Marciano Vs Mayweather who has the better resume?

I think Marciano has the better resume. He defeated some good Heavyweight boxers in his time. Louis, Charles x2, Walcott x2, to name a few. (IMHO, of course, and I don't do pound for pound comparisons.)

 

Mayweather's 49-0 is better
Don't think it's all that close either.

 

Close one…so much so I’ll say they’re about even

 

Mayweather by a country mile

 

I will use my political skills even though I do not vote, both Rocky Marciano and Floyd Mayweather were great in their respective times.

 

Well put Richard...

 

You can't tell me that someone like mayweather, who made an art form out of ducking, cherry picking and playing the alphabet games, has a better "0 losses" record than Marciano, who was THE undisputed champion of his era and is regarded by many boxing experts as one of the few heavyweights in history to have cleaned out the division without ducking anyone.

Marciano also ended his career after beating his mandatory challenger, a hall of fame fighter in archie moore who just got that title shot after defeating the former number one contender in nino valdes.

Mayweather ended his by stopping an MMA fighter. Nuff said.

 

Mayweather’s resume is significantly better, I’d say. Even accounting for his penchant for not meeting some of his opposition when they were at their most dangerous, he still has a stack of top wins.

Marciano’s best wins were uniformly against ageing fighters who had probably seen their best at least half a decade earlier (and sometime a lot more). Some great names on there: Louis, Charles, Moore and if those were over prime versions, he’d have a better top tier wins than Sugar Ray Leonard.

But Louis was a decade past his peak, Charles over half a decade past it and Moore, despite his reputation as an evergreen fighter, was clearly past his best and above his best weight. Walcott is probably his best win overall and he was 37 when Marciano beat him and gave him all he could handle too.

 

Moore was 64-4 at heavyweight…can’t really say he wasn’t “at his weight”. With those four losses coming late in his life (except Bivins which in archies opinion was a dirty shot) the others were Marciano, Patterson, and Ali all of which were after 38. He was on the best streak of his career and had just impressively beaten Nino Valdez for the shot (fun fight if you haven’t seen it).
Marciano gets no credit for knocking out the best version of Layne, Matthews and Lastarza. They were all decent contenders in prime (won’t even count Don C who was also prime but not really worth mentioning ). People only tend to focus on the other three Walcott Charles and Moore. Layne was a damn good win.
That being said best wins were all past their best but how past it is a gray area. I’d argue all three were just barely past it.

 

I went with mayweather. Too many wins at the world level. Even if you argue that Rocky’s wins over two p4p giants like Moore and Charles were far better than any of Floyd’s it isn’t enough to surpass the level of depth he has

 

Mayweather but they both have terrific records.

 

Mayweather by a vey small edge.

 

Floyd had a longer career and was more impressive if you look at his opponents.. I don't think Rocky planned to be undefeated the way Floyd did.