Ring magazine 1975 ATG HW list

T

Thats weird !
Strange one with Ali.
No Foreman ( and this is before he lost to Young).
I find it hard to factor some of those guys from way back.
But the Ali thing makes zero sense to me.

 

LOL Corbett over Ali? It's ridiculous

 

Makes perfect sense. True historians dont rate a hwt champion until said fighters career is over or nearly over and all boxes checked. Beating Foreman put Ali top ten. Beating Frazier in 75 made him top five. Only the inexperience jump to conclusions. Never a need to rush.

 

I still have that issue of Ring, which I picked up when I was about 17. I recall being very critical of all the ratings because in this issue they did a top ten on all weight classes. These ratings were to be like an update to Nat Fleischer's ratings that he had devised some time before, but I remember looking at them and saying to myself even at that youthful age, "Hey, these are basically the same ratings but just shuffled around a bit." But also in the prologue to these ratings I believe they named some of the writers contributing to these new revamped ratings and it appeared to be all of Nat's old stalwarts. So there was little revision involved but just as I moaned about back then, mostly a re-shuffling. These were the acolytes of Nat such as Dan Daniel, Nat Loubet, et al. And they weren't about to upset the applecart too much. The next time the Ring took this upon themselves however, the old guard had left the publication and it was revamped with a more modern inclusion.

 

Again I lived through those times so the facts are that Ali's win vs Frazier checked all the boxes in most historians minds. His status level post 75 reflects this.

 

I believe this is Nat Loubet's list. A fair one for 1975.

Nat Loubet was the editor and publisher of The Ring Magazine from October 1972 to September 1979.

 

Only four of those names are even in the top ten list now. Perception changes over time, as better and better heavyweights come along. I doubt Rocky and Frazier will be in the list twenty years down the line.

 

Untrue. Completely untrue. Perception grows WEAKER as those from the generation in question die off. I see it ALREADY with Ali. Perception become distorted as new generations who did not live through the period are unable to put all the pieces together correctly.

 

Im curious what their criteria is? Accomplishments? Head to head? Because I think both Frazier and Ali were miles ahead of guys like Corbett and Fitz in pretty much any area you can think of.

 

It makes perfect sense. I can remember a article in one of the mag s back in the late 90 s more or less ripping the past 8 or 9 years to shreds. Claiming the division had been a right state since tyson had lost and basically rubbishing Lewis, bowe and the like. Yet fast forwarding almost twenty years and the division back then appears deep and exciting compared to now. I think u have to have that distance of time to appreciate it some time s.

 

As though old generations (of boxing historians/journalists) had done better. Where is Packey McFarland in Nat Fleischer's all-time rankings? Not to be found at either lightweight or welterweight. At least in his "50 years at ringside". Fleischer didn't know ****.

 

Loubet was one of the contibutors. It was from a panel of some of Ring mag's older writers. The ones that came up during Fleischer's tenure. Hence, the similarity in most of Fleischer's picks.

 

I think you get an automatic rating if you held a heavyweight title and your name starts with "J."