Frazier vs. Marciano

I was misquoted. My point made a long time ago was that Pep was the only fighter to win the title undefeated in the first half of the century. Sullivan, Corbett, Jeffries, and quite a few others were undefeated in the 19th century. But boxing was illegal then and there were fewer boxers than there would be in the first half of the 20th century.

 

Just curious. I believe I heard someone mention that Oscar Bonavena was tougher and better than the version of walcott marciano fought. If Oscar bonavena is better than the 37-38 year old walcott, then how come bonavena lost to 33 year old zora folley and a 37 year old floyd patterson?

 

Quarry only drew and won split decision with a 30 + plus year old Floyd Patterson and quarry lost to a 34 year old eddie machen. Patterson and machen were not bigger stronger than charles and walcott.

 

When he fought Machen, he was still young and learning, as he just turned 21. At that time he thought he knew more then his management team and didn't train very well. I know this because I talked to his manager Howie Albert many times and Bert Sugar also stated it on ESPN Classics the other day.

As far as Patterson goes, he was, in my opinion, just as good as Walcott or Charles was when they fought Rocky. 21 year old Patterson KO'ed Moore in 5 rounds when it took Rocky 9 to do the same.

Patterson was still very fast with his hands, his record was 55-8-1 with 40 KO's. He was beaten by Maxim, in which all 11 sportswrtiters at ringside scored the bout for Patterson. Then he lost to Ingo, then beat him twice in return matches. Then he lost twice to Liston, twice to Ali and then lost 2 close decisions against Quarry and Ellis.

 

Actually, Savold's record is not that bad:

Lee Savold--138 fights--93 won--40 lost--3 draws--2 ND--65 ko's--10 ko'by
Winning percentage 67%--KO percentage 47%--KO'd by %, 7%

Jack Sharkey--55 fights--38 won--14 lost--3 draws--13 ko's--4 ko'd by
Winning %, 69%--KO %, 24%--Ko'd by %, 7%

Jimmy Young--56 fights--34 won--19 lost--2 draws--1 NC--11 ko's--2 ko'd by
Winning %, 61%--KO %, 20%--ko'd by %--4%

Mike Weaver--60 fights--41 won--18 lost--1 draw--28 ko's--12 ko'd by
Winning %, 68%--KO %, 47%--ko'd by %, 20%

Gunboat Smith--141 fights--81 won--45 lost--14 draws--39 ko's--12 ko'd by
winning %, 57%--ko % 28%--ko'd by %, 9%

Johnny Risko--142 fights--80 won--53 lost--7 draws--21 ko's--3 ko'd by
winning %, 56%--ko % 15%--ko'd by % 2%

Savold's record is about at the same level, but Savold failed against the best of his time, while Sharkey was a champion, Smith beat Willard and Langford, Young beat Foreman and probably Ali also, Risko beat Sharkey and Baer, and Weaver was considered one of Holmes' top opponents despite being stopped 1 out of every 5 fights he had.

If Savold is an embarressment, these men are bigger embarressments for their respective eras.

 

I never said he was an embarrassment, I am just saying how can anyone rate him #1 at the time they did.

When Savold fought Rocky, it was his last fight and his record was 93-39-3. Before that bout he was KO'ed by Louis and was rated #4 at that time, even with that record.

When Jimmy Young fought Foreman his record was 20-5-2

Weaver was a Great puncher But that's all.

 

Some makes sense and some doesn't.

1. It is difficult to see how the Great Depression negatively impacted boxing in the 1950's. Hard times caused young men to turn to boxing to make a living. The best of them--Walcott, Charles, Moore, among the bigger men, Robinson, Pep, and Williams among the smaller, were still going strong into the fifties.

2. World War II--WWII certainly had a terrible impact on boxing in Europe. If I remember correctly, there were 14 rated non-American heavyweights in the 1930's, but only 4 in the 1940's. Only Godoy and Woodcock made any real waves. However, Europe did bounce back in the fifties with 13 rated non-American heavyweights, the same as the 1960's.
The impact on the United States is more difficult to judge. I imagine there was some negative impact, but the Army itself encouraged boxing and quite a few top men, including Marciano and Layne, entered the sport while in the service.

