More Punching Power : Marciano or Tyson.

[Bad_Intentions]

let's remake the thread.

Tyson = Kid Dynamite aka Iron Mike, had 1 Punch KO during his prime, had a great head movement , and his agility was amazing (some sources compare his agility to middleweight speed).

Marciano = Great Power, Great Chin, Also had 1 Punch KO, the only boxer in history to retire profesionally underfeated (49-0).

Who do you think has the best Punching Power. here's 2 videos of both fighters, so it can help you decide.

ZeL2VAEaAEU

poNQnK981Sw

[Ramon Rojo]

Tyson no doubt had more power.

[Bad_Intentions]

Tyson no doubt had more power.elaborate? :D

[Lostmykeys]

Tyson in his prime had more one punch power and could KO just about anyone with one punch if he hit them right. I also that he had great power with cumulative punching and could KO someone in that way.

Mariano had good power for a heavyweight and great power for his size but he cannot compete with the bigger Mike Tyson.

[Rattler]

Marciano

Tyson was much more stronger and bigger than Marciano, yet Marciano carried his power late better than Tyson - which is more indicative of hitting harder, since power is the last thing that goes.

[Silver]

Marciano

Tyson was much more stronger and bigger than Marciano, yet Marciano carried his power late better than Tyson - which is more indicative of hitting harder, since power is the last thing that goes.you mean late in fights, or late in their careers?

[Rattler]

you mean late in fights, or late in their careers?

In fights.

Marciano didn't hang around long enough to prove that his power dissipated over time - although I doubt it would have, he kept in too good a shape to become soft.

[Silver]

In fights.

Marciano didn't hang around long enough to prove that his power dissipated over time - although I doubt it would have, he kept in too good a shape to become soft.but seems to have more to do with stamina. very few fighters in boxing had the kind of stamina marciano had. he had alot more then tyson for sure.

[jc]

Tyson clearly.

[robert ungurean]

Tyson.The speed he generated was amazing.

[Sonny's jab]

Equal.

It's pointless splitting hairs over who hit harder - they'd both decapitate most of you pencilnecks on this forum, that's all you need to understand.

[Bad_Intentions]

Marciano

Tyson was much more stronger and bigger than Marciano, yet Marciano carried his power late better than Tyson - which is more indicative of hitting harder, since power is the last thing that goes.marciano had a strange extra power in his hands. its just weird. :?

[Marciano Frazier]

The video comparison isn't really fair- there are literally dozens of Tyson knockouts over various journeymen and clubfighters to stack up on video, while the only film available of Marciano is of him against serious name opponents. The Tyson video shows almost nothing but the knockouts, which makes Tyson look exaggeratedly freakish and superhuman, while the Marciano video has a lot of clips of general action from his fights. The Tyson video gives off a more impressive air, but if there were films of all of Marciano's early knockouts over local clubfighters and the like(and, according to accounts, there were fights in which Marciano lifted opponents off the canvas, knocked them out cold for 10 minutes, etc. during this time period), it wouldn't look this way.

Personally, I think they had pretty equal punching power.

[Muchmoore]

Tysons one punch power was better than Marcianos. He had more weight and momentum in each punch along with him having the faster hands which leads to a sledgehammer like punch.

Marciano punched like a mule kicked, for sure, but not quite like Tyson in my opinion.

[hobgoblin]

The video comparison isn't really fair- there are literally dozens of Tyson knockouts over various journeymen and clubfighters to stack up on video, while the only film available of Marciano is of him against serious name opponents. The Tyson video shows almost nothing but the knockouts, which makes Tyson look exaggeratedly freakish and superhuman, while the Marciano video has a lot of clips of general action from his fights. The Tyson video gives off a more impressive air, but if there were films of all of Marciano's early knockouts over local clubfighters and the like(and, according to accounts, there were fights in which Marciano lifted opponents off the canvas, knocked them out cold for 10 minutes, etc. during this time period), it wouldn't look this way.

Personally, I think they had pretty equal punching power.

I completely agree. I think the two were about equal in punching power.

Now don't retort to my following comments because I don't want to go off topic but just some thoughts: I think Marciano had a better KO record against WORTHY opponents than Iron Mike because he was the greater fighter against other opponents (despite me picking Tyson over Marciano against each other). He persisted and had the stamina to get better KOs against better fighters.

Back to topic - I do think Marciano had scarier and more horrible stories than Tyson (I don't know why guys like Foreman or Shavers who IMO hit harder don't have these stories although Shavers did break someone's back) and that speaks about his power.

tyson was the better puncher but you can't ignore that Marciano always kept his power whereas Mike wore down in the late rounds (although Tyson did KO a decnt opponent in ribalta in round 10 and he did drop Douglas in round 8 and his time did not demand him to fight 15 rounds). i don't know how to factor that into this.

your pick.

[Bad_Intentions]

hobgoblin, that girl in your avataar is gorgeous.

[Bad_Intentions]

Bad_Intentions, you are gay.that's not what your mom told me after i fucked her :rofl

[fists of fury]

I'd pick Tyson.

He had about 30 pounds of muscle over Marciano, markedly quicker hands and punched with at least as much leverage. (maybe more)

The argument that Rocky hit harder because he scored KO's late in fights does not hold water. Rock was always in there for the long haul physically and mentally, whereas Tyson's explosive style meant that the intensity and mental focus could not be there in the 12th like it was in the earlier rounds. It's more a question of styles, mental focus and stamina than raw power.

One could argue that due to him being able to end the fight more quickly, Tyson hit harder. That too though, is (largely) a question of styles rather than brute power.

[janitor]

I don't think there is a lot in it either way in terms of raw power.

Tyson has far better speed and delivery which makes his punches more efective. Marciano on the other hand has better stamina which means that he might carry his power better into the late rounds of the fight as he dose his workrate.

[good right hand]

i actually think marciano was the harder hitter, but tyson was just so physically strong and fast that he could you up to get knocked out in less then ten seconds at his best. marciano had more power in his punches but i think you could anticipate the punches a little easier then tyson which would help you to survive longer.

[Denny Cruser]

Definetly Tyson

[RockyJim]

The Rock....He broke bones and ruptured bloodvessels.....he nearly killed Carmine Vingo...he sheered Rex Layne's teeth off at the nubs...and Lee Savold's
teeth were smashed into his gums....it took some fighters month to get over a beating by Marciano...and some were never the same again....imagine if he weighed 240 lbs!!

[Duodenum]

I believe Marciano was the harder puncher. Tyson's speed and placement were tremendous, and both Mike and Rock generated power coming up from the floor. But Rocky torqued his body more completely than Tyson did, and his punches inflicted damage wherever they landed. I think Mike's speed allowed him to land scoring blows more reliably, but I believe he sacrificed something in power through his greater use of speed and mobility. Rocky seemed to box with his feet anchored to the surface he was on, and forfeited some handspeed to settle down more on his punches, though Marciano's vastly superior handspeed to Rex Layne was a key factor in that outcome.

My suspicion is that if we were to hold a heavy bag for either of them to wail away at, that we would find Marciano to hit it harder than Tyson.

Rocky had a more arduous path to the top, against more challenging competition. Power wise, I think Tyson was more of a two fisted Joe Frazier. Instead of a multitude of single round kayos over tomato cans that artificially hyped his reputation, he should have been placed against more rugged and resistant competition that could have extended him longer distances. Coming up, Frazier had challenging ten rounders with tough veterans like Bonavena, Machen, and Scrap Iron Johnson, as well as demanding opponents like Doug Jones and Chuvalo.

All Tyson had was Ferguson, Tillis, Ribalta and Green. He needed to withstand more dangerous adversaries, to gain the experience required to evolve into a true ATG. His natural role models as a heavyweight were Floyd Patterson and Frazier, not Shavers and Foreman. His appropriate niche was as an attrition fighter who could wear down tough contenders en route to late stoppages. If Mike had been hardened more by early trials of fire, then he might have been able to wear down and stop the Bonecrushers, Tuckers, Holyfields, and Douglases who gave him so much trouble. We would have discovered if he had the heart and resilience to recover and continue on to win against Danny Williams and Kevin McBride, perhaps even Lennox Lewis.

It didn't really matter where Marciano hit an opponent. He busted blood vessels in LaStarza's arms during their title rematch, and I'm not aware of Mike producing that kind of damage with non-scoring punches. Tiger Ted Lowry stated that Archie Moore was a harder puncher than Marciano, while Moore himself credited Yvon Durelle's first knockdown of the Ole Mongoose as the hardest blow he'd ever been hit by. But head to head, as I've already speculated, I believe Marciano's punches had more force behind them than the faster Tyson did.

[Bummy Davis]

Tyson's power showed up early in the fight but faded, Marciano took a while to get warmed up but he had late power and one punch power. I dont think anyone would want to get hit by either man but Marciano had it until 2:59 of the 15th

[Bad_Intentions]

in this thread (the first one being made 3 months ago) people voted alot for marciano, but now..9 people?

[Marciano Frazier]

in this thread (the first one being made 3 months ago) people voted alot for marciano, but now..9 people? Um, this post is a little confusingly written. What do you mean?

[Sakura]

Tyson easily

[Bad_Intentions]

Um, this post is a little confusingly written. What do you mean?this thread was done by someone else before (3 months ago) and in that thread 40 people voted for marciano, but now only 9 people voted for him(marciano).

[Marciano Frazier]

this thread was done by someone else before (3 months ago) and in that thread 40 people voted for marciano, but now only 9 people voted for him(marciano). I think it was the result of the videos you posted- there is a much smaller supply of Marciano knockout clips to be fit into montages, and so the Marciano video has fewer knockouts and more runs of Marciano swinging without knocking his opponents out, while the Tyson video makes him look like an unstoppable monster, because it's made up almost entirely of knockout punches and there are dozens of clips available of Tyson scoring devastating knockouts over no-name and clubfighter-level opponents, giving one the impression of Tyson knocking everyone out instantly and in violent fashion while Marciano flails around to finish off a handful of opponents.

[Bad_Intentions]

the video is the best one i could find in youtube, and thats a tribute to marciano and the best ko clips.

[prime]

a) Tyson was heavier because he had a larger, more muscled frame, but at the same time was a much speedier puncher. This uncommon combination trumps Marciano in power.

b) The film is clear in showing Tyson brutalized bigger men, much more quickly and easily, while Marciano, as has been said many times, was an attrition fighter, having to hit you again and again over the long haul.

c) Tyson’s right is more powerful and considerably more versatile than Marciano’s Suzy-Q. Tyson’s left is way more powerful and versatile than Marciano’s short left.

[hobgoblin]

a) Tyson was heavier because he had a larger, more muscled frame, but at the same time was a much speedier puncher. This uncommon combination trumps Marciano in power.

I agree that speed contributes to power - but muscle? After a threshold of weight class, I'm not so sure. You'd agree the more muscular Jameel McCline doesn't hit as hard as Rocky or Mike Tyson. Tyson's extra weight doesn't necessarily mean he hits harder than Rocky IMO.

b) The film is clear in showing Tyson brutalized bigger men, much more quickly and easily, while Marciano, as has been said many times, was an attrition fighter, having to hit you again and again over the long haul.

That was also a stylistic issue though and general fighter attribute rather than sole focus on punching power. I shall start a thread to address the second point - you've got me curious.

Tyson’s right is more powerful and considerably more versatile than Marciano’s Suzy-Q. Tyson’s left is way more powerful and versatile than Marciano’s short left.

I'm not sure if any of Tyson's rights were considerably harder than that one punch that KO'd Walcott. Additionally, I'd wager that Marciano probably also KO'd more worthy contenders with 1 punch than Mike Tyson (not D or C level fighters). At the same time, I'm not too familiar with Marciano as I have only seen 3 or 4 fights - I can gauge him as fighter from the defining fights I saw but not his career. Some guys have remote knowledge of a laundry list of opponents with knowledge from a book rather than as a fan and they like to spew esoteric names and cursorily thought out perspectives.

[Denny Cruser]

I'm not sure if any of Tyson's rights were considerably harder than that one punch that KO'd Walcott.

:rofl :rofl :rofl
Look at single left hook that KOed Berbick
Look at single right cross that KOed Botha
Look at left hook landed on Tubbs. Thats gyus are significantly bigger than great journeyman Walcott :yep

Additionally, I'd wager that Marciano probably also KO'd more worthy contenders with 1 punch than Mike Tyson (not D or C level fighters). At the same time, I'm not too familiar with Marciano as I have only seen 3 or 4 fights - I can gauge him as fighter from the defining fights I saw but not his career. Some guys have remote knowledge of a laundry list of opponents with knowledge from a book rather than as a fan and they like to spew esoteric names and cursorily thought out perspectives.
Tyson significantly better puncher with prefect versatility with nearly 45% of KD and KO by left hook, 40% by rightcross, 10% by uppercutts from both hands and nearly 5% by body punches.

[Ramon Rojo]

elaborate? :D

He was stronger and faster and had better skills than Rocky.

[Marciano Frazier]

:rofl :rofl :rofl
Look at single left hook that KOed Berbick
Look at single right cross that KOed Botha
Look at left hook landed on Tubbs. Thats gyus significantly bigger than great journeyman Walcott :yep
It is extremely ignorant of you to laud Tyson for stopping a series of mediocre opponents like Berbick, Botha and Tony Tubbs, then mockingly dismiss a Hall-of-Fame world heavyweight champion like Walcott(who, by the way, had fought nearly all the hardest hitters of the era and had only been stopped once in the last 12 years when Marciano knocked him out colder than a doorknob with a single punch). None of those guys was even close to Walcott, and even then, Tyson didn't knock them out stone cold for several ten-counts' worth with a single shot.
And if size is all that matters to you, Marciano was 5-0 with 5 knockouts(3 in the first round) against opponents weighing over 210.

