BoxRec

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.

raylawpc 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.

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.

Respectfully, your analogy is flawed, counselor.

One does not have to personally experience an event or phenomenon to rationally discuss it. I don't think any sentient person would argue that's not the case. I don't have to get bit by a poisonous snake and die to know that if I get bit by a poisonous snake and fail to attain treatment I will die.

And the quote you find disturbing was from Whitey Bimstein, former amateur boxer and the legendary trainer of such all time greats as Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Harry Greb, James Braddock, and Rocky Marciano. He seems to meet your self created and usually unattainable standard of having to directly participate in an event to rationally discuss it. Mr. Bimstein "was in a ring in actual competition", then having done that went on to administer to and counsel others while they were in the ring, and made the observation you find disturbing.


"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

I rest my case.

Ezzard wrote: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.

In bold just isn't true. For example, Shane Mosley was an older guy but he was a champion at the time. He came in at his usual weight and was coming off one of the best wins of his career. Shane was still a Top 5 p4p entrant on most lists. He only sucked because Floyd beat him. Corrales, Hernandez, Castillo, Hatton, Marquez, Alvarez, Ortiz, Guerrero, Cotto, etc.. Too much volume for Rocky.

And not to nitpick, but Duran rightfully gets a lot of praise from you for moving up in weight and tackling top fighters. How come Floyd does not? They couldn't all be well past it. That would make the sport dead.

But watching Moseley it was clear that the he wasn’t the man who beat DLH. And Shane himself had moved up. The biggest problem was that he had fought twice in 3 years. You say he was coming off one of his best wins but that win had actually been almost 18 months before. Top 5 p4p…maybe he was, I’ll take your word for it. But its pretty surprising if that was the case.

But yes…Its comparable.

I agree that there’s more depth to Floyd’s career. But Marciano has the better wins.

Shane showed up older, no question. He was rated as high as 3 on P4P lists. Floyd has several wins against those type of guys that people brush aside. In 40 years I think he'll be overrated after the emotion of the people hating him is out of the equation. Wouldn't be at all surprised to see him in most top 10's.

As for Marciano having the better wins, he doesn't. He honestly has nothing to compare with Floyd from a resume stand point. They're on different tiers.

ThatOne wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

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.

Respectfully, your analogy is flawed, counselor.

One does not have to personally experience an event or phenomenon to rationally discuss it. I don't think any sentient person would argue that's not the case. I don't have to get bit by a poisonous snake and die to know that if I get bit by a poisonous snake and fail to attain treatment I will die.

And the quote you find disturbing was from Whitey Bimstein, former amateur boxer and the legendary trainer of such all time greats as Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Harry Greb, James Braddock, and Rocky Marciano. He seems to meet your self created and usually unattainable standard of having to directly participate in an event to rationally discuss it. Mr. Bimstein "was in a ring in actual competition", then having done that went on to administer to and counsel others while they were in the ring, and made the observation you find disturbing.


"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

I rest my case.

No. 1: Do you have a source and context for Whitey's quote? And No. 2: Anybody who has boxed competitively knows how well nigh impossible it is to go undefeated - even against meager competition - which neither Rocky (nor Floyd, if he remains undefeated) have faced . . .

A person who has never been bit by a snake can't tell you what it feels like.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Shane showed up older, no question. He was rated as high as 3 on P4P lists. Floyd has several wins against those type of guys that people brush aside. In 40 years I think he'll be overrated after the emotion of the people hating him is out of the equation. Wouldn't be at all surprised to see him in most top 10's.

As for Marciano having the better wins, he doesn't. He honestly has nothing to compare with Floyd from a resume stand point. They're on different tiers.

Seriously… Shane should not have been on a p4p list if he hadn’t fought in that long. Having lost to Cotto that puts Floyd#1, Cotto#2 and Shane#3?

Walcott was in better shape than Mosely and is a better win… you can multiply that by 2…Same for Charles and Moore. After that there’s a drop off for Rocky so I do think Floyd has the better career.

You think Floyd could be rated above Archie Moore or Benny Leonard?

Cotto lost to Margarito and Shane demolished Tony. You can certainly disagree with it, that's easier to do in hindsight, but the fact remains he was considered one of the 5 best fighters in the world when he fought Floyd and many people thought he would win.

Walcott isn't any better than Marquez, Floyd was more dominant. I think that matters. Jersey Joe is one of my favorites, but he's a 50-75 kind of fighter. Just like Marciano.

