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

[IronDanHamza]

I assume you are refering to the MD of 1947.

Charles entered the fight with a ranking of 4700, Moore entered the fight with a ranking of 1500.

A majority decision means that it was a close fight. If an opponent with 50% of your ranking competes evenly with you, they will obviously need to have their rating increase, and your rating should be decreased, since it is expected that you would score a clear and decisive victory over an opponent with only 50% of your ranking, so a portion of your points go to your opponent to normalize the ratings.

A majority decision doesn't mean it's a close fight.

Hence why it's flawed.

[12TRIBEsRiSe]

oh there they go. There they go, every time i start talkin 'bout boxing, a white man got to pull rocky marciano out their ass. That's their one, that's their one. Rocky marciano. Rocky marciano. Let me tell you something once and for all. Rocky marciano was good, but compared to joe louis, rocky marciano ain't ****.

lmaooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!

[NChristo]

I assume you are refering to the MD of 1947.

Charles entered the fight with a ranking of 4700, Moore entered the fight with a ranking of 1500.

A majority decision means that it was a close fight. If an opponent with 50% of your ranking competes evenly with you, they will obviously need to have their rating increase, and your rating should be decreased, since it is expected that you would score a clear and decisive victory over an opponent with only 50% of your ranking, so a portion of your points go to your opponent to normalize the ratings.

And you really can't see why this is a flawed system ?, a huge win like a prime Moore and Charles gets none of these non existent points which are suppose to be a solid way of ranking someone ?, it doesn't matter if it was a close fight Charles should not have them taken away, it doesn't make any sense at all. How does a math system know if they competed evenly (It may not have been close at all), how does a math system see how skilled someone is (A huge part of judging how someone goes down in history for most people) ?, how does a math system account for bad judging ?.

You really can't see why ELO might be inaccurate and not the best thing to judge a boxers career ?.

[IronDanHamza]

Sounds flawed? Is a system that has been used since 1939 in chess, and is used in many other 1v1 sports, games and such to determine true skill level. You really think a game based on thinking and strategy would use a rating system that is illogical and inaccurate?

Elo ratings are used for college football rankings. Basically every video game with skill based matchmaking, and a lot more.

But it sounds flawed to you...
Because you are smarter than all those people who looked for the best way to accurately rate competitors.

Right?

It makes no sense.

It doesn't take many aspects into account.

Explain to me how a system that isn't flawed can rank Mayweather #1 at Welterweight? That right there proves to me the system is flawed.

All you have to do is look at the rankings to know they're flawed.

**** Tiger #9 all time? Explain that one. And I am Tiger's biggest fan on this site.

It doesn't take where a fighter is in their career into account obviously otherwise how else would Archie Moore when he fought Marciano be considered the equivalent to Duran in 1980 as you hilariously put it?

[Mr.Fantastic]

Oh there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin 'bout boxing, a white man got to pull Rocky Marciano out their ass. That's their one, that's their one. Rocky Marciano. Rocky Marciano. Let me tell you something once and for all. Rocky Marciano was good, but compared to Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano ain't ****.

You guys do the same thing as soon as someone that is not black does great things.

[NChristo]

It makes no sense.

It doesn't take many aspects into account.

Explain to me how a system that isn't flawed can rank Mayweather #1 at Welterweight? That right there proves to me the system is flawed.

All you have to do is look at the rankings to know they're flawed.

**** Tiger #9 all time? Explain that one. And I am Tiger's biggest fan on this site.

It doesn't take where a fighter is in their career into account obviously otherwise how else would Archie Moore when he fought Marciano be considered the equivalent to Duran in 1980 as you hilariously put it?

Moore against Ali : 1433
Foreman against Frazier : 1422

How ****ing dare you question this soundproof system from 1937 !, who do you think you are !.

[-PBP-]

Oh there they go. There they go, every time I start talkin 'bout boxing, a white man got to pull Rocky Marciano out their ass. That's their one, that's their one. Rocky Marciano. Rocky Marciano. Let me tell you something once and for all. Rocky Marciano was good, but compared to Joe Louis, Rocky Marciano ain't ****.

Good ****.

[Fetta]

You guys do the same thing as soon as someone that is not black does great things.

Really?

[IronDanHamza]

Moore against Ali : 1433
Foreman against Frazier : 1422

How ****ing dare you question this soundproof system from 1937 !, who do you think you are !.

So according to the ELO, Ali's win over Moore was better than his win over Foreman?

.....Seems legit

[12TRIBEsRiSe]

you guys do the same thing as soon as someone that is not black does great things.

??????????? Really?