Interesting Article from '03 (Marciano Overrated?)

[JCS]

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=41&more=1


22.10.03 - By Robert Bennett


I gave great respect for the achievements of Rocky Marciano. A champion can do no more then defeat the fighters placed in front of him, and make sure those fighters are the best available. Rocky Marciano did that, and regardless of the relative strength or weakness of a division in any era, a man that can do that is worthy of praise. How much praise is due however, is the question I pose.

Marciano is often ranked inside the top ten heavyweights of all time by various fans and writers, but one must wonder on what basis he is ranked. A record of 49-0 is impressive indeed but his record was only allowed to run to such extents because he was shut out of the title picture for so long. I rather imagine many a fighter in history would have also taken his record into the forties and fifties without loss if he wasn't fighting the cream of the division.

His first victory over a legitimate contender did not come until his 25th fight against Carmine Vingo. By the time he reached 40-0, Marciano had only four legitimate contenders on his resume, and one of those was the sad swansong of the great Joe Louis. Another was Roland LaStarza, who is famous for losing the barest of decisions to Marciano in a fight many observers felt he should have won. The other two fighters were Vingo of course, and Rex Layne, neither of which rate barely a mention in historical circles.

In stark comparison, Evander Holyfield was thrust into the top of the sport by his twelth fight, and remained undefeated until his 29th fight. The staggering difference is that by the time of his first defeat, Holyfield had faced and defeated at least fifteen contenders who were as good or better then the four Marciano had defeated by forty fights, and yet Holyfield himself struggles for recognition inside the top ten because unlike Marciano, he does not have the benefit of an undefeated record aiding his abilities in the eyes of many observers. As for Marciano's magical '0', that only remained because of the relatively short period of time that Marciano spent fighting at the top of the division. Count them eight fights, a heavyweight title eliminator and seven title fights. There are literally dozens of heavyweights who have remained active at the top for longer than that.

Whether intentional or not, Marciano was protected in much the same way that a Joe Mesi now is. Whether Mesi is a genuine talent is yet to be proven, but it is amazing that Marciano's record does not draw as much criticism as todays protected prospects. It is taboo, almost blasphemous to criticise the quality and depth of the names on Rocky's winlist, because of the mythical status that has been heaped upon his 'world record' 49-0.

Seven successful title fights is commendable, but when broken down not as impressive as many of his contemporaries. His two biggest name victims during his title reign were two victories each over Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. Charles was done as a top level fighter, as evidenced by the two decisions he dropped in the year before his first Marciano fight, and a little after a year after the second fight, had dropped a further four fights. As for Walcott, 23 years and 70 fights after his pro debut, many would have you believe that he remained a force to be reckoned with. No one is denying that Walcott was cagey and skillful, even in his advanced age, but putting him on a pedestal to lift the significance of Rocky's wins over him is a joke. No champion in history enjoyed the sort of longetivity attributed to Walcott, and Marciano was in danger of being defeated by both Walcott and Charles at some stage.

The trouble Marciano had with fighters like Walcott, Charles and LaStarza leads me to believe that a fighter like Roy Jones Jr would have taken him to school, as would the defensive marvel James Toney. Larry Holmes would have cut him up with his piston jab and stopped him. And due to both size and skill, Foreman, Lewis, Bowe and Vitali Klitschko would have decimated him. And to those that have fantasised about it, Marciano would have been no match for Muhammad Ali. Rocky struggled against far lesser fighters than Ali, and would not have been able to deal with the combination of speed, skill, power and smarts that felled more great heavyweights than any fighter before or after him.

Rocky Marciano, skilled and powerful, but vastly overrated in a historical sense.




Haven't seen a lot of the guy's material.. Thoughts?

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

to tell u the truth, its a horrible article. the guy clearly did not do his research.


im a huge marciano fan, but if i wanted too I could make marciano look like a very overated champ. AND i could do it with well inform facts, quotes, etc unliek this guy who had no idea wat he was talking about.




the guy did not do any research on charles pre marciano fight or post marciano fight. he simply looked at charles record which is not the way to go


he even goes as far to say charles was "done" as a top level fighter when if he were to check the RINGS top 10 ratings prior to the marciano fight charles was in fact THE # 1 CONTENDER!

I think it was the june 1954 RING issue that rated charles # 1 heavyweight contender in the world.

yet according to this guy, hes done as a top level fighter.




the main thing that got me is when he said james toney and roy jones would beat marciano, as if toney and jones were some big time heavyweights.

[theone]

Except for Jones and Toney beating him, and that Ezzard was "done" (past his best yes, but done is too strong of a word.) I agree with the article.

[JCS]

Some would argue that Roy Jones Jr was done as a fighter and he was still a unified champion.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I think roy jones would have given marciano huge problems until marciano caught him and knocked him out. jones speed, skill, elusiveness would make marciano look bad at times however marciano will catch jones and one shot will put jones down for the count. jones didnt have the chin at heavy and didnt have his same speed.

[Jaclem]

..i agree that roy jones..with his speed,skills and cleverness would give rocky real trouble until marciano caught up with him...sometime around the one minute mark of the second round...

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

he even goes as far to say charles was "done" as a top level fighter when if he were to check the RINGS top 10 ratings prior to the marciano fight charles was in fact THE # 1 CONTENDER!

I think it was the june 1954 RING issue that rated charles # 1 heavyweight contender in the world.

If Ring magazine had Charles as its #1 contender prior to the Marciano fight, that just means that it sucks. Bad ranking by Ring magazine.

why?

[JCS]

Even though we know its not perfect.. the BoxRec rankings at the end of 1953 had Moore in the #2 spot at HW.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

He'd lost two of his past four fights (I'm going by memory and too lazy to look it up), and one of the two men he beat was Statterfield, who was really a light heavyweight.

is that all you do is check boxrec?? first off, johnson fight doesnt count in heavyweight ratings since johnson was campaigning for the light-H belt only so for this convo throw that fight out the window. as for the valdes loss, this was a HUGE upset. valdes at the time was an unheard journeyman who had lost 4 times that year. however, valdes came into his own that night showing the world he was more than a journeyman and scored a huge upset over ezz.

so since walcott title loss, charles lost only to layne and valdes. but charles also won over 15 fights and avenged the layne loss. so ur looking at the only scar on charles ring rating being the valdes loss. however, valdes was unheard of until the charles fight. he was considered a journeyman. one upset win over charles doesnt automatically make valdes a # 1 contender.

jesse fergusson who had done nothing in the previous years upset ray mercer. so just because of that one loss, should fergusson who had done nothing in the previous years be sudenly burst into a top contender spot or should ray mercer who proved himself a top contender in the previous years still be rated over fergusson?

upsets happen. but valdes had to prove more than just the charles fight that he should be rated over ezz. by the end of 53, valdes was # 1 but at the time marciano fought ezzard, charles was the # 1 contender.

when charles responded after the valdes loss with knockouts over two top 10 contenders colley wallace and bob satterfield, he regained his # 1 rating. the huge upset loss(at the time) to valdes only breifly hurt his spot in the rankings.


funny how you say though charles lost 2 of his last 4, when instead you could say charles lost 11 out of his last 13(which sounds a lot better right)?

or funny how u leave out in charles two prior fights, he knocked out two top 10 contenders including bob satterfield who was ranked in the top 5.

satterfield was a top heavyweight contender who was coming off victories over top 5 heavyweight contender bob baker(KO 1) and a huge upset win over harold johnson. (harold johnson shut out nino valdes in 10 rounds). Satterfield in 1955 manhandled valdes in a 10 rounder. satterfield was a legit top contender heavyweight who was a huge threat to any heavyweight in the world when he brought his A game.


colley wallace was also rated just inside the top 10 by RING magaizine when charles knocked him out.


now to move back to the harold johnson fight. i suggest you see the fight on film before commenting on it. it was a robbery. I thought it was a close but clear victory for ezzard charles 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even.

[Ambling Alp]

He'd lost two of his past four fights (I'm going by memory and too lazy to look it up), and one of the two men he beat was Statterfield, who was really a light heavyweight.

is that all you do is check boxrec?? first off, johnson fight doesnt count in heavyweight ratings since johnson was campaigning for the light-H belt only so for this convo throw that fight out the window. as for the valdes loss, this was a HUGE upset. valdes at the time was an unheard journeyman who had lost 4 times that year. however, valdes came into his own that night showing the world he was more than a journeyman and scored a huge upset over ezz.

so since walcott title loss, charles lost only to layne and valdes. but charles also won over 15 fights and avenged the layne loss. so ur looking at the only scar on charles ring rating being the valdes loss. however, valdes was unheard of until the charles fight. he was considered a journeyman. one upset win over charles doesnt automatically make valdes a # 1 contender.

jesse fergusson who had done nothing in the previous years upset ray mercer. so just because of that one loss, should fergusson who had done nothing in the previous years be sudenly burst into a top contender spot or should ray mercer who proved himself a top contender in the previous years still be rated over fergusson?

upsets happen. but valdes had to prove more than just the charles fight that he should be rated over ezz. by the end of 53, valdes was # 1 but at the time marciano fought ezzard, charles was the # 1 contender.

when charles responded after the valdes loss with knockouts over two top 10 contenders colley wallace and bob satterfield, he regained his # 1 rating. the huge upset loss(at the time) to valdes only breifly hurt his spot in the rankings.


funny how you say though charles lost 2 of his last 4, when instead you could say charles lost 11 out of his last 13(which sounds a lot better right)?

or funny how u leave out in charles two prior fights, he knocked out two top 10 contenders including bob satterfield who was ranked in the top 5.

satterfield was a top heavyweight contender who was coming off victories over top 5 heavyweight contender bob baker(KO 1) and a huge upset win over harold johnson. (harold johnson shut out nino valdes in 10 rounds). Satterfield in 1955 manhandled valdes in a 10 rounder. satterfield was a legit top contender heavyweight who was a huge threat to any heavyweight in the world when he brought his A game.


colley wallace was also rated just inside the top 10 by RING magaizine when charles knocked him out.


now to move back to the harold johnson fight. i suggest you see the fight on film before commenting on it. it was a robbery. I thought it was a close but clear victory for ezzard charles 6 rounds to 3 with 1 even.

