1950s heavyweight decade better than the 1930s

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Jun 2006, 14:23

pundit believes the 1930s heavyweight decade was better than the 1950s heavyweight division, i disagree. i believe the 1950s heavyweight division was superior.

whats ur opinion

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 02 Jun 2006, 14:33

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:pundit believes the 1930s heavyweight decade was better than the 1950s heavyweight division, i disagree. i believe the 1950s heavyweight division was superior.

whats ur opinion

Excellent question.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Jun 2006, 14:37

I’d go with the 30’s. Louis, Schmeling, Sharkey, Hamas, Baer, Baer, Braddock, Galento, Farr, Stribling, Godoy, Ramage, Lasky, etc. Only one truly great HW, but it was very deep division throughout the decade.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Jun 2006, 14:53

The Great John L wrote:I’d go with the 30’s. Louis, Schmeling, Sharkey, Hamas, Baer, Baer, Braddock, Galento, Farr, Stribling, Godoy, Ramage, Lasky, etc. Only one truly great HW, but it was very deep division throughout the decade.

thats interesting cause

1930s produced one top 10 heavyweight of all time joe louis

1950s producerd two top 10 heavyweights of all time marciano and liston

patterson, walcott, charles were superior to baer, schmeling, sharkey

ingemar johannsen, archie moore, eddie machen, cleveland williams, zora folley, harold johnson, nino valdes, old joe louis, roland lastarza, clarence henry, bob baker, rex layne, etc was a better list of contenders than that of the 1930s. these guys was more modern styled finished boxers.

Hamas, Baer, Baer, Braddock, Galento, Farr, Stribling, Godoy, Ramage, Lasky,

hamas, stribling, ramage, lasky come on. these guys would get smoked by a guy like nino valdes let alone an archie moore.

farr, braddock, godoy, galento were world class, but archie moore, cleveland williams, eddie machen, ingemar johannsen were better

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Jun 2006, 15:18

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:thats interesting cause

1930s produced one top 10 heavyweight of all time joe louis

1950s producerd two top 10 heavyweights of all time marciano and liston

patterson, walcott, charles were superior to baer, schmeling, sharkey

ingemar johannsen, archie moore, eddie machen, cleveland williams, zora folley, harold johnson, nino valdes, old joe louis, roland lastarza, clarence henry, bob baker, rex layne, etc was a better list of contenders than that of the 1930s. these guys was more modern styled finished boxers.

Why are you debating? You asked for an opinion and I gave it. What you listed is simply your opinion, which is fine, but I don’t agree. For example, I don’t consider Liston a top 10 all-time HW. Nor do I agree that “these guys was more modern styled finished boxers”. And you might want to work on your grammar.

By arguing with every poster you’re simply going to discourage opinions. Of course, maybe that’s what you want.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Jun 2006, 15:22

i asked for ur opinions, but i need ur reason as to why thats ur opinion. of course im going to debate, thats why we have a boxing forum.

u gave me a list of contenders that were clearly not as good as the list of contenders i gave(by any non bias fan).

whats the better list.........

ingemar johannsen, archie moore, eddie machen, cleveland williams, zora folley, harold johnson, nino valdes, old joe louis, roland lastarza, clarence henry, bob baker, rex layne

or

Hamas, Baer, Baer, Braddock, Galento, Farr, Stribling, Godoy, Ramage, Lasky

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Jun 2006, 15:37

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:i asked for ur opinions, but i need ur reason as to why thats ur opinion. of course im going to debate, thats why we have a boxing forum.

u gave me a list of contenders that were clearly not as good as the list of contenders i gave(by any non bias fan).

whats the better list.........

ingemar johannsen, archie moore, eddie machen, cleveland williams, zora folley, harold johnson, nino valdes, old joe louis, roland lastarza, clarence henry, bob baker, rex layne

or

Hamas, Baer, Baer, Braddock, Galento, Farr, Stribling, Godoy, Ramage, Lasky

We’re comparing the entire decades, right? You left a lot of guys off of those lists. What is clear to you is not clear to many others. If you insist, let’s match a few up:

30’s top HWs
Louis
Schmeling
Baer
Sharkey

50’s top HWs
Marciano
Patterson
Walcott
Charles

Louis is better than Marciano
Schmeling KO’s the weak chinned Patterson
Baer is too strong and hit too hard for the past his prime Walcott. The late 40’s Walcott probably takes this matchup, but not the 50’s version
Sharkey and the past his prime Charles is close. I’ll give you that one.

To any unbiased fan, it’s pretty clear that the top HWs of the 30’s were better than the top HWs of the 50’s. And IMO, the division was deeper in the 30’s as well.

