Louis' Best Opponent

[hagler04]

The fight was not a one sided beating. Baer dominated early, Schmeling rallied in the mid rounds as Baer's ADD kicked in. Later Baer got motivated and took him out. The talk that that Baer could have beaten any of the all time great heavyweights is nonsense. He would have still been murdered by Louis or any of the top guys. He simply beat up the very good but not great, limited and inconsistant Schmeling.

Is anyone here telling me that roundhouse swinging, poorly paced, off balance, methodical and slow footed Baer beats Johnson (other than Roberto) , Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano, Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Lewis or Tyson ? No way !!! Any of those guys would have beaten the daylights out of the best Baer that ever fought.

1930 - 1935 was an extremely weak era in the heavyweight division. It's more than likely that none of those guys would have even been champs if the color line was not drawn. It might have been the worst stretch of heavyweight champs till today.

Schmeling - inconsistant, limited, smart, well conditioned, dangerous

Sharkey - super inconsistant, a head case, the best of that lot but lost the big ones. If any of them had a shot at greatness, he was the one. He blew it.

Carnera - 95% of pre title bouts were set ups or hand picked. Had huge size and heart, pretty good stamina, decent hand speed for a big guy and a decent jab and good recoopperative powers. Still, simply a second rater when matched up against the best.

Baer - Big, strong, iron chin, huge right hand. Often poor condition, questionable motivation and desire, slow and easy to hit.

Braddock - huge heart, decent right hand, slow and limited. He did not lose twenty times by accident.

Baer had poor conditioning?? Look at his acitivity rates into the late rounds vs Carnera and Baer . . .Maxie before his post-Louis comeback had excellent stamina and conditioning.
BTW I never said that Baer beats all of the all time great HWs, but he would;ve given them a tough fight. Out of that list I think Baer could've beaten Lewis (Lennox's low left and questionable stamina would mean good night vs a right hand puncher like Baer, who unlike most of Lennox's opponents wouldn't be dead tired by the 3rd round)

Braddock slow??? His big advantage at HW was his speed and jab. That was one if his best attributes.

You're under-rating this era. The 1930s had a good number of talented HWs. When I think of a poor era I think of now, or the early-mid 1950s in second. Jack Sharkey erratic or not would be cleaning house today.

[Elmer Ray]

or the early-mid 1950s in second.

i think ur underating this era.

you had great fighters in there primes like rocky marciano, floyd patterson, ezzard charles, jersey joe walcott, archie moore, harold johnson

and then you had very solid top contenders like 1950s joe louis, eddie machen, roland lastarza, nino valdes, bob baker, rex layne, clarence henry, hurricane jackson, bob satterfield, earl walls etc.




1950s heavyweight division is one of the most understudied eras in history. it wasnt one of the best, but it also certainly wasnt one of the worst!

[HE Grant]

Baer was not in top condition and clearly winded in many of his major fights, most noticably his title loss to Braddock.

Despite the fact that he moved up from light heavy Braddock was not particularly fast at heavy. He was average at best and had a leaky defense as well.

[hawk5ins]

As he was including Sharkey, I think he must have meant early to mid 1930's as the second worst ever. Not the 1950's.

However the critque points on Baer not being prone to poor conditioning or Braddock being a fast fighter are spot on.

Hawk

[hagler04]

Well I just mentioning the early 50s mainly to not totally say "today's era" because we all agree on that and it seems a cop-out answer.

But I don't think the early 50s was a very strong era. Late 50s got much better.

Walcott was past it, Charles was past it, Layne was a Firo-esque clubfighter, Bob Baker was nothing special. It was a transition period when the top 40s fighters were still fighting past their primes and beating a younger crop that besides Marciano were not anything to write home about. By the late 50s, with the coming of Patterson, Liston, Folley, Machen, Williams, Chuvalo etc. you had a strong new generation coming up. But the era from the 4th Walcott-Charles match through Marciano's title defenses was just not very strong.

[HE Grant]

I always wondered how Marciano would have fared against those guys...I do not think as well, not fight in fight out...

