BoxRec

Length of reigns also play a factor for my heavyweight top 10 aswell.
Holmes and Lewis for example had long reigns which seems to be there legacy as opposed to the 'huge fight' (probably Cooney and Holyfield their biggest wins).

But I do have Rocky in my top 5.

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Johnson
4. Dempsey
5. Marciano

charlie zelenoff is the GOAT!

Crease wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:Enlighten me. What is your rationale for Marciano being top 5 all-time?

Because he was dominant in his era and he beat every good Heavyweight of his day. That's pretty much it really, what more could Marciano do in his own time?

Ummm, didn't Floyd do the same thing, in a more dominant manner, against better opposition, for a much longer period of time?

So, if Marciano's accomplishments merit him being ranked over Patterson, Jack Johnson, Liston, Holmes, Foreman, Frazier, Lewis, Harry Wills, Holyfield, Dempsey and Langford, then Floyd is skipping a lot of fighters by your own logic.

fornicate the haters, add Wlad and Vitali to that list too. Both are ATGs and would crush Marciano in 2.

Note - Been a Marciano fans since Greatest Heavyweights on Sega Genesis.
So I have no bias against him. His uppercut in that game was sweet.

Crease wrote:

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:If you think Marciano lands a punch on Wlad or Vitali you're crazy.
If you think Marciano can take a punch from a 240 pound Wlad after fighting small cruiserweights ... whatever.

And yet we have seen David Haye & Evander Holyfield (who you would classify as Cruiserweights) have resounding success against naturally bigger man (who you would classify as Heavyweights).

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:Length of reign is significant to me because it shows that your success wasn't just a hot streak.

No it doesn't - it just measure how long you were a champion by calendar time, it doesn't take in to account how many defenses a Champion has, nor the caliber of his challengers. This is a VERY flawed concept.

David Haye was 6' 3", 210 lbs, 78" reach when he fought Wlad.
Evander Holyfield averaged 6' 2.5", 211 lbs, 78" reach when he fought Bowe.
Not an accusation, I don't know of any proof, but in my mind, I believe both were ripping into some prime PEDs too.

So please, don't make me laugh by comparing these two men, who still tower over normal men,
to the 5' 10.5", 187 lbs, 68" reach of Marciano.
In this instance size does matter 100%. Marciano would be losing 7.5" in height, about 60 lbs, and 13 inches in reach to Wlad.

I understand what you mean by number of fights and so on, but most fighters don't have big fights in quick succession.
Many of the boxing gods of the past had a couple fights a year which were just paychecks against guys who Berto would beat.

A serious TBE discussion doesn't involve Floyd Mayweather.

jezzamundo wrote:A serious TBE discussion doesn't involve Floyd Mayweather.

Of course not. Why would an undefeated five weight world champion be mentioned in a TBE debate? I mean, none of wins count, when you analyse everyone of them exhaustively, and he's the only fighter you can do that with.

Sorry, didn't mean the interrupt the discussion on Rocky Marciano.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:A serious TBE discussion doesn't involve Floyd Mayweather.

Of course not. Why would an undefeated five weight world champion be mentioned in a TBE debate? I mean, none of wins count, when you analyse everyone of them exhaustively, and he's the only fighter you can do that with.

Sorry, didn't mean the interrupt the discussion on Rocky Marciano.

He's a first ballot Hall of Famer, an ATG and arguably the best fighter of his generation. But if you're talking about the greatest/best ever, there's s very short list of boxers in contention and Floyd isn't one of them.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:A serious TBE discussion doesn't involve Floyd Mayweather.

Of course not. Why would an undefeated five weight world champion be mentioned in a TBE debate? I mean, none of wins count, when you analyse everyone of them exhaustively, and he's the only fighter you can do that with.

Sorry, didn't mean the interrupt the discussion on Rocky Marciano.

Floyd's not even close.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:Ummm, didn't Floyd do the same thing, in a more dominant manner, against better opposition, for a much longer period of time?

Not in my estimation. Floyd was never undisputed champion of any division that he fought in and nor did he make any effort in doing so. When a boxer chases money and handpicks his opponents throughout various weight classes it leaves him open for justifiable criticism. And it leaves a lot of question marks.

