So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

[janitor]

What I am going to ask you to do is this.

First produce a top 10 heavyweight list in which you completely disregard anything that happened after 1958.

Then list any amendments that you would make to it in 1971.

[janitor]

And yes I will pull you up on it if your list apears to benefit from post 1958 input.

[UpWithEvil]

1 - Louis
2 - Dempsey
3 - Jeffries
4 - Johnson
5 - Langford
6 - Wills
7 - Marciano
8 - J. Sharkey
9 - Schmeling
10 - Fitzsimmons

The list is based on a combination of h-2-h and overall accomplishments as a heavyweight; Gene Tunney may well rank in the top-5 based soley on ability, but his heavyweight resume is too thin.
[shrug]

[Dempsey1238]

1958 as I was living

1Johnson
2Jeffires
3Dempsey
4Louis
5Marciano
6Ruby Red
7Tunney
8Max Schmeling
9 Jim Corbett
10 Gene Tunney.

This is 58, so it was not long before Louis and Marciano retire, so they would have been fairly recent. Johnson and Jeff were still view as 1 and 2, as flip flopping them around and all. Dempsey follows shortly behind them. Corbett is still a top tier in that time. was temping in putting Sullivan in place of Schmeling.

[Bad_Intentions]

great list Dempsey1238 :good :good

[Sonny's jab]

Something like :

1958

1 Dempsey
2 Louis
3 Marciano
4 Tunney
5 Johnson
6 Jeffries
7 Wills
8 Langford
9 Charles
10 Walcott

1971

1 Dempsey
2 Louis
3 Marciano
4 Frazier
5 Ali
6 Liston
7 Tunney
8 Johnson
9 Jeffries
10 Wills

[Ramon Rojo]

This is head to head list between champions (except for Harry Wills), not based on achievement.

1958

1. Joe Louis

2. Ezzard Charles

3. Floyd Patterson

4. Jack Johnson

5. Gene Tunney

6. Harry Wills

7. Jack Dempsey

8. Rocky Marciano

9. Max Schmeling

10. Max Baer



1971

1. Muhammad Ali

2. Sonny Liston

3. Joe Frazier

4. Joe Louis

5. Ezzard Charles

6. Floyd Patterson

7. Jack Johnson

8. Gene Tunney

9. Harry Wills

10. Jack Dempsey

[janitor]

[quote=Ramon Rojo]This is head to head list between champions (except for Harry Wills), not based on achievement.

1958

3. Floyd Patterson


Patterson only had three title defences at this stage and only one of those was against a ranked contender.

Can you honestly say that you would put him above guys like Johnson, Dempsey and Marciano at this stage?



1971

1. Muhammad Ali

2. Sonny Liston

3. Joe Frazier


Muhamad Ali has just been beaten by Joe Frazier who has also beaten most of his better oponents.

Would you really have him above Frazier let alone at No1?



Remember that you must totaly disregard anything that these fighters achieved after the date of the list.

[Dempsey1238]

Even in 2007. I would not rank Patterson over Marciano. lol. Patterson had a VERY poor rein. He not only duck Liston, but Folly and Machen, and was taking on people who's records were 0-0. I mean I give more respect for Ali fighting Spinks with a 7-0 record, than I would with a 0-0 record. And he fought that type of foes though out his title rein. Sure he fought the best once he lost the title. But I can not forgive Patterson for that. And is one of the MAIN reasons Patterson is at the bottom tier of my top 20. Marciano at least fought his top contenders. So that alone should put Marciano up a few levels. If not a lot.

[janitor]

My lists

2007

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhamad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Lenox Lewis
9. Sam Langford
10. Joe Frazier


1958

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sam Langford
7. Harry Wills
8. James Corbett
9. Joe Walcott
10. Max Schmeling


1971

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sam Langford
7. Harry Wills
8. Joe Frazier
9. Muhamad Ali
10. Sony Liston

[Sonny's jab]

My lists

2007

1. Joe Louis
2. Muhamad Ali
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Rocky Marciano
7. Sonny Liston
8. Lenox Lewis
9. Sam Langford
10. Joe Frazier


1958

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sam Langford
7. Harry Wills
8. James Corbett
9. Joe Walcott
10. Max Schmeling


1971

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jim Jeffries
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Sam Langford
7. Harry Wills
8. Joe Frazier
9. Muhamad Ali
10. Sony Liston





What accounts for Sonny Liston rising up between 1971 and 2007 ?

[janitor]

What accounts for Sonny Liston rising up between 1971 and 2007 ?

As Ali's stock rises a loss to him becomes less damaging.

[janitor]

Not the way he lost though, and twice at that.

In 1971 he has a prime loss to my No9.

In 2007 he has a prime loss to my No2.

The latter is easier to forgive.

[ChrisPontius]

Something like :

1958

1 Dempsey
2 Louis
3 Marciano
4 Tunney
5 Johnson
6 Jeffries
7 Wills
8 Langford
9 Charles
10 Walcott

1971

1 Dempsey
2 Louis
3 Marciano
4 Frazier
5 Ali
6 Liston
7 Tunney
8 Johnson
9 Jeffries
10 Wills

Why would you rate Dempsey over Louis in 1958 or 1971? Louis had by far the better resume, longetivity, didn't duck the most deserving challenger for 6 years, etc.

[TBooze]

1958

1 Louis
2 Marciano
3 Dempsey
4 Jeffries
5 Corbett
6 Tunney
7 Johnson
8 Schmeling
9 Fitzsimmons
10 Baer

1971

1 Louis
2 Johnson (In 58 people still hated Johnson, but that hatred was mellowing by 71)
3 Dempsey
4 Marciano (slips slightly because you would have had longer to reflect on his body of work)
5 Jeffries
6 Corbett
7 Tunney
8 Wills (black fighters were starting to get the kudos they deserved in 71)
9 Charles (same reason as Wills)
10 Ali (A begrudging nod to his record thus far)

[ChrisPontius]

When i make this rankings, should i take into account that the fighters i saw around the age of 17-24 will remain my favorites for the rest of my life and let that bias affect the rankings?

