Nat Fleisher's Top 10 Heavyweights

Well, fella, it is not like you bring that much to the table.

Like I said, I'll try to ignore everything you post in the future.

If I ever forget, I'm certain you will remind me with a name-calling post.

 

Show me any list that has Charles in its top ten and I'll show you a list made by a muppet like yourself.
Bring much to the table? I've four current threads on this page alone.
WTF have you ever posted worth reading?

Now p*ss off.

 

Yes, some of those old timers probably were extremely biased but I'm sure some were sincere. I just think we should let them old timers lie they could be just as bad as the films show or a many times better. The only way I think we should rank them is on historical significance. If we go by the film it be unfair to them. If we go by just resume and word of mouth then its unfair to the new fighters. Besides it seems whenever someone tries to rank the old any other way especially h2h it just leads to disrespect those old timers just don't deserve. Just my two cents.

 

Jesus McVey, was that necessary? Fogey has been around here a long time and generally gets along with everyone. Sorry for poking my nose in something that's none of my business, but an apology may be in order here.

 

I'm responding to E.M .who needs to learn to read.

 

The problem is this: Every boxer, trainer or writer will, even if they live to be a hundred, always believe the boxers from their youth were the best, and that the present sucks. If you had seen them all from Sullivan to Louis, you would be convinced that Sullivan was the greatest heavyweight ever - and that Louis was nothing special. If you (like, for example, Arcel) grew up with Jack Dempsey, you would go to your grave believing he would have flattened all that came after him. It's simply how the human mind works.

 

E.M is Old Fogey.

 

That wouldn't necessary make them wrong though. Every generation thinks their's is the best like you said. Just as true now as it was then. Doesn't make them right it also doesn't make them wrong either.

 

Speaking of old men who grew up close to the turn of the century not always being unbiased, after Ali-Frazier 1 in 1971, Fleischer said neither Ali and Frazier qualified for the top 10 heavyweights all time, and he still had Jim Corbett at number six.

He was also still calling him Cassius, SEVEN YEARS after he'd changed his name.

Hell, he had Kid McCoy as the number-one light heavyweight of all time, and he hadn't fought since 1914. No light heavys better than the guy who retired in 1914?

Hmmmm?

Here's his explanation:

As I have had it listed in The Ring Record Book for some years, my all-time rating of heavyweights is as follows: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis, 7. Sam Langford, 8. Gene Tunney, 9. Max Schmeling, 10. Rocky Marciano.

I started the annual ranking of heavyweights in the 1953 with only six listed: 1. Jack Johnson, 2. Jim Jeffries, 3. Bob Fitzsimmons, 4. Jack Dempsey, 5. James J. Corbett, 6. Joe Louis.

In later years I found it necessary to expand the ratings in all classes to top 10, with these top listings: heavyweights, Jack Johnson; light heavies, Kid McCoy; middleweights, Stan Ketchel; welters, Joe Walcott; lightweights, Joe Gans; feathers, Terry McGovern; bantams, George Dixon; flyweights, Jimmy Wilde.

For some time now I have been under great pressure from some readers of The Ring magazine and of The Ring Record Book, as well, to revise my ratings, especially in the heavyweight division.

Here is a strange facet to this pressure move. It has concerned, chiefly, Cassius Clay.

Never before in the history of the ratings did I find myself pressured to revise the listing of a heavyweight, right on top of a defeat.

There was considerable pressure to include Clay among the Top 10 during his 3 1/2-year interlude of inactivity.

But the campaign became stronger after Clay had returned with knockout victories over Jerry Quarry and Oscar Bonavena. The demand on behalf of Clay became strongest after he had been beaten by world champion Joe Frazier in a 15-round contest that saw Cassius decked in the final heat.

Clay’s fight with Frazier left thousands of his admirers, who had seen the contest over television, protesting that Clay had won and that the unanimous decision of referee Arthur Mercante and judges Artie Aidala and Bill Recht, was a hoax, or worse.

Before we go any farther, let us dispose of this point. Frazier was declared the winner without a dissenting vote because he was the winner with unanimous force and unbiased conviction.

Clay never hurt Frazier. He messed up Joe’s left eye and made it look as if there had been an indecisive result, or a definite verdict in favor of Clay. Clay’s gloves reached Frazier more often than Frazier’s punches reached Clay. But Cassius lacked force.

Clay was hurt, especially in the 11th and 15th rounds. Clay came near being knocked out in the play-acting 11th. Clay’s constant retreat to the ropes was the tipoff on the fight.

I sat in the first press row in the Garden and emphatically saw Clay beaten. However, we have thousands of Clay backers insisting that he had established himself as one of the all time Top 10.

I did not regard Ali as a member of the leading 10 before he got into his argument with the Federal Courts. I did not see, in the Clay record as it stood after his seven-round knockout of Zora Folley in New York on March 22, 1967, any reason for my revising the heavyweight listing to include Cassius among the all-time 10. Nor did the Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier fights impress me to the point at which I found myself considering ousting one of my Great 10 to make room for Clay.

Suppose I suffered an aberration and decided to include Clay among the top 10. This would mean ousting Marciano to make room for Ali as my all-time number l0. That would be farcical. Clay never could have beaten Marciano. Clay’s record is not the superior of the one the tragic Rocky left behind him when he retired from boxing unbeaten.

I even had something to do with Clay’s winning the Olympic light heavyweight championship in Rome in 1960. I spotted him for a likely Gold Medal, but I did not like the way he was training–or rather, not training. Cassius was entertaining the gals of the Italian capital, with gags and harmonica playing, and forgetting what he had been entered for.

