Heavyweight Contenders of the Marciano Era

[raylawpc]

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.

Here it comes . . .

[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.

Here it comes . . .

The truth will set you free.

But first, it will piss you off.

[raylawpc]

You should have stayed with your first thought.

It was a weak era.

Here it comes . . .

The truth will set you free.

But first, it will piss you off.

It doesn't p*ss me off. I think your ploy of trying to build up Frazier by tearing down anything about Marciano is quite laughable, but sadly predictable . . .

[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.

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.

So he could actually get down in weight if there were same day weigh ins? Never thought of it like that.

Byrd was under the LHW limit about twice. And I don't think Eddie has ever weighed under 200.

[yancey]

" It doesn't p*ss me off. I think your ploy of trying to build up Frazier by tearing down anything about Marciano is quite laughable, but sadly predictable . . . " raylawpc (on his way to the nut house)





It's actually a vast conspiracy.

Why don't you do an investigation?

Maybe you can write a 2000 word treatise about this "ploy."

Before the nice men in the white coats come to take you away.

[raylawpc]

" It doesn't p*ss me off. I think your ploy of trying to build up Frazier by tearing down anything about Marciano is quite laughable, but sadly predictable . . . " raylawpc (on his way to the nut house)





It's actually a vast conspiracy.

Why don't you do an investigation?

Maybe you can write a 2000 word treatise about this "ploy."

Before the nice men in the white coats come to take you away.

Oh, no conspiracy. I don't think anybody but you is silly enough to think they build up somebody by tearing down somebody else . . .

[yancey]

" It doesn't p*ss me off. I think your ploy of trying to build up Frazier by tearing down anything about Marciano is quite laughable, but sadly predictable . . . " raylawpc (on his way to the nut house)





It's actually a vast conspiracy.

Why don't you do an investigation?

Maybe you can write a 2000 word treatise about this "ploy."

Before the nice men in the white coats come to take you away.

Oh, no conspiracy. I don't think anybody but you is silly enough to think they build up somebody by tearing down somebody else . . .

What is truly silly is wasting time with the likes of you.

I've seen others go round and round with you. It won't happen to me.

My opinion of the heavyweight era when Rocky was champ has not one thing to do with some bizarre notion that my real motivation is to build up Frazier by tearing down Rocky.

I honestly feel that '50s era was weak. Nothing more to it.

There is truly something wrong with you if you cannot understand that.

[Cap]

Yeah Thompson's collapse was weird. Two quick KO wins to end 1949 then a majority decision loss to John Holman which may have damaged him permanently, then a split decision loss to nobody [15-9-6] Frank Buford, someone he would've blown out previously. Holman, when asked a couple of years later, said that Thompson was the toughest guy he fought. "...I hit him and hit him and he never stopped coming. Nobody's tougher than him."

[Dubblechin]

I'm not here to talk down about any fighters.

But the fact is Rocky Marciano's manager, Al Weill, was also the matchmaker for the IBC. So, if a heavyweight wanted on TV in the late 40s and 50s, Al Weill made the matches.

So it's not surprising (is it?) that when a talented fighter (not connected to the IBC) started to make a run at the IBC champ and later Marciano, he got matched tough until he lost.

Then Weill would say - "Hey, he lost. Why should Rocky fight him?"

How many freaking times did someone - whether it's Nino Valdes or Bob Baker or Harold Johnson or any number of guys mentioned in this thread -- have to run the gauntlet of tough fights and until they eventually lost, and then Marciano would fight Don Cockell or an IBC fighter like Ezzard Charles?

In a little more than a year, Harold Johnson fought Archie Moore three times, Bob Satterfield, Clarence Henry -- winning some and losing some - then he goes on a tear beating Satterfield, Valdes, Baker, Ezzard Charles ... and Weill keeps matching him tough until he loses to Archie Moore again.

And then Weill turns around and signs Marciano to fight Cockell.

