Elmer Ray: A top 30 heavyweight of all time

Other than maybe Daniels, what makes those guys you listed so "dangerous" to high class HWs? Some of those guys were only fighting in 4- and 6-round fights just prior to being fed to Ray.

Here is a report on the perception of Ray's opposition entering the first Walcott fight:
"Elmer (Violent) Ray assumed the role of No. 1 heavyweight challenger instead of "built up chump" today on the basis of his unexpected single-point victory over Jersey Joe Walcott before 17,413 fans at Madison Square garden.
...The crowd saw Ray prove at least that he really could fight, as he registered his 48th straight victory. It saw him prove that his ballyhooed prowess did not depend upon triumphs over hand-picked palookas."
-Jack Cuddy

Depends on which reports you choose to consider. Matt Donnellon posted one on the prior page which says the fight was fairly even when it ended, and that Ray had refused to continue even after being given ten minutes of rest.

No he wasn't. Ray had the SAME opportunities to make a splash early on in his career that Layne had - first in a non-title fight with LHW champ John Henry Lewis, then twice against Turkey Thompson - but he blew all of those opportunities. By contrast, when Layne got his big opportunity against Walcott, he made the most of it and won decisively, which broke him into the rankings and rightfully opened the way for more big fights. In short, Layne got more big fights because he was good enough to succeed where Ray had failed.

A guy like HALL was good enough to have beaten ATG Archie Moore, KO'd Satterfield, and had other good wins here and there. He was a class above even the "best" of the tomatoes that Ray routinely padded his record with - which further demonstrates my earlier point that Layne was fighting at a deeper and more consistent level of comp than Ray was.

No he didn't, he was swinging for the fences with big haymakers, as shown on the film here:
[yt]kJP3UXzLPTg[/yt]

Layne beat him by moving in smartly behind his jab and keeping the pressure on him all the way.

Your description is probably more fitting of Walcott's effort against Ray:
"Elmer staggered Jersey Joe once, and won four of the five rounds from the third through the eighth. But he practically won those by default, as Joe just "ran out of gas," according to his own manager. It was not so much a matter of Ray winning those heats as it was of Walcott losing them."
-Sid Feder

On the flipside, Layne beat Walcott so decisively and impressively (unlike Ray) that an immediate rematch was not necessary.

No it wasn't. In fact, I already posted a couple of articles which described the rematch as a "clear" or "easy" win for Walcott.

According to what I've read of the fight, it was competitive early, then Charles took over and was punishing Ray toward the end - which is basically how I saw the first Charles-Layne fight.

I'd say the biggest difference between those fights is that Layne was fighting Charles while he was an actual HW, whereas Ray was fighting him when he was still only 175 pounds (and also coming straight off his tragic fight vs. Sam Baroudi the second time) and yet still couldn't fare any better against him.

As before, your assessment does not support your final conclusion, and if anything, it altogether undermines it. You've shown that both guys' main achievements are fairly comparable, if not nearly identical - one win apiece over Walcott, a hotly disputed decision over Charles, and a KO of another contender. You can make an issue of Layne never KOing a contender as "emphatically" as Ray did Savold, but on the flipside, you also have to acknowledge that Ray never beat a future champion & HOFer as emphatically as Layne did Walcott, plus the fact that Ray's other fights with Walcott and Charles proved that his wins against both were only "flukes," something that was never proven with regard to Layne's win over Walcott.

In addition to this, there's also the fact that Layne competed against a deeper and more consistent level of comp than Ray did. He beat guys like Turkey Thompson and Joe Kahut, who had both been rated only a year or two prior to Layne fighting them, and also beat tough fringe contenders like Henry Hall and Cesar Brion, - all wins that are better than the vast majority of tomatoes that Ray fleshed out his record with. He also made a close, competitive fight against leading contender Roland LaStarza, and when past his prime, he managed a draw against top 5 rated Heinz Neuhaus in Germany. By contrast, Ray's world class success is almost entirely limited to the three fights you mentioned above.

And as I've said earlier, this logic goes both ways - you can find someone, somewhere that has had high praise for anyone that's ever been even just a prospect at some point.

As I also noted earlier, Charles was NOT a rated HW at the time Ray beat him - he was still only a LHW (literally, as he weighed under 175 for the fight). Charles didn't start campaigning as a HW until after he'd flattened Ray in their rematch (for which he also only weighed 175). By contrast, Layne was fighting Charles when he was a genuine HW and had been the world HW champ just prior to their series.

