Bob Baker, James Parker, and Nino Valdes leading up to their 1st fight with A Moore.

[Mendoza]

Being 210 pounds alone doesn't make you great, and a skilled 180 pound can can in fact beat him. This is what happened with all of Archie Moore's " big opponents "

Allow me to offer a few examples to illustrate my points by examining the records of 200+ pound fighters records before and after then fought Archie Moore.

1 ) Big Bob Baker. About 210 pounds

-Was Ko'd by a skinny 184 pound Clarance Henry in 8
- Lost on points to a journeyman in Graham who was 27-12-2!
- Ko'd in 1 round by a 180.5 pound Bob Satterfield!
- Lost on points again to Clarance Henry.

Then he meet Archie Moore and was Ko'd. Leading up to the Moore fight
Baker lost two of his last three fights. Baker's Ko percentage is under 30%. If you follow his career, he pretty much lost to the top guys under 200 pounds. So how is this guy any good? Such a fighter could only be ranked in a weak era of heavyweight boxing.

2 ) James Parker around 205-210 pounds

- Lost to a 4-2 no name!
- KO'd in 2 to a 174 pound Buceoroni
- Ko'd in 4 by 185.5 pound Reynolds!
- Lost on points to a journeyman 30-13-2 fighter in Thrumond!
- Lost on points to Valdes
- Drew to a with Walls
- Drew to a 9-0 fighter!

Then was Ko'd by Moore and finished his career being Ko'd in 1 by Chavalo.

If Parker was ranked in the 50's its because the era lacked talent. He has no name wins, and would not be ranked in the top ten today.

3 ) Nino Valdes, about 210 pounds.

-Had a 32-9-3 record leading up to the fight with Moore, which means he had 12 bad results. This is a journeyman''s record.

-Ko'd in 3 rounds by a 1-1 fighter!
-Ko'd in 8 by a 3-4 fighter!
- Lost on points to a 20-3 fighter. no shame here.
- Ko'd in 4 by an 11-13 fighter!!!
- Lost on points to a 9-1 fighter.
- Lost to a much smaller Harold Johnson.

Then he lost to Moore, and lost back to back again. Total losing streak 4 fights in a row, then Valdes turned it around by beating a past his prime Ezzard Charles, and pretty much vaulted up to the #1 spot despite too many black marks on his record to mention.

Moore's first win over Valdes should wasn't that impressive. Who did Valdes beat leading up to his first match with Moore? I see a guy who failed to win a big match, and was Ko'd three times by no names, and out pointed by no names. I am not too impressed with this win.

If we were to compare these fighters to Chagaev, the following conclusions can be made. Chagaev was moved much quicker as a professional, never was Ko'd multiple times or lost multiple times on points to journeyman. In fact, he is un-defeated and look much better on film.

To compare Chagaev to these fringe contenders fighters the 50's who were around 210 pounds suggest ignorance, or in some cases bias.

Yet SuzieQ ( Maricnao and the Writers of the times refered to it as Suzy-Q ) by the way, thinks these men were so big and great.

[janitor]

These fighters were big and had solid all round boxing skills. They were clearly the best big men aroud and among the top heavyweight contenders of the period.

They were not fringe contenders by any stretch of the imagination.

[janitor]

If we were to compare these fighters to Chagaev, the following conclusions can be made. Chagaev was moved much quicker as a professional, never was Ko'd multiple times or lost multiple times on points to journeyman. In fact, he is un-defeated and look much better on film.


While Chagaev was moved allong verry quickly in his early profesional career he had a long amateur pedigre of the kind that no fighter of the 50s would have before turning pro.

I would also add that he is going to have the biggest test of his career soon and how he comes out of that will make a big difference to this question. I can see Valdez or Baker outpointing Valuev but a good performance against Klitschko would change the equation somewhat.

[SuzieQ49]

I thought it would be interesting to note...Chagaev is 26-0. Bob Baker started his professional career 28-0 before his first loss! lets wait till chagaev catches up, shall we?


Anyone here see Baker vs Henry I? I am telling you a must get people. Rounds 7 and 8 showed some serious skills and power in both men. You will come away impressed.

[SuzieQ49]

Another top 10 210lb + heavyweight moore beat was Alejandro Lavorante was # 4 rated in the world, and 6'4 212lb. Moore beat him so badly lavorante had to be carried to a stretcher.
Moore was 45 here.


Here you go boxing fans...Here is a glimpse of moore against young talented 20-1 6'1 212lb heavyweight prospect


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[MrMarvel]

Nice post. The point about these fighters only being ranked in a weak division is spot on. The heavyweight division was weak throughout the 1940s and into the mid-1950s. Towards the end of the 1950s we start to see some consistent quality emerging.

Being 210 pounds alone doesn't make you great, and a skilled 180 pound can can in fact beat him. This is what happened with all of Archie Moore's " big opponents "

Allow me to offer a few examples to illustrate my points by examining the records of 200+ pound fighters records before and after then fought Archie Moore.


1 ) Big Bob Baker. About 210 pounds

-Was Ko'd by a skinny 184 pound Clarance Henry in 8
- Lost on points to a journeyman in Graham who was 27-12-2!
- Ko'd in 1 round by a 180.5 pound Bob Satterfield!
- Lost on points again to Clarance Henry.

Then he meet Archie Moore and was Ko'd. Leading up to the Moore fight
Baker lost two of his last three fights. Baker's Ko percentage is under 30%. If you follow his career, he pretty much lost to the top guys under 200 pounds. So how is this guy any good? Such a fighter could only be ranked in a weak era of heavyweight boxing.

2 ) James Parker around 205-210 pounds

- Lost to a 4-2 no name!
- KO'd in 2 to a 174 pound Buceoroni
- Ko'd in 4 by 185.5 pound Reynolds!
- Lost on points to a journeyman 30-13-2 fighter in Thrumond!
- Lost on points to Valdes
- Drew to a with Walls
- Drew to a 9-0 fighter!

Then was Ko'd by Moore and finished his career being Ko'd in 1 by Chavalo.

If Parker was ranked in the 50's its because the era lacked talent. He has no name wins, and would not be ranked in the top ten today.

3 ) Nino Valdes, about 210 pounds.

-Had a 32-9-3 record leading up to the fight with Moore, which means he had 12 bad results. This is a journeyman''s record.

-Ko'd in 3 rounds by a 1-1 fighter!
-Ko'd in 8 by a 3-4 fighter!
- Lost on points to a 20-3 fighter. no shame here.
- Ko'd in 4 by an 11-13 fighter!!!
- Lost on points to a 9-1 fighter.
- Lost to a much smaller Harold Johnson.

Then he lost to Moore, and lost back to back again. Total losing streak 4 fights in a row, then Valdes turned it around by beating a past his prime Ezzard Charles, and pretty much vaulted up to the #1 spot despite too many black marks on his record to mention.

Moore's first win over Valdes should wasn't that impressive. Who did Valdes beat leading up to his first match with Moore? I see a guy who failed to win a big match, and was Ko'd three times by no names, and out pointed by no names. I am not too impressed with this win.

If we were to compare these fighters to Chagaev, the following conclusions can be made. Chagaev was moved much quicker as a professional, never was Ko'd multiple times or lost multiple times on points to journeyman. In fact, he is un-defeated and look much better on film.

To compare Chagaev to these fringe contenders fighters the 50's who were around 210 pounds suggest ignorance, or in some cases bias.

Yet SuzieQ ( Maricnao and the Writers of the times refered to it as Suzy-Q ) by the way, thinks these men were so big and great.

[Mendoza]

SuzieQ49 Another top 10 210lb + heavyweight moore beat was Alejandro Lavorante was # 4 rated in the world, and 6'4 212lb. Moore beat him so badly lavorante had to be carried to a stretcher.
Moore was 45 here.


Here you go boxing fans...Here is a glimpse of moore against young talented 20-1 6'1 212lb heavyweight prospect


Lavorante talented? Stop drinking. For openers your information is wrong. Lavorante wasn't 20-1 when he meet Archie Moore! Lavorante in fact lost TWICE prior to facing more, and only has 19 career victories.

His record is mostly padded. The fact that a 18-2 fighter, who lost two fights before meeting Moore to a 21-6 fighter was the #4 rated man signals a weak error of heavyweight boxing!

By the way I'm not going to look up if Lavorante was indeed #4 at heavyweight when Moore fought him. I'll take you at your word even though you had two mistakes on his record in your above post.

