Marciano in the Joe Louis era?

[Hydraulix]

Do you think Rocky would go undefeated against the men who faced Joe Louis? Could he have 25 defenses of his title against men like Galento, Baer, Conn, etc? I think he could have, but probably would have struggled a lot more. We saw Rocky beat Walcott and Charles, but what about the rest of the men who were considered "bums of the month?" What do you think? Would Rocky go undefeated?

[Dempsey1238]

Not sure, best at best, I pick Rocky to beat evey one Louis face.

But Marciano's style was not ment to last for 12 years. I dont think Rocky would have made it 12 years plus rise to the title with out having a lost some were. All in All, I think Rocky could repeat the 49-0 record, than retires around 44 or 45. But I dont think he could repeat what Louis did with 12 years and or 25 defenses.

[Maxmomer]

I could see Rocky picking up maybe one or two losses if he kept Louis' schedule.

[ChrisPontius]

Most people consider Walcott and Charles among Louis' best opponents, and Marciano already knocked both out, twice. However, i doubt Marciano could reign for 11 years like Joe did.

[janitor]

I dont think that Marciano would be physicaly capable of fighting Joe Louis's schedule for as long as he did.

His style combined with the ring wear he took would mean that something would have to give sooner or later.

If Marciano had not retired when he did then expect him to decline verry quickly.

[mr. magoo]

It would have been interesting to see how Marciano would have done against the likes of some of the giants like Max, Buddy, Primo and Abe. On the surface, he probably beats all of them with out much trouble, but I would be curious to see how he does against M. Baer, who's style was silimlar to Foreman's which was like poison to swarmers.

[ChrisPontius]

It would have been interesting to see how Marciano would have done against the likes of some of the giants like Max, Buddy, Primo and Abe. On the surface, he probably beats all of them with out much trouble, but I would be curious to see how he does against M. Baer, who's style was silimlar to Foreman's which was like poison to swarmers.

Max' style perhaps was like Foreman's, but Foreman was way more effective, and had more of a seek-and-destroy attitude that makes him shine against swarmers. In Baer's case, i'm not so sure. Foreman, while technically flawed, made good use of the uppercut and left hook. Baer mostly throws wild right handed swings; Marciano would answer in return, and Baer was more than wide open to hit as Louis showed.

It would be an interesting fight, though. But i don't give Max much chance.

[mr. magoo]

Max' style perhaps was like Foreman's, but Foreman was way more effective, and had more of a seek-and-destroy attitude that makes him shine against swarmers. In Baer's case, i'm not so sure. Foreman, while technically flawed, made good use of the uppercut and left hook. Baer mostly throws wild right handed swings; Marciano would answer in return, and Baer was more than wide open to hit as Louis showed.

It would be an interesting fight, though. But i don't give Max much chance.


True

[HomicideHenry]

Marciano is a favorite over most of the men Louis faced. I think, really, the only men he would have had major problems with would have been Walcott, Charles and maybe Tommy Farr. Could he have went 25 title defenses in 11 years? The schedule Louis had was amazing and only Holmes came close. Marciano's excessive training and conditioning may have worked considering the schedule, but then again, maybe Marciano needed to train like that just for one guy at a time, while Louis more or less had skills no matter his condition.

Question that matters, imo, could Marciano have beaten Louis?

[Longhhorn71]

Max Schmelling may have been a difficult opponent for Rocky too.

Max had power, could box, and was smart.

[HomicideHenry]

Marciano had problems, mainly with movers. Schmeling was a great boxer, but a tad mechanical and methodical, I dont think he could have slugged it with Marciano for too long, his bout with Max Baer attested to what even a wild, sloppy, power house could do to him....

[guilalah]

If Marciano goes straight to boxing after giving up baseball then he might have hit his stride at a younger age. Let's say he moved into M. Baer territory the same time as Louis did (1935). If Marciano gets past M Baer (probable, IMO), then I think he gets by Schmeling in '36 (probably a good fight), maybe wins the title that year? Probably gets through Louis's 1937-1940 comp. Now, the big question: five years a champion, and after a long, monthly string of softer fights, is he psychologically ready for Conn? From hear on till about 1943 the question is will Rocky keep his laser focus.
Does Rocky then go into the service and have to forego boxing for three years? Should Marciano then retire as champion? I don't like this Marciano against '47/'48 Walcott.
Of course, I've been putting Marciano in place of Louis. But, if Louis is also around, then this effects things greatly. If Schmeling fights (and looses) to Marciano in '36, then Marciano and Louis would perhaps need to fight before either challenged Braddock. On the other hand, if Schmeling KO'd Louis, then he might not feel a need to meet Marciano. Still (politics) Marciano probably would get the title shot. Perhaps Louis and Schmeling would meet again before either could get a shot at Marciano? So in this case I'm thinking Rocky and Joe meet late '38 or '39. I can't really call Louis vs Marciano. I rank Louis a little ahead of Marciano all-round, but I think Rocky is a hard style for Joe; it about evens out.

[markedwardscott]

The Rock took too many punches to fight that often.

[Bummy Davis]

I dont think Marciano or anyone could fight at the pace he fought with the intense training routine for so many years...It has to wear you down...and it was those training habits along with the power and other gifts that made him great. I think he could beat anyone of Louis's opponents but could he sustain it for 12 years and 25 title defences without a loss, that is a hard thing for a swarmer to do. Frazier had a shorter prime but was also less dedicated after Ali 1......Marciano could beat them all but Louis had a couple of ugly wins (Walcott (bad decision)) and was dropped in a few. I just dont know if Marciano could keep the pace up for 25 fights but it is possible but extremly differcult with his style...Louis was the best combo/power puncher, a great style to beat most styles while at the same time has trouble with the boxers and the punchers....still if I had to pick the perfect style and perfect counter puncher against both the boxer and the puncher, it would be Joe Louis. Marciano may have been able to beat Louis in his prime because of his power and pressure but to duplicate what Louis did in his career for as long as he did is not easy

[Marciano Frazier]

Rocky would certainly be generally considered the favorite over anyone Louis defended the title against, but I have my doubts about him having the longevity to maintain dominance for 12 years; with his taxing training schedule and physically straining and punishing style that led to numerous injuries, it seems probable he would burn out before he got to the end and lose to someone.

[mr. magoo]

Rocky would certainly be generally considered the favorite over anyone Louis defended the title against, but I have my doubts about him having the longevity to maintain dominance for 12 years; with his taxing training schedule and physically straining and punishing style that led to numerous injuries, it seems probable he would burn out before he got to the end and lose to someone.


Agreed,

Historically, swarmers do not continue to thrive long into old age, and Rocky was a fighter who as it was, did not win the title until he reached his late 20's. Head to head, he would have had my vote to beat just about anyone who Louis ever faced, but as you somewhat touched upon, it would depend greatly on when these fights took place. An aging Rocky would not have beaten Joe Walcott or Ezzard Charles in my opinion. And even someone like Lou Nova could have been troublesome, had he cought Rocky at the right time.

[mcvey]

Most people consider Walcott and Charles among Louis' best opponents, and Marciano already knocked both out, twice. However, i doubt Marciano could reign for 11 years like Joe did.
The difference being Louis was past his prime when he fought Charles and Walcott ,whereas they were past theirs when they fought Marciano.
ps Charles was only stopped by Marciano once, CP.

[Bummy Davis]

The difference being Louis was past his prime when he fought Charles and Walcott ,whereas they were past theirs when they fought Marciano.
ps Charles was only stopped by Marciano once, CP.

Its not fair to Marciano to say they were over the Hill, Walcott was a late bloomer and had Joe on the canvas 3-4 times....Charles beat an OLD Louis..Walcott was champion when Marciano fought him and Charles was a year older and broke loose with a KO over Satterfield and Wallace, two different types of top heavys just before his suberb effort vs Marciano(one of Charles best) its almost like saying Pavlick fought a less than best version of B-Hop....a conditioned fighter who gains experience as he gets older is sometimes much more dangerous and it showed because they were beating the younger men.....Look at Calzage 37, B-Hop @ 43, Jones 40, Toney 39....these men are still formidable

[Rebel-INS]

The difference being Louis was past his prime when he fought Charles and Walcott ,whereas they were past theirs when they fought Marciano.
ps Charles was only stopped by Marciano once, CP.

Exactly what I was thinking, and Marciano didn't exactly have a walk in the park against Charles either time, or Walcott in the first fight.

So could Rocky have defeated better versions of those two?

[Dempsey1238]

Marciano did have a walk in the park in the rematch vs Charles and Walcott.

Walcott went out in 1 round, and Charles in 8 rounds, was able to win 1 round on all 3 score cards. Marciano was far ahead by the time of ko. The doc was not going to stop the fight.

[Rebel-INS]

Marciano did have a walk in the park in the rematch vs Charles and Walcott.

Walcott went out in 1 round, and Charles in 8 rounds, was able to win 1 round on all 3 score cards. Marciano was far ahead by the time of ko. The doc was not going to stop the fight.

Yes I know thats why I said Walcott only gave him trouble in the first fight. As for the Charles second fight, it was a brutal cut.

[mcvey]

Its not fair to Marciano to say they were over the Hill, Walcott was a late bloomer and had Joe on the canvas 3-4 times....Charles beat an OLD Louis..Walcott was champion when Marciano fought him and Charles was a year older and broke loose with a KO over Satterfield and Wallace, two different types of top heavys just before his suberb effort vs Marciano(one of Charles best) its almost like saying Pavlick fought a less than best version of B-Hop....a conditioned fighter who gains experience as he gets older is sometimes much more dangerous and it showed because they were beating the younger men.....Look at Calzage 37, B-Hop @ 43, Jones 40, Toney 39....these men are still formidable
Do you think ANY fighter is in his prime at 37-38?
I said past their prime ,NOT OVER THE HILL, there is a difference.

[mcvey]

Calzaghe is not formidable he was dropped by two men past their best in his last 2 fights ,THATS WHY HE HAS RETIRED!Jones was all through,Hopkins gets by on ring smarts.Toney fights in a division that is as weak as I can remember.A reality check is needed here, imo.

[Dempsey1238]

Yes I know thats why I said Walcott only gave him trouble in the first fight. As for the Charles second fight, it was a brutal cut.

The cut was bad, but the ref, corner, and doc were not going to stop the fight, Marciano was a head by a very wide margin. It was not effected the Rock's vision, and Marciano was not too hurt to not go on.

[Ted Stickles]

I think head to head he beats all of Joe's opponents some easier than Joe did because of his style...but with his style he doesnt match Joe's reign or title defenses because his style was not made to have really long careers...i also believe he could have remained undefeated as well,and on a personal note i think he has the capability of beating a younger louis because his style is hell for Joe's...

[mcvey]

The cut was bad, but the ref, corner, and doc were not going to stop the fight, Marciano was a head by a very wide margin. It was not effected the Rock's vision, and Marciano was not too hurt to not go on.
"Its split in half,how we gonna stop the bleedin?"Charlie Goldman." You aint,there's no way you're gonna stop that,Rock,you gotta get him! You gotta get him ,or they may stop the fight! "Alllie Colombo.
THe doctor was examining Rocky ,very unhappy with what he saw.Rocky's handlers pleaded with him not to stop the fight.
For the first time since they had begun their long trip toward the title,Allie Columbo panicked.He was pale with fear,running along the ring apron,screaming up at Rocky;"You gotta get him.Rock!You gotta get him! Watch out! Watch out! Dont let that son of a bitch hit your nose!"
"Go after him now or you'll bleed to death"Charlie Goldman.
Yeah a walk in the park!

[ChrisPontius]

The difference being Louis was past his prime when he fought Charles and Walcott ,whereas they were past theirs when they fought Marciano.
ps Charles was only stopped by Marciano once, CP.

I'm not making the argument that Marciano is better than Louis because of that (which you seem to be countering)... neither did i claim that Marciano stopped Charles twice.

That said, Charles was still very good and showed perhaps his career best heavyweight performance during their fantastic first battle. Walcott, while he was a bit older than against Louis, still looked every bit as good until he got knocked out.

[Dempsey1238]

"Its split in half,how we gonna stop the bleedin?"Charlie Goldman." You aint,there's no way you're gonna stop that,Rock,you gotta get him! You gotta get him ,or they may stop the fight! "Alllie Colombo.
THe doctor was examining Rocky ,very unhappy with what he saw.Rocky's handlers pleaded with him not to stop the fight.
For the first time since they had begun their long trip toward the title,Allie Columbo panicked.He was pale with fear,running along the ring apron,screaming up at Rocky;"You gotta get him.Rock!You gotta get him! Watch out! Watch out! Dont let that son of a bitch hit your nose!"
"Go after him now or you'll bleed to death"Charlie Goldman.
Yeah a walk in the park!

And most of that was in fact myth. It was a easy fight, outside of the cut, Marciano pitch a near shut out.

[Bummy Davis]

Do you think ANY fighter is in his prime at 37-38?
I said past their prime ,NOT OVER THE HILL, there is a difference.

I dont think Walcott was past his prime when he fought Marciano and Charles just had 2 electric KO's....I think both men went down hill after the Marciano wars...Wars will do that to a fighter...Bowe/Holyfield...Gatti/Ward...Matthew Saad Muhamad & all...Marvin Johnson...I think if you take Walcott from the 1st Marciano fight And I think he would have beaten a lot of top heavys...experience is a mo/fo...just ask Kelly Pavlik...even if a fighter loses an edge he gains it back with experience..Fighters like Walcott,Toney,Hopkins,are the exception to the rule...You could argue that Charles at 33 had seen better days but judging from the Satterfield KO and the Wallace Ko leading up to Marciano 1...I would say that fit version of Charles would give anyone Ali,Foreman,Dempsey,Louis,Lewis trouble.....and a BIG fight brought out the best in most fighters and Ezzard got up for the challenge...He fell asleep in fight 3 vs Walcott but so did stonehead Fulmer vs Robinson...those were hooks

[mcvey]

Most people consider Walcott and Charles among Louis' best opponents, and Marciano already knocked both out, twice. However, i doubt Marciano could reign for 11 years like Joe did.

As I said, Marciano only stopped Charles ONCE.HERE YOU SAY HE DID IT TWICE.I wasn't countering anything in your post ,just pointing out the difference when Louis fought Charles and Walcott,to when Marciano did.

[mcvey]

Its not fair to Marciano to say they were over the Hill, Walcott was a late bloomer and had Joe on the canvas 3-4 times....Charles beat an OLD Louis..Walcott was champion when Marciano fought him and Charles was a year older and broke loose with a KO over Satterfield and Wallace, two different types of top heavys just before his suberb effort vs Marciano(one of Charles best) its almost like saying Pavlick fought a less than best version of B-Hop....a conditioned fighter who gains experience as he gets older is sometimes much more dangerous and it showed because they were beating the younger men.....Look at Calzage 37, B-Hop @ 43, Jones 40, Toney 39....these men are still formidable
Charles had beaten Satterfield and Wallace ,but he had also lost his two fights before that to Harold Johnson a LH ,and Nino Valdes.I dont accept that either Walcott or Charles were in their prime when they fought Marciano.

[MRBILL]

Joe Louis trained hard for Marciano in 1951, but Louis was still faded and slowed a great deal by fight night at age 37.... Joe Louis gave it his best in 1951, but it just wasn't enough..... What a difference 10 yrs can make.... Rocky Marciano would be game but he'd be hammered and stopped by a 1941 version of Joe Louis in a time machine..... Joe Louis still had his power after WW2, but his hand speed and reflexes had gone south by 1947..... After age 33, Joe Louis began to slide downward rather fast.......

MR.BILL

[ChrisPontius]

As I said, Marciano only stopped Charles ONCE.HERE YOU SAY HE DID IT TWICE.I wasn't countering anything in your post ,just pointing out the difference when Louis fought Charles and Walcott,to when Marciano did.

Quote me where i said he did it twice?

[flamengo]

Quote me where i said he did it twice?



In your very first comment on this particular thread.

[Dempsey1238]

And I felt Charles was robbed vs Johnson imo.

[mcvey]

And most of that was in fact myth. It was a easy fight, outside of the cut, Marciano pitch a near shut out.

The fact is Goldman sent Marciano out telling him he had to KO CHARLES OR THERE WAS A VERY REAL DANGER THE FIGHT WOULD BE STOPPED .Its not the fact that Marciano was in front ,no one disputes that.No MYTH ,read Marciano's biography.ps He was also in danger of being stopped on cuts against Keene Simmons.

[mcvey]

Most people consider Walcott and Charles among Louis' best opponents, and Marciano already knocked both out, twice. However, i doubt Marciano could reign for 11 years like Joe did.

NOTE THE WORD TWICE. [How dare they challenge me with their crude skills?]:patsch

[OLD FOGEY]

It would have been interesting to see how Marciano would have done against the likes of some of the giants like Max, Buddy, Primo and Abe. On the surface, he probably beats all of them with out much trouble, but I would be curious to see how he does against M. Baer, who's style was silimlar to Foreman's which was like poison to swarmers.

Baer lost to the swarming Uzcudun. Max was wide open. I see him getting bashed by Marciano with probable stoppage from facial damage.

[OLD FOGEY]

Joe Louis trained hard for Marciano in 1951, but Louis was still faded and slowed a great deal by fight night at age 37.... Joe Louis gave it his best in 1951, but it just wasn't enough..... What a difference 10 yrs can make.... Rocky Marciano would be game but he'd be hammered and stopped by a 1941 version of Joe Louis in a time machine..... Joe Louis still had his power after WW2, but his hand speed and reflexes had gone south by 1947..... After age 33, Joe Louis began to slide downward rather fast.......

MR.BILL

Louis' poor performance against Godoy in 1940 opens the door concerning Marciano. Louis always had trouble with men who fought out of a crouch. It is just hard to say.

[mcvey]

Baer lost to the swarming Uzcudun. Max was wide open. I see him getting bashed by Marciano with probable stoppage from facial damage.

Baer was winning the Uzcudon fight but wilted late on in the July ,Reno heat ,remember it was over 20rds.

[OLD FOGEY]

The fact is Goldman sent Marciano out telling him he had to KO CHARLES OR THERE WAS A VERY REAL DANGER THE FIGHT WOULD BE STOPPED .Its not the fact that Marciano was in front ,no one disputes that.No MYTH ,read Marciano's biography.ps He was also in danger of being stoppeed on cuts against Keene Simmons.

"He was also in danger of being stopped on cuts against Keene Simmons."

I read the LIFE MAGAZINE spread on this fight and the pictures really didn't show that dangerous a cut. It was under control and to the outside of the eye. There is only a slight trickle of blood down the cheek.

LIFE quotes Goldman "I was never worried. Rocky is a bulldog."

Of course, it might have looked more dangerous earlier. Who knows now?
This is the way LIFE describes this fight:

"But Rocky got hurt early and Charley worked feverishly to stop the flow of blood from his left eye. He told Rocky to slip away from punches and try to avoid trouble. By the fifth round, Rocky had his punch and breath back again. In the eighth, with Simmons helpless, the referee stopped the fight."

I think this fight came right after Marciano got married, perhaps an odd time to have a fight, especially with the mores of that era.

This is the article which carries a gruesome photo of a Marciano right distorting Simmons' face so badly that his eye appears to be outside his ear.

[MRBILL]

Louis' poor performance against Godoy in 1940 opens the door concerning Marciano. Louis always had trouble with men who fought out of a crouch. It is just hard to say.

That was an off night for Louis...... Louis had no problem with Art Godoy in the summer rematch of '40....

MR.BILL:good

[OLD FOGEY]

Baer was winning the Uzcudon fight but wilted late on in the July ,Reno heat ,remember it was over 20rds.

It was over 20 rounds and hot for both of them, plus Uzcudun was ten years older. The fact is that Uzcudun is the closest opponent to Marciano whom Baer fought and Baer's stamina against Marciano in the late rounds might be an issue.

[OLD FOGEY]

That was an off night for Louis...... Louis had no problem with Art Godoy in the summer rematch of '40....

MR.BILL:good

I don't think Godoy had one-punch KO power. He was an ordinary puncher. Marciano's overhand right out of the crouch certainly brings something more to the table.

[OLD FOGEY]

Rocky would certainly be generally considered the favorite over anyone Louis defended the title against, but I have my doubts about him having the longevity to maintain dominance for 12 years; with his taxing training schedule and physically straining and punishing style that led to numerous injuries, it seems probable he would burn out before he got to the end and lose to someone.

I agree, he can't last that long. He would be a little man fighting bigger men on the average, unlike Louis who probably had a weight pull about 80% of his fights.

[MRBILL]

Mad Max Baer was a sloppy but powerful fighter....... Baer's defense was poor and his punches were telegraphed...... Powerful guys like Baer from the past or Ray Mercer from the modern day era can easily be outboxed by a smooth boxer who has skill and is in condition.... Brains normally beat-out brawn........ Cheers.....

MR.BILL

[MRBILL]

I don't think Godoy had one-punch KO power. He was an ordinary puncher. Marciano's overhand right out of the crouch certainly brings something more to the table.

Well, sure...... Marciano always had a puncher's chance......:shock:

MR.BILL:bbb

[OLD FOGEY]

Well, sure...... Marciano always had a puncher's chance......:shock:

MR.BILL:bbb

And it is at least possible he has a better chin and perhaps even a better defense. Everyone knew you could hit Louis with an overhand right. What punch could you be certain of hitting Marciano with? Don't say a jab because Marciano slipped jabs very well.

I like Louis because of size, but I wouldn't put a great deal of money out on this one.

[Dempsey1238]

I think Rocky Marciano can last the 12 years perhaps if he takes the Jack Dempsey rule book of reining as champ.

Apound winning the title make a few quick defenses so the people can "Think" you can be a busy champ. Than after that, defend your title against soft touchs like Johnny Paycheck for the rest of your rein, lets not forget to take a 3 or 4 year break in between 1 or 2 title defenses. Dont worry about that scary number 1 rank contender. he age, he cant stay young forever, before some young contender takes him out. Than if your smart, you can retire unbeating.

[mcvey]

Louis' poor performance against Godoy in 1940 opens the door concerning Marciano. Louis always had trouble with men who fought out of a crouch. It is just hard to say.
Well he sure didn't have any trouble with Godoy in the return match ,he opened his face up like a can of peas.
Blackburn drilled Louis incessantly after the first Godoy fight making him throw uppercuts with either hand .

[mcvey]

"He was also in danger of being stopped on cuts against Keene Simmons."

I read the LIFE MAGAZINE spread on this fight and the pictures really didn't show that dangerous a cut. It was under control and to the outside of the eye. There is only a slight trickle of blood down the cheek.

LIFE quotes Goldman "I was never worried. Rocky is a bulldog."

Of course, it might have looked more dangerous earlier. Who knows now?
This is the way LIFE describes this fight:

"But Rocky got hurt early and Charley worked feverishly to stop the flow of blood from his left eye. He told Rocky to slip away from punches and try to avoid trouble. By the fifth round, Rocky had his punch and breath back again. In the eighth, with Simmons helpless, the referee stopped the fight."

I think this fight came right after Marciano got married, perhaps an odd time to have a fight, especially with the mores of that era.

This is the article which carries a gruesome photo of a Marciano right distorting Simmons' face so badly that his eye appears to be outside his ear.

"Referee Sharkey Buonnano told me later he could have stopped the fight anytime after the second round,He didnt want to because Rocky was undefeated and a big attraction in Providence.He didnt want to stop it unless it was absolutely necessary."
"Rocky returned to his corner, after the seventh round a doctor examined his eye.Rocky appeared to be pleading to allow the fight to continue.When the bell rang he ran across the ring after Simmons".

" In his own mind Rocky knew that the fight could not go another round"

[mcvey]

It was over 20 rounds and hot for both of them, plus Uzcudun was ten years older. The fact is that Uzcudun is the closest opponent to Marciano whom Baer fought and Baer's stamina against Marciano in the late rounds might be an issue.
Why should Baer's stamina be an issue he twice went 20rds to a dec ,something Marciano NEVER DID?You talk about MarciANO'S OVERHAND RIGHT ,HOW ABOUT BAER'S?
Baer had a better chin than Rocky and probably better one punch power.

[leverage]

Marciano walks through everyone except louis . Too much power, stamina, and determination for any of the rest.

[OLD FOGEY]

"Referee Sharkey Buonnano told me later he could have stopped the fight anytime after the second round,He didnt want to because Rocky was undefeated and a big attraction in Providence.He didnt want to stop it unless it was absolutely necessary."
"Rocky returned to his corner, after the seventh round a doctor examined his eye.Rocky appeared to be pleading to allow the fight to continue.When the bell rang he ran across the ring after Simmons".

" In his own mind Rocky knew that the fight could not go another round"

LIFE had a different take. The pictures they had made it seem to me it would have been strange to stop the fight. The cut was outside the eyelid and draining slowly down the cheek. I think it is posted on the New York Daily News Picture section.

"In his own mind Rocky knew"

It is interesting reading the thoughts of a man who had been dead for several years. Skehan did not footnote in my copy of his biography. I can't say without looking at a film, but LIFE and the AP never mentioned this likely stoppage while these reports are from recollections of a generation later.

[OLD FOGEY]

Well he sure didn't have any trouble with Godoy in the return match ,he opened his face up like a can of peas.
Blackburn drilled Louis incessantly after the first Godoy fight making him throw uppercuts with either hand .

If Marciano were the opponent, could Louis afford to drop his hands for uppercuts? Marciano just had a lot more offensive kick than Godoy.

If Marciano were in Louis' era, he would probably have a lot more experience at a younger age. With the WWII delay, Marciano didn't really get started on his pro career until he was almost 25. He was probably slipping a bit physically at about the time he was gaining needed experience.

[OLD FOGEY]

Why should Baer's stamina be an issue he twice went 20rds to a dec ,something Marciano NEVER DID?You talk about MarciANO'S OVERHAND RIGHT ,HOW ABOUT BAER'S?
Baer had a better chin than Rocky and probably better one punch power.


Yes, but Baer is 6' 3" or so. He might a tough time catching a shorter man fighting out of a crouch with an overhand right. On the other hand, he would be right there for Marciano.

Baer had better one-punch power--Name top men that Baer put down for the count. Marciano put Walcott, Charles, Moore, Layne, and Matthews down for the count, and reasonably Louis would not have beaten the count. I think you will notice that most of Baer's fights against name opponents were stopped by the referee. Not all of them, but more than Marciano's.

My point about Baer is that he didn't beat the man who was most like Marciano, Uzcudun, that he fought. You brought up that he faded against an older, smaller Uzcudun after fifteen. Baer also faded badly againt Nova twice in the later rounds.

It is wild speculation that Baer has a better chin. He certainly was not as defensively adroit. By the way, I don't think Baer was in there against more big punchers than Marciano. The one who obviously was, the young Louis, knocked him out in four.

[asero]

Max Schmelling may have been a difficult opponent for Rocky too.

Max had power, could box, and was smart.


this is one fight i would love to see...prime for prime, i do not think rocky can beat max schmelling with a single punch

[MRBILL]

Baer had a better punch and chin than Marciano? How the f@#k is that concluded???:patsch

MR.BILL

[mcvey]

If Marciano were the opponent, could Louis afford to drop his hands for uppercuts? Marciano just had a lot more offensive kick than Godoy.

If Marciano were in Louis' era, he would probably have a lot more experience at a younger age. With the WWII delay, Marciano didn't really get started on his pro career until he was almost 25. He was probably slipping a bit physically at about the time he was gaining needed experience.

No doubt Marciano would have been Louis's most dangerous challenger.
I think a prime Louis would have had the hand speed and reactions to get away with uppercuts against Rocky. The shot Louis who Marciano beat was caught with several big left hooks as well as Suzie Q's .In that fight Louis relied on the occasional hook and the remnants of his jab ,he threw only a couple of rights and those without conviction.

[mcvey]

Baer had a better punch and chin than Marciano? How the f@#k is that concluded???:patsch

MR.BILL

I think many would agree ,you act as though it is beyond the realms of possibility.Louis said Baer had a terrific chin ,Braddock said Baer was a bigger puncher than Louis

[mcvey]

Yes, but Baer is 6' 3" or so. He might a tough time catching a shorter man fighting out of a crouch with an overhand right. On the other hand, he would be right there for Marciano.

Baer had better one-punch power--Name top men that Baer put down for the count. Marciano put Walcott, Charles, Moore, Layne, and Matthews down for the count, and reasonably Louis would not have beaten the count. I think you will notice that most of Baer's fights against name opponents were stopped by the referee. Not all of them, but more than Marciano's.

My point about Baer is that he didn't beat the man who was most like Marciano, Uzcudun, that he fought. You brought up that he faded against an older, smaller Uzcudun after fifteen. Baer also faded badly against Nova twice in the later rounds.

It is wild speculation that Baer has a better chin. He certainly was not as defensively adroit. By the way, I don't think Baer was in there against more big punchers than Marciano. The one who obviously was, the young Louis, knocked him out in four.
Charles an ex LH past his best 33,
Walcott 37 and 38 had been stopped quite a few times previously.Moore a 40 year old LH,Mathews a hyped lh,later stopped by Cockell.Layne a great KO.
Baers fights stopped by the referee? Schaaf was out for 10 minutes! Campbell was out and gone. Schmeling kod with a right hand.Baer was finished aginst Nova ,thats like saying Louis against Marciano was the Brown Bomber!
Baer, over the hill, had no trouble catching Galento with right hands.

[mcvey]

LIFE had a different take. The pictures they had made it seem to me it would have been strange to stop the fight. The cut was outside the eyelid and draining slowly down the cheek. I think it is posted on the New York Daily News Picture section.

"In his own mind Rocky knew"

It is interesting reading the thoughts of a man who had been dead for several years. Skehan did not footnote in my copy of his biography. I can't say without looking at a film, but LIFE and the AP never mentioned this likely stoppage while these reports are from recollections of a generation later.

I suppose its who you want to beleive, a magazine known for great pics,that is not primarily boxing orientated,or a researched book.I am not familiar with Life really except some of its iconic photos.and I've only read the one book by Skeehan.

[mcvey]

Yes, but Baer is 6' 3" or so. He might a tough time catching a shorter man fighting out of a crouch with an overhand right. On the other hand, he would be right there for Marciano.

Baer had better one-punch power--Name top men that Baer put down for the count. Marciano put Walcott, Charles, Moore, Layne, and Matthews down for the count, and reasonably Louis would not have beaten the count. I think you will notice that most of Baer's fights against name opponents were stopped by the referee. Not all of them, but more than Marciano's.

My point about Baer is that he didn't beat the man who was most like Marciano, Uzcudun, that he fought. You brought up that he faded against an older, smaller Uzcudun after fifteen. Baer also faded badly againt Nova twice in the later rounds.

It is wild speculation that Baer has a better chin. He certainly was not as defensively adroit. By the way, I don't think Baer was in there against more big punchers than Marciano. The one who obviously was, the young Louis, knocked him out in four.
Older smaller Uzcudon? Paulino was 32 ,195 to Baer's202. not a big disparity.
While we are talking about weight, check out how many men over 200lbs Marciano kod.Cockell205 an ex LH who was hog fat.Louis 36 and 213 3/4 ,14 lbs over his best weight and nearly a decade past his best.Johnny Schkor 2201/2 a trial horse whose record was 22-11-7
Baer kod Comiskey207 1rd,Galento 2441/2 8rds,Hankinson,214,1rd,Foord2081/29rds,Carnera 2631/311rds,Heeney,208 3rds.And Knocked Schaaf 2091/2 out for 10 minutes.
Big punchers?The biggest puchers Marciano met were an old Louis who threw zero right hands, a 37 /38 Walcott who dropped him and a 40 yearold LH Moore, who also dropped him .Any LHv's drop Baer?
Baer met Comiskey 60kos in 73 wins,Schmeling,Galento,Foord 22 kos in 40 wins,Campbell 22kos in 33 wins,Hankinson,39 kos in 45 wins,Griffiths 41 kos in 74 wins and Braddock another good puncher, Baer quit fully conscious, against Louis ,who said , he never hit a man like he hit Baer.and was stopped twice by Nova when he was past it.Baer met punchers at least as good as Marciano and the majority of them bigger men.
For the record I think Marciano beats Baer ,but lets not pretend its a walkover.Baer destroyed a prime Schmeling ,which is better than any win on Marcianos record imo.

[OLD FOGEY]

Charles an ex LH past his best 33,
Walcott 37 and 38 had been stopped quite a few times previously.Moore a 40 year old LH,Mathews a hyped lh,later stopped by Cockell.Layne a great KO.
Baers fights stopped by the referee? Schaaf was out for 10 minutes! Campbell was out and gone. Schmeling kod with a right hand.Baer was finished aginst Nova ,thats like saying Louis against Marciano was the Brown Bomber!
Baer, over the hill, had no trouble catching Galento with right hands.

Well, what happened--Campbell compares to Vingo. Better and quicker medical attention probably saved Vingo. Schaaf--okay.
Of the fights I have seen on film of Baer:

1. Uzcudun--20 round decision loss.
2. Levinsky--20 round decision victory.
3. Schmeling--Schmeling on feet when ref stops bout.
4. Carnera--Carnera on feet when bout ends with Primo apparently giving up.
5. Braddock--15 round decision loss
6. Louis--four round KO defeat
7. Farr--12 round decision loss
8. Foord--KO 8. Foord is the only opponent on film I have seen take the count against Baer
9. Nova--survives Baer's best to stop him on cuts in 11.
10. Comiskey--fight is stopped in first with Comiskey hanging over ropes. He gets up quickly from a right hand, but impressive knockout.
11. Galento--Wide open Tony survives punch after punch without going down before quitting on stool.
12. Nova--survives Baer's best and comes back to stop Baer in 8.

Marciano on film:
1. Layne--takes count and out cold in 6.
2. Louis--dumped through ropes--ref stops fight but Louis could not have gotten up.
3. Savold--Takes bad beating like Galento and quits on stool.
4. Matthews--taken out by two left hooks.
5. Walcott--taken out by one right in 13th.
6. Walcott--taken out for count by right uppercut in 1st.
7. LaStarza--survives knockdown and is floundering when ref stops fight in 11th--similar to Schmeling fight.
8. Charles--15 round decision.
9. Charles--takes count in 8th.
10. Cockell--down three times and floundering when ref stops fight in 9th. One of Marciano's least impressive fights.
11. Moore--takes count in 9th.

1 of Baer's opponents takes count. 6 of Marciano's do, plus Louis. I would say that your not going to give Marciano any credit no matter what he did. For example--Matthews. Marciano is the only one to ever put him down for the count in over 100 fights. The "KO" loss to Cockell came because Matthews suffered a back injury and quit on his stool. Walcott had been stopped once in the last 12 years--the entire length of Baer's career--and that by Louis. Moore was stopped once every 31 fights over his career, a better percentage than the iron-chinned Baer. Louis hadn't been stopped by anyone else for 15 years while fighting the best heavyweights out there. There was no one around who was iron-jawed enough to prove anything to people who want to insist that the best fighters of an integrated era could not match the fighters of a segregated era. I just don't believe that.

[OLD FOGEY]

I suppose its who you want to beleive, a magazine known for great pics,that is not primarily boxing orientated,or a researched book.I am not familiar with Life really except some of its iconic photos.and I've only read the one book by Skeehan.

LIFE may not have been a boxing magazine, but a picture is a picture and the cut just doesn't seem all that bad on the photos. I would tend to believe a picture more than a 30 year old memory. Memories tend to become dramatic.

[mcvey]

Well, what happened--Campbell compares to Vingo. Better and quicker medical attention probably saved Vingo. Schaaf--okay.
Of the fights I have seen on film of Baer:

1. Uzcudun--20 round decision loss.
2. Levinsky--20 round decision victory.
3. Schmeling--Schmeling on feet when ref stops bout.
4. Carnera--Carnera on feet when bout ends with Primo apparently giving up.
5. Braddock--15 round decision loss
6. Louis--four round KO defeat
7. Farr--12 round decision loss
8. Foord--KO 8. Foord is the only opponent on film I have seen take the count against Baer
9. Nova--survives Baer's best to stop him on cuts in 11.
10. Comiskey--fight is stopped in first with Comiskey hanging over ropes. He gets up quickly from a right hand, but impressive knockout.
11. Galento--Wide open Tony survives punch after punch without going down before quitting on stool.
12. Nova--survives Baer's best and comes back to stop Baer in 8.

Marciano on film:
1. Layne--takes count and out cold in 6.
2. Louis--dumped through ropes--ref stops fight but Louis could not have gotten up.
3. Savold--Takes bad beating like Galento and quites on stool.
4. Matthews--taken out by two left hooks.
5. Walcott--taken out by one right in 13th.
6. Walcott--taken out for count by right uppercut in 1st.
7. LaStarza--survives knockdown and is floundering when ref stops fight in 11th--similar to Schmeling fight.
8. Charles--15 round decision.
9. Charles--takes count in 8th.
10. Cockell--down three times and floundering when ref stops fight in 9th. One of Marciano's least impressive fights.
11. Moore--takes count in 9th.

1 of Baers opponents takes count. 6 of Marciano's do, plus Louis. I would say that your not going to give Marciano any credit no matter what he did. For example--Matthews. Marciano is the only one to ever put him down for the count in over 100 fights. The "KO" loss to Cockell came because Matthews suffered a back injury and quit on his stool. Walcott had been stopped once in the last 12 years--the entire length of Baer's career--and that by Louis. Moore was stopped once every 31 fights over his career, a better percentage than the iron-chinned Baer. Louis hadn't been stopped by anyone else for 15 years while fighting the best heavyweights out there. There was no one around who was iron-jawed enough to prove anything to people who want to insist that the best fighters of an integrated era could not match the fighters of a segregated era. I just don't believe that.
No comment on the size of Marciano's ko victims?
APART FROM COCKELL 5 10 and fat at 209and an old LOUIS WHO DID MARCIANO KO WHO WEIGHED OVER 200 LBS?
Vingo had 17 fights when he fought Marciano ,with just 7 stoppages.
Campbell had 39 fights and 26 kos,yet you think they are comparable?
I say Baer fought BIGGER men who hit just as hard as any Marciano met. I say Baer ' s ko over Schmeling was better than any win marciano had. I say Marciano's Best wins are over men past their prime,two of them ex light heavyweights.

