View Single Post
Old 07-04-2007, 03:39 PM   #44
Belt holder
ESB Addict
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,835
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Originally Posted by 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

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.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote