My 1950-1955 Heavyweight styles mini article....Please Enjoy

[SuzieQ49]

1950-1955 Heavyweight Division....how do you think this rates compares to other eras?

Part I

Here is how the top 10 rate

1. Rocky Marciano- 9-0 Record against top 12
2. Jersey Joe Walcott- 3-5 record against top 12(including louis robbery)
3. Ezzard Charles- 8-7 record against top 12
4. Archie Moore- 9-5 record against top 12
5. Harold Johnson- 5-6 record against top 12
6. Joe Louis- 3-2 record against top 12
7. Clarence Henry- 3-2 record against top 12
8. Bob Baker- 4-4 record against top 12
9. Nino Valdez- 1-7 record against top 12
10. Rex Layne- 3-6 record against top 12
11. Roland Lastarza - 1-2 record against top 12
12. Bob Satterfield- 3-5 record against top 12

HM: Tommy Hurricane Jackson- 7-1 record against top 12

Interesting Stat of the day:

* Incidently Tommy Hurricane Jackson who I left off the list, sports an amazing 7-1 record against the following men in the top 12. what is not known is out of these 7 victories, all 7 were against men who were completley shot fighters or fights that were robberies.


While Nino Valdez is 1-7 record against men in the top 12 and rates # 9 in my top 12, Hurricane Jackson who I left off my top 12 is 7-1 against men in the top 12. Yet Nino Valdez utterly destroyed hurricane jackson in 2 onesided rounds. What are the morales of the story? Records are deceiving and styles make fights.





Question: What fights of the following 12 fighters have you seen in there primes?


Size

Rocky Marciaono- 5'11 185lb 68"

Jersey Joe Walcott- 6'0 197lbb 74"

Ezzard Charles- 6'0 180lb 74"

Archie Moore - 5'11 185lb 76"

Harold Johnson- 5'10 178lb

Joe Louis - 6'2 215lb 76"

Clarence Henry - 6'1 185lb

Bob Baker- 6'2 220lb 80"

Nino Valdez- 6'3 210lb 80"

Rex Layne- 6'1 200lb 76"

Roland Lastarza- 6'0 190lb

Bob Satterfield- 5'10 180lb




Style



Classic Boxer/Puncher: Joe Louis and Clarence Henry

Defensive Counterpuncher: Roland Lastarza and Harold Johnson

Punching Swarmer: Rocky Marciano and Rex Layne

Standup Slugger: Nino Valdez and Bob Satterfield

Slick Technician Punchers: Jersey Joe Walcott and Archie Moore

Stick and Move Master Boxer: Ezzard Charles


HM: Unorthodox Spoiler: Hurricane Jackson




The Jab


1950-1955 had a strong era in heavyweight history for Jabbers. The Jab is a vital piece of winning a fight. The Jab is used both offensivley to score points, defensivley to keep your opponent off you, and to control the tempo of the fight.

Jabbers:


Nino Valdez: Quite the Jab. It was long(80") it was sharp and very powerful, and heavy with 6'3 210lb behind it. it was used often to outbox a still dangerous ezzard charles in 1953. Charles claimed after the fight he was suprised by how good the Cuban's Jab was. Archie Moores eye was swollen shut after going 15 with valdez because of the jab. Tough Englishmen Don Cockell got carved up in 2 rounds by Valdez jab. Not many if any men of that era could outjab valdez, his jab was too long too powerful too accurate.

Joe Louis: His best Weapon during his comeback, and alongside Valdez the best heavyweight jab of that era. At 6'2 215lb he packed alot of heat behind it. Louis jab was extremley accurate, very elegant, and very active. He jabbed Peak Versions of Marciano and Chalres faces apart leaving them with welts all over there faces. Charles said louis jab felt like a telephone pole, marciano claimed louis jab was like getting hit by a hammer. Young Youthful rated boxers like agramonte brion bivins got picked apart by old man louis jab. The Times described louis jab in 1951 as "Louis would work at long range blinding his foes with a snappy jarring left jab." Combining his size with his jab in 1950-1951, it made it extremeley hard for the smaller heavyweights of that era to beat him. He threw it with perfect technique. When you throw the jab you tuck ur head to the right ever so gently allowing your left shoulder to come up and block ur chin and allowing your head to droop at a proper angle to protect yourself defensivley and allow an effective set up offensivley. Not many fighters use this exact technique, but joe louis was one of them.

Archie Moore: His Jab in his prime was like a piece of art. It snapped out there with the same authority and energy larry holmes threw. It was as smooth and artistic as they come. It snapped out there like a Crocodile latching onto a wilda beast. It was extremley long for his height, and it was unpredictable because hidden behind the turtle shell defense, it came out of nowhere from all different angles. Moore faced many top big guys that towered over him and his top jab enabled him to perform so well against the big guys.


Harold Johnson- One of the best Jabs in history, no better at 175lb. It was so good that even at 175lb moving up to heavyweight, he was still able to use his jab to easily outbox heavyweight much larger and taller. His Jab flowed like water running through a cannal, it was so textbook, it was etremley accurate and very composed. He knew when to threw it and where his opponent would be when he threw it, he was 2 steps ahead of every opponent.


Jersey Joe Walcott- One of the Trickiest jabs we have ever seen in boxing history. it flung out there with the blazing cleverness of a electricity. It like one split second, now its there now its gone......Walcott did something few fighters could do he triple jab combod. He would jab to the head/feint/jab to the body/feint back up top jab to the head. On Film, 6'5 220lb Hein Ten Hoff was outjabbed by walcott, because instead of making it a straight up jab match, he would come at different angles with his jab he would combo the jab he would feint then jab he would lean back on the ropes then come out of nowhere with the jab he would do his walcott shuffle then pop the jab out of nowhere. There were many reasons why walcotts jab was so special, and why his jab would be very effective vs the modern skilled superheavyweights.


Bob Baker- His jab was pure and simple a mini Bulldozer. Not the fastest or sharpest, but when it landed it did alot of damage. It plowed through opponents skulls like a bull running through the red cape. It was used activley and at 6'2 220lb his jab was too much for the smaller heavyweights of his era to elude. Bakers jab had just as much success vs big guys(valdez, wallace, peaks, baksi, holman davidson, layne) with the jab as he did smaller guys, because he was very accurate with it.


Rex Layne: Old Fogster and I discussed this about layne. Laynes jab was underated. It was quite fast and long when he threw it and it landed quite often on top fighters. his jab was a reason he outpointed so many good fighters early in his career despite being thrown against the wolves. He would have been much better off if he used threw his jab more often, because it was quite efficient.

[SuzieQ49]

Part II



Punching Skills/Power


This was one of the first era in heavyweight history that was filled with Skilled Big punchers.


Joe Lous- He was once the greatest puncher who ever lived, now at 37 he was far past his prime reflexes slowed speed dampened hair balding.....yet he could still hit. The old adage is the last thing to leave a fighter is raw power. Well Louis still had his raw power left. At 6'2 215lb he was a bulky big heavyweight who had alot of force in his punch. He horribly damaged the faced of peak ATGS charles and marciano.....Durable BBC heavyweight champion Lee Savold was flattened from one Joe Louis punch. Future # 1 rated heavyweight contender big cuban nino valdez was blown away in 1 round. Louis did not pocess his deadly 5-6 blazing fast combos anymore. But he did have hard accurate forceful 2-3 punch combinations that would do quite alot of damage on the smaller heavyweights. these 2-3 punch combos were very forceful but more importantly they were thrown with a wide variety of different punches ranging from uppercuts to hooks to body punches. Louis lack of KO percentage was because he lacked the reflexes and speed to finish off the young fast contenders, but when he connected make no mistake about it he did damage. Pat Valentino on the youtube clip looked like a train ran through him. Jimmy Bivins claimed in ring magazine article louis had lost his speed and reflexes by the time of their fight, but that louis still had his power.


