BoxRec

Syntax Error wrote:Marciano is a great fighter & a worthy Hall-of-Famer, but he is not in my top 5 HWs.

I do believe Marciano's '0' gets him props he otherwise would not have got had he, for example, dropped a decision early in his career but went on to win the HW title & have exactly the same career, but ended up 48-1 instead of 49-0.

I personally believe Marciano defeated LaStarza in their first outing; but even if it was the case he lost (narrowly) the best measure of a man is what happens in the return bout---- Marciano slaughtered LaStarza in the rematch. Many years later LaStarza would say "I could ten rounds with him, but couldnt go fifteen." Which I think speaks volumes of LaStarza, good fighter that he was, that he knew deep down in his heart who the superior fighter was.

Syntax Error wrote:Marciano is a great fighter & a worthy Hall-of-Famer, but he is not in my top 5 HWs.

I do believe Marciano's '0' gets him props he otherwise would not have got had he, for example, dropped a decision early in his career but went on to win the HW title & have exactly the same career, but ended up 48-1 instead of 49-0.

But he didn't. He went 49-0. You have to judge the man by what he accomplished, not by "what ifs."

raylawpc wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Marciano is a great fighter & a worthy Hall-of-Famer, but he is not in my top 5 HWs.

I do believe Marciano's '0' gets him props he otherwise would not have got had he, for example, dropped a decision early in his career but went on to win the HW title & have exactly the same career, but ended up 48-1 instead of 49-0.

But he didn't. He went 49-0. You have to judge the man by what he accomplished, not by "what ifs."

If Mayweather retires undefeated , a generation from know, fans will say he is a top ten or higher all time great because of his undefeated record, and point to his wins over Shane Mosley, Oscar delaHoya, and Zab Judah as proof of his dominance. Mayweather's detractors will point to where The Golden Boy and Sugar Shane were in their careers and argue the outcome would have been different if those gentlemen were in their primes. His defenders will argue "You have to judge the man by what he accomplished, not by "what ifs."

As it is now Mayweather says His career achievements surpass Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali because both of them lost and he didn't.

ThatOne wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:Marciano is a great fighter & a worthy Hall-of-Famer, but he is not in my top 5 HWs.

I do believe Marciano's '0' gets him props he otherwise would not have got had he, for example, dropped a decision early in his career but went on to win the HW title & have exactly the same career, but ended up 48-1 instead of 49-0.

But he didn't. He went 49-0. You have to judge the man by what he accomplished, not by "what ifs."

If Mayweather retires undefeated , a generation from know, fans will say he is a top ten or higher all time great because of his undefeated record, and point to his wins over Shane Mosley, Oscar delaHoya, and Zab Judah as proof of his dominance. Mayweather's detractors will point to where The Golden Boy and Sugar Shane were in their careers and argue the outcome would have been different if those gentlemen were in their primes. His defenders will argue "You have to judge the man by what he accomplished, not by "what ifs."

As it is now Mayweather says His career achievements surpass Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali because both of them lost and he didn't.

And your point is??

I would have Marciano somewhere around 10-12, so my answer would be that I don't consider him top 5 all time.

And your point is??

-raylawpc

My point is "show me a fighter who has never been beat and I'll show you a fighter that has never fought anybody." I thought that was the only inference one could draw. Mea culpa.

ThatOne wrote:

And your point is??

-raylawpc

My point is "show me a fighter who has never been beat and I'll show you a fighter that has never fought anybody." I thought that was the only inference one could draw. Mea culpa.

This is often the case, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that Marciano or Mayweather "never fought anybody"

Mayweather has beaten several current or former World Champions in his career.

Marciano beat several legendary fighters as well...2 of the best fighter he beat were all time great Light Heavyweights.

Jersey Joe Walcott was a great Heavyweight as well, not one of the 10 best there ever was or nothing, but certainly nobody to take lightly.

I do believe Marciano fought the best available competition in his time though, whereas Mayweather has avoided some of the bigger fights that could've come his way in his career...but still Mayweather's resume eclipses Marciano's and he's beaten better opposition than Marciano has.

gilgamesh wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

And your point is??