[Bummy Davis]

No comment on the size of Marciano's ko victims?
APART FROM COCKELL 5 10 and fat at 209and an old LOUIS WHO DID MARCIANO KO WHO WEIGHED OVER 200 LBS?
Vingo had 17 fights when he fought Marciano ,with just 7 stoppages.
Campbell had 39 fights and 26 kos,yet you think they are comparable?
I say Baer fought BIGGER men who hit just as hard as any Marciano met. I say Baer ' s ko over Schmeling was better than any win marciano had. I say Marciano's Best wins are over men past their prime,two of them ex light heavyweights.


Well Baer had lost to Braddock,Riskco,Uzcudun,Tommy Farr Willie Davies and they all weighed under 200lbs and he even lost to Tommy Lougran who weighed in at 183......even Braddock fought most of his career as a lightheavy and Lou Nova weighed in at 202 when he beat Max......I dont think any of those guys that beat Max were in the class of Walcott,Charles or Moore at the stage that they fought Marciano. Funny but in this day of sterioded fighters and atheletes I wonder how much better the Heavys would have been if they refrained from ROIDS ( bigger but not better) Anyway forget that....Moore,Charles and Walcott beat all of the bigger men of that time and Marciano took care of 6"2 1/2 Rex Layne who was a puncher...Charles beat 6'2 Satterfield and 6"3 Wallace...Moore beat 6"3 Valdez and 6"2 Bob Baker by Ko and Walcott beat Ollie Tanberg 6"3 and unbeaten Hein Ten Hoff 6"5 219 and 6"4 216 Johnnny Shkor.....Marciano fought his # 1 contender 5 times and a # 2 contender once. So we can say Marciano fought the best of his time. If we want to pick hairs we can say Marciano fought smaller older men( Moore beat Valdez 2 times( do we really think Valdez would have done better than Moore or do we think the bigger men of there time were better or just bigger. We can say Charle,Moore and Walcott were older and perhaps smaller but they beat the younger bigger guys. ON TOP OF THAT even Ali had a harder time with the smaller men of his day Jones,Cooper,Frazier, and Holmes had Spinks and Tyson who were not large men....I think beating the men who beat the top guys to get there is the most important thing.....and I think Walcott, and Charles and Mabey Moore would have handled Max S or Max B and Marciano would have walked threw any of the big guys inhis era that lost to Walcott,Moore or Charles or Lastarza

[OLD FOGEY]

Older smaller Uzcudon? Paulino was 32 ,195 to Baer's202. not a big disparity.
While we are talking about weight, check out how many men over 200lbs Marciano kod.Cockell205 an ex LH who was hog fat.Louis 36 and 213 3/4 ,14 lbs over his best weight and nearly a decade past his best.Johnny Schkor 2201/2 a trial horse whose record was 22-11-7
Baer kod Comiskey207 1rd,Galento 2441/2 8rds,Hankinson,214,1rd,Foord2081/29rds,Carnera 2631/311rds,Heeney,208 3rds.And Knocked Schaaf 2091/2 out for 10 minutes.
Big punchers?The biggest puchers Marciano met were an old Louis who threw zero right hands, a 37 /38 Walcott who dropped him and a 40 yearold LH Moore, who also dropped him .Any LHv's drop Baer?
Baer met Comiskey 60kos in 73 wins,Schmeling,Galento,Foord 22 kos in 40 wins,Campbell 22kos in 33 wins,Hankinson,39 kos in 45 wins,Griffiths 41 kos in 74 wins and Braddock another good puncher, Baer quit fully conscious, against Louis ,who said , he never hit a man like he hit Baer.and was stopped twice by Nova when he was past it.Baer met punchers at least as good as Marciano and the majority of them bigger men.
For the record I think Marciano beats Baer ,but lets not pretend its a walkover.Baer destroyed a prime Schmeling ,which is better than any win on Marcianos record imo.

1. "Let's not pretend its a walkover"--who ever said it was.

2. How good were Baer's big punching opponents--Hank Hankinson-had lost 7 of his previous 8, six by knockout. In his four fights leading up to the Baer bout, he was ko'd by Johnny Whiters (1), Tiger Jack Fox (1), Phil Brubacher (1), and Chuck Crowell (2). He had lasted 5 rounds in four fights. A few years earlier Hankinson had been a decent fighter and he did stop old George Godfrey, but he was finished. Tiger Jack Fox was, by the way, one of your despised aging lightheavies and weighed 179 when he ko'd the 213 lb Hankinson.
Ben Foord--with 22 ko's in 59 fights, I wonder is anyone considered Foord much of a puncher. He had been the British Empire champion and had beaten Loughran, Gains, and Jack Petersen. He was coming off losses to Neusel and Farr going into the Baer fight, and would follow it with losses to Schmeling, Neusel, and a ko loss to Eddie Phillips.
Tony Galento--coming off a stoppage of Nova in a controversially dirty fight, he was actually rated at the top of the division. Interesting that you focus on Cockell being fat when blubbery Tony retired the cup on this point. Back in 1936, the 220 lb Galento had been stopped in 4 rounds by the 168 lb Al Gainer, another despised lightheavy.
Pat Comiskey--a month short of his 20th birthday when he fought Baer. He was a prospect, but an ex-champion was certainly a big step up for a young man who's best previous efforts were splitting a pair of eight round fights with journeyman Steve Dudas. He went on to have a decent career, breaking into the ratings in 1947, but most of his victories were over second-tier guys. When he tried to move up, he lost more often than not.
Tom Heeney--He was a puncher? Wouldn't have guessed it off his record. Baer got credit for a knockout when ref Jack Dempsey and timekeeper Arthur Donovan screwed up the count, reaching ten at eight with Heeney on one knee waiting to get up. Heeney was pretty much losing all the time by this point, and a year later was stopped by the 168 lb Jimmy Slattery, another lightheavy.
Frankie Campbell--Campbell had been #13 at middle back in 1925 by RING MAGAZINE, but his career had largely petered out, and he had been flattened by the best fighter he had fought, the lightheavy Charley Belanger. In fairness, he was on a winning streak against second-raters when he moved up to heavy and lost to Baer.

There, of course, are also the giants Carnera and Santa, but other than perhaps Carnera and Galento, I don't think most of these guys were all that good. Other than perhaps Galento again, and to some extent Comiskey, I don't find them that impressive a group of punchers, certainly not more dangerous overall than Walcott, Moore, Charles, Louis (even at 37), Savold, Matthews, Reynolds, etc

[OLD FOGEY]

I missed a couple of men. It is interesting you think the former lightheavies Braddock and Griffith are dangerous punchers in a sense that Moore, Charles, and Matthews are not.

Lou Nova--Nova was considered a coming champ on the basis of his destructions of Baer. He went out meekly against Louis and was then stopped twice by Savold. Looking at his record, he had 31 ko's in 63 fights overall. The only other top men besides Baer he ever stopped was Gunnar Barlund. In retrospect, Nova doesn't seem nearly as good as people judged. Is this perhaps because they were overrating Baer and his chin to begin with?

[mcvey]

Well Baer had lost to Braddock,Riskco,Uzcudun,Tommy Farr Willie Davies and they all weighed under 200lbs and he even lost to Tommy Lougran who weighed in at 183......even Braddock fought most of his career as a lightheavy and Lou Nova weighed in at 202 when he beat Max......I dont think any of those guys that beat Max were in the class of Walcott,Charles or Moore at the stage that they fought Marciano. Funny but in this day of sterioded fighters and atheletes I wonder how much better the Heavys would have been if they refrained from ROIDS ( bigger but not better) Anyway forget that....Moore,Charles and Walcott beat all of the bigger men of that time and Marciano took care of 6"2 1/2 Rex Layne who was a puncher...Charles beat 6'2 Satterfield and 6"3 Wallace...Moore beat 6"3 Valdez and 6"2 Bob Baker by Ko and Walcott beat Ollie Tanberg 6"3 and unbeaten Hein Ten Hoff 6"5 219 and 6"4 216 Johnnny Shkor.....Marciano fought his # 1 contender 5 times and a # 2 contender once. So we can say Marciano fought the best of his time. If we want to pick hairs we can say Marciano fought smaller older men( Moore beat Valdez 2 times( do we really think Valdez would have done better than Moore or do we think the bigger men of there time were better or just bigger. We can say Charle,Moore and Walcott were older and perhaps smaller but they beat the younger bigger guys. ON TOP OF THAT even Ali had a harder time with the smaller men of his day Jones,Cooper,Frazier, and Holmes had Spinks and Tyson who were not large men....I think beating the men who beat the top guys to get there is the most important thing.....and I think Walcott, and Charles and Mabey Moore would have handled Max S or Max B and Marciano would have walked threw any of the big guys inhis era that lost to Walcott,Moore or Charles or Lastarza
So because A beats B ,C will too? thats bad logic ,especially in boxing.
Why mention all the contenders that Marciano DID NOT FIGHT? And what has their height to do with their weight ?
Farr weighed 198 for the first Baer fight and 2081/2 for the second.Rex Layne was 6 1 NOT 6 3 1/2. and he weighed 193 for Marciano.
The Davies fight with Baer was a 6 rd Exhibition.Schkor was a journey man with a lot of losses on his record NO WAY was he a contender or even close to it.What has Ali ,or any other fighter to do with this subject?
You can say you think Marciano would have beaten all those guys but you cannot state it because he NEVER met them.
Similarly you can say that Jim Jeffries ,who wore down a clutch of smaller ,greatly outweighed, challengers ,would have done the same to men his own size or bigger ,but you cannot state it because he did NOT do it.For the record ,I think Marciano would have beaten Baker,Wallace, Gilliam ,Valdes,and Satterfield ,BUT I DONT KNOW HE WOULD HAVE,because he did not meet them.He defended against a 37 and 38 year old a 32 going on33 year old former LH ,a LH in Mathews and a fat former LH in Cockell and he finished with a 40year old LH.That I can state because it happened.

[Dempsey1238]

But thsos old gizzers sure beat Baker, Wallace, Valdes ete.

What would Marciano's ranking be if he fought these guys, beat them, but did not defend against Charles, and Archie Moore??

[mcvey]

I missed a couple of men. It is interesting you think the former lightheavies Braddock and Griffith are dangerous punchers in a sense that Moore, Charles, and Matthews are not.

Lou Nova--Nova was considered a coming champ on the basis of his destructions of Baer. He went out meekly against Louis and was then stopped twice by Savold. Looking at his record, he had 31 ko's in 63 fights overall. The only other top men besides Baer he ever stopped was Gunnar Barlund. In retrospect, Nova doesn't seem nearly as good as people judged. Is this perhaps because they were overrating Baer and his chin to begin with?
Where did I say Moore ,Charles or Mathews were not dangerous punchers? SHOW ME.
Griffiths not a puncher?Griffith's purported record,inspired awe and incredulity,in those who heard it: 55 wins and over 40 kos .Fortunatley Braddock was as fearless as his manager,and voiced no qualms -though what he saw,when Griffiths arrived in New York,two days before the bout must have given him some pause for thought.The Iowan went straight to Stillman's Gym in midtown New York,boxed five hard rounds with several sparring partners and flattened each of them.His power shocked even the hard bitten trainers in attendance.You dont think Braddock was a dangerous puncher? I never rmentioned Nova at all in my post Why do you bring him up several times? .You bring up Galento ,vis a vis Cockell ,was Cockell in any way as durable or hard hitting as Galento?
Is it against the law to disagree with you,because it would seem so?
I say Baer hit harder than Marciano,and had a better chin ,you disagree ok.

[OLD FOGEY]

Where did I say Moore ,Charles or Mathews were not dangerous punchers? SHOW ME.
Griffiths not a puncher?Griffith's purported record,inspired awe and incredulity,in those who heard it: 55 wins and over 40 kos .Fortunatley Braddock was as fearless as his manager,and voiced no qualms -though what he saw,when Griffiths arrived in New York,two days before the bout must have given him some pause for thought.The Iowan went straight to Stillman's Gym in midtown New York,boxed five hard rounds with several sparring partners and flattened each of them.His power shocked even the hard bitten trainers in attendance.You dont think Braddock was a dangerous puncher? I never rmentioned Nova at all in my post Why do you bring him up several times? .You bring up Galento ,vis a vis Cockell ,was Cockell in any way as durable or hard hitting as Galento?
Is it against the law to disagree with you,because it would seem so?
I say Baer hit harder than Marciano,and had a better chin ,you disagree ok.

1. Okay. You never said Moore etc were not dangerous--you certainly implied they were not as dangerous as Baer's opponents.

2. Griffith--He had 41 ko's in 74 victories and 91 fights. He ko'd the fading McTigue at lightheavy, and Roper, Heeney, and Von Poret at heavy. This might have awed them in '28, but he looks like just an ordinary former lightheavy to me.

3. If you didn't mention Nova, I will still bring him up. What type of puncher he was is relevant to Baer. He stopped Baer twice.

4. Was Cockell as durable or as hard-hitting as Galento. No, but he was a much better boxer. He would have a good shot at outpointing Galento. I would rate a fight between them a toss-up.

5. "Is it against the law to disagree with you, because it would seem so?"
You are maintaining that an undefeated champion who cleaned out the division in his era is at best on par with or inferior to an erratic champion from an earlier era who was often beaten even by ordinary contenders, had a brief reign without even one successful defense, and faded at a rather young age. You have maintained in one post or another that Baer had a bigger punch, a better chin, and more stamina. Why are you surprised that someone might disagree with you? I thought the purpose of this board was to discuss such disagreements.

6. "I say Baer hit harder than Marciano, and had a better chin, you disagree Ok"

Yes, I do, and I presented historical arguments to back up my disagreement.

[mcvey]

1. Okay. You never said Moore etc were not dangerous--you certainly implied they were not as dangerous as Baer's opponents.

2. Griffith--He had 41 ko's in 74 victories and 91 fights. He ko'd the fading McTigue at lightheavy, and Roper, Heeney, and Von Poret at heavy. This might have awed them in '28, but he looks like just an ordinary former lightheavy to me.

3. If you didn't mention Nova, I will still bring him up. What type of puncher he was is relevant to Baer. He stopped Baer twice.

4. Was Cockell as durable or as hard-hitting as Galento. No, but he was a much better boxer. He would have a good shot at outpointing Galento. I would rate a fight between them a toss-up.

5. "Is it against the law to disagree with you, because it would seem so?"
You are maintaining that an undefeated champion who cleaned out the division in his era is at best on par with or inferior to an erratic champion from an earlier era who was often beaten even by ordinary contenders, had a brief reign without even one successful defense, and faded at a rather young age. You have maintained in one post or another that Baer had a bigger punch, a better chin, and more stamina. Why are you surprised that someone might disagree with you? I thought the purpose of this board was to discuss such disagreements.

6. "I say Baer hit harder than Marciano, and had a better chin, you disagree Ok"

Yes, I do, and I presented historical arguments to back up my disagreement.
I implied nothing .I said Marciano's best wins are over men under 200lbs ,and past their prime.
Baer was stopped 3 times in 81 fights ,since you are determined to bring up Nova lets look at those fights,in the first one Baer was [for him] in decent shape ] though his hands were bad ,the fight was stopped on a badly lacerated cut lip.Baer was not down.The second fight Baer was 10lbs overweight ,it was his swan song,he dropped Nova early but couldn't finish him after taking counts he was rescued by the referee.Against Louis he quit fully conscious kneeling ,listening to the count.Three stoppages in 81 fights,two of them when he was on the way out.If Marciano had fought past his prime would he have remained ,unbeaten ? Baer kod a prime Schmeling which of Marciano's wins equals that?
Braddock said that Baer hit harder than Louis,but Walcott said Marciano had better one shot power than Louis.You pays your money and takes your choice.I think Marciano wears Baer down eventually ,but I like presenting the other side. One thing I would bet on ,Baer would have Marciano on the deck at some point.
ps You would only surprise me if you were in agreement with me.

[OLD FOGEY]

I implied nothing .I said Marciano's best wins are over men under 200lbs ,and past their prime.
Baer was stopped 3 times in 81 fights ,since you are determined to bring up Nova lets look at those fights,in the first one Baer was [for him] in decent shape ] though his hands were bad ,the fight was stopped on a badly lacerated cut lip.Baer was not down.The second fight Baer was 10lbs overweight ,it was his swan song,he dropped Nova early but couldn't finish him after taking counts he was rescued by the referee.Against Louis he quit fully conscious kneeling ,listening to the count.Three stoppages in 81 fights,two of them when he was on the way out.If Marciano had fought past his prime would he have remained ,unbeaten ? Baer kod a prime Schmeling which of Marciano's wins equals that?
Braddock said that Baer hit harder than Louis,but Walcott said Marciano had better one shot power than Louis.You pays your money and takes your choice.I think Marciano wears Baer down eventually ,but I like presenting the other side. One thing I would bet on ,Baer would have Marciano on the deck at some point.
ps You would only surprise me if you were in agreement with me.

1. "If Marciano had fought past his prime"---Marciano and Baer both had their last fights at 32. Baer's loss to Farr came at 28 and his first loss to Nova at 30. I think this is just a double standard. Baer lost fights throughout his career.

2. "Three stoppages in 81 fights"--three more than Marciano suffered.

3. "Baer ko'd a prime Schmeling"--Yes, and Steve Hamas defeated Schmeling in Schmeling's next fight. I don't think that makes Hamas a likely winner over Marciano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an aside offered without comment. This is Schmeling on the losses to Baer and Hamas in his autobiography. Schmeling blamed both defeats on his being "off" rather than his opponents.

"I also told myself that I hadn't been defeated by better boxers. In my normal form I would have beaten Baer and Hamas without that much trouble."

MAX SCHMELING: AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY--Bonus Books 1998, page 90.

This is interesting but I wouldn't read anything into it except a bruised ego.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the biggest win argument has one flaw. You can't defeat anyone you can't fight. Marciano had no chance to defeat Schmeling, just as Louis had no chance of defeating Jack Johnson, Mike Tyson, or Lennox Lewis. The wins over these men by Hart, Douglas, and McCall might be viewed as better than any single Louis win, but I don't see any of them being in Louis' class.

[mcvey]

1. "If Marciano had fought past his prime"---Marciano and Baer both had their last fights at 32. Baer's loss to Farr came at 28 and his first loss to Nova at 30. I think this is just a double standard. Baer lost fights throughout his career.

2. "Three stoppages in 81 fights"--three more than Marciano suffered.

3. "Baer ko'd a prime Schmeling"--Yes, and Steve Hamas defeated Schmeling in Schmeling's next fight. I don't think that makes Hamas a likely winner over Marciano.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an aside offered without comment. This is Schmeling on the losses to Baer and Hamas in his autobiography. Schmeling blamed both defeats on his being "off" rather than his opponents.

"I also told myself that I hadn't been defeated by better boxers. In my normal form I would have beaten Baer and Hamas without that much trouble."

MAX SCHMELING: AN AUTOBIOGRAPHY--Bonus Books 1998, page 90.

This is interesting but I wouldn't read anything into it except a bruised ego.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the biggest win argument has one flaw. You can't defeat anyone you can't fight. Marciano had no chance to defeat Schmeling, just as Louis had no chance of defeating Jack Johnson, Mike Tyson, or Lennox Lewis. The wins over these men by Hart, Douglas, and McCall might be viewed as better than any single Louis win, but I don't see any of them being in Louis' class.
Baer and Marciano's age has little relevance regarding their prime ,which you are only too well aware of ,and I am too fly to let that serve go without a return.Marciano trained like a Monk ,Baer trained like a Monkey, a performing circus monkey,he smoked ,drank and bedded every skirt he could catch , and , with a build like Hercules and looks to match he caught plenty ,sometimes two or three a night.plus his hands were bad in his last years ,indeed he stated they both went in the Braddock fight. I agree you can only fight whats out there, Marciano would in all probablility have kod Valdes, that would have been a good win over a big guy. Rocky probably would have got to Schmeling too ,but because he didnt have the opportunity does not demean Baer's win. 3 stoppages in 81 fights. 3 more than Marciano suffered,but what if Marciano had 81 fights?

I see you mentioned that Hamas decisioned Schmeling ,you didn't mention that Schmeling knocked him out in the rematch a year later did you?

[OLD FOGEY]

Baer and Marciano's age has little relevance regarding their prime ,which you are only too well aware of ,and I am too fly to let that serve go without a return.Marciano trained like a Monk ,Baer trained like a Monkey, a performing circus monkey,he smoked ,drank and bedded every skirt he could catch , and , with a build like Hercules and looks to match he caught plenty ,sometimes two or three a night.plus his hands were bad in his last years ,indeed he stated they both went in the Braddock fight. I agree you can only fight whats out there, Marciano would in all probablility have kod Valdes, that would have been a good win over a big guy. Rocky probably would have got to Schmeling too ,but because he didnt have the opportunity does not demean Baer's win. 3 stoppages in 81 fights. 3 more than Marciano suffered,but what if Marciano had 81 fights?

I see you mentioned that Hamas decisioned Schmeling ,you didn't mention that Schmeling knocked him out in the rematch a year later did you?

1. Baer gets no slack from me for being a playboy. That is part of the package. Louis criticized Baer for never really learning his craft despite all his talent. Marciano, even with a late start, did much better.

2. Marciano beats Valdes--a better win than Cockell. Not as good as Moore, Charles, Walcott, or Louis. Certainly extra wins always improve anyone's resume and Marciano should have fought Valdes instead of fighting Cockell. That is a reasonable criticism.

3. Schmeling ko'd Hamas in 1935. That does not eliminate his loss to Hamas in 1934 anymore than Louis' ko of Schmeling in 1938 eliminates his ko loss to Schmeling in 1936. As for me not mentioning it--it is common knowledge and not pertinent to my argument, in my judgement. You used it in rebuttal just like I used Nova.

[mcvey]

1. Baer gets no slack from me for being a playboy. That is part of the package. Louis criticized Baer for never really learning his craft despite all his talent. Marciano, even with a late start, did much better.

2. Marciano beats Valdes--a better win than Cockell. Not as good as Moore, Charles, Walcott, or Louis. Certainly extra wins always improve anyone's resume and Marciano should have fought Valdes instead of fighting Cockell. That is a reasonable criticism.

3. Schmeling ko'd Hamas in 1935. That does not eliminate his loss to Hamas in 1934 anymore than Louis' ko of Schmeling in 1938 eliminates his ko loss to Schmeling in 1936. As for me not mentioning it--it is common knowledge and not pertinent to my argument, in my judgement. You used it in rebuttal just like I used Nova.
Cockell was picked over Valdes because he was a weak hitter and they wanted to test Marciano's nose out after Charles had split it in half.
The fact remains at comparable ages 32 Baer was well into decline whereas Rocky was still reigning Champ and likely to have had a couple more successful defences if he had gone for them.I make no excuse for Max ,it was his choice to be a playboy , but you cannot ignore the facts.

[OLD FOGEY]

Cockell was picked over Valdes because he was a weak hitter and they wanted to test Marciano's nose out after Charles had split it in half.
The fact remains at comparable ages 32 Baer was well into decline whereas Rocky was still reigning Champ and likely to have had a couple more successful defences if he had gone for them.I make no excuse for Max ,it was his choice to be a playboy , but you cannot ignore the facts.

Who's ignoring the facts. Marciano was able to fight and win to the same age as Baer fought. Training is part of the reason. Another part might also be that Marciano learned his craft better and so was more able to cope with physical decline. Either way, you are basically criticizing Marciano for being successful.

[mcvey]

Who's ignoring the facts. Marciano was able to fight and win to the same age as Baer fought. Training is part of the reason. Another part might also be that Marciano learned his craft better and so was more able to cope with physical decline. Either way, you are basically criticizing Marciano for being successful.
I'm not criticizing Marciano at all . Just stating the facts as I see them .Marciano makes my top 10 Baer does not.Marciano did the most he could with what he had, Baer did not, end of story.

[OLD FOGEY]

I'm not criticizing Marciano at all . Just stating the facts as I see them .Marciano makes my top 10 Baer does not.Marciano did the most he could with what he had, Baer did not, end of story.

Fair enough. Nice debate.

[mcvey]

Fair enough. Nice debate.

Do I get a draw?

[OLD FOGEY]

Do I get a draw?

That depends on who names the judges.

[Bummy Davis]

But thsos old gizzers sure beat Baker, Wallace, Valdes ete.

What would Marciano's ranking be if he fought these guys, beat them, but did not defend against Charles, and Archie Moore??


Eaxactly....Walcott was Champion...Moore beat Baker,Valdez and Johnson, Charles beat Wallace and Satterfield....they were all # 1 contenders...the best of the time...had Valdez beat Moore, he would have gotton the shot

[Bummy Davis]

So because A beats B ,C will too? thats bad logic ,especially in boxing.
Why mention all the contenders that Marciano DID NOT FIGHT? And what has their height to do with their weight ?
Farr weighed 198 for the first Baer fight and 2081/2 for the second.Rex Layne was 6 1 NOT 6 3 1/2. and he weighed 193 for Marciano.
The Davies fight with Baer was a 6 rd Exhibition.Schkor was a journey man with a lot of losses on his record NO WAY was he a contender or even close to it.What has Ali ,or any other fighter to do with this subject?
You can say you think Marciano would have beaten all those guys but you cannot state it because he NEVER met them.
Similarly you can say that Jim Jeffries ,who wore down a clutch of smaller ,greatly outweighed, challengers ,would have done the same to men his own size or bigger ,but you cannot state it because he did NOT do it.For the record ,I think Marciano would have beaten Baker,Wallace, Gilliam ,Valdes,and Satterfield ,BUT I DONT KNOW HE WOULD HAVE,because he did not meet them.He defended against a 37 and 38 year old a 32 going on33 year old former LH ,a LH in Mathews and a fat former LH in Cockell and he finished with a 40year old LH.That I can state because it happened.

NO, because A beats C he becomes the # 1 contender...You are saying Marciano avoided the bigger guy but you are not saying he avoided the BEST of his time.... The reason Marciano fought Walcott is because he was CHAMPION. The reason Valdez lost his # 1 spot is because he was eliminated by Archie Moore in 2 fights (Moore was the better tougher man) Charles had 2 explosive wins and was Champion and # 1 contender.....If Marciano would have fought the Losers instead of the winners, you would be saying he never fought Moore,Charles ....When a fighter fights the best that is all you can ask of him...not even Joe Louis could fight everyone and as far as Baer and Scmeling, they were eratic, inconsistant and IMO would have lost to Charles,Moore and Walcott

[groove]

old louis wouldn't get to the 3rd round v frazier or liston. ali would do a cleveland williams on old louis. be a total mismatch. charles and moore are Patterson level. look at what peak ali and liston did to patterson. they'd do the same to charles and moore and especially the versions marciano faced.

[hhascup]

If Rocky fought the same boxers at the same time frame as Louis did, or at the same age as Louis did, he would have had some problems keeping a perfect record and here's why.

Rocky fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 26th bout when he won a close split decision against LaStarza. He fought another 10 bouts before he fought another top 10 contender when he stopped Rex Layne. When he fought Moore that was only the 11th time Rocky ever fought a boxer that was rated in the top 10 when he fought them.

Louis fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 12th bout when he stopped Lee Ramage. He would box 9 more top 10 contenders before he fought Braddock for the title. That was Louis's 36th pro bout. So after 36 bouts, Rocky fought 2 top 10 contenders and Louis fought 11. Also, Rocky fought 49 bouts and Louis fought 36 and they both faced 11 top 10 contenders. The time Louis had 49 bouts, he faced a total of 21 top 10 contenders.

If Rocky fought Top 10 contenders as fast as Louis did, he might a had some problems. Rocky learned as he went along and his management brought him along slowly. Louis fought Baer in his 21st bout, Rocky was boxing Ted Lowry in his 21st bout and most people thought Lowry won. What if Rocky was boxing Baer at that time instead of Lowry?

If you go by age, it gets even worse for Rocky.

At the age Louis became Champion, Rocky was still an Amateur.

[mcvey]

NO, because A beats C he becomes the # 1 contender...You are saying Marciano avoided the bigger guy but you are not saying he avoided the BEST of his time.... The reason Marciano fought Walcott is because he was CHAMPION. The reason Valdez lost his # 1 spot is because he was eliminated by Archie Moore in 2 fights (Moore was the better tougher man) Charles had 2 explosive wins and was Champion and # 1 contender.....If Marciano would have fought the Losers instead of the winners, you would be saying he never fought Moore,Charles ....When a fighter fights the best that is all you can ask of him...not even Joe Louis could fight everyone and as far as Baer and Scmeling, they were eratic, inconsistant and IMO would have lost to Charles,Moore and Walcott
I am not saying Marciano avoided anyone,and you won't find it anywhere in this thread.Please don't tell me what I would be saying if the scenario was different , I prefer to do my own thinking ,not have some one do it for me.
I am saying Marciano's best wins were over .1 Men past their prime ,and. 2 Men at or under 200lbs.Anything inaccurate about that statement?
Walcott 37 and 38 196 and197 3/4
Charles 33 and a former LH 183 3/4and 192 1/2
Moore 40[42 if you beleive his mother] 188

His other big win was over a 36 going on 37 year old Louis.Who may have been Joe Louis, but was no longer "The Brown Bomber".
I know why Valdes ,[it is Valdes not Valdez], lost his chance ,I was around then ,Louis was Champ when I was born.Speaking of Louis ,no you can't fight everybody,but who do you think Louis missed?
Conversely it could be argued Marciano ,for whatever reason ,missed,Valdes,Gilliam,Wallace,Baker, Satterfield, Henry.

[Bummy Davis]

I am not saying Marciano avoided anyone,and you won't find it anywhere in this thread.Please don't tell me what I would be saying if the scenario was different , I prefer to do my own thinking ,not have some one do it for me.
I am saying Marciano's best wins were over .1 Men past their prime ,and. 2 Men at or under 200lbs.Anything inaccurate about that statement?
Walcott 37 and 38 196 and197 3/4
Charles 33 and a former LH 183 3/4and 192 1/2
Moore 40[42 if you beleive his mother] 188

His other big win was over a 36 going on 37 year old Louis.Who may have been Joe Louis, but was no longer "The Brown Bomber".
I know why Valdes ,[it is Valdes not Valdez], lost his chance ,I was around then ,Louis was Champ when I was born.Speaking of Louis ,no you can't fight everybody,but who do you think Louis missed?
Conversely it could be argued Marciano ,for whatever reason ,missed,Valdes,Gilliam,Wallace,Baker, Satterfield, Henry.


Seems like you are looking for something negative to say. I say Marciano beat the best of his time. Walcott was Champion so Marciano had to fight him to be Champ and Walcott in the 1st fight was a prime as a fighter could be despite his age.

Gilliam beat Valdes but lost to Baker(3 times) Johnson and Ezz Charles and was KO'd by Coley Wallace

Valdes lost 2 to Moore and then his final shot vs Satterfield

Satterfield was KO'd dramically by Ezz Charles in 2 rds

Coley Wallace was KO'd by Charles and lost to Bob Baker 2 times

Baker was Ko'd by Satterfield in 1 and Ko'd by Moore in 8

Clarence Henry was beaten by Archie Moore and Harold Johnson (who also was stopped by Moore


I think it is clear that Charles and Moore were the dominant contenders of the day and Walcott was the Champion. If you are looking to pick hairs it could be argued that they were older but in fact Moore was on the best win streak ever and recently beat the two of the top heavys Valdes(2 times) KO'd Baker and Harold Johnson and beat Clarence Henry

Charles KO'd Satterfeild in 1 and Coley Wallace in 8 and was certainly in his best condition for the Marciano1 WAR

I would argue that Moore was at his best...Charles was fit and ready and still dangerous at 33 and IF he was slipping it did not show vs Satterfield and Wallace ( Charles 2 best fight as a Heavy)

As I stated in a pror post it could not be argued that Marciano did not fight the best of his era....to say he did not fight all of the contenders would be a WEAK arguement indeed

Hope I helped refresh your memory as to why Gilliam,Satterfield,Baker,ValdesWallace and Henry fell in rankings and GRACE (they lost fights to better men who moved up for title shots because they earned it by winning)




by the way Thanks for the spell check

[mcvey]

Seems like you are looking for something negative to say. I say Marciano beat the best of his time. Walcott was Champion so Marciano had to fight him to be Champ and Walcott in the 1st fight was a prime as a fighter could be despite his age.

Gilliam beat Valdes but lost to Baker(3 times) Johnson and Ezz Charles and was KO'd by Coley Wallace

Valdes lost 2 to Moore and then his final shot vs Satterfield

Satterfield was KO'd dramically by Ezz Charles in 2 rds

Coley Wallace was KO'd by Charles and lost to Bob Baker 2 times

Baker was Ko'd by Satterfield in 1 and Ko'd by Moore in 8

Clarence Henry was beaten by Archie Moore and Harold Johnson (who also was stopped by Moore


I think it is clear that Charles and Moore were the dominant contenders of the day and Walcott was the Champion. If you are looking to pick hairs it could be argued that they were older but in fact Moore was on the best win streak ever and recently beat the two of the top heavys Valdes(2 times) KO'd Baker and Harold Johnson and beat Clarence Henry

Charles KO'd Satterfeild in 1 and Coley Wallace in 8 and was certainly in his best condition for the Marciano1 WAR

I would argue that Moore was at his best...Charles was fit and ready and still dangerous at 33 and IF he was slipping it did not show vs Satterfield and Wallace ( Charles 2 best fight as a Heavy)

As I stated in a pror post it could not be argued that Marciano did not fight the best of his era....to say he did not fight all of the contenders would be a WEAK arguement indeed

Hope I helped refresh your memory as to why Gilliam,Satterfield,Baker,ValdesWallace and Henry fell in rankings and GRACE (they lost fights to better men who moved up for title shots because they earned it by winning)




by the way Thanks for the spell check
Actually Charles slipping DID SHOW,as he had lost his two previous fights before those you mentioned ,to Valdes and to Johnson a LH.You did not refresh my memory as I haven't quite lost it yet.
I did not say Marcino didn't face his best challengers.
What I said was, he faced men past their prime and under 200lbs.
Dress it up anyway you want those are the facts.

[OLD FOGEY]

Actually Charles slipping DID SHOW,as he had lost his two previous fights before those you mentioned ,to Valdes and to Johnson a LH.You did not refresh my memory as I haven't quite lost it yet.
I did not say Marcino didn't face his best challengers.
What I said was, he faced men past their prime and under 200lbs.
Dress it up anyway you want those are the facts.

1. I think "prime" is an abstraction which confuses rather than helps thinking. Sugar Ray Robinson was 35 in 1955. Bobo Olson was 27. Archie Moore was 37 in 1954. Harold Johnson was 26. Dick Tiger was 40 in 1969. Nino Benvenuti was 31. Carlos Monzon was 35 in 1977. Rodrigo Valdez was 30.

So Robinson, Moore, Tiger, and Monzon are by age "past their primes" while Olson, Johnson, Benvenuti, and Valdez are by age at or near their primes. What are we supposed to draw from this? Is anyone going to deny that a man who beat the Robinson, Moore, Tiger, and Monzon of these fights is more impressive than a man who beat the Olson, Johnson, Benvenuti, and Valdez of these fights?

2. Size--Prior to the 1960's there were very few great fighters over 200 lbs in top shape. Jeffries. Johnson--but Johnson weighed only 196 when he beat Burns at almost 31 years of age-- Wills, and Louis. Willard and Carnera were huge but mediocre. Baer had talent, but ended up with a mediocre career also. The fact is that most of the best fighters weighed under 200 lbs in top shape. As for Marciano, there certainly is no evidence that big fellows gave him trouble. He fought 3 men over 220 lbs and knocked all of them out, fought five men over 210 lbs and knocked all of them out, and fought eleven men over 200 lbs and knocked all of them out.

The issue isn't pure age and certainly not an abstraction such as "prime," nor is it size. If an old man can defeat a young man the old man is the better fighter. If a small man can defeat a big man the small man is the better fighter. Walcott and Moore were incumbent champions coming off some of the biggest, or the biggest, wins of their careers. Charles was slipping some, but he was the same age as Ali when Ali defeated Foreman and he had shown he could still pull off big wins. Louis had gone back a long ways. Still, this hardly proves that this group is somehow easier to sweep than the top fighters Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, or Louis defeated. All of Marciano's top opponents were or had been great fighters and all were still active and winning when he fought them.

[OLD FOGEY]

If Rocky fought the same boxers at the same time frame as Louis did, or at the same age as Louis did, he would have had some problems keeping a perfect record and here's why.

Rocky fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 26th bout when he won a close split decision against LaStarza. He fought another 10 bouts before he fought another top 10 contender when he stopped Rex Layne. When he fought Moore that was only the 11th time Rocky ever fought a boxer that was rated in the top 10 when he fought them.

Louis fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 12th bout when he stopped Lee Ramage. He would box 9 more top 10 contenders before he fought Braddock for the title. That was Louis's 36th pro bout. So after 36 bouts, Rocky fought 2 top 10 contenders and Louis fought 11. Also, Rocky fought 49 bouts and Louis fought 36 and they both faced 11 top 10 contenders. The time Louis had 49 bouts, he faced a total of 21 top 10 contenders.

If Rocky fought Top 10 contenders as fast as Louis did, he might a had some problems. Rocky learned as he went along and his management brought him along slowly. Louis fought Baer in his 21st bout, Rocky was boxing Ted Lowry in his 21st bout and most people thought Lowry won. What if Rocky was boxing Baer at that time instead of Lowry?

