View Single Post
Old 07-04-2007, 08:57 PM   #59
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 TBooze
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.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote