Who has the better 49-0, Rocky or Floyd?

I forgot I was dealing with Mr. Mayweather Onezee himself. Are you truly acting like Mayweather "ruined" Oscar and Mosley and Gatti? LOL That's truly hilarious. The length some people go

 

rocky. can never pick Floyd can't stand the guy.

 

And I would agree with you.

 

LMAO... what a clown... Mosley and Oscar were shells of their former selfs... and even then May couldn't finish the job and was run close by a weight drained well past his best Oscar. Pitiful. None of those fighters you mentioned were even close to prime or even in the ballpark of prime. They were so far removed it's laughable to even think those were good wins.

 

What has systematically occurred in this thread is you have some who vehemently pick on the idea that PAC was hurt when Floyd fought him. Or that Oscar, Mosley and Marquez were past it. Or that Hatton and cannello were too green. Or that cotto, gatti and Hernandez weren't that good. Okay fine.. but the same people making these claims are flat ignoring that Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore were finished fighters at the time of their meetings with Marciano - some of them to the extent of being in the last fights of their careers. Others who began fighting two weight divisions below and almost all of them with over 70 pro fights of wear and tear and losses in the double digits.. it works both ways. and frankly if we look at from that angle then I actually think Floyd comes out looking better given that quite a few of his listed foes continued to get big wins and high ratings after he defeated them. With the exception of Archie Moore, none of Rockys other opponents did.. but oh sure... it just HAD to be because he "ruined" them...

 

I guess there is something to be said for both arguments.

 

True

 

Good post.

 

I want to hear your stance here... is it your claim that:

Oscar, Mosley, Marquez and Gatti were better fighters at the time he met them than Charles, Walcott, Louis and Moore? Frankly I don't even need to bring Canelo in this because I see no argument how he could have been better than the above, nor how there could be any argument he wasn't green at THIS level of fighting, he undoubtedly was. So I just want to get your viewpoint down here... you're saying those fighters were better wins at the time each faced them?

 

I'd say most of them with the exception of Gatti were better than Louis. Marquez was still awesome and Floyd was coming back after a two year retirement when he handed JMM what was possibly the most decisive loss of his career. in either case it doesn't matter given that these weren't floyds best wins.

 

I can

 

not really. the argument for rocky is nonsense based on massivley overrating his wins and massivley underrating floyd's.

at the end of the day if you look at the top 20 wins by both guys then 15-17 of them are floyd's and 3-5 are rocky's. there is nothing to be said for rocky having a better resume, because he really obviously doesn't.

 

From what I can gather, Kurupt is the only person really making any detailed argument claims similar to what you describe here .... and he's not actually doing that either. Unless I've missed something ?
I haven't seen anyone FLAT OUT IGNORING that Louis, Walcott or Charles were past their primes. I think that's acknowledged all around.
Yet, you're going further and saying they were "finished" fighters .... well, personally, I disagree. And I believe most honest knowledgeable people here would disagree too.
Charles and Walcott were certainly NOT "finished". Not until after Marciano got through with them.
Walcott was the world champion and Charles was still solidly in contendership.

Well, there you go with the same old "after Floyd beat them" argument. I don't think that line of argument is entirely irrelevant but I feel you're exaggerating the relevance of it.
Certainly in the case of someone like Marquez, to justify him as a legitimate welterweight at the time of the Floyd fight, would be a stretch to cite what he did afterwards.

And, now, are you claiming that Marciano didn't "ruin" some of the fighters ? Or that the beatings they took at his hands couldn't have or didn't accelerate their declines ?
I think the evidence is pretty strong that he did indeed do so.
In fact, it's very clear to me, for example, that Ezzard Charles was a different fighter in the space of a few months after the Marciano fight ..... as measured by the event of him actually climbing in the ring with Marciano again and looking a lesser fighter from the opening bell.
Or Walcott, who managed to stay on his feet and compete fiercely with Marciano into the 13th round, but was decked and perhaps even gave up within the 1st round of the rematch.
I certainly don't put that down to a massive improvement on Marciano's part from the one fight to the next. I think it is clear that the change was in the other guy.

 

It's entirely possible that Floyd goes 49-1

 

Floyd Mayweather fought guys who were in their primes and at least consider good fighers and won. Marciano fought mob controlled fighters, bums and guys who were past their primes. Even then Roland LaStarza and Ted Lowry beat him.

Mayweather ( even though he did lose to Castillo in their first fight) 49-0 is clearly superior to anything Marciano did.