Fleisher badmouthing recent heavyweights (RING, 1962)

Who do you think he left out?

 

He would have been looking at Patterson and Johansen swapping the title when he wrote this, so perhaps he was not a million miles off the mark?

 

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

[url]Floyd Patterson[/url], Champion

1. [url]Ingemar Johansson[/url]
2. [url]Nino Valdes[/url]
3. [url]Zora Folley[/url]
4. [url]Henry Cooper[/url]
5. [url]Willie Pastrano[/url]
6. [url]Archie Moore[/url]
7. [url]Eddie Machen[/url]
8. [url]Brian London[/url]
9. [url]Sonny Liston[/url]
10. [url]Mike DeJohn[/url]

1959

[url]Ingemar Johansson[/url], Champion

1. [url]Zora Folley[/url]
2. [url]Floyd Patterson[/url]
3. [url]Sonny Liston[/url]
4. [url]Henry Cooper[/url]
5. [url]Eddie Machen[/url]
6. [url]Billy Hunter[/url]
7. [url]Roy Harris[/url]
8. [url]Mike DeJohn[/url]
9. [url]Joe Erskine[/url]
10. [url]Alex Miteff[/url]

1960
[url]Floyd Patterson[/url], Champion

1. [url]Sonny Liston[/url]
2. [url]Ingemar Johansson[/url]
3. [url]Eddie Machen[/url]
4. [url]Zora Folley[/url]
5. [url]Henry Cooper[/url]
6. [url]Mike DeJohn[/url]
7. [url]Robert Cleroux[/url]
8. [url]Alex Miteff[/url]
9. [url]Dick Richardson[/url]

1961

[url]Floyd Patterson[/url], Champion

1. [url]Sonny Liston[/url]
2. [url]Eddie Machen[/url]
3. [url]Zora Folley[/url]
4. [url]Alejandro Lavorante[/url]
5. [url]Robert Cleroux[/url]
6. [url]Ingemar Johansson[/url]
7. [url]Cleveland Williams[/url]
8. [url]Henry Cooper[/url]
9. [url]Cassius Clay[/url]
10. [url]George Logan[/url]

1962

[url]Sonny Liston[/url], Champion

1. [url]Floyd Patterson[/url]
2. [url]Cassius Clay[/url]
3. [url]Doug Jones[/url]
4. [url]Ingemar Johansson[/url]
5. [url]Zora Folley[/url]
6. [url]Cleveland Williams[/url]
7. [url]Robert Cleroux[/url]
8. [url]Billy Daniels[/url]
9. [url]Archie Moore[/url]
10. [url]Henry Cooper[/url]

 

I highly recommend Nat's article after Ali vs Frazier 1! The cat claws are out, and he has some points. Heck here it is below:

[url]

This content is protected

[/url]

As I have had it listed in The Ring Record Book for some years, my all-time rating of heavyweights is as follows: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis, 7. Sam Langford, 8. Gene Tunney, 9. Max Schmeling, 10. Rocky Marciano.

*** Listed in 1971 ***

I started the annual ranking of heavyweights in the 1953 with only six listed: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis.

In later years I found it necessary to expand the ratings in all classes to top 10, with these top listings: heavyweights, Jack Johnson; light heavies, Kid McCoy; middleweights, Stan Ketchel; welters, Joe Walcott; lightweights, Joe Gans; feathers, Terry McGovern; bantams, George Dixon; flyweights, Jimmy Wilde.

For some time now I have been under great pressure from some readers of The Ring magazine and of The Ring Record Book, as well, to revise my ratings, especially in the heavyweight division.

Here is a strange facet to this pressure move. It has concerned, chiefly, Cassius Clay.

Never before in the history of the ratings did I find myself pressured to revise the listing of a heavyweight, right on top of a defeat.

There was considerable pressure to include Clay among the Top 10 during his 3 1/2-year interlude of inactivity.