Using this logic, you could also argue that Ray was only on par with Maxim as a HW based on their respective fights against Walcott - both eked out close decisions in one fight each, and then lost the other fights.

 

Sticking for the moment to the ones I listed in the previous post, Art McAlpine had recently taken Pat Comiskey to a hard-fought, close split decision, was known for his gameness and durability, and had never been stopped, at least in any known fight, before Ray knocked him out. Buddy Millard had only one known loss before facing Ray (a KO to big-punching Lem Franklin), had beaten Perk Daniels in his last outing and would go on to beat Rusty Payne a year later, and was referred to as a promising up-and-comer in pre-fight newspaper accounts; though Millard did not ultimately go on to much greater things, this certainly would not have looked like an easy hand-picked match. Colion Chaney upset a number of noteworty fighters in his day (Lee Oma, Henry "Snow" Flakes, Al Hoosman- whom he had just upset when Ray beat him in 1946). I will admit that Riviera was green at the time, though he later blossomed into a legitimate contender.
Moreover, as I see you cite wins by Layne from before and after his major period of contention, allow me to further point out that a green Ray beat a top 10 heavyweight in Willie Reddish, who had been ranked as high as #7, as well as former "colored heavyweight champion" and contender Obie Walker, and near the end of his career Ray managed to knock out the big and hard-hitting contender Sid Peaks, who had been briefly ranked as high as #3, had previously beaten Lee Q. Murray, and would subsequently score another win over Murray, as well as one over Jimmy Bivins.

See the posts of mine which SonnyListon'sJab quoted for more positive journalistic takes on Ray's rise. I want you to ask yourself: if Ray's opposition in his mid-'40s winning streak was truly nothing but a lot of "hand-picked palookas," then why was he the world's fourth-ranked contender at the end of 1945, before he had beaten Walcott or even Savold? Because not only was he running up an impressive string of emphatic knockouts, but because some of these were against guys who were known to be quality fighters, and because he was slaughtering them. If somebody came in right now and blitzed Albert Sosnowski, Audley Harrison, and Dominick Guinn amid a broad string of vicious knockouts, that guy would gain recognition as a serious contender, though some would still deride him for his opposition; if he then beat a longtime contender followed by an elite title threat, we would have to say this guy was legitimate.

True, but I do not think this outweighs the accounts which say that Thompson had been "punched around the ring for the better part of six rounds" or that Ray had "won all five rounds and was out in front in the sixth." Particularly on account of the lack of detail or vividness in the "fairly even" account, I wonder to what extent that writer had even paid attention to the fight; if no one has been in serious trouble and both guys are still up and punching at a reasonable rate, it could be easy to casually hand-wave that the "fight was fairly even." The much more emphatic accounts state that Ray had dominated the match.

Layne had a good amateur background and a quality manager and trainer in Jensen, while Ray, per his own account, was managed early in his career by a schoolteacher who "taught me nothing minus."

Let it be noted that the accomplishments you cite were primarily at light heavyweight.

This film shows only a third of the fight; naturally, the more dynamic parts. Though I do not have the quote handy just now, the RING Magazine account of the fight I read described Walcott as having been "lackadaisical" and "going-through-the-motions" in the later rounds of the match, which I do think can be seen in the later rounds, wherein he is to a certain extent letting Layne outwork him (which, admittedly, was a problem for Walcott in a number of his fights).

"Ray Takes Bout From Walcott; Fight is Fierce
...
Violent Elmer won the close fight because of his violence in the rounds that were voted him. His close-in hooking attack had Jersey Joe in trouble in the third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth rounds. At the end of the fourth session, referee Johnny Burns had to steer him to his corner. In the third round, a right uppercut buckled Walcott's knee and he almost went down. But Walcott proved durable and game; and it was the 'old pappy' who forced and won the last two rounds."- Bend Bulletin, November 16, 1946.

Another take.

Fair enough; I was obtuse. Most accounts describe the fight as close, which jibes with the fact that it was a Majority Decision.

Ah, but Ray was fighting a hungry young Charles, who had just beaten top-tier heavyweight contender Bivins twice and was seen as a likely future heavyweight title challenger, and who was smack in the middle of the best run of results in his professional career. On the other hand, he was in a relative down period for the second Layne fight, having just suffered his second loss to Walcott- note that he also lost to Valdes and Johnson a year later; I daresay his performance level in general dipped a bit during the second half of 1952 through 1953. By contrast, again, note that the first Ray fight was Charles' only loss in a period of about 40 fights, wherein he trashed numerous Hall-of-Famers and elite contenders and had his entire title reign.

