49-0

I understand Rocky's record as retiring undefeated and Mayweather most likely tying and big ado about it.
But is it the fact that they retired undefeated that is the big deal as it can't be the winning streak.

Chavez had to be 87-0 before losing
Duran was around 40
Monzon was like 80 or so.
Pep (not sure without ggogling but he was way up there.
Sure there are lots I am not thinking of.

I remember when Shane fought Mayweather he made a comment similar to 'yeah, I went 42-0 before my first loss too' That is not a direct quote, just from memory.

So is a fighter greater that retires with a winning streak of 49-0 or one like Chavez that had 80 straight and then lost? (Chavez just an example as I know he had some bums handed to him but who hasn't)

Just a thought on how important retiring without a loss is vs wins without a loss.

Keep in mind I am a fan of both the Rock and Mayweather (Please don't hate me) But looking back at past fighters how great is 49-0?

Well it has to do with your opposition and if it were your career or you just ended early which is part of the reason I always thought that Marciano's isn't quite so impressive because I felt that he could have fought longer but retired after only 8 years.

Mayweather did it over twice that and has faced top competition for a long time so IMO, its more impressive. But retiring undefeated is cool. It's nice to say you never lost but there are eras where its nearly impossible to retire undefeated because there are too many good people in the division at the time. So its both fortunate and unfortunate to retire undefeated because your era wasn't elite but just good.

First, people tear apart Marcianos title run but why don't people bring up his pre-title career. If you look it up you will be absolutely astounded how horrific his opposition was.

Next, the 0 is irrelevant. It only matters to the bubble gum sports fans.

What is far more important is the longevity at the top. Because to stay at the top you have to adjust your style. It demonstrates so much about your capabilities. You can hide a weak chin for years, not decades. You can get by on speed or power or defense or offense for a while. But to carry on at the top over a great span of time you need multiple talents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

First, people tear apart Marcianos title run but why don't people bring up his pre-title career. If you look it up you will be absolutely astounded how horrific his opposition was.

Next, the 0 is irrelevant. It only matters to the bubble gum sports fans.

What is far more important is the longevity at the top. Because to stay at the top you have to adjust your style. It demonstrates so much about your capabilities. You can hide a weak chin for years, not decades. You can get by on speed or power or defense or offense for a while. But to carry on at the top over a great span of time you need multiple talents.

---

Not going to say anything bad about Marciano. Just I agree about longevity at the top and I believe others have had that more so than Marciano, Mayweather, Calzaghe etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

First, people tear apart Marcianos title run but why don't people bring up his pre-title career. If you look it up you will be absolutely astounded how horrific his opposition was.

Next, the 0 is irrelevant. It only matters to the bubble gum sports fans.

What is far more important is the longevity at the top. Because to stay at the top you have to adjust your style. It demonstrates so much about your capabilities. You can hide a weak chin for years, not decades. You can get by on speed or power or defense or offense for a while. But to carry on at the top over a great span of time you need multiple talents.

---

That's my main problem with Marciano. He had some good wins later in his short career but that consisted for about 3 or 4 years. He had no notable wins before that. That's pretty short.

Its a mark and a standard just like in any other sport and its numeric. Its also quite straight forward. Highest number of fights w/o a loss in retirement. Splitting hairs is up to the history books and it still stands as a big deal in boxing and to historians. Its still to many a somewhat holy grail of the sport. Like a goverment office we can analyze to paralyze but it makes no difference. Its a mark that has been talked about since it was made and is a lot easier said then done. And sure there is some mystique attached because of the name rec of some of his later opponents but its a big deal and nobody has equaled it.The retirement part is as unique as any numbers

Whats the first question they asked Larry Holmes after he lost his first fight to Spinks and what was his response? What was all the talk leading up to that fight? Floyd is about to perhaps tie it but he will also go for 50 to surpass it and to him just as it is for anyone else in the sport that's a big deal but you wont hear about its importance by others until its ended and he retires. I can actually see him pulling a fake retirement after 49 just to further cash in on the 50th. Not just for the fight but the line up of endorsements he gets once he retires on that mark. Something he's never done his entire career. Lets also keep in mind that its taken 18 years to be on threshold to meet 49. Lopez finished with a 50/0/1 record but he had a draw and it happened in about his 45th fight.