[Elmer Ray]

Well I just mentioning the early 50s mainly to not totally say "today's era" because we all agree on that and it seems a cop-out answer.

But I don't think the early 50s was a very strong era. Late 50s got much better.

Walcott was past it, Charles was past it, Layne was a Firo-esque clubfighter, Bob Baker was nothing special. It was a transition period when the top 40s fighters were still fighting past their primes and beating a younger crop that besides Marciano were not anything to write home about. By the late 50s, with the coming of Patterson, Liston, Folley, Machen, Williams, Chuvalo etc. you had a strong new generation coming up. But the era from the 4th Walcott-Charles match through Marciano's title defenses was just not very strong.

walcott was DEFINTLEY NOT past it. walcott didnt even win the HW title until 1951.

walcott fought some of the best preformances of his career in 1951 and 1952 vs charles III and marciano I.

walcott got better with age

walcotts prime was 1947-52. that COUNTS the 1950s.




- charles was NOT past it. in 1950-51 charles was heavyweight champion and only 28 years old in 1950 for crying out loud!

charles was certainly in his prime when he beat joe louis and jersey joe walcott in the 1950s in great preformances!

charles prime lasted 1946-51. that COUNTS the 1950s.



have u ever seen bob baker on film? a motivated in shape bob baker was a very good fighter. baker was 6'2 210lb and at his peak he had INCREDIBLE HANDSPEED. he has very solid boxing skills for a big man. bakers handspeed was incredible for a man his size.


rex layne pre 1952 was a good fighter. he was never the same after suffering brutal back to back KO losses to marcian and charles. layne had a short prime

heres a quote from a guy named joe who was live at the boxing scene in the 1950s. he saw rex layne live.

heres what he told me about layne

"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down.

But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of piss and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right."





early to mid 1950s had charles, marciano, walcott, moore, johnson, patterson who were all in there prime.

charles was in his prime 1950-51

walcott was in his prime 1950-52

moore was in his prime 1950-56

patterson was in his prime 1956

johnson was in his prime 1950-56




liston, patterson johannsen does not equal early to mid 1950s had charles, marciano, walcott, moore, johnson, patterson


walcott and charles were better than any late 1950s heavy except liston IMO

marciano is equal with liston well say since thats a non bias opinion. this will be a push.






IMO archie moore was better than any of the late 1950s heavies except liston, patterson and maybe johannsen and williams.


archie would have soundily beat folley and machen, and williams if he didnt get caught.


- IMO roland lastarza was just as good as eddie machen, and was better than folley



-even a 1950s joe louis was as good as machen, folley, williams.


nino valdes, bob baker in there primes(early 50s) were very near the level of machen, folley.




- even a well past his prime harold johnson beat eddie machen which just goes to show you what a prime johnson or moore would have done to machen



chuvalo didnt reach his prime till the mid 1960s. so i dont know why he is included on here.





late 1950s produced 2 great heavyweights 1958 liston and 1956 patterson

early-mid 1950s produced 3 great heavyweights 1950 charles 1952 walcott and 1953 marciano

edge in great heavyweights: early to mid 1950s



late 1950s produced very good top contenders/champs ingemar johannsen, cleveland williams, zora folley, eddie machen, hurricane jackson


early-mid 1950s produced very good top contenders/champs archie moore, harold johnson, joe louis, roland lastarza, nino valdes, bob baker, clarence henry

edge: early to mid 1950s



so im interested in your opinion how the late 1950s better than the early 1950s?

[Elmer Ray]

I always wondered how Marciano would have fared against those guys...I do not think as well, not fight in fight out...

he beats them all easily except liston fight is a 50/50



marciano beat walcott, charles who were better than any late 1950s heavyweight except liston.

how exactley are machen, folley, williams, patterson going to beat marciano?


marciano would have broken down machen and stopped him. marcian beat better boxers than machen and he did so by KO.


glass jaw folley wouldnt last long against the power and pressure of marciano


cleveland williams vunerable chin and lack of defense would have got him knocked out by rock. rocky was a greater all around puncher than williams and was more durable and faster. williams would have been a very dangerous fight for marciano with his size, skill, power, but I dont think cleveland williams wins a slugout vs marciano and thats what it will come down too.

archie moore once said " i dont think any champion past present or future could slug it out vs rocky and come out alive."

in the case of marciano vs williams, i agree with archie moore. I like rockys short quick punches as seen in lastarza II over williams wide slower but deadly haymakers.





patterson was made for marciano, he would have trouble rocky greatly with his handspeed, but rocky was alot stronger and more powerful than patterson and patterson loved to brawl and that would have spelled death vs rocky.



