Mike Tyson vs Rocky Marciano

Daroxtar

tryingmybestt wrote: »

I'm not sure about this one...

Below is my initial analysis:

Speed: - advantage tyson
Power: - equal
Footwork: - advantage tyson
Chin: - advantage rocky
Mental toughness/determination: - advantage rocky
Technique: - advantage tyson
Fitness: equal
Stamina: - slight advantage to rocky....he continue his ko's late in fights...if tyson didnt do it early he didnt get the ko or he lost
Strenght: Slight edge to tyson due to extra weight although rocky was famous for his brute strenght

I think Rocky's will to win and excellent beard would see out the first 6 rounds which would be tough for him and then i think he'd come on strong and get the ko

I could also see the possibility of an early ko victory for tyson but i'm slight leaning towards the other option ....60/40 split

tryingmybestt wrote: »

heres my analysis IMO

Chin - advantage rocky
Durability - advantage rocky
Stamina - advantage rocky
Mental toughness - advantage rocky
Weight - advantage tyson
Strength - advantage tyson - slightly
Power - advantage rocky
Speed - advantage tyson
Footwork - advantage tyson
Defence - equal - totally different but equal
KO power late in fight - advantage rocky

rocky by Ko during middle to late rounds - he has the chin to survive tyson's onslaught in the first 5 rounds but when tyson begins to slow down rocky will take over....tyson will be discouraged from his all out attack once he taste rocky's power....it will make tyson more cautious and therefore totally out of his game

Why the change?
IMO the advantage in power is completely with Tyson

walshb

Two born hitters, both hitting hard. One with 30 lbs extra natural weight and muscle. I will lay a bet that this man probably generates more force per punch. Rocky for 185 lbs is a hell of a hitter. This is physics and nature in play. Speed, weight and delivery are all so important when you compare two naturally powerful hitters. Tyson to me leads in all three categories, hence I lay that bet.

Chins? One man taking shots off men routinely heavier than the other man's opponents. Also, at peak, single shot ability IMO is clear in Tyson's favour. Rocky was dropped a few times by single shots that were far from whoppers.

Tyson's chin/neck and ability to take a flush whopper is top notch. Grade A + for this.

colly10

tryingmybestt wrote: »

heres my analysis IMO

Chin - advantage rocky
Durability - advantage rocky
Stamina - advantage rocky
Mental toughness - advantage rocky
Weight - advantage tyson
Strength - advantage tyson - slightly
Power - advantage rocky
Speed - advantage tyson
Footwork - advantage tyson
Defence - equal - totally different but equal
KO power late in fight - advantage rocky

You put weight in as one characteristic but really it makes a difference to most of these. For example -

Chin - Your basing the quality of the chin off how Rocky took shots from smaller men, Tyson fought bigger guys
Stamina - More likely to be affected when a heavier guy is leaning on you or your pushing him on the ropes than when lighter guys are leaning on you. Also heavier guys are more likely to burn out from doing the same amount of work
Durability - This is really just a mix of stamina and chin, but your comparing how durable Tyson was against heavier guys to how Rocky was against smaller men
Strenghth - Tyson was capable of bullying massive men and push them back against the ropes, he was also carring about an extra 20 lbs of muscle, I would say he was significantly stronger
Power - Again based on what Rocky did to small guys, what would Tyson have done to them.

These fantasy fights all come down to opinion but in mine Tyson gets him out of there early. Rocky never faced anyone as ferocious as Tyson

walshb

colly10 wrote: »

You put weight in as one characteristic but really it makes a difference to most of these. For example -

Chin - Your basing the quality of the chin off how Rocky took shots from smaller men, Tyson fought bigger guys
Stamina - More likely to be affected when a heavier guy is leaning on you than when lighter guys are leaning on you. Also heavier guys are more likely to burn out from doing the same amount of work
Durability - This is really just a mix of stamina and chin, but your comparing how durable Tyson was against heavier guys to how Rocky was against smaller men
Strenghth - Tyson was capable of bullying massive men and push them back against the ropes, he was also carring about an extra 20 lbs of muscle, I would say he was significantly stronger
Power - Again based on what Rocky did to small guys, what would Tyson have done to them.

