Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

TheOneIsHere2008
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1181
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 12:09

Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by TheOneIsHere2008 »

As I have had it listed in The Ring Record Book for some years, my all-time rating of heavyweights is as follows: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis, 7. Sam Langford, 8. Gene Tunney, 9. Max Schmeling, 10. Rocky Marciano.

I started the annual ranking of heavyweights in the 1953 with only six listed: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis.

In later years I found it necessary to expand the ratings in all classes to top 10, with these top listings: heavyweights, Jack Johnson; light heavies, Kid McCoy; middleweights, Stan Ketchel; welters, Joe Walcott; lightweights, Joe Gans; feathers, Terry McGovern; bantams, George Dixon; flyweights, Jimmy Wilde.

For some time now I have been under great pressure from some readers of The Ring magazine and of The Ring Record Book, as well, to revise my ratings, especially in the heavyweight division.

Here is a strange facet to this pressure move. It has concerned, chiefly, Cassius Clay.

Never before in the history of the ratings did I find myself pressured to revise the listing of a heavyweight, right on top of a defeat.

There was considerable pressure to include Clay among the Top 10 during his 3 1/2-year interlude of inactivity.

But the campaign became stronger after Clay had returned with knockout victories over Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena. The demand on behalf of Clay became strongest after he had been beaten by world champion Joe Frazier in a 15-round contest that saw Cassius decked in the final heat.

Clay's fight with Frazier left thousands of his admirers, who had seen the contest over television, protesting that Clay had won and that the unanimous decision of referee Arthur Mercante and judges Artie Aidala and Bill Recht, was a hoax, or worse.

Before we go any farther, let us dispose of this point. Frazier was declared the winner without a dissenting vote because he was the winner with unanimous force and unbiased conviction.

Clay never hurt Frazier. He messed up Joe's left eye and made it look as if there had been an indecisive result, or a definite verdict in favor of Clay. Clay's gloves reached Frazier more often than Frazier's punches reached Clay. But Cassius lacked force.

Clay was hurt, especially in the 11th and 15th rounds. Clay came near being knocked out in the play-acting 11th. Clay's constant retreat to the ropes was the tipoff on the fight.

I sat in the first press row in the Garden and emphatically saw Clay beaten. However, we have thousands of Clay backers insisting that he had established himself as one of the all time Top 10.

I did not regard Ali as a member of the leading 10 before he got into his argument with the Federal Courts. I did not see, in the Clay record as it stood after his seven-round knockout of Zora Folley in New York on March 22, 1967, any reason for my revising the heavyweight listing to include Cassius among the all-time 10. Nor did the Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier fights impress me to the point at which I found myself considering ousting one of my Great 10 to make room for Clay.

Suppose I suffered an aberration and decided to include Clay among the top 10. This would mean ousting Marciano to make room for Ali as my all-time number l0. That would be farcical. Clay never could have beaten Marciano. Clay's record is not the superior of the one the tragic Rocky left behind him when he retired from boxing unbeaten.

I even had something to do with Clay's winning the Olympic light heavyweight championship in Rome in 1960. I spotted him for a likely Gold Medal, but I did not like the way he was training--or rather, not training. Cassius was entertaining the gals of the Italian capital, with gags and harmonica playing, and forgetting what he had been entered for.

I gave him a lecture and a warning. Maybe it had something to do with his victory. Maybe he would have won just the same. But I doubt if my talk did any harm.

After Cassius had won the title I felt that we had another Floyd Patterson in the making. He did not have Patterson's speed of hands at that time, but he had more speed of foot. And more animation, which, of course, is an understatement. Floyd never has been a paragon of vivacity.

As Clay left the Olympic ring a champion, I saw him growing fast into a heavyweight. And I treated myself to a dream. I said to myself, "This kid could go far. It all depends on his attitude, his ability to tackle his job earnestly and seriously. Some of his laughter could be a real asset." Ultimately it was.

