I have to leave until Wednesday, but I hope to come back then to expand on this discussion, but quickly 1---how do the 1890's get so good? Boxing was all but illegal in most of the US, and restricted for the most to the US & part of the British Empire. It is still thriving in those areas in the 1930's, but was also thriving in continental Europe and Latin America. 2---you have taken the position that we can't judge the fighters back then on the limited film (which doesn't flatter them anyway), but then what do we judge them on? There were only six heavyweight championship fights in the whole decade. Corbett beats a fat, aging, long laid off champion, and then defends against two middleweights over five years, losing to the second. Puffery from old timers aside, why is a middleweight (or super middleweight) winning the heavyweight championship a sign of a strong era? 3---Fitz was remarkable, and if taken only on how good he was against others of his own era, can be rated very near the top of a p4p list, but his heavyweight career does not really compare to that of Joe Louis, either in time span or the number of top fighters defeated.
Thanks for the all the rankings Mendoza, Senya13, Bukkake, Berlenbach, and Edward Morbius for the rankings! Interesting stuff!
Interesting to see how times change. Seems like even though the old films were around. The old fighters didn't start going down in the rankings until the 1980's. Especially Jeffries. He stays very high even into the 70's weird since I consider him to be a little overrated.
What I find most interesting, is how low Louis was rated by some of his contemporaries! There are 3 lists here from 1943 - by which time Louis was 21 defences into his reign, with his peak years already behind him. So veteran boxing people like Johnston, Morgan and Roche were all there when Louis was at his absolute best, but could rank him no higher than 5th, 7th and 8th, respectively... in 1943! Very strange! But then again maybe not, really - as it just goes to illustrate the strong bias we all have for the fighters, we idolized in our youth. In fact... isn't that the underlying theme in all these lists?
Nat Fleischer died in the 1970s. And that's when the boxing films of those turn of the century boxers became available in the back of boxing magazines on reel film. Prior to that, people just went by what others told them about the old-timers. Once they got a look at them, and how they "really" looked in the ring, and the people trumpeting them began to die off, their all-time rankings began to fall. Because people could see with their eyes (like you) that they didn't possess the skills of later fighters and that they were most likely overrated ... when you added in the fighters who came after them. When there are five heayvweight champions, a guy like Jeffries can remain pretty high. When there are 50, he doesn't hold up.
The films were around in the 70's even Nat Fliecher saw them. They even had a whole debate about it once. I think it was more due to the old timers who actually saw them died off. Was the reason why the great old school fighters dropped from the rankings. As for what I see with my own eyes. I don't see a whole lot of difference between old and new.Those old films still so the same techniques used today. I also think that if all those old school fans were so old school crazy. They wouldn't have anyone past Jeffries or Johnson on their top ten at all. So to have Louis in the top ten at all shows they didn't think too little of the next generation. Also, from looking at the lists especially the oldest ones it seems like toughness is the ranking system and it don't get much tougher than Sullivan, Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, and Johnson as far as mental and physical toughness is concerned. Its the classic you don't know how easy you have it now. Like my grandpa tell me everyday.
Enjoy your leave. My main point was Fitz's competition was very good, and he could have achieved greater distinction IF 1 ) boxing wasn't illegal in his day 2 ) The travel was easier and faster 3 ) The purses were bigger 4 ) The areas were larger By the 1930's all of the above were greatly enhanced. For some replies. Point 1 ) How were the 1890's so good? Back then physical labor was at it peak, and one had to break a sweat to accomplish lief's most mundane tasks. This produced a harder man. Boxing has ebbs and flows with talent. Credit John L Sullivan for making the game famous. I don't think the 1890's were nearly as good as say the late 60's, early 70's, or 1990's, but the era was solid. Point 2 ) I think you can judge fighters on film, but it has to be a clear film and a film when the fighters are close enough to his prime. Fitz did many good things vs Corbett on film. His quick feint high, caused Corbett to adjust his guard, then in the blink on an eye Fitz lands the KO shot in a driving downward angle to what looks to be COrbett's floating rib area. The result was Corbett was paralyzed and could not get up! Some of Fitz KO's were epic, like the one over Sharkey or Ruhlin. Fitz vs Ruhlin, by the way, might be out there, and was filmed. We can't see it right now, so you have to go on press accounts. But when you see a Joe Louis like KO, it reads the same way in the press...I think. Fitz's KO's in the press sound as impressive or even more so than Louis. Greb is not on film in the ring, yet no one has an issue with his status. Point 3 ) The historians who lived and saw them from Corbett to Marciano, tend to rate Fitz's era higher ( Jeffries, Johnson, Fitz, Corbett ) This is a fact. Even modern historians generally agree that Louis reign was the least talented period in boxing history. While I agree Louis certainly accomplished more, I think the climate for him was better suited for him to do so. I rate Louis over Fitz. Just saying.