These fantasy fights all come down to opinion but in mine Tyson gets him out of there early. Rocky never faced anyone as ferocious as Tyson

Hence why IMO weight is a major factor.

Littlehorny

This fight reminds me alot of the Foreman vs Frazier fight in that no matter how durable and tough frazier was he was tailor made for Foreman. When the bigger man landed his bombs Frazier just couldnt contend with the force of the blows. As said before Marciano's direct walk you down style is playing right into Tysons hands. Marciano never fought a guy with Tysons power or speed.

tryingmybestt

Daroxtar wrote: »

Why the change?
IMO the advantage in power is completely with Tyson

initially i wasn't 100% but after watching some more of rocky's fights i would give a slight edge to rocky in the power department, regardless of weigh...tyson was at peak about 212lbs and rocky would be about 190lbs

colly10

tryingmybestt wrote: »

initially i wasn't 100% but after watching some more of rocky's fights i would give a slight edge to rocky in the power department, regardless of weigh...tyson was at peak about 212lbs and rocky would be about 190lbs

I don't think tyson ever came in as light as 212 in his peak

walshb

colly10 wrote: »

I don't think tyson ever came in as light as 212 in his peak

212 lbs would be light for Mike. Usually 218-220 lbs; regardless, it is still 2 stones and more heavier than Rocky.

tryingmybestt

tyson was at his peak when he was 212-215 pounds IMO

when he was around 220lbs or over he usually lost, e.g. holyfield, douglas, lewis etc.

walshb

Mike's weight fluctuated between 215.75lbs and 221.75 lbs during his peak and his championship reign. No matter what way I do the math I get a solid 28-30 lbs weight difference between him and Rocky. BIG factor!

The best version of Mike I ever seen was when he weighed 221.75 lbs vs. Trevor Berbick. He looked like a complete mahine that night.

cowzerp

Either way, Tyson was bigger, stronger and faster than Marciano, this means assuming he had equal technique he'd hit harder,

his technique was better by the way so in reality would hit even harder than the weight and speed suggest.

The main that creates a more powerful fighter when all else is similar is speed, Tyson was fast.

tryingmybestt

if tyson was 210 or 230 lbs, either way it was a huge difference

IMO tyson was at his most destructive against spinks...that night he weighed 216lbs

tyson weighed 212 for some of his fights too when he was fighting regularly and lived a more healthy lifestyle

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

Either way, Tyson was bigger, stronger and faster than Marciano, this means assuming he had equal technique he'd hit harder,

his technique was better by the way so in reality would hit even harder than the weight and speed suggest.

The main that creates a more powerful fighter when all else is similar is speed, Tyson was fast.

That is it. I said that not only speed, but delivery is so important. Rocky does throw lovely shots, from all angles, but Mike to me throws shots with more intensity and a little better as regards technique/delivery. Add this to the weight and size, and physics is all it is.

tryingmybestt

it's not all about technique and size....some of the hardest hitters did not have great technique....e.g. max baer, dempsey

foreman and shavers didn't have great technique...

a lot of the power comes from genetics similar to how a sprinter has fast twitch muscles that you cannot notice from his physique...

many punchers were slim and not heavily muscled

cowzerp

tryingmybestt wrote: »

it's not all about technique and size....some of the hardest hitters did not have great technique....e.g. max baer, dempsey

foreman and shavers didn't have great technique...

Foreman had serious strength and weight and was no slouch speed wise, if there technique is off and there hard hitters then they simply could have been even harder hitters.

