Fleischer was the owner/editor of the RING MAGAZINE and until the early 1960's virtually decided who was the world champion in each weight division and who the leading contenders were . You might find this unbelievable ,and unacceptable but stay with me on this . As far as I can gather Fleischer was an honourable man and tried to ensure fairness . He did not profit from his selections( as far as we know ) and managed to resist the influence of organised crime . In those days before our super fast communication systems he managed to maintain contact with like minded associates throughout the world and his magazine was widely read and respected .
I'm going to repeat myself again , but can all the boxing magazine owers/ editors not get together and develop a protocol whereby they agree who the champions are and leading contenders and simply refuse to mention the santioning bodies in their fight reports , thus starving them of publicity . I think Glyn Leach and Tris Dixon are honourable people . I don't know who the new editor of the RING is , and I don't even know if Germany has a magazine , but surely a forum could be created with a view to take this forward.
I know Glyn reads this forum and that some of the Boxing News staff do also .
Can we go forward with this then .
I've put this forward after reading Steve Farhood's article this month in Boxing Monthly conerning the position with Cloud .
Nat Fleischer - and how it was !
-
Glyn Leach
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2135
- Joined: 25 Dec 2007, 14:08
Re: Nat Fleischer - and how it was !
Thanks for calling me 'honourable' Dalcumly (you fool!). While I am a massive admirer of Fleischer as THE editor/publisher, I have heard remarks along the lines that Ring didn't challenge the mob involvement in that era - I really don't know if this is true, but I have seen it written.
Once Claude Abrams and myself had a conversation about producing a unified British boxing press set of world ratings. It didn't last long. Claude was of the opinion that we were inevitably going to disagree and split, rather like a WBC/WBA thing. He was right I think.
Another problem with BM and BN producing such a set of ratings (and I consider Tris to be an exceptionally honourable fella) is that we'd get into the situation that used to exist, one champion according to the UK and one recognised by the USA (Ring). Better than things currently are I know, but I would never consider working with Ring (and I have no idea who the editor is either) while it was owned by Golden Boy. That would be an absolute non starter.
On a personal level, it frustrates the hell out of me when I hear British boxers and fight figures banging on about Ring belts, as though they were 'it'. Those belts are owned by the promoters who seek to overturn fights they lose and go against the grain in general - I am referring to Ring making Bernard Hopkins champ after the Dawson fight (am I right in saying that? Seem to remember something like that though I could be wrong - shows how much credence I give to Ring belts). As such, these fighters and fight figures are no better than those who used to patronise the WBU etc, titles of convenience but with extremely dubious credibility.
Whoever the new Ring editor is, the ratings policy went out the door with Nigel Collins - and I doubt that the Brits who bang on about Ring belts are even aware of who he was or that he's no longer editor. That really irritates me. Bigging up something they know nothing about is as dumb as you can get. But hey ho, it'll all come out in the wash - bet your arse on it.
Once Claude Abrams and myself had a conversation about producing a unified British boxing press set of world ratings. It didn't last long. Claude was of the opinion that we were inevitably going to disagree and split, rather like a WBC/WBA thing. He was right I think.
Another problem with BM and BN producing such a set of ratings (and I consider Tris to be an exceptionally honourable fella) is that we'd get into the situation that used to exist, one champion according to the UK and one recognised by the USA (Ring). Better than things currently are I know, but I would never consider working with Ring (and I have no idea who the editor is either) while it was owned by Golden Boy. That would be an absolute non starter.
On a personal level, it frustrates the hell out of me when I hear British boxers and fight figures banging on about Ring belts, as though they were 'it'. Those belts are owned by the promoters who seek to overturn fights they lose and go against the grain in general - I am referring to Ring making Bernard Hopkins champ after the Dawson fight (am I right in saying that? Seem to remember something like that though I could be wrong - shows how much credence I give to Ring belts). As such, these fighters and fight figures are no better than those who used to patronise the WBU etc, titles of convenience but with extremely dubious credibility.
