Nat Fleisher's Top 10 Heavyweights

Proof most of these revered "historians" are just sentimental blowhards.

 

By 1985, Larry Holmes should have been making most people's top 10. Yeah his career was still in progress, but he had reached 48-0 and had around 19 world title fight wins.

 

"Survey of Old-Timers" (1975)
The Encyclopedia of World Boxing Champions , John D. McCallum (pp. 322-323)

1-Jim Jeffries
2-Jack Johnson
3-Bob Fitzsimmons
4-Jim Corbett
5-Jack Dempsey
6-John L. Sullivan
7-Gene Tunney
8-Joe Louis
9-Rocky Marciano
10-Muhammad Ali

Note: In his book, McCallum states, without explaining, that these ratings are “based on a survey of old-timers”. 12 people participated including Nat Fleisher.

 

Battling Nelson (1919)

Lightweight Champion of the World
Quoted in: Jack Dempsey, Nat Fleischer (p. 208)

1-Jim Jeffries,
2 - Jack Dempsey

 

Tommy Burns (circa 1928)
Heavyweight Champion of the World (1906-1908)

Quoted in: The Legendary Champions (1968) [video documentary], written & directed by Harry Chapin

1-Jim Jeffries
2-Jack Johnson
3-Bob Fitzsimmons
4-Jack Dempsey
5-Jim Corbett
6-Gene Tunney
7-Philadelphia Jack O’Brien
8-Jess Willard

 

I disqualify from further discussion on the topic of boxing anyone who ranks Fitz, Corbett or Tunney over Louis. It is just asinine.

 

Good stuff. Do you have W. W. Naughton rankings?

 

At least they never had Willard above any of them ...

 

Thank you to Senya13 and Bukkake and Mendoza for their lists,

and any else who adds an old time list.

 

I have noticed this before. And it's a common theme with historians of the time I don't think it has to do with race, as Jack Johnson is often ranked much higher than Joe Louis.

Louis competition level was lower, and he had lots of trouble vs the best boxers he fought. Ring Magazine, a very pro-USA publication said the 1930's was the worst time for heavyweight boxing in terms of talent. I agree with them.

Seamus, the counterpoint is what clear film have you seen on Fitz or Corbett? How do you know how good or bad they really were?

A historian's opinion is good for 50 years, and many of these guys reached an old age. Personally I think its rather easy to pick the top 1-5 best in any sport for a 40 year period if you saw them.

Many felt Fitz was a better KO puncher in comparison to Louis, and Corbett and ultra fast boxer who was hard to catch cleanly.

If Louis was filmed with the same technology, he would not look nearly as good. And if his lone films were Schmeling 1, Conn1 and Marciano, his rep takes a hit. Film is a powerful medium.

I rate Louis much higher than either Fitz or Corbett though I would not discount an upset if they meet. I'd pick Tunney to UD Louis. Another thread I suppose.

 

"Sullivan"

I think that can be strongly disputed. Unlike Fitz, he was a heavyweight by the standards of the time. He reigned as champion longer than anyone prior to Louis (and longer than anyone had at the time of these polls of the "modern" fighters-not counting the old British champions like Figg and Cribb) and he didn't lose until he was 34 and had laid off three years.

w/o any film, and just going on record and who was dominant in their own time, I don't see why Sullivan can't be ranked at or near the top.

 

With Sullivan I think he was a first of sorts and bridged the gap between London and Queensberry rules. He's a legend Paul Bunyon type who had a popular personality.

I'm sold he was a big puncher with decent hand speed, but I think he stood out in a time when the skills were less, and there were very few other punches for him to meet. Boxing was very different back then. Sullivan himself said he had no chance vs Jeffries as the game had changed.

Who was the best-gloved fighter that Sullivan beat? Mitchell? He's not top 5 in the 1890's! John L's resume is a bit thin and he did not meet the best in the 1890's, outside of Corbett who easily defeated him.

To make matters even more complicated, Sullivan had a short prime and injury issues. The film on his hitting a bag is terrible. Had Sullivan beat Jackson, Goddard, or Slavin, I'd rank him MUCH higher.

 

Fair enough,

and I wouldn't dispute that the 1880's was probably a pretty barren decade for boxing compared to what came later,

that said, Sullivan had a great record in his own era,

and none of us have seen footage of any of his opponents other than Corbett, I think.

 

That's a great article, cheers for posting it :good

 

checking the ten full lists,

it is interesting that Corbett is rated higher than Dempsey in 7 out of the 10,

so I guess the old-time consensus was that Corbett was better than Dempsey.

*Corbett pre-dated Dempsey (and later the baseball player DiMaggio) in being the most charismatic and popular ex-athlete in the 1920's era, with an extensive stage career. This might help explain his high rating.