"illegal-travel-purses-arenas" None of this indicates to me that the 1890's was a better era than the 1930's and 1940's. Far more impactful would be 1---growth in population 2---migration from farms to cities. There aren't many gyms in rural areas. 3---in the USA, immigration, which is also part of the growth in population 4---expansion of boxing to new areas, especially Europe and Latin America Now all of this is theory, but it makes a lot more sense that boxing advanced with increasing popularity and participation than that it was going downhill from the 1890's onward. What was the reason for this slippage? Point 1---well, my father (and mother too, actually) walked behind a horse in the fields in the 1930's. I think it was late in the 1930's with the help of the government that they could afford a KT. And oats and corn was shoveled by hand. Even in the fifties and sixties, a lot of other stuff on a farm was still shoveled by hand--I remember that well. And of course it was the same for others in many occupations. Guys in the 1890's worked hard, but so did most for decades later. Point 2---No dispute that Fitz could punch, and would have a puncher's chance against later fighters. But watching him and Corbett on film, I don't think they were as skilled as the best of later generations. Point 3---historians--like Nat Fleischer? I don't find their opinions convincing, and they were relying on decades old memories. Film simply does not back up that the old-timers were somehow better, and common sense (boxing's increased popularity amid a growing participation base) argues strongly against them. If we accept that the heavyweights of the 1890's were better, we must do so blindly, actually ignoring strong contrary evidence.
If you lived long enough to have watched both Corbett and Marciano in action... it's kind of a given, that you would think the 1890s was a better period than the 1950s. If we have learned anything from this thread, it is that!
Some people consider every and any explanation for Fleischer’s rankings, except that there might be some merit in them that they are missing. It is a very narrow minded attitude.
The biggest reasons at the time for thinking that old fighters from the 1890s to 1930s were better is the issue of toughness. Leaving aside the era to era arguments about tougher times, the 1890s fighters were experienced at bareknuckle fighting, and a fighting game that had much more liberal rules. In reality it was a much different sport, but the theory was that they had to be tougher because of these rules and they were. I dont think it is a bad theory. I cant imagine Wlad fighting for an hour or more under LPR rules because he has never done it. Common sense in some ways says that he would not be as good as someone who has trained for this and is experienced at this (assuming that they were reasonably close to skill levels). And this is just the bareknuckle aspect dont forget things like spiked shoes, gangs who would threaten to kill you if you continued fighting, grassed rings, throws and chokes allowed etc. In many ways the rules of the game were softened greatly by the 1930s. If the rules were changed tomorrow, so that fighters wore gloves twice as big and punches to the head were outlawed, would you really expect fighters in 50 years to be more evolved and better fighters than today's fighters? How would you expect George Foreman or Mike Tyson or Wlad to go against these champions from later years? IMO, you can only really assume a rough parity of era's, otherwise things are meaningless. It may very well be that Muhammed Ali would do no better against todays fighters than the elite sprinters or swimmers of the 60s times suggest they would do against todays elite swimmers and sprinters. But it seems a bit pointless to debate if you cant assume this parity.
Fleischer did give his criteria for boxing greatness in The Ring of December, 1955-- 1--Ability to outbox boxers and outpunch punchers. 2--Ring generalship 3--Durability Fair enough. Now I would consider Sugar Ray Robinson to rate pretty high according to these standards, but Ring Magazine, April 1959 "There is scarcely an old-timer who would give Robinson a chance against Stanley Ketchel." Not even a chance?