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

[NChristo]

Because he beat more high ranked fighters than anyone else.

Boxrec is elo based.

For example, Floyds peak elo was 2500.

in 1955 alone, Moore beat 3 people with 2500 elo or higher... IN A ROW.

Moors peak elo was over 6100...

Floyd 2500 - Moore 6100 elo...

Moore's elo when he fought Marciano was 5083, making Marciano's win over Moore objectively TWICE as good as a win over Floyd would be.

Joe Walcott had an elo of 3000+ for the first fight with Marciano, making him also a better win than beating Floyd Mayweather.

Thats the thing, people are arguing that Floyd had better quality wins. Marciano has more than one win that is better quality than BEATING FLOYD, in some cases SIGNIFICANTLY higher quality.

Elo ?


Oh ye 1955, Archie's greatest year where he had 3 fights, Bobo Olson, Nino Valdes and Rocky.

Wait a minute.

[IronDanHamza]

Elo ?

Exactly what I was thinking

I don't know what Elo ranking is.

[DeadLikeMe]

Because he beat more high ranked fighters than anyone else.

Boxrec is elo based.

For example, Floyds peak elo was 2500.

in 1955 alone, Moore beat 3 people with 2500 elo or higher... IN A ROW.

Moors peak elo was over 6100...

Floyd 2500 - Moore 6100 elo...

Moore's elo when he fought Marciano was 5083, making Marciano's win over Moore objectively TWICE as good as a win over Floyd would be.

Joe Walcott had an elo of 3000+ for the first fight with Marciano, making him also a better win than beating Floyd Mayweather.

Thats the thing, people are arguing that Floyd had better quality wins. Marciano has more than one win that is better quality than BEATING FLOYD, in some cases SIGNIFICANTLY higher quality.

There is a reason why most of the greatest of all time were from an older time.

in the 30-40's, there where ~300k fights a year, compare that to 100k fights a year now. Part of that is because fighters fought more often, but a lot of it is because there were more fighters, fighting more. When you rise to the top in a time where there are more fighters, and you are fighting more often, are more likely to have fought better fighters, who rose in a deeper talent pool.

Fighters today are at a disadvantage, simply because boxing doesn't have the same depth of talent that it had back then when it was the premier sport in the world.

Their ELO also rates Mayweather the greatest welterweight of all time.

[IronDanHamza]

Their ELO also rates Mayweather the greatest welterweight of all time.

What is ELO?

[IronDanHamza]

Because he beat more high ranked fighters than anyone else.

Boxrec is elo based.

For example, Floyds peak elo was 2500.

in 1955 alone, Moore beat 3 people with 2500 elo or higher... IN A ROW.

Moors peak elo was over 6100...

Floyd 2500 - Moore 6100 elo...

Moore's elo when he fought Marciano was 5083, making Marciano's win over Moore objectively TWICE as good as a win over Floyd would be.

Joe Walcott had an elo of 3000+ for the first fight with Marciano, making him also a better win than beating Floyd Mayweather.

Thats the thing, people are arguing that Floyd had better quality wins. Marciano has more than one win that is better quality than BEATING FLOYD, in some cases SIGNIFICANTLY higher quality.

There is a reason why most of the greatest of all time were from an older time.

in the 30-40's, there where ~300k fights a year, compare that to 100k fights a year now. Part of that is because fighters fought more often, but a lot of it is because there were more fighters, fighting more. When you rise to the top in a time where there are more fighters, and you are fighting more often, are more likely to have fought better fighters, who rose in a deeper talent pool.

Fighters today are at a disadvantage, simply because boxing doesn't have the same depth of talent that it had back then when it was the premier sport in the world.

The second part of your post that you've edited in is just pure nonsense.

Whatever "Elo" is it's clearly flawed so why you're touting it like it means something is beyond me.

To argue that beating that version of Moore at Heavyweight and beating Joe Walcott is twice as better (whatever that means) than beating Mayweather is just ******.