Neither animus nor bias, neither bigotry nor misjudgment, can be cited against me in my relations with Cassius Clay. After he had been found guilty of a felony by a Federal jury in Houston, and Judge Joe Ingraham had sentenced Ali to five years in a penitentiary and a fine of $10,000, there was a rush to take the title from the draft-refusing champion.

The Ring magazine refused to join in the campaign against Clay, a stand now thoroughly vindicated. The Ring insisted that Cassius was entitled to his day in court, and that his title could be taken from him only if he lost it in the ring, or he retired from boxing, as Marciano, Tunney, and Jeffries had done before him.

Pressure on The Ring was tremendous. But this magazine would not recede one iota from its never relaxed policy of fighting for Law and Order.

Only when Muhammad Ali announced that he would fight no more and asked permission to give The Ring world championship belt to the winner of the Frazier-Jimmy Ellis fight, did The Ring declare the title vacated and drop Clay from the ratings.

With Clay's return to the ring, The Ring revived his rating among the top 10 heavyweights. Not until Frazier knocked out Ellis in five rounds did The Ring allocate the vacant world title to Joe.

I do not mean to derogate Clay as a boxer. I am thoroughly cognizant of every fistic attribute he throws into the arena, every impressive quality he displayed on his way to the title and in fighting off the challenges of Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo, Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenberger, Cleveland Williams, Ernie Terrell, and Zora Folley.

When Ali went into his 3 1/2-year retirement, he had not yet achieved his personal crest. Nor did the fights with Quarry, Bonavena and Frazier, which marked his return to action, send him any farther in the direction of fulfillment of claims of his loyal supporters.

The way Cassius Clay stands, he does not qualify for rating with the greatest heavyweights of all time. Nor, the way the future shapes up for him, is he likely to qualify. Now his hands are quick. His footwork is quick. His punch is not the type that is calculated to stop a man forthwith, no matter what he did to Sonny Liston in their second encounter, at Lewiston, Maine.

Cassius has got to wear down his opponent. He has got to flick his glove into the eyes of the opposition, the way he did against Frazier. He has a style all his own. But its sui generis quality does not make him one of the top 10.

I want to give credit to Clay for punching boxing out of the doldrums into which it fell with the rise of Liston to the championship. Liston could not get a license in New York. Liston had a bad personal record. Liston was emphatically not good for boxing. Into the midst of this title situation came the effervescent kid from Louisville, favored by conditions, by his potential, by his personality and his clean personal record.

The situation called for a Clay and, fortunately, the situation was favored with one. He was the counterpart, in boxing, of Babe Ruth in baseball, after the Black Sox Scandal.

Through superior punching power, Frazier is Clay's current better as a ringster. But Frazier has yet to develop the overall influence that Clay exercised. Nor does it appear likely that Joe will ever be to boxing what Cassius was when he became the world champion and when he stirred up world boxing with his exploits against the best opposition available pending the development of Frazier, another Olympic hero.

I have the utmost admiration for Cassius Clay as a ring technician. Certainly not for his attitude toward the United States and its armed forces. Of that mess he is legally clear.

I do not see Cassius Clay as a candidate for a place among the top 10 heavyweights. Nor may Frazier, his conqueror, eventually force me to revise my all-time heavyweight ratings.

http://www.thering-online.com/ringpages ... story.html
Would he have the same top ten today?

IMHO, I do not think Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Langford,Tunney and Schmeling could hang with a Muhammad Ali,a Larry Holmes, a George Foreman, a Joe Frazier, an Evander Holyfield or even a Lenox Lewis
wouter
Editor
Editor
Posts: 4798
Joined: 04 Feb 2002, 20:00

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by wouter »

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
Would he have the same top ten today?

