So what exactly is wrong with Nat Fleischer's top 10 heavyweight list?

When i make this rankings, should i take into account that the fighters i saw around the age of 17-24 will remain my favorites for the rest of my life and let that bias affect the rankings?

 

So, do you mean we're to make these lists based on what we think is appropriate as a result of what had happened through '58 and '71, or what we think we would think from the perspective of fans in 1958 and 1971?

Assuming that we're just making the list based on what we think would be the most reasonable based on what had happened through those dates:

1958
1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Dempsey
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Jack Johnson
6. Jersey Joe Walcott
7. Ezzard Charles
8. Gene Tunney
9. Max Schmeling
10. Max Baer
(just missing: Sam Langford, Jack Sharkey, Bob Fitzsimmons, Harry Wills)

1971
1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Joe Frazier
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Jim Jeffries
6. Jack Johnson
7. Muhammad Ali
8. Sonny Liston
9. Jersey Joe Walcott
10. Ezzard Charles

 

No, this is exactly the opposite of what happened. When Marciano retired, most sportswriters and old-time boxing pundits only ranked him in the bottom half of the top 10; Nat Fleischer had him at #10, and Charley Rose ranked him #8. In contrast, the RING Magazine staff as of 1999 ranked him #6, and the IBRO(International Boxing Research Organization, about 60 historians) currently rates him #5- in other words, his rating has risen quite a bit since the time of his retirement, inspite of the addition of another 50 years of top heavyweights to the all-time roster. Time to reflect on Marciano's body of work greatly improved peoples' opinions of him- when he was still around, he was jeered for being small and crude and was given little respect for his achievements. It was in the decades after his retirement that people came to appreciate him and place him near the top of the heap in history.

 

I am not Fleischer so I would not think like him. I know if I was alive I would of been awe of that mythical (we all know he lost as a pro) Marciano '0', and would of overrated him.

 

The "0" is not mythical. Marciano lost as an amateur, not as a pro. If
you feel otherwise, you are simply badly ignorant.

 

My lists

1958.
1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Harry Wills
5. Jack Dempsey
7. Sam Langford
8. John L Sullivan
9. Max Schmeling
10. Bob Fitzsimmons

Comment-Corbett #11-Fitz rates higher p4p than as heavyweight. In 1958,
Sullivan was in all lists that I can think of.

1971.
1. Joe Louis
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Jack Johnson
4. Jim Jeffries
5. Harry Wills
5. Jack Dempsey
7. Joe Frazier
8. Muhammad Ali
9. Sonny Liston
10. Sam Langford

Comment--If Frazier retired in 1971, he would jump several
notches--It is difficult to rate in mid-career.

 

I think Dempsey was better.
I dont think Louis's opposition was any better than Dempsey's.

 

I'm not talking about Fleischer, I'm talking about the public in general- just about everyone placed Marciano much higher on their lists a few decades after he retired than just about everyone did at the time he was active or recently-retired. It was the time to reflect on his body of work and recognize how remarkable what had transpired really was. Think about most of the undefeated top fighters around in recent years- are people "in awe" of, say, Hatton or Calzaghe, and ranking them near the top of their all-time lists? Do you think that if, after a handful more wins, one of them was to retire undefeated, they would be immediately inaugurated among the greats of history and ranked highly by everyone, only to have their standings drop in hindsight? I assure you, that wouldn't happen. It's the other way around. Most of the time, when a champion is still undefeated/on top or has just retired, the public at large doesn't really appreciate what they have.

And there is nothing "mythical" about Marciano's undefeated record. If you wish to dispute that fact, please provide some form of documentation showing that Marciano lost a professional fight. Gambling on the assumption that you're not about to provide some kind of earth-shaking revelation which has remained buried for the last 50 years, you're dead wrong. Marciano was never beaten in a professional fight.

 

Marciano's pro debut was on March 17th 1947 (WKO3 Lee Epperson). In March 1948 one year after turning pro, Marciano lost a decision to Coley Wallace...

 

I suspected you were about to come out with that one. Read carefully:
The Marciano-Wallace fight was an amateur boxing match. It was fought without pay over three rounds with amateur equipment and amateur rules under an amateur commission in an amateur tournament. The 49-0 record attributed to Marciano is a professional boxing record, meaning it is a record of all the professional boxing matches Marciano engaged in. In professional boxing matches, Marciano had 49 victories and 0 losses. Hence, Marciano's 49-0 record is legitimate and the claim that it is "mythical" is false.

Saying that Marciano was not an undefeated professional boxer because he lost an amateur boxing match is like saying that he wasn't an undefeated professional boxer because he lost a golf tournament after his professional boxing debut.

 

Louis' notable wins:

Walcott 2x (1x by most accounts)
Carnera
Schmeling (top10 in some 1958 lists)
Sharkey
Max Baer
Uzcudun
Braddock
Farr
Lewis
Galento
Buddy Baer 2x
Godoy 2x
Nova
Conn 2x
Simon 2x

Includes 6 linear heavyweight champions and 2 light heavyweight champions.

Dempsey's notable wins:

Morris 3x
Brennan 2x
Miske 2x
Willard (37 year old and fat)
Fulton 2x
Smith
Carpentier
Gibbons
Firpo

Including 1 linear heavyweight champion (probably the worst of all time) and one lightheavyweight champion.


I think they're not even close. I'm curious to find out what makes you say that Louis' opposition was not any better than Dempsey's.

 

1958:

1. Louis
2. Marciano
3. Dempsey
4. Jeffries
5. Johnson
6. Wills
7. Tunney
8. Schmeling
9. Charles
10. Walcott

1971:

1. Louis
2. Marciano
3. Frazier
4. Ali
5. Liston
6. Johnson
7. Jeffries
8. Dempsey
9. Tunney
10. Wills

2007:

1. Louis
2. Ali
3. Holmes
4. Lewis
5. Marciano
6. Liston
7. Johnson
8. Frazier
9. Tyson
10.Holyfield

 

Fantastic post, I totally concur. Louis' resume has the edge in depth in terms of quality and quantity. :good

 

If you reduce quality of opponent to whoever at one time in their career held a linear championship, then, yes, Louis's opposition beats Dempsey's.

But the fact is, you could equally say, most of those guys held the linear championship because another of them was lousy enough to lose it to them.
Braddock, Carnera and Baer aren't necessarily better than the guys Dempsey beat. They were poor champions. Poor champions aren't automatically better than ordinary or good contenders. I'm not 100% sold on Walcott either, nevermind a finished Jack Sharkey.

I notice you include Sharkey on Louis's list only. But Dempsey fought and beat a prime version.

It's all subjective, but I dont rate Louis's opponents as better than Dempsey's.
The ones who held the championship between 1930 and 1937 were about as good as Brennan, Firpo, Miske, Gibbons.
Jack Sharkey actually illustrates the point that a contender in one era can be a champion in the other, and - by his own reckoning - acquire the championship after his peak years.

 

1958

Dempsey
Louis
Jeffries
Tunney
Johnson
Langford
Marciano
Charles
Walcott
Fitz

1971

Dempsey
Louis
Ali
Liston
Jeffries
Tunney
Johnson
Langford
Frazier
Marciano

Based on skill & talent,not legacy's or title defense's