One could see this coming actually. Now that Floyd is likely to tie it and most likely surpass it expect the mark to be trivialized or downright dismissed.

Sure Chavez went 87 and 0 or something but he lost his 12th fight to a 4 and 12 guy and then had the result changed.

Not sure what Marciano's amateur record says about anything cause he never had one. Ok about 10 fights which is actually 10 more then Chavez and what of his first 40 fights?

First 6 fights were against debuts.
Next
0/4/0
debut
0/2/0
1/4
0/1
4/12 and needed a fix
4/2
debut
debut
debut
debut
1/0
0/7
19/11
27/10
1 /2
23/18
0/1
0/1
1/5
2/3
15/11
21/13
6/5
11/7
4/4
13/28
6/3
6/4
1/1
23/16
0/2
4/4
21/15
21/4
debut
3/3
23/11



Greb went 49 and 0 in one year
Stribling went 55 and 0 in a year

You asked about Pep. He went on a streak of 135-1-1
Between 1937 and 1938 Armstrong knocked out 27 in a row getting the feather crown and when he lost to Ambers in a 135 title rematch by a split about a year later it snapped a 46/0 winning streak that included 39 ko's


Perhaps its not a big deal when you put all of boxing history beside it and compare it head on to other accomplishments but its a mark never achieved before or since and its held up for 60 years. Had some other fighters retired when they passed that mark then that mark would not be relevant but they didn't.

Roman Gonzalez is the truest undefeated fighter 88-0 as an amatuer and 43-0 as a pro. Be interesting to see if he can actually stay unbeaten.

Seems wrong doing this without BBB's opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frasd

I understand Rocky's record as retiring undefeated and Mayweather most likely tying and big ado about it.
But is it the fact that they retired undefeated that is the big deal as it can't be the winning streak.

Chavez had to be 87-0 before losing
Duran was around 40
Monzon was like 80 or so.
Pep (not sure without ggogling but he was way up there.
Sure there are lots I am not thinking of.

I remember when Shane fought Mayweather he made a comment similar to 'yeah, I went 42-0 before my first loss too' That is not a direct quote, just from memory.

So is a fighter greater that retires with a winning streak of 49-0 or one like Chavez that had 80 straight and then lost? (Chavez just an example as I know he had some bums handed to him but who hasn't)

Just a thought on how important retiring without a loss is vs wins without a loss.

Keep in mind I am a fan of both the Rock and Mayweather (Please don't hate me) But looking back at past fighters how great is 49-0?

---

Fighters who go 40-0 50-0 or 60-0 then lose a bunch of times shouldn't even be in the conversation of undefeated fighter. If Floyd goes to 50-0 it's by far the most impressive record ever as others have said rocky beat a lot of bumbs along his way to 49-0

Plus floyd is a little welterweight and he is the face of boxing.

This era is all about him when it should really focus on the heavyweights.

50-0
Richest athlete on earth
Best fighter on earth
It will be perfect...IF he can get there.

This Marciano record stuff is such a load of bollocks. It doesn't get reported as - "Highest number of fights without a loss in retirement." It gets reported as an unbeaten record streak.

It just shows how important the 0 is to casual fans and what a massive selling point it has been for Floyd. Because if you're dealing with stats nobody could possibly consider 49-0 to be greater than Robinson going 130-1 before a 2nd loss.

Cesar Rene Cuenca is currently 48-0. If Floyd gets to 50-0 and retires it becomes the Floyd record. If Cuenca then gets to 51-0 and retires it becomes the Cuenca record. What a load of shit.

The whole Floyd brand is sold around him being unbeaten. He's TBE because 47 have tried and 47 have failed. There's no blueprint to beat Floyd Mayweather, etc. And the fans lap it up (flomos/casuals)

Just imagine how Pretty Boy Floyd's career would have gone if he didn't get the decision in the first Castillo fight? Many believe Castillo was "robbed."

Oscar-Floyd -- Judge Jerry Roth scored the last round for Mayweather, the only judge to do so. Had he scored the 12th for De La Hoya, the fight would have been a draw. One round away, disputed between judges, from currently being 47-0-1.

I was thinking what if rocky had 1 more fight and lost 49-1 would he even be considered a true great ? Sure he has some good wins but not that many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

The whole Floyd brand is sold around him being unbeaten. He's TBE because 47 have tried and 47 have failed. There's no blueprint to beat Floyd Mayweather, etc. And the fans lap it up (flomos/casuals)

Just imagine how Pretty Boy Floyd's career would have gone if he didn't get the decision in the first Castillo fight? Many believe Castillo was "robbed."