-raylawpc

My point is "show me a fighter who has never been beat and I'll show you a fighter that has never fought anybody." I thought that was the only inference one could draw. Mea culpa.

This is often the case, but I certainly wouldn't suggest that Marciano or Mayweather "never fought anybody"

Mayweather has beaten several current or former World Champions in his career.

Marciano beat several legendary fighters as well...2 of the best fighter he beat were all time great Light Heavyweights.

Jersey Joe Walcott was a great Heavyweight as well, not one of the 10 best there ever was or nothing, but certainly nobody to take lightly.

I do believe Marciano fought the best available competition in his time though, whereas Mayweather has avoided some of the bigger fights that could've come his way in his career...but still Mayweather's resume eclipses Marciano's and he's beaten better opposition than Marciano has.

Don't you have to look at where the fighters are in their careers?

Muhammad Ali embarrassed the great Archie Moore And Hector Camacho embarrassed the great Sugar Ray Leonard. Mike Tyson embarrassed the great Larry Holmes... Larry Holmes embarrassed the great Muhammad Ali.

What do the embarrassed fighters seem to have in common?

ThatOne wrote:
Don't you have to look at where the fighters are in their careers?

Muhammad Ali embarrassed the great Archie Moore And Hector Camacho embarrassed the great Sugar Ray Leonard. Mike Tyson embarrassed the great Larry Holmes... Larry Holmes embarrassed the great Muhammad Ali.

What do the embarrassed fighters seem to have in common?

You do. Everybody that Marciano and Mayweather fought was not shot, they might have been at their peak, but most weren't shot.

Mosley was coming off of one of his biggest wins in years going into the Mayweather fight.

DLH had beaten Mayorga before fighting Mayweather and performed well enough against Mayweather to suggest he wasn't washed up.

Several other greats that Mayweather beat were still at their peak when he beat them. Corrales, Castillo, Hatton, Marquez.

Plus Mayweather fought a very large crop of solid contenders who just weren't quite great.


As for Marciano, almost all of his best wins are against guys who were slightly past their best, but they were still legitimately world class contenders when Rocky fought them.

Walcott, Charles and Archie Moore were still great and put up great fights against Marciano (well Walcott didn't in the rematch, but he certainly did the first time)

Regardless. To say that they're unbeaten because they "never fought anybody" would just be an incorrect statement. Those guys certainly aren't nobody.



And unlike the fighters you mentioned...Camacho vs Leonard for instance. They weren't completely shot.

gilgamesh wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
Don't you have to look at where the fighters are in their careers?

Muhammad Ali embarrassed the great Archie Moore And Hector Camacho embarrassed the great Sugar Ray Leonard. Mike Tyson embarrassed the great Larry Holmes... Larry Holmes embarrassed the great Muhammad Ali.

What do the embarrassed fighters seem to have in common?

You do. Everybody that Marciano and Mayweather fought was not shot, they might have been at their peak, but most weren't shot.

Mosley was coming off of one of his biggest wins in years going into the Mayweather fight.

DLH had beaten Mayorga before fighting Mayweather and performed well enough against Mayweather to suggest he wasn't washed up.

Several other greats that Mayweather beat were still at their peak when he beat them. Corrales, Castillo, Hatton, Marquez.

Plus Mayweather fought a very large crop of solid contenders who just weren't quite great.


As for Marciano, almost all of his best wins are against guys who were slightly past their best, but they were still legitimately world class contenders when Rocky fought them.

Walcott, Charles and Archie Moore were still great and put up great fights against Marciano (well Walcott didn't in the rematch, but he certainly did the first time)

Regardless. To say that they're unbeaten because they "never fought anybody" would just be an incorrect statement. Those guys certainly aren't nobody.



And unlike the fighters you mentioned...Camacho vs Leonard for instance. They weren't completely shot.

That might be hyperbole....


I like PBF. I think he's top shelf. I just think it's preposterous for him and his fans to argue he had the better career than Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson because he has never been beat and they have. I feel the same way about Marciano and his fans.


Julio Cesar Chavez was 87-0 at one point, 87-0...

Well I think you're both right, in that the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think Gilgamesh is saying that just because those guys are unbeaten, doesn't mean that the fighters they faced weren't good. I think that's accurate.

