Greatest Heavyweights of all time list 1969

[Ben Bolt]

Ring magazine has always been more for popular consumption than for a critical evaluation

I think The Ring generally is - and has been - of high quality. Fleischer was a man of his time, and an elderly one when Clay turned into Ali, something he never understood.
And he may be excused for not taking in modern time values. Most of us, when we're getting old, will fail in that department and looking back to the 'good ol days'.

To me, The Ring was at its best during Bert Sugar's reign 1979-84 (I'm an old man, looking back at the good old days ).
And I think Nigel Collins's The Ring was a great reading until he was forced to step back in 2011. (And by now, the mag did dare to regularly publicize reports about how boxing caused damages to fighters' health.)
Present editor is Michael Rosenthal. The Ring is still good, but I did find more interesting stuff in it when Collins was in charge.

All in all, The Ring DID event the ranking-system, and it still aims to set it fair and unbiased.
That's definitely more than you can say about the big four's farcical ratings.

[The Old LefHook]

I think I mentioned it before, that surveys have shown people get their favorite athletes when they’re young, and keep holding them in highest regard later on in life.
So Fleischer’s (born 1887) comment on Ali isn’t surprising, nor him placing Louis only 6th.

It also means, a lot of today’s teenage boxing fans will always idolize Wlad.

Sir, I approve of your method of analysis. I have been scooped.

[The Old LefHook]

In the background of such a question is always the other question: How is great being defined? In this case, how did Fleischer define it? I have always preferred the Who beats Who scenario, but other criteria are interesting. I like to know what measuring stick is being used by others.

[Bundana]

In the background of such a question is always the other question: How is great being defined? In this case, how did Fleischer define it? I have always preferred the Who beats Who scenario, but other criteria are interesting. I like to know what measuring stick is being used by others.

I think Fleischer must have used the "who beats who" scenario. He certainly couldn't have used the "accomplishment" method... as there is no way it can be argued, that (for example) Corbett had a better resume, or has meant more to boxing, than Louis!

[sonnyboyx2]

I think I mentioned it before, that surveys have shown people get their favorite athletes when they’re young, and keep holding them in highest regard later on in life.
So Fleischer’s (born 1887) comment on Ali isn’t surprising, nor him placing Louis only 6th.

It also means, a lot of today’s teenage boxing fans will always idolize Wlad.

i disagree 100% with your claim of "lifelong idolization".. i used to idolize several fighters as a young man 17-27yr but as you age, you see how diehard you have been.

[sonnyboyx2]

It is difficult to understand Fleischer's list when we view old fight-film. But what is forgotton is just how much recording and camera's have improved during the last 100yrs. Back in the days of Corbett, Jeffries & Fitzsimmons, only one camera was used which was sited at the back of the arena. Today we use over 50 camera's spread around ringside, using color, zoom and every other modern technique available. Today's boxers use, better gloves, shoes, ring canvas, training supplements etc... But when we see Jack Johnson on film from 100yrs ago. He looks incredible. Johnson has a physique better than any heavyweight in history. Nat Fleischer who witnessed all the greats right up to his death in 1972 may not be talking as ****** as many think.

[The Old LefHook]

i disagree 100% with your claim of "lifelong idolization".. i used to idolize several fighters as a young man 17-27yr but as you age, you see how diehard you have been.

You were not in the surveys. Why not disagree 95%?

[Bundana]

I think I mentioned it before, that surveys have shown people get their favorite athletes when they’re young, and keep holding them in highest regard later on in life.
So Fleischer’s (born 1887) comment on Ali isn’t surprising, nor him placing Louis only 6th.

It also means, a lot of today’s teenage boxing fans will always idolize Wlad.

I agree 100% with this - and someone like Fleischer is a perfect example of this "lifelong idiolization".

It's not just his heavyweight rankings, that heavily favour boxers from his youth - it's like that in all 8 original divisions.

Fleischer's contention that his 10 top heavyweights would all easily beat Ali, is typical of oldtimers, who firmly believe that "back in the day" there were REAL fighters - and that, by comparison, present day boxers are crap! You hear that all the time... just look at how Wlad is being described here (by some posters) as being completely worthless; a robot with no skills, who would be butchered by a TRUE great like Joe Louis.

The funny thing is, that during the height of Louis' career, you could probably find oldtimers, who thought he was nothing compared to Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, etc.

In other words: Who you believe to be the very best, depends strongly on when you first took an interest in boxing. It's simply part of human nature to be more easily impressed as a young man, than later in life.

[sonnyboyx2]

I agree 100% with this - and someone like Fleischer is a perfect example of this "lifelong idiolization".

It's not just his heavyweight rankings, that heavily favour boxers from his youth - it's like that in all 8 original divisions.

Fleischer's contention that his 10 top heavyweights would all easily beat Ali, is typical of oldtimers, who firmly believe that "back in the day" there were REAL fighters - and that, by comparison, present day boxers are crap! You hear that all the time... just look at how Wlad is being described here (by some posters) as being completely worthless; a robot with no skills, who would be butchered by a TRUE great like Joe Louis.

The funny thing is, that during the height of Louis' career, you could probably find oldtimers, who thought he was nothing compared to Corbett, Fitz, Jeffries, etc.

In other words: Who you believe to be the very best, depends strongly on when you first took an interest in boxing. It's simply part of human nature to be more easily impressed as a young man, than later in life.

i cannot remember if it was Joe Gans or Battling Nelson.. But a study of their fights was done by "Computer punch stats" compared to modern day champions Floyd Mayweather & Co.. believe it or not, but the old timers won hands down round after round. They also fought for 45rd fights not 12rds like today. They also fought out-doors in 100*+ heat, unlike todays air-conditioned arena's. They also used 4oz gloves, unlike today's 8 & 10oz gloves. No standing 8 count back then, No early stoppages back then. No PHDs back then. No hand-picking your opponents back then. the best fought the best.

[billeau2]

Except Black Belt is more showing actual discipilines and interviews,its also not telling you how great a martial artist was over another,its really just to show different techniques from different arts....apples and oranges...there is no way you can tell me ring magazine is more credible from the type of magazine it is than black belt...and that's coming from a someone whos been involved in martial arts since 91.Your head is not as big as you think, in stating you had to dumb down a martial arts magazine I know you're full of it once again to belittle to be the superior voice on here..and that's from a REAL inside perspective!

First of all I never said either magazine was "more credible."

I am simply citing my experience as a writer because it is relevant to demonstrating how the media works. Black Belt has content with very low level technical information, I will refrain from commenting on the characteristic skill level, people who use Black Belt as a technical source have, because this might insult you or others who may do so...Its not that it is bad, its just very biased information devoid of any real content. Journals like the Asian Journal of Martial Arts are much more geared towards a demographic of skilled practicioners and people with experience in the martial arts.

I have been in the martial arts since 1980, I don't see that as relevant, though being that I have written for most of the martial arts mags I do think that is relevant. I have also published cover storys by the way... so I know the content in Black Belt Magazine.

If you were to research it you would indeed find that dumbing articles down to this level is common practice when a magazine is trying to reach a popular audience. Again, having written everythng from technical pieces, to historical pieces, I know for a fact that the level I write these articles, is far removed from the level I teach to my students and its not just myself in this regard.

our once again resorting to ad hominum attacks, your comments are little more than puffery because you really have not offered any reason, any experience, or any other rejoinder as to why someone with experience (me) is wrong in assessing the relative merits of popular media publications vis a vis combat sports.