Technique, speed and weight all make hard punches.
A terrible punch with speed and weight may knock you out but a clean 1 with the same speed and weight will be harder.

tryingmybestt

cowzerp wrote: »

Foreman had serious strength and weight and was no slouch speed wise, if there technique is off and there hard hitters then they simply could have been even harder hitters.

Technique, speed and weight all make hard punches.
A terrible punch with speed and weight may knock you out but a clean 1 with the same speed and weight will be harder.

i agree that speed, technique make the punch...thats why i rank Joe Louis so highly...

but i wouldn't write off a fighter because the other guy is bigger and stronger...

would you give tyson a chance against Bowe or Klitschko.....I would.......so I don't think size and power are everything.....

i agree tyson is faster and more mobile but i feel rocky's durablity and determination and stamina give him an excellent chance....as I've always said its a close call either way but if i had to pick i'd run with marciano

colly10

tryingmybestt wrote: »

tyson weighed 212 for some of his fights too when he was fighting regularly and lived a more healthy lifestyle

I don't think he came in at 212 between 86 and 89. I think he turned up at 213.5 once and around 216 once or twice, every other fight he was heavier

tryingmybestt

colly10 wrote: »

I don't think he came in at 212 between 86 and 89. I think he turned up at 213.5 once and around 216 once or twice, every other fight he was heavier

i'm not going to argue about a pound or two at heavyweight...none disputes tyson was significantly heavier than rocky....212 or 214 whats the difference...not much at HW

cowzerp

tryingmybestt wrote: »

i agree that speed, technique make the punch...thats why i rank Joe Louis so highly...

but i wouldn't write off a fighter because the other guy is bigger and stronger...

would you give tyson a chance against Bowe or Klitschko.....I would.......so I don't think size and power are everything.....

i agree tyson is faster and more mobile but i feel rocky's durablity and determination and stamina give him an excellent chance....as I've always said its a close call either way but if i had to pick i'd run with marciano

I am not a fan of Marciano, his style was awful, technique poor and his footwork and movement was not great, add to this his average speed and I just see him as a strong tough lad who fought mainly people coming off losses etc, Walcott had lost 2 then beat Charles twice and Was a weak champion, in today's game walcott would not have even been given a shot at any of the spaghetti titles after losing 2,

And I would not give Tyson a hope against either Vitali Klitschko or Bowe at peak who could have been the greatest if he cared enough.

colly10

tryingmybestt wrote: »

i'm not going to argue about a pound or two at heavyweight...none disputes tyson was significantly heavier than rocky....212 or 214 whats the difference...not much at HW

My point is it was more like 218 and I think Rockys prime weight was probably around 185. You say you don't consider weight to be that important but for some reason are trying to minimise the weight difference and it's perticularly obvious what you are doing when you choose tysons prime weight to be lower than a weight he ever turned up at in his prime.
If you didnt believe weight was important you would not be raising Rockys and lowering tysons

tryingmybestt

cowzerp wrote: »

And I would not give Tyson a hope against either Vitali Klitschko or Bowe at peak who could have been the greatest if he cared enough.

no chance?? wow

i'm not sure if he'd win but i'd definitely give him a chance...

i thinks he beats Vlad....i'm not sure about bowe and vitali

but he definitely has a hope against all of them IMO

tryingmybestt

colly10 wrote: »

My point is it was more like 218 and I think Rockys prime weight was probably around 185. You say you don't consider weight to be that important but for some reason are trying to minimise the weight difference and it's perticularly obvious what you are doing when you choose tysons prime weight to be lower than a weight he ever turned up at in his prime.
If you didnt believe weight was important you would not be raising Rockys and lowering tysons

actually if you ready my posts i acknowledged weight is extremely important but i feel rocky's other attributes compensate for the weight disadvantage....say tyson at 217 and rocky and 185....i still say rocky wins

there no conspiracy lol

cowzerp

tryingmybestt wrote: »

no chance?? wow

i'm not sure if he'd win but i'd definitely give him a chance...

