Because he was one of the few who saw virtually all of the major HWs from the early 20th Century, his opinions carry a lot of weight. I appreciate his exprience, but having followed various opinions from him over the years, I think his perspective is overvalued. He struck me as a romantic, just like Sugar and the rest of those guys.
I completely agree with teh second paragraph. His opinion does NOT carry a lot of weight for me but I do acknowledge all the fights he has seen. Just seeing a lot of fights doesn't mean you have the insight, impartiality, etc. to make great analysis. There are fighters out there as analysts who have lots of experience but lack in others and make sketchy judgments (according the fans - for me, Foreman was one of my favorites but he is just an example). Same goes for Nat Fleischer. He definitely had an agenda that skewed his analysis. I am also not sure how pleased I am with his tampering of Clay-Liston II as he was not a time keeper, a judge, or a ref.
Nat is the godfather. Didn't like his piece on Ali in 1971, available on the Ring website. Very ivory tower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Fleischer He's seen most if not all champions from 1905 on, but beware, his judgement becomes extremely poor when he compares fighters from the post-30's to those before.
As others have said he tends to favour fighters from earlier periods. It must be stresed however that he brings a unique and valuable perspective to the table. He also provides a thread of continuity.
I find it shameful that Fleischer never had the opportunity to rate an all time great like Chuck Wepner.
One thing that you must give Fleischer credit for whatever you think of him is being even handed between black and white in an era when it wasnt fashionable. It is down to him in no small part that great black fighters in the lower weight classes, from the early 20th century, like Barbados Joe Walcott were legends later on.
Exactly. It's a baby and bathwater situation. You don't want to dismiss Nat completely, yet you must avoid ever using his opinion to say Fighter A is better than Fighter B. He's great for detail of the respective older eras, but qualitative assessments of fighters are best made without his opinion, IMO.
Excellent point. He was a huge fan of Jack Johnson, which at least provided a little counter-information to the mainstream opinions of him. If nothing else, Geoffrey Ward leans on him a bit in the excellent Unforgivable Blackness.
Fleischer was also a very bitter and petty man who held a grudge well, and although he made The Ring very influential, but he also help ruin it. I guess the old saying is true: Total power corrupts, totally.