 

Okay, here is a crucial point you have ignored: Layne, even during the peak best couple years of his career, drew with journeymen Andy Walker and Dale Hall, went to a split decision with Henry Hall, lost one-sidedly to journeyman/fringe contender Willie James, and was soundly beaten by Harry "Kid" Matthews- all of these things happened in between or in near chronological proximity to his wins over Walcott and Charles. The evidence is that, while he was able to pull off a couple big wins out of a sizable number of major fights, his overall standard of performance was significantly lower. Ray, on the other hand, did not draw with or lose to or even come close to drawing with or losing to any journeymen or fringe contenders during his prime run, and beat Walcott and Charles within a year of each other without any intervening embarrassing losses or otherwise poor results, and in fact crushed all the journeymen, fringe contenders, and the other staple contender he fought in chronological proximity with these outings. Where Layne was clearly fighting at a much lower standard than they were more or less throughout his career, but managed to upset them in a couple of isolated outings a couple years apart, Ray seems to have actually been reliably performing on a par with Walcott and Charles for a significant contiguous run in his career.

See earlier in my post for some counter-material to this- in fact, let me quote it:
"Moreover, as I see you cite wins by Layne from before and after his major period of contention, allow me to further point out that a green Ray beat a former top 10 heavyweight in Willie Reddish, who had been ranked as high as #7, as well as former "colored heavyweight champion" and contender Obie Walker, and near the end of his career Ray managed to knock out the big and hard-hitting contender Sid Peaks, who had been briefly ranked as high as #3, had previously beaten Lee Q. Murray, and would subsequently score another win over Murray, as well as one over Jimmy Bivins."

Indeed, but I think it may be validly pointed out that the praise for Ray goes higher and comes, at times, from more reputable sources, as with Herb Goldman, who ranked him the 17th best heavyweight of the gloved era; can you find a comparable standing for Layne in the eyes of any major boxing historian?

The Associated Press card was 6-3-1 for Walcott in his first fight with Maxim, and newspaper accounts widely describe it as an "unpopular" or poor decision. On the other hand, the New York Times scorecard of the first Walcott-Ray fight was 6-4 for Ray, and the Associated Press card read 5-3-2 Ray; it seems to have been close, but agreed-upon. It appears that the Ray loss may have been Walcott's only legitimate defeat between his first emergence as a contender and his being knocked out in the Louis rematch- which is saying a lot, since he also fought Joe Louis, Jimmy Bivins, Lee Q. Murray, Lee Oma, Curtis "the Hatchetman" Sheppard, Joey Maxim, Joe Baksi and Tommy Gomez in this stretch.

It isn't just the Savold or just the Walcott fight, you see; Ray's showings against Daniels, McAlpine, etc. bested those of other contenders (Thompson, Murray, Comiskey) against the same guys in close proximity, his result against Savold was drastically better than anything any of the other major contenders (Mauriello, Baksi, Nova, etc.) were able to come up with, and his showings against Walcott and Charles were probably the best any contender was able to do against either of them within a several-year span. Moreover, there were no ugly results, no losses or draws or split decisions against anyone other than Walcott or Charles, to contradict this perception of Ray's performance level. Surely you can see that this is categorically different from a guy like Layne, who even in his best stretches had draws, split decisions and losses against the likes of Dale Hall, Andy Walker, Henry Hall, Cesar Brion and Willie James.

 

There's little, if anything that demonstrates your claim that these guys "legitimately posed a threat to high-level heavyweight contenders." Even the "name" fighters you referred to (ie: Comiskey, Payne) were themselves unranked and not competing at the world class level at the time of those fights, even if they did manage to break into the rankings at other stages of their careers.

The kind of fighter you're describing is someone like Cesar Brion, who was in with HOFers like Louis and Charles, plus guys like Layne, LaStarza, and Norkus, when all of them were actual rated contenders, and went the distance with all of them and gave many of them rough fights. The guys you listed here were not on the level of even someone like Brion, and none of them had shown the same ability to compete with the same level of comp that Brion did, or had shown the kind of world class chin that Brion did.

Which is a significant point, since once Riviera had "blossomed," Ray was unable to beat him.

Even those "positive takes" hardly say a word about his level of comp. They focus almost exclusively on who supposedly "ducked" him and his reputation as an "alligator wrestler."

Why was Billy Fox the world's FIRST-ranked LHW contender at the end of '46 (higher than even Charles or Moore) after his own winning streak against hand picked opponents?