Don't think there wasn't a method to that madness. There's a reason so many guys in this thread would get close after beating a bunch of name guys ... only to lose because he kept having to fight the same tough guys over and over and over again.

It's not brain surgery.

Let's put it this way, if Weill was in charge of the NCAA basketball tournament this year, he'd throw Virginia and Arizona in Wichita State's bracket, too, in addition to Michigan, Louisville, Kentucky and Duke. And then he'd make Wichita State beat them all again, before they could play Florida (where Weill is also the head basketball coach). And if they lost once, forget it. They didn't deserve it anyway.

That's basically what happened during that period in boxing.

[Dubblechin]

Cus D'Amato did something similar when Patterson won the title. D'Amato refused to defend against ANY IBC-connected fighters.

The only difference between D'Amato and Weill was D'Amato wasn't also matching the IBC fighters he didn't want Patterson to fight against each other - and then running them down when they lost. He just straight up said he wouldn't fight them. And the IBC had such a bad name at that point that he got away with it for a while.

[yancey]

Rocky Marciano

"It's not my fault that the Heavyweight Division is weak. I can only fight what is available on the shelf,
and the pickings are light."

"The Light-Heavyweight Division is filled with many good fighters, but they have a tough time when they
move up. They can post a good win or two, but over the long-haul they will get worn down."

"A guy that I thought would make it was that guy out of Los Angeles ~ Elbert 'Turkey' Thompson. He had
size and power, and had more experience than anyone. Then he hit {Age; 30}, and lost a bunch of fights in
a row in 1950. I can't believe he fell apart like that."

He sure looks like a fighter.

Knocked Bob Pastor down 6 times in one round, before losing a decision.

[Ambling Alp II]

Marciano could have fought certain opponents, but really there were several fighters who were roughly even and he fought some of them. Don't see how he can be faulted for giving Walcott a rematch, or defending twice vs Charles or once vs Moore and La Starza. Cockell was not deserving, but still all and all not a bad set of defenses.
Frazier for example in a 22 month period in a very deep time, defended the title against Terry Daniels and Ron Stander, who weren't even in the top 10.

[Cap]

You've got to read Russell Sullivan's excellent "Rocky Marciano - The Rock of His Times" to see how Weill and Jim Norris had boxing sewn up. You have to hand it to Weill, he brilliantly hand-picked all of Marciano's opponents after about November of 1949. While matchmaker for the IBC he used his son Matt as his front man so he could still act as Marciano's manager, which was not exactly according to Hoyle. There were plenty at the time who thought LaStarza was robbed of the decision at the Garden in 1950 because Weill was both matchmaker there and Marciano's real manager.

Sullivan's book describes the truly Machiavellian plan that formed the IBC, signed up the top heavyweight contenders and gained control of the mecca of boxing Madison Square Garden, all with the help of none other than legendary champion Joe Louis. This will leave you shaking your head.

All of this takes nothing away from Rocky. Even had he lost a couple of decisions along the way, he was so dedicated to his craft and driven by his fear of poverty that nothing would stand in his way for long. He was the best of his generation, and it didn't hurt to have one of the most respected trainers in the world in his corner either. Charlie Goldman, Al Weill and Rocky Marciano were an unbeatable combination.

[raylawpc]

" It doesn't p*ss me off. I think your ploy of trying to build up Frazier by tearing down anything about Marciano is quite laughable, but sadly predictable . . . " raylawpc (on his way to the nut house)





It's actually a vast conspiracy.

Why don't you do an investigation?

Maybe you can write a 2000 word treatise about this "ploy."

Before the nice men in the white coats come to take you away.

Oh, no conspiracy. I don't think anybody but you is silly enough to think they build up somebody by tearing down somebody else . . .

What is truly silly is wasting time with the likes of you.

I've seen others go round and round with you. It won't happen to me.

