Nat Fleischer's Top 10 Heavyweights

What whooping on Sonny Liston? A few "pitty pat" punches...and the heavyweight champ QUITS while sitting on his stool That GREAT Sonny Liston?...the one who took a DIVE up in Maine in May 1965...that GREAT Sonny Liston?

 

Hey homophobe ( @swagdelfadeel see this is what one looks like fruitcake) can I ask you a sincere question? Are you here to just join the HW circle jerk or do you like the little guys? (Below 147lbs) Otherwise, it's the block list for you.

 

Great Sonny Liston who couldn't catch Machen and nearly fouled out? Who had multiple guys say (check me on this) there eyes hurt BEFORE Ali? Sonny Liston whose greatest feat is just about shared by Ingo the forum joke. Oh that guy? I I'm pretty sure he beat the GREAT and UNDERRATED Teacup ****ing "big Pec" Williams. Sonny Liston the philosopher who bossed 19 year old destroyer George Foreman in sparring? MAAAAAAN he was quite the demi God.

 

out of this group, Louis seems the most well rounded.

I'd throw out Langford and Corbett because they were just too small. Maybe at light heavy but not heavyweight

Schmeling just doesn't belong there. Very ordinary fighter

But this was 1963

A revised 1972 ranking might have Louis ranked higher because of his more proven record and Ali should be in there. Based on the ability I've seen, Ali would be ahead of Tunney, Schmeling, Corbett, Langford, Fitz.

No less than #5

 

Not to gas up Langford, as if he needs it, or play into the mythical nature some people give fighters like him. But if any man was going to fight above his weight class and put up a (at the least) modest fight it was Langford. But I think Langford could traverse weight classes in a way only a handful of men can.

Can't name another man who stands 5' 7 and gives such large men trouble. Langford could fight giants (relative to him).

 

I gotta say I would just take Nat's picks with a grain of salt. That is far more gracious than I said about those picks when I was like 17. Oh, man, I used to rail on about how stupid they were. I grew up listening to other older 'fight fans' go on about 'the fighters in my day'. Of course that's when I would roll my eyes and swear that I will never become a 'fighters in my day' kind of fan. But I have softened my approach to Nat's picks because I've come to realize that as fight fans, we all have our favorites/idols/heroes. And all those turn of the 20th century fighters you see in Nat's picks, were his. It's just that he had a forum to broadcast it and many took his opinion as gospel. It would drive me crazy when I would hear someone lauding some old writer by saying, "Well, he's seen them all." That means Jack if you're not going to take off the rose-colored specs. Nat lived to 1972, which means he saw FOTC. I used to say, how could anyone watch that fight and still say 167 lb. Bob Fitzsimmons was the #3 heavyweight of all time and Ali and Frazier was nowhere in sight. But people's opinions get deep-rooted like ticks and they just don't allow themselves to see or progress. As for me, like Nat with his favoring the turn of the century fighters, I must admit that my lists are quite littered with '70s fighters. I have older and newer fighters strewn in, but I do have a bulk of the '70s in there when I became a fan. But I will never sit there talking about the fighters in my day while ignoring what is going on in front of me. I still marvel at the talent of Chocolatito Gonzalez and practically applauded the performance of Jesse Rodriguez against Wangek, or keeping an eye on hot prospects like Ryan Garcia. And I think that is the issue. You have to keep going forward in this business and keep an open mind.

 

I saw a list on twitter of the ten greatest quarterbacks of all time and Tom Brady wasn't on the list. This list is in the same category. I can name five fighters off the top of my head who would be even money, if not favorites among oddsmakers against every name on that list.

 

It is just unnecessary to make him out to be anything more than a contender, he likely wouldn't have won the championship during his career with the title holders at the time. He was a hard hitter, but I don't know if I'd consider him a big puncher like Foreman.

*Sonny Liston's nose argument*

I think the truth of Cleveland Williams is more than respectable, he did well for himself and put in the work, and returned after an injury that would end almost any one else career and cripple them as well probably... this is where the physique (yes he is so hot and so shredded) comes in. Doctors thought hat his muscle was so dense it is could be attributed to be what allowed a return to boxing possible, absorbing the initial energy of the bullet and reducing it enough to maim him instead cripple.

Not everyone can be champion, and often I rate mainstay contenders of an era just as well as a champion sometimes. But not in this case lol.

 

The Big Cat won four fights prior

Three rounds, friend. He also won four bouts leading up to his bout with Ali and five bouts after it

 

I confused 7 minutes and 7 rounds, and right! his resume itself was successful following his return. certainly admirable.

 

yes it is the fact Liston put so little resistance in Ali fights . surrender easy before actual chance of getting "" whooping '

 

I believe I read once that Nat Fleischer had Tommy Burns and Tom Sharkey in his top ten at one point in time. I also find that very interesting. I cannot bring myself to argue very strongly with the opinions of someone who may have seen most of these boxers live. I have different opinions than Nat Fleischer had, but I respect him, and I prefer to just leave it at that.

 

Fleischer knew vastly more about boxing than I do. I often make fun of the guy, but it's just a fact. And he'd seen a lot of these guys live.

The major takeaway from this list, IMO, is how completely subjective boxing rankings are. Different generations value different things. Different knowledgeable people value different things. I wouldn't be surprised if the Reddit Boxing Hivemind has a different consensus top 10 from the BF24 Hivemind. Heck, consensus from General is probably very different from Classic. Or pick your boxing forum. That's just the way it is.

 

These lists are subjective but there is broad commonality between most published lists.

 

Over time, though?

Might also just be groupthink. It's not as if there's a Big Book Of Correct Criteria For Ranking Boxers inscribed in the stars somewhere. You can point out inconsistencies in people's lists, but if they're consistent, how is "greatest boxer" not a question of taste like "greatest ice cream flavor"?