Heavyweight Contenders of the Marciano Era

[Cap]

All the focus in recent times on the quality of today's heavyweight contenders revived my interest in the class from 1949-1955. Who were they and were they any good?

Looking at the Year-end Ring Rankings I noticed that 37 boxers tended to dominate the period. Some were veterans from the 40s and some were new faces. Using a points system based solely on appearances in The Ring's Year-end rankings for the period I think, aside from Marciano, they can be grouped like this:

No. 1 Ezzard Charles. The former middleweight/light heavyweight was highly ranked through much of the era.
Tied for No. 2 Clarence Henry, Nino Valdes and Bob Baker three talented young stars with minor flaws.
No.3 Jersey Joe Walcott the cagey old campaigner.
No.4 Roland LaStarza and Rex Layne. Slick boxer and tough one-armed slugger.
No.5 Joe Louis Don Cockell and Lee Savold. Sentimental favourite, pudgy light heavyweight and ring-worn mid-level contender.
No.6 Lee Oma ranked higher than he should have been, Tommy Jackson the exciting hurricane, Archie Moore the undisputed light heavyweight champion, and Earl Walls prototype of the new bigger heavyweights.
No.7 A mixed bag of Dan Bucceroni, Heinz Neuhaus, Joey Maxim, Karel Sys, Turkey Thompson, Bob Dunlap and John Holman.
No.8 Actually more talented than most of the above group: Bruce Woodcock, Johnny Williams, Willie Pastrano, Bob Satterfield and Jimmy Bivins.
No.9 Cesar Brion, Johnny Summerlin, Jack Gardner, Joe Baksi, Pat Valentino, and Tommy Harrison.
No.10 Charley Norkus, Omelio Agramonte, Young Jack Johnson, Coley Wallace and Jimmy Slade.

Of these 37 names, who would be the 10 best of this period 1949-1955 and where would they fit in today?

Interesting to note how many light heavyweights were in this group of top heavyweight contenders. How many natural cruiserweights are campaigning as heavyweights today?

NOTE: Looking at similar number most recent years, you notice the same names quite often and only 21 total from 2008-2013.

[dempseyfire]

I used to think this was a weak era, and while it (along with boxing overall) took a a little post-WWII dip and historically is relatively weak, by the mid 50s it was a pretty solid division. Guys like Baker and Henry were really good in top form and could have easily been champions in the last 20 years. While you had talented up and comers like Summerlin, Machen, and Wallace (the latter turned out to be a relative bust, but seeing him on film he was actually a well rounded fighter and a MURDEROUS puncher). Then you had the older but still great veterans in Walcott, Moore, and Charles, and a mid-tier guy like Satterfield if he bothered to train could come in and beat almost anyone.

Even Rex Layne, who I used to think was awful . . the more films I've seen of his earlier fights (vs Satterfield, Wills, Brion) the guy was more skilled than given credit for and most notably was tough as nails and threw non-stop bombs from odd angles. Tough guy to fight. By the 3rd Charles fight he was pretty much damaged goods and he looks like not more than a good gatekeeper, but in his brief prime one can see how he was a contender.

But compared to what is the worst division in the history of boxing . . . today's HW division? Pluueeze, Charley Powell in 2014 would be considered a phenom #1 contender. I'm not saying he'd beat Klitschko but he'd flatten the likes of Fury and Povetkin.

[Ezzard]

Andrew Ward weighs about 175 on fight night.

Many people consider him the p4p #2

Knowing that LightHeavyweights back in the 1940s could successfully campaign at HW...in what was a far better era...and how most of them would clean out today's HW division...

Just imagine how Ward would handle Wladimir... Obviously he's ducking Ward.

[Crease]

I used to think this was a weak era, and while it (along with boxing overall) took a a little post-WWII dip and historically is relatively weak, by the mid 50s it was a pretty solid division.

There is this perception that the Heavyweight Division of 1950-56 was the among the weakest of the past 120 years. So I researched it and I have to say that I would strongly dispute the claim.

