Would a retired Mayweather rank above Marciano, or not?

Marquez better than Charles? :huh

 

One towards the bottom of page 5: "Understanding Floyd Mayweather Part 2". It was posted in reference to PP's comment on Floyd being outweighed in fights, not for the warm and fuzzies in the second half, although he loves his UK.

 

I rate Floyd higher. I won't get into any arguments about who has the "single" best win between the two of them, but Mayweather has spent the bulk of his career beating ranked fighters and capturing titles all over the place.. Way more time spent at or near the top.

 

This is how I see it. I dont fault anybody for disagreeing and you can fight like cats and dogs over fighter x vs fighter z in terms of quality and whatnot without reaching a conclusion everyone agrees with. It'll never happen, and it shouldnt for the sake of a discussion forum.

 

Marquez was about 36 or 37 years old, ancient for a Lightweight. He'd seen better days. Also, he's actually smaller than Mayweather. And I don't think he's better boxer than Ezzard Charles.
It's obviously a very good win anyway.

If Louis was "shot", then ODLH was at least "very-close-to-shot".

It might well be a better win, but that's splitting hairs.
Gatti was a 33 year old war-torn warrior who had taken too many punches. It was marketed as an exciting mismatch.
If Mayweather's resume and depth is so far in front of Marciano's, as implied earlier in the thread, we wouldn't have to scrape the barrel with some of these names being pulled out.

 

Feel free to consider Archie Moore too.

 

:deal

:good

 

-Not sure how I feel about the topic, not something I ever considered.

-However this is crazy. Moore was the P4P #1 fighter on the planet when Marciano fought him. The didn't have p4P rankings than but its hard to imagine anyone coming close to his record in the 50s...

Moore was the reinging LHW Champion, he had just KOed the MW Champion in Bobo Olson, outpointed the #1 HW contender in the World in Valdez, and KOed #1 LHW contender and future HOF Harold Johnson. That is nuts. Mayweather himself doesn't even have anything on that.

Marquez is a great fighter but he can't stack up to the Mongoose at all.

 

Well, I never mentioned Layne or Cockell until after you did. And I haven't put much stock in those wins AT ALL. They simply are not worth much of a mention.

I'm happy to say Louis, Charles x2, Walcott x2 and Moore, and make no claims to any special "depth" to Marciano's win resume.
It was the insistence that Mayweather's resume and depth was somehow in another league that made me question such assertions. And several pages later I'm still not convinced that this alleged gulf exists at all.
The more I hear about it, the shakier it looks.

 

Agreed,

Arguments about such topics have gone on for literally decades. If someone wants to claim that Marciano beat a few better fighters than anyone Floyd ever defeated then all the more power to them. My focus is longevity at the top, multiple titles, and nearly a whole career facing men who were ranked in one capacity or another. Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles may very well be better scalps than any Floyd has claim to, but one or two big wins does not always place one resume over another.

 

Nah, Layne was coming off wins over Bob Satterfield, Ceaser Brion, Turkey Thompson, Henry Hall, and an injured but still tricky Joe Walcott. He had a very strong resume.

Gatti beat Ward which is cool and all..but really Ward wasn't as good as Satterfield or even a one handed Walcott. Satterfield actually has a better resume than Gatti, and to the naked eye, was clearly a better boxer.

 

Floyd's career wont be put in proper perspective until he's long gone from the game. Today is always viewed as vastly inferior to yesteryear and it's always been that way. Mayweather is under a microscope and subject to harsh scrutiny. One thing that cant be taken from him is that he defeated plenty share of #1/#2/#3 rated fighters at the time he fought them, of his day, over several different weight divisions. It's irrefutable. He did. His last two fights were against the #2 rated WWs. His next is against the #1 LMW. No fewer than three of his crowns were Lineal/Ring (to some that is largely significant), and a decade from now I'd consider it a safe bet he'll have his crop of 'HOF' scalps as well. The 0 does and will mean something.

 

Marquez's KO1 was over a journeyman I'm sure. 'Rated'? Not even sure he was that.

 

the zero means something, both rocky and floyd won from difficult situations and that is their proof. in the future the general reckoning on floyd(if retired now) would depend a lot on what pacquiao goes on to do.

@ flea man. i was wondering what mayweather performances you like, if any.

 

Well obviously I like quite a few, and rate his super featherweight spell very highly.

I must stress, for me it's not that Floyd hasn't impressed me, it's just that there are more that have impressed me many times more than Floyd. I don't particularly rate the way boxing is done nowadays, it's gone right back to the event fights of the early gloved era and not enough actual fighting.

Floyd wasted too many years of his career doing little IMO. 140lbs was a massive waste of time IMO. Didn't think he was up to much against Zab Judah. Hatton was a good win but not awe-inspiring like, for an easy example, Locche Vs Fuji was. Hatton was outclassed, and Floyd didn't look of that class doing it IMO.

De La Hoya for me, was when I stopped being a Floyd. Massively disappointing climax of what hadn't been all that for a while.

Corrales is the best performance of his career IMO. It will be used as a 'defining' right due to how Corrales was perceived at the time, but he hadn't done anything special in retrospect and he was not in the best place going into it.

Before anyone says anything, this kind of scrutiny applies to everyone, or at least everyone we talk about. There's a misconception that only Floyd gets picked to bits, but that's really not the case. I do think he has had a solid career, but it doesn't make me go 'wow'. A few genuine titles at a few quality weights. A lot of 'ex titlists' and 'ranked' guys. Meh. A few quality scalps. I do not find his change of play in the second Castillo fight was particularly inspiring, but my feeling on the first fight is that it was pretty much a draw. Castillo was very good, and I really liked him, but a 'great' scalp?

Not IMO.

Victor Ortiz adds very little to his standing IMO. Watching both establish themselves in the pro' game, I really don't think either Ortiz or Berto were all that. Meh again.