While you're saying that an unbeaten record, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean anything, which I think is also accurate.

I think arguing that Mayweather or Marciano are great solely because they are unbeaten would be short-sighted, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying the quality of opposition is/was also there, in those particular cases.

ThatOne wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

ThatOne wrote:
Don't you have to look at where the fighters are in their careers?

Muhammad Ali embarrassed the great Archie Moore And Hector Camacho embarrassed the great Sugar Ray Leonard. Mike Tyson embarrassed the great Larry Holmes... Larry Holmes embarrassed the great Muhammad Ali.

What do the embarrassed fighters seem to have in common?

You do. Everybody that Marciano and Mayweather fought was not shot, they might have been at their peak, but most weren't shot.

Mosley was coming off of one of his biggest wins in years going into the Mayweather fight.

DLH had beaten Mayorga before fighting Mayweather and performed well enough against Mayweather to suggest he wasn't washed up.

Several other greats that Mayweather beat were still at their peak when he beat them. Corrales, Castillo, Hatton, Marquez.

Plus Mayweather fought a very large crop of solid contenders who just weren't quite great.


As for Marciano, almost all of his best wins are against guys who were slightly past their best, but they were still legitimately world class contenders when Rocky fought them.

Walcott, Charles and Archie Moore were still great and put up great fights against Marciano (well Walcott didn't in the rematch, but he certainly did the first time)

Regardless. To say that they're unbeaten because they "never fought anybody" would just be an incorrect statement. Those guys certainly aren't nobody.



And unlike the fighters you mentioned...Camacho vs Leonard for instance. They weren't completely shot.

That might be hyperbole....


I like PBF. I think he's top shelf. I just think it's preposterous for him and his fans to argue he had the better career than Muhammad Ali and Sugar Ray Robinson because he has never been beat and they have. I feel the same way about Marciano and his fans.


Julio Cesar Chavez was 87-0 at one point, 87-0...

Most knowledgeable fans don't make the argument that he was better than Ali or Sugar Ray Robinson.

Bobbyptsd wrote:Well I think you're both right, in that the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think Gilgamesh is saying that just because those guys are unbeaten, doesn't mean that the fighters they faced weren't good. I think that's accurate.

While you're saying that an unbeaten record, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean anything, which I think is also accurate.

I think arguing that Mayweather or Marciano are great solely because they are unbeaten would be short-sighted, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying the quality of opposition is/was also there, in those particular cases.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Bobbyptsd wrote:Well I think you're both right, in that the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think Gilgamesh is saying that just because those guys are unbeaten, doesn't mean that the fighters they faced weren't good. I think that's accurate.

While you're saying that an unbeaten record, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean anything, which I think is also accurate.

I think arguing that Mayweather or Marciano are great solely because they are unbeaten would be short-sighted, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying the quality of opposition is/was also there, in those particular cases.

Thank you for crystallizing my opinion. I already cited the fact Julio Cesar Chavez was 87-0 at one time. The great Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one time. If he retired then and there was he better than the 48-0 Marciano?

Joe Calzaghe retired at 46-0. Is he just a pubic hair away from being as good as Marciano?

Oh, to my good friend gilgamesh I don't know if DLH was as close to peak as he suggests because of the Mayorga fight. He looked like crap against Manny pacquiao a scant two fights later.

Well I don't think all those guys are on quite the same respective levels(I'd place Calzaghe significantly above Nielsen) but yeah, I think we're all agreeing on the crux here anyway.

ThatOne wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:Well I think you're both right, in that the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think Gilgamesh is saying that just because those guys are unbeaten, doesn't mean that the fighters they faced weren't good. I think that's accurate.

While you're saying that an unbeaten record, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean anything, which I think is also accurate.

I think arguing that Mayweather or Marciano are great solely because they are unbeaten would be short-sighted, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying the quality of opposition is/was also there, in those particular cases.

Thank you for crystallizing my opinion. I already cited the fact Julio Cesar Chavez was 87-0 at one time. The great Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one time. If he retired then and there was he better than the 48-0 Marciano?

Joe Calzaghe retired at 46-0. Is he just a pubic hair away from being as good as Marciano?