I'd say this played a part in Ray achieving a high ranking as well:

"Dusky Joe Walcott protected his standing as one of the more prominent of a poor crop of heavyweights by outpointing Joey Maxim of Cleveland Monday night."
-Associated Press, June 1947

"Beneath Louis and Conn, its monthly ratings list the outstanding heavyweights as Lee Oma, Joe Walcott, Tami Mauriello, Bruce Woodcock, Elmer Ray, Jimmy Bivins, Tommy Gomez, Joey Maxim and Phil Muscato. This is, to put it mildly, a bunch of asparagus ..."
-Chester L. Smith, June 1946

You could come up with any "reason" to question the accuracy of an account of a fight no one today has seen. The writers that you give credence to could just as well be accused of being hyperbolic and closed-minded, and not acknowledging that there may have been more than one way of scoring the fight - unlike a more fair-handed account describing the action as "fairly even." Either way, without the film to confirm, no one can say with any certainty as to which of the accounts are true.

This really doesn't address your claim that "Layne had more managerial leverage and was given bigger fights more quickly owing to his race." The fact still remains, Ray actually WAS given big fights in spite of his "race" and whatever "managerial deficiencies," but unlike Layne, he failed to win them.

But were still far bigger accomplishments than those of any of the fighters you had listed. In fact, Moore had beaten the same Rusty Payne that you credited Millard for beating (Hall also beat Payne too, incidentally), and had also KO'd Chaney. More importantly, Moore had already demonstrated his prowess as a HW, including wins over HOFer Bivins, and was arguably at or near the height of his powers when Hall beat him.

If ONE WHOLE THIRD of a fight is "dynamic," that's hardly a "going through the motions" kind of performance.

YOUR claim was that Walcott had "fought a lackadaisical fight, essentially "going-through-the-motions," against Layne." If the report you based that on actually said he "went through the motions" only in the closing rounds, after having already been dominated, then you basically misrepresented that article.

This still does not address the kind of effort Walcott made in the rounds he lost, though. It only says that he made a spirited rally toward the end of the fight, after losing the middle rounds.

I'd question how "hungry" Charles really was coming straight off a fight in which he'd killed a guy.

Key words there are "likely" and "future." At the time Layne fought Charles, he actually WAS a HW title challenger, and had literally JUST been the HW champ of the world with 8 straight defenses entering their first fight. Layne was competing against a bigger, stronger, sturdier, and more powerful version of Charles, who was also more proven, experienced, and accomplished at HW - and yet Layne fared basically as well as Ray had against him.

 

I haven't "ignored" that point. As I've said repeatedly, Layne was fighting a deeper and more consistent level of comp than Ray. In the span of just three years, he fought:

Kahut
Thompson
Walcott
Brion
Satterfield
Hall
Marciano
Charles
Matthews
Charles again
LaStarza
Charles yet again

There is NO three-year stretch in Ray's career where he strung together this many fights against HOFers, former/future champions, top contenders, difficult fringe contenders, and proven world class punchers in quick succession. No matter how much you try to build up fighters like Art McAlpine and Buddy Millard, they simply weren't on the level of the fighters listed above (even Kahut easily stopped Millard in a couple of rounds).

The evidence does NOT support that, because Ray's "standard of performance" did not come against as deep or consistent comp as Layne's did.

Which is a flawed statement, considering that few, if any of his opponents outside of Walcott, Charles, and Savold were even on the level of journeymen or fringe contenders at the time he fought them.

But also without fighting the kind of HOFers or good fringe contenders that those losses and "poor results" typically came against.

No he wasn't, because he wasn't performing against the same level of comp as those guys, either. As YOU yourself acknowledged, Charles had "trashed numerous Hall-of-Famers and elite contenders" heading into his fights with Ray, and the same applies to Walcott. However, the same cannot be said of Ray.

Key words in that post are "former" and "had been." Neuhaus was still rated #6 at the actual time Layne drew with him in Germany. Also, while Thompson was past his peak, he had still been rated as high as #3 entering the very year in which Layne beat him, which makes him a far more credible opponent than the vast majority of fighters Ray beat.

What do you consider "respectable"? I think you'll find quite a few people on here would not consider Goldman or his opinions "respectable." Here's the remainder of Goldman's HW list, for example:

1. Ali
2. Liston
3. Holmes
4. Johnson
5. Dempsey
6. Louis
7. Marciano
8. Harry Wills
9. Foreman
10. Frazier
11. Tyson
12. Joe Jeannette
13. Walcott
14. Baer
15. Schmeling
16. George Godfrey
17. Elmer Ray
18. Jeffries
19. Sam McVey
20. Gerry Cooney
21. Ernie Terrell
22. Cleveland Williams
23. Corbett
24. Patterson
25. Jimmy Young

I think you'll find quite a few posters on here would raise issues with this list. Personally, I think it's absolutely absurd that a proven hypejob like Cooney (who is just 3 spots away from Ray on that list) would be rated anywhere remotely close to a top 20.

