Frazier vs. Marciano

I think the topic should switch to whether or not Louis would have beaten Marciano in his prime. Of course, its probably a subject for a different thread.

 

whatever way you look at it - it was a weak era for heavyweight boxing - guys like savold being rated 2nd - 38 losses on his record when he fought old louis and he being the number 1 contender. no way would this happen in other eras.

 

Agreed, although the color line had been disolved and you had more black fighters climbing the ranks during the 50's, most of them were either declining while others simply weren't that good. We didn't really see a recovery in heavyweight boxing until the coming of Cassius Clay.

 

You have to realise it was a different era, though. They fought much more often, under less luxurious circumstances and against better opposition.


I think Old Fogey made a great, illustrative point on this a while back when he said that of all champions pre-1950, only Willie Pep was undefeated when he won the championship. Doesn't mean all those greats were any less than the ones after the 50's, who often were undefeated when winning the title. The impact of TV fight broadcast on match making is enormous.

 

Savold was rated over contenders like Rocky Marciano, Jersey Joe Walcott, Rex Layne, Bob Baker, Clarence Henry, Roland Lastarza. Your saying the heavyweight picture had diminished with these hot young contneders coming up? all these men were filled with talent and huge potential.

 

Jeffries was undefended too, BUT I know what your talking about. Even if you take away half of Savold's bout and loses, it still looks pretty bad.

 

Savold got the high ranking because he scored a huge upset knockout over top ranked Bruce Woodcock and earned himself BBC heavyweight crown. Savold was a slick boxer if you watch the films vs louis, he had an intelligent mind and good jab too. Louis just went out there and ruined him. too much size and power. Do i think savold deserved # 2 rating? NO especially with names like baker marciano walcott layne henry rated below him

 

how is it weak if names like bob baker rocky marciano clarence henry jersey joe walcott rex layne and joe louis were in the rankings? are these men weak?

 

Having only won 6 of his last 12? What does that tell you?

I wouldn't describe Walcott as being young in the early 50's. Even today 36-37 is not considered particularly young. In those days, it was an ancient number for a fighter. While Walcott may have been far better than the average 37 year old, I think part of his success had to do with the conditions of the division, and no I don't think that it was a particularly booming period where talent is concerned.

 

but like you said, he STILL HAD A PUNCH


Ezzard Charles, Champion

1.

This content is protected

2. Lee Savold
3. Joey Maxim
4.

This content is protected

5.

This content is protected

6.

This content is protected

7.

This content is protected

8. Jack Gardner
9. Lee Oma
10.

This content is protected

The following men I highlighted in red were all very talented dangerous contenders. thats six out of the top 10 that were genuine world class threats. I would say this year and era was far from weak.

 

Your right, he got the rating when he beat Woodcock. Before that bout Woodcock was rated #3 and Savold was at #4. "RING" had the title vacant with Charles #1, Walcott #2, then Woodcock and Savold, followed by Joe Baksi #5, Bob Baker #6, Lee Oma #7, Rocky #8, LaStarza #9 and John Holman #10.

Woodcock got that rating after beating Oma and Freddie Mills afterbeing stopped by Baksi.

After that bout, Savold was tied with Charles as #1, followed by Walcott #3, Maxim #4, Baksi #5, Baker #6, Rocky #7, LaStarza #8, Woodcock #9 and Clarence Henry #10.

Do you honestly believe Savold should have been rated #1?

 

Walcott had just knocked out harold johnson and ezzard charles at age 36-37, harold johnson and charles are both hall of fame talent. As for the conditions of the division, i wouldnt say there that bad....walcott was outworked by young 22 year old stud rex layne, and two talented black murders row henry and baker coming up, and of course you had the rock coming up. I would argue walcotts best years came when he was in his mid thirties. I would also argue that the young talent coming up in 1950 was VERY good.

It tells me he recorded a very good win over bruce woodcock. Do I think Savold was the 2nd best heavyweight in the world at the time? No. 2ndly, are you claiming that the other men rated in the top 10 was not a strong group? Louis Marciano Walcott Baker Henry and Layne were STUDS!

 

Why not just give Joe Louis credit for destroying the # 2 heavyweight contender in the world with 1 punch. Hell marciano could not even floor a fatter savold a year later. Savold looked trim and fit and slick in the louis bout.

 

I don't have a problem with Marciano, Walcott, Louis, Charles or anyone else from that period, in fact I rate them all very highly. But, frankly, I don't think that the era as a whole was that tremendous. Lee Savold being as highly ranked as he was, Louis being shot and still a top rater, Walcott being at the top of the division at age 37. It the period does not suit my fancy..

 

I would not rate them STUDS. Just look at their records. Compare them with the ratings when Frazier was the Champion.

Joe Frazier, Champion

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Jerry Quarry
3. George Foreman
4. Oscar Bonavena
5. Mac Foster
6. Jimmy Ellis
7. Floyd Patterson
8. Jose Luis Garcia
9. Jack Bodell
10. Joe Bugner

He did destroy him BUT that's what most of the good heavyweight Champions would have done.

When you say "Marciano could not even floor a fatter Savold a year later" are you tell us that Louis, who was way past his prime, was still a better puncher then Rocky at that time?