[Marciano Frazier]

So, do you mean we're to make these lists based on what we think is appropriate as a result of what had happened through '58 and '71, or what we think we would think from the perspective of fans in 1958 and 1971?

Assuming that we're just making the list based on what we think would be the most reasonable based on what had happened through those dates:

1958
1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Jack Johnson
6. Jersey Joe Walcott
7. Ezzard Charles
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Max Baer
(just missing: Sam Langford, Jack Sharkey, Bob Fitzsimmons, Harry Wills)

1971
1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Joe Frazier
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Jim Jeffries
6. Jack Johnson
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Sonny Liston
9. Jersey Joe Walcott
10. Ezzard Charles

[Marciano Frazier]

1958

2 Marciano

1971

4 Marciano (slips slightly because you would have had longer to reflect on his body of work)
No, this is exactly the opposite of what happened. When Marciano retired, most sportswriters and old-time boxing pundits only ranked him in the bottom half of the top 10; Nat Fleischer had him at #10, and Charley Rose ranked him #8. In contrast, the RING Magazine staff as of 1999 ranked him #6, and the IBRO(International Boxing Research Organization, about 60 historians) currently rates him #5- in other words, his rating has risen quite a bit since the time of his retirement, inspite of the addition of another 50 years of top heavyweights to the all-time roster. Time to reflect on Marciano's body of work greatly improved peoples' opinions of him- when he was still around, he was jeered for being small and crude and was given little respect for his achievements. It was in the decades after his retirement that people came to appreciate him and place him near the top of the heap in history.

[TBooze]

No, this is exactly the opposite of what happened.

I am not Fleischer so I would not think like him. I know if I was alive I would of been awe of that mythical (we all know he lost as a pro) Marciano '0', and would of overrated him.

[OLD FOGEY]

I am not Fleischer so I would not think like him. I know if I was alive I would of been awe of that mythical (we all know he lost as a pro) Marciano '0', and would of overrated him.

The "0" is not mythical. Marciano lost as an amateur, not as a pro. If
you feel otherwise, you are simply badly ignorant.

[OLD FOGEY]

My lists

1958.
1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Harry Wills
5. Jack Dempsey
7. Sam Langford
8. John L Sullivan
9. Max Schmeling
10. Bob Fitzsimmons

Comment-Corbett #11-Fitz rates higher p4p than as heavyweight. In 1958,
Sullivan was in all lists that I can think of.

1971.
1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Harry Wills
5. Jack Dempsey
7. Joe Frazier
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Sonny Liston
10. Sam Langford

Comment--If Frazier retired in 1971, he would jump several
notches--It is difficult to rate in mid-career.

[Sonny's jab]

Why would you rate Dempsey over Louis in 1958 or 1971? Louis had by far the better resume, longetivity, didn't duck the most deserving challenger for 6 years, etc.

I think Dempsey was better.
I dont think Louis's opposition was any better than Dempsey's.

[Marciano Frazier]

I am not Fleischer so I would not think like him. I know if I was alive I would of been awe of that mythical (we all know he lost as a pro) Marciano '0', and would of overrated him.
I'm not talking about Fleischer, I'm talking about the public in general- just about everyone placed Marciano much higher on their lists a few decades after he retired than just about everyone did at the time he was active or recently-retired. It was the time to reflect on his body of work and recognize how remarkable what had transpired really was. Think about most of the undefeated top fighters around in recent years- are people "in awe" of, say, Hatton or Calzaghe, and ranking them near the top of their all-time lists? Do you think that if, after a handful more wins, one of them was to retire undefeated, they would be immediately inaugurated among the greats of history and ranked highly by everyone, only to have their standings drop in hindsight? I assure you, that wouldn't happen. It's the other way around. Most of the time, when a champion is still undefeated/on top or has just retired, the public at large doesn't really appreciate what they have.

And there is nothing "mythical" about Marciano's undefeated record. If you wish to dispute that fact, please provide some form of documentation showing that Marciano lost a professional fight. Gambling on the assumption that you're not about to provide some kind of earth-shaking revelation which has remained buried for the last 50 years, you're dead wrong. Marciano was never beaten in a professional fight.

[TBooze]

And there is nothing "mythical" about Marciano's undefeated record. If you wish to dispute that fact, please provide some form of documentation showing that Marciano lost a professional fight. Gambling on the assumption that you're not about to provide some kind of earth-shaking revelation which has remained buried for the last 50 years, you're dead wrong. Marciano was never beaten in a professional fight.


Marciano's pro debut was on March 17th 1947 (WKO3 Lee Epperson). In March 1948 one year after turning pro, Marciano lost a decision to Coley Wallace...

[Marciano Frazier]

Marciano's pro debut was on March 17th 1947 (WKO3 Lee Epperson). In March 1948 one year after turning pro, Marciano lost a decision to Coley Wallace... I suspected you were about to come out with that one. Read carefully:
The Marciano-Wallace fight was an amateur boxing match. It was fought without pay over three rounds with amateur equipment and amateur rules under an amateur commission in an amateur tournament. The 49-0 record attributed to Marciano is a professional boxing record, meaning it is a record of all the professional boxing matches Marciano engaged in. In professional boxing matches, Marciano had 49 victories and 0 losses. Hence, Marciano's 49-0 record is legitimate and the claim that it is "mythical" is false.

Saying that Marciano was not an undefeated professional boxer because he lost an amateur boxing match is like saying that he wasn't an undefeated professional boxer because he lost a golf tournament after his professional boxing debut.

[ChrisPontius]

I think Dempsey was better.
I dont think Louis's opposition was any better than Dempsey's.

Louis' notable wins:

Walcott 2x (1x by most accounts)
Carnera
Schmeling (top10 in some 1958 lists)
Sharkey
Max Baer
Uzcudun
Braddock
Farr
Lewis
Galento
Buddy Baer 2x
Godoy 2x
Nova
Conn 2x
Simon 2x

Includes 6 linear heavyweight champions and 2 light heavyweight champions.

Dempsey's notable wins:

Morris 3x
Brennan 2x
Miske 2x
Willard (37 year old and fat)
Fulton 2x
Smith
Carpentier
Gibbons
Firpo

Including 1 linear heavyweight champion (probably the worst of all time) and one lightheavyweight champion.