Oscar-Floyd -- Judge Jerry Roth scored the last round for Mayweather, the only judge to do so. Had he scored the 12th for De La Hoya, the fight would have been a draw. One round away, disputed between judges, from currently being 47-0-1.

---

Love the argument "one more bad scorecard and Floyd would have a draw. Always good for a laugh

Sometime in the future, I'm positive undefeated streaks are going to be looked at differently than they are today.
I don't think anyone believes Marciano was the greatest fighter ever (maybe one) because he was smart enough to retire at 49-0. When Floyd is 5?-0, I don't think most fans will believe he is TBE either.
Floyd has done some amazing things in boxing and he's right when he says no other fighter can equal them. I just don't think beating Marciano's undefeated record is the best thing he's done in boxing.
Even if Berto KO'ed Floyd. You would still have to look at Floyd's overall career and say amazing! Right?

I said this before and I'll say it again. Floyd does not give a flying fuck about Marciano's record, for many of the reasons already stated. if he beats Marciano's "Record" , it doesn't give him any more kudos. this is why I believe Floyd when he says this is his last fight. Nobody can look in the future and Never say never, but if Floyd does carry on after this fight, The reason will not be to beat Rocky Marciano's record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ron Swanson

Love the argument "one more bad scorecard and Floyd would have a draw. Always good for a laugh

---

There are people that will argue three bad score cards in one fight is the reason Floyd is unbeaten.

The point was - TBE is not currently parading around selling fights as TBE if he didn't have an unblemished record. All this equalling/beating Marciano's record shit becomes utterly irrelevant. All this 47 have tried 47 have failed becomes utterly irrelevant.

A single judges opinion on one round completely changes the life of Floyd and the flomos.

The record means nothing if there is no substance to the resume. Floyd will definitely fight his 50th fight. If Floyd loses or draws it will be more to do with Floyd aging and not taking his opponent seriously than Berto being any good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

The whole Floyd brand is sold around him being unbeaten. He's TBE because 47 have tried and 47 have failed. There's no blueprint to beat Floyd Mayweather, etc. And the fans lap it up (flomos/casuals)

Just imagine how Pretty Boy Floyd's career would have gone if he didn't get the decision in the first Castillo fight? Many believe Castillo was "robbed."

Oscar-Floyd -- Judge Jerry Roth scored the last round for Mayweather, the only judge to do so. Had he scored the 12th for De La Hoya, the fight would have been a draw. One round away, disputed between judges, from currently being 47-0-1.

---

There was doubt in the castilo fight so he gave him a rematch.

My intention certainly wasn't about bashing Floyd or Rocky as I mentioned earlier I like both. Just for me if someone told me they had a record of 85-5 I would be more impressed than 50-0. Of course lots of things to consider like quality of opposition, times we are living in, etc. Just my opinion. Of course never losing has a certain distinction to it as well. Unless it is my brother-in-law who went 2-0. He retired undefeated and jokingly brags about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frasd

My intention certainly wasn't about bashing Floyd or Rocky as I mentioned earlier I like both. Just for me if someone told me they had a record of 85-5 I would be more impressed than 50-0. Of course lots of things to consider like quality of opposition, times we are living in, etc. Just my opinion. Of course never losing has a certain distinction to it as well. Unless it is my brother-in-law who went 2-0. He retired undefeated and jokingly brags about it.

---

Your brother-in-law is up there with Sven Ottke. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frasd

My intention certainly wasn't about bashing Floyd or Rocky as I mentioned earlier I like both. Just for me if someone told me they had a record of 85-5 I would be more impressed than 50-0. Of course lots of things to consider like quality of opposition, times we are living in, etc. Just my opinion. Of course never losing has a certain distinction to it as well. Unless it is my brother-in-law who went 2-0. He retired undefeated and jokingly brags about it.

---

You never came across that way to me and my reply certainly was not intended to suggest you did.

Its a big deal and is for Floyd. It caps off that "0" that he has spent a career bragging about. The first words out of Floyds mouth should he beat Berto will most likely be something like "I just tied Marciano" and I'm also positive that it will be talked about by the coverage teams both at ringside and in the studios.

