Quote:
Originally Posted by bear
Nat Fleisher never made the distinction. The Ring has an online reprint of his article where he advocated this view.
Boxing: Classic Columns
Fleisher's persistance in this matter was one of those really annoying things about him. I've had love-hate feelings about him for years. I have always preferred the distinction found in British record books that describe whether the referee stopped the fight or the fighter retired in his corner.
They are more informative and give a better picture of a fighter. The same can be said about adding the newspaper decisions to results of guys from the no decision era.
Bear |
On some level, there was a political dimension to his analysis. For a good part of the 1960s, he excoriated Ali. First, when he changed his name and later when he refused induction into the service. This really clouded Fleischer's objectivity. Somewhere around the house, I have a late 1960s copy of "The Ring" where Fleischer wrote an article declaring that Ali will never be ranked among the top ten heavyweights!
Near the end, he became little more than a crankly old man and "The Ring" (at least in my eyes) was a classic bore living off its past glory--sort of like "The New York Times" today. Actually, during the 1960s, I much preferred "Boxing Illustrated".
Nevertheless, his contributions to the sport cannot be overlooked, and he certainly derserves his place in the Hall of Fame.