[Denny Cruser]

It is extremely ignorant of you to laud Tyson for stopping a series of mediocre opponents like Berbick, Botha and Tony Tubbs, then mockingly dismiss a Hall-of-Fame world heavyweight champion like Walcott(who, by the way, had fought nearly all the hardest hitters of the era and had only been stopped once in the last 12 years when Marciano knocked him out colder than a doorknob with a single punch). None of those guys was even close to Walcott, and even then, Tyson didn't knock them out stone cold for several ten-counts' worth with a single shot.
And if size is all that matters to you, Marciano was 5-0 with 5 knockouts(3 in the first round) against opponents weighing over 210.
At first Duran is HOFamer, so can Hearns hit as hard as Tyson? Never. So I dont care about fact that Walcott is HOFer cause its not caomparable to TKO Ruddock type boxers and Walcott type. Just look how Tyson destroyed iron-chinned LHW M.Spinks and how Marciano landed on Charles in first encounter. Charles was 85 kg and KOed by likes of wrestler Simon :yep Marciano landed on Ezzard more and more with no effect. It took one punch for Mike to took out 100+ Botha cold. Botha who ate a number of bombs from Wlad Klitschko, Moorer, Briggs and others. While Marciano landed on KOdable 85 kg body with no effect. I told you - dont compare LHW an HW its not clever :good

[Bummy Davis]

It is extremely ignorant of you to laud Tyson for stopping a series of mediocre opponents like Berbick, Botha and Tony Tubbs, then mockingly dismiss a Hall-of-Fame world heavyweight champion like Walcott(who, by the way, had fought nearly all the hardest hitters of the era and had only been stopped once in the last 12 years when Marciano knocked him out colder than a doorknob with a single punch). None of those guys was even close to Walcott, and even then, Tyson didn't knock them out stone cold for several ten-counts' worth with a single shot.
And if size is all that matters to you, Marciano was 5-0 with 5 knockouts(3 in the first round) against opponents weighing over 210.

A lot of these guys dont appreciate the value of a master boxer and all-time great like Charles and Walcott and what great boxers they were. Tyson had trouble getting a Ko with Quick Tillis,James Smith,Mitch Green could you imagine how Walcott would have made that ring a Maze for him

[Denny Cruser]

A lot of these guys dont appreciate the value of a master boxer and all-time great like Charles and Walcott and what great boxers they were. Tyson had trouble getting a Ko with Quick Tillis,James Smith,Mitch Green could you imagine how Walcott would have made that ring a Maze for him
While Marciano landed but coudnt out such KOable LHWs like 80+ Lowry, Charles, Applegate etc. This gyus comparable with 16-yrs Tillis, Smith, Green etc. :rofl :rofl :rofl And doesnt matter if they are HOFes :hey

[Luigi1985]

At first Duran is HOFamer, so can Hearns hit as hard as Tyson? Never. So I dont care about fact that Walcott is HOFer cause its not caomparable to TKO Ruddock type boxers and Walcott type. Just look how Tyson destroyed iron-chinned LHW M.Spinks and how Marciano landed on Charles in first encounter. Charles was 85 kg and KOed by likes of wrestler Simon :yep Marciano landed on Ezzard more and more with no effect. It took one punch for Mike to took out 100+ Botha cold. Botha who ate a number of bombs from Wlad Klitschko, Moorer, Briggs and others. While Marciano landed on KOdable 85 kg body with no effect. I told you - dont compare LHW an HW its not clever :good


Since when plays weight such a big part in success? It´s better to be 190 lbs like Charles was, ripped, in top shape with almost no fat instead of +230 lbs. fat guys like Botha, who carry ca. 35 lbs superfluous fat with them, listen to guys like Marciano_Frazier and Bummy Davis, they have much knowledge...

[Luigi1985]

While Marciano landed but coudnt out such KOable LHWs like 80+ Lowry, Charles, Applegate etc. This gyus comparable with 16-yrs Tillis, Smith, Green etc. :rofl :rofl :rofl And doesnt matter if they are HOFes :hey


OMG, please go to the General Boxing Forum, there you find immediately alignment...


this are these double standards I hate, Charles or Marciano are critiziced because of their weight (ca. 185 lbs.), but Ali, with his 207 lbs. ca. is the greatest ever, what a logic...

[Denny Cruser]

Since when plays weight such a big part in success? It´s better to be 190 lbs like Charles was, ripped, in top shape with almost no fat instead of +230 lbs. fat guys like Botha, who carry ca. 35 lbs superfluous fat with them, listen to guys like Marciano_Frazier and Bummy Davis, they have much knowledge...
At first look how quickly MT ripped iron-chinned LHW Spinks and how "quickly" he take out real HWs likes of Thomas, Ruddock etc. Then tell me that mass didnt count. :yep

[Denny Cruser]

listen to guys like Marciano_Frazier and Bummy Davis, they have much knowledge...
man, i know how to box and i dont need to read how some Jones defeated some Tomas at 1794. With respect Denny :thumbsup

[Denny Cruser]

OMG, please go to the General Boxing Forum, there you find immediately alignment...


this are these double standards I hate, Charles or Marciano are critiziced because of their weight (ca. 185 lbs.), but Ali, with his 207 lbs. ca. is the greatest ever, what a logic...
I dont care what you hate and I will post where I want, man :thumbsup

[Luigi1985]

At first look how quickly MT ripped iron-chinned LHW Spinks and how "quickly" he take out real HWs likes of Thomas, Ruddock etc. Then tell me that mass didnt count. :yep

You know why I almost always answer when it comes to mass and stuff like that? Because I box myself and make bodybuilding, I´m relatively small but I´m a HW. Mass is an advantage, but nothing more. Spinks was a proven LHW, but at HW his resume is too thin to take him as a good example, Ruddock and Thomas were both talented HW´s, but both are in another league than a Walcott for excample, head-to-head and legacy-wise...

[Denny Cruser]

You know why I almost always answer when it comes to mass and stuff like that? Because I box myself and make bodybuilding, I´m relatively small but I´m a HW. Mass is an advantage, but nothing more. Spinks was a proven LHW, but at HW his resume is too thin to take him as a good example

Are you kidding man? :yep In such case Walcott has no overall resume above cruisreweight limit. He fought a several real but C\D-level HWs. And lost by KO to wrestler Simon :rofl Dont joke with me :cool:

, Ruddock and Thomas were both talented HW´s, but both are in another league than a Walcott for excample, head-to-head and legacy-wise...
very-very arguable question. Especially in terms of power that the boxer need to KO Ruddock, Thomas and LHW Walcoot. If you understand :smoke

[Luigi1985]

Are you kidding man? :yep In such case Walcott has no overall resume above cruisreweight limit. He fought a several real but C\D-level HWs. And lost by KO to wrestler Simon :rofl Dont joke with me :cool:

very-very arguable question. Especially in terms of power that the boxer need to KO Ruddock, Thomas and LHW Walcoot. If you understand :smoke


Yes, I understand your broken English, but it doesn´t deflect the virtuality, that the contents is totally false and stupid (sorry, here it´s not a matter of view, it´s common sense)...


btw, are you the brother of C.M. Clay II?

[Denny Cruser]

Yes, I understand your broken English, but it doesn´t deflect the virtuality, that the contents is totally false and stupid (sorry, here it´s not a matter of view, it´s common sense)...


btw, are you the brother of C.M. Clay II?
Listen bodybilder :yep If you cant argue about boxing, thats not the reason to laught at my English :yep The only reason to laught is your arguments

[Luigi1985]

Listen bodybilder :yep If you cant argue about boxing, thats not the reason to laught at my English :yep The only reason to laught is your arguments


What a stupid counter, I didn´t laugh about your English because my English isn´t much better, I´m a non English-speaking person,too (mother tongue), I can argue about boxing, but it seems to be you can´t, you laugh about Marciano that he KO´ed only LHW´s, but you come with an example like Spinks for Tyson, can you see now your double standard or not?

[Denny Cruser]

you laugh about Marciano that he KO´ed only LHW´s, but you come with an example like Spinks for Tyson, can you see now your double standard or not?
I came with Botha, Berbick, Tubbs etc. Spinks is a goog example that a frame and mass are important. And you told me that Spinks not proved at HW while you itself come with Walcott etc who much more not proved above cruiserweight limit. :rofl

[Luigi1985]

I came with Botha, Berbick, Tubbs etc. Spinks is a goog example that a frame and mass are important. And you told me that Spinks not proved at HW while you itself come with Walcott etc who much more not proved above cruiserweight limit. :rofl


Walcott fought the best HW´s in his era, big, heavy and strong HW´s like Louis, Shkor, Ten Hoff, Baksi, etc. or great boxers with a great technique like Charles, Maxim, Bivins, hard punchers like Gomez, Ray, Layne, etc., and you come with mediocre HW´s like Tubbs and Botha? :lol:

[Denny Cruser]

Walcott fought the best HW´s in his era, big, heavy and strong HW´s like Louis, Shkor, Ten Hoff, Baksi, etc.

Yes losses to fading Louis represents best achievements of Walcott at HW.
Ten Hoff :rofl german bum who even coudnt defend EBU belt :rofl
Shkor - who is it? A man with a number of PTS and KO losses who deserves two title shots for New England Heavyweight Title :rofl :rofl
Baksi - :rofl :rofl Yeah a real HW who regularly lost to guys with 80-85 kg.
etc :hey

or great boxers with a great technique like Charles, Maxim, Bivins, hard punchers like Gomez, Ray, Layne, etc., and you come with mediocre HW´s like Tubbs and Botha? :lol:
:rofl I see Bivins in the ring with mediocre Ruddock :rofl Or Charles with mediocre Frank Bruno. :rofl In reality Bivins never even produce a sound about bout vs likes of Ruddock. We all saw how old fat mummy landed one punch on nearly 100 kg former great LHW but ordinary HW.

[Ramon Rojo]

Luigi is being pwned again by more knowledgeable people.

[janitor]

Luigi is being pwned again by more knowledgeable people.

Are all your posts so packed with incisive analysis.

[janitor]

I came with Botha, Berbick, Tubbs etc. Spinks is a goog example that a frame and mass are important. And you told me that Spinks not proved at HW while you itself come with Walcott etc who much more not proved above cruiserweight limit. :rofl

If you think that fighters like Botha Berbick and Tubbs are better than guys like Walcott, Charles and Bivins then you must acept that you are verry much in the minority and the onus is on you to justify it.

I am not saying that your views are necisarily worng but you will have to come up with something better than the fact that they were bigger.

There are reson's why Walcott and Charles are in the hall of fame while Botha and Tubbs would be lucky to get invites to the bufet at the annual awards.

[Denny Cruser]

If you think that fighters like Botha Berbick and Tubbs are better than guys like Walcott, Charles and Bivins then you must acept that you are verry much in the minority and the onus is on you to justify it.

I respect you opinion ;) but I have my own head

I am not saying that your views are necisarily worng but you will have to come up with something better than the fact that they were bigger.
Why? Discussion concerned punching power of MT and RM. So we must note that mostly they KOd guys of different weight classes. Tyson - HW, Marciano - LHW or weak\old HW. We all know how guys from lower weight classes get problems at higher divisions. Altough exist some oposite examples, majority of boxers coudnt KOd more big guys when come to higher weights. There is a huge number of examples. So frame and mass - is a key facts in our discussion.

[Denny Cruser]

There are reson's why Walcott and Charles are in the hall of fame while Botha and Tubbs would be lucky to get invites to the bufet at the annual awards.
And how that related to fact that Marciano KOd small guys while Tyson KOd big guys?
ps and McCall would be lucky to get invite, but it is HUGE achievements to KO him. That is what I mean.

[janitor]

[quote=Denny Cruser]I respect you opinion ;) but I have my own head


Good to hear. You won't get far without it.

Why? Discussion concerned punching power of MT and RM. So we must note that mostly they KOd guys of different weight classes. Tyson - HW, Marciano - LHW or weak\old HW. We all know how guys from lower weight classes get problems at higher divisions. Altough exist some oposite examples, majority of boxers coudnt KOd more big guys when come to higher weights. There is a huge number of examples. So frame and mass - is a key facts in our discussion.

This is verry true.

You must also consider that the kind of small fast tricky fighters that Marciano fought are much harder to catch cleanly than a much bigger heavyweight who stands in front of you.

The 200lb+ guys that Marciano fought were meiocre apart from Louis but he generaly got rid of them much more quickly than the likes of Walcott Charles and Moore.

[janitor]

And how that related to fact that Marciano KOd small guys while Tyson KOd big guys?
ps and McCall would be lucky to get invite, but it is HUGE achievements to KO him. That is what I mean.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I thought you were saying that these guys were better wins.

[Denny Cruser]

You must also consider that the kind of small fast tricky fighters that Marciano fought are much harder to catch cleanly than a much bigger heavyweight who stands in front of you.

That is true. But boxers know their limits and only exceptional small boxers like Jones Jr, Moorer, Spinks or Toney becoming a HW at modern era. But fought without success against true HW puncher-kings likes of MT, LL. These guys know their limits. And there is reason why modern succsefull LHW and CW sacrifice their speed to power and mass ;) Indeed if you look at Tyson bouts than you easily deduce that light guys are deadmans versus Mike, while some big guys with no speed could stay against Mike.

