Marciano 49-0 vs. Mayweather 49-0.

[Elroy The Great]

technically yeah....but what did they really win when he always is the odds on favorite.

bet $100 on fmj to win what? 20 bucks? just to say you won...there's not much risk in that

winning is winning.

[djtmal]

winning is winning.

sometimes you can win, and lose

[Elroy The Great]

sometimes you can win, and lose

if you lose your winnings, yes....or hate winning

[Anthony342]

promotional ''obstacles''
timing
$$$$$
value

i still say these may rocky 0 comparisons are silly

Yes, when comparing opponents, they are.

[billeau2]

........mma/ufc

regarding rockys weak resume - no one to fight, no one to duck. coasted to an easy 0.

regarding mays superior resume - once he got out from under boob abum and became his own man, he made business decisions. if youre telling me may feared anyone, that would be silly.

who were the prime guys that would have troubled may ?

prime cotto ? gets hit too much
prime kostya ? not fast enough
prime ssm (would have been a great fight)
vernon ? meh...skilled guy but may would have solved the riddle
williams ? sloth-like margarito nearly beat him. the end.
maragito ? not worth words.


did i leave anyone out ?

in the end, may fought more than enough quality guys to make a resume comparison ridiculous.

This post brings up something about Mayweather which most people who have an opinion, well they don't make a distinction, not referring to the poster... It seems to me that Mayweather did not necessarily have a choice regarding whom he fought most of his career. He could have presumably somehow fond a means to fight Pac earlier, but aside from that its hard to find great fighters who he could have tested the waters with.

It is imo disingenious to say Mayweather should have fought Margarito. In a sense that is a business decision because Margarito never showed he was really that capable. He was very tough to fight, like Gatti for example. Nobody wants to fight a guy who will beat you up win or lose. Nobody wants to risk a career on a fight that means very little in the end, except a lot of black and blue.

His cherry picking was more a question of later years and snagging championships from people like Baldimor. I will say that Robinson for example, 'choosing' to fight La Motta more than a rematch is sadistic...win or lose thats going to beat a person up. But even Robinson would not fight anyone at any time...Depending on how a time line is viewed he could have fought Burley, for example.

Its legitimate to ask who would have troubled May, unfortunately it does not change the facts of the matter. With some fighters its much worse. Vitalie K was, to some, a better complete package, as a fighter than brother Vlad...but his comp was even worse than Vlad's! It took him out of any serious consideration as a great heavyweight.

[billeau2]

rockys ''top'' opponents (in no order) -

moore~after ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SIX fights, uuummmm, probably not the best version.
claim to fame~ being the ultimate compiler.

charles~the smaller man in a division of small men (by todays standards). went 11-4 prior to his fights with rocky and was clearly on his way out going 13-12 in his final 25.
claim to fame~louis, walcott, moore, going 15 with rocky.....

lastarza~many thought he won the 1st fight.
claim to fame~almost winning the 1st fight.

walcott~with a win % at 73, probably among the lowest of those in the HOF.
claim to fame~was at one time the oldest to win the hw title. he was pushing 40 when rocky (30) got to him.

louis~this is the win that makes every rocky fan :wank:. he took on some questionable opponents prior to fighting rocky and retiring immediately after.
claim to fame~bum of the month club, 26 titles fights over a dozen years, incredible power. almost got humbled by lhw conn.

With the exception of Louis, who Marciano did not want to fight, these guys, while not prime, were still very capable. You have to have something in the career bank to be able to fight Marciano twice as Walcot and Charles did! These two guys were still fighting at the twilight, but top of their careers, transitioning to heavyweight (a Charles did) to try to take the prize from a percieved big lug.

Also, for a fighter like Moore, lets look at it from his perspective: he just defeated Harold Johnson to win the light heavweight title, this is after Maxim (neither guy a slouch) so he was more than able, probably was looking forward to facing a "weak" heavyweight given his mobility... Point being that Archie was not only not a wash, but was in a good match up... Even a small heavyweight conventionally meant less legs needed, as compared to a lighter more mobile opponent, and skills would carry him for the rounds... or so he thought.

I would agree that if Moore or Charles had to fight lighter where speed and legs become more of a factor, this might have made them more vulnerable at this time in their careers, but both men showed they had the power and resistance to carry up and were still live dogs. Ditto for Moore who had just beaten a couple of excellent fighters convincingly. The proof is that I believe at least one of these three was favored against Rocky.

[rightsideup]

both are exceptional accomplishments charles, louis and walcott were proud champions and were easily in the top 5 of there divisions even when age creaped in they were formidable.

floyd fought some very good people as well and seemed to cherry pick once and a while but thats the business side of boxing.

[Anthony342]

both are exceptional accomplishments charles, louis and walcott were proud champions and were easily in the top 5 of there divisions even when age creaped in they were formidable.

floyd fought some very good people as well and seemed to cherry pick once and a while but thats the business side of boxing.

Great post. That pretty much sums things up on this question IMO.

[Anthony342]

If Floyd hadn't initially retired at 39-0, could the fights with Mosley, Pacquiao and Cotto have happened sooner? Or maybe at least Mosley and Cotto?

[Elroy The Great]

This post brings up something about Mayweather which most people who have an opinion, well they don't make a distinction, not referring to the poster... It seems to me that Mayweather did not necessarily have a choice regarding whom he fought most of his career. He could have presumably somehow fond a means to fight Pac earlier, but aside from that its hard to find great fighters who he could have tested the waters with.

It is imo disingenious to say Mayweather should have fought Margarito. In a sense that is a business decision because Margarito never showed he was really that capable. He was very tough to fight, like Gatti for example. Nobody wants to fight a guy who will beat you up win or lose. Nobody wants to risk a career on a fight that means very little in the end, except a lot of black and blue.

His cherry picking was more a question of later years and snagging championships from people like Baldimor. I will say that Robinson for example, 'choosing' to fight La Motta more than a rematch is sadistic...win or lose thats going to beat a person up. But even Robinson would not fight anyone at any time...Depending on how a time line is viewed he could have fought Burley, for example.

Its legitimate to ask who would have troubled May, unfortunately it does not change the facts of the matter. With some fighters its much worse. Vitalie K was, to some, a better complete package, as a fighter than brother Vlad...but his comp was even worse than Vlad's! It took him out of any serious consideration as a great heavyweight.

not saying mays resume is perfect....just compared to rockys. how many of these threads are around in this place ?!?!? and id bet most if not all would claim rockys was better.

its a shame some fights didnt happen in their primes. but whats done is done.

a ww/jmw version of rocky would look like pretty feeble. would not have an 0 for long.