Billion $ point contest- Nat Fleischer's All-Time Top 10 list

[Greatest1942]

Ezzard Charles & Archie Moore & Gene Tunney & Bob Foster are missing from the 175 lb list. That's way beyond ludicrous! How is that even possible?

His heavyweight ratings are just as bad as his light heavyweight rankings. Ali is no where to be found. James J. Corbett over Joe Louis? Over Sonny Liston, who's also no where to be found. Joe Frazier was unbeaten in 1972, fresh off a W15 over Ali. Not even on his list. James J. Corbett over a 1971-1972 Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali???

Bob Fitzsimmons over Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Liston, Marciano & Ali???

Tommy Ryan over Harry Greb, Mickey Walker & Ray Robinson???

As Iron Dan pointed out.....Henry Armstrong at #8 welterweight???

He was a great publisher. He would have starved & slept in the streets f he bet according to his own lists.

But because of his affiliation with "The Ring", lots of people think he's a boxing genius.

You are right on most counts, but Nat saw till teh defeat of Ali at the hands of Frazier. Take a time machine and stop at that.Ali does not yet have the Frazier or Foreman victories. How high will you rank him...Ali went to do soem great things after 1971 ..I dont think around 1972 many would have him in top 3 .

[BattlingNelson]

Fleischer made those ratings well before 1972 and never bothered (or felt the need I suppose) to update them. Some of them seem bizzare, but one thing about Fleischer is that he actually saw almost all of these guys fight in person. You can't accuse him of using Boxrec or Youtube as his sources.

That's the key. Contrary to most other 'historians', Fleischer saw them all from ringside.

It is odd that Ezzard Charles is missing though and generally his LHW rankings seems completely off.

What I take note off as well is how he ranks Gans and Leonard. There's always a debate in regards to who of those (or Duran) who's the greatest LW and Fleischer saw them both and picked the old master. I wonder if Fleischer commented on his picks in general and this pick in particular?

[BattlingNelson]

A fine article on Fleischer from sportsillustrated can be read here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...74/1/index.htm

"I've always stuck to the oldtimers because I saw them," Fleischer says. "They are fellows who were far superior to the boys today. In recent years their equals were Willie Pep, Tony Canzoneri, Lou Ambers, Jimmy McLarnin and fellows like Rocky Marciano on his heavy hitting, not as a boxer. These fellows are more like the oldtimers in that they possessed combinations." In Fleischer's alltime rankings, which list 10 men in each of the eight weight divisions, it is rare to find a man who boxed into the '40s; there are but 11, and only one is rated higher than fifth—Jack Dempsey, who had three bouts in 1940 after an eight-year layoff.

"Feinting today," continues Fleischer, "is absolutely a lost art. The last man to feint well was Benny Leonard. [He retired undefeated in 1925, making a brief comeback in 1931-2.] I don't think the technique of boxing has advanced since 1940. Today they do not go in for the development of science but for the pell-mell mix, trying to batter a man down, score heavy hits at the expense of ring cleverness. I attribute this wholly to TV. The sponsors want an action fighter. The public hisses and boos boxers performing a clever piece of work. I remember the days when you saw a beautiful machine out in the field there and you loved it. Nobody hissed Tommy Loughran! Now the public has been educated to demand ring action of a gory spirit. Any of the clever boys of the past would stand the fighters of today on their ears.

[SCtrojansbaby]

A fine article on Fleischer from sportsillustrated can be read here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...74/1/index.htm

A fine article on Fleischer from sportsillustrated can be read here:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...74/1/index.htm



Quote:
"I've always stuck to the oldtimers because I saw them," Fleischer says. "They are fellows who were far superior to the boys today. In recent years their equals were Willie Pep, Tony Canzoneri, Lou Ambers, Jimmy McLarnin and fellows like Rocky Marciano on his heavy hitting, not as a boxer. These fellows are more like the oldtimers in that they possessed combinations." In Fleischer's alltime rankings, which list 10 men in each of the eight weight divisions, it is rare to find a man who boxed into the '40s; there are but 11, and only one is rated higher than fifth—Jack Dempsey, who had three bouts in 1940 after an eight-year layoff.

Quote:
"Feinting today," continues Fleischer, "is absolutely a lost art. The last man to feint well was Benny Leonard. [He retired undefeated in 1925, making a brief comeback in 1931-2.] I don't think the technique of boxing has advanced since 1940. Today they do not go in for the development of science but for the pell-mell mix, trying to batter a man down, score heavy hits at the expense of ring cleverness. I attribute this wholly to TV. The sponsors want an action fighter. The public hisses and boos boxers performing a clever piece of work. I remember the days when you saw a beautiful machine out in the field there and you loved it. Nobody hissed Tommy Loughran! Now the public has been educated to demand ring action of a gory spirit. Any of the clever boys of the past would stand the fighters of today on their ears.

LOL he sounds like most of the people here who can't speak objectively about fighters from the 90s and 2000s. Its the same older=better logic

[BattlingNelson]

LOL he sounds like most of the people here who can't speak objectively about fighters from the 90s and 2000s. Its the same older=better logic

You'll probably be like that yourself when you grow up.

[SCtrojansbaby]

You'll probably be like that yourself when you grow up.

Being a little bias towards the athletes you grew up watching is natural, being bias towards fighter who died before you were born is the older always = better stupidity that runs rampant on these forums

[$Bullsfam$]

There is no question Sugar Ray Robinson is the greatest welterweight of all time. Can't believe he didn't even make the list.

[StarshipTrooper]

Being a little bias towards the athletes you grew up watching is natural, being bias towards fighter who died before you were born is the older always = better stupidity that runs rampant on these forums

As opposed to the newer always = better tripe that you and your ilk put out? You have absolutely no room to talk since your just drinking the KoolAid from the opposite side of the same cup :rolleyes9:

Poet

[JAB5239]

LOL he sounds like most of the people here who can't speak objectively about fighters from the 90s and 2000s. Its the same older=better logic

You do know he died in 72, right? Can you prove he is wrong on many of the things he says? What exactly makes today's fighters comparable to those who fought more, against better comp, with same day weigh ins, less titles and more professional fighters?

[JAB5239]

Being a little bias towards the athletes you grew up watching is natural, being bias towards fighter who died before you were born is the older always = better stupidity that runs rampant on these forums

Trust me, you've got the best stupidity going in the history section lately!