Log in or Sign up

Fleisher badmouthing recent heavyweights (RING, 1962)

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mrkoolkevin, Jun 27, 2018.

Page 3 of 4

mcvey VIP Member

Joined:

Jun 2, 2006

Messages:

98,359

Likes Received:

30,155

Nighttrain said: ↑

Fleischer is like that ancient uncle that put at the end of the table at holidays and just smile and nod at times and under no circumstances allow to control the tv remote.
Click to expand...

"Give him a nod from time to time,he likes that" Great Expectations

mcvey, Jan 3, 2019

#31

Nighttrain and InMemoryofJakeLamotta like this.

Webbiano Boxing Junkie Full Member

Joined:

Nov 6, 2011

Messages:

10,036

Likes Received:

2,845
Mendoza said: ↑

Almost every historian of the times left Liston out, and this is before his tank job with Ali.

Most people who saw early boxing felt Fitz, Corbett, Jeffries and Johnson ( pre WW I fighters ) were better than Louis and Marciano up to the 1950's.

Two possibilities for their reasoning.

1 ) Maybe they were better.

2 ) Or maybe the competition post WW1 to 1962 was on the weaker side, so they just did not get the credit. I think point #2 has some validity.

The late 1950's to early 1960' was not a strong time for heavyweight boxing. It was a time smaller men mostly under 200 pounds, with just a few punchers in the group. The ones who could punch, aside from Liston were also on the chinny side. And the good boxers ( Aside from Liston ) were medium at best punchers. You could see why Nat was so salty.

1958

Floyd Patterson, Champion

Ingemar Johansson

Nino Valdes

Zora Folley

Henry Cooper

Willie Pastrano

Archie Moore

Eddie Machen

Brian London

Sonny Liston

Mike DeJohn

1959

Ingemar Johansson, Champion

Zora Folley

Floyd Patterson

Sonny Liston

Henry Cooper

Eddie Machen

Billy Hunter

Roy Harris

Mike DeJohn

Joe Erskine

Alex Miteff

1960
Floyd Patterson, Champion

Sonny Liston

Ingemar Johansson

Eddie Machen

Zora Folley

Henry Cooper

Mike DeJohn

Robert Cleroux

Alex Miteff

**** Richardson

1961

Floyd Patterson, Champion

Sonny Liston

Eddie Machen

Zora Folley

Alejandro Lavorante

Robert Cleroux

Ingemar Johansson

Cleveland Williams

Henry Cooper

Cassius Clay

George Logan

1962

Sonny Liston, Champion

Floyd Patterson

Cassius Clay

Doug Jones

Ingemar Johansson

Zora Folley

Cleveland Williams

Robert Cleroux

Billy Daniels

Archie Moore

Henry Cooper

Click to expand...

In all fairness I don't think them top 10s look that weak at all. This might be a little bit controversial, but I think the era gets unfairly underrated, mainly due to Patterson avoiding Liston for a long time.
Webbiano, Jan 3, 2019

#32

Gazelle Punch likes this.

InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

Joined:

Sep 21, 2017

Messages:

17,342

Likes Received:

12,749

Jel said: ↑

"His right hand, thrown with an effortless but deadly grace, enchanted his opponents with its sheer aesthetic beauty before laying them prostrate, separated from their senses in a way not seen since the halcyon days of Sullivan and the only-somewhat lesser fistic prowess of Louis."

That sort of thing?
Click to expand...

Yep!

InMemoryofJakeLamotta, Jan 3, 2019

#33
InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

Joined:

Sep 21, 2017

Messages:

17,342

Likes Received:

12,749

FrankinDallas said: ↑

He was still in a cloud of ecstasy from seeing Jack Johnson in a bathtub.
Click to expand...

It's you! FRANK IN DALLAS not Franklin Dallas

InMemoryofJakeLamotta, Jan 3, 2019

#34

GlaukosTheHammer Boxing Addict banned Full Member

Joined:

Nov 7, 2017

Messages:

3,108

Likes Received:

2,284

Heh, I agree with Nat mostly.

GlaukosTheHammer, Jan 3, 2019

#35
mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

Joined:

Jan 30, 2014

Messages:

18,440

Likes Received:

9,605

Dubblechin said: ↑

This was sort of the beginning of the end of Fleischer's "reign of lies."

In the late 1950s, early 1960s, Bill Cayton started packaging and syndicating his boxing collection in various forms, like the Greatest Fights of the Century, to different television networks.

For basically the entirety of the 20th Century, unless you saw the films in a theater immediately after a fight, or attended a fight, you basically had to depend on writers like Fleischer to tell you who was good.