Rocky Marciano- "Brockton Blockbuster". What is there to say, one of the greatest punchers in heavyweight history. His Military like two fisted assault where he threw punches that landed anywhere and everywhere was one of the most physically damaging things ever seen in a ring. Rocky perhaps ruined more fighters than any fighter in boxing history, because of his style. The Effort the Rocky put into every punch he threw was unbelievable, like the "energy of an armor peircing bullet." Roland Lastarza chipped bones and got broken blood vessels in his arms trying to keep a high gaurd vs the rock, 6'4 carmine vingo was paralysed for nearly a month after getting knocked unconsious by rocky. One right hand "sheered rex laynes front teeth off at the nubs." Bernie Reynolds was lifted in the air by one rocky right hand "his shoulders and feet touched the canvas at the same time."(new york times) Rockys punchrate was what made him so devastating, in round 6 vs archie moore he could literally be seen throwing non stop powerpunches for 1:45 seconds straight, it was an unbelievable thing to think of accomplishing unless u actually saw the film...poor archie moore and his rope a dope had no idea how to stop the madman. In round 15 after 14 gruelling rounds with ezzard charles, rocky threw an amazing 96 punches in a blistering round most of them power punches. Rocky had great punching technique, every punch he threw he got his full body into them he threw them with perfect torque from his body, he also was an expert at punching out of crouch. he would slip and roll all the way around and then come up with a leaping left hook. Both his left hook and right hand packed one punch power, and his combination punching usually consistented off 3-4 punch wide variety of punches, but he would follow the combo up with a volley of one after one power shots making him a very hard fighter to defend against. His one punch knockout over jersey joe walcott still remains one of the greatest one punch kayos of all time. joe louis was in awe of rockys one punch power, moore was in awe of rockys non stop punching, roland lastarza was in awe of rocky marcianos punching anywhere and everywhere. it was all of the above that contributed to him being one of the greatest punchers of all time. Accomplishments wise, Rocky arguebably knocked out the top rated heavyweights of his era more decisevly and cleanly than any heavyweight in history along with mike tyson, joe louis, and sonny liston. Rockys record against ring magazine top 10 was 11-0(10 kos) an amazing knockout percentage against world class fighters.



Jersey Joe Walcott- Rated # 66 on Rings top 100 punchers of all time list. If there ever was a fighter who knockout percentage was deceiving, it was Jersey Joe Walcott. Walcott was a tremendous puncher, he had one punch knockout power in both his right hand and left hand. His biggest problem was.....he lacked finishing skills his style was too passive. But nearly all his knockdowns/knockouts against rated opponents came on ONE single punches. What made walcott such an effective puncher against great opposition was he was a tricky puncher. Combine tricky with power and you have yourself a dangerous fighter. most cutie counterpunches with slick moves dont have power, but walcott did so when you fell into the walcott shuffle trap where he would pretend to dance away then....BOOM!! you were toast. Walcott had million different punches in his reportoir and he would throw them at all different angles and sides. walcotts one punch knockout over ATG ezzard Charles was not only the best knockout ever seen on film, it was the most beautfully excecuted shots ever captured. Walcott floored joe louis 3 times all with single punches, was the first to floor granite chinned rocky marciano and Joey Maxim, and he knocked out ATG harold johnson with right to the jaw causing johnson to injure his back after hitting the canvas. Abe Simon claimed Walcott was the hardest hitter he ever faced.


Archie Moore- Perhaps the greatest all around puncher of all time? The ole mongoose was all time knockout king for a reason.....to put it bluntly...he could hit like a truck, he was an amazing finisher, he had a two fisted assault, he was a very sharp accurate puncher, and a great combination puncher. Archie Moore's straight right hand was one of the best punches ever invented and hopkins today tries to resemble one like it. It was sneaky, accurate, IMMENSE power, fast and sharp. The Perfect Punch. 6'2 215lb highly touted Prosect 20-1 Embrell Davidson had all the goods to be next threat to marciano, and one straight right hand in the first round against archie moore left embrell face down out cold looking like duran did vs hearns. one could only appreciate the magnitute of this knockout by ordering the film. Archie Moore was by far and far more succesful against 6
+ 200lb + heavyweights of his era more than any other heavyweight of that era. Moore made a living out of beating the daylights out of the talented big men cutting them down to size. One of the things that made moores punching skills so effective against the big men was he was very accurate and sharp puncher, and he had extremley long arms.


Clarence Henry: "Woosh!....what a puncher!!!" exclaimed Pittsburgh Heavyweight Bob Baker in EXACT quote in the post fight conference in 1951. Clarence Henry was one of the sharpest most explosive hitters of that era. John Garfield talked about Clarence Henry's lightniing like explosiveness out of the blue with electifying power in both fists. On a adrenaline filled night, Clarence Henry attemped to outslug one of the best punchers ever bob satterfield. Few at ringside thought henry had a chance when they saw his gameplan. Henry proved them wrong. Satterfield was utterly destroyed, decimated, burried in one round. On film, henry possessed all the deeds talked about. Like sugar Ray Robinson and Ezzard Charles, henry threw long blazing fast hooks that would come out of nowhere, and he was a good combination puncher. Clarence Henry in the opinion of this boxing fan is the most underated heavyweight of the 1950s because of lack of film and his shortening career due to blindess after a bad beating by archie moore. Henry had hall of fame talent at his peak and deserved a shot to prove himself vs Ezzard Charles Rocky Marciano for there crowns but never got the chance.


Nino Valdez: Devastating Puncher. Scored 34 knockouts out of 48 wins, with many knockouts over rated contenders. His Right Hand was a Killer knockout shot. It left the durable Hurricane Jackson sensless after 2 rounds. His destroyed most of Europe when he was in his 30s. His right hand was thrown classic Cuban style the way Teofilo Stevenson threw it. He also had a very heavy left hook making him a two fisted assasin with big size 6'3 212lb. Valdez body attack is underated, he wore down his smaller skilled opponents with body punches. One of his tradmark combinations was he loved to left jab to the head then shift his body and come back with a left hook to the liver, followed by a right uppercut to the head. he would sometimes mix a straight right in after the jab making it a 4 punch combo. Ultimatley, His Size and Power made Cus Damato turn him down on a dime.

[SuzieQ49]

Part III

Bob Satterfield- 5'10 182lb yet he was built like a Bodybuilder and had the power in each hand of an atomic bomb. Satterfield had one of the biggest reputations of any fighter to ever step in the ring. He was simply put a slugger looking to end things early. Everyone out there knew it, yet when they tasted satterfields power they their supposedly easy game plan went out the window. Satterfield was probably the hardest hitter of that era and were not talking p4p, He packed some serious heat in both fists, when he connected on anyone durable or top ranked they went down. 6'2 215lb bob baker looked like on his way to victory when satterfield exploded with a combination on his jaw and just like that the fight was over. what made Satterfield special was he had proven power against big heavyweights. Rated 6'2-6'3 210lb guys like baker, valdez, holman, and big cat williams were all either knocked down/or knocked out cold when they fought satterfield. when you look into sattefield further, u you will see he had very fast handspeed and good combination punching to go along with his extrordinary power. It was the blend of all those tools with his god given power that made him a special puncher. Satterfield disfigured opponents faces worse than any surgeon could, poor lee oma didnt know where he was after getting clocked by satterfield. satterfields fast twitch muscles resembled that of mike tyson to a lesser degree.