[!! Shawn]

It doesn't matter, saying "They are ranked #1 and #4 all time by Boxrec therefore it wasn't a weak Heavyweight era" is completely illogical.

Both are ranked there for their work at LHW, not at HW.

Charles is arguably a Top 15 HW, but more likely a 16-20 range.

Moore isn't even close.

And none of this changes the fact that Marciano's era was weak. Everyone knows his era was weak.

As I said, Moore's ELO at heavyweight was over 5000 when he fought Marciano.

That is higher than Wlad's rating right now. Boxrec's algorithm severely penalizes changes in weight classes.

For example "The ratings are decreased for moving up to higher weight divisions by the square of the reciprocal ratio of the weights limits of the divisions--and they are increased by the same factor for moving down the divisions."

So Moore's ELO rating was decreased for moving up to heavyweight.

Also consider that Marciano weighed in at 188lb for the fight, Moore weighed in at 188, and had weighed 188 or more in 3 of his previous 5 fights.

Also, consider that 5 years later, Moore still had an ELO of 3200, which is higher than Floyd's peak ELO.

[-PBP-]

Always the way.

Same thing will happen with Mayweather in years to come, you watch.

He will be extremely overrated, especially if certain guys get in the HOF.

They will look at his resume and see undefeated and names such as Oscar, Pacquaio, Cotto, Mosley, Marquez and blow those up.

Gatti will be a "HOF'er"

Hernandez will be a "HOF'er"

Hatton will likely be a "HOF'er"

If Canelo goes onto stardom he'll have a win over him when he was undefeated.

Then it will depend if Corrales, Castillo and Judah get in. All possibly could.

Brace yourself

LOL. Imagine that. Me arguing against Floyd advocates.

[!! Shawn]

The second part of your post that you've edited in is just pure nonsense.

Whatever "Elo" is it's clearly flawed so why you're touting it like it means something is beyond me.

To argue that beating that version of Moore at Heavyweight and beating Joe Walcott is twice as better (whatever that means) than beating Mayweather is just ******.

Elo is an objective skill ranking based on the fighters you have beaten, and how you have beaten them, who they have beat, and how they beat them, and who their opponents beat and how they beat them, etc.

It factors in every single win through the entire tree of an opponents career, to determine what level they are at.

Most true 1v1 sports have an elo based system that determines skill level.

Chess for example.

You should learn about the the boxrec rating system, its pretty damn good. http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Bo...gs_Description

You should like it, it has Floyd objectively listed as #7 all time.

Its not that ridiculous, arguing that the greatest light heavyweight of all time, moving up to fight a 188lb heavyweight isn't that big of a weight jump. Its less than a division jump today.

By that critera.

Hatton, is off the table for Floyd.
Marquez is off the table.
Pacquaio is off the table (His best was at 126-130).
Guerro is off the table.
Maidana is off the table.
Judah off the table.

But... because we accept that great fighters can move up a division and still be great, we don't take them off the table. And we accept that fighters move up in weight as they age.

Just because Charles and Moore's best weights were lightheavyweight. They don't become meaningless at heavyweight, especially in an era where Heavyweights weighed less than cruiserweights do today.

Also... Ezzard Charles ended Joe Louis heavyweight reign, and Joe Walcott was robbed of a win vs Louis three years earlier.

[deathofaclown]

I'm not even a big fan of Mayweather but to go 19 years as a pro undefeated, win that many titles across that many divisions against so many world champions is incredible. We might not ever see it again. People talk about him picking fighters at the right time but to turn up 19 years, never out of shape, have a bad night, get caught with a punch and KO'd is incredible. If it was that easy, more would do it. There's nobody today who could go through his record undefeated. The likes of Marquez, Pacquiao, Mosley, Cotto, etc..those types of guys took losses to each other but Floyd beat them all and stood alone. Thats the truth of the matter.

[DeadLikeMe]

What is ELO?

It's a metric that originated in chess rankings. Just a fancy acronym for some type of ranking algorithm.