I think they're not even close. I'm curious to find out what makes you say that Louis' opposition was not any better than Dempsey's.

[Holmes' Jab]

1958:

1. Louis
2. Marciano
3. Dempsey
4. Jeffries
5. Johnson
6. Wills
7. Tunney
8. Schmeling
9. Charles
10. Walcott

1971:

1. Louis
2. Marciano
3. Frazier
4. Ali
5. Liston
6. Johnson
7. Jeffries
8. Dempsey
9. Tunney
10. Wills

2007:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Marciano
6. Liston
7. Johnson
8. Frazier
9. Tyson
10.Holyfield

[Holmes' Jab]

Louis' notable wins:

Walcott 2x (1x by most accounts)
Carnera
Schmeling (top10 in some 1958 lists)
Sharkey
Max Baer
Uzcudun
Braddock
Farr
Lewis
Galento
Buddy Baer 2x
Godoy 2x
Nova
Conn 2x
Simon 2x

Includes 6 linear heavyweight champions and 2 light heavyweight champions.

Dempsey's notable wins:

Morris 3x
Brennan 2x
Miske 2x
Willard (37 year old and fat)
Fulton 2x
Smith
Carpentier
Gibbons
Firpo

Including 1 linear heavyweight champion (probably the worst of all time) and one lightheavyweight champion.


I think they're not even close. I'm curious to find out what makes you say that Louis' opposition was not any better than Dempsey's.

Fantastic post, I totally concur. Louis' resume has the edge in depth in terms of quality and quantity. :good

[Sonny's jab]

Louis' notable wins:

Walcott 2x (1x by most accounts)
Carnera
Schmeling (top10 in some 1958 lists)
Sharkey
Max Baer
Uzcudun
Braddock
Farr
Lewis
Galento
Buddy Baer 2x
Godoy 2x
Nova
Conn 2x
Simon 2x

Includes 6 linear heavyweight champions and 2 light heavyweight champions.

Dempsey's notable wins:

Morris 3x
Brennan 2x
Miske 2x
Willard (37 year old and fat)
Fulton 2x
Smith
Carpentier
Gibbons
Firpo

Including 1 linear heavyweight champion (probably the worst of all time) and one lightheavyweight champion.


I think they're not even close. I'm curious to find out what makes you say that Louis' opposition was not any better than Dempsey's.

If you reduce quality of opponent to whoever at one time in their career held a linear championship, then, yes, Louis's opposition beats Dempsey's.

But the fact is, you could equally say, most of those guys held the linear championship because another of them was lousy enough to lose it to them.
Braddock, Carnera and Baer aren't necessarily better than the guys Dempsey beat. They were poor champions. Poor champions aren't automatically better than ordinary or good contenders. I'm not 100% sold on Walcott either, nevermind a finished Jack Sharkey.

I notice you include Sharkey on Louis's list only. But Dempsey fought and beat a prime version.

It's all subjective, but I dont rate Louis's opponents as better than Dempsey's.
The ones who held the championship between 1930 and 1937 were about as good as Brennan, Firpo, Miske, Gibbons.
Jack Sharkey actually illustrates the point that a contender in one era can be a champion in the other, and - by his own reckoning - acquire the championship after his peak years.

[robert ungurean]

1958

Dempsey
Louis
Jeffries
Tunney
Johnson
Langford
Marciano
Charles
Walcott
Fitz

1971

Dempsey
Louis
Ali
Liston
Jeffries
Tunney
Johnson
Langford
Frazier
Marciano

Based on skill & talent,not legacy's or title defense's

[TBooze]

I suspected you were about to come out with that one. Read carefully:
The Marciano-Wallace fight was an amateur boxing match. It was fought without pay over three .

It was not amateur as you cannot turn amateur again after being a pro, hence no pro's in the Olympics. And Caggiano admitted to paying him for the bout, indeed all his supposed amateur bouts. (Lords of the Ring; The greatest fighters since 1950 pages 44 to 48).

The facts are Marciano made his pro debut in March 1947 and loss a decision in March 1948...

[janitor]

It was not amateur as you cannot turn amateur again after being a pro, hence no pro's in the Olympics.

Marciano took his first profesional fight while he was still an amateur to make some money on the side and concealed his identity to retain his amateur status.

That dose not mean that all his subsequent amateur fights are converted into profesional fights by default. They were fought under amateur rules and sanctioned by amateur comissions.

It dosn't work like that.

[TBooze]

Marciano took his first profesional fight while he was still an amateur to make some money on the side and concealed his identity to retain his amateur status.

That dose not mean that all his subsequent amateur fights are converted into profesional fights by default. They were fought under amateur rules and sanctioned by amateur comissions.

It dosn't work like that.

It does when you claiming a perfect pro career. Marciano is saying I never loss a fight from March 1947 onwards, that is simply not true.

Sure the likes of Armstrong etc did the same thing, but unlike the Rock their greatness is not based on a statistical abnormality.

[OLD FOGEY]

It does when you claiming a perfect pro career. Marciano is saying I never loss a fight from March 1947 onwards, that is simply not true.

Sure the likes of Armstrong etc did the same thing, but unlike the Rock their greatness is not based on a statistical abnormality.

Well, if a major league baseball player or NBA basketball player plays
in the Olympics, is this part of his major league or NBA record. No. It
is not.

By the way, fighters were often paid for amateur fights in those days,
and Marciano would still have the best record of any fighter ever against
Hall-of-Famers, champions, rated fighters, and ever rated fighters, even
if we counted in all his amateur defeats. All these achievements are more
important than merely avoiding defeats in early preliminary fights.
Marciano is great because of his record against top fighters, not because
of his record when starting out.

[janitor]

[quote=TBooze]It does when you claiming a perfect pro career.

You can loose a thousand amateur fights and still have a perfect pro career. There is no contradiction.


Marciano is saying I never loss a fight from March 1947 onwards, that is simply not true.


Did he ever make the claim that he never lost a fight either amateur or profesional during this period?