Lavonrante record is very padded. He did beat Folley, but his record vs the best fighters he fought in Ali, Moore, Folley, Harris was 1-3.

Lavorante later died from boxing related injuries.

I see SuzieQ has not opted to insert excuses on Parker, Valdes, or Baker leading up to their fights with Moore. Perhaps he understands that the truth and fact they were not very good at that point are starting to sink in.

[Mendoza]

Nice post. The point about these fighters only being ranked in a weak division is spot on. The heavyweight division was weak throughout the 1940s and into the mid-1950s. Towards the end of the 1950s we start to see some consistent quality emerging.

Of course. But some people here feel that because Charles or Moore beat so and so, it makes so an so a great fighter.

That is not the case. A divisions top ten should not have multiple losses to journeyman, and padded records. Yet in the 40's to mid 50's that was most certainly the case.

Furthermore many of those who populated the top ten were Ko'd too often....sometimes by lesser puncher types. There were a few 210 pounders, but as the record here shows the weight alone did not make them top tier.

[janitor]

That is not the case. A divisions top ten should not have multiple losses to journeyman, and padded records.

I would say that is as much a function of the era as anything else.

In an era where fighters fight more often and are matched harder from the outset the top fighters will suffer more losses ant somtimes to lesser fighters.

[Mendoza]

I would say that is as much a function of the era as anything else.

In an era where fighters fight more often and are matched harder from the outset the top fighters will suffer more losses ant somtimes to lesser fighters.

I disagree. Top fighters should not lose often to journeyman. The top ten should have a near shut out record over non-ranked journeyman. 1 loss on the way up it ok, but if a top ten guy losses to a journeyman multiple times, he should be out of the mix.

It seems that many modern fighters are ready for a title shot in their 20th-30th fight. It seems that many fighters in the 1940's and 1950 were still meeting journeyman in the 20th to 30th fight.

So I would argue modern fighters are moved quicker, and face better top ten rated fighters sooner.

If you use the heavyweight division, look at Ibragimov, and Chagaev, or if you prefer look at Povetkin in line for a title shot, and Haye in line for a title shot. These guys fought top 10 level guys in less than 25 fights, which means they were moved quickly.

There is also no doubt that the winning percentage of modern top ten fighters opponents is far better than the winning percentage of top ten opponents 50 years from now. The reason why again is the talent in those days simply was not good enough to hold off the journeyman to fringe contenders.

Not all fighters in the 40's and 50's lacked amateur expedience. I think Charles was something like 44-1 as an amateur.

[SuzieQ49]

I see that Mendoza has not commented on the fact Baker started his career 26-0 just like chagaev did, except baker beat more Ring Magazine top 10 than chagaev did. Baker suffered quite a few hand injuries that caused some losses in the mid 50s, but in his prime he hardly ever lost.

[SuzieQ49]

There is also no doubt that the winning percentage of modern top ten fighters opponents is far better than the winning percentage of top ten opponents 50 years from now

No not at all. The reason is back then, they fought ranked contenders every month, never cancelled or postponed fights(They actually had a thing called toughness)...when you fight the kind of hectic schedule they fought....Its normal to lose every now and then.


I would love to see Chagaev fight a hectic schedule against a ranked contender every month...he would have many losses.

[janitor]

[quote=Mendoza;4297619]I disagree. Top fighters should not lose often to journeyman. The top ten should have a near shut out record over non-ranked journeyman. 1 loss on the way up it ok, but if a top ten guy losses to a journeyman multiple times, he should be out of the mix.

It seems that many modern fighters are ready for a title shot in their 20th-30th fight. It seems that many fighters in the 1940's and 1950 were still meeting journeyman in the 20th to 30th fight.

So I would argue modern fighters are moved quicker, and face better top ten rated fighters sooner.


Much of this ties into the fact that fighters from earlier eras had little or in many cases no amateur background when they turned pro.

Sombody like Chagaev or Povetkin is already a prety serious proposition by the date of his profesional debut.

Also if fighters in a given era fight more frequently then they are going to loose more often and to lesser fighters by default. The human body simply cant take fighting above a certain frequency without something giving.


If you use the heavyweight division, look at Ibragimov, and Chagaev, or if you prefer look at Povetkin in line for a title shot, and Haye in line for a title shot. These guys fought top 10 level guys in less than 25 fights, which means they were moved quickly.


Are these guys representative though?

We could just as easily take sombody like Amir Khan or Enzo Macarinelli.

On the flip side of the coin we could find some poor sod from the 1950s who was thrown into the mincer in his first few fights.


There is also no doubt that the winning percentage of modern top ten fighters opponents is far better than the winning percentage of top ten opponents 50 years from now. The reason why again is the talent in those days simply was not good enough to hold off the journeyman to fringe contenders.


Again I dont buy it.

I think that winning percentage is a function of:

How often you fight.

Level of competition.

How good you are.

You would not find a modern fighter who had met 30+ ranked oponents in the modern era like Bob Satterfield for example. Whith that level of opposition his win loss ratio is obviously going to suffer.

Not all fighters in the 40's and 50's lacked amateur expedience. I think Charles was something like 44-1 as an amateur.

Certainly fighters like Charles and Robinson had strong amateur backgrounds.

On the flip side some guys had little or no amateur background.

[SuzieQ49]

Bob Baker had a good amatuer Background. Hence he started out his pro career 26-0. But most of the other fighters did not have a good amatuer background.

[SuzieQ49]

Just curious Mendoza....You complain so much of These men losing to "journeyman" fighters... Yet what about Wladimir Klitschko losing to THREE unrated journeyman Brewster Purrity sanders? all 3 of these men were not top 10 rated by Ring Magazine when they upset wladimir.

[hhascup]

Lavorante talented? Stop drinking. For openers your information is wrong. Lavorante wasn't 20-1 when he meet Archie Moore! Lavorante in fact lost TWICE prior to facing more, and only has 19 career victories.

His record is mostly padded. The fact that a 18-2 fighter, who lost two fights before meeting Moore to a 21-6 fighter was the #4 rated man signals a weak error of heavyweight boxing!

By the way I'm not going to look up if Lavorante was indeed #4 at heavyweight when Moore fought him. I'll take you at your word even though you had two mistakes on his record in your above post.

Lavonrante record is very padded. He did beat Folley, but his record vs the best fighters he fought in Ali, Moore, Folley, Harris was 1-3.

Lavorante later died from boxing related injuries.

I see SuzieQ has not opted to insert excuses on Parker, Valdes, or Baker leading up to their fights with Moore. Perhaps he understands that the truth and fact they were not very good at that point are starting to sink in.

Alejandro Lavorante was rated in the Top 10 by Ring from July 1961 to September 1962 (February 1963 he was rated #14 in the annual ratings), for a total of 14 months, 15 if you count February 1963. His highest rating was #4. He was rated #6 when he fought Moore.

[SuzieQ49]

Lavorante wasn't 20-1 when he meet Archie Moore!

Mendoza, You need to start re-reading the posts carefully. NEVER did I say Lavorante was 20-1. I said EMBRELL DAVIDSON was 20-1 when moore fought him. Honestly if Bob Fitzsimmons produced a one punch knockout on film vs a young 6'1 210lber the way Moore did on embrell, Mendoza would be all over that like White on Rice. But becuase it was Archie Moore who produced the knockout, he fails to compliment the knockout.

Lavorante talented?

Lavorant was 6'4 212lb and he could PUNCH. Isnt this your favorite type of fighter?

and only has 19 career victories.


Ruslan Chagaev has only 26 career victories. Archie was the one who prematurely ended lavorantes career with a devastating stoppage where lavorante had to be carried off the ring in a stretcher.

His record is mostly padded. The fact that a 18-2 fighter, who lost two fights before meeting Moore to a 21-6 fighter was the #4 rated man signals a weak error of heavyweight boxing

So your saying the heavyweight Division in the 1960s was weak?

Lavonrante record is very padded. He did beat Folley

Who has Ruslan Chagaev beaten that is as good as a Prime Zora Folley? I am waiting on your answer



I see SuzieQ has not opted to insert excuses on Parker, Valdes, or Baker leading up to their fights with Moore. Perhaps he understands that the truth and fact they were not very good at that point are starting to sink in.



Valdez was on an 11-0 Win Streak from late 1953-1955 including 3 wins over Ring Magazine top 10 including # 1 rated Ezzard Charles. Moore ended his big winning streak. Valdez was # 1 when he fought Moore. Arnt u the guy who says Valdez could have beaten the marciano who fought cockell? perhaps you should give moore more credit for this victory. Afterall in your words, Moore beat a man twice whom marciano "ducked".