If you go by age, it gets even worse for Rocky.

At the age Louis became Champion, Rocky was still an Amateur.

They both had remarkable careers in different ways. I might ask about Louis if he had Marciano's career. How would he have done after losing four years to the service and starting his amateur career at 24 and his professional career at 25. He certainly wouldn't have held the title as long nor made as many defenses nor defeated as many ranked contenders. He would have lost his prime physical years to his learning stage. Would Louis have become champion? Probably, but we really don't know how his not starting young might have effected him. Would he have gone undefeated? Unknowable. My guess is he would not have been quite the fighter nor put up quite the record he did in the 1930's.

If Marciano is back in the thirties, he might start his career much earlier and actually have become a better fighter than he was in the fifties as he would have learned his craft as a young man. Undefeated? Unknowable.
But if you just switch Louis and Marciano I think Marciano does become champion without much doubt and enjoys a good reign up to WWII. As a swarmer, could he have come back after a four year layoff?--I doubt it.
If Louis is present in the 1930's, I don't know if Marciano beats him. If he does, he might go undefeated up to WWII.

[hhascup]

I think the question was how would Rocky do if he fought in the same era as Louis did. This is what I put down comparing Rocky against the opponents Louis fought.

If Rocky fought the same boxers at the same time frame as Louis did, or at the same age as Louis did, he would have had some problems keeping a perfect record and here's why.

Rocky fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 26th bout when he won a close split decision against LaStarza. He fought another 10 bouts before he fought another top 10 contender when he stopped Rex Layne. When he fought Moore that was only the 11th time Rocky ever fought a boxer that was rated in the top 10 when he fought them.

Louis fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 12th bout when he stopped Lee Ramage. He would box 9 more top 10 contenders before he fought Braddock for the title. That was Louis's 36th pro bout. So after 36 bouts, Rocky fought 2 top 10 contenders and Louis fought 11. Also, Rocky fought 49 bouts and Louis fought 36 and they both faced 11 top 10 contenders. The time Louis had 49 bouts, he faced a total of 21 top 10 contenders.

If Rocky fought Top 10 contenders as fast as Louis did, he might a had some problems. Rocky learned as he went along and his management brought him along slowly. Louis fought Baer in his 21st bout, Rocky was boxing Ted Lowry in his 21st bout and most people thought Lowry won. What if Rocky was boxing Baer at that time instead of Lowry?

If you go by age, it gets even worse for Rocky.

At the age Louis became Champion, Rocky was still an Amateur.

Of course if Rocky was in his prime when he fought Baer, Schmeling, and any other opponent Louis fought, I do believe he would have come out on top every time. The only one that would have given him trouble would be Billy Conn. I think Rocky would have caught up with Conn, like Louis did, BUT he would have some trouble the same way Louis did.

[hhascup]

They both had remarkable careers in different ways. I might ask about Louis if he had Marciano's career. How would he have done after losing four years to the service and starting his amateur career at 24 and his professional career at 25. He certainly wouldn't have held the title as long nor made as many defenses nor defeated as many ranked contenders. He would have lost his prime physical years to his learning stage. Would Louis have become champion? Probably, but we really don't know how his not starting young might have effected him. Would he have gone undefeated? Unknowable. My guess is he would not have been quite the fighter nor put up quite the record he did in the 1930's.

If Marciano is back in the thirties, he might start his career much earlier and actually have become a better fighter than he was in the fifties as he would have learned his craft as a young man. Undefeated? Unknowable.
But if you just switch Louis and Marciano I think Marciano does become champion without much doubt and enjoys a good reign up to WWII. As a swarmer, could he have come back after a four year layoff?--I doubt it.
If Louis is present in the 1930's, I don't know if Marciano beats him. If he does, he might go undefeated up to WWII.

I agree with all you said. I was just putting each of them in the other ones time frame. I went by what they did during their careers. Louis started younger and he did box much better opponents then Rocky did earlier in their careers. If Rocky fought the same opponents at the same time frame as Louis, he would most likely have been beaten, don't you agree?

[OLD FOGEY]

I agree with all you said. I was just putting each of them in the other ones time frame. I went by what they did during their careers. Louis started younger and he did box much better opponents then Rocky did earlier in their careers. If Rocky fought the same opponents at the same time frame as Louis, he would most likely have been beaten, don't you agree?

Louis was a nearly unique prodigy. He had a excellent amateur background, but no one got in the ring with top level competition so soon after turning pro and fought the very best men at such a young age. I do not think Marciano could match him in any way on this score.

If Louis wasn't there--I think if brought along properly, and with a better amateur background Marciano could have moved up faster, still probably wins the title and I think has a good shot at going unbeaten up to WWII. As a smallish swarmer, he would probably be too old to be successful after the war when well into his thirties and after the long layoff. He might be able to get past the faded Conn and Mauriello in 1946, though, but not Walcott.

If Louis is there, they meet in the late thirties. A Marciano who started younger and had a better background might well have ended up a better fighter. The least one can say is that he would have been Louis' toughest opponent.

Bottom line--Other than Louis himself, I don't think the heavyweights of the pre-WWII Louis era were a better bunch than the heavyweights of the Marciano era. Marciano certainly might have gotten past Schmeling, Baer, and the 170 lb Conn without suffering a loss.

[hhascup]

Louis was a nearly unique prodigy. He had a excellent amateur background, but no one got in the ring with top level competition so soon after turning pro and fought the very best men at such a young age. I do not think Marciano could match him in any way on this score.

If Louis wasn't there--I think if brought along properly, and with a better amateur background Marciano could have moved up faster, still probably wins the title and I think has a good shot at going unbeaten up to WWII. As a smallish swarmer, he would probably be too old to be successful after the war when well into his thirties and after the long layoff. He might be able to get past the faded Conn and Mauriello in 1946, though, but not Walcott.

If Louis is there, they meet in the late thirties. A Marciano who started younger and had a better background might well have ended up a better fighter. The least one can say is that he would have been Louis' toughest opponent.

You can only go by what was, you can't go by what could have been. If you do, you can do that with anyone.

You can put Frazier, Tyson and some others in Rocky's shoes and you would find it hard finding any opponent that Rocky fought, beating them.

[hhascup]

Bottom line--Other than Louis himself, I don't think the heavyweights of the pre-WWII Louis era were a better bunch than the heavyweights of the Marciano era. Marciano certainly might have gotten past Schmeling, Baer, and the 170 lb Conn without suffering a loss.

This would depend on when Rocky fought them. If Rocky fought Baer in his 21st bout, like Louis did, I really believe that Baer would have been the victor. Remember in Rocky's 21st bout, he almost lost to Ted Lowry and most people thought he did.

[OLD FOGEY]

This would depend on when Rocky fought them. If Rocky fought Baer in his 21st bout, like Louis did, I really believe that Baer would have been the victor. Remember in Rocky's 21st bout, he almost lost to Ted Lowry and most people thought he did.

Their backgrounds are so different. Louis had 54 amateur fights, so he was fighting Baer around his 80th pro or amateur fight. Marciano fought Lowry around his 30 to 35th fight, counting amateur and professional. Quite a difference in experience. Still, I am not disputing that Louis was a prodigy and there is no reason to suspect Marciano could have been, even starting young.

It seems you are mixing up two different things here. You are simply focusing on who was great young, or a prodigy, but that doesn't mean one ends up the greatest. A lot of baseball pitchers were better than Grove or Koufax or Spahn before the age of 25. That doesn't mean they were better pitchers at their best. The best NFL quarterback is not the one who was the best college quarterback or rookie quarterback but the one who ends up best at his peak. Nor do I think Terry McGovern is necessarily better than Sandy Saddler although he was almost certainly a better fighter at 20 or 21.

[mcvey]

Good points but Louis suffered due to his Army service too ,from 1942 -1944 he had 2 defences ,both for Relief funds , the Army and Navy.Marciano's style would have made it very difficult for him to stay on top as long as Louis ,when he retired he was about to decline imo,had he reigned during Louis's time,he might have dropped the ball at some point. The Walcott who went so close against Louis might have beaten Rocky.

[OLD FOGEY]

You can only go by what was, you can't go by what could have been. If you do, you can do that with anyone.

You can put Frazier, Tyson and some others in Rocky's shoes and you would find it hard finding any opponent that Rocky fought, beating them.


Yes, guessing what someone does in another era is wild speculation, especially if you consider that they would often have to grow up in a world of vastly inferior nutrition and medical care. About all that makes sense to me is comparing how each man did in his own era against other men of that era. Discussing across eras is intellectually interesting sometimes but really only the blind leading the blind.

[OLD FOGEY]

Good points but Louis suffered due to his Army service too ,from 1942 -1944 he had 2 defences ,both for Relief funds , the Army and Navy.Marciano's style would have made it very difficult for him to stay on top as long as Louis ,when he retired he was about to decline imo,had he reigned during Louis's time,he might have dropped the ball at some point. The Walcott who went so close against Louis might have beaten Rocky.


I think a 33 year old Marciano would have lost to Walcott in 1947.

I am thinking of a Marciano who took 1943 to 1945 off. I think such a Marciano would have gone back quite a bit. The Marciano of 1956 would have had a better chance, but there is no reason to think he could have fought into old age with anything like the success Walcott had.

[mcvey]

I think a 33 year old Marciano would have lost to Walcott in 1947.
There's a good chance of it ,imo.

[hhascup]

Their backgrounds are so different. Louis had 54 amateur fights, so he was fighting Baer around his 80th pro or amateur fight. Marciano fought Lowry around his 30 to 35th fight, counting amateur and professional. Quite a difference in experience. Still, I am not disputing that Louis was a prodigy and there is no reason to suspect Marciano could have been, even starting young.

It seems you are mixing up two different things here. You are simply focusing on who was great young, or a prodigy, but that doesn't mean one ends up the greatest. A lot of baseball pitchers were better than Grove or Koufax or Spahn before the age of 25. That doesn't mean they were better pitchers at their best. The best NFL quarterback is not the one who was the best college quarterback or rookie quarterback but the one who ends up best at his peak. Nor do I think Terry McGovern is necessarily better than Sandy Saddler although he was almost certainly a better fighter at 20 or 21.


Good point, BUT I am going by what was, not what could have been. If Rocky fought at his prime against all of Louis's opponents, I do believe that he would have beaten everyone.

You can also do that with any other boxer at any time too.

I believe Louis fought better opponents then Rocky did during their Pro careers. Here's some of the STATS that I came up with.

Louis fought 43 different Opponents 54 times in 71 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 76.056%

Rocky fought 13 different Opponents 16 times in 49 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 32.653%

Louis fought 34 out of 71 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat 31 of them 43.662%

Rocky fought 11 out of 49 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat all 11 of them 22.44898%.

Louis fought boxers that had an average pro record of 38-10-2.5 when he fought them.

Rocky fought boxers that had an average pro record of 29.7-10.16-1.78 when he fought them.

Lets look at the best boxers Rocky fought:

Rocky fought LaStarza twice (1950 & 1953) and he was very good. A lot of people thought LaStarza beat Rocky in their 1st bout. Rocky would stop him in the return bout.

He also fought Walcott (1952 & 1953) and Charles (both in 1954) twice each. Charles had 90 bouts at that time and he had seen better days.

In his 1st bout with Rocky, Charles fought very well, and it was a lot closer then a lot of people thought it would be and people wanted to see a return go. Rocky stopped Charles in the return bout.

In the 1st Walcott bout going into the 13th round, the judges had Jersey Joe ahead 7-4, 7-5 and 8-4. Rocky stopped Jersey Joe in the return bout in 1 round.

He only fought another 10 boxers that were ever in the 10 top by Ring at one time or another.

Phil Muscato (December 1949) was last rated in the top 10 in 1948, he fought Rocky the next year after losing 4 in a row and 5 out of his last 6 before boxing Rocky.

Johnny Shkor (September 1950) was 29-18-2 at the time he fought Rocky in 1950. He was last rated in 1947. He just got stopped by Walcott and lost his last 7 of 11 bouts.

Rex Layne (July 1951) had a pro record of 34-1-2 with 24 knockouts going into the bout with Rocky. He was a very good boxer, in fact he was one of the best at that time.

Freddy Beshore (August 1951) was last rated in October 1950, Rocky fought him in August of 1951. He lost 7 of his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky.

Joe Louis (October 1951) who was still good, BUT way past his prime when he fought Marciano. His record was 61-1 with 52 KO's in his 1st 62 bouts. In his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky, Louis was 8-1 with only 3 KO's

Lee Savold (February 1952) was last rated in 1951, Rocky stopped him in 1952. Savold was also stopped 9 times before his bout with Rocky, including one by an aging Joe Louis.

Bernie Reynolds (May 1952), who lost 4 out of his last 6 bouts before boxing Rocky in 1952. Reynolds was past his prime as the last time he was rated was 1949.

Harry Kid Matthews (July 1952) was an excellent boxer with an excellent record, he was 51-0-1 with 36 KO's in his last 52 bouts before he faced Rocky, but he was really was a Light Heavyweight.

Don Cockell (May 1955) beat Matthews 3 times and LaStarza. He was also stopped 6 times before he fought Rocky, including a bout with Randy Turpin, a Middleweight, in which he out weigh Turpin by 12 pounds. He was dropped 3 times in the bout.

Archie Moore (September 1955), he was one of the Greatest Light Heavyweights ever.

So if you go by this, the only boxers that were rated in the top 10 when he fought them were Walcott, Charles and LaStarza twice each, Louis, Moore, Layne, Matthews and Cockell. So that means he fought only 8 boxers, 11 times that were rated in the top 10 at the time he fought them.

Some might point to Carmine Vingo. He was 16-1 with 7 KO's when he fought Rocky. In his last 7 bouts before his bout with Rocky, he only had 1 KO and that was against an opponent that was making his Pro debut. George Washington lasted the distance with Vingo and he had a record of 8-16 while being KO'ed 6 times, before he fought Vingo. He was stopped a total of 17 times before his career finished. Plus, Vingo just turned 20 years old just 2 days before he fought Rocky AND he never fought a scheduled bout that was over 6 rounds before he fought him.

[mcvey]

Good point, BUT I am going by what was, not what could have been. If Rocky fought at his prime against all of Louis's opponents, I do believe that he would have beaten everyone.

You can also do that with any other boxer at any time too.

I believe Louis fought better opponents then Rocky did during their Pro careers. Here's some of the STATS that I came up with.

Louis fought 43 different Opponents 54 times in 71 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 76.056%

Rocky fought 13 different Opponents 16 times in 49 bouts that were rated at one time or another in the top 10 in the World. - 32.653%

Louis fought 34 out of 71 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat 31 of them 43.662%

Rocky fought 11 out of 49 opponents while they were rated in the top 10. He beat all 11 of them 22.44898%.

Louis fought boxers that had an average pro record of 38-10-2.5 when he fought them.

Rocky fought boxers that had an average pro record of 29.7-10.16-1.78 when he fought them.

Lets look at the best boxers Rocky fought:

Rocky fought LaStarza twice (1950 & 1953) and he was very good. A lot of people thought LaStarza beat Rocky in their 1st bout. Rocky would stop him in the return bout.

He also fought Walcott (1952 & 1953) and Charles (both in 1954) twice each. Charles had 90 bouts at that time and he had seen better days.

In his 1st bout with Rocky, Charles fought very well, and it was a lot closer then a lot of people thought it would be and people wanted to see a return go. Rocky stopped Charles in the return bout.

In the 1st Walcott bout going into the 13th round, the judges had Jersey Joe ahead 7-4, 7-5 and 8-4. Rocky stopped Jersey Joe in the return bout in 1 round.

He only fought another 10 boxers that were ever in the 10 top by Ring at one time or another.

Phil Muscato (December 1949) was last rated in the top 10 in 1948, he fought Rocky the next year after losing 4 in a row and 5 out of his last 6 before boxing Rocky.

Johnny Shkor (September 1950) was 29-18-2 at the time he fought Rocky in 1950. He was last rated in 1947. He just got stopped by Walcott and lost his last 7 of 11 bouts.

Rex Layne (July 1951) had a pro record of 34-1-2 with 24 knockouts going into the bout with Rocky. He was a very good boxer, in fact he was one of the best at that time.

Freddy Beshore (August 1951) was last rated in October 1950, Rocky fought him in August of 1951. He lost 7 of his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky.

Joe Louis (October 1951) who was still good, BUT way past his prime when he fought Marciano. His record was 61-1 with 52 KO's in his 1st 62 bouts. In his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky, Louis was 8-1 with only 3 KO's

Lee Savold (February 1952) was last rated in 1951, Rocky stopped him in 1952. Savold was also stopped 9 times before his bout with Rocky, including one by an aging Joe Louis.

Bernie Reynolds (May 1952), who lost 4 out of his last 6 bouts before boxing Rocky in 1952. Reynolds was past his prime as the last time he was rated was 1949.

Harry Kid Matthews (July 1952) was an excellent boxer with an excellent record, he was 51-0-1 with 36 KO's in his last 52 bouts before he faced Rocky, but he was really was a Light Heavyweight.

Don Cockell (May 1955) beat Matthews 3 times and LaStarza. He was also stopped 6 times before he fought Rocky, including a bout with Randy Turpin, a Middleweight, in which he out weigh Turpin by 12 pounds. He was dropped 3 times in the bout.

Archie Moore (September 1955), he was one of the Greatest Light Heavyweights ever.

So if you go by this, the only boxers that were rated in the top 10 when he fought them were Walcott, Charles and LaStarza twice each, Louis, Moore, Layne, Matthews and Cockell. So that means he fought only 8 boxers, 11 times that were rated in the top 10 at the time he fought them.

Some might point to Carmine Vingo. He was 16-1 with 7 KO's when he fought Rocky. In his last 7 bouts before his bout with Rocky, he only had 1 KO and that was against an opponent that was making his Pro debut. George Washington lasted the distance with Vingo and he had a record of 8-16 while being KO'ed 6 times, before he fought Vingo. He was stopped a total of 17 times before his career finished. Plus, Vingo just turned 20 years old just 2 days before he fought Rocky AND he never fought a scheduled bout that was over 6 rounds before he fought him.
You have done your research! How about this Louis never fought a south paw.

[janitor]

The bottom line is this.

You can imagine a timeline where Marciano beats Baer in 36 and a timeline where he beats Walcott in 47 but you cant imagine a timeline where he beats both.

The part of Louis's resume that Marcaino could never match would be his longevity.

[janitor]

You have done your research! How about this Louis never fought a south paw.

Jack Roper while not a southpaw was a switch hitter.

[hhascup]

You have done your research! How about this Louis never fought a south paw.

When it comes to Heavyweight Championship bouts, Ali was the 1st to box a southpaw when he fought Karl Mildenberger in 1966.

[OLD FOGEY]

There is no way Marciano compares to Joe Louis (or Muhammad Ali), but he doesn't do that badly is you compare him to other champions, some of whom often rate in the top ten all-time--Wins against rated fighters. All stats taken from the Boxing Register:

1. Marciano--11
2. Liston--8
3. Foreman--7
4. Frazier--9
5. Norton--4
6. Schmeling--6
7. Patterson--14
8. Walcott--12
9. Ingemar Johansson--2

And fighters from other weight classes:
1. Basilio--8
2. Zarate--4
3. Foster--13
4. Galaxy--3
5. Fenech--7
6. Harada--7
7. Loi--6
8. Jofre--14
9. Cerdan--8
10. Wilfredo Gomez--10
11. Zale--7
12. Hagler--14
13. Pryor--7

Marciano rates about the middle of the pack in wins against rated fighters despite having a relatively short career. And I think it is fair to point out that he did not lose to any of these men. Walcott had 13 losses. Patterson 8. Marciano is also the only man to knock out all the rated fighters he fought since the ratings began, and only Marciano and Monzon were able to defeat more than ten rated fighters while maintaining a perfect record against them.

[OLD FOGEY]

When it comes to Heavyweight Championship bouts, Ali was the 1st to box a southpaw when he fought Karl Mildenberger in 1966.

No comment on this--but on your Marciano comments

1. Close fights with Lowry and LaStarza--Lowry was a trialhorse who had fought quite a few top men and over 100 fights. Marciano had 50 rounds of pro boxing and not a great deal of amateur experience. This fight was close and some thought Lowry got the best of it, but not the three officials. I don't know how anyone can know what "most" thought. Marciano clearly won the rematch. LaStarza had won 37 in a row and had broken into the top ten. Marciano knocked Roland down and won the tightest of split decisions under the New York rules of the time, but it would have been a fairly decisive unanimous decision under a point system in which Marciano would have been given a point credit for the knockdown and the low blow would have counted for a one point deduction rather than an effective two point deduction as a round Marciano won was taken from him and given to LaStarza. Marciano still edged out a win and of course stopped LaStarza in a rematch.
You can also point to disputed decisions with anyone. "Most" thought Walcott lost to Louis. Mendoza has argued vehemently on this board that Godoy deserved the decision in their first fight. Some thought Pastor won his first fight with Louis. The Adolf Wiater fight was disputed.
It is the same story with other champs. Liston with Summerlin. Ali with Norton and Young. Holmes with Norton and Witherspoon. I personally thought Frazier lost to Bonavena. Marciano just had fewer of these close fights. He was never outright beaten and the two close decisions broke for him. He left no doubt in the rematches.

1. Charles--While there is much made of "most" people thinking Marciano lost to Lowry or LaStarza, few mention that "most" people also thought Charles beat Walcott and Layne in 1952, and Johnson in 1953. If these close decisions had gone to him, the perception that he was slipping would not be as strong.

2. Matthews--Matthews had won 50 in a row and was a rated heavyweight when he fought Marciano, following a win over Layne, and stoppages of Buford (who had beaten Henry and Thompson) and Beshore. He weighed 179, more than Gibbons against Dempsey or Conn against Louis or Corbett against Sullivan.

3. Savold--He was rated the #2 contender by RING and held a paper title when he went against Louis in June, 1951. When he fought Marciano in Feb, 1952, he had been dropped from the rankings by RING for inactivity. Savold was a long time contender and an in and outer. One can point to the ko defeats, but he had also scored 65 knockouts including Nova (2), Franklin (2), Flynn, Walker, and Woodcock, all top five heavyweights at one time or another.

4. Shkor--had been stopped by Walcott and was very erratic. However, in the fight before the Walcott fight he had beaten Rusty Payne. He had a habit of bouncing back from bad performances with a surprise win such as the upset of Mauriello in 1947. Sort of a journeyman with teeth.

5. Reynolds--had been slipping, but scored a big ko over the promising James J Parker in the fight directly before being matched with Marciano.

Layne, Louis, Matthews, Walcott, LaStarza, Charles, Cockell, and Moore were rated at the top of the heavyweight division, and they were certainly as big on the whole as most of the top contenders of earlier generations.

[OLD FOGEY]

There is no question that Joe Louis fought many more good fighters over a much longer period of time. Who defeated the five or six toughest opponents is a closer call.

[ChrisPontius]

NOTE THE WORD TWICE. [How dare they challenge me with their crude skills?]:patsch

You are right, my apologies. I think i'm past my prime.

[ChrisPontius]

I think if we include how Marciano won, compared to how Louis did against his best 6 opponents, Marciano probably gets the better of it:

Louis vs:
Walcott - most believe he lost the first, though he decisively won the second match.
Charles - lost, though Louis was in pretty bad shape
Schmeling - lost one decisively, won one in extremely dominant fashion
Baer - won in a dominant performance
Carnera - dito
Conn - struggled a bit, but ultimately won the first and dominated the rematch

Marciano vs:
Walcott - struggled but left no doubt about the winner, and won by first round KO in the rematch
Charles - beat Charles in a hard first fight, but was the decisive winner. Knocked him out rather one-sidedly in the rematch
Louis - competitive for the first five/six rounds, but destroyed him in the 8th and at no point previous was he in trouble.
Moore - Marciano won every round except when he got knocked down.
Layne - knocked him out cold in the 6th.
LaStarza won a very close first fight and knocked him out in the rematch


It should be noted though, that Louis was somewhat young against Schmeling and aging against Charles and Walcott. Then again, he did destroy Baer and Carnera during the same "young" period, so how legit this excuse is seems questionable to me. You have to take the good with the bad. Unfortunately, the best opponents he faced came at the beginning and end of his career, but not so much during his peak.

[mcvey]

You are right, my apologies. I think i'm past my prime.
Not past your prime ,maybe past your bed time.

[mcvey]

No comment on this--but on your Marciano comments

1. Close fights with Lowry and LaStarza--Lowry was a trialhorse who had fought quite a few top men and over 100 fights. Marciano had 50 rounds of pro boxing and not a great deal of amateur experience. This fight was close and some thought Lowry got the best of it, but not the three officials. I don't know how anyone can know what "most" thought. Marciano clearly won the rematch. LaStarza had won 37 in a row and had broken into the top ten. Marciano knocked Roland down and won the tightest of split decisions under the New York rules of the time, but it would have been a fairly decisive unanimous decision under a point system in which Marciano would have been given a point credit for the knockdown and the low blow would have counted for a one point deduction rather than an effective two point deduction as a round Marciano won was taken from him and given to LaStarza. Marciano still edged out a win and of course stopped LaStarza in a rematch.
You can also point to disputed decisions with anyone. "Most" thought Walcott lost to Louis. Mendoza has argued vehemently on this board that Godoy deserved the decision in their first fight. Some thought Pastor won his first fight with Louis. The Adolf Wiater fight was disputed.
It is the same story with other champs. Liston with Summerlin. Ali with Norton and Young. Holmes with Norton and Witherspoon. I personally thought Frazier lost to Bonavena. Marciano just had fewer of these close fights. He was never outright beaten and the two close decisions broke for him. He left no doubt in the rematches.

1. Charles--While there is much made of "most" people thinking Marciano lost to Lowry or LaStarza, few mention that "most" people also thought Charles beat Walcott and Layne in 1952, and Johnson in 1953. If these close decisions had gone to him, the perception that he was slipping would not be as strong.

2. Matthews--Matthews had won 50 in a row and was a rated heavyweight when he fought Marciano, following a win over Layne, and stoppages of Buford (who had beaten Henry and Thompson) and Beshore. He weighed 179, more than Gibbons against Dempsey or Conn against Louis or Corbett against Sullivan.

3. Savold--He was rated the #2 contender by RING and held a paper title when he went against Louis in June, 1951. When he fought Marciano in Feb, 1952, he had been dropped from the rankings by RING for inactivity. Savold was a long time contender and an in and outer. One can point to the ko defeats, but he had also scored 65 knockouts including Nova (2), Franklin (2), Flynn, Walker, and Woodcock, all top five heavyweights at one time or another.

4. Shkor--had been stopped by Walcott and was very erratic. However, in the fight before the Walcott fight he had beaten Rusty Payne. He had a habit of bouncing back from bad performances with a surprise win such as the upset of Mauriello in 1947. Sort of a journeyman with teeth.

5. Reynolds--had been slipping, but scored a big ko over the promising James J Parker in the fight directly before being matched with Marciano.

Layne, Louis, Matthews, Walcott, LaStarza, Charles, Cockell, and Moore were rated at the top of the heavyweight division, and they were certainly as big on the whole as most of the top contenders of earlier generations.
First class post!

[mcvey]

I think if we include how Marciano won, compared to how Louis did against his best 6 opponents, Marciano probably gets the better of it:

Louis vs:
Walcott - most believe he lost the first, though he decisively won the second match.
Charles - lost, though Louis was in pretty bad shape
Schmeling - lost one decisively, won one in extremely dominant fashion
Baer - won in a dominant performance
Carnera - dito
Conn - struggled a bit, but ultimately won the first and dominated the rematch

Marciano vs:
Walcott - struggled but left no doubt about the winner, and won by first round KO in the rematch
Charles - beat Charles in a hard first fight, but was the decisive winner. Knocked him out rather one-sidedly in the rematch
Louis - competitive for the first five/six rounds, but destroyed him in the 8th and at no point previous was he in trouble.
Moore - Marciano won every round except when he got knocked down.
Layne - knocked him out cold in the 6th.
LaStarza won a very close first fight and knocked him out in the rematch


It should be noted though, that Louis was somewhat young against Schmeling and aging against Charles and Walcott. Then again, he did destroy Baer and Carnera during the same "young" period, so how legit this excuse is seems questionable to me. You have to take the good with the bad. Unfortunately, the best opponents he faced came at the beginning and end of his career, but not so much during his peak.
Louis took his eye off the ball against Schmeling ,for the first and only time he disregarded Blackburn's orders ,goofed off and played golf. Joe thought because Baer had kod Max ,and he had stopped Baer the fight was a foregone conclusion, he never made that mistake again.
One thing about Marciano,with the possible exception of Moore the challengers he beat as Champion were never the same after meeting him, he ruined some very good men.

[ChrisPontius]

Not past your prime ,maybe past your bed time.

Watch your words old man!

[hhascup]

No comment on this--but on your Marciano comments

1. Close fights with Lowry and LaStarza--Lowry was a trialhorse who had fought quite a few top men and over 100 fights. Marciano had 50 rounds of pro boxing and not a great deal of amateur experience. This fight was close and some thought Lowry got the best of it, but not the three officials. I don't know how anyone can know what "most" thought. Marciano clearly won the rematch. LaStarza had won 37 in a row and had broken into the top ten. Marciano knocked Roland down and won the tightest of split decisions under the New York rules of the time, but it would have been a fairly decisive unanimous decision under a point system in which Marciano would have been given a point credit for the knockdown and the low blow would have counted for a one point deduction rather than an effective two point deduction as a round Marciano won was taken from him and given to LaStarza. Marciano still edged out a win and of course stopped LaStarza in a rematch.
You can also point to disputed decisions with anyone. "Most" thought Walcott lost to Louis. Mendoza has argued vehemently on this board that Godoy deserved the decision in their first fight. Some thought Pastor won his first fight with Louis. The Adolf Wiater fight was disputed.
It is the same story with other champs. Liston with Summerlin. Ali with Norton and Young. Holmes with Norton and Witherspoon. I personally thought Frazier lost to Bonavena. Marciano just had fewer of these close fights. He was never outright beaten and the two close decisions broke for him. He left no doubt in the rematches.

1. Charles--While there is much made of "most" people thinking Marciano lost to Lowry or LaStarza, few mention that "most" people also thought Charles beat Walcott and Layne in 1952, and Johnson in 1953. If these close decisions had gone to him, the perception that he was slipping would not be as strong.

2. Matthews--Matthews had won 50 in a row and was a rated heavyweight when he fought Marciano, following a win over Layne, and stoppages of Buford (who had beaten Henry and Thompson) and Beshore. He weighed 179, more than Gibbons against Dempsey or Conn against Louis or Corbett against Sullivan.

3. Savold--He was rated the #2 contender by RING and held a paper title when he went against Louis in June, 1951. When he fought Marciano in Feb, 1952, he had been dropped from the rankings by RING for inactivity. Savold was a long time contender and an in and outer. One can point to the ko defeats, but he had also scored 65 knockouts including Nova (2), Franklin (2), Flynn, Walker, and Woodcock, all top five heavyweights at one time or another.

4. Shkor--had been stopped by Walcott and was very erratic. However, in the fight before the Walcott fight he had beaten Rusty Payne. He had a habit of bouncing back from bad performances with a surprise win such as the upset of Mauriello in 1947. Sort of a journeyman with teeth.

5. Reynolds--had been slipping, but scored a big ko over the promising James J Parker in the fight directly before being matched with Marciano.

Layne, Louis, Matthews, Walcott, LaStarza, Charles, Cockell, and Moore were rated at the top of the heavyweight division, and they were certainly as big on the whole as most of the top contenders of earlier generations.


When I stated that most people thought Lowry won their 1st bout, I was going by all the newspapers at that time. They fought at the Rhode Island Auditorium, in Providence, RI, where Rocky fought more then half his total bouts. He is the only Heavyweight Champion to box more then half their bouts at one place.

In the 2nd bout with Lowry, Lowry took the bout on short notice, BUT Rocky won going away. I met Ted several times, the last being Late last year and he told me that Joey Maxim was the best fighter he ever fought. He also said that Rocky was very strong BUT Rocky couldn't knock him out.

Charles was not the boxer he once was when he fought Rocky. Ezzard had another 23 bouts after the 2nd Marciano bout and he only won 10 of them. So in his last 25 bouts, Charles was 10-15.

Matthews did beat Layne BUT Layne had seen better days. He got beat by 10-3 Willie James where he was knocked down a total of 3 times, just over 3 months before meeting Matthews.

Savold, I know many people that worked with him during his career and when he fought Louis & Rocky he was over 36 years old and wasn't the same as he once was.

We can go on and on with this. It depends on how your matching them up.

If you want to match up Rocky in his prime, against any of Louis's opponents, Rocky would have come out on top.

If you matched him during the same time frame as when Louis fought them, in my opinon, Rocky would not have been undefeated.

What if Louis fought in the same time frame as Rocky did. How do you think Louis would have done against all of Rocky's opponents.

[hhascup]

There is no way Marciano compares to Joe Louis (or Muhammad Ali), but he doesn't do that badly is you compare him to other champions, some of whom often rate in the top ten all-time--Wins against rated fighters. All stats taken from the Boxing Register:

1. Marciano--11
2. Liston--8
3. Foreman--7
4. Frazier--9
5. Norton--4
6. Schmeling--6
7. Patterson--14
8. Walcott--12
9. Ingemar Johansson--2

And fighters from other weight classes:
1. Basilio--8
2. Zarate--4
3. Foster--13
4. Galaxy--3
5. Fenech--7
6. Harada--7
7. Loi--6
8. Jofre--14
9. Cerdan--8
10. Wilfredo Gomez--10
11. Zale--7
12. Hagler--14
13. Pryor--7

Marciano rates about the middle of the pack in wins against rated fighters despite having a relatively short career. And I think it is fair to point out that he did not lose to any of these men. Walcott had 13 losses. Patterson 8. Marciano is also the only man to knock out all the rated fighters he fought since the ratings began, and only Marciano and Monzon were able to defeat more than ten rated fighters while maintaining a perfect record against them.

I researched the following:

Ali fought 49 boxers that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another in his 61 bouts. Here’s a list of the International Boxing Hall of Fame Heavyweight Champions and how many of them they fought. I also added Bivins, Tyson and Holyfield.


This is the number of boxers that they fought that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another.


Ali 49 out of 61 bouts 80.3%
Louis 54 out of 71 bouts 76%
Bivins 83 out of 112 bouts 74.1%
Holyfield 38 out of 54 bouts 70.4%
Charles 77 out of 115 bouts 67%
Sharkey 35 out of 55 bouts 63.6%
Lewis 25 out of 44 bouts 56.8%
Frazier 19 out of 37 bouts 51.35%
Patterson 32 out of 64 bouts 50%
Walcott 35 out of 71 bouts 49.3%
Liston 25 out of 54 bouts 46.3%
Tyson 26 out of 58 bouts 44.8%
Norton 20 out of 50 bouts 40%
Holmes 30 out of 75 bouts 40%
Johansson 11 out of 28 bouts
Braddock 29 out of 86 bouts 33.7%
Baer 28 out of 84 bouts 33.3%
Foreman 27 out of 81 bouts 33.3%
Marciano 16 out of 49 bouts 32.65%
Schmeling 20 out of 70 bouts 28.6%

I also have them in the other weight divisions as well.

I have STATS on 134 International Boxing Hall of Famers and Ali rated 1st on percentage with Louis a close 2nd, and Rocky coming in at 108.

On pure numbers, Louis rates 42nd and Ali 49th with Rocky coming in at 122.

[OLD FOGEY]

When I stated that most people thought Lowry won their 1st bout, I was going by all the newspapers at that time. They fought at the Rhode Island Auditorium, in Providence, RI, where Rocky fought more then half his total bouts. He is the only Heavyweight Champion to box more then half their bouts at one place.

In the 2nd bout with Lowry, Lowry took the bout on short notice, BUT Rocky won going away. I met Ted several times, the last being Late last year and he told me that Joey Maxim was the best fighter he ever fought. He also said that Rocky was very strong BUT Rocky couldn't knock him out.

Charles was not the boxer he once was when he fought Rocky. Ezzard had another 23 bouts after the 2nd Marciano bout and he only won 10 of them. So in his last 25 bouts, Charles was 10-15.

Matthews did beat Layne BUT Layne had seen better days. He got beat by 10-3 Willie James where he was knocked down a total of 3 times, just over 3 months before meeting Matthews.

Savold, I know many people that worked with him during his career and when he fought Louis & Rocky he was over 36 years old and wasn't the same as he once was.

We can go on and on with this. It depends on how your matching them up.

If you want to match up Rocky in his prime, against any of Louis's opponents, Rocky would have come out on top.

If you matched him during the same time frame as when Louis fought them, in my opinon, Rocky would not have been undefeated.

What if Louis fought in the same time frame as Rocky did. How do you think Louis would have done against all of Rocky's opponents.

I think the interesting aspect of this is that Lowry said Joey Maxim was the "best fighter he foiught" when he fought Archie Moore. I don't really know what to make of ex-fighters comments.

[hhascup]

I think the interesting aspect of this is that Lowry said Joey Maxim was the "best fighter he foiught" when he fought Archie Moore. I don't really know what to make of ex-fighters comments.

Yea, I was told by Ike Williams that Tippy Larkin was the best pure boxer he ever faced.

I also did a study on what you put down. How many top 10 boxers did each of them beat when they were in the top 10.

Out of a total of 90 boxers that I have so far, Rocky was #51. This is counting all divisions.

I am now doing a research study on all the top 10 contenders that were ever rated in the top 10 by Ring Magazine. Right now I am up to the middle of 1995 and I am closing in on 3500. One boxer fought 171 boxers that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another and he fought well over 100 when they were rated in the top 10. Does anyone want to take a guess on who that boxer is.