Which is a VERY shaky basis for rating a guy so highly - especially in light of the fact that YOU yourself had downplayed the fact that Layne had bested Ray's performance (as well as that of most other fighters around that time) against Walcott. Besides, being able to beat Perk Daniels "quicker" than Thompson didn't do Ray any good when he fought Thompson himself.

They weren't better than Layne's, whose win over Walcott was far more impressive/decisive, and whose decision over Charles was no more disupted.

And I can see that Ray's penchant for padding his record with lengthy stretches of hand-picked opponents was integral to that "categorical difference."

 

As a newbie, I am reading through the old threads. I will bump those I find to be "classics"

I thought this discussion between Marciano-Frazier and My2Sense pro and con about Layne and Ray was outstanding.

I would have rated Ray well above Layne going in, but My2Sense made a strong enough case for Layne to change my thinking.

 

Hello, edward and any other readers; I've returned to defend my side in this matter once more. My2Sense is certainly a vigorous and capable debater, but I do think he is, on the aggregate, wrong.

I concede that some of these were arguably stretches. Perk Daniels was definitely a legitimate threat, given that he had beaten both Curtis Sheppard and Turkey Thompson shortly before fighting Ray the first time, and would beat Sheppard again (this time by a dominant stoppage) in between their two fights. Sid Peaks, likewise, was clearly a legitimate threat, given his knockouts over Jimmy Bivins and Lee Q. Murray.

Fox may have been overrated (even a significant number of his fights hadn't been fixed, as the story goes), but he had at least beaten a few reasonably capable opponents. Look at, say, Lamar Clark to see a guy who really didn't beat anyone- Clark was never ranked in spite of winning over 40 consecutive knockouts.

As you know, a large contingent of the press is virtually always of the opinion that the current crop of heavyweights is unimpressive.

Here is another account backing up the claim that Ray dominated the fight:
"Ray had the spectators toppling out of their seats for six rounds by pounding the fat Turk with ease."
-Berkeley Daily Gazette, August 24, 1943

I've only ever seen the one account, with its vague and nondescript one-sentence statement, to dispute the claim that Ray dominated Thompson before the low-blow and No Contest call, while I've seen multiple papers claim that Ray was easily in charge of the contest. Certainly we can't be completely positive what happened, but this seems like the probable construction, does it not?

He was given "big fights" in the sense that, say, Emmanuel Augustus or Ross Purrity were given "big fights" in recent years; not in the sense that he had quality management that was looking to advance his career, signed a contract on even terms and had top-level professional preparation for the fights, but in the sense that he was thrown in as meat. To get at what I'm saying:

"Ray's current streak began three years ago, shortly after he had been halted in California by Turkey Thompson. About that time, Tommy O'Loughlin, white Minneapolis manager, undertook to handle the Ray fistic affairs, and since then Ray, properly conditioned by competent trainers, has beaten every opponent he has faced."
-The Afro American, November 16, 1946

Layne turned pro as a guy with some amateur prestige who was seen as a potential prospect and had legitimate training and management in the Jensen camp. When he fought name guys, he was fighting them on even contractual terms with fair opportunity to be at his best for the fight; this, to me, is a distinction between "being given big fights" and "being thrown to the wolves."

Fair enough, but I will pivot to another point, which you would make if we were speaking of one of Ray's opponents; Hall had only won one of his last seven fights at the time of this match, and had clearly passed the height of his career at least a couple years earlier. I don't think Hall, at this time, was nearly so dangerous an opponent as, say, Savold, the Perk Daniels Ray fought, etc.- and Ray simply crushed these guys. I really find it pretty unthinkable that a prime Ray would have had a close split decision with a past-prime Hall, and the fact that Layne did so, during the peak run of his career, is a data point which suggests to me (though it does not prove in and of itself) that Ray was better than Layne.

I said "more" dynamic, meaning moreso than the rest of the fight, not as an unqualified adjective.

Actually, it was my understanding that Walcott was on even terms through the first five or six rounds (during which time he opened a grotesque cut on one side of Layne's face), but faded late, perhaps due in part to relatively subpar conditioning, given that he was a few pounds above his peak weight.

You have your facts mixed up here; Charles didn't kill Baroudi before the first Ray fight, but before the second one (in which he did apparently have no problem delivering the knockout).

