Greatest Fighter of All Time?

Training
101

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The site is on there. Forget how I found it but those numbers are reliable.

I never said it wouldn’t be. It would be a brawl… definitely very different styles.

I’d put my money on Rock in sixth though, where the KO would come after a Hagler-Hearns style bang out.[/quote]

The site can’t be accurate if they are ignoring tyson’s 88% KO rate.

Are you going to deny that Tyson had the same KO% as the Rock?

Do the math.

I think you’re just being pissy because your Giants don’t have any DE’s. That has to suck. LMAO!!!

102

I agree with this

A ring for the big blue is good every other year.

103

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
I agree with this

A ring for the big blue is good every other year.[/quote]

Nice find.

I gotta agree with RJ that a Marciano vs. prime Tyson would be a heck of a matchup. But I think Tyson’s speed and athleticism would be the difference. There’s no way the Rock would be able to cope with that. It would be a repeat of Michael Spinks, but it would probably go a few more rounds.

Come to think of it, Marciano vs. Holyfield at cruiserweight would really be a terrific matchup.

104

[quote]pete458 wrote:

Not even close

Fred Etish!!![/quote]

I remember him in one of the very early UFC’s. He seemed to fight in a kata stance. He took his beating like a man though.

105

As far as natural ability , I’d have to go with Tyson too. His body was just an explosive ball of fast-twitch muscle. He had to be the quickest heavyweight I’ve ever seen.

Not just his individual punches but how quick his whole body would explode behind the punch was scary.

In terms of mma, I would have to go with the early Tank Abbott for sheer toughness and brute strength.

106

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
The site is on there. Forget how I found it but those numbers are reliable.

I never said it wouldn’t be. It would be a brawl… definitely very different styles.

I’d put my money on Rock in sixth though, where the KO would come after a Hagler-Hearns style bang out.

The site can’t be accurate if they are ignoring tyson’s 88% KO rate.

Are you going to deny that Tyson had the same KO% as the Rock?

Do the math.

I think you’re just being pissy because your Giants don’t have any DE’s. That has to suck. LMAO!!![/quote]

Hey listen nancy, some of us don’t sit at desks all day crunching numbers like some nerdy ass CPA… oh wait…

But I’m looking it up now. He was 56-6 last I checked, but I’m looking into it now. I don’t doubt that it was a high percent, mind you, but also remember the amount of pure chumps he fought, in his late career as well as his early one. But I’m looking at it.

107

This says 75 %

At 23, Brunson already owns boxing’s all-time record for consecutive first-round knockouts with 19.

He’ll be looking to make Mexico’s Antonio Soriano (12-9, 9 KOs) victim No. 20 in the semi-main event prior to the headliner between British Commonwealth middleweight champ Darren Barker (17-0, 11 KOs) and Manitoba’s Larry Sharpe (22-4, 10 KOs).

To put Brunson’s feat in perspective, through their first 19 fights none of the three hardest-hitting heavyweights in ring history came close to matching his “light’s out” legacy.

Mike Tyson, who finished his career with a 75.8% KO percentage, was 19-0, but with only 12 first-round knockouts. Earnie Shavers (76.4%), was 17-2 with eight stoppages in the opening round, while George Foreman, the division’s all-time KO king with a career percentage of 83.9, was 19-0 with five knockouts.

108

This is a great article on punching power between fighters. Doesn’t have anything to do really with Tyson specifically, but its interesting in that it says you really only have to get to 175 pounds to be able to strike very, very hard.

http://www.ibroresearch.com/Articles/Punching%20Power.htm

By the way, this article really takes the wind out of my argument about KO percentages being a measure of power. Now, who knows.

109

[quote]Xeneize wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
I agree with this

A ring for the big blue is good every other year.

Nice find.

I gotta agree with RJ that a Marciano vs. prime Tyson would be a heck of a matchup. But I think Tyson’s speed and athleticism would be the difference. There’s no way the Rock would be able to cope with that. It would be a repeat of Michael Spinks, but it would probably go a few more rounds.

Come to think of it, Marciano vs. Holyfield at cruiserweight would really be a terrific matchup.[/quote]

You know, it really drives me nuts that people give Tyson so much credit.

I said it before- he’s got a chance against anyone because of his natural ability. But when he fought world-class fighters, I’ve never seen someone perform worse. I mean fuck guys, Buster Douglas? Holyfield twice, and Lennox Lewis showed him up for the mental fraud he was.

Natural ability is one thing, but in boxing it’s nothing without mental fortitude. The fact that anyone thinks that Mike Tyson would win against Muhammud Ali, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Joe Frazier, or any of the other legends seriously amazes me.

Would they be fun fights to watch? Absolutely would. But Ali would put him down just like Lennox did, probably easier because he was so much quicker than him. The rest of them KO him easily by the sixth, especially Marciano. Tyson couldn’t handle pressure, and couldn’t handle someone who wasn’t scared of him. And Rock feared no one.

Joe Louis… forget it. He’s probably #3 or 4 on my list of all time greats. He’d murder Tyson. It probably wouldn’t even be fair.

