Marciano 49-0 vs. Mayweather 49-0.

[Ray Corso]

From 1949 up to 1955 (Marciano bout) Moore fought 23 bouts as a heavyweight and lost none of them. He had one loss at 175 and one draw in that time frame.
Ezzard Charles went 31-6 as a heavyweight leading up to the Marciano bout. He earned the shot and gave Marciano a great fight going the distance using his fantastic boxing skills.

Ray

The mystique about the 49-0 mark was generated by the fact the record was established at Heavyweight!
Li' Floyd simply took advantage of Rocky's mark and added his own numbers to it. There have been others like Chavez who ran undefeated marks that would demolish Floyds mark. To go 49-0 in the heavyweight division is the big deal about that mark, not at welter!

Ray

[billeau2]

From 1949 up to 1955 (Marciano bout) Moore fought 23 bouts as a heavyweight and lost none of them. He had one loss at 175 and one draw in that time frame.
Ezzard Charles went 31-6 as a heavyweight leading up to the Marciano bout. He earned the shot and gave Marciano a great fight going the distance using his fantastic boxing skills.

Ray

The mystique about the 49-0 mark was generated by the fact the record was established at Heavyweight!
Li' Floyd simply took advantage of Rocky's mark and added his own numbers to it. There have been others like Chavez who ran undefeated marks that would demolish Floyds mark. To go 49-0 in the heavyweight division is the big deal about that mark, not at welter!

Ray

Again, looking at things carefully sometimes means abandoning simple explanations. Many who should know better, would rather say that Charlie and his fighter, Marciano, who was born with few tools of the trade, got lucky because of the state of the division: But upon closer inspection Moore and Charles, and even perhaps Arnold Cream ala Walcott, were not at their worse and were quite able.

Its the same s hit James Randi the sceptic often pulls: the idea that simple set ups and simple explanations will suffice to explain every situation. I mean Charlie Goldman could not possibly be a genius, and marciano, a gifted fighter, far smarter than most people imagine... No! it had to be that his opposition was weak!

Ray you point out something that is testified to in the actual fights. Neither Charles, nor Moore fought in the manner of an older washed up fighter against Marciano. Louis, by comparison most certainly did look past his mark.

[billeau2]

i get sick of people talking about may and his post prime opponents while rockys entire resume gets a pass.

theres a reason why guys back then were able to fight once a month, there were so many questionable ''boxers'' then.

seriously, if may were a pleasant, humble guy, hed be considered the GOAT.

Welterweight and the middle divisions in general are just very different than the heavyweight division. if it as not for fighters like Fitz, and The Boston Bull, and the many gifted cruisers and light heavies, there would be little reason to compare the two divisions in terms of talent.

People who tend to look deep into the sport of boxing and know talent would certainly say that a light weight Mayweather was a great fighter. But his attitude non withstanding, a problem Holmes faced/faces as well... I think Mayweather's biggest problem is when he had the Pac fight. I think he needed that fight more than Manny to establish that he was great enough to beat the other great fighter in the proverbial arena.

I don't think one can blame, or not blame Floyd for who he fought per se... but he needed that victory against a fellow great, to be as great as some want him to be. marciano's situation is totally different though, apples to oranges.

[Anthony342]

Again, looking at things carefully sometimes means abandoning simple explanations. Many who should know better, would rather say that Charlie and his fighter, Marciano, who was born with few tools of the trade, got lucky because of the state of the division: But upon closer inspection Moore and Charles, and even perhaps Arnold Cream ala Walcott, were not at their worse and were quite able.

Its the same s hit James Randi the sceptic often pulls: the idea that simple set ups and simple explanations will suffice to explain every situation. I mean Charlie Goldman could not possibly be a genius, and marciano, a gifted fighter, far smarter than most people imagine... No! it had to be that his opposition was weak!

Ray you point out something that is testified to in the actual fights. Neither Charles, nor Moore fought in the manner of an older washed up fighter against Marciano. Louis, by comparison most certainly did look past his mark.

Not every situation, but most. Like Houdini before him, Randi is a former magician, so he knows the tricks of the trade. There's no such thing as a psychic. Yes, there is intuition, cold reading, body language, micro expressions and observational skills. Arthur Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on a college professor he knew in medical school who had incredible observational abilities and would often test his class, so as to improve theirs as well. But simply treating it like some super power diminishes the great skill involved in the actual scientific method. Which reminds me, behavioral science is another skill used to read people. Predicting the future is merely guesswork based on what they see and what they can ascertain from that.

The TV shows Psych, Monk or any version of Sherlock Holmes from Ronald Howard to Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller are great illustrations of those skills as well.

[billeau2]

Not every situation, but most. Like Houdini before him, Randi is a former magician, so he knows he tricks of the trade. There's no such thing as a psychic. Yes, there is intuition, cold reading, body language, micro expressions and observational skills. Arthur Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on a college professor he knew in medical school who had incredible observational abilities and would often test his class, so as to improve theirs as well. But simply treating it like some super power diminishes the great skill involved in the actual scientific method. Which reminds me, behavioral science is another skill used to read people. Predicting the future is merely guesswork based on what they see and what they can ascertain from that.

The TV shows Psych, Monk or any version of Sherlock Holmes from Ronald Howard to Benedict Cumberbatch and Johnny Lee Miller are great illustrations of those skills as well.

There has been incredible advances in paranormal methods. The Scole experiments for example. Many researchers use scientific methods. The scientific method never assumes anything, whether or not there are psychics is irrelevant to the process of doing good research.