First of all, Charles losses to Johnson absolutely should count in the rankings. If you a top rated heavyweight and you lose, you should go down in the ratings (assuming you didn't lose a competitive fight against the champion).

Then you give credit to Satterfield for beating Johnson? Charles losing to Johnson doesn't count count against Charles but Satterfield's win against Johnson is a big win for Satterfield? That doesn't make any sense.
I do like your comparison with Jesse Ferguson-Ray Mercer and Nino Valdes-Ezzard Charles. The lesser fighter did win the fight, but still doesn't deserve to be rated #1.
However, the loser shouldn't be # 1 either. He should go down a few spots after losing to an inferior fighter. The #2 contender should move up to # 1.

Nino Valdes had a comparable career to Jessie Ferguson and should be remembered as a guy at about that level.
As far Satterfield and his A game, he obviously didn't it very often. Like Valdes and Ferguson, he was a journeyman who had a couple of nice wins in an otherwise mediocre career.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Nino Valdes had a comparable career to Jessie Ferguson and should be remembered as a guy at about that level.

well know i didnt mean it like that. in terms of at there peaks, valdes was a much much better fighter than fergusson. valdes was as good as some of the alpha champs.

im simply saying AT THE TIME, valdes upset over charles was like fergussons upset over mercer. difference is, we found out later valdes is a much better fighter than his record indicated.



i wasnt giving satterfields win over harold johnson as a big win in terms of heavyweight ratings, but i was giving satterfields win over in terms of a great win in general.








2nd,


charles was robbed vs harold johnson. watch the fight, u will agree with me.

As far Satterfield and his A game, he obviously didn't it very often. Like Valdes and Ferguson, he was a journeyman who had a couple of nice wins in an otherwise mediocre career.

no way! satterfield was NO journeyman! satterfield was much better than jesse fergusson.



satterfield beat harold johnson for crying out loud. a past his prime harold johnson beat eddie machen!

satterfield when he brought his A game beat harold johnson, nino valdes, bob baker, and knocked cleveland williams out COLD for over a minute. now ur still gonna tell me satterfields a journeyman when hes beating guys like that?

i already said my part on valdes.

amp,


i think ur going by fighters records too much and not watching enough films or studying there careers. a fighters record is just a small part of there career.



watch satterfield and nino on film. you will be impressed. satterifield looks like a deadly puncher. hes very agressive, and had fast handspeed and a deadly 2 fisted punching arsenal. his combinations which consist of many punches at a time are deadly.




id say nino was certiainly just as good as some of alhpha champs. i would also pick bob satterfield as his best to knock out some of those alphas.

[Ambling Alp]

A fighter's record is just a small part of career?
I'm not just going by a fighter's win/loss record. I look at every fight he had, compare it to how good his opponent was at the time. Then judge his career as a whole, not by a couple of big wins or losses.
Sure there is a lot of value in watching the fights themselves. I have watch many, many fights and love doing it.

You say I should watch more fights and judge more by that(Even though you rate Elmer Ray in your all time top 30 and have never seen him fight. Coincidentally, he fought in the 1940's and 1950's.)
I have seen many heavyweight fights from the 1940's and 1950's and don't see why you are so obsessed with this era. It was mediocre at best.


The heavyweights era the 1970's were far superior, and the 1960's and 1990's was better as well.


You certainly can learn a lot by watching film.
However there are couple of things that you remember when doing that:

1. You can only watch a small % of the fights. Even with a big name like Marciano or Louis, most of there fights aren't available to actually see. It's very easy to only see a fighter once or twice and assume that was their typical performance. However a lot depends on how good he was that particular night and the ability and style of his opponent.
Pretend you only saw Felix Trinidad fight once and it was against Mayorga. You might think he was a great fighter. However, what about if the only time you ever saw him was against Winky Wright? Then you might think he was awful.

As I've said, film is important, but you have to look at their records as well, especially with guys you haven't seen much.

As far as Nino Valdes and Bob Satterfield, I stand by earlier comments that they were at the same level as a Jesse Ferguson.

I have to see Satterfield on film to appreciate him?
I have seen him a couple of times and wasn't impressed. I look at his record and it's not imopressive at all. You point a few "big" wins over Valdes,Johnson,Baker and Cleveland Williams as evidence that he was great.
Well, Valdes was nothing special himself, Johnson was lightheavyweight (and he also got beat twice by Johnson)Baker, another overrated fighter from this era that you are trying to hype up. Oh, and Cleveland Williams? You count that when Williams took the fight literally at the last minute? But in another post you claim Jerry Quarry was out of shape when he had "only" 3 weeks to fight Ken Norton.

Bob Satterfield (50-25-4, 35 ko's). Why don't you want to discuss Satterfield embarrasing losses? Are there too many? How about guys like John Holman,Julio Mederes,Harold Carter,Bert Whitehurst,Joe Linday, Charley Williams, Lee Oma, Wasbury Bascom, Henry Hall.
Have you seen film of Satterfield losing to all of these guys? Maybe you wouldn't think so highly of Satterfield if you had.
Are all of these guys in the top 100 as well? Would they all have beaten the "alpha " Champs as well?

What about Valdes? You say he was better than his record indicated, (48-19-2) I would say he was even worse. Outside of the win over Charles, there aren't really any other huge wins. He got knocked out by Eddie Machen who wasn't a hard puncher at all. He lost to Alonzo Johnson, Charley Powell (who was awful), Alex Miteff, Billy Gillian amoung others. Are all of these guys in the top 100 of all time? Have you seen Valdes lose to all of them? Why don't we talk about them at all?

Valdes and Satterfield were way, way better than Jesse Ferguson? Why? I have seen Ferguson fight quite a bit. In his early days he was a tough guy, a fringe contender.
His record was only 26-18, but take a hard look at it. He rarely fought a tomato can. Unlike Valdes and Satterfield, he only had one embarrasing loss (Anders Ecklund). 12 of his losses were when was over 35. 10 of his losses were to world champions. He also beat Buster Douglas and Ray Mercer.

I'm not trying to prop Ferguson up as a great fighter. He was decent for awhile, then was basically a stepping stone when he got older.
What I'm saying is that Valdes and Satterfield weren't anything special at all either. They shouldn't be remembered as great or even very good fighters because they weren't.

Why don't we rate Archie McBride as an all time great? Who is he? Just a journeyman who went 24-20. He did however beat both Valdes and Satterfield. You might not have seen it on tape, but it happened.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

A fighter's record is just a small part of career?
I'm not just going by a fighter's win/loss record. I look at every fight he had, compare it to how good his opponent was at the time. Then judge his career as a whole, not by a couple of big wins or losses.
Sure there is a lot of value in watching the fights themselves. I have watch many, many fights and love doing it.

You say I should watch more fights and judge more by that(Even though you rate Elmer Ray in your all time top 30 and have never seen him fight. Coincidentally, he fought in the 1940's and 1950's.)
I have seen many heavyweight fights from the 1940's and 1950's and don't see why you are so obsessed with this era. It was mediocre at best.


The heavyweights era the 1970's were far superior, and the 1960's and 1990's was better as well.


You certainly can learn a lot by watching film.
However there are couple of things that you remember when doing that:

1. You can only watch a small % of the fights. Even with a big name like Marciano or Louis, most of there fights aren't available to actually see. It's very easy to only see a fighter once or twice and assume that was their typical performance. However a lot depends on how good he was that particular night and the ability and style of his opponent.
Pretend you only saw Felix Trinidad fight once and it was against Mayorga. You might think he was a great fighter. However, what about if the only time you ever saw him was against Winky Wright? Then you might think he was awful.

As I've said, film is important, but you have to look at their records as well, especially with guys you haven't seen much.

As far as Nino Valdes and Bob Satterfield, I stand by earlier comments that they were at the same level as a Jesse Ferguson.

I have to see Satterfield on film to appreciate him?
I have seen him a couple of times and wasn't impressed. I look at his record and it's not imopressive at all. You point a few "big" wins over Valdes,Johnson,Baker and Cleveland Williams as evidence that he was great.
Well, Valdes was nothing special himself, Johnson was lightheavyweight (and he also got beat twice by Johnson)Baker, another overrated fighter from this era that you are trying to hype up. Oh, and Cleveland Williams? You count that when Williams took the fight literally at the last minute? But in another post you claim Jerry Quarry was out of shape when he had "only" 3 weeks to fight Ken Norton.

Bob Satterfield (50-25-4, 35 ko's). Why don't you want to discuss Satterfield embarrasing losses? Are there too many? How about guys like John Holman,Julio Mederes,Harold Carter,Bert Whitehurst,Joe Linday, Charley Williams, Lee Oma, Wasbury Bascom, Henry Hall.
Have you seen film of Satterfield losing to all of these guys? Maybe you wouldn't think so highly of Satterfield if you had.
Are all of these guys in the top 100 as well? Would they all have beaten the "alpha " Champs as well?

What about Valdes? You say he was better than his record indicated, (48-19-2) I would say he was even worse. Outside of the win over Charles, there aren't really any other huge wins. He got knocked out by Eddie Machen who wasn't a hard puncher at all. He lost to Alonzo Johnson, Charley Powell (who was awful), Alex Miteff, Billy Gillian amoung others. Are all of these guys in the top 100 of all time? Have you seen Valdes lose to all of them? Why don't we talk about them at all?

Valdes and Satterfield were way, way better than Jesse Ferguson? Why? I have seen Ferguson fight quite a bit. In his early days he was a tough guy, a fringe contender.
His record was only 26-18, but take a hard look at it. He rarely fought a tomato can. Unlike Valdes and Satterfield, he only had one embarrasing loss (Anders Ecklund). 12 of his losses were when was over 35. 10 of his losses were to world champions. He also beat Buster Douglas and Ray Mercer.