Why not just make this a poll? Most don’t have the time or energy to type the 1,000 word responses that you are known for, so it may generate more traffic.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Jun 2006, 15:50

walcott was not past his prime in the 1950s. that was when he knocked out ezzard charles with the pefect punch and nearly beat a prime marciano in perhaps the greatest preformance of his career. he also knocked out harold johnson in 1950. walcotts was defintley in his prime when he was fighting charles and marciano.

baer was too crude and unskilled to beat walcott

50’s top HWs
Marciano
Patterson
Walcott
Charles

once again, ur leaving out sonny liston. liston was at his peak 1958-59 that counts as 1950s right?

50s top HW's

marciano
liston
walcott
charles
patterson

thats a better list than the 1930s

Schmeling KO’s the weak chinned Patterson

patterson was very hard to knockout. i might add schmeling didnt seem to deal well with speed. i think patterson was more skilled and faster than schmeling and i dont know if schmeling can deal with pattersons combination of speed and power.

The late 40’s Walcott probably takes this matchup, but not the 50’s version

the late 1940s walcott was the same as the early 1950s walcott. walcott beat EZZARD CHARLES TWICE IN THE 1950S FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. walcott nearly beat rocky marciano for crying out loud.

nat fleischer and joe louis said walcott was a better fighter in his mid 30s.

ill take the walcott who fought marciano to decisevly beat baer. marciano was a lot better than baer

even if u truelly believe walcott was past his prime in 1950-1952, ill still take that "past his prime" version of walcott to whip max baer

Sharkey and the past his prime Charles is close. I’ll give you that one.

TOTAL BIAS. ur telling me a 28-29 year old charles who dominated joe louis and jersey joe walcott in 1950-51 was past his prime? 1950-51 does count as part of the 1950s decade.

charles was defintley not past his prime in 1950-51

To any unbiased fan, it’s pretty clear that the top HWs of the 30’s were better than the top HWs of the 50’s.

i really do think ur very bias against the 1950s. its clear with ur post.

you forget to include liston, you say charles was past his prime in 1950 despite being 28 years old, you say walcott was past his prime when he fought charles and marciano.

u leave out archie moore, ingemar johannsen, harold johnson, nino valdes, cleveland williams(who u are bias against), eddie machen, zora folley, clarence henry, old joe louis, roland lastarza, etc

u have a bias against the late 50s since u dont like liston

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 02 Jun 2006, 16:35

I don't think theres a lot to choose between the two different decades... I don't really see how you can discount Liston from the mix as he was certainly imo the best heavyweight of the 50s alongside Marciano and must rate a all time top 10 place...

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Jun 2006, 20:49

silkov wrote:I don't think theres a lot to choose between the two different decades... I don't really see how you can discount Liston from the mix as he was certainly imo the best heavyweight of the 50s alongside Marciano and must rate a all time top 10 place...

Yes, you are correct that Liston s/b in the 50's HW list. My mistake. However, I do not agree that he "must rate" as an all time top 10, as these are all subjective and his last name is not Ali or Louis.

Even with the addition of Liston, I think I'd still go with the 30's. Schaaf, Retzlaff, Risko, Mann, Fox and Lewis are a few other names that add to the depth of the 30's. There were even some pretty good LHs throughout the decade besides Lewis who moved up and did quite well. I think you might even recognize their names This is all nothing but opinion, but I just think there is way too much depth in the 30's, in addition to the all time #1 or 2 guy.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 02 Jun 2006, 20:59

you don't want to bring in the LH's or you tip the balance decidedly to the 50's.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 02 Jun 2006, 21:09

BoxBuzz wrote:you don't want to bring in the LH's or you tip the balance decidedly to the 50's.

Well I think Brocky felt the need to include LH's because he had Moore and Harold Johnson. While it's hard to beat those 2, if you look at the whole crop of LH's, I think the 30's would fare pretty well. Of course my opinion doesn't count, because I'm biased against the 50's. Or am I biased FOR the 30's? I keep forgetting.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 02 Jun 2006, 21:19

The Great John L biased? No way, we each come to independent conclusions based on our research, and if your conclusions do not match my own then you are simply still gathering the facts.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 03 Jun 2006, 00:36

Louis of the 30's pretty much trumps a whole heap of the names you put together for the fifties... Combined.

While I would agree that the number of quality fighters in the 50's was greater... Joe Louis takes the cake.

Let's call them equal, for arguments sake.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jun 2006, 03:20

you have to include archie moore in the heavyweight mix since he was fighting at 190lb and whipping all the best heavyweight contenders in the world like nino valdes, bob baker, clarence henry, bob satterfield, etc. throughout the 1950s, moore was a top contender in the heavyweight division and twice fought for the heavyweight title.

harold johnson is on the list cause during marcianos era, he consistently beat the top heavyweight contenders establishing himself one of the best heavyweight contenders in the world.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 03 Jun 2006, 07:25

The 50's had more talent than the 30's.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 03 Jun 2006, 07:45

BoxBuzz wrote:The Great John L biased? No way, we each come to independent conclusions based on our research, and if your conclusions do not match my own then you are simply still gathering the facts.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 03 Jun 2006, 15:53

It's close, but I'm going with the 1950's. Take out Louis (who wasn't around in the early 1930's) and the 1930's wasn't anything speical.

