BoxRec

BoxBuzz wrote:Ray...on the other hand, money isn't worth a fraction of what is was worth back then.

gilgamesh wrote:

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.

raylawpc wrote:
I agree with you for the most part. I just thought you were perhaps unaware of who was this "Whitey character."

gilgamesh wrote:

raylawpc wrote:
I agree with you for the most part. I just thought you were perhaps unaware of who was this "Whitey character."

I'm not aware of most trainers from past eras, so no I wasn't familiar with him. I'm sure he was great at what he did. I didn't mean any disrespect to his credentials as a trainer.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
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 poo on the larger mans win. Floyd gets special treatment in that regard.

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:
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 poo on the larger mans win. Floyd gets special treatment in that regard.

I expect the bigger great man to win. Still a good victory. And the problem for me is that Pac was just a guy moving up too. Those are great wins for JMM but they don't make me think of him as a great welterweight who is on a par with Hearns. I'm not sure where he'd sit in a list of the greatest welters but I don't think its that high at all.

Less than 2 years earlier Marquez was fighting 3 weight divisions south.

Floyd isn't getting special treatment. It's a good win. But did it amount to defeating a great welterweight? I don't think so.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ooops, I meant for Marciano. Archie Moore wasn't a great Heavyweight either, yet he's listed by you as better than any win Mayweather(who also has moved up several divisions) has. You're just not consistent when it comes to Floyd.

ThatOne wrote:Just need to chime in...

I think Rocky was game. For a fighter there is no greater attribute.

My only question is how does he figure in boxing history.

ThatOne wrote:Just need to chime in...

I think Rocky was game. For a fighter there is no greater attribute.

My only question is how does he figure in boxing history.

gilgamesh wrote:

ThatOne wrote:Just need to chime in...

I think Rocky was game. For a fighter there is no greater attribute.

My only question is how does he figure in boxing history.

One of the Top 10 Heavyweights of all time and an undefeated Hall of Fame Champion.

No small feat

ThatOne wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

ThatOne wrote:Just need to chime in...

I think Rocky was game. For a fighter there is no greater attribute.

My only question is how does he figure in boxing history.

One of the Top 10 Heavyweights of all time and an undefeated Hall of Fame Champion.

No small feat

I have him in my top ten, just not in the top five.

HomicideHenry wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ooops, I meant for Marciano. Archie Moore wasn't a great Heavyweight either, yet he's listed by you as better than any win Mayweather(who also has moved up several divisions) has. You're just not consistent when it comes to Floyd.

I beg to differ on this. Moore on the p4p sense (imo) was the equal, if not superior, to Floyd. Started out as a welterweight, became the dominate middleweight and was closed out for fourteen years, became arguably the greatest light heavyweight champion of all time, and then contended for the heavyweight title twice--- his resume at heavyweight, if anything, was comparable to any other 'true' heavyweight of the time, including Walcott and Marciano's. You just dont beat back to back top ten, top five, and number one contenders and not be damn good.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ooops, I meant for Marciano. Archie Moore wasn't a great Heavyweight either, yet he's listed by you as better than any win Mayweather(who also has moved up several divisions) has. You're just not consistent when it comes to Floyd.

Ezzard wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ooops, I meant for Marciano. Archie Moore wasn't a great Heavyweight either, yet he's listed by you as better than any win Mayweather(who also has moved up several divisions) has. You're just not consistent when it comes to Floyd.

Archie was not a great heavy…but he was a far better heavy than Marquez is a welter.

Floyd beat lots of good fighters. And he beat them well. He’s obviously a great. With a better record overall than Rocky. But I’d definitely give the big wins to Marciano.

Ezzard wrote:What time is it where you are?

Ezzard wrote:Dedication!