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

i'm on your side of the argument but i do think the 1st wins over charles and walcott are better than floyd's win over pac.

the fact this thread even became a discussion is strange, it is so obvious which resume is better.

 

Couldn't disagree more with this. Both Walcott and Charles were decisively better than Pac was when they fought. To me this seems rather clear and obvious as a whole, then if you believe Pac's alibi of a bum shoulder, that makes it a non argument. Marciano in his prime went practically life and death with Charles and Walcott... that had THAT much left in the tank. This was against a bigger fighter, a prime fighter and a devastating fighter. On the contrary, Pac had already been beaten prior by Marquez, and soundly so, and according to him had a bum shoulder. Yet, he wasn't able to win more than 2 rounds against a fighter ALSO on the downside of his career. It was a non fight. If Pac was as good at that point as you make out, he would've done better, he didn't.

You other argument of, well look at what Charles and Walcott did after Rocky, again this is based on a faulty premise because it excludes the clear variable of Rocky ruined fighters. That is what he does. Mayweather doesn't ruin fighters, and thus Pac still doing okay (against subpar competition) isn't indicative of what you're implying it is. Marciano ruined people, Mayweather doesn't. It's really that simple. Canelo was as green as a 1000 dollar bill when he fought Mayweather. In no way shape or form was he ready for that fight. Not to mention, which you know, he was drained down to a shell of himself. Drained and Green and this was a better win than Charles and Walcott, you jest magoo, you must jest. That isn't even in the same ballpark imo as Charles and Walcott wins.

 

Yes, yes and HELL YES. Walcott and Charles are VASTLY better than Marquez and Cotto were when and WHERE Floyd fought him. I mean honestly magoo, there is no need to be disingenuous here to even name Marquez. He was fighting at a weight he didn't belong at and he clearly looked the part. Marquez best days were past him, and that wasn't near his best division. Cotto, yeah, I really won't expand on that argument much, there's no need. Again though, you failed to address the principle argument in retort to your premise. Duran, Hoya, Pea and countless others still did good, and even won belts past their prime... does that mean that was their peak or when they were best? Of course not, thus Pac still doing okay (beating nobody of significance or that is even all that good) and wearing a strap doesn't mean he's still anywhere near as good as he was. Thus by proxy, Mayweather beating such an older foe, doesn't all of a sudden get to be a better win cause Pac keeps fighting meh competition and holds onto a belt. We look past belts and look for context here magoo, and you seem to be avoiding that in this case for some reason.

 

1. No they weren't " decisively better " and there's nothing to back it. Pac was a clear top 3 p4p best in the world WHEN he fought Floyd and he's a clear top 3 p4p fighter now even AFTER fighting Floyd. He was also a bit younger than some of those guys and hadn't accumulated losses in the double digits. Your assertion that the reason they declined after Rocky was because he just HAD to have ruined them isn't backed up. Maybe they were just finished. How come Pac's brutal KO loss to Marquez didn't ruin him? Answer is because he wasn't washed up like they were and proved it in his future outings.

2. Canelo was a 43-0 professional with two world titles and a fresh win over another undefeated champion, not to mention having the advantage of being the bigger man in a higher class and more than a decade younger, and continued to be a top rater for years after... Marciano NEVER fought anyone of that complete description and was NEVER placed in that type of situation. And the drained argument is BS.. He was 152 for the Mayweather fight.. His weights for his previous ten fights were: 153, 154, 154, 154, 153, 153, 151, 149, 150, 150. There was hardly any variation there at all... ON THE OTHERHAND, Floyd had to GAIN FOUR lbs to fight Alvarez and let's not forget he was a man who started his career at super feather and was 12 years older than Alvarez... So who was really more disadvantaged here? Walcott being 37 with 70 fights of mileage behind him and fighting a prime 28 year old Rocky? Or a 25 year old Canello who had never lost, had the size advantage, BUT had to shed all but maybe 1.75 lbs to face a 37 year old Floyd who moved up to meet him ?

And finally here is the most obvious thing that hasn't been addressed.. Floyd's career postively KILLS Rocky's on depth. We can sit here and draw straws over who beat the best single opponent between the two of them, but there's no way Rocky spent anywhere near as much time as Mayweather fighting world class comp. There are plenty of lesser known names on Money's record that if examined closely were as good or better than some of Marciano's better names.

 

Yes, yes and HELL YES. Walcott and Charles are VASTLY better than Cotto

Okay, let me start off by saying, I agree mostly with your last paragraph, although, the last line I disagree with. The rest I think is spot on from a depth and resume perspective. That said, we've kind of moved away from that (since we disagree) and moving to a separate argument.