But the campaign became stronger after Clay had returned with knockout victories over Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena. The demand on behalf of Clay became strongest after he had been beaten by world champion Joe Frazier in a 15-round contest that saw Cassius decked in the final heat.

Clay's fight with Frazier left thousands of his admirers, who had seen the contest over television, protesting that Clay had won and that the unanimous decision of referee Arthur Mercante and judges Artie Aidala and Bill Recht, was a hoax, or worse.

Before we go any farther, let us dispose of this point. Frazier was declared the winner without a dissenting vote because he was the winner with unanimous force and unbiased conviction.

Clay never hurt Frazier. He messed up Joe's left eye and made it look as if there had been an indecisive result, or a definite verdict in favor of Clay. Clay's gloves reached Frazier more often than Frazier's punches reached Clay. But Cassius lacked force.

Clay was hurt, especially in the 11th and 15th rounds. Clay came near being knocked out in the play-acting 11th. Clay's constant retreat to the ropes was the tipoff on the fight.

I sat in the first press row in the Garden and emphatically saw Clay beaten. However, we have thousands of Clay backers insisting that he had established himself as one of the all time Top 10.

I did not regard Ali as a member of the leading 10 before he got into his argument with the Federal Courts. I did not see, in the Clay record as it stood after his seven-round knockout of Zora Folley in New York on March 22, 1967, any reason for my revising the heavyweight listing to include Cassius among the all-time 10. Nor did the Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier fights impress me to the point at which I found myself considering ousting one of my Great 10 to make room for Clay.

Suppose I suffered an aberration and decided to include Clay among the top 10. This would mean ousting Marciano to make room for Ali as my all-time number l0. That would be farcical. Clay never could have beaten Marciano. Clay's record is not the superior of the one the tragic Rocky left behind him when he retired from boxing unbeaten.

I even had something to do with Clay's winning the Olympic light heavyweight championship in Rome in 1960. I spotted him for a likely Gold Medal, but I did not like the way he was training--or rather, not training. Cassius was entertaining the gals of the Italian capital, with gags and harmonica playing, and forgetting what he had been entered for.

I gave him a lecture and a warning. Maybe it had something to do with his victory. Maybe he would have won just the same. But I doubt if my talk did any harm.

After Cassius had won the title I felt that we had another Floyd Patterson in the making. He did not have Patterson's speed of hands at that time, but he had more speed of foot. And more animation, which, of course, is an understatement. Floyd never has been a paragon of vivacity.

As Clay left the Olympic ring a champion, I saw him growing fast into a heavyweight. And I treated myself to a dream. I said to myself, "This kid could go far. It all depends on his attitude, his ability to tackle his job earnestly and seriously. Some of his laughter could be a real asset." Ultimately it was.

Neither animus nor bias, neither bigotry nor misjudgment, can be cited against me in my relations with Cassius Clay. After he had been found guilty of a felony by a Federal jury in Houston, and Judge Joe Ingraham had sentenced Ali to five years in a penitentiary and a fine of $10,000, there was a rush to take the title from the draft-refusing champion.

The Ring magazine refused to join in the campaign against Clay, a stand now thoroughly vindicated. The Ring insisted that Cassius was entitled to his day in court, and that his title could be taken from him only if he lost it in the ring, or he retired from boxing, as Marciano, Tunney, and Jeffries had done before him.

Pressure on The Ring was tremendous. But this magazine would not recede one iota from its never relaxed policy of fighting for Law and Order.

Only when Muhammad Ali announced that he would fight no more and asked permission to give The Ring world championship belt to the winner of the Frazier-Jimmy Ellis fight, did The Ring declare the title vacated and drop Clay from the ratings.

With Clay's return to the ring, The Ring revived his rating among the top 10 heavyweights. Not until Frazier knocked out Ellis in five rounds did The Ring allocate the vacant world title to Joe.