Randi has proved that under controlled conditions he can predict that the outcome will be failure. Randi has no understanding of the setting in which many paranormal events operate, including many settings with scientific controls.

I do believe that there is a great amount of behavioral skills and trickery, but keep in mind that Randi, much like Houdini, who was not a very good magician, but an incredible escape artist, who had a beautiful analytical mind, both have/had big egos. To his credit Houdini went into great detail about the methods of the Fakirs (from which we get the word Fake/Faker from lol) while Randi tends to be a lot more dogmatic. Kudos to Randi taking down Uri Geller though...

The biggest difference between the two is that Houdini truly believed that psychic phenomena was an unproved phenomena while Randi truly believes as you have stated that there are no psychics. Know how I know this? If one studies the roots of the research in Britian, including the theosophists, the paranormal associations, including the one Doyle belonged to, and more modern groups, there is respect for the possibility of phenomena. The American Skeptics, by comparison, are dogmatic and refuse to acknowledge any possibilities of paranormal phenomena.

My own understanding of scientific methods, having studied the philosophy of science, among other things, is that the single most detrimental variable to introduce into a scientific setting is belief. Many have fallen under Belief's sword so to speak lol. For example, to say we must be good to the environment and not harm it is great. We should err on the side of caution for sure, but to say that global warming is fact ignores that the research has been tainted by politics.

Then again true objectivity is impossible past a certain point. Social process nd class consciousness vis a vis capitolism drives intellectual property and its validation, always will...If I say i have a pill that will cure aids tomorrow and bring it up at the board meeting chances are the board will smile nervously and ask me to shut up...they will say "Mr Simon do you want to pay for every self entitled individual's pills when they are demanded? Do you want to set a profitable price for the pill and be told that people cannot afford it and that you are a monster? Do you want liability for the people who have a reaction, after giving the pill away? No I didn't think so."

Go to the same meeting and tell them that you have invented a pill that will cause an erection to build and last two hours and you will get a very different reaction! "Mr Simon, did we hurt your feelings about that Aids Pill? come here, how about a few coops on Fifth avenue? And while on the subject of raises, lets also discuss yours as well!" See with male enhancement drugs one can charge a lot of money and all, hence we have a lot of drugs in the male enhancement market.

My point is that Randi is more limited than most people imagine. He really has very little understanding of science for its own sake, despite what he claims his mission is. I also would say he does have his place and done some good...but not as much as one might initially imagine.

[Anthony342]

It's not that I don't think it's possible. It's that there is no definitive proof. The only conditions Randi ever set were to eliminate any possibility or trickery or cheating. Plus he has offered a million dollar reward that psychics have either not been able to collect or, like in the case of Sylvia Browne and I'm sure others, have later backed out of the challenge entirely. So I pretty much have an "I'll believe it when I see it proven" philosophy. And isn't that what science is all about? Having a belief, or what they call a hypothesis or theory, and then proving it to be right or wrong? How come by now no psychic has been able to pick the right lotto numbers every time or who will win the next fight or Super Bowl, guessing exact scores? These have to be explored and answered as well. Like some past posters on here that are thankfully no longer around, I won't go in with an agenda and gladly admit the truth if I'm proven wrong. If it is proven to be a real thing, then maybe it can be a skill one can learn while others could be born with it, like athletic ability.

I believe Uri Geller he exposed on an old Johnny Carson show, but did you ever see where he destroyed James Hydrick. Not only was he proven wrong, but he turned out to be a child diddling creep.

But what I'm saying is, psychic ability, as we understand it, could be a learned skill, using science, which I think is pretty cool. You ever watch the shows The Mentalist or Scorpion? Both shows have characters that are behavioral experts that are great helps in solving crimes.

[Dempsey-Louis]

Nino Benvenuti went 63-0 before being robbed in Korea (Soo) not to mention 120-0 as an amateur.

J. C. Chavez went 87-0 before losing.

Willie Pep 62-0 and at one point had a record of 137-1-1

The obvious statement here is: what if Benvenuti had retired at 63-0 how would you rate him compared to Mayweather? Or Chavez at 87-0, or Pep at 62-0.

With Mayweather being a lightweight fighter, going 50-0 makes him great no doubt, but it certainly does not make him the GOAT.

On the other hand what was special about Marciano's record was that he was a HW; long winning streaks among heavyweights are quite rare. (If I am not mistaken) having two undefeated HWs contest for the HW title did not occur until Ali-Frazier I and Frazier at the time was only 27-0 and Ali 31-0.

What is special about Marciano is that he did it as a heavyweight; Holmes too.

I don't understand how a fight fan would think to compare Marciano with Mayweather, a sports fan yes, they really don't know the history of the game, but fight fans do and I repeat 50-0 as a lightweight makes you great, but certainly not the GOAT. Too many (lightweight) fighters have done as well or better.

[ShoulderRoll]

Nino Benvenuti went 63-0 before being robbed in Korea (Soo) not to mention 120-0 as an amateur.

J. C. Chavez went 87-0 before losing.

Willie Pep 62-0 and at one point had a record of 137-1-1

No other world champion who has retired undefeated and untied has more wins than Floyd Mayweather.

That record is his and his alone.

For now.

[Dempsey-Louis]

No other world champion who has retired undefeated and untied has more wins than Floyd Mayweather.

That record is his and his alone.

For now.

Yes, key word being "retire" - like you said, no other retired. I repeat what if Benvenuti had retired would he today be considered the GOAT? He would have had 63 wins, no defeats and was a world champion (united).

[Anthony342]

Possibly. Mayweather probably also has the record of fewest top opponents beaten at their best and fewest great, career defining wins.