I'm not trying to prop Ferguson up as a great fighter. He was decent for awhile, then was basically a stepping stone when he got older.
What I'm saying is that Valdes and Satterfield weren't anything special at all either. They shouldn't be remembered as great or even very good fighters because they weren't.

Why don't we rate Archie McBride as an all time great? Who is he? Just a journeyman who went 24-20. He did however beat both Valdes and Satterfield. You might not have seen it on tape, but it happened.

You say I should watch more fights and judge more by that(Even though you rate Elmer Ray in your all time top 30 and have never seen him fight. Coincidentally, he fought in the 1940's and 1950's.)

yes you should watch more film. luckily, i have studied rays style and i have seen common opponents hes beaten like walcott, charles on film in 1947.

I have seen many heavyweight fights from the 1940's and 1950's and don't see why you are so obsessed with this era. It was mediocre at best.

in your opinion it is. However I believe they are very underated and understudied eras by a lot of historians and fans.

mediocre?

do u think the 1980s were mediocre?

The heavyweights era the 1970's were far superior, and the 1960's and 1990's was better as well.

i agree these are all better eras. but they certianly are not "far superior".

however the top heavyweights of the 40s-50s louis, marciano, liston, patterson, walcottt, charles would all be top contenders/champions in the 70s. especially in the mid 70s when a well past his prime slow, boring ali was champion.

1. You can only watch a small % of the fights. Even with a big name like Marciano or Louis, most of there fights aren't available to actually see. It's very easy to only see a fighter once or twice and assume that was their typical performance. However a lot depends on how good he was that particular night and the ability and style of his opponent.
Pretend you only saw Felix Trinidad fight once and it was against Mayorga. You might think he was a great fighter. However, what about if the only time you ever saw him was against Winky Wright? Then you might think he was awful.

yes good point, however it was clear u could look at certain fighters record if there past there prime or not, and then read newspaper articles and see if they mention them being washed up or looking as good as ever. so its important to identify the fighters prime before watching the fight, then after see what some of the newspaper reports said about the fight and how the fighter looked. sometimes, just by looking at a record, you can tell if hes a hot/cold fighter by the fact that he beats great fighters but sometimes loses to bums.

As far as Nino Valdes and Bob Satterfield, I stand by earlier comments that they were at the same level as a Jesse Ferguson.

ridiculous! fergusson was a unranked journeyman. nino valdes and bob satterfield were top rated contenders, that alone qualifies them above fergusson.

I have to see Satterfield on film to appreciate him?
I have seen him a couple of times and wasn't impressed

what fights did u see of him?


just watch the way satterfield unleases his arsenal of punches . He keeps his hands chest high, throws very fast and fluent coordinated punches, had huge explosiveness and aggresivesss, his combinations are fast and wild but they consist of many punches in a row and his technique as a puncher is great. when he wants too, he has good boxing skills(like demonstrated in nino valdes and harold johnson fight). his trouble is he has a glass jaw, and his wildness leaves him open for big shots.

satterfield is like a smaller more aggresive version of cleveland williams. satterfield may be too wild at times, which makes him very predictable, but he throws punches in correct form.

Well, Valdes was nothing special himself, Johnson was lightheavyweight (and he also got beat twice by Johnson)Baker, another overrated fighter from this era that you are trying to hype up.

valdes himself was nothing special? well i would say hes better than some of the alpha champs of the 80s.

valdes held his hands high in modern style, and had a very good jab(80" reach) to go along with his powerful punches and combinations.


u say harold johnson was a light-H, BUT you failt to mention harold johnson beat most of the top contender heavyweights of the 1950s.

even in 1961, and far past his prime, harold johnson beat top 50 heavyweight of all time eddie machen. a well past it machen beat one of the best fighters of the "incredible 70s era" jerry quarry.

satterfield managed to outpoiint a prime and very consistent harold johnson, which is an incredible feat!


well past it harold johnson even nearly shutout doug jones over 15 rounds. the same doug jones who went on to knockout zora folley and fight muhammad ali to 10 very close rounds.



you say bob bakers overated because u dont know much about him. he was 6'2 210-220lb top contender heavyweight who at his best was a very good fighter. baker for a big man possesed very good boxing skills, and had a decent punch as well. baker possessed VERY fast handspeed and thats very valuable for a man of baker's size.

roy harris said baker had "the fastest handspeed for a heavyweight i have ever seen". and that was a over the hill baker.


bob baker would box circles around a man like gerry cooney IMO



Bob baker was a top contender for a lot of years in the 1950s, and hes certainly above the level of an unheralded journeyman like jesse fergusson.


poster john garfield who saw bob baker LIVE and knows a lot more about him than you spoke very highly of baker as contender. Garfield said a motivated baker at his best was very good legit top contender, and would be a tough fight for anyone. It apperas baker was a bit of a mental case, cause he said as Baker would lose confidence and get unmotivated and not train as hard, and would have bad preformances in the ring.

Oh, and Cleveland Williams? You count that when Williams took the fight literally at the last minute? But in another post you claim Jerry Quarry was out of shape when he had "only" 3 weeks to fight Ken Norton.

now u feel the need to dismiss the cleveland williams victory, because you know it would be detrimental to your case against satterfield.


cleveland williams was 31-1 when he fought satterfield, and though he was still very young, he wasnt that green considering his record. williams certainly had his full power and youthness when he fought bob. satterfield easily knocked out williams in 3 rounds actually knocking cleveland williams out cold for over 1 minute. makes u wonder if any version of cleveland williams could deal with satterfield.


williams may have been a last minute substitute, but he fought just 14 days earlier, and his weight was 201lb actually a bit lighter than in his previous fights.


quarry on the other hand was clearly battle worn, and looked noticeabley slower on film. that was defintley not a prime quarry. quarry weighed in at 207lb, thats 10-15lb over his best fighting weight. that tells u hes out of shape.

Bob Satterfield (50-25-4, 35 ko's). Why don't you want to discuss Satterfield embarrasing losses? Are there too many? How about guys like John Holman,Julio Mederes,Harold Carter,Bert Whitehurst,Joe Linday, Charley Williams, Lee Oma, Wasbury Bascom, Henry Hall.
Have you seen film of Satterfield losing to all of these guys? Maybe you wouldn't think so highly of Satterfield if you had.
Are all of these guys in the top 100 as well? Would they all have beaten the "alpha " Champs as well?

first off, off those mentioned above...........satterfield was past his prime when he lossed to harold carrter, bert whitehurst, julio mederos, john holman


notice how when he fought john holman the first two times, he knocked out holman. only the 3rd time, did holman finally beat a older satterfield. not to mention the suspicious events that happened pre fight that lead u to believe a fixed fight.

- the wasbury bascom fight was sketchky hometown split decision.

- notice how in the only fight where mederos fights a prime satterfield, satterfield knocks him out in 2


- lee oma beat satterfield in the rematch. oma was also a highly experienced top 10 contender at the time who in his next fight would go on to challenge charles for the world title. however, satterfield also knocked the durable lee oma out COLD in the fight before!


joe lindsay is a odd guy. i dont know why he retired at such a young age. but he was considered a big young prospect in the late 40s-early 50s and if u look at his resume you will see he beat a lot of other top young prospects who went on to become somebody. but his career seemed to drift off into nowhere and he became nothing but a journeyman.



satterfield was very inconsistent and had a glass jaw, plus he fought a lot. dont expect your record to be good.

however look at satterfields win resume and u will be very impressed

What about Valdes? You say he was better than his record indicated, (48-19-2) I would say he was even worse. Outside of the win over Charles, there aren't really any other huge wins. He got knocked out by Eddie Machen who wasn't a hard puncher at all. He lost to Alonzo Johnson, Charley Powell (who was awful), Alex Miteff, Billy Gillian amoung others. Are all of these guys in the top 100 of all time? Have you seen Valdes lose to all of them? Why don't we talk about them at all?

Valdes had a short prime 52-55 so whe u look at his record, focus most of ur intention on those years.


valdes was better than his record indicated. get some film of him........ you will find he was better than u think. valdes certainly would have left the likes of jesse fergusson out on the canvas after 4 short rounds.

valdes at 6'3 210lb possesed good all around skill for a big man. he had a very good jab, and was a very powerful puncher.


valdes was past his best when the machen and folley fights took place. plus, machen was no powerpuff puncher.

- valdes was shot when he lost to alonzo johnson and charles powell. thats all he had left was his power. everything else was gone. should we count alis loss to leon spinks?

- valdez was over the hill in 1958 when he lost a close decision to alex miteff

Outside of the win over Charles, there aren't really any other huge wins.

the charles fight was a huge win. charles basically had not lossed since the walcott fight( since johnson and layne decisions were robberies) and valdes an unheard of journeyman at the time scored a huge upset over an out of shape overconfident charles.


TKO 2 tommy hurricane jackson- this is a big win. jackson was a top contender at the time, and nino destroyed hurricane jackson in 2 one sided rounds. nino was a very good puncher. it took floyd 10 rounds of beatings to finally finish off hurricane, and that was after hurricane had taken floyd to a very close 12 round decision.


KO 4 Heinz Neuhas- 215lb Neuhas was a top 10 contender and european champ who was considered a potential challenger to marcianos crown. valdes wiped neuhas out in 4 one sided rounds.


TKO 4 Karel Sys- former european champ and contender 215lb sys was wiped out in 4 easy rounds by valdes


you got to realize, valdes wasnt just beating some of these contenders, he was dominating them


W 10 james J parker - 6'3 210lb parker a good canadian heavyweight and fringe contender who was easily outpointed over 10 rouns by nino.


W 10 john holman- valdes wins wide decision over this 6'3 205lb hard hitting B level contender

W 10 Mike De john- De john was a 6'3 205lb hard hitting top 10 contender. valdes was well past it when he beat him.