Sure the likes of Armstrong etc did the same thing, but unlike the Rock their greatness is not based on a statistical abnormality.


A statistical abnormality that he atained on his merits.

[TBooze]

[quote]

You can loose a thousand amateur fights and still have a perfect pro career. There is no contradiction.



Did he ever make the claim that he never lost a fight either amateur or profesional during this period?



A statistical abnormality that he atained on his merits.

Point one; of course

Point two; Marciano claimed to be unbeaten from March 1947

Point three; Well no, as well as Wallace, the first LaStarza fight was a draw...

[OLD FOGEY]

It was not amateur as you cannot turn amateur again after being a pro, hence no pro's in the Olympics. And Caggiano admitted to paying him for the bout, indeed all his supposed amateur bouts. (Lords of the Ring; The greatest fighters since 1950 pages 44 to 48).

The facts are Marciano made his pro debut in March 1947 and loss a decision in March 1948...

Pros play in the Olympics all the time in many sports.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=janitor]

Point one; of course

Point two; Marciano claimed to be unbeaten from March 1947

Point three; Well no, as well as Wallace, the first LaStarza fight was a draw...

The first LaStarza fight was a split decision victory for Marciano. New
York had a round system with a supplemental point system if the rounds came out even. One vote went to LaStarza on rounds, one to
Marciano, the third ended 5 to 5, but Marciano won on points as he
had scored a knockdown and won his rounds by larger margins.

No one ever said Marciano was unbeaten from this or that date. He
was unbeaten as a professional. Everyone knew the Wallace fight
came after his first pro fight by the early fifties.

[TBooze]

[quote=TBooze]

The first LaStarza fight was a split decision victory for Marciano. New
York had a round system with a supplemental point system if the rounds came out even. One vote went to LaStarza on rounds, one to
Marciano, the third ended 5 to 5, but Marciano won on points as he
had scored a knockdown and won his rounds by larger margins.

No one ever said Marciano was unbeaten from this or that date. He
was unbeaten as a professional. Everyone knew the Wallace fight
came after his first pro fight by the early fifties.

Of course, but it was a points system dropped by NYSAC soon after, the fight would of been a draw in virtually any other time frame.

As for Wallace of course everyone knew he lost, but no one knew he was going to try and claim to be unbeaten as a pro (paid fighter)...

[Marciano Frazier]

Louis' notable wins:

Walcott 2x (1x by most accounts)
Carnera
Schmeling (top10 in some 1958 lists)
Sharkey
Max Baer
Uzcudun
Braddock
Farr
Lewis
Galento
Buddy Baer 2x
Godoy 2x
Nova
Conn 2x
Simon 2x

Includes 6 linear heavyweight champions and 2 light heavyweight champions.

Dempsey's notable wins:

Morris 3x
Brennan 2x
Miske 2x
Willard (37 year old and fat)
Fulton 2x
Smith
Carpentier
Gibbons
Firpo

Including 1 linear heavyweight champion (probably the worst of all time) and one lightheavyweight champion.


I think they're not even close. I'm curious to find out what makes you say that Louis' opposition was not any better than Dempsey's. While I agree with the basic theme of your argument, where's Jack Sharkey on the Dempsey list?

[TBooze]

Pros play in the Olympics all the time in many sports.

But not boxing

[janitor]

[quote=TBooze]
Point one; of course


OK. So he was unbeaten as a profesional fighter but not as an amateur fighter or pool player or competitive eater.


Point two; Marciano claimed to be unbeaten from March 1947.


Did he specificaly claim that he was unbeaten as an amateur in this period?

If not then I don't have a problem.


Point three; Well no, as well as Wallace, the first LaStarza fight was a draw...


It was scored as a win for Marciano. Therfore it is a win.

[Marciano Frazier]

It was not amateur as you cannot turn amateur again after being a pro, hence no pro's in the Olympics. And Caggiano admitted to paying him for the bout, indeed all his supposed amateur bouts. (Lords of the Ring; The greatest fighters since 1950 pages 44 to 48).

The facts are Marciano made his pro debut in March 1947 and loss a decision in March 1948...
It was against the rules for Marciano to fight an amateur match after having a professional fight("turning professional" is really pretty misleading, as it was a low-pay club fight which Marciano viewed as pretty much a one-time thing at the time), but that doesn't magically transform an amateur fight into a professional fight. They are two entirely different things. Do you think Boxrec should list Wallace as having made his pro debut against Marciano and add all of Marciano's amateur fights between Epperson and Bilazarian to his record? Of course not. You can't magically transform an amateur match(an unpaid fight fought over three rounds with amateur equipment under amateur rules and an amateur commission in an amateur tournament) into a professional match(a paid fight over more than three rounds with professional equipment, professional rules and professional officiating) because one guy sidestepped the system a little to participate in the amateur match.

Do you think that if, tomorrow, Wladimir Klitschko went to a Casino with a boxing ring one night, got really drunk and participated in an amateur fight with some towny, and was clocked with a wild haymaker and knocked out cold, that the loss should go on his record and the other guy should become the new IBF heavyweight beltholder? Of course not. If it turned out Marciano was secretly fighting and losing in dozens of amateur fights throughout his entire pro career and had made the rackets and lost at least one amateur fight on every Indian Reservation in the United States while he was champion, his 49-0 record would still be authentic.

[OLD FOGEY]

[quote=OLD FOGEY]

Of course, but it was a points system dropped by NYSAC soon after, the fight would of been a draw in virtually any other time frame.

As for Wallace of course everyone knew he lost, but no one knew he was going to try and claim to be unbeaten as a pro (paid fighter)...

1. As for the Wallace point-yes, they all knew he lost, so why did
Nat Fleischer and his staff not list this fight as a professional loss
in the Ring Record Book of the time--one was put out every year.
Fleischer knew of the Epperson fight and the date of the Epperson
fight and the date of the Wallace fight. I think he could deduce that
1947 came before 1948, especially as he had lived through both years.
No fact about Marciano's career that you are rehashing was not
known at the time.

2. I don't know when New York went off of the supplemental point
system, but it was still in effect as late as the Frazier-Bonavena fight
in 1966. Two judges voted for Frazier on rounds. The third had it
5 to 5, and gave it to Bonavena on points as he had scored two
knockdowns.