[OLD FOGEY]

I researched the following:

Ali fought 49 boxers that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another in his 61 bouts. Here’s a list of the International Boxing Hall of Fame Heavyweight Champions and how many of them they fought. I also added Bivins, Tyson and Holyfield.


This is the number of boxers that they fought that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another.


Ali 49 out of 61 bouts 80.3%
Louis 54 out of 71 bouts 76%
Bivins 83 out of 112 bouts 74.1%
Holyfield 38 out of 54 bouts 70.4%
Charles 77 out of 115 bouts 67%
Sharkey 35 out of 55 bouts 63.6%
Lewis 25 out of 44 bouts 56.8%
Frazier 19 out of 37 bouts 51.35%
Patterson 32 out of 64 bouts 50%
Walcott 35 out of 71 bouts 49.3%
Liston 25 out of 54 bouts 46.3%
Tyson 26 out of 58 bouts 44.8%
Norton 20 out of 50 bouts 40%
Holmes 30 out of 75 bouts 40%
Johansson 11 out of 28 bouts
Braddock 29 out of 86 bouts 33.7%
Baer 28 out of 84 bouts 33.3%
Foreman 27 out of 81 bouts 33.3%
Marciano 16 out of 49 bouts 32.65%
Schmeling 20 out of 70 bouts 28.6%

I also have them in the other weight divisions as well.



Interesting. To critique this:

1. Ever rated doesn't mean you are any good when the man fights you. Also this puts fighting an incumbent champion or a top contender on the same level as fighting a man who was a fringe contender years earlier and has long since disappeared from the rankings. I remember dicussing Hank Hankinson earlier. He was the #7 contender in 1935. When Baer fought him in 1939 he had lost 7 of 8 and 4 straight by knockout, getting into the second round only once. Tom Heeney was another one who had gone downhill badly. Muscato was a similar case with Marciano.

2. Also, it is important to note who you beat as well as who you fight. Norton, for example only beat 12 of those 20 ever rated opponents. Only 4 he defeated were rated when he fought them. Foreman defeated 22 of his 27 ever rated opponents and only 7 he defeated were rated when he fought them. Walcott won at most 22 against ever rated opponents and was 12-13 against men rated when he fought them. Schmeling was 14-5-1 against ever rated opponents. Patterson was 23-8-1. Liston won 21 of 25 and Tyson won 21 of 26. Holmes 24 of 30.

So how do these percentages of victories stack up. Closer.

Norton 12 of 50--24%
Foreman 22 of 81-- 27%
Walcott--22 of 71--31%
Schmeling--14 of 70--20%
Patterson--23 of 64--36%
Liston--21 of 54--39%
Holmes--24 of 72--33%
Marciano--16 of 49--32.65%

However, I think what matters is how many victories did you have over fighters rated when you fought them. Of those I know, off the Boxing Register:

Norton--4 of 50--8%
Liston--8 of 54--15%
Foreman--7 of 81--9%
Walcott--12 of 71--17%
Patterson--14 of 64--22%
Schmeling--6 of 70--9%
Marciano--11 of 49--22%

And to really get serious, how many of these victims were really top contenders, defined at least by being in the top five. Marciano fought very few fringe contenders. Once he started fighting top men, he fought mostly top men. Layne, Louis, Matthews, Walcott (2), LaStarza, Charles (2), Cockell, and Moore were in the top five when Marciano fought them. That is 10 of 49 fights, or 20%. Certainly some champions fought more in quantity and a very few in percentage, but Marciano is going hold his own with most in this comparision.

[OLD FOGEY]

Yea, I was told by Ike Williams that Tippy Larkin was the best pure boxer he ever faced.

I also did a study on what you put down. How many top 10 boxers did each of them beat when they were in the top 10.

Out of a total of 90 boxers that I have so far, Rocky was #51. This is counting all divisions.

I am now doing a research study on all the top 10 contenders that were ever rated in the top 10 by Ring Magazine. Right now I am up to the middle of 1995 and I am closing in on 3500. One boxer fought 171 boxers that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another and he fought well over 100 when they were rated in the top 10. Does anyone want to take a guess on who that boxer is.

Victories over top ten fighters is one half of it, but what about defeats. Joey Maxim is, I think, something like 22-20 against rated fighters. Michael Spinks is 13-1. Bob Foster is 13-6-1. Which one do you rate the most impressive. Is Jake LaMotta at 24-14-2 more impressive than Carlos Monzon at 15-0?

I also think that to calibrate this well, you have to study the really top men-champions and the top four or so contenders. Generally you don't rise that high without doing something very impressive. A lot of fringe contenders who get a rating for a year or two probably aren't necessarily better than many men who weren't rated. Get to #1 or #2 and you are probably really a seriously top fighter more often than not. On Marciano, one impressive fact I noticed about him was that he fought few fringe types. He went directly from fighting journeymen to fighting top men. Layne, Louis, Matthews, Walcott, LaStarza, Charles, Cockell, and Moore were rated near the top of the heavyweight or lightheavyweight divisions. Of the 16 fights he had against men ever rated, 12 were against men rated #2 contender or better in the lightheavy or heavyweight divisions and 10 were against men thus rated when he fought them.

[OLD FOGEY]

I would certainly like to know the fighter who had 171 fights against top men. My guess is that he was someone who lost a great deal.

[hhascup]

Interesting. To critique this:

1. Ever rated doesn't mean you are any good when the man fights you. Also this puts fighting an incumbent champion or a top contender on the same level as fighting a man who was a fringe contender years earlier and has long since disappeared from the rankings. I remember dicussing Hank Hankinson earlier. He was the #7 contender in 1935. When Baer fought him in 1939 he had lost 7 of 8 and 4 straight by knockout, getting into the second round only once. Tom Heeney was another one who had gone downhill badly. Muscato was a similar case with Marciano.

2. Also, it is important to note who you beat as well as who you fight. Norton, for example only beat 12 of those 20 ever rated opponents. Only 4 he defeated were rated when he fought them. Foreman defeated 22 of his 27 ever rated opponents and only 7 he defeated were rated when he fought them. Walcott won at most 22 against ever rated opponents and was 12-13 against men rated when he fought them. Schmeling was 14-5-1 against ever rated opponents. Patterson was 23-8-1. Liston won 21 of 25 and Tyson won 21 of 26. Holmes 24 of 30.

So how do these percentages of victories stack up. Closer.

Norton 12 of 50--24%
Foreman 22 of 81-- 27%
Walcott--22 of 71--31%
Schmeling--14 of 70--20%
Patterson--23 of 64--36%
Liston--21 of 54--39%
Holmes--24 of 72--33%
Marciano--16 of 49--32.65%

However, I think what matters is how victories did you have over fighters rated when you fought them. Of those I know, off the Boxing Register:

Norton--4 of 50--8%
Liston--8 of 54--15%
Foreman--7 of 81--9%
Walcott--12 of 71--17%
Patterson--14 of 64--22%
Schmeling--6 of 70--9%
Marciano--11 of 49--22%

And to really get serious, how many of these victims were really top contenders, defined at least by being in the top five. Marciano fought very few fringe contenders. Once he started fighting top men, he fought mostly top men. Layne, Louis, Matthews, Walcott (2), LaStarza, Charles, Cockell, and Moore were in the top five when Marciano fought them. That is 10 of 49 fights, or 20%. Certainly some champions fought more in quantity and a very few in percentage, but Marciano is going hold his own with most in this comparision.


I also have them STATS as well. So far I rated a total of 90 of them.

Ali is #8
Louis is #9
Patterson is #34
Walcott is #49
Marciano is at #51
Sharkey is at #55
Baer is at #64
Frazier is at #66
Liston at #69
Foreman is at #74
Schmeling is at #82
Norton is at #84
Johansson is at #87

All of them are going to go down a little as I put in some of the oldtimers. I also have to include Holmes, Lewis etc.

By this Rocky is somewhat in the middle. When I take the contenders and I include the boxers that were Champions in other weight classes.

NOTE: I did find some small mistakes in the Boxing Register.

[hhascup]

I would certainly like to know the fighter who had 171 fights against top men. My guess is that he was someone who lost a great deal.

Actually he won 87 times against a top 10 contender when they were rated in the top 10 out of some 106 bouts. I have to check out several others too, so that total can go up.

All total he did box 171 times against boxers that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another.

He is also in the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

[OLD FOGEY]

I also have them STATS as well. So far I rated a total of 90 of them.

Ali is #8
Louis is #9
Patterson is #34
Walcott is #49
Marciano is at #51
Sharkey is at #55
Baer is at #64
Frazier is at #66
Liston at #69
Foreman is at #74
Schmeling is at #82
Norton is at #84
Johansson is at #87

All of them are going to go down a little as I put in some of the oldtimers. I also have to include Holmes, Lewis etc.

By this Rocky is somewhat in the middle. When I take the contenders and I include the boxers that were Champions in other weight classes.

NOTE: I did find some small mistakes in the Boxing Register.

What exactly is this? Victories over top 10 contenders?

The BOXING REGISTER lists Patterson at 14 victories over top ten contenders. This puts him that far ahead of Walcott at 12? or is there some different info?

Very interesting work. Keep it up.

[OLD FOGEY]

Actually he won 87 times against a top 10 contender when they were rated in the top 10 out of some 106 bouts. I have to check out several others too, so that total can go up.

All total he did box 171 times against boxers that were rated in the top 10 at one time or another.

He is also in the International Boxing Hall of Fame.

I assumed it can't be Langford or Greb, as there were no ratings, unless this is using modern computer ratings of some sort. This sounds sort of like Greb if you make up ratings and add in newspaper decisions.

[hhascup]

What exactly is this? Victories over top 10 contenders?

The BOXING REGISTER lists Patterson at 14 victories over top ten contenders. This puts him that far ahead of Walcott at 12? or is there some different info?

Very interesting work. Keep it up.

Actually Walcott is tied for #46 with 12 and Patterson is #34 with 14.5 (I count draws as .5)

[hhascup]

I assumed it can't be Langford or Greb, as there were no ratings, unless this is using modern computer ratings of some sort. This sounds sort of like Greb if you make up ratings and add in newspaper decisions.

No I started in 1925 when the Ring ratings 1st came out, so its not Greb.

[OLD FOGEY]

No I started in 1925 when the Ring ratings 1st came out, so its not Greb.

The only one it might be is Rosenbloom. Is he that high? If so, he is really underrated.

[hhascup]

The only one it might be is Rosenbloom. Is he that high? If so, he is really underrated.


YES!

I thought the same thing when I did my research. I even double checked it.

Here's all the top 10 contenders he fought:

Opponent-Time Rated-Months Rated-Highest rating-# of WINS

jimmy Delaney 2/25-2/27 3 8 1 *
jack Delaney 2/25 –1/29 10 1 1 *
young stribling x2 2/25-2/33 54 1 1 **
jimmy slattery x7 2/25-2/32 50 1 7 ******
leo lomski x6 2/26-4/31 34 1 5 ******
george manley x2 4/28-4/33 29 1 2 **
king levinsky 11/30-8/36 52 2 0 *
jim braddock x2 2/28-4/38 48 C 2 **
cuban bobby brown x4 7/28-10/29 12 5 3 ****
tiger jack payne x4 9/28-8/29 9 6 3 ****
pete latzo x2 2/25-7/31 28 C 2 **
lou scozza x7 8/28-5/34 58 1 5 *******
charley belanger x3 5/28-10/31 27 5 2 ***
fred lenhart x3 9/29-5/38 41 2 2 ***
billy jones x3 8/29-12/34 49 1 3 ***
dave maier 1/32-8/32 8 1 1 *
al gainer x2 11/30-2/42 98 1 2 **
bob olin 12/30-2/39 47 C 1 *
joe knight x2 8/31-5/36 54 1 2 **
adolf heuser 4/32-2/40 40 1 1 *
bob godwin x7 12/31-5/35 36 1 7 *******
bob pastor 12/36-2/43 67 1 1 *
jimmy adamick x2 2/38-2/39 8 6 0 **
lou nova 2/38-8/45 50 1 1 *
john henry lewis x5 1/33-1/40 86 C 4 *****
tony shucco x2 8/32-2/43 48 1 1 **
clyde chastain x2 4/30-6/34 5 1 2 **
mickey walker x2 2/25-9/34 67 C 2 **
johnny miler x3 1/35-2/35 2 7 1 ***
leo kelly x4 3/35-9/37 19 1 2 ****
tiger jack fox x3 6/37-11/44 36 1 0 ***
tiger flowers x3 2/25-2/28 4 1 3 ***
johnny wilson x2 2/25-2/25 1 5 0 **
jock malone 2/25-12/29 4 6 1 *
dave shade x2 2/25-2/35 78 1 2 **
roland todd 2/26-2/26 1 9 0 *
phil kaplan x2 2/26-9/30 18 2 2 **
tommy milligan 2/26-9/28 4 2 1 *
jack mcvey x2 2/26-4/31 37 3 2 **
frankie schoell x6 2/25-6/29 15 6 6 ******
ace hudkins 2/26-2/32 36 1 1 *
harry ebbets 4/28-8/33 42 1 1 *
harry greb 2/25-2/26 2 1 1 *

110


then a few others who were also top 10 but not sure about when in the career maxie fought them
roscoe toles 6/37-5/43 49 4 0 *
joe Anderson x4 2/27-12/28 6 4 1 ****
yale okun x2 2/26-6/32 8 2 1 **
osk till x2 2/27-4/29 2 6 1 **
lee ramage x4 5/32-5/37 21 7 3 ****
leroy haynes x2 4/36-2/39 11 3 0 **
larry johnson x3 2/30-2/32 16 1 2 **
thats well in excess of 100 fights against the best middles, light heavies and heavies. plenty of hall of famers as well.

128


Also,

Young Johnny Burns
George Courtney
Allentown Joe Gans
Frank Moody
Young Tony Marullo
Tiger Thomas
Harry Dillon
Leo Williams 2
Joe Sekyra
George Hoffman
Abie Bain
Joe Banovic 2
Dick Daniels
Gordon Fortenbberry 2
Don “Red” Barry
Natie Brown
KO Christner
Rosy Rosales 2
Wilson Dunn
Charley Massera 2
Leroy Brown
Frank Rowsey 3
Oscar Rankins
Ford Smith
Hank Hankinson 2
Alberto Santiago Lovell
Bob Nestell
Al Ettore
Battling Bozo 4
Patsy Perroni
Owen Phelps
Art Weigand

171

[OLD FOGEY]

This is amazing. Rosenbloom has almost twice as many victories over rated opponents as Sugar Ray Robinson or Archie Moore! I never gave him much thought, perhaps because he was well known in movies and on the television as a comic.

[hhascup]

This is amazing. Rosenbloom has almost twice as many victories over rated opponents as Sugar Ray Robinson or Archie Moore! I never gave him much thought, perhaps because he was well known in movies and on the television as a comic.


Yes, he fought a total of 82 different top 10 contenders.

I have to double and triple check all this out BUT right now I have Maxie 1st at 171, followed by Henry Armstrong, Midget Wolgast and Freddie Miller who all have 109, Archie Moore with 108, Sugar Ray Robinson with 106, Tony Canzoneri had 104.

Benny Bass has 100 and he started his career in 1919, so he could of had a few more if they had ratings back then. This goes for Tommy Loughran too, who had 98 and started his career in 1919.

Like I said, I have to check this all out before I make this official.

[Bummy Davis]

No comment on this--but on your Marciano comments

1. Close fights with Lowry and LaStarza--Lowry was a trialhorse who had fought quite a few top men and over 100 fights. Marciano had 50 rounds of pro boxing and not a great deal of amateur experience. This fight was close and some thought Lowry got the best of it, but not the three officials. I don't know how anyone can know what "most" thought. Marciano clearly won the rematch. LaStarza had won 37 in a row and had broken into the top ten. Marciano knocked Roland down and won the tightest of split decisions under the New York rules of the time, but it would have been a fairly decisive unanimous decision under a point system in which Marciano would have been given a point credit for the knockdown and the low blow would have counted for a one point deduction rather than an effective two point deduction as a round Marciano won was taken from him and given to LaStarza. Marciano still edged out a win and of course stopped LaStarza in a rematch.
You can also point to disputed decisions with anyone. "Most" thought Walcott lost to Louis. Mendoza has argued vehemently on this board that Godoy deserved the decision in their first fight. Some thought Pastor won his first fight with Louis. The Adolf Wiater fight was disputed.
It is the same story with other champs. Liston with Summerlin. Ali with Norton and Young. Holmes with Norton and Witherspoon. I personally thought Frazier lost to Bonavena. Marciano just had fewer of these close fights. He was never outright beaten and the two close decisions broke for him. He left no doubt in the rematches.

1. Charles--While there is much made of "most" people thinking Marciano lost to Lowry or LaStarza, few mention that "most" people also thought Charles beat Walcott and Layne in 1952, and Johnson in 1953. If these close decisions had gone to him, the perception that he was slipping would not be as strong.

2. Matthews--Matthews had won 50 in a row and was a rated heavyweight when he fought Marciano, following a win over Layne, and stoppages of Buford (who had beaten Henry and Thompson) and Beshore. He weighed 179, more than Gibbons against Dempsey or Conn against Louis or Corbett against Sullivan.

3. Savold--He was rated the #2 contender by RING and held a paper title when he went against Louis in June, 1951. When he fought Marciano in Feb, 1952, he had been dropped from the rankings by RING for inactivity. Savold was a long time contender and an in and outer. One can point to the ko defeats, but he had also scored 65 knockouts including Nova (2), Franklin (2), Flynn, Walker, and Woodcock, all top five heavyweights at one time or another.

4. Shkor--had been stopped by Walcott and was very erratic. However, in the fight before the Walcott fight he had beaten Rusty Payne. He had a habit of bouncing back from bad performances with a surprise win such as the upset of Mauriello in 1947. Sort of a journeyman with teeth.

5. Reynolds--had been slipping, but scored a big ko over the promising James J Parker in the fight directly before being matched with Marciano.

Layne, Louis, Matthews, Walcott, LaStarza, Charles, Cockell, and Moore were rated at the top of the heavyweight division, and they were certainly as big on the whole as most of the top contenders of earlier generations.


excellent post :good:good:good

[Bummy Davis]

1. I think "prime" is an abstraction which confuses rather than helps thinking. Sugar Ray Robinson was 35 in 1955. Bobo Olson was 27. Archie Moore was 37 in 1954. Harold Johnson was 26. Dick Tiger was 40 in 1969. Nino Benvenuti was 31. Carlos Monzon was 35 in 1977. Rodrigo Valdez was 30.

So Robinson, Moore, Tiger, and Monzon are by age "past their primes" while Olson, Johnson, Benvenuti, and Valdez are by age at or near their primes. What are we supposed to draw from this? Is anyone going to deny that a man who beat the Robinson, Moore, Tiger, and Monzon of these fights is more impressive than a man who beat the Olson, Johnson, Benvenuti, and Valdez of these fights?

2. Size--Prior to the 1960's there were very few great fighters over 200 lbs in top shape. Jeffries. Johnson--but Johnson weighed only 196 when he beat Burns at almost 31 years of age-- Wills, and Louis. Willard and Carnera were huge but mediocre. Baer had talent, but ended up with a mediocre career also. The fact is that most of the best fighters weighed under 200 lbs in top shape. As for Marciano, there certainly is no evidence that big fellows gave him trouble. He fought 3 men over 220 lbs and knocked all of them out, fought five men over 210 lbs and knocked all of them out, and fought eleven men over 200 lbs and knocked all of them out.

The issue isn't pure age and certainly not an abstraction such as "prime," nor is it size. If an old man can defeat a young man the old man is the better fighter. If a small man can defeat an big man the small man is the better fighter. Walcott and Moore were incumbent champions coming off some of the biggest, or the biggest, wins of their careers. Charles was slipping some, but he was the same age as Ali when Ali defeated Foreman and he had shown he could still pull off big wins. Louis had gone back a long ways. Still, this hardly proves that this group is somehow easier to sweep than the top fighters Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, or Louis defeated. All of Marciano's top opponents were or had been great fighters and all were still active and winning when he fought them.


:good:good:good:good

[hhascup]

1. I think "prime" is an abstraction which confuses rather than helps thinking. Sugar Ray Robinson was 35 in 1955. Bobo Olson was 27. Archie Moore was 37 in 1954. Harold Johnson was 26. Dick Tiger was 40 in 1969. Nino Benvenuti was 31. Carlos Monzon was 35 in 1977. Rodrigo Valdez was 30.

So Robinson, Moore, Tiger, and Monzon are by age "past their primes" while Olson, Johnson, Benvenuti, and Valdez are by age at or near their primes. What are we supposed to draw from this? Is anyone going to deny that a man who beat the Robinson, Moore, Tiger, and Monzon of these fights is more impressive than a man who beat the Olson, Johnson, Benvenuti, and Valdez of these fights?

2. Size--Prior to the 1960's there were very few great fighters over 200 lbs in top shape. Jeffries. Johnson--but Johnson weighed only 196 when he beat Burns at almost 31 years of age-- Wills, and Louis. Willard and Carnera were huge but mediocre. Baer had talent, but ended up with a mediocre career also. The fact is that most of the best fighters weighed under 200 lbs in top shape. As for Marciano, there certainly is no evidence that big fellows gave him trouble. He fought 3 men over 220 lbs and knocked all of them out, fought five men over 210 lbs and knocked all of them out, and fought eleven men over 200 lbs and knocked all of them out.

The issue isn't pure age and certainly not an abstraction such as "prime," nor is it size. If an old man can defeat a young man the old man is the better fighter. If a small man can defeat a big man the small man is the better fighter. Walcott and Moore were incumbent champions coming off some of the biggest, or the biggest, wins of their careers. Charles was slipping some, but he was the same age as Ali when Ali defeated Foreman and he had shown he could still pull off big wins. Louis had gone back a long ways. Still, this hardly proves that this group is somehow easier to sweep than the top fighters Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, or Louis defeated. All of Marciano's top opponents were or had been great fighters and all were still active and winning when he fought them.

I agree with most of what you wrote. Prime is different for everyone. Walcott was in his "prime" when he was in his 30's. He became a Top 10 Contender in 1945 at the age of 31. He even got better with age. Others such as Pipino Cuevas was in his prime at a very young age and by his mid-20's he was finished.

Charles was approx. the same age as Ali BUT Charles was slipping like you stated and was no where near what Ali was.

Rocky did beat all the bigger boxers he fought but he only faced 1 that was a world class boxer that was over 6 feet and weighed over 200 pounds, and that was Louis. This does not mean that he wouldn't have beaten the Bigger contenders. I honestly believe that he would have beaten them all during that time.

Here's a list of all the contenders when Rocky was the Champion. The ones in BOLD is who he fought at one time or another. I also included their career record, with their height, (approx.) weight and their highest annual rating during the time Rocky was Champion.

1. Jersey Joe Walcott (1) – 6’0” – 197 – (51-18-2)
2. Archie Moore (1) – 5’11” – 188 – (185-23-11)
3. Nino Valdez (1) - 6’3” – 210 – (48-19-2)
4. Ezzard Charles (2) – 6”0” – 190 – (89-25-1)
5. Don Cockell (2) – 5’11” – 205 – (65-14-1)
6. Rex Layne (2) – 6’1” – 193 – (50-17-3)
7. Bob Baker (2) - 6’2” – 215 – (51-16-1)
8. Dan Bucceroni (3) - 6’2” – 190 – (46-6)
9. Tommy Jackson (3)- 6' 3½” – 195 – (34-9-1)
10. Roland LaStarza (4) – 6’0” – 185 – (57-9)
11. John Holman (4) - 6’3” – 205 (27-17-1)
12. Bob Dunlop (4) – 182 _ (30-13-1)
13. Clarence Henry (5) - 6’1” – 185 – (34-6-1)
14. Earl Walls (5) - 6'2½” – 192 – (34-9-1)
15. Willie Pastrano (5) – 6’0” – 175 – (63-13-8)
16. Johnny Williams (6) – 195 – (60-11-4)
17. Heinz Neuhaus (6) – 6’2” – 212 (43-9-7)
18. Johnny Summerlin (7) – 6’1” – 195 – (35-8-2)
19. Tommy Harrison (8) – 182 – (22-13-2)
20. Bob Satterfield (8) – 6’2” – 185 – (50-25-4)
21. Karel Sys (9) – 5’11” – 210 – (114-17-10)
22. Charley Norkus (9) – 6’0” – 195 – (33-19)
23. Young Jack Johnson (9) – 6’3” – 208 – (24-20-1)
24. Jimmy Bivins (10) – 5’9” – 185 – (86-25-1)
25. Coley Wallace (10) – 6’2” – 205 – (20-7)
26. Jimmy Slade (10) – 180 – (36-23-6)


Others that were rated during that time were:
1. Paul Andrews – 6’3” – 180 – (37-10)
2. Bill Gilliam – 6’2” – 210 - (30-20-2)
3. James J. Parker – 6’3” – 210 - (30-7-4-)
4. Franco Cavicchi – 202 – (71-14-4)
5. Cesar Brion - 6'2½” – 202 – (32-7-4)

[OLD FOGEY]

I agree with most of what you wrote. Prime is different for everyone. Walcott was in his "prime" when he was in his 30's. He became a Top 10 Contender in 1945 at the age of 31. He even got better with age. Others such as Pipino Cuevas was in his prime at a very young age and by his mid-20's he was finished.

Charles was approx. the same age as Ali BUT Charles was slipping like you stated and was no where near what Ali was.

Rocky did beat all the bigger boxers he fought but he only faced 1 that was a world class boxer that was over 6 feet and weighed over 200 pounds, and that was Louis. This does not mean that he wouldn't have beaten the Bigger contenders. I honestly believe that he would have beaten them all during that time.

Here's a list of all the contenders when Rocky was the Champion. The ones in BOLD is who he fought at one time or another. I also included their career record, with their height, (approx.) weight and their highest annual rating during the time Rocky was Champion.

1. Jersey Joe Walcott (1) – 6’0” – 197 – (51-18-2)
2. Archie Moore (1) – 5’11” – 188 – (185-23-11)
3. Nino Valdez (1) - 6’3” – 210 – (48-19-2)
4. Ezzard Charles (2) – 6”0” – 190 – (89-25-1)
5. Don Cockell (2) – 5’11” – 205 – (65-14-1)
6. Rex Layne (2) – 6’1” – 193 – (50-17-3)
7. Bob Baker (2) - 6’2” – 215 – (51-16-1)
8. Dan Bucceroni (3) - 6’2” – 190 – (46-6)
9. Tommy Jackson (3)- 6' 3½” – 195 – (34-9-1)
10. Roland LaStarza (4) – 6’0” – 185 – (57-9)
11. John Holman (4) - 6’3” – 205 (27-17-1)
12. Bob Dunlop (4) – 182 _ (30-13-1)
13. Clarence Henry (5) - 6’1” – 185 – (34-6-1)
14. Earl Walls (5) - 6'2½” – 192 – (34-9-1)
15. Willie Pastrano (5) – 6’0” – 175 – (63-13-8)
16. Johnny Williams (6) – 195 – (60-11-4)
17. Heinz Neuhaus (6) – 6’2” – 212 (43-9-7)
18. Johnny Summerlin (7) – 6’1” – 195 – (35-8-2)
19. Tommy Harrison (8) – 182 – (22-13-2)
20. Bob Satterfield (8) – 6’2” – 185 – (50-25-4)
21. Karel Sys (9) – 5’11” – 210 – (114-17-10)
22. Charley Norkus (9) – 6’0” – 195 – (33-19)
23. Young Jack Johnson (9) – 6’3” – 208 – (24-20-1)
24. Jimmy Bivins (10) – 5’9” – 185 – (86-25-1)
25. Coley Wallace (10) – 6’2” – 205 – (20-7)
26. Jimmy Slade (10) – 180 – (36-23-6)


Others that were rated during that time were:
1. Paul Andrews – 6’3” – 180 – (37-10)
2. Bill Gilliam – 6’2” – 210 - (30-20-2)
3. James J. Parker – 6’3” – 210 - (30-7-4-)
4. Franco Cavicchi – 202 – (71-14-4)
5. Cesar Brion - 6'2½” – 202 – (32-7-4)

My comments would be that LaStarza, while only #4 in a yearly rating, actually was the #1 contender in the late summer of 1953 when he fought Marciano. Charles was also the #1 contender when he fought Marciano. Valdes was rated #1 at the end of 1953, but dropped back with a poor performance against McBride at Havana in which "most" neutral observers thought he lost while Charles ko'd Wallace and Satterfield. Marciano-Frazier has posted several times on this issue. I would say of the top 7 men out there, Marciano fought six of them.

It is also interesting that lightheavy Harold Johnson, never rated at heavy, defeated Charles, Moore, Valdes, Henry, Bivins, Andrews, Holman, and Satterfield. He is certainly the best man from the era whom Marciano did not fight but conceivably could have. Johnson was 5' 10" & 175 lbs.

The problem with the size is that there weren't that many fighters of over 200 lbs of any ability back in those days.
In the Marciano era, from 1950 to 1955, Louis, Baker, Valdes, and Holman were the only men over 6 foot and 200 lbs to be rated in the top five (champion and top four contenders). The best of them, in my judgement, was clearly Louis, even at 37. Valdes, Baker, and Holman all lost badly to Satterfield--Baker and Holman by ko's and Valdes by a one-sided decision in which he was down for a nine count in the last round and barely survived--and I don't see Louis losing to Satterfield. Valdes was a preliminary fighter prior to 1953. I think Marciano should have fought him in 1955 rather than Cockell, but how far can we push it for a guy who lost to Satterfield, twice to Moore, to Johnson, to Gilliam, and twice to Baker, while Marciano was champion. Baker certainly might have been matched with Marciano, and Al Weill was pumping for such a match in 1955, but the press went into an uproar about Marciano ducking Moore, and with good reason. Moore had knocked out Baker in 1954. Holman didn't break the ratings until 1955 and was never among the real elite of the division.
And the size argument also applies to most of the other old champions--who did Jeffries beat who was over 210 lbs and a top fighter. No one. What about Johnson--just old Jeffries and perhaps a green McVey. Dempsey--Willard, Morris, and Firpo. Tunney-no one. Schmeling-no one. Patterson-no one. Take even Liston--who did he beat who was over 210 and rated in the top five? Old Nino Valdes was no longer rated. Williams was not yet rated. The answer is no one.
You might be more impressed with Sharkey beating Godfrey or Louis beating Baer than Marciano beating Louis, but there aren't all that many other more impressive victories over a big man than Marciano over Louis prior to the 1970's.

[hhascup]

My comments would be that LaStarza, while only #4 in a yearly rating, actually was the #1 contender in the late summer of 1953 when he fought Marciano. Charles was also the #1 contender when he fought Marciano. Valdes was rated #1 at the end of 1953, but dropped back with a poor performance against McBride at Havana in which "most" neutral observers thought he lost while Charles ko'd Wallace and Satterfield. Marciano-Frazier has posted several times on this issue. I would say of the top 7 men out there, Marciano fought six of them.

It is also interesting that lightheavy Harold Johnson, never rated at heavy, defeated Charles, Moore, Valdes, Henry, Bivins, Andrews, Holman, and Satterfield. He is certainly the best man from the era whom Marciano did not fight but concievably could have. Johnson was 5' 10" & 175 lbs.

Satterfield, despite his low rating, defeated Valdes and ko'd Baker and Holman.

How many meet the criteria of being both 6 feet and over 200 lbs--Valdes, Baker, Holman,Young Jack Johnson, Heinz Neuhaus, Bill Gilliam, James J Parker, and Coley Wallace.

Nino Valdes--beaten by Moore, Johnson, and Satterfield

Bob Baker--ko'd by Henry, Satterfield, and Moore

Holman--ko'd twice by Satterfield. Later beaten by Johnson.

Young Jack Johnson--broke into ratings in 1955 and soon left. Came too late and never got high enough to be matched with Marciano.

Neuhaus--Fairly ordinary European champion.

Wallace--I have read that Marciano really wanted to defend against him, but crushing ko defeats to Bivins and Charles eliminated him.

Gilliam--never in the RING yearly rankings.

Parker--ko'd by Bernie Reynolds in 1952 directly before Reynolds fought Marciano. Never in RING yearly rankings.


As you are pointing out, their really wasn't much here at that time. Nino Valdes was rated #1 at the end of 1953 & 1954. After losing 4 in a row early in 1953, he won his next 11 in a row before losing again to Archie Moore. During that steak he did beat some pretty good names such as Charles and Tommy Jackson. He was 1st rated in October of 1953 and he made his last appearence in the rating in February 1960. All toll, he was rated for 62 months.

Gilliam was rated was rated #10 for a few months from the beginning of 1954 and to the beginning of 1956.

Parker was rated #9 in 1955, BUT only for a couple of months.

Holman was rated as high as #4 from 1950 to 1957, BUT he did lose a lot in the early 1950's.

Young Jack Johnson was rated #9 BUT was only rated in the top 10 for 2 months, from March to April of 1956.

Bob Baker was rated as high as #2 in the World from 1950 to 1957. After losing to Moore he went on to win 13 in a row including wins over Baksi, Wallace twice, Slade, Rex Layne 3 times, Julio Mederos and Valdes.

Neuhaus was rated as high as #4, from the beginning of 1951 to the middle of 1956. He was rated in the top 10 for a total of 39 months during that time. That shows you that the division was weak as you stated, Neuhaus--Fairly ordinary European champion.

Wallace as you know beat Rocky in the Amateurs and Rocky wanted to box him in the worse way. I had the privillage of meeting and introducing Wallace at the unveiling of a monument of Joe Louis in Pompton Lakes, New Jersey, where Louid use to train. Several days before that I was asked by the Marciano family (his brother) to MC the unveiling of the Rocky Marciano stamp.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't think there was much over 200 lbs, but there rarely was prior to the 1970's.

This is the #6 through #10 contenders in 1935:

6. Eddie Mader
7. Hank Hankinson
8. Ray Impellitiere
9. Al Ettore
10. Ford Smith

This is an unimpressive group. Only Ettore maintained himself at all. This might be an extreme example, but I think once you get down past the top five, this sort of mediocrity would be true more often than not in most eras. Heinz Neuhaus might look like a champ in this company. I don't think the heavyweight division was weaker than usual in the early 1950's.

[OLD FOGEY]

On Cockell losing to Turpin--Turpin might have been close to the best p4p fighter in the world before he got into drugs. He had beaten Robinson badly and done well in the rematch. Robinson didn't seem to want to risk a rubber match despite the public demand.

But middleweights beating heavyweight contenders or even champions is not unusual. Joe Choynski, who weighed 158 for a fight in 1899, ko'd Jack Johnson in 1901. Johnny Sudenberg, whose every listed weight is less than 160 lbs and who only won 9 of 60 odd fights, dropped future champ Jack Dempsey 9 times in the first round and went on to fight a draw. Angel Rodriguez, at 167 lbs, blasted out Luis Angel Firpo in one round. Former Welter Champ Young Corbett II at 157 lbs dropped Billy Conn and outpointed him. Conn barely beat the count against middleweight Oscar Rankins. Jimmy Ellis had a losing record against rated middleweights before puffing up to heavy and winning the WBA crown in the Ali-Frazier era. Of Dempsey's title defenses, Miske, Brennan, Gibbons, and Tunney lost to the middleweight Greb, Carpentier was stopped by several middles, and Firpo blown away by Rodriguez. Plus Jack Sharkey went to a draw with Walker. If you fight at middle, you probably will lose at middle. At least that has been the pattern.

[Bummy Davis]

My comments would be that LaStarza, while only #4 in a yearly rating, actually was the #1 contender in the late summer of 1953 when he fought Marciano. Charles was also the #1 contender when he fought Marciano. Valdes was rated #1 at the end of 1953, but dropped back with a poor performance against McBride at Havana in which "most" neutral observers thought he lost while Charles ko'd Wallace and Satterfield. Marciano-Frazier has posted several times on this issue. I would say of the top 7 men out there, Marciano fought six of them.

It is also interesting that lightheavy Harold Johnson, never rated at heavy, defeated Charles, Moore, Valdes, Henry, Bivins, Andrews, Holman, and Satterfield. He is certainly the best man from the era whom Marciano did not fight but conceivably could have. Johnson was 5' 10" & 175 lbs.

The problem with the size is that there weren't that many fighters of over 200 lbs of any ability back in those days.
In the Marciano era, from 1950 to 1955, Louis, Baker, Valdes, and Holman were the only men over 6 foot and 200 lbs to be rated in the top five (champion and top four contenders). The best of them, in my judgement, was clearly Louis, even at 37. Valdes, Baker, and Holman all lost badly to Satterfield--Baker and Holman by ko's and Valdes by a one-sided decision in which he was down for a nine count in the last round and barely survived--and I don't see Louis losing to Satterfield. Valdes was a preliminary fighter prior to 1953. I think Marciano should have fought him in 1955 rather than Cockell, but how far can we push it for a guy who lost to Satterfield, twice to Moore, to Johnson, to Gilliam, and twice to Baker, while Marciano was champion. Baker certainly might have been matched with Marciano, and Al Weill was pumping for such a match in 1955, but the press went into an uproar about Marciano ducking Moore, and with good reason. Moore had knocked out Baker in 1954. Holman didn't break the ratings until 1955 and was never among the real elite of the division.
And the size argument also applies to most of the other old champions--who did Jeffries beat who was over 210 lbs and a top fighter. No one. What about Johnson--just old Jeffries and perhaps a green McVey. Dempsey--Willard, Morris, and Firpo. Tunney-no one. Schmeling-no one. Patterson-no one. Take even Liston--who did he beat who was over 210 and rated in the top five? Old Nino Valdes was no longer rated. Williams was not yet rated. The answer is no one.
You might be more impressed with Sharkey beating Godfrey or Louis beating Baer than Marciano beating Louis, but there aren't all that many other more impressive victories over a big man than Marciano over Louis prior to the 1970's.