W 10 wayne bethea- a good top 10 contender

TKO 1 Pat Mccurity- ever heard of him? he was a bright young prospect who was 30-2 at the time he fought nino. entering the valdes fight, mccurity was coming off a 10 round boxing lesson win over george chuvalo, one of the better heavies of the 60-70s.



even well past his prime nino managed to wipe out the european heavyweight scene..........

TKO 8 dick richardson

KO 1 Joe Erskine- erskine was the british champ and 29-0 at the time,

TKO 3 Don cockell- cockell was over the hill and out of shape, but valded got him out of there fast

TKO 7 Brian london- valdes was shot entering this fight too


also in 55, valdes was very competitive in his title elminator vs archie moore. moore clearly won but the fight was close and valdes had his moments. this loss to moore really seem to ruin valdes, and take the sparks out of nino. he knew this loss meant moore would get the title shot, and nino had been trying ever since he beat charles in 53, to get a shot at marciano.



so though valdes didnt mean any quality fighters outside of charles, he beat many good contenders and not only beat them HE DOMINATED THEM proving he belonged in a different class. when valdes was at the height of his career from a win over charles, he was avoided by some of the other top heavyweights for 2 years because he was very dangerous.


I think valdes was certainly in the class of a zora folley



cus D amato avoided valdes during his title reign. even though patterson would have whupped nino, Cus saw nino as much of a threat as williams, folley, machen and liston

Valdes and Satterfield were way, way better than Jesse Ferguson? Why? I have seen Ferguson fight quite a bit. In his early days he was a tough guy, a fringe contender.

he was tough, but he never beat any world class fighter outside of ray mercer which was a fluke win. i understand he beat douglas, but douglas was overweight and out of shape and was mentally unprepared due to his father being fired right before the fight by the camp.


back then, it was a lot easier to lose because u fought a lot more and fought against quality opponents very often so off nights were bound to happen.

a fighter now a days with fergussons record, is unnacceptable



satterfield at his best was far too powerful and skilled for fergusson to handle.


valdes at his best would have busted up fergusson with his jab and if valdez couldnt put jesse away with his heavy artillery, i expect nino to outbox jesse over 12 and work behind his jab and solid skills to win a unanimous decision.

I'm not trying to prop Ferguson up as a great fighter. He was decent for awhile, then was basically a stepping stone when he got older.
What I'm saying is that Valdes and Satterfield weren't anything special at all either

he was a unranked journeyman basically his whole career.



valdes and satterfield were dangerous top contenders rated highly by ring magazine in 50s and they were considered threats to patterson and marciano.

they were certainly more special than jesse fergusson










by saying fergusson was as good as valdez and satterfield, then ur saying fergusson would have been a top contender during marcianos era since valdes was the # 1 ranked contender in 53 and 54 and satterfield was ranked in the top 10 early-mid50s.

[Ambling Alp]

I will try to answer your many comments.

You rank Elmer Ray in the top 30 heavyweights of all time. You say you have studied Elmer Ray's style? That's interesting, since you said earlier that you have never seen him fight.

Yes I think the 1940's and 1950's heavyweight division was mediocre, which means average. Some eras were better, the 1960's, the 1990's, the Teens (1910-1919), and of course the 1970's.

Satterfield, Valdes, Baker aren't even in the same league as Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, Quarry, Young, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner etc.

You say that Marciano,Louis, Charles, Walcott, Patterson,and Liston would have all been top contenders in the the mid 1970's?
Well, you are comparing a 20 year period to what, a 2 year period in the 1970's. Not sure what that proves.

Thge 1940's and 1950's were much better than 2000-present. Better than the 1920's, a little better than the 1930's.

Was the 1980's mediocre? Well,if you don't count Holmes in the early 1980's and Tyson in the late 1980's it was medicore as well.

The fact that Valdes and Satterfiedl were ranked and Ferguson wasn't alone qulaifies them as better? Umm, no it doesn't. (Actually Ferguson was rated for a short time) Maybe Ferguson was a little underrated in his era, Vlades and Satterfield were overrated in their own time.
Or maybe ,just maybe, it wasn't that hard to be rated in the late 1940's or early 1950's.

I need to see Satterfield more to appreciate him more? Have you seen all 25 of his losses? Maybe you wouldn't think so highly of him if you did.

You say he had great punching technique. Then later you say he was wild and left himself wide open. If he had great technique, he wouldn't leave himself wide open.

You say he had two weakness, a glass jaw and that he left himself wide open. Well those are two pretty big weakness!

Valdes and Satterfield were better than the Alpha cahmps of the 1980's? Which ones? Iagree that Dokes, Witherspoon, Thomas etc. could have off nights, but if they were anywhere close to being at their best,
Satterfield would be lucky to last 5 rounds against these guys. Valdes got knocked out by Eddie Machen, who couldn't crush a grape, and you think he is going to last against Dokes, Witherspoon, Thomas, etc?

Then there is Harold Johnson. You claim that since Satterfield beat Johnson once out of 3 times that this indicates that Satterfield,Baker, and Valdes were great. After all, you point out even though Harold was a lightheavyweight, that beat some top heavyweights.

First of all,Johnson's win over Doug Jones is totally irrevelant here. Jones only weighed 171 pounds when he fought Johnson and was fight Johnson for the light-heavyweight title. It wasn't a heavyweight fight.
Yes Harold did win a close decison against Machen, which if you think about it isn't that suprising when you consider that Machen wasn't a big heavyweight and didn't punch hard.
If anything this is an embarrassing mark on Machen's record.
The fact that a lightheavyweight can beat some of the top heavyweights is an indication that the heavyweight division is weak at the time , not strong.

There is no way that a 175-180 pound Johnson would have beaten the "Alpha champs" of the 1980's.
Yet, the 176 pound Johnson was able to beat Valdes convincingly. Machen also beat Valdes, twice, once by knockout.

You mentioned that Roy Harris was very impressed with Baker's speed when they fought. You forgot to mention that Harris actually won the fight! Anyone who has seen Roy Harris fight knows that he wasn't very good.

You mentioned that I felt the need to dismiss Satterfield win over Cleveland Williams because it hurt my arguement and that Williams probably wouldn't have ever been able to handle him.

Wow, with all of the excuse that you use to defend a favorite fighter of yours, (past his prime, too green, malnourished,dehydrated, ruined etc.)you would think that would give Williams a break here. He had no idea that he was going to fight that night. How prepared could he possibly have been?
I'm not saying that Williams was an all time great or anything, but had he been prepared, given that he was a hard puncher, it's probable that he would have knocked Satterfield out.

You say that some of Satterfield many losses were when he was past his prime? Well, sorry, it's hard to know when his prime was. He never beat 5 heavyweights in a row in his entire career.
He was only 32 when he lost Carter, which was only 5 months after he beat the legendary Nino Valdes.
Satterfeild was consistent in one respect. He lost a lot of fights in the early, middle, and latter part of his career.

You say that Valzes was only in his prime from 1952-1955? So his embarrassing defeats before that and after that don't count? (I would have thought that a "great heavyweight" in his early 30's would have been able to beat Alex Miteff,Alonzo Johnson and Charley Powell) Ok, then he only lost 7 times during his 4 year peak. How impressive.

You mention that Valdes beat Heinz Neuhas,Karel Sys, and James Parker. Are you impressed with every heavyweight with a pulse?

Valdez beat Dick Richardson, Joe Erksine, Don Cockell, and Brian London. How many people outside of England are impressed with that?

Valdes would have stopped Ferguson in 4 rounds? You really think so?
Ferguson was never stopped before 6 rounds until he was 35. That was in 6 rounds against Mike Tyson and that was premature.

If you look at Fegruson's record, its doubtful that Satterfield or Valdes would have had a much better record if they fought the exact same fighters at the ages that he fought them.

You can usually cherrypick one or two fights and say that guy is good (or not good). however,if you look at Valdes and Satterfield's career, it wasn't anything special overall.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

I will try to answer your many comments.

You rank Elmer Ray in the top 30 heavyweights of all time. You say you have studied Elmer Ray's style? That's interesting, since you said earlier that you have never seen him fight.

Yes I think the 1940's and 1950's heavyweight division was mediocre, which means average. Some eras were better, the 1960's, the 1990's, the Teens (1910-1919), and of course the 1970's.

Satterfield, Valdes, Baker aren't even in the same league as Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, Quarry, Young, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner etc.

You say that Marciano,Louis, Charles, Walcott, Patterson,and Liston would have all been top contenders in the the mid 1970's?
Well, you are comparing a 20 year period to what, a 2 year period in the 1970's. Not sure what that proves.

Thge 1940's and 1950's were much better than 2000-present. Better than the 1920's, a little better than the 1930's.

Was the 1980's mediocre? Well,if you don't count Holmes in the early 1980's and Tyson in the late 1980's it was medicore as well.

The fact that Valdes and Satterfiedl were ranked and Ferguson wasn't alone qulaifies them as better? Umm, no it doesn't. (Actually Ferguson was rated for a short time) Maybe Ferguson was a little underrated in his era, Vlades and Satterfield were overrated in their own time.
Or maybe ,just maybe, it wasn't that hard to be rated in the late 1940's or early 1950's.

I need to see Satterfield more to appreciate him more? Have you seen all 25 of his losses? Maybe you wouldn't think so highly of him if you did.

You say he had great punching technique. Then later you say he was wild and left himself wide open. If he had great technique, he wouldn't leave himself wide open.

You say he had two weakness, a glass jaw and that he left himself wide open. Well those are two pretty big weakness!

Valdes and Satterfield were better than the Alpha cahmps of the 1980's? Which ones? Iagree that Dokes, Witherspoon, Thomas etc. could have off nights, but if they were anywhere close to being at their best,
Satterfield would be lucky to last 5 rounds against these guys. Valdes got knocked out by Eddie Machen, who couldn't crush a grape, and you think he is going to last against Dokes, Witherspoon, Thomas, etc?