The 200lb+ guys that Marciano fought were meiocre apart from Louis but he generaly got rid of them much more quickly than the likes of Walcott Charles and Moore.
Yeah, but I think that there are two reasons:
1. Thats HWs were very-very mediocre
2. Marciano had unic but fairly bad footwork, so he had problems with small but fast guys. Additionally Roccky coudnt immobilize tricky opponents by bodypunches such as bodypunching masters Joe Louis and Mike Tyson. IMO.

[Denny Cruser]

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

I thought you were saying that these guys were better wins.
Ok.
I argued about the question of topic: Who has more punching power Marciano or Tyson?

[Luigi1985]

Luigi is being pwned again by more knowledgeable people.


Some of you guys make it too obvious, it´s OK to defend your high school friends, but with a tic of discretion it wouldn´t be that much blatant...


btw, are you still angry because I critiziced you? Don´t take it too personal, you aren´t the only idiot here, you are in good society, contact C. M. Clay II for this area, he´s there the perfect reference person...

[Black Eyes To You]

Tyson in his prime is the hardest puncher I have seen.

[C. M. Clay II]

Some of you guys make it too obvious, it´s OK to defend your high school friends, but with a tic of discretion it wouldn´t be that much blatant...


btw, are you still angry because I critiziced you? Don´t take it too personal, you aren´t the only idiot here, you are in good society, contact C. M. Clay II for this area, he´s there the perfect reference person...

Get a life loser.:bbb

[Bad_Intentions]

Get a life loser.:bbbbutterfly!!:D

[Luigi1985]

Get a life loser.:bbb


I have a life, you repeat yourself, can´t you create some new "bad things"? When you indirectly criticize me that I should get a life because I post here on ESB, than you criticize all posters here, including you...

[C. M. Clay II]

I have a life, you repeat yourself, can´t you create some new "bad things"? When you indirectly criticize me that I should get a life because I post here on ESB, than you criticize all posters here, including you...

Not just because you post at ESB, but because you start shit with people for no reason, you obviously have a fetish with Italian fighters, and you do your best to attack and downgrade Ali and all his opponents so that even if someone says something remotely positive about Ali, you jump all obver them and call them "hyperbolical nuthuggers", and say that they have "zero boxing knowledge", and say they have "childish arguments", etc., etc., etc. If you got out more, maybe you would act more like a reasonable person, and less like a bi-polar, insensitive, and obtuse jerk.

[Manassa]

Tyson probably hit marginally harder, but since he has thirty pounds on Marciano, Rocky takes the cake in a pound-for-pound comparison.

[C. M. Clay II]

Tyson probably hit marginally harder, but since he has thirty pounds on Marciano, Rocky takes the cake in a pound-for-pound comparison.

But that wasn't the question.:roll:

[prime]

[quote=hobgoblin]I agree that speed contributes to power - but muscle? After a threshold of weight class, I'm not so sure. You'd agree the more muscular Jameel McCline doesn't hit as hard as Rocky or Mike Tyson. Tyson's extra weight doesn't necessarily mean he hits harder than Rocky IMO.



A more muscular Jameel hits harder than a less muscular Jameel. Tyson's peak body was awesome in that, without much iron pumping, was perfectly primed for generating power in the ring with his style. My point is Tyson was, so to speak, a larger, more powerful and complete version of the epitome slugger than Marciano.

[Luigi1985]

Not just because you post at ESB, but because you start shit with people for no reason, you obviously have a fetish with Italian fighters, and you do your best to attack and downgrade Ali and all his opponents so that even if someone says something remotely positive about Ali, you jump all obver them and call them "hyperbolical nuthuggers", and say that they have "zero boxing knowledge", and say they have "childish arguments", etc., etc., etc. If you got out more, maybe you would act more like a reasonable person, and less like a bi-polar, insensitive, and obtuse jerk.


Strangely enough I only "combat" with some kiddies like you, Ramon Rojo, etc., with normal and good posters (Janitor, Manassa, SuzieQ49, Dr Z, dmt, OLD FOGEY, etc., I could name you 100 more) I have never such childish "writing- battles". I don´t disrespect Ali, but I´m on the other side no fanatic Ali groupie who´s automatically on his bandwagon. It´s kind of funny, always in a fantasy matchup between 2 great fighters (between 2 great fighters there is ALWAYS a reason that the one fighter could beat the other) when someone favours the other against Ali, than you immediately answer with childish gay smilies or stuff like that. Why are you than rather making/answering in/to threads when it´s so death sure that Ali would win always viá lopsided UD or KO? With Italian fighters what you wrote is also not right, I only don´t like it (in general, not only Italian fighters) when some don´t respect fighters like they deserved it. Name me one thread where I answered something hyperbolical in relation to Italian fighters, if you don´t lie that you can´t respond here. You demand more class from me, but you take often swear words for example, that are these double standards I really love. Marciano is critizicing because he fought CW´s with 190 lbs. averagely and Ali is the boxing god although his opponents average weight was ca. 205 lbs, 15 ridiculous lbs. But I´m OK with that. I could name 100 more of these phony shit...

[C. M. Clay II]

Strangely enough I only "combat" with some kiddies like you, Ramon Rojo, etc., with normal and good posters (Janitor, Manassa, SuzieQ49, Dr Z, dmt, OLD FOGEY, etc., I could name you 100 more) I have never such childish "writing- battles". I don´t disrespect Ali, but I´m on the other side no fanatic Ali groupie who´s automatically on his bandwagon. It´s kind of funny, always in a fantasy matchup between 2 great fighters (between 2 great fighters there is ALWAYS a reason that the one fighter could beat the other) when someone favours the other against Ali, than you immediately answer with childish gay smilies or stuff like that. Why are you than rather making/answering in/to threads when it´s so death sure that Ali would win always viá lopsided UD or KO? With Italian fighters what you wrote is also not right, I only don´t like it (in general, not only Italian fighters) when some don´t respect fighters like they deserved it. Name me one thread where I answered something hyperbolical in relation to Italian fighters, if you don´t lie that you can´t respond here. You demand more class from me, but you take often swear words for example, that are these double standards I really love. Marciano is critizicing because he fought CW´s with 190 lbs. averagely and Ali is the boxing god although his opponents average weight was ca. 205 lbs, 15 ridiculous lbs. But I´m OK with that. I could name 100 more of these phony shit...

You said Primo Carnera was a great heavyweight. You also said that Roland LaStarza was one of the greatest defensive heavyweights of all-time, to build up you idol Marciano. That's two things and I'm sure there are more.

[Manassa]

But that wasn't the question.:roll:

I answered the actual question but decided to add some more - what's your problem? Prick.

[Luigi1985]

You said Primo Carnera was a great heavyweight. You also said that Roland LaStarza was one of the greatest defensive heavyweights of all-time, to build up you idol Marciano. That's two things and I'm sure there are more.


You lie again, Clay. I said LaStarza was a defensive wizard, and he was it, not only in my opinion. That´s a whole different thing. And I never said Primo was great, because he wasn´t legacy-wise, in his era he was one of the best. I said he was very good. Try another lies...

[Marciano Frazier]

And how that related to fact that Marciano KOd small guys while Tyson KOd big guys?
Why does being a bigger man automatically make it more impressive to knock you out? None of the guys you listed were too incredibly durable. Walcott proved he could stand up against dangerous full-sized heavyweights on multiple occasions. Walcott was a much better fighter than those guys. But apparently, in your universe, all that matters is which one was bigger.

ps and McCall would be lucky to get invite, but it is HUGE achievements to KO him. That is what I mean.
That's because McCall is durable, not because he's big. If one guy knocked out George Chuvalo and another guy knocked out Wladimir Klitschko, would you make fun of the first guy and degrade his accomplishment relative to the second guy's, because Wlad is so much bigger than Chuvalo?

[Marciano Frazier]

At first Duran is HOFamer, so can Hearns hit as hard as Tyson? Never.
Obviously Walcott was a heavyweight and Duran was a lightweight. Notice I didn't say that size is irrelevant, rather I indicated it isn't all that matters.

So I dont care about fact that Walcott is HOFer cause its not caomparable to TKO Ruddock type boxers and Walcott type.
Except that Walcott is a Hall-of-Famer because of what he did at heavyweight. Numerous hard-hitting heavyweights, including ones who were 210 or more, had failed to stop Walcott in the last decade, in which he had only been stopped once, that coming against Joe Louis. On the other hand, Tony Tubbs was knocked out in one round apiece by Lionel Butler and Jimmy Ellis Junior, Trevor Berbick was knocked out in one round by Bernardo Mercado, and Francis Botha was knocked out in all four of his losses, including once by(EGAD!) ex-light heavyweight Moorer.


Just look how Tyson destroyed iron-chinned LHW M.Spinks and how Marciano landed on Charles in first encounter. Charles was 85 kg and KOed by likes of wrestler Simon :yep
:patsch Charles never fought Simon.

Marciano landed on Ezzard more and more with no effect. It took one punch for Mike to took out 100+ Botha cold. Botha who ate a number of bombs from Wlad Klitschko, Moorer, Briggs and others. While Marciano landed on KOdable 85 kg body with no effect. I told you - dont compare LHW an HW its not clever :good
You're just selectively picking a showing in which Marciano didn't display his power and another in which Tyson did- why don't we compare Tyson vs. Quick Tillis or Bonecrusher Smith with Marciano-Walcott or Marciano-Layne? And again, if size is all that matters to you, Marciano was 5-0 with 5 knockouts(3 in the first round) against opponents weighing over 210, and although they weren't particularly good outside Louis, they all had winning records and one or two of them were gatekeeper types on say, the Mike "the Giant" White level.

[Bummy Davis]

Obviously Walcott was a heavyweight and Duran was a lightweight. Notice I didn't say that size is irrelevant, rather I indicated it isn't all that matters.


Except that Walcott is a Hall-of-Famer because of what he did at heavyweight. Numerous hard-hitting heavyweights, including ones who were 210 or more, had failed to stop Walcott in the last decade, in which he had only been stopped once, that coming against Joe Louis. On the other hand, Tony Tubbs was knocked out in one round apiece by Lionel Butler and Jimmy Ellis Junior, Trevor Berbick was knocked out in one round by Bernardo Mercado, and Francis Botha was knocked out in all four of his losses, including once by(EGAD!) ex-light heavyweight Moorer.



:patsch Charles never fought Simon.


You're just selectively picking a showing in which Marciano didn't display his power and another in which Tyson did- why don't we compare Tyson vs. Quick Tillis or Bonecrusher Smith with Marciano-Walcott or Marciano-Layne? And again, if size is all that matters to you, Marciano was 5-0 with 5 knockouts(3 in the first round) against opponents weighing over 210, and although they weren't particularly good outside Louis, they all had winning records and one or two of them were gatekeeper types on say, the Mike "the Giant" White level.




:good .....WIPEOUT

[OLD FOGEY]

The video comparison isn't really fair- there are literally dozens of Tyson knockouts over various journeymen and clubfighters to stack up on video, while the only film available of Marciano is of him against serious name opponents. The Tyson video shows almost nothing but the knockouts, which makes Tyson look exaggeratedly freakish and superhuman, while the Marciano video has a lot of clips of general action from his fights. The Tyson video gives off a more impressive air, but if there were films of all of Marciano's early knockouts over local clubfighters and the like(and, according to accounts, there were fights in which Marciano lifted opponents off the canvas, knocked them out cold for 10 minutes, etc. during this time period), it wouldn't look this way.

Personally, I think they had pretty equal punching power.

This is such a good point. We see the old champions only against
world class opposition. Tyson looks a world-beater against tomato-
cans and it was part of the buildup orchestrated by Jacobs and
Cayton to juxtapose film of a Tyson blowout against Louis, for example,
needing punch after punch to put down Max Baer. We must remember
that Baer might have had the toughest chin in the world at the time.
When Tyson moved up in competition against James Tillis, for one
example, he came down to earth.

[UpWithEvil]

Not only did Marciano hit harder, he bit harder. Tyson barely made it through another man's dainty ear; Marciano bit through an entire slice of Mama Marciano's day-old meatball lasagna in one chomp and even managed to smile while doing it.

[OLD FOGEY]

While Marciano landed but coudnt out such KOable LHWs like 80+ Lowry, Charles, Applegate etc. This gyus comparable with 16-yrs Tillis, Smith, Green etc. :rofl :rofl :rofl And doesnt matter if they are HOFes :hey

There is one yawning difference between Tyson and Marciano. When
you name names that Marciano struggled with, you are generally
naming second raters. He is the only puncher in boxing history that
I am aware of who actually improved his KO percentage as the level
of opposition improved. He fought 13 fights against 10 men who at
one time or another were ranked #2 contender or higher. He won all
these fights, eleven by knockout and knocked out every man in either
the initial fight or a rematch.
Tyson is more like the norm, spectacular, as are many, at blowing away
second-raters but as the skills and toughness of the opposition rises,
his knockout percentage declines. I think the key here is Marciano's
exceptional ability to carry his power into the later rounds.