3. When this system was changed doesn't matter anyway as it was
the scoring system in place at the time of the fight. Colonel Eddie
Eagan had put it in place to cut down on draws.

4. Even if you want to count all the amateur fights against Marciano,
and switch the results of the LaStarza fight, Marciano would still have
the best record against Hall-of-Famers and champions and would still
be the only man to knock out every rated or ever rated fighter he ever
fought. It wouldn't change my rating of him at all.

[ChrisPontius]

While I agree with the basic theme of your argument, where's Jack Sharkey on the Dempsey list?

Well i figured he already had the honor of being on Louis' victim list. :D




Thanks, i edited the post. Dempseys best win, how could i forget.

[janitor]

Braddock, Carnera and Baer aren't necessarily better than the guys Dempsey beat. They were poor champions. Poor champions aren't automatically better than ordinary or good contenders.

I would argue that Max Schmeling and Joe Walcott were better than anybody Dempsey beat.

Just.

[Marciano Frazier]

Of course, but it was a points system dropped by NYSAC soon after, the fight would of been a draw in virtually any other time frame.
By that token, I declare that Juan Manuel Marquez beat Manny Pacquiao by UD, because on a rounds scoring system(which was the predominant scoring system for most of the gloved era), Marquez won it going away, and therefore Chris John is really the current linear world featherweight champion.

The scoring system used in the fight was the one accepted by the Commission at the time and agreed to in the contract for the fight. You can't come in after the fact and declare that the fight was actually a draw because you like what the result would have been if the rules hadn't been what they were. Somehow, I strongly doubt you'd be claiming it was a draw if the points tie-breaker had gone to LaStarza.

And you're wrong in claiming that it "would have been a draw in virtually any other time frame." For example, under a 10-point must system, Marciano would have won by two points(under the rounds system, he had no scoring advantage for the knockdown in the fourth, and the point deduction in the eighth, a round which he dominated, simply reversed the round instead of making it even). All of that is academic, though, because all fights are fought under the rules that were agreed to by the sanctioning commissions and fighters in their contracts, and neither you nor anyone else can go around tinkering with the rules and reversing history to their favor.

As for Wallace of course everyone knew he lost, but no one knew he was going to try and claim to be unbeaten as a pro (paid fighter)...
Um, yes they did. Everyone regarded Marciano as an undefeated professional from the beginning. There was never any, "But wait, that Golden Gloves three-round amateur tournament fight with Coley Wallace, who wouldn't turn pro for years yet was really a pro fight!" No one tried to argue anything like that, because it would've been silly. Why don't we take a gander through the contemporary newspaper accounts of Marciano's early fights?

"Marciano is unbeaten with 17 knockout victories in 18 pro starts."
-Long Beach Telegram, July 27, 1949

"Unbeaten Marciano has knocked out 21 opponents in 23 victories."
-Charleston Daily Mail, December 2, 1949

"Pat Richards of Columbus, Ohio, drops to a sitting position on the bottom rope after taking a terrific right-hand punch to the jaw from ROCKY MARCIANO (right), undefeated Brockton, Mass., heavyweight, in the second round of their semifinal fight in Madison Square Garden last night."
-Long Beach Telegram, December 3, 1949

There is no giant cover-up going on here. There was not some kind of collective amnesia over the next year after Marciano fought Wallace. Notice these guys all have the right numbers for Marciano's pro fights- everyone knew about the Epperson fight, everyone knew about the Wallace fight, everyone knew when they had happened and what had happened, and no one said, "But wait! We should go back and pretend that Marciano's amateur Golden Gloves tournament matches were actually professional fights!" Rather that is an idea spread around 50 years later by certain individuals who can't seem to deal with Marciano's legacy and want to edit history to to suit their agendas.

[janitor]

And Caggiano admitted to paying him for the bout, indeed all his supposed amateur bouts. (Lords of the Ring; The greatest fighters since 1950 pages 44 to 48).


Incidentaly it is not rare for amateur fighters to be paid and even receive a salary to cover training and other expenses.

[TBooze]

Incidentaly it is not rare for amateur fighters to be paid and even receive a salary to cover training and other expenses.

Of course not, but it is rare for a fighter to then claim an unbeaten pro (paid fight) record as the main building block of his greatness...

[janitor]

Of course not, but it is rare for a fighter to then claim an unbeaten pro (paid fight) record as the main building block of his greatness...

A huge significance is atached to a contender loosing his unbeaten profesional status today regardless of his amateur career.

How many fights have you seen billed as being between two unbeaten fighters?

Amir Khan lost an amateur bout in the olympics.

Do you think he traveled there on a bicycle and slept in a tent?

Dose this detract from his status as an unbeaten profesional?

[TBooze]

A huge significance is atached to a contender loosing his unbeaten profesional status today regardless of his amateur career.



Dose this detract from his status as an unbeaten profesional?

No, but Amir Khan did not turn pro win a fight fight, then go back to amateur, lose to Kindelan, then turn pro again!

[janitor]

No, but Amir Khan did not turn pro win a fight fight, then go back to amateur, lose to Kindelan, then turn pro again!

I don't see how that is relevant.

Amateur and pro records are two entirely diferent entities regardless of timeline. Unless of course you are arguing that the Walace fight should be clasified as a profesional fight. Otherwise Marciano is undefeated as a pro.

[TBooze]

I don't see how that is relevant.

Amateur and pro records are two entirely diferent entities regardless of timeline. Unless of course you are arguing that the Walace fight should be clasified as a profesional fight. Otherwise Marciano is undefeated as a pro.

You brought up Amir Khan! Khan for the moment is a work in progress, he has yet to build his reputation, yet alone claim greatness. Marciano and his fans did, and they point to a perfect pro record, I point to irregularities that taint that record.

I am not going to win this argument because too many disagree for the moment. But if it gets just a few thinking they have been spun by history, then eventually Marciano's '0' will be taken with a large pinch of salt.