IMHO, I do not think Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Langford,Tunney and Schmeling could hang with a Muhammad Ali,a Larry Holmes, a George Foreman, a Joe Frazier, an Evander Holyfield or even a Lenox Lewis
Nah, I think he'd have Sam Peter at no.8. On his ratings, this comes from a man that had actually seen these fighters in the flesh. Nowadays you have to rate old-time fighters off little snippets of single bouts in Charley Chaplin speed.
TheOneIsHere2008
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1181
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 12:09

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by TheOneIsHere2008 »

wouter wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
Would he have the same top ten today?

IMHO, I do not think Jeffries, Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Langford,Tunney and Schmeling could hang with a Muhammad Ali,a Larry Holmes, a George Foreman, a Joe Frazier, an Evander Holyfield or even a Lenox Lewis
Nah, I think he'd have Sam Peter at no.8. On his ratings, this comes from a man that had actually seen these fighters in the flesh. Nowadays you have to rate old-time fighters off little snippets of single bouts in Charley Chaplin speed.
Take Lenox Lewis...You would admit for a big man he was extremely skilled?

He was 6'5 and 240 pounds in his prime...How would a 5'8 175 pound boxer fare against him?
wouter
Editor
Editor
Posts: 4798
Joined: 04 Feb 2002, 20:00

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by wouter »

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
Take Lenox Lewis...You would admit for a big man he was extremely skilled?

He was 6'5 and 240 pounds in his prime...How would a 5'8 175 pound boxer fare against him?
Just who is that 5'8 175-pounder you're referring to?
Cap
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1513
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 11:44

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by Cap »

It's still just Fleischer's personal opinion which is only slightly more valid than that schmoe Bert Sugar. Ok. Maybe a lot more than him. I have trouble with rating Joe Louis behind James J. Corbett and Sam Langford behind Louis. Corbett was, in his prime, a strong, fast, smart fighter. Maybe he figures a way to beat Louis like Schmeling did, but I figure the odds are in Joe's favour that he eventually gets to Corbett, especially if it is 20 rounds. As for Sam Langford, he was without a doubt one of the greatest fighters at any weight that there ever was. I'd pick him to beat Louis 9 times out of 10. And Schmeling over Marciano?

Cap
TheOneIsHere2008
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1181
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 12:09

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by TheOneIsHere2008 »

Cap wrote:It's still just Fleischer's personal opinion which is only slightly more valid than that schmoe Bert Sugar. Ok. Maybe a lot more than him. I have trouble with rating Joe Louis behind James J. Corbett and Sam Langford behind Louis. Corbett was, in his prime, a strong, fast, smart fighter. Maybe he figures a way to beat Louis like Schmeling did, but I figure the odds are in Joe's favour that he eventually gets to Corbett, especially if it is 20 rounds. As for Sam Langford, he was without a doubt one of the greatest fighters at any weight that there ever was. I'd pick him to beat Louis 9 times out of 10. And Schmeling over Marciano?

Cap
But would the list be the same today?

That means Holmes, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, and Holyfield are not top ten heavyweights...And one can make a decent argument for Liston and Lewis...
Cap
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1513
Joined: 07 Aug 2004, 11:44

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by Cap »

Well, if Fleischer didn't include Cassius and Joe back then, chances are he wouldn't include them now, never mind all those other guys you mention.

Cap
TheOneIsHere2008
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1181
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 12:09

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by TheOneIsHere2008 »

Cap wrote:Well, if Fleischer didn't include Cassius and Joe back then, chances are he wouldn't include them now, never mind all those other guys you mention.

Cap
Take out Cassius and Joe...I think Larry Holmes disposes of Corbett,Jeffries, Schmelling,Fitzsimmons, and Tunney rather easily...
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by raylawpc »

How are you judging them? What's the standard? How the old timers would do now? How about the opposite. How would Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali or Lennox Lewis have done in the rugged times of Sullivan through Jeffries: 25-rounds (or finish fights), no mouthpiece, 5 ounce horsehair-and-leather gloves, eight post rings with loose hemp ropes, handwraps that generally did as much harm as good, etc.?