110

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
This is a great article on punching power between fighters. Doesn’t have anything to do really with Tyson specifically, but its interesting in that it says you really only have to get to 175 pounds to be able to strike very, very hard.

http://www.ibroresearch.com/Articles/Punching%20Power.htm

By the way, this article really takes the wind out of my argument about KO percentages being a measure of power. Now, who knows.[/quote]

Thanks a lot for that article mate. The 175 Ibs thing is very true…the hardest hitters I’ve worked with are around this weight and 5’6. A nightmare to spar against.

OMC

111

watched friday night fights last nite, and saw the MUCH bigger and stronger Nwodo get KTFO by a dud he dwarfed. Teddy Atlas said the same thing Irish said, fighting is 75% MENTAL.

112

[quote]Jlabs wrote:
surprised theres been no mention of ali yet kinda shocking.[/quote]

I did

113

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I hate the “best fighter pound for pound” crap.

If RJJ, SRR, SRL was to move up to heavyweight, thhe would not have near the speed, or quickness.

If Tyson, Foreman, Marciano were to move down to middle weight, Their punch would be much weaker.

I’m going with Tyson. There has never been a fighter who instilled fear in his opponents like a young, hungry, Cus D’amato trained Tyson did.

I remember watching his fights on ESPN in the mid 80’s as he was coming up. Ali has shit compared to the pure fighting machine of Tyson.

Give me a Tyson circa 1986-87 - and there is not fighter you could put in front of him that would walk out of the ring under his own power. [/quote]

I like Tyson, but I think his style was one that could not be maintained long. Meaning all brawn no brain style

114

[quote]heavythrower wrote:
watched friday night fights last nite, and saw the MUCH bigger and stronger Nwodo get KTFO by a dud he dwarfed. Teddy Atlas said the same thing Irish said, fighting is 75% MENTAL. [/quote]

And 50% conditioning and 20% power and 30% talent…
67% of statistics are made up on the spot.

115

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Xeneize wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
I agree with this

A ring for the big blue is good every other year.

Nice find.

I gotta agree with RJ that a Marciano vs. prime Tyson would be a heck of a matchup. But I think Tyson’s speed and athleticism would be the difference. There’s no way the Rock would be able to cope with that. It would be a repeat of Michael Spinks, but it would probably go a few more rounds.

Come to think of it, Marciano vs. Holyfield at cruiserweight would really be a terrific matchup.

You know, it really drives me nuts that people give Tyson so much credit.

I said it before- he’s got a chance against anyone because of his natural ability. But when he fought world-class fighters, I’ve never seen someone perform worse. I mean fuck guys, Buster Douglas? Holyfield twice, and Lennox Lewis showed him up for the mental fraud he was.

Natural ability is one thing, but in boxing it’s nothing without mental fortitude. The fact that anyone thinks that Mike Tyson would win against Muhammud Ali, Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis, Joe Frazier, or any of the other legends seriously amazes me.

Would they be fun fights to watch? Absolutely would. But Ali would put him down just like Lennox did, probably easier because he was so much quicker than him. The rest of them KO him easily by the sixth, especially Marciano. Tyson couldn’t handle pressure, and couldn’t handle someone who wasn’t scared of him. And Rock feared no one.

Joe Louis… forget it. He’s probably #3 or 4 on my list of all time greats. He’d murder Tyson. It probably wouldn’t even be fair.[/quote]

Greatness of a champion is measured by the level of competition. Tyson fought bums. He struggled with decent fighters.

116

Seriously though how are you guys not talking about Rocky Marciano? How can you argue against perfection?

117

[quote]Airtruth wrote:
I agree with this

A ring for the big blue is good every other year.[/quote]

While I think pound for pound Marciano is the better one, (We’re talking about thirty-forty pounds here!) I agree with this link.

It’s interesting how Tyson is such a controversial champion.

118

[quote]APLASTICSPOON wrote:
Seriously though how are you guys not talking about Rocky Marciano? How can you argue against perfection?[/quote]

Have you been reading the posts here?

119

I’m going to disagree with everything posted here and say I don’t think Marciano has a shot at being best PFP. He shouldn’t even be in the top ten.
He was a very good fighter in an era of sloppiness. He also quit when he needed to quit. That is all.

120

[quote]duffyj2 wrote:
I’m going to disagree with everything posted here and say I don’t think Marciano has a shot at being best PFP. He shouldn’t even be in the top ten.
He was a very good fighter in an era of sloppiness. He also quit when he needed to quit. That is all.[/quote]

That’s not true.

Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Louis (even old)… these guys are some of the best in the history of the sport. Top 10’s? No. But top 50? Yes. And that’s pretty damn good.

As for sloppiness- have you watched a HW fight lately? They’re all sloppy. Always have been. Here’s what Marciano’s fight against Walcott looked like, including that thunderous right that would have floored any fighter from any time period.

That awkwardness is just the way some guys fight. Is he really that much different than Sultan Ibragimov?

Point is, when you’ve got an iron chin and heavy, looping punches, sometimes you don’t have to bounce and jive- you can walk right in and take two to give one. Ask Cotto about that.