Page 1 of 1
Re: Bob Satterfield, one of the top 100 punchers ever
Posted: 27 Oct 2006, 18:09
by kick asner
Rocky50Project wrote:
Bob was a very interesting figure and I feel sorry for him a little bit. He never had a chance. Good boxer, but the problem was, never consistant. On January 11th 1956, he was KO's by John Holman, John Holman was in his prime at this time, on 2 29 56 he beat Rowan, UD. And was rated fourth and third, those were his best ratings. He was hoping for a chance, but Satterfield, his chance was gone, this was his last chance ever. He retired with 50-25, not bad,
but at least his last wins were victories. He died a sick man at 53.
Fred Saddy, the NBA (not nba of today) chairman, IBC, said if he had shown impressive standing against Holmand, meaning a third KO against same man, he would have been logical contender for Marciano March 3 1956. Saturday.
And he knew that, his chin was terrible, imagine what Marciano would have done to him. The bout would last 2 rounds, at the most. But at least, that was a chance he never had.
:(
I think probably all of his wins were victories.
re
Posted: 28 Oct 2006, 00:14
by barry
>>>Bob was a very interesting figure and I feel sorry for him a little bit. He never had a chance.<<<
He had plenty of chances...only problem was, whenever he had a chance to get a big fight, he always got knocked out in an eliminator, but Satterfield got more chances than most fighters...he just was not able to capitalize!
Posted: 28 Oct 2006, 06:24
by silkov
Re: Bob Satterfield, one of the top 100 punchers ever
Posted: 28 Oct 2006, 06:27
by silkov
kick asner wrote:Rocky50Project wrote: Bob was a very interesting figure and I feel sorry for him a little bit. He never had a chance. Good boxer, but the problem was, never consistant. On January 11th 1956, he was KO's by John Holman, John Holman was in his prime at this time, on 2 29 56 he beat Rowan, UD. And was rated fourth and third, those were his best ratings. He was hoping for a chance, but Satterfield, his chance was gone, this was his last chance ever. He retired with 50-25, not bad,
but at least his last wins were victories. He died a sick man at 53.
Fred Saddy, the NBA (not nba of today) chairman, IBC, said if he had shown impressive standing against Holmand, meaning a third KO against same man, he would have been logical contender for Marciano March 3 1956. Saturday.
And he knew that, his chin was terrible, imagine what Marciano would have done to him. The bout would last 2 rounds, at the most. But at least, that was a chance he never had.
:(
I think probably all of his wins were victories.
Well sometimes you win when you lose
and lose when you win,
:x
its a funny old game!.
.. I think thats what Rockys trying to tell us!...
:x
Posted: 28 Oct 2006, 11:18
by BoxBuzz
In boxing it's......Defense, Defense, Defense......like in real estate.....Location Location Location.
No matter how good you are at the heavy handed art of punching, sooner or later your going to meet up with someone who's going to force you to value the fact that you need to NOT be where the punches are......or establish something in your arsenal that forces your opponent to continuously compromise/re-evaluate his own offensive strategy.
Satterfield never arrived to this point of enlightenment and found himself in the same dilemna many times over. Even George Foreman finally put together the importance of building defensive skills...in his case the use of the offensive jab.
Satterfield was probably not a good chess player.....my guess is that he would have led with his King.
Posted: 28 Oct 2006, 19:08
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
satterfield to me had much better skills and defense than foreman. foreman simply had was much bigger, stronger, more durable, more powerful than satterfield