I posted in a thread on here before of the time Jim Jacobs showed the Corbett-Fitz fight to boxers and writers at someone's home in the 1960s, and people were laughing at how bad the boxers were until he told them who they were.

Fleischer peddled this garbage for the better part of the 20th century, and he could always say, "Well, I saw them and you didn't."

But once everyone could see the fighters, they knew he was full of it.

It's surprising how many just accepted what he said. Like someone said in another thread, one guy voted for Johnson as the greatest fighter because Fleischer said he was. The guy had never seen Johnson fight.

We've all seen Johnson fight. He wasn't the greatest. We've all seen Fitz and Corbett and Burns and McVey and Jefrries, and neither were they.
Click to expand...

Good post.

mrkoolkevin, May 3, 2019

#36
Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2005

Messages:

65,718

Likes Received:

52,798

At some point two the endeavors of boxing history and boxing nostalgia need to separate and become distinct fields.

Seamus, May 3, 2019

#37

Pat M and mrkoolkevin like this.

BitPlayerVesti Boxing Drunkie Full Member

Joined:

Oct 28, 2017

Messages:

8,581

Likes Received:

11,092

Seamus said: ↑

At some point two the endeavors of boxing history and boxing nostalgia need to separate and become distinct fields.
Click to expand...

Fantasy fights aren't boxing history anyway.

BitPlayerVesti, May 3, 2019

#38

KasimirKid and louis54 like this.
Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

Joined:

Feb 11, 2005

Messages:

65,718

Likes Received:

52,798

BitPlayerVesti said: ↑

Fantasy fights aren't boxing history anyway.
Click to expand...

But the arguments made on behalf of them are informed by boxing history... supposedly.

Seamus, May 3, 2019

#39

KO KIDD likes this.
salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Joined:

Aug 22, 2004

Messages:

15,973

Likes Received:

11,831

mrkoolkevin said: ↑

In discussing his vote for Jack Johnson in the "40 experts pick" poll, Fleischer starts off by insulting the past 40+ years of heavyweight fighters.

Fleischer: "There isn't an active heavyweight today who can be rated on a par with the majority of those who fought prior to the rise of Jack Dempsey to fistic fame. In the opinion of the writer, who has seen most of the heavyweights during the past 56 years, the present crop would have been meat for the stars of the past. Only Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano among those who came into prominence after World War One, compare favorably with the past masters." (RING Dec. 1962, p.9)
Click to expand...

He sounds like me, except that he's talking about heavyweights.

salsanchezfan, May 3, 2019

#40

mrkoolkevin likes this.
mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

Joined:

Jan 30, 2014

Messages:

18,440

Likes Received:

9,605

Dubblechin said: ↑

This was sort of the beginning of the end of Fleischer's "reign of lies."

In the late 1950s, early 1960s, Bill Cayton started packaging and syndicating his boxing collection in various forms, like the Greatest Fights of the Century, to different television networks.

For basically the entirety of the 20th Century, unless you saw the films in a theater immediately after a fight, or attended a fight, you basically had to depend on writers like Fleischer to tell you who was good.

I posted in a thread on here before of the time Jim Jacobs showed the Corbett-Fitz fight to boxers and writers at someone's home in the 1960s, and people were laughing at how bad the boxers were until he told them who they were.

Fleischer peddled this garbage for the better part of the 20th century, and he could always say, "Well, I saw them and you didn't."

But once everyone could see the fighters, they knew he was full of it.

It's surprising how many just accepted what he said. Like someone said in another thread, one guy voted for Johnson as the greatest fighter because Fleischer said he was. The guy had never seen Johnson fight.

We've all seen Johnson fight. He wasn't the greatest. We've all seen Fitz and Corbett and Burns and McVey and Jefrries, and neither were they.
Click to expand...

klompton2 said: ↑

Fleischer waxes poetic about the pre WW1 heavyweights but how many and how much of them did he actually see? My guess is that prior to Jim Jacobs digging up film on those guys it was very little of them and Jacobs had Fleischer and his cohorts squarely in his sights when he said they were deluded old men who had vastly overrated their heroes and oftentimes couldn't even pick them out of a film.

Fleischer was based in New York. Pre WW1 was a time when travel wasn't exactly easy or quick. Most of these guys fought the vast majority of their fights outside of Fleischers area at a time when Fleischer was a school boy and later going to college. He always liked to pretend that he was at every fight everywhere it happened but you can catch him in lies sometimes later in life stating he was at this fight, or that fight when he couldn't possibly have been. My guess is that like a lot of people, he grew up reading about these guys, idolizing them, and yes, he saw them on occasion when he got the chance, but they were who peaked his interest and as such they have a special place in his heart. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't make him the most objective observer when discussing them. But lets be fair, most of us are guilty of that. Im pretty surprised when, on the odd occasion, you hear some guy from a different era give props to the younger guys.
Click to expand...

