The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

I've nothing against Savold,he was an honest game, gatekeeper in the 1940's.
What I heartily dislike are dishonest agenda driven posts like yours.Savold got his "lofty position" for beating a Euro level half blind fighter who had already had his pretensions to world class brutally exposed by Mauriello. Liebling got it right, Savold was a third rater a 34 years old ,past it pug, no longer able to hang with world class men , one fight away, from having his licence taken away and all the noisome spin you try to put on it will not change that! Chuvalo was 32 when he beat Quarry with 72 fights on his clock.
Savold was 34 when he fought Louis with152 fights on his clock.

 

The Holmes comment was in response to Seamas.

Savold? Here are his ratings in the last NBA rankings each year from 1939, with a few extra:

1939--#10
1940--#9
1941--unrated
1942--#6
1943--#7
1944--#7
1945--#13 (more than 10 rated)
1946--unrated
1947--unrated
1948--#3
1949--#2
1950--#2

April 26, 1950 NBA ratings--the last NBA rating before the Savold-Woodcock fight
Champion--Ezzard Charles
1--Jersey Joe Walcott
2--Lee Oma
3--Lee Savold
4--Bruce Woodcock

July 5, 1950 NBA ratings--the first NBA rating after the Savold-Woodcock fight
Champion--Ezzard Charles
1--Jersey Joe Walcott
2--Lee Savold
3--Joe Baksi
4--Rocky Marciano

Lee Oma was KO'd by Bob Satterfield between these two ratings, which is why he dropped.

April 5, 1951 NBA ratings--The last NBA rankings before the Louis-Savold fight
Champion--Ezzard Chares
1--Joe Louis
2--Lee Savold
3--Rex Layne
4--Jersey Joe Walcott

*the one obvious thing about Savold's ratings is that he was highly ranked before the Woodcock victory. That victory only affirmed his already high ranking. And he was ranked off and on a long time.

 

I don't care if Savold was ranked number 1 by the
IBO
WBC
NBA
WB
WBO
EBU
Or any other ,supply your own epiphet , organization.When he fought Louis he was washed up!
All the spin and BS about him being recognized by these joke bodies means JACK ****!

He was a gate keeper!


Do you recognize this comment?

Lee Savold

record--104 wins, 46 losses, 4 draws, 1 NC, 72 KO's (KO percentage of 46.8%)
(best KO victimes--Lou Nova, Lem Franklin, Bruce Woodcock, Eddie Blunt, Nate Bolden, Johnny Flynn, Maurice Strickland, Buddy Walker, Buddy Knox)

Both men lost to the best men they faced consistently. As punchers, Savold has the edge because he was able to knock out a lot more name fighters, if generally second-tier guys. He comes off as a gatekeeper type who was not a threat to the top men but dangerous to the next level and capable of pulling off wins over such as Nova and Baksi. ?
Made by JasonThomas Feb 13th 2023

 

There seems to be hysteria creeping in about Lee Savold. And a great deal of beating up on straw men.

Here is a quote about Lee Savold --"My take is you and Gazelle have stretched the bonds of credibility to the lengths of sheer absurdity."

Here is an exact quote from my post on Lee Savold a day earlier. It can found on the bottom of page 66.

In response to the use of the word "gatekeeper" I posted

"This is more to the point. Savold always lost to the top men. No reason to think any version of Savold would have done better with Louis or Marciano."

"Savold was a second-tier contender who in fairness beat a lot of pretty good fighters and stayed in the ratings a long time."

Seems a fair evaluation to me.

 

Yes. And I posted basically the same critique on this thread on the bottom of Page 66.

You are mixing me up with someone else, which is something you often do. You clearly didn't read my post on this thread on page 66 in which a quoted "gatekeeper" to describe Savold and did not disagree with the word, and still don't, as long as it is not claimed a gatekeeper is nothing. My take is a gatekeeper is good enough to beat the second-string guys but not the top guys and so is an excellent test for up and comers.

 

As for the NBA ratings

They are a primary source for historians. Shows what folks of the time thought, and who were considered in the day the top men.

 

I myself called him a second rater. A win hardly worth bragging about, yet I am in hysterics over Savold? These men r delusional and read what they want. Your description sounds great to me. Also Mcvey is obsessed over whether men r rated or not unless it’s someone he doesn’t like. Then ratings be damned.

 

Because we who disagree with you do not know what we are looking at,we fail to see all the subtle nuances that an educated and skilled eye like you spot immediately,all the clever defence etc.

Now tell me Professor, since you have seen fit to name me , which fighters don't I like?

 

Apart from Apollack, which historians are on this forum?

 

Explain what Savold had done to be "highly rated," in 47?

You've been ramming these NBA ratings down out throat Ad Nauseum.
Now explain what Savold had done to merit a number 2 ranking in1949?
He did not have A single fight that year!

NO2 in1950? Based on what ,his only win,his only fight, over Woodcock , a cut eye stoppage over a partially sighted man?

 

so where would you place Sav in these ratings?

July 5, 1950 NBA ratings--the first NBA rating after the Savold-Woodcock fight
Champion--Ezzard Charles
1--Jersey Joe Walcott
2--Lee Savold
3--Joe Baksi
4--Rocky Marciano

 

"Explain what Savold had done to be 'highly rated' in 47?"

My post listed him as "unrated" in 1947.

"You've been ramming these NBA ratings down our throat Ad Nauseum."

As someone pointed out, you seem to think it very important if so and so wasn't rated this or that month, but it is a problem if someone else actually posts the official ratings?

"Now explain what Savold had done to merit a number 2 ranking in 1949?"

Impressed the people who were doing the rankings. He was #3 in both the NBA & The Ring in 1948. #6 in The Ring in 1949. And #2 in both in 1950.

 

Just a head's up.

There is a film of Bruce Woodcock from 1949 on you tube.

"Bruce Woodcock vs Johnny Ralph"

The full fight is on this film.

Right after that is Seamus Trophy winner Ewart Potgeiter in extensive footage.

 

The point is not who was rated in this transitional era, but how poor a fighter could be and still get rated.

When I see slobs like Lastarza (great in Batman, though) or Karel Sys being top ten in 1951 and realize their equivalents in 1982 were Mike Dokes and Pinky Thomas, it just makes my head spin. Those 1951 dudes wouldn't have made decent sparring partners for the Dokes, Weaver, Snipes, Berbick, Page, Pinky, Tim Witherspoon, all Top 10 in '82, which isn't even considered a great year for the division.

Can you imagine Roland Lastarza trying fight Tim Witherspoon?