Nat Fleisher's Top 10 Heavyweights

As with so many old schoolers (myself included), there is a tendency to romanticize the past. Fleischer died in '72 I believe just after the Ali-Frazier fight. He never saw the Champ make his full comeback and never had the chance to appreciate his true greatness. Nor did he ever see the likes of a Iron Mike Tyson or Wladimir Klitschko.

Further, Fitzsimmons and Langford were natural MW's, not HW's. Therefore, they do not rank with those other greats.

I appreciate all Fleischer did for pro boxing. But his listing is not fully accurate.

 

I agree.

What's even more insightful is when he said if he included Ali he'd have to remove Marciano (because he rated Marciano last).

He didn't even consider the idea that maybe all those guys he rated who fought pre-World War I might need to be reshuffled or reconsidered.

The guys he hadn't seen fight in 60 years ... if ever.

 

He is said to have seen Jeffries fight.
So he only missed Sullivan,Corbett, and Fitzsimmons.

 

If we were to rank fighters based on personal or political reasons or what types of citizens they were, practically 70% of the guys most of us have in our top 10's wouldn't even be there... hell I'd drop Tyson down from about #9 to about #100.

 

Then he has sadly deteriorated.I had a great deal of regard for his posts under his former pseudonym.
He opened hostilities ,I closed them.

 

In fairness, he disagreed with you and you responded with name calling, but I'll leave it at that.

 

No he argued about something I had not said,implied, or intimated. When I responded pointing this out, he became sarcastic.
Fairness has nothing to do with it and you can leave it where your like Mr M.I'm off to bed, I have an early start Friday.

 

While I personally disagree with Nat Fleischer’s top 10, I feel that people are somewhat arrogant and high handed in dismissing it.

This is a man who has seen a lot of fighters from ringside that we will never see, and we should be asking what might have impressed him about these fighters.

You don’t have to spit out your dummy because your favourite fighter is not high on his list, it probably isn’t anything personal.

 

Everyone is entitled to their choices ,and I would say Fleischer more than most!

 

Well, he saw Jeffries fight Jack Johnson in person. Not surprisingly, he lists Johnson and Jeffries #1 and #2 all-time.

It would be comparable to some 20-year-old today writing for an internet site to get a pass to Mayweather-Pac, and forever on insisting they were #1 and #2 all time.

 

Actually, what I disagreed with was that Charles couldn't be seen as a top ten ATG hwt. as of about 1960, when Fleischer, who is the subject of this thread, made his list.

I picked Corbett to compare with as he was #5 on Fleischer's list.

The gist of my argument is being distorted, perhaps with honest intent, but really, who cares?

I certainly made a mistake raising a defense of Charles in response to a McVey post.

If I had it to do over, I would do it on a non-quotation post.

The subject of this thread is Nat Fleischer's top ten.

 

:finger5:finger5

 

You did nothing wrong. McVey is generally a decent guy but has the tendency to get short and irritable with people sometimes. The queen is too old to menstruate at this point so I'm guessing it's something else.. Anyway, on Ezzard Charles, I think he's certainly an ATG heavyweight. He had 9 heavyweight title fight wins, beat a whole slew of contenders and was involved in some of heavyweight boxing's most notable fights. Top 10 may be a tad high, but his greatness shouldn't be questioned.

 

Wow! Thanks Dubblechin, its OFFICIAL ! Nat Fleisher was bat shiz crazy! I don't care how many active threads he ever had on this page! He was a loon! :twistedatschatsch

 

Exactly! It's amazing that so many serious fans still seem to put so much stock in his clearly biased storytelling and fables.