Archie Moore has a better top 12 HW wins in their era than Marciano does.

A terrible era even according to Ring Magazine at the time. See my erudite thread.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/big-uns-scarce-the-ring-jan-1952.751004/

 

Talking about 52…two years into the 50s. Nonsensical. 40s was a weak era because of the war. Once the boys were back boxing exploded w tons of new talent.

 

Archie Moore defeated more contenders than a lot of heavyweights did

 

Yet, in the heavyweights it didn't. You still had old nags running the stall. And a sprinkling of absurdly horrible white hopes.

 

This is a bad take. What “white hopes”? Had Charles went down that route Layne deserved the shot over Walcott. Ingo and Marciano were legit fighters who beat the guy. You’re obsessed w race. White fighters can fight and be great too.

in 52 it was still early in the decade. The decade was filled w great fighters. Marciano, Moore, Ingo, Patterson, Harold Johnson, Eddie Machen, Folley, Nino, Liston, Williams, Layne, Baker,Henry, Tommy Jackson, LaStarza were all excellent fighters worthy of any

 

Ironically he thinks WladKlit is near GOAT status.

 

Archie Moore had dominant wins over the 3 best young heavyweight contenders of that era Nino Valdes , Bob Baker, Clarence Henry.

great win by Marciano over Moore

 

The 2nd Valdes v Moore fight was a very competitive fight.
From July53 until May 55 Valdes had dominant wins over
Charles
Sys
Agramonte
Jackson
Neuhaus
and 6 others.
But it didn't get him a title shot did it?

 

Prob because he lost four fights in a row 52-53 to Moore, Baker, Gilliam, and Harold Johnson. Didn’t avenge any of them and failed to earn it by beating Moore. I wasn’t alive then but they’d prob wasn’t much a clamoring for that fight. I had read Marciano was almost set to fight Baker for a last fight but then he dropped one.

 

I think the best young fighter of the era was Harold Johnson, technically a light-heavyweight, but with more wins over top heavyweights than Valdes, Baker, or Henry. Johnson beat Valdes and Henry, had a win over Charles, and also wins over Moore and Satterfield. And in the post-Marciano era over Eddie Machen.

Valdes and Baker lost to both Moore and Satterfield. And even Bill Gilliam. Henry lost to Moore and Johnson. And even to Frank Buford.

I don't see any of them as outstanding contenders.

On the basis of the best wins, the best young heavyweight was Rex Layne.

 

"Biggest fighters in the division"

And Valdes lost to Moore, Johnson, and Satterfield. Parker? He was knocked out by Bernie Reynolds.

And this list of names for Moore. Cestac? Was he ever rated by anyone, ever. Besmanoff? Rademacher? Lovell was a contender in the 1930's who had not been rated for years. Bivins? Perhaps the best on the list in his prime. But beaten by Charles, Walcott, and Louis. By Louis just before Louis fought Marciano.

By the way. A later poster dismisses Louis as not "elite"---well, he was not the Joe Louis who dominated the division for close to 15 years, but he had lost only once, by decision, to an undisputed heavyweight champion, in 15 years, and was on an eight bout winning streak and still rated near the top of the division. Louis was still elite and still better than most of these Moore victims, and quite possibly all of them.

And he was 213 lbs. Quite as heavy as Baker or Valdes or Parker.

The bottom line is, besides beating Moore, Marciano beat heavyweight champions. His resume is thus for me far better.

Moore, in fairness, was around much longer, and so his resume has more depth.

 

Yes he lost those fights,but then won 11 on the trot, 7 by stoppage, 3 against top ten ranked men, one of whom was Ezzard Charles.
Did Cockell avenge his losses toTurpin,or Slade. Valdes was no1 at the end of 53 and 54,there was a window of nearly 2 years when he could ,and should have fought for the title ,referring to his defeats by Moore is just muddying the water.

" Wasn't much clamoring for the fight?"
How much clamoring was there for the Cockell defence?

 

And if he had beaten Moore, he most likely would have gotten the shot. But he did not beat Moore. So Moore got the shot. Which Moore certainly deserved more than any of these other contenders, all of whom he defeated. Valdes then eliminated himself by losing badly to Satterfield and Baker.

The problem with these contenders who are being brought up is that they were had erratic records with quite a few losses, and lost their critical fights.

 

Who was Louis beating?
8 fights ,8 wins with 1ko,over Savold ,who was further over the hill than Louis was.

 

So though the heat 3 ranked men,including the no 1 Charles and had gone 11 fight a without defeat,he still needed to beat Moore to qualify for a title shot,unlike Lastarza and Cockell who didnt need to!
Question for you. How many top ten ranked contenders had Cockell and Lastarza heaten before they got their ttile shots?
Another question.Did either of them deserve a shot more than Valdes did during his winning run?