Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-05-2007, 11:29 AM   #76
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,312
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
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.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-05-2007, 11:31 AM   #77
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,875
vCash: 765
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
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.
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:32 AM   #78
C. M. Clay II
Manassah's finest!
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 1,138
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh
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.
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".
C. M. Clay II is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:33 AM   #79
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,875
vCash: 765
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
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
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:34 AM   #80
My dinner with Conteh
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
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?
My dinner with Conteh is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:35 AM   #81
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,875
vCash: 765
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh
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!
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:36 AM   #82
My dinner with Conteh
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by C. M. Clay II
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

My dinner with Conteh is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:43 AM   #83
C. M. Clay II
Manassah's finest!
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 1,138
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh
Stop lying. All this does is hurt your credibility on this forum.
C. M. Clay II is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:46 AM   #84
My dinner with Conteh
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,999
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by C. M. Clay II
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).
My dinner with Conteh is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:46 AM   #85
OLD FOGEY
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by My dinner with Conteh
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 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:50 AM   #86
OLD FOGEY
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
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.
OLD FOGEY is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 11:55 AM   #87
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,875
vCash: 765
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
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
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 12:35 PM   #88
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,312
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBooze
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.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 12:39 PM   #89
TBooze
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South of London
Posts: 10,875
vCash: 765
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
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!
TBooze is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2007, 03:25 PM   #90
Dempsey1238
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,015
vCash: 1000
Default Re: So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

Rocky was only paid 50 bucks or so.
Hardly plenty for a trip back home.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013