Bob Baker started out his career 26-0....Same as Ruslan Chagaev. Baker beat More Ring Magazine top 10 than Chagaev did, therefore Baker gets the nod. Baker also impresses more on film than Ruslan. Baker had faster hands, better boxing skills, and a better jab than Ruslan. He also showed better stamina vs Valdez in the later rounds than I have seen Ruslan demonstrate on film.

[Mendoza]

Just curious Mendoza....You complain so much of These men losing to "journeyman" fighters... Yet what about Wladimir Klitschko losing to THREE unrated journeyman Brewster Purrity sanders? all 3 of these men were not top 10 rated by Ring Magazine when they upset wladimir.

Puritty is the only journeyman Wlad lost to. Sanders, and Brewster both have excellent ring records....far better than the numerous hacks you are tyring to prop up in these threads. :deal

Furthermore, both Sanders and Brewster beat better fighters and were alphabet champions. It seems like you are trying to suggest 210 pound fighters are big. Brewster and Sanders were bigger than this, and certainly hit harder than the guys your mentioning. Yet you give them zero praise. I take Brewster or Sanders over Parker, Valdez or Baker.

[Mendoza]

Lavorante talented? Stop drinking. For openers your information is wrong. Lavorante wasn't 20-1 when he meet Archie Moore! Lavorante in fact lost TWICE prior to facing more, and only has 19 career victories.

His record is mostly padded. The fact that a 18-2 fighter, who lost two fights before meeting Moore to a 21-6 fighter was the #4 rated man signals a weak error of heavyweight boxing!

By the way I'm not going to look up if Lavorante was indeed #4 at heavyweight when Moore fought him. I'll take you at your word even though you had two mistakes on his record in your above post.

Lavonrante record is very padded. He did beat Folley, but his record vs the best fighters he fought in Ali, Moore, Folley, Harris was 1-3.

Lavorante later died from boxing related injuries.

I see SuzieQ has not opted to insert excuses on Parker, Valdes, or Baker leading up to their fights with Moore. Perhaps he understands that the truth and fact they were not very good at that point are starting to sink in.


Alejandro Lavorante was rated in the Top 10 by Ring from July 1961 to September 1962 (February 1963 he was rated #14 in the annual ratings), for a total of 14 months, 15 if you count February 1963. His highest rating was #4. He was rated #6 when he fought Moore.

Thanks Hhascup So a guy who never won more than 19 fights, lost to journeyman, and was 1-3 vs the best fighters he fought was seen as the 4th best man? Do you think this siginals a lack of quality and depth in the top ten from 1961-1963?

[McGrain]

Chagaev has looked absolutley terrible in his run up to tomorrow, you keep insisting he's some sort of great scalp.

[SuzieQ49]

Sanders, and Brewster both have excellent ring records....far better than the numerous hacks you are tyring to prop up in these threads.

Both Sanders AND brewster were not rated in the top 10 by Ring Magazine when Wladimir Fought them. This tells us both had horrible padded record. In fact Sanders was starched out by both Nate Tubbs and Hasim Rahman. Brewster was badly shutout on the cards by journeyman clifford ettiene and charles shufford.


Your telling me a man who was shutout on the cards vs Ettiene and Shufford would beat a talented boxer like bob baker? I dont think so. Baker wide Unanimous over brewster. Horrible matchup for Lamon.


I also fully expect both baker and valdez to waste in the later rounds a journeyman in Sanders. Sanders was an one trick pony....most of the time he was just a 3 round fighter with horrible stamina, no technique, glass jaw, subpar boxing ability, and poor defense. I prefer Valdez and Baker who were consistent Ring Magazine top 5 fighters most of there career. Sanders does have the punchers chance early, but so does valdez.

[PowerPuncher]

I disagree. Top fighters should not lose often to journeyman. The top ten should have a near shut out record over non-ranked journeyman. 1 loss on the way up it ok, but if a top ten guy losses to a journeyman multiple times, he should be out of the mix.
.

Wlad lost to the following none ranked fighters: Sanders, Purrity, Brewster

Sanders lost to the following none ranked fighters: Nate Tubbs (amongst others)

Brewster lost to the following none ranked fighters: Ettiene, Shufford, Lykovich

What you don't account for is the fighters of the 50s fought more often against more ranked opposition, meaning more threat of losses. BTW whats Sanders record against ranked opposition? I think you'll find its 1-2 with his sole win against a top 10 opponent being Wlad

[SuzieQ49]

I find it funny how he claims Brewster and Sanders would wipe through Bob Baker, despite the fact Mendoza has not seen film of a Prime Bob Baker(its not hard to find)....perhaps he should purchase it before jumping to conclusions. From my own estimate, Baker was brewsters krptonite. Brewster did not fare well against technical boxers with fast hands....look what eittiene, shufford, and Seirgei Liakhovich did to him..they outboxed brewster with ease. I think Bob Baker was much better than those 3 on film. I fully expect Baker to trounce Brewster.

[OLD FOGEY]

Lavorante talented? Stop drinking. For openers your information is wrong. Lavorante wasn't 20-1 when he meet Archie Moore! Lavorante in fact lost TWICE prior to facing more, and only has 19 career victories.

His record is mostly padded. The fact that a 18-2 fighter, who lost two fights before meeting Moore to a 21-6 fighter was the #4 rated man signals a weak error of heavyweight boxing!

By the way I'm not going to look up if Lavorante was indeed #4 at heavyweight when Moore fought him. I'll take you at your word even though you had two mistakes on his record in your above post.

Lavonrante record is very padded. He did beat Folley, but his record vs the best fighters he fought in Ali, Moore, Folley, Harris was 1-3.

Lavorante later died from boxing related injuries.

I see SuzieQ has not opted to insert excuses on Parker, Valdes, or Baker leading up to their fights with Moore. Perhaps he understands that the truth and fact they were not very good at that point are starting to sink in.


"His record is mostly padded. The fact that an 18-2 fighter, who lost two fights before meeting Moore to a 21-6 fighter was a #4 rated fighter signals a weak era in heavyweight boxing."

Oh, my. Actually his record was 19-2, but:

1. Are you really going to hold the loss to Harris that much against him. Harris was a top ten heavyweight whose only loss was to Patterson in a championship match, and Harris had Patterson down. Lavorante fought Harris in his FIFTH professional fight. That is matching tough in my judgement.

2. The loss to George Logan at Boise was widely condemned as an outrageous hometown decision. Perhaps Lavorante can be criticized for not ko'ing Logan and taking it out of the hands of the judges, or for letting it be close enough to be stolen from him, but he probably won if judged fairly.

3. Lavorante had 19 wins, two more than Povetkin, who is ranked about the same today. He had ko'd Folley impressively and not only was Folley ranked highly from 1956 to the late 1960's, rising to #1 contender status twice during that period, Folley's only other losses during this long run were to top men, champions or contenders--Cooper (disputed), Liston, Jones, Terrell, Ali--other than Lavorante. I see no reason to question the high ranking given the 6' 4" Lavorante, who would still be an imposing physical specimen today.

4. I would consider Lavorante's KO of Folley more impressive than anything Povetkin has accomplished so far. Folley was a top man in his prime.

[Mendoza]

Wlad lost to the following none ranked fighters: Sanders, Purrity, Brewster

Sanders lost to the following none ranked fighters: Nate Tubbs (amongst others)

Brewster lost to the following none ranked fighters: Ettiene, Shufford, Lykovich

What you don't account for is the fighters of the 50s fought more often against more ranked opposition, meaning more threat of losses. BTW whats Sanders record against ranked opposition? I think you'll find its 1-2 with his sole win against a top 10 opponent being Wlad

I have some homework for you power puncher. Let's list the records of who Sanders and Brewster lost to, then compare and contast to the oppoents some of these 50's and 60's guys lost to.

Whatdaya think?

[SuzieQ49]

Forget Records...Think RING MAGAZINE top 10. Lamon Brewster got badly outboxed by Charles Shufford and Clifford Etttiene....Both well known Journeyman fighters. Shufford and Ettiene are not top 10 fighters. Also Sergie Liakhovic also won a wide unanimous decision over lamon brewster. Brewster cannot beat good boxers, they are his krptonite.