I gave him a lecture and a warning. Maybe it had something to do with his victory. Maybe he would have won just the same. But I doubt if my talk did any harm.

After Cassius had won the title I felt that we had another Floyd Patterson in the making. He did not have Patterson’s speed of hands at that time, but he had more speed of foot. And more animation, which, of course, is an understatement. Floyd never has been a paragon of vivacity.

As Clay left the Olympic ring a champion, I saw him growing fast into a heavyweight. And I treated myself to a dream. I said to myself, “This kid could go far. It all depends on his attitude, his ability to tackle his job earnestly and seriously. Some of his laughter could be a real asset.” Ultimately it was.

Neither animus nor bias, neither bigotry nor misjudgment, can be cited against me in my relations with Cassius Clay. After he had been found guilty of a felony by a Federal jury in Houston, and Judge Joe Ingraham had sentenced Ali to five years in a penitentiary and a fine of $10,000, there was a rush to take the title from the draft-refusing champion.

The Ring magazine refused to join in the campaign against Clay, a stand now thoroughly vindicated. The Ring insisted that Cassius was entitled to his day in court, and that his title could be taken from him only if he lost it in the ring, or he retired from boxing, as Marciano, Tunney, and Jeffries had done before him.

Pressure on The Ring was tremendous. But this magazine would not recede one iota from its never relaxed policy of fighting for Law and Order.

Only when Muhammad Ali announced that he would fight no more and asked permission to give The Ring world championship belt to the winner of the Frazier-Jimmy Ellis fight, did The Ring declare the title vacated and drop Clay from the ratings.

With Clay’s return to the ring, The Ring revived his rating among the top 10 heavyweights. Not until Frazier knocked out Ellis in five rounds did The Ring allocate the vacant world title to Joe.

I do not mean to derogate Clay as a boxer. I am thoroughly cognizant of every fistic attribute he throws into the arena, every impressive quality he displayed on his way to the title and in fighting off the challenges of Sonny Liston, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo, Henry Cooper, Brian London, Karl Mildenberger, Cleveland Williams, Ernie Terrell, and Zora Folley.

When Ali went into his 3 1/2-year retirement, he had not yet achieved his personal crest. Nor did the fights with Quarry, Bonavena and Frazier, which marked his return to action, send him any farther in the direction of fulfillment of claims of his loyal supporters.

The way Cassius Clay stands, he does not qualify for rating with the greatest heavyweights of all time. Nor, the way the future shapes up for him, is he likely to qualify. Now his hands are quick. His footwork is quick. His punch is not the type that is calculated to stop a man forthwith, no matter what he did to Sonny Liston in their second encounter, at Lewiston, Maine.

Cassius has got to wear down his opponent. He has got to flick his glove into the eyes of the opposition, the way he did against Frazier. He has a style all his own. But its sui generis quality does not make him one of the top 10.

I want to give credit to Clay for punching boxing out of the doldrums into which it fell with the rise of Liston to the championship. Liston could not get a license in New York. Liston had a bad personal record. Liston was emphatically not good for boxing. Into the midst of this title situation came the effervescent kid from Louisville, favored by conditions, by his potential, by his personality and his clean personal record.

The situation called for a Clay and, fortunately, the situation was favored with one. He was the counterpart, in boxing, of Babe Ruth in baseball, after the Black Sox Scandal.

Through superior punching power, Frazier is Clay’s current better as a ringster. But Frazier has yet to develop the overall influence that Clay exercised. Nor does it appear likely that Joe will ever be to boxing what Cassius was when he became the world champion and when he stirred up world boxing with his exploits against the best opposition available pending the development of Frazier, another Olympic hero.

I have the utmost admiration for Cassius Clay as a ring technician. Certainly not for his attitude toward the United States and its armed forces. Of that mess he is legally clear.

I do not see Cassius Clay as a candidate for a place among the top 10 heavyweights. Nor may Frazier, his conqueror, eventually force me to revise my all-time heavyweight ratings.

 

"WFT have you ever posted worth reading?"

It is best then that you do not waste your time either reading or responding to my posts.

 

Pure bias right there.

 

There's definitely a pattern in the ratings of Nat Fleischer.

McCoy's last fight was in 1914. Ketchel's last fight was in 1910. Walcott's in 1911. Gans in 1909. McGovern in 1908. Dixon in 1906.

The "best" were always guys that there wasn't any film on so nobody could debate him, until Jacobs came around near the end of Fleischer's life, after Nat had already spent a half-century "spinning" tales of these guys.

Maybe he was Bert Sugar's dad?

 

He denies his bias but makes constant references to things like Muhammad Ali's disregard for the U.S. military and stuff like that.. As if THAT has anything to do with what a man does in the ring.. He said after Frazier beat Ali that Joe would never likely make his top 10, even though he was still the unbeaten champ and his career was still in progress. He had Joe Louis ranked down at #7 as late as the 1970's... Just a whole bunch of ass backwards shlt. Incidentally he never had Archie Moore ranked very high either.

 

Exactly. Hell, at that point, Frazier was unbeaten and had knocked off Ali, Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena (twice), Chuvalo, Mathis, Machen, Jones ... the light heavyweight champ Bob Foster ... who did Corbett beat again?

Just ridiculous.

 

Yeah, after reading some of his lists, comments, opinions, etc, I've pretty much lost all respect for him as a credible source.. I don't care if he founded a magazine company or sat ringside at Dempsey's fights. His opinions are too tainted with personal bias... He ranks fighters by weather or not he "likes" them and not by their achievements... Its like listening to the evaluations of a 12 year old.