Then there is Harold Johnson. You claim that since Satterfield beat Johnson once out of 3 times that this indicates that Satterfield,Baker, and Valdes were great. After all, you point out even though Harold was a lightheavyweight, that beat some top heavyweights.

First of all,Johnson's win over Doug Jones is totally irrevelant here. Jones only weighed 171 pounds when he fought Johnson and was fight Johnson for the light-heavyweight title. It wasn't a heavyweight fight.
Yes Harold did win a close decison against Machen, which if you think about it isn't that suprising when you consider that Machen wasn't a big heavyweight and didn't punch hard.
If anything this is an embarrassing mark on Machen's record.
The fact that a lightheavyweight can beat some of the top heavyweights is an indication that the heavyweight division is weak at the time , not strong.

There is no way that a 175-180 pound Johnson would have beaten the "Alpha champs" of the 1980's.
Yet, the 176 pound Johnson was able to beat Valdes convincingly. Machen also beat Valdes, twice, once by knockout.

You mentioned that Roy Harris was very impressed with Baker's speed when they fought. You forgot to mention that Harris actually won the fight! Anyone who has seen Roy Harris fight knows that he wasn't very good.

You mentioned that I felt the need to dismiss Satterfield win over Cleveland Williams because it hurt my arguement and that Williams probably wouldn't have ever been able to handle him.

Wow, with all of the excuse that you use to defend a favorite fighter of yours, (past his prime, too green, malnourished,dehydrated, ruined etc.)you would think that would give Williams a break here. He had no idea that he was going to fight that night. How prepared could he possibly have been?
I'm not saying that Williams was an all time great or anything, but had he been prepared, given that he was a hard puncher, it's probable that he would have knocked Satterfield out.

You say that some of Satterfield many losses were when he was past his prime? Well, sorry, it's hard to know when his prime was. He never beat 5 heavyweights in a row in his entire career.
He was only 32 when he lost Carter, which was only 5 months after he beat the legendary Nino Valdes.
Satterfeild was consistent in one respect. He lost a lot of fights in the early, middle, and latter part of his career.

You say that Valzes was only in his prime from 1952-1955? So his embarrassing defeats before that and after that don't count? (I would have thought that a "great heavyweight" in his early 30's would have been able to beat Alex Miteff,Alonzo Johnson and Charley Powell) Ok, then he only lost 7 times during his 4 year peak. How impressive.

You mention that Valdes beat Heinz Neuhas,Karel Sys, and James Parker. Are you impressed with every heavyweight with a pulse?

Valdez beat Dick Richardson, Joe Erksine, Don Cockell, and Brian London. How many people outside of England are impressed with that?

Valdes would have stopped Ferguson in 4 rounds? You really think so?
Ferguson was never stopped before 6 rounds until he was 35. That was in 6 rounds against Mike Tyson and that was premature.

If you look at Fegruson's record, its doubtful that Satterfield or Valdes would have had a much better record if they fought the exact same fighters at the ages that he fought them.

You can usually cherrypick one or two fights and say that guy is good (or not good). however,if you look at Valdes and Satterfield's career, it wasn't anything special overall.

hey guys im back! Been away to maine on a trip with my friend, girlfriend, family and relatives.

Satterfield, Valdes, Baker aren't even in the same league as Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, Quarry, Young, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner etc.

I think they were better than bugner. and they all have a chance at shavers who besides his HUGE punching power is very vunerable in many different aspects

the rest are leagues above valdes, baker, satterfield

You say he had great punching technique. Then later you say he was wild and left himself wide open. If he had great technique, he wouldn't leave himself wide open.

You say he had two weakness, a glass jaw and that he left himself wide open. Well those are two pretty big weakness!

I meant sometimes he was too wild because he was so aggresive in his assault, but fact is his aggresive onslaughts were so deadly that his offense was his defense because the other guy had to worry about avoiding bobs punches before thinking about countering


i mean the way bob throws punches, he has good technique.

when bob wasnt so stupid and decided to box, he was a damm good fighter as shown in valdes fight. when he boxed, it left him lessed vunerable. he could box and could punch.


satterfield showed throughout his career he fought to the level of competiton. so if he ever went into the ring with a earnie shavers for example, dont expect him to flop over like he did vs some of the bums he lost to.

when satterfield took on the elite opponents he did very well

KO 3 cleveland williams
W 10 harold johnsonm
W 10 nino valdes
KO 1 bob baker


thats impressive vs top notch competition

You mentioned that Roy Harris was very impressed with Baker's speed when they fought. You forgot to mention that Harris actually won the fight! Anyone who has seen Roy Harris fight knows that he wasn't very good.

baker was well past his prime when this fight took place

You say that Valzes was only in his prime from 1952-1955? So his embarrassing defeats before that and after that don't count? (I would have thought that a "great heavyweight" in his early 30's would have been able to beat Alex Miteff,Alonzo Johnson and Charley Powell) Ok, then he only lost 7 times during his 4 year peak. How impressive.

notice how from late 53- mid 55 valdes didnt lose until he ran into arhcie moore.


the moore fight took a lot out of valdes, cause he knew he lost his title shot. cubans close to nino say he was never the same again after this fight, which could explain for why after the moore fight in 55, he went on a cold streak.

alonzo johnson and charles powell losses happened in 1959 at which time he was 36 and long gone.


even a well past his prime nino was able to beat guys like mike de john, wayne bethea, and others in the late 50s.

i think a prime nino was slightly lower than a zore folley

You mention that Valdes beat Heinz Neuhas,Karel Sys, and James Parker. Are you impressed with every heavyweight with a pulse?

Valdez beat Dick Richardson, Joe Erksine, Don Cockell, and Brian London. How many people outside of England are impressed with that?

Valdes would have stopped Ferguson in 4 rounds? You really think so?
Ferguson was never stopped before 6 rounds until he was 35. That was in 6 rounds against Mike Tyson and that was premature.

first of all, dont disrespect these guys. all of them may not have been world beaters, but they were far better than the "bums with a pulse" you are implying


I am not trying to boast nino up on these wins. you have to watch nino on film to get a glimpse of him. nino was a skilled big man who could punch.


perhaps you should watch baker. he was even more skilled than nino but less powerful. poster john garfield spoke very highly of baker and talked about how good a motivated baker at his peak was.

Baker was a bit like tony tubbs. both big, both skiled with very fast handspeed.





I said valded MIGHT stop jesse , but i lean toward valdes winning a unanimous decision vs fergusson.






satterfield, valdes beat better fighters than fergusson. and DID SO MORE THAN ONE TIME UNLIKE FERGUSSON.

You mentioned that I felt the need to dismiss Satterfield win over Cleveland Williams because it hurt my arguement and that Williams probably wouldn't have ever been able to handle him.

I never said satterfield beats a prime cleveland williams. but williams was 31-1 and certainly had all of his power and speed when he fought satterfield. satterfield dominated williams.

though i rate cleveland williams over satterfield , theres a good chance satterfield would beat any version of cleveland williams.

Cleveland williams is a very good heavyweight whom you cant judge on his record, because he doesnt have many good wins.

Yes Harold did win a close decison against Machen, which if you think about it isn't that suprising when you consider that Machen wasn't a big heavyweight and didn't punch hard.
If anything this is an embarrassing mark on Machen's record.

The fact that a lightheavyweight can beat some of the top heavyweights is an indication that the heavyweight division is weak at the time , not strong.

yea but machen was a very good heavyweight who most consider a top 50 heavyeight of all time. even a well past it machen beat a top heavyweight of the golden era in jerry quarry.

so wut if machen didnt hit hard, machen was a master boxer who had a lot of speed, ring smarts, and great defense. machen was better than most of the alpha champs IMO. to beat eddie machen, you have to be a very good heavyweight.





so the fact that johnson beat machen shows the 1960s heavyweight division was weak?



embarrasing mark on machens record? i think not. it simply shows how great harold johnson was.



harold johnson was also well past his prime when he beat machen



I think guys like archie moore and harold johnson would have boxed a big heavy like cleveland williams ears off . it seems you take away this victory cause machen was sub 200lb.

would a harold johnson win over cleveland williams mean more than a win over machen? even though machen was probably better than williams


it seems your making a big deal out of size here. didnt sam langford beat many of the top heavies of the teens yet he was only 5'7 180lb??



marciano and charles was only slightly bigger than harold johnson. would it be embarrasing to machens record if he lost to charles and rocky?

There is no way that a 175-180 pound Johnson would have beaten the "Alpha champs" of the 1980's.
Yet, the 176 pound Johnson was able to beat Valdes convincingly. Machen also beat Valdes, twice, once by knockout.

totally disagree


nino valdes 6'3 210lb was the same size as a lot of the alpha champs, and was just as good as some of them YET HAROLD JOHNSON SHUTOUT NINO OVER 10 ROUNDS.


eddie machen was better than almost all of the alpha champs, yet a well past his prime harold johnson beat machen.


harold johnson was too skilled, fast, and smart for most of the 80s alpha champs.

how is a guy like berbick, page, weaver, or coetzee gonna beat harold johnson?

[Ezzard]

Getting back to the article...

Is Rocky's unbeaten record a factor? IMO unbeaten records are good but not the be-all-and-end-all. A lot of fighters greater than Rocky lost fights and I don't see why it's such a big deal. Everyone is beatable. These days people seem obsessed with unblemished records. Leonard became a better fighter for his loss to Duran. Hagler, Monzon, Duran, Charles, Moore, etc... all learned from their defeats.

I think Rocky's legacy is based a lot on the dramatic come from behind victories (Walcott and Charles) and his fearsome punch power. These figths had a big impact on people and made him a very popular fighter.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Getting back to the article...