I suppose its also possible that the Mayweathers have a gag order in place because to mention it would give to much credit to Marciano.

In the end its up to the individual boxing fan as to how much weight they give to it or 50 and 0. But to boxing and its history, historians and countless sports writers etc it will be a pretty big deal. Personally I do think its a big deal but not in comparison to a litany of other accomplishments some which I already listed. Its still one hell of an accomplishment which took 60 years to equal should he retire. 50 and 0 is w/o a doubt what they are aiming for even if he retires. That is the real daisy, not 49 and 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Primo Carnera

I said this before and I'll say it again. Floyd does not give a flying fuck about Marciano's record, for many of the reasons already stated. if he beats Marciano's "Record" , it doesn't give him any more kudos. this is why I believe Floyd when he says this is his last fight. Nobody can look in the future and Never say never, but if Floyd does carry on after this fight, The reason will not be to beat Rocky Marciano's record.

---

Sir, I can't agree with you. Floyd believes he's TBE and Marciano's record is another way he can prove it.
It's the frosting on the cake. It's a well known and long standing record that damn near outshines the record holder. Oh yeah, Floyd wants to be the first to break that record you can bet on that. He'll break the record and then start talking about the lackluster quality of the records held by other boxers who are close to the record, you'll see!
That danged Floyd, he isn't black, he's crystal clear! I can see right through him. LOL

I don't put much stock in numbers and bean counting as it translates to greatness. That's not a Floyd thing its just that anyone can run up numbers. More importantly no matter the level, most glossy undefeated records you see can have a case made for an asterisk or two. A loss. If there is a legitimate dispute or consensus on a record its moot and has to be considered. I had Chavez 85-2. As mentioned Cuenca is 48-0. Anyone think he'll get a parade or a cover story??? Spadafora was 48-0. Ironically Floyd while he's pumped up on the 49-0 front, by his own words and some fans stuck in only "the now"..they have little regard for that era and fighters who made it what it is. If Floyd doesn't rank Robinson in top 5 all time I'd hate to think or where he ranks Marciano all time heavy :-X. If anything Rock getting out and walking away speaks more to his smarts.

In no other sport is an undefeated record so insignificant.

Although team sports may not be a good comparison, the truth of the matter is that a team that goes undefeated, or on an unbeaten streak, usually does so against every other team in the league or conference. There's no other way. So being undefeated means something. Normally you have to win some of those games "away", not just in the friendly confines of home. In boxing it's not like that at all. You can win your first 50 or 70 fights without leaving your hometown, or by fighting nothing but tomato cans. What does that prove? Absolutely zilch. A fighter with a 30-3 record can be twice as good as one with a 50-0 record. "W's" and "L's" are meaningless unless tempered with quality of opposition.

That being said, Floyd has some very good names on his resume, and can't be accused of padding his record.

I don't think the record is a huge deal either but it's there and Floyd wants it.
Floyd knows records are made to be broken, he will be the first to break it, and he'll be pointing that out every chance he gets!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by beenKOed

I don't think the record is a huge deal either but it's there and Floyd wants it.
Floyd knows records are made to be broken, he will be the first to break it, and he'll be pointing that out every chance he gets!

---

He will but it is not a record.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frasd

I understand Rocky's record as retiring undefeated and Mayweather most likely tying and big ado about it.
But is it the fact that they retired undefeated that is the big deal as it can't be the winning streak.

Chavez had to be 87-0 before losing
Duran was around 40
Monzon was like 80 or so.
Pep (not sure without ggogling but he was way up there.
Sure there are lots I am not thinking of.

I remember when Shane fought Mayweather he made a comment similar to 'yeah, I went 42-0 before my first loss too' That is not a direct quote, just from memory.

So is a fighter greater that retires with a winning streak of 49-0 or one like Chavez that had 80 straight and then lost? (Chavez just an example as I know he had some bums handed to him but who hasn't)

Just a thought on how important retiring without a loss is vs wins without a loss.

Keep in mind I am a fan of both the Rock and Mayweather (Please don't hate me) But looking back at past fighters how great is 49-0?

---

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The reason why Floyd Mayweather is hated is because he is a black man who is unbroken.

He is a black man who made millions and took the least amount of punishment. He is a black man who is not tied into the white power structure of boxing as he has Maywether Promotions. He has black managers, black trainers, black advisors...black everything.