[Marciano Frazier]

There is one yawning difference between Tyson and Marciano. When
you name names that Marciano struggled with, you are generally
naming second raters. He is the only puncher in boxing history that
I am aware of who actually improved his KO percentage as the level
of opposition improved. He fought 13 fights against 10 men who at
one time or another were ranked #2 contender or higher. He won all
these fights, eleven by knockout and knocked out every man in either
the initial fight or a rematch.
Tyson is more like the norm, spectacular, as are many, at blowing away
second-raters but as the skills and toughness of the opposition rises,
his knockout percentage declines. I think the key here is Marciano's
exceptional ability to carry his power into the later rounds. I would also like to note that Applegate was the only fighter Marciano ever failed to stop who had previously been stopped on an average of more than once every 45 fights! LaStarza had never been stopped(0 in 37 fights), Mogard had never been stopped(0 in 23 fights), Lowry had only been stopped twice in 115+ fights(an average of about once every 60 fights), and Charles had only been stopped twice in 90+ fights(an average of about once every 45 fights). That really speaks to just how effective a knockout artist Marciano was. I don't know what happened against Applegate, but I would bet he was just in there to survive(and even he was reasonably seldom stopped, at three times in 29 recorded fights, none of them clean KOs).
For comparison, young Tyson failed to stop Tillis, who had already been stopped three times in 39 fights, Smith, who had already been stopped twice in 24 fights, and Douglas, who had already been stopped three times in 34 fights.

[C. M. Clay II]

You lie again, Clay. I said LaStarza was a defensive wizard, and he was it, not only in my opinion. That´s a whole different thing. And I never said Primo was great, because he wasn´t legacy-wise, in his era he was one of the best. I said he was very good. Try another lies...

You're the one that's lying. You did say that Primo Carnera was a great heavyweight. That is the actual terminology that you used. And you did say that LaStarza was one of the greatest defensive heavyweights of all-time. You did say that. Don't try to pull the old "lie" card on me, when you did actually say those things in those words.

[Denny Cruser]

Walcott proved he could stand up against dangerous full-sized heavyweights on multiple occasions.

Who those dangerous full-sized heavyweights? List them, please. Ten Hoff`ses :rofl :rofl :rofl ? Shkor? :rofl :rofl :rofl
Only compare them to likes of Briggs, Wlad Kiltschko and other I listed some time ago. :patsch

That's because McCall is durable, not because he's big. If one guy knocked out George Chuvalo and another guy knocked out Wladimir Klitschko, would you make fun of the first guy and degrade his accomplishment relative to the second guy's, because Wlad is so much bigger than Chuvalo?
Because McCall DURABLE AGAINST HEAVYWEIGHTS while Walcott or Charles were more or less DURABLE AGAINST LHW and CW or very mediocre HW. Do you understand the difference here?

[Denny Cruser]

Obviously Walcott was a heavyweight and Duran was a lightweight. Notice I didn't say that size is irrelevant, rather I indicated it isn't all that matters.

Walcott only ONE time fought with weight more than 200 pounds. So we can easily deduce - he wasnt heavyweight.
Well, such approach is rather artificial, so we can exclude Walcotts weight and include wights of his opponents. And we`ll see that Walcoot NEVER fought even good not old heavyweight >200 pounds. Thats all. :cool:

Except that Walcott is a Hall-of-Famer because of what he did at heavyweight.

He fought noone good heavyweight with exceptions of faded Louis.

Numerous hard-hitting heavyweights, including ones who were 210 or more, had failed to stop Walcott in the last decade, in which he had only been stopped once, that coming against Joe Louis.

Who those people? List those hard-hitting HW`s KOed by 80 kg boxers :rofl :rofl :rofl


On the other hand, Tony Tubbs was knocked out in one round apiece by Lionel Butler and Jimmy Ellis Junior, Trevor Berbick was knocked out in one round by Bernardo Mercado, and Francis Botha was knocked out in all four of his losses, including once by(EGAD!) ex-light heavyweight Moorer.

Tyson was first who stop Tubbs. Then in the age of 34 and higher he was even more ugly fatted and stopped by very good 100+ kg punchers. For example hard hitting Thunder and Bowe failed to stop him. Listed Butler is terrific puncher. Walcott NEVER fought HWs even close to Butler in terms of POWER and RAW strength.

:patsch Charles never fought Simon.

Yeah, Charles was KOed by lesser 82 kg guys
:rofl :rofl Butler will kill those brotherhood of hobbits by one shot. Even those 80 kg HOFamers. Cause the boxers fight, not the titles.

You're just selectively picking a showing in which Marciano didn't display his power and another in which Tyson did- why don't we compare Tyson vs. Quick Tillis or Bonecrusher Smith with Marciano-Walcott or Marciano-Layne?

Becuse Smith, for example, when he was still able to box, was KOd only by Ruddock one of the most hard-hitting HWs all-time. A terrific and furiest 100+ kg puncher. While Layne, for example was KOd by <85 kg guys. Do you understand the difference?

And again, if size is all that matters to you, Marciano was 5-0 with 5 knockouts(3 in the first round) against opponents weighing over 210, and although they weren't particularly good outside Louis, they all had winning records and one or two of them were gatekeeper types on say, the Mike "the Giant" White level.
If the guy weighting over 200 pounds KOed by or lost to <85 guys than he mediocre HW, at best. Also do you know why the limit of the HW division exist? Why HW is not absolute division? Because size is matter. No one want see how small Layne or Bivins will be killed in the ring by half-shot of Ruddock.

[OLD FOGEY]

Who those dangerous full-sized heavyweights? List them, please. Ten Hoff`ses :rofl :rofl :rofl ? Shkor? :rofl :rofl :rofl
Only compare them to likes of Briggs, Wlad Kiltschko and other I listed some time ago. :patsch

Because McCall DURABLE AGAINST HEAVYWEIGHTS while Walcott or Charles were more or less DURABLE AGAINST LHW and CW or very mediocre HW. Do you understand the difference here?

Your position is anachronistic. Someone like Walcott, and most of his
top opposition, were indeed a good sized heavyweights for their time.
Anyone over 175 was a heavyweight and there was no cruiserweight
division.
The problem with viewing modern size as the norm is that it is a
reflection of improved nutrition and medical care in the general
population, as well as specific supplements, such as steroids and
growth hormones unavailable to past generations. I doubt if Shannon
Briggs would have anything like the size he is if he were born in 1915
and fought in the forties and fifties.
I see your view as sort of like saying a modern general if obviously
better than Alexander or Caesar because his troops have machine
guns and would have mowed down the Macedonian phalanx or the
Roman legions.

[Denny Cruser]

There is one yawning difference between Tyson and Marciano. When
you name names that Marciano struggled with, you are generally
naming second raters. He is the only puncher in boxing history that
I am aware of who actually improved his KO percentage as the level
of opposition improved. He fought 13 fights against 10 men who at
one time or another were ranked #2 contender or higher. He won all
these fights, eleven by knockout and knocked out every man in either
the initial fight or a rematch.

So what? This is never suggests that he hit harder, cause those guys were LHWs, CWs, and a few HWs bums. While Tyson stopped gyus 100+ kg by one shot, while Marciano landed on 85 kg Charles with no effect :hey :hey

Tyson is more like the norm, spectacular, as are many, at blowing away
second-raters but as the skills and toughness of the opposition rises,
his knockout percentage declines. I think the key here is Marciano's
exceptional ability to carry his power into the later rounds.
The key here - is the quality of HEAVYWEIGHTs in opposition. I think Tyson also could carry his power to later round against 85 kg Tarver or Spinks :rofl

[Denny Cruser]

Your position is anachronistic. Someone like Walcott, and most of his
top opposition, was indeed a good sized heavyweight for his time.

FOR HIS TIME. But topic is concerned of absolute value.
OMG.

Anyone over 175 was a heavyweight and there was no cruiserweight
division.
The problem with viewing modern size as the norm is that it is a
reflection of improved nutrition and medical care in the general
population, as well as specific supplements, such as steroids and
growth hormones unavailable to past generations. I doubt if Shannon
Briggs would have anything like the size he is if he were born in 1915
and fought in the forties and fifties.

You doubt about virtual Briggs of 1915, while I saw that Marciano KOd small guys while Tyson KOs big guys. Thats all. Read the topic question.

I see your view as sort of like saying a modern general if obviously
better than Alexander or Caesar because his troops have machine
guns and would have mowed down the Macedonian phalanx or the
Roman legions.
No, I dont think such way.

[OLD FOGEY]

FOR HIS TIME. But topic is concerned of absolute value.
OMG.

You doubt about virtual Briggs of 1915, while I saw that Marciano KOd small guys while Tyson KOs big guys. Thats all. Read the topic question.

No, I dont think such way.

There is no such thing as absolute value. Any achievement is only in
its own time and place. I remember a radio talk show in which Rick
Barry was the host. The caller maintained that the fans should not be
too harsh on the Oakland Raiders of that year, who were lousy and
losing every game, because the Raiders would have been able to beat
the Pittsburg Steelers of the 1970's or the Packers of the 1960's.
Barry replied that a team is great or awful only in the context of what
it does against other teams of its own time.
So with this discussion. All these men were heavyweights. All fought
big men as big men were defined in their time and place. Marciano
ended up with a better knockout percentage than Tyson, so he was
the more effective puncher.

[Denny Cruser]

Louis, for example,
needing punch after punch to put down Max Baer. We must remember
that Baer might have had the toughest chin in the world at the time.
Write please a list of decent HW punchers who test Baer chin. If you want.

[OLD FOGEY]

Write please a list of decent HW punchers who test Baer chin. If you want.

Max Schmeling, Pat Comiskey, Tony Galento, and Hank Hankinson.
Primo Carnera was probably a better puncher than is generally accepted today.
There were a lot of middle level punchers such as DeKuh, Santa,
Munsell, Schaaf, Griffith, etc.
You have a point about the punching power of Baer's oppostion, but
Baer still certainly had a far better chin than the early tomato-can
opponents Tyson knocked out on film.

[Denny Cruser]

Max Schmeling, Pat Comiskey, Tony Galento, and Hank Hankinson.
Primo Carnera was probably a better puncher than is generally accepted today.
There were a lot of middle level punchers such as DeKuh, Santa,
Munsell, Schaaf, Griffith, etc.

Do you rate
Max Schmeling, Pat Comiskey, Tony Galento, and Hank Hankinson as punchers
higher than
Briggs, Morrison, Ruddock, Tua, Bruno etc? :hey
You have a point about the punching power of Baer's oppostion, but
Baer still certainly had a far better chin than the early tomato-can
opponents Tyson knocked out on film.
As tomato-chinned Holmes, Ruddock, Thomas, Spinks, Williams etc? :rofl
Well I know about Galento opposition, and how he failed to KO a number of 80 kg bums, while self weighting at 100 kg. :hey Pat Comiskey and Hank Hankinson tested Baer chin very carefully in 1 round. :good Schmelling? Yaeh good small puncher who test Max chin. So, Baer indeed has most iron-chinned head of all-time! Because Max Shmelling failed to KO him! :patsch

[OLD FOGEY]

Do you rate
Max Schmeling, Pat Comiskey, Tony Galento, and Hank Hankinson as punchers
higher than
Briggs, Morrison, Ruddock, Tua, Bruno etc? :hey

As tomato-chinned Holmes, Ruddock, Thomas, Spinks, Williams etc? :rofl
Well I know about Galento opposition, and how he failed to KO a number of 80 kg bums, while self weighting at 100 kg. :hey Pat Comiskey and Hank Hankinson tested Baer chin very carefully in 1 round. :good Schmelling? Yaeh good small puncher who test Max chin. So, Baer indeed has most iron-chinned head of all-time! Because Max Baer failed to KO him! :patsch

My take is that Tyson certain could be viewed as the hardest puncher
of all time. He is certainly in the top five. His knockouts of Holmes
and Spinks are as impressive a pair of knockouts as anyone has--
neither was ever knocked out by anyone else. But Louis knocked out
some very slick men, some very tough men, and some very big men.
Marciano knocked out every man who was ever ranked that he fought.
And what about Foreman? And Liston? Dempsey slaughtered some big
guys. A case could be made for any of them.
As for Baer, I said he might have had the best chin in the world at the
time, not of all times, and I was thinking of the reels of KO highlights
in which Tyson is bombing out someone like Sammy Scaaf.

Bottom line--you have an excellent point that while Tyson bombed out
some tomato-cans, his top knockouts compare to anyone.

[Luigi1985]

You're the one that's lying. You did say that Primo Carnera was a great heavyweight. That is the actual terminology that you used. And you did say that LaStarza was one of the greatest defensive heavyweights of all-time. You did say that. Don't try to pull the old "lie" card on me, when you did actually say those things in those words.


Prove it you fucking liar. You wanna charge me because of lying, than prove it with facts, not with your great passwords. I wouldn´t call Carnera great (legacy-wise), because he wasn´t. Only fighters in my Top20 I call great, and he isn´t. LaStarza is the same, I said he was a defensive wizard, but you contort the words again, but don´t worry, I´m habitual that you make stuff like that...

[Sonny's jab]

Did you ever say Carnera was a great fighter, Luigi ?

[Luigi1985]

Did you ever say Carnera was a great fighter, Luigi ?


He was a great fighter in his era, right. But legacy-wise, when we talk about HW history (of all times) he can´t be great, like I wrote only fighters in my Top20 I call great, he isn´t, so he´s automatically great. I´m sure that I never write great in that contiguity, but I could be wrong of course. If so, I clarified it now.

[Sonny's jab]

He was a great fighter in his era, right. But legacy-wise, when we talk about HW history (of all times) he can´t be great, like I wrote only fighters in my Top20 I call great, he isn´t, so he´s automatically great. I´m sure that I never write great in that contiguity, but I could be wrong of course. If so, I clarified it now.