Isn't it good enough to say Jeffries was the best of his era, Dempsey of his, Louis of his, Ali of his, and Lewis of his? And debate the relative merits of each guy in the context of his own era? It makes more sense to debate, perhaps, whether Jeffries was the best heavyweight of the 1900s, or whether Lennox Lewis was the best heavyweight of the 2000s, than to argue whether Lewis was better than Jeffries.
Ambling Alp
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3627
Joined: 15 Jul 2005, 22:31

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by Ambling Alp »

Nat Fleischer did contribute a lot to boxing. However, like most of humans he had his biases. It's not a secret that he didn't like Ali, nor that he was ridiculausly biased in favor of fighters from years ago.

It is understandable if the reason that he didn't rate Ali or Frazier was that their careers weren't over. Patterson was also still fighting and Foreman was only in the beginning stages of his career. Sonny Liston had died a couple of year before, had kind of an odd career, and I suppose you could excuse him for not rating him. ( I doubt Fleischer would have rated him anyway.)

I think a realistic Top 10 in 1971 would have looked something like this:

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

You certainly could make a case for Fitz,Corbett,Baer,Sharkey,Jeannette, McVey, and Walcott towards the bottom the Top 10.
TheOneIsHere2008
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1181
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 12:09

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by TheOneIsHere2008 »

raylawpc wrote:How are you judging them? What's the standard? How the old timers would do now? How about the opposite. How would Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali or Lennox Lewis have done in the rugged times of Sullivan through Jeffries: 25-rounds (or finish fights), no mouthpiece, 5 ounce horsehair-and-leather gloves, eight post rings with loose hemp ropes, handwraps that generally did as much harm as good, etc.?

Isn't it good enough to say Jeffries was the best of his era, Dempsey of his, Louis of his, Ali of his, and Lewis of his? And debate the relative merits of each guy in the context of his own era? It makes more sense to debate, perhaps, whether Jeffries was the best heavyweight of the 1900s, or whether Lennox Lewis was the best heavyweight of the 2000s, than to argue whether Lewis was better than Jeffries.
I'm not the gentleman who compared the fighers of one generation to another generation and found the fighters from one generation wanting...That was Mr. Fleisher... I just wondered if his list would still be the same today...The evidence suggests he was wed to the boxers of yore and probably would not rate them lower, even in the light of new evidence...

As to your question if boxing was more like fist fights than boxing is today how would today's boxers fare? Lenox Lewis would probably have become a star in the CFL and Muhammad Ali would have worked on his grades, went to college on a football or basketball scholarship , became the greatest point guard in the NBA and made people forget about Oscar Robertson -:) until Magic Johnson came along...6'3 195- 210-great hands, feet, reflexes, hand-eye coordination...
My2Sense
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 768
Joined: 31 May 2008, 17:53

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by My2Sense »

wouter wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
Take Lenox Lewis...You would admit for a big man he was extremely skilled?

He was 6'5 and 240 pounds in his prime...How would a 5'8 175 pound boxer fare against him?
Just who is that 5'8 175-pounder you're referring to?
How about Sam Langford?
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by HomicideHenry »

Fleischer's list I dont think was too out of whack for that time. Johnson by all account up until then had achieved greater than Ali had done, as had Joe Louis. I dont agree with Tunney ever being on the list, I believe he is more suited for a p4p rating. Otherwise Louis is too low, Fitzsimmons is too high as, like Tunney, he should be more suited to a p4p rating, so maybe he shouldnt be on the list either, Nat Fleischer's time or not. Schmeling, in my opinion, if anything proved he was the best of the so-called "cheese champions" following Tunney's retirement, and the best European heavyweight in history thus far, but he wasnt an ATG heavyweight.