No, I have Moore and Leonard in my top 10.

No. 1: Do you have a source and context for Whitey's quote? And No. 2: Anybody who has boxed competitively knows how well nigh impossible it is to go undefeated - even against meager competition - which neither Rocky (nor Floyd, if he remains undefeated) have faced . . .

A person who has never been bit by a snake can't tell you what it feels like.

-raylawpc

Seriously and respectfully Whitey's quote doesn't make much sense to me either. I know what I can infer from it.

"Show me a fighter who has never been beat and I'll show you a fighter that has never fought anybody."

Even if you change anybody to everybody it's still problematic. I just think a undefeated record in and of itself is not dispositive.

Oh, the quote is here:

http://www.predictem.com/boxing/sayings.php

and here with context or at least the context the author put it in:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rocky.html

ThatOne wrote:

No. 1: Do you have a source and context for Whitey's quote? And No. 2: Anybody who has boxed competitively knows how well nigh impossible it is to go undefeated - even against meager competition - which neither Rocky (nor Floyd, if he remains undefeated) have faced . . .

A person who has never been bit by a snake can't tell you what it feels like.

-raylawpc

Seriously and respectfully Whitey's quote doesn't make much sense to me either. I know what I can infer from it.

"Show me a fighter who has never been beat and I'll show you a fighter that has never fought anybody."

Even if you change anybody to everybody it's still problematic. I just think a undefeated record in and of itself is not dispositive.

Oh, the quote is here:

http://www.predictem.com/boxing/sayings.php

and here with context or at least the context the author put it in:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rocky.html

Neither citation tells us the context or the source.

And I just caught the x2 part. So Walcott was still prime for the rematch? He fought a great fight the first time, but his best days were already past. You're using a creative imagination here. Great poster, Floyd is just your weakness. I guess it always will be.

I trust your memory over mine in terms of other people’s thoughts…

But I do remember going into that fight thinking Moseley was far from the fighter he had been. Possibly living on former glories. I don’t know…hard to remember the landscape as it was…

Marquez better than Walcott? I don’t know. Walcott should have had a win over Joe Louis. He beat Ezzard Charles. I mean they are both top 10 fighters in the history of the sport.

Ezzard wrote:I trust your memory over mine in terms of other people’s thoughts…

But I do remember going into that fight thinking Moseley was far from the fighter he had been. Possibly living on former glories. I don’t know…hard to remember the landscape as it was…

Marquez better than Walcott? I don’t know. Walcott should have had a win over Joe Louis. He beat Ezzard Charles. I mean they are both top 10 fighters in the history of the sport.

They're in the same tier as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't call one better than the other. Jersey Joe wasn't the same guy that beat Louis and great as Ezzard was, he wouldn't be top 10 as a heavyweight.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And I just caught the x2 part. So Walcott was still prime for the rematch? He fought a great fight the first time, but his best days were already past. You're using a creative imagination here. Great poster, Floyd is just your weakness. I guess it always will be.

Its always tricky to know when a guy loses it.

I checked it was 8 months between their two fights. Still far less than Shane’s absence from the ring…

My point is that its hard for me to really say Walcott was no longer a force…though yes I concede he had declined. But he went into that rematch as a guy who had given Marciano hell and was expected to again.

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:And I just caught the x2 part. So Walcott was still prime for the rematch? He fought a great fight the first time, but his best days were already past. You're using a creative imagination here. Great poster, Floyd is just your weakness. I guess it always will be.

Its always tricky to know when a guy loses it.

I checked it was 8 months between their two fights. Still far less than Shane’s absence from the ring…

My point is that its hard for me to really say Walcott was no longer a force…though yes I concede he had declined. But he went into that rematch as a guy who had given Marciano hell and was expected to again.

Shane was expected to give Floyd a tough fight. If we're going to revise that based on the result we would obviously have to do the same thing with a 1 round blow out.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I trust your memory over mine in terms of other people’s thoughts…

But I do remember going into that fight thinking Moseley was far from the fighter he had been. Possibly living on former glories. I don’t know…hard to remember the landscape as it was…

Marquez better than Walcott? I don’t know. Walcott should have had a win over Joe Louis. He beat Ezzard Charles. I mean they are both top 10 fighters in the history of the sport.

They're in the same tier as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't call one better than the other. Jersey Joe wasn't the same guy that beat Louis and great as Ezzard was, he wouldn't be top 10 as a heavyweight.

And Marquez as a...whatever weight Floyd eventually decided to fight at...?