Brewster went into the wlad fight unrated, and his best win he had recorded up to date was against no names....His win over wlad was a HUGE upset. people thought wlad was washd up after this losss.


Bob Baker during his prime years only lost to men rated at/around the top 10. If we compare who beat more top 10 opponents between brewster and baker, Baker wins by a landslide.



Records mean nothing. If they did mean something, then you would rate Rocky Marciano much higher than you already do. Fact remains todays fighters are cuddled and protected and have much longer time to train in between bouts. Back then, heavyweight contenders were thrown in against fellow rated contenders at least one a month....imagine wladimir or vitali trying to keep up with that kind of schedule?

[Mendoza]

SuzieQ49 Forget Records...Think RING MAGAZINE top 10. Lamon Brewster got badly outboxed by Charles Shufford and Clifford Etttiene....Both well known Journeyman fighters. Shufford and Ettiene are not top 10 fighters. Also Sergie Liakhovic also won a wide unanimous decision over lamon brewster. Brewster cannot beat good boxers, they are his krptonite.

Forget records. Size excuses! Brewster did in fact beat three good boxers in Wlad, Golota and Krasniqui. Laikhovich did not have a wide decsion win over Brewster. It was close. Re-watch it sometime.



Records mean nothing. If they did mean something, then you would rate Rocky Marciano much higher than you already do. Fact remains todays fighters are cuddled and protected and have much longer time to train in between bouts. Back then, heavyweight contenders were thrown in against fellow rated contenders at least one a month....imagine wladimir or vitali trying to keep up with that kind of schedule?


There you go again. Wrong, records mean a lot. I also pay attention to primes, and cirucmstances, ability, flim, and in the heavyweight divison other things such as size and power. In Rocky's case he had extremely short arms, was short, light in weight, cut often, flouled a lot in key fights, and took nealry everythign he had to Ko slightly past their prime verisons of Chalres and Walcott. These are reasons why I think Marciano is overrated, though was still good enough overall to be an all time great.

Now back to some records.........

1 ) Big Bob Baker. About 210 pounds

-Was Ko'd by a skinny 184 pound Clarance Henry in 8
- Lost on points to a journeyman in Graham who was 27-12-2!
- Ko'd in 1 round by a 180.5 pound Bob Satterfield!
- Lost on points again to Clarance Henry.

Then he meet Archie Moore and was Ko'd. Leading up to the Moore fight
Baker lost two of his last three fights. Baker's Ko percentage is under 30%. If you follow his career, he pretty much lost to the top guys under 200 pounds. So how is this guy any good? Such a fighter could only be ranked in a weak era of heavyweight boxing.

2 ) James Parker around 205-210 pounds

- Lost to a 4-2 no name!
- KO'd in 2 to a 174 pound Buceoroni
- Ko'd in 4 by 185.5 pound Reynolds!
- Lost on points to a journeyman 30-13-2 fighter in Thrumond!
- Lost on points to Valdes
- Drew to a with Walls
- Drew to a 9-0 fighter!

Then was Ko'd by Moore and finished his career being Ko'd in 1 by Chavalo.

If Parker was ranked in the 50's its because the era lacked talent. He has no name wins, and would not be ranked in the top ten today.

3 ) Nino Valdes, about 210 pounds.

-Had a 32-9-3 record leading up to the fight with Moore, which means he had 12 bad results. This is a journeyman''s record.

-Ko'd in 3 rounds by a 1-1 fighter!
-Ko'd in 8 by a 3-4 fighter!
- Lost on points to a 20-3 fighter. no shame here.
- Ko'd in 4 by an 11-13 fighter!!!
- Lost on points to a 9-1 fighter.
- Lost to a much smaller Harold Johnson.


I dunno know about you, but I see a multiple no names and joruneyman beating these proped up 50's and 60's guys. Just accept the facts.

[OLD FOGEY]

Being 210 pounds alone doesn't make you great, and a skilled 180 pound can can in fact beat him. This is what happened with all of Archie Moore's " big opponents "

Allow me to offer a few examples to illustrate my points by examining the records of 200+ pound fighters records before and after then fought Archie Moore.

1 ) Big Bob Baker. About 210 pounds

-Was Ko'd by a skinny 184 pound Clarance Henry in 8
- Lost on points to a journeyman in Graham who was 27-12-2!
- Ko'd in 1 round by a 180.5 pound Bob Satterfield!
- Lost on points again to Clarance Henry.

Then he meet Archie Moore and was Ko'd. Leading up to the Moore fight
Baker lost two of his last three fights. Baker's Ko percentage is under 30%. If you follow his career, he pretty much lost to the top guys under 200 pounds. So how is this guy any good? Such a fighter could only be ranked in a weak era of heavyweight boxing.

2 ) James Parker around 205-210 pounds

- Lost to a 4-2 no name!
- KO'd in 2 to a 174 pound Buceoroni
- Ko'd in 4 by 185.5 pound Reynolds!
- Lost on points to a journeyman 30-13-2 fighter in Thrumond!
- Lost on points to Valdes
- Drew to a with Walls
- Drew to a 9-0 fighter!

Then was Ko'd by Moore and finished his career being Ko'd in 1 by Chavalo.

If Parker was ranked in the 50's its because the era lacked talent. He has no name wins, and would not be ranked in the top ten today.

3 ) Nino Valdes, about 210 pounds.

-Had a 32-9-3 record leading up to the fight with Moore, which means he had 12 bad results. This is a journeyman''s record.

-Ko'd in 3 rounds by a 1-1 fighter!
-Ko'd in 8 by a 3-4 fighter!
- Lost on points to a 20-3 fighter. no shame here.
- Ko'd in 4 by an 11-13 fighter!!!
- Lost on points to a 9-1 fighter.
- Lost to a much smaller Harold Johnson.

Then he lost to Moore, and lost back to back again. Total losing streak 4 fights in a row, then Valdes turned it around by beating a past his prime Ezzard Charles, and pretty much vaulted up to the #1 spot despite too many black marks on his record to mention.

Moore's first win over Valdes should wasn't that impressive. Who did Valdes beat leading up to his first match with Moore? I see a guy who failed to win a big match, and was Ko'd three times by no names, and out pointed by no names. I am not too impressed with this win.

If we were to compare these fighters to Chagaev, the following conclusions can be made. Chagaev was moved much quicker as a professional, never was Ko'd multiple times or lost multiple times on points to journeyman. In fact, he is un-defeated and look much better on film.

To compare Chagaev to these fringe contenders fighters the 50's who were around 210 pounds suggest ignorance, or in some cases bias.

Yet SuzieQ ( Maricnao and the Writers of the times refered to it as Suzy-Q ) by the way, thinks these men were so big and great.

"Chagaev was moved much quicker as a professional" "he is un-defeated and looks much better on film"

Well, let's actually compare him to Baker.

1. I don't understand the claim that Chagaev has been brought along faster. He is pushing 31 and has had 26 fights. Baker reached that point after two years as a pro and 25 years of age. Chagaev is moving like a glacier.

2. The two men were actually at exactly the same spot after 26 fights. Baker was 25-0-1 with 16 knockouts. Chagaev is 25-0-1 with 17 knockouts. Not much to chose.

a. fighters with losing records--Chagaev has fought 7 fights against fighters with losing records-Donnie Penelton (5-52), Brian Jones (2-4), Everett Martin (20-38-1), Val Smith (10-16), Sedrick Fields (20-21-1) & (21-23-1), Garing Lane 22-36-2
Baker through 26 fights had fought 2 fighters with losing records-Willie Champion (0-4) and Henry Jones (9-18-2)
Seven out of the first thirteen pro opponents Chagaev met had losing records.
b. Fighters with winning records and at least 20 victories (both men have/had met 12)
c. Fighters with winning records and at least 30 victories (4 for Chagaev-10 for Baker)
d. fighters with winning records and at least 40 victories (4 for Chagaev-six for Baker)

As you can see, Baker is competitive with Chagaev in quality of opposition even to this point. He had victories over Jimmy Bivins, Johnny Flynn, Sid Peaks, Omelio Agramonte, and Rusty Payne, who had been rated. Nothing too impressive there. Bivins was the best, but far past his prime.

For his career, Baker defeated a wide group of once rated fighters and has a ton more depth than Chagaev has, even though Chagaev is the same age as Baker was in 1957. Over his career, Baker defeated Marty Marshall, Sid Peaks, Omelio Agramonte, Bill Gilliam, Cesar Brion, Nino Valdes, Joe Baksi, Jimmy Slade, Coley Wallace, Rex Layne, John Holman, George Chuvalo, Dick Richardson, Johnny Flynn, and Rusty Payne.

