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

I'm okay with dropping it, but you haven't come back with anything that shows beating a hurt Pac, already on the downside of his career, is a better win than Walcott or Charles. How on God's Green Earth is beating a hurt fighter, past their best, better than beating the reigning HW Champion of the world who wasn't hurt or a p4p better fighter than Pac all around in Charles. You've brought forth nothing to even suggest the Canelo win was even in the same ballpark. Talking about records isn't proving a case, because as you know, there is vital context missing. Listing Canelo's records without saying anybody good he beat is the issue. As we know though, the reason you listed nobody, is because he beat nobody. So I guess I'll just say, you just come back with a paragraph saying nothing more than "Canelo's record is this, and Pac has still won fights after his loss". Guess we can't do any further.

 

If you think that being 43-0 with two world titles is supposed to be green then there's nothing more to debate. He was already the undisputed linear champion of his division and top 10 p4p. Maybe you hadn't been following his career but he wasn't green. Sorry... You also fail to acknowledge that Alvarez had the added advantages of being the naturally bigger man and a considerable youth advantage.. Rocky was a young man beating OLDER men when he fought Charles and Walcott and wasn't jumping divisions to do it. Think about it.. you're 37 years old moving up in weight and taking on a 25 year old 43-0 super star of a higher division and a p4p best in the world. You're brushing that off like it's nothing and the fact is it's fvcking huge. This is absolutely a more valuable win than rockys wins over Charles and Walcott to the extent that he's been criticized by many for more than half a century for fighting has beens. As for pac's injury this was not an issue until AFTER the fight was over then all of a sudden he had an injury nobody had heard about. And yes his continuing to be a p4p top rarer for years after fighting Floyd is of great significance. Maybe you don't want to believe it because it inconveniences your argument but it does.

 

Chavez who's like 80-0 at one point, better than both. Wait till Mayweather fight 30 more times and see if he can beat that.

 

Chavez 80-0 was mostly filler. It's a stupid point. Like the kind of point that's so stupid, you might as well throw Brian Nielson in the mix.

 

Totally and completely disagree with him not being green and with him being top 10 p4p at the time Floyd beat him. Were you trying to make me spit up my water at work or just have me smirk a little? I'm not even sure you believe some of the things you're saying. I did follow his career, and it was nothing special, just like looking back on it now, it's nothing special. He got his shot because of his PPV BUYING POWER, not because he had accomplished anything in the ring to justify it. There were countless articles at the time saying this very thing. He wasn't the most deserving of a title shot, but he had the most potential to become a big thing. Kudos to him for winning the fight, but again, the guy he beat was NOTHING SPECIAL, and I mean nothing special. Since you want to talk about his record, and keep spouting the 43-0 record, as if it means a whole heck of a lot. Let's examine shall we.... So who did he beat before getting that title shot. Did I even to list the whole start of his career and all the "great" Mexican fighters he was fighting exclusively in Mexico? Maybe we should skip that elite competition for shall we.

1. The first time he gets a fight in vegas it's against Jose M. Cotto. A so so fighter, nothing special, and has done nothing of significance after that fight.
2. His next big fight was against Shane Mosley, the same Shane Mosley for that fight who could've been 50 years old the way he looked. He was a shell of the fighter he once was. Not impressive.
3. Then comes his shinning moment, a victory of Austin Trout. Wow, surely this would mean monumental experience and a great win to add to anybody's resume. But was it? His best win in his career is against a lackluster Cotto. A good win, and I'll give him credit there, but who else did he beat? I mean surely the win over the great Rigoberto Alvarez to win the Vacant WBA title deserve a shot out. Only, we know who Rigoberto Alvarez is don't we? Point is, he fought nobody good besides Cotto. Well, maybe Canelo was just so good, that after him, he's gone on a tear. Only, that isn't the case is it. In his next fight he lost to 18-1-2 Lara and essentially lost 2 out of next 6 fights. Beating nobody impressive.

So the above fights against elite completion groomed him to be able to fight one of the best fighters ever? Oh wait, it didn't, and that was plainly evident in the fight. Being 43-0 is one thing, being 43-0 while facing elite completion is a whole other animal, and animal so far removed from Canelo pre Mayweather it's not even funny.

Now how about we name some fighters Walcott beat prior to facing Marciano and being the reigning undisputed HW champion of the world. Let's see if he had any more experience to draw upon for such a big fight... We have names like

Joe Louis
Elmer Ray
Jimmy Bivens
Joe Maxim
Ezzard Charles
Rex Layne

That list poops all over Canelo's experience prior to fighting Mayweather, and by poops I mean, poops. That is the huge difference you're missing here. You can keep going on and on about Canelo being 43-0 being facing Mayweather until you realize what that 43-0 really meant. He was NEVER going to win that fight against May, ever, it wasn't going to happen. He didn't have experience enough, nor was he good enough to do so. Look how he fought, it's like he was star struck in there. You keep going on and on about his size and being bigger.... Okay... Did he fight like that? He fight like he was scared to even engaged Mayweather half the time, so what on God's Green Earth does him being bigger mean then? Functionally it meant absolutely nothing because Canelo did nothing for Mayweather to overcome any weight disadvantage. Shall is list the fights Mayweather had prior to facing Canelo that he could draw upon? Of course not, because again we go back to the pooping phenomena again. So what we have here, is than win for Mayweather not even being in the same ballpark as Marciano beating Walcott or Charles. Walcott and Charles were MUCH better fighters at the time they fought and they are still much better fighters today in an ATG view. There is simply no two ways about it.