I think people underated archie moore as a heavyweight, lastarza, and 1950s version of louis. these guys were every bit as good as any contender of the late 1950s


IMO lastarza, old louis, moore are better than machen, williams, folley


- cleveland williams was probably the best of the late 1950s contenders. throw his record out the window, he was ducked by many of the top contenders. williams was a murderer. hes in my top 40 heavyweights of all time





HE,

perhaps in this case its not underated of the early to mid 1950s heavyweights as much as it is you underating marciano? at least thats just my opinion ur underating marciano in head to head matchups, because neither ur opinion or my opnion is right.

marciano is one of the greatest heavyweights of all time. at marcianos peak, it takes a great heavyweight champion to beat him. marciano showed during his career he could clobber the likes of great fighters.


marciano is the kind of guy u really need to study carefully on film, and you will realize how great and effective he was. because he was VERY effective. carlos monzon is the same way. you gotta relaly study these guys closesly to understand how truelly effective there fighting style is.

[Elmer Ray]

both the early 1950s and late 1950s were both average heavyweight eras. neither good or bad. i favor the early 1950s though because there best 3 heavyweights were better than the best 3 late 1950s heavies.


- the reason many people dismiss the early 1950s is that its hard to get film on many of the top heavyweights of the time.

[Mr E]

IMO archie moore was better than any of the late 1950s heavies except liston, patterson and maybe johannsen and williams.


archie would have soundily beat folley and machen, and williams if he didnt get caught.
***



- even a well past his prime harold johnson beat eddie machen which just goes to show you what a prime johnson or moore would have done to machen

I agree that Archie Moore is an under-rated heavyweight. His victories over the likes of Jimmy Bivins, Nino Valdes, Bob Baker and Harold Johnson are not sufficiently appreciated.

The only 1950s heavyweights I put solidly in front of him are Rocky Marciano and Sonny Liston.

I'd put him a shade behind Ezzard Charles (who beat him 3-of-3, but who had his hands full everytime) and Jersey Joe Walcott.

At his best, I think Moore would have been very competetive with Floyd Patterson. I'd make that fight even money.

I think he would have done to Cleveland Williams exactly what he did to Valdes and Baker, and I think he would have beaten Ingemar Johannson, Eddie Machen & Zora Folley as well.

[Mr E]

Just off the top of my head:

1952:
1-Rocky Marciano
2-Ezzard Charles
3-Jersey Joe Walcott
4-Archie Moore
5-Harold Johnson
6-Clarence Henry
7-Bob Baker
8-Nino Valdes
9-Roland LaStarza
10-Rex Layne


1959:
1-Sonny Liston
2-Floyd Patterson
3-Cleveland Williams
4-Harold Johnson
5-Ingemar Johansson
6-Zora Folley
7-Eddie Machen
8-Henry Cooper
9-Mike DeJohn
10-Brian London

[Elmer Ray]

Just off the top of my head:

1952:
1-Rocky Marciano
2-Ezzard Charles
3-Jersey Joe Walcott
4-Archie Moore
5-Harold Johnson
6-Clarence Henry
7-Bob Baker
8-Nino Valdes
9-Roland LaStarza
10-Rex Layne


1959:
1-Sonny Liston
2-Cleveland Williams
3-Floyd Patterson
4-Harold Johnson
5-Ingemar Johansson
6-Zora Folley
7-Eddie Machen
8-Henry Cooper
9-Mike DeJohn
10-Brian London

i agree with all


except i believe lastarza should be rated # 6 right behing harold johnson. lastarza would have beat baker, valdes. lastarza was perhaps the best defensive heavyweight of that era. the only man lastarza did not beat in his prime was marciano. he looks excellent on film. blame lastarzas padded record on his manager jimmy fats deangelo who was the cause of lastarza hardly getting any big fights outside of marciano.