[janitor]

But if it gets just a few thinking they have been spun by history, then eventually Marciano's '0' will be taken with a large pinch of salt.

the only way that the 0 can be called into question is if you can theoreticaly replace it with a 1 or other number.

If not then there is no spin just an unbeaten profesional record.

[OLD FOGEY]

No, but Amir Khan did not turn pro win a fight fight, then go back to amateur, lose to Kindelan, then turn pro again!

And who cares if he had? Let's say Joe Frazier got $15 for a pro fight
in 1961, or George Foreman $15 for a pro fight in 1966, would you be
in favor of stripping them of their Olympic medals?

Who has the advantage anyway? a fighter with 200 or 300 amateur
bouts, or a fighter with 30 bouts, one or two of which are four or six
round pro bouts?

I don't know about any other posters, but having a pro bout and
then going back to amateur status is as far as "sins" go, not much.
I remember a great American college football player (an amateur, if
you are not American) years ago who graduated and went into the
NFL (Pro football), named Hugh McIhanney (sp). He quickly proved
to be as great in the pros as he had been in college. A reporter
asked him what was the main difference between playing in the pros
compared to playing in college. "I get paid less," was his answer,
and few doubted him.

My guess is no one took switching back and forth from pro to amateur
bouts too seriously in Marciano's case because it was
known to be a widespread practice. No one gophers through anyone
else's amateur bouts, seeking some reason or other to discredit him.

[OLD FOGEY]

You brought up Amir Khan! Khan for the moment is a work in progress, he has yet to build his reputation, yet alone claim greatness. Marciano and his fans did, and they point to a perfect pro record, I point to irregularities that taint that record.

I am not going to win this argument because too many disagree for the moment. But if it gets just a few thinking they have been spun by history, then eventually Marciano's '0' will be taken with a large pinch of salt.

There is not spin. If we bring in amateur records, then others will have as much or more explaining to do. He lost a few fights by decision when much less esperienced than his opponents. Larry Holmes
was knocked out twice by Nick Wells. Ali was knocked out in the
amateurs. Frazier was beaten by Buster Mathis. Tyson by Henry
Tillman. We should throw all these into the mix in evaluating this men?

[robert ungurean]

Did we get off track here?

[OLD FOGEY]

Of course not, but it is rare for a fighter to then claim an unbeaten pro (paid fight) record as the main building block of his greatness...

The main building block of his greatness was knocking out every top
man he fought. Because you are totally hung up on that "0" does
not automatically mean everyone else is.

[OLD FOGEY]

It does when you claiming a perfect pro career. Marciano is saying I never loss a fight from March 1947 onwards, that is simply not true.

Sure the likes of Armstrong etc did the same thing, but unlike the Rock their greatness is not based on a statistical abnormality.

Just to bring something up. You use the definition of amateur of the
Olympic committee, but Marciano was fighting in American amateur
tournaments. Do you know the definition of amateur used by the
Golden Gloves, for example?

In the Olympics if you were a pro in one sport, such as baseball for
Jim Thorpe, you could not compete as an amateur in track and field.
Was that true of the Golden Gloves? Could you compete in the
Golden Gloves if you played semi-pro baseball.

[rekcutnevets]

1958:
Louis
Johnson
Marciano
Jeffries
Dempsey
Tunney
Corbett
Fitzsimmons
Schmeling
Jackson

1971:

Louis
Johnson
Marciano
Frazier
Dempsey
Ali
Liston
Tunney
Corbett
Schmeling

[rekcutnevets]

Now:
Ali
Louis
Johnson
Holmes
Marciano
Foreman
Lewis
Frazier
Holyfield
Tyson

So the post before, by me, is different.

[Marciano Frazier]

My guess is no one took switching back and forth from pro to amateur
bouts too seriously in Marciano's case because it was
known to be a widespread practice. No one gophers through anyone
else's amateur bouts, seeking some reason or other to discredit him.
Exactly. As I said before, many of Marciano's contemporaries, including Nat Fleischer and numerous sportswriters, clearly knew about his having had the Epperson fight and then gone back to the amateurs. If you look through the local newspaper accounts from that area within a couple years of these incidents, you'll see that everyone regarded Marciano as undefeated in the very area and time when this series of events had just taken place. People were not blind, deaf and stupid at that time. His pro record was a matter of common knowledge, and due to Wallace's high prestige at the time, the Wallace fight was very much known-about.
"First pro bout: February 21, 1947, kayoed Lee Epperson at Holyoke, Mass... Amateur bouts... lost to Coley Wallace in the All-East finals in New York in 1948"
-Waukesha Daily Freeman, September 16, 1955

Notice that both outings, with dates, are listed by the same writer in the same article which was published in a newspaper and widely available to absolutely everyone who could read. You can find this information in all kinds of contemporary accounts. It is exceedingly obvious that no one saw any contradiction here. Everyone knew and no one cared.

As you say, what Marciano did was technically against regulations, but it was hardly considered a heinous crime, no one was much concerned about it, and they most assuredly didn't subscribe to this kooky, backwards pseudo-logic that certain historical revisionists with not-so-subtle agendas are so fond of promoting. No one was covering anything up or being duped, there was no mass amnesia, the records were common knowledge, no one cared and no one questioned the legitimacy of Marciano's undefeated professional record, because that record was and is legitimate, and it will remain legitimate no matter how much wishful thinking and paper-thin, fallacious logic is brought forth in biased, vain efforts to discredit it.

[C. M. Clay II]

Remember, my lists are based on head-to-head matchups in their primes.

1958:

1. Joe Louis
2. Jack Johnson
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Rocky Marciano
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Jersey Joe Walcott
7. Gene Tunney
8. Jim Jeffries
9. Sonny Liston
10. Floyd Patterson

1971:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. Joe Louis
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Joe Frazier
7. Rocky Marciano
8. Floyd Patterson
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Jersey Joe Walcott

2007:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. George Foreman
4. Mike Tyson
5. Joe Louis
6. Larry Holmes
7. Joe Frazier
8. Jack Johnson
9. Jack Dempsey
10. Lennox Lewis

:good

[TBooze]

And who cares if he had? Let's say Joe Frazier got $15 for a pro fight
in 1961, or George Foreman $15 for a pro fight in 1966, would you be
in favor of stripping them of their Olympic medals?



