BoxRec

http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?a ... 0E59DD6430



theres only a couple dowloads left. it will take a while to download but ENJOY!!!! but trust me the long download is worth the 1 minute of footage!

I just read your post and downloaded the footage. Satterfield could hit but his technique was pretty sloppy. Couple that with his weak chin and he was a very flawed heavyweight. But he could punch! He reminds me of Charles Brewer in this film, not due to technique or anything, but due to his warrior's spirit. He took a couple good shots by Baker but instead of defending himself he came roaring back. This time it served him, but how many times did it cost him a W?

Keep em coming, Brock. Very interesting

is technique didnt look that bad to me. satterfield was very skilled, very quick reflexes. he didnt loop his punches.....he threw straight short powerful punches with his full body into them...... perhaps satterfield was off balance when he punched.....but that was the only major flaw i saw.




Bob Baker was one of the best contenders of marcianos era. bob baker was a big man with boxing skills and power. his loss to satterfield was a huge upset. baker beat nino valdez 2x, cesar brion, coley wallace 2x, old layne 3x, sid peaks, george chuvalo, jimmy slade, embrell davidson, omelio agramone, hurricane jackson in rematch(but the judges gave a horrible decision to jackson). baker was thrown to the wolves early due to his extensive amatuer background but baker survived without a loss. bob baker had the goods in his prime. he was big, strong, had good boxing skills, good handspeed, and he was a big puncher(until hand injuries caught up with him). baker was probably the most talented big man of marcianos era. baker's prime was the early 1950s....until bad hand injuries and motivation problems caught up with him in the mid-late 1950s and he went into a sharp decline.



i think boxrec has satterfields height wrong....cause when satterfield stood up to ezzard charles he looked shorter than 6'0 charles. satterfield looked much shorter than 6'3 valdez, and satterfield looked shorter than rex layne whose around 6'1. so i believe satterfield is more like 5'10. baker is accurate 6'2 210-220lb. he was muscular and in shape though.



bob baker almost did fight rocky. they could have fought anywhere from 1951-55. baker fought an eliminater against valdez in late 1955 to determine who would face rocky and baker won a lopsided in a very dull lacklustre fight. bakers preformance however was so dull that the press said "baker eliminted himself as an opponent for rocky marciano." the public simply wasnt calling for a marciano-baker bout. al well defintley stood clear of baker in 1951-52 pre title when a marciano-baker fight would have been a great time to take place cause both were top 5 ranked contenders.


negotiations with baker-marciano bout did take place throughout the early-mid 1950s but nothing ever came to a deal. weill was very hestitant to send marciano in vs a dangerous big man like baker if he didnt have to so weill sidetracked the match. however if the demand was there and the money was right.....weill would have taken the match. its too bad bob baker doesnt get enough credit today.....but he was a legit dangerous contender and i believe he defintley should have got a shot at rockys title. baker was even more screwed during ezzard charles reign. baker defintley should have got a shot in 1950-51 over some of those IBC controlled scrubs. it appears bob baker didnt have very good management since he was never able to attain a title fight against charles or marciano. i will have to do more studying on his management. a baker-marciano fight would have been great 1951-52 i favor marciano by KO in an exciting fight, and a win over baker would defintley helped marciano legacy....since its a win over a young big dangerous contender. it would defintley silence some of the critics.


baker beat many of the top contenders of that era......but he never had that big win that put him on the spotlight like valdez had over charles...valdez seemed to take all the glory and recognition from baker(even though baker beat valdez 2x).



after patterson beat jimmy slade.......patterson said he wanted to fight bob baker. D amato said "when the time comes ill throw you in vs the top heavyweights.....but not a guy like baker."







http://i5.tinypic.com/20qe2v7.jpg

http://i5.tinypic.com/20qe3dl.jpg

I wasn't saying his technique was poor, I'm saying it was sloppy. Doesn't bring his hands back up after punching sometimes, off balance often after throwing a shot, etc etc. He squared himself up after throwing the right and made it easier for his opponent to clock him with a KO shot. It is harder to keep from going down when a fighter is square because there is no weight on the back foot supporting the impact of the shot.

I agreed BrocktonBlockbuster49, Bob Satterfield stood shorter than Ezzard Charles and Bob Baker. I think they should change his height from 6'2" to 5'10".

barry did u catch this?

Great job for being so very unselfish and sharing the fight! I had seen it before, but did not check out the youtube clip...can a person save the file to they're computer?

barry wrote:Great job for being so very unselfish and sharing the fight! I had seen it before, but did not check out the youtube clip...can a person save the file to they're computer?

yes! also barry i put very rare 30 sec of marciano vs vingo footage up. check it out. a very good collectors item for historians

I enjoyed that Satterfield - Baker one, Brocky.

They looked a bit 'wild' but that can happen to even the best technicians when events get heated. I skimmed through their records afterwards; I wasn't surprised to see The old Mongoose KO'd both of them.

That's amazing that the file size is less than 5mb too.

I saved it to disk and watched it a couple of times.

One thing. I hate the way someone added in the supposed sounds of the scoring punchs 'landing'; whoever did that missed several and added the 'special effects' for ones that obviously missed.