- also i would put patterson # 2 behind liston


going by that list, i would slightly favor 1952

[Mr E]

You know, on 2nd thought, I agree with you re Patterson being rated over Cleveland Williams. Bit of a mental lapse there, but I take it back. In fact, I'll go back and make that edit now....

I could see LaStarza being ahead of Baker & Valdes-- those 3 are clustered together, IMO. But Clarence Henry? I've never seen him on film, but he had an impressive record and contemporary accounts rate him highly.

[Elmer Ray]

you and I are on the same page mr. E






- clarence henry is a vastly underated heavywieght and reasons are because there is such little info on him, and film on him is incredibly rare to get.

but clarence henry was defintley one of the best heavyweights of the 1950s never to win a title. writers and historians of the time all thought highly of henry.



before he won the title, al weill avoided sending marciano in the ring with clarence henry because he didnt want to risk marciano's # 1 rating.


-weill steered marciano away from clarence henry and a rematch with lastarza and chose lee savold instead. it was the only time weill ever overprotected marciano. but thats how much weill thought of clarence henry and lastarza.


marciano vs henry 1951 or 1952 would have been a great fight to see, and would be competitive. I pick marciano winner by KO, but it would have been a lot better fight than against lee savold!

when talking about some of the better heavies of marcianos era, u hear bob baker and nino valdes, but never clarence henry. IMO clarence henry was better than both those guys, and al weill thought so too the way he steered rock away from henry in his pre title days.


joe louis almost took on henry in 1951. that would have been a good fight. i favor louis and his jab.

[Sharkey]

Firpoesque would be a welcome quality for any of today's heavyweights.... Layne would need to become a bit more formidable to be Luis.

But I get the reference. Just saying.

[Elmer Ray]

i think layne was just as good as luis firpo. what did firpo have besides a right hand??


layne beat jersey joe walcott. walcott may have been out of shape and overconfident but its still MUCH better than any win firpo came up with. layne also beat ezzard charles(which is supposedy a robbery) but the fight was close and layne got the decision. to be that competitive with ezzard it fantastic.


layne in his prime was a good fighter, i would put him on par with firpo. i would rate layne however ahead of firpo based on layne beating much better fighters than firpo ever beat.




- i will say i recentley saw firpo-willard brief highlights and firpo is better than historians portray him to be.

[Mr E]

i think layne was just as good as luis firpo. what did firpo have besides a right hand??


layne beat jersey joe walcott. walcott may have been out of shape and overconfident but its still MUCH better than any win firpo came up with. layne also beat ezzard charles(which is supposedy a robbery) but the fight was close and layne got the decision. to be that competitive with ezzard it fantastic.


layne in his prime was a good fighter, i would put him on par with firpo. i would rate layne however ahead of firpo based on layne beating much better fighters than firpo ever beat.




- i will say i recentley saw firpo-willard brief highlights and firpo is better than historians portray him to be.

I think Luis Firpo and Jess Willard are both under-rated today, actually, as is Jack Sharkey.

In any case, here's a question for Mr. Elmer Ray: My grandfather was a pro middleweight bouncing around the west in the late 20s and early 30s, probably losing at least as often as he won. When he retired, he opened a flower shop (of all things) in Salt Lake City and began training fighters out of the Desseret Gym there. He sent many many kids to the national AAU and Golden Glove tourneys, refereed and judged local fights, and was generally very tuned into the fight western -- and, in particular, Utah -- fight scene. That's the preamble.

My grandfather always said it was common knowledge in Utah that both Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott agreed to drop decisions to local boy Rex Layne in order to secure title shots. [One of them got a shot in his very next fight, in fact.] Have you heard anything about that?

[Elmer Ray]

I think Luis Firpo and Jess Willard are both under-rated today, actually, as is Jack Sharkey.