But Foreman and Frazier were not claim unbeaten pro records as a reason for Greatness. Marciano's record is such, that the only way you can put a serious argument together for greatness is if his '0' is untainted.Bt because he was paid as an amateur and switched status twice, he has not got an untainted pro '0'.

[Marciano Frazier]

But Foreman and Frazier were not claim unbeaten pro records as a reason for Greatness.
You can't create a double-standard that only works when you're talking about Marciano. Answer the question. If it turned out that Frazier or Foreman had a $15 pro fight on some obscure Indian reservation before making it big in the Olympics, would you then declare that all of their subsequent amateur fights should really count as pro fights? When someone said, "Frazier would've been undefeated champion if he retired after Ali," would you then respond, "Nuh-uh! He lost to Buster Mathis in the Olympic qualifiers!"?

Marciano's record is such, that the only way you can put a serious argument together for greatness is if his '0' is untainted.
Baloney. Even if he didn't have a "0" at all, there would be an overwhelming serious argument for his greatness. Let's imagine that, with everything else happening exactly the same, the first LaStarza decision goes against him and he ends up at 48-1. The serious argument would be as follows:
Marciano was world champion with a 7-0(6 knockouts) record in title fights, had only one career loss, a controversial split decision when he was green to a 37-0 top opponent and avenged by brutal knockout, was one of the most successful knockout artists of all time with the highest knockout percentage of any linear heavyweight champion in history, clearly and uncontroversially defeated every man he ever faced and defeated the best available opposition in his era. Marciano would still be an undeniably great champion and would be frequently seen in top 10 lists. The "0" he has in real life is just icing on the cake.

Bt because he was paid as an amateur and switched status twice, he has not got an untainted pro '0'.
A lot of amateurs in most all sports, including boxing, are privately paid by someone while they are participating amateurs- since you're not getting a purse for the fight, you need payment so you can provide for yourself and devote time to training. Switching status does not 'taint' or in any way effect one's professional record. The timeline does not effect the type of contest engaged in. Amateur fights are not defined as "fights you have when you haven't had any pro fights," and pro fights are not defined as "any and all fights you have after having one pro fight." Rather, amateur fights are unpaid fights(fights with no purse in the contract or offered by the commission) using amateur equipment and amateur rules under with amateur commissions, and professional fights are fights fought for contracted purses with professional equipment and professional rules under professional commissions. The Marciano-Coley Wallace fight clearly and undeniably falls into the first category, while the Marciano-Epperson and Marciano-Bilazarian through Moore fights clearly and undeniably fall into the second category. Every single one of Marciano's fights in the second category was won by Marciano. Hence, Marciano has an untainted professional "0" on his record.

[janitor]

Bt because he was paid as an amateur and switched status twice, he has not got an untainted pro '0'.

There are no shades of grey here.

A profesional fighter is either absolutely undefeate or absolutely not undefeated.

Unless you can point to a profesional fight that they lost then they are absolutely undefeated.

Period.

[TBooze]

There are no shades of grey here.

A profesional fighter is either absolutely undefeate or absolutely not undefeated.

Unless you can point to a profesional fight that they lost then they are absolutely undefeated.

Period.

I agre;e Marciano was defeated, he had a mythical '0'.

[ChrisPontius]

Remember, my lists are based on head-to-head matchups in their primes.

1971:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Sonny Liston
3. Joe Louis
4. Jack Johnson
5. Jack Dempsey
6. Joe Frazier
7. Rocky Marciano
8. Floyd Patterson
9. Ezzard Charles
10. Jersey Joe Walcott


You would rate Ali #1 when he has just been smoked by Frazier, who is only #6?? And Frazier looked immortal at that point, especially when ranking head to head there's no justification for Ali higher than Frazier whatsoever in 1971.

[OLD FOGEY]

I agre;e Marciano was defeated, he had a mythical '0'.

Yes. He was defeated as an amateur. No one ever denied that. He was not defeated as a professional.

[TBooze]

Yes. He was defeated as an amateur. No one ever denied that. He was not defeated as a professional.

But it depends what is meant by professional, I say if you are paid to partisipate in a bout, you are a pro fighter. And if as Janitor says you cannot have a tainted '0', you are either beaten or unbeaten, then I consider that Marciano loss 'at least' one pro fight.

[Dempsey1238]

It was pretty common for ATM's to get paid money in ALL sports. Some one has to pay for the ticket to the state(Even though in this case Marciano hitchhike there) or the lodgings for a hotel, food and stayings while they complete. You are relly going over board to try to turn these atm bouts into pro bouts. Even Wallace in Ring Magzine COMFIRM that his bout with Marciano was a Atm bout when they interview him in the mid 1990's.

[TBooze]

It was pretty common for ATM's to get paid money in ALL sports. Some one has to pay for the ticket to the state(Even though in this case Marciano hitchhike there) or the lodgings for a hotel, food and stayings while they complete. You are relly going over board to try to turn these atm bouts into pro bouts. Even Wallace in Ring Magzine COMFIRM that his bout with Marciano was a Atm bout when they interview him in the mid 1990's.

I fully agree, but on top of this Marciano was paid to fight Wallace, thus it was a pro fight under a universal definition...

Professional:

Following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.

It has been said I have a standard that only applies to Marciano. That is completely true, and that standard is there because Marciano was the only fighter with (a legitmate) claim to be great because of a supposed unbeaten pro record.

[C. M. Clay II]

You would rate Ali #1 when he has just been smoked by Frazier, who is only #6?? And Frazier looked immortal at that point, especially when ranking head to head there's no justification for Ali higher than Frazier whatsoever in 1971.

I said it was based on "IN THEIR PRIMES". Ali was clearly not in his prime for the Frazier fight, nor did anyone at that time who knew a thing or two thought that Ali was still in his prime after watching the Bonavena fight and then the Frazier fight, noticing there was a different Ali on those occassions then the one before his exile.

[My dinner with Conteh]

I said it was based on "IN THEIR PRIMES".