So the more appropriate list should be:

1. Johnson
2. Louis
3. Jeffries
4. Dempsey
5. Corbett
6. Langford- though he never was a champion; and should be regarded like Tunney/Fitzsimmons as a p4p ATG
7. Marciano

But then that leaves three more spots to be open; so lets get down to business:

Baer, Sharkey, Carnera, Burns, Hart, Willard are immediately dropped from the list because none of the men, no matter what potential they had, never quite lived up to the hype or made it over that extra slump to become qualified as an ATG heavyweight, though it is true that you can make a solid argument for any of them to be greater than what they are generally considered.

Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott were not on Fleischer's list...while you can argue against Charles that he should be, like Tunney/Langford/Fitzsimmons, regarded as a p4p great, while that is true he had a greater record/pedigree as a heavyweight than those men had, and he defeated Walcott more times than not. So Charles and Walcott take the number 8 and 9 spots.

Whose the top 10 man then? Up until Clay's reign as champion, there was no greater destroyer in the ring, who could box as well, than Sonny Liston. Let's project here for just a moment: If Ali never existed, Liston would not have suffered a defeat until 1968 [against Leotis Martin] when he was in his 40's. Liston defeated a more talented pool of men on the way up than Ali did, and though his reign was brief, as stated before he would not face a defeat until 1968-1969, five or so years following his losses to Ali.

I believe Liston deserves the number 10 spot.
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by raylawpc »

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
raylawpc wrote:How are you judging them? What's the standard? How the old timers would do now? How about the opposite. How would Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali or Lennox Lewis have done in the rugged times of Sullivan through Jeffries: 25-rounds (or finish fights), no mouthpiece, 5 ounce horsehair-and-leather gloves, eight post rings with loose hemp ropes, handwraps that generally did as much harm as good, etc.?

Isn't it good enough to say Jeffries was the best of his era, Dempsey of his, Louis of his, Ali of his, and Lewis of his? And debate the relative merits of each guy in the context of his own era? It makes more sense to debate, perhaps, whether Jeffries was the best heavyweight of the 1900s, or whether Lennox Lewis was the best heavyweight of the 2000s, than to argue whether Lewis was better than Jeffries.
I'm not the gentleman who compared the fighers of one generation to another generation and found the fighters from one generation wanting...That was Mr. Fleisher... I just wondered if his list would still be the same today...The evidence suggests he was wed to the boxers of yore and probably would not rate them lower, even in the light of new evidence...

As to your question if boxing was more like fist fights than boxing is today how would today's boxers fare? Lenox Lewis would probably have become a star in the CFL and Muhammad Ali would have worked on his grades, went to college on a football or basketball scholarship , became the greatest point guard in the NBA and made people forget about Oscar Robertson -:) until Magic Johnson came along...6'3 195- 210-great hands, feet, reflexes, hand-eye coordination...
With respect, that wasn't my question. People always say that "modern" fighters would have defeated the old timers. That the old timers would have a hard time competing today. My question asks how a Muhammad Ali would have done had be been born in 1872 instead of 1942, and fought under the same conditions and limitations that guys like Jeffries, Sharkey et al had to fight, using the styles and techniques of those days.
TheOneIsHere2008
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1181
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 12:09

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by TheOneIsHere2008 »

My2Sense wrote:
wouter wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
Take Lenox Lewis...You would admit for a big man he was extremely skilled?

He was 6'5 and 240 pounds in his prime...How would a 5'8 175 pound boxer fare against him?
Just who is that 5'8 175-pounder you're referring to?
How about Sam Langford?
Some say Langford was 5'7

Lenox weighed 249 for the Tyson fight and 256 1/2 for Klitshko...

Can a 175 pound man give away 80 pounds and ten inches to a skilled fighter and be competitive?