To my mind, it really was not. Back in those days all the top contenders fought each other repeatedly and were beating each other - in that way it was somewhat reflective of the Walcott vs Charles rivalry.

Looking at it that way, it was a very exciting time. But I suppose it largely depends on what you are looking for in the division and what excites you. Top contenders fighting each other and the Heavyweight Champions taking hard fights really appeals to me, so it would be one of my more favourite eras.

Case in point, Bob Satterfield & Harold Johnson beat each other, as did Lee Savold & Bruce Woodock. During that era contenders tended to struggle against one another with ultimately led to mixed results and no dominant force prevailing.

For example:
Bob Baker beat Nino Valdes - Valdes beat Hurricane Jackson - Jackson beat Baker.

Three way ties like this were common occurrences. It makes for an exciting division.

[Crease]

I used to think this was a weak era, and while it (along with boxing overall) took a a little post-WWII dip and historically is relatively weak, by the mid 50s it was a pretty solid division.

The late 30s, early 40s was weaker than the 50s in my estimation. (No disrespect to Joe Louis intended).

Even Rex Layne, who I used to think was awful . . the more films I've seen of his earlier fights (vs Satterfield, Wills, Brion) the guy was more skilled than given credit for and most notably was tough as nails and threw non-stop bombs from odd angles. Tough guy to fight. By the 3rd Charles fight he was pretty much damaged goods and he looks like not more than a good gatekeeper, but in his brief prime one can see how he was a contender.

Layne is massively underrated. He doesn't get the credit he deserves, probably because he was never the champ. And there's a real danger that he will become a forgotten man of boxing.

Burt Sugar always spoke well of him as well.

[yancey]

I used to think this was a weak era, and while it (along with boxing overall) took a a little post-WWII dip and historically is relatively weak, by the mid 50s it was a pretty solid division. Guys like Baker and Henry were really good in top form and could have easily been champions in the last 20 years. While you had talented up and comers like Summerlin, Machen, and Wallace (the latter turned out to be a relative bust, but seeing him on film he was actually a well rounded fighter and a MURDEROUS puncher). Then you had the older but still great veterans in Walcott, Moore, and Charles, and a mid-tier guy like Satterfield if he bothered to train could come in and beat almost anyone.

Even Rex Layne, who I used to think was awful . . the more films I've seen of his earlier fights (vs Satterfield, Wills, Brion) the guy was more skilled than given credit for and most notably was tough as nails and threw non-stop bombs from odd angles. Tough guy to fight. By the 3rd Charles fight he was pretty much damaged goods and he looks like not more than a good gatekeeper, but in his brief prime one can see how he was a contender.

But compared to what is the worst division in the history of boxing . . . today's HW division? Pluueeze, Charley Powell in 2014 would be considered a phenom #1 contender. I'm not saying he'd beat Klitschko but he'd flatten the likes of Fury and Povetkin.

You should have stayed with your first thought.

It was a weak era.

[Ezzard]

These days multiple titles flying around can make divisions seem better than they really are.

[dempseyfire]

Andrew Ward weighs about 175 on fight night.

Many people consider him the p4p #2

Knowing that LightHeavyweights back in the 1940s could successfully campaign at HW...in what was a far better era...and how most of them would clean out today's HW division...

Just imagine how Ward would handle Wladimir... Obviously he's ducking Ward.

We do have light heavyweights successfully campaigning at HW . . ever heard of Chris Byrd and Eddie Chambers?

What guys blow up to in water weight on fight night means diddly. If Ward was fighting as often as guys did in the 1940s he'd likely campaign for the 160 lb title and in non-title bouts weigh around 165-170.

[Cap]

As for Chris Byrd, from his third fight on he was well over the light heavyweight limit and probably would have been smarter to campaign as a cruiserweight.

[Ambling Alp II]

It was a decent era, better than some, worse than others.
I always thought Harold Johnson was interesting. He did lose to Satterfield once, but beat him in a rematch. (Won the rubber match outside of this time period.) He also got ko's by Waloctt. (as did his dad) However, he beat Clarence Henry, Valdes, and Charles. I think he was actually a better heavyweight than Moore.