In which he brutally knocked Layne out.

Yet on the downside, Charles was past the high-water-mark of his career and the consistency of his results was declining at this stage.

 

This one is a little frustrating, because you either are dodging my point, or are not quite getting what I'm saying. I acknowledge that Layne's average level of competition was higher than Ray's. I was not citing his fights against Thompson, Walcott, etc. in the text you are responding to here. I admit that those guys were better than most of the opponents Ray fought in his prime run.

HOWEVER (and herein lies my point), was Andy Walker "better than any of Ray's opponents outside of Walcott, Charles and Savold"? Of course not; even excluding Walcott, Charles and Savold, Ray in his prime run fought plenty of guys who were as good as or better than Andy Walker. Was Dale Hall "better than any of Ray's opponents outside of Walcott, Charles and Savold"? Certainly not. Was Willie James "better than any of Ray's opponents outside of Walcott, Charles and Savold"? James was better than the previous two guys listed in this paragraph, but I still don't think so. I don't even think Henry Hall was "better than any of Ray's opponents outside of Walcott, Charles or Savold" as of the time of his fight with Layne.

NOW, Layne, within the span of a year-and-a-half during the very best period of his career, had two draws, a loss, and a split decision against these four guys respectively. Ray, on the other hand, fought numerous opponents who were as good as or better than these in his peak run without suffering any comparable blemishes. Quite simply, if you are prone to struggling with, drawing with or losing to guys like Andy Walker, Dale Hall, Willie James or a past-prime Henry Hall- and, in fact, do all of these things within the span of a year-and-a-half- this says something significant about your overall quality as a fighter. Likewise, if you are able to reliably destroy guys who are as good as or better than Andy Walker, Dale Hall, Willie James or a past-prime Henry Hall, this suggests that you are better than a fighter who has fairly regular stumbles against such opposition.

Once again, you either dodge or misunderstand me; Layne had blemishing results against guys who were clearly not "HOFers or good fringe contenders," even during the very best period of his career. Even though his opponents were generally not "HOFers or good fringe contenders," the fact that Ray was able to go dozens of fights pounding such guys, obliterate a reliable contender like Savold, and hang even with Walcott and Charles, all without any intervening blemishing results, is suggestive of an extremely high level of performance.

 

I am happy I stirred up a sleeping giant.

I know I'll get my head handed to me for stepping in against experts, and I admit I had to look up Henry Hall's record on Boxrec, but

"past-prime Hall" "past-prime Henry Hall"

Hall was 27. He had beaten Archie Moore less than 3 years earlier, and had knocked out Bob Satterfield two years earlier. He came into the Layne fight off a draw with Jimmy Slade and a win over Lloyd Gibson. After the Layne fight, he won 9 of 10 over the next three years, his only loss to Harold Johnson. One of his wins was over John Holman.

I think Hall was a fair scalp for Layne, and, if Hall could edge Moore, who knows if Ray would have had an easy time with him.

Charles "brutally knocked out Layne." Yes, in 11 rounds, I think. But he had brutally knocked out Ray in 9 back in 1948.

 

The problem for Layne is that there's film of him.

 

Now, I want to try a little experiment to help illustrate why I consider Ray to have been a higher-level fighter at his peak than was Layne. First, let us compare the best 12 months of each man's career (feel free to dispute my selections if you choose, but I think they will be uncontroversial) respectively:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray's best 12-month run spanned from August 1946 through July 1947. In this time, he compiled a record of 11-1 with 9 knockouts, scored major wins against Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles, and Lee Savold, and suffered one loss, which came to Walcott. All three of his fights with Walcott and Charles ended in close decisions, while he dominantly KO'd Savold, as well as every other fighter he faced in this span.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layne's best 12-month run spanned from July 1950 through June 1951. In this time, he compiled a record of 12-0-2 with 7 knockouts, including major wins against Jersey Joe Walcott and Bob Satterfield and moderately-noteworthy victories over Cesar Brion and past-prime versions of Turkey Thompson, Joe Kahut and Henry Hall, counterbalanced by draws with journeymen Dale Hall and Andy Walker. He defeated Walcott in competitive-but-clear-cut fashion, rallied from an early knockdown to stop Satterfield in a war, soundly outpointed Thompson and Kahut, and went to close split decisions with Brion and Hall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, suppose you were to test against these results the hypothesis, "At the height of his career, Elmer Ray/Rex Layne was a world-championship-caliber fighter"; in other words, for each man, each fight will stand as a minor individual test of the hypothesis that he was a world-championship-caliber fighter, of the variety who could be put in the top 50 heavyweights in history, based on whether or not the result is reasonably considered consistent with what a championship-caliber fighter would be likely to put forward. Now, of course it is possible, and does happen, that world-championship-caliber fighters put forth results which would not normally be consistent with a fighter of this level, but a clear pattern of such results- as it is with a repeatable experimental conclusion in science- may be taken as strong evidence that a given fighter is not of said caliber.