Your Pac argument is null and void. He claimed he was hurt, had surgery to repair his shoulder, and generally didn't fight like he normally does (leading credence to his claim). Now I dont' know that he was for sure or wasn't, neither do you, but in such a case when weighing which side to fall upon... You have to go with what the person says, and he says he was hurt. So again, regardless of Pac's accomplishments prior to Mayweather (notice how I haven't questioned his experience level or competition prior), he was hurt for that fight. That can never, and will never be as good as Marciano beating Walcott or Charles. Now, by all means list for me the significant fights Canelo had prior to fighting Mayweather that I missed that were elite. I must've been that I wasn't following his career and missed all this elite competition he faced prior to Mayweather. Or let me guess, you're going to come back with Canelo was 43-0 OMGZORZ!!! What a win!!!!!

 

1. you completely ignored my mentioning Floyd beating a hall of famer in his 18th pro fight
2. A lot of your argument hinges around slamming the condition of the men when Floyd beat them while completely ignoring that most of Marciano's best opponents were aging, had loads of wear and tear on them, had been beaten and exposed numerous times, weren't always indigenous to the heavyweight division and in some cases in the last fights of their careers, or did nothing after losing to him. basically what I'm saying is, the shlt works both ways.
3. Walcott's wins over Ray, Louis, Bivens, etc, happened years before facing Marciano.
4. Canelo was absolutely highly ranked p4p and was the undisputed linear champion of his division. being a linear champion with two belts, wins over a handful of ranked men, a 43-0 record and the advantages of both size and youth made him a formidable opponent to the extent where many of Floyd's haters actually PICKED canelo to beat him. It wasn't until AFTER Saul got schooled that the excuses about weight draining and inexperience started coming out. Four years later and Canello is still #1 in his division and likewise ranked #1 p4p in all of boxing. Manny is still #1 at welterweight two years after fighting Mayweather and ranked #2 p4p in all of boxing... Walcott was refereeing four years after losing to Marciano and charles was losing to journeyman.
5. Fine. If you want to cling to Pac being injured than go with it. But at least the field was somewhat more even with Floyd being the older man and not having been terribly active over the past several years. Marciano was in his prime fighting guys who had passed their expiration date and still fought life and death to beat some of them.

 

Some of your post is a bit perplexing bud. You talk about how most of my argument hinges around slamming other fighters people fought. First, haven't you been doing the exact same thing in discrediting Walcott and Charles? You've been doing so by talking about their ages and what they did after fighting Rocky. Which of course is correct, because just talking about a record or a name, isn't as valuable as the context behind said figures and names. That is what we do on this forum, and that is what you and I have done. I don't think you're saying it's wrong to do so, but I also don't know what you're saying by even referencing it.

I never thought Canelo was going to win. Ever. It was an apparent mismatch from the start. You didn't actually think he was going to win did you? Haters are haters, and as you know, there opinion counts for very little with said bias. I just listed Canelo's best wins, THAT is the context behind the 43-0 and linear champion talk you reference over and over. He fought ONE person that was a decent fighter. One. That isn't close to be ready for a Mayweather fight. Nor does it give any justification for anybody ranking him anywhere in the top p4p lists. He beat nobody to deserve such a ranking. Even now, Canelo has fought better people, but let's be real here Magoo, he's improved since the Mayweather fight, and frankly he's not all that great anyways.

Mayweather winning a title then was a good accomplishment, but again, how good was Hernandez then? He never fought again after that? He had already been fighting 14 years prior and was clearly past his best. A good win considering how young Mayweather was, and I give him credit for it.

The whole point is, IMO Charles and Walcott were better fighters than Canelo was when he fought Floyd, and because of injury, the same is true of Pac. I'm not saying it's a landslide, but to me, it's clear enough. I guess it isn't for you which is fine.

 

Then go with it.

 

Sean O'Grady's record was once at 74-1, but that doesn't mean much does it?
It's not the numbers but the quality of the opponents that counts.

 

Exactly. That's why Floyd is the logical answer to the thread topic.

 

Well, it didn't help that Marciano beat the crap out of Charles twice, the first being a ferocious 15 rounder which probably completely ruined Charles at that stage ....... whereas Floyd and Pac merely waltzed for 12 rounds and no one got hurt.

 

I can see both sides of this debate.
On one hand, Mayweather opposition was better than Marciano's on average.
On the other hand, Marciano probably has the better top wins and managed his 49-0 in a far shorter time frame and with far more devastating performances.

 

Part of the reason for Floyd's delayed journey to 49-0 was the fact that he became a champion in his 18th pro fight as opposed to Marciano who did it in his 43rd. Generally when one becomes a champion they don't continue to fight 7-9 times per year against average opposition. There are exceptions of course like Robinson, Armstrong, Moore, etc, but these were never the norm. Not even in their day. And also Floyd took two years off between 2007-2009.

 

I don't dispute that Floyd fought more ranked men throughout his career and likely the better overall competition. We were discussing which wins were better, specific wins.

 

Basically sums up my view