Nat Fleischer: What's the deal ?

I emphaticaly don't.

I think that the alternative permits much more insidious personal bias.

 

You have a great site and make solid points on this forum, but I don't see your argument here: Fleischer was a positive force for boxing imo. He campaigned for Wills to get a title shot.
He supported Ali as Champ when the alpha boys had stripped him.
Okay his ratings were neither foolproof or perfect, but they were better than what we had before him ie nothing.
I can't see how that can be argued against.:huh

 

I argued that the importance of the Ring magazine rankings the way they were printed is overrated. I'd prefer another kind of rankings that may be more subjective, but which considers the context of the bouts of the boxers that are being ranked, provides more details of these bouts. I'm not so well versed in post-1920 eras to know if any experts provided such kind of rankings or not, annually.

 

I have read that Dan Daniel was known for writing sports reports in rapid fashion.

When trying to find accurate information about Sam McVea, I noticed that the biographical sketch about McVea in Nat Fleischer's Black Dynamite, a multi-volume book series about black fighters in boxing history, contained a number of errors. For example, Fleischer wrote that McVea was born in Oxnard, California in the biographical sketch. As someone who lives in nearby Ventura, I knew that Oxnard wasn't founded until the late 1890s, over ten years after McVea could have been born. According to passport applications and passenger lists, McVea was born in "Welder," Texas. There is a small Texas town named Waelder in Gonzales County, where there were a substantial number of black and white residents whose last name was "McVea."

- Chuck Johnston

 

yes of course it is useful, great to see Ron Richards listed highly, he was one hell of a dangerous fighter, with his first ever punch against Archie Moore I hear he knocked Archie down, later Moore adopted an aboriginal bush diet and he reckoned it had a lot to do with his success as a fighter, that is the story anyway, personally I never tried witchetty grubs but I know they are very high in protein. Maybe I should go outside and pick one out of the dirt and try one

 

One interesting fact I found with McVea was that he was once the holder of the Australian World Heavyweight title, sad that african americans had to go fight overseas to get fair recognition, this title is not recognised by the USA but this title meant that the holder is the Australian champion, as was Sam Langford and Les Darcy and Dave Sands... from memory I am not sure if Joe Jeanette held this title but I think he did. What I do know is that Big Daddy Lucas Browne and other modern Australian heavyweight title holder are not remotely in the class of those guys I mentioned... and Ambrose Palmer was way better than the moderns too, boxing has declined down under sadly.

 

For boxing fans who lived those days it was darn useful to
know the results of fights that just occurred. There was a
VERY GOOD reason the Ring flourished those long ago days.
Whatever nitpicking todays holier than thou critics say against
The Ring writers of those days, the thousands of subscribers
of the Old Ring enjoyed the monthly edition of that Boxing Magazine and so did I...It is so darn easy to berate something like a magazine written decades and decades ago...Well I for one S, loved that magazine and some of the great boxing writers of
that long ago day....I cherished every edition of those magazines
which alas was taken from me by Hurricane Sandy...Those days in the 1930s'1940s there were thousands of pro fighters and Nat Fleischers staff would try to separate each fighter of each weight class in from the top to the bottom divisions. An impossible task
but his staff tried and the readers enjoyed this knowing full well it was not an exact science...

 

In my opinion Nat’s enduring legacy greatly exceeds his body of work when you examine it closely. I think many historians and fans have a love / hate relationship with him.

We love the fact that he was there first and saw many bouts live. Nat had access to first and second hand testimonials that have been taken to the grave, and he likely saw many fights that we can only dream about being found on film. The man lived a long time, and spent his life on boxing. He was also highly thought of a boxing judge.

Not for the bad. As a writer I find him somewhat bitter. At times Nat was not well researched, but as another poster pointed out, re-search was much harder back then. There was no internet, and fact checking and clerical errors were more common.

Overall he was positive for boxing though.

 

I think Ring Magazine rankings are generally good and tower above the corrupt alphabet politics.

My main issue is sometimes they do not downgrade a fighter due to age, and other times they are a little slow to promote a fast rising fighter.

 

Damon Runyon's rankings at the end of 1921:
112 pounds - http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1921-12-28/ed-1/seq-15/
118 pounds - http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1921-12-29/ed-1/seq-16/
126 pounds - http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1921-12-30/ed-1/seq-16/
130 pounds - http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1921-12-31/ed-1/seq-14/
135 pounds - http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1922-01-02/ed-1/seq-16/
147 pounds - http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1922-01-04/ed-1/seq-15/
160 pounds - http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1922-01-03/ed-1/seq-15/
175 pounds - http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1922-01-05/ed-1/seq-18/
heavyweights - http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026749/1922-01-06/ed-1/seq-17/

 

I just read Runyons article on the heavyweights there and I found his comments on Harry Wills very interesting, according To Runyon he is far from conviced Wills is the great fighter many have since claimed he was, the comment about a weak chin really is a bit of a worry for anyone claiming Dempsey avoided Wills cos he "knew"Will was infallibly unbeatable, fact is it was the early 1920's and no coloured fighter was ever going to get a title shot even if Wills was all some modern writers claim him to be.... I think this should put a lid on that subject.... I like the way Damon writes I must say, I haven't read much from him but so far so good.

 

Sam Langford would make anyone look weak chinned. Had Dempsey fought Sam 20 times, he'd probably have a few more KO losses as well. Wills' other KO defeats were very early and very late in his career, and the other was due to a broken wrist.

 

Runyon also said in that article that he didn't think Wills had improved and that was 1921:think
I've wondered about Wills commitment when things got tough,I know he was 37 when Paulino bombed him out but the Basque was never a puncher and Wills seems to surrender rather tamely, judging from the footage.
Runyon was not the first to say Wills lost his composure when he was hurt and he wouldn't be the last.The article also stated that Langford was well past his best.
Langford last ko'd Wills in1916, that same year McVey went the distance with Sam 4 times, from 10 up to20rds.Bill Tate went the ten rounds distance and the fight could have gone either way. Two nobodies , one 6-5-2 ,the other 21-5-2 went the distance too.:think

 

Runyon was also a close friend of Dempsey's and many credit him with helping to shape Dempsey's image as the roaring twenties hero down to giving him his nickname, so his opinion on Wills might be taken with a pinch of salt...

 

Runyon is a writer and news man who at times covered boxing. His points Wills are spot on. He got beaten by old Sam Langford, went 12 with Tate, and doesn't have a strong chin. By 1922 Runyon says Willis is not improving.

Its really a pity Dempsey didn't push for this fight where it could have been held. I'm pretty sure he would have KO'd Wills.

The rest of his comments on the division seem pretty good to me. In the early 1920's it was Dempsey on top, a flawed puncher in Wills, then slim pickings.