1950s heavyweight decade better than the 1930s

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

dempseyfire i dont know about u, but i would pick the 1951 joe louis over zora folley and give the 1951 louis a good chance at beating machen, make that a 50-50

then again, i dont know if machen can get by that jab of a 1951 louis but machens youthness, speed could help him get the best of louis. machen had awesome boxing skills.

dempseyfire, a prime early 1950s bob baker was a very good figther. he was a big man with skills, excellent handspeed, good power, strong.

it seems ur judging the late 1950s over the hill, hand injuries, unmotivated bob baker who was far from the fight he once was.

roy harris and willie besmanoff would never beat a prime baker

i dont think baker was at the level of a eddie machen, folley, or williams but i do think baker was close and is better than u give him credit for

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 04 Jun 2006, 18:46

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
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 didn't mention Johansson or Patterson because they were champions. I just meant to point out that some guys that weren't champions in the 1950's may have been champions had they fought in the 1930's.
I think that Machen, Williams, or Folley would have been more competitive with the champions of the 1930's than Moore or Valdes.

I don't know if I have bias against Marciano's era. It was ok, better than some, worse than others. I am agreeing with you that the 1950's were than the 1930's in the heavyweight division. :)

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

Your entitled to your opinion. I just don't agree with it.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 05 Jun 2006, 10:02

The dumbest post here was "they both sucked".

I go with the 1930s - greater personalities, greater stories, and with prime Joe Louis one of the top 2 heavyweights ever (there's nothing comparable to prime Louis in the 1950s, really). I´d also pick prime Schmeling, prime Baer, prime Sharkey over most if not all 1950s fighters, but this is of course a matter of opinion.

Moreover, the comparison the way Brockton presents it is a tick unfair. By counting both Joe Louis and Sonny Liston as 50s fighters, he's stretching the meaning of the term "50s". Liston was a contender at the end-50s but he is really a 1960s fighter. Louis was a fringe contender in the early 50s, but he belongs alrgely to the 1930s and 1940s.

In fact, already by including Marciano and Patterson into the 50s one combines two eras in one term, with few cross-over fighters between the two eras. The first era is Marciano, Walcott, Charles, Valdes, LaStarza, and if you wish old Joe Louis; the second is Patterson, Johannson, Machen, Folley, and if you wish Liston. The only significant guy belonging to both is Archie Moore.

In contrast, Schmeling, Sharkey, Louis, Baer, Braddock, Carnera, Paolino all belonged to the same era, and they all fought each other.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 05 Jun 2006, 10:14

Are we talking about head to head matchups or historical significance in terms of how many good or great fighters were in the division? Because if its the later, the 30s can also claim Mickey Walker and Tommy Loughran who fought some heavies during the 30s.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 05 Jun 2006, 10:26

expug wrote:Are we talking about head to head matchups or historical significance in terms of how many good or great fighters were in the division? Because if its the later, the 30s can also claim Mickey Walker and Tommy Loughran who fought some heavies during the 30s.

You're right the questio isn#t hat well definied. I guess we talk about all of it a little bit; and you're also right that the great Mickey Walker and Loughran and Stribling and many others ought to be also a part of the equation.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 05 Jun 2006, 10:28

I think that Machen, Williams, or Folley would have been more competitive with the champions of the 1930's than Moore or Valdes.

why are u comparing archie moore with nino valdes?

archie moore was better than eddie machen and folley so therefore he would do better against champions of the 1930s

just to let u know, a far past his prime harold johnson beat eddie machen. archie moore beat a prime harold johnson 4 times. u still telling me machen was the better heavyweight??

folley in his prime was knocked out by 4 B level heavyweights

archie moore @ heavyweight was only beaten by marciano, ali and patterson

i really do think archie gets underated at Heavyweight. he only was beaten by ATGs and he wiped out the best contenders in the division.

why do u rate gene tunney so high at heavyweight alp but no archie moore? moore was a better 175lb than tunney and i have no doubt moore would have beaten tom heeney and the 1927 version of jack dempsey

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 05 Jun 2006, 10:37

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: why do u rate gene tunney so high at heavyweight alp but no archie moore? moore was a better 175lb than tunney

Where on earth do you take this from??

Tunney fougth in one of the best eras of the light-heavyweight division and beat absolultey EVERYBODY, including several hall-of-faem fighters; his only loss was when he was green to the AT pfp top 10 Harry Greb, and he avenged this one several times over.

Moore was a great l-h (and a good heavyweight) but Ezzard Charles had his number. Nobody had Tunney's number (at no weight he ever fought).