Yeah, that's fair. I think I remember you calling Carnera "a great fighter" which makes some sense.
He was one of the best heavyweights in his time, and he always put up a fight, got off the floor against Baer and Louis, won a lot of fights. He had as much courage as any fighter ever, IMO.

But, yes, I do not think you ever said he was one of the all-time great heavyweights. I agree, he isn't.

[Luigi1985]

Yeah, that's fair. I think I remember you calling Carnera "a great fighter" which makes some sense.
He was one of the best heavyweights in his time, and he always put up a fight, got off the floor against Baer and Louis, won a lot of fights. He had as much courage as any fighter ever, IMO.

But, yes, I do not think you ever said he was one of the all-time great heavyweights. I agree, he isn't.


Exactly, it could be that in a discussion some things quickly are contorted, especially with a poster like Clay. I´m not sure what I wrote about Carnera exactly, but my opinion is like yours, one of the best fighters in his era (who wasn´t bad), but he wasn´t one of the greatest HW´s ever of course...

[Bummy Davis]

:good Your position is anachronistic. Someone like Walcott, and most of his
top opposition, were indeed a good sized heavyweights for their time.
Anyone over 175 was a heavyweight and there was no cruiserweight
division.
The problem with viewing modern size as the norm is that it is a
reflection of improved nutrition and medical care in the general
population, as well as specific supplements, such as steroids and
growth hormones unavailable to past generations. I doubt if Shannon
Briggs would have anything like the size he is if he were born in 1915
and fought in the forties and fifties.
I see your view as sort of like saying a modern general if obviously
better than Alexander or Caesar because his troops have machine
guns and would have mowed down the Macedonian phalanx or the
Roman legions.

:good

[Bill1234]

I think people are mixing up raw power with other factors such as speed, timing, snap, and accuracy/placement. In terms of raw power, Marciano has more power. He was knocking guys cold with 1 punch, even when he was losing. Marciano had mainly raw power and little snap, but that raw power would KO you with 1 punch. IMO there are 3 types of power.

1) Raw Power

The raw power that would knock you cold with 1 shot in a flash. Marciano, Shavers, and Cooney are good examples of this type of power.

2) Clubbing Power

Clubbing power is what Foreman had. A lot of power, and tremendous force, but most people would get up 3-4 times before just not getting up or the ref stopped it. These kind of guys, just like the raw power, rate very high on the PSI scales, just they have trouble keeping guys down.

3) Rounded Puncher

A rounded puncher is a guy who has a mix of things to get his KO's, but mainly TKO's. Tyson had this. A lot of snap and speed, which helps keep guys down, but neither of these are power. He had some raw power, but not enough to keep very many people down with 1 punch. He had great accuracy and timing too, which is another factor that will get his KO's/TKO's. You'll notice that with most of Tyson's KO's, the people were still conscious, just on queer street, big time. Tyson hit Larry with some of his best shots and Larry didn't go down (until the 4th round), but Larry remained concious the whole fight, then Cortez stopped it after the 3rd knockdown. Afterward, Larry said that Cooney and Shavers hit harder. Most guys say theve never been hit harder than Tyson, because they haven't fought anyone with massive raw power. Another example, Tyson's fight with Michael Spinks. Again, Tyson landed his best uppercut, possibly he ever threw, and it landed flush on Spinks's face, Spinks was down for the count, but he was only on queer street...big time, not out cold.

[Denny Cruser]

Another example, Tyson's fight with Michael Spinks. Again, Tyson landed his best uppercut, possibly he ever threw, and it landed flush on Spinks's face, Spinks was down for the count, but he was only on queer street...big time, not out cold.
Bill, you do not understand the game ;) That was not the best uppercut or something else. That was sweet science. I can decrypt it for you :good
Spinks has perfect defense with some methods of pikabow style. His head was perfectly defended and to stop Michael one must stop his legs and lowered his hands. As Qawi tried. Qawi landed a couple of good body shots and KD Michael, but Spinks was to big and quick for Qawi. At HW Holmes and Cooney have very big problems in landing on MS head. So what Tyson did? This stupid animal as someone see him? Tyson at first immobilize MS by perfect body shot and then quickly kill un-legged body ;) No runs no decisions no epic battles. That bout was sweet and short. Just concentrated science and power. And never it was best or lucky punches of Tyson. Never Bill.

[Bill1234]

Bill, you do not understand the game ;) That was not the best uppercut or something else. That was sweet science. I can decrypt it for you :good
Spinks has perfect defense with some methods of pikabow style. His head was perfectly defended and to stop Michael one must stop his legs and lowered his hands. As Qawi tried. Qawi landed a couple of good body shots and KD Michael, but Spinks was to big and quick for Qawi. At HW Holmes and Cooney have very big problems in landing on MS head. So what Tyson did? This stupid animal as someone see him? Tyson at first immobilize MS by perfect body shot and then quickly kill un-legged body ;) No runs no decisions no epic battles. That bout was sweet and short. Just concentrated science and power. And never it was best or lucky punches of Tyson. Never Bill.

Larry was 3 years past it and 7 years older than Spinks. IMO Larry won the first fight by about a round, but the 2nd fight Larry was flat out robbed. The Spinks Tyson fought was past his prime, and his knee wasn't as good as it used to be. Michael Spinks was terrifyed of Tyson. He looked like he was going to piss him self when he entered the ring. Also name 5 uppercuts that Tyson landed cleanly on someone's face that were better than the one he landed on Spinks's.

[C. M. Clay II]

Prove it you fucking liar. You wanna charge me because of lying, than prove it with facts, not with your great passwords. I wouldn´t call Carnera great (legacy-wise), because he wasn´t. Only fighters in my Top20 I call great, and he isn´t. LaStarza is the same, I said he was a defensive wizard, but you contort the words again, but don´t worry, I´m habitual that you make stuff like that...

I'll have to use the search engine, so it'll take me a while. But once I find it I'll post it here for everyone to see what a contemptible fraud you are!

[C. M. Clay II]

Damn! They reset the forums, so those posts aren't here anymore. But they were there. You got off lucky this time. So I guess you'll just keep saying that you never said those things, when you probably know you said them.:roll:

[Bummy Davis]

[quote=Bill1234]I think people are mixing up raw power with other factors such as speed, timing, snap, and accuracy/placement. In terms of raw power, Marciano has more power. He was knocking guys cold with 1 punch, even when he was losing. Marciano had mainly raw power and little snap, but that raw power would KO you with 1 punch. IMO there are 3 types of power.

1) Raw Power

The raw power that would knock you cold with 1 shot in a flash. Marciano, Shavers, and Cooney are good examples of this type of power.

2) Clubbing Power

Clubbing power is what Foreman had. A lot of power, and tremendous force, but most people would get up 3-4 times before just not getting up or the ref stopped it. These kind of guys, just like the raw power, rate very high on the PSI scales, just they have trouble keeping guys down.

3) Rounded Puncher

A rounded puncher is a guy who has a mix of things to get his KO's, but mainly TKO's. Tyson had this. A lot of snap and speed, which helps keep guys down, but neither of these are power. He had some raw power, but not enough to keep very many people down with 1 punch. He had great accuracy and timing too, which is another factor that will get his KO's/TKO's. You'll notice that with most of Tyson's KO's, the people were still conscious, just on queer street, big time. Tyson hit Larry with some of his best shots and Larry didn't go down (until the 4th round), but Larry remained concious the whole fight, then Cortez stopped it after the 3rd knockdown. Afterward, Larry said that Cooney and Shavers hit harder. Most guys say theve never been hit harder than Tyson, because they haven't fought anyone with massive raw power. Another example, Tyson's fight with Michael Spinks. Again, Tyson landed his best uppercut, possibly he ever threw, and it landed flush on Spinks's face, Spinks was down for the count, but he was only on queer street...big time, not out cold.[/quote

:good good post

[Bill1234]

A hard-hitting big man, hits harder than a hard-hitting small man. Tyson in his younger days is inbetween 214 and 222 pounds at 5'10". Rocky was the same height but weighed inbetween 185 and 190 pounds..Tyson has a lot bigger bone density and could hit like a freighttrain for his size..

I can't possibly imagine anyone smaller than that hitting harder, and Rocky isn't superman.

No contest.

Butterbean weighs over 300lbs and is only 6', he must hit harder than both of them using your logic. Tyson hit extremely hard yes, but it was most of the other things that got his KO's. It was all power for Marciano. If Tyson trained as hard as Marciano and didn't weight lift, he would probably weigh around the same as Marciano.

[C. M. Clay II]

Butterbean weighs over 300lbs and is only 6', he must hit harder than both of them using your logic. Tyson hit extremely hard yes, but it was most of the other things that got his KO's. It was all power for Marciano. If Tyson trained as hard as Marciano and didn't weight lift, he would probably weigh around the same as Marciano.

Butterbean is 300lbs of fat! Tyson is 220lbs of muscle. Big difference. Also prime Tyson didn't lift weights. He trained in the old school style.

[MrSmall]

You guys are making out that Tyson wasn't a tremendously hard puncher from the day he walked in the gym. His punching SKILLS were greatly improved, but he was always a raw power puncher.

[OLD FOGEY]

Butterbean is 300lbs of fat! Tyson is 220lbs of muscle. Big difference. Also prime Tyson didn't lift weights. He trained in the old school style.

Carnera was 270 lbs of muscle. Did he hit harder than Tyson? Than
Marciano?

[C. M. Clay II]

Carnera was 270 lbs of muscle. Did he hit harder than Tyson? Than
Marciano?

No, but I was just pointing out the absurdity of putting up Butterbean as an example of a "bigger" fighter. Also, Carnera lifted a lot of weights to get to his size. Prime Tyson and Marciano for the most part did not. If they did, they would probably be about 235, and 200, respectively.:good

[UpWithEvil]

Also prime Tyson didn't lift weights. He trained in the old school style.

How many needles to you have to stick in your ass to be "old school"?

[Bill1234]

Butterbean is a fat fuck, and doesn't have the speed, precision, accuracy and leverage that made Tyson's punches so devastating. ...besides, punchers are born; not made.


you're kidding me, right? :lol: Tyson could NEVER weigh 185 pounds..Hell, the man was 200 pounds when he was 15, 16 years old.

Yeah because he lifted weights. Look at him, he is a muscle bound freak, its not normal for a 12 year old to have a defined 6 pack and pecs. Think about it, he went to Juvey many times, you can lift weights there, put 2 and 2 together.

[Dempsey1238]

Cant we just agree that Tyson or Marciano hit hard lol. And they could ko about ANY MAN with a well time punch or go combo? If they landed it??

[Denny Cruser]

Carnera was 270 lbs of muscle. Did he hit harder than Tyson? Than
Marciano?
This is not an argument.
Tyson KOd big guys while Marciano Kod small guys. End of story.

[Marciano Frazier]

Walcott only ONE time fought with weight more than 200 pounds. So we can easily deduce - he wasnt heavyweight.
Well, such approach is rather artificial, so we can exclude Walcotts weight and include wights of his opponents. And we`ll see that Walcoot NEVER fought even good not old heavyweight >200 pounds. Thats all. :cool:

He fought noone good with the exceptions of faded Louis.

Lee Q. Murray was a hard-hitting and avoided black heavyweight and quite a good fighter, and he was 205-210 pounds, and Walcott beat him easily. Joe Baksi was a 210-pounder as well, a tough, durable, strong and technically-sound fighter, and Walcott beat him by a wide decision. Hein Ten Hoff was a ranked European heavyweight champ who was hard-hitting and undefeated at 6'5" and 220 pounds, and Walcott pretty easily outboxed him. In other words, your claims here are false.
Besides which, the heavyweight limit was not 200 pounds in those days, and in fact it wasn't 200 pounds five years ago or any of the 115 years of gloved boxing, so why, exactly, do you think that "heavyweight" should be defined by a 200 pound limit?

Who those people? List those hard-hitting HW`s KOed by 80 kg boxers :rofl :rofl :rofl
Sure. Walcott beat the likes of Lee Q. Murray, Tommy Gomez, Curtis "the Hatchetman" Sheppard, Elmer "Violent" Ray, and Hein Ten Hoff, all of whom were most definitely hard-hitting heavyweights, and he should have had a win over Louis, who was an extremely hard-hitting heavyweight.

Tyson was first who stop Tubbs. Then in the age of 34 and higher he was even more ugly fatted and stopped by very good 100+ kg punchers.
In his brief career before fighting Tyson, Tubbs had already been floored by journeymen Clarence Hill and Mike Jameson, and he would go on to be knocked out in one round apiece by Lionel Butler and Jimmy Ellis Jr.

For example hard hitting Thunder and Bowe failed to stop him. Listed Butler is terrific puncher. Walcott NEVER fought HWs even close to Butler in terms of POWER and RAW strength.
Um, Butler was 5'11" and flabby at anything very far above 200 pounds- not exactly your idea of a "modern super heavyweight." Please, present some kind of reasonable evidence to argue that a mediocre gatekeeper like Butler could punch on par with the likes of Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, or even any of the contenders I listed above.


Yeah, Charles was KOed by lesser 82 kg guys
:rofl :rofl Butler will kill those brotherhood of hobbits by one shot. Even those 80 kg HOFamers. Cause the boxers fight, not the titles.
Wow. Butler was a fat, wild, clumsy, poorly-conditioned little brawler with a weak chin. Care to explain why you think he would beat a swift, fluid, skilled, athletic, excellently-conditioned champion like Charles, aside from having a very slim puncher's chance?

