Best and worst boxing historians...

The crucial diference is that I can watch footage of all these fighters peak fights on high quality film and draw a verry definite conclusion of just how good your list is.

 

That was kind of my whole point though.

How exactly DID Fleischer rate these men? Was it head to head, or was it their overall legacies? If he rated them based on who he felt would win in a cross era matchup, then its a flawed list, because fantasy matchups are way too inconclusive to make ratings with such convictions.

 

In Fleischers defence McAuliffe did later claim that he had chosen Lavigne as his sucessor.

 

We have footage of Johnson & co as well. And if they were such supermen when they happened not to be filmed, then why is it that their records do not support this?

We can be objective about ring records and as such, Louis and Marciano are a lock for the top3 in '58 and Fleischer, if he was any decent unbiased boxing historian should've known, but he didn't, hence he is a poor historian.

Come on Janitor be real here. Everyone knows the list i posted (of Fleischer) is a terrible, terrible list. Do you honestly believe that he can memorize the minutes that he saw them up to FIFTY years later and still make an accurate assesement? I can barely remember a fight for a year, after that i start noticing a lot of differences between how i remembered it and how it really was when i rewatch it.

 

Another one I mentioned. Fleischer wrote that the 3rd fight between McAuliffe and Billy Myer had taken place on December 16, 1892. He didn't care to check the sources for the report of this fight. I don't think it was difficult to read about a fight that had taken place in Chicago, and newswire reports about which were printed by tens of newspapers around the US. Otherwise he would have found out it was on December 10. This doesn't stop him from writing details of the fight he didn't see and didn't check reports of:

On December 16 McAuliffe and Myer mixed again, this time in a six round bout at Chicago. This was announced as an exhibition but turned out to be a fast-stepping affair in which both seemed to be trying for a knockout. But McAuliffe's superiority was once more manifested. Although he had idled and lived softly for three months, the lightweight champion was still able to cut out an astonishingly swift pace, nor was Myer able to land effectually on him with his much-touted right hand wallop.
It may be that the Streator man thought he could even up for the disaster he suffered at New Orleans, but if this was the case, he erred grievously. McAuliffe not only outpointed, but outslugged him, and Myer was so close to being knocked out in the final session, that, at a signal from a police captain at the ringside, that sixth frame was cut to a little over a minute by a stroke of the gong, and the principals shook hands, with no decision rendered.

Last round was cut short?
According to most (different) accounts, the 2nd round was cut short to a little over one minute, not the last one.

A police captain at ringside gave signal to cut it short?
It was agreed before the contest that Matt Hogan, the official timekeeper, was to call a halt whenever a "knock-out" appeared imminent, and both parties were agreeable to that understanding.

The sixth round was all McAullife's and ended with Myer nearly stopped? This is what the next-day report says:
Sixth Round--Both went at it hammer and tongs and it was given and take. McAuliffe fought savagely and Myer went to meet him every time he came. Clinches were numerous and Rhyme was twice forced to part them. When time was called and the set-to over, neither man was marked in any way and both were fresh and looking for more.

There's a contradicting report also on the last round:
It was in the last round that matters became most interesting. The men rushed at each other and, getting by their guard in some way, crashed their heads together. McAuliffe's forehead puffed up under the jar, while Myer's left eye, which has been in bad shape since the New Orleans mill, was again cut open and the blood spurted out in a strea,. McAuliffe now rushed at the Streator man, and with neither of them strong it was give and take for a full fifteen seconds, the fighting being all at close range.
At the end of this time at a signal from the police time was called and the men shook hands. Both of Myer's eyes were black and the left badly cut, while McAuliffe's left eye was closed. The affair was declared a draw by Referee Rheims.
As can be seen, there's nothing like Myer being at the edge of a KO in either version of the 6th round. And the referee declared a decision, contrary to what Fleischer claims.

