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.

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.