i thinks he beats Vlad....i'm not sure about bowe and vitali

but he definitely has a hope against all of them IMO

Ok with his power I'll give him a punchers chance for 3-4 rounds v anyone bar Foreman, I think he can beat Wlad but also that Wlad could destroy him, Wlad tagged by Tyson and it's game over, but tagging Wlad ain't easy.

tryingmybestt

cowzerp wrote: »

Ok with his power I'll give him a punchers chance for 3-4 rounds v anyone bar Foreman, I think he can beat Wlad but also that Wlad could destroy him, Wlad tagged by Tyson and it's game over, but tagging Wlad ain't easy.

why only a punchers chance??

what about the technique and speed of tyson you mentioned earlier when giving reasons why he'd destroy rocky??

now all he has is a punchers chance.....you don't think tyson could utilise his speed, footwork, head movement and get inside vitali or bowe and ko them??

Fall_Guy

tryingmybestt wrote: »

why only a punchers chance??

what about the technique and speed of tyson you mentioned earlier when giving reasons why he'd destroy rocky??

now all he has is a punchers chance.....you don't think tyson could utilise his speed, footwork, head movement and get inside vitali or bowe and ko them??

I would assume he is taking into account the fact that Vitali and Bowe are far superior boxers to Marciano, as well as having quite a bit of size on Tyson.

On the rocky-tyson issue, I really can't see how anyone can fail to take the 30lb weight advantage tyson has into account. Tyson looks clearly faster than Rocky for me, with 30 solid lbs on him to boot.

Tyson took plenty of huge shots off men 50lbs heavier than Rocky and shrugged them off, whereas I don't think Rocky would be able to shrug off the kind of shots tyson would be landing regularly if they were to fight.

tryingmybestt

Fall_Guy wrote: »

I really can't see how anyone can fail to take the 30lb weight advantage tyson has into account. Tyson looks clearly faster than Rocky for me, with 30 solid lbs on him to boot.
.

who has failed to take the weight difference into account?

cowzerp

tryingmybestt wrote: »

why only a punchers chance??

what about the technique and speed of tyson you mentioned earlier when giving reasons why he'd destroy rocky??

now all he has is a punchers chance.....you don't think tyson could utilise his speed, footwork, head movement and get inside vitali or bowe and ko them??

The difference in standard between Bowe, Klitschko and Marciano who I've stressed I don't rate at all is huge, there bigger, stronger better chinned and more skilled, plus they have massive reach advantage also to add to all there other advantages.

I don't rate Marciano top 10 and probably even top 20 if I put my mind to it.

Fall_Guy

tryingmybestt wrote: »

who has failed to take the weight difference into account?

Sorry, i should have said "I can't believe tryingmybestt has taken the weight difference into account but still gives marciano an edge in power".

cowzerp

tryingmybestt wrote: »

heres my analysis IMO
Weight - advantage tyson
Strength - advantage tyson - slightly
Power - advantage rocky
Speed - advantage tyson

This is what's wrong, power basically is strength weight and speed combined, he gives all 3 that make power to Tyson then still awards power to Marciano, been honest it's ludicrous and when you add in Tysons more precise technique it makes it even more concrete who has more power.

Fall_Guy

cowzerp wrote: »

This is what's wrong, power basically is strength weight and speed combined, he gives all 3 that make power to Tyson then still awards power to Marciano, been honest it's ludicrous and when you add in Tysons more precise technique it makes it even more concrete who has more power.

