Layne looks like he has more boxing pedigree than the likes of Williams or Wilder or Shavers or Abe Simon or Grant or Galento. Always gonna be awkward guys in the division. Ur obsession w Layne who was a good fighter but never even got a title shot is weird. Man had wins over the likes of Satterfield who whooped Cleveland williams who u seem to like and two former champs. When he trained he was good
"Ur obsession w Layne who was a good fighter but never even got a title shot is weird" Seeing someone I would not even rate among the top five heavyweights of the 1950-1955 era (behind Walcott, Charles, Louis, Moore, and Johnson, not even counting Marciano) as the Rosetta Stone of the division is a strange conceit.
You use 40 or 43, but the 1920 census has him a three year old, so he was 38 in 1955. You must think 38 isn't old enough to support your stance or you wouldn't continue adding years in the face of a definitive census record of his actual age.
"4 best opponents were both past prime and had high mileage" No one disputes this. It is conclusions drawn from facts which are disputed. Take for example Archie Moore versus Harold Johnson. Moore was 37, over a decade older. The folks who are obsessed with "prime" jump on Moore being past prime. Moore had more mileage not only than Johnson, but anyone else, and by a considerable margin. So what happened in the event? The old man Moore won. So what conclusions do you draw? Johnson must not be very good as he lost to an old man? But he was a respected fighter who was at the top of the light-heavy division for over 15 years and beat tons of good fighters. Johnson looks great on film. And followed Moore years later as champion. My conclusion would be that age and mileage are not all they are cracked up to be for a fighter in his late thirties. They don't tell us about exceptions. And champions and great athletes are by nature exceptions. There is an even worse extrapolation. An old man doing well proves an era is weak. If Moore's career had ended in the late forties, or Johnson had beaten him in 1954, and Johnson became light-heavy champion, and Johnson later challenged Marciano in 1955, would a defense against this young and prime fighter improve Marciano's resume? This ends up being nonsensical. Arguing a loser is better if he is younger. And it isn't just Moore at light-heavy. What about Robinson at middle. Would Gene Fullmer's place in history be more impressive if Sugar Ray had never come back and Fullmer won the title not from Robinson but from Bobo Olson? Another case were Robinson being older, having a lot more mileage, and being past his prime, did not stop him from winning and dominating the division. One problem with the age and mileage theory is fighters don't start on the same level. Robinson was always better than Olson. He was better when young and still better when old. Hard for me to credit a point of view that the middleweight division in the 1950's would have been better if Robinson wasn't there and so the championship was dominated by young men in their primes rather than a superior fighter who was aging.
It is interesting to me that shoving Moore into his forties is so critical for some that even the data from the 1920 US census is ignored. Apparently 38 isn't old enough.
I take his Mother's word over anyone's. What's interesting to me is you mentioned Moore saying how beneficial experience was,but you didn't mention him saying his legs were gone.
"his mother's word" I at least don't have his mother's word. I only have hearsay about what his mother supposedly said. For me, the 1920 census ends the debate. His uncle and aunt had no reason in 1920 to lie about Archie's age, and any parent or step-parent knows the difference between a three year old and a six year old and is not going to confuse those ages.
I don't know how to take what he said about his legs. He said his legs were gone and immediately went on to say he thought he would have beaten Patterson if he had not over-trained. So he apparently thought he could beat Patterson even with legs which were gone and had been gone for years.
Twelve years and for a couple of those he wasn't ranked. Can we concentrate on the heavyweights, I don't see the relevance of talking about the other divisions. Apart from Valdes Marciano fought who was around,that's all any champ can do. It wasnt the worst of eras,but it sure wasn't the best either. Sys Neuhaus Gardner Williams Cockell Were Euro level at best Dunlap Norkus Brion Holman Weren't anything special either.imo
"twelve years and for a couple of those he wasn't ranked" But it was more than 12 years, or even 15. Johnson broke into the NBA rating on April 5, 1949, when he was ranked #6 contender. He would rise to #3 in the NBA rankings by the end of the year. In the December 24, 1968, NBA ratings, Harold Johnson was the #4 contender. That is basically twenty years being ranked in the top five off and on. In The Ring annual rankings, he was the #3 contender in 1949. In 1964 he was ranked the #2 contender. In the 1968 annual ratings, The Ring had Johnson ranked 10th. Of the fighters you list above, none would rank among the top ten heavyweights for the 1950-55 period as a whole. "can we concentrate on the heavyweights" No. If anyone gives a general theory of boxing, expect it to be critiqued from any angle it can be critiqued from. For example, if it is maintained that WW2 decimated the heavyweight division, it is pertinent to ask if it decimated the other divisions, and if not, what is your case for the heavyweights?
You're right about Johnson ,I was forgetting his career in the 60's Those I listed WERE ranked in the 50's trying to make a qualification about that won't fly . Cockell was at one time number 2! On the basis of beating a washed up Lastarza and a never was in Mathews. In the 50's we had past prime ex heavyweight champs still hanging around,similar to the 30's another weak era.
Do you think Cockell was one of the top ten heavyweights of the 1950-55 era? "a washed up LaStarza" Who had beaten everyone he had fought to that time except for Marciano. This is Monday-morning quarterbacking. LaStarza was viewed as a top contender when he stepped into the ring with Cockell. Don isn't the only guy who got a lift from being in the right place at the right time against a fighter on the cusp of a career decline. I do think Cockell was overrated at #2. "never was in Matthews" Guy has an excellent record for a never was, and somehow impressed The Ring staff enough to picked as the best all around fighter pound for pound for 1951. "I was forgetting his career in the 1960's" When he was champion?
I thought you rated Rocky above Dempsey Seamus...? Lewis going life and death with an old Hopkins would definitely make Lewis' era look bad, I agree with this assessment. That's why I was trying to get Rocky fans to concede the point that the high mileage and smaller size of his best opponents can't be ignored.
