Nat Fleisher's Top 10 Heavyweights

Corbett's article on why he ranked them where they did. Very informative.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archiv...91E30E132A25757C2A9629C946196D6CF&oref=slogin

 

I am hardly saying they were bad. I am saying that there accomplishments at heavyweight are not in the same galaxy as Louis'. This has nothing to do with footage.

 

"accomplishments at heavyweight"

Accomplishments can be measured. We might disagree about the emphasis we put on different accomplishments (dominance vs. longevity, for example) but we have a solid basis for discussion.

Who do we think would win? leaves us no real bottom line. It becomes all opinion.

I read a book on the best NFL teams a while back. The author rated the 1958-1959 Baltimore Colts above the 1972-1973 Miami Dolphins.

Would that Colt team have beaten the Dolphins if taken 15 years into the future?

I have no idea.

What I can measure is how the two teams performed. The Colts went 10-3 in 1958 and again in 1959, or 20-6 over the two years.

The Dolphins went 17-0 in 1972 and 15-2 in 1973, or 32-2 over the two years.

The one thing I can be certain of is that the Dolphins performed better. In boxing the standard for most of the 20th century was head to head, pretty much pure opinion, but I think there was a tendency to go more toward accomplishment as the years went by.

 

Louis fought in a time where matches could be made mush easier. As a heavyweight, sure Louis accomplished more, but that does not necessarily make him better.

Boxing was pretty much illegal when Fitz and Corbett were king and the purses and negotiations were often more complex. Travel was much more complex.

In terms of accomplishments, you could say Fitz did more than Louis. Fitz was a triple champion at middle, light heavy and heavy.

What if you found out that Fitzsimmons has 300 fights? He claimed it!

Back to the films, if you saw some of Fitzsimmons knockouts, you might change perspective. But we can't see them. You can see 26-27 minutes of Fitz vs Corbett. Toward the end, you get a close up on the fighters in the DVD I have. Fitz looks like a better coordinated Rocky Marciano, and Corbett a fast moving man who was hard to hit cleanly, and rather rough in the clinches.

 

Muhammad Ali had at least two top tens attributed to him:

1. Jack Johnson
2. Joe Louis
3. Muhammad Ali
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Rocky Marciano
6. Gene Tunney
7. Sam Langford
8. Jersey Joe Walcott
9. Floyd Patterson
10. Ezzard Charles

(Sports Illustrated, April 30, 1979; A List Of Lists That Will Delight Tease, Even Infuriate)


1. Jack Johnson
2. Jack Dempsey
3. Gene Tunney
4. Joe Louis
5. Ezzard Charles
6. Jersey Joe Walcott
7. Rocky Marciano
8. Joe Frazier
9. George Foreman
10. Larry Holmes

(In Teddy Atlas and Bert Sugar's The Ultimate Book of Boxing Lists)


George Foreman:

1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Muhammad Ali
5. Joe Frazier
6. Jack Dempsey
7. Mike Tyson
8. Sonny LIston
9. Floyd Patterson
10. Evander Holyfield

 

"Fitz was a triple champion"

Yes, but in fairness the discussion was about accomplishments at heavyweight.

"Corbett a fast moving man"

I also was impressed with his quickness, regardless of what one thinks of his skills.

"Fitz had 300 fights"

Assuming this were true, did he have anything like the number of fights against top heavyweights that Louis had? I don't think they would be in the same class.

"Louis accomplished more, but that doesn't necessarily make him better."

No, perhaps not, but it makes him better in all we can measure.

"Boxing was illegal when Fitz and Corbett were king"

Hard for me to see how this would be likely to raise the level of boxing competition against eras in which boxing was a popular mainstream sport not only in the USA & Britain, but in much of the rest of the world. The opposite would seem far more probable.

 

The Atlas & Sugar list for Ali appears to be in historical order.

 

It was written in April, 1910, so is of somewhat limited application to even mid-century ratings.

There is no question that Jeff has a good case to be considered the best there had been up to his time.

 

Yes, having referred back to the book, the names he gave are just listed chronologically.

 

Here are some polls I have from more recently, but I thought I would share them if any readers might be interested--

Boxing Writers of America 1980--HBO poll

1---Joe Louis
2---Muhammad Ali
3---Rocky Marciano
4---Jack Dempsey
5---Jack Johnson

Ebony Black Sportwriter's poll, 1978

1---Muhammad Ali
2---Joe Louis
3---Jack Johnson
4---Jack Dempsey
5---Rocky Marciano
6---Joe Frazier
7---Floyd Patterson
8---Jersey Joe Walcott

Murray Woroner Computer 1968

1---Rocky Marciano
2---Jack Dempsey
3---Joe Louis
4---Jim Jeffries
5---Muhammad Ali

ESPN 2000, heavyweight boxing finalists in greatest North American athletes of the 20th century

1---Muhammad Ali
2---Joe Louis
3---Rocky Marciano
4---Jack Dempsey
5---Jack Johnson

AP poll of experts 2000 for best hwt. of 20th century

1---Muhammad Ali
2---Joe Louis
3---Rocky Marciano
4---Jack Dempsey
5---Jack Johnson
6---Larry Holmes
7---Sonny Liston
8---Joe Frazier
9---Sam Langford
10-Jersey Joe Walcott

Ring Magazine 1999

1---Muhammad Ali
2---Joe Louis
3---Evander Holyfield
4---George Foreman
5---Larry Holmes
6---Rocky Marciano
7---Sonny Liston
8---Joe Frazier
9---Jack Johnson
10-Jack Dempsey

 

Great data and thank you for posting it.. Sure is surprising how highly Jack Dempsey is rated by so many sources.

 

Actually, it kinda does make him better.

One can talk up a storm of how great Corbett might have been beyond his handful of fights (and losses)... In Louis, he proved his greatness.

In fact, I don't think they are in the same stratum... Louis is in the argument for #1. Corbett is rarely mentioned in modern times as among the Top Ten.

 

I just think Fitz faced great competition and did not miss out on any top talents while he was active. He was also a very good older fighter, even better than Louis was.

Yeah, Fitz was 1-3 vs. Jeffries and Corbett. Louis was 1-3 vs Schmeling, Charles and Marciano. Unfair? Check their ages, they are about the same!

I would say Fitz faced slightly better top level competition during his career in Jeffries, Johnson, and Corbett.

Regarding the times, fights were harder to make during Fitz times, and the purses were less. This made it harder to schedule events. Louis had no such problems, so for him getting title fights was much easier. Therefore, the competition level was improved because they could be more active. Maybe I'm not stating that good enough. Someone else can comment on that point.