Comments Thread For: Hagler: Marciano's 49-0 is Better Than Mayweather's 50-0

[SouthPawHitman]

larry holmes would beat the dog sht outta marciano.

Well I would hope so,being Rocky is dead

[Nay_Sayer]

And jr didn't fight washed up champs hahahahaha what a dumbazs

Well, to be honest, the Pacquiao that Mayweather fought would fit into the "washed up" category...

[Nay_Sayer]

It's illegal to gamble money on this website sorry

Just as I thought. You're not really betting on Berto...

[SouthPawHitman]

Just as I thought. You're not really betting on Berto...

You can't bet money on this website. It's a felony.

[aboutfkntime]

Personally I think that Hagler has got it skewed.

He is comparing Marcianos 0 to Mayweathers 0.

What he should be doing is stating that an undefeated record is meaningless for both Marciano and Mayweather, because it comes down to who you beat and when/how.....

..... the 0 means nothing, Marciano and Mayweather should have their resume compared against other great fighters just like anyone else, not against each other.

The 0 means nothing, historians will not give them extra credit for that.

[ShoulderRoll]

I agree that ultimately it comes down to who you beat, when, and how.

But a 0 is not meaningless especially if you managed to keep it against good opposition.

[aboutfkntime]

I agree that ultimately it comes down to who you beat, when, and how.

But a 0 is not meaningless especially if you managed to keep it against good opposition.

It is meaningless when your resume is put through the wash.

If a guy has one loss, avenged or not, and you are undefeated..... and yet he beat higher calibre opposition than you did, then he will likely get the nod ahead of you..... even 4-5 losses need to be put into prespective.

Were they disputed/avenged/unlucky ?

Were you injured/unprepared/sick?

Losses need to be put in perspective, just as wins do.

Marciano is not the greatest heaveyweight ever, thats for sure, so his 0 is meaningless compared to say, Ali.

An 0 could be meaningful when separating greatness, but not when defining greatness.

[hugh grant]

I agree that ultimately it comes down to who you beat, when, and how.

But a 0 is not meaningless especially if you managed to keep it against good opposition.

Floyd has fought good opposition, but whether he truly can be considered unbeaten is debateable considering many think Castillo beat him, and even Maidana in the first fight. Many also think Pac beat Floyd.

Floyd has some nice names on his resume, but many were not at their best at the time.
Whether it was JMM because he was bloated, SSM because he was old and had an injury going into the fight, or DLH because he was old, or Miguel who didn't have a great trainer and wasn't at his best, or canelo who is much better now, than when he fought Floyd weight drained

[aboutfkntime]

Floyd has fought good opposition, but whether he truly can be considered unbeaten is debateable considering many think Castillo beat him, and even Maidana in the first fight. Many also think Pac beat Floyd.

But two of those are really silly.

I'm not gonna tell you which two

Floyd has some nice names on his resume, but many were not at their best at the time.
Whether it was JMM because he was bloated, SSM because he was old and had an injury going into the fight, or DLH because he was old, or Miguel who didn't have a great trainer and wasn't at his best, or canelo who is much better now, than when he fought Floyd weight drained

I dont agree with you there, but just to provide some context.....

Pac fought worse versions of those 4 guys, and one of them KHTFO.

MOST Pacquiao opponents in the latter half of his career - and even before that - were either not at their best, or were manipulated contractually so that they were not at their best.

We can play that game all day.

Historians will be much kinder to Mayweather than they will to Pacquiao.

[MrRolltide91]

yall seen this?