Marciano in the Joe Louis era?

Your just making my point more and more. The division was not that strong when Rocky was the Champion. I never said that Pastrano was a Great heavyweight, all I am saying is that here's a guy without that much experience, and only 20-22 years old, rated #4 in the world.

Pastrano was rated #5 (Feb. 1956) at the age of 20 and #4 a year later (Feb. 1957) and also the next year as well (Feb. 1958). In Feb. 1959, he went down to #5. After losing 3 straight bout in 1958 & 1959, he decided the Light Heavyweight Class was mich better for him.

Patterson was still a Light Heavyweight at the end of 1955 and was Rated #1 in that weight class when Willie was only 20 and the next year (1956) Patterson became the Heavyweight Champion.

Ingemar Johansson was 1st rated in December of 1956, Sonny Liston in October 1958, Eddie Machen in June 1956, Zora Folley Febraury 1957, and Harold Johnson was rated as a Light Heavyweight when Pastrano was rated as a Heavyweight.

Just look at the record of Bob Dunlap. He was rated as high as #4 in the Heavyweight division the 1st year Rocky was Champion. Here's the annual year end ratings when Rocky was the Champion.

February 1953 issue.

This content is protected

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. Bob Dunlap (they had Bob Dunlop, BUT it's Bob Dunlap)
   
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

February 1954 issue.
Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Nino Valdes
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Dan Bucceroni
4. Roland LaStarza
5. Earl Walls
6. Don Cockell
7. Clarence Henry
8. Tommy Harrison
9. Bob Satterfield
10. Coley Wallace

February 1955 issue.
Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Nino Valdes
2. Don Cockell
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Bob Baker
5. Earl Walls
6. Heinz Neuhaus
7. Rex Layne
8. Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson
9. Charley Norkus
10. Jimmy Slade

February 1956 issue.
Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Archie Moore
2. Bob Baker
3. Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson
4. John Holman
5. Willie Pastrano
6. Nino Valdes
7. Johnny Summerlin
8. Bob Satterfield
9. Young Jack Johnson
10. Ezzard Charles

 

I agree 100%, thank you!

 

I just don't agree. You select Bob Dunlap. Again, I can't defend Nat Fleischer's ratings. Dunlap had a very erratic record. He was knocked out by Rex Layne and Clarence Henry in 1950. He was knocked out by Archie Moore early 1952, and Coley Wallace in December 1952. For some reason Fleischer elected to rate him ahead of both Henry and Wallace for 1952. His two wins of any substance were Cesar Brion and Omelio Agramonte, hardly justification for such a high rating. He might have been worthy of a 9th or 10th spot that year, but Henry and Wallace for sure, and in my judgement LaStarza and Bucceroni also, should have been rated above him. Moore, Johnson, and Matthews were rated at lightheavy, very odd in Matthew's case as he was fighting at heavyweight. Matthews should have been rated above Dunlap as well. His win over Layne was much more impressive than anything Dunlap ever did.

Dunlap's recored
30 wins 13 losses 3 draws 22 ko's 9 ko'd by -- pretty mediocre for a contender, but what about these men.

Manuel Ranos #10 in 1966, #4 in 1967, #8 in 1968
25 wins 29 losses 3 draws 19 ko's 9 ko'd by -- somehow Ramos managed to maintain himself in the ratings for three years off close wins over an old Machen and Ernie Terrell and got title shot at Frazier.

Leon Spinks --champion in 1978, several years rated
25 wins 17 losses 3 drops 14 ko's 9 ko'd by -- actually champion in 1978. This isn't a fluke overrating by Nat Fleischer. This man was the champion.

Roger Rischer --#8 in 1964
28 wins 13 losses 2 draws 13 ko's 8 ko'd by

Amos Lincoln --#6 in 1965
39 wins 14 losses 2 draws 22 ko's 8 ko'd by

 

Ramos got that rating when he won 15 bouts in a row with 12 KO's, from the beginning of 1966 to the middle of 1968. He was 21-6-2 when he fought Frazier and that is after he was win-less from the middle of 1964 to the end of 1965, going 0-6-2. That's where his 6 loses and 2 draws came in.

I know what your saying and we could be on the same page if you read between the lines. Most historians would agree that Ali fought in the toughest era and Rocky fought in one of the weakest. I am not saying that their weren't other weak era's, all I am saying is that he fought in one of the weakest.

Just match the opponents that Ali beat against Rocky's at the time they fought them. You tell me who do you think would win.