Rex 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." These were the comments displayed by john garfield on laynes power. he was right. get it right? That was pretty much what rex layne had for power, his very heavy right hand. At 6'1 200lb 22 years old and white, it looked bright for layne to make it in the boxing business. Marv Jenson his manager pretty much threw rex layne into the wolves early on and he described it as "layne would be getting outboxed badly and then that right would come out of nowhere and these guys would drop dead." Layne knocked out men of all sizes and ratings. In one of the best slugfests of the 1950s, satterfield knocked down and controlled the fight for 8 rounds, then one right hand knocked satterfield out cold. he got up out on his feet and layne finished him off. Laynes right hand had an effect on everyone until he ran into the ironchinned rocky marciano. Laynes high punch workrate combined with his fast heavy right made him a dangerous puncher of the era, because he was always going for the home run.

Boxing Skill


This was an era of some highly skilled Boxing Technicians


Harold Johnson- One one of most perfectly flawless textbook boxers of all time. He used perfect Technique in everything he did. He carried a high gaurd, chin tucked, his defensive blocking skills and slipping punches were fanastic. He always knew how to outbox his opponents..... he would always find the right angle, or the right opening, the right counter. One of the highest rated members in Sweet Science.


Bob Baker- Perhaps from a modern technical standpoint he was the most talented big heavyweight captured on film up to that time. Bob Baker had an illustrious amatuer career that held high expectations as a pro that he did not dissapoint winning his first 26 as a professional moving into the top 5 ratings for consistent half a decade. Baker was 6'2 220lb 80" reach, in a era of smaller heavyweights domination. However, Baker unlike many of the big heavyweights of the past had exception skill and talent. Baker fought with gloves high chin tucked and moved in fluid fashion around the ring utilizing his jab, using his ring smarts and size to overwhelm the smaller opponent, and using his long arms and height to easily outbox the opponents from long range. bakers track success against men his own size was amazing, he clearly established himself as the most talked big men of the era with his boxing displays against men of his own size. Baker loved to work from the outside using his jab and fast hand to control the opponent. On the inside baker loved to get physicall, he would become much more active on the inside shortening his punches to throw uppercuts and hooks, and he would throw his size and strength to lay on the man. ultimitley though, baker was at his best at long range and would always attempt to keep his opponent there and push him back to the ropes. Roy Harris claimed "Bob baker had the fastest hands of any big man I have ever seen." I talked with John Garfield extensivley on baker, and with little info on him many people dont know bob baker suffered from horrible hand injuries that really caught up to him late in his career. by the time of the hurricane jackson fights, his brittle hand injuries were really effecting him in a way floyd mayweathers bothered him in castillo I. because of his hand injuries, baker was unable to keep sustain the agression he once produced in his youth and was forced to fight a more passive style later on. He was still so fundamentaly sound he was able to win decisions over young studs like george chuvalo but his best days were behind him. in 1955, floyd patterson asked if he could fight bob baker. Cus Damato's reply was "when your ready to fight heavyweights, ill let you know, but never against a guy like baker." Baker was in serious contention for marcianos title from 1954-56 but the brittle hands pretty much ruined his chances. a marciano vs baker fight in 1951 or a title shot vs charles in 1950-51 would have been a very crowd pleasing competitive affairs. A modern heavyweight who perfectly resembled bakers style was an in shape version of tony tubbs.


Ezzard Charles- One of the most skilled Heavyweight Champions in history. In his prime, he was a complete heavyweight, and no one was able to outbox him. The Prime time charles had exception footwork, he bounces off his toes circling around the ring like he was floating in air....he would slick and slide his way around the ring and counterpunch his opponent to death. What made him exceptional was his amazing abillty to fight larger heavyweights on the inside, he was a very skilled inside fighter. Charles was very versatile in that way. His trademark was his 1-2, in his prime his jab followed by straight sharp right flowed in motion like tom brady throwing a spiral...it was so perfect so beautiful, so unstoppable for the other fighter to defend againt. One thing people overlook on charles is his body punching, his left hook to the liver was a crippling shot that he used in almost every fight. Charles handspeed was perhaps the best of the era and his reflexes ins his prime were lightning.. All this added up to him being damm near impossible to outbox. All and All, a master boxer with god given reflexes and speed.

Jersey Joe Walcott: What can we say about Jersey Joe that hasnt already been said? Walcott had an unorthodox cutie style that has been unimpersonated over all these years because no one in history could do what he did. Eddie Futch perhaps the great trainer of all time called Walcott "one of the finest technicians in ring history." Joe Louis called Jersey Joe Walcott the best "boxer" he ever faced. Walcotts whole style was build on tricking and confusing his opponent into traps, Walcott style was more unpredictable than Forensics finding ordinary family man Dennis Raeder to be BTK 7 years ago. Walcott would do his shuffle, it looked more like a moonwalk its something that when you view on film it looks amazing, theres a clip walcott training for marciano fight where it shows 3 second clip of him sparring and he kind of backs away and moves to the right....then out of nowhere slides back to the left and i dont be slide.....i mean GLIDE through thin air something only superman could do it looked un doable from a naked eye. This waltz wasnt just for showboat, walcott used it effectly as part of his style laying his opponents into trap counteres, or getting them off balance so he could hit them with clean punches. I dont think anyone mastered walcott in ring generalship. he truelly exemplified the term "Art" and "Boxing".


Roland Lastarza- Roland Lastarza was way ahead of his time when it came to defense. He held a high gaurd, chin tucked, elbows in his mechanics were perfect. with his high gaurd and passive style he was very hard to penatate and very cool at blocking punches, he was very scientific and very smart fighter, and was very adapt at making his opponent fight his fight. He was very good at making his opponent not land cleanly frutrating his foe to the point where they got off their game. His offensve consisted of entirely counterpunching, but he was a good counterpuncher and let combinations roll off his shoulders smoothly and freely and he was very accurate. Roland Lastarza was called by the papers and contemporaries "the best defensive fighter of the era." With revenge on his mind, # 3 rated Dan Bucceroni was embarrased by the skill of lastarza in the rematch. Bucceroni was counterpunched and baffled all over the ring for 10 rounds, floored 5 times by counter-punches. Lastarza bloodied up bucceroni in the first and never stopped the torment the rest of the fight. it was a shutout masterpiece.