Some very good posts in this thread...

mrkoolkevin, Dec 21, 2020

#41

KO KIDD likes this.

djanders Boxing Addict Full Member

Joined:

Feb 21, 2009

Messages:

5,065

Likes Received:

6,948

Dubblechin said: ↑

This was sort of the beginning of the end of Fleischer's "reign of lies."

In the late 1950s, early 1960s, Bill Cayton started packaging and syndicating his boxing collection in various forms, like the Greatest Fights of the Century, to different television networks.

For basically the entirety of the 20th Century, unless you saw the films in a theater immediately after a fight, or attended a fight, you basically had to depend on writers like Fleischer to tell you who was good.

I posted in a thread on here before of the time Jim Jacobs showed the Corbett-Fitz fight to boxers and writers at someone's home in the 1960s, and people were laughing at how bad the boxers were until he told them who they were.

Fleischer peddled this garbage for the better part of the 20th century, and he could always say, "Well, I saw them and you didn't."

But once everyone could see the fighters, they knew he was full of it.

It's surprising how many just accepted what he said. Like someone said in another thread, one guy voted for Johnson as the greatest fighter because Fleischer said he was. The guy had never seen Johnson fight.

We've all seen Johnson fight. He wasn't the greatest. We've all seen Fitz and Corbett and Burns and McVey and Jefrries, and neither were they.
Click to expand...

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is somewhere between Fleischer and more modern thoughts. I may be mistaken, but I believe the fight Jacobs showed in the 60's was actually a reenactment of the actual fight (of which very little actually remains). What the people may have been laughing at was nothing more than the fact that the actors (Fitzsimmons and Corbett), in the reenactment, were not good actors. In fact, many of the very early boxing films are reenactments, and not the actual fights.

djanders, Dec 22, 2020

#42
mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

Joined:

Jan 30, 2014

Messages:

18,440

Likes Received:

9,605

djanders said: ↑

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is somewhere between Fleischer and more modern thoughts. I may be mistaken, but I believe the fight Jacobs showed in the 60's was actually a reenactment of the actual fight (of which very little actually remains). What the people may have been laughing at was nothing more than the fact that the actors (Fitzsimmons and Corbett), in the reenactment, were not good actors. In fact, many of the very early boxing films are reenactments, and not the actual fights.
Click to expand...

Jacobs had previously-unseen films of actual fights too:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...acobs-films-views-on-old-heavyweights.623760/

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/1966-sports-illustrated-article-on-jim-jacobs.585395/

mrkoolkevin, Dec 22, 2020

#43
Jason Thomas Boxing Addict Full Member

Joined:

Feb 18, 2019

Messages:

5,788

Likes Received:

6,473

djanders said: ↑

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is somewhere between Fleischer and more modern thoughts. I may be mistaken, but I believe the fight Jacobs showed in the 60's was actually a reenactment of the actual fight (of which very little actually remains). What the people may have been laughing at was nothing more than the fact that the actors (Fitzsimmons and Corbett), in the reenactment, were not good actors. In fact, many of the very early boxing films are reenactments, and not the actual fights.
Click to expand...

I think CBS showed highlights of the Jacobs collection in 1962 on a wintry sunday afternoon. Around two hours worth. I watched it. Off memory, the Fitz-Corbett and Johnson-Jeffries fights were the same ones we see. Not reenactments. And I think the others-Gans, McGovern, Dixon, Ketchel, etc. were of their real fights. Much was made of the first showing of Willard-Johnson.

I remember watching and being fascinated at seeing men The Ring Magazine contained so much about but whom I had never seen.

Jason Thomas, Dec 22, 2020

#44

SwiftDot and mrkoolkevin like this.
Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

Joined:

Jun 25, 2014

Messages:

25,207

Likes Received:

19,336

djanders said: ↑

I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if the truth is somewhere between Fleischer and more modern thoughts. I may be mistaken, but I believe the fight Jacobs showed in the 60's was actually a reenactment of the actual fight (of which very little actually remains). What the people may have been laughing at was nothing more than the fact that the actors (Fitzsimmons and Corbett), in the reenactment, were not good actors. In fact, many of the very early boxing films are reenactments, and not the actual fights.
Click to expand...

It wasn't. I've copied and pasted the article before. He showed them the Fitz-Corbett fight.

Dubblechin, Dec 22, 2020

#45

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 3 of 4