My opinion of the heavyweight era when Rocky was champ has not one thing to do with some bizarre notion that my real motivation is to build up Frazier by tearing down Rocky.

I honestly feel that '50s era was weak. Nothing more to it.

There is truly something wrong with you if you cannot understand that.

[Cap]

I just noticed something weird while perusing Marciano's record in Boxrec.

On Monday August 23rd, 1948 Rocky Marciano knocked out Canadian light heavyweight prospect Eddie Ross in 1 round at Providence, RI. Reportedly knocked him cold.

The very next day, Tuesday August 24th, 1948, Eddie Ross KO'd Bill Sparks in 4 at Quebec City. This seems really odd. Unless the record is wrong, I suspect we're talking about two different guys named Ross.

[Dubblechin]

I just noticed something weird while perusing Marciano's record in Boxrec.

On Monday August 23rd, 1948 Rocky Marciano knocked out Canadian light heavyweight prospect Eddie Ross in 1 round at Providence, RI. Reportedly knocked him cold.

The very next day, Tuesday August 24th, 1948, Eddie Ross KO'd Bill Sparks in 4 at Quebec City. This seems really odd. Unless the record is wrong, I suspect we're talking about two different guys named Ross.

In one of Rocky's early fights, the opponent didn't show up so one of Marciano's brother's pretended he was the opponent. It's discussed in one of the Marciano documentaries. His brother was introduced as the guy who was supposed to fight that evening and Rocky subsequently "knocked him out" (his brother went down after going through the motions for a minute or two).

In the documentary I saw, the Marciano brother who discussed the event laughed about it. But it showed that the promoter, commission, and Marciano's family and camp didn't have a problem fixing an event to give Rocky another win when they could have easily just announced the opponent wasn't there and labeled it an exhibition or something.

I don't know if Eddie Ross was the fellow who didn't show up. I don't think the fighter was ever named. But Marciano's family told that story often. They thought it was funny.

[Dubblechin]

Marciano could have fought certain opponents, but really there were several fighters who were roughly even and he fought some of them. Don't see how he can be faulted for giving Walcott a rematch, or defending twice vs Charles or once vs Moore and La Starza. Cockell was not deserving, but still all and all not a bad set of defenses.
Frazier for example in a 22 month period in a very deep time, defended the title against Terry Daniels and Ron Stander, who weren't even in the top 10.

Joe Frazier suffered a serious beating in the first fight with Ali. Then he remained in the hospital after the bout for a month or so due to a kidney problem. In the documentary about the first Ali-Frazier fight that aired on HBO, they talk about how rumors circulated that Frazier had even died in the hospital. Frazier was a very sick man after the first Ali fight. In fact, he was in such bad shape that his manager basically treated him as if he lost the fight. Ali was fighting Jimmy Ellis three months after the SuperFight ... while Frazier was still recovering from his hospital stay. And Stander and Daniels were guys someone might fight as comeback opponents after a loss. They weren't deserving of title shots.

That said, Frazier beat Bonavena, Quarry, Ellis, Ali and Bob Foster - arguably the top four heavyweights and the best light heavy - before he took "his break." And, after Stander and Daniels, he fought Foreman. In 1972, the only person most people thought deserved a title shot was Ali again. There weren't a lot of "deserving" guys in 1972 who missed out on a title shot because Frazier was basically inactive.

Maybe Floyd Patterson should've gotten a sixth title shot. Maybe Mac Foster (before Ali beat him in early 1972). Maybe his sparring partner Ken Norton (who hadn't beaten a top contender yet). All three would've been better than Stander and Daniels. But there wasn't some long-suffering, deserving contender around who got cheated out of a title shot (that I'm aware of).

[Ambling Alp II]

No, there weren't any contenders that had long been denied a title shot. However, there were several that were much more deserving of a title shot than Terry Daniels or Ron Stander.
Obviously there was Ali. Foreman was already considered a top contender by 1972. Patterson as well. He could have fought Quarry or Ellis again. Mac Foster probably would have taken a title shot in late 1971 or not taken the Ali fight in early 1972 had he had a chance at a title in early 1972.

