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

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

So the post before, by me, is different.

 

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.

 

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

 

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'.

 

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!"?

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.

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

This content is protected

This content is protected

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.