Whoever the new Ring editor is, the ratings policy went out the door with Nigel Collins - and I doubt that the Brits who bang on about Ring belts are even aware of who he was or that he's no longer editor. That really irritates me. Bigging up something they know nothing about is as dumb as you can get. But hey ho, it'll all come out in the wash - bet your arse on it.
Re: Nat Fleischer - and how it was !
Even if the boxing editors did as you requested, it wouldnt make much of an impact. The ABCs reacted to the needs/wishes of television and still do, this is the root problem. Titles to market fights and this has snowballed. Over the years it has been well documented that officials from some of the ABCs have taken payments to influence their nomination of x fighter as mandatory challenger to the champion. ABC rankings are worthless, I never bother to even look at them. The Ring belt is a farce as well, and I wouldnt read The Ring Magazine if it was sent to me for free.dalcumly wrote:Fleischer was the owner/editor of the RING MAGAZINE and until the early 1960's virtually decided who was the world champion in each weight division and who the leading contenders were . You might find this unbelievable ,and unacceptable but stay with me on this . As far as I can gather Fleischer was an honourable man and tried to ensure fairness . He did not profit from his selections( as far as we know ) and managed to resist the influence of organised crime . In those days before our super fast communication systems he managed to maintain contact with like minded associates throughout the world and his magazine was widely read and respected .
I'm going to repeat myself again , but can all the boxing magazine owers/ editors not get together and develop a protocol whereby they agree who the champions are and leading contenders and simply refuse to mention the santioning bodies in their fight reports , thus starving them of publicity . I think Glyn Leach and Tris Dixon are honourable people . I don't know who the new editor of the RING is , and I don't even know if Germany has a magazine , but surely a forum could be created with a view to take this forward.
I know Glyn reads this forum and that some of the Boxing News staff do also .
Can we go forward with this then .
I've put this forward after reading Steve Farhood's article this month in Boxing Monthly conerning the position with Cloud .
Re: Nat Fleischer - and how it was !
Chaps , lets not be sidetracked with the issue of RING magazine although all the comments are worthwhile and relevant . Throwing the baby out with the bath water - and all that .
Can Glynn and Tris not have another go at this and at least get a consensus on this side of the pond . Thereafter I get the feeling that Adam Smith at SKY might go along with this thing ( notice the MAFIA terminology !!!) and then perhaps they could influence HBO . A stage at a time might prove fruitful . Surely we've got to start somewhere , or we'll just keep talking about it until the game's dead and buried .
Can Glynn and Tris not have another go at this and at least get a consensus on this side of the pond . Thereafter I get the feeling that Adam Smith at SKY might go along with this thing ( notice the MAFIA terminology !!!) and then perhaps they could influence HBO . A stage at a time might prove fruitful . Surely we've got to start somewhere , or we'll just keep talking about it until the game's dead and buried .
-
Glyn Leach
- Heavyweight
- Posts: 2135
- Joined: 25 Dec 2007, 14:08
Re: Nat Fleischer - and how it was !
If there was genuine demand I'm sure Tris and myself would be happy to talk about it, but the point made by Claude would still be relevant - disagreements/splits are almost inevitable. However, as the oldest boxing publication in the world, I don't see why a BN set of ratings and champions alone would be a bad thing - our oldest and most historic publication versus theirs sort of thing.dalcumly wrote:Chaps , lets not be sidetracked with the issue of RING magazine although all the comments are worthwhile and relevant . Throwing the baby out with the bath water - and all that .
Can Glynn and Tris not have another go at this and at least get a consensus on this side of the pond . Thereafter I get the feeling that Adam Smith at SKY might go along with this thing ( notice the MAFIA terminology !!!) and then perhaps they could influence HBO . A stage at a time might prove fruitful . Surely we've got to start somewhere , or we'll just keep talking about it until the game's dead and buried .
Personally, I don't think we can ignore what has happened to Ring as it reflecte on what some would no doubt try to make happen to BM and BN. Forget GBP's transparant spin about Oscar having read Ring since he was a foetus, they bought the mag to gain control of the belts. And now, a couple of years later and with the editor replaced I expect them to blow the Ring belt's credibility totally before too long. There's no reason why not to assume exactly the same thing would happen to BM and BN - or at least the attempt would be made by someone.