What if Nat Fleischer were still alive today??

He would have adjusted his ratings accordingly for the most part. Nat grew up in a golden era of boxing and felt his era was the best. We have to remember that he was present at a lot of the fights and he did not view them in slow-mo black and white film. He did have a bias to his era but who does not

His opinions would be updated but he would bring a valuable opinion into the insights of boxing.

 

He'd hold the Wold record as the 'Oldest living man'.

 

You beat me to it---
He would be carbon-dated...

 

From his perspective,watching all the great fighters since about 1905-10,this is the way he saw it...Nat was flexible though in his choices .
For example he would always pick Stanley Ketchel as the greatest middleweight of all time...But in an old Ring mag he was asked a question by a reader in the Question Box.Who would you pick between Ketchel and Greb ?.Nat wrote back, "GREB".No one
can know for certain who were the greatest boxers in each division, but because
Fleischer was THERE at ringside, he might have been closest in his picks,I believe...
It is based on which bfighter you saw made the GREATEST impression on you.?
For his time Nat gave his answers..For my time...Ray Robinson, followed by Joe Louis.
.

 

As far as his all time listings were concerned, I think he had pretty much ossified by the time he died, much as I have against the 12 round limit. (The main difference there is that I stopped following boxing at that point, whereas he certainly would never have abandoned his life long passion.) Little changed in his all time ratings between 1957 and 1972. In 1957, he had SRR as the number 5 WW. By 1972, he had relocated Robby to that same slot in his middleweight rankings at the expense of McGoorty's tenth place, and dropped Dixie Kid into Ray's former welterweight slot. That's the only change I can find between 1957 and 1972 in any of the classic eight divisions he rated, and it took Robinson to do it.

 

Does anybody know when Nat actually saw his first fights?

 

He'd probably still insist that Jack Johnson was the greatest heavyweight champ and would still be referring to Muhammad Ali as "Cassius Clay".

 

Meaning? You're saying at the age of 100+ he'd have changed his viewpoints that he'd held for over half a century to mold with the more common views held today? Somehow I think not.

 

In the preliminary portion of Murray Woroner's staged Marciano-Ali showdown, Nat Fleischer's voice was among those who recorded opinions. In his loud cackle, I remember him starting out by saying that in his view, "Muhammad Ali has not proven to me that he is a great fighter." (Nat did go on to concede that he was the fastest heavyweight of all time.) It sticks in my own mind, because I would have expected Fleischer to call him "Cassius Clay," and was surprised to hear "Muhammad Ali" as the name Nat called him by. Maybe my mind was playing tricks on me, but I saw that complete program two more times on late night television.

 

yeah at 122 years old he would have been sentimental about the best years of his life...which would of been the early part of last century.
My Grandad still maintains that football was far better to watch in the 1950s and refuses to watch the modern game which i find ludicrous.

If by some miracle Fleischer stopped aging in the 1920s or 30s im sure he was intelligent enough to make a set of ratings which take in all fighters without bias.

 

It was pretty standard back in Nat's reign as editor of Ring for the old guard to refer to Ali as Clay...they were just of their time, that's all..I wonder who was the first Ring columnist to refer to Ali as "Ali"?

 

Nat was born in 1887 NYC. As a youth he boxed locally and ran track..
He graduated CCNY in 1908 but he was a cub reporter in about 1905 covering sports, mostly boxing...I have his book "the Michigan Assassan".
about Stanley Ketchel, who Nat was friendly with, while Ketchel was
training for a bout in Van Cortland Park,Bronx, NY....Very interesting tales about thatv wild and wooley Ketchel !

 

I have alot of respect for the man but I don't understand how he could be seen as the voice of boxing for so long... I mean those lists are truly terrible. What else can you say really.. no Gavilan, Charles, Moore, SRR at four? Like others have said the lists are loaded with bias towards 'his' era.

 

He would have been a big proponent of many of the top fighters since his death as he was with Joffre and Tiger, but would have conspicuously under rated others.

Hard to say who would have fallen into which category but I am prepared to hazard a few guesses.

I think that he would have been a proponent of Mike Tyson early in his career, Leonard, Duran, Mayweather and Pacquio.

He likley would not have rated Bernard Hopkins and might not have rated Lennox Lewis.