In any case, here's a question for Mr. Elmer Ray: My grandfather was a pro middleweight bouncing around the west in the late 20s and early 30s, probably losing at least as often as he won. When he retired, he opened a flower shop (of all things) in Salt Lake City and began training fighters out of the Desseret Gym there. He sent many many kids to the national AAU and Golden Glove tourneys, refereed and judged local fights, and was generally very tuned into the fight western -- and, in particular, Utah -- fight scene. That's the preamble.

My grandfather always said it was common knowledge in Utah that both Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott agreed to drop decisions to local boy Rex Layne in order to secure title shots. [One of them got a shot in his very next fight, in fact.] Have you heard anything about that?

mr.E,


thank you for sharing that outstanding info. i have heard of it before, but I don't believe it. ill tell u why


walcott was a bit inconsistent, especially in non title fights. walcott showed up to the layne fight overweight(over 200lb), overconfident(layne 4 to 1 underdog), and it was a simply case of walcott taking a young unproven prospect lightly and layne upset walcott.


i have the layne-walcott fight on tape, layne looks better on film in this fight than some of his later fights in the 1950s. layne was very strong, and he simply bulled walcott to the ropes the entire fight, and outworked walcott. layne displayed some very solid inside fighting doing more damage. walcott did not display enough aggresion. the fight was basically even going into the 10th, and thats where layne had a blistering final round outworking and outphysicaling walcott. walcott did not bring his A game and did not show up in the best of shape, but it was layne who made him pay the price. layne at the time was considered a a hard hitting slugger and a good undefeated prospect but that layne was a bit crude and did not have enough experience and was being overmatched in the walcott fight. layne went into the ring at a 4 to 1 underdog. it was a big upset and layne proved he was a very dangerous challenger that couldnt be taken lightly by anyone. I have no doubt walcott would have won the rematch. and remember, this was layne in 1950 at his peak. not the layne post 1951 that went on to lose a lot because he was ruined after suffering brutal back to back KO losses to marciano and charles.

heres the reason why walcott got a 3rd title shot and it comes from a man who was close with ezzard charles and was at the boxing scene in the 1950s:

"it comes direct from inside the charles camp. jake mintz had been shoehorned into the charles management circles by forces who squeezed the original "owners" mostly out. ezzard liked to keep busy but there was no fight scheduled right at this time. suddenly jake mintz said he ...unilaterally....had virtually scheduled one more with walcott. said jersey joe would like to retire and it would be nice to get him one more good purse. my source said this was crazy...that you don't fight a guy like that three times. but...as ezzard agreed ...give walcott a purse and then go on to the other contenders....the match was made. then...someone from the walcott camp contacted the charles people to thank mintz for the $10,000 fee he's asked for for making the match. my contact said the other charles people yelled...they knew nothing about any $10,000 "fee"...and it was obvious that jake had pulled a fast one...but by now their influence was gone."


he also believes that layne-walcott was not a fix.



the charles fight was a sketchy hometown decision where jack dempsey(a good friend of laynes from his hometown) scored the fight. dempsey scored it in rounds 2-1 layne with 7 even rounds. a bit sketchky if u ask me. the new york times reported they thought charles won and had it 6 rounds to 4 charles. others reported they thought charles won but they all thought it was close. layne brought his A game for this fight, and charles took him lightly considering what charles did to him in 51. layne made him pay the price this time, but still charles most likely did enough to win. the fight was in laynes hometown, the ref was laynes friend, and the only judge was a good friend of laynes who had a sketchky scorecard. also, this loss did nothing to help charles(who was coming off a decision loss to walcott), and this win did nothing for layne to earn him a title shot so i hardly suspect it was a 'fix'.


poster john garfield who wrote articles on this site was around during the boxing scene in the 1950s.

heres what john garfield had to say about layne



"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down.

But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of piss and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right."



- i would have liked to see layne in his prime take on baker, valdes.

[Sharkey]

Firpo was big and strong and used these qualities. He was durable, and considering he fell to Dempsey who dropped many fighters with single shots (and thus many rose) speaks to me to confirm his lack of defense while exploitable required something to exploit with. Rex Layne was fragile and could hit.