Evaluation--Baker, in my judgement, was not one of the top ten heavies of the fifties (Charles, Walcott, Marciano, Patterson, Johansson, Liston, Moore, Johnson, Machen, Henry). I think he could rate somewhere between #8 and #10 if you cut it down to just the 1950-1954 period. (I will let you judge where Chagaev rates in the 2000-2009 period) What I would notice about Baker's victories is that no one was really a top man at the time he defeated them, except perhaps Valdes and even he is debatable. Most were career second stringers (Wallace), obviously past their best (Bivins, Layne, Baksi), or green (Chuvalo). When he stepped up against top men, Moore and Henry, or even Jackson, he lost.

Chagaev I would rate a little higher as I am somewhat more impressed by his wins over Valuev and Ruiz than with anything Baker did. But only at the margin. The key here is what happens with Wlad. A victory or a strong performance and Chagaev leaves Baker far behind. If he gets blown out or dominated, I would consider him at about Baker's level, a policeman type good enough to beat second tier contenders but a solid level below the top men.

What do I think will happen? I look for Wlad to win easily, but perhaps Chagaev will prove me wrong.

As for how Chagaev does in the fifties--we will never know, but Baker was a taller man and probably in the same shape heavier. Chagaev would not have awed anyone with his physical tools back then. Watching film, I would say Baker is faster afoot and has quicker hands, but only marginally.

[SuzieQ49]

"Chagaev was moved much quicker as a professional" "he is un-defeated and looks much better on film"



How can you make this accusation Mendoza when you have yet to see Bob Baker on film in his prime? Also you have only seen ONE fight of Nino Valdez on film, so how can you make an accurate judgement on him? until you at least see 2-3 fights of both Baker and Valdez on film, then dont make comments on how Chagaev looks better. I once called you out to order Valdez vs Hurricane Jackson, Valdez best knockout. You never watched it. How can you make an accurate assessment of baker and valdez without watching there best stuff? Imagine if you picked out ruslans worst fight up to date and watched ONLY that fight, thats pretty much what your doing with baker and valdez.

[SuzieQ49]

What I would notice about Baker's victories is that no one was really a top man at the time he defeated them, except perhaps Valdes and even he is debatable

I would call this a top win. He won two WIDE decisions over Valdez who managed to Crack the # 1 ranking in between the losses to baker. Bakers 2nd victory over Valdez was a final title eliminator. So in fact Baker had a case for a title shot vs marciano in early 1956. Baker did lose to Jackson in another title eliminator for the right to face patterson....but it was considered an overwhelming robbery. AP scored the fight 8 rounds to 3 with 1 even in favor of Bob Baker. Cus Damato actually told floyd patterson "when your ready to fight heavyweights ill tell you, but never against a guy like baker."


I dont know if you have seen Bakers first win over Valdez, but it was quite impressive. Baker took punishment early on from valdez fantastic jab, then battled back and completley outboxed, outsmarted, and outworked nino down the stretch for the clear win.

[OLD FOGEY]

I would call this a top win. He won two WIDE decisions over Valdez who managed to Crack the # 1 ranking in between the losses to baker. Bakers 2nd victory over Valdez was a final title eliminator. So in fact Baker had a case for a title shot vs marciano in early 1956. Baker did lose to Jackson in another title eliminator for the right to face patterson....but it was considered an overwhelming robbery. AP scored the fight 8 rounds to 3 with 1 even in favor of Bob Baker. Cus Damato actually told floyd patterson "when your ready to fight heavyweights ill tell you, but never against a guy like baker."


I dont know if you have seen Bakers first win over Valdez, but it was quite impressive. Baker took punishment early on from valdez fantastic jab, then battled back and completley outboxed, outsmarted, and outworked nino down the stretch for the clear win.

I have seen the Valdes fight.

No matter how you cut it, Valdes was losing to all kinds of other people around the same time--Moore, Satterfield, Machen, Folley. Valdes lost more decisively to Satterfield than to Baker and Satterfield also blew out Baker in one.

[OLD FOGEY]

Of course. But some people here feel that because Charles or Moore beat so and so, it makes so an so a great fighter.

That is not the case. A divisions top ten should not have multiple losses to journeyman, and padded records. Yet in the 40's to mid 50's that was most certainly the case.

Furthermore many of those who populated the top ten were Ko'd too often....sometimes by lesser puncher types. There were a few 210 pounders, but as the record here shows the weight alone did not make them top tier.

"Furthermore many of those who populated the top ten were ko'd too often"

Well, lets check it. I have the Ring Magazine with the yearly rankings for 1951 (Feb, 1952)--They were 17 heavyweights rated in order before going into class A.

Here are those rankings and the number of ko's these fighters had suffered to that time (Jan 1, 1952) in their careers.

1---Jersey Joe Walcott (4 ko's in 68 fights)
2---Ezzard Charles (2 ko's in 79 fights)
3---Rocky Marciano (0 ko's in 38 fights)
4---Clarence Henry (1 ko in 32 fights)
5---Roland LaStarza (0 ko's in 49 fights)
6---Joe Louis (2 ko's in 71 fights)
7---Bob Baker (1 ko in 27 fights)
8---Cesar Brion (0 ko in 39 fights)
9---Rex Layne (2 ko's in 39 fights)
10--Hein Ten Hoff (0 ko's in 27 fights)
11--Joe Baksi (1 ko in 70 fights)
12--Johnny Williams (2 ko's in 54 fights)
13--Jack Gardner (1 ko in 26 fights)
14--Omelio Agramonte (6 ko's in 57 fights)
15--Karel Sys (1 ko in 126 fights)
16--Gene Jones (4 ko's in 53 fights)
17--Jimmy Bivins (5 ko's in 101 fights)

Total 32 ko's in 956 fights or 3.3% total

This is the current ratings and records taken from boxrec yesterday

1---Vitali Klitschko (2 ko's in 39 fights)
2---Wladimir Klitschko (3 ko's in 55 fights)
3---Ruslan Chagaev (0 ko's in 26 fights)
4---David Haye (1 ko in 22 fights)
5---Nicolay Valuev (0 ko's in 51 fights)
6---Alexander Povetkin (0 ko's in 17 fights)
7---John Ruiz (1 ko in 53 fights)
8---Eddie Chambers (0 ko's in 35 fights)
9---Juan Carlos Gomez (2 ko's in 47 fights)
10--Alexander Dimitrenko (0 ko's in 29 fights)
11--Samuel Peter (1 ko in 33 fights)
12--Tony Thompson (1 ko in 34 fights)
13--Chris Arreola (0 ko's in 27 fights)
14--Oleg Maskaev (6 ko's in 42 fights)
15--Denis Boytsov (0 ko's in 25 fights)
16--Lamon Brewster (1 ko in 39 fights)
17--Hasim Rahman (5 ko's in 55 fights)

Total 23 ko's in 627 fights or 3.7% total

So the rated contenders of today actually have a slightly higher percentage of ko defeats than those of Jan 1, 1952.

A. Vitali and Wlad Klitschko have suffered 5 ko defeats in 94 fights, or about 1 every 19 fights. Walcott and Charles had suffered 6 ko defeats in 147 fights, or 1 every 24 fights. Walcott and Charles on the whole were slightly more durable than the Klitschko brothers.

B. The worst chin on either list belongs to Oleg Maskaev with 6 ko losses in 42 bouts or 1 every 7 fights.

C. There is one area in which the modern fighters have an edge. Seven of them have never been knocked out, with Valuev leading with 51 fights. The seven average 30 fights each. The 1952 crew has only four who were never knocked out. They averaged 38 fights each.

Just as an aside, because I noticed it, three out of the seventeen 1952 fighters were over 35--Walcott, Louis, and Sys. Eight out of the seventeen current fighters are over 35. The top man in each case, Walcott and Vitali, is 37. The average age of the current crop is 32. The average age of the 1952 group is 29. If you take the soon to retire Louis out and replace him with the next to appear contender, Coley Wallace, the average age drops to 28.
Of the current top 25 contenders on boxrec, 12 are over 35.

[SuzieQ49]

Great Statistics. Your very good at that.

[Mendoza]

"Furthermore many of those who populated the top ten were ko'd too often"

Well, lets check it. I have the Ring Magazine with the yearly rankings for 1951 (Feb, 1952)--They were 17 heavyweights rated in order before going into class A.

