Please note that the purpose of this post is to categorically refute the misrepresentations contained in the review of our book "Joe Gans: A Biography of the first African American World Boxing Champion" in the July, 2009 issue of the The Ring magazine. This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected
From private messages sent to me: The Ring review of our biography of Joe Gans doesn't come out until June 2, July issue. I'm trying to soften the blow, and hope readers don't take it to heart. We were apparently trashed SOLELY because we criticized Nat Fleischer, founder of Ring magazine. Good grief, NF has been dead since 72. Apparently, he is still GOD of the Ring! The reviewer ABSURDLY rants that we say Fleischer "single-handedly" destroyed Gans' legacy. That we call him "racist," etc.,etc.. And that we are too "politically correct." I don't think it was out of "political correctness" that we pointed out that during Gans' reign he had to enter the ropes for the express purpose of going at a white man, at the same time every 3 days a black man was hung or burned at the stake in America. Strange, we didn't even talk that much about N. F. Here are our few and final words in the book about him: p. 240: "Nat Fleischer, as noted, embraced the racist attitudes of his day to some degree, but this did not prevent him from acknowledging the greatness of black fighters. In the late sixties, having had time to see fighters up until Muhammad Ali's day, he picked blacks as the greatest fighters in several divisions, including heavyweight, welterweight, and lightweight. Jack Johnson was his pick at heavyweight, Barbados Joe Walcott at welterweight, and Joe Gans at lightweight." Now, does the above sound like maniac "passion" against NF? Anyway, it was the most unprofessional review--simply a BLOG-- in defense of NF. THe reviewer says nothing about our research on Joe Gans. Obviously, he is no historian or he would know that boxing historians give little credit to F, and that we were actually KIND to him. We stand behind our research where NF is CLEARLY WRONG. We hope this trash put out by The Ring doesn't continue to bury Gans' remarkable legacy. Was that their motive? I don't know, it is all so strange.
I subscribe to Ring Mag, I read the review. The review would not dissuade me from reading the book but I think you are too sensitive concerning their review. Their review was fair and pointed out the journalist who reviewed the books pet peeve with your book. Don't be so sensitive about things. The Ring has always gave gans his just due. Don't try to infer just because someone had negative things to say about a book you wrote, that they are trying to trash Gans' memory. That's just untrue.
Am looking forward to reading your book Colleen, one question though, why is it so expensive compared to other booking bios?
I havent read the book so have no comment on it . I have a comment on "Nat Fleischer embraced the racist attitudes of his day " . Fleischer ,then a boxing reporter ,started publication of The Ring in Feb1922. Fleischer made the first serious effort to collate accurate records of fighters,to which we should all be grateful. Fleischer far from accepting the racism in boxing ,crusaded against it. In only the third issue of the Ring there was a ,leading article which contained these words. "It seems only just that prejudices be eliminated in every clean sport,and that if boxing is to hold its place in the field of athletic activites,discrimination must not be countenanced". Fleischer led a campaign to get Harry Wills a title shot ,and wrote several editorials demanding the match. He risked financial ruin to do so in the face of the racism of the times. Fleischer was also a very close personal friend of Jack Johnson to aver that Fleischer was in any way racist ,or went along with racism is not only incorrect ,but a slur on his name.
I agree with the previous replies. I am no fan of Fleischer but to call him a racist is ridiculous. The guy was a staunch defender of minorities in the sport of boxing.
Fleischer could be viewed as a minority since he was Jewish. While Fleischer was biased to fighters he was fond of, and lacked careful research in a micro sense, he was one of boxing's most important historians and certainly not a racists. When Fleischer passed, his son in law Mr. Loubet took over Ring Magazine. I'm not sure how many people at Ring Magazine today knew Fleischer or Loubet, but these two men were the founders of Ring Magazine. Any jab at them in-directly or directly might lead to a negative book review.