[SuzieQ49]

Part IV

Newspaper Mini Feeds on the following 12 fighters


"Clarence Henry has been rated on par with jersey joe walcott, the heavyweight champion, and challengers rocky marciano and Ezzard Charles."-New York Times March 18 1952


"Joe Louis still possessed the Boxing Skill, Power, and determination to batter out of his path anyone who would undertake to frustrate the goal he has set for himself- winning the heavyweight championship. Joe Louis is still the most dangerous man in the path of the champion, Ezzard Charles."- New York Times June 16th 1951


"Hurricane Jackson has been reputed to be the strongest fighter extant, with the possible exception of rocky marciano. An unpredictable fighter, Jackson throws punches both left and right in a steady stream."- New York Times July 15th 1954


"The National Boxing Assocation's quarterly ratings realeased today named Nino Valdes as the only logical contender for Rocky Marciano's World heavyweight title. Valdez is the first heavyweight to be chosen as most logical contender since the N.B.A picked Charles before his first fight with Marciano."- New York Times Oct 7 1954


"Nino Valdez is the strongest championship prospect from latin america since Luis Firpo saw action here in 1923. Valdez is a big, but agile and powerful Cuban. Valdez is especially strong with punches to the body. He scored a huge upset unanimous decision over Ezzard Charles last year. "- New York Times July 14 1954


"Archie Moore, lightheavyweight champion, carrying the heaviest weight of his career, gave a savage beating to pittsburgh heavyweight bob baker tonight to win by technical knockout in 2:08 of the 9th round. Archie carried his weight beatifully as he pressed a viscious attack that finally brought the courageous but outclassed to the point of knockout in the 7th round. In that round, the champino chased baker around the ring and got through his gaurd with almost everything he threw. Baker was bleeding from the the mouth, the nose, and cuts over the eyes. Baker was reeling before an attack in the 9th when referee Petey Sarron stopped the fight. Baker's blood had splattered newsmen at ringside."- New York Times Mar 10 1954


"Though the verdict went in his favor, charles found himself a highly unpopular figure with the near-capacity crowd when the announcement was made. The fans were heavily inclined for the gladiator from Camden, NJ., and they cheered his every good move with great volume while ezzards best efforts were ignored by all save a few clapping hands. The decision was roundly booed and jeered, and charles left the ring to the accompaniment of a succesion of imprecations. When Jersey Joe left the ring the spectators raised a mighty yell for him, indicating a belief that he was "robbed." As a Matter of fact, Charles was winner by clear margin. 80-70, 84-66, 83-67 were the scores in favor for Ezzard. This observer agreed with the referee's 80-70 decision for Charles. Walcott suprised the crowd and his rival by showing greater inclination to get in there and fight rather than cakewalk around the ring like he did in his new york fights with joe louis. Jersey Joe pulled the shuffle once in a while, and confused charles the first time he did it, but in the main he was every bit as aggresive as the champion. Charles strong point was his sharper hitting. His punches found the target more cleanly than did walcotts, and the carried a mite more authority. He scored the only knockdown of the battle when a blazing fast right hand then left hook to the jaw in the 9th round sent jersey joe to the canvas for a count of 9. This fight took an amazing turn toward the close. The Challenger, was expected to have nothing left in the face of the younger champions closing drives. Actually, walcott was the stronger in the 15th and twice had the champion staggering under the force of left hooks to the jaw. It doubtless was this impressive finish that caused the crowd to react as it did to the decision. This, plus the fact the champion looked in worse shape than his foe." - New York Times March 8 1951


"The Punching Power of Bob Satterfield, Saved him from defeat tonight when he knocked out John Holman, Indiana Heavwyeight, in the last round of their scheduled 10 rounder. Satterfield, Trailing on all 3 scorecards, launched a viscious attack at the start of the round. A shattering left hook dropped Holman in the Neutral corner. He was on his face, with blood spurting from his nose and mouth, as he was counted out." New York Times July 12 1954


"Baker hesitated to move forward as often as he might have, and it was this conservative procedure that cost him the decision. The Pittsburgh Warrior obviousely knew the right moves that were missing from jacksons repertory, but he employed them only infrequently. Jacksons best attribute proved to be his endurance. Round after Round saw him step into Baker and fire away with both hands without cease. These tactics at times discouraged Baker, who seemd to regard his opponent curiousely as he adressed him after the fight "where did this guy learn how to box?". The fact remaisn though, that baker was remiss in not applying his great knowledge, skill, power, and experience with consistency. New York Times Feb. 4 1956


"Joe Louis, the former world title holder today picked Roland Lastarza to defeat Champion Rocky Marciano on sept 24 at Polo Grounds. Ive got to go along with lastarza" Louis said after watching the challenger spar 5 rounds. " I dont see anyone else can beat Marciano except lastarza." louis said." - New York Times sept 14 1953


"Thirty six year old Jersey Joe Walcott, outpointed Undefeated German Champion Hein Ten Hoff in 10 rounds today. The Previousely undefeated 6'6 German used his tremendously long reach to hold off walcott with left jabs but hardly ever connected with straight rights. Walcott broke hoff's nose in the first and had him bleeding throughout the fight. He kept hoff on the run with hard rights and looping fast lefts."- New York Times March 29 1950


"Layne looms as the outstanding prospect west of the
Mississippi. He is a very 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." - New York Times Nat Fleischer April 1951

[Muchmoore]

"mini article?" :lol:

I look forward to reading it though Suzie.

[SuzieQ49]

Part V

[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Joe Louis March 1950


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Clarence Henry


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Bob Baker


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Nino Valdez


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Rocky Marciano



[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Jersey Joe Walcott


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Bob Satterfield


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Ezzard Charles


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Harold Johnson


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Hurricane Jackson


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Roland Lastarza


[Only registered and activated users can see links]
Rex Layne

[Mendoza]

Part I

Here is how the top 10 rate

1. Rocky Marciano- 9-0 Record against top 12
2. Jersey Joe Walcott- 3-5 record against top 12(including louis robbery)
3. Ezzard Charles- 8-7 record against top 12
4. Archie Moore- 9-5 record against top 12
5. Harold Johnson- 5-6 record against top 12
6. Joe Louis- 3-2 record against top 12
7. Clarence Henry- 3-2 record against top 12
8. Bob Baker- 4-4 record against top 12
9. Nino Valdez- 1-7 record against top 12
10. Rex Layne- 3-6 record against top 12
11. Roland Lastarza - 1-2 record against top 12
12. Bob Satterfield- 3-5 record against top 12

HM: Tommy Hurricane Jackson- 7-1 record against top 12

I think Jackson should rate at least five slots higher. Jackson beat Charles 2x, Layne 2x, and Henry 1x before 1956. Outside of Maricnao, Jackson's 7-1 record is tops.

Walcott should rate a little lower. His record is a losing one and he didn't fight in two years you are rating in 1944 and 1955.

Having said that, I pretty much agree with the order. I do think Henry was a tad better than Johnson at heavyweight.

[SuzieQ49]

I think Jackson should rate at least five slots higher. Jackson beat Charles 2x, Layne 2x, and Henry 1x before 1956. Outside of Maricnao, Jackson's 7-1 record is tops.


did u even read the article? it talks all about how jacksons resume appears to make him look much better than he really was. he was not world class, he was not a good fighter, he had no boxing skill and was a basket case....thats being kind.

But like I said records are devieving. Charles was shot when he faced jackson, and according to one of my findings charles deserced the jackson rematch as he outboxed jackson and gave him a body beating outside of the 10th round, the source scored the bout 6 rounds to 4 for charles. either way jackson faced a completley washed up version of charles.


now on to baker-jackson fights. baker was experiencing brittle hand injuries by this time and was nowhere near 100%. yet by all accounts, baker was horrible robbed in the rematch. According to the times, out of the 11 ringside writers, 9 scored it for baker and 2 for jackson . AP scorecard had it 7 rounds to 5 baker, times had it 8-3-1 for baker.


Rex Layne was another horrible washed up shot foe who jackson beat on, these wins are meaningless.


clarence henry according to eyewitness reports like john garfield was near blind going into the jackson fight, and was nowhere near physically qualified to be in the ring at that point and retired right after. John Garfield claimed no way would jackson ever beat a live version of clarence henry.