Why can't you base it on achievements instead? Ali doesn't read this forum y'know. You don't have to have him 1st for everything. :huh

[OLD FOGEY]

I fully agree, but on top of this Marciano was paid to fight Wallace, thus it was a pro fight under a universal definition...

Professional:

Following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder.

It has been said I have a standard that only applies to Marciano. That is completely true, and that standard is there because Marciano was the only fighter with (a legitmate) claim to be great because of a supposed unbeaten pro record.


And you must be able to deduce that if he fights and is not paid, that
is an amateur fight, by you own definition.

There is no universal agreement and never has been on constitutes an
amateur. The sanctioning body in charge determines the definition.

[janitor]

But it depends what is meant by professional, I say if you are paid to partisipate in a bout, you are a pro fighter.

In that case virtualy every amateur active today is reality a pro fighter.

Amateurs always have and will always receive money. It is honestly nothing unusual. Some are even paid salaries for gods sake.

[TBooze]

And you must be able to deduce that if he fights and is not paid, that
is an amateur fight, by you own definition.

There is no universal agreement and never has been on constitutes an
amateur. The sanctioning body in charge determines the definition.

Amateur; a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit...

Marciano fought Wallace as a pro; I will use my judgement rather than that of organizations who use boxing for their own gain.

[C. M. Clay II]

Why can't you base it on achievements instead? Ali doesn't read this forum y'know. You don't have to have him 1st for everything. :huh

Because It's not fair to someone who

A. Didn't dominate their era as convincingly as another because of superior opposition.

B. Didn't have an opportunity to fight in a strong era and prove they could handle it.

C. Never was in a big money fight and because of that didn't gain the idolotry of another fight who was in a big money fight, which in turn would indirectly and unfairly affect their ATG rankings.

P.S. - Ali is not on my 1958 list, so he is not "1st for everything".:rolleyes:

[TBooze]

In that case virtualy every amateur active today is reality a pro fighter.

Amateurs always have and will always receive money. It is honestly nothing unusual. Some are even paid salaries for gods sake.

Yes!!!! But it rarely matters because fighters are not claiming to be great on a statisical abnormality

[My dinner with Conteh]

Amateur; a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit...

Marciano fought Wallace as a pro; I will use my judgement rather than that of organizations who use boxing for their own gain.



Just as a sidenote: does anyone know if this fight was reported in Ring or Boxing News?

[TBooze]

Just as a sidenote: does anyone know if this fight was reported in Ring or Boxing News?

The information I have seen ironically, was that Marciano was unlucky to drop the decision!

[My dinner with Conteh]

Remember, my lists are based on head-to-head matchups in their primes.

1958:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Jersey Joe Walcott
8. Gene Tunney
9. Jim Jeffries
10. Sonny Liston


:huh

[C. M. Clay II]

:huh

Stop lying. All this does is hurt your credibility on this forum.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Stop lying. All this does is hurt your credibility on this forum.


Haha, it's obvious I was winding you up. Come on. Seriously, although I usually agree with Chris P, I don't really think there's anything wrong with rating Ali above Frazier (at least).

[OLD FOGEY]

Just as a sidenote: does anyone know if this fight was reported in Ring or Boxing News?

The article from the New York Times on this fight was posted on this
forum but was lost in the crash. It was rather extensive, including
an action photo of the two fighters.

[OLD FOGEY]

Amateur; a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit...

Marciano fought Wallace as a pro; I will use my judgement rather than that of organizations who use boxing for their own gain.

This might be the all time silliest post.


When I was 8 or 9, I used to throw pebbles up in the air and hit them
with a baseball bat, pretending to be great players. If I missed
or the pebble didn't go over the fence, I just ignored what happened
and did it over. This is called fantasy and is what children do. I
outgrew that at about 11 or 12.

[TBooze]

This might be the all time silliest post.


When I was 8 or 9, I used to throw pebbles up in the air and hit them
with a baseball bat, pretending to be great players. If I missed when
I or the pebble didn't go over the fence, I just ignored what happened
and did it over. This is called fantasy and is what children do. I
outgrew that at about 11 or 12.

You have got to have your own opinions at the end of the day, that is all 'ranking the greats' is, there are no right or wrong answers.

There is an element of doubt to Marciano's '0'. Some will call it flimsy or pointless, some will use it to demolish Marciano's hard earned reputation, others will accept it as part of an informed argument, and use it when making a judgement.

And hey I was the greatest at pebbles rounders;)

[janitor]

Yes!!!! But it rarely matters because fighters are not claiming to be great on a statisical abnormality

It dose not matter what claim a fighter makes based on his profesional record. A fighter is either profesional or it is not. There are no shades of grey.

Now you will have to either reclasify most of every fighters amateur career as part of their profesional career or accept that this was an amateur bout.

What you cannot do is make an issue of it in this case to destroy the hated 49-0 and leave every other fighters amateur career untouched.

[TBooze]

It dose not matter what claim a fighter makes based on his profesional record. A fighter is either profesional or it is not. There are no shades of grey.

Now you will have to either reclasify most of every fighters amateur career as part of their profesional career or accept that this was an amateur bout.

What you cannot do is make an issue of it in this case to destroy the hated 49-0 and leave every other fighters amateur career untouched.

Well OK then, because it does not matter very much because Marciano apart, the only other fringe great who is to a degree reliant on an '0' is Ricardo Lopez, and he claims an '0' as an amateur as well!

[Dempsey1238]

Rocky was only paid 50 bucks or so.
Hardly plenty for a trip back home.

[janitor]

Well OK then, because it does not matter very much because Marciano apart, the only other fringe great who is to a degree reliant on an '0' is Ricardo Lopez, and he claims an '0' as an amateur as well!

Have you forgotten Jim Barry and Jack McAuliffe?

[ChrisPontius]

I can't believe there's another 3 pages of bullshit wasted to this useless point of Marciano being undefeated.

It was rebutted undeniably by a single post and even if he was 49-1 through a close loss to LaStarza, he would've still been at my #4 position of all time.

[TBooze]

Have you forgotten Jim Barry and Jack McAuliffe?

Barry no he was no great; McAuliffe... show me his amateur resume;)