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

Alejandro Lavorante was rated in the Top 10 by Ring from July 1961 to September 1962 (February 1963 he was rated #14 in the annual ratings), for a total of 14 months, 15 if you count February 1963. His highest rating was #4. He was rated #6 when he fought Moore.

 

Mendoza, You need to start re-reading the posts carefully. NEVER did I say Lavorante was 20-1. I said EMBRELL DAVIDSON was 20-1 when moore fought him. Honestly if Bob Fitzsimmons produced a one punch knockout on film vs a young 6'1 210lber the way Moore did on embrell, Mendoza would be all over that like White on Rice. But becuase it was Archie Moore who produced the knockout, he fails to compliment the knockout.

Lavorant was 6'4 212lb and he could PUNCH. Isnt this your favorite type of fighter?

Ruslan Chagaev has only 26 career victories. Archie was the one who prematurely ended lavorantes career with a devastating stoppage where lavorante had to be carried off the ring in a stretcher.

So your saying the heavyweight Division in the 1960s was weak?

Who has Ruslan Chagaev beaten that is as good as a Prime Zora Folley? I am waiting on your answer

Valdez was on an 11-0 Win Streak from late 1953-1955 including 3 wins over Ring Magazine top 10 including # 1 rated Ezzard Charles. Moore ended his big winning streak. Valdez was # 1 when he fought Moore. Arnt u the guy who says Valdez could have beaten the marciano who fought cockell? perhaps you should give moore more credit for this victory. Afterall in your words, Moore beat a man twice whom marciano "ducked".


Bob Baker started out his career 26-0....Same as Ruslan Chagaev. Baker beat More Ring Magazine top 10 than Chagaev did, therefore Baker gets the nod. Baker also impresses more on film than Ruslan. Baker had faster hands, better boxing skills, and a better jab than Ruslan. He also showed better stamina vs Valdez in the later rounds than I have seen Ruslan demonstrate on film.

 

Both Sanders AND brewster were not rated in the top 10 by Ring Magazine when Wladimir Fought them. This tells us both had horrible padded record. In fact Sanders was starched out by both Nate Tubbs and Hasim Rahman. Brewster was badly shutout on the cards by journeyman clifford ettiene and charles shufford.


Your telling me a man who was shutout on the cards vs Ettiene and Shufford would beat a talented boxer like bob baker? I dont think so. Baker wide Unanimous over brewster. Horrible matchup for Lamon.


I also fully expect both baker and valdez to waste in the later rounds a journeyman in Sanders. Sanders was an one trick pony....most of the time he was just a 3 round fighter with horrible stamina, no technique, glass jaw, subpar boxing ability, and poor defense. I prefer Valdez and Baker who were consistent Ring Magazine top 5 fighters most of there career. Sanders does have the punchers chance early, but so does valdez.

 

Wlad lost to the following none ranked fighters: Sanders, Purrity, Brewster

Sanders lost to the following none ranked fighters: Nate Tubbs (amongst others)

Brewster lost to the following none ranked fighters: Ettiene, Shufford, Lykovich

What you don't account for is the fighters of the 50s fought more often against more ranked opposition, meaning more threat of losses. BTW whats Sanders record against ranked opposition? I think you'll find its 1-2 with his sole win against a top 10 opponent being Wlad

 

I find it funny how he claims Brewster and Sanders would wipe through Bob Baker, despite the fact Mendoza has not seen film of a Prime Bob Baker(its not hard to find)....perhaps he should purchase it before jumping to conclusions. From my own estimate, Baker was brewsters krptonite. Brewster did not fare well against technical boxers with fast hands....look what eittiene, shufford, and Seirgei Liakhovich did to him..they outboxed brewster with ease. I think Bob Baker was much better than those 3 on film. I fully expect Baker to trounce Brewster.

 

"His record is mostly padded. The fact that an 18-2 fighter, who lost two fights before meeting Moore to a 21-6 fighter was a #4 rated fighter signals a weak era in heavyweight boxing."

Oh, my. Actually his record was 19-2, but:

1. Are you really going to hold the loss to Harris that much against him. Harris was a top ten heavyweight whose only loss was to Patterson in a championship match, and Harris had Patterson down. Lavorante fought Harris in his FIFTH professional fight. That is matching tough in my judgement.

2. The loss to George Logan at Boise was widely condemned as an outrageous hometown decision. Perhaps Lavorante can be criticized for not ko'ing Logan and taking it out of the hands of the judges, or for letting it be close enough to be stolen from him, but he probably won if judged fairly.

3. Lavorante had 19 wins, two more than Povetkin, who is ranked about the same today. He had ko'd Folley impressively and not only was Folley ranked highly from 1956 to the late 1960's, rising to #1 contender status twice during that period, Folley's only other losses during this long run were to top men, champions or contenders--Cooper (disputed), Liston, Jones, Terrell, Ali--other than Lavorante. I see no reason to question the high ranking given the 6' 4" Lavorante, who would still be an imposing physical specimen today.

4. I would consider Lavorante's KO of Folley more impressive than anything Povetkin has accomplished so far. Folley was a top man in his prime.

 

Forget Records...Think RING MAGAZINE top 10. Lamon Brewster got badly outboxed by Charles Shufford and Clifford Etttiene....Both well known Journeyman fighters. Shufford and Ettiene are not top 10 fighters. Also Sergie Liakhovic also won a wide unanimous decision over lamon brewster. Brewster cannot beat good boxers, they are his krptonite.