The only young in shape contenders jackson fought......machen valdez patterson all brutalized him. John Garfield described jackson as pretty much the furthest thing from a world class fighter. he rated baker layne henry valdez in much higher regard than jackson.





I strongly suggest you read the above article before jumping to ridiculous conclusions.

[SuzieQ49]

I do think Henry was a tad better than Johnson at heavyweight.


what jumps you to this conclusion.......... harold johnson beat henry h2h, and beat better heavyweights? henry retired prematurely due to blindness


Walcott should rate a little lower


Walcott beat prime versions of ezzard charles and harold johnson in the 1950s and nearly beat a peak marciano. he deserves number 2. besides who is going to beat him h2h on the list outside of marciano?

[Mendoza]

But like I said records are devieving. Charles was shot when he faced jackson, and according to one of my findings charles deserced the jackson rematch as he outboxed jackson and gave him a body beating outside of the 10th round, the source scored the bout 6 rounds to 4 for charles. either way jackson faced a completley washed up version of charles.

now on to baker-jackson fights. baker was experiencing brittle hand injuries by this time and was nowhere near 100%. yet by all accounts, baker was horrible robbed in the rematch. According to the times, out of the 11 ringside writers, 9 scored it for baker and 2 for jackson . AP scorecard had it 7 rounds to 5 baker, times had it 8-3-1 for baker.

Rex Layne was another horrible washed up shot foe who jackson beat on, these wins are meaningless.

clarence henry according to eyewitness reports like john garfield was near blind going into the jackson fight, and was nowhere near physically qualified to be in the ring at that point and retired right after. John Garfield claimed no way would jackson ever beat a live version of clarence henry.

The only young in shape contenders jackson fought......machen valdez patterson all brutalized him.

I strongly suggest you read the above article before jumping to ridiculous conclusions.

Am I reading you right? Are you saying Charles, Layne, and Henry were shot in the early to mid 50's. I agree. However, a win is a win, and you are rating the fighters between the years of 1950-1955. Jackson was clearly in BETTER working order than many of the guys on your list in this time line. I think we both agree on that.

I suggest revise your ratings to reflect the time line between 1950-1955.

This is not a greatest prime thread, this is a thread on who was the best between 1950-1955. Whether Jackson is rated high because the others were shot is rather irrelevant.

[SuzieQ49]

but you take the body of work charles baker henry and layne accomplished 1950-1953 and take into factor h2h ability and that exceeds anything jackson did or could do.


Charles from 1950-1955 beat Walcott 2x, louis, layne, satterfield, wallace, holman.....these are better wins than jackson had


Baker from 1950-1955 beat Valdez 2x, Wallace 2x, Layne 3x, Slade, Peaks, Holman, Brion....better wins than jackson has.


Henry beat Bivins Baker Satterfield davidson thompson and has h2h abilities.


Layne beat near prime versions of charles walcott and beat thompson brion satterfield. better wins than jackson has 1950-1955.

[SuzieQ49]

bump sorry if it was a bit long i got ahead of myself

[OLD FOGEY]

bump sorry if it was a bit long i got ahead of myself

Very interesting posts. Thanks for the work.

I agree with your top 12 but would have a slightly different order.

1---Marciano
2---Walcott
3---Charles
4---Moore
5---Louis
6---Johnson
7---Layne
8---Henry
9---Satterfield
10--Baker
11--Valdes
12--LaStarza

Louis over Johnson--depends obviously, on criteria, but I don't see Louis under any circumstances losing to Billy Smith.

Layne at #7--Layne defeated your #2 and #3 men, Walcott and Charles. Henry and Baker did not defeat any of your top six men. Baker was better than Layne when Layne was on the decline, but he just doesn't have wins of the weight of Layne's wins over Walcott, Charles, and Satterfield, who ko'd Baker.

Satterfield--Like Layne, hard to rate because of being so erratic, but beat Harold Johnson once, and has strong wins over both Baker and Valdes. I move him up a few notches because of his positive accomplishments.

Jackson--Got most of his wins over guys on the way down. I think there is a strong case for putting him at #12 in place of LaStarza.

[Marciano Frazier]

Good article, SuzieQ, and interesting quotes. At the moment, I'll rank the top 12 as follows:
1. Marciano
2. Walcott
3. Charles
4. Moore
5. Johnson
6. Louis
7. LaStarza
8. Henry
9. Valdes
10. Layne
11. Baker
12. Satterfield

The top six remain the same as yours. The only real major discrepancy is the placement of LaStarza. In my opinion, LaStarza's performances against Marciano in both fights- not only the first, where circumstances could be seen as having effected the somewhat-green-anyway Rocky's showing, although I still consider that fight a major plus, but also the rematch, in which he did substantially better within a close time frame than guys like Louis and Layne who are also on the list- are a distinguishing mark in his favor, with his excellent record and wins over Layne, Bucceroni and Brion solidifying his standing. The only fighters on this list to have as much success as LaStarza did against Marciano are the #2 and #3. Louis and Layne were handily beaten, and even Moore was pretty much thrashed aside from the flash knockdown. I consider this as significant as a win over a top five guy on the list would be, if not moreso. Although LaStarza's record aside from Marciano is shallow, his superb win-loss results throughout his prime and typically solid, sometimes brilliant (Bucceroni II) performances when he did step up support the notion that his outstanding results against Marciano were, in fact, the result of genuinely outstanding ability. I consider it highly plausible that LaStarza in his prime was as good as or better than a '50s Louis or Johnson, as well, but his shallow, few-and-far-between resume prevents him from ranking along with them.

As for the ordering of Valdes, Layne, Baker and Satterfield, I think I could accept virtually any, truth be told. Their results against each other and against the rest of the field are such a tangled web of varying results that it's near impossible to pick the best out from among them.

Jackson is an odd one, hard to place as well. I think he's akin to Don Cockell in that he was a fighter who seemingly lacked any great deal of skill or talent, but had a certain winning edge and came along at the right time to catch some contenders on the decline. He has an excellent record against fighters on the list, but Charles was shot, Layne was well past his best, Henry was in his last pro fight with the eye problems, and Baker was robbed by many accounts. Valdes, the only one who was at his peak, annihilated Jackson, and the young contenders who subsequently arrived consistently beat him (*note that Jackson was born in 1931 and so was only in his mid-20s when he was being beaten by the likes of Machen, Slade and Patterson).

Some fighters who may have had the potential to make this list, but were ultimately more "flashes in the pan," lacking the career substance to qualify:
Earl Walls
Harry "Kid" Matthews
Dan Bucceroni

[SuzieQ49]

Thanx Fog and MF,

I like your list too. I found that henry/baker/valdez/satterfield are extremley hard to rate in order. I think I went a little bit more on h2h since i had so much trouble figuring out who accomplished more for there era.

[ChrisPontius]

Very nice read Suzie.


I have two questions:

1. What is your rationale to rate Valdes #9? I agree that records can be deceiving, but in Valdes' case, the 1-7 isn't. He has one great win over Charles, but other than that, he lost every time he stepped up without exception. And it's not like those came when he was old; his peak coincided perfectly to make an as high ranking as possible on a list during this time frame. I would rate LaStarza, Satterfield and Layne higher.


2. More of a trivial one, are you sure that picture of Joe Louis is from 1950? I've always thought that pic was of him in the early 40's, in his prime. Unless, of course this picture was taken as a commercial for hair implants. :D

[red cobra]

This is a keeper SQ. I've added it to my Favorites.