Oh, to my good friend gilgamesh I don't know if DLH was as close to peak as he suggests because of the Mayorga fight. He looked like crap against Manny pacquiao a scant two fights later.

3 words:

Dead at welterweight

And, we're back to disagreeing!

That was a nice respite though.

Floyd is clearly greater than Marciano. Not even debatable.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:Well I think you're both right, in that the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think Gilgamesh is saying that just because those guys are unbeaten, doesn't mean that the fighters they faced weren't good. I think that's accurate.

While you're saying that an unbeaten record, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean anything, which I think is also accurate.

I think arguing that Mayweather or Marciano are great solely because they are unbeaten would be short-sighted, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying the quality of opposition is/was also there, in those particular cases.

Thank you for crystallizing my opinion. I already cited the fact Julio Cesar Chavez was 87-0 at one time. The great Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one time. If he retired then and there was he better than the 48-0 Marciano?

Joe Calzaghe retired at 46-0. Is he just a pubic hair away from being as good as Marciano?

Oh, to my good friend gilgamesh I don't know if DLH was as close to peak as he suggests because of the Mayorga fight. He looked like crap against Manny pacquiao a scant two fights later.

3 words:

Dead at welterweight

That was a sad way for The Golden Boy to go out considering he was never stopped before, save for Bernard Hopkins' vicious liver punch...

ThatOne wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:Well I think you're both right, in that the two aren't mutually exclusive. I think Gilgamesh is saying that just because those guys are unbeaten, doesn't mean that the fighters they faced weren't good. I think that's accurate.

While you're saying that an unbeaten record, in and of itself, doesn't necessarily mean anything, which I think is also accurate.

I think arguing that Mayweather or Marciano are great solely because they are unbeaten would be short-sighted, but I don't think that's what he's saying. I think he's saying the quality of opposition is/was also there, in those particular cases.

Thank you for crystallizing my opinion. I already cited the fact Julio Cesar Chavez was 87-0 at one time. The great Brian Nielsen was 49-0 at one time. If he retired then and there was he better than the 48-0 Marciano?

Joe Calzaghe retired at 46-0. Is he just a pubic hair away from being as good as Marciano?

Oh, to my good friend gilgamesh I don't know if DLH was as close to peak as he suggests because of the Mayorga fight. He looked like crap against Manny pacquiao a scant two fights later.

DLH was absolutely dead at welterweight. Plus Freddie Roach and co. negotiated it where he had to come down even further than Welterweight. He barely gained any weight back overnight either.

I think he was near the end of his career anyhow, but that situation certainly made it worse.

Brian Nielsen fought a bunch of nobodies to get to 49-0 (incidentally Marciano is 49-0 as well, not 48-0)

Joe Calzaghe is a great fighter, and probably is the best Super Middleweight of all time. He avoided top competition for quite a few years, but had some of his greatest wins toward the very end of his career. He's a legitimately great fighter.



Just being unbeaten in and of itself doesn't mean anything though no. There are quite a few guys in the sport right now who are unbeaten and it means jack sh*t because they've fought nobody.

Deontay Wilder for instance.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Floyd is clearly greater than Marciano. Not even debatable.

I agree though I suspect some posters would violently disagree...

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Floyd is clearly greater than Marciano. Not even debatable.

x2

I'd agree with that (Floyd > Marciano)

ThatOne wrote:

And your point is??

-raylawpc

My point is "show me a fighter who has never been beat and I'll show you a fighter that has never fought anybody." I thought that was the only inference one could draw. Mea culpa.

I forgot you never were in a boxing ring in actual competition. If you had been, you'd realize how asinine that statement is . . . Mea culpa.

I think people are being overly harsh here.

Walcott may have been an older guy but he was the champion at the time. He came in around his usual weight. He fought brilliantly. And Walcott is an all-time top 10 contender. Charles was an exceptional fighter who was past his best but put everything into that first fight. He wasn’t there for the pay day. Archie was the number one contender and was being pushed by the press and The Ring. If they had superfights back then…Marciano-Moore would have been one.

Mayweather quite obviously has a hell of a lot more to his game but his best opponents were far more faded than Rocky’s.