Becuse Smith, for example, when he was still able to box, was KOd only by Ruddock one of the most hard-hitting HWs all-time. A terrific and furiest 100+ kg puncher. While Layne, for example was KOd by <85 kg guys. Do you understand the difference?
Um, no, besides being stopped by Ruddock, Smith was also taken out inside the distance by Holmes and James Broad long before reaching his waning years.
Layne had never been stopped before facing Marciano and was known for his durability(for example, the RING, May 1951, states that he can "take and give it" and describes him as having a "coconut-like noggin"). Marciano's knockout punch sheered his front teeth off and knocked him unconscious. He was never the same again.

If the guy weighting over 200 pounds KOed by or lost to <85 guys than he mediocre HW, at best. Also do you know why the limit of the HW division exist? Why HW is not absolute division? Because size is matter. No one want see how small Layne or Bivins will be killed in the ring by half-shot of Ruddock.
Um, Ruddock himself fought at cruiserweight and weighed under 200 pounds for his first nine or 10 fights.
You see, this is where your arguments are spurious and unreasonable. James Toney, for example, is a naturally smaller man than a Layne or Bivins(or Marciano, for that matter). He 'roided and fattened up 'till he looked like Jabba the Hutt and weighed 235, but that hardly means he's a giant and they're shrimps, ot that they couldn't do the same thing under the same circumstances if, for some reason, they so desired. Toney has stood up against some of the best heavyweights and biggest punchers of this era and was hardly "killed" by a "half-shot." But I suppose you think if he hadn't had 30 pounds of flab spilling around his trunks, he would've been blown out!
There has never been an era in which former middleweights and light heavyweights couldn't move up to heavyweight and compete with elite-level success. In past eras, they simply didn't feel obligated to bulk up so much as they do now in the process(somewhat reasonably in some cases, as more muscle mass can help you to cope against a much bigger man- but, again, it isn't as though the smaller heavyweights of the past couldn't do the same thing in the same situation).

[Denny Cruser]

Lee Q. Murray was a hard-hitting and avoided black heavyweight and quite a good fighter, and he was 205-210 pounds, and Walcott beat him easily. Joe Baksi was a 210-pounder as well, a tough, durable, strong and technically-sound fighter, and Walcott beat him by a wide decision. Hein Ten Hoff was a ranked European heavyweight champ who was hard-hitting and undefeated at 6'5" and 220 pounds, and Walcott pretty easily outboxed him. In other words, your claims here are false.

Ten Hoff german bum who even coudnt defend EBU belt :yep In best case he level of Paolo Vidoc :hey
Shkor - who is it? A man with a number of PTS and KO losses who deserves two title shots for New England Heavyweight Title :good
Baksi - Yeah a real HW who regularly lost to medoicre guys with 80-85 kg.
etc
Murray - a hard hitting bum who couldnt KO guys of <85 kg while itself weighting at 95 kg. What a avoided puncher :rofl
What a bums club :admin I think them all in sum not lasted even 12 round against likes of Donovan Ruddock or Frank Bruno.

[Denny Cruser]

In his brief career before fighting Tyson, Tubbs had already been floored by journeymen Clarence Hill and Mike Jameson, and he would go on to be knocked out in one round apiece by Lionel Butler and Jimmy Ellis Jr.

Tyson was the first man who STOPED Tubbs. Butler and Ellis did it when Tony was old and even more fat. :yep And you must note, that Butler at his prime lasted till Lewis fight has a streak of 16 wins all by KO, TKO or DQ. And he KOd 2 former world champions. :good

Um, Butler was 5'11" and flabby at anything very far above 200 pounds- not exactly your idea of a "modern super heavyweight." Please, present some kind of reasonable evidence to argue that a mediocre gatekeeper like Butler could punch on par with the likes of Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, or even any of the contenders I listed above.

Easy. He stopped guys weighting up to 132 kg, while your guys coudnt stop <85 kg boxers.


Wow. Butler was a fat, wild, clumsy, poorly-conditioned little brawler with a weak chin. Care to explain why you think he would beat a swift, fluid, skilled, athletic, excellently-conditioned champion like Charles, aside from having a very slim puncher's chance?

I think that athletic comissions NEVER give the opportunity to Butler to beat Charles :rofl Becuse of weight limitations. They are know about possible tragic result. Thats why weight divisions exist. :patsch


Layne had never been stopped before facing Marciano and was known for his durability(for example, the RING, May 1951, states that he can "take and give it" and describes him as having a "coconut-like noggin"). Marciano's knockout punch sheered his front teeth off and knocked him unconscious. He was never the same again.

Who tested Layne? LWHs and CWs? Or again Ten or Eleven Hoffs? :yep I think at cruiserweight he take punch very well, maybe on the level of Michael Spinks


Um, Ruddock himself fought at cruiserweight and weighed under 200 pounds for his first nine or 10 fights.

Yeah he was very young. At his prime he weighting around 105 kg with big frame.

You see, this is where your arguments are spurious and unreasonable. James Toney, for example, is a naturally smaller man than a Layne or Bivins(or Marciano, for that matter). He 'roided and fattened up 'till he looked like Jabba the Hutt and weighed 235, but that hardly means he's a giant and they're shrimps, ot that they couldn't do the same thing under the same circumstances if, for some reason, they so desired. Toney has stood up against some of the best heavyweights and biggest punchers of this era and was hardly "killed" by a "half-shot." But I suppose you think if he hadn't had 30 pounds of flab spilling around his trunks, he would've been blown out!
There has never been an era in which former middleweights and light heavyweights couldn't move up to heavyweight and compete with elite-level success. In past eras, they simply didn't feel obligated to bulk up so much as they do now in the process(somewhat reasonably in some cases, as more muscle mass can help you to cope against a much bigger man- but, again, it isn't as though the smaller heavyweights of the past couldn't do the same thing in the same situation).
Man I ask you in simple way. Toney was NEVER knocked out by <88 kg guys while weighting >88 kg while Layne and Bivins were knocked out by smaller guys. thats all.

[Bill1234]

This is not an argument.
Tyson KOd big guys while Marciano Kod small guys. End of story.

Bull shit. There is a lot more to it than that.

[Denny Cruser]

Bull shit. There is a lot more to it than that.
Let the bull alone, I see you walking through the topics with your own shit. If you have not any arguments, than just shut up. ;)

[Bummy Davis]

[quote=Marciano Frazier]Lee Q. Murray was a hard-hitting and avoided black heavyweight and quite a good fighter, and he was 205-210 pounds, and Walcott beat him easily. Joe Baksi was a 210-pounder as well, a tough, durable, strong and technically-sound fighter, and Walcott beat him by a wide decision. Hein Ten Hoff was a ranked European heavyweight champ who was hard-hitting and undefeated at 6'5" and 220 pounds, and Walcott pretty easily outboxed him. In other words, your claims here are false.
Besides which, the heavyweight limit was not 200 pounds in those days, and in fact it wasn't 200 pounds five years ago or any of the 115 years of gloved boxing, so why, exactly, do you think that "heavyweight" should be defined by a 200 pound limit?


Sure. Walcott beat the likes of Lee Q. Murray, Tommy Gomez, Curtis "the Hatchetman" Sheppard, Elmer "Violent" Ray, and Hein Ten Hoff, all of whom were most definitely hard-hitting heavyweights, and he should have had a win over Louis, who was an extremely hard-hitting heavyweight.


In his brief career before fighting Tyson, Tubbs had already been floored by journeymen Clarence Hill and Mike Jameson, and he would go on to be knocked out in one round apiece by Lionel Butler and Jimmy Ellis Jr.


Um, Butler was 5'11" and flabby at anything very far above 200 pounds- not exactly your idea of a "modern super heavyweight." Please, present some kind of reasonable evidence to argue that a mediocre gatekeeper like Butler could punch on par with the likes of Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, or even any of the contenders I listed above.



Wow. Butler was a fat, wild, clumsy, poorly-conditioned little brawler with a weak chin. Care to explain why you think he would beat a swift, fluid, skilled, athletic, excellently-conditioned champion like Charles, aside from having a very slim puncher's chance?


Um, no, besides being stopped by Ruddock, Smith was also taken out inside the distance by Holmes and James Broad long before reaching his waning years.
Layne had never been stopped before facing Marciano and was known for his durability(for example, the RING, May 1951, states that he can "take and give it" and describes him as having a "coconut-like noggin"). Marciano's knockout punch sheered his front teeth off and knocked him unconscious. He was never the same again.


Um, Ruddock himself fought at cruiserweight and weighed under 200 pounds for his first nine or 10 fights.
You see, this is where your arguments are spurious and unreasonable. James Toney, for example, is a naturally smaller man than a Layne or Bivins(or Marciano, for that matter). He 'roided and fattened up 'till he looked like Jabba the Hutt and weighed 235, but that hardly means he's a giant and they're shrimps, ot that they couldn't do the same thing under the same circumstances if, for some reason, they so desired. Toney has stood up against some of the best heavyweights and biggest punchers of this era and was hardly "killed" by a "half-shot." But I suppose you think if he hadn't had 30 pounds of flab spilling around his trunks, he would've been blown out!
There has never been an era in which former middleweights and light heavyweights couldn't move up to heavyweight and compete with elite-level success. In past eras, they simply didn't feel obligated to bulk up so much as they do now in the process(somewhat reasonably in some cases, as more muscle mass can help you to cope against a much bigger man- but, again, it isn't as though the smaller heavyweights of the past couldn't do the same thing in the same situation).[/quote

:good :good :good :good

[OLD FOGEY]

This is not an argument.
Tyson KOd big guys while Marciano Kod small guys. End of story.

Not exactly. The premise of your arguement is that it is more difficult
to knock out bigger men. This problem is there is zilch historical
evidence to back it up. Dempsey went the distance five times in six
fights with Tunney, Gibbons, and Miske, but bombed out big men Willard, Morris, Fulton, Firpo, etc.
Louis was stopped by Schmeling and Marciano, lost to Charles, and was
dropped three times by Walcott, but won all ten of his fights with men
over 210 lbs, nine by knockout and a tenth by DQ which should have
been a knockout. Four of these fights were against men over 250 lbs.
Marciano had eleven fights against men over 200 lbs and won them
all by knockout. He knocked out all five opponents he faced who
weighed over 210 lbs. He clearly struggled more with under 200 lb
men like Walcott, Charles, LaStarza, and Lowry.
Max Baer, Archie Moore, Bob Satterfield-same story--I think the reason
is obvious. Big men are less mobile and easier to hit.

[Bill1234]

Let the bull alone, I see you walking through the topics with your own shit. If you have not any arguments, than just shut up. ;)

I posted mine already, you just chose to ignore it because you knew you were wrong. You posted a few sentences, and said that was all there was. Which is completely inaccurate and full of shit. There is much more to it then that, but you seem to ignore everyone's points.

[OLD FOGEY]

So what? This is never suggests that he hit harder, cause those guys were LHWs, CWs, and a few HWs bums. While Tyson stopped gyus 100+ kg by one shot, while Marciano landed on 85 kg Charles with no effect :hey :hey

The key here - is the quality of HEAVYWEIGHTs in opposition. I think Tyson also could carry his power to later round against 85 kg Tarver or Spinks :rofl

Maybe Charles actually took a punch better than Tyson's 220 lb
opponents. Who knows. The three 220 lb plus opponents on Marciano's resume were all knocked out, two in the first round, while
180 lb Ted Lowry twice lasted ten rounds.

Tyson carrying his power into the later rounds against Spinks, for
example, is pure speculation, based on nothing.

[OLD FOGEY]

Do you rate
Max Schmeling, Pat Comiskey, Tony Galento, and Hank Hankinson as punchers
higher than
Briggs, Morrison, Ruddock, Tua, Bruno etc? :hey

As tomato-chinned Holmes, Ruddock, Thomas, Spinks, Williams etc? :rofl
Well I know about Galento opposition, and how he failed to KO a number of 80 kg bums, while self weighting at 100 kg. :hey Pat Comiskey and Hank Hankinson tested Baer chin very carefully in 1 round. :good Schmelling? Yaeh good small puncher who test Max chin. So, Baer indeed has most iron-chinned head of all-time! Because Max Shmelling failed to KO him! :patsch

Why do Briggs, Morrison, and Tua have anything to do with this.
They did not fight Tyson.
Why don't we bring up George Godfrey with Baer?

Briggs at 273 lbs just failed to knock out a 221 lb man. That is a man
close to 25% less in body weight.
Also you throw around terms like 80 kg bums--could you be specific about
whom you are referring to.

[OLD FOGEY]

Tyson was the first man who STOPED Tubbs. Butler and Ellis did it when Tony was old and even more fat. :yep And you must note, that Butler at his prime lasted till Lewis fight has a streak of 16 wins all by KO, TKO or DQ. And he KOd 2 former world champions. :good

Easy. He stopped guys weighting up to 132 kg, while your guys coudnt stop <85 kg boxers.


I think that athletic comissions NEVER give the opportunity to Butler to beat Charles :rofl Becuse of weight limitations. They are know about possible tragic result. Thats why weight divisions exist. :patsch


Who tested Layne? LWHs and CWs? Or again Ten or Eleven Hoffs? :yep I think at cruiserweight he take punch very well, maybe on the level of Michael Spinks


Yeah he was very young. At his prime he weighting around 105 kg with big frame.