I don't think I am going out on a limb suggesting Walcott who laid many an egg through whatever reason (hardscrabble, poor management, a style judges loathed) might be prone to dropping a fight to Luis Firpo. I'll also add Firpo would have made Carmine Vingo and Roland LaStarza look like pocket-watches.

His defense would have been his undoing. However, considering I truly believe a Firpo to Tim Witherspoon analogy (Razor Ruddock may be better) is fairly easy to make leaving both sides pretty much intact leads me to also offer Firpo was superior to Layne, and would have been a terribly avoided fighter in the '50's. Not dominating. Not preeminent. Feared. Each era's inescapable condition is that the fighters within it can only be assessed first against each other.

When I bought my Jeep, it was the best damned Jeep out there. On the highway, it was hard to tell if it was better than the Ford's or GMC's.

[Elmer Ray]

roland lastarza was far better than firpo. he would have boxed firpos ears off.



- carmine vingo was a lot like firpo in many ways, but he never got the chance to prove himself




walcott vs firpo? well lets just say the fight would have gone 15, and firpo would not have won a round.




u defintley overate firpo if u believe he could beat walcott, and lastarza.

marciano could not put lastarza down for the 10 count in 21 rounds. so im pretty sure firpo wont put him down for the 10 count.

firpo was a crude wild slugger with hardly any skill and a excellent boxer/counterpuncher like lastrza would take him to school. firpo was made for lastarza.


firpo thought a past his prime harry wills was good? wait till he runs into a peak jersey joe walcott




- rex layne once fought a hard hitting slugger who was faster and more skilled than firpo, a guy named bob satterfield. well we all know what happened.

[Elmer Ray]

firpo was not one of the best of dempseys era.


-guys like billy miske, now thats an underated fighter. he would have boxed circles around firpo. miske was very similiar in style to lastarza

[Sharkey]

Hang on a second.

Layne beat Walcott. So did Abe Simon. So far so good. So the premise is: Walcott lost to guys he is considered better than. Your point was that a win over Walcott can be used to position a fighter against another. Fair. Abe Simon I suppose could be stated to better than Zora Folley on that premise. Or at least as good.

Ok. Now, given that, I state that since that is the case, that Walcott lost to guys like Layne that: Firpo DEFINITELY could have defeated Walcott. The BEST Walcott? No.

So, I don't believe this is overrating Firpo, unless you believe everyone that beat Walcott was superior to him....which I thought was not a point you were making. It also would be patently false if it were fact Firpo was inferior to Layne or everyone Walcott lost to.

What I typed was: if Walcott could lose to Layne, and Simon, he could lose to Firpo...so a win over Walcott doesn't on its face make Layne better than or even equal to Firpo. Which was your argument as written in your post. I merely called that evidence at best corroborating..not case-making.

Rather than tell you that you underrate or overrate anyone, I figured I'd take a stab at clarifying my point..or ensure I was the one making it.

As for your next comparison: Vingo was like Firpo? They both were sluggers with vowels in their names. Carmine Vingo had 35+ fights at an age many fighters are turning pro. He was positively ruined by Marciano. He didn't have a long career. It is hard ot guage him. I fail to see the parralell then.

Any comparison between he and Firpo is based on lumping all slugers into the same mold, and then on one hand admitting Vingo didn't prove his class on the world class level, and on the other using that very admission to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I won't say you are oversimplifying things or trying to have it both ways. I will write that it is hard for me to go along with a comparison that has as it's backbone an admission of Vingo's incomplete career..given as a bedrock for what might have been better things to come.

LaStarza boxing Firpo silly ignores my statement that Firpo if nothing else was a large, strong fighter. Unlike LaStarza. I believe that strength presents a different matchup issue for the heavies of the 1950's. that's all.

I believe rather than overrating Firpo or anyone else, I have instead stuck to exactly the logic you have written when addressing where you and I part ways. The rest was merely food for thought about Firpo's true formidability. Either way, I believe thinking Firpo grinds down Layne is an honest assessment...and I simply think a win over Walcott is not enough to guage Layne against Firpo.

