Best and worst boxing historians...

A poll is not quite the same thing as what I meant in my post. The point is absolute majority of professional historians don't compile such ratings on their own, they don't try to argue with one another in their dissertations or historical periodicals, etc. They have more important things to do.

 

To me Fleischer's 1958 ratings represent the "everything was better when I was young and vital" fallacy which almost everyone makes if they get old enough.

 

IMO Adam Pollack is a great historian because his books are well researched, his assertions are well-documented and he will never be accused of wasting ink speculating about what a given fighter was really like, or even giving you a great deal of background into what their life was like outside of the ring. His books (so far) read like textbooks, which is what historians write. Some of the other guys are like novelists.

 

There has been a concentration on Fleischer's heavyweight ratings. Here are his top two in the other divisions, reprinted from the Ring Record Book of 1976. These were his final ratings, and reflected the sixties (Jofre was #4 at bantamweight)*

Heavyweight
1. Jack Johnson
2. Jim Jeffries

Lightheavyweight
1. Kid McCoy
2. Phil Jack O'Brien

Middleweight
1. Stanley Ketchel
2. Tommy Ryan

Welterweight
1. Barbados Joe Walcott
2. Mysterious Billy Smith

Lightweight
1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard

Featherweight
1. Terry McGovern
2. Jem Driscoll

Bantamweight
1. George Dixon
2. Pete Herman

Flyweight
1. Jimmy Wilde
2. Pancho Villa

Luckily for Wilde, the flyweight class was not active in the 1890 to 1910 era.

All the top men from heavy to bantam come from the 1890 to 1910 era.
Few men are rated from the 1930 to 1970 era. Pep is #4 at feather.
Jofre #4 at bantam. Robinson #5 at Welter. Louis #6 at heavy. Armstrong #8 at welter. Marciano #10 at heavy. Archie Moore, Billy Conn, Harold Johnson, Ezzard Charles, Dick Tiger, Emile Griffith, Kid Gavilan, Ike Williams, Carlos Ortiz, and Sandy Saddler do not crack the top ten in their weight divisions.

*If there is demand for it, I will reprint the entire top tens.

 

OLD FOGEY, i think you should post his entire top 10's or old Nat. But bottom line is he was very biased. Louis is far better then Fitz or Corbett

 

Has anyone mentioned Dr. Z in their worst list yet?*








* or best? :yikes

 

What Fleischer brought to boxing was the interest and enthusiasm of a buff who would always be absorbed in the sport through thick and thin. The same goes for the Bert Sugars and Max Kellermans. When former fans like myself are turned off to boxing for various reasons, they remain as lingering advocates helping to keep boxing on life-support, until or unless it recovers from lean times again. (I was absolutely a fair weather fan.)

As Thad Spencer points out, the argument could be made that they all suck. The ones who rise above the crowd are either well-connected, have a flamboyant or articulate turn-of-the-phrase, or both.

I don't consider Fleischer or Sugar to be the worst, merely the most prominent, as predictably demonstrated by the tide of this thread. While it's easy to criticize, I'd be interested in seeing the challenge of naming some good boxing historians met. I expect that anybody who's known to the posters here will have their detractors, but who would have the fewest?

For example, how do the rest of you regard Harry Carpenter, Jimmy Jacobs, Bill Cayton, Mike Tyson (who had access to the Jacobs/Cayton film library while growing up), or any number who might actually be contemplated in a positive as well as negative light?

 

Fleischer's top tens--heavies already posted elsewhere
Lightheavyweights:
1. Kid McCoy
2. Phil Jack O'Brien
3. Jack Dillon
4. Tommy Loughran
5. Jack Root
6. Battling Levinsky
7. Georges Carpentier
8. Tommy Gibbons
9. Jack Delaney
10. Paul Berlenbach

Middleweights:
1. Stanley Ketchel
2. Tommy Ryan
3. Harry Greb
4. Mickey Walker
5. Sugar Ray Robinson
6. Frank Klaus
7. Billy Papke
8. Les Darcy
9. Mike Gibbons
10. Jeff Smith

Welterweights:
1. Barbados Joe Walcott
2. Mysterious Billy Smith
3. Jack Britton
4. Ted Kid Lewis
5. Dixie Kid
6. Harry Lewis
7. Willie Lewis
8. Henry Armstrong
9. Barney Ross
10. Jimmy McLarnin

Lightweight
1. Joe Gans
2. Benny Leonard
3. Owen Moran
4. Freddy Welsh
5. Battling Nelson
6. George Kid Lavigne
7. Tony Canzoneri
8. Willie Ritchie
9. Lew Tendler
10. Ad Wolgast

Featherweight
1. Terry McGovern
2. Jem Driscoll
3. Abe Attell
4. Willie Pep
5. Johnny Dundee
6. Young Griffo
7. Johnny Kilbane
8. Kid Chocolate
9. George K O Chaney
10. Louis Kid Kaplan

Bantamweight
1. George Dixon
2. Pete Herman
3. Kid Williams
4. Eder Jofre
5. Joe Lynch
6. Bud Taylor
7. Johnny Coulon
8. Frankie Burns
9. Eddie Campi
10. Panama Al Brown

Flyweight
1. Jimmy Wilde
2. Pancho Villa
3. Frankie Genero
4. Fidel La Barba
5. Benny Lynch
6. Elky Clark
7. Johnny Buff
8. Midget Wolgast
9. Peter Kane
10. Pascual Perez

 

Some inspired picks in there.

 

Such as Ad Wolgast over Ike Williams, Sammy Angott, or Carlos Ortiz?

Georges Carpentier and Paul Berlenbach over Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Jimmy Bivins, Billy Conn, or Harold Johnson? Why is Delaney such an inspired pick? He drank away his talent without accomplishing all that much.

Do you really think George KO Chaney deserves a higher rating than Sandy Saddler?

Where is Fighting Harada? Only man to defeat Jofre, but can't break the top ten at either fly or bantam.

Fleischer just rates the old timers, period. Old timers who are overlooked today get recognition, yes, but if you came after 1930, forget it. There is not one surprise pick of someone with an outstanding record who is usually overlooked (at least after 1930) such as Teddy Yarosz or Duilio Loi.

 

:good

 

Leaving Charles or conn out is simply noy justified

 

It just goes to show what a supreme fighter Jofre must have been for him to get a sniff of Fleishcer. Boxing Illustrated also did a 'best pound for pound' of last 20 years in 1979 and voted Eder as #1.