Agreed 100%, that would be my thinking on it too.

tryingmybestt

cowzerp wrote: »

This is what's wrong, power basically is strength weight and speed combined, he gives all 3 that make power to Tyson then still awards power to Marciano, been honest it's ludicrous and when you add in Tysons more precise technique it makes it even more concrete who has more power.

how many strong boxers were there with no real power??? lots and lots

how many fast boxers who were strong and didnt have power?? lots and lots

power is different to strength.....strength and power obviously help but not in all cases......i would say for example hatton was very strong but not as powerful or arguello was very powerful but not hugely strong....

valuev would be strong but not very powerful....etc. etc.

this is how IMO i feel tyson was stronger because of the weight...he was obviously faster but i feel marcianos right hand was slightly more powerful than tyson's best left hook......i think the main deciding factor would be the difference in mentality and determination...

also don't forget i only gave a slight edge to rocky...if tyson won i wouldnt be surpriised

cowzerp

tryingmybestt wrote: »

how many strong boxers were there with no real power??? lots and lots

how many fast boxers who were strong and didnt have power?? lots and lots

power is different to strength.....strength and power obviously help but not in all cases......i would say for example hatton was very strong but not as powerful or arguello was very powerful but not hugely strong....

valuev would be strong but not very powerful....etc. etc.

this is how IMO i feel tyson was stronger because of the weight...he was obviously faster but i feel marcianos right hand was slightly more powerful than tyson's best left hook......i think the main deciding factor would be the difference in mentality and determination...

also don't forget i only gave a slight edge to rocky...if tyson won i wouldnt be surpriised

Look! I'm a personal trainer by trade and no what power is, strength and speed make power, valuev is slow so not so powerful, Tyson was strong and fast, the definition of power, Marciano was strong yet not so powerful because he was average speed-if a heavy van hits you at 40 moles an hour it's worse than a car hitting you at 40. If the car hits you at 30 it's even less, Tyson is the van and Marciano the car

tryingmybestt

cowzerp wrote: »

Look! I'm a personal trainer by trade and no what power is, strength and speed make power, valuev is slow so not so powerful, Tyson was strong and fast, the definition of power, Marciano was strong yet not so powerful because he was average speed-if a heavy van hits you at 40 moles an hour it's worse than a car hitting you at 40. If the car hits you at 30 it's even less, Tyson is the van and Marciano the car

so are all the experts wrong when they say marciano is a better puncher than tyson and also a better p4p boxer??

everyone is wrong except you?

i've boxed for years and years, i know a lot about fitness too as one of my mates runs gym.....foreman was not super fast or was shavers yet they are the hardest hitters?

yes speed helps power but its not everything.....arguello was quite slow with his right hand yet it was one of the hardest FW punches ever...

power is not just strength and speed.....it's balance, timing many different factors....a moving car is different as balance and timing etc. don't apply so that point doesnt make sense

cowzerp

Tryingmybest lose the attitude because now your looking for arguments with me on most threads-my mate is a doctor but that does not mean I know medicine I own and run my own gym and boxing club, not my mate.

With that said who are all these experts that say that Marciano hits harder? There clueless if they say this, it's science and bigger faster man will hit harder unless his technique is lacking, the opposite is true in this case as Tyson has better balance and technique

Technique is these other factors, timing, balance etc

I'm not going to debate this bit with you as you don't understand what the difference between strength and power is and I've already explained it.

tryingmybestt

cowzerp wrote: »

Tryingmybest lose the attitude because now your looking for arguments with me on most threads-my mate is a doctor but that does not mean I know medicine I own and run my own gym and boxing club, not my mate.

With that said who are all these experts that say that Marciano hits harder? There clueless if they say this, it's science and bigger faster man will hit harder unless his technique is lacking, the opposite is true in this case as Tyson has better balance and technique

Technique is these other factors, timing, balance etc

I'm not going to debate this bit with you as you don't understand what the difference between strength and power is and I've already explained it.

Because I don't agree with your posts I have attitude?? you've debated most of my threads and i haven't complained. i don't agree with some of your threads as IMO they don't make sense.

Power in boxer = speed, strenght, timing, balance etc.

Power in moving car = speed x density

there is an obvious difference between the two that you don't seem to get

P.S. ring magazine, espn boxing etc. are experts

also my mate running a gym is relevant because i train with him and have picked up much knowledge, we also boxed together for years

i doubt you've performed surgeries with your doctor mate

cowzerp

On a few threads your arguing not debating, I'll debate all day with you.

