heavies.

OK, I predict Tyson would have bitten both their ears and been DQ'd.

And Berbwick's era had Ali Charles had had 100 or so fights when he fought The Rock, JJW had about 80- and was 80 years old Agreed that TCC or JJW been huge if they were around today.

Here is a fascinating historical nugget.

From 1925-1955 when a champion won a title? He had, on average, 70 fights and had fought around 400 rounds. Think those guys were tempered a little?

From 1965-1975 (post TV intro) those numbers fell to 40ish and 300 rounds

By 1985, and on until today? The average "champion" has 25 or so fights and 150ish rounds of experience.

Still fair to say that Charles and Walcott were done by the time they fought The Rock though mate. Charles struggled on losing to bums for a few more years, JJW never fought again. I've said loads of times, I just don't know how good Marciano was becuase his opposition was so poor. The worst of any heavyweight that is considered anywhere near great. And that's (as Fenster would say) a fact!

His best win (taking everything into consideration is LaStarza imo.

I'm going to go drop the "go watch the fights" on you. Ezzard in the first fight was magnificent. I'm convinced Marciano ruined him that night. Then I'll ask you to go find me a fight where Joe Walcott fought better than he did against Marciano the first time out. I think Walcott was near or at his very best that night. I own about a dozen Walcott fights and I can't find one where he was better, including the first Joe Louis fight.

A great era? Hardly. But Marciano did everyhting one could have asked. That earns him big points with me.

I've seen the fights. Walcott was awesome in the 1st fight, but I refuse to believe that at 39 and after 80 odd fights that he was at his best. It would be a shame if he retired after the 2 Marciano fights if he was just peaking Admitedly, I have not seen enough other Walcott fights to compare his level of performance against The Rock.

As for Charles, he was clearly on the slide. He beat Walcott first and second time round, he had subsequently then lost to him twice and had dropped several decisions to other fighters leading into the Marciano fight. Prior to this and leading up to the first Walcott fight he was dominant and beating everybody.

[marbleheadmaui]

My dad and his friends didn't say that about Tyson and they were hardcore fans, because they felt it was way too early. And other boxing experts also felt that way.

Mate, given your dad argued that Haye would be the first white lineal HW champ of the world since Braddock, his opinion probably won't hold too much weight here.

Was any of your dad's friends a leading boxing pundit of the day? Otherwise it might be hard to sell them as boxing experts.

All my piss-taking aside, I do agree to a point, I think there is an idea that just because some people thought he might be the best in 1988, does not mean that we have to unilaterally accept that is how it was. Imo fighters should never be placed historically while still active. Otherwise you get opinions like that Kellerman article about RJJ being the best fighter ever, which in truth now looks pretty silly.

However, this works both ways. Writing someone who is active off as being the greatest can also look foolish. I remember reading an article by the great Nat Fleischer from around the time that Ali was banned from boxing. In it he argued that to consider Ali among the ten greatest HWs of all time was a ludicrous concept not even worth thinking about & how he couldn't even compare to the greats of a previous era.

Generally people always go too far one way or the other. The middle ground is where the truth is. Wow that could read like something Andre would say. I'm a sage.

* One last thing, H, you are very wrong about the excitement. All due respect to Tyson who might be the most exciting fighter to watch of all time, but he had nothing like the cultural impact of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis or Ali. You could make a strong argument that Marciano had a greater impact. Tyson was big, but not as big as those guys were in their time.

Mike Tyson is more globally known by the average man of any age in the street than any of those guys!

But it ain't about FAME, it's about greatness, isn't it?

H was responding to Jaz who was talking about how big they were in their time, not great.

Anyway, Tyson would have wrecked Jack Dempsey and Marciano, you seriously think differently?

I get very uncomfortable when folks predict as near certain outcomes things that have no basis in history. Niether Marciano nor Dempsey (post Doc Kearns) was ever wrecked.

Neither would have been intimidated by Tyson. Does that mean they beat him? Nope. But it's a much tougher call for me than it is for you.