Walcott and Charles were the best (besides Marciano). After than it was Johnson, and Moore. As mentioned Layne didn't always look pretty, but he beat both Walcott and Charles. Henry was up there as well.

Always thought Valdes was overrated, he had a couple of nice wins but throughout his career was constantly losing to both good and not so good fighters.

LaStarza looked good, but somehow seemed to lose most of his key fights.

[Cap]

From 1949-1955 the period in question, Johnson was KO'd by Walcott, lost two of three to Archie Moore, managed split decisions over Clarence Henry and Ezzard Charles, split two with Satterfield, won clearly over Nino Valdes, and split two with Julio Maderos. Throw in two stoppage losses in 1954 and you can see why he probably felt he just missed out on being included in the Ring's heavyweight rankings.

[Ambling Alp II]

A lot is how you look at things. The fights vs Moore were really light theavyweight fights. When Johnson got stopped, it was the 14th round in a fight he was winning. How much ( if at all) should they count when rating them as heavyweights?
Against Mederos, he was sick and collapsed. He clearly was not at his best. How much that should count is debatable. He easily beat Mederos the other time they fought.
Johnson also had wins over Jimmy Bivins, Jimmy Slade, and Marty Marshall during this time.

[Cap]

The era was competitive if nothing else. Top contenders actually fought each other. Oddly, Archie Moore a light heavyweight and Ezzard Charles a former light heavyweight, seemed the best of the bunch, but then in those days there very often was only 10 or 15 pounds difference as heavyweights often scaled much less than 200 pounds. Imagine Eddie Chambers or Steve Cunningham dominating today's heavyweights. Tomasz Adamek, another former cruiserweight, likely comes closest to the status held by Charles and Moore. As for the others in that era, many became household names through the magic of television, despite the absence of alphabet titles. Nowadays, even with some hanging round in various rankings for years, Joe Public doesn't know who they are.

[BoxBuzz]

Is there any real case for Valdez being avoided by Marciano? Seems like just another fight that didn't happen for sensible reasons....and can not be filed under any sort of avoidance. He just didn't earn the shot in the time frame when Rocky was available.

Every fight that does not happen is NOT a case of avoidance.

[Crease]

As for Chris Byrd, from his third fight on he was well over the light heavyweight limit and probably would have been smarter to campaign as a cruiserweight.

Maybe so - but Chris was making a good impact in the Heavyweight Division, which gained him more recognition than what he would have at Cruiser.
Plus, isn't there more money in the Heavyweight Division compared to CW?

I remember David Haye discussing this at length a few years back. He said something like he made more money in 3 fights at Heavyweight than what he did his entire Cruiserweight career.

[Crease]

Always thought Valdes was overrated, he had a couple of nice wins but throughout his career was constantly losing to both good and not so good fighters.

Agreed. Every time Valdes put together a few good wins, he would then proceed to lose key fights which destroyed his chances of getting a title shot.

His one big chance was when after he beat Hurricane Jackson (and 2 more lesser ranked fighters) he got a number one contender eliminator against Archie Moore and he lost convincingly.

From there, Nino lost three successive times each time he come up against a top 10 contender - losing to Bob Satterfield, Bob Baker & Zora Folley.

Valdes tried to get his high ranking back by beating Don Cockell (immediately after Don lost to The Rock) - but the three losses that I named above but the final nail in the coffin.

[Crease]

Is there any real case for Valdez being avoided by Marciano? Seems like just another fight that didn't happen for sensible reasons....and can not be filed under any sort of avoidance. He just didn't earn the shot in the time frame when Rocky was available.

Well basically, Valdes was a good but inconsistent fighter. And he had a terrible habit of choking in the big fights - granted he scored a few good wins - beat Charles and Doc Williams in '53 and Hurricane Jackson in '54, but largely he lost all the rest of his big fights.

And frankly that's not enough to get a title shot in any era.

