This is what Fleisher wrote in the February 1968 issue of Ring: "Many readers, especially from overseas, keep sening us protests against Sonny Liston's absence from the heavyweight elimination. There are rash conclusions regarding the former champion. We are assured that Liston could clean up the entire elimination field within the space of one week and that his exclusion is rank discrimination, and action without cause. Let us say tht on the basis of his second encounter with Cassius Clay, Liston does not merit continued consideration. For one thing, Liston is well beyond the age limit for serious combat. For another thing, Liston lacks a license to fight in many of our leading boxing states, New York in the van. Let us, in conclusion assure our correspondents that we do not regard Liston as eligible, and close the debate minus further ado. He is not in financial straits, and he did score two first round knockouts over Patterson. Let the record stand as it is, please."
I agree with Fleischer on Liston. I think the second Clay fight should have eliminated Liston for serious consideration as a fighter. I also think it should have caused Ali to be taken much less seriously as a champion. That fight and everyone involved in it, was a fraud.
Nat was hoping James J. Corbett might be available on the other hand. I think old Sonny would fared pretty well and it wasn't the first time old Nat did him dirt..
And yet in a few months' time Fleischer would have Liston re-enter the top ten, settling in at #3 or #4 for nine months. I guess I should credit Fleischer for coming around and realizing Liston still could "merit serious consideration." I'm of the belief that the Lewiston knockdown was legitimate and that Liston was waiting for Ali to get to a neutral corner before getting up, for fear of getting bopped before fully rising. Fleischer had no right to inject himself into the proceedings and influence the outcome of the bout. Furthermore, he put the boxers in jeopardy by distracting referee Walcott away from the resuming action to state his opinion that Liston been knocked out even though he had not received a 10-count. Seems kinda funny that Fleischer would cite Lewiston as a reason to blacklist Liston when he, Fleischer, had so strongly influenced the outcome when he was supposed to be acting as a journalist.
Thanks! Fleischer had some funny ideas. I used to think Ring's ratings were rock solid through his tenure, but as I've learned and studied more I've found that he had his biases. For instance, while everyone else (other magazines, the then still reliable WBA & WBC) continued to rate Jimmy Ellis highly after his first loss to Frazier, Ring ranked him low and often out of their top 10. Ring ratings are great historical resources, but they're not only source to be looked at when evaluating a particular time period. I do applaud him for refusing to strip Ali of the title between 67-70 when everyone else was searching for a new champion. Fleischer certainly didn't care if his opinion differed from everyone else, for better or for worse.
To be honest, I don't know for sure. I suspect he got input from staffers, but I'm sure he was largely responsible for Ring's ratings. Years later when Bert Sugar ran The Ring he made a big deal out of having ratings committee comprised of voters from all over the world.
I don't blame Fleischer for what happened at Lewiston. Fleischer had no official role in that fight and Walcott should have ignored him.