As mentioned, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer weren't nearly as good as Marciano or Liston.
Williams, Folley, Machen could all possibly have been champions in the 1930's. Hard to imagine any non-champion of the 1930's winning the title in the 1950's.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 03 Jun 2006, 16:12

Williams, Folley, Machen could all possibly have been champions in the 1930's. Hard to imagine any non-champion of the 1930's winning the title in the 1950's.

funny how u refuse to mention archie moore, clarence henry, ingemar johannsen, floyd patterson, nino valdes who were all good or better than those u mentioned. u seem to have a slight bias against marcianos era.

i remember we used to have arguements that archie wasnt a top 50 heavyweight of all time.

archie is one of the best HW contenders never to win a title IMO

Arbachakov · Post by **Arbachakov** » 03 Jun 2006, 17:53

They both sucked.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 03 Jun 2006, 21:55

The eras were more or less equal. Who knows that Arturo Godoy couldn't have beaten Valdez and older Charles (that's a helluva fight). Or that Cleveland Williams couldn't have beaten Sharkey and Buddy Baer? Or that Bob Pastor couldn't have beaten LaStarza? I would say both ae fairly solid overall, although the period 1951-56 was pretty weak but a very solid crop of contenders started coming up from 56-60.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jun 2006, 13:35

Who knows that Arturo Godoy couldn't have beaten Valdez and older Charles (that's a helluva fight)

older charles? dempseyfire are u telling me a 1950-51 charles was old? he was 28 -29 years old for chrisakes.

if anyone thinks godoy could beat a 1950 charles, there dreaming. charles was in his prime in 1950

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jun 2006, 13:39

although the period 1951-56 was pretty weak but a very solid crop of contenders started coming up from 56-60.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

i totally disagree. u horribly underate marcianos era

51-56 had marciano, walcott, charles, patterson, moore, johnson, valdez, baker, henry, lastarza, louis, walls, satterfield, layne. thats a damm solid crop

56-60 had patterson, johannsen, liston, johannsen, williams, machen, folley, old valdes, old moore, dejohn.

IMO there dead even

both were strong eras

outside of liston, i cant see anyone beating a 1950 charles, marciano, or a walcott of the first marciano fight

i cant see folley or machen beating archie moore

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 04 Jun 2006, 13:53

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
although the period 1951-56 was pretty weak but a very solid crop of contenders started coming up from 56-60.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

i totally disagree. u horribly underate marcianos era

51-56 had marciano, walcott, charles, patterson, moore, johnson, valdez, baker, henry, lastarza, louis, walls, satterfield, layne. thats a damm solid crop

56-60 had patterson, johannsen, liston, johannsen, williams, machen, folley, old valdes, old moore, dejohn.

IMO there dead even

both were strong eras

outside of liston, i cant see anyone beating a 1950 charles, marciano, or a walcott of the first marciano fight

i cant see folley or machen beating archie moore

Sorry, I see Williams, FOlley, Machen, Liston being a better crop than LaStarza, Layne, Baker (a pretty average guy), Valdez etc.

I can def. see Machen beating a HW Moore. Possibly Folley as well.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 04 Jun 2006, 14:04

I can def. see Machen beating a HW Moore. Possibly Folley as well.

thats ridiculous. a past his prime harold johnson beat eddie machen. imagine what a prime johnson does to machen. archie moore beat a prime harold johnson 4 times.

folley was knocked out by 4 B level heavyweights(excluding jones). archie would get to folley.

alejdrano lavorante knocked out folley. the same lavorante who was nearly killed after being knocked out by a 45 year old archie moore.

moore would knockout folley, and outpoint machen.

moore shutout clarence henry for crying out loud. a PRIME CLARENCE HENRY. not the blind clarence henry who lost to hurricane jackson.

be thankful for eddies and folleys sake they never had to fight a prime heavyweight 51-55 version of archie moore

moore knocked out bert whitehurst twice. the same whitehurst who twice lasted the distance with sonny liston.

ill take the better boxer and better puncher in archie moore over machen and folley

Sorry, I see Williams, FOlley, Machen, Liston being a better crop than LaStarza, Layne, Baker (a pretty average guy), Valdez etc.

williams, folley, machen, liston better than marciano, charles, walcott , moore??

1950s heavyweight decade better than the 1930s

1950s heavyweight decade better than the 1930s

Re: 1950s heavyweight decade better than the 1930s

50's