Surprised that it is relatively tight in the voting. Even if we ignore the fact that Floyd fought in several divisions (which usually is a factor in p4p-discussions), he still had better longevity (at the top for about 15 years compared to Rocky's 4) and beat more contenders while not having many hard fights. I just can't see the argument for Rocky.
Rocky was unfortunate to fight in a weak era. His best wins are against older fighters who were no where near there primes. Not his fault, you can only fight who they can put in front of you. But the amount of talented fighters who were put in front of Floyd is incomparable to Rocky. It's not even a question imo.
I can see a good case for Rocky, the question can be read plenty of different ways. It's much harder to go undefeated as a Heavyweight with an attacking style, than a smaller fighter with a much more defensive style, plus Rocky had way less choice in opponents, having one division, where he did an exceptional job of fighting the best competition on offer for a single championship belt in the division. It's funny the amount of comments of Rocky's opponents being past prime ITT, when the exact same critisism is often levelled in this forum at Floyd. For the record, as I said in the previous post, I think Floyd has the better wins and deeper record, but I don't think it's wrong to put more weight on those other factors. Personally, I abstain.
Don't fault Floyd for having the talent to operate a more effective, more efficient style. It is also why he was able to be elite for so much longer.
Floyd Mayweather Jr. Not because of Rocky Marciano's reign as champion but it is the depth which favors heavily towards Grand Rapids favorite son. Rock was building 30+ of those wins up in Providence fighting C level guys. Marciano fought good contenders as Champion and even beating an old Louis was a quality and necessary step. It just doesn't compare to what Floyd was doing from his 16th pro fight on.
Rocky however had several disadvantages in the squared circle, he was very short for a heavyweight, which means he was all business in the ring and fought to the best of his ability, and tremendous heart. He did not make ridiculous demands on the purses as they do today. There was no big promotions, as today. Fans did not like arrogance in their athletes, nor law breaking publicity. He did fight bigger fighters, his average weight was 182 lbs. He tended to cut, when in a tough brawl. Floyd Mayweather had a lot of advantages, he comes from a boxing family, he was promoted through television, which had modernized since the black and white screen of the 1950's. Being boastful was normal of his era. Not to mention he had height reach, and skill. His challengers may have been better and younger. As I have said on many occasions, you can only fight in your era, the opponents that are put in front of you. In another era, a way of choosing your opponents could be different, who knows what the future has in store.
I get what you mean, but Floyd's opponents were still fighting for titles or winning titles after he beat them. I don't buy the 'Marciano ruined them' narrative that has been put in this thread in the past. Off that, you'd have to assume that the best names on his list were past their prime by a mile compare to Floyd opponents (Barring Archie Moore)
It's not like Rocky could have boxed if he wanted to and just came forward to make it more difficult for himself, so I don't see why he would get any plus points for that. Floyd on the other hand could walk down his man, as he showed against Judah and even Mosley, who was a very strong WW. And he had more of a disadvantage in terms of size against his best opponents if anything, so I don't see an advantage for him at all. In this thread I have only seen it mentioned as a reply to those who have said that he beat ATGs like Louis, Charles and Moore. It would be dishonest to act like they weren't past the age and/or weight class where they are considered ATGs. Had he beat them in their primes and at their best weight I think it would be a no brainer that he ranks above Floyd p4p, so for the sake of the discussion it has to be pointed out that this isn't the case.
Apples and oranges. Both were very smart fighters, good at adapting midfight, and were always in excellent condition come fight night. Also, both were fortunate to have excellent teams supporting them throughout their careers.
Mayweather, by a country mile. He just has a far better resume and faced way more elite fighters in his road to 49-0. I will concede pulling off an undefeated record as a Heavyweight is far more difficult but Floyd's competition more than compensates for that.
Personally I didn't see the Maidana fight as anything but a Floyd win. Castillo, though, edged it on my card, but Rocky had a couple of controversial decisions himself.