Here are those rankings and the number of ko's these fighters had suffered to that time (Jan 1, 1952) in their careers.

1---Jersey Joe Walcott (4 ko's in 68 fights)
2---Ezzard Charles (2 ko's in 79 fights)
3---Rocky Marciano (0 ko's in 38 fights)
4---Clarence Henry (1 ko in 32 fights)
5---Roland LaStarza (0 ko's in 49 fights)
6---Joe Louis (2 ko's in 71 fights)
7---Bob Baker (1 ko in 27 fights)
8---Cesar Brion (0 ko in 39 fights)
9---Rex Layne (2 ko's in 39 fights)
10--Hein Ten Hoff (0 ko's in 27 fights)
11--Joe Baksi (1 ko in 70 fights)
12--Johnny Williams (2 ko's in 54 fights)
13--Jack Gardner (1 ko in 26 fights)
14--Omelio Agramonte (6 ko's in 57 fights)
15--Karel Sys (1 ko in 126 fights)
16--Gene Jones (4 ko's in 53 fights)
17--Jimmy Bivins (5 ko's in 101 fights)

Total 32 ko's in 956 fights or 3.3% total

This is the current ratings and records taken from boxrec yesterday

1---Vitali Klitschko (2 ko's in 39 fights)
2---Wladimir Klitschko (3 ko's in 55 fights)
3---Ruslan Chagaev (0 ko's in 26 fights)
4---David Haye (1 ko in 22 fights)
5---Nicolay Valuev (0 ko's in 51 fights)
6---Alexander Povetkin (0 ko's in 17 fights)
7---John Ruiz (1 ko in 53 fights)
8---Eddie Chambers (0 ko's in 35 fights)
9---Juan Carlos Gomez (2 ko's in 47 fights)
10--Alexander Dimitrenko (0 ko's in 29 fights)
11--Samuel Peter (1 ko in 33 fights)
12--Tony Thompson (1 ko in 34 fights)
13--Chris Arreola (0 ko's in 27 fights)
14--Oleg Maskaev (6 ko's in 42 fights)
15--Denis Boytsov (0 ko's in 25 fights)
16--Lamon Brewster (1 ko in 39 fights)
17--Hasim Rahman (5 ko's in 55 fights)

Total 23 ko's in 627 fights or 3.7% total

So the rated contenders of today actually have a slightly higher percentage of ko defeats than those of Jan 1, 1952.

A. Vitali and Wlad Klitschko have suffered 5 ko defeats in 94 fights, or about 1 every 19 fights. Walcott and Charles had suffered 6 ko defeats in 147 fights, or 1 every 24 fights. Walcott and Charles on the whole were slightly more durable than the Klitschko brothers.

B. The worst chin on either list belongs to Oleg Maskaev with 6 ko losses in 42 bouts or 1 every 7 fights.

C. There is one area in which the modern fighters have an edge. Seven of them have never been knocked out, with Valuev leading with 51 fights. The seven average 30 fights each. The 1952 crew has only four who were never knocked out. They averaged 38 fights each.

Just as an aside, because I noticed it, three out of the seventeen 1952 fighters were over 35--Walcott, Louis, and Sys. Eight out of the seventeen current fighters are over 35. The top man in each case, Walcott and Vitali, is 37. The average age of the current crop is 32. The average age of the 1952 group is 29. If you take the soon to retire Louis out and replace him with the next to appear contender, Coley Wallace, the average age drops to 28.
Of the current top 25 contenders on boxrec, 12 are over 35.

Intersting numbers. Thanks for the work.

A few things to add here.

The modern era has much better punchers. Its not even close. Compare the KO % or the size differnce in the fighters.

It seems like the 1951-1952 crowd would have far more Ko's against if you changed the years from 1954-1955. I suspect the tides would change significantly as fighters tend to get Ko'd more often as they age....and the 2009 group as you mentioned is older on average.

A point I have made before is top ten rated guys from 1950-1960 seem to have been stopped far more frequently and lost to joruneyman more often than their modern counterparts.

The only two dangerous punchers on the list from the 50's were Marciano and Louis. However if you look at the 2009 list, guys like Klitschko,Klitschko, Peter, Maskeav, Boystov, Chagaev, Haye, Arreola, Brewster, and Rhaman are all legit Ko punchers.

[mcvey]

"Furthermore many of those who populated the top ten were ko'd too often"

Well, lets check it. I have the Ring Magazine with the yearly rankings for 1951 (Feb, 1952)--They were 17 heavyweights rated in order before going into class A.

Here are those rankings and the number of ko's these fighters had suffered to that time (Jan 1, 1952) in their careers.

1---Jersey Joe Walcott (4 ko's in 68 fights)
2---Ezzard Charles (2 ko's in 79 fights)
3---Rocky Marciano (0 ko's in 38 fights)
4---Clarence Henry (1 ko in 32 fights)
5---Roland LaStarza (0 ko's in 49 fights)
6---Joe Louis (2 ko's in 71 fights)
7---Bob Baker (1 ko in 27 fights)
8---Cesar Brion (0 ko in 39 fights)
9---Rex Layne (2 ko's in 39 fights)
10--Hein Ten Hoff (0 ko's in 27 fights)
11--Joe Baksi (1 ko in 70 fights)
12--Johnny Williams (2 ko's in 54 fights)
13--Jack Gardner (1 ko in 26 fights)
14--Omelio Agramonte (6 ko's in 57 fights)
15--Karel Sys (1 ko in 126 fights)
16--Gene Jones (4 ko's in 53 fights)
17--Jimmy Bivins (5 ko's in 101 fights)

Total 32 ko's in 956 fights or 3.3% total

This is the current ratings and records taken from boxrec yesterday

1---Vitali Klitschko (2 ko's in 39 fights)
2---Wladimir Klitschko (3 ko's in 55 fights)
3---Ruslan Chagaev (0 ko's in 26 fights)
4---David Haye (1 ko in 22 fights)
5---Nicolay Valuev (0 ko's in 51 fights)
6---Alexander Povetkin (0 ko's in 17 fights)
7---John Ruiz (1 ko in 53 fights)
8---Eddie Chambers (0 ko's in 35 fights)
9---Juan Carlos Gomez (2 ko's in 47 fights)
10--Alexander Dimitrenko (0 ko's in 29 fights)
11--Samuel Peter (1 ko in 33 fights)
12--Tony Thompson (1 ko in 34 fights)
13--Chris Arreola (0 ko's in 27 fights)
14--Oleg Maskaev (6 ko's in 42 fights)
15--Denis Boytsov (0 ko's in 25 fights)
16--Lamon Brewster (1 ko in 39 fights)
17--Hasim Rahman (5 ko's in 55 fights)

Total 23 ko's in 627 fights or 3.7% total

So the rated contenders of today actually have a slightly higher percentage of ko defeats than those of Jan 1, 1952.

A. Vitali and Wlad Klitschko have suffered 5 ko defeats in 94 fights, or about 1 every 19 fights. Walcott and Charles had suffered 6 ko defeats in 147 fights, or 1 every 24 fights. Walcott and Charles on the whole were slightly more durable than the Klitschko brothers.

B. The worst chin on either list belongs to Oleg Maskaev with 6 ko losses in 42 bouts or 1 every 7 fights.

C. There is one area in which the modern fighters have an edge. Seven of them have never been knocked out, with Valuev leading with 51 fights. The seven average 30 fights each. The 1952 crew has only four who were never knocked out. They averaged 38 fights each.

Just as an aside, because I noticed it, three out of the seventeen 1952 fighters were over 35--Walcott, Louis, and Sys. Eight out of the seventeen current fighters are over 35. The top man in each case, Walcott and Vitali, is 37. The average age of the current crop is 32. The average age of the 1952 group is 29. If you take the soon to retire Louis out and replace him with the next to appear contender, Coley Wallace, the average age drops to 28.
Of the current top 25 contenders on boxrec, 12 are over 35.
I'm glad I'm not on the opposite end of this argument because I think you just scored a killing blow:good
You have the facility of being able to present facts to their optimum advantage,I take my hat off to you!

[SuzieQ49]

The only two dangerous punchers on the list from the 50's were Marciano and Louis. However if you look at the 2009 list, guys like Klitschko,Klitschko, Peter, Maskeav, Boystov, Chagaev, Haye, Arreola, Brewster, and Rhaman are all legit Ko punchers.