Very true
knowledgeable & Intellegent post :goodGood Work O.F.

[Bummy Davis]

On Cockell losing to Turpin--Turpin might have been close to the best p4p fighter in the world before he got into drugs. He had beaten Robinson badly and done well in the rematch. Robinson didn't seem to want to risk a rubber match despite the public demand.

But middleweights beating heavyweight contenders or even champions is not unusual. Joe Choynski, who weighed 158 for a fight in 1899, ko'd Jack Johnson in 1901. Johnny Sudenberg, whose every listed weight is less than 160 lbs and who only won 9 of 60 odd fights, dropped future champ Jack Dempsey 9 times in the first round and went on to fight a draw. Angel Rodriguez, at 167 lbs, blasted out Luis Angel Firpo in one round. Former Welter Champ Young Corbett II at 157 lbs dropped Billy Conn and outpointed him. Conn barely beaten the count against middleweight Oscar Rankins. Jimmy Ellis had a losing record against rated middleweights before puffing up to heavy and winning the WBA crown in the Ali-Frazier era. Of Dempsey's title opponents, Miske, Brennan, Gibbons, and Tunney lost to the middleweight Greb, Carpentier was stopped by several middles, and Firpo blown away by Rodriguez. Plus Jack Sharkey went to a draw with Walker. If you fight at middle, you probably will lose at middle. At least that has been the pattern.


and Ellis was dropped in his loss to Rubin Carter as a middleweight but also lost to Holly Mims, Henrey Hank, Don Fullmer,George Benton but when he moved up in weight he had wins and many Ko's among his victims Johnny Persol KO9, Leotis Martin KO9 w10 Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry and Floyd Patterson....Ellis was pretty durable as a heavy and was only stopped by Frazier and Ali and an older version by Shavers after staggering Earnie...In fact an older version of Ellis went 12 rds with a prime Ron Lyle...so how do you figure

[hhascup]

I don't think there was much over 200 lbs, but there rarely was prior to the 1970's.

This is the #6 through #10 contenders in 1935:

6. Eddie Mader
7. Hank Hankinson
8. Ray Impellitiere
9. Al Ettore
10. Ford Smith

This is an unimpressive group. Only Ettore maintained himself at all. This might be an extreme example, but I think once you get down past the top five, this sort of mediocrity would be true more often than not in most eras. Heinz Neuhaus might look like a champ in this company. I don't think the heavyweight division was weaker than usual in the early 1950's.


Actually during their time, here's their top ratings:

3. Al Ettore - Dec. 1935 to Feb. 1939 (23 months)
3. Ford Smith - Sept. 1935 to March 1936 (7 months)
4. Hank Hankinson - June 1935 to March 1936 (9 months)
6. Ray Impellitiere - Feb. 1936 to Feb. 1937 (7 months
6. Eddie Mader - Dec. 1935 to March 1936 (4 months)

As you can see only Ettore was rated for more then 9 months.

I agree that there were several other weak periods.

I always said that the strongest was in the 1970's. If you look at any top 10 ratings when Ali was the Champion, you will see that he fought more then half of them during his career and in some years, he fought almost all of them.

Louis also fought most of them as well until the late 1940's.

During Rocky's time as Champion, he fought only 4 top contenders at the end of 1952 ratings, 3 each at the end of 1953 & 1954 and only 2 at the end of 1955.

[hhascup]

Cockell was KO'ed out 9 times during his career, 6 before he fought Rocky. I have watched the films of that bout and we can all see what kind of fighter he was. He really didn't look like he was in the best of shape either.

Dempsey fought less then 1 year when he fought Johnny Sudenberg and 6 months later Dempsey stopped him in 2 rounds.

[hhascup]

and Ellis was dropped in his loss to Rubin Carter as a middleweight but also lost to Holly Mims, Henrey Hank, Don Fullmer,George Benton but when he moved up in weight he had wins and many Ko's among his victims Johnny Persol KO9, Leotis Martin KO9 w10 Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry and Floyd Patterson....Ellis was pretty durable as a heavy and was only stopped by Frazier and Ali and an older version by Shavers after staggering Earnie...In fact an older version of Ellis went 12 rds with a prime Ron Lyle...so how do you figure


I agree, BUT none of those middleweights stopped Ellis like they did Cockell. After his loss to Benton in November, 1964, he gained some weight and won his next 12 in a row, including winning the WBA Heavyweight Title in April, 1968.

Cockell won his last 10 in a row after losing to Randy then he got his shot at Rocky.

If you compare the middleweight/light heavyweights that beat Cockell, outside of Randy, to those who beat Ellis, you will see what I am talking about.

You can also compare the Heavyweights that each of them beat leading up to their title shots.

[mcvey]

Cockell was KO'ed out 9 times during his career, 6 before he fought Rocky. I have watched the films of that bout and we can all see what kind of fighter he was. He really didn't look like he was in the best of shape either.

Dempsey fought less then 1 year when he fought Johnny Sudenberg and 6 months later Dempsey stopped him in 2 rounds.
Marciano said he was suprised at Cockell's resistance ,"my best punches didnt seem to affect him". Cockell had a bad bout of glandular fever,and it affected his metabolism aversely,he had a flabby torso ,but there was nothing wrong with his heart. I don't think he thought he could beat Marciano,just before he went into the ring he said to his manager "whatever happens out there ,don't you f*****g well stop it"

[Bummy Davis]

I agree, BUT none of those middleweights stopped Ellis like they did Cockell. After his loss to Benton in November, 1964, he gained some weight and won his next 12 in a row, including winning the WBA Heavyweight Title in April, 1968.

Cockell won his last 10 in a row after losing to Randy then he got his shot at Rocky.

If you compare the middleweight/light heavyweights that beat Cockell, outside of Randy, to those who beat Ellis, you will see what I am talking about.

You can also compare the Heavyweights that each of them beat leading up to their title shots.


Ellis was world Champion and a better fighter than Cockell...Same with James Toney..He took a beating off James Tiberi at middleweight but James went on to beat a lot of the big guys but James was a great fighter...Cockell was an opponent, Marciano's weakest challenger but still # 2 contender and a decent payday while testing out his nose but Marciano completly dominating Cockell, it was target practice...I remember Gerrie Cooney winning the Golden gloves as a middleweight then getting stopped by Eddie Davis as a Lightheavy then going on to become a top contender in the Heavys....The point is that even Archie Moore had losses at the lower weight but improved with age and size to be an ATG as he moved up

[hhascup]

Take even Liston--who did he beat who was over 210 and rated in the top five? Old Nino Valdes was no longer rated. Williams was not yet rated. The answer is no one.
You might be more impressed with Sharkey beating Godfrey or Louis beating Baer than Marciano beating Louis, but there aren't all that many other more impressive victories over a big man than Marciano over Louis prior to the 1970's.

Actually Valdez was still rated until Feb. 1960, Liston beat him in Aug. 1959, BUT that's a very good point. Liston also beat my good friend Chuck Wepner (I have the gloves Liston use in that bout).

Louis also beat some good big contenders, such as Lou Nova, Abe Simon, Godoy, Carnera, Stanley Poreda, Buddy Baer, Max Baer, Tommy Farr and I would add Galento BUT he was only 5'9".

[OLD FOGEY]

Actually during their time, here's their top ratings:

3. Al Ettore - Dec. 1935 to Feb. 1939 (23 months)
3. Ford Smith - Sept. 1935 to March 1936 (7 months)
4. Hank Hankinson - June 1935 to March 1936 (9 months)
6. Ray Impellitiere - Feb. 1936 to Feb. 1937 (7 months
6. Eddie Mader - Dec. 1935 to March 1936 (4 months)

As you can see only Ettore was rated for more then 9 months.

I agree that there were several other weak periods.

I always said that the strongest was in the 1970's. If you look at any top 10 ratings when Ali was the Champion, you will see that he fought more then half of them during his career and in some years, he fought almost all of them.

Louis also fought most of them as well until the late 1940's.

During Rocky's time as Champion, he fought only 4 top contenders at the end of 1952 ratings, 3 each at the end of 1953 & 1954 and only 2 at the end of 1955.

No one compares to Louis and Ali. How do other champions rate. Liston had fought 3 in 1962-He had beaten Patterson, Folley, and Williams. He would later fight Ali. You could add Machen in 1964.

From 1950 to 1955, fighters ranked in the yearly RING rankings as champions or #1 or #2 contenders were Charles, Louis, Savold, Walcott, Layne, Valdes, Cockell, Moore, and Baker. Nine men. Marciano fought and defeated seven.

From 1959 to 1964, Fighters ranked in the yearly RING rankings as champions or #1 or #2 contenders were Johansson, Folley, Patterson, Machen, Ali, Jones. Six men. Liston fought four and defeated three. He did not fight Johansson or Jones.

From 1937 to 1948 (with 1943-1945 out), fighters ranked in the yearly RING RATINGS as champions or #1 or #2 contenders were Schmeling, Farr, Nova, Baer, Galento, Pastor, Godoy, Conn, Franklin, Bivins, Mauriello, Ray, Walcott, Charles. Fourteen men. Louis fought 12 out of the 14, but Charles and Bivins are special cases, with Bivins fighting Louis years after he was the top contender and Louis the champion, and Charles being met in a comback fight. Of the other 12, Louis fought and beat 10, but did not fight Franklin and Ray.

From 1971 to 1976 fighters ranked in the yearly RING RATINGS as champions and #1 or #2 contenders were Frazier, Ali, Quarry, Norton, Young. Five men. Foreman did not fight Quarry. He knocked out Frazier and Norton, but lost to Ali and Young.

From 1968 to 1973 fighters ranked in the year RING ratings as champions or #1 or #2 contenders were Ali, Ellis, Foreman, and Quarry. Four men. Frazier fought them all, beating Ali, Ellis, and Quarry, while losing to Foreman and Ali.

If we use 1936 to 1941 for Louis, to give him a six year period, Braddock, Schmeling, Farr, Nova, Baer, Galento, Pastor, Godoy, Conn, and Franklin were rated #1 or #2. 10 men--Louis fought 9.

Besides who is fighting who, what impresses me here is the greater volatility of the ratings in the Louis and Marciano era and the gradual decline into the seventies.

Fighters rated #1 or #2 or champ counting in main man

1936 to 1941----11

1950 to 1955----10

1958 to 1963----7

1968 to 1973----5

1971 to 1976----6

More fighters could push to the top of the ratings in the 1936 to 1955 eras. Why?

[OLD FOGEY]

I agree, BUT none of those middleweights stopped Ellis like they did Cockell. After his loss to Benton in November, 1964, he gained some weight and won his next 12 in a row, including winning the WBA Heavyweight Title in April, 1968.

Cockell won his last 10 in a row after losing to Randy then he got his shot at Rocky.

If you compare the middleweight/light heavyweights that beat Cockell, outside of Randy, to those who beat Ellis, you will see what I am talking about.

You can also compare the Heavyweights that each of them beat leading up to their title shots.

Cockell was the weakest Marciano challenger. He would rank about 9th on a list of Marciano opponents both in ability and resume. Where would Ellis rank on a list of Frazier's opponents? No where near as low as 9th I would guess. He might rank as the second best man Frazier defeated.

[Damo1712]

I think a prime louis would have been the only problem, they possibly would have traded the title and had a trilogy of fights

[hhascup]

Ellis was world Champion and a better fighter than Cockell...Same with James Toney..He took a beating off James Tiberi at middleweight but James went on to beat a lot of the big guys but James was a great fighter...Cockell was an opponent, Marciano's weakest challenger but still # 2 contender and a decent payday while testing out his nose but Marciano completly dominating Cockell, it was target practice...I remember Gerrie Cooney winning the Golden gloves as a middleweight then getting stopped by Eddie Davis as a Lightheavy then going on to become a top contender in the Heavys....The point is that even Archie Moore had losses at the lower weight but improved with age and size to be an ATG as he moved up


I agree, BUT you'll have to admit, Cockell was stopped many times during his career.

That is not the record for being stopped the most times before getting a shot at the Heavyweight Title. Do you know who holds that record and how many times was he KO'ed before getting his shot AND who did he box?

[OLD FOGEY]

I agree, BUT you'll have to admit, Cockell was stopped many times during his career.

That is not the record for being stopped the most times before getting a shot at the Heavyweight Title. Do you know who holds that record and how many times was he KO'ed before getting his shot AND who did he box?


Lee Oma (16)--Ezzard Charles

[OLD FOGEY]

I agree with most of what you wrote. Prime is different for everyone. Walcott was in his "prime" when he was in his 30's. He became a Top 10 Contender in 1945 at the age of 31. He even got better with age. Others such as Pipino Cuevas was in his prime at a very young age and by his mid-20's he was finished.

Charles was approx. the same age as Ali BUT Charles was slipping like you stated and was no where near what Ali was.

Rocky did beat all the bigger boxers he fought but he only faced 1 that was a world class boxer that was over 6 feet and weighed over 200 pounds, and that was Louis. This does not mean that he wouldn't have beaten the Bigger contenders. I honestly believe that he would have beaten them all during that time.

Here's a list of all the contenders when Rocky was the Champion. The ones in BOLD is who he fought at one time or another. I also included their career record, with their height, (approx.) weight and their highest annual rating during the time Rocky was Champion.

1. Jersey Joe Walcott (1) – 6’0” – 197 – (51-18-2)
2. Archie Moore (1) – 5’11” – 188 – (185-23-11)
3. Nino Valdez (1) - 6’3” – 210 – (48-19-2)
4. Ezzard Charles (2) – 6”0” – 190 – (89-25-1)
5. Don Cockell (2) – 5’11” – 205 – (65-14-1)
6. Rex Layne (2) – 6’1” – 193 – (50-17-3)
7. Bob Baker (2) - 6’2” – 215 – (51-16-1)
8. Dan Bucceroni (3) - 6’2” – 190 – (46-6)
9. Tommy Jackson (3)- 6' 3½” – 195 – (34-9-1)
10. Roland LaStarza (4) – 6’0” – 185 – (57-9)
11. John Holman (4) - 6’3” – 205 (27-17-1)
12. Bob Dunlop (4) – 182 _ (30-13-1)
13. Clarence Henry (5) - 6’1” – 185 – (34-6-1)
14. Earl Walls (5) - 6'2½” – 192 – (34-9-1)
15. Willie Pastrano (5) – 6’0” – 175 – (63-13-8)
16. Johnny Williams (6) – 195 – (60-11-4)
17. Heinz Neuhaus (6) – 6’2” – 212 (43-9-7)
18. Johnny Summerlin (7) – 6’1” – 195 – (35-8-2)
19. Tommy Harrison (8) – 182 – (22-13-2)
20. Bob Satterfield (8) – 6’2” – 185 – (50-25-4)
21. Karel Sys (9) – 5’11” – 210 – (114-17-10)
22. Charley Norkus (9) – 6’0” – 195 – (33-19)
23. Young Jack Johnson (9) – 6’3” – 208 – (24-20-1)
24. Jimmy Bivins (10) – 5’9” – 185 – (86-25-1)
25. Coley Wallace (10) – 6’2” – 205 – (20-7)
26. Jimmy Slade (10) – 180 – (36-23-6)


Others that were rated during that time were:
1. Paul Andrews – 6’3” – 180 – (37-10)
2. Bill Gilliam – 6’2” – 210 - (30-20-2)
3. James J. Parker – 6’3” – 210 - (30-7-4-)
4. Franco Cavicchi – 202 – (71-14-4)
5. Cesar Brion - 6'2½” – 202 – (32-7-4)

This is fascinating. I would really be interested in seeing a comparision with other eras such as 1930 to 1935 or 1960 to 1965 etc. The 20th man here is Satterfield. How would he compare to the 20th man from 1930 to 1935? How would the 25th man compare? I know it would be a great deal of work, but I think it would be very interesting.

[hhascup]

No one compares to Louis and Ali. How do other champions rate. Liston had fought 3 in 1962-He had beaten Patterson, Folley, and Williams. He would later fight Ali. You could add Machen in 1964.

From 1950 to 1955, fighters ranked in the yearly RING rankings as champions or #1 or #2 contenders were Charles, Louis, Savold, Walcott, Layne, Valdes, Cockell, Moore, and Baker. Nine men. Marciano fought and defeated seven.

From 1959 to 1964, Fighters ranked in the yearly RING rankings as champions or #1 or #2 contenders were Johansson, Folley, Patterson, Machen, Ali, Jones. Six men. Liston fought four and defeated three. He did not fight Johansson or Jones.

From 1937 to 1948 (with 1943-1945 out), fighters ranked in the yearly RING RATINGS as champions or #1 or #2 contenders were Schmeling, Farr, Nova, Baer, Galento, Pastor, Godoy, Conn, Franklin, Bivins, Mauriello, Ray, Walcott, Charles. Fourteen men. Louis fought 12 out of the 14, but Charles and Bivins are special cases, with Bivins fighting Louis years after he was the top contender and Louis the champion, and Charles being met in a comback fight. Of the other 12, Louis fought and beat 10, but did not fight Franklin and Ray.

From 1971 to 1976 fighters ranked in the yearly RING RATINGS as champions and #1 or #2 contenders were Frazier, Ali, Quarry, Norton, Young. Five men. Foreman did not fight Quarry. He knocked out Frazier and Norton, but lost to Ali and Young.

From 1968 to 1973 fighters ranked in the year RING ratings as champions or #1 or #2 contenders were Ali, Ellis, Foreman, and Quarry. Four men. Frazier fought them all, beating Ali, Ellis, and Quarry, while losing to Foreman and Ali.

If we use 1936 to 1941 for Louis, to give him a six year period, Braddock, Schmeling, Farr, Nova, Baer, Galento, Pastor, Godoy, Conn, and Franklin were rated #1 or #2. 10 men--Louis fought 9.

Besides who is fighting who, what impresses me here is the greater volatility of the ratings in the Louis and Marciano era and the gradual decline into the seventies.

Fighters rated #1 or #2 or champ counting in main man

1936 to 1941----11

1950 to 1955----10

1958 to 1963----7

1968 to 1973----5

1971 to 1976----6

More fighters could push to the top of the ratings in the 1936 to 1955 eras. Why?

Yes, I did it using all the ratings for every month. I think its because there were so many boxers back when, and they all kept fighting each other, so there was a big turn over. I still think the Heavyweights of the 1970's was the best from top to bottom.

Lee Oma (16)--Ezzard Charles

Correct!

That was too easy!

[Bad_Intentions]

I would've loved seeing marciano vs baer :yep

[hhascup]

This is fascinating. I would really be interested in seeing a comparision with other eras such as 1930 to 1935 or 1960 to 1965 etc. The 20th man here is Satterfield. How would he compare to the 20th man from 1930 to 1935? How would the 25th man compare? I know it would be a great deal of work, but I think it would be very interesting.

That wouldn't take as long as you think it would especially if your just going by year end ratings. Like I stated before, I am working on all the top 10 contenders in each weight class since the start of the Ring Rating system started in 1925. Now that is taking me a long time to complete. Once in a while, I have to take a break and I get on web sites that this or run the New Jersey Boxing Hall of Fame meetings, etc.

[hhascup]

Here's what I put down when I was comparing Ali and Louis: Each boxer I have rated for Ali, was rated in the top 3 at one time or another. These are only the boxers each of them BEAT.

1. Foreman 40-0-0 vs. Max Baer 50-6-0
2. Frazier 30-1-0 & 32-2-0 vs. Schmeling 52-7-4
3. Liston 35-1-0 & 35-2-0 vs. Braddock 50-25-7
4. Norton 30-1-0 & 37-3-0 vs. Walcott 44-11-2 & 44-12-2 Pick-Em
5. Patterson 43-4-0 & 55-7-1 vs. Conn 59-10-1 & 62-11-1
6. Quarry 37-4-4 & 43-5-4 vs. Nova 26-2-4
7. Bonavena 46-6-1 vs. Galento 76-23-5
8. Ellis 30-6-0 vs. Sharkey 38-13-3
9. Folley 74-7-4 vs. Farr 66-20-13 Pick-Em
10. Terrell 38-4-0 vs. Carnera 82-7-0
11. Chuvalo 34-11-2 & 66-17-2 vs. Godoy 53-8-7 & 53-9-7
12. Lyle 30-2-1 vs. Simon 34-7-0
13. Shavers 54-5-1 vs. Buddy Baer 50-5-0 & 50-6-0
14. Bugner 43-4-1 & 51-6-1 vs.
15. Bob Foster 49-5-0 vs.
16. Mac Foster 28-1-0 vs.
17. Mildenberger 49-2-3
18. Moore 184-22-11
19. Young 17-4-2
20. Williams 65-5-1
21. Jones 21-3-1
22. Cooper 27-8-1 & 33-11-1
23. L. Spinks 7-0-1

This is their records at the time(s) they fought Ali and Louis. You can also switch them around if you want, just try to pick the best against the best. Meaning you should have the top opponents that Ali boxed against the top opponents of Louis.

That’s 31 wins against 23 different opponents. All 23 opponents were rated #3 or better in the World at one time or another by Ring Magazine.

[groove]

good post.

[OLD FOGEY]

Cockell was KO'ed out 9 times during his career, 6 before he fought Rocky. I have watched the films of that bout and we can all see what kind of fighter he was. He really didn't look like he was in the best of shape either.

Dempsey fought less then 1 year when he fought Johnny Sudenberg and 6 months later Dempsey stopped him in 2 rounds.

1. On Cockell--The only film I've seen of him is against Marciano and they generally only show the later floundering rounds. But I would like to say a few things for him.

81 fights 66 wins 14 losses 1 draw 38 ko's 9 ko by

But he turned pro in his teens and three of those knockout defeats were before his 20th birthday. Another was at 21 when as a lightheavy he puffed up to 182 and fought the 194 lb Aaron Wilson. From that point to the Marciano fight he won 20 of 22, being stopped by Jimmy Slade and Randy Turpin. Turpin was a former champion and Slade a man who was rated highly. His wins included Lloyd Marshall, Albert Yvel, Freddie Beshore, Nick Barone, Albert Finch, Tommy Farr, Johnny Williams, Roland LaStarza, and Harry Matthews. Not overly impressive, but all these were rated at one time or another and Williams, LaStarza, and Matthews were rated when he defeated them. After losing to Marciano, he put on 13 lbs in three months and lost to Valdes, and then was ko'd more decisively by Kitione Lave than by any of these other men.

Now Ellis:

53 fights 40 victories 12 defeats 1 draw 24 ko's 4 ko'd by

Ellis fought tougher opposition, but his winning percentage was much lower. He was stopped once every 13 fights while Cockell was stopped once every 9 fights. And, in fairness to Ellis, his four ko defeats were to Frazier twice, Shavers, and Ali. It is interesting to note that Ellis began his pro career at 21. Cockell had suffered four knockouts by that age.

Now no one, including myself, considers Cockell in the same class as Ellis and he is routinely considered a joke. But I think he might be underrated. He has a pretty good winning percentage, better than Ellis by quite a margin, and a decent knockout percentage. He was at one time the European lightheavy champion and the British Empire heavyweight champion, and he defeated a reasonable number of world rated fighters. Quite a few of his defeats came as a teenager and most of his defeats when mature were to world class fighters.

[hhascup]

1. On Cockell--The only film I've seen of him is against Marciano and they generally only show the later floundering rounds. But I would like to say a few things for him.

81 fights 66 wins 14 losses 1 draw 38 ko's 9 ko by

But he turned pro in his teens and three of those knockout defeats were before his 20th birthday. Another was at 21 when as a lightheavy he puffed up to 182 and fought the 194 lb Aaron Wilson. From that point to the Marciano fight he won 20 of 22, being stopped by Jimmy Slade and Randy Turpin. Turpin was a former champion and Slade a man who was rated highly. His wins included Lloyd Marshall, Albert Yvel, Freddie Beshore, Nick Barone, Albert Finch, Tommy Farr, Johnny Williams, Roland LaStarza, and Harry Matthews. Not overly impressive, but all these were rated at one time or another and Williams, LaStarza, and Matthews were rated when he defeated them. After losing to Marciano, he puts on 13 lbs in three months and loses to Valdes, and then is ko'd more decisively by Kitione Lave than by any of these other men.

Now Ellis:

53 fights 39 victories 13 defeats 1 draw 23 ko's 5 ko'd by

Ellis fought tougher opposition, but his winning percentage was much lower. He was stopped once every 10.6 fights while Cockell was stopped once every 9 fights. Not that big a difference. In fairness to Ellis, four of his ko defeats were to Frazier twice, Shavers, and Ali. Only Harold Carter, if boxrec is accurate on this, was a second rate fighter. It is interesting to note that Ellis began his pro career at 21. From then on he was ko'd five times, the same number as Cockell after 21.

Now no one, including myself, considers Cockell in the same class as Ellis and he is routinely considered a joke. But I think he might be underrated. He has a pretty good winning percentage, better than Ellis by quite a margin, and a decent knockout percentage. He was at one time the European lightheavy champion and the British Empire heavyweight champion, and he defeated a reasonable number of world rated fighters. Quite a few of his defeats came as a teenager and most of his defeats when mature were to world class fighters.


The Carter bout was a mistake. Ellis stopped Carter in 7 rounds, not the other way around. I made the change on BoxRec. So Ellis was only stopped 4 times during his career. Frazier twice, Ali and Shavers.

Thanks, Henry

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Also, Ellis was boxing top notch boxers almost at the outset. He fought Mims in his 6th pro bout and then beat him in his 9th. This is after Mims won his last 8 in a row. If you look at his 12 defeats, you will see that everyone of them were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another and most were rated when they beat Ellis. Where as, Cockell lost 14 times and only 4 were contenders.

[Bummy Davis]

Cockell was the weakest challenge but he did have 10 wins in a row and wins over Matthews 3 times, John Arthur,Tommy Farr,Roland Lastarza....Granted it was after Marciano destroyed them and only Moore survived intack to fight without being ruined...still I have seen the Rudi Lubers, and Alfred Evangelista, Lorenzo Zannons,Chuck Wepners,Ron Standers, Terry Daniels, David Beys,Jose Roman, Richard Dunns,Jurgin Blins and I must say Cockell fought as well as all of them, he fought with heart but he just prolonged the inevitable and Marciano was not as intense as usual...still it was a one sided shellacking

[hhascup]

Cockell was the weakest challenge but he did have 10 wins in a row and wins over Matthews 3 times, John Arthur,Tommy Farr,Roland Lastarza....Granted it was after Marciano destroyed them and only Moore survived intack to fight without being ruined...still I have seen the Rudi Lubers, and Alfred Evangelista, Lorenzo Zannons,Chuck Wepners,Ron Standers, Terry Daniels, David Beys,Jose Roman, Richard Dunns,Jurgin Blins and I must say Cockell fought as well as all of them, he fought with heart but he just prolonged the inevitable and Marciano was not as intense as usual...still it was a one sided shellacking


I agree that he was Rocky's weakest opponent when he was Champion.

David Bey was rated as high as #3 for over 2 years when Holmes and Spinks were Champions. Zanon was rated as high as #5. Also, I am good friends with Chuck Wepner and he could really take it too.

[Bummy Davis]

I agree that he was Rocky's weakest opponent when he was Champion.

David Bey was rated as high as #3 for over 2 years when Holmes and Spinks were Champions. Zanon was rated as high as #5. Also, I am good friends with Chuck Wepner and he could really take it too.


Bey beat Greg Page to get the shot but to show you how bad the fighters were in the 80's he won only 4 of his next 16 fights from Holmes on and he was stopped 9 times...Zannon was Ko'd by Norton,Quarry,and Dante Cane before getting a title shot...I seen Wepner lose to Randy Nuemann and others, Chuck could not punch at all, had zero skill, was easy to hit...he bleed during the instructions...but he would bleed without crying. It would be hard to rate the best from the worst and I think Cockell was in the higher bunch of this group and would certainly beat Richard Dunn, Jurgin Blin, Terry Daniels,Ron Stander but that would be an intersting post to rate all those who challenged for the lineal or peoples championship

[ChrisPontius]

Cockell wasn't the best of Marciano's challengers, but he has some wins over ranked contenders, which is more than what you can say of half of Holmes' title defenses.

[OLD FOGEY]

The Carter bout was a mistake. Ellis stopped Carter in 7 rounds, not the other way around. I made the change on BoxRec. So Ellis was only stopped 4 times during his career. Frazier twice, Ali and Shavers.

Thanks, Henry

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Also, Ellis was boxing top notch boxers almost at the outset. He fought Mims in his 6th pro bout and then beat him in his 9th. This is after Mims won his last 8 in a row. If you look at his 12 defeats, you will see that everyone of them were rated in the Top 10 at one time or another and most were rated when they beat Ellis. Where as, Cockell lost 14 times and only 4 were contenders.

Ellis had a top amateur background and he was over 21 when he turned pro. One could argue he was green when he fought Mims in 1961 and perhaps when he fought Hank in 1962, but the defeats in 1964 to Carter, Benton, and Don Fullmer are hard to explain away. Ellis was 24 and had been a pro three years. And the middles he was losing to were by no means the best out there. Griffith, Tiger, Giardello, Benvenuti, and probably Archer were the top middleweights of the time.
Ellis had a surprisingly mediocre career prior to 1967. He lost to the best men he faced and none of his victories were particularly impressive. Then he went on a run which saw him defeat Johnny Persol, Leotis Martin, Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, and Floyd Patterson in successive fights, pushing into the top echelon of the heavyweight division alongside Ali and Frazier in 1968. And that was pretty much it. He lost badly to Frazier in 1970 and Ali in 1971. His only victory after 1968 over a name fighter was a decision over an aging George Chuvalo. He won quite a few, but always against journeymen, leading to money fights he lost to Shavers, Lyle, Kirkman, etc.
Ellis was a mediocre middle who skipped right past the lightheavy division to clean out the better heavies other than Ali and Frazier. There is nothing in his record after 1970 to indicate he was still anything but mediocre. His success calls into the question the quality of the heavyweights under Ali and Frazier during the Frazier years.

As for Cockell, 9 of his 14 defeats came before the age of 21 years 5 months, about the age Ellis was when he started fighting as a pro. Cockell started his own pro career at 17. Cockell had a pretty good run from from 1950 to 1955 winning 20 of 22 with 12 of his victories over men rated at one time or another. Four of his subsequent five defeats were to rated fighters. Critics could make the telling points that his defeats, however, were generally one-sided beatings with Cockell cut often and knocked down frequently, while most of his rated victims were either past their best or fringe types. He rose high in the heavyweight ratings, but did so mainly by coming in through the back door, edging LaStarza and Matthews in disputed decisions. He never was the "player" in the heavyweight division of his era that Ellis was in his.

Comparision of records against men who appeared in RING rankings (as close as I can tell)

Ellis--Defeated----Wilfie Graves, Holly Mims, Rory Calhoun, Johnny Halafihi, Hubert Hilton, Billy Daniels, Johnny Persol, Leotis Martin, Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo

Lost----Holly Mims, Henry Hank, Hurricane Carter, Don Fullmer, George Benton, Joe Frazier (2), Muhammad Ali, Earnie Shavers, Boone Kirkman, Ron Lyle, Joe Bugner

Drew----Larry Middleton

Total record against ever rated fighters---12-12-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cockell--Defeated----Ginger Saad, Johnny Williams (2), Lloyd Marshall (2), Albert Yvel, Freddie Beshore, Nick Barone, Albert Finch, Tommy Farr, Roland LaStarza, Harry Matthews (3)

Lost----Johnny Williams, Jimmy Slade, Randy Turpin, Rocky Marciano, Nino Valdes

Total record against ever rated fighters---14-5

Defenders of Ellis can point to the fact that he lost several fights when past thirty and on the way down. Defenders of Cockell can point to his losing five fights as a teenager and a total of nine fights by the time he had barely turned 21.

[hhascup]

Bey beat Greg Page to get the shot but to show you how bad the fighters were in the 80's he won only 4 of his next 16 fights from Holmes on and he was stopped 9 times...Zannon was Ko'd by Norton,Quarry,and Dante Cane before getting a title shot...I seen Wepner lose to Randy Nuemann and others, Chuck could not punch at all, had zero skill, was easy to hit...he bleed during the instructions...but he would bleed without crying. It would be hard to rate the best from the worst and I think Cockell was in the higher bunch of this group and would certainly beat Richard Dunn, Jurgin Blin, Terry Daniels,Ron Stander but that would be an intersting post to rate all those who challenged for the lineal or peoples championship


Yes, I know Neumann very well too. His son Patrick just started boxing in the New York Golden Gloves and he invited me down to see him. As far as Bey goes I agree with you BUT his first 5 loses were against some of the top contenders Champions in the division. He also won the USBA heavyweight title by beating Greg Page who was rated as high as #2 in the World. He lost to Holmes (Champion), Berbick (WBC Champion), Smith (rated #2), Bugner (rated #3) & Biggs (rated #6). After that he was done, actually he was done before that.

[groove]

Ellis was better than Cockell. Cockell had no chance of being heavyweight champ in the era Ellis fought in - he wouldn't make the top 10 list. He would lose to fighters Ellis beat e.g. Chuvalo, Patterson, Quarry and Bonavena. Lyle and Shavers losses were at the end of his career and they both would destroy Cockell.

[hhascup]

Ellis had a top amateur background and he was over 21 when he turned pro. One could argue he was green when he fought Mims in 1961 and perhaps when he fought Hank in 1962, but the defeats in 1964 to Carter, Benton, and Don Fullmer are hard to explain away. Ellis was 24 and had been a pro three years. And the middles he was losing to were by no means the best out there. Griffith, Tiger, Giardello, Benvenuti, and probably Archer were the top middleweights of the time.
Ellis had a surprisingly mediocre career prior to 1967. He lost to the best men he faced and none of his victories were particularly impressive. Then he went on a run which saw him defeat Johnny Persol, Leotis Martin, Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, and Floyd Patterson in successive fights, pushing into the top echelon of the heavyweight division alongside Ali and Frazier in 1968. And that was pretty much it. He lost badly to Frazier in 1970 and Ali in 1971. His only victory after 1968 over a name fighter was a decision over an aging George Chuvalo. He won quite a few, but always against journeymen, leading to money fights he lost to Shavers, Lyle, Kirkman, etc.
Ellis was a mediocre middle who skipped right past the lightheavy division to clean out the better heavies other than Ali and Frazier. There is nothing in his record after 1970 to indicate he was still anything but mediocre. His success calls into the question the quality of the heavyweights under Ali and Frazier during the Frazier years.

As for Cockell, 9 of his 14 defeats came before the age of 21 years 5 months, about the age Ellis was when he started fighting as a pro. Cockell started his own pro career at 17. Cockell had a pretty good run from from 1950 to 1955 winning 20 of 22 with 12 of his victories over men rated at one time or another. Four of his subsequent five defeats were to rated fighters. Critics could make the telling points that his defeats, however, were generally one-sided beatings with Cockell cut often and knocked down frequently, while most of his rated victims were either past their best or fringe types. He rose high in the heavyweight ratings, but did so mainly by coming in through the back door, edging LaStarza and Matthews in disputed decisions. He never was the "player" in the heavyweight division of his era that Ellis was in his.

Comparision of records against men who appeared in RING rankings (as close as I can tell)

Ellis--Defeated----Wilfie Graves, Holly Mims, Rory Calhoun, Johnny Halafihi, Hubert Hilton, Billy Daniels, Johnny Persol, Leotis Martin, Oscar Bonavena, Jerry Quarry, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo

Lost----Holly Mims, Henry Hank, Hurricane Carter, Don Fullmer, George Benton, Joe Frazier (2), Muhammad Ali, Earnie Shavers, Boone Kirkman, Ron Lyle, Joe Bugner

Drew----Larry Middleton

Total record against ever rated fighters---12-12-1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cockell--Defeated----Ginger Saad, Johnny Williams (2), Lloyd Marshall (2), Albert Yvel, Freddie Beshore, Nick Barone, Albert Finch, Tommy Farr, Roland LaStarza, Harry Matthews (3)

Lost----Johnny Williams, Jimmy Slade, Randy Turpin, Rocky Marciano, Nino Valdes

Total record against ever rated fighters---14-5

Defenders of Ellis can point to the fact that he lost several fights when past thirty and on the way down. Defenders of Cockell can point to his losing five fights as a teenager and a total of nine fights by the time he had barely turned 21.


I believe that Ellis fought and beat much better opponents then Cockell did. If you compare just the Heavyweight Contenders each of them beat, Ellis had a much better resume. Here's a list of opponents that they beat and how they were rated.

Ellis:
Holly Mims (rated #2 in the Middleweight Class, last rated in 1960, Ellis beat him in 1962)
Rory Calhoun (rated #3 in the Middleweight Class, last rated in 1961, Ellis beat him in 1962),
Johnny Halafihi (rated #6 in the Light Heavyweight Class, last rated in 1961, Ellis beat him in 1963)
Hubert Hilton (rated #7)
Billy Daniels (rated #6, last rated in 1965, Ellis beat him in 1966)
Johnny Persol (rated #5 as a Light Heavyweight and #9 as a Heavyweight)
Leotis Martin (rated #1)
Oscar Bonavena (rated #2)
Jerry Quarry (rated #1)
Floyd Patterson (former Champion)
George Chuvalo (rated #3)
Larry Middleton (rated #7) DRAW

Cockell:
Ginger Saad (was rated #7 in the Middleweight division for 2 months in 1939, he fought Cockell in 1947)
Johnny Williams (2) (rated #5)
Lloyd Marshall (2) Rated #1 in the Middleweight/Light Heavyweight Class)
Albert Yvel Rated #9 as a Light Heavyweight for 4 months)
Freddie Beshore (rated #9 for 3 months, last rated in 1950, Cockell beat him in 1951)
Nick Barone (rated #5 in the Light Heavyweight Class)
Albert Finch (rated #8 in the Light Heavyweight Class for 4 months)
Tommy Farr (rated #2 and last time he was rated was in 1941 and he fought Cockell in 1953)
Roland LaStarza (rated #1)
Harry Matthews (3) (rated #1 as a Light Heavyweight, also rated as a Heavyweight).