Man I ask you in simple way. Toney was NEVER knocked out by <88 kg guys while weighting >88 kg while Layne and Bivins were knocked out by smaller guys. thats all.

1. On who tested Layne--Turkey Thompson for one--Thompson
stopped Buddy Knox, Pat Valentino, Gus Dorazio, Eddie Blunt, Elmer
Ray, Lee Murray, and Al Hart, all top men of the era, and he could
ko the big guys--He ko'd Johnny Haynes (6' 4" 220 lbs), Chuck Crowell
(6'5" 230 lbs) and Ben Morosz (7' 1", 296 lbs). Bob Satterfield was also
a feared puncher who blew away top heavyweights such as Lee Oma,
Cleveland Williams, John Holman, and Bob Baker. And Walcott could
punch also.

2. I don't know what Toney proves one way or another. No one has
knocked him out, including the big heavyweights. He has a top chin
and a solid defense. If anything, the most he would prove is that
a smaller man can be tougher to knock out than many big men.

[Bummy Davis]

Why do Briggs, Morrison, and Tua have anything to do with this.
They did not fight Tyson.
Why don't we bring up George Godfrey with Baer?

Briggs at 273 lbs just failed to knock out a 221 lb man. That is a man
close to 25% less in body weight.
Also you throw around terms like 80 kg bums--could you be specific about
whom you are referring to.


Correct and that 221lb man still looked like he could tighten up a bit, I wish they would bring back 15 rounds and you would see a lot of these guys losing useless bulk

[Bill1234]

Marciano is so overrated by his delusional fans..it's sad, really.

Oh and Tyson isn't? He is the most overrated fighter of all time. Marciano is getting more and more underrated by the year. Pretty soon people will be calling him a lucky bum. Its sad really.:-(

[Manassa]

Marciano might be overrated as a heavyweight, but it's not fair to match him against Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and George Foreman. Look at him in a pound-for-pound sense; he was great.

[Bill1234]

Marciano might be overrated as a heavyweight, but it's not fair to match him against Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and George Foreman. Look at him in a pound-for-pound sense; he was great.

IMO he could take Lennox. Lennox was KTFO by a right hand from Rahman, and Marciano's best punch was his "Suzie Q" obviously. But I think he would take some punishment before getting there.

[Denny Cruser]

Marciano might be overrated as a heavyweight, but it's not fair to match him against Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and George Foreman. Look at him in a pound-for-pound sense; he was great.
:good

[Denny Cruser]

Not exactly. The premise of your arguement is that it is more difficult
to knock out bigger men. This problem is there is zilch historical
evidence to back it up. Dempsey went the distance five times in six
fights with Tunney, Gibbons, and Miske, but bombed out big men Willard, Morris, Fulton, Firpo, etc.
Louis was stopped by Schmeling and Marciano, lost to Charles, and was
dropped three times by Walcott, but won all ten of his fights with men
over 210 lbs, nine by knockout and a tenth by DQ which should have
been a knockout. Four of these fights were against men over 250 lbs.
Marciano had eleven fights against men over 200 lbs and won them
all by knockout. He knocked out all five opponents he faced who
weighed over 210 lbs. He clearly struggled more with under 200 lb
men like Walcott, Charles, LaStarza, and Lowry.
Max Baer, Archie Moore, Bob Satterfield-same story--I think the reason
is obvious. Big men are less mobile and easier to hit.
I think the reason you suggest is wrong. Because Marcianos big men were bums while small men likes Charles were great LHWs and CWs. And I see you think that bad mover Valuev very easy to be KOd cause of his mobility :yep

[Denny Cruser]

Why do Briggs, Morrison, and Tua have anything to do with this.
They did not fight Tyson.
Why don't we bring up George Godfrey with Baer?

They fought and hit iron-chinned Lennox Lewis :rofl So what they are harder puncher than Shmelling, for example? :hey

Briggs at 273 lbs just failed to knock out a 221 lb man. That is a man
close to 25% less in body weight.

There are two reasons
first - NOW Briggs old and to massive
second - they all good HWs so they can take punch from HWs.

[Denny Cruser]

Maybe Charles actually took a punch better than Tyson's 220 lb
opponents. Who knows. The three 220 lb plus opponents on Marciano's resume were all knocked out,

They all were fantastic bums with a number of even KO :yikes losses to small mediocre guys like of [Only registered and activated users can see links]
_____________
Concerning Spinks.
Michael was iron-chinned LHW and CW and Mike nearly kill him. While Tyson landed on some HWs with non-iron chins with significntly lesser efect. Altough your theory suggests that they are easier to hit and to KO. :hey

[Sweet Science]

Hello everyone, I am new here. Just wanted to put my opinion accross on the question of who has more punching power Marciano or Tyson? I beleive that Marciano had the ability to throw harder single shots. However, Tyson in his prime, taking into account his rare ability to throw very quick power shots in comination would be more powerful most of the time. If that makes sense.

[Luigi1985]

Hello everyone, I am new here. Just wanted to put my opinion accross on the question of who has more punching power Marciano or Tyson? I beleive that Marciano had the ability to throw harder single shots. However, Tyson in his prime, taking into account his rare ability to throw very quick power shots in comination would be more powerful most of the time. If that makes sense.


Simpatico introduction! Welcome! It´s good, you argue your posts useful, almost a rarity here...

[Sweet Science]

Thanks Luigi, I'm sure I'll find interesting debate and opinions here

[Denny Cruser]

I beleive that Marciano had the ability to throw harder single shots.
Hello man. Do you believe that because of Tyson KOd bigger gyus than Marciano? :yep

[Luigi1985]

Hello man. Do you believe that because of Tyson KOd bigger gyus than Marciano? :yep


You´re right, it´s an art to KO fat and slow guys like Botha instead of totally ripped fighters like Walcott...


you rate the weight way too high...

[Sweet Science]

Hello man. Do you believe that because of Tyson KOd bigger gyus than Marciano? :yep

I just believe that Marciano had that killer one punch KO ability which he could call upon to bail him out of sticky situations. Whereas the power Tyson had was somewhat reliant upon his speed being there also (As well as the fact that he could throw them in combination). Towards the end of Tyson's career when he lost alot of the speed the power also suffered.

[Denny Cruser]

you rate the weight way too high...
Yes I am. And I am not alone, so athletic comissions supports me :rofl They simply divided divisions by weghts to exclude serious damage of small guys. :smoke

[Luigi1985]

Yes I am. And I am not alone, so athletic comissions supports me :rofl They simply divided divisions by weghts to exclude serious damage of small guys. :smoke


Everywhere exists a limit, otherwise giants like Long, Valuev, Dyer, etc. (such giants were in every HW era, and will always be) would be the best, don´t answer now that Valuev is a bum with no skills, for a man with his size/ weight he has great stamina, great chin, decent skills, good jab and a respectable pace, and he pressures the whole fight, and that´s not easy for his opponents. Even tough he was clearly beaten by Chagaev, Ruiz (normally) and Donald (normally)...


btw, instead of playing the smart ass here, it would be better to make yourself a bit sport, than you would better know what we mean...

[Denny Cruser]

btw, instead of playing the smart ass here, it would be better to make yourself a bit sport, than you would better know what we mean...
man I am in sport for 23 years. I am doing swimming, judo, boxing, football, athletic and some minor sports, so I understand the principles I talking about.
So, listen, bodybilder :hey , I dont use such words as shit and ass usually... So it would be better to make yourself a bit culture ;)

[Luigi1985]

man I am in sport for 23 years. I am doing swimming, judo, boxing, football, athletic and some minor sports, so I understand the principles I talking about.
So, listen, bodybilder :hey , I dont use such words as shit and ass usually... So it would be better to make yourself a bit culture ;)


I meant really a form of sport, so specialised at one or two, not like you wrote, one time in the month you go swimming, than the next year you play soccer, the next week you go at the gym and watch boxing and spar perhaps some minutes... You can´t do 100 forms of sports at the highest level, so don´t play always the smart ass, for example when a experienced man with so much knowledge like OLD FOGEY want to learn you something, it would be better to notice some (or all) of the stuff he writes...

[Denny Cruser]

I meant really a form of sport, so specialised at one or two, not like you wrote, one time in the month you go swimming, than the next year you play soccer, the next week you go at the gym and watch boxing and spar perhaps some minutes... You can´t do 100 forms of sports at the highest level,

:rofl :rofl :rofl Man dont discuss the things you dont know ;)

so don´t play always the smart ass, for example when a experienced man with so much knowledge like OLD FOGEY want to learn you something, it would be better to notice some (or all) of the stuff he writes...
I like the way Old Fogey wrote his thoughts, but I have my own opinion and expirience of hitting and getting hit :yep .
ps Luigi I see you like word -ass-. Are you gay?

[Luigi1985]

:rofl :rofl :rofl Man dont discuss the things you dont know ;)

I like the way Old Fogey wrote his thoughts, but I have my own opinion and expirience of hitting and getting hit :yep .
ps Luigi I see you like word -ass-. Are you gay?


Ah, because I wrote twice that you´re a smart- ass I´m automatically gay? Sounds not very logical for me...

[Luigi1985]

I like the way Old Fogey wrote his thoughts, but I have my own opinion and expirience of hitting and getting hit :yep .



To judge it by your stupid and childish posts with the thousand smilies, it seems to be that you got hit way more than you hit...

[C. M. Clay II]

You´re right, it´s an art to KO fat and slow guys like Botha instead of totally ripped fighters like Walcott...


you rate the weight way too high...

Sure, guys like Trevor Berbick (220), Pinklon Thomas (215), Tyrell Biggs (230), Frank Bruno (230), etc. were all tubs of lard, right?:rolleyes:

[Bill1234]

Sure, guys like Trevor Berbick (220), Pinklon Thomas (215), Tyrell Biggs (230), Frank Bruno (230), etc. were all tubs of lard, right?:rolleyes:

Bruno had too much muscle...

[C. M. Clay II]

Bruno had too much muscle...

Yeah, but Luigi's acting like most of the big guys Tyson fought were naturally as big as Marciano's opponents and the extra weight was just fat. They were just bigger, and just as ripped.:good

[C. M. Clay II]

To judge it by your stupid and childish posts with the thousand smilies, it seems to be that you got hit way more than you hit...

Is that your catchphrase, now?:huh

[Bummy Davis]

Yeah, but Luigi's acting like most of the big guys Tyson fought were naturally as big as Marciano's opponents and the extra weight was just fat. They were just bigger, and just as ripped.:good

Bruno was muscled up but he would not be a champ in any era, Berbick was a one fight wonder and he won it over a guy who just went back on shooting smack, Thomas, Thomas could have been a good one but went back on shooting dope....and Biggs was a punchless fighter who was not so much of a good boxer either

[Marciano Frazier]

Ten Hoff german bum who even coudnt defend EBU belt :yep In best case he level of Paolo Vidoc :hey
Uh-huh. So he was a bum because he didn't make any successful defenses of the European title? In that case, so was Frank Bruno.


Shkor - who is it? A man with a number of PTS and KO losses who deserves two title shots for New England Heavyweight Title :good
I never mentioned Shkor- why is this here?

Baksi - Yeah a real HW who regularly lost to medoicre guys with 80-85 kg.
etc
Murray - a hard hitting bum who couldnt KO guys of <85 kg while itself weighting at 95 kg. What a avoided puncher :rofl
What a bums club :admin I think them all in sum not lasted even 12 round against likes of Donovan Ruddock or Frank Bruno.
Although I had already guessed as much, it's apparent from this paragraph that my efforts here are pointless, because your argument is based on circular logic, one of the worst logical fallacies. In your view, it's apparently just a self-evident fact of life that no smaller man could possibly beat a good bigger man, and if anyone presents apparent examples of this happening, you "disprove" it by saying the bigger man wasn't good; "but how do you know" "Because he lost to a smaller man."

[C. M. Clay II]

Bruno was muscled up but he would not be a champ in any era, Berbick was a one fight wonder and he won it over a guy who just went back on shooting smack, Thomas, Thomas could have been a good one but went back on shooting dope....and Biggs was a punchless fighter who was not so much of a good boxer either

The point is, bigger fighters are on average more durable and harder to knock out. Tyson knocked out bigger fighters than Marciano and in most cases in more spectacular fashion than Marciano therefore Tyson hits harder.:good

[Marciano Frazier]

The point is, bigger fighters are on average more durable and harder to knock out. Tyson knocked out bigger fighters than Marciano and in most cases in more spectacular fashion than Marciano therefore Tyson hits harder.:good Define "spectacular" here. I don't recall Tyson ever knocking a world-class fighter out like a light the way Marciano did to Walcott, or breaking their front teeth out, like he did to Layne(who he also knocked unconscious). I think those are certainly genuine indicators of incredible punching power, much moreso than, say, having a guy stumble around a lot after you knock him down. Tyson highlight reels may often look more "spectacular" than Marciano highlight reels, but again, this is largely because all of Tyson's 58 professional fights are on film, including all the ones against journeymen and club fighters, while less than a dozen of Marciano's are, and those are all against world-ranked opposition. Marciano would probably seem much more powerful and dangerous than he does now if we had all the films of him winning 30 and 60 second knockouts in his early career like we do of Tyson; for example, back in Providence in 1948, he had a run of five consecutive first-round knockouts in less than a month, during which he knocked out a 254-pound journeyman a minute into the first round, then knocked a guy out in 36 seconds and left him unconscious for 10 minutes. He had at least seven knockouts in the first half of the first round. If all of these fights were available on video and we could see Marciano absolutely ripping through these journeymen like tissue paper like we can with Tyson, do you not think it would effect our perception of him as a puncher?