It was all McAuliffe's fight and swiftly fought?
Neither man made any special efforts in the first round, and neither was given an opportunity in the second. In the third, however, they started in for business and banged each other viciously. This was decidedly Myer's round. The fourth was somewhat in favor of McAuliffe, who forced his antagonist to the ropes and got in several hard blows on the stomach. The last three rounds were uneventful and neither man was any the worse for wear when time was called the last time.

another version:
In the first two rounds the honors were even, and in the third Myer had the best of the exchanges, bringing McAuliffe to the floor with a right hand side swing, although the champion was slipping when the blow was delivered, and so a knock-down could not be scored on it.

The same version also states it was announced that the rounds were to be of two minutes each.


Basically the reports contradict each other, but Fleischer's version of it paints a picture that is not supported by next-day reports, he gives details that are non-existant, and "forgets" to mention the ones that are significant. He didn't just care not to check up the date, he made up his own version of a report of this fight based on gossips or whatever, I don't know.

 

As strange as it sounds, Joe Louis reputation did not soar until long after he retired. Its true.

Historian John MacCallum who's ratings are below, conducted a survey of at least 12 historians. Flesicher was among them. The results were:


"Survey of Old-Timers" ( 1966? )
The Encyclopedia of World Boxing Champions , John D. McCallum (pp. 322-323)
1-Jim Jeffries
2-Jack Johnson
3-Bob Fitzsimmons
4-Jim Corbett
5-Jack Dempsey
6-John L. Sullivan
7-Gene Tunney
8-Joe Louis
9-Rocky Marciano
10-Muhammad Ali
While Ali is low, keep in mind this survey took place pre-exhile.

McCallum's ratings and vote is below:


John D. McCallum (1977)
Author of The Heavyweight Championship (1974), The Encyclopedia of World Boxing Champions (1975)



1-Jack Dempsey
2-Joe Louis
3-Jim Jeffries
4-Jack Johnson
5-Bob Fitzsimmons
6-Jim Corbett
7-John L. Sullivan
8-Gene Tunney
9-Rocky Marciano
10-Muhammad Ali

 

well luigi you may be right my memory may be going,but i've seen the cerdan v zale film and i just have a picture of cerdan giving zale a severe shellaking against the ropes and zale though i think still on his feet being rendered virtually unconcious.it may have been the end of the round and maybe they retired him but if i remember rightly he was in no fit state to continue.

 

This is no excuse whatsoever for bad historic research though, on McCallum's part. Why can he rank Ali #10 when Ali has not retired yet but Louis only #8 (!!!) when Louis was retired for about 15 years?
Also i think he underrates Marciano. How did Fitzsimmons do enough at heavyweight to be ranked that high? Pound for pound, sure, but at heavyweight?

 

At the sound of the gong ending 11th round Zale remained upright for a second or two, then dropped into the arms of the referee. Ring announcer: "Tony Zale unable to come out for the twelfth round."

 

I simply don't see how a lot of these old school historians can rate Dempsey as high as #1 over Louis, when he defended his title only 6 times in 7 years, and failed to meet a mandatory.

Horribly biased revisionism if you ask me.

 

Ali being ranked as new champion is rare. As for why Louis and Marciano were lower while Fitzsimmons ( who McCallum did not vote for ) is higher is something the guys who voted need to explain.

Unfortunately they have all passed away. The only thing I can think of is Fitzimmons had to be a speical fighter to place that high. In the 1960's, Fitz wasn't that much lighter than some other champions.

Personally I don't see Fitz as a top 15 all time heavy, yet the consensus of the 12 + historians in the poll thought very highly of him as a top 5 guy as late as 1960. By 1960, the people who saw Fitz began to pass away.

 

I've read most of Monte Cox's articles, and I think he would be classified as a boxing historian. He always lays out the reasoning behind his ratings. He also spends a bit of time outlining where the IBRO stands regarding a premier fighter.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com

 

The worst historian (or perhaps my least favorite) is Bert Sugar. His rankings are highly questionable.