Page 1 of 1
Posted: 21 Oct 2005, 16:47
by dalek
never said they were gospel m8.like anyone opinions vary.did you look up those new york times reports on ketchel?
Posted: 22 Oct 2005, 02:52
by dalek
very harsh m8.johnson and papke 4.
if you just had hagler-leonard and hagler-duran on film everyone would say WTF is all the fuss about.
Posted: 22 Oct 2005, 03:01
by dalek
not so sure he was past his prime against duran m8.leonard yes,so throw in the antuofermo 1 fight.
Posted: 26 Oct 2005, 02:23
by dalek
is he at all related to that funny guy wrestler the legend larry?or did he borrow the name?
Re: Nat Fleischer ranked Stanislaw Zybyszko the #3 heavyweig
Posted: 26 Oct 2005, 10:39
by silkov
Decagon wrote:of all time!~ And who of you said his rankings were gospel?
With respect what you're saying is plain wrong, Fleischer did not rate Ketchel number 3 at Heavyweight... he rated Bob Fitzsimmons in that place and rated Ketchel number one at Middleweight.
Fleischers top ten for the heavies was...
1. Jack Johnson
2. James Jeffries
3. Bob Fizsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James Corbett
6. Joe louis
7. Sam Langford
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schemeling
10 Rocky Marciano
......................................
Re: Nat Fleischer ranked Stanislaw Zybyszko the #3 heavyweig
Posted: 26 Oct 2005, 10:46
by Tantum
silkov wrote:1. Jack Johnson
2. James Jeffries
3. Bob Fizsimmons
4. Jack Dempsey
5. James Corbett
6. Joe Louis
Posted: 26 Oct 2005, 13:18
by silkov
Decagon wrote:Ah, but he ranked Zbyzsko as the #3 heavyweight professional wrestler of all time! He thought professional wrestling was real! That's even dumber than ranking Joe Louis behind all those crappy turn-of-the-century fighters.
Oh, and don't give me any shit about wrestling being real back then. It wasn't. It was just a scam to get people to bet on supposed favorites. Take George Hackenschmidt, for example, he could barely wrestle, and he was built up by winning a bunch of fixed tournaments in Russia and Europe. When he came to the States, he was booked to win the World Heavyweight Championship over Tom Jenkins so he'd be a huge betting favorite over Gotch, who was booked to win.
How do you know it wasn't real back then?... were you there???. Wrestling was a lot different in Nats day to what its like now and thats the truth.
Posted: 27 Oct 2005, 04:54
by dalek
didn't nat have a vested interest in bringing over wrestling as real?did it help sell more mags?thats the only thing i can think of.
Posted: 27 Oct 2005, 15:04
by tiredoldngrey
Was this in, what was it called at the time? Boxing Illustrated? And didn't that magazine feature wrestling and boxing? And yes there was a time when wrestling was real and very popular; I forget the year but I read of a card in Chicago or NY that was held in the early 20s had 3 matches and lasted 9 hours and none of the participants wrestled for over a year. Apparently when its real it isn't good at all for easily dislocated parts of the body and joints in general.
Posted: 28 Oct 2005, 05:01
by dalek
that probably answers it then m8.