When Ali discussed fighting Wilt Chamberlain, Angelo Dundee stood on a chair to illustrate the problem of fighting a man that much taller than you...Ali was 6'3, Wilt was 7'1...That's the same difference betwen Langford and Lewis...I'm not making any inference but a ten inch height difference is huge...
TheOneIsHere2008
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1181
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 12:09

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by TheOneIsHere2008 »

raylawpc wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
raylawpc wrote:How are you judging them? What's the standard? How the old timers would do now? How about the opposite. How would Larry Holmes or Muhammad Ali or Lennox Lewis have done in the rugged times of Sullivan through Jeffries: 25-rounds (or finish fights), no mouthpiece, 5 ounce horsehair-and-leather gloves, eight post rings with loose hemp ropes, handwraps that generally did as much harm as good, etc.?

Isn't it good enough to say Jeffries was the best of his era, Dempsey of his, Louis of his, Ali of his, and Lewis of his? And debate the relative merits of each guy in the context of his own era? It makes more sense to debate, perhaps, whether Jeffries was the best heavyweight of the 1900s, or whether Lennox Lewis was the best heavyweight of the 2000s, than to argue whether Lewis was better than Jeffries.
I'm not the gentleman who compared the fighers of one generation to another generation and found the fighters from one generation wanting...That was Mr. Fleisher... I just wondered if his list would still be the same today...The evidence suggests he was wed to the boxers of yore and probably would not rate them lower, even in the light of new evidence...

As to your question if boxing was more like fist fights than boxing is today how would today's boxers fare? Lenox Lewis would probably have become a star in the CFL and Muhammad Ali would have worked on his grades, went to college on a football or basketball scholarship , became the greatest point guard in the NBA and made people forget about Oscar Robertson -:) until Magic Johnson came along...6'3 195- 210-great hands, feet, reflexes, hand-eye coordination...
With respect, that wasn't my question. People always say that "modern" fighters would have defeated the old timers. That the old timers would have a hard time competing today. My question asks how a Muhammad Ali would have done had be been born in 1872 instead of 1942, and fought under the same conditions and limitations that guys like Jeffries, Sharkey et al had to fight, using the styles and techniques of those days.
I answered it...He was a bright, athletic, young man...He would have paid attention to his school work,went to college on a basketball or football scholarship, become a pro, and make his bones there...I don't think he would be interested in something that more resembled a fist fight than the boxing matches we are accustomed to...
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by HomicideHenry »

Any fighter, who fought in the last 75-80 years, would have a hell of a time making the transition from the Marquis of Queensbury, no matter how leniant the rules in certain eras, to the rough and tumble bare fisted competitions of the London Prize Ring. Its safe to say that Sullivan wouldnt have been successful in Ali's time due to the changes in rules, just as much as Ali wouldn't have been successful in Sullivan's time.
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by raylawpc »

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
raylawpc wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
I'm not the gentleman who compared the fighers of one generation to another generation and found the fighters from one generation wanting...That was Mr. Fleisher... I just wondered if his list would still be the same today...The evidence suggests he was wed to the boxers of yore and probably would not rate them lower, even in the light of new evidence...

As to your question if boxing was more like fist fights than boxing is today how would today's boxers fare? Lenox Lewis would probably have become a star in the CFL and Muhammad Ali would have worked on his grades, went to college on a football or basketball scholarship , became the greatest point guard in the NBA and made people forget about Oscar Robertson -:) until Magic Johnson came along...6'3 195- 210-great hands, feet, reflexes, hand-eye coordination...
With respect, that wasn't my question. People always say that "modern" fighters would have defeated the old timers. That the old timers would have a hard time competing today. My question asks how a Muhammad Ali would have done had be been born in 1872 instead of 1942, and fought under the same conditions and limitations that guys like Jeffries, Sharkey et al had to fight, using the styles and techniques of those days.
I answered it...He was a bright, athletic, young man...He would have paid attention to his school work,went to college on a basketball or football scholarship, become a pro, and make his bones there...I don't think he would be interested in something that more resembled a fist fight than the boxing matches we are accustomed to...
Okay, had Muhammad Ali been born in 1872, he would have gone to college (on a scholarship no less!!) and become a pro football player. :roll: Got it. . .
TheOneIsHere2008
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1181
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 12:09

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by TheOneIsHere2008 »

Okay, had Muhammad Ali been born in 1872, he would have gone to college (on a scholarship no less!!) and become a pro football player. :roll: Got it. . .
He probably would have been lynched if he lived in 1872...