[Loewe]

Thanks, SQ. Very intersting, very good to read and very appreciated. Good work.

[SuzieQ49]

2. More of a trivial one, are you sure that picture of Joe Louis is from 1950? I've always thought that pic was of him in the early 40's, in his prime. Unless, of course this picture was taken as a commercial for hair implants


I just re-checked the exact date the pic was taken was march 1949. Seems louis aged dramatically from the 2nd walcott fight to the charles fight in a 2 year span.


1. What is your rationale to rate Valdes #9? I agree that records can be deceiving, but in Valdes' case, the 1-7 isn't. He has one great win over Charles, but other than that, he lost every time he stepped up without exception. And it's not like those came when he was old; his peak coincided perfectly to make an as high ranking as possible on a list during this time frame. I would rate LaStarza, Satterfield and Layne higher.


What is your rationale to rate Valdes #9? I agree that records can be deceiving, but in Valdes' case, the 1-7 isn't.

Alot of the top men of this era won and lost to eachother like the 1980s, its very hard to rate them. valdez can be rated anywhere from 7-12 on my list.


He has one great win over Charles, but other than that, he lost every time he stepped up without exception

First lets talk about the Win over Charles. This was the very best quality win out of any of the 7-12 rated heavyweights on my list. This was the only clean clear cut loss charles had from his title loss to walcott in 51, up until the first marciano fight. A very impressive quality win. Against Great Opposition, Valdez put up the most impressive performances out of the 7-12 guys you mention above. Archie moore toyed with bob baker, had his way with clarence henry, and crucified satterfield, yet was given huge fits in the 2nd fight with valdez...and even though archie def won it was a close fight that some newspaper had dead even going into the 15th.

Since were only talking 1950-1955 ill leave out his success in late 1950s. Another reason valdez rates so high besides mention above is Valdez went on one of the best if not the best run oct 1953-may 1955 out of any of the 7-12 rated guys, valdez went on a 11-0 run with 3 wins over Ring Magazine top 10 contenders, including a extremley impressive on film destruction of Hurricane Jackson in 2 rounds, similiar to lennox-ruddock. Valdez run capped him as the # 1 ring magazine contender for nearly 2 years. now the men you mention above satterfield layne lastarza.......none of these men outside of a brief 2 month window for lastarza ever was universially recognized as the # 1 heavyweight contender by Ring Magazine the way valdez was for a good chunk of time. Valdez 11-0 impressive run showed at his peak he was a very capable world class fighter.


lastly, one of my criterias is h2h. Valdez rates extremley high h2h on his best night in my opinion. if we take the men lastarza layne satterfield u listed, while you could make a case satterfield is better h2h based on his win over valdez, i dont see how layne and lastarza beat him. layne was easy to hit, and valdez was the bigger stronger harder punching slugger, i cant see even a peak layne outlasting valdez, valdez would cut him to ribbons. Lastarza while a very capable boxer, did not possess the aggresion and offense to pile enough points to earn a decision over the more aggresive valdez. valdez would work his jab on roland all night and his size would give roland problems. lastarza would block many of valdez blows, but he wouldnt land much in return and the ones valdez does get in would do damage to roland. i see valdez decisioning roland.



One could defintley make a case for lastarza layne satterfield being higher though, just my thoughts.

[Bummy Davis]

Great work Suzie

[Bummy Davis]

Great definintion of Marciano and others...50's was a tough era..skill, experience...ring smarts and power....and this guy

Rocky Marciano- "Brockton Blockbuster". What is there to say, one of the greatest punchers in heavyweight history. His Military like two fisted assault where he threw punches that landed anywhere and everywhere was one of the most physically damaging things ever seen in a ring. Rocky perhaps ruined more fighters than any fighter in boxing history, because of his style. The Effort the Rocky put into every punch he threw was unbelievable, like the "energy of an armor peircing bullet." Roland Lastarza chipped bones and got broken blood vessels in his arms trying to keep a high gaurd vs the rock, 6'4 carmine vingo was paralysed for nearly a month after getting knocked unconsious by rocky. One right hand "sheered rex laynes front teeth off at the nubs." Bernie Reynolds was lifted in the air by one rocky right hand "his shoulders and feet touched the canvas at the same time."(new york times) Rockys punchrate was what made him so devastating, in round 6 vs archie moore he could literally be seen throwing non stop powerpunches for 1:45 seconds straight, it was an unbelievable thing to think of accomplishing unless u actually saw the film...poor archie moore and his rope a dope had no idea how to stop the madman. In round 15 after 14 gruelling rounds with ezzard charles, rocky threw an amazing 96 punches in a blistering round most of them power punches. Rocky had great punching technique, every punch he threw he got his full body into them he threw them with perfect torque from his body, he also was an expert at punching out of crouch. he would slip and roll all the way around and then come up with a leaping left hook. Both his left hook and right hand packed one punch power, and his combination punching usually consistented off 3-4 punch wide variety of punches, but he would follow the combo up with a volley of one after one power shots making him a very hard fighter to defend against. His one punch knockout over jersey joe walcott still remains one of the greatest one punch kayos of all time. joe louis was in awe of rockys one punch power, moore was in awe of rockys non stop punching, roland lastarza was in awe of rocky marcianos punching anywhere and everywhere. it was all of the above that contributed to him being one of the greatest punchers of all time. Accomplishments wise, Rocky arguebably knocked out the top rated heavyweights of his era more decisevly and cleanly than any heavyweight in history along with mike tyson, joe louis, and sonny liston. Rockys record against ring magazine top 10 was 11-0(10 kos) an amazing knockout percentage against world class fighters.

[Bummy Davis]

duplicate

[Chaney]

Suzie, you make a great contribution to this forum with articles like this. I really enjoyed reading it.

Thanks for your efforts in sharing this with us.

Here's something I would be interested in hearing your, and other forum members, opinion on:

Of the main contenders of the period that Rocky didn't fight; list them in order as to who would have the best chance of giving Rocky a lot of trouble (I am confident you won't pick any to actually beat the Rock)

I would have liked to see Rocky fight Valdez instead of Cockel. I think it would have given Rocky fans a greater legacy fight, and more ammuntion for Rocky fans when their hero is criticised for not facing big HWs and big punchers.

Rocky himself was unmotivated to put in his usual hellish training for Cockel, and it showed in his out of character sloppy performance.

I don't think Valdez would have won, but it would have been a better fight IMHO.

To Rocky fans, this is not a knock on the great man...I am a big Rocky fan myself. I realise he faced a lot of top contenders and gave the most deserving ones rematches. But of the men he didn't fight, who would you have liked to see him fight, and how do you see those fights panning out?

[OLD FOGEY]

I just re-checked the exact date the pic was taken was march 1949. Seems louis aged dramatically from the 2nd walcott fight to the charles fight in a 2 year span.







Alot of the top men of this era won and lost to eachother like the 1980s, its very hard to rate them. valdez can be rated anywhere from 7-12 on my list.




First lets talk about the Win over Charles. This was the very best quality win out of any of the 7-12 rated heavyweights on my list. This was the only clean clear cut loss charles had from his title loss to walcott in 51, up until the first marciano fight. A very impressive quality win. Against Great Opposition, Valdez put up the most impressive performances out of the 7-12 guys you mention above. Archie moore toyed with bob baker, had his way with clarence henry, and crucified satterfield, yet was given huge fits in the 2nd fight with valdez...and even though archie def won it was a close fight that some newspaper had dead even going into the 15th.

