Mayweather vs Marciano: Who was Greater?

[Avenge Myself]

How can this even be doubted? Marciano was good, but Mayweather had so many wins that were better than any win on Marciano's resume. What does an old Louis mean compared to wins like Pacquiao and Corrales?

Louis, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles >>>>>> Post-KTFO Old shot Manny and Post-KTFO Old shot Oscar.

Marciano's wins were 10 TIMES BETTER.

Corrales? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. and what about Castillo?

[Luilun]

Fighting at heavyweight is a great honor than what Floyd has fought at

[Luilun]

So Canelo wasn't drained to 152? Marquez wasn't dragged up 2 divisions and cheated on the scales? Floyd didn't take an illegal IV?

These are facts bro. Fraud calling himself "tbe", now THAT's an opinion.

Man, you're really embarrassing yourself here. I actually feel kinda bad for you. When you want the ass-whooping to stop, just let me know.

Your debating the Inner City Valedictorian

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Man you just moved the entire goal post, where are you going with this?? are we judging the athlete or the person now? And is greatness judged by in the ring achievements or out of the ring???

Haha. Whoa, now. You were happy comparing the level of respect in your last post and now you're backtracking. Come on, now. On the respect/class meter, Marciano has him beat. That much is clear.

[Tony Trick-Pony]

To be honest, as a person Floyd always struck me as a bit of a fake, despite his skills in the ring, hence why the inconsistencies become noticed. Rocky was always a stand up guy, so there were no inconsistencies. Rocky was definitely much more of an inspiration than Floyd was and had a much more meaningful legacy, but people nowadays don't seem to care about these things.........

Oh yeah. I'm not saying that athletes have to be heroes, but what can it hurt? When a guy is an excellent fighter AND he's class all the way? Now that's pure gold.

Marciano, Louis, Archie Moore and all those guys back then had a lot of class. Today you see that some, but it's definitely been on the down slide a while.

[LoadedWraps]

Marciano came from a very poor background with no one to help him along in boxing when he started. He had practically no amateur background and turned pro at 25. In a ten year run, he fought and won 49 times, winning an astounding 43 times by knockout. He beat the likes of Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore- all HOFs. He proved he could go 15 rounds. He proved he could get up from a knockdown and keep going. He was dead in the water in the Charles rematch and turned the whole fight around in less than a round. He, like Mayweather, fought two rematches and in both instances, scored knockouts sooner and the fights ended earlier. He was the smallest heavyweight champion of all time, outweighed and outreached in nearly every fight. He retired on top with the undisputed world title.

It's all in how you look at it, but I have to go with the rock on this one. I truly believe he would fight anybody and I don't feel the same about Mayweather. Mayweather also had tremendous advantages with his father and uncle heavily involved in the sport when he was born and there to help guide him. I also prefer knockouts to distance wins. So that is a bias on my part, but when you knock a guy out, there's no question about the win, even when it's come from behind. Marciano was the first and it appeared to be the only for several decades to actually retire undefeated and on top. Mayweather is very exceptional for doing this. They both were smart to do so when they did.

In the end, I go with "The Brockton Blockbuster." But it's a matter of opinion, really.

Best post of the thread. Green K coming when I can drop more.

We can take away the multiple title aspect

in 49 fights Mayweather is 23-0 in LINEAL TITLE FIGHTS!!!-thats just the lineal title now

is 12-0 against current or former lineal champions in 49 fights


Marciano in 49 fights is 6-0 in lineal title fights..now lets go deeper


in Floyds 49 fights 7 had .500 or less records or were making their debut

In Marcianos 49 fights 14 had .500 records or less or were making their pro debut

So how are we really judging this?

These facts are only telling if we ignore context.

Marciano had less lineal fights, but he also retired earlier and he wasn't ducking anyone.

So why is that a knock on him? It's not as simple as one person having more successful defenses than the other, especially if both fighters never lost.

And again, as it has already been said, Floyd was a name before he even became pro, Marciano started late.

Why is that important? Because if you enter the pros with hype, you will be thrown in with better names, have earlier access to title fights, and your record will be overall more impressive than someone who may take much longer to work their way up into lucrative fights - and I am not talking about people who take longer to work their way up due to loses or lack of skill or will - just people who don't have that shot until later.

Look at guys like Lomachenko, and Zou Shiming. Look at the fights they are having so early on. Look at Rigo. The man fought and schooled Donaire when in his career?

Then look at guys like Canelo or GGG. These guys went through many opponents, many of them cans, but that's not their fault that it took so long to get the names and title opportunities. That can't be ignored. If you want to be objective about things, you have to take that into consideration.

How does it make sense to give the guy with more experience, clout, and preparation more credit than the guy with less of a start? I don't get that at all.

For example: I would never rate Manny over Floyd, never will, never could. In no way shape or form is Manny better at anything than Floyd when it comes to boxing. Never was, never will be. But, if you ask me who dealt with more adversity, who overcame greater odds, the answer is Manny. The guy came from extreme poverty, had the ring IQ of a rock, and is a one dimensional puncher. to be that limited, and to make it that far, you can't ignore that.

And no one sane or unbiased would argue otherwise. Very few people, I am willing to bet less than 10 in the history of mankind, have gone from utter poverty to millionaires. It's a long shot. Maybe there are several hundred, maybe even more, but they are probably not world icons either.

There are great stories of success out there, but very few came from that extreme a level of poverty.

But he was not ranked as high as Manny was, not even close...Plus Marciano was almost 10 years younger then Louis and Floyd was 2 years OLDER then manny..how can you even compare this??

Uh, no one, certainly no one credible had Manny ranked at 1, 2, or 3, not even in his own division when he fought Floyd.

When was the last time Manny was even a lock at #2? Heck I never rated Manny above Floyd, not even when Floyd first retired.

Manny was severely overrated , even in 2009.

That's why I was so confident I would make bank that fight. No one who knew boxing expected Manny to win.

And why do you bring up age here? Age isn't telling of anything. Fighters age differently and for different reasons. Look at the disparity between B-Hop and ODLH for example.

[Chuckguy]

It's a loaded question with no real answer. An argument can be made for both but who really cares because in a year Floyd will be 50-0

[Graz]

I think my avatar shows where I stand

[Vasyl’s dad]

How come these floyd fans refer to belts when its convenient, "floyd fought a bazillion champions", but say belts don't matter when it comes to other fighters?

[Kagami Taiga]

Does it even matter on this site? You can say anything and idiots will believe and defend it even though it's as clear as day they have no idea wtf they are talking about. Let both guys live in history as the feat fighters they are.