I guess I just don't see how Marciano gets crticized for not taking on guys that didn't standout while Frazier clearly didn't not defend much more qualified opponents than the weak ones that he did.

[Dubblechin]

Obviously there was Ali. Foreman was already considered a top contender by 1972. Patterson as well. He could have fought Quarry or Ellis again. Mac Foster probably would have taken a title shot in late 1971 or not taken the Ali fight in early 1972 had he had a chance at a title in early 1972.

I guess I just don't see how Marciano gets crticized for not taking on guys that didn't standout while Frazier clearly didn't not defend much more qualified opponents than the weak ones that he did.

But Frazier DID defend his title against the best of his era: Quarry, Ellis, Bonvena, Ali, Foreman, etc. That's the difference.

You see, Marciano gets criticized for NOT fighting many of the top contenders AT ALL during his reign.

You're criticizing Frazier for not fighting top contenders in 1972 that he ALREADY BEAT or he eventually fought again anyway.

I agree. A 37-year-old Floyd Patterson would've been a better opponent in 1972 than Terry Daniels and Ron Stander. But it's hard to slam the guy when he then turns around and defends against Foreman.

[yancey]

Obviously there was Ali. Foreman was already considered a top contender by 1972. Patterson as well. He could have fought Quarry or Ellis again. Mac Foster probably would have taken a title shot in late 1971 or not taken the Ali fight in early 1972 had he had a chance at a title in early 1972.

I guess I just don't see how Marciano gets crticized for not taking on guys that didn't standout while Frazier clearly didn't not defend much more qualified opponents than the weak ones that he did.

But Frazier DID defend his title against the best of his era: Quarry, Ellis, Bonvena, Ali, Foreman, etc. That's the difference.

You see, Marciano gets criticized for NOT fighting many of the top contenders AT ALL during his reign.

You're criticizing Frazier for not fighting top contenders in 1972 that he ALREADY BEAT or he eventually fought again anyway.

I agree. A 37-year-old Floyd Patterson would've been a better opponent in 1972 than Terry Daniels and Ron Stander. But it's hard to slam the guy when he then turns around and defends against Foreman.

Doublechin, you are dealing with a petty agenda.

Someone's pin-up boy got knocked on his ass in The Big One and that someone still can't deal with it.

btw, you make very astute posts.

As far as Patterson goes, MSG tried to match Joe and Floyd post-FOTC. The Frazier camp was willing, but Patterson wouldn't come to terms.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Obviously there was Ali. Foreman was already considered a top contender by 1972. Patterson as well. He could have fought Quarry or Ellis again. Mac Foster probably would have taken a title shot in late 1971 or not taken the Ali fight in early 1972 had he had a chance at a title in early 1972.

I guess I just don't see how Marciano gets crticized for not taking on guys that didn't standout while Frazier clearly didn't not defend much more qualified opponents than the weak ones that he did.

But Frazier DID defend his title against the best of his era: Quarry, Ellis, Bonvena, Ali, Foreman, etc. That's the difference.

You see, Marciano gets criticized for NOT fighting many of the top contenders AT ALL during his reign.

You're criticizing Frazier for not fighting top contenders in 1972 that he ALREADY BEAT or he eventually fought again anyway.

I agree. A 37-year-old Floyd Patterson would've been a better opponent in 1972 than Terry Daniels and Ron Stander. But it's hard to slam the guy when he then turns around and defends against Foreman.

Doublechin, you are dealing with a petty agenda.

Someone's pin-up boy got knocked on his ass in The Big One and that someone still can't deal with it.

[Ambling Alp II]

Obviously there was Ali. Foreman was already considered a top contender by 1972. Patterson as well. He could have fought Quarry or Ellis again. Mac Foster probably would have taken a title shot in late 1971 or not taken the Ali fight in early 1972 had he had a chance at a title in early 1972.

