Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Nino Valdez

Suzie do you think Earl Walls was another who missed a shot at the title while Marciano, Charles and Walcott fought out series?
I find it a shame that the guys you mentioned, Walls, Wallace, Sattersfield and Jackson never got shots at the title

 

Clarence Henry seems to stand out as the one who contemporary observers were comparing favourably to the champions of the era (Charles and Walcott).

 

Yes Jackson did rematch Floyd. Can you shed some light on why their first match was an eliminator? I dont recall Moore having an elimination bout prior to his title match with Patterson. Also what was the feeling surrounding the result of the first Jackson fight?

I agree those guys are forgotten due to not fighting Marciano. That is the pity to me

 

Cheers thanks for that

 

Of all the names being tossed around in this thread, the only one that genuinely warranted a shot at Marciano's title (and has a case for being "screwed") is Valdes.

-Henry peaked as a contender prior to Marciano's reign, and was beaten decisively by Moore, Jackson, and others during his reign.

-Baker initially looked good on the way up, but seemed to never recover from his quick KO loss to Satterfield. After that he had embarrassing one-sided losses to Henry(in their rematch) and Moore, and most of his fights thereafter were described as dull, ugly stinkers.

-Jackson was considered a prospective challenger for Marciano a couple of times, but upset losses to Valdes and Slade foiled him whenever the fight was on the horizon.

-Satterfield was also considered a possible future challenger for Marciano at one point, but then was KO'd by Charles who duly got the shot instead. Beyond that, Satterfield was just too inconsistennt to warrant a shot.

As said, the only one that has a viable argument for being screwed is Valdes, who was supposed to get a shot at Marciano in late '54 after beating Jackson in an eliminator. But Marciano elected to give Charles a rematch first, then took time off (presumably because of his nose injury), then when he finally returned it was against Cockell, who no one in the US thought much of despite his high ranking. Ultimately, Valdes lost what was considered a close and somewhat disputed decision to Moore, and there went his immediate prospects for a title shot. Later, Valdes and Baker fought in what was supposed to determine an outstanding challenger for Marciano following his win over Moore, but the fight was so dull and ugly no one wanted to see either one in a title shot in the near future; on top of which both of them lost their next fights anyway. Jackson was also being considered for a shot at this time, but his loss to Slade spoiled that. Ultimately, the only outstanding contender left was Moore, who Marciano had already beaten; and it was probably for that reason that Marciano retired the next year.

 

Henry, Baker, and Valdes were 1-8 against Moore, Harold Johnson, and Satterfield.

It is hard for me to see any of these men as a threat to Marciano, Patterson, Moore, or Johnson at any point. They simply were not the elite.

 

They may not have been "uncrowned champions" but they were good enough to hold their own with and beat many chalengers who did get an opotunity to fight for a title in any other era. when you think of johny paycheck, roper, wepner, coopman, terry daniels, jose king roman, pete radmacher, mcNeely snr, scott frank, lorenzo zannon, jesse ferguson and the like henry and co got a bum deal.

 

theres one of the arguments for the fragmented title, guys who are worthy get a crack at a dubious 'title' even if they're not the recognized champion. if there were 3 (then 4) recognized fragments of the title there would have been dozens and dozens of guys who would be titleists, and all of the guys screwed in the past in most cases would have at least gotten a crack.

peter jackson, frank slavin, sam langford, joe jeanette, harry wills, sam mcvey, george godfrey, larry gains, the list goes on and on.

 

I agree with most of the last posters, these guys were at best good but inconsistant, they basically blew their chances, none of them has a resumee to compare with Harold Johnsonand nobody is carrying his torch at Hw.

 

Baker and Henry had plenty of chances to make it big and blew them. Layne beat Walcott decisively and had to sit back and watch while Walcott got two shots at the title right after that. If anyone got screwed, it was him.

 

Rex Layne's management did not seem to think he was "ready" even though he scored a win over Walcott. Soon after he looked bad in his fight against Cesar Brion, which is on film, and then looked impressive in stopping Bob Satterfield after having been hammered for 7 rounds. Then he went to a split decision with Henry Hall in another up & down performance.

Layne fought a boxing exhibition with the champion Charles and finally fought him for real when Charles had already lost his title and Layne his high ranking at the hands of Rocky Marciano. He took a savage beating in the last two rounds by Charles after the previous 9 rounds of sloppy action by both men.

On hindsight Layne should have perhaps pursued a title shot more intensively because the Marciano beating seemed to finish him as a top class fighter.