There really are too many fights that didn't happen against good fighters that make me cringe when people overate Floyd.

BAD INTENTIONS wrote:add Wlad and Vitali to that list too. Both are ATGs and would crush Marciano in 2.

That is only your opinion, you are entitled to it - but it hardly constitutes as evidence of anything. And by the way, who exactly has either Klitschko beat that makes you think they could defeat a Rocky Marciano?

jezzamundo wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:A serious TBE discussion doesn't involve Floyd Mayweather.

Of course not. Why would an undefeated five weight world champion be mentioned in a TBE debate? I mean, none of wins count, when you analyse everyone of them exhaustively, and he's the only fighter you can do that with.

Sorry, didn't mean the interrupt the discussion on Rocky Marciano.

He's a first ballot Hall of Famer, an ATG and arguably the best fighter of his generation. But if you're talking about the greatest/best ever, there's s very short list of boxers in contention and Floyd isn't one of them.

To be on the short list of being the best ever, you have to be unbeatable.

During his prime, Sugar Ray Robinson was unbeatable.
Not only did he win, he was just so far ahead of everyone, it didn't seem like he could lose.
To me, that's the most important part. You have to win almost every fight by a wide margin.

Roy Jones did that for 10 years.

... for some reason, Floyd isn't getting credit for doing the same thing.
We're talking about a guy who rarely dropped rounds. And in almost every round he lost, he wasn't blown away.
He did that for 19 years! Which other athlete in any sport ever has done that?

This doesn't mean Floyd beats Duran. But I know for a fact, there are/were men who could beat Duran.
In this reality, I don't know who beats Floyd or even loses a real 7-5.
And no one can really say there was a man in Floyd's time who could beat him.
That has to count for something.

To be on the short list of being the best ever, you have to be unbeatable.

During his prime, Sugar Ray Robinson was unbeatable.
Not only did he win, he was just so far ahead of everyone, it didn't seem like he could lose.
To me, that's the most important part. You have to win almost every fight by a wide margin.

Roy Jones did that for 10 years.

... for some reason, Floyd isn't getting credit for doing the same thing.
We're talking about a guy who rarely dropped rounds. And in almost every round he lost, he wasn't blown away.
He did that for 19 years! Which other athlete in any sport ever has done that?

This doesn't mean Floyd beats Duran. But I know for a fact, there are/were men who could beat Duran.
In this reality, I don't know who beats Floyd or even loses a real 7-5.
And no one can really say there was a man in Floyd's time who could beat him.
That has to count for something.

I disagree that you have to be unbeatable to be on the short list - I think you have to fight many other great fighters who are in their prime, and do very well against them. As phenomenal as SRR was, he wasn't unbeatable, although at welterweight he was pretty close and was never actually beaten by another welterweight, so he's probably the closest to unbeatable I can think of.

Roy Jones also shouldn't be in the discussion for TBE - I think he ranks well below Floyd actually. He was probably the top fighter of the 90s, but never fought good enough opposition to be much higher than #50 of all time.

Floyd-Duran is a very interesting matchup. If you take them from a random day in their welterweight careers, I'd favour Floyd due to his better consistency. If you take them at their welterweight best, I think Duran wins a competitive decision. However, Duran has the far more impressive resume of the two and for that, he's in my all-time p4p top 10.

At 130lb Floyd looked pretty close to unbeatable, but he never fought another great fighter at that weight. His win over Corrales was VERY impressive, although Corrales was a very good win, he certainly wasn't a great fighter. At 135lb he got a gift decision over Castillo. He lost 4 or 5 rounds against Zab Judah and got knocked down. He barely squeaked by a post-prime De La Hoya, although that was at 154lb, a division Floyd was never really big enough for. The first Maidana fight could have gone either way too and I think he's getting too much credit from some for the Pacquiao fight, seeing as both guys (but particularly Manny) were past their best and personally I don't think Floyd won all that decisively.

As I said before, no argument that he's an ATG. If he had decisively beaten Manny Pacquiao in 2010 when he was still in his prime, I would rate him higher, perhaps top 15. Add in wins over a prime Tszyu and Margarito and he's borderline top 10, but still well short of being in the Robinson, Greb, Armstrong, Langford discussion.