I guess I just don't see how Marciano gets crticized for not taking on guys that didn't standout while Frazier clearly didn't not defend much more qualified opponents than the weak ones that he did.

But Frazier DID defend his title against the best of his era: Quarry, Ellis, Bonvena, Ali, Foreman, etc. That's the difference.

You see, Marciano gets criticized for NOT fighting many of the top contenders AT ALL during his reign.

You're criticizing Frazier for not fighting top contenders in 1972 that he ALREADY BEAT or he eventually fought again anyway.

I agree. A 37-year-old Floyd Patterson would've been a better opponent in 1972 than Terry Daniels and Ron Stander. But it's hard to slam the guy when he then turns around and defends against Foreman.

Yes, he already beat some of them. However, it still would have been much more impressive if during a 22 month period of time, had he risked the title against them rather than fighting 2 stiffs.
Don't mean to slam him. Other champions certainly have done worse.
However, the fact remains that he could have had a much better title reign.

Realistically, how much better could Marciano's reign been?
Sure he could have fought Valdes, Johnson, Satterfield or several other guys.
However, pick 6 title defenses over a course of 3 years. How much better could it have been? Cockell is the only guy that doesn't really belong.

Would title defenses against Valdes, Satterfield, Johnson, Baker, Henry, etc. really been that much more impressive than Walcott, Charles 2x, LaStarza, Cockell, and Moore?

[HomicideHenry]

Yes, he already beat some of them. However, it still would have been much more impressive if during a 22 month period of time, had he risked the title against them rather than fighting 2 stiffs.
Don't mean to slam him. Other champions certainly have done worse.
However, the fact remains that he could have had a much better title reign.

Realistically, how much better could Marciano's reign been?
Sure he could have fought Valdes, Johnson, Satterfield or several other guys.
However, pick 6 title defenses over a course of 3 years. How much better could it have been? Cockell is the only guy that doesn't really belong.

Would title defenses against Valdes, Satterfield, Johnson, Baker, Henry, etc. really been that much more impressive than Walcott, Charles 2x, LaStarza, Cockell, and Moore?

Of all of Marciano's title defenses, Cockell was not rated #1 as the others were. He was rated #2, as he was the British and Commonwealth champion. That he 'doesnt belong' sort of goes in the face of logic a bit considering he was rated rather highly. Then again, the diehard Marciano haters will argue that Weil had control of the IBC and had connections to MSG, etc. and that he picked and chosed who fought Marciano--- but the truth is the man with the most power in the IBC and MSG was Jim Norris. The fact that the Cockell fight wasnt held in MSG but rather in California, and against a fighter with no connection really to the IBC speaks more in volume to Marciano and Weil's credit than Norris's because The Rock was paid a huge amount of money for the Cockell fight (even though Weil stole a huge chunk of it). By the time Cus and Floyd came around, the IBC and MSG was well under investigation from the FBI and was on the ropes, and of course Cus made an exclusive deal where he single handedly put Jim Norris out of business because Cus then had all the power to say who would fight Patterson.

As for Valdes, Baker, Satterfield being 'superior' to the defenses of Charles, Walcott, Moore, I think if that was the case--- then those three men wouldnt of played 'musical chairs' so to speak trading wins and losses with everybody else in the division. They were young men, sure, but they just couldnt hold it altogether long enough to make themselves worthy of fighting for the title---- the fact that Marciano retired mainly because nobody could attract the money and attention that Moore, Charles, Walcott could just goes to solidify that fact. Earl Walls, was in truth the #1 contender when Marciano still held the crown, but he himself retired rather unexpectedly. There was just nobody really left of consequence. The big money came a couple of years after the fact, when Patterson was at his apex and Johansson came along, and rumors of comebacks started. But by then it was too late.