I will use a color code to indicate my conclusion as to whether each result is or is not consistent with a world-championship-caliber fighter; feel free to dispute my conclusions, though I think they will each be uncontroversial.

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

-somewhat debatable, could be Pink

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layne:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

-somewhat debatable, could be Pink

This content is protected

This content is protected

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, if we "score" these results by awarding each man 5 points for Green results, 3 points for Lime, 1 point for Yellow, -1 for Pink, and -5 for Red, then Ray earns an overall score of +24, while Layne totals a mere +6.



As this little pseudo-study helps to illustrate, it looks to me as though Ray, in this time period, was fighting at a legitimately championship-caliber level; he had three fights with Walcott and Charles within a span of 12 months, all three going to close decisions, two of which Ray won, easily obliterated a long-time staple contender in Savold, and dominated all of the (admittedly-mediocre) opponents he fought on the side. In the case of Layne, on the other hand, the overall tenor of his results even at his best still look to me to be clearly below what I would consider championship caliber. Moreover, in the samples I used above, Ray had more fights against champions and Hall-of-Famers than Layne did, and Layne's biggest blemishes came against fighters who were clearly not better than several of the opponents in Ray's sample, meaning that the "Layne-fought-better-competition" objection does not apply.

If Ray, during his peak run, had, say, come back from a knockdown to narrowly beat Savold, had a few miscellaneous draws and split decisions against journeymen in his peak run, and had beaten Walcott and Charles multiple years apart with many intervening blemishes, I would not view Ray as a championship-caliber fighter. It is the concentrated excellence of his results, and the fact that he went three-for-three in a 12-month period in terms of fighting on more or less even terms with Walcott and Charles, which makes him particularly impressive in my eyes.

Now, none of this is to say that I think Ray was light-years better than Layne; Layne was also a quality contender, and there is a relatively small gap between "tiers" if one tries to go into this kind of fine-combing of heavyweight history. If I were to make a "top-100-heavyweights-of-the-gloved-era" list, Layne would make the list somewhere between 50 and 100, while Ray would fall between 25 and 50.

 

Are you implying he looks like **** on film?

 

Marciano-Frazier

You post that the Satterfield ko by Layne could be pink.

I think one could argue it should be green and is on par with the Ray ko of Savold. Savold never beat fighters as good as Harold Johnson, Nino Valdes, and Bob Baker, as Satterfield did.

And I'm not convinced that close wins over Cesar Brion and Henry Hall should be viewed as negatives.

I think the bottom line is Ray was consistent, which you are focusing on, but Layne actually fought tougher competition and had more victories over worthy competition. Layne apparently was a sloppy trainer and sometimes turned in subpar performances, even at his peak.

I would rate both men in the forties of all-time heavies. I don't think Ray should be in the top thirty. And he and Layne are about equal.

*On further thought, I think the Savold and Satterfield fights should both be rated light-green. Not up to victories over Charles and Walcott, but worthy.

 

I wrote that it could be pink because Layne was knocked down and rallied to narrowly defeat Satterfield in a war; note that one of my criteria was how the fight was won, in terms of whether it was emphatic or not and what-have-you. This was a win over a contender, but not an "emphatic" one- note that the "Green" category is reserved for wins which "strongly support the hypothesis that a fighter was of championship caliber." Note, further, that actual champions generally dealt with Satterfield easily (eg. Moore crushed him in three, Charles flattened him in two).

Regarding your last sentence, the crucial distinction I'm making with Ray-Savold as compared with Layne-Satterfield is that Ray won his fight emphatically, so much so as to suggest he was in another class from Savold, while Layne only won by the skin of his teeth. Beyond that, I do think Savold was clearly a better heavyweight than Satterfield; Savold was ranked as high as #2 during his career, and was in the RING's top 10 as early as the beginning of the 1940s and as late as the early '50s, and contrary to your last claim, Savold beat the likes of Lou Nova (twice), Joe Baksi, Gus Dorazio, Bruce Woodcock (a top 5 contender at the time who was regarded by some, albeit largely British partisans, as an heir apparent of sorts, before being shocked by Savold and retiring), and big-punching Lem Franklin- a list which I think stacks up reasonably well with Johnson (as a heavyweight anyway, and who beat Satterfield several times), Valdes and Baker. Satterfield's highest year-end RING ranking was 6th, and he had, to my knowledge, never ranked in the RING's top 10 at heavyweight as of the time he fought Layne.

