Nat Fleischer: What's the deal ?

What Burt isn't telling you is that he graciously shared his popcorn with a kid at that McGovern-Palmer fight.

That kid grew up to be Nat Fleischer.

 

S, tain't no fun getting oooooooold.
Why, yesterday I gathered some strength and chased after some girl who passed my house. After a couple of blocks I caught up to her, but I forgot WHY....atsch

 

Why not say what you feel...... just pulling your chain, from what I have heard about him you ain't his only critic, you sure don't hold back when you get your ire up

 

Ring Magazine was a boxing publication for 50 years at the time of Nat Fleischer's death during 1972. That is quite an achievement despite the fact that Fleischer had quite a number of faults.

How many old newspapers on microfilm were available in libraries at the time that Fleischer was writing prolifically on the subject of boxing history? It may not be the right question to ask because Fleischer may not have had the time to do extensive research with so many things on his plate.

- Chuck Johnston



well the fact that these reports are available today means they were available then but as a previous poster stated there was no easy access like the internet provides, you actually had to travel large distances to scour old newspapers for the sources back then. Let's get this straight, Fleisher was by no means the first writer to mythologize about boxers....... I can't prove one way or the other but I guess even the great Pierce Egan did similar, they were trying to sell newspapers and magazines and there were no planes in Egan's day.

 

I sure wish Fleischer would have stayed out of the 1965 Ali-Liston fight.

 

If you look up newspapers who had major boxing experts on their staff, they often had a write-up covering the standing of boxers in each weight division some time in December, which could be taken as an annual ranking by that particular expert. That started many years before the Ring magazine was founded. And by experts I mean people who knew more about boxing than Fleischer ever did.

 

I have seen such lists, but there doesn’t seem to be anything systematic about them.

What Fleischer did was come up with an organised and consistent system, which persists to this day.

 

What Fleischer came up with leaves a lot of questions. At least these people I had in mind were not anonymous and explained their choices, plus they had a way to compensate accidental or unjust decisions, something I don't think the Ring could ever do.

 

I am not saying that Fleischer's ranking, or his methodology, were infalible.

What I am arguing for, is the historical importance of what he set in motion.