Nat Fleischer's Opinion Of The 1955 Marciano

Right. But in order to rate Ali for all time surely you do so with a specific level of actual ring performance in mind.

..from the 1960s

In fact 60s Ali had the Cooper and Banks wins already showing the "getting off the floor to win" quality. Chuvalo and Terrell showed incredible 15 round pace.


All that was left was for Ali to contribute was for him to prove even in decline he had enough to still be the leading heavyweight in another era after an exile. It meant losing and coming back to gain revenge. No improvement. Just perseverance.

The crest of Ali's prowess, the level of performance with which to use as "the Ali standard" was always from the 1960s.

 

You can make up anything in your head and that is what you are doing. Name all the boxing historians that rated Ali as a top ten ATG by 1972. If what you say is true you should find many. Nat was not alone in his assessment in fact it was the predominant thought.

 

What am I making up here? Nat Fleischer saw Ali at his best.

Nat saw Marciano at his best. Nat picks Marciano over Ali based on ring performance.

 

I agree. But at the point Hopkins beats Hiya you can't call him a great neither.

 

You are making things up in your head believing historians considered Ali an ATG by 1972. He was not considered any more than a fringe ATG at that time.

 

Just stop calling yourself a great historian lol.

 

Nat might have seen Ali at his physical best in the sixties, but by 1972 the only time Ali was faced with an opponent giving him all he could handle was Frazier I, and Ali lost (but proved his toughness in a way not seen before). It wasn't until late 1973 and beyond that Ali proved he had the fortitude to pull out a victory in a tough situation.

Though the sixties Ali's knockdowns against Banks and Cooper, as well as his struggle against Jones, made people question Ali's greatness rather than admire those victories as proof of his strengths.

The one monster Ali faced in the sixties was Liston, and we're skeptical about those fights to this day.

Ali may have been great in the sixties, but he proved it in the seventies.

 

The predominant thought of some old *ss white dinosaurs. I am shocked they would think so.

Anyone with even a casual knowledge of sport could see he was to be rated already above Tunney and also Jeffries and certainly Fitzsimmons. But old habits die hard, I guess.

 

I love the preference for the subjective "characteristics" to objective results. A convenient shield behind which to hide your bias.

The ranking of Fitzsimmons, Corbett and Tunney over Ali, even by that time, is horrendous and inexcusable.

 

^ I think you have Nats priorities wrong.

I think Nat cared more about being accurate, than being biased towards old fighters.

If he truly believed Ali was better than Fitzsimmon by 1971, he would say it. He, better than anyone else, would understand how it would make him look to make such a bad call.

 

That guy could write!

 

I think it is difficult to assess a man's ATG standing when he is still active. I will admit I dont rate, and struggle if asked about where to put a champion when he is still active. So yes, I would be just like Nat and possibly either keep Ali out of the top ten until his career had entirely played out to the end. By the sound if it he had him close to Rocky but would not drop Rocky from #10.

If he did live long enough I can imagine Nat would be forced to accept Ali's stature had improved, his impact on history was too obvious to ignore. Ali had later surpassed Nats previous conclusion that Clays record was not superior to Marciano.

But record and "who would beat who in the ring" are seperate and if asked he would revert to his initial belief based on seeing them fight live on their best nights.



. "Clay never could have beaten Marciano"- Nat Fleischer

 

That's totally true.