[Sharkey]

As for Miske and the rest, I have had too many arguments about the shaft I feel they get from historians and fight fans (Hawk) to get into it again.

This says nothing about the supposed dopes of the pre-Louis post-Dempsey/Tunney era.

[Sharkey]

As for Satterfield let's not be disingenuous. He had zero stamina and less chin. Would Layne not being able to take what Willard could be used against him against Firpo?

I don't even remember talking about who would beat who? I think you confuse my points.

[Elmer Ray]

Hang on a second.

Layne beat Walcott. So did Abe Simon. So far so good. So the premise is: Walcott lost to guys he is considered better than. Your point was that a win over Walcott can be used to position a fighter against another. Fair. Abe Simon I suppose could be stated to better than Zora Folley on that premise. Or at least as good.

Ok. Now, given that, I state that since that is the case, that Walcott lost to guys like Layne that: Firpo DEFINITELY could have defeated Walcott. The BEST Walcott? No.

So, I don't believe this is overrating Firpo, unless you believe everyone that beat Walcott was superior to him....which I thought was not a point you were making. It also would be patently false if it were fact Firpo was inferior to Layne or everyone Walcott lost to.

What I typed was: if Walcott could lose to Layne, and Simon, he could lose to Firpo...so a win over Walcott doesn't on its face make Layne better than or even equal to Firpo. Which was your argument as written in your post. I merely called that evidence at best corroborating..not case-making.

Rather than tell you that you underrate or overrate anyone, I figured I'd take a stab at clarifying my point..or ensure I was the one making it.

As for your next comparison: Vingo was like Firpo? They both were sluggers with vowels in their names. Carmine Vingo had 35+ fights at an age many fighters are turning pro. He was positively ruined by Marciano. He didn't have a long career. It is hard ot guage him. I fail to see the parralell then.

Any comparison between he and Firpo is based on lumping all slugers into the same mold, and then on one hand admitting Vingo didn't prove his class on the world class level, and on the other using that very admission to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I won't say you are oversimplifying things or trying to have it both ways. I will write that it is hard for me to go along with a comparison that has as it's backbone an admission of Vingo's incomplete career..given as a bedrock for what might have been better things to come.

LaStarza boxing Firpo silly ignores my statement that Firpo if nothing else was a large, strong fighter. Unlike LaStarza. I believe that strength presents a different matchup issue for the heavies of the 1950's. that's all.

I believe rather than overrating Firpo or anyone else, I have instead stuck to exactly the logic you have written when addressing where you and I part ways. The rest was merely food for thought about Firpo's true formidability. Either way, I believe thinking Firpo grinds down Layne is an honest assessment...and I simply think a win over Walcott is not enough to guage Layne against Firpo.

Layne beat Walcott. So did Abe Simon. So far so good. So the premise is: Walcott lost to guys he is considered better than. Your point was that a win over Walcott can be used to position a fighter against another. Fair. Abe Simon I suppose could be stated to better than Zora Folley on that premise. Or at least as good.

rex layne beat a much better version of jersey joe walcott. walcott was not in his prime when he fought simon. when walcott fought simon, walcott was a part time fighter who went to bed hungry every night and he took the simon fight on 24 hr notice. still walcott dominated the first 5 rounds before running out of gas due to lack of food and lack of training. rex layne beat walcott when walcott was a world claass fighter.

Ok. Now, given that, I state that since that is the case, that Walcott lost to guys like Layne that: Firpo DEFINITELY could have defeated Walcott. The BEST Walcott? No.

ok fair enough

So, I don't believe this is overrating Firpo, unless you believe everyone that beat Walcott was superior to him....which I thought was not a point you were making. It also would be patently false if it were fact Firpo was inferior to Layne or everyone Walcott lost to.

i thought u meant firpo beats a "peak" walcott

As for your next comparison: Vingo was like Firpo? They both were sluggers with vowels in their names. Carmine Vingo had 35+ fights at an age many fighters are turning pro. He was positively ruined by Marciano. He didn't have a long career. It is hard ot guage him. I fail to see the parralell then.

firpo was far more proven than vingo but they were similiar. both were tall, vingo was 6'4 firpo 6'3. both were hard hitting sluggers. both were strong and durable fighters. vingo appeared to be more of a boxers than firpo since vingo had an extremeley long reach.

had vingo not been ruined by rocky, who knows. he might have been the future of heavyweight division. he had the size, power, natural ability, youthness to become a future world class fighter. by his mid 20s , he would have grown into a 6'4 210b and would have been stronger, more skilled, more experienced.