Bivins, Maxim, Johnson...

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Ezzard wrote:I trust your memory over mine in terms of other people’s thoughts…

But I do remember going into that fight thinking Moseley was far from the fighter he had been. Possibly living on former glories. I don’t know…hard to remember the landscape as it was…

Marquez better than Walcott? I don’t know. Walcott should have had a win over Joe Louis. He beat Ezzard Charles. I mean they are both top 10 fighters in the history of the sport.

They're in the same tier as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't call one better than the other. Jersey Joe wasn't the same guy that beat Louis and great as Ezzard was, he wouldn't be top 10 as a heavyweight.

And Marquez as a...whatever weight Floyd eventually decided to fight at...?

Bivins, Maxim, Johnson...

Same weight he kicked Manny's ass at twice. He was off for two years and came back against the 2nd or 3rd greatest fighter in the world. Welterweights and Lightweights have tangled many times without people deciding to shit on the larger mans win. Floyd gets special treatment in that regard.

raylawpc wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

No. 1: Do you have a source and context for Whitey's quote? And No. 2: Anybody who has boxed competitively knows how well nigh impossible it is to go undefeated - even against meager competition - which neither Rocky (nor Floyd, if he remains undefeated) have faced . . .

A person who has never been bit by a snake can't tell you what it feels like.

-raylawpc

Seriously and respectfully Whitey's quote doesn't make much sense to me either. I know what I can infer from it.

"Show me a fighter who has never been beat and I'll show you a fighter that has never fought anybody."

Even if you change anybody to everybody it's still problematic. I just think a undefeated record in and of itself is not dispositive.

Oh, the quote is here:

http://www.predictem.com/boxing/sayings.php

and here with context or at least the context the author put it in:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/rocky.html

Neither citation tells us the context or the source.

First , let me preface my remarks by saying I have respect or try to have respect for any man who risks getting his head handed to him for a living. My uncle was a professional boxer and my father was a Golden Gloves boxer on the verge of turning pro when he was drafted into WW ll. He lost the sight of his right eye when he took shrapnel in the Battle Of North Africa. My uncle had a detached retina, surgery was performed on it, was warned not to fight again, ignored the warning and consequently lost the sight of the eye.

...

Regarding the context in which Whitey said it or whether he said it at all, the latter doesn't seem to be in dispute. We don't know the context in which Whitey used it. You are correct. We only know the context in which the author of the article did.


IMHO, we are getting in the weeds here. My point is a undefeated record in and of itself is not dispositive. In this thread I have given several examples. Joe Calzaghe retired at 46-0. He was a good fighter but I would suggest there's a lot more than three victories that separate him from an atg like Rocky Marciano.

I think the proof is in the fights--- Marciano wasn't like guys today with padded records, blowing everyone away right and left. Marciano's fights with Vingo, LaStarza, Louis, Walcott, Charles and Moore were all balls to the walls battles--- these technical wizards who every legend since them, including Roy Jones and James Toney, has ripped off royally all their moves and tactics--- who were much taller, heavier, etc. than Marciano he defeated them anyways; and it wasnt done easily. Each fight Marciano ever had, he was expected to lose, or eventually lose and be so outclassed that all the pundits could finally say "See I told you so!" but it never came. Marciano dug down deep and fought HARDER than anyone in his era, and quite arguably fought harder than anyone before or since his time.

Now, had be been blowing everyone away as if they were nothing--- that would bring pause to the question whether he was overated, mismatched, etc. But that was never the case in his career. As I pointed out in the Marciano Via The Punch Stats thread, the majority of the men he faced were coming off epic performances and long win streaks--- after facing Marciano, they were never the same. Walcott fought the best fight of his life with Rocky, and in the return bout was an echo of who he once was. Charles had a long win streak before facing Marciano, and after those two brutal battles, was an echo of who he was. Etc.

There's an old saying, "Leave it in the ring", in the case of men back then (who were truly fighters) they fought so hard that something inside them broke. That's the measure of the man, they broke and were mere shadows of themselves--- Marciano walked away the victor. Now, does that mean Marciano is a top five heavyweight? Probably not. But, because of his great self belief, great conditioning, sheer power and foercity--- I cant see that many men in history, or even now, who could stand for too long under that kind of blistering pace. You may make a fool out of him for a round or two, but eventually someone stops to try and throw a power punch, someone slows down, someone shifts gears, etc. and then Marciano would of got them.

