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

Willie James. Yes, 19-5-1 when facing Sanders. So let us compare his career record to some contenders from the sixties.

Willie James-----20-6-1 with 5 KO defeats.

Alex Miteff-----25-13-1 with 8 KO defeats. (so Miteff actually won a lower percentage of his fights and was slightly easier to stop. But Miteff was rated on and off from 1957 to 1961. James was never a rated fighter. So what in this says anything about a "weak era"? I think Miteff is a much better argument for a weak era. He was a rated fighters for half a decade. James never broke into the top ten.

Alejandro Lavorante-----19-5 with 3 KO defeats. (Very close to the same record as James. But Lavorante was at one time the #3 contender. Another very good argument for a weak era.)

Billy Daniels-----23-21-4 with 6 KO defeats.

Thad Spencer-----32-13-1 with 7 KO defeats.

Manuel Ramos-----24-29-3 with 9 KO defeats.

Brian London-----37-20-1 with 11 KO defeats. (Note that London actually was stopped more often per fight and had a much worse winning percentage than James, but is another who was in the ratings now and then for years. And got two shots at the title.)

Note that all this fighters from the sixties were rated fighters, some highly rated.

James was never rated despite holding a win over Layne, stopping Sanders, and stopping Bert Whitehurst, which Liston failed to do in two tries. I don't see him as being any kind of argument for a weak era at all. James was viewed as a prospect.


As for the Matthews list, Foreman and Shavers also have records heavily padded with set ups. Didn't mean they were not dangerous with the top men. You listed men Matthews destroyed and who were not his top opponents. It is not as decisive an argument as you seem to believe.

And how impressive a fight was or was not might be in the eye of the beholder. Take for example Frank Buford. Had a terrible overall career record, something like 23-32-4. A set-up? Buford actually popped into the NBA ratings in 1950 following consecutive victories over Turkey Thompson and Clarence Henry. He quickly fell back with losses. Buford fought Henry three times. He lost a competitive fight. Won a unanimous decision. And in his third fight, lost a competitive decision. That third fight came right after Buford was KO'd in three by Matthews. So Matthews did something Henry couldn't in three fights.

 

I don't see the relevance of these other fighters to the ones we are discussing.
What do
Miteff
Lavorante
Ramos
London
Daniels
Spencer
Have to do with this thread?
James is a side show here ,why are you placing any gravitas on his resume?
Who actually GAF about him?

 

I remember some odd years ago you called it as , The big gun has fired again. LOL

 

Sounds about right surf hahaha. I remember saying what a weapon he was but across various cultures it can have virtually opposite meanings

It even swings both ways where i am nowadays. One example would be, "man that guy can thrash, what a weapon". You can also use to to describe an idiot, "jeez he's a weapon and a half" lol. For a short time it was also used in a third manner, "the girls all reckon he's got a weapon and a half on him"

But i digress, or is it regress lol.

 

Proof? I have Weill on record saying he wanted to fight Valdes. “Valdes and Cockell are next”. He gave no order

Weill was not afraid of Valdes.

 

No, but Valdes never jumped levels to the point he was a mega threat to beat Marciano. He struggled so badly vs Archie McBride he lost his number 1 rating.

He was given the chance of a lifetime to fight an overweight 196lb Archie Moore for the vacant abc belt and guarantee straight to Marciano. He blew it. Got gassed out in the last 3 rounds. If he was that good, he would have knocked out Archie Moore (much like Marciano did in dominating fashion)

did Valdes deserve a shot instead of Cockell? Sure he did. But we don’t criticize Louis for fighting the Johnny paychecks in between do we? Marciano fought and knocked out the best contender of his era. And besides Valdes’ grandkids, name me one logical person who gives Valdes a serious shot at beating a prime Marciano? I know you wouldn’t go that far

 

If Moore had beaten Moore people never woulda let Moore live it down but they'd have praised Moore until they end of time.

 

You believe something Weill supposedly said to a reporter?
Weill lied and cheated Marciano, yet you accept a quote attributed to him as gospel?
Weill didn't even want Marciano to fight Mathews!
Proof? Valdes was no1 at the end on1953 and 1954, and the fight never happened,there's your proof.

 

He was good enough to beat Charles,who lost 2 of his previous 4 fights but still got a title shot instead of Nino. What happened when Cockell fought Valdes?
Did anyone give Cockell a serious shot of beating Marciano?

I think Dempsey ko's Wills ,does that excuse him for not fighting him?
How many gave Ali a serious shot of beating Liston?
Douglas of beating Tyson?
How many thought Usyk's last opponent had the ghost of a chance against him?

 

please don’t compare Valdes to Wills. Wills not getting a title shot is the biggest travesty in boxing history. They weren’t even close in terms of dominance in the era. Wills situation was much different and you know it.

what guarantee wills gets kayoed by Dempsey? Wills was a huge hammer who easily beat Fulton in 3 rounds.


How convenient of you to mention Valdes’ upset win over Charles while neglecting Valdes’ 4 losses in 1953. By the way, Charles came back with two knockouts over top 10 contenders including a 1 punch brutal kayo of Satterfield in a title eliminater (the same Satterfield who beat up Valdes a year later).

If you really want to play this game, did Valdes deserve a title shot over Bob Baker? Or Harold Johnson? Two men he lost to in 1953

we all know you would pick Marciano as the clear favorite over Valdes. Is this statement accurate? I

 

I'm not comparing them I'm saying both deserved title shots and didn't get them.I'm talking about when Valdes was the number 1 contender at the end of 53 and 54.How convenient of you not to mention the 3 on the trot defeats Satterfield had lol.
Harold Johnson beat Charles too, should he have gotten a shot before him?
Dempsey took out Fulton in under a minute. Who I'd pick is irrelevant, it's whether a fighter deserved a shot or not.

 

Hello, HistoryZero26.

Archie Moore had two chances to get the Heavyweight Title. I know Heavyweight Boxing history is filled with names, who could have, would have, and, yes, even should have, gotten title shots. It is all part of the sport I love! Carry on.