If Marciano Had Fought Valdes,Baker,& Henry?

Yes, three men whose frames are bast suited for LHW or smaller. However you want to say it.

You have all the facts but can't put them together. Valdes lost to smaller men, so beating him would have proven nothing. Nor did Marciano have anything to prove. He beat the best in front of him. That is how one becomes great.

 

Yes, I did. You just don't understand.

 

Matthews has a career upside that is generally ignored. One can knock his best wins, but he lost only to five men, one an experienced winning fighter when Harry was 17, one an undefeated heavyweight champion, two top five black murderers' row contenders, and a man who was a European and British Empire champion and a top five contender.

Baker, Valdes, and Henry all lost to much lesser fighters than any Matthews lost to--think Buford, Zuany, Gilliam--and Matthews had a much longer career and more fights, and was rated over a longer period, from 1942 to 1954, and fought both younger and older or to about the same age.

Not many can say they lost to only five men over a 19 year career in which they were rated in three different divisions.

Matthews was a respected fighter in the early 1950's. The Ring Mazazine picked him over Robinson as the best p4p fighter of 1951.

 

"If Cockell and LaStarza were ranked near the top that would indicate the lack of talent"

Unlike Manuel Ramos in 1968? Or Ford Smith in 1935? Or Tom Heeney in 1928? All top five contenders. Ramos and Heeney got title shots also. I think Cockell has a good chance of running the table if matched with this trio.

 

Two things stand out to me. One is a lack of a signature win. Lots of names. Some once near the top. But Bivins? Years past his best. Layne? Fading toward retirement and losing to everyone. Baksi? Laid off two years and 25 lbs over his former fighting weight.

The best wins are probably Valdes and Holman. Holman had some good wins but a lot of losses. Between the fall of 1952 and the fall of 1956, Valdes fought 23 times and had 13 wins and 10 losses.

The bottom line is that Bob Satterfield defeated Valdes and Holman more decisively than Baker did, and stopped Baker in one.

Baker failed consistently against the better men--Henry, Satterfield, Moore, and Jackson, before the wheels came completely off in 1957.

The second point is Baker is one of those contenders who never gets over the hump against the really top men but hangs in there a long time--like Lee Savold. Baker was more consistent than Savold, especially when young, but was not around nearly as long. I don't see his wins resume as more impressive than Savold's.

 

Yes. Despite the fact that he would have lost one of those.

 

"environment"

Frankly, other than on records, I don't see how one can any longer make historical comparisons, if size is considered.

Usyk, the current champion is 6' 3" and weighed 226 for his last fight. Only the "giants" Willard and Carnera were bigger.

Yet he is small by the standards of the modern heavyweight division he is fighting in. Usyk has had 7 fights since moving up from Cruiserweight. He has been outweighed by 27, 38, 19,. 23, 12, 39, and 55 lbs in those fights. Six of the seven were inches taller. Fury was 6 inches taller. His opponents average 6' 5" and 251 lbs.

This is perhaps shocking, but Usyk is a relatively smaller man in his heavyweight division than Marciano was in his. "Light-heavyweight" Charles was in fact taller than Marciano and heavier in their second fight. Light-heavyweight champion Moore was the same height and weight in their fight.

So I find these historical debates, when focused on size, sterile. These are just two vastly different worlds.

I also notice that the only sport in which historical debates are hung up on size debates is boxing. The fans of other sports seem to concentrate on achievements.

 

"the fact"

The only fact is all three lost to Moore and Marciano defeated Moore.