3. Racial discrimination--I think you have this backwards. The color line fell in boxing in the late thirties during the Joe Louis era. It remained in place in other sports until after WWII, falling in baseball in 1947, the NFL in 1946, the NBA in 1950. It remained in place in other sports, like golf, a great deal longer. And there was also discrimination in the general economy. I think boxing got the cream of the black athletes through the thirties and forties, falling off as doors opened to the other sports.

Other factors you did not mention:
1. The abandonment of the sport by white ethnic fighters. Check the RING ratings. Twelve white American born heavyweights were rated among the top five heavyweight contenders between 1946 and 1955. Jerry Quarry was the ONLY white American heavyweight to crack the top five in the 1960's. Quarry and Duane Bobick the only white American heavyweights to rate among the top five in the 1970's. Why? I would think the general level of prosperity, increasing education which causes young athletes to turn to sports played in colleges, etc. Whatever the cause, white American heavyweights may not have gone extinct after the fifties, but they became rarer than condors.

2. General economic expansion--From WWII on America went into a boom. There were other more certain means of making a living than boxing.

3. Expansion of other sports.

Now the thing about these is that they might have begun to impact in the Marciano era, but they continued to effect the boxing talent pool within the United States through the last half of the century. I also think the increasing prosperity in Western Europe and the former British Empire also probably had a negative effect.

Working for boxing were the expansion into new areas, such as East Asia, Central Africa, and more parts of South America. I think the positive impact of these developments were felt more in the lower weight divisions prior to the opening up of Eastern European heavyweights in the 1990's.

 

Except that the losses go on the pro career record. For example, Larry Holmes was stopped twice by Nick Wells in 1972 when he was 22 years old. If he started in the forties or fifties, these would probably have been pro fights.

 

True, BUT I don't think they would have met each other so early in their career.

 

Seems to me your points beg the issue. Savold lost to the best men he fought--Conn, Bivins, Ray, Louis, and Marciano--and lost decisively. Young defeated Foreman and fought Ali and Norton on even terms. Sharkey was actually champion, etc.


I have to raise another issue. When he retired in 1952, Savold's record was listed by the RING RECORD BOOK as 73-28-5. Boxrec claims to have found 30 fights (20 wins 10 defeats) from early in his career that the RING missed. Perhaps. I really don't know their proof, but I notice they assume Savold fought under an assumed name (Savoldi). As Savold would have been an obscure preliminary fighter, I wonder how they can be certain scanning 70 plus year old newspapers that the Savoldi listed in a given fight is actually the same man who became a contender as Lee Savold. Savoldi is certainly not an unusual name.

On defeats--just looking at Hall-of-Famers, not second tier contenders such as Savold--Joe Brown lost 44 times, Jimmy Carter 31 times, Chalky Wright 43 times, Lew Jenkins 39 times, and ATG welterweight Kid Gavilan 30 times. Fritzie Zivic lost 65 times. Now who did Zivic win the welterweight championship from? How could that man have lost to a fighter who already had lost twenty some times including one losing streak of eight in a row? Louis and Marciano slaughtered Savold, but some champion actually lost to Zivic. By your logic, that champion must have been a pretty sorry fighter.

 

Would a 37 year old floyd patterson been able to knock out a prime ezzard charles like 37 year old walcott did in 1951?

Marciano beat a younger and arguebably better archie moore. Remember, theres historical evidence that once a fighter faced marciano, he was never the same again afterwards. I think floyd caught archie on his worst night. Archie was going through mental issues going into the patterson fight, and had fought an exhausting schedule after taking a horrible beating from marciano. patterson was a great fighter and deserves a good deal credit for the win, but that was not the real archie in there. Watch the film, archie doesnt appear to possess the same upperbody movement he showed against marciano and preceding bouts, he pretty much stands stationary the whole fight. I even thought archie's movement looked better in durellle II. Archie was way off that night. Too bad no rematch.

 

My apologies.

 

Actually, the difference between Frazier and Walcott in size was not that extreme. I don't see Quarry beating Walcott, myself. He gets outboxed if he tries to box and outslugged if he tries to slug.

 

Watching Quarry struggle greatly against slick boxers like Ellis, Machen, and Patterson.....I dont see how he defeats a tricky slick boxer with pop in both fists like walcott.

Old Fogey, was it you who claimed you noticed a difference in moores lack of upper body movement in the patterson fight, compared to his recent fights in 1954 and 1955?