Since were only talking 1950-1955 ill leave out his success in late 1950s. Another reason valdez rates so high besides mention above is Valdez went on one of the best if not the best run oct 1953-may 1955 out of any of the 7-12 rated guys, valdez went on a 11-0 run with 3 wins over Ring Magazine top 10 contenders, including a extremley impressive on film destruction of Hurricane Jackson in 2 rounds, similiar to lennox-ruddock. Valdez run capped him as the # 1 ring magazine contender for nearly 2 years. now the men you mention above satterfield layne lastarza.......none of these men outside of a brief 2 month window for lastarza ever was universially recognized as the # 1 heavyweight contender by Ring Magazine the way valdez was for a good chunk of time. Valdez 11-0 impressive run showed at his peak he was a very capable world class fighter.


lastly, one of my criterias is h2h. Valdez rates extremley high h2h on his best night in my opinion. if we take the men lastarza layne satterfield u listed, while you could make a case satterfield is better h2h based on his win over valdez, i dont see how layne and lastarza beat him. layne was easy to hit, and valdez was the bigger stronger harder punching slugger, i cant see even a peak layne outlasting valdez, valdez would cut him to ribbons. Lastarza while a very capable boxer, did not possess the aggresion and offense to pile enough points to earn a decision over the more aggresive valdez. valdez would work his jab on roland all night and his size would give roland problems. lastarza would block many of valdez blows, but he wouldnt land much in return and the ones valdez does get in would do damage to roland. i see valdez decisioning roland.



One could defintley make a case for lastarza layne satterfield being higher though, just my thoughts.

"Against Great Opposition, Valdes put up the most impressive performances out of the 7-12 guys you mention above."

I would dispute this. I think Layne did the best against Great Opposition. He defeated Walcott as well as Charles and I would rate Layne's win over Walcott as the most impressive any of these 7-12 fighters scored. Walcott was prime enough to have beaten Johnson that year and would beat Charles for the title the next year. Layne also defeated Charles coming directly off the 4th Walcott fight, although it was a very controversial decision, when Charles had to consider the Layne fight as crucial to reestablishing his championship credentials. Charles fought Valdes before Valdes was an established contender and with Charles sceduled to fight Johnson in three weeks. I think Charles might have been looking past Valdes to Johnson and took him lightly. Charles himself intimated as much and asked for a rematch, but Valdes refused.

Bottom line--Layne defeated two top twenty heavyweights at or near their primes. Not many contenders can say as much.

By the way, anticipating the argument that Walcott took Layne lightly--perhaps to some extent, but Layne had wins over top men, including Turkey Thompson. There is no excuse for Walcott not considering him dangerous. Valdes, on the other hand, simply came out of nowhere.

Layne was 2-2 against Walcott and Charles. Valdes was 1-3 against Charles, Moore, and Johnson. I think Layne did better.

On head to head between Layne and Valdes, who knows? I think, though, that if Layne had never fought either Walcott or Satterfield, many would argue that there is no way he could beat them and if Satterfield never fought Valdes, many would probably judge that there was no way he survives Valdes' power, only it didn't work that way.

[OLD FOGEY]

Suzie, you make a great contribution to this forum with articles like this. I really enjoyed reading it.

Thanks for your efforts in sharing this with us.

Here's something I would be interested in hearing your, and other forum members, opinion on:

Of the main contenders of the period that Rocky didn't fight; list them in order as to who would have the best chance of giving Rocky a lot of trouble (I am confident you won't pick any to actually beat the Rock)

I would have liked to see Rocky fight Valdez instead of Cockel. I think it would have given Rocky fans a greater legacy fight, and more ammuntion for Rocky fans when their hero is criticised for not facing big HWs and big punchers.

Rocky himself was unmotivated to put in his usual hellish training for Cockel, and it showed in his out of character sloppy performance.

I don't think Valdez would have won, but it would have been a better fight IMHO.

To Rocky fans, this is not a knock on the great man...I am a big Rocky fan myself. I realise he faced a lot of top contenders and gave the most deserving ones rematches. But of the men he didn't fight, who would you have liked to see him fight, and how do you see those fights panning out?

"List in order those who might have given Rocky a lot of trouble."

1---Harold Johnson
All by himself in the #1 slot, then there is a big dropoff to

2---Nino Valdes
3---Bob Satterfield
4---Bob Baker

Walcott, Charles, Louis, and Moore were clearly better than this group, other than to some extent Johnson.

[Muchmoore]

1950-1955 Heavyweight Division....how do you think this rates compares to other eras?

Part I

Here is how the top 10 rate

1. Rocky Marciano- 9-0 Record against top 12
2. Jersey Joe Walcott- 3-5 record against top 12(including louis robbery)
3. Ezzard Charles- 8-7 record against top 12
4. Archie Moore- 9-5 record against top 12
5. Harold Johnson- 5-6 record against top 12
6. Joe Louis- 3-2 record against top 12
7. Clarence Henry- 3-2 record against top 12
8. Bob Baker- 4-4 record against top 12
9. Nino Valdez- 1-7 record against top 12
10. Rex Layne- 3-6 record against top 12
11. Roland Lastarza - 1-2 record against top 12
12. Bob Satterfield- 3-5 record against top 12

HM: Tommy Hurricane Jackson- 7-1 record against top 12


Well here's how I see them doing against todays era

1. Marciano vs. Wlad. Marciano KO
2. Walcott vs. Peter-Walcott late stoppage, otherwise wide UD.
3. Charles vs. Chagaev-Charles by UD
4. Moore vs. Valuev-Tough fight to pick due to size, but I'll go with the Mongoose by UD
5. Povetkin-Johnson. I tentatively pick Povetkin.
6. Louis vs. Ibragimov-Louis by UD.
7. Henry vs. Maskaev-Henry by KO
8. Baker vs. Virchis. Virchis by KO
9. Valdez vs. Ruiz. Pickem fight, Valdez has the edge in power but Ruiz might be able to steal a win like against Golota.
10. Layne vs. Arreola-Layne by decapitation.

By the way Suzie, after reading this I decided to make a similar article regarding 1985-1990. How would you rate these 3 for their work in the time period, Spinks, Holyfield, and Witherspoon? Spinks has the best 2 wins over Holmes, but they were his only quality HW wins, Holyfield had his stoppage win over Dokes, KO of shot Thomas, and OK wins over Stewart and Rodriques. Witherspoon's only loss was to Bonecrusher for this time period, but beat a fair slew of fighters like Tubbs, Smith himself, Bruno, and an ok James Broad.

[janitor]

A verry fine article.

I hope that at some point yu will write something similar about the little known heavyweights of the 40s like Lee Q Murray.

Perhaps one day you might even get a book together sice you are becoming quite a specialist in these eras.

[SuzieQ49]

Of the main contenders of the period that Rocky didn't fight; list them in order as to who would have the best chance of giving Rocky a lot of trouble (I am confident you won't pick any to actually beat the Rock)


1. Harold Johnson- jab textbook boxing skills
2. Clarence Henry- sharp hitting fast hands
3. Bob Baker- size strength and skill
4. Nino Valdez- jab size power


Im confident he would beat all of them. I think the smaller faster sharp hitting heavyweights gave him more problems than the big sluggers.

[SuzieQ49]

thanx janitor, I will attempt to do one of the 1940-1945 period, although many of the top fighters have no film, i will lay a copy of there styles based on newspaper reports.

