Nat Fleischer's Opinion Of The 1955 Marciano

My thoughts exactly.

As the old jazz musicians you to say, a bit of a draft in the room.

 

:deal "fool" might be too kind.

 

I knew Nat and had many conversations with him when I was a young man up in ring magazine. He had a vast knowledge of boxing but favored the fighters of his youth as supermen. The fact that he rates fighters like Fitz and Corbett in his top 10 and Johnson and Jeff so highly speaks volumes.

 

Nat saw both Ali and Marciano in their prime from the front row.

Nat was under a lot of pressure to drop recognition of Ali during his exile but he stood firm. Ali was champion in his eyes until Ali officially announced his retirement- and Nat WAS RIGHT.

Nat might not have supported Ali's politics but be was fairer than anyone else during Ali's exile.

 

Nat was no racist if this is what some are implying. Ring under his guidance continued Ali as the worlds hwt champion right up to his "retirement" in 1970. Nat wrote extensively and glowingly of the great black fighters of the past and named Johnson, the most hated of black hwts by the white masses as the greatest of all hwt champions. Nat was absolutely correct NOT including Ali as a top 10 hwt champion early 1971-1972. Ali was thought of as a fringe ATG at that time. He had a good but short reign as champion, lost the best years of his career and then lost to Frazier. (A brawler akin to Marciano) Had Nat lived another 3-4 years I am sure he would have put Ali in his top ten. It was not until Ali's wins over Foreman and then Frazier in Manilia that he earased all doubts as to his ATG abilities.

 

Yes I absolutely agree. I just see it remarkable that those that saw Ali before the exile saw the best version of him in a head to head sense. And yet, even back then, Ali at his zenith, this version was considered no match for Marciano.

 

Good point. Although I do think Marciano would've given Ali his toughest fight, you would have to favor Ali, and not the other way around.

 

Yes Ali is the greater champion. We all agree. You do have to favour him against Rocky, but is this mass conclusion based on Ali's entire body of work as a whole?

Because if it is prime versus prime there has to be some value in what observers of both champions in their primes thought.

 

For me it's based on the late 60's version of Ali.

If my life depended on sending one fighter out there to beat a prime Ali, it would probably be Marciano.

 

One of the best articles I've ever read on boxing was A.J. Liebling's article in The New Yorker "Ahab and Nemesis" about Marciano vs Moore.

'The current Rocky is gauche and inaccurate, but besides being persistent he is a dreadfully severe hitter with either hand. The predominative nature of this asset has been well stated by Pierce Egan, the Edward Gibbon and Sir Thomas Malory of the old London prize ring, who was less preoccupied than Broun with ultimate implications. Writing in 1821 of a “milling cove” named Bill Neat, the Bristol Butcher, Egan said, “He possesses a requisite above all the art that teaching can achieve for any boxer; namely, one hit from his right hand, given in proper distance, can gain a victory; but three of them are positively enough to dispose of a giant.” '

'Merely by moving in all the time and punching continually, Marciano achieves the same strategic effect that Langford gained by finesse. '

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1955/10/08/ahab-and-nemesis

 

That's what people thought when they put together that ridiculous computer fight. If Marciano has a perfect record, then statistically he can't be beaten. The computer had him knocking Ali out, even though Ali had never been knocked out.

 

it was patently obvious reading the ring in those days that he thought boxing was better in his day.
Sadly the only thing I remember fleischer for is his role in the second Ali-Liston fight???

 

That computer stuff was utter cr@p.

But the observations from close spectators of the best versions of both champions should be given serious credit.

 

Completely fair.

We assume Rocky can hold his durability against anyone but the reality is exactly as Nat said.

This is why I now favour Demosey to turn the trick against him.

The thing about missing is true he did miss a lot, but it added to the aggression and tempo he set and usually led to a follow up punch landing.

The best big man he beat was Shkor so it takes a leap of imagination when pitting him against any big man in any top ten rankings ever.

 

The weird thing about Rocky was when he missed it rarely put him in a vulnerable position that could be fully exploited. Once missed Rocky was closer as well. So (stupid as it sounds) it awkwardly worked for him to miss since it put him into position.

His swing wrapped his own arm across his own face or he would be left facing the wrong way around meaning his opponent would have to hit him from behind to get any benefit from Rocky missing.