This is their records at the time(s) they fought Ali and Louis. You can also switch them around if you want, just try to pick the best against the best. Meaning you should have the top opponents that Ali beat against the top opponents Marciano beat.




1. George Foreman (CH) 40-0-0 vs. Louis 69-2-0
2. Joe Frazier (CH) 30-1-0 vs. Charles 80-10-1
3. Joe Frazier (CH) 32-2-0 vs. Charles 80-11-1
4. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-1-0 vs. * Walcott 51-16-2
5. Sonny Liston (CH) 35-2-0 vs. Walcott 51-17-2
6. Ken Norton (1-CH) 30-1-0 vs. LaStarza 37-0-0
7. Ken Norton (1-CH) 37-3-0 vs. LaStarza 53-3-0
8. Floyd Patterson (CH) 43-4-0 vs. Matthews 81-3-5
9. Floyd Patterson (CH) 55-7-1 vs. Moore 148-19-9
10. Jerry Quarry (1) 37-4-4 vs. Cockell 66-11-1
11. Jerry Quarry (1) 43-5-4 vs. Layne 34-1-2
12. Oscar Bonavena (2) 46-6-1 vs. Savold 93-39-3
13..Jimmy Ellis (2-CH) 30-6-0 vs. Muscato 56-20-0
14. Zora Folley (1) 74-7-4 vs. Shkor 29-18-2
15. Ernie Terrell (1-CH) 38-4-0 vs. Beshore 30-12-1
16. George Chuvalo (3) 34-11-2 vs. Reynolds 51-9-2
17. George Chuvalo (3) 66-17-2 vs.
18. Ron Lyle (3) 30-2-1 vs.
19. Earnie Shavers (3) 54-5-1 vs.
20. Joe Bugner (3) 43-4-1 vs.
21. Joe Bugner (3) 51-6-1 vs.
22. Bob Foster (LH-CH) 49-5-0 vs.
23. Mac Foster (1) 28-1-0 vs.
24. Karl Mildenberger (1) 49-2-3 vs.
25. Archie Moore (LH-CH) - (1) 184-22-11 vs.
26. Jimmy Young (1) 17-4-2 vs.
27. Cleveland Williams (3) 65-5-1 vs.
28. Doug Jones (2) 21-3-1 vs.
29. Henry Cooper (2) 27-8-1 vs.
30. Henry Cooper (2) 33-11-1 vs.
31. Leon Spinks (CH) 7-0-1 vs.

 

Norton vs Satterfield ( my Moneys with Bob
Foreman vs Walcott or Charles ( George may be exposed)
Quarry vs Charls or Walcott ( Quarry could be outboxed)
Quarry vs Moore...Tough fight (Quarry did lose to Chuvalo and Ellis
Louis could still beat a lot of contenders of the 60's Ellis,Quarry, Patterson,Cooper,Norton...was he young enough to beat Foreman ( I dont think an older version could do it)
Depends on who you are matching up
Bonevena would lose to Charles,Walcott,Moore and mabey Lastarza
again it is the way you match them it could go either way

 

True that

 

Not to take sides here, but you're listing what these fighter's records were at the time of their retirement and not what they were at the time they were ranked or at their best. If we were to judge the quality of a fighter based on what his final career record looked like, then we would actually be taking into account Muhammad Ali's losses to Holmes and Berbick when rating him. I also think that to some extent you're really grabbing for straws picking the absolute worst fighters of the period to try and make a case for the era being weak itself. I mean, Leon Spinks? Manual Ramos? Take the top teir of the late 60's through about the mid 70's, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Ellis, Quarry, Young, Lyle Shavers etc. I think that you have a better crew than Walcott, Charles, Marciano, Valdez, Lastarza, Mathews, Cockell, Moore and an old Louis.

My probably unwanted $0.02

 

excellent post. my pet hate of old fogey - his stats are not relevant to the time when the fights happened and are therefore nonsense.

 

I dont think Rocky's era was weak. Charles, Moore Walcott, ete were still top fighters. They would have been the big names in the 1960's had Ali not been around imo. They would have been a hand full for any one imo.

I think Rocky's era was perhaps 3rd or 4th best.

1970's
1990's.
1950's
1900's perhaps
1930's 40's
and than perhaps the 20's last.

 

The way he has it listed, one might be fooled into thinking that Joe Frazier gave a title shot to a man who was 25-29-3. An intentionally misleading tactic if I say so myself.

