Nat Fleisher's Top 10 Heavyweights

There is no doubt Dempsey was a greater more skilled hwt than Marciano. Really not close.

 

Fleischer was instrumental in bringing Schmeling to the U.S. It's hard to understand today the excitement Schmeling caused when he arrived in NY. His bouts broke attendance records with crowds lining the street to see him fight. Max was a top contender or champion for ten years....a remarkable run. Fleischer wrote that he saw in Max the qualities of an ATG fighter. Secondly you need to understand his top ten was first published in the 1950's NOT the late 60's. When he developed this list he had the following champions to work with

Corbett
Fitz
Jeffries
Hart
Burns
Johnson
Willard
Dempsey
Tunney
Schmeling
Sharkey
Carnera
Baer
Braddock
Louis
Charles
Walcott
Marciano

Patterson was still an active hwt at the time so he would not be listed. Thus Nat had only 18 hwt champions to choose from. Eliminate obvious outliers and the idea of listing Schemeling...a dominant champion and top contender for a decade is easily understood.

 

Within Fleishers "50 years at ringside" not much is mentioned of Wills. Nat spoke in glowing terms of Johnson, McVey, Jeanette and Langford but that same level of praise was not seen in his life work m****cript.

 

Great post!

 

At the time many hyped Liston as the best ever

No way was Dempsey more skilled and anyway he boxed like an utter ret.ard running straight into punches. Marciano was much smarter defensively and much smarter breaking opponents down.

 

Hilarious how the author considers the idea of Corbett troubling Patterson nonsensical.

Reminds me of that Tua v Corbett thread a few months back.

 

Those that saw both Dempsey and Marciano fight in the flesh were unanimous in picking Dempsey as the more skilled fighter.:think

 

Except it was nonsensical...As was the idea of Corbett surviving (anywhere near) 15 rounds against David Tua.

 

Arcel claimed Dempsey would have murdered Rock.

 

I agree...

 

Willard is ranked above Dempsey?! Burns is ranked above Johnson! Wait! Is this list upside down?

 

This is why I think we shouldn't use those old films to judge the old time fighters. Nearly all the old time writers who saw the champions live thought they could hold their own just fine in the era's that came after. It be different if it was only Nat Fleisher who ranked the old timers so highly but the majority of people who actually saw the old time champions like Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, and Johnson. Live in action thought they would have no problems competing with the era's that came after them.

Even if you read some of the old reports from people who were there the fights sound completely different than they do on film. Pollacks accounts of Corbett and Fitz sounds like a much better and completely different fight than what I've seen of the film.

 

The list is in historical order genius.

 

I don't understand why you could not see a prime Corbett....very quick, elusive, tricky running circles around a slow moving hwt like Tua over 15 rounds. 15 rounds for prime Corbett would be a walk in the park.

 

Watching the silient era type boxing films can be very deceptive. Idiosyncrasies are lost unless you know what to look for and take the time to watch very carefully. Dempseys short punching and combinations were murder. Never saw a hwt throw punches that short that were that devastating.

Regarding Marciano and Dempsey again it's not close in terms of boxing skill. Fleischer who watch both live from ringside wrote......"you cannot compare Marciano to Dempsey except as a puncher." Tunney wrote. "Dempsey was no crude slugger but instead a fine combination of great boxer and great puncher."