[Chaney]

1. Harold Johnson- jab textbook boxing skills
2. Clarence Henry- sharp hitting fast hands
3. Bob Baker- size strength and skill
4. Nino Valdez- jab size power


Im confident he would beat all of them. I think the smaller faster sharp hitting heavyweights gave him more problems than the big sluggers.Thanks for your considered opinions Suzi and Fogey.

I cannot disagree, as my knowledge of these guys that Rocky didn't fight is not great enough.

However, if I could add one more opponent to Rocky's resume, I still think that Valdez would be a better legacy win for Rocky, as many today criticise him for not fighting enough hard punching big heavies; and Rocky proved himself against lots of the smaller, slicker opponents.

On the other hand, why am i worried about what these detractors say about one of the greatest champions of all time...Rocky Marciano.

[SuzieQ49]

By the way Suzie, after reading this I decided to make a similar article regarding 1985-1990.

awesome I cant wait to read!!


How would you rate these 3 for their work in the time period, Spinks, Holyfield, and Witherspoon?

spoon was one of the most talented big heavyweights I have seen, and at his best in shape few of that era could beat him. However by 1985, spoon was not the same anymore and had grown a pair of man boobs by 1985, he had lost his motivation and his shape deteriorating physically. while he did shutout bonecrusher in his last boxing masterpiece in 85 the end was near and soon he recorded a points win over a talented tubbs in one of the most lackluster affairs over two out of shape fighters. he went on to stop frank bruno in a war, and had the spectacular ecklung kayo.......but he got starched by bonecrusher in one round. his best days were long behind him.....evident of his struggle with mike williams from Rocky V. a couple posters here tried to claim tyson ducked spoon, lets just sake it was lucky for spoons sake the man boobs fat witherspoon of 86-87 did not have to receive a 4 round battering at the hands of a peak mike tyson.


I think at this point, 1985-1990 spoon rates in the top 10 and borderline top 5 but thats as far as i would put him.



Holyfield h2h rates right at # 2, he was at his best IMO during the late 1980s when his combinations and speed were at their tops. and though some of his top HW victims were way over the hill(tillis thomas) or obese lol(douglas) he did record some impressive wins over a motivated dokes and undefeated stewart. all depends on how much u take accomplishments vs h2h. either way i say holy rates top 5.



Spinx is hard to rate. He was the first to beat larry holmes, dominated a washed up mentally wrecked cooney, and a average steffan tangstad.
h2h he rates highly with his experience skill and unorthodox style, but accomplishments wise he is unproven vs wide variety of contenders. top 10 defintley.

I would rate them during this period


1. Holyfield
2 and 3 spinx or spoon toss up take your pick...spinx was a little closer to his best than spoon so prob spinx.

[SuzieQ49]

I still think that Valdez would be a better legacy win for Rocky, as many today criticise him for not fighting enough hard punching big heavies; and Rocky proved himself against lots of the smaller, slicker opponents.



I do agree, although rocky did prove himself against one albeit older hard punching big heavyweight.......6'2 215lb joe louis. I think the louis fight shows he would have been able to handle valdez. Louis actually knocked out nino valdez on march. 14 1950 in one round in a live exhibition. valdez himself had loads of trouble with men marcianos size(satterfield moore).....according to papers nino had trouble with fighters who fought out of a crouch. defintley a legacy booster, but so would have been patterson in 1956.

[SuzieQ49]

"Against Great Opposition, Valdes put up the most impressive performances out of the 7-12 guys you mention above."

I would dispute this. I think Layne did the best against Great Opposition. He defeated Walcott as well as Charles and I would rate Layne's win over Walcott as the most impressive any of these 7-12 fighters scored. Walcott was prime enough to have beaten Johnson that year and would beat Charles for the title the next year. Layne also defeated Charles coming directly off the 4th Walcott fight, although it was a very controversial decision, when Charles had to consider the Layne fight as crucial to reestablishing his championship credentials. Charles fought Valdes before Valdes was an established contender and with Charles sceduled to fight Johnson in three weeks. I think Charles might have been looking past Valdes to Johnson and took him lightly. Charles himself intimated as much and asked for a rematch, but Valdes refused.

Bottom line--Layne defeated two top twenty heavyweights at or near their primes. Not many contenders can say as much.

By the way, anticipating the argument that Walcott took Layne lightly--perhaps to some extent, but Layne had wins over top men, including Turkey Thompson. There is no excuse for Walcott not considering him dangerous. Valdes, on the other hand, simply came out of nowhere.

Layne was 2-2 against Walcott and Charles. Valdes was 1-3 against Charles, Moore, and Johnson. I think Layne did better.

On head to head between Layne and Valdes, who knows? I think, though, that if Layne had never fought either Walcott or Satterfield, many would argue that there is no way he could beat them and if Satterfield never fought Valdes, many would probably judge that there was no way he survives Valdes' power, only it didn't work that way.


you make very strong points, and like I said you can make a case either way. One thing I will comment on was the charles-layne II decision was very crooked, laynes friend dempsey had quite the bias scorecard and according to the times practically all of ringside scored for charles. valdez on the otherhand beat ezz more clearly and cleanly.

[Muchmoore]

1. Holyfield
2 and 3 spinx or spoon toss up take your pick...spinx was a little closer to his best than spoon so prob spinx.

That's how I rated them as well, thanks :good

[he grant]

I think it is a great list and thesis ... I keep rereading it to fully digest it .. one fighter I have never seen on film is Valdez who has always been of interest to me. Even on Youtube, nothing ... was he robbed of a victory v.s. Archie Moore in Vegas ? Has anyone seen that fight ?

[McGrain]

Nice read.

[Bummy Davis]

I do agree, although rocky did prove himself against one albeit older hard punching big heavyweight.......6'2 215lb joe louis. I think the louis fight shows he would have been able to handle valdez. Louis actually knocked out nino valdez on march. 14 1950 in one round in a live exhibition. valdez himself had loads of trouble with men marcianos size(satterfield moore).....according to papers nino had trouble with fighters who fought out of a crouch. defintley a legacy booster, but so would have been patterson in 1956.

I agree and Nino lost the Big ones at wrong time...the Moore elimination and previous loss to Archie put Archie ahead but Archie also had a KO over Baker, a tko over Harold Johnson...also Nino got Beaten soundly by Bob Satterfield and was lucky to survive the 9 count in there 1955 fight. Bob Satterfield was already Ko'd in 2 by Ezzard Charles and Ko'd by Archie ...Nino was not in the class of Louis (even an older one and the 1 rd blastout by a puncher of Louis calibur would be a preview to what Marciano would have done to him. The overhand right that Ko'd Rex Layne and 6"4 Carmine Vingo was a brutal one I do feel strongly that Nino would have been out classed by the rock, still in retrospect I would have loved to see it. Rocky did fight the best and avoided no one. Moore was there more dangerous foe at the time and truley deserved the shot. Charles had 2 great spectacular ko's over 6"3 Coley Wallace and Bob Saterfeild to boast him in place for a title shot and he was in great shape and ready for his fight vs Rocky. Lastarza was a great boxer though somewhat protected but his first fight vs Marciano and some good wins over 6"2 Dan Bucceroni, Big Bill Wilson,Ted Lowry, Keene Simmons,Rex Layne and a 53-3 record made the fight marketable. I think the smaller men of that era like Walcott,Charles,Satterfield,Henry,Lastarza,Moore did there share of eliminating the less talented Bigger men