Either way, I believe thinking Firpo grinds down Layne is an honest assessment

I have no complaints to this prediction. i myself am undecided on who comes out the victor.

- however i firmly believe lastarza would beat firpo, especially due to styles.


-the win over walcott simply gives layne a reason to be rated over firpo all time based on accomplishments

[Elmer Ray]

As for Satterfield let's not be disingenuous. He had zero stamina and less chin. Would Layne not being able to take what Willard could be used against him against Firpo?

I don't even remember talking about who would beat who? I think you confuse my points.

yes satterfield may have been faster, better puncher, more skilled than firpo....... BUT he also also smaller, far less durable, and less stamina.

[Elmer Ray]

too bad satterfield didnt beat layne. the winner of that fight was gonna face marciano. had satterfield knocked out layne, like he almost did, he would have fought marciano.

for the 1-2 rounds it would have lasted, marciano-satterfield would have been a war and a amazing fight to watch!

[Sharkey]

I can get behind each of your points. Roland bugs me because he was clearly talented but came into fight two not only not having progressed much, and with his mind on life outside the ring (allegedly) and also emaciated.

Satterfield v Patterson, a nice fantasy fight.

As for Vingo, I wonder if he was really anything more than an Alex Stewart of the 50's.

[Elmer Ray]

carmine "bingo" Vingo is a sad story. its a story of a fighter who had the potential and physical tools to become a future world class fighter/champion however BEFORE we got to see it, his career was ruined by a man names marciano in a dempsey-firpo type WAR. vingo is just another hot prospect who you can say "woulda coulda" but unfortunetly do to bad luck, vingo never got the chance to reach his potential peak as a fighter.


who knows, if vingo had survived that marciano beating, he might have gone on to become heavyweight champion. he was just 20 years old. he already had the physical tools(6'4 near 200lb over 80" reach) and had the toughness, heart as shown in marciano fight. he needed only to become more experienced, more mature, and learn more skils. unfortunetley we never got to see that happen. so we must judge by vingo's career alone, and the only world class fighter he faced(as far as i know, some of his fights havnt been recovered) was a green but still formidable marciano, and vingo showed in that fight that he was more than just a prospect.

imagine a stronger, smarter, bigger, better vingo at 25 years old, probably grown to now 6'4 210lb. he would have been a tough fighter to beat had he got to continue with his career. HOWEVER, VINGO IS JUST ANOTHER WUT IF. LIKE JAMES SHUELER.

- rockly marciano said (in between rounds to his trainer during the vingo fight) "that guy not only takes a real wallop, he can pack a real wallop too. I have never been hit with anything that hard in my life."


- of course this is all just illusions, because vingo himself stated before the rocky fight he wanted just a couple more fights so he had enough money to get married and then he would quit the ring. imagine that for bad luck? knowing boxing circles around the time, a hot big 20 year old prospect like vingo from the bronx, they would have never let him quit the ring.

I have a great long article about carmine vingo, anyone who wants it give me your email and I will send it too you.






- roland lastarza was an extremeley talented fighter. some say the best defensive heavyweight of the era. in lastarzas prime, he beat every man he faced except rocky marciano and many think he deserved the decision in the first fight. I rate lastarza in my top 20 best heavyweights never to win a title.

[Elmer Ray]

Satterfield v Patterson, a nice fantasy fight.

sure is, patterson would have to be VERY CAREFUL cause if he gets caught, theres a good chance he will be put away. however, satterfield had a weak chin and when on the assault, his gaurd dropped at times making his defense very vunerable. patterson had blistering handspeed, alot of power and was harder to hit so i suspect patterson will put satterfield away within 5.