Dempsey got destroyed by midget man Jim Flynn, the dwarf Jack Johnson famously beat by holding him at arms length and repeatedly punching him in the face. He beat Willard because he had horsehoes in his gloves in a bigger cheating scandal than Margarito.

Both he and the 185lb Marciano would have been done inside 4 rounds.

Marciano's resume is pretty weak, his era was worse than the one the Klitschkos have dominated for the past decade.

What part of "post Doc Kearns" didn't you understand? The horseshoe thing was funny.

The era Marciano was in had Ezzard and Walcott who would have decimated today's heavies.

OK, I predict Tyson would have bitten both their ears and been DQ'd.

And Berbwick's era had Ali Charles had had 100 or so fights when he fought The Rock, JJW had about 80- and was 80 years old Agreed that TCC or JJW been huge if they were around today.

Here is a fascinating historical nugget.

From 1925-1955 when a champion won a title? He had, on average, 70 fights and had fought around 400 rounds. Think those guys were tempered a little?

From 1965-1975 (post TV intro) those numbers fell to 40ish and 300 rounds

By 1985, and on until today? The average "champion" has 25 or so fights and 150ish rounds of experience.

Still fair to say that Charles and Walcott were done by the time they fought The Rock though mate. Charles struggled on losing to bums for a few more years, JJW never fought again. I've said loads of times, I just don't know how good Marciano was becuase his opposition was so poor. The worst of any heavyweight that is considered anywhere near great. And that's (as Fenster would say) a fact!

His best win (taking everything into consideration is LaStarza imo.

I'm going to go drop the "go watch the fights" on you. Ezzard in the first fight was magnificent. I'm convinced Marciano ruined him that night. Then I'll ask you to go find me a fight where Joe Walcott fought better than he did against Marciano the first time out. I think Walcott was near or at his very best that night. I own about a dozen Walcott fights and I can't find one where he was better, including the first Joe Louis fight.

A great era? Hardly. But Marciano did everyhting one could have asked. That earns him big points with me.

I've seen the fights. Walcott was awesome in the 1st fight, but I refuse to believe that at 39 and after 80 odd fights that he was at his best. It would be a shame if he retired after the 2 Marciano fights if he was just peaking Admitedly, I have not seen enough other Walcott fights to compare his level of performance against The Rock.

As for Charles, he was clearly on the slide. He beat Walcott first and second time round, he had subsequently then lost to him twice and had dropped several decisions to other fighters leading into the Marciano fight. Prior to this and leading up to the first Walcott fight he was dominant and beating everybody.

I'm not so sure Walcott didn't have some BHOP in him. Like I said, I've never seen him look better than he did that night. Now a fair question may be "How much of that was the result of lumbering Marciano." At which point I respond "How the fuck should I know?"

Agree on all your Ezzard points.

[miron_lang]

Just an info


You can just post the one you are 'just' directly quoting by deleting all others quotes above it.

just make sure that you only have '['quote']' and '['/quote']'.


I am sure people arent reading all the other previous quotes above

[johnsebastianmiran]

Look, I liked Mike he brought an air of adrenalin to the heavyweight division that needed a wake up call after the exit of Holmes as the dominant champ. Spinks fought two fights with Holmes be that as it may their styles did not compliment each other but it was a good fight. Later Spinks took a big payday against Cooney and Cooney downhill or not was a big draw and Micheal loved money. He had slid downhill a bit and the othe Micheal jumped on him when he blinked, Judge for yourself, opportunity and strength caught Spinks with his gaurd down. If he was alert and fought his fight do you think he would have won? Mike was a great light heavy but he had to eat mass quantities of food to reach 200 pounds. In the other corner, Steamroller Tyson would have won if his stamina was in tact and Mike Spinks would need his corner to throw the pillow in time for his descent out of the clouds and become one with the ground but Spinks was not the man who would make Tyson the great fighter he might have become back then..