[yancey]

Yes, he already beat some of them. However, it still would have been much more impressive if during a 22 month period of time, had he risked the title against them rather than fighting 2 stiffs.
Don't mean to slam him. Other champions certainly have done worse.
However, the fact remains that he could have had a much better title reign.

Realistically, how much better could Marciano's reign been?
Sure he could have fought Valdes, Johnson, Satterfield or several other guys.
However, pick 6 title defenses over a course of 3 years. How much better could it have been? Cockell is the only guy that doesn't really belong.

Would title defenses against Valdes, Satterfield, Johnson, Baker, Henry, etc. really been that much more impressive than Walcott, Charles 2x, LaStarza, Cockell, and Moore?

Of all of Marciano's title defenses, Cockell was not rated #1 as the others were. He was rated #2, as he was the British and Commonwealth champion. That he 'doesnt belong' sort of goes in the face of logic a bit considering he was rated rather highly. Then again, the diehard Marciano haters will argue that Weil had control of the IBC and had connections to MSG, etc. and that he picked and chosed who fought Marciano--- but the truth is the man with the most power in the IBC and MSG was Jim Norris. The fact that the Cockell fight wasnt held in MSG but rather in California, and against a fighter with no connection really to the IBC speaks more in volume to Marciano and Weil's credit than Norris's because The Rock was paid a huge amount of money for the Cockell fight (even though Weil stole a huge chunk of it). By the time Cus and Floyd came around, the IBC and MSG was well under investigation from the FBI and was on the ropes, and of course Cus made an exclusive deal where he single handedly put Jim Norris out of business because Cus then had all the power to say who would fight Patterson.

As for Valdes, Baker, Satterfield being 'superior' to the defenses of Charles, Walcott, Moore, I think if that was the case--- then those three men wouldnt of played 'musical chairs' so to speak trading wins and losses with everybody else in the division. They were young men, sure, but they just couldnt hold it altogether long enough to make themselves worthy of fighting for the title---- the fact that Marciano retired mainly because nobody could attract the money and attention that Moore, Charles, Walcott could just goes to solidify that fact. Earl Walls, was in truth the #1 contender when Marciano still held the crown, but he himself retired rather unexpectedly. There was just nobody really left of consequence. The big money came a couple of years after the fact, when Patterson was at his apex and Johansson came along, and rumors of comebacks started. But by then it was too late.

If Cockell was really the #2 contender, then that simply reinforces the view that the era was weak.

Can anyone imagine Cockell the #2 contender in certain other time periods? Anybody see him as the #2 contender in the '60s and '70s? Wasn't he actually stopped by a middleweight or two?

I've got to be honest. Both Rocky and Cockell looked pretty bad in the video of their fight that I've seen. Even the referee seemed disgusted and relieved to raise Rocky's hand at the end and be done with it.

btw, anytime someone starts throwing around the word "hater" to characterize those with opposing views, it weakens their position greatly and shows a certain shallowness, to my way of thinking.

The same goes for anyone that tries to distort someone's view or assign an ulterior motive to it.

I for sure don't hate Rocky. He is in my top 15. I just feel that era was weak, which was certainly not his fault.

[yancey]

Don Cockell

Still 'earned' a Title Bout for May 15, 1955.

Starting from June 1952 he won '10-Straight', defeating the likes of >

* Tommy Farr
* Johnny Williams
* Harry 'Kid' Matthews
* Uber Bacilieri
* Johnny Arthur
* Roland LaStarza
* Harry 'Kid' Matthews
* Harry 'Kid' Matthews

He had a respectable record of 66-11-1 {38 KO's}, and despite his age {34 years, 8 months} he was worthy of a
Top 10 ranking.

And he was the Commonwealth Heavyweight Champion.

Physically, not the best looking fighter at {5' 11" and 205 lbs.}, but he was resilient.

Well, I'll go for the resilient part. He was also brave.

Rocky did everything but run him over with a tractor.