Nat Fleischer's Opinion Of The 1955 Marciano

So, let's see if I have got this right. When Fleischer critiques Marciano he is being perfectly fair; indeed he is seen as something of an oracle. But when he gives an opinion that Marciano is greater than Ali, he turns into a clueless racist?

 

Yes I agree. His missing was still effective aggression as it set his opponent into the retreat and set his own follow up shots.

The problem would be an opponent who could stand his ground or time him. Louis tried to stand his ground but was too old to fight fire with fire. Walcott and Moore tried to time him and found themselves unable to keep Rocky from coming at them.

Charles tried to outbox from range but his legs had slowed a bit by then.

There are a few question marks on how good a man Rocky could defeat, those question marks get bigger as the opponent gets bigger.

 

No I never called him a clueless racist so you don't have this right.

 

Ali did not "prove" to historians that he was worthy of ATG ranking until he came back to rewin the championship and then cemented it by gutting it out with Frazier in Manilla. So then after the fact and in retrospect looking at Ali's entire career of course his prime years are considered his best years. Great boxing ****ysts do not throw around the term "ATG". There are specific criteria we look for before we list a fighter among those who had proven themselves. As of 1972, the year of Fleischers death, he had not proven himself. Certainly if his title was not stripped and he were allowed to fight as champion by 1972 there would have been no doubt. He would have had 20 plus defenses by that time.

 

But was Ali ever better AFTER 1972 than when Nat had seen him?

A lot of Ali's biggest fans insist Ali was past prime when he beat George Foreman. If this is so, didn't Nat see the best version of Ali in a h2h sense?

 

This might just be the most arrogant thing I've ever read on here.

 

Quite.

 

He, like MOST ALL, boxing historians were patiently waiting to see if Ali demonstrated characteristics of an ATG champion. His comeback to beat a fighter considered unbeatable in Foreman and his life and death battle with Frazier were the deciding bouts. By 1972 he had a short championship career, lost four prime years and then lost to Frazier (and then later Norton). He then made really one of boxing histories great comebacks......beating Frazier, beating Norton, knocking out the undefeated champion Foreman and then as champion coming back to stop No 1 challenger Frazier in a bruising fight. THIS is the stuff that makes a great fighter an ATG champion.

 

So, Tunney beats a used up Dempsey and does virtually nothing else in the division... and he is an ATG heavyweight.

Clay/Ali beats Liston x2, Patterson, Chuvalo, Terrell, Cooper and Foley and he isn't.

But the clincher you repeat as that Tunney looks great. And I am assuming he looks better than Ali to you.

Nothing wrong with that logic.

 

Often it is the case that during fighters' careers, they get underrated, but then, reflecting back after their careers are over, experts realize they were a whole lot better than they gave them credit for being. Cf: Ali - who actually did not get as much credit as he deserved while he was champion, and only won over the skeptics over time. Marciano was the same.

On the other hand, some fighters are highly lauded during their careers, but then they suffer some losses at the tail end of their career and then they get a severe backlash and become underrated after their careers are over: CF Roy Jones, Jr. and Mike Tyson.

Some might say that some fighters' legends grow over time and they become overrated.

Point being is that perspectives are variable based on the time-frame that they are generated and the prism through which they are being generated.

 

I think the phrase 'silly old fart' was made for people like Fleischer regarding boxing after the 20s and greats like Louis and Ali

 

Yes legendary stuff. Ali added to his lagacy But his best years, Ali's best performances were exactly when Nat Fleicher saw him.

 

I am with you on this:good

 

Not a question of that however. He showed he was an ATG in the years after Nats death. Toughness and will to win are important ATG characteristics. If he had folded in Manila or lost to Foreman he would not be rated where he is today by any noted expert.

 

Nat's top 10 is antique but the guy saw much, still hard to gauge era to era