Nat Fleischer: What's the deal ?

I think your position is right on.

I'm okay with Runyon giving his opinion on Wills' fighting ability if Wills got into the ring with Dempsey,

but his logic and historical judgment is so shaky it is laughable. Willard beat a fat, 37 year old Johnson who in turn a decade earlier had beaten greenish versions of Langford and McVea. Langford and McVea in turn had wins over Wills although later KO'd by him. So this is taken as proving Willard is apparently head and shoulders above Wills, even though he himself was old and fat and laid-off when Dempsey slaughtered him, and at the time of this writing hadn't won a fight in over five years.

Folks can take this logic for what it is worth, but I rate it on the same leval as judging Richard Vogt as clearly better than Jersey Joe Walcott because Vogt beat Schmeling who in turn had beaten Louis who in turn KO'd Walcott.

 

Some interesting defenses of Nat, who often seems to be treated quite harshly for his ratings etc.

As for Wills Vs Dempsey, I can't say who would win, but I think two things are obvious. 1. He deserved a shot 2. He was never going to get one

He was obviously an outstanding contender, but you can't blame Dempsey for not fighting him IMO. His championship was right around the height of the KKK, when they were one of the most powerfull organisations in America, and with what happened when Jack Johnson beat Jeffries, no one was ever going to let a black fighter get a shot at the title then. Wills really was contending at about the worst time, possibly the least likely time in history for a black fighter to get thier shot at the heavyweight title.

I think there's often the same trouble with fighter's rankings. A lot of them know each other, and are just far too involved, often a bit of distance is needed to really weigh things up.

 

IMO he was a salesman and idealistically promiscuous salesman who sold sensationalism I feel his historical standing in the boxing community has created a boxing godlike persona which in turn has caused the irrational thought processes of many boxing fans when it comes to perceptions

 

The KKK was NEVER the most powerful organization in America. And frankly that argument is beyond weak because Dempsey wasnt reserved to only fighting in the United States. Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and France to name just four countries made it clear they were open to staging the fight. As were several states in the Union where the KKK held little or no sway. Its all fine and good to pretend that in the 1920s America was a hotbead of racism but it completely ignores the fact that a full half century earlier the bloodiest war this nation has ever seen engulfed the country and the winning side was populated by people fighting against slavery. I know this is an oversimplification but lets get real. You can go back and read every single poll conducted for during Dempsey's reign overwhelmingly had Wills as the logical contender. That doesnt happen if its an unpopular notion that he be given a title shot. People who want to be apologists for Dempsey hide behind the myth that America was a racist nightmare in the 1920s. Its true PARTS of it were and that it was much less accepting but its also true that Wills was the accepted challenger by the VAST MAJORITY and it was believed by the VAST MAJORITY that he not only deserved a title shot but should be given one. Tex Rickard who protected his golden goose didnt have a problem promoting fights like Greb-Flowers or Berlenbach-Siki. He and his later defenders hid behind the race question but in reality the point was that Wills was FAR more threatening than anyone Dempsey faced as a champion and posed a very real threat to taking the title and that simply couldnt happen for those guys.

 

Another example of heavyweights rankings by Robert Edgren in Feb 1925. Subjective? Yes, but compare to The Ring's rankings where you just have a list of names with no explanation.
https://imgur.com/a/4A7cm

 

He's not the only one - Bert Sugar enjoyed a *grotesquely* inflated reputation for a man who quite possibly never made an original comment on boxing in his entire career.

 

I'll need to check it, but it's what I've heard about the KKK (from nonboxing sources), not the most, but extremely powerfull, and one of the most powerfull in America, supposodely 6 million members in the mid 20's. But you know about this period than me, so maybe I'm wrong.

I think a lot of the same issues would happen outside of the US, race riots etc. if he lost. People wanted to see Jeffries fight Johnson too, did people really want to see Wills get his shot (and respect him as a champ if he won), or did they only want it because they wanted to see Dempsey beat up the [racial slur].

 

Nat Fleischer should absolutely be respected today.

In an era where segregation was accepted in society, and the color bar stood in every sport, he fought the corner of the top black fighters of the era.

He was the future!

Unfortunately many people today overlook this, because they have just thrown their dolly out of the pram, because his top ten heavyweights did not include their favorite fighter!

 

Tell us how you really feel.

 

If the qualification for a writer giving an opinion of a boxers ability rests on having been in the ring with him then only
Paul Gallico who sparred with Dempsey and George Plimpton who sparred with Archie Moore would be qualified .
Quite frankly its a ludicrous statement.

 

I always felt with Bert Sugar that he was a guy who would never let the truth get in the way of a good story. I never considered him a historian but more of a boxing raconteur.

 

This content is protected

 

That's a fairly gentle way to put it - but what is a raconteur, really, if many of his stories are not true and none are his own?

 

Holy cow! I meant if WILLS got into the ring with Dempsey. Not Runyon. I'll edit my original post to make this clear. Always dangerous to use pronouns. Names are better.

 

Fleischer was fine for his time I think. He wrote a load of articles on boxing and helped publicise it through the magazine. I have been reading the Ring issues that came out in 1922 onwards and Fleischer was not afraid to voice his opinions on the fighters or the organisations (at least up until the early 1930's where I have gotten up to in my reading).

Is he a great writer? Probably not but he stood out as the best writer in the magazine at the time (with the exception of Hype Igoe, he was great but didn't write much for the Ring).

As for Dempsey ducking Wills, wasn't that just the way of the world for Heavyweight Champions? Jeffries didn't want to face Johnson in a world title fight, not sure about Corbett and Fitzsimmons with Peter Jackson but highly doubtful they would face him, even Jack Johnson didn't want to face black contenders when he was champion (for their lack of drawing ability).