[OLD FOGEY]

I believe that Ellis fought and beat much better opponents then Cockell did. If you compare just the Heavyweight Contenders each of them beat, Ellis had a much better resume. Here's a list of opponents that they beat and how they were rated.

Ellis:
Holly Mims (rated #2 in the Middleweight Class, last rated in 1960, Ellis beat him in 1962)
Rory Calhoun (rated #3 in the Middleweight Class, last rated in 1961, Ellis beat him in 1962),
Johnny Halafihi (rated #6 in the Light Heavyweight Class, last rated in 1961, Ellis beat him in 1963)
Hubert Hilton (rated #7)
Billy Daniels (rated #6, last rated in 1965, Ellis beat him in 1966)
Johnny Persol (rated #5 as a Light Heavyweight and #9 as a Heavyweight)
Leotis Martin (rated #1)
Oscar Bonavena (rated #2)
Jerry Quarry (rated #1)
Floyd Patterson (former Champion)
George Chuvalo (rated #3)
Larry Middleton (rated #7) DRAW

Cockell:
Ginger Saad (was rated #7 in the Middleweight division for 2 months in 1939, he fought Cockell in 1947)
Johnny Williams (2) (rated #5)
Lloyd Marshall (2) Rated #1 in the Middleweight/Light Heavyweight Class)
Albert Yvel Rated #9 as a Light Heavyweight for 4 months)
Freddie Beshore (rated #9 for 3 months, last rated in 1950, Cockell beat him in 1951)
Nick Barone (rated #5 in the Light Heavyweight Class)
Albert Finch (rated #8 in the Light Heavyweight Class for 4 months)
Tommy Farr (rated #2 and last time he was rated was in 1941 and he fought Cockell in 1953)
Roland LaStarza (rated #1)
Harry Matthews (3) (rated #1 as a Light Heavyweight, also rated as a Heavyweight).

I am not disputing that Cockell is not as good a fighter and did not defeat as many top men. What is interesting to me is that a man as mediocre at middleweight as Ellis can then sweep many of the top heavyweights in 1967 and 1968. Cockell was a decent fighter who got to the top of the division in his era basically through some luck and coming up the back stairway by his wins over LaStarza and Matthews. Ellis on the other hand might actually be viewed as having the best claim to the title (if Ali is considered out of the picture) from 1968 to 1970 as he entered and won a tourney that Frazier refused to enter and beat the best men Frazier defended against in that period, Bonavena and Quarry, as well as Patterson and Martin. Frazier gained his recognition with a victory over the undefeated but untested Mathis, not a top man.

One factual question--when was Leotis Martin rated #1--was this after he beat Liston?

[OLD FOGEY]

Ellis was better than Cockell. Cockell had no chance of being heavyweight champ in the era Ellis fought in - he wouldn't make the top 10 list. He would lose to fighters Ellis beat e.g. Chuvalo, Patterson, Quarry and Bonavena. Lyle and Shavers losses were at the end of his career and they both would destroy Cockell.


"Cockell had not chance of being heavyweight champ in the era Ellis fought in"

Cockell did not have any real chance of being champion in his own day. If they held a tournament in 1955 like the one Ellis won in 1968, with Marciano and Moore out, what would Cockell's chances have been of winning? Slim and none in my estimation.

But Ellis won such a tournament in 1968. That is my point. Would you favor Ellis to win a similar tournament in 1955? I think he would be a real long shot at best. Valdes and Baker were huge men who could box. Holman and Satterfield could really punch. How would Ellis do against the freaky Jackson? And if Harold Johnson is in the tournament, I make him a strong favorite over Ellis.

[Bummy Davis]

"Cockell had not chance of being heavyweight champ in the era Ellis fought in"

Cockell did not have any real chance of being champion in his own day. If they held a tournament in 1955 like the one Ellis won in 1968, with Marciano and Moore out, what would Cockell's chances have been of winning? Slim and none in my estimation.

But Ellis won such a tournament in 1968. That is my point. Would you favor Ellis to win a similar tournament in 1955? I think he would be a real long shot at best. Valdes and Baker were huge men who could box. Holman and Satterfield could really punch. How would Ellis do against the freaky Jackson? And if Harold Johnson is in the tournament, I make him a strong favorite over Ellis.

I agree, it would be an uphill battlr for Jimmy and I dont like his chances

[hhascup]

One factual question--when was Leotis Martin rated #1--was this after he beat Liston?

I believe so. He was rated from September, 1967 to July, 1970, for a total of 25 months.

I also think Ellis would have done pretty well if there was a Tournament in 1955. Anyone who beat all the top heavyweights as he did, I would have to give him a pretty good shot.

[OLD FOGEY]

I believe so. He was rated from September, 1967 to July, 1970, for a total of 25 months.

I also think Ellis would have done pretty well if there was a Tournament in 1955. Anyone who beat all the top heavyweights as he did, I would have to give him a pretty good shot.


"I also think Ellis would have done pretty well"

Baker and Valdes and were so much bigger than anyone Ellis defeated who had pretty good boxing skills. It is also hard for me to see a guy who lost to Don Fullmer then beating Harold Johnson. This is, of course, unknowable, but I wouldn't favor Ellis by any means. My main point is that it is not convincing to me at all that the 1955 group is less formidable than the 1967 group. I think it has the best pure boxer (Johnson), the best big man with boxing ability (Baker), and probably the most dangerous puncher (Satterfield).

[hhascup]

"I also think Ellis would have done pretty well"

Baker and Valdes and were so much bigger than anyone Ellis defeated who had pretty good boxing skills. It is also hard for me to see a guy who lost to Don Fullmer then beating Harold Johnson. This is, of course, unknowable, but I wouldn't favor Ellis by any means. My main point is that it is not convincing to me at all that the 1955 group is less formidable than the 1967 group. I think it has the best pure boxer (Johnson), the best big man with boxing ability (Baker), and probably the most dangerous puncher (Satterfield).


I respect your opinion, as I still think Ellis would have done pretty well too. Remember, Johnson was knocked out by Moore and Oakland Billy Smith, who was an excellent boxer, at the end of 1954. I won't count his KO defeat by Julio Mederos because he was drugged somehow in that bout.

I use to love watching Johnson box, BUT most people didn't. As a Light Heavyweight he was one of the best and his record speaks for itself. If Ellis of 1968 fought Johnson of 1955, Ellis would have outweighed Johnson by approx. 20 pounds, which might have made the difference, I said might have.

[hhascup]

I believe that Ellis cut weight in the beginning of his career like some High School and College wrestlers do. I think that made him weaker then he really was. When he went up to Heavyweight, he was at his more natural weight and he was much stronger and better fighter by doing so.

[groove]

Ellis would beat fighters like archie moore at heavy that gave marciano a hard time. frazier and ali were a step above and most people know that liston would be a favourite v marciano. 50s are the most overrated era ever. great fighters at light heavy e.g. moore and charles. old walcott or louis who was crap compared to his best was marciano's best opponent. that shows how really weak it was!

[OLD FOGEY]

Ellis would beat fighters like archie moore at heavy that gave marciano a hard time. frazier and ali were a step above and most people know that liston would be a favourite v marciano. 50s are the most overrated era ever. great fighters at light heavy e.g. moore and charles. old walcott or louis who was crap compared to his best was marciano's best opponent. that shows how really weak it was!

Maybe. But no one who lost to several ordinary middleweights was able to sweep the heavies back in the fifties.

[MRBILL]

Jimmy Ellis was somewhere near 205 pounds for Joe Frazier in 1970 and he looked good and strong there, but Frazier was primed and not to be denied at that juncture.... However, a year and a half later, Jimmy Ellis came back to fight Ali in late 1971 at only an announced 191 pounds.... That to me was pretty damn lean for Ellis in the 70s....... I don't think Jimmy Ellis could make 175 pounds after 1968 and have any gas left over in the tank..... The post '68 Ellis was solid at 188 to 195 pounds..... Point is, by the time Jimmy Ellis hit his prime, he was too mature to make 175 pounds anymore...... 190 to 195 was Ellis' peak weights....... That 205 for Frazier in 1970 was a "Blown-Up" weight; not natural..... Cheers......

MR.BILL

[Bummy Davis]

I think Eliis would be able to handle the Billy Gilliams, Don Cockells and hold his own with Bob Baker and more than likely Valdes, He may have trouble with Bob Satterfield and Layne would not be a walk in the park also Lastarza, not easy...I cant seeing him getting past Charles,Walcott or Moore or Johnson and Marciano would stop Ellis....he may get to the finals but he was not good enough for the finish

[hhascup]

Maybe. But no one who lost to several ordinary middleweights was able to sweep the heavies back in the fifties.


I wouldn't call Holly Mims, Henry Hank, Rubin Hurricane Carter, Don Fulmer and George Benton ordinary middleweights. Mims was rated as high as #2, Hank #4, Carter #2, Fulmer #1 and Benton #3.

He lost to Fulmer by a split decision, all 3 score cards had it by 1 point. 2 had it for Fulmer and 1 had it for Ellis. The Unofficial UPI scorecard was 48-46 for Ellis. He also lost to Benton by a MD.

As a middleweight, Ellis was never Rated in the Top 10. His 1st appearence was as a Heavyweight in June, 1967, after beating another good friend of mine, Johnny Persol.

6 months after the Benton bout, Ellis gained over 15 pounds he became much stronger.

Again, Ellis was 6'1" tall and was thin for a middleweight. I think he just cut too much weight at that time and that made him weaker then if he had not cut. It happens all the time with amateur wrestlers.

[OLD FOGEY]

I wouldn't call Holly Mims, Henry Hank, Rubin Hurricane Carter, Don Fulmer and George Benton ordinary middleweights. Mims was rated as high as #2, Hank #4, Carter #2, Fulmer #1 and Benton #3.

He lost to Fulmer by a split decision, all 3 score cards had it by 1 point. 2 had it for Fulmer and 1 had it for Ellis. The Unofficial UPI scorecard was 48-46 for Ellis. He also lost to Benton by a MD.

As a middleweight, Ellis was never Rated in the Top 10. His 1st appearence was as a Heavyweight in June, 1967, after beating another good friend of mine, Johnny Persol.

6 months after the Benton bout, Ellis gained over 15 pounds he became much stronger.

Again, Ellis was 6'1" tall and was thin for a middleweight. I think he just cut too much weight at that time and that made him weaker then if he had not cut. It happens all the time with amateur wrestlers.

"Ordinary" might have been invidious, but they were also not champions.
Ellis did not make much of a splash at middle and yet became WBA heavyweight champion. This certainly calls into question the depth and quality of the heavyweights behind Ali and Frazier in the late sixties, all spin to the contrary.

[groove]

well bob foster was a great light heavy champ and he lost to quite a few heavies in the 60s.

[janitor]

I think Eliis would be able to handle the Billy Gilliams, Don Cockells and hold his own with Bob Baker and more than likely Valdes, He may have trouble with Bob Satterfield and Layne would not be a walk in the park also Lastarza, not easy...I cant seeing him getting past Charles,Walcott or Moore or Johnson and Marciano would stop Ellis....he may get to the finals but he was not good enough for the finish

I think that Ellis would have done well in that era but I dont think that he would beat Nino Valdez for example.

The best you can say for him is that he might have got a shot at Marciano.

[janitor]

well bob foster was a great light heavy champ and he lost to quite a few heavies in the 60s.

He would have done in any era.

[hhascup]

"Ordinary" might have been invidious, but they were also not champions.
Ellis did not make much of a splash at middle and yet became WBA heavyweight champion. This certainly calls into question the depth and quality of the heavyweights behind Ali and Frazier in the late sixties, all spin to the contrary.


Like I said, he cut too much weight as a Middleweight and that made him weak. When he decided not to cut weight, that is when he became a much better fighter because he fought in his natural weight.

[Unforgiven]

To bring Jimmy Ellis's early career (middleweight) into perspective, he lost 5 fights out of his first 19, all decisions, some very close, to far more experienced fighters who weren't just leading contenders but are rememebered to this day an VERY GOOD middleweight contenders.

Ellis was a novice professional going up against some of the best men in the divsion.
Just look at the experienced guys he fought. He fought Wilf Greaves (WON) in his 4th fight, he fought Holly Mims (LOST) in his 6th fight. And Mims again in his 9th (WON).

Ellis wasn't second-rate as a middleweight, he was just a novice.

[Bummy Davis]

"Ordinary" might have been invidious, but they were also not champions.
Ellis did not make much of a splash at middle and yet became WBA heavyweight champion. This certainly calls into question the depth and quality of the heavyweights behind Ali and Frazier in the late sixties, all spin to the contrary.


The division was extremly weak in the 70's If it had not been for the star quality of Ali, only the boxing world would have known half these guys. Al"Blue Lewis, come on...Wepner...Blin, Evangelista,....Frazier was a stand out but had a short burst of a career....Foreman also had the Olympic build up and stood out ( he was a puncher but had the biggest build-up vs nobodies until Frazier and was basically a wide swinging amatuer...still the rest of the 70's was pretty ordinary...despite what a lot of Ali lovers what to believe and impose on others. I lived it as a fan and every era had its stand outs but Quarry,Norton,Lyle,Shavers,Young, were prob the best of that divison after Ali,Frazier and Foreman but the rest would have had trouble making the top in any era, especially those where there was 1 champ

[mcvey]

The division was extremly weak in the 70's If it had not been for the star quality of Ali, only the boxing world would have known half these guys. Al"Blue Lewis, come on...Wepner...Blin, Evangelista,....Frazier was a stand out but had a short burst of a career....Foreman also had the Olympic build up and stood out ( he was a puncher but had the biggest build-up vs nobodies until Frazier and was basically a wide swinging amatuer...still the rest of the 70's was pretty ordinary...despite what a lot of Ali lovers what to believe and impose on others. I lived it as a fan and every era had its stand outs but Quarry,Norton,Lyle,Shavers,Young, were prob the best of that divison after Ali,Frazier and Foreman but the rest would have had trouble making the top in any era, especially those where there was 1 champ
Like you I lived that era ,I thought it was a pretty solid time for heavyweights myself,still, each of us has our own perspective.

[hhascup]

The division was extremly weak in the 70's If it had not been for the star quality of Ali, only the boxing world would have known half these guys. Al"Blue Lewis, come on...Wepner...Blin, Evangelista,....Frazier was a stand out but had a short burst of a career....Foreman also had the Olympic build up and stood out ( he was a puncher but had the biggest build-up vs nobodies until Frazier and was basically a wide swinging amatuer...still the rest of the 70's was pretty ordinary...despite what a lot of Ali lovers what to believe and impose on others. I lived it as a fan and every era had its stand outs but Quarry,Norton,Lyle,Shavers,Young, were prob the best of that divison after Ali,Frazier and Foreman but the rest would have had trouble making the top in any era, especially those where there was 1 champ


Bummy, I really enjoy reading all of your posts and I respect you very much BUT we can not agree on everything and this is one I don't. Actually, your the 1st boxing person that I know of that has said that the Heavyweights of the 1970's was weak.

I have talked to some of the top boxing historians in the business, including Bert Sugar, Herb Goldman, many members of IBRO, which I am a charter member, and they agree that the 1970's was when the Heavyweight division was the strongest.

Here's a list of the top Heavyweights of the 1970's.

Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from March, 1962 to Nov, 1980
Joe Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from Feb, 1967 to March 1979
George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from July, 1970 to Late 1977 (Rated again 1990’s)
Ken Norton ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from Nov. 1972 to June, 1981
Oscar Bonavena ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (2) Rated from Sept, 1966 to March, 1977
George Chuvalo ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from Aug, 1958 to March, 1974
Joe Bugner ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from June, 1971 to Feb, 1978
Ron Lyle ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from Oct, 1972 to April, 1979
Earnie Shavers ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from March, 1973 to May, 1980
Jimmy Young ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from March, 1975 to June 1980
Duane Bobick ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (4) Rated from March, 1975 to March, 1979
Jerry Quarry ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from Sept, 1967 to May,1975
Jimmy Ellis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former Champion) Rated from June, 1967 to March 1974
Larry Holmes ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from March, 1976 to July, 1995
Ernie Terrell ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former WBA Champion) Rated from June, 1963 to March, 1974
Floyd Patterson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former Champion) Rated from the mid-1950’s to Aug., 1973
Kallie Knoetze ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from Dec, 1977 to March, 1980
Gerrie Coetzee ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from Feb, 1978 to April, 1986
Leon Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from Feb, 1978 to May, 1982
Mac Foster ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from March, 1969 to Aug, 1972
Henry Cooper ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (2) Rated from Dec, 1958 to May, 1971
Sonny Liston ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former Champion) Rated from Oct, 1958 to March 1971
Mike Weaver ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Future WBA Champion) Rated from March, 1979 to July, 1988
John Tate ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (2) Rated from March, 1979 to Sept, 1984

I would match this decade with any other.

[OLD FOGEY]

Bummy, I really enjoy reading all of your posts and I respect you very much BUT we can not agree on everything and this is one I don't. Actually, your the 1st boxing person that I know of that has said that the Heavyweights of the 1970's was weak.

I have talked to some of the top boxing historians in the business, including Bert Sugar, Herb Goldman, many members of IBRO, which I am a charter member, and they agree that the 1970's was when the Heavyweight division was the strongest.

Here's a list of the top Heavyweights of the 1970's.

Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from March, 1962 to Nov, 1980
Joe Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from Feb, 1967 to March 1979
George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from July, 1970 to Late 1977 (Rated again 1990’s)
Ken Norton ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from Nov. 1972 to June, 1981
Oscar Bonavena ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (2) Rated from Sept, 1966 to March, 1977
George Chuvalo ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from Aug, 1958 to March, 1974
Joe Bugner ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from June, 1971 to Feb, 1978
Ron Lyle ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from Oct, 1972 to April, 1979
Earnie Shavers ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from March, 1973 to May, 1980
Jimmy Young ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from March, 1975 to June 1980
Duane Bobick ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (4) Rated from March, 1975 to March, 1979
Jerry Quarry ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from Sept, 1967 to May,1975
Jimmy Ellis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former Champion) Rated from June, 1967 to March 1974
Larry Holmes ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from March, 1976 to July, 1995
Ernie Terrell ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former WBA Champion) Rated from June, 1963 to March, 1974
Floyd Patterson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former Champion) Rated from the mid-1950’s to Aug., 1973
Kallie Knoetze ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from Dec, 1977 to March, 1980
Gerrie Coetzee ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from Feb, 1978 to April, 1986
Leon Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from Feb, 1978 to May, 1982
Mac Foster ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from March, 1969 to Aug, 1972
Henry Cooper ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (2) Rated from Dec, 1958 to May, 1971
Sonny Liston ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former Champion) Rated from Oct, 1958 to March 1971
Mike Weaver ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Future WBA Champion) Rated from March, 1979 to July, 1988
John Tate ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (2) Rated from March, 1979 to Sept, 1984

I would match this decade with any other.


What I would notice is that four of these men (Liston, Patterson, Cooper, Chuvalo) were rated in the 1950's. That seems a lot out of twenty-four.

Just off a quick glance at the yearly RING ratings

Heavyweights from one decade rated two decades later:

1920's still rated in 1940's---None

1930's still rated in 1950's---Joe Louis, Lee Savold (#10 in 1939)

1940's still rated in 1960's---None

1950's still rated in 1970's---Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Henry Cooper, (and George Chuvalo in monthly rankings)

1960's still rated in 1980's---Muhammad Ali (but did not win a fight after 1978)

1970's still rated in 1990's---Larry Holmes, George Foreman

Also, Lee Oma was rated the #10 lightheavy contender in 1939 and the #9 heavyweight contender in 1950.
Archie Moore was rated #1 lightheavyweight contender in the late 1940's and #9 heavyweight in 1962 (much higher in monthly rankings)
Harold Johnson was never rated at heavyweight, but was #3 lightheavyweight contender in 1949, a year he defeated Arturo Godoy and Jimmy Bivins, while Johnson was still able to defeat the highly ranked Eddie Machen in 1961. He could have been rated at heavy either year.

As to the seventies, I think seven of the men you named--Patterson, Liston, Cooper, Chuvalo, Terrell, Ellis, and Bonavena were at their best and certainly scored thier biggest wins either in the sixties, or argubly in the case of Patterson and Cooper, in the fifties.

[OLD FOGEY]

To bring Jimmy Ellis's early career (middleweight) into perspective, he lost 5 fights out of his first 19, all decisions, some very close, to far more experienced fighters who weren't just leading contenders but are rememebered to this day an VERY GOOD middleweight contenders.

Ellis was a novice professional going up against some of the best men in the divsion.
Just look at the experienced guys he fought. He fought Wilf Greaves (WON) in his 4th fight, he fought Holly Mims (LOST) in his 6th fight. And Mims again in his 9th (WON).

Ellis wasn't second-rate as a middleweight, he was just a novice.

Ellis was 24 years old in 1964, had fought nearly 20 pro fights in three years, had beaten four men who had been rated at one time or another, and had behind a him an amateur career of 66 fights which saw him go the finals of the Olympic trials, and also score a victory over Cassius Clay. I would not describe him as a novice.

[hhascup]

What I would notice is that four of these men (Liston, Patterson, Cooper, Chuvalo) were rated in the 1950's. That seems a lot out of twenty-four.

Just off a quick glance at the yearly RING ratings

Heavyweights from one decade rated two decades later:

1920's still rated in 1940's---None

1930's still rated in 1950's---Joe Louis, Lee Savold (#10 in 1939)

1940's still rated in 1960's---None

1950's still rated in 1970's---Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Henry Cooper, (and George Chuvalo in monthly rankings)

1960's still rated in 1980's---Muhammad Ali (but did not win a fight after 1978)

1970's still rated in 1990's---Larry Holmes, George Foreman

Also, Lee Oma was rated the #10 lightheavy contender in 1939 and the #9 heavyweight contender in 1950.
Archie Moore was rated #1 lightheavyweight contender in the late 1940's and #9 heavyweight in 1962 (much higher in monthly rankings)
Harold Johnson was never rated at heavyweight, but was #3 lightheavyweight contender in 1949, a year he defeated Arturo Godoy and Jimmy Bivins, while Johnson was still able to defeat the highly ranked Eddie Machen in 1961. He could have been rated at heavy either year.

As to the seventies, I think seven of the men you named--Patterson, Liston, Cooper, Chuvalo, Terrell, Ellis, and Bonavena were at their best and certainly scored thier biggest wins either in the sixties, or argubly in the case of Patterson and Cooper, in the fifties.


I agree BUT I was just showing you all the TOP Heavyweights of the 1970's, and that is why I put down when they were rated. Most Boxing Historians that I know, rate that era as the best when it comes to Heavyweights.

Here's what I put down comparing Ali with any other Heavyweight Champion.

Because some Heavyweight Champions beat the same opponent more then once, try matching Ali's Top Opponents against any other Heavyweight Champion.


Boxers that Ali fought & beat that were rated #3 or above at one time or another. I also included the Light Heavyweight Champions he fought:


1. George Foreman (CH) 40-0-0 vs.
2. Joe Frazier (CH) 30-1-0 vs.
3. Joe Frazier (CH) 32-2-0 vs.
4. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-1-0 vs.
5. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-2-0 vs.
6. Ken Norton (1-CH) 30-1-0 vs.
7. Ken Norton (1-CH) 37-3-0 vs.
8. Floyd Patterson (CH) 43-4-0 vs.
9. Floyd Patterson (CH) 55-7-1 vs.
10. Jerry Quarry (1) 37-4-4 vs.
11. Jerry Quarry (1) 43-5-4 vs.
12. Oscar Bonavena (2) 46-6-1 vs.
13..Jimmy Ellis (2-CH) 30-6-0 vs.
14. Zora Folley (1) 74-7-4 vs.
15. Ernie Terrell (1-CH) 38-4-0 vs.
16. George Chuvalo (3) 34-11-2 vs.
17. George Chuvalo (3) 66-17-2 vs.
18. Ron Lyle (3) 30-2-1 vs.
19. Earnie Shavers (3) 54-5-1 vs.
20. Joe Bugner (3) 43-4-1 vs.
21. Joe Bugner (3) 51-6-1 vs.
22. Bob Foster (LH-CH) 49-5-0 vs.
23. Mac Foster (1) 28-1-0 vs.
24. Karl Mildenberger (1) 49-2-3 vs.
25. Archie Moore (LH-CH) - (1) 184-22-11 vs.
26. Jimmy Young (1) 17-4-2 vs.
27. Cleveland Williams (3) 65-5-1 vs.
28. Doug Jones (2) 21-3-1 vs.
29. Henry Cooper (2) 27-8-1 vs.
30. Henry Cooper (2) 33-11-1 vs.
31. Leon Spinks (CH) 7-0-1 vs.

[hhascup]

Ellis was 24 years old in 1964, had fought nearly 20 pro fights in three years, had beaten four men who had been rated at one time or another, and had behind a him an amateur career of 66 fights which saw him go the finals of the Olympic trials, and also score a victory over Cassius Clay. I would not describe him as a novice.


Is anyone reading what I have been saying. Ellis cut too much weight as a Middleweight and that made him weak. When he decided not to cut weight, that is when he became a much better fighter because he fought in his natural weight. The tallest Top 10 Middleweight during the early 1960's was Robinson and Benvenuti, who were both 5'11", Ellis was 6'1".

I have seen this a number of times in Amateur wrestling, if you cut weight, your not as strong.

[OLD FOGEY]

Is anyone reading what I have been saying. Ellis cut too much weight as a Middleweight and that made him weak. When he decided not to cut weight, that is when he became a much better fighter because he fought in his natural weight.

I have seen this a number of times in Amateur wrestling, if you cut weight, your not as strong.

My comment on Ellis was in reply to Unforgiven calling him a novice. Cutting weight is a different issue.

[hhascup]

My comment on Ellis was in reply to Unforgiven calling him a novice. Cutting weight is a different issue.

Very well!

In my opinion, if he stayed as a Middleweight, he would never had been anything like what he was as a Heavyweight.

I remember when he fought Rubin Carter, he was nothing like what he was when he fought later on as a Heavyweight.

By the way, on another subject, I knew Carter, as I lived in Paterson when I was a kid.

I lived only a few blocks away from the bar that this happened. I also knew both John Artis and Rubin Carter.

Artis ran the hurdles for Central High School a few years before and I ran distance races for Passaic County Tech, both schools were located in Paterson at the time.

I met Carter several years before at the Riverside Oval in Paterson and he even pitched some softball. One time he and several of his friends went across the street of the ball field and went bowling. I followed him and he asked me to keep score, which I did.

When I was in high school they let me go to the court house several times to do a report on the case. It was some long days, but I reported back what I saw and heard. They had several family members of the people that were killed on the stand. It was pretty sad and some of the items they showed were still full of blood.

I also knew Lt. Vince DeSimone some, and several of my friends knew him very well and they all said he was a honest cop and would never have done what the picture stated he did. Just read the site that Cal Deal has and you can make your own judgement.

Carter was on his way down as a boxer when this happened, just look at his record.

Cal Deal did a GREAT JOB in getting the material together and I read his site many times over the years.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I read just about everything about this case and I believe that both John Artis and Rubin Carter were and still are Guilty!

[Claus Holmen]

Marciano ruled in a weak period. He faced old men and a fat Brit. He was exciting to watch, but he was´nt impressive. A 1947 Walcott coul´ve have beaten him. A prime Charles would´ve outboxed him. Louis himself would´ve KOéd him.
He retired when he started to get hurt by punches. He knew that out there, there was more than a handful of young fighters who could beat him.
Galento vs. Marciano !!! What a brawl !

[Claus Holmen]

Very well!

In my opinion, if he stayed as a Middleweight, he would never had been anything like what he was as a Heavyweight.

I remember when he fought Rubin Carter, he was nothing like what he was when he fought later on as a Heavyweight.

By the way, on another subject, I knew Carter, as I lived in Paterson when I was a kid.

I lived only a few blocks away from the bar that this happened. I also knew both John Artis and Rubin Carter.

Artis ran the hurdles for Central High School a few years before and I ran distance races for Passaic County Tech, both schools were located in Paterson at the time.

I met Carter several years before at the Riverside Oval in Paterson and he even pitched some softball. One time he and several of his friends went across the street of the ball field and went bowling. I followed him and he asked me to keep score, which I did.

When I was in high school they let me go to the court house several times to do a report on the case. It was some long days, but I reported back what I saw and heard. They had several family members of the people that were killed on the stand. It was pretty sad and some of the items they showed were still full of blood.

I also knew Lt. Vince DeSimone some, and several of my friends knew him very well and they all said he was a honest cop and would never have done what the picture stated he did. Just read the site that Cal Deal has and you can make your own judgement.

Carter was on his way down as a boxer when this happened, just look at his record.

Cal Deal did a GREAT JOB in getting the material together and I read his site many times over the years.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I read just about everything about this case and I believe that both John Artis and Rubin Carter were and still are Guilty!


I, myself - hated the movie. Mostly because it did´nt get the facts of boxing correct. Why change the truth in a movie that shoved how the truth was mishandled in order to nail an innocent !!!????
I´ll study the stuff on the link - thanks !

[OLD FOGEY]

Very well!

In my opinion, if he stayed as a Middleweight, he would never had been anything like what he was as a Heavyweight.

I remember when he fought Rubin Carter, he was nothing like what he was when he fought later on as a Heavyweight.

By the way, on another subject, I knew Carter, as I lived in Paterson when I was a kid.

I lived only a few blocks away from the bar that this happened. I also knew both John Artis and Rubin Carter.

Artis ran the hurdles for Central High School a few years before and I ran distance races for Passaic County Tech, both schools were located in Paterson at the time.

I met Carter several years before at the Riverside Oval in Paterson and he even pitched some softball. One time he and several of his friends went across the street of the ball field and went bowling. I followed him and he asked me to keep score, which I did.

When I was in high school they let me go to the court house several times to do a report on the case. It was some long days, but I reported back what I saw and heard. They had several family members of the people that were killed on the stand. It was pretty sad and some of the items they showed were still full of blood.

I also knew Lt. Vince DeSimone some, and several of my friends knew him very well and they all said he was a honest cop and would never have done what the picture stated he did. Just read the site that Cal Deal has and you can make your own judgement.

Carter was on his way down as a boxer when this happened, just look at his record.

Cal Deal did a GREAT JOB in getting the material together and I read his site many times over the years.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I read just about everything about this case and I believe that both John Artis and Rubin Carter were and still are Guilty!

"If he had stayed as a Middleweight, he would never have been anything like what he was as a Heavyweight."

He wasn't, anyway.

There had been a lot of fighters who claimed making weight was the cause of their decline at a lower weight. I know of none who jumped two divisions and became champions after being so ordinary at the lower weight. I think this reasonably raises a flag about the level of competition at the higher weight.

[hhascup]

"If he had stayed as a Middleweight, he would never have been anything like what he was as a Heavyweight."

He wasn't, anyway.

There had been a lot of fighters who claimed making weight was the cause of their decline at a lower weight. I know of none who jumped two divisions and became champions after being so ordinary at the lower weight. I think this reasonably raises a flag about the level of competition at the higher weight.


As a Welterweight/Jr. Middleweight, Willie Pastrano lost to Johnny Cesario, Del Flanagan and Italo Scortichini in the middle to the end of 1953. Cesario was rated in the Welterweight division from April 1948 to April 1949, his highest ratings was #7, so he was past his prime. Flanagan was rated from April 1949 to Oct. 1959, his highest rating was #2. Scortichini was never Rated, as Willie lost to him at the end of 1953 in Willie's 27th Pro bout.

Feb, 1955 he was rated in the top 10 as a Light Heavyweight. That means he was actually was rated by the end of 1954 because the Magazine comes out a few months a head of the actual date. The middle of 1955 he beat Joey Maxim and by the end of that year he beat Rex Layne and was rated #5 in the Heavyweight Division. Now that’s a jump of 3 or 2-1/2 weight classes.

So what does that say about the level of competition for the Heavyweights in the mid-1950's when someone that can lose to a couple of average Welterweights and Jr. Middleweights and then just 2 years later be rated #5 as a Heavyweight.

As you know, Willie became Light Heavyweight Champion in 1963.

[Bummy Davis]

Bummy, I really enjoy reading all of your posts and I respect you very much BUT we can not agree on everything and this is one I don't. Actually, your the 1st boxing person that I know of that has said that the Heavyweights of the 1970's was weak.

I have talked to some of the top boxing historians in the business, including Bert Sugar, Herb Goldman, many members of IBRO, which I am a charter member, and they agree that the 1970's was when the Heavyweight division was the strongest.

Here's a list of the top Heavyweights of the 1970's.

Muhammad Ali ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from March, 1962 to Nov, 1980
Joe Frazier ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from Feb, 1967 to March 1979
George Foreman ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from July, 1970 to Late 1977 (Rated again 1990’s)
Ken Norton ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from Nov. 1972 to June, 1981
Oscar Bonavena ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (2) Rated from Sept, 1966 to March, 1977
George Chuvalo ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from Aug, 1958 to March, 1974
Joe Bugner ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from June, 1971 to Feb, 1978
Ron Lyle ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from Oct, 1972 to April, 1979
Earnie Shavers ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from March, 1973 to May, 1980
Jimmy Young ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from March, 1975 to June 1980
Duane Bobick ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (4) Rated from March, 1975 to March, 1979
Jerry Quarry ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from Sept, 1967 to May,1975
Jimmy Ellis ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former Champion) Rated from June, 1967 to March 1974
Larry Holmes ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from March, 1976 to July, 1995
Ernie Terrell ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former WBA Champion) Rated from June, 1963 to March, 1974
Floyd Patterson ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former Champion) Rated from the mid-1950’s to Aug., 1973
Kallie Knoetze ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (3) Rated from Dec, 1977 to March, 1980
Gerrie Coetzee ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from Feb, 1978 to April, 1986
Leon Spinks ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Champion) Rated from Feb, 1978 to May, 1982
Mac Foster ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (1) Rated from March, 1969 to Aug, 1972
Henry Cooper ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (2) Rated from Dec, 1958 to May, 1971
Sonny Liston ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Former Champion) Rated from Oct, 1958 to March 1971
Mike Weaver ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (Future WBA Champion) Rated from March, 1979 to July, 1988
John Tate ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) (2) Rated from March, 1979 to Sept, 1984

I would match this decade with any other.



I respect your post as well and my words extremly weak may have been strong, I think there were both strong and weak in every era, in fact I think the 80's were weak but there were still fighters that may have done very well in any era....Funny but even today i see some fighter that could have done well in any era...I hear so much about the 70's being the BEST and I remember going to the garden watching Quarry/Foster...Shavers/Ellis...Quarry/Shavers...Ali/Shavers...Quarry/Lyle they were all exciting fights and there were fighters in that era that were capable of fighting in any era but I dont see one era being better than the next...size,training methods,steriod drugs,weights, have changed the way the heavys look but you give something up to gain something...In this case there were era's that heavys trained for 15 rounds and they fought fast and hard...I think today we have the Heavys with solid amatuer careers (inspired by Ali,Frazier,Foreman,Klitschko) bringing that experience into the pro's but most of the Heavys Tyson,Lewis for 2 never Ko'd anyone after the 8th rd...(tyson vs Ribalta KO10 once) and to watch Big Shannon Briggs or Sam Peter breathing hard after 8 rds makes me wonder what Joe Louis would be doing if they could last that long with him.....Still Ali, Frazier and Foreman could have fought in any era and so could Walcott, Louis,Charles,Marciano,Moore,Dempsey,ConnTHE Klitschko's, and some of the contenders of the 80's Tyson,Tucker,Thomas,Coetzee,Weaver, 90's Byrd,....Toney, Holyfield...so I was always an avid fan of the sport and I see the good with the Bad....the 70's had very good fighters but if we could interchange contenders of all the era's I would not be suprised to see a lot of suprises...

[OLD FOGEY]

As a Welterweight/Jr. Middleweight, Willie Pastrano lost to Johnny Cesario, Del Flanagan and Italo Scortichini in the middle to the end of 1953. Cesario was rated in the Welterweight division from April 1948 to April 1949, his highest ratings was #7, so he was past his prime. Flanagan was rated from April 1949 to Oct. 1959, his highest rating was #2. Scortichini was never Rated, as Willie lost to him at the end of 1953 in Willie's 27th Pro bout.

Feb, 1955 he was rated in the top 10 as a Light Heavyweight. That means he was actually was rated by the end of 1954 because the Magazine comes out a few months a head of the actual date. The middle of 1955 he beat Joey Maxim and by the end of that year he beat Rex Layne and was rated #5 in the Heavyweight Division. Now that’s a jump of 3 or 2-1/2 weight classes.


So what does that say about the level of competition for the Heavyweights in the mid-1950's when someone that can lose to a couple of average Welterweights and Jr. Middleweights and then just 2 years later be rated #5 as a Heavyweight.

As you know, Willie became Light Heavyweight Champion in 1963.


Willie Pastrano was 17 in 1953. Pastrano was a boxing prodigy, but he not unique in growing several divisions from his mid-teens to his early twenties. Jimmy McLarnin was a bantam as a teenager who matured into a welter. Billy Conn was a welter losing to almost everyone in 1935 at 17. Within four years he was light-heavy champion with his aim set on Joe Louis. I think an immature boy like Pastrano is a terrible comparision with Ellis who was 24 in 1964 and had been at boxing quite a while as an amateur and professional.



Ellis turned 24 in Feb, 1964. Pastrano in Nov 1959, after years of beating second-tier heavyweights. However, Pastrano never scaled the heights at heavyweight that Ellis did. Conn turned 24 in late 1941, after his great fight with Joe Louis.

