Comments Thread For: Rocky Marciano's Son Reacts To Mayweather's 49-0 Win

[billeau2]

I'm surprised someone who considers themselves a serious fan and historian even brings up these ****** points as if either of them are legitimate reasons to rank Floyd higher than rocky. Floyd fights in an era that has four champions, Rock fought in a time when there was one. How many champions do you expect him to be able to face when only one belt is being traded around? Some of the "champions" Floyd beat wouldn't even have a sniff at a belt if there was only one true title like back in the day. It's a watered down, useless, statistic. Why can't you fanatics talk about the great fighters he beat, isn't that a better indicator of how good a guy is? I don't hear anyone bring up these ****** statistics when talking about someone like Leonard. Instead they say he beat hagler, Duran, etc. Rock only fought in one division, suggesting Floyd is better because he fought in five is ridiculous.

You're a joke.

Lol baldimore Gatti Judah. All part of the Californiazation of boxing where a momma says "theres enough belts for everyone to be a champion!! lots of alphabet soup to go around boys!

[billeau2]

I'm comparing their statistics and accomplishments.

I wouldn't usually but it was brought up.

It doesn't need to go any further than the fact that Mayweather's resume is miles better than Marciano's.

Marciano has about 4 or 5 good wins, if that.

Floyd arguably lost one of his best wins and went belt hunting for championships....come on Dan...Gatti? And then to turn around and say heavyweight could not be a champion in other divisions?

my point is strictly about the record and the quality of opposition. if we are to say floyd is a superior fighter (though it is comparing apples and oranges) it wouldn't be because of the quality of opposition, or his belts. Floyd did have other ways that show he was a great fighter with superb technique and I would rank him higher than Marciano on a pound for pound...but not on the basis of his opposition and not on the basis of how he stacks up to Marciano in the attainment of this record. They basicall fought equal levels of opposition when considering all the different factors.

[IronDanHamza]

Lol sorry got jones and toney mixed up my bad.

If you look at the names on marciano's resume they are in the same category as the names in Floyd's.... Louis, Charles, Walcott, Moore. So there is not a difference in class of fighter.

World championships are always relative to who is the champion...climbing up to fight the likes of Baldimore does not make one distinguished on this account...besides a heavyweight cannot fight in multiple divisions so on this point there is no great advantage for Mayweather...

Categories like world champions, are relative...If you want to talk about ranking who has mayweather beat that puts him out of the stratosphere of Marciano?

If you want to talk about when marciano fought the likes of Moore, Charles, Louis and Walcott, well thats where Mayweather deciding when to fight certain fighters he fought comes into play...you remember that old tune that goes something like You say ____ and I say____?

Well piano player hit it:

You say Louis I say an old de la Hoya... you say Walcott I say a shot Shane....and on we can go...

I am talking strictly about the quality of wins and the record held....If we are talking about who is a better fighter thats different. But imo both guys fought similar levels of opposition and both guys have some things that went their way regarding when they fought the better fighters they beat.

You say Louis I say old De La Hoya

You say Walcott, I say shot Shane.

You say Moore, I say Pacquaio

You say Rex Layne, I say Cotto.

I say Canelo, Hatton, Corrales, Castillo, Maidana, Judah, Chavez, Marquez, Hernandez etc

What do you say in response to those?

It is not arguable who has the better resume of the two.

How many ranked fighters did Marciano beat?

Marciano has about 5 good wins in his entire career.

[joseph5620]

id say floyd and rocky have similarly "opportunistic" resumes

which goes to show you why being undefeated is something only extremely casual boxing viewers should really care about

guys who fight all comers will lose a few times, all the real recognized (which are neither rocky nor floyd) GOATs have numerous losses and are rated for more meaningful stats

I would say you don't know what you're talking about.

[IronDanHamza]

Floyd arguably lost one of his best wins and went belt hunting for championships....come on Dan...Gatti? And then to turn around and say heavyweight could not be a champion in other divisions?

my point is strictly about the record and the quality of opposition. if we are to say floyd is a superior fighter (though it is comparing apples and oranges) it wouldn't be because of the quality of opposition, or his belts. Floyd did have other ways that show he was a great fighter with superb technique and I would rank him higher than Marciano on a pound for pound...but not on the basis of his opposition and not on the basis of how he stacks up to Marciano in the attainment of this record. They basicall fought equal levels of opposition when considering all the different factors.

No they really didn't fight the same level opposition.

Marciano arguably lost one of his best wins, to LaStarza.

Yes, LaStarza, is one of his best wins and one of the few ranked fighters he beat.

Which speaks for itself.

Marciano's level of opposition is no where near Floyd's.

[billeau2]

No not really.

Floyd has way more than 5 good wins.

How many ranked fighters did Marciano beat? Barely any.

His resume is better. That is very obvious.

is that plus or minus the first loss to Castillo?

[billeau2]

Are you really going to pretend Charles was in his prime when Marciano beat him?

No actually that was dealt with three pages ago.

[IronDanHamza]

is that plus or minus the first loss to Castillo?

Losing to Castillo is better than losng to LaStarza.

[IronDanHamza]

Are you really going to pretend Charles was in his prime when Marciano beat him?

Only until he got called out on it

[billeau2]

You say Louis I say old De La Hoya

You say Walcott, I say shot Shane.

You say Moore, I say Pacquaio

You say Rex Layne, I say Cotto.

I say Canelo, Hatton, Corrales, Castillo, Maidana, Judah, Chavez, Marquez, Hernandez etc

What do you say in response to those?

It is not arguable who has the better resume of the two.

How many ranked fighters did Marciano beat?

Marciano has about 5 good wins in his entire career.

Castillo one he arguably lost, madianna was very close, not a dominant win if a win...I thought Judah was chopped liver Dan? Canelo Hatton Corrales etc were good wins....marciano had good wins as well, if we say Canelo was a young buck inexperienced and dangerous, then we say Moore was an old buck, experienced and dangerous, we can match Hernadez to Charles, Charles is an ATG that yes was past his prime, but still a great fighter, Hatton was not a lot better than an opponent like Starza...

Regarding Marquez...marquez was hand picked, he had been in some wars, he is a lot smaller than Floyd, easy pickings really..looks good on paper.

So for the sake of argument if we say that the hernadez victory and one more of your choice is BETTER for Mayweather would two wins really make for one guy fighting head and shoulders better comp than the other? And I would not even concede that point: Because we have Walcott and marciano beat charles twice.

I would say the point that evens them out is where marciano fought some of his guys who were past it, mayweather fought some of his guys "Conveniently" and neither guy fought an ATG in his prime and dominated...or even won.