I do not mean to derogate Clay as a boxer. I am thoroughly cognizant of every fistic attribute he throws into the arena, every impressive quality he displayed on his way to the title and in fighting off the challenges of Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo, Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenberger, Cleveland Williams, Ernie Terrell, and Zora Folley.

When Ali went into his 3 1/2-year retirement, he had not yet achieved his personal crest. Nor did the fights with Quarry, Bonavena and Frazier, which marked his return to action, send him any farther in the direction of fulfillment of claims of his loyal supporters.

The way Cassius Clay stands, he does not qualify for rating with the greatest heavyweights of all time. Nor, the way the future shapes up for him, is he likely to qualify. Now his hands are quick. His footwork is quick. His punch is not the type that is calculated to stop a man forthwith, no matter what he did to Sonny Liston in their second encounter, at Lewiston, Maine.

Cassius has got to wear down his opponent. He has got to flick his glove into the eyes of the opposition, the way he did against Frazier. He has a style all his own. But its sui generis quality does not make him one of the top 10.

I want to give credit to Clay for punching boxing out of the doldrums into which it fell with the rise of Liston to the championship. Liston could not get a license in New York. Liston had a bad personal record. Liston was emphatically not good for boxing. Into the midst of this title situation came the effervescent kid from Louisville, favored by conditions, by his potential, by his personality and his clean personal record.

The situation called for a Clay and, fortunately, the situation was favored with one. He was the counterpart, in boxing, of Babe Ruth in baseball, after the Black Sox Scandal.

Through superior punching power, Frazier is Clay's current better as a ringster. But Frazier has yet to develop the overall influence that Clay exercised. Nor does it appear likely that Joe will ever be to boxing what Cassius was when he became the world champion and when he stirred up world boxing with his exploits against the best opposition available pending the development of Frazier, another Olympic hero.

I have the utmost admiration for Cassius Clay as a ring technician. Certainly not for his attitude toward the United States and its armed forces. Of that mess he is legally clear.

I do not see Cassius Clay as a candidate for a place among the top 10 heavyweights. Nor may Frazier, his conqueror, eventually force me to revise my all-time heavyweight ratings.

[url]http://www.thering-online.com/ringpages ... story.html[/url]

 

Nat wouldn't have dared badmouth his one and only Lil' Artha.

 

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.

 

I don't think that is strictly what he is saying.

The pre Dempsey champions who Fleischer would have seen as being a class above those who came after them, are Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries and Johnson, but probably not Hart Burns and Willard.

The part that we would see as contentions is not so much his high ranking of Jeffris, Johnson and Dempsey, but that he put Corbett and Fitzsimmons in the same general category as them.

 

Why keep bringing up Burns? Nat obviously isn't talking about Burns.

And he did rate Schmeling, his top 10 was
1 - Jack Johnson
2 - James J. Jeffries
3 - Bob Fitzsimmons
4 - Jack Dempsey
5 - James J. Corbett
6 - Joe Louis
7 - Sam Langford
8 - Gene Tunney
9 - Max Schmeling
10- Rocky Marciano

 

We have a winner. Right on the mark.

 

I have to say, I like with these older historians etc. is they have their opinion and put it out there. Now I feel a lot of people's opinion is so informed by the general consenus on forums etc. that hardly anyone tends to stray too far from the cannonised opinions and ratings, maybe just swapping a few about, or sticking one or two guys higher or lower.

I posted a clip from a magazine from 1939 not long ago where they asked boxers who was the greatest ever was, and they all had different opinions
Jack Dempsey said James J Corbett
Joe Louis said Jack Dempsey
Gene Tunney said Bob Fitzsimmons
Benny Leonard said Harry Greb
and Tony Galento said Tony Galento

The forums are great for finding stuff out, but it's silly to call people con men or idiots or whatever for disagreeing with a consensus formed decades later (that people like Nat probably influenced significantly).

 

Every era has its own ideology and received wisdom.

Look at the way that Fleischer's opinion riles and threatens so many!