Is Rocky's unbeaten record a factor? IMO unbeaten records are good but not the be-all-and-end-all. A lot of fighters greater than Rocky lost fights and I don't see why it's such a big deal. Everyone is beatable. These days people seem obsessed with unblemished records. Leonard became a better fighter for his loss to Duran. Hagler, Monzon, Duran, Charles, Moore, etc... all learned from their defeats.

I think Rocky's legacy is based a lot on the dramatic come from behind victories (Walcott and Charles) and his fearsome punch power. These figths had a big impact on people and made him a very popular fighter.

i agree


i rate rocky in the top 10 because of other factors, not because of his record!

rockys record certainly counts and It adds towards rocky's "accomplishments" and "historical signifigance" but anyone who bases there ranking of rocky entirely on 49-0 is overating rocky.


rocky did many other things like

- beat great fighters
- rule and beat the best of his era
- won most signfigant fights against great fighters in adversity
- never left a scar on his record, he always gave rematches in close fights and he ALWAYS dominated in the rematch.
- beat the best fighters out there pre title and during title reign
- his overall skill and intangibles


one thing people have to realize in fantasy matchups is, which fighters in history could beat rocky twice in a row? rocky, like louis was GREAT IN REMATCHES

[Ezzard]

Getting back to the article...

Is Rocky's unbeaten record a factor? IMO unbeaten records are good but not the be-all-and-end-all. A lot of fighters greater than Rocky lost fights and I don't see why it's such a big deal. Everyone is beatable. These days people seem obsessed with unblemished records. Leonard became a better fighter for his loss to Duran. Hagler, Monzon, Duran, Charles, Moore, etc... all learned from their defeats.

I think Rocky's legacy is based a lot on the dramatic come from behind victories (Walcott and Charles) and his fearsome punch power. These figths had a big impact on people and made him a very popular fighter.

i agree


i rate rocky in the top 10 because of other factors, not because of his record!

rockys record certainly counts and It adds towards rocky's "accomplishments" and "historical signifigance" but anyone who bases there ranking of rocky entirely on 49-0 is overating rocky.


rocky did many other things like

- beat great fighters
- rule and beat the best of his era
- won most signfigant fights against great fighters in adversity
- never left a scar on his record, he always gave rematches in close fights and he ALWAYS dominated in the rematch.
- beat the best fighters out there pre title and during title reign
- his overall skill and intangibles


one thing people have to realize in fantasy matchups is, which fighters in history could beat rocky twice in a row? rocky, like louis was GREAT IN REMATCHES

fair points.

You know I don't have Marciano in my top 5 and that I have reservations about him BUT he could punch, was in great condition for every fight, had great stamina for a HW, a great chin and an underrated defence. I think a lot of modern day fighters would have trouble with his workrate. They wouldn't be able to keep up with the pace he set.

[Dempsey1238]

I have the Charles Johnson fight, and Charles won it, it was not even that close imo. He won 7 out of the ten rounds. I would not relly count it against him, if ONE will count the draw Lewis had vs Holyfiled against him.

And Charles look super vs Wallace. One of Charles best fights I seen of the guy. He was still pleny dangerious vs Marciano the first time. The 2nd time was more of a one sided masscare that ended in round 8. Outside the nose thing. Marciano won easy.

[Jaclem]

.....a few posters here have said they own the charles/johnson fight which i have never seen...didn't know it was available. can anyone tell me how i can get it? i can not download this in my computer.

this fight was the only one i ever heard ezzard call a bad decision..."strictly hometown' was his phrase.

ah yes...wasn't he wonderful against coley wallace!!! saw that on live tv. is that also available ? coley was a good looking prospect....never came up to his perceived potential, but he was by no means a pushover.

[generic screen name]

calling Charles done, i agree, was pretty cruel passed his prime i would say...

Definition of done is Ali/Holmes

I don't rate Marciano as the #1 heavyweight, but he definately had the intangibles of all the greats, tremendous heart, determination, and stayed on his game (albeit not textbook)

[Ambling Alp]

I will try to answer your many comments.

You rank Elmer Ray in the top 30 heavyweights of all time. You say you have studied Elmer Ray's style? That's interesting, since you said earlier that you have never seen him fight.

Yes I think the 1940's and 1950's heavyweight division was mediocre, which means average. Some eras were better, the 1960's, the 1990's, the Teens (1910-1919), and of course the 1970's.

Satterfield, Valdes, Baker aren't even in the same league as Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, Quarry, Young, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner etc.

You say that Marciano,Louis, Charles, Walcott, Patterson,and Liston would have all been top contenders in the the mid 1970's?
Well, you are comparing a 20 year period to what, a 2 year period in the 1970's. Not sure what that proves.

Thge 1940's and 1950's were much better than 2000-present. Better than the 1920's, a little better than the 1930's.

Was the 1980's mediocre? Well,if you don't count Holmes in the early 1980's and Tyson in the late 1980's it was medicore as well.

The fact that Valdes and Satterfiedl were ranked and Ferguson wasn't alone qulaifies them as better? Umm, no it doesn't. (Actually Ferguson was rated for a short time) Maybe Ferguson was a little underrated in his era, Vlades and Satterfield were overrated in their own time.
Or maybe ,just maybe, it wasn't that hard to be rated in the late 1940's or early 1950's.

I need to see Satterfield more to appreciate him more? Have you seen all 25 of his losses? Maybe you wouldn't think so highly of him if you did.

You say he had great punching technique. Then later you say he was wild and left himself wide open. If he had great technique, he wouldn't leave himself wide open.

You say he had two weakness, a glass jaw and that he left himself wide open. Well those are two pretty big weakness!

Valdes and Satterfield were better than the Alpha cahmps of the 1980's? Which ones? Iagree that Dokes, Witherspoon, Thomas etc. could have off nights, but if they were anywhere close to being at their best,
Satterfield would be lucky to last 5 rounds against these guys. Valdes got knocked out by Eddie Machen, who couldn't crush a grape, and you think he is going to last against Dokes, Witherspoon, Thomas, etc?

Then there is Harold Johnson. You claim that since Satterfield beat Johnson once out of 3 times that this indicates that Satterfield,Baker, and Valdes were great. After all, you point out even though Harold was a lightheavyweight, that beat some top heavyweights.

First of all,Johnson's win over Doug Jones is totally irrevelant here. Jones only weighed 171 pounds when he fought Johnson and was fight Johnson for the light-heavyweight title. It wasn't a heavyweight fight.
Yes Harold did win a close decison against Machen, which if you think about it isn't that suprising when you consider that Machen wasn't a big heavyweight and didn't punch hard.
If anything this is an embarrassing mark on Machen's record.
The fact that a lightheavyweight can beat some of the top heavyweights is an indication that the heavyweight division is weak at the time , not strong.

There is no way that a 175-180 pound Johnson would have beaten the "Alpha champs" of the 1980's.
Yet, the 176 pound Johnson was able to beat Valdes convincingly. Machen also beat Valdes, twice, once by knockout.

You mentioned that Roy Harris was very impressed with Baker's speed when they fought. You forgot to mention that Harris actually won the fight! Anyone who has seen Roy Harris fight knows that he wasn't very good.

You mentioned that I felt the need to dismiss Satterfield win over Cleveland Williams because it hurt my arguement and that Williams probably wouldn't have ever been able to handle him.

Wow, with all of the excuse that you use to defend a favorite fighter of yours, (past his prime, too green, malnourished,dehydrated, ruined etc.)you would think that would give Williams a break here. He had no idea that he was going to fight that night. How prepared could he possibly have been?
I'm not saying that Williams was an all time great or anything, but had he been prepared, given that he was a hard puncher, it's probable that he would have knocked Satterfield out.

You say that some of Satterfield many losses were when he was past his prime? Well, sorry, it's hard to know when his prime was. He never beat 5 heavyweights in a row in his entire career.
He was only 32 when he lost Carter, which was only 5 months after he beat the legendary Nino Valdes.
Satterfeild was consistent in one respect. He lost a lot of fights in the early, middle, and latter part of his career.

You say that Valzes was only in his prime from 1952-1955? So his embarrassing defeats before that and after that don't count? (I would have thought that a "great heavyweight" in his early 30's would have been able to beat Alex Miteff,Alonzo Johnson and Charley Powell) Ok, then he only lost 7 times during his 4 year peak. How impressive.

You mention that Valdes beat Heinz Neuhas,Karel Sys, and James Parker. Are you impressed with every heavyweight with a pulse?

Valdez beat Dick Richardson, Joe Erksine, Don Cockell, and Brian London. How many people outside of England are impressed with that?

Valdes would have stopped Ferguson in 4 rounds? You really think so?
Ferguson was never stopped before 6 rounds until he was 35. That was in 6 rounds against Mike Tyson and that was premature.

If you look at Fegruson's record, its doubtful that Satterfield or Valdes would have had a much better record if they fought the exact same fighters at the ages that he fought them.

You can usually cherrypick one or two fights and say that guy is good (or not good). however,if you look at Valdes and Satterfield's career, it wasn't anything special overall.

hey guys im back! Been away to maine on a trip with my friend, girlfriend, family and relatives.

Satterfield, Valdes, Baker aren't even in the same league as Ali,Foreman,Frazier,Norton, Quarry, Young, Lyle, Shavers, Bugner etc.

I think they were better than bugner. and they all have a chance at shavers who besides his HUGE punching power is very vunerable in many different aspects

the rest are leagues above valdes, baker, satterfield

You say he had great punching technique. Then later you say he was wild and left himself wide open. If he had great technique, he wouldn't leave himself wide open.

You say he had two weakness, a glass jaw and that he left himself wide open. Well those are two pretty big weakness!