ThatOne wrote:

First , let me preface my remarks by saying I have respect or try to have respect for any man who risks getting his head handed to him for a living. My uncle was a professional boxer and my father was a Golden Gloves boxer on the verge of turning pro when he was drafted into WW ll. He lost the sight of his right eye when he took shrapnel in the Battle Of North Africa. My uncle had a detached retina, surgery was performed on it, was warned not to fight again, ignored the warning and consequently lost the sight of the eye.

...

Regarding the context in which Whitey said it or whether he said it at all, the latter doesn't seem to be in dispute. We don't know the context in which Whitey used it. You are correct. We only know the context in which the author of the article did.


IMHO, we are getting in the weeds here. My point is a undefeated record in and of itself is not dispositive. In this thread I have given several examples. Joe Calzaghe retired at 46-0. He was a good fighter but I would suggest there's a lot more than three victories that separate him from an atg like Rocky Marciano.

Calzaghe isn't drastically below Rocky Marciano in all time great lists in my view, though I would have Marciano ahead. Both Calzaghe and Marciano don't have a lot of major names on their unbeaten records...Marciano certainly has the bigger names as his biggest wins are over Hall of Famers, but Calzaghe's wins over Hopkins, Kessler and Lacy are certainly big wins.

Hopkins will undoubtedly go down as a hall of famer, and though he was in his 40's at the time he fought Calzaghe, considering the success he's had since then I think you'd have to give Calzaghe a lot of credit for that victory.


ThatOne you seem to be taking the quote "Show me a fighter who's undefeated and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anybody" to mean "Show me a fighter who's undefeated and I'll show you a sh*t fighter"

Which in the case of the guys coming up in this discussion at least, is not accurate. Mayweather, Marciano, Calzaghe. None of them are the greatest fighter of all time. I wouldn't even have any of them in my Top 15 all time greats right now...I kinda doubt Marciano or Calzaghe would crack my Top 50 though I've never done a list that extensive.

There are lots of prospects or contenders who have unbeaten records that are very padded, but once they get to the top they get found out, and lose....well the thing is. These guys upon making it to the top stayed there for the rest of their boxing careers.

In the case of Calzaghe he was a paper titlist for years before finally gaining recognition as THE CHAMPION at 168, but he finally did it. I'd say his true run as the undeniable top guy in his weight classes lasted about 4 or 5 years.

Marciano's run as the Top Heavyweight in the world lasted from 1952 to 1956.

Mayweather has been on Top since 1998, and has stayed on top moving up in weight. That's 15 years of Championship success in 5 weight classes.

There's no way in hell any one of these guys could've accomplished what they accomplished unless they were for real and legitimately great fighters. You can be protected starting out...you can be protected coming up...but nothing can really protect you once you get to the top except your own ability.

"ThatOne you seem to be taking the quote "Show me a fighter who's undefeated and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anybody" to mean "Show me a fighter who's undefeated and I'll show you a sh*t fighter"

_gilgamesh.

If we can resurrect Whitey I believe he would agree with me that a undefeated record in and of itself is not dispositive. That's all...

Was the Easton Assassin really that less great on September 22, 1985 then he was on September 21,1985?

And respectfully, I thought I made it abundantly clear I don't think somebody who makes a living with his fists and risks getting his head handed to him is s h i t...

ThatOne wrote:

"ThatOne you seem to be taking the quote "Show me a fighter who's undefeated and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anybody" to mean "Show me a fighter who's undefeated and I'll show you a sh*t fighter"

_gilgamesh.

If we can resurrect Whitey I believe he would agree with me that a undefeated record in and of itself is not dispositive. That's all...

Was the Easton Assassin really that less great on September 22, 1985 then he was on September 21,1985?

And respectfully, I thought I made it abundantly clear I don't think somebody who makes a living with his fists and risks getting his head handed to him is s h i t...

In answer to your question about the Easton Assassin no he wasn't.

I'm not sure when this Whitey character said that quote, but I'm pretty sure it's a way's back there. Back in the day it was a far more understandable statement.

These days superstar fighters fight once or twice a year. 3 times at the absolute most, and that's rare. Back in the day...pretty much all the way up to the 50's at least, everybody even the star fighters generally fought 10 to 12 times a year, and usually couldn't nitpick their opponents the way star fighters can these days. So it was much less likely that a fighter would sustain a long unbeaten streak then like they can these days.

If Floyd was the exact same fighter and fought in the 40's or 50's. He'd have 5 or 6 losses by now at least...but he'd also most likely have somewhere between 80 and 100 wins.