[groove]

i've given you an example of Bob Foster which you have seemed to ignore. He was a great light heavy champ but he lost to heavies in the 60s. If they were as weak as you incorrectly claim then shouldn't great natural light heavies like Foster defeat the alleged weak 60s heavies.

[Bummy Davis]

i've given you an example of Bob Foster which you have seemed to ignore. He was a great light heavy champ but he lost to heavies in the 60s. If they were as weak as you incorrectly claim then shouldn't great natural light heavies like Foster defeat the alleged weak 60s heavies.


Bob Foster was a natural 175lber...and best at that weight....Hagler was a natural 160 lber and lived at 160 his whole career ....Duran was a natural 135lber and best at that weight...Monzon was a 160lber his whole career...Hearns was his best at 147.....Kelly Pavlick looks to be a natural 160lber......Sandy Saddler was 126 and a freak at that weight...a lot of these guys have advantages over there opponents in there natural division and lose it as the moved up...some people are sucure at there weights unfortunatly for Foster when he ( matured as a fighter )he had Frazier and Ali in that division....Foster was a natural 175 and one of the greatest at that weight (he could hit) but gave up his advantages and could not compete at heavy with Ali and Frazier....He was a natural 175lber...but he could have beaten most of history's cruiserweights...except possibly 1-2 and would have beaten a few good Heavy's if he could give up the punchers mind and use more strategy but he was a beast at 175 and a puncher and he fought that way vs Ali and Frazier....Certain guys a starving for weight gain(B_HOP) some fighters need to stay put and stick with success

[hhascup]

Willie Pastrano was 17 in 1953. Pastrano was a boxing prodigy, but he not unique in growing several divisions from his mid-teens to his early twenties. Jimmy McLarnin was a bantam as a teenager who matured into a welter. Billy Conn was a welter losing to almost everyone in 1935 at 17. Within four years he was light-heavy champion with his aim set on Joe Louis. I think an immature boy like Pastrano is a terrible comparision with Ellis who was 24 in 1964 and had been at boxing quite a while as an amateur and professional.



Ellis turned 24 in Feb, 1964. Pastrano in Nov 1959, after years of beating second-tier heavyweights. However, Pastrano never scaled the heights at heavyweight that Ellis did. Conn turned 24 in late 1941, after his great fight with Joe Louis.

So what your saying is that Willie was under 20 years old when he beat Maxim and just 3 weeks past his 20th birthday when he beat Rex Layne. So that shows you how weak the Heavyweight division was when a 20 year old like Pastrano could be rated #5 in the world.

In 1965, Angelo Dundee became Ellis's trainer and manager. Ellis was not happy with the way his boxing career was going had written a letter to Dundee asking for his help after seeing what he had done with Muhammad Ali. Bud Bruner trained Ellis for his first twenty professional fights, the last being his loss to George Benton in November of 1964. Soon afterwards, Ellis went up to his true natural weight and he became a much better fighter while training under Dundee.

[OLD FOGEY]

So what your saying is that Willie was under 20 years old when he beat Maxim and just 3 weeks past his 20th birthday when he beat Rex Layne. So that shows you how weak the Heavyweight division was when a 20 year old like Pastrano could be rated #5 in the world.

In 1965, Angelo Dundee became Ellis's trainer and manager. Ellis was not happy with the way his boxing career was going had written a letter to Dundee asking for his help after seeing what he had done with Muhammad Ali. Bud Bruner trained Ellis for his first twenty professional fights, the last being his loss to George Benton in November of 1964. Soon afterwards, Ellis went up to his true natural weight and he became a much better fighter while training under Dundee.


Jimmy Ellis won a tournament of the eight best active heavyweights--Frazier did not enter. Pastrano had no where near a similar success at heavyweight. Maxim was rated at lightheavyweight, not at heavyweight, and he was in the process of a severe decline. He only won 1 of 7 after losing to Pastrano and that was to an unrated fighter. Layne was fading out of the picture and would not win another fight. Neither Maxim or Layne was even a rated heavyweight by the time they fought Pastrano. Name the heavyweights who were rated on the day Pastrano defeated them and who was rated the highest? They were mainly fading veterans--Layne, Holman, Norkus--and/or fringe contenders at best--Bygraves, London, Cavicchi, Besmanoff. Pat McMurtry was probably the highest rated of any heavyweight that Pastrano beat. Roy Harris was certainly the best overall and Pastrano lost to him.

And I still think comparing a 17 year old boy to a 24 year old man is strange.

It is a reasonable point that Ellis improved with Dundee as his trainer.

[OLD FOGEY]

i've given you an example of Bob Foster which you have seemed to ignore. He was a great light heavy champ but he lost to heavies in the 60s. If they were as weak as you incorrectly claim then shouldn't great natural light heavies like Foster defeat the alleged weak 60s heavies.


One problem is that his contemporaries did better. Doug Jones, who ko'd Foster, also ko'd Folley and gave Ali a tough fight. Harold Johnson defeated Jones badly in a title defense and also beat Eddie Machen. Gregorio Peralta stood up pretty well to Foreman twice, drew with both Bonavena and Lyle, and beat a great many journeymen, including a ko of Jose Urtain.

Foster is one of the most difficult fighters for me to evaluate. Of his seven top opponents--Ali, Frazier, Tiger, Terrell, Folley, Jones, and Mina--he lost to six of them decisively. He rose to the top of the lightheavies by beating Eddie Cotton and Henry Hank, both of whom failed against top lightheavies such as Harold Johnson and Maura Mina, and won the title from a 39 year old blown-up middleweight. His title defenses were against a rather ordinary bunch. On the other hand, he was green when he lost to Jones and Mina and perhaps Terrell, and he was getting old when he lost to Ali. He was both experienced and still in his twenties only for the Folley fight. Folley beat him very decisively, but Doug Jones, also moving up from lightheavy, fought a close fight with Folley the first time around and ko'd him in a rematch.

Bottom line--Foster's lack of success might tell you more about the lightheavyweight division of his era rather than the heavyweight. Foster is also one of the few, if not the only, lightheavy champion who fought at heavy quite a bit but never beat anyone of note--even second tier fighters. The only heavyweight "name" on his resume is the washed up Willi Besmanoff.

[hhascup]

Jimmy Ellis won a tournament of the eight best active heavyweights--Frazier did not enter. Pastrano had no where near a similar success at heavyweight. Maxim was rated at lightheavyweight, not at heavyweight, and he was in the process of a severe decline. He only won 1 of 7 after losing to Pastrano and that was to an unrated fighter. Layne was fading out of the picture and would not win another fight. Neither Maxim or Layne was even a rated heavyweight by the time they fought Pastrano. Name the heavyweights who were rated on the day Pastrano defeated them and who was rated the highest? They were mainly fading veterans--Layne, Holman, Norkus--and/or fringe contenders at best--Bygraves, London, Cavicchi, Besmanoff. Pat McMurtry was probably the highest rated of any heavyweight that Pastrano beat. Roy Harris was certainly the best overall and Pastrano lost to him.

And I still think comparing a 17 year old boy to a 24 year old man is strange.

It is a reasonable point that Ellis improved with Dundee as his trainer.


Maxim was last rated until September 1956, Pastrano beat him on June 28, 1955. He was also rated in the Heavyweight division at one time. Layne was last rated in February 1956, Pastrano fought on December 19, 1955. After losing to Willie, Layne was dropped from the ratings.

After losing 3 out of 4 bouts, and 4 out of 6 bouts, Layne was still a rated heavyweight. He did lose to Bob Baker 3 times during that time and another time to Tommy Jackson. I guess that shows you that the division at that time had to be pretty weak for that to happen.

Again, for a fighter that just turned 20, to be rated #5 speaks for itself. As you said, he only beat fading veterans and was still rated that high. I wonder WHY?

[OLD FOGEY]

Maxim was last rated until September 1956, Pastrano beat him on June 28, 1955. He was also rated in the Heavyweight division at one time. Layne was last rated in February 1956, Pastrano fought on December 19, 1955. After losing to Willie, Layne was dropped from the ratings.

After losing 3 out of 4 bouts, and 4 out of 6 bouts, Layne was still a rated heavyweight. He did lose to Bob Baker 3 times during that time and another time to Tommy Jackson. I guess that shows you that the division at that time had to be pretty weak for that to happen.

Again, for a fighter that just turned 20, to be rated #5 speaks for itself. As you said, he only beat fading veterans and was still rated that high. I wonder WHY?

I can't speak for Nat Fleischer and his rating system.

I am surprised Layne was rated at all, but he had only lost to top contenders. Again, I can't speak for Nat Fleischer.

I am more impressed myself with beating top men, which Pastrano never really did at heavy--I am not going to speculate on what factors or connections led him to such an excessively high rating all through the mid-fifties, but I would say that he was obviously a promising young fighter who went on to have a decent career and become lightheavy champion. I don't think he ever defeated a man ranked as a top five heavyweight when he fought them. I don't see Pastrano having any chance of winning a tournament, or really going all that far in one, either in 1955 or later.

By the way, Floyd Patterson, Ingemar Johansson, Sonny Liston, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley, and Harold Johnson were fighting, but not rated as highly at heavyweight as Pastrano. Again, I can't speak for Nat Fleischer.

Interestingly, in 1957 the unbeaten Roy Harris defeated Pastrano, and also had a win over Baker, who shortly before had been a highly rated heavyweight. The result--Pastrano was ranked #3 by RING in the 1957 yearly ratings. Harris #4. Again, I cannot speak for Nat Fleischer.


And I repeat again--I don't think any loss by any fighter at 17 proves anything.

[groove]

at the end of the 60s Ellis beat 3 good heavies Patterson, Bonavena and Quarry (yeah old fogey these are your weak heavyweights LOL). But he only won these fights on points. His style of boxing worked. If he went in slugging with these fighters i think you would've seen a different result. Now did Ellis change his style of fighting more for these heavyweight fights or was it the result of Dundee's training/tactics. I haven't seen Ellis as a middleweight but he was 198 pounds for the Quarry fight in 1968 and only 155 pounds against Rubin Carter in 1964. He put on 3 stone (over 40 pounds) in fighting weight in 4 years. If he was 24 years old against Carter then i agree that he was fighting underweight greatly for his natural size.

[hhascup]

I can't speak for Nat Fleischer and his rating system.

I am surprised Layne was rated at all, but he had only lost to top contenders. Again, I can't speak for Nat Fleischer.

I am more impressed myself with beating top men, which Pastrano never really did at heavy--I am not going to speculate on what factors or connections led him to such an excessively high rating all through the mid-fifties, but I would say that he was obviously a promising young fighter who went on to have a decent career and become lightheavy champion. I don't think he ever defeated a man ranked as a top five heavyweight when he fought them. I don't see Pastrano having any chance of winning a tournament, or really going all that far in one, either in 1955 or later.

By the way, Floyd Patterson, Ingemar Johansson, Sonny Liston, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley, and Harold Johnson were fighting, but not rated as highly at heavyweight as Pastrano. Again, I can't speak for Nat Fleischer.

Interestingly, in 1957 the unbeaten Roy Harris defeated Pastrano, and also had a win over Baker, who shortly before had been a highly rated heavyweight. The result--Pastrano was ranked #3 by RING in the 1957 yearly ratings. Harris #4. Again, I cannot speak for Nat Fleischer.


And I repeat again--I don't think any loss by any fighter at 17 proves anything.


Your just making my point more and more. The division was not that strong when Rocky was the Champion. I never said that Pastrano was a Great heavyweight, all I am saying is that here's a guy without that much experience, and only 20-22 years old, rated #4 in the world.

Pastrano was rated #5 (Feb. 1956) at the age of 20 and #4 a year later (Feb. 1957) and also the next year as well (Feb. 1958). In Feb. 1959, he went down to #5. After losing 3 straight bout in 1958 & 1959, he decided the Light Heavyweight Class was mich better for him.

Patterson was still a Light Heavyweight at the end of 1955 and was Rated #1 in that weight class when Willie was only 20 and the next year (1956) Patterson became the Heavyweight Champion.

Ingemar Johansson was 1st rated in December of 1956, Sonny Liston in October 1958, Eddie Machen in June 1956, Zora Folley Febraury 1957, and Harold Johnson was rated as a Light Heavyweight when Pastrano was rated as a Heavyweight.

Just look at the record of Bob Dunlap ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). He was rated as high as #4 in the Heavyweight division the 1st year Rocky was Champion. Here's the annual year end ratings when Rocky was the Champion.

February 1953 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue. Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Jersey Joe Walcott ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rex Layne ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Dunlap (they had ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Bob Dunlop, BUT it's ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Bob Dunlap)
([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Clarence Henry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Johnny Williams ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Roland LaStarza ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Heinz Neuhaus ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Karel Sys ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jimmy Bivins ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

February 1954 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue.
Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Nino Valdes ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Dan Bucceroni ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Roland LaStarza ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Earl Walls ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Don Cockell ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Clarence Henry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy Harrison ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Satterfield ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Coley Wallace ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

February 1955 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue.
Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Nino Valdes ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Don Cockell ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Baker ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Earl Walls ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Heinz Neuhaus ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rex Layne ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Charley Norkus ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jimmy Slade ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

February 1956 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue.
Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Archie Moore ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Baker ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
John Holman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Willie Pastrano ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Nino Valdes ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Johnny Summerlin ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Satterfield ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Young Jack Johnson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links])

[hhascup]

at the end of the 60s Ellis beat 3 good heavies Patterson, Bonavena and Quarry (yeah old fogey these are your weak heavyweights LOL). But he only won these fights on points. His style of boxing worked. If he went in slugging with these fighters i think you would've seen a different result. Now did Ellis change his style of fighting more for these heavyweight fights or was it the result of Dundee's training/tactics. I haven't seen Ellis as a middleweight but he was 198 pounds for the Quarry fight in 1968 and only 155 pounds against Rubin Carter in 1964. He put on 3 stone (over 40 pounds) in fighting weight in 4 years. If he was 24 years old against Carter then i agree that he was fighting underweight greatly for his natural size.

I agree 100%, thank you!

[OLD FOGEY]

Your just making my point more and more. The division was not that strong when Rocky was the Champion. I never said that Pastrano was a Great heavyweight, all I am saying is that here's a guy without that much experience, and only 20-22 years old, rated #4 in the world.

Pastrano was rated #5 (Feb. 1956) at the age of 20 and #4 a year later (Feb. 1957) and also the next year as well (Feb. 1958). In Feb. 1959, he went down to #5. After losing 3 straight bout in 1958 & 1959, he decided the Light Heavyweight Class was mich better for him.

Patterson was still a Light Heavyweight at the end of 1955 and was Rated #1 in that weight class when Willie was only 20 and the next year (1956) Patterson became the Heavyweight Champion.

Ingemar Johansson was 1st rated in December of 1956, Sonny Liston in October 1958, Eddie Machen in June 1956, Zora Folley Febraury 1957, and Harold Johnson was rated as a Light Heavyweight when Pastrano was rated as a Heavyweight.

Just look at the record of Bob Dunlap ([Only registered and activated users can see links]). He was rated as high as #4 in the Heavyweight division the 1st year Rocky was Champion. Here's the annual year end ratings when Rocky was the Champion.

February 1953 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue. Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Jersey Joe Walcott ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rex Layne ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Dunlap (they had ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Bob Dunlop, BUT it's ([Only registered and activated users can see links])Bob Dunlap)
([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Clarence Henry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Johnny Williams ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Roland LaStarza ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Heinz Neuhaus ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Karel Sys ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jimmy Bivins ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
February 1954 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue.
Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Nino Valdes ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Dan Bucceroni ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Roland LaStarza ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Earl Walls ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Don Cockell ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Clarence Henry ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy Harrison ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Satterfield ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Coley Wallace ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
February 1955 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue.
Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Nino Valdes ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Don Cockell ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Baker ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Earl Walls ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Heinz Neuhaus ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Rex Layne ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Charley Norkus ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Jimmy Slade ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
February 1956 ([Only registered and activated users can see links]) issue.
Rocky Marciano ([Only registered and activated users can see links]), Champion


Archie Moore ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Baker ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
John Holman ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Willie Pastrano ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Nino Valdes ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Johnny Summerlin ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Bob Satterfield ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Young Jack Johnson ([Only registered and activated users can see links])
Ezzard Charles ([Only registered and activated users can see links])


I just don't agree. You select Bob Dunlap. Again, I can't defend Nat Fleischer's ratings. Dunlap had a very erratic record. He was knocked out by Rex Layne and Clarence Henry in 1950. He was knocked out by Archie Moore early 1952, and Coley Wallace in December 1952. For some reason Fleischer elected to rate him ahead of both Henry and Wallace for 1952. His two wins of any substance were Cesar Brion and Omelio Agramonte, hardly justification for such a high rating. He might have been worthy of a 9th or 10th spot that year, but Henry and Wallace for sure, and in my judgement LaStarza and Bucceroni also, should have been rated above him. Moore, Johnson, and Matthews were rated at lightheavy, very odd in Matthew's case as he was fighting at heavyweight. Matthews should have been rated above Dunlap as well. His win over Layne was much more impressive than anything Dunlap ever did.

Dunlap's recored
30 wins 13 losses 3 draws 22 ko's 9 ko'd by -- pretty mediocre for a contender, but what about these men.

Manuel Ranos #10 in 1966, #4 in 1967, #8 in 1968
25 wins 29 losses 3 draws 19 ko's 9 ko'd by -- somehow Ramos managed to maintain himself in the ratings for three years off close wins over an old Machen and Ernie Terrell and got title shot at Frazier.

Leon Spinks --champion in 1978, several years rated
25 wins 17 losses 3 drops 14 ko's 9 ko'd by -- actually champion in 1978. This isn't a fluke overrating by Nat Fleischer. This man was the champion.

Roger Rischer --#8 in 1964
28 wins 13 losses 2 draws 13 ko's 8 ko'd by

Amos Lincoln --#6 in 1965
39 wins 14 losses 2 draws 22 ko's 8 ko'd by

[hhascup]

I just don't agree. You select Bob Dunlap. Again, I can't defend Nat Fleischer's ratings. Dunlap had a very erratic record. He was knocked out by Rex Layne and Clarence Henry in 1950. He was knocked out by Archie Moore early 1952, and Coley Wallace in December 1952. For some reason Fleischer elected to rate him ahead of both Henry and Wallace for 1952. His two wins of any substance were Cesar Brion and Omelio Agramonte, hardly justification for such a high rating. He might have been worthy of a 9th or 10th spot that year, but Henry and Wallace for sure, and in my judgement LaStarza and Bucceroni also, should have been rated above him. Moore, Johnson, and Matthews were rated at lightheavy, very odd in Matthew's case as he was fighting at heavyweight. Matthews should have been rated above Dunlap as well. His win over Layne was much more impressive than anything Dunlap ever did.

Dunlap's recored
30 wins 13 losses 3 draws 22 ko's 9 ko'd by -- pretty mediocre for a contender, but what about these men.

Manuel Ranos #10 in 1966, #4 in 1967, #8 in 1968
25 wins 29 losses 3 draws 19 ko's 9 ko'd by -- somehow Ramos managed to maintain himself in the ratings for three years off close wins over an old Machen and Ernie Terrell and got title shot at Frazier.

Leon Spinks --champion in 1978, several years rated
25 wins 17 losses 3 drops 14 ko's 9 ko'd by -- actually champion in 1978. This isn't a fluke overrating by Nat Fleischer. This man was the champion.

Roger Rischer --#8 in 1964
28 wins 13 losses 2 draws 13 ko's 8 ko'd by

Amos Lincoln --#6 in 1965
39 wins 14 losses 2 draws 22 ko's 8 ko'd by


Ramos got that rating when he won 15 bouts in a row with 12 KO's, from the beginning of 1966 to the middle of 1968. He was 21-6-2 when he fought Frazier and that is after he was win-less from the middle of 1964 to the end of 1965, going 0-6-2. That's where his 6 loses and 2 draws came in.

I know what your saying and we could be on the same page if you read between the lines. Most historians would agree that Ali fought in the toughest era and Rocky fought in one of the weakest. I am not saying that their weren't other weak era's, all I am saying is that he fought in one of the weakest.

Just match the opponents that Ali beat against Rocky's at the time they fought them. You tell me who do you think would win.

This is their records at the time(s) they fought Ali and Louis. You can also switch them around if you want, just try to pick the best against the best. Meaning you should have the top opponents that Ali beat against the top opponents Marciano beat.




1. George Foreman (CH) 40-0-0 vs. Louis 69-2-0
2. Joe Frazier (CH) 30-1-0 vs. Charles 80-10-1
3. Joe Frazier (CH) 32-2-0 vs. Charles 80-11-1
4. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-1-0 vs. * Walcott 51-16-2
5. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-2-0 vs. Walcott 51-17-2
6. Ken Norton (1-CH) 30-1-0 vs. LaStarza 37-0-0
7. Ken Norton (1-CH) 37-3-0 vs. LaStarza 53-3-0
8. Floyd Patterson (CH) 43-4-0 vs. Matthews 81-3-5
9. Floyd Patterson (CH) 55-7-1 vs. Moore 148-19-9
10. Jerry Quarry (1) 37-4-4 vs. Cockell 66-11-1
11. Jerry Quarry (1) 43-5-4 vs. Layne 34-1-2
12. Oscar Bonavena (2) 46-6-1 vs. Savold 93-39-3
13..Jimmy Ellis (2-CH) 30-6-0 vs. Muscato 56-20-0
14. Zora Folley (1) 74-7-4 vs. Shkor 29-18-2
15. Ernie Terrell (1-CH) 38-4-0 vs. Beshore 30-12-1
16. George Chuvalo (3) 34-11-2 vs. Reynolds 51-9-2
17. George Chuvalo (3) 66-17-2 vs.
18. Ron Lyle (3) 30-2-1 vs.
19. Earnie Shavers (3) 54-5-1 vs.
20. Joe Bugner (3) 43-4-1 vs.
21. Joe Bugner (3) 51-6-1 vs.
22. Bob Foster (LH-CH) 49-5-0 vs.
23. Mac Foster (1) 28-1-0 vs.
24. Karl Mildenberger (1) 49-2-3 vs.
25. Archie Moore (LH-CH) - (1) 184-22-11 vs.
26. Jimmy Young (1) 17-4-2 vs.
27. Cleveland Williams (3) 65-5-1 vs.
28. Doug Jones (2) 21-3-1 vs.
29. Henry Cooper (2) 27-8-1 vs.
30. Henry Cooper (2) 33-11-1 vs.
31. Leon Spinks (CH) 7-0-1 vs.

[Bummy Davis]

Norton vs Satterfield ( my Moneys with Bob
Foreman vs Walcott or Charles ( George may be exposed)
Quarry vs Charls or Walcott ( Quarry could be outboxed)
Quarry vs Moore...Tough fight (Quarry did lose to Chuvalo and Ellis
Louis could still beat a lot of contenders of the 60's Ellis,Quarry, Patterson,Cooper,Norton...was he young enough to beat Foreman ( I dont think an older version could do it)
Depends on who you are matching up
Bonevena would lose to Charles,Walcott,Moore and mabey Lastarza
again it is the way you match them it could go either way

[Bummy Davis]

One problem is that his contemporaries did better. Doug Jones, who ko'd Foster, also ko'd Folley and gave Ali a tough fight. Harold Johnson defeated Jones badly in a title defense and also beat Eddie Machen. Gregorio Peralta stood up pretty well to Foreman twice, drew with both Bonavena and Lyle, and beat a great many journeymen, including a ko of Jose Urtain.

Foster is one of the most difficult fighters for me to evaluate. Of his seven top opponents--Ali, Frazier, Tiger, Terrell, Folley, Jones, and Mina--he lost to six of them decisively. He rose to the top of the lightheavies by beating Eddie Cotton and Henry Hank, both of whom failed against top lightheavies such as Harold Johnson and Maura Mina, and won the title from a 39 year old blown-up middleweight. His title defenses were against a rather ordinary bunch. On the other hand, he was green when he lost to Jones and Mina and perhaps Terrell, and he was getting old when he lost to Ali. He was both experienced and still in his twenties only for the Folley fight. Folley beat him very decisively, but Doug Jones, also moving up from lightheavy, fought a close fight with Folley the first time around and ko'd him in a rematch.

Bottom line--Foster's lack of success might tell you more about the lightheavyweight division of his era rather than the heavyweight. Foster is also one of the few, if not the only, lightheavy champion who fought at heavy quite a bit but never beat anyone of note--even second tier fighters. The only heavyweight "name" on his resume is the washed up Willi Besmanoff.

True that

[mr. magoo]

I just don't agree. You select Bob Dunlap. Again, I can't defend Nat Fleischer's ratings. Dunlap had a very erratic record. He was knocked out by Rex Layne and Clarence Henry in 1950. He was knocked out by Archie Moore early 1952, and Coley Wallace in December 1952. For some reason Fleischer elected to rate him ahead of both Henry and Wallace for 1952. His two wins of any substance were Cesar Brion and Omelio Agramonte, hardly justification for such a high rating. He might have been worthy of a 9th or 10th spot that year, but Henry and Wallace for sure, and in my judgement LaStarza and Bucceroni also, should have been rated above him. Moore, Johnson, and Matthews were rated at lightheavy, very odd in Matthew's case as he was fighting at heavyweight. Matthews should have been rated above Dunlap as well. His win over Layne was much more impressive than anything Dunlap ever did.

Dunlap's recored
30 wins 13 losses 3 draws 22 ko's 9 ko'd by -- pretty mediocre for a contender, but what about these men.

Manuel Ranos #10 in 1966, #4 in 1967, #8 in 1968
25 wins 29 losses 3 draws 19 ko's 9 ko'd by -- somehow Ramos managed to maintain himself in the ratings for three years off close wins over an old Machen and Ernie Terrell and got title shot at Frazier.

Leon Spinks --champion in 1978, several years rated
25 wins 17 losses 3 drops 14 ko's 9 ko'd by -- actually champion in 1978. This isn't a fluke overrating by Nat Fleischer. This man was the champion.

Roger Rischer --#8 in 1964
28 wins 13 losses 2 draws 13 ko's 8 ko'd by

Amos Lincoln --#6 in 1965
39 wins 14 losses 2 draws 22 ko's 8 ko'd by

Not to take sides here, but you're listing what these fighter's records were at the time of their retirement and not what they were at the time they were ranked or at their best. If we were to judge the quality of a fighter based on what his final career record looked like, then we would actually be taking into account Muhammad Ali's losses to Holmes and Berbick when rating him. I also think that to some extent you're really grabbing for straws picking the absolute worst fighters of the period to try and make a case for the era being weak itself. I mean, Leon Spinks? Manual Ramos? Take the top teir of the late 60's through about the mid 70's, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Ellis, Quarry, Young, Lyle Shavers etc. I think that you have a better crew than Walcott, Charles, Marciano, Valdez, Lastarza, Mathews, Cockell, Moore and an old Louis.

My probably unwanted $0.02

[groove]

excellent post. my pet hate of old fogey - his stats are not relevant to the time when the fights happened and are therefore nonsense.

[Dempsey1238]

I dont think Rocky's era was weak. Charles, Moore Walcott, ete were still top fighters. They would have been the big names in the 1960's had Ali not been around imo. They would have been a hand full for any one imo.

I think Rocky's era was perhaps 3rd or 4th best.

1970's
1990's.
1950's
1900's perhaps
1930's 40's
and than perhaps the 20's last.

[mr. magoo]

excellent post. my pet hate of old fogey - his stats are not relevant to the time when the fights happened and are therefore nonsense.


The way he has it listed, one might be fooled into thinking that Joe Frazier gave a title shot to a man who was 25-29-3. An intentionally misleading tactic if I say so myself.

[OLD FOGEY]

Not to take sides here, but you're listing what these fighter's records were at the time of their retirement and not what they were at the time they were ranked or at their best. If we were to judge the quality of a fighter based on what his final career record looked like, then we would actually be taking into account Muhammad Ali's losses to Holmes and Berbick when rating him. I also think that to some extent you're really grabbing for straws picking the absolute worst fighters of the period to try and make a case for the era being weak itself. I mean, Leon Spinks? Manual Ramos? Take the top teir of the late 60's through about the mid 70's, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Ellis, Quarry, Young, Lyle Shavers etc. I think that you have a better crew than Walcott, Charles, Marciano, Valdez, Lastarza, Mathews, Cockell, Moore and an old Louis.

My probably unwanted $0.02

No problem. You imput is always welcome.

That said, are you criticizing the right poster? hhascup in post #211 brought up Bob Dunlap being rated #4 in 1952 to prove Marciano's era was weak. He earlier used Willie Pastrano in the same way. I just made two points in rebuttal--Dunlap did not deserve to be rated that high as he was rated over men who had previously knocked him out, and there were similar fighters in other eras whom I listed.

"you're really grabbing for straws picking the absolute worst fighters of the period to try and make a case for the era being weak itself"

1. I don't particularly believe in weak or strong eras. How can one tell? It is an entirely circular argument as you can't match people across eras. If you judge the Marciano era, about all you could say is that Moore and Johnson were still able to beat top-rated heavyweights in the sixties, and later champions and top contenders such as Liston, Patterson, and Williams who fought in that era were beaten in that era. It is fair to say they were green. I hardly see this as strong evidence that the era was weak.

2. I brought up Jimmy Ellis, who after all was champion in the late sixties, to question whether a glib assumption that the late sixties was a "strong" era and the early fifties a "weak" era was accurate, as Ellis had a rather mediocre record at Middleweight before sweeping through the heavies in a championship tournament. I think it is reasonable to at least speculate if Ellis could be the favorite in a similar tournament in 1955 or in most other eras. It is certainly not obvious to me that he would have.

3. Leon Spinks is not a mere obscure contender. He was champion. Anyone claiming the 1970's was the greatest era must deal with his becoming champion.

"Take the top tier from the late sixties through the mid seventies, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Ellis, Quarry, Young, Lyle, Shavers, etc. I think they are a better crew than Walcott, Charles, Marciano, Valdes, LaStarza, Matthews, Cockell, Moore, and an old Louis."

1. I would point out that even if this argument is accepted as correct, it does not prove that Marciano fought in a "weak" era. As hhascup has pointed out, many historians judge the late sixties to mid seventies as the best heavyweight era. Not being able to match up to it would not prove that the Marciano era would not be able to more than match up to the Jeffries era, the Johnson era, the Dempsey era, the Schmeling era, or the pre-war or post-war Louis eras.

2. Rex Layne, Harold Johnson, Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, and perhaps Bob Satterfield should be on this list rather than Cockell.

[OLD FOGEY]

The way he has it listed, one might be fooled into thinking that Joe Frazier gave a title shot to a man who was 25-29-3. An intentionally misleading tactic if I say so myself.

That was not my intention. My intention was to compare Ramos with Dunlap. Ramos was rated in the top five when Frazier fought him and maintained himself for three years in the top ten. He was far more successful in his era than Dunlap was in his and yet obviously lost a lot of fights.

Manuel Ramos did have a career record of 25-29-3 and Dunlap 30-13-1.

[OLD FOGEY]

I dont think Rocky's era was weak. Charles, Moore Walcott, ete were still top fighters. They would have been the big names in the 1960's had Ali not been around imo. They would have been a hand full for any one imo.

I think Rocky's era was perhaps 3rd or 4th best.

1970's
1990's.
1950's
1900's perhaps
1930's 40's
and than perhaps the 20's last.

You got right to the point I was beating around. Good post.

[mr. magoo]

[quote]
2. I brought up Jimmy Ellis, who after all was champion in the late sixties, to question whether a glib assumption that the late sixties was a "strong" era and the early fifties a "weak" era was accurate, as Ellis had a rather mediocre record at Middleweight before sweeping through the heavies in a championship tournament. I think it is reasonable to at least speculate if Ellis could be the favorite in a similar tournament in 1955 or in most other eras. It is certainly not obvious to me that he would have.



Ellis made a fairly clean sweep of the top heavies in the late 60's by beating Quarry, Martin, Chuvalo, Bonavena and Patterson. What further evidence do we need to coclude as to weather or not he'd be favored in a similar tournament in 1955, asside from the obvious pick of Rocky Marciano who was on his way out anyway? Personally, I don't think its unreasonable that he could have been favored to beat a green Patterson or an aging Moore or Valdez or anyone else.



3. Leon Spinks is not a mere obscure contender. He was champion. Anyone claiming the 1970's was the greatest era must deal with his becoming champion.


Yes, we must deal with it. However, when most people talk about " the golden age of heavyweights" I think they are generally referring to the period that stretched somewhere between 1968 to maybe 1975. By 1977 Foreman was gone. Frazier was gone. Quarry, Ellis and Bonavena were gone. Ali was declining rapidly. Holmes was not yet on the scene. In 1978, Ken Norton who was utterly destroyed in his prime by George Foreman and was arguably gifted against Young, was the concencus best fighter in the world. Men like Alfredo Evangelista and Jean Coopman had been recently receiving title shots. Point being, the golden age was over. Talking about Leon Spinks as being part of that period is like trying to make a case for John Ruiz being part of the second golden age of the early to mid 90's. Doesn't quite fit.


1. I would point out that even if this argument is accepted as correct, it does not prove that Marciano fought in a "weak" era. As hhascup has pointed out, many historians judge the late sixties to mid seventies as the best heavyweight era. Not being able to match up to it would not prove that the Marciano era would not be able to more than match up to the Jeffries era, the Johnson era, the Dempsey era, the Schmeling era, or the pre-war or post-war Louis eras.


A fair point.


2. Rex Layne, Harold Johnson, Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, and perhaps Bob Satterfield should be on this list rather than Cockell.



Very well, then swap out Cockell and replace him with one or all of those names.

[OLD FOGEY]

The way he has it listed, one might be fooled into thinking that Joe Frazier gave a title shot to a man who was 25-29-3. An intentionally misleading tactic if I say so myself.

Someone else brought up Dunlap, but how does he compare then to the Ramos who was ranked three straight years, and once at #4.

Dunlap's record prior to the Wallace fight in Dec. 1952:

27 wins 7 losses 1 draw 21 ko's 5 ko'd by

Ramos' record prior to the Frazier fight:

21 wins 6 losses 2 draws 17 ko's --was never knocked out.

Ramos certainly appears more durable. His losses were very early in his career and he was on a significant winning streak. He had edged out decisions over an aging Machen, and Ernie Terrell, to first get into the ratings and then move into the top five and earn the shot at Frazier. If I wanted to criticize Frazier for his choice of opponents for title defenses, I would point to Dave Zyglewicz or Terry Daniels rather than Ramos.

Dunlap's record is comparable, except the best he had beaten were not at the level of Machen or Terrell. He won a very one-sided fight against Cesar Brion, and beat Omelio Agramonte, both rated at one point or another. He blew out tough trial horse Frank Buford in one round--Buford had beaten Clarence Henry and Turkey Thompson. He obviously did not have the chin Ramos did, but I think he was the more dangerous puncher and knocked out the better men. While he did not beat the esteemed fighters Ramos did, he did not lose to ordinary fighters early in his career either. His defeats were to Buford (a tough trial horse) and rated fighters Dave Whitlock (2), Lloyd Marshall, Rex Layne, Clarence Henry, and Archie Moore. It was probably the fact that he had never lost to any but fairly good fighters which impressed Nat Fleischer. I still think he should not have been rated as high as he was.

Dunlap appeared in the ratings and left rather quickly. Ramos endured longer. Dunlap was not the force in his time Ramos was in his. Looking carefully at Dunlap's record to 1952, I can see why he was rated, and I don't see that his rating proves the era weak.

[OLD FOGEY]

Ramos got that rating when he won 15 bouts in a row with 12 KO's, from the beginning of 1966 to the middle of 1968. He was 21-6-2 when he fought Frazier and that is after he was win-less from the middle of 1964 to the end of 1965, going 0-6-2. That's where his 6 loses and 2 draws came in.

I know what your saying and we could be on the same page if you read between the lines. Most historians would agree that Ali fought in the toughest era and Rocky fought in one of the weakest. I am not saying that their weren't other weak era's, all I am saying is that he fought in one of the weakest.

Just match the opponents that Ali beat against Rocky's at the time they fought them. You tell me who do you think would win.

This is their records at the time(s) they fought Ali and Louis. You can also switch them around if you want, just try to pick the best against the best. Meaning you should have the top opponents that Ali beat against the top opponents Marciano beat.




1. George Foreman (CH) 40-0-0 vs. Louis 69-2-0
2. Joe Frazier (CH) 30-1-0 vs. Charles 80-10-1
3. Joe Frazier (CH) 32-2-0 vs. Charles 80-11-1
4. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-1-0 vs. *Walcott 51-16-2
5. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-2-0 vs. Walcott 51-17-2
6. Ken Norton (1-CH) 30-1-0 vs. LaStarza 37-0-0
7. Ken Norton (1-CH) 37-3-0 vs. LaStarza 53-3-0
8. Floyd Patterson (CH) 43-4-0 vs. Matthews 81-3-5
9. Floyd Patterson (CH) 55-7-1 vs. Moore 148-19-9
10. Jerry Quarry (1) 37-4-4 vs. Cockell 66-11-1
11. Jerry Quarry (1) 43-5-4 vs. Layne 34-1-2
12. Oscar Bonavena (2) 46-6-1 vs. Savold 93-39-3
13..Jimmy Ellis (2-CH) 30-6-0 vs. Muscato 56-20-0
14. Zora Folley (1) 74-7-4 vs. Shkor 29-18-2
15. Ernie Terrell (1-CH) 38-4-0 vs. Beshore 30-12-1
16. George Chuvalo (3) 34-11-2 vs. Reynolds 51-9-2
17. George Chuvalo (3) 66-17-2 vs.
18. Ron Lyle (3) 30-2-1 vs.
19. Earnie Shavers (3) 54-5-1 vs.
20. Joe Bugner (3) 43-4-1 vs.
21. Joe Bugner (3) 51-6-1 vs.
22. Bob Foster (LH-CH) 49-5-0 vs.
23. Mac Foster (1) 28-1-0 vs.
24. Karl Mildenberger (1) 49-2-3 vs.
25. Archie Moore (LH-CH) - (1) 184-22-11 vs.
26. Jimmy Young (1) 17-4-2 vs.
27. Cleveland Williams (3) 65-5-1 vs.
28. Doug Jones (2) 21-3-1 vs.
29. Henry Cooper (2) 27-8-1 vs.
30. Henry Cooper (2) 33-11-1 vs.
31. Leon Spinks (CH) 7-0-1 vs.

