Whose 49-0 is truly greater? Mayweather or Marciano?

[El-blanco]

Not some, all of them.

I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would say that bigger doesn't always equal better and you can be a better fighter and more accomplished fighter thus ranked higher despite being smaller and thus losing in a potential match up.

As previously stated, hence why the most common way of ranking fighters tends to be looking at their resume and accomplishments and their skillsets.

And you aren't just in a minority you're in a less than 1% minority. I've never in my life heard anyone have an argument like yours.

What I'm struggling to understand is how can you consider Duran an ATG? Surely you consider hundreds of fighters to be ranked ahead of him?

You're answering your own questions. If people judged boxing the way everything else was judged, there would be no conversation and it would be boring. These abstract conversations are necessary to keep the sport interesting, amongst other things. That doesn't make it logical, you're confusing the two but you're too dense to understand that.

[krazyn8tive]

This thread is pretty bad. Another Floyd fans vs the world thread.

[BrometheusBob.]

What is ELO and why are you acting like it means something?

Boxrec has Mayweather at #7 all time so what's his ELO?

Marciano is #19 so doesn't that mean that he has more ELO than him?

So doesn't that mean Mayweather>>>Marciano according to your backwards line of thinking?

So what are you even arguing?

While I agree that the value of ELO in boxing is questionable, I'd like to point out to the thread that 1)Boxrec rating =/= ELO and 2) Boxrec career ratings and active ratings are computed differently.

[BrometheusBob.]

Why you hating on ELO?

**** Tiger #9 all time.

More ELO than Napoles and Jofre combined.

Not some, all of them.

I think anyone with an ounce of common sense would say that bigger doesn't always equal better and you can be a better fighter and more accomplished fighter thus ranked higher despite being smaller and thus losing in a potential match up.

As previously stated, hence why the most common way of ranking fighters tends to be looking at their resume and accomplishments and their skillsets.

And you aren't just in a minority you're in a less than 1% minority. I've never in my life heard anyone have an argument like yours.

What I'm struggling to understand is how can you consider Duran an ATG? Surely you consider hundreds of fighters to be ranked ahead of him?

Absolutely agreed.

[IronDanHamza]

You're answering your own questions. If people judged boxing the way everything else was judged, there would be no conversation and it would be boring. These abstract conversations are necessary to keep the sport interesting, amongst other things. That doesn't make it logical, you're confusing the two but you're too dense to understand that.

It's funny because you actually believe what you're saying

[IronDanHamza]

While I agree that the value of ELO in boxing is questionable, I'd like to point out to the thread that 1)Boxrec rating =/= ELO and 2) Boxrec career ratings and active ratings are computed differently.

Well that just confuses it even further and makes it even more flawed than I originally thought.

How do their ATG lists work then? I actually want to try to understand how Mayweather could possibly be ranked #1 Welterweight of all time.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Now that Floyd has finally managed to tie Rocky's record of 49-0, it does raise the question of whose 49-0 will be remembered as greater in history- Rocky's run at Heavyweight or Floyd's run at multiple lower weights.

Rocky attained his 49-0 in the 1950s as a 190-pound man fighting in the Heavyweight division, brutalizing much bigger opponents before becoming the Heavyweight Champion of the world. Throughout his career he achieved a stunning knockout ratio of 87.75 percent, which was for a long time the highest KO ratio in Heavyweight championship history.

Floyd on the other hand attained his 49-0 by steadily moving through 5 divisions in the lower weight classes and defeating multiple world champions in some of boxing's biggest ever super fights, in the process establishing himself as the #1 Pound-4-pound fighter of his own generation as well as the undisputed Pay-per-view king.

Rocky's biggest wins: Joe Louis (KO), Archie Moore (KO), Jersey Joe Walcott x2 (KO), Ezzard Charles x2 (KO).

Floyd's biggest wins: Manny Pacquiao (UD), Oscar Dela Hoya (SD), Canelo (MD), Miguel Cotto (UD), Diego Corrales (TKO).

Both men have beaten Legends in the sport. Rocky P4P was one of the most ferocious KO artists in boxing history- his punches have broken arms, sent front rows of teeth flying, and common opponents claimed he hit even harder than Joe Louis. But Floyd, while not a KO artist like Rocky, is a defensive wizard who has never been officially knocked down from a punch, while Rocky has been down several times.

So, whose 49-0 is truly greater? Which is more impressive- moving through several lower weight classes, or winning the heavyweight championship?

Lets keep it civil but real guys

Pretty hard to argue with Rocky's accomplishments. He did in nine years what Mayweather did in nineteen. His quality of opposition was the best of that era and he knocked out most of them. But the main factor is this.

He put nobody to sleep with his fights!

Never in a stinker, Marciano made for exciting fights in a much less forgiving era than the current one. For the past few decades, several fights have gone down where the two fighters stood looking at each other more than fighting and mixing it up. In those days, fans and promoters demanded more. Mayweather would have never survived in those days. Marciano clinches this one with ease.

[El-blanco]

It's funny because you actually believe what you're saying

What's funny is you using an abstract conversatation to come to your conclusion of who's the best. A criteria that would be laughed at regarding any other subject. You're honestly ******.

[IronDanHamza]

What's funny is you using an abstract conversatation to come to your conclusion of who's the best. A criteria that would be laughed at regarding any other subject. You're honestly ******.

Ok mate

I'm the ****** one for thinking a smaller fighter can be a better fighter.

I'm the ****** one for thinking Duran>>>Fury.

You're smart and everyone else is dumb

[El-blanco]

Ok mate

I'm the ****** one for thinking a smaller fighter can be a better fighter.

I'm the ****** one for thinking Duran>>>Fury.

You're smart and everyone else is dumb

In an abstract conversation of course Duran is better, but in reality Tyson fury would kill him. It's not that hard to grasp. You seem incapable of even understanding that, never mind admitting that. Has nothing to do with being smarter. I'm on the side of logic, you're in the abstract.