To be honest though, a fighter like Mayweather wouldn't have been half as popular then as he is now. The sport has changed pretty drastically over the years.

I have to say that I have often joked about the "mystique" of the vacuous "0"

And I have been disrespectful to Marciano in that process.

And when I think about Mayweather, Marciano, Calzaghe, and then Ottke, Spadafora, Ibeabuchi....I have recognized a bit of divine comedy.

Sometimes that damn "0" can be taken seriously, and it is indeed mystical. So I am genuinely ambivalent.

It is an accomplishment....it does have significance. And sometimes it's about performance...and that should be given attention and respect. And sometimes it's also perhaps about dumb luck....and that does not diminish it's mysticism.

"0" and/or "nothing" is profound.

gilgamesh wrote:

ThatOne wrote:

"ThatOne you seem to be taking the quote "Show me a fighter who's undefeated and I'll show you a fighter who hasn't fought anybody" to mean "Show me a fighter who's undefeated and I'll show you a sh*t fighter"

_gilgamesh.

If we can resurrect Whitey I believe he would agree with me that a undefeated record in and of itself is not dispositive. That's all...

Was the Easton Assassin really that less great on September 22, 1985 then he was on September 21,1985?

And respectfully, I thought I made it abundantly clear I don't think somebody who makes a living with his fists and risks getting his head handed to him is s h i t...

In answer to your question about the Easton Assassin no he wasn't.

I'm not sure when this Whitey character said that quote, but I'm pretty sure it's a way's back there. Back in the day it was a far more understandable statement.

These days superstar fighters fight once or twice a year. 3 times at the absolute most, and that's rare. Back in the day...pretty much all the way up to the 50's at least, everybody even the star fighters generally fought 10 to 12 times a year, and usually couldn't nitpick their opponents the way star fighters can these days. So it was much less likely that a fighter would sustain a long unbeaten streak then like they can these days.

If Floyd was the exact same fighter and fought in the 40's or 50's. He'd have 5 or 6 losses by now at least...but he'd also most likely have somewhere between 80 and 100 wins.

To be honest though, a fighter like Mayweather wouldn't have been half as popular then as he is now. The sport has changed pretty drastically over the years.

Actually, this "Whitey character" was one of the best trainers of the 1940s and 1950s. The Eddie Futch of his day. But I suspect he said it in the context of one of his fighters being about to fight Marciano, and in that context, the statement is meaningless.

And, yes, the Easton Assassin was less great on September 22, 1985. Ya see, he got his a** handed to him by a light-heavyweight he outweighed by 22 pounds. (Marciano, by comparison, knocked out the light-heavyweight champion who challenged him . . . If he'd lost to Moore that night then, yes, he'd be "less great" too . . .)

raylawpc wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:
In answer to your question about the Easton Assassin no he wasn't.

I'm not sure when this Whitey character said that quote, but I'm pretty sure it's a way's back there. Back in the day it was a far more understandable statement.

These days superstar fighters fight once or twice a year. 3 times at the absolute most, and that's rare. Back in the day...pretty much all the way up to the 50's at least, everybody even the star fighters generally fought 10 to 12 times a year, and usually couldn't nitpick their opponents the way star fighters can these days. So it was much less likely that a fighter would sustain a long unbeaten streak then like they can these days.

If Floyd was the exact same fighter and fought in the 40's or 50's. He'd have 5 or 6 losses by now at least...but he'd also most likely have somewhere between 80 and 100 wins.

To be honest though, a fighter like Mayweather wouldn't have been half as popular then as he is now. The sport has changed pretty drastically over the years.

Actually, this "Whitey character" was one of the best trainers of the 1940s and 1950s. The Eddie Futch of his day. But I suspect he said it in the context of one of his fighters being about to fight Marciano, and in that context, the statement is meaningless.

My point was more about the statement itself moreso than who stated it. I was just pointing out that it was harder to remain undefeated for a long stretch of time back then when fighter's were always more active than they are now.

Marciano's 49-0 record was compiled in 8 years. Most fighters were more active than Marciano then.

Mayweather's 45-0 record has taken 16 or 17 years to compile. Twice as much time, 4 less fights.

I'm not saying Marciano's record is better than Floyd's I'm just stating that guys were more active back then because it was expected of them (plus they didn't even make a fraction of the money that guys make now). With the schedules fighters were expected to keep back then Floyd wouldn't be undefeated in that era.