There is no question that Ali defeated tougher opposition over a longer period of time. I'm not disputing that, and I don't know of anyone who is. On the other hand, I think it unfair to draw a conclusion on the strength of the respective eras by comparing the best fighters of two different decades to those of about half a decade. It is somewhat like saying ****** Spahn pitched against more tough batters than Sandy Koufax. True. It does not follow that Spahn pitched in a stronger era, or that ERA comparisions are unfair. He just pitched longer.

I would say a fairer comparision of the toughness of various eras would be to compare the men Ali defeated to dominate the 60's and 70's with who he would have had to defeat to dominate the 40's and 50's--Louis, Walcott, Conn, Bivins, Pastor, Ray, Murray, Maxim, Charles, Henry, Marciano, Layne, Baker, Valdes, LaStarza, Moore, Johnson, Patterson, Machen, Folley, Williams, Liston.

Would Ali have been champion as early as 1944. Would he have been undefeated in 1947, if there is no WWII. I don't know, but I think Louis in 1944 and Walcott in 1946 or 1947 would have been tougher tests than Liston and Patterson were in the sixties. What about an upset? There are plenty of men here every bit or more dangerous than Doug Jones or Henry Cooper.

He should be able to beat the smaller Charles coming back after 3 1/2 years, but Walcott is still around and would still have been a threat, and Marciano would certainly have been an interesting test in the 1952 to 53 period. I think the Moore of the mid-fifties would have been a tough test for a fading Ali.

How long does he last? Ali was still champion at the end of 1978. Would he still be champion at the end of 1958 with the young Patterson, Machen, and Johansson nipping at his heels. I don't think so. And I don't see him having a chance against Liston from 1958 on.

Would his record have been as good or better? It is a great deal of guesswork, but I think it is possible he would have lost at least as many, and there would certainly have been a lot of tough fights out there.

[hhascup]

Ramos was 16-2 with 13 KO's before he was dropped from the ratings. He was rated from February 1967 to October 1969 (30 months). Dunlap was 9-2 with 7 KO's before he was dropped. He was rated from May 1952 to March 1953 (10 months).

Again, I would match the era of Ali against any other one. Like I stated before, match all the boxers he beat against all the boxers any other Heavyweight Champion beat, and see who you have coming out on top.

Back when Rocky was the Champion, Walcott was 10-7 in his last 17 bouts before he fought Rocky the 1st time.

Charles did much better record wise, as he came into his bout with Rocky with a 14-5 (9 KO's) in his last 19 bouts, after winning 24 in a row and 41 out of 42, before his 3rd bout with Walcott. So he really was on his way down too, BUT he was still pretty good.

Joe Louis was past his prime before he fought Marciano. His record was 61-1 with 52 KO's in his 1st 62 bouts. In his last 9 bouts before he fought Rocky, Louis was 8-1 with only 3 KO's.

It would be very hard for the Walcott, Charles or Louis that fought Rocky, to beat the top opponents that Ali beat.

[Dempsey1238]

Outside of Frazier, and Foreman, I think Charles, and Walcott could handle the Nortons, Shavers, Wepners, Jones, of the era.

Only Foreman, Frazier, and Ali made that era gold imo. Liston was on the slide, Patterson was done as a championship fighter.

[hhascup]

There is no question that Ali defeated tougher opposition over a longer period of time. I'm not disputing that, and I don't know of anyone who is. On the other hand, I think it unfair to draw a conclusion on the strength of the respective eras by comparing the best fighters of two different decades to those of about half a decade. It is somewhat like saying ****** Spahn pitched against more tough batters than Sandy Koufax. True. It does not follow that Spahn pitched in a stronger era, or that ERA comparisions are unfair. He just pitched longer.

I would say a fairer comparision of the toughness of various eras would be to compare the men Ali defeated to dominate the 60's and 70's with who he would have had to defeat to dominate the 40's and 50's--Louis, Walcott, Conn, Bivins, Pastor, Ray, Murray, Maxim, Charles, Henry, Marciano, Layne, Baker, Valdes, LaStarza, Moore, Johnson, Patterson, Machen, Folley, Williams, Liston.

Would Ali have been champion as early as 1944. Would he have been undefeated in 1947, if there is no WWII. I don't know, but I think Louis in 1944 and Walcott in 1946 or 1947 would have been tougher tests than Liston and Patterson were in the sixties. What about an upset? There are plenty of men here every bit or more dangerous than Doug Jones or Henry Cooper.

He should be able to beat the smaller Charles coming back after 3 1/2 years, but Walcott is still around and would still have been a threat, and Marciano would certainly have been an interesting test in the 1952 to 53 period. I think the Moore of the mid-fifties would have been a tough test for a fading Ali.

How long does he last? Ali was still champion at the end of 1978. Would he still be champion at the end of 1958 with the young Patterson, Machen, and Johansson nipping at his heels. I don't think so. And I don't see him having a chance against Liston from 1958 on.

Would his record have been as good or better? It is a great deal of guesswork, but I think it is possible he would have lost at least as many, and there would certainly have been a lot of tough fights out there.

If you put Tyson, Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Louis etc., against the same opponents as Rocky had at the same time Rocky fought them, they too would be unbeaten.

There always upsets. If someone told us that Tyson would be KO'ed by Buster Douglas, we would say they were crazy, no way. So I agree with that and that is why I love boxing and their is no sure answer, just opinions, BUT its fun talking about what might have happened.

[hhascup]

Outside of Frazier, and Foreman, I think Charles, and Walcott could handle the Nortons, Shavers, Wepners, Jones, of the era.

Only Foreman, Frazier, and Ali made that era gold imo. Liston was on the slide, Patterson was done as a championship fighter.

Just 7 months before Ali fought Liston, most of the experts were saying that Liston was an all-time Great. He stopped Williams twice, Valdez, Folley and decisioned Machen before stopping Patterson twice in the 1st round.

If you read my other post, which stated:

Back when Rocky was the Champion, Walcott was 10-7 in his last 17 bouts before he fought Rocky the 1st time.

Charles did much better record wise, as he came into his bout with Rocky with a 14-5 (9 KO's) in his last 19 bouts, after winning 24 in a row and 41 out of 42, before his 3rd bout with Walcott. So he really was on his way down too, BUT he was still pretty good.

Maybe in their prime they would have a chance BUT not at the time they fought Rocky.

[Dempsey1238]

If you put Tyson, Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Louis etc., against the same opponents as Rocky had at the same time Rocky fought them, they too would be unbeaten.

There always upsets. If someone told us that Tyson would be KO'ed by Buster Douglas, we would say they were crazy, no way. So I agree with that and that is why I love boxing and their is no sure answer, just opinions, BUT its fun talking about what might have happened.

Not sure on that. Marciano was pretty lucky to get over his first 15 fights with no atm background when being match against 15-0 fighters, and golden gloves fighters. Perhaps if they share the same orgin background as Rocky, (Ie no golden gloves or gold medals at the games)

Perhaps, Fraizer at 0-0 might had lost to eddie Ross who was 23-0 at the time of Marciano's match. Maybe, we cant say for sure. I pretty sure Tyson would lose focus sooner or later, before the 49-0 record. And Ali has from time to time show up not in top shape.

Sure at there best, The greats win all the time about, but when there started out or getting old, who knows.

[Dempsey1238]

Just 7 months before Ali fought Liston, most of the experts were saying that Liston was an all-time Great. He stopped Williams twice, Valdez, Folley and decisioned Machen before stopping Patterson twice in the 1st round.

If you read my other post, which stated:

Back when Rocky was the Champion, Walcott was 10-7 in his last 17 bouts before he fought Rocky the 1st time.

Charles did much better record wise, as he came into his bout with Rocky with a 14-5 (9 KO's) in his last 19 bouts, after winning 24 in a row and 41 out of 42, before his 3rd bout with Walcott. So he really was on his way down too, BUT he was still pretty good.

Maybe in their prime they would have a chance BUT not at the time they fought Rocky.

Walcott was always a off and on fighter though. Hell in the 30's, he could not win about 7 fights, with out picking up a few loseings.
I think Walcott base on film, was a better fighter from Louis to Marciano, than he ever was in his 20's. Also Walcott was champion. Prime for Prime I favor the Rock, unless you start saying the likes of Abe Simon could beat Marciano too.
And Walcott had a pretty good chance when he fought Rocky, beating him from pillar to post, and leading on the score cards before the 13th round. That Walcott was on fire, and was no were near fighting at the level of 1951 Louis, or even Ali in the Spinks fights.

[groove]

60s Patterson could beat 38 year old Walcott so could Quarry, Lyle, Young, Shavers, Ellis, Bonavena, Norton. All 5 ATG's from 1962-78 would beat him i.e. liston (62), ali (64), frazier (70), foreman (73), holmes (78.

[hhascup]

Walcott was always a off and on fighter though. Hell in the 30's, he could not win about 7 fights, with out picking up a few loseings.
I think Walcott base on film, was a better fighter from Louis to Marciano, than he ever was in his 20's. Also Walcott was champion. Prime for Prime I favor the Rock, unless you start saying the likes of Abe Simon could beat Marciano too.
And Walcott had a pretty good chance when he fought Rocky, beating him from pillar to post, and leading on the score cards before the 13th round. That Walcott was on fire, and was no were near fighting at the level of 1951 Louis, or even Ali in the Spinks fights.


Walcott's hands were tied during the early part of his career. I had to do a lot of research on him when we put up a monument in Camden, NJ where he lived, as I was the guest speaker. Remember when he got a shot at the Louis's title it was only the 3rd time that 2 Blacks fought each other for the Big prize.

At the time Ross fought Rocky he was 15-0-1, BUT he only beat 2 boxers that had a winning record and those 2 were both at the end of their careers. Frazier would have murdered Ross at anytime!

I still rate Rocky pretty high and he could have beaten most of the Heavyweight Champions in history BUT their are several that in my opinion that could have beaten him.

Rocky's Pro career lasted only 7 years ( I don't count the 1947 bout because he fought several Amateur bouts after that bout before turning Pro again ). So I think Tyson or Frazier would do very well over that time frame.

I asked Bert Sugar why he rated Rocky #6, he said because of his record. He also said that if he lost just one of those close decisions (Lowry. LaStarza) he would be rated much lower.

[OLD FOGEY]

Walcott's hands were tied during the early part of his career. I had to do a lot of research on him when we put up a monument in Camden, NJ where he lived, as I was the guest speaker. Remember when he got a shot at the Louis's title it was only the 3rd time that 2 Blacks fought each other for the Big prize.

At the time Ross fought Rocky he was 15-0-1, BUT he only beat 2 boxers that had a winning record and those 2 were both at the end of their careers. Frazier would have murdered Ross at anytime!

I still rate Rocky pretty high and he could have beaten most of the Heavyweight Champions in history BUT their are several that in my opinion that could have beaten him.

Rocky's Pro career lasted only 7 years ( I don't count the 1947 bout because he fought several Amateur bouts after that bout before turning Pro again ). So I think Tyson or Frazier would do very well over that time frame.

I asked Bert Sugar why he rated Rocky #6, he said because of his record. He also said that if he lost just one of those close decisions (Lowry. LaStarza) he would be rated much lower.

duplicate-sorry. see below

[OLD FOGEY]

Walcott's hands were tied during the early part of his career. I had to do a lot of research on him when we put up a monument in Camden, NJ where he lived, as I was the guest speaker. Remember when he got a shot at the Louis's title it was only the 3rd time that 2 Blacks fought each other for the Big prize.

At the time Ross fought Rocky he was 15-0-1, BUT he only beat 2 boxers that had a winning record and those 2 were both at the end of their careers. Frazier would have murdered Ross at anytime!

I still rate Rocky pretty high and he could have beaten most of the Heavyweight Champions in history BUT their are several that in my opinion that could have beaten him.

Rocky's Pro career lasted only 7 years ( I don't count the 1947 bout because he fought several Amateur bouts after that bout before turning Pro again ). So I think Tyson or Frazier would do very well over that time frame.

I asked Bert Sugar why he rated Rocky #6, he said because of his record. He also said that if he lost just one of those close decisions (Lowry. LaStarza) he would be rated much lower.


I disagree with Sugar's opinion. Marciano would have swept the best men of his era and knocked all them out even losing both of the close decisions to Lowry and LaStarza. How many heavyweight champions have ko'd every rated opponent they fought? How many have only lost disputed decisions? Marciano would still have an impressive record.

[hhascup]

I disagree with Sugar's opinion. Marciano would have swept the best men of his era and knocked all them out even losing both of the close decisions to Lowry and LaStarza. How many heavyweight champions have ko'd every rated opponent they fought? How many have only lost disputed decisions? Marciano would still have an impressive record.

Yes, Rocky would still have an impressive record BUT he would not be rated as high as he is now. I am not saying that he had to knock them all out, what I am saying is that if he did lose a bout or 2, how would he be rated. He only fought one Top 10 contender in his 1st 35 bouts, what if he fought some much earlier in his career. After the 1st LaStarza bout, which was in Rocky's 26th bout, he didn't box another one until he fought Rex Layne in his 36th bout. You would have to go back some to find another Heavyweight Champion that did that.

When he fought Moore that was only the 11th time (8 different opponents) Rocky ever fought a boxer that was rated in the top 10 when he fought them.

Louis fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 12th bout when he stopped Lee Ramage. He would box 9 more top 10 contenders before he fought Braddock for the title. That was Louis's 36th pro bout. So after 36 bouts, Rocky fought 2 top 10 contenders and Louis fought 11. Also, Rocky fought 49 bouts and Louis fought 36 and they both faced 11 top 10 contenders. The time Louis had 49 bouts, he faced a total of 21 top 10 contenders.

[OLD FOGEY]

Yes, Rocky would still have an impressive record BUT he would not be rated as high as he is now. I am not saying that he had to knock them all out, what I am saying is that if he did lose a bout or 2, how would he be rated. He only fought one Top 10 contender in his 1st 35 bouts, what if he fought some much earlier in his career. After the 1st LaStarza bout, which was in Rocky's 26th bout, he didn't box another one until he fought Rex Layne in his 36th bout. You would have to go back some to find another Heavyweight Champion that did that.

When he fought Moore that was only the 11th time (8 different opponents) Rocky ever fought a boxer that was rated in the top 10 when he fought them.

Louis fought his 1st top 10 contender in his 12th bout when he stopped Lee Ramage. He would box 9 more top 10 contenders before he fought Braddock for the title. That was Louis's 36th pro bout. So after 36 bouts, Rocky fought 2 top 10 contenders and Louis fought 11. Also, Rocky fought 49 bouts and Louis fought 36 and they both faced 11 top 10 contenders. The time Louis had 49 bouts, he faced a total of 21 top 10 contenders.




"I am not saying that he had to knock them all out"

That is exactly what he did against all rated opponents, and I don't know of anyone in any division who has come anywhere close to equaling it.

"11 victories against fighters rated when he fought them."

And as we went over before--that is more than Liston, Foreman, Frazier, and Schmeling, and I doubt if someone like Jeffries, or even Dempsey, would have had more if there had been ratings. All these men are often rated in the top ten. I notice that when you evaluate Marciano, you compare him only to Louis or Ali, who rate way ahead of everybody on these measurements.

Marciano did have quite a few fights before he began fighting top ten fighters, but he also had a very limited amateur career. Schmeling fought his first rated fighter in his 48th fight. And in fairness to Marciano, once he really started fighting top men with Layne, he fought mainly top men. Some other champions certainly fought a lot of unrated fighters or fringe contenders even after they got to the top.

[mr. magoo]

Only Foreman, Frazier, and Ali made that era gold imo. Liston was on the slide, Patterson was done as a championship fighter.



You use the word "only" as though its common for three top 10 all time greats to exist in the same era like its an every day occurence. You had one guy who is commonly refered to as " the greatest " heavyweight of all time, plus two others who are probably worthy of being rated somewhere between #6-#10. That in and of itself is collosal in my opinion. Furthermore, I disagree with your claim about these men being the sole reason for the era's competitiveness. The talent levels were off the charts for anything that would otherwise be considered normal during that period. Jerry Quarry is often spoken of as one of heavyweight boxing's greatest contenders, and was rated for the better part of a decade. Earnie Shavers is revered by many as having the single hardest shot of any fighter. Jimmy Young, Ken Norton, and Ron Lyle also make a lot of people's top 30-40. You also had a rising star towards the end of the decade in Larry Holmes, who by the way is another top 10 heavyweight.

[Dempsey1238]

You use the word "only" as though its common for three top 10 all time greats to exist in the same era like its an every day occurence. You had one guy who is commonly refered to as " the greatest " heavyweight of all time, plus two others who are probably worthy of being rated somewhere between #6-#10. That in and of itself is collosal in my opinion. Furthermore, I disagree with your claim about these men being the sole reason for the era's competitiveness. The talent levels were off the charts for anything that would otherwise be considered normal during that period. Jerry Quarry is often spoken of as one of heavyweight boxing's greatest contenders, and was rated for the better part of a decade. Earnie Shavers is revered by many as having the single hardest shot of any fighter. Jimmy Young, Ken Norton, and Ron Lyle also make a lot of people's top 30-40. You also had a rising star towards the end of the decade in Larry Holmes, who by the way is another top 10 heavyweight.


Over rated fighters, I dont count Holmes.

Shavers should have done to Ali, what 7-0-1 Spinks did to Ali. Here was Shavers with a shot Ali, and he could not win. That tells more on Shavers imo. Lyle is mostly know for his brawl with Foreman, a fight he lost. Sort of like Luis Firpo so to speak in regards to Dempsey. I see no one claiming Firpo is this great contender. Young?? Other fighter rated higher than he should. Outside of Foreman, didnt relly do much, and like Shavers, had a at the end of the line Ali, and failed to win.
I think they got name because they fought Ali or Foreman or Frazier.

Shavers's power is over rated to me. Sure he takes out journymen, but when he step up, his power always failed him.

[hhascup]

"I am not saying that he had to knock them all out"

That is exactly what he did against all rated opponents, and I don't know of anyone in any division who has come anywhere close to equaling it.

"11 victories against fighters rated when he fought them."

And as we went over before--that is more than Liston, Foreman, Frazier, and Schmeling, and I doubt if someone like Jeffries, or even Dempsey, would have had more if there had been ratings. All these men are often rated in the top ten. I notice that when you evaluate Marciano, you compare him only to Louis or Ali, who rate way ahead of everybody on these measurements.

Marciano did have a quite a few fights before he began fighting top ten fighters, but he also had a very limited amateur career. Schmeling fought his first rated fighter in his 48th fight. And in fairness to Marciano, once he really started fighting top men with Layne, he fought mainly top men. Some other champions certainly fought a lot unrated fighters or fringe contenders even after they got to the top.

11 victories with 9 KO's. What would Frazier, Tyson, Holmes, Ali, Liston have done against thiose 11?

I knew you would find Schmeling BUT he fought mainly out of Germany, where their wasn't any contenders.

While awaiting discharge, Marciano, representing the army, won the 1946 amateur armed forces boxing tournament. His amateur career was interrupted on March 17, 1947, when Marciano stepped into the ring as a professional competitor. That night he beat Lee Epperson by a knockout in three rounds. In an unusual move, however, Marciano returned to the amateur ranks and fought in the Golden Gloves All-East Championship Tournament in March 1948. He was beaten by Coley Wallace during the tournament. He continued to fight as an amateur throughout that spring and competed in the AAU Olympic tryouts in the Boston Garden. There he knocked out George McGinnis, but hurt his hands during the bout and was forced to withdraw from the tournament. The McGinnis fight was his last amateur bout. His amateur years, with an 8-4 record, would be the last time Marciano experienced a loss.

So he did have some good competition before he turned Pro BUT like you stated, he didn't have as much as some others.

The reason I am comparing Rocky with Louis and Ali is because of the question: Marciano in the Joe Louis era?

[hhascup]

By the way, here's the Year end ratings of the Heavyweights from 1896 to 1925. Jeffries fought a lot of top contender BUT Dempsey didn't.

1896 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JAMES J CORBETT
1.BOB FITZSIMMONS
2.PETER MAHER
3.DAN CREEDON
4.JAMES J CORBETT
5.BOB ARMSTRONG
6.TOM SHARKEY
7.JOE CHOYNSKI
8.JOE GODDARD
9.KID MCCOY
10.HENRY BAKER

1897 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.BOB FITZSIMMONS
1.BOB FITZSIMMONS
2.PETER MAHER
3.KID MCCOY
4.TOM SHARKEY
5.JOE CHOYNSKI
6.JAMES J CORBETT
7.JAMES J JEFFRIES
8.DAN CREEDON
9.CON DOYLE
10.JACK BONNER
10.GUS RUHLIN

1898 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.BOB FITZSIMMONS
1.JAMES J JEFFRIES
1.TOM SHARKEY
3.KID MCCOY
4.PETER MAHER
5.BILLY STIFT
6.TOMMY RYAN
7.FRANK CHILDS
8.GUS RUHLIN
9.JOE CHOYNSKI
10.PETER JACKSON

1899 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JAMES J JEFFRIES
1.JAMES J JEFFRIES
2.TOM SHARKEY
3.PETER MAHER
4.BOB FITZSIMMONS
5.GUS RUHLIN
6.JOE CHOYNSKI
7.KID MCCOY
8.TOMMY RYAN
9.BILLY STIFT
10.FRANK CHILDS

1900 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JAMES J JEFFRIES
1.BOB FITZSIMMONS
2.JAMES J JEFFRIES
3.GUS RUHLIN
4.JAMES J CORBETT
5.PETER MAHER
6.KID MCCOY
7.TOMMY WEST
8.BILLY STIFT
9.JACK ROOT
10.TOM SHARKEY

1901 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JAMES J JEFFRIES
1.JAMES J JEFFRIES
2.JACK ROOT
3.KID MCCOY
4.GUS RUHLIN
5.PETER MAHER
5.JOE CHOYNSKI
7.FRANK CHILDS
8.GEORGE GREEN
9.TOMMY RYAN
10.GEORGE GARDNER

1902 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JAMES J JEFFRIES
1.JAMES J JEFFRIES
2.BOB FITZSIMMONS
3.GUS RUHLIN
4.TOMMY RYAN
4.JACK JOHNSON
6.JACK ROOT
7.PH JACK O'BRIEN
8.GEORGE GARDNER
9.DENVER ED MARTIN
10.MARVIN HART

1903 YEAR-END RATINGS. CHAMP.
JAMES J JEFFRIES
1.JAMES J JEFFRIES
2.BOB FITZSIMMONS
3.JACK JOHNSON
4.GEORGE GARDNER
5.TOMMY RYAN
6.GUS RUHLIN
7.SAM MCVEY
8.SANDY FERGUSON
9.JACK ROOT
10.MARVIN HART

1904 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JAMES J JEFFRIES
1.JAMES J JEFFRIES
2.JACK JOHNSON
3.TOMMY RYAN
4.BOB FITZSIMMONS
5.PH JACK O'BRIEN
6.JACK ROOT
7.MARVIN HART
8.KID MCCOY
9.SANDY FERGUSON
10.GUS RUHLIN

1905 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.MARVIN HART
1.MARVIN HART
2.PH JACK O'BRIEN
3.JACK JOHNSON
4.JOE JEANNETTE
5.BOB FITZSIMMONS
6.JACK ROOT
7.BILL SQUIRES
8.KID MCCOY
9.GUS RUHLIN
10.SANDY FERGUSON

1906 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.TOMMY BURNS
1.PH JACK O'BRIEN
2.BILLY DUNNING
3.BILL SQUIRES
4.JACK JOHNSON
5.TOMMY BURNS
6.BOB FITZSIMMONS
7.SAM MCVEY
8.GUS RUHLIN
9.JACK ROOT
10.JACK TW SULLIVAN

1907 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.TOMMY BURNS
1.TOMMY BURNS
2.JACK JOHNSON
3.AL KAUFMAN
4.JOE JEANNETTE
5.TOMMY RYAN
6.PH JACK O'BRIEN
7.JACK TW SULLIVAN
8.SAM MCVEY
9.FIREMAN JIM FLYNN
10.MIKE SCHRECK

1908 YEAR-END RATINGS
CHAMP.JACK JOHNSON
1.JACK JOHNSON
2.AL KAUFMAN
3.SAM LANGFORD
4.TOMMY BURNS
5.STANLEY KETCHEL
6.PH JACK O'BRIEN
7.SAM MCVEY
8.JOE JEANNETTE
9.MORRIS HARRIS
10.BILLY PAPKE

1909 YEAR-END RATINGS
CHAMP.JACK JOHNSON
1.JACK JOHNSON
2.SAM LANGFORD
3.AL KAUFMAN
4.STANLEY KETCHEL
5.JOE JEANNETTE
6.BILL LANG
7.SAM MCVEY
8.BILLY PAPKE
9.MNT JACK SULLIVAN*
10.PH JACK O'BRIEN

1910 YEAR-END RATINGS
CHAMP.JACK JOHNSON
1.JACK JOHNSON
2.SAM LANGFORD
3.STANLEY KETCHEL
4.TOMMY BURNS
5.AL KAUFMAN
6.JAMES J JEFFRIES
7.JOE JEANNETTE
8.BILL LANG
9.PORKY DAN FLYNN
10.BILLY PAPKE

1911 YEAR-END RATINGS
CHAMP.JACK JOHNSON
1.SAM MCVEY
2.SAM LANGFORD
3.FIREMAN JIM FLYNN
4.JOE JEANNETTE
5.CARL MORRIS
6.BOB SCANLON
7.ALF LANGFORD
8.JACK DILLON
9.BOB MOHA
10.AL KAUFMAN

1912 YEAR-END RATINGS
CHAMP.JACK JOHNSON
1.JACK JOHNSON
2.SAM LANGFORD
3.TOMMY BURNS
4.JOE JEANNETTE
5.LUTHER MCCARTY
6.JESS WILLARD
7.FIREMAN JIM FLYNN
8.SAM MCVEY
8.BOMB BILLY WELLS
10.TONY ROSS 10.FRANK KLAUS

1913 YEAR-END RATINGS
CHAMP.JACK JOHNSON
1.GUNBOAT SMITH
2.JACK JOHNSON
3.SAM LANGFORD
4.TOMMY BURNS
5.SAM MCVEY
6.JESS WILLARD
7.ARTHUR PELKEY
8.GEO CARPENTIER
9.JOE JEANNETTE
10.JACK DILLON

1914 YEAR-END RATINGS
CHAMP.JACK JOHNSON
1.SAM LANGFORD
2.JACK JOHNSON
3.GEO CARPENTIER
4.JACK DILLON
5.SAM MCVEY
6.TOMMY BURNS
7.CARL MORRIS
8.JESS WILLARD
9.HARRY WILLS
10.JIM COFFEY

1915 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JESS WILLARD
1.FRANK MORAN
2.JESS WILLARD
3.HARRY WILLS
4.JIM COFFEY
5.JACK JOHNSON
6.JOE JEANNETTE
7.JACK DILLON
8.TOM COWLER
9.SAM MCVEY
10.SAM LANGFORD

1916 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JESS WILLARD
1.JESS WILLARD
2.HARRY WILLS
3.JACK JOHNSON
4.FRANK MORAN
5.FRED FULTON
6.CHARLIE WEINERT
7.CARL MORRIS
8.BILLY MISKE
8.BOMB BILLY WELLS
10.TOM COWLER

1917 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JESS WILLARD
1.HARRY WILLS
2.HARRY TATE
3.FRED FULTON
4.SAM LANGFORD
5.TOMMY GIBBONS
5.BILLY MISKE
7.JOE JEANNETTE
8.FRANK MORAN
9.JACK DEMPSEY
10.JACK THOMPSON

1918 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JESS WILLARD
1.JACK DEMPSEY
2.FRED FULTON
3.HARRY WILLS
4.JACK JOHNSON
5.BOMB BILLY WELLS
6.TOMMY GIBBONS
7.HARRY TATE
8.WILLIE MEEHAN
9.HARRY GREB
10.BILLY MISKE

1919 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JACK DEMPSEY
1.JACK DEMPSEY
2.FRED FULTON
3.HARRY WILLS
4.HARRY GREB
5.TOMMY GIBBONS
6.GEO CARPENTIER
7.JACK JOHNSON
8.SAM LANGFORD
8.KID NORFOLK
10.JESS WILLARD

1920 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JACK DEMPSEY
1.JACK DEMPSEY
2.HARRY WILLS
3.FRED FULTON
4.KID NORFOLK
5.GEO CARPENTIER
6.GENE TUNNEY
7.JACK JOHNSON
8.TOMMY GIBBONS
9.FRANK MORAN
10.HARRY GREB

1921 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JACK DEMPSEY
1.JACK DEMPSEY
2.HARRY WILLS
3.TOMMY GIBBONS
4.GENE TUNNEY
5.FRED FULTON
6.GEO CARPENTIER
7.BILLY SHADE
8.HARRY GREB
9.JOE BECKETT
10.TED KID LEWIS

1922 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JACK DEMPSEY
1.JACK DEMPSEY
2.HARRY GREB
3.HARRY WILLS
4.TOMMY GIBBONS
5.BILLY MISKE
6.GENE TUNNEY
7.JOE BECKETT
8.JEFF SMITH
9.GEO CARPENTIER
10.BENNY MILLER

1923 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JACK DEMPSEY
1.JACK DEMPSEY
2.GENE TUNNEY
3.BILLY MISKE
4.HARRY WILLS
5.TOMMY GIBBONS
6.GEO CARPENTIER
7.LUIS FIRPO
8.JEFF SMITH
9.JACK RENAULT
10.HARRY GREB

1924 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JACK DEMPSEY
1.TOMMY GIBBONS
2.GENE TUNNEY
3.HARRY WILLS
4.TIGER FLOWERS
5.JEFF SMITH
6.HARRY GREB
7.AD STONE
7.GEO CARPENTIER
9.JACK RENAULT
10.TONY FUENTE

1925 YEAR-END RATINGS.
CHAMP.JACK DEMPSEY
1.GENE TUNNEY
2.HARRY WILLS
3.TOMMY GIBBONS
4.GEORGE GODFREY
5.YOUNG STRIBLING
6.HARRY GREB
7.BUD GORMAN
8.PAULINO UZCUDUN
9.TONY FUENTE
10.AD STONE

[Bummy Davis]

There is no question that Ali defeated tougher opposition over a longer period of time. I'm not disputing that, and I don't know of anyone who is. On the other hand, I think it unfair to draw a conclusion on the strength of the respective eras by comparing the best fighters of two different decades to those of about half a decade. It is somewhat like saying ****** Spahn pitched against more tough batters than Sandy Koufax. True. It does not follow that Spahn pitched in a stronger era, or that ERA comparisions are unfair. He just pitched longer.

I would say a fairer comparision of the toughness of various eras would be to compare the men Ali defeated to dominate the 60's and 70's with who he would have had to defeat to dominate the 40's and 50's--Louis, Walcott, Conn, Bivins, Pastor, Ray, Murray, Maxim, Charles, Henry, Marciano, Layne, Baker, Valdes, LaStarza, Moore, Johnson, Patterson, Machen, Folley, Williams, Liston.

Would Ali have been champion as early as 1944. Would he have been undefeated in 1947, if there is no WWII. I don't know, but I think Louis in 1944 and Walcott in 1946 or 1947 would have been tougher tests than Liston and Patterson were in the sixties. What about an upset? There are plenty of men here every bit or more dangerous than Doug Jones or Henry Cooper.

He should be able to beat the smaller Charles coming back after 3 1/2 years, but Walcott is still around and would still have been a threat, and Marciano would certainly have been an interesting test in the 1952 to 53 period. I think the Moore of the mid-fifties would have been a tough test for a fading Ali.

How long does he last? Ali was still champion at the end of 1978. Would he still be champion at the end of 1958 with the young Patterson, Machen, and Johansson nipping at his heels. I don't think so. And I don't see him having a chance against Liston from 1958 on.

Would his record have been as good or better? It is a great deal of guesswork, but I think it is possible he would have lost at least as many, and there would certainly have been a lot of tough fights out there.


Great Post

[hhascup]

You use the word "only" as though its common for three top 10 all time greats to exist in the same era like its an every day occurence. You had one guy who is commonly refered to as " the greatest " heavyweight of all time, plus two others who are probably worthy of being rated somewhere between #6-#10. That in and of itself is collosal in my opinion. Furthermore, I disagree with your claim about these men being the sole reason for the era's competitiveness. The talent levels were off the charts for anything that would otherwise be considered normal during that period. Jerry Quarry is often spoken of as one of heavyweight boxing's greatest contenders, and was rated for the better part of a decade. Earnie Shavers is revered by many as having the single hardest shot of any fighter. Jimmy Young, Ken Norton, and Ron Lyle also make a lot of people's top 30-40. You also had a rising star towards the end of the decade in Larry Holmes, who by the way is another top 10 heavyweight.

Great Post!!!

:happy:happy

[Bummy Davis]

I disagree with Sugar's opinion. Marciano would have swept the best men of his era and knocked all them out even losing both of the close decisions to Lowry and LaStarza. How many heavyweight champions have ko'd every rated opponent they fought? How many have only lost disputed decisions? Marciano would still have an impressive record.

Ofcourse he would and does Burt Sugar feel that even though Lennox Lewis beat every man he faced, he should be penalized for his loses or should he be held in high esteem for the way he came back and won

[OLD FOGEY]

Ofcourse he would and does Burt Sugar feel that even though Lennox Lewis beat every man he faced, he should be penalized for his loses or should he be held in high esteem for the way he came back and won

I don't think Lewis is in his top ten, but I am not certain. Maybe someone else can clarify this.

I checked this. Lewis isn't even in his top ten.

[hhascup]

Ofcourse he would and does Burt Sugar feel that even though Lennox Lewis beat every man he faced, he should be penalized for his loses or should he be held in high esteem for the way he came back and won

There 5 Heavyweight Champions that beat every opponent they faced. I also know several Top contenders that have done that too.

Lewis, who I also had the pleasure of meeting and introducing, will always have those 2 loses hanging over his head. I was at the Conn. Boxing Hall of Fame affair last November and his name was brought up and their was people that pointed out those 2 KO loses.

Personally, I think on any given day, he could have held his own with the best of them.

[OLD FOGEY]

There 5 Heavyweight Champions that beat every opponent they faced. I also know several Top contenders that have done that too.

Lewis, who I also had the pleasure of meeting and introducing, will always have those 2 loses hanging over his head. I was at the Conn. Boxing Hall of Fame affair last November and his name was brought up and their was people that pointed out those 2 KO loses.

Personally, I think on any given day, he could have held his own with the best of them.


I know of Marciano, Johansson, Bowe, and Lewis. Who is the fifth champion? Curiously, who are the contenders--did they have truncated careers?

[hhascup]

I know of Marciano, Johansson, Bowe, and Lewis. Who is the fifth champion? Curiously, who are the contenders--did they have truncated careers?

Tunney and 1 of the contenders was Steve Hamas.

You got the hard ones. On HBO they had only 2, Rocky and Lewis, then Max came up with Tunney. I then wrote an E-Mail to my good friend Harold Lederman telling him the other 2. I then got an E-Mail from Lampley thanking me.

[mr. magoo]

Over rated fighters, I dont count Holmes.

Shavers should have done to Ali, what 7-0-1 Spinks did to Ali. Here was Shavers with a shot Ali, and he could not win. That tells more on Shavers imo. Lyle is mostly know for his brawl with Foreman, a fight he lost. Sort of like Luis Firpo so to speak in regards to Dempsey. I see no one claiming Firpo is this great contender. Young?? Other fighter rated higher than he should. Outside of Foreman, didnt relly do much, and like Shavers, had a at the end of the line Ali, and failed to win.
I think they got name because they fought Ali or Foreman or Frazier.

Shavers's power is over rated to me. Sure he takes out journymen, but when he step up, his power always failed him.

I don't see anything in this post that particularly jumps out of the book at me, except the regurgitation of words like " overrated ", with little or no explanation as to why..

Earnie Shavers Ko'd 68 men in 74 wins, scored 22 first round KO's and had the testimony of two of the most durable heavyweights in history as being the hardest puncher either had ever fought.

Jimmy Young was viewed by many fighters, trainers, experts, etc. as being a technical genious. His record has virtually no padding on it, and despite facing an entire generation of big punchers, was only stopped on two occasions in his career. One of the stoppages came against Earnie Shavers in only his 12th pro fight, while the other came via stoppage on cuts against Gerry Cooney when he was past it.

Jerry Quarry did not need to face Frazier or Ali to gain recognition as a great contender. He is remembered by many as one of the most legitmate challengers in the history of the division and this concencus is very reasonable in my opinion. Over the course of his career, Quarry compiled victories over Floyd Patterson, Earnie Shavers, Ron Lyle, Buster Mathis, Mac Foster, Jack Bodell and Thad Spencer. All were good fighters at the time. Everytime someone thought Quarry's career was over, he'd come right back and beat a top rater placing himself back into contention. This is why he's rated as one of the best. In fact, he was a top challenger for the title before he ever fought Ali or Frazier.


Ron Lyle's battle with Foreman, although a losing effort, was one of the most exciting heavyweight fights of all time. Lyle also defeated a wide array of good fighters such as Jimmy Ellis, Earnie Shavers, Joe Bugner, OScar Bonavena, Buster Mathis and Boone Kirkman.