Brewster went into the wlad fight unrated, and his best win he had recorded up to date was against no names....His win over wlad was a HUGE upset. people thought wlad was washd up after this losss.


Bob Baker during his prime years only lost to men rated at/around the top 10. If we compare who beat more top 10 opponents between brewster and baker, Baker wins by a landslide.



Records mean nothing. If they did mean something, then you would rate Rocky Marciano much higher than you already do. Fact remains todays fighters are cuddled and protected and have much longer time to train in between bouts. Back then, heavyweight contenders were thrown in against fellow rated contenders at least one a month....imagine wladimir or vitali trying to keep up with that kind of schedule?

 

"Chagaev was moved much quicker as a professional" "he is un-defeated and looks much better on film"

Well, let's actually compare him to Baker.

1. I don't understand the claim that Chagaev has been brought along faster. He is pushing 31 and has had 26 fights. Baker reached that point after two years as a pro and 25 years of age. Chagaev is moving like a glacier.

2. The two men were actually at exactly the same spot after 26 fights. Baker was 25-0-1 with 16 knockouts. Chagaev is 25-0-1 with 17 knockouts. Not much to chose.

a. fighters with losing records--Chagaev has fought 7 fights against fighters with losing records-Donnie Penelton (5-52), Brian Jones (2-4), Everett Martin (20-38-1), Val Smith (10-16), Sedrick Fields (20-21-1) & (21-23-1), Garing Lane 22-36-2
Baker through 26 fights had fought 2 fighters with losing records-Willie Champion (0-4) and Henry Jones (9-18-2)
Seven out of the first thirteen pro opponents Chagaev met had losing records.
b. Fighters with winning records and at least 20 victories (both men have/had met 12)
c. Fighters with winning records and at least 30 victories (4 for Chagaev-10 for Baker)
d. fighters with winning records and at least 40 victories (4 for Chagaev-six for Baker)

As you can see, Baker is competitive with Chagaev in quality of opposition even to this point. He had victories over Jimmy Bivins, Johnny Flynn, Sid Peaks, Omelio Agramonte, and Rusty Payne, who had been rated. Nothing too impressive there. Bivins was the best, but far past his prime.

For his career, Baker defeated a wide group of once rated fighters and has a ton more depth than Chagaev has, even though Chagaev is the same age as Baker was in 1957. Over his career, Baker defeated Marty Marshall, Sid Peaks, Omelio Agramonte, Bill Gilliam, Cesar Brion, Nino Valdes, Joe Baksi, Jimmy Slade, Coley Wallace, Rex Layne, John Holman, George Chuvalo, Dick Richardson, Johnny Flynn, and Rusty Payne.

Evaluation--Baker, in my judgement, was not one of the top ten heavies of the fifties (Charles, Walcott, Marciano, Patterson, Johansson, Liston, Moore, Johnson, Machen, Henry). I think he could rate somewhere between #8 and #10 if you cut it down to just the 1950-1954 period. (I will let you judge where Chagaev rates in the 2000-2009 period) What I would notice about Baker's victories is that no one was really a top man at the time he defeated them, except perhaps Valdes and even he is debatable. Most were career second stringers (Wallace), obviously past their best (Bivins, Layne, Baksi), or green (Chuvalo). When he stepped up against top men, Moore and Henry, or even Jackson, he lost.

Chagaev I would rate a little higher as I am somewhat more impressed by his wins over Valuev and Ruiz than with anything Baker did. But only at the margin. The key here is what happens with Wlad. A victory or a strong performance and Chagaev leaves Baker far behind. If he gets blown out or dominated, I would consider him at about Baker's level, a policeman type good enough to beat second tier contenders but a solid level below the top men.

What do I think will happen? I look for Wlad to win easily, but perhaps Chagaev will prove me wrong.

As for how Chagaev does in the fifties--we will never know, but Baker was a taller man and probably in the same shape heavier. Chagaev would not have awed anyone with his physical tools back then. Watching film, I would say Baker is faster afoot and has quicker hands, but only marginally.

 

How can you make this accusation Mendoza when you have yet to see Bob Baker on film in his prime? Also you have only seen ONE fight of Nino Valdez on film, so how can you make an accurate judgement on him? until you at least see 2-3 fights of both Baker and Valdez on film, then dont make comments on how Chagaev looks better. I once called you out to order Valdez vs Hurricane Jackson, Valdez best knockout. You never watched it. How can you make an accurate assessment of baker and valdez without watching there best stuff? Imagine if you picked out ruslans worst fight up to date and watched ONLY that fight, thats pretty much what your doing with baker and valdez.

 

I would call this a top win. He won two WIDE decisions over Valdez who managed to Crack the # 1 ranking in between the losses to baker. Bakers 2nd victory over Valdez was a final title eliminator. So in fact Baker had a case for a title shot vs marciano in early 1956. Baker did lose to Jackson in another title eliminator for the right to face patterson....but it was considered an overwhelming robbery. AP scored the fight 8 rounds to 3 with 1 even in favor of Bob Baker. Cus Damato actually told floyd patterson "when your ready to fight heavyweights ill tell you, but never against a guy like baker."


I dont know if you have seen Bakers first win over Valdez, but it was quite impressive. Baker took punishment early on from valdez fantastic jab, then battled back and completley outboxed, outsmarted, and outworked nino down the stretch for the clear win.