nat fleischer..a credible writer ?

[joelouisbarrow]

my dad has always been a boxing fan ( since the 50`s ) and accumulated a great collection of the ring magazines of which he passed on to me ( and in time i will do the same for my son )...after reading through a couple of old issues i came across an article written by nat fleischer in 1971..it was his top 10 of heavyweights...heres his list

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.

no ali included...NO ALI..i was pretty amazed and have to admit slightly taken aback...ive always ranked him as #2 behind the great joe louis..but not in a top ten ?...what do you think ?

oh and having joe at #6...are you frikin kidding me

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

He is regarded as the best boxing writer that ever lived. Former editor of Ring Magazine. The "Nat Fleischer" Award, handed out yearly by the Boxing Writers Association of America, is the most prestigious award a boxing writer can receive.

[joelouisbarrow]

He is regarded as the best boxing writer that ever lived. Former editor of Ring Magazine. The "Nat Fleischer" Award, handed out yearly by the Boxing Writers Association of America, is the most prestigious award a boxing writer can receive.

that is a given BUT to not include the great ali in his top ten is a bit dubious to say the least

[Brockton Lip]

This was 1971. Ali had lost to Frazier and was still seen as great but some didn't think top ten. His wins to come later on helped cement his legacy as a true great.

[joelouisbarrow]

This was 1971. Ali had lost to Frazier and was still seen as great but some didn't think top ten. His wins to come later on helped cement his legacy as a true great.

ali was in his prime before his forced 3 year lay off...after his comeback in 70 he fought mainly journeymen ( quarry, bugner, dunn, shavers, lubbers, wepner, lyle, young etc )...other than his unbelievable win against george and his 3 fight epic encounters with frazier ( maybe not frazier/ali 2 ) he looked pretty ordinary ( his 3 fights with norton especially )....ali was never the same man after 1970 that he was pre 67 so for fleischer to not rate him in 71 was pretty unreal

[K-DOGG]

Personally, his writing style annoys me; but he was there and he saw it, so those writings of his and their conclusions based on what he saw and thought of the fighters personally are ultimately his opinions. No one can dispute the positive influence he's had on the sport, and I give him all the respect in the world for that; but that doesn't mean I have to agree with his observations. The fact that he took it upon himself to tell Joe Walcott to stop the second Ali-Liston fight speaks volumes of how lofty the man's ego was, so he was not without faults. And, I suspect, that would have played into some of his rankings as well.


Just my thoughts.


Incidentally, I am also annoyed by the writing style of Willaim Faulkner, so I've got my preferences as well.

[K-DOGG]

ali was in his prime before his forced 3 year lay off...after his comeback in 70 he fought mainly journeymen ( quarry, bugner, dunn, shavers, lubbers, wepner, lyle, young etc )...other than his unbelievable win against george and his 3 fight epic encounters with frazier ( maybe not frazier/ali 2 ) he looked pretty ordinary ( his 3 fights with norton especially )....ali was never the same man after 1970 that he was pre 67 so for fleischer to not rate him in 71 was pretty unreal

Quarry, Bugner, Shavers, Lyle, and Young.....were NOT journeymen. They were legitimate contenders....and damn good ones.

[Brockton Lip]

ali was in his prime before his forced 3 year lay off...after his comeback in 70 he fought mainly journeymen ( quarry, bugner, dunn, shavers, lubbers, wepner, lyle, young etc )...other than his unbelievable win against george and his 3 fight epic encounters with frazier ( maybe not frazier/ali 2 ) he looked pretty ordinary ( his 3 fights with norton especially )....ali was never the same man after 1970 that he was pre 67 so for fleischer to not rate him in 71 was pretty unreal

He had two primes I think; his physical prime and his ring/experience prime. Before the layoff, he was floored by Cooper and alot of people say he was out and the bell saved him. People thought he was great after his victory over Liston and the like, but some were just not ready to put him in the top 10. They were still skeptical. After defeating Frazier, and certainly after Foreman in 74 (Ali was past his prime and 'whooped' the invincible Foreman while inventing the rope-a-dope) he was in the top ten and better. Even before 74 people had him in there, but his wins over Frazier and Foreman, along with Norton and many others, sealed the deal.
I'm not looking at articles from that time period at the moment but I would imagine this is how it played it out.

[Kid Achilles]

Nat Fleisher is about as credible a writer can hope to be in the field of boxing journalism. Few respectable historians would have had Ali at the top of the heavyweight list circa 1970. He had a long way to go to prove himself as one of the greatest of all time.

[Yogi]

Whether it be Fleischer's list or someone else's, like Charley Rose, I've yet to see any type of all-time ranking from that time with Ali included on it, and in fact, even Nat's son-in-law barely ranked Ali when he compiled his list in the mid 70's (9th or 10th), which would've been compiled after the Foreman fight...

It wasn't until the late 70's when Ali's name was being consistently placed in one of the first few spots on such rankings.