 

No problem. You imput is always welcome.

That said, are you criticizing the right poster? hhascup in post #211 brought up Bob Dunlap being rated #4 in 1952 to prove Marciano's era was weak. He earlier used Willie Pastrano in the same way. I just made two points in rebuttal--Dunlap did not deserve to be rated that high as he was rated over men who had previously knocked him out, and there were similar fighters in other eras whom I listed.

"you're really grabbing for straws picking the absolute worst fighters of the period to try and make a case for the era being weak itself"

1. I don't particularly believe in weak or strong eras. How can one tell? It is an entirely circular argument as you can't match people across eras. If you judge the Marciano era, about all you could say is that Moore and Johnson were still able to beat top-rated heavyweights in the sixties, and later champions and top contenders such as Liston, Patterson, and Williams who fought in that era were beaten in that era. It is fair to say they were green. I hardly see this as strong evidence that the era was weak.

2. I brought up Jimmy Ellis, who after all was champion in the late sixties, to question whether a glib assumption that the late sixties was a "strong" era and the early fifties a "weak" era was accurate, as Ellis had a rather mediocre record at Middleweight before sweeping through the heavies in a championship tournament. I think it is reasonable to at least speculate if Ellis could be the favorite in a similar tournament in 1955 or in most other eras. It is certainly not obvious to me that he would have.

3. Leon Spinks is not a mere obscure contender. He was champion. Anyone claiming the 1970's was the greatest era must deal with his becoming champion.

"Take the top tier from the late sixties through the mid seventies, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Ellis, Quarry, Young, Lyle, Shavers, etc. I think they are a better crew than Walcott, Charles, Marciano, Valdes, LaStarza, Matthews, Cockell, Moore, and an old Louis."

1. I would point out that even if this argument is accepted as correct, it does not prove that Marciano fought in a "weak" era. As hhascup has pointed out, many historians judge the late sixties to mid seventies as the best heavyweight era. Not being able to match up to it would not prove that the Marciano era would not be able to more than match up to the Jeffries era, the Johnson era, the Dempsey era, the Schmeling era, or the pre-war or post-war Louis eras.

2. Rex Layne, Harold Johnson, Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, and perhaps Bob Satterfield should be on this list rather than Cockell.

 

That was not my intention. My intention was to compare Ramos with Dunlap. Ramos was rated in the top five when Frazier fought him and maintained himself for three years in the top ten. He was far more successful in his era than Dunlap was in his and yet obviously lost a lot of fights.

Manuel Ramos did have a career record of 25-29-3 and Dunlap 30-13-1.

 

You got right to the point I was beating around. Good post.

 

Someone else brought up Dunlap, but how does he compare then to the Ramos who was ranked three straight years, and once at #4.

Dunlap's record prior to the Wallace fight in Dec. 1952:

27 wins 7 losses 1 draw 21 ko's 5 ko'd by

Ramos' record prior to the Frazier fight:

21 wins 6 losses 2 draws 17 ko's --was never knocked out.

Ramos certainly appears more durable. His losses were very early in his career and he was on a significant winning streak. He had edged out decisions over an aging Machen, and Ernie Terrell, to first get into the ratings and then move into the top five and earn the shot at Frazier. If I wanted to criticize Frazier for his choice of opponents for title defenses, I would point to Dave Zyglewicz or Terry Daniels rather than Ramos.

Dunlap's record is comparable, except the best he had beaten were not at the level of Machen or Terrell. He won a very one-sided fight against Cesar Brion, and beat Omelio Agramonte, both rated at one point or another. He blew out tough trial horse Frank Buford in one round--Buford had beaten Clarence Henry and Turkey Thompson. He obviously did not have the chin Ramos did, but I think he was the more dangerous puncher and knocked out the better men. While he did not beat the esteemed fighters Ramos did, he did not lose to ordinary fighters early in his career either. His defeats were to Buford (a tough trial horse) and rated fighters Dave Whitlock (2), Lloyd Marshall, Rex Layne, Clarence Henry, and Archie Moore. It was probably the fact that he had never lost to any but fairly good fighters which impressed Nat Fleischer. I still think he should not have been rated as high as he was.

Dunlap appeared in the ratings and left rather quickly. Ramos endured longer. Dunlap was not the force in his time Ramos was in his. Looking carefully at Dunlap's record to 1952, I can see why he was rated, and I don't see that his rating proves the era weak.