Every fight that does not happen is NOT a case of avoidance.

Well said Buzz. And this point cannot be overstated.

You know in a curious way, Marciano may have been criticised had he taken the Valdes fight - because Valdes did not rightfully earn a shot at the big prize. And, as I said, he lost to the top contenders.

[Crease]

From 1949-1955 the period in question, Johnson was KO'd by Walcott, lost two of three to Archie Moore, managed split decisions over Clarence Henry and Ezzard Charles, split two with Satterfield, won clearly over Nino Valdes, and split two with Julio Maderos. Throw in two stoppage losses in 1954 and you can see why he probably felt he just missed out on being included in the Ring's heavyweight rankings.

Think it was because Harold was jumping up and down between the two weights. It made him hard to "pin down" for a ranking.

But I couldn't say for sure, mate. You'd have to ask the ring magazine.

[HomicideHenry]

It was a very competitive era with a hell of alot of prospects and contenders. Any one of those guys would of been contenders, if not champions, in alot of other era's. With no disrespect to Joe Louis, Larry Holmes, and the Lewis-Klitschko era's I would argue the 1950's were much better overall.

It was about as competitive an era as was the 1910's were, and anyone who knows real boxing history will attest that era was a promoter, matchmaker, manager's dream cus everyone and their brother was boxing back then. But, when you look at the Marciano/Walcott/Charles time frame, there was alot of good guys out there. Just because a guy like Marciano proved to be the top man of the era, with his flaws and limitations, doesn't mean the era was bad--- far from it.

Archie Moore was an excellent heavyweight, far better than many others who came down the pipe, especially guys today like Adamek, Cunningham, etc. who tried and failed as heavyweights. Hell, the men Moore beat as a heavyweight would make up the top ten contenders mix today if they were around, and Moore would probably be sitting as champion.

Bob Baker, Nino Valdes, Earl Walls were better than history says. Bob Satterfield was causing mayhem from light heavyweight to heavyweight, and was the most feared man of his time. Alot of people thought he would of been Marciano's biggest threat--- but he lost to Charles, and never was the same again. Rex Layne was a beast, knocking out everybody and even though he lost on a kayo to Marciano, he was beating everyone else out there. Roland LaStarza was one hell of a boxer and mover in the ring, and never does quite get the deserved respect he's due--- and people still argue to this day that he actually beat Marciano in the first fight.

Hell, let's be honest here, the older, slower Joe Louis at that time was still a threat. After all, he became the number one contender for Jersey Joe Walcott's title for beating Savold and others. He needed the money badly, so he took the Marciano fight--- when he didn't have to. Just because he lost, people said "Oh poor Joe, he fought too long," but that is a bit biased cus Louis was still damn good--- and I would argue that version of Louis would of become a viable contender in the current era we are in, and even in Larry Holmes era.

Personally--- outside of Ali, Liston---- in the 1960's, that era wasn't much better than the 1950's was. Patterson was better following his reign as champion, but I would argue the Layne's, Satterfield's, Baker's, Valdes's, etc. would of split wins with anyone from the 1960's outside of Liston and Ali. The 1970's, however, just got too deep because by that time the Quarry's, Bonavena's, etc. were all at their apex and the division was building new stars--- the 1960's was good, but no one really hit their peaks, they were still developing.

[Crease]

Good post HomcideHenry.

[Crease]

Archie Moore was an excellent heavyweight, far better than many others who came down the pipe, especially guys today like Adamek, Cunningham, etc. who tried and failed as heavyweights. Hell, the men Moore beat as a heavyweight would make up the top ten contenders mix today if they were around, and Moore would probably be sitting as champion.

There is this criticism of Marciano of: "he beat a lot of pumped up Light Heavies" - and that's not even a proper crticism. Realistically there was an excellent crop of Light Heavs who came up and were beating the Heavyweight guys... And I mean LHWs like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Harry "Kid" Matthews - the three of them all were elected in to the International Bxoing Hall Of Fame years later.

That is just a statment of the pedigree of those men.