I think they're clearly negatives if you're thinking about whether or not a guy should be thought of as a possible top-50-of-the-gloved-era-level, championship-caliber fighter. Think of it this way: if someone showed up right now and won split decisions over Tony Thompson and Juan Carlos Gomez, would that suggest to you that this was a guy who could be a threat to the Klitschkos? It wouldn't to me. Likewise (to draw an analogy regarding the Layne-Satterfield fight), if someone showed up today and went life-and-death with Chris Arreola before winning a hail-mary late-round stoppage, it would not suggest to me that he was a championship-level guy. These are the kinds of showings which do a fighter credit and prove that he's a legitimate contender, but they also suggest that he's limited.

On the other hand, if someone showed up right now and (to draw an analogy for Ray-Savold), say, wiped out Eddie Chambers in two rounds, I do think that would be the kind of result that says to you, "This guy might be really, really good, even to the point of possibly being a threat to the Klitschkos."

You see, I think the disparity in their results has more to do with Layne's basic limitations as a fighter. Layne had some strong attributes (a lot of heart, a high workrate, a powerful right hand, a sturdy chin before it caved in Tex Cobb-style), but some pretty glaring weaknesses (poor defense, one-dimensional, on the clumsy side, cut like tissue paper) balanced against them, while Ray strikes me as a much more well-rounded fighter (described as quick with a good bob-and-weave defense, knockout power in both hands) whose only real apparent weakness was a somewhat questionable chin. A guy with more gaping weaknesses like Layne is more likely to encounter situations and opponents he can't effectively handle, while a guy like Ray who possesses something fairly close to the total package can produce a more dominating kind of performance; note that this isn't just about Layne having some "subpar performances, even at his peak," but about the fact that he consistently wasn't able to handle lower-level contenders without a serious struggle, while Ray was able to handle pretty much everyone aside from Walcott and Charles in a dominating fashion, even including a long-term contender like Savold, who was better than anyone Layne beat outside Walcott and Charles themselves. Layne never showed the capacity to emphatically dominate a long-term top fighter. In the context of the overall standard set by Layne's fighting record, the Walcott win looks like a "weird" result- a case of a fired-up underdog (Layne) overcoming an overconfident and perhaps a bit out-of-shape favorite (Walcott).

Note that I haven't argued specifically that Ray should be in the top 30 (I will only go so far as to say I think he "should" be in the top 50, though I think he has a legitimate case for the top 30). Although I like Layne and would like to rate him highly (note that I am a big Marciano fan, and that it would be helpful to my guy to enhance the perceived quality of one of his scalps), I don't really see him as top-50-worthy, based on footage or on his record.

Consider, also that Ray pretty clearly seems to have been perceived by his contemporaries as a better fighter than Layne was by his own; I'm not aware of any contenders ducking Layne, or of any talk that the champion was ever avoiding him, and Ray was ranked in the RING's year-end top 5 for three consecutive years from 1945-1947, while Layne only made it once (1952).

 

After discussing the subject with edward marius and thinking the matter over, I'm going to attempt a new permutation of the little "best-12-months" experiment I ran earlier. The first version applied the standard, "Is this result consistent with what one would expect from a championship-caliber fighter?" to every fight each man had during his respective best 12-month run, and apportioned points on a rough scale accordingly. I do think this was a useful standard, but (as edward pointed out to me) it does not necessarily come out the way it would if one were to use the more basic standard, "How good of a win is this?" In other words, for example, a close decision over Cesar Brion is a much bigger win than an easy knockout over some obscure journeyman, but the Brion result comes out as being "inconsistent" with the hypothesis that one is a championship-caliber fighter (who would be expected to beat Brion soundly) while the easy KO over an average journeyman comes out as "consistent" (since it is what one would expect from such a fighter, even though it is not very telling), and thus the scale I used earlier can make it look as though the easy KO over an obscure opponent is more credit to a fighter than the close win over Brion, which it would not be from an objective base standard.

To try a different angle, then, I will use this version:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray from August 1946 through July 1947:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Layne from July 1950 through June 1951:

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under this system, Ray comes out with a +14, while Layne gets a +6. It really seems to me that there is no way to slice it under which Ray does not come out with a better overall performance-level than Layne does.