[C. M. Clay II]

Define "spectacular" here. I don't recall Tyson ever knocking a world-class fighter out like a light the way Marciano did to Walcott, or breaking their front teeth out, like he did to Layne(who he also knocked unconscious). I think those are certainly genuine indicators of incredible punching power, much moreso than, say, having a guy stumble around a lot after you knock him down. Tyson highlight reels may often look more "spectacular" than Marciano highlight reels, but again, this is largely because all of Tyson's 58 professional fights are on film, including all the ones against journeymen and club fighters, while less than a dozen of Marciano's are, and those are all against world-ranked opposition. Marciano would probably seem much more powerful and dangerous than he does now if we had all the films of him winning 30 and 60 second knockouts in his early career like we do of Tyson; for example, back in Providence in 1948, he had a run of five consecutive first-round knockouts in less than a month, during which he knocked out a 254-pound journeyman a minute into the first round, then knocked a guy out in 36 seconds and left him unconscious for 10 minutes. He had at least seven knockouts in the first half of the first round. If all of these fights were available on video and we could see Marciano absolutely ripping through these journeymen like tissue paper like we can with Tyson, do you not think it would effect our perception of him as a puncher?

I'm not talking about journeyman. I'm talking about the world class opponents. Like I said Tyson knocked out bigger fighters, and more spectacularly. That's why IMO Tyson hit harder.:good

[fightking12]

got to say Tyson

[Marciano Frazier]

Like I said Tyson knocked out bigger fighters, and more spectacularly. That's why IMO Tyson hit harder.:good
Again, how do you define "spectacularly"? Marciano knocked a world champion out colder than a doorknob with a single shot and left him looking like he was dead. He knocked a top five contender out cold with single shot that sheered his front teeth off. What did Tyson do that was more spectacular than that? Marciano had a higher knockout average and a much higher one against elite opponents, by the way. The "knocking out bigger opponents" thing is the only pro-Tyson argument being forwarded here that really stands up to scrutiny, but even with that, bigger men are certainly not always more durable, and although he didn't fight many, Marciano absolutely annihilated all the big men he fought.

[hobgoblin]

I do believe that Mike Tyson would have knocked out Joe Walcott much faster and in more impressive fashion than Marciano. I really wouldn't put Walcott into this discussion except in saying that the right hand landed on him was probably just as hard more or less than the right hand Tyson landed on Botha. Both had similar power IMO but Marciano was the greater fighter and Tyson the greater puncher.

[Luigi1985]

Again, how do you define "spectacularly"? Marciano knocked a world champion out colder than a doorknob with a single shot and left him looking like he was dead. He knocked a top five contender out cold with single shot that sheered his front teeth off. What did Tyson do that was more spectacular than that? Marciano had a higher knockout average and a much higher one against elite opponents, by the way. The "knocking out bigger opponents" thing is the only pro-Tyson argument being forwarded here that really stands up to scrutiny, but even with that, bigger men are certainly not always more durable, and although he didn't fight many, Marciano absolutely annihilated all the big men he fought.


You know, Marciano Frazier, Clay thinks because Tyson´s opponents were bigger, that´s automatically a reason that he hit harder, that sounds very logical...

[OLD FOGEY]

The point is, bigger fighters are on average more durable and harder to knock out. Tyson knocked out bigger fighters than Marciano and in most cases in more spectacular fashion than Marciano therefore Tyson hits harder.:good

Could you provide actual evidence that "bigger fighters are on average
more durable and harder to knock out."
I will provide some examples for you to deal with:
1. Was Fred Fulton more durable than Billy Miske or Tommy Gibbons?
2. Was Jess Willard more durable than Gene Tunney?
3. Was Primo Carnera more durable than Paulino Uzcudun?
4. Was Buddy Baer more durable than Arturo Godoy?
6. Was Bob Baker more durable than Rocky Marciano?
7. Was Buster Mathis more durable than George Chuvalo?
8. Was Gerry Cooney more durable than Jerry Quarry?
9. Is Wladimir Klitschko more durable than James Toney?
Can you provide evidence that "on average" bigger fighters are more
durable?

[OLD FOGEY]

I do believe that Mike Tyson would have knocked out Joe Walcott much faster and in more impressive fashion than Marciano. I really wouldn't put Walcott into this discussion except in saying that the right hand landed on him was probably just as hard more or less than the right hand Tyson landed on Botha. Both had similar power IMO but Marciano was the greater fighter and Tyson the greater puncher.

Marciano knocked Walcott out in the first round.

[hobgoblin]

Marciano knocked Walcott out in the first round.

Smart ass. :yep

[Dempsey1238]

I pretty sure tiny Ruby Robert hit harder than Marciano and Tyson. Did they ever killed 1 person in the ring?? Nope. Fitz has killed 3 people.

[Bill1234]

I pretty sure tiny Ruby Robert hit harder than Marciano and Tyson. Did they ever killed 1 person in the ring?? Nope. Fitz has killed 3 people.

Marciano put Carmine Vingo into a coma with 1 punch. Vingo almost died from that.

[thunder06]

marciano hits harder cuz he's of european descent

[manbearpig]

The broken English in most of these posts is fucking hilarious. Really laughed at the arguing

Tyson had more power.

[he grant]

Not even close.

Who had more power, Ketchel or Marciano ?

[Bad_Intentions]

Not even close.

Who had more power, Ketchel or Marciano ?

don't try and change the topic, boy.

[he grant]

Didn't change the topic, responded to it.

[Bummy Davis]

Both had power, Tyson tried to generate his power early...Marciano stayed with him for 15 rds. Tyson only once KO'd a man after the 8th rd and it was a TKO over Jose Ribalta...Marciano had 15 rd power

[he grant]

Tyson had power all night. In addition, he was fighting much bigger, stronger men ... .. Imagine if Tyson was hitting 188 pound Charles, 195 pound Walcott, 185 pound LaStarza or porkchop Cockell ? He'd be put back in jail.

There is no comparison.

[Seamus]

Tyson had power all night. In addition, he was fighting much bigger, stronger men ... .. Imagine if Tyson was hitting 188 pound Charles, 195 pound Walcott, 185 pound LaStarza or porkchop Cockell ? He'd be put back in jail.

There is no comparison.

Reality.

[PowerPuncher]

Tyson had power all night. In addition, he was fighting much bigger, stronger men ... .. Imagine if Tyson was hitting 188 pound Charles, 195 pound Walcott, 185 pound LaStarza or porkchop Cockell ? He'd be put back in jail.

There is no comparison.

Except boxing is the only sport you can be legally killed

[ripcity]

Punching Power is Mass of the source + Speed + Distance the punch travals.
Tyson comes out on top in all 3.

[PetethePrince]

Tyson, although his power might be overrated. It was his speed and accuracy that made him lethal. I'm sure if they tested the power of these two men it would be closer than most think. Because Tyson is much more accurate, faster, and just much sharper a puncher.

If it's P4P power it's Rocky. Tyson will always be a much superior puncher, he's arguably the greatest HW puncher. That's including Louis (Although I don't rank him #1. Case can easily be made).

[Flea Man]

How can Tyson be the bigger puncher by Marciano be the bigger P4P puncher? Even though he was smaller he didn't exactly knock out any humongous opponents did he, if they were bloody good opponents.

Tyson knocked his opponents into oblivion.

[he grant]

I'd say P4P Rocky and Dempsey are right up there w Fitz and Langford ...

Let's look at this analogy ... 188 pound Henry Cooper for all intents and purposes knocked out a young Ali. Only the bell save Ali from destruction. He was out on his feet. I think it's safe to say Marciano hit as hard as Cooper (at least) ... if Rocky , at 188, hit hard enough to KO Ali, how much harder do you need to hit ?

My point, Rocky did hit hard enough to KO 99% of the guys that ever lived. Maybe a Chuvalo or McCall are excluded but that's about it ... if Rocky landed and could fight his fight which is a whole other story ...

[PetethePrince]

How can Tyson be the bigger puncher by Marciano be the bigger P4P puncher? Even though he was smaller he didn't exactly knock out any humongous opponents did he, if they were bloody good opponents.

Tyson knocked his opponents into oblivion.

Because P4P levels the weight difference. And I said P4P in terms of power (Not as a puncher).

How many 1 punch KO's does Tyson have against ranked opposition?

Tyson was lethal with speed and accuracy. Holmes said Norton and Shavers had more power for Christ Sakes.

[Jaws]

No doubt Tyson. You can't argue with physics. And his punches were a lesson in physics and form. He used his entire body to generate power. Not that nobody else ever did, but Tyson was particularly exemplary at it. His huge legs were a definite asset to his overall punching power.

Rocky was surely a freak himself, but he did not possess Tyson's physical attributes.

[Woddy]

The obvious answer is Tyson. And anyone who think otherwise, needs to brush up on their knowledge.

[darealchamp23]

I'll say Tyson. He had more one-punch knockout power.

[djanders]

In my opinion: From in close, Marciano. From further off, Tyson.

[laxpdx]

Tyson definitely had the freakish power to put an opponent out really quick, whereas the cumulative effect of Marciano's unrelenting assault resulted in broken blood vessels as well as more long-term damage.

[Bummy Davis]

I'd say P4P Rocky and Dempsey are right up there w Fitz and Langford ...

Let's look at this analogy ... 188 pound Henry Cooper for all intents and purposes knocked out a young Ali. Only the bell save Ali from destruction. He was out on his feet. I think it's safe to say Marciano hit as hard as Cooper (at least) ... if Rocky , at 188, hit hard enough to KO Ali, how much harder do you need to hit ?

My point, Rocky did hit hard enough to KO 99% of the guys that ever lived. Maybe a Chuvalo or McCall are excluded but that's about it ... if Rocky landed and could fight his fight which is a whole other story ...

See that is the point some guys hit extremely hard. Guys like Marciano and Langford were freaks for there size as far as punchers and not all big guys can punch Terrel was 6"6 but not a puncher and guys like Primo and Jess were big had power but could not punch like Marciano or Dempsey or Louis. Can Big guys take more punishment ask Willard, ask Primo.

A puncher is a puncher

[he grant]

Look, his power was brutal. The shot that KO'ed Walcott if landed flush KO's Ali too ... P4P the guy was a monster ... my trouble with Rocky is not his power. It 's his other skill sets and physical limitations in match ups with the best of the much bigger men ...

[Bummy Davis]

Look, his power was brutal. The shot that KO'ed Walcott if landed flush KO's Ali too ... P4P the guy was a monster ... my trouble with Rocky is not his power. It 's his other skill sets and physical limitations in match ups with the best of the much bigger men ...


I see your point but I don't get caught up in that (the adjustments of the era's)

I think when you evaluate every division except the Heavyweights this is not an issue

When we go to the Big men there have always been giants. I think the training mentality of the Big guys (other than Lewis and the Klitscko's) there have not been too many greats.

Its impossible to take the environment of Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano and recreate it today or to take the fighters of today and send them back under the conditions of those times and see how they would fair.

I look at all of the dominant fighters of there time and compare. Johnson,Louis,Ali,Marciano,Dempsey,Langford,etc. were great and had the natural ability to adjust because of there greatness but there are no such things as time machines.

Jerry Quarry was one who handled the Big Strong guys and nullified power with a solid chin and solid power of his own but he was a class below Ali and Frazier.

There is an old saying the cream rises to the top and although it would be impossible for these great to be born again if they could be they would be great in any era.

I would love to see the 15 rd fights come back again for very few fighter had the skill to fake it for 15 rds and heavyweights would benefit the most (condition wise) those last 3 rds separate the men from the boys and a fighter has to find the perfect fitness to fight 15.

[he grant]

What I admire most about Rocky and what is not often mentioned is that he had the stamina left to land that bomb in round 13 or a brutal fight. How many guys today are exhausted just standing up for 12 rounds. This is what make guys like him and Frazier so special in my book. Joe also had enough to throw that bomb against Ali in rd 15 ... while stylewise lesser bigger heavyweights might beat them, P4P they were exceptional.

[Seamus]

Look, his power was brutal. The shot that KO'ed Walcott if landed flush KO's Ali too ... P4P the guy was a monster ... my trouble with Rocky is not his power. It 's his other skill sets and physical limitations in match ups with the best of the much bigger men ...

It was a powerful punch but a little overrated I think as Walcott was moving into that right hand...

[johnmaff36]

I feel Tysons power derived from his ability to throw from awkward angles combined with great speed and accuracy, made him a truly fearsome guy and a terrific puncher unloading, in the first half of a contest. I havent really seen it after that bar the ruddock fight so id have to question his ability to do it over 15 rounds.

Marciano was a tough tough customer, strong as a bull and relentless in his offence. Couple that with his proven stamina and ability to KO in the championship rounds, then i would say hes the stronger of the two. I know thats not what the question was, but for some strange reason i get the feeling rocky had more strength but tyson was more dangerous early on, if that makes sense.

Anyhow, i had to nail my colours to the mast and sided with rocky since he needs more support

[he grant]

I don't know if you can overate it as it speaks for itself. Walcott was out for a long time. Rocky may have only landed half a dozen like that his whole career but he sure had it that night when he needed it , late in his first championship fight.

[1HitterQuitter]

This is a joke right? That's like comparing Tomaz Adamek to David Tua.