Bob Baker, Nino Valdes, Earl Walls were better than history says. Bob Satterfield was causing mayhem from light heavyweight to heavyweight, and was the most feared man of his time. Alot of people thought he would of been Marciano's biggest threat--- but he lost to Charles, and never was the same again. Rex Layne was a beast, knocking out everybody and even though he lost on a kayo to Marciano, he was beating everyone else out there.

I always found it curious why people highlight Valdes as the man that Marciano was apparently avoiding - why wasn't it Bob Satterfield or Bob Baker?

To be honest, I actually don't believe that he avoided any of them, but why Valdes in particular? I never really got that concept.

Hell, let's be honest here, the older, slower Joe Louis at that time was still a threat. After all, he became the number one contender for Jersey Joe Walcott's title for beating Savold and others. He needed the money badly, so he took the Marciano fight--- when he didn't have to. Just because he lost, people said "Oh poor Joe, he fought too long," but that is a bit biased cus Louis was still damn good

Well said, Joe won eight fights in a row between his title shot loss to Charles and his final defeat at the hands of Marciano.

The 1970's, however, just got too deep because by that time the Quarry's, Bonavena's, etc. were all at their apex and the division was building new stars--- the 1960's was good, but no one really hit their peaks, they were still developing.

I can see why the average boxin fan on the street woul say that the 70s was the best Heavyweight decade, because it's headlined by Muhammad Ali - you have Foreman and Frazier in there.... And below them you'd say Quarry, Chuvalo, Bonavena etc...

So I can certainly see why everyone picks the 70s...

But I do think that the 50s is heavily under appreciated.

[HomicideHenry]

There is this criticism of Marciano of: "he beat a lot of pumped up Light Heavies" - and that's not even a proper crticism. Realistically there was an excellent crop of Light Heavs who came up and were beating the Heavyweight guys... And I mean LHWs like Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore, Harry "Kid" Matthews - the three of them all were elected in to the International Bxoing Hall Of Fame years later.

That is just a statment of the pedigree of those men.

I agree with the sentiment, however I might add that the "pumped up light heavyweights" often were heavier than Marciano was when they fought him. True, in civilian life Rocky was 240 pounds before he began boxing and following his retirement, but he fought as low as 176 pounds and often times averaged 187 pounds--- Moore, Matthews, Charles, etc. all were heavier than he was when he fought them. If he was alive today, he'd of been a Cruiserweight and probably the greatest one of all time. But, yes, the depth of LHW's in that time was PHENOMENAL, probably the greatest decade of the division.

I always found it curious why people highlight Valdes as the man that Marciano was apparently avoiding - why wasn't it Bob Satterfield or Bob Baker?

To be honest, I actually don't believe that he avoided any of them, but why Valdes in particular? I never really got that concept.

It's a rather complicated account, but the generalised summary is:

#1- Satterfield, menace as he was, had his weaknesses; his chin was a liability, as was his stamina. If you could take his shots for four-five rounds, you had him. Or if you could come at him harder than he was coming at you (which was rare) you had him. Whenever he would have a great win on his resume, he somehow would lose to someone like Jake LaMotta by knockout who wasn't even a competitive light heavyweight/heavyweight. That's why Satterfield wasn't considered the man Marciano was avoiding--- and of course, when he lost to Ezzard Charles, that was the final nail in the coffin for him ever getting a shot at Marciano.

#2- The tale of Nino Valdes & Bob Baker, is as follows: the two men had fought once prior, and Valdes had won--- but it was real close. The two men, also, both had fought Archie Moore and both men lost to Moore (Baker by kayo, Valdes by decision). When Marciano kayoed Moore, the logical step was to have Valdes and Baker fight again to determine the #1 contender. However, what transpired was one of the dullest, least competitive fights of the era and both men were punished by the commission and rankings board as being 'undeserving' for fighting for the title--- and that of course, ultimately put the wheels of retirement into motion, as no one of serious consequence was left to fight, or who could generate the revenue to make it worth while (Patterson was still a LHW, Walls retired, no interest in a Moore rematch).