I meant sometimes he was too wild because he was so aggresive in his assault, but fact is his aggresive onslaughts were so deadly that his offense was his defense because the other guy had to worry about avoiding bobs punches before thinking about countering


i mean the way bob throws punches, he has good technique.

when bob wasnt so stupid and decided to box, he was a damm good fighter as shown in valdes fight. when he boxed, it left him lessed vunerable. he could box and could punch.


satterfield showed throughout his career he fought to the level of competiton. so if he ever went into the ring with a earnie shavers for example, dont expect him to flop over like he did vs some of the bums he lost to.

when satterfield took on the elite opponents he did very well

KO 3 cleveland williams
W 10 harold johnsonm
W 10 nino valdes
KO 1 bob baker


thats impressive vs top notch competition

You mentioned that Roy Harris was very impressed with Baker's speed when they fought. You forgot to mention that Harris actually won the fight! Anyone who has seen Roy Harris fight knows that he wasn't very good.

baker was well past his prime when this fight took place

You say that Valzes was only in his prime from 1952-1955? So his embarrassing defeats before that and after that don't count? (I would have thought that a "great heavyweight" in his early 30's would have been able to beat Alex Miteff,Alonzo Johnson and Charley Powell) Ok, then he only lost 7 times during his 4 year peak. How impressive.

notice how from late 53- mid 55 valdes didnt lose until he ran into arhcie moore.


the moore fight took a lot out of valdes, cause he knew he lost his title shot. cubans close to nino say he was never the same again after this fight, which could explain for why after the moore fight in 55, he went on a cold streak.

alonzo johnson and charles powell losses happened in 1959 at which time he was 36 and long gone.


even a well past his prime nino was able to beat guys like mike de john, wayne bethea, and others in the late 50s.

i think a prime nino was slightly lower than a zore folley

You mention that Valdes beat Heinz Neuhas,Karel Sys, and James Parker. Are you impressed with every heavyweight with a pulse?

Valdez beat Dick Richardson, Joe Erksine, Don Cockell, and Brian London. How many people outside of England are impressed with that?

Valdes would have stopped Ferguson in 4 rounds? You really think so?
Ferguson was never stopped before 6 rounds until he was 35. That was in 6 rounds against Mike Tyson and that was premature.

first of all, dont disrespect these guys. all of them may not have been world beaters, but they were far better than the "bums with a pulse" you are implying


I am not trying to boast nino up on these wins. you have to watch nino on film to get a glimpse of him. nino was a skilled big man who could punch.


perhaps you should watch baker. he was even more skilled than nino but less powerful. poster john garfield spoke very highly of baker and talked about how good a motivated baker at his peak was.

Baker was a bit like tony tubbs. both big, both skiled with very fast handspeed.





I said valded MIGHT stop jesse , but i lean toward valdes winning a unanimous decision vs fergusson.






satterfield, valdes beat better fighters than fergusson. and DID SO MORE THAN ONE TIME UNLIKE FERGUSSON.

You mentioned that I felt the need to dismiss Satterfield win over Cleveland Williams because it hurt my arguement and that Williams probably wouldn't have ever been able to handle him.

I never said satterfield beats a prime cleveland williams. but williams was 31-1 and certainly had all of his power and speed when he fought satterfield. satterfield dominated williams.

though i rate cleveland williams over satterfield , theres a good chance satterfield would beat any version of cleveland williams.

Cleveland williams is a very good heavyweight whom you cant judge on his record, because he doesnt have many good wins.

Yes Harold did win a close decison against Machen, which if you think about it isn't that suprising when you consider that Machen wasn't a big heavyweight and didn't punch hard.
If anything this is an embarrassing mark on Machen's record.

The fact that a lightheavyweight can beat some of the top heavyweights is an indication that the heavyweight division is weak at the time , not strong.

yea but machen was a very good heavyweight who most consider a top 50 heavyeight of all time. even a well past it machen beat a top heavyweight of the golden era in jerry quarry.

so wut if machen didnt hit hard, machen was a master boxer who had a lot of speed, ring smarts, and great defense. machen was better than most of the alpha champs IMO. to beat eddie machen, you have to be a very good heavyweight.





so the fact that johnson beat machen shows the 1960s heavyweight division was weak?



embarrasing mark on machens record? i think not. it simply shows how great harold johnson was.



harold johnson was also well past his prime when he beat machen



I think guys like archie moore and harold johnson would have boxed a big heavy like cleveland williams ears off . it seems you take away this victory cause machen was sub 200lb.

would a harold johnson win over cleveland williams mean more than a win over machen? even though machen was probably better than williams


it seems your making a big deal out of size here. didnt sam langford beat many of the top heavies of the teens yet he was only 5'7 180lb??



marciano and charles was only slightly bigger than harold johnson. would it be embarrasing to machens record if he lost to charles and rocky?

There is no way that a 175-180 pound Johnson would have beaten the "Alpha champs" of the 1980's.
Yet, the 176 pound Johnson was able to beat Valdes convincingly. Machen also beat Valdes, twice, once by knockout.

totally disagree


nino valdes 6'3 210lb was the same size as a lot of the alpha champs, and was just as good as some of them YET HAROLD JOHNSON SHUTOUT NINO OVER 10 ROUNDS.


eddie machen was better than almost all of the alpha champs, yet a well past his prime harold johnson beat machen.


harold johnson was too skilled, fast, and smart for most of the 80s alpha champs.

how is a guy like berbick, page, weaver, or coetzee gonna beat harold johnson?

Well, I guess I will respond to your extensive post again.
My main point is that the Valdes, Satterfield, and Baker were great fighters. They shouldn't be remmeber as being great fighters becasue they weren't. They aren't Top 100 of alltime.

You mention that Satterfield had "an Aggressive onslaught that was deadly, that his offense was his defense was his offense becasue the other guy had to worry about avoiding bob's punches before they thinking about counter punching."

I would answer this by going back to his unimpressive record. apparently a lot of guys could figure it out becasue won less than 2/3 of his fights and scored ko's in less than half of his fights. Stop making excuse for his losses they happened.

You point out Satterfield elite wins. They being Williams, Johnson, Valdez, and Baker. Well, since I don't agree that Baker and Valdes were that good, I don't consider them that big of a deal. We have discussed the Williams fight before, and I don't give Satterfield much credit for that since Williams took the fight at literally the last minute. Williams has much more of an excuse than many of the excuse theat you come with for your favorite fighters losses.
Since Johnson was a lightheavyweight, it's not a big win for Satterfield to have beaten him either.

You aren't looking at the big picture at all. You are taking one win of another fighters (Johnson over Machen) and then trying to mak Baker,Valdes, and Satterfield credit becasue Satterfied beat Johnson. you could have almost anyone seem great by using this logic.
You shouldn't just ignore Valdes, Baker and Satterfields many losses.

Your excuse for Baker losing to Roy Harris was that he was well past his prime? He was only 30. He should have been able to beat a tomato can like Harris at the age of 30. If you are going to use the short prime excuse for Baker, well that is just more evidence that he wasn't that great.

You say that from late 1953 to mid 1955 Valdes was undefeated and other top fighters were scared of him. Come on. We are supposed to be impressed witha guy becasue he went undefeated for less two years? Literally thousands of other fighters have done this. I seriously doubt any top heavyweight would be scared of Valdes either.

Your excuse for Valdes cold streak after he lost to Moore was that he was so disappointed becasue he lost a chance for a title fight? Wow. That is lame. Any fighter worth his salt would have bounced back from that. the truth is he lost so much becasue he wasn't that good.

As for Jesse Ferguson, I would count his biggest win as being about even with Satterfield's, Valdes, and Baker. He did beat Mercer. You try to say his loss to Douglas doesn't count because Douglas dad died right beefore the fight? Not sure what you are talking about here. Douglas dad dies in 1999, the fight was in 1985. Regardless, Buster beat Tyson right after his mom dies, so I'm not sure what you point is.

As for Johnson win over Machen, obvioulsy Machen wasn't a big puncher. When a lightheavy fights a heavy, his biggest concern is if he can take the power. With Machen, her didn't have to worry about that. So he would have a better chance against Machen than a hard hitting heavweight whose allaround ability may be less than Machen. It's about styles.

That Johnson beat Valdes easily is just more evidence wasn't that good.

You mention Sam Langford, but obviously he was an exception. A much smaller man has to have a big advantage in skill to beat a a much larger man.

How would guys like Page, Berbick, Weaver, and Coetzee beat Johnson? Are you serious? If they nailed Johnson with one decent punch, it would be all over.

I like Johnson, and think he is a very underrated lightheavy. However, I'm realistic. He isn't going to beat a skilled heavweight who can punch.

The bottom line is that Baker, Valdez, and Satterfield's career record isn't that impressive. You can one or two nice wins, but that simply isn't enough.

You seem to agree as much when you say that almost all of the top heavyweights from the 1970's were leagues above them. (And Joe Bugner was in their league, as evidence by his tough fights with Ali, Frazier, and Lyle.)

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Well, I guess I will respond to your extensive post again.
My main point is that the Valdes, Satterfield, and Baker were great fighters. They shouldn't be remmeber as being great fighters becasue they weren't. They aren't Top 100 of alltime.

i could make a strong case bob baker and nino valdes are top 100 heavyweights of all time

Well, since I don't agree that Baker and Valdes were that good, I don't consider them that big of a deal.

how bout u watch them fight on film before you make these accusations. both were skilled big men.

We have discussed the Williams fight before, and I don't give Satterfield much credit for that since Williams took the fight at literally the last minute. Williams has much more of an excuse than many of the excuse theat you come with for your favorite fighters losses.

williams was 31-1 at the time full of youthness, speed and power, i certainly count it as a good win.

Your excuse for Baker losing to Roy Harris was that he was well past his prime? He was only 30. He should have been able to beat a tomato can like Harris at the age of 30. If

baker was a very old "30". his motivation, confidence, and work ethic had long since left him.


a peak baker would mop the floor with harris IMO


i do agree its an embarrasing loss

You aren't looking at the big picture at all. You are taking one win of another fighters (Johnson over Machen) and then trying to mak Baker,Valdes, and Satterfield credit becasue Satterfied beat Johnson. you could have almost anyone seem great by using this logic.
You shouldn't just ignore Valdes, Baker and Satterfields many losses.

yes some are embarrasing losses, but when u fight as much as they do, ur bound to have losses here and there. they fought A LOT more back then, so off nights were bound to happen, plus there was a lot of hometown decisions, and a lot of "underworld" connections going on.


however u must identify each fighters prime years, for instance satterfield lost a lot WHEN HE WAS OUT OF HIS PRIME. same with baker and valdes.

