Nat Fleischer's Top 10 Heavyweights

You can come up with criteria for greatness. It would still be somewhat subjective but at least it would have the benefit of consistency and a way for viewers to evaluate it.

 

So if Ali was omitted because he wasn't enough of a puncher, why is Johnson, Corbett, and Tunney on there?

Nonsense based simply on that.

 

His list was understandably based on the times he lived through and the fighters he was able to study. I’m a little surprised that Louis and Marciano aren’t higher on his list, but there’s no law or rule which dictates where he can place them

 

To be fair Flescher HATED Liston and by extension Williams.

 

Agreed. I’ve seen his Top 10 rankings for all the original weight classes, and every single list favors guys who fought from around 1890-1910.

 

Fleischer's list often get's singled out because he is well known, but if you compare it to contemporary sportswriters of his age, it is more or less what you would expect it to be.

I see few points of consistency between said contemporaries, except that they all seemed to rate Jeffries, and have what we would today see as an inflated opinion of Corbett.

A few posters on this site, don't rate champions in such lists until they retire, or rate them conservatively until they do.

The same thing might have been happening back then.

We also have to be open to the possibility of a Tua figure in this timeline, who seemed to be the real deal, but didn't have much to show for it on paper.

I think that we also have to be open to the possibility, that the fighters on Fleischer's list, were better than we realize today.

At least the ones that he actually saw from ringside in a meaningful way.

 

The latest Ring ratings is infinitely better. It relies on the opinions of promoters, trainers, historians, and boxers.

 

Fleisher was an expert on the following fighters:

1.

This content is protected

2. Jim Jeffries,
3. Bob Fitzsimmons,
4.

This content is protected

5. James J. Corbett,
6.

This content is protected

7.

This content is protected

8.

This content is protected

9.

This content is protected

10.

This content is protected

This content is protected

If you think that anybody else should be on the list, then please make the case.

 

Ali,Frazier, Holmes, Foreman, Lewis, Liston, Holyfield, Tyson.

 

I know, it's wonderful.

 

No you couldn't. Certiainly not with 1972 or earlier fighters.

 

He's definitely worth looking into. I'm one of the last people to rate him highly I think, but I think he has a pretty strong resume, for his number of fights its a bit crazy.

It's certainly worth goinng through some next day reports.

 

No. Not in 1971 but Liston, Ali and Frazier belong on that list and Louis and Rocky were rated too low for that time. In 1972 Rocky's 49-0 meant a lot. Also the first five hws were before 1930. Did that mean we went 40 years with mediocre boxing?