So, really, the idea that Valdes was the man to avoid, really was wishful thinking. He was arguably the best of the bunch outside of Moore--- he was young, he was tall, he was skillful and could take a punch--- but he obviously was inconsistent in his performances. Its one of those stories that got spun by would be fans and would be historians who try to diminish Marciano's legacy, saying he avoided young guys in their primes, and instead fought older men; however, its clear, if Valdes couldn't do a thing with Moore, the logic then is he wouldnt of done much with Marciano either.

I can see why the average boxin fan on the street woul say that the 70s was the best Heavyweight decade, because it's headlined by Muhammad Ali - you have Foreman and Frazier in there.... And below them you'd say Quarry, Chuvalo, Bonavena etc...

So I can certainly see why everyone picks the 70s...

But I do think that the 50s is heavily under appreciated.

The 1970's was a special era no doubt, however, its one of those era's tend to embellish a bit as time goes on. When one really thinks about the era, they will find alot of people either were passed it or they were just starting out--- no one really (who held a championship) was 'prime' in that era save for Norton and Foreman (Holmes came too late in the 70's).

Ali's best was in 1967. Any version of the 70's Ali was but a mock rendition of what was once great. Still, even that version was an ATG heavyweight, no doubt. Joe Frazier's best years was 1969-1971, so really he was a 'prime' heavyweight carved out in the 1960's. Anything else after that time was a shadow of what once was. George Chuvalo in the 1970's was an old man, as was Floyd Patterson; Jimmy Ellis and Buster Mathis' best years were in the 1960's. Jerry Quarry was another man who's career was carved out in the mid-late 1960's and by the time he met Ali, Norton, Frazier, he had so many wars that his skin was like tissue paper. Oscar Bonavena, like Frazier, was a star of the intermediate time frame of 1969-1971 and whose career was carved out in the 60's, so you can't say his best years were the 1970's either.

Ron Lyle, Chuck Wepner, Jimmy Young, Earnie Shavers--- essentially--- were heavyweights who's prime years were in the 1970's. In the end, when someone really takes a clear view of the era, they will see it was a mixed bag of old-timers, undeveloped prospects and a few 'prime' guys, just like any other era. I think the best comparison I can make to the 1970's heavyweight division, is to the 1940's-1950's middleweight division--- Sugar Ray Robinson was great, but he wasn't as great as he was when he was a welterweight, Jake LaMotta fought mostly at light heavyweight and only dabbled at middleweight when it really mattered, and of course you had a mixed bag of guys who were old (Zale), had their limitations (Graziano & Fullmer), or came to stardom late (Cerdan), or were division jumpers (Basilio).

[Cap]

"...True, in civilian life Rocky was 240 pounds before he began boxing and following his retirement, but he fought as low as 176 pounds and often times averaged 187 pounds--- Moore, Matthews, Charles, etc. all were heavier than he was when he fought them..."

Small technical correction. If Boxrec is to be trusted, and we know it is, Moore and Matthews both weighed less than Marciano when they fought, not more, while Charles weighed less in their first fight before packing on 7 pounds for the return go, which was probably a mistake.

[dempseyfire]

As for Chris Byrd, from his third fight on he was well over the light heavyweight limit and probably would have been smarter to campaign as a cruiserweight.

Byrd made a conscious business decision to eat a lot and blow up to heavyweight to make more money (he also stopped doing roadwork and did other exercises for cardio). He didn't just grow into being a 200+ pounder. After weighing in at 165 in the AMs in his early 20s, he would've been a light heavyweight naturally if he'd eaten and trained regularly

[Cap]

I dunno. As a cruiserweight, had Byrd done at least as well as he did against some heavyweights, he likely would have won two or three ABC titles, and with the right promoter might have made something of the cruiserweight class. Imagine a US network or cable channel broadcasting the title fights of a dominant American champion in a division that could be promoted as "faster than heavyweights and more explosive than light heavyweights!" Zowie!