Clarence Henry not a dangerous puncher? Film tells a different story as do contemporary reports. John Garfield once described Henry as a "electrifying heavy puncher with a knockout blow in both fists". I think he also incorporated Lightning in there to describe Henry as a puncher.

Also Rex Layne deserves to be mentioned as a dangerous puncher

Heres what John Garfield had to say about Layne

"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down.

But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of piss and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right."



"Layne looms as the outstanding prospect west of the
Mississippi. He is a hard hitter... Layne has what it takes to be developed
into the next world heavyweight king. He can hit and has an abundance of
courage." - Nat Fleischer wrote in 1951



If your going to list Oleg Maskaev and Dennis Boystov, surely you can list these men.

[Mendoza]

I'm glad I'm not on the opposite end of this argument because I think you just scored a killing blow:good
You have the facility of being able to present facts to their optimum advantage,I take my hat off to you!

Like I said, change the dates from 1954-1955, and I think I am correct by an even bigger margin thna OLD FOGEY's intal data.

As OLD FOGEY mentioned the modern group has an older average age. When the names OLD FOGEY used aged, they were Ko'd multiple times for the most part. :deal In some cases even more than Maskeav.

For example by 1955 add the following KO losses to OLD FOGEY's group.

Charles 2x more
Layne 4x more!
Baker 2x more
Walcott 2x more
Louis 1x more
Hoff 3x more
Lastarza 2x more
Brion 1x more ( I think Brion had a good chin )

.....I think you get the point by now.

Or compare the KO% percentages scored of the groups, and I am also correct by bigger margin.:deal

Or count the amount of losses to journeyman and I am also correct. :deal

Its a clean 1-2-3- sweep.

[mcvey]

Like I said, change the dates from 1954-1955, and I think I am correct by an even bigger margin thna OLD FOGEY's intal data.

As OLD FOGEY mentioned the modern group has an older average age. When the names OLD FOGEY used aged, they were Ko'd multiple times for the most part. :deal In some cases even more than Maskeav.

For example by 1955 add the following KO losses to OLD FOGEY's group.

Charles 2x more
Layne 4x more!
Baker 2x more
Walcott 2x more
Louis 1x more
Hoff 3x more
Lastarza 2x more
Brion 1x more ( I think Brion had a good chin )

.....I think you get the point by now.

Or compare the KO% percentages scored of the groups, and I am also correct by bigger margin.:deal

Or count the amount of losses to journeyman and I am also correct. :deal

Its a clean 1-2-3- sweep.

"You think I get the point by now"
You arrogant pompous piece of ****

You include Walcott, whose last two fights were against all time puncher Marciano,and whose career was over by 1953.
Charles who was effectively finished as a top liner by 54.
Layne who like Charles was ruined by Marciano in 51
And Baker who hit the skids after a strong run up to 55.
Your selective date picking is like you, a ******* joke .
And all done to bolster up a challenger, so your current hero Wlad looks good if he blows him away.
Same as inflating Corbett's record changing exhibitions over 2-3 and 4 rds to actual fights to try and make Jeffries look better.
You sad sack of turd.
You distort the truth so much you wouldnt recognize it if it jumped up and smacked you in your smug conceited face.

[McGrain]

"Furthermore many of those who populated the top ten were ko'd too often"

Well, lets check it. I have the Ring Magazine with the yearly rankings for 1951 (Feb, 1952)--They were 17 heavyweights rated in order before going into class A.

Here are those rankings and the number of ko's these fighters had suffered to that time (Jan 1, 1952) in their careers.

1---Jersey Joe Walcott (4 ko's in 68 fights)
2---Ezzard Charles (2 ko's in 79 fights)
3---Rocky Marciano (0 ko's in 38 fights)
4---Clarence Henry (1 ko in 32 fights)
5---Roland LaStarza (0 ko's in 49 fights)
6---Joe Louis (2 ko's in 71 fights)
7---Bob Baker (1 ko in 27 fights)
8---Cesar Brion (0 ko in 39 fights)
9---Rex Layne (2 ko's in 39 fights)
10--Hein Ten Hoff (0 ko's in 27 fights)
11--Joe Baksi (1 ko in 70 fights)
12--Johnny Williams (2 ko's in 54 fights)
13--Jack Gardner (1 ko in 26 fights)
14--Omelio Agramonte (6 ko's in 57 fights)
15--Karel Sys (1 ko in 126 fights)
16--Gene Jones (4 ko's in 53 fights)
17--Jimmy Bivins (5 ko's in 101 fights)

Total 32 ko's in 956 fights or 3.3% total

This is the current ratings and records taken from boxrec yesterday

1---Vitali Klitschko (2 ko's in 39 fights)
2---Wladimir Klitschko (3 ko's in 55 fights)
3---Ruslan Chagaev (0 ko's in 26 fights)
4---David Haye (1 ko in 22 fights)
5---Nicolay Valuev (0 ko's in 51 fights)
6---Alexander Povetkin (0 ko's in 17 fights)
7---John Ruiz (1 ko in 53 fights)
8---Eddie Chambers (0 ko's in 35 fights)
9---Juan Carlos Gomez (2 ko's in 47 fights)
10--Alexander Dimitrenko (0 ko's in 29 fights)
11--Samuel Peter (1 ko in 33 fights)
12--Tony Thompson (1 ko in 34 fights)
13--Chris Arreola (0 ko's in 27 fights)
14--Oleg Maskaev (6 ko's in 42 fights)
15--Denis Boytsov (0 ko's in 25 fights)
16--Lamon Brewster (1 ko in 39 fights)
17--Hasim Rahman (5 ko's in 55 fights)

Total 23 ko's in 627 fights or 3.7% total

So the rated contenders of today actually have a slightly higher percentage of ko defeats than those of Jan 1, 1952.

A. Vitali and Wlad Klitschko have suffered 5 ko defeats in 94 fights, or about 1 every 19 fights. Walcott and Charles had suffered 6 ko defeats in 147 fights, or 1 every 24 fights. Walcott and Charles on the whole were slightly more durable than the Klitschko brothers.

B. The worst chin on either list belongs to Oleg Maskaev with 6 ko losses in 42 bouts or 1 every 7 fights.

C. There is one area in which the modern fighters have an edge. Seven of them have never been knocked out, with Valuev leading with 51 fights. The seven average 30 fights each. The 1952 crew has only four who were never knocked out. They averaged 38 fights each.

Just as an aside, because I noticed it, three out of the seventeen 1952 fighters were over 35--Walcott, Louis, and Sys. Eight out of the seventeen current fighters are over 35. The top man in each case, Walcott and Vitali, is 37. The average age of the current crop is 32. The average age of the 1952 group is 29. If you take the soon to retire Louis out and replace him with the next to appear contender, Coley Wallace, the average age drops to 28.
Of the current top 25 contenders on boxrec, 12 are over 35.


Great stuff. Nobody crunches the numbers like you chum.

[SuzieQ49]

You include Walcott, whose last two fights were against all time puncher Marciano,and whose career was over by 1953.
Charles who was effectively finished as a top liner by 54.
Layne who like Charles was ruined by Marciano in 51
And Baker who hit the skids after a strong run up to 55.
Your selective date picking is like you, a ******* joke .
And all done to bolster up a challenger, so your current hero Wlad looks good if he blows him away.
Same as inflating Corbett's record changing exhibitions over 2-3 and 4 rds to actual fights to try and make Jeffries look better.
You sad sack of turd.
You distort the truth so much you wouldnt recognize it if it jumped up and smacked you in your smug conceited face.


Its pathetic isnt it Mcvey? What do you expect though. I have spoken to others...he has been repeating the same stuff on this and other forums for the past TEN years!

[mcvey]

Its pathetic isnt it Mcvey? What do you expect though. I have spoken to others...he has been repeating the same stuff on this and other forums for the past TEN years!

Well my opinion of him is no secret, but when other posters take him to task , you would think he would drop the spin and tell it like it is I think I'll sit the rest of this thread out ,the condescending *** * winds me up in spite of myself.

[Mendoza]

"You think I get the point by now"
You arrogant pompous piece of ****

You include Walcott, whose last two fights were against all time puncher Marciano,and whose career was over by 1953.
Charles who was effectively finished as a top liner by 54.
Layne who like Charles was ruined by Marciano in 51
And Baker who hit the skids after a strong run up to 55.
Your selective date picking is like you, a ******* joke .
And all done to bolster up a challenger, so your current hero Wlad looks good if he blows him away.
Same as inflating Corbett's record changing exhibitions over 2-3 and 4 rds to actual fights to try and make Jeffries look better.
You sad sack of turd.
You distort the truth so much you wouldnt recognize it if it jumped up and smacked you in your smug conceited face.