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 05 Jun 2006, 10:50

his only loss was when he was green to the AT pfp top 10 Harry Greb, and he avenged this one several times over.

actually tunney lost to 162lb harry greb twice. greb was a middleweight.

his only loss was when he was green to the AT pfp top 10 Harry Greb, and he avenged this one several times over.

how was tunney green? he was 50-0 and 25 years old

archie moore beat LEGITE PRIME FULL SIZED LIGHT-H like harold johnson, jimmy bivins and some think archie deserved the decision in the 2nd charles fight. win or lose, moore fought 3 very close bouts with charles and he nearly won both the 2nd and 3rd charles fights.

charles was also better than tunney

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 05 Jun 2006, 13:13

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
I think that Machen, Williams, or Folley would have been more competitive with the champions of the 1930's than Moore or Valdes.

why are u comparing archie moore with nino valdes?

archie moore was better than eddie machen and folley so therefore he would do better against champions of the 1930s

just to let u know, a far past his prime harold johnson beat eddie machen. archie moore beat a prime harold johnson 4 times. u still telling me machen was the better heavyweight??

folley in his prime was knocked out by 4 B level heavyweights

archie moore @ heavyweight was only beaten by marciano, ali and patterson

i really do think archie gets underated at Heavyweight. he only was beaten by ATGs and he wiped out the best contenders in the division.

why do u rate gene tunney so high at heavyweight alp but no archie moore? moore was a better 175lb than tunney and i have no doubt moore would have beaten tom heeney and the 1927 version of jack dempsey

I don't think that Moore was better than Folley and Machen.
Folley had some bad losses but he also had some nice wins. He beat Chuvalo, Jones, Bonavena, and Machen. Towards the end of his career he put up a sold showing against Ali. If he had a good night he could
beat Baer, Schmeling and Sharkey and certainly Carnera and Braddock.

Machen did lose a close decison to Johnson but he also beat Quarry and had draws with Williams and Folley. He went the distance with Liston during a stretch when Liston was knocking everyone else out. He also knocked out the legendary Nino Valdes.
He would be competitive against any of the champons of the 1930's and was a better heavyweight than Moore.

You could actually make a much stronger case for Johnson at heavyweight than Moore. Moore was slightly better at lightheavy (the weight that the Johnson-Moore fights were at) but Johnson was more impressive in his occasional fights at heavyweight.

You have no doubt that Moore could have beaten Heeney and Dempsey? Well I have a lot of doubt that he would.

I have no doubt that Tunney would have beat Patterson, who knocked Moore out.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 11 Jun 2006, 21:21

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
his only loss was when he was green to the AT pfp top 10 Harry Greb, and he avenged this one several times over.

actually tunney lost to 162lb harry greb twice. greb was a middleweight.

his only loss was when he was green to the AT pfp top 10 Harry Greb, and he avenged this one several times over.

how was tunney green? he was 50-0 and 25 years old

archie moore beat LEGITE PRIME FULL SIZED LIGHT-H like harold johnson, jimmy bivins and some think archie deserved the decision in the 2nd charles fight. win or lose, moore fought 3 very close bouts with charles and he nearly won both the 2nd and 3rd charles fights.

charles was also better than tunney

This is the silliest post I've read from you so far.

Tunney beat Greb, Gibbons, Levinksy, Charpentier, Loughran, Delaney, Winert at l-h - most of them hall-of-famers - and Dempsey, Risko, Heney at heavyweigt. This is Moores record times two at least - at both weight classes.

Whether Tunney or Charles is the best l-h of all-time is a legitimate issue of debate.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 12 Jun 2006, 10:29

Decagon wrote:
pundit wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote: why do u rate gene tunney so high at heavyweight alp but no archie moore? moore was a better 175lb than tunney
Where on earth do you take this from??

Tunney fougth in one of the best eras of the light-heavyweight division and beat absolultey EVERYBODY, including several hall-of-faem fighters; his only loss was when he was green to the AT pfp top 10 Harry Greb, and he avenged this one several times over.

Moore was a great l-h (and a good heavyweight) but Ezzard Charles had his number. Nobody had Tunney's number (at no weight he ever fought).
Arguably, Greb had his number. Although their series officially ended 2-1-0-2, many people would argue that the series should have been 2-2-1 or even 2-3-1. Only four of Tunney's fights with Greb were under 175 (their final fight was at heavyweight), and only the most extreme of Tunney supporters would say that he got the better of Greb in those four fights.

Argubaly Greb had Tunney's number in their early fights, but Tunney fought Greb again and again until he had turned things around. After their last fight Greb said that Tunney had become a hell of a fighter and if they would meet again he (Tunney) would knock him (Greb) out for sure.

Btw, in the early 1920s Greb also had Dempsey's number, dominated him in sparring, but never got a shot.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Jun 2006, 18:58

Tunney beat Greb, Gibbons, Levinksy, Charpentier, Loughran, Delaney, Winert at l-h - most of them hall-of-famers - and Dempsey, Risko, Heney at heavyweigt. This is Moores record times two at least - at both weight classes.

gibbons was far past his prime

carpentier, levinskey were past there prime

loughran was 20 years old and had not yet reached his prime not to mention somne thought loughran won there bout.

tunney never fought a prime loughran, and if a 20 year old loughran can nearly beat tunney, then a prime late 20s loughran could.

risko was very green

heeney wasnt very good

dempsey was his best win defintley though he did not beat a near prime version of dempsey

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 14 Jun 2006, 18:59

i really cant see how anyone could think machen and folley were better heavyweights than archie moore. archie not only has the better resume, he also looks better on film too.

early-mid 50s archie moore KO 8 folley

early-mid 50s archie moore close unanimous machen