Would a retired Mayweather rank above Marciano, or not?

nice answer

 

Of course I'm a modern hating extremist! Apparently.

 

Walcott was one of the greatest boxers I've ever seen.

You don't think Walcott is a better boxer than Marquez?

 

No, no.. If thats the case, then I'm a Floyd nuthugger. :?

Your opinions are appreciated, Flea. :thumbsup

 

It's hard not to juidge fighters from your own era without bias. Having said that Mayweather minus the power is far above anything Marciano was capable of skill wise, though Marciano would make a great LHW/cruiser today.

 

don't forget a fan of obscure asian fighters :tong

 

P4P 15 round fight. Marciano busts him up. Too defensive in nature, and unlike Pac Marciano knows how to fight on the inside. Such a silly proposition anyway, which is why the idea of P4P H2H is silly. I'm just trying to make myself feel better about the reality that Mayweather edges Marciano in ranking.

 

There is a reason that the resumes of older fighters are given more weight. It is the same reason that the only undefeated team in NFL history is the 72 Dolphins. It is very difficult to think about Harry Greb going 45 and 0 in a single calender year.

FMJs undefeated career is impresive. It says a lot about his fighting spirit. His skills are incredible. I am not impressed by his belt grabbing in different weights. In 1970, there was 1 NFL player who was 300 lbs. Now there are over 500. PEDs. I don't care what FMJ says about anyone else. You do not gain nothing but muscle as a grown man. If you go up in weight, you do it like Duran. You get rounder in the middle.

When I think about Marciano vs FMJ, I rank Marciano higher. I don't know that I can predict anyone of equal or lessor weight to beat Marciano and that includes RJJ. I can think of a few who I would favor over FMJ.

 

I don't have much of an opinion on this myself, but i'm surprised and interested at so many picking Floyd.

i would have expected the fact even an aging Walcott, Moore and Charles were better fighters(usually by a clear margin) than any of Floyd's wins to swing things for the Rock as the safe option still.

 

At heavyweight, those differences are not significant. Louis was also long past it.

 

I am comparing careers, accomplishments and overall ability. I can't relate to this thread at all as H2H between the two. That's stupid. :good

 

Mayweather as good as Armstrong. :rofl Thanks PP, you made my day. :thumbsup

 

Thank you Sir.

 

Yeah, that's the way I approached this thread.
I figured Marciano, but thought that it is arguably too close to call.
But when I see so many heavily picking Floyd I get curious, and the more I hear the less convinced I am.

But even a Marciano fan like PetethePrince resigns himself to "the reality" that Mayweather ranks higher, so it all leaves me a bit baffled.

Ezzard Charles is rated very highly on this board, and was possibly only slightly past his prime, and was only ever even at his peak a few pounds smaller than Marciano .... so I would have figured beating him twice would count for a fair bit.
Throw in Archie Moore, another p4p legend, often rated in the top 15 or 20 EVER, who was still enjoying some major career success when he fought Rocky, and again only a few pounds smaller than Marciano ...
.... and many people here would pick Marciano to beat both these guys if they were at their absolute primes too !
Yet Marciano seems to get minimal credit for those wins.
I find that odd.

 

So, 181 or 184 going against 197 or 212 is not significant ?

Yes, everyone knows Joe Louis was long past his best. There were still probably only 3 or 4 men in the whole world who could beat him at the time though.

Oscar DeLa Hoya and Shane Mosley were pretty far from being young and primed when Mayweather beat them as well, but that doesn't make them unmentionable wins.