Hey bozo,

Its obvious you don't care for me. But if you cheer one poster for cherry picking dates than trash another you lose your own credibility. You are not winning with words here. As usual you try to spin the topic to something else. How predictable. I merely poitned out that Old Fogey's post used older ages of modern fighters in Maskeav and Rhaman, so why not even it up by making the field age a bit too?

I tell you what Mr. alleged I have a 137 IQ, why don't we compare the KO% percentages, the amount of times the fighters were stopped, the winning percentages, and the amount of times they lost to journeyman from the 1950's-1959 and from 2000-2009, and see which group looks better!

I'll own you in this debate. Here's your chance to show us your alleged superior intellect, and take the smug from my face. Dead to rights. I own you.

End.

[OLD FOGEY]

There seems to be more heat than light here and I don't have much time right now to post and none to do statistical studies, but I want to say I did not "cherry-pick" a date. You just have to accept my word that I did January 1, 1952 because I had the Ring Magazine with the extended ratings for that date and could go down further than the top ten. That seemed to make sense to me. I did not have the extended ratings for any other year at hand.

I will try to do the top ten for some other years when I get the time. Doing the old guys is time-consuming because I have to look up what their records were and how many times they had been stopped at a given date. I will arbitrarily pick a year from the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, etc and see what I get. I may try to do their positive KO percentages also while I am at it.

[Marciano Frazier]

Being 210 pounds alone doesn't make you great, and a skilled 180 pound can can in fact beat him. This is what happened with all of Archie Moore's " big opponents "

Allow me to offer a few examples to illustrate my points by examining the records of 200+ pound fighters records before and after then fought Archie Moore.

1 ) Big Bob Baker. About 210 pounds

-Was Ko'd by a skinny 184 pound Clarance Henry in 8
- Lost on points to a journeyman in Graham who was 27-12-2!
- Ko'd in 1 round by a 180.5 pound Bob Satterfield!
- Lost on points again to Clarance Henry.

Then he meet Archie Moore and was Ko'd. Leading up to the Moore fight
Baker lost two of his last three fights. Baker's Ko percentage is under 30%. If you follow his career, he pretty much lost to the top guys under 200 pounds. So how is this guy any good? Such a fighter could only be ranked in a weak era of heavyweight boxing.

2 ) James Parker around 205-210 pounds

- Lost to a 4-2 no name!
- KO'd in 2 to a 174 pound Buceoroni
- Ko'd in 4 by 185.5 pound Reynolds!
- Lost on points to a journeyman 30-13-2 fighter in Thrumond!
- Lost on points to Valdes
- Drew to a with Walls
- Drew to a 9-0 fighter!

Then was Ko'd by Moore and finished his career being Ko'd in 1 by Chavalo.

If Parker was ranked in the 50's its because the era lacked talent. He has no name wins, and would not be ranked in the top ten today.

3 ) Nino Valdes, about 210 pounds.

-Had a 32-9-3 record leading up to the fight with Moore, which means he had 12 bad results. This is a journeyman''s record.

-Ko'd in 3 rounds by a 1-1 fighter!
-Ko'd in 8 by a 3-4 fighter!
- Lost on points to a 20-3 fighter. no shame here.
- Ko'd in 4 by an 11-13 fighter!!!
- Lost on points to a 9-1 fighter.
- Lost to a much smaller Harold Johnson.

Then he lost to Moore, and lost back to back again. Total losing streak 4 fights in a row, then Valdes turned it around by beating a past his prime Ezzard Charles, and pretty much vaulted up to the #1 spot despite too many black marks on his record to mention.

Moore's first win over Valdes should wasn't that impressive. Who did Valdes beat leading up to his first match with Moore? I see a guy who failed to win a big match, and was Ko'd three times by no names, and out pointed by no names. I am not too impressed with this win.

If we were to compare these fighters to Chagaev, the following conclusions can be made. Chagaev was moved much quicker as a professional, never was Ko'd multiple times or lost multiple times on points to journeyman. In fact, he is un-defeated and look much better on film.

To compare Chagaev to these fringe contenders fighters the 50's who were around 210 pounds suggest ignorance, or in some cases bias.

Yet SuzieQ ( Maricnao and the Writers of the times refered to it as Suzy-Q ) by the way, thinks these men were so big and great.
This is a bit of Revolver-style "historical fighter assassination" on your part, here. For the most part, your statements (shallow and superficial as they may be) are accurate, but there are some errors, and some of your conclusions are questionable.
As you no doubt know full well by now, nearly all historical contenders (pre-1960, let's say) had blemished records, in an in which fighters were not corporate-backed brands the way they are now. If you're really going to indict all these guys for their blemishes as "only contenders in a weak era," you'll have to throw nearly all the contenders of that era and earlier under the bus along with them- you want to count the blemishes on Sam Langford's record and tell me these arguments couldn't apply just as well to him?

Second, I'd like to point out that Valdes did not simply "vault" to the #1 spot with his win over Charles. He was promoted to #3-4 in the NYSAC and RING rankings as a result of that victory, then rose to the #1 spot by the end of the year as a result of his win over Heinz Neuhaus (German champ and top 10 at the time) along with the coinciding floundering of another top fighter or two.

With regards to Baker, you are framing matters misleadingly as concerns his record. Baker lost one split decision in five fights against the (*gasp*) 27-12-2 Gilliam, who was a pretty fair fighter- an experienced, skilled, durable full-sized heavyweight- and beat more than one other noteworthy name in his time. And as a matter of fact, following Baker's record with a method other than scanning for red marks, you'll see that in his prime he gave as well as or better than he took against most of the other contenders around, with wins over Valdes, Bivins, Layne, Brion, Baksi, etc., even a UD while over-the-hill off a young George Chuvalo.

As for Parker, his wins over Arthur and Neuhaus in his last two fights before facing Moore both represented legitimately noteworthy scalps, those guys being (recent) former top 10 fighters. I believe Parker only peeked into the top 10, achieving a career high of about #9 in the RING rankings, but he was at the least a solid gatekeeper in his own time, and was a full-sized, powerful heavyweight.

These guys were not legends, but they were legitimately good fighters (particularly Valdes and Baker), and I do think the fact that Moore handled them so consistently and typically so dominantly is significant in weighing his standing in comparison with a guy like Chagaev, although I acknowledge Chagaev is likely better than any of these men.

[Marciano Frazier]

Intersting numbers. Thanks for the work.

A few things to add here.

The modern era has much better punchers. Its not even close. Compare the KO % or the size differnce in the fighters.

It seems like the 1951-1952 crowd would have far more Ko's against if you changed the years from 1954-1955. I suspect the tides would change significantly as fighters tend to get Ko'd more often as they age....and the 2009 group as you mentioned is older on average.

A point I have made before is top ten rated guys from 1950-1960 seem to have been stopped far more frequently and lost to joruneyman more often than their modern counterparts.

The only two dangerous punchers on the list from the 50's were Marciano and Louis. However if you look at the 2009 list, guys like Klitschko,Klitschko, Peter, Maskeav, Boystov, Chagaev, Haye, Arreola, Brewster, and Rhaman are all legit Ko punchers.
You're correct that the 1952 ranked fighters would go on to suffer more KO losses by '55, but they also tended to drop out of the rankings as they did so- for example, Walcott did suffer two subsequent KO losses, but he retired and was not ranked by 1954, just as Layne suffered four more, but accordingly dropped out of the rankings for most of these years. "Yeah, let's take the fighters ranked in 1952, but we'll look at their records through 1955 to judge their standing in 1952" is hardly a sound argument. Certainly we aren't looking at the top 10 of today and projecting how many KO losses they'll have three years from now (when they likely will not be the top 10 anymore anyway).

Rather, we would have to look at the fighters ranked in 1955 and the composition of their records at that date, rather than where the guys who had been ranked in '52, who were a substantially different group, were by '55. In fact, upon a cursory examination of the 1955 rankings as compared with the aforementioned '52 ones, out of the 11 fighters (champion and 10 contenders) comprising the main standings, only three of the same men were ranked in 1955 who had been in '52- Marciano, Charles (who was hanging onto a #10 spot by a thread at this point, and may not have merited that) and Baker. The other eight were different.