My point is I don't think a man as creative as he was would have been interested in something that more resembled fist fighting than boxing...
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by raylawpc »

Well, that's one way to dodge a discussion. :roll:
Sundance Kid
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 43
Joined: 13 Sep 2006, 08:00

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by Sundance Kid »

The story has always been that Fleischer rated Louis second to Johnson - but bumped Joe down to number six after peer pressure from his fellow old-timers.

It is also pretty well known that when Nat had a foreign trip coming up - say to Argentina - an Argentinian fighter would suddenly be placed in The Ring's Top 10.

John Ort famously took this to the extreme - but The Ring rankings were never strictly on the level.

Mike Casey
raylawpc
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4871
Joined: 21 Mar 2008, 17:21

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by raylawpc »

Mike, there was also a story that he wanted to put Sonny Liston in the top ten, but was pressured not to because it wouldn't do to have a fighter with mob connection in the magazine's top ten.

Johnny Ort was actually a pretty nice guy to work with . . . Hmmm . . . maybe too nice to a few promoters.
wouter
Editor
Editor
Posts: 4798
Joined: 04 Feb 2002, 20:00

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by wouter »

My2Sense wrote:
wouter wrote:
TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:
Take Lenox Lewis...You would admit for a big man he was extremely skilled?

He was 6'5 and 240 pounds in his prime...How would a 5'8 175 pound boxer fare against him?
Just who is that 5'8 175-pounder you're referring to?
How about Sam Langford?
You made it sound as if 5'8 and 175 lbs ever was the standard for heavyweights. In fact Langford was constantly outsized in his era, but managed to win anyway. Like I said, I find it very hard to rate the 'old-timers' because of the lack of footedge of them. If size alone were the deciding factor and bigger meant automatically better, why bother fighting at all?
granberry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3742
Joined: 13 Jul 2006, 11:30

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by granberry »

Sundance Kid wrote:The story has always been that Fleischer rated Louis second to Johnson - but bumped Joe down to number six after peer pressure from his fellow old-timers.

It is also pretty well known that when Nat had a foreign trip coming up - say to Argentina - an Argentinian fighter would suddenly be placed in The Ring's Top 10.

John Ort famously took this to the extreme - but The Ring rankings were never strictly on the level.

Mike Casey
Since Flesicher died in the early 1970's what still purported to be the continuation of the RING magazine dragged on with a series of clowns as head editor.

Nat Loubot was pathetic, Steve Farhood put out magazines filled with mistakes, then drunken Bert Sugar came in and made the magazine a further joke.
Sugar's RING was riddled with mistakes.

For the last decades, 1960's burnout Nigel Collins has been putting out this sorry rag.
ebeneezer
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 514
Joined: 23 Sep 2005, 17:01

Re: Nat Fleisher's Top Ten Heavyweights -1971

Post by ebeneezer »

granberry wrote:
Sundance Kid wrote:The story has always been that Fleischer rated Louis second to Johnson - but bumped Joe down to number six after peer pressure from his fellow old-timers.

It is also pretty well known that when Nat had a foreign trip coming up - say to Argentina - an Argentinian fighter would suddenly be placed in The Ring's Top 10.

John Ort famously took this to the extreme - but The Ring rankings were never strictly on the level.

Mike Casey
Since Flesicher died in the early 1970's what still purported to be the continuation of the RING magazine dragged on with a series of clowns as head editor.

Nat Loubot was pathetic, Steve Farhood put out magazines filled with mistakes, then drunken Bert Sugar came in and made the magazine a further joke.
Sugar's RING was riddled with mistakes.

For the last decades, 1960's burnout Nigel Collins has been putting out this sorry rag.

Bitter much?
Post Reply