Bob Baker, James Parker, and Nino Valdes leading up to their 1st fight with A Moore.

Being 210 pounds alone doesn't make you great, and a skilled 180 pound can can in fact beat him. This is what happened with all of Archie Moore's " big opponents "

Allow me to offer a few examples to illustrate my points by examining the records of 200+ pound fighters records before and after then fought Archie Moore.

1 ) Big Bob Baker. About 210 pounds

-Was Ko'd by a skinny 184 pound Clarance Henry in 8
- Lost on points to a journeyman in Graham who was 27-12-2!
- Ko'd in 1 round by a 180.5 pound Bob Satterfield!
- Lost on points again to Clarance Henry.

Then he meet Archie Moore and was Ko'd. Leading up to the Moore fight
Baker lost two of his last three fights. Baker's Ko percentage is under 30%. If you follow his career, he pretty much lost to the top guys under 200 pounds. So how is this guy any good? Such a fighter could only be ranked in a weak era of heavyweight boxing.

2 ) James Parker around 205-210 pounds

- Lost to a 4-2 no name!
- KO'd in 2 to a 174 pound Buceoroni
- Ko'd in 4 by 185.5 pound Reynolds!
- Lost on points to a journeyman 30-13-2 fighter in Thrumond!
- Lost on points to Valdes
- Drew to a with Walls
- Drew to a 9-0 fighter!

Then was Ko'd by Moore and finished his career being Ko'd in 1 by Chavalo.

If Parker was ranked in the 50's its because the era lacked talent. He has no name wins, and would not be ranked in the top ten today.

3 ) Nino Valdes, about 210 pounds.

-Had a 32-9-3 record leading up to the fight with Moore, which means he had 12 bad results. This is a journeyman''s record.

-Ko'd in 3 rounds by a 1-1 fighter!
-Ko'd in 8 by a 3-4 fighter!
- Lost on points to a 20-3 fighter. no shame here.
- Ko'd in 4 by an 11-13 fighter!!!
- Lost on points to a 9-1 fighter.
- Lost to a much smaller Harold Johnson.

Then he lost to Moore, and lost back to back again. Total losing streak 4 fights in a row, then Valdes turned it around by beating a past his prime Ezzard Charles, and pretty much vaulted up to the #1 spot despite too many black marks on his record to mention.

Moore's first win over Valdes should wasn't that impressive. Who did Valdes beat leading up to his first match with Moore? I see a guy who failed to win a big match, and was Ko'd three times by no names, and out pointed by no names. I am not too impressed with this win.

If we were to compare these fighters to Chagaev, the following conclusions can be made. Chagaev was moved much quicker as a professional, never was Ko'd multiple times or lost multiple times on points to journeyman. In fact, he is un-defeated and look much better on film.

To compare Chagaev to these fringe contenders fighters the 50's who were around 210 pounds suggest ignorance, or in some cases bias.

Yet SuzieQ ( Maricnao and the Writers of the times refered to it as Suzy-Q ) by the way, thinks these men were so big and great.

 

Lavorante talented? Stop drinking. For openers your information is wrong. Lavorante wasn't 20-1 when he meet Archie Moore! Lavorante in fact lost TWICE prior to facing more, and only has 19 career victories.

His record is mostly padded. The fact that a 18-2 fighter, who lost two fights before meeting Moore to a 21-6 fighter was the #4 rated man signals a weak error of heavyweight boxing!

By the way I'm not going to look up if Lavorante was indeed #4 at heavyweight when Moore fought him. I'll take you at your word even though you had two mistakes on his record in your above post.

Lavonrante record is very padded. He did beat Folley, but his record vs the best fighters he fought in Ali, Moore, Folley, Harris was 1-3.

Lavorante later died from boxing related injuries.

I see SuzieQ has not opted to insert excuses on Parker, Valdes, or Baker leading up to their fights with Moore. Perhaps he understands that the truth and fact they were not very good at that point are starting to sink in.

 

Of course. But some people here feel that because Charles or Moore beat so and so, it makes so an so a great fighter.

That is not the case. A divisions top ten should not have multiple losses to journeyman, and padded records. Yet in the 40's to mid 50's that was most certainly the case.

Furthermore many of those who populated the top ten were Ko'd too often....sometimes by lesser puncher types. There were a few 210 pounders, but as the record here shows the weight alone did not make them top tier.

 

I disagree. Top fighters should not lose often to journeyman. The top ten should have a near shut out record over non-ranked journeyman. 1 loss on the way up it ok, but if a top ten guy losses to a journeyman multiple times, he should be out of the mix.

It seems that many modern fighters are ready for a title shot in their 20th-30th fight. It seems that many fighters in the 1940's and 1950 were still meeting journeyman in the 20th to 30th fight.

So I would argue modern fighters are moved quicker, and face better top ten rated fighters sooner.

If you use the heavyweight division, look at Ibragimov, and Chagaev, or if you prefer look at Povetkin in line for a title shot, and Haye in line for a title shot. These guys fought top 10 level guys in less than 25 fights, which means they were moved quickly.

There is also no doubt that the winning percentage of modern top ten fighters opponents is far better than the winning percentage of top ten opponents 50 years from now. The reason why again is the talent in those days simply was not good enough to hold off the journeyman to fringe contenders.

Not all fighters in the 40's and 50's lacked amateur expedience. I think Charles was something like 44-1 as an amateur.