You can talk about your Ray Robinsons, Henry Armstrong's, Joe Louis all day....but look how they ended up ? Broke. Skiint and on their own.

Even Ali was not financially secure when he retired. In fact most of Ali's money came from after he left the ring.

People talk about past fighters. But Mayweather beats Duran and Leonard. The only fighter that I think Mayweather would have had serious trouble with was Tommy Hearns, because of the height and jab.

Floyd has fought everyone. Name a fighter in his era who he has not fought ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denilson200

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frasd

I understand Rocky's record as retiring undefeated and Mayweather most likely tying and big ado about it.
But is it the fact that they retired undefeated that is the big deal as it can't be the winning streak.

Chavez had to be 87-0 before losing
Duran was around 40
Monzon was like 80 or so.
Pep (not sure without ggogling but he was way up there.
Sure there are lots I am not thinking of.

I remember when Shane fought Mayweather he made a comment similar to 'yeah, I went 42-0 before my first loss too' That is not a direct quote, just from memory.

So is a fighter greater that retires with a winning streak of 49-0 or one like Chavez that had 80 straight and then lost? (Chavez just an example as I know he had some bums handed to him but who hasn't)

Just a thought on how important retiring without a loss is vs wins without a loss.

Keep in mind I am a fan of both the Rock and Mayweather (Please don't hate me) But looking back at past fighters how great is 49-0?

---

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The reason why Floyd Mayweather is hated is because he is a black man who is unbroken.

He is a black man who made millions and took the least amount of punishment. He is a black man who is not tied into the white power structure of boxing as he has Maywether Promotions. He has black managers, black trainers, black advisors...black everything.

You can talk about your Ray Robinsons, Henry Armstrong's, Joe Louis all day....but look how they ended up ? Broke. Skiint and on their own.

Even Ali was not financially secure when he retired. In fact most of Ali's money came from after he left the ring.

People talk about past fighters. But Mayweather beats Duran and Leonard. The only fighter that I think Mayweather would have had serious trouble with was Tommy Hearns, because of the height and jab.

Floyd has fought everyone. Name a fighter in his era who he has not fought ?

---

Took the words right out of my mouth :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denilson200

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frasd

I understand Rocky's record as retiring undefeated and Mayweather most likely tying and big ado about it.
But is it the fact that they retired undefeated that is the big deal as it can't be the winning streak.

Chavez had to be 87-0 before losing
Duran was around 40
Monzon was like 80 or so.
Pep (not sure without ggogling but he was way up there.
Sure there are lots I am not thinking of.

I remember when Shane fought Mayweather he made a comment similar to 'yeah, I went 42-0 before my first loss too' That is not a direct quote, just from memory.

So is a fighter greater that retires with a winning streak of 49-0 or one like Chavez that had 80 straight and then lost? (Chavez just an example as I know he had some bums handed to him but who hasn't)

Just a thought on how important retiring without a loss is vs wins without a loss.

Keep in mind I am a fan of both the Rock and Mayweather (Please don't hate me) But looking back at past fighters how great is 49-0?

---

I've said it once and I'll say it again. The reason why Floyd Mayweather is hated is because he is a black man who is unbroken.

He is a black man who made millions and took the least amount of punishment. He is a black man who is not tied into the white power structure of boxing as he has Maywether Promotions. He has black managers, black trainers, black advisors...black everything.

You can talk about your Ray Robinsons, Henry Armstrong's, Joe Louis all day....but look how they ended up ? Broke. Skiint and on their own.

Even Ali was not financially secure when he retired. In fact most of Ali's money came from after he left the ring.

People talk about past fighters. But Mayweather beats Duran and Leonard. The only fighter that I think Mayweather would have had serious trouble with was Tommy Hearns, because of the height and jab.

Floyd has fought everyone. Name a fighter in his era who he has not fought ?

---

It is not a black thing, it is a thug thing. He worships material things like it is god, he beats up women in front of his children like a punk and he shows no remorse for it and believes he is the victim. He is a joke character.

How on earth can you say he would beat a prime Leonard at welterweight? That is not Floyds best weight and you think he can beat Leonard? You say Hearns could give him trouble but Leonard solved him and beat him. That is a mark of a great fighter. Leonard has career defining fights. Floyd fought Manny 5 years past his best. He is the best ever joker ever.