First off, top 3 p4p based on who's list? Yours? If so, I'd like to see a top ten of yours showing that. Second, it's backed up, well because, they were finished after fighting him, and as you know, they weren't the only ones. I'm not sure what you're claiming here.. Are you claiming Rocky didn't ruin fighters or he didn't ruin these two fighters? If it's the latter, than I'd submit that the evidence shows the contrary. He ruined other fighters before and after, so why when these two also show signs of being ruined (never doing well after) does that not fit nicely into the premise we've already established and have evidence supporting; which is, Marciano has ruined fighters... these guys seemed not as good afterwards, maybe he ruined them to. That seems more the logical line of deduction than the inverse. You ask, how come Marquez KO didn't ruin him, umm, you already know the answer here, Pac didn't sustain NEARLY the same beating Walcott and Charles endured. Not even in the same stratosphere. Which again I know you know.

Canelo was was 43-0 and fought NOBODY good. He previous win was his best one, and it wasn't one I was overly impressed with. Almost all of those wins were accumulated against nobody's and certainly nobody to hang your hat on. I'm going by how he looked and what HE said afterwards not by his previous weights. He said he was drained and wasn't ready for that level of competition. He wasn't. Yet here, you're trying to make him out to be a world beater at that stage of his career. He wasn't. He's better now, but I still don't even consider him a world beater, let alone when May beat him.

As I said, I agree with your last paragraph as a whole, I won't really argue that point, but I will argue the point of Floyd top wins were better and that he beat better p4p fighters than Marciano did. I simply don't agree with that. I suppose it might be slightly closer than I give Floyd credit for, but your statement of "Floyd beat better p4p fighters than anybody on Marciano's resume" I simply can never get behind that statement.

 

I never said anything about Cotto and Marquez being better than charles. I mentioned Moore, Walcott and Louis. Joe Louis was shot to hell so that shouldn't even be an argument. Moore himself was 38 and also fighting at a non ideal weight which you pointed out that Marquez was. It should also be noted that Floyd fought Marquez after he himself was off for two years. Cotto was viewed as pretty good both during and after his meeting with Mayweather. He even later moved up and won the linear middleweight title. Pac didn't isn't fighting "meh" opposition.. Timothy Bradley isn't of the "meh" variety. And the fact that he's still an elite force for literally years after fighting Floyd is of high relevance despite your efforts to brush it under the carpet. You seem to be putting great emphasis on Mayweather beating what you consider " washed up " opposition while apparently ignoring altogether the two facts which are 1. practically EVERY top fighter Marciano beat was washed up and 2. Unlike Marciano, Floyd beat plenty of stellar men who were in their prime.

 

They certainly weren't better than Walcott, not even close. Walcott was the reigning undisputed HW champion of the world, that is better than anything Cotto or Marquez had going at the time. So I see no argument for them being better than Walcott. I would concede they were better than Moore, but Louis is a bit trickier. Maybe, but I'm not so sure. Timothy Bradley is okay, again, certainly not a world beater nor an ATG fighter. Further, he lost against him anyways going by official record (yes I think Pac won) so it's hard to hang you hat on that argument anyways. If I'm brushing things under the rug, what are you doing when you avoid the fact that Pac claims the was HURT for the Floyd fight. Nevermind the fact that he was past his best imo, he was hurt, so how is this win held in such high regard? Certainly not higher than the Charles or Walcott wins. Even if healthy I think the latter wins are better, let alone if Pac isn't near a 100% as he claims. Cotto is simply a meh fighter, let's not make him out to be anything more than that. He's not of the same ilk as Charles or Walcott, he simply isn't. A solid fighter, a quality win, but nothing overly special there.

 

Well I haven't read all the posts, but the one thing that always PO'd me about Floyd was, later in his career, that, with superior boxing skills, he simply went into a basic defensive mode to win, thereby depriving fans their money's worth. The Rock would never have done that. It seems to be the same with all modern athletes. In 1941 Ted Williams was batting 0.3995 going into the final double hitter. He could have sat down and he bats 0.400. Instead he plays both games of the doubleheader, gets 4-5 hits and winds up at 0.406. Let a modern ballplayer be at 0.3995 with one game to go and I'll guarantee he'll sit out the last game. Different eras, different mentalities.

 

PacMan went on to win against ranked contenders who did Charles beat after Marciano?
He had 9 wins over moderate opposition out of 23 fights.Manny had more left in the tank.Charles being competitive against Marciano illustrates there wasn't much between them apart from ring mileage.

 

Walcott was not an ATG heavyweight and he was past his best.He was basically at the end of the line.

 

How do you account for his subsequent wins? Floyd made him look bad.Charles was competitive with Marciano because he was more skilled , he lost because he could not match his stamina and strength due to the mileage on his clock.

 

Stupidity, couched in rudeness.

 

He did, but of his four best wins, all past prime, two retired immediately after they fought him,one was 40 years old and was destroyed by the next Heavyweight champ a year later,and the other never beat anyone of note afterwards.

Good thread.Mayweather imo.Better quality opposition, Marciano has the "names" but they were rather diminished when he beat them.

 

Because the fight took a lot out of him possibly? We knew Marciano did that to others, so why wouldn't that apply here? Further, Pac claimed he was injured for the fight, so how is that the least bit impressive for Mayweather? With that, there can be no possible way May beating Pac is a better win than Marciano beating Charles