Walshb and me disagree all the time but dont argue, you done the same the other day with him and just went at every post he done in disagreement, came across like arguing rather than debating, now debate away but arguing won't cut it around here my friend.

I like you been here so lets keep it that way.

tryingmybestt

I'm purely debating too

what makes you think i'm arguing?

am i arguing only when i disagree with your point and and highlight that it doesn't make sense IMO?

thats debating, i'm not being aggressive or using bad language....i'm debating

you contradicted most of my threads but i didn't mind at all because that's what makes the forum interesting

it's no good if ppl get upset if ppl disagree with them....most of this is subjective and is opionion rather than fact

walshb

cowzerp, take up cricket or something, it is quite obvious you know **** all about boxing!

Joke by the way, joke:p

And, we don't disagree ALL the time, but I know what you mean, many times. Many agreements too, Paul.

Mostly it's speculative stuff, which is what most threads are.

tryingmybestt

lol

when someone starts complaining about you disagreeing with their subjective point its like a boxer who knows he's losing complaining to the ref:P

walshb

I don't think cowzerp at all has an issue with anyone disagreeing. Same for me. It's when disagreeing becomes "argumentative," that a problem arises

You saying stuff like "that doesn't makes sense, you are contradicting yourself," just comes across as a little argumentative. Paul is a well experienced fighter and trainer. Does he know it all? No. He never claimed to either. He sure can be challenged, but I would think he would prefer to be challenged more inquisitively and politely.

Also, folks make points, and because they may deviate the slightest bit from the thread, you jump on them.

I know we all can be guilty of getting a little hot n heavy at times, but what is so so important? We all love the sport, let's debate it intensely but civilly and politely and in good spirit.

Telling folks they know nothing, their posts are contradictory, make no sense, they should be following cricket, all because of a wee disagreement, to me is strange.

I am here several years debating and get on with pretty much everyone. Am I the perfect poster? No. But, I do always try to remain calm, polite and open to all the different views that come here. And I tend to try my best not to insult other posters.

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

I don't think cowzerp at all has an issue with anyone disagreeing. Same for me. It's when disagreeing becomes "argumentative," that a problem arises

You saying stuff like "that doesn't makes sense, you are contradicting yourself," just comes across as a little argumentative. Paul is a well experienced fighter and trainer. Does he know it all? No. He never claimed to either. He sure can be challenged, but I would think he would prefer to be challenged more inquisitively and politely.

Also, folks make points, and because the may deviate the slightest bit from the thread, you jump on them.

I know we all can be guilty of getting a little hot n heavy at times, but what is so so important? We all love the sport, let's debate it intensely but civilly and politely and in good spirit.

Telling folks they know nothing, their posts are contradictory, make no sense, they should be following cricket, all because of a wee disagreement, to me is strange.

I am here several years debating and get on with pretty much everyone. Am I the perfect poster? No. But, I do always try to remain calm, ploite and open to all the different views that come here.

ok fair point

yes the main point is we do love the sport

so let's continue to debate

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

ok fair point

yes the main point is we do love the sport

so let's continue to debate

So, can I please stop watching cricket?;)

tryingmybestt

walshb wrote: »

So, can I please stop watching cricket?;)

lol

my passion got in the way with that comment

no doubt you love the sport and are knowledgeable

but as boxing is subjective we will disagree and agree

i'm passionate about it having boxed for years, still training hard and follow it as much as i can

walshb

tryingmybestt wrote: »

lol

my passion got in the way with that comment

no doubt you love the sport and are knowledgeable

but as boxing is subjective we will disagree and agree

i'm passionate about it having boxed for years, still training hard and follow it as much as i can

I think we have maybe responded to about 200 posts or so; and, I would argue that most are in general agreement. That can't be all that bad.