You say that from late 1953 to mid 1955 Valdes was undefeated and other top fighters were scared of him. Come on. We are supposed to be impressed witha guy becasue he went undefeated for less two years? Literally thousands of other fighters have done this. I seriously doubt any top heavyweight would be scared of Valdes either.

no because he was a big powerful 6'3 215lb 80" reach heavyweight and he had skill to go along with his size and big power.

thats ALWAYS a dangerous fighter to be thrown in against! managers were weary of valdes because he was big, powerful, and had skill.

Your excuse for Valdes cold streak after he lost to Moore was that he was so disappointed becasue he lost a chance for a title fight? Wow. That is lame. Any fighter worth his salt would have bounced back from that. the truth is he lost so much becasue he wasn't that good.

the moore fight was an eliminater for the title, valdes had been the # 1 contender and had been looking for a title shot since 1953. he knew if he lost this, moore would get the shot instead and valdes would have to wait a while before he finally got his shot and at 32, valdes wasnt getting any younger.

certain fighters get ruined after a fight. IT HAPPENS.


norton got ruined in his 78 title fight vs holmes

charles got ruined during his 54 title fight with rocky

lamotta got ruined in his 51 title fight with sugar ray robinson

gerry cooney got ruined in his title fight vs holmes

max schmeling got ruined in his title fight vs louis

rodrigo valdes got ruined in his 1977 title fights vs briscoe and monzon

riddick bowe got ruined in his fights with evander holyfield




some of these fights are due to physical reasons, but other reasons are due to mental reasons like loss of confidence, motivation, work ethic and thats what happened to valdes. after this moore fight, he was never the same again, never had that same confidence or motivation. he started to age. he took a beating in that moore fight, it was a pretty good 15 round scrap.


after the decision was announced, valdes broke down crying and wailing like a baby because he lost. valdes wanted to win so badly, and when u suffer a demoralizing defeat like that, its very hard to respond . some people bounce back and other drift off.

As for Jesse Ferguson, I would count his biggest win as being about even with Satterfield's, Valdes, and Baker. He did beat Mercer. You try to say his loss to Douglas doesn't count because Douglas dad died right beefore the fight? Not sure what you are talking about here. Douglas dad dies in 1999, the fight was in 1985. Regardless, Buster beat Tyson right after his mom dies, so I'm not sure what you point is.

i never said his dad DIED.

billy douglas had recentley been fired as douglas manager, however he was still busters trainer. knew manager jimmy johnston and billy douglas got in heated battles and days before the fight johnson told douglas he wanted to get rid of billy douglas. billy douglas left on his own right before the fight leaving douglas with lots of mental turmoil. im a wrestler and i sometimes get mentally distraught, especially when it comes to family. all that turmoil with his father left douglas mentally weak and unmotivated and depressed. not being mentally prepared REALLY DOES AFFECT UR PREFORMANCE, trust me i know.



douglas said about the fergusson fight "i just wasnt there, i didnt feel right"


its not like fergusson beat the version of douglas who beat mike tyson.

As for Jesse Ferguson, I would count his biggest win as being about even with Satterfield's, Valdes, and Baker.

who did fergusson beat besides mercer?


valdes, baker , satterfield beat many other top heavyweights and were all rated in TOP 5 CONTENDERS IN THE WORLD BY RING MAGAZINE

was feruggson ever a rated contender?


by saying fergusson was just as good as those guys, then ur also saying fergusson would be a top heavyweight contender during marcianos era.

As for Johnson win over Machen, obvioulsy Machen wasn't a big puncher. When a lightheavy fights a heavy, his biggest concern is if he can take the power. With Machen, her didn't have to worry about that. So he would have a better chance against Machen than a hard hitting heavweight whose allaround ability may be less than Machen. It's about styles.

true, however harold johnson proved against a big powerful 6'3 210lb heavyweight like nino valdes that he could deal with a big heavyweight. HE SHUTOUT nino. nino was not far behind cleveland williams in terms of power and skill.

How would guys like Page, Berbick, Weaver, and Coetzee beat Johnson? Are you serious? If they nailed Johnson with one decent punch, it would be all over.

harold johnson was caught flush by bob satterfield yet managed to get up.

satterfield hit much harder than those guys


nino valdes was just as big, powerful, skilled as those alhpha champs and harold shut him out.


if your only giving these alhpa champs a punchers chance against johnson, than ur not giving them much of a chance. outside of weaver, none of these guys possess dangerous enough power to knockout johnson with 1 punch.

johnson was very good vs the big men because he had a very good defense and got low, and made himself difficult to hit. he was a lot better ring tehcnician than any of these guys, and made up for lack of size with a lot of skill. skill beats size.


clarence henry a very good heavyweight was taken to school by harold johnson.

That Johnson beat Valdes easily is just more evidence wasn't that good.

or more like how great johnson was

I like Johnson, and think he is a very underrated lightheavy. However, I'm realistic. He isn't going to beat a skilled heavweight who can punch.

cough cough nino valdes

cough cough clarence henry

Since Johnson was a lightheavyweight, it's not a big win for Satterfield to have beaten him either.

why? johnson was beating all of the heavyweights. kinda like billy conn with joe louis or archie moore with marciano

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

Well, Alp, you can't ignore the many losses of Satterfield, Valdes and Baker, but you can't compare their records to those of current fighters. Fighting more than 4 or 5 times a year against top opposition, it's almost impossible to have any sort of consistency unless you're an all-time great. Even Joe Louis, Ray Robinson and Jack Johnson had guys they didn't fight.

agreed

[Ambling Alp]

I need to see Valdes and Baker on film?
Why? They have lost to people I have seen on film that I'm not not impressed by. If they happen to be on ESPN Calssic I will watch, but I'm not going to be overly impressed by just one fight. I know their records aren't impressive. Are you telling me that you have seen alot of their fights? Even their many losses?
You have never seen Elmer Ray fight and rate him in your top 30 of all time.

You certainly count Satterfield's win over Cleveland Williams as a good win? You make excuse after excuse for your favorites losses but not for Cleveland Williams? He took the fight at literally the last minute? Do you what that means?
How was he physically? He may have ran, worked out, sparred etc. that day. He could have been very tired. Did he eat too soon or too much right before the fight?Did he even have his own equipment? Did his shoes fit? His mouthpiece fit? What about his pre fight routine? WAs he able to shadowbox, work up a sweat etc.? Was his regular trainer even there? I wouldn't be suprised if he was, what decent trainer would let their fighter take a fight like this?

As for as guys fighting more often, which meant they would have more off night, that really doesn't hold water. Heavyweights often didn't fight that much more then they do now or in the 1980's. Ferguson has 44 fights, only 5 less than Marciano. Page had more fights than Baker and Valdes and only 3 less than Satterfield.

Satterfield,Valdes, and Bakers losses were often because they were out theri prime? Just when were Satterfied and Valdes prime? They hardly ever strung any sort of winning streak.

I don't buy the excuses of hometown decisons, how many times do you know for a fact that happened? underworld activity etc. Valdes was knocked by 6 different guys and Satterfield was ko'sd 13 times!

As far as Valdes being ruined by Moore, I don't buy that at all. He lost because he wasn't that good.

You mention other cases that guys got ruined.
Schmeling by louis? What are you talking about? Schmeling had one fight after he lost to Louis, (he won by KO) and then didn't fight for 8 years because of WWII.
Bowe wasn't ruined by Holyfield. He looked like he always did in several fights that I saw until he fought Golota. He just didn't want to train anymore, and didn't have the career he could have.
Norton wasn't really ruined by Holmes. He was getting old and the Holmes fight may have accerlated his decline, but the fight itself didn't ruin Norton.

As far Douglas, I thought you meant his dad died when you said he lost him. Then you quote Buster as saying "It just wasn't there, I didn't feel right" after he lost to Ferguson. Well, you should take that with a grain of salt. fighters say that a lot after they lose. That shouldn't be held against Ferguson. Douglas wasn't as good as when he beat Tyson, but he was still a respectable dighter and it was a good win for Ferguson.

Who else besides Mercer and douglas did Ferguson beat? Not many, a few fringe contender guys(who if they fought in the 1940's or 1950;s you would praise). Pretty similar career to Valdes, Satterfield,and Baker.

Yes Valdes, Satterfield, and Baker were rated, but that doesn't mean they were better. Michael Grant was the #1 contender at one time. so were plenty of other guys who weren't that good either.
Jesse was rated at one time by the "goverining bodies" I don't recall if Ring ever rated him.

Johnson got caught flush by Satterfield and got up?And Satterfield hit harder than Weaver, Coezee, Page etc? Umm no. Satterfield power is a myth. His ko rate is nothing impressive at all. Almost allof his kos aren't against top fighters.

You really think that John son could take coetzee's best shot? Are you kidding me?

I didn't say the alpha champs only had a punchers chance. They would dominate Johnson, and ko him.

You say skill beats size? Sometimes. It matters how how big of a difference the size is and how big a difference the skill level is. The alpha champs weren't the best champs but they all had decent skills, and were much bigger. Johnson wasn't that hard of a puncher for a lightheavy, they would walk through his punches.

Johnson schooled Clarence Henry, who you think was a hard hitting heavyweight? Well, first of all Johnson won a Split Decison, thats not not schooling someone. Seconly, Henry was a very small heavyweight, not much bigger than Johnson. He wasn't a big puncher. He only had 19 kos in his whole career, only two over anyone noteworthy. who were the 2, Baker and Satterfield. :)