Bob Satterfield..may not have been as good as we were led to believe..

I think it elevates just how good Top guys really are,

losing to the Cream is never a disgrace, especially if it was a good lose, so to the ATG's win or lose isn't really a negative. and Yes we also have to think of 'early & late' career loses, basically the same for all fighters & expected, so again, not always a negative.

Yes there might have been a robbery here or there, Boxing IS Crooked, period, this is an absolute fact.

but to my point, 'most' of the average Top Guys, including Satterfield, well the obvious answer is 'most' are just better than they are often credited with. That too is a fact of partisan realities, where ownership, sentiment, regional or nation flavour is pulsating, money and sadly where inequality of treatment & opportunity would suggest different.

Better than credited and that is Good for Boxing, whose WHOLE LINAGE, in truth, is sadly SOURED well beyond acceptable legitimacy.

 

Satterfield was a tough 'fringe' contender who could beat the top contenders sometimes, or get knocked out. He was popular on television fights in the US in the 1950s.

What amazes me when I look at the records is how many times these contenders in his era fought each other, year in, year out. Some of them aren't even remembered much on forums like this. Bob Baker, Harold Carter, John Holman, Tommy Jackson, Nino Valdes, Harold Johnson. etc.

 

His record suggests he was inconsistent, but his best wins proved he was capable of competing at the very top.

 

He wasn’t inconsistent his results are quite on point for a kamikaze put it all on the line bomber, BS turned over on every punch with full power, he legit went out and just tried to murder you as fast as possible, you will get some brutal wins doing that but if that’s your meal ticket you’ll get some losses and some nasty ones at that.

 

On film he really sells out on almost every punch, throwing hero hands. High risk/high reward. But he toiled in one of the weakest eras in division history so this strategy paid for an undersized guy of the wrong color who had heart, a punch, and not much else going for him.

 

I never knew anyone that thought he was a great fighter ... A courageous fighter and a huge puncher, yes ... he was a massive puncher, one of the great pound for pound hitters ..

 

He was beaten by Jake Lamotta. He wasn't that good.

 

Twenty two years old, 1643/4lbs ,16 fight Satterfield was beaten by Lamotta.
Context!

 

Satterfield was a party animal,which may have accounted for some of his defeats.

 

TRUE,

means Everything!

 

He knocked out top contender Bob Baker KO1, Elkin Brothers tko 2, KO3 35-1-1 Cleveland "Big Cat Williams, he also had ko's over Julio Mederos, Frankie Daniels, Oakland Billy Smith and beat Johnny Summerlin, Nino Valdes (dropping Valdes for 9 count) Tommy Gomez, Lee Oma, Nick Barone, Harold Johnson
Era was deep and his style was do or die but he beat some of the bigger men of the time while losing to some of the better smaller guys like Ezzard Charles and Archie Moore among others.

 

He also was another blown up light heavyweight but unlike a Moore or a Johnson didn't fight a style than minimized size impact ..

 

He was about as good as I ever believed. It was kill or be killed with him.

 

Knocked out talented people from about three eras. If his era is weak he shouldn’t have been able to KO those from before and after him.