Is it a weak era when you have names and talents like this?

There is a lot more to an era than the top three fighters and obviously there were a lot of good heavyweights in this era.

You would be hard put to find another five year period of the heavyweight division where you could find 13 better heavyweights in the rankings.

On the other hand a lot of the rankings for this era were a bit funny to say the least. You had fighters like Sys and Neuhaus in the top ten who had done next to nothing at world level had some contenders who were not the best or brightest of the era getting into the top five bases on dubious premises.

Here are the annual rankings for this period:



1950 Ezzard Charles, Champion

1. Joe Louis
2. Lee Savold
3. Joey Maxim
4. Clarence Henry
5. Bob Baker
6. Rex Layne
7. Jersey Joe Walcott
8. Jack Gardner
9. Lee Oma
10. Rocky Marciano

1951 Jersey Joe Walcott, Champion

1. Ezzard Charles
2. Rocky Marciano
3. Clarence Henry
4. Roland LaStarza
5. Karel Sys
6. Joe Louis
7. Cesar Brion
8. Joe Baksi
9. Bob Baker
10. Johnny Williams

1952 Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Jersey Joe Walcott
2. Rex Layne
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Bob Dunlop
5. Clarence Henry
6. Johnny Williams
7. Roland LaStarza
8. Heinz Neuhaus
9. Karel Sys
10. Jimmy Bivins

1953 Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Nino Valdes
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Dan Bucceroni
4. Roland LaStarza
5. Earl Walls
6. Don Cockell
7. Clarence Henry
8. Tommy Harrison
9. Bob Satterfield
10. Coley Wallace

1954 Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Nino Valdes
2. Don Cockell
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Bob Baker
5. Earl Walls
6. Heinz Neuhaus
7. Rex Layne
8. Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson
9. Charley Norkus
10. Jimmy Slade

1955 Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Archie Moore
2. Bob Baker
3. Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson
4. John Holman
5. Willie Pastrano
6. Nino Valdes
7. Johnny Summerlin
8. Bob Satterfield
9. Young Jack Johnson
10. Ezzard Charles

 

Great light heavyweight era. :good

I wouldn't call it a weak era, atleast not the weakest. I've been more impressed with the film I've seen of these fighters than most of today's top contenders.

 

You might perhaps have thrown in Bob Satterfield who was beating some of the names you listed.

 

Verry good light heavyweights can be an effective mechanism for filling out the elite level at heavyweight in an era.

More light heavyweights in the division can mean more elite level heavyweights relative to other eras.

 

I said it wasnt golden age ,which isnt the same as calling it weak, the contenders on film look appreciably better than the likes of Chagaev,Gomez,Ibragimov,and the rest of the extras from Dr Zhivago.

 

Yes, in general light heavies, or cruisers show more skill than heavies. That does not make them better heavies, though.

In 1950, I think the division was rather low on talent. Louis was on his way out, and the likes of Savold, and Maxim were the next two best contenders.


1950

This content is protected

, Champion

1. This content is protected
2. This content is protected
3. This content is protected
4. This content is protected
5. This content is protected
6. This content is protected
7. This content is protected
8. This content is protected
9. This content is protected
10. This content is protected

 

Just because Savold and Maxim were ranked 2 and 3 dosn't mean that they were the second and third best contenders, or indeed that they deserved their rankings.

 

Some great names, other famous ones but what is it's point ...

Are you saying this a great heavyweight list because I don't think great. Solid, yes.

Louis was well past his prime.
Walcott was in his late 30's
Moore was a light heavyweight and over 40
Johnson was a light heavyweight.
Charles' , a light heavyweight at his best, peaked as a heavy in 1950.
Jackson was a tough kid but challanged Patterson, not Rocky.
Satterfield was a colorful legend but a light heavy with a middleweight chin.

Lastarza, Henry, Baker, Layne, Walls ... anyone rate these guys in their top sixty all time heavyweights? Decent fighters but almost all cruiserweights and none above fairly good ...

Always was a bit intrigued by Valdez but his career seemed to go nowhere ...

In many ways the list really attempts to grab three groups: Pre-Rocky, Rocky and Post-Rocky ...

Summary: a solid group of decent fighters with big names who were old and light heavyweights mixed in ..

 

Well you can make the same points about today's top 10
Vitali is 37 ,the same age as Louis was
Wlad is 33
Ruiz is around 36
Valuev about the same
and the fringe contenders are recycled past their bed time guys like Maskaev and Rahman,When Holyfield can go close with Valuev at his advanced age the division is thin.
As for Mendoza averring they were light heavyweights in the 50's .
Half the top ten guys today could drop 30 lbs of fat with no trouble.
Heavy does NOT equal quality as Juan Carlos Gomez has just showed us , ditto Chagaev,who would not make a decent sparring partner for Marciano.

 

Sys and Neuhaus were good Europeans and IMO better than second tier USA fighters. I think either were better overall than Satterfield or Walls.
I think the era was good and solid as other posters pointed out but the big names give it a false sense of greatness, Louis, Johnson, Charles and maybe others were at their best outside the time frame.
Still it has to be said that Louis, Charles and Walcott cleaned out the late 40's and Satterfield would ko 60's contender Cleveland Williams, Neuhaus drew with Cooper, Summerfield beat Folley, Maxim edged Patterson, Baker topped Chuvalo and Johnson beat Machen so maybe...not many eras did as well against the new boys coming through.

 

Really??????????

Looking at their records I just can't see it. Satterfield and Walls at least have the big name wins.

 

Well Walls beat only Layne and perhaps Slade and Harrison from the top names but lost a lot too. Layne had started to slip and never won another worthwhile fight(including a draw and loss to Neuhaus.) Satterfield you dont need me to remind you had such an up-and-down career that you can build him up or knock him down as you see fit. Sys had a long and even career, wins over Neuhaus and Tangberg were useful, these guys were the equivalent of better known US fighters. A draw with Moore too is not to be laughed at.
Neuhaus was no world beater but he was consistant, He numbered Bucceroni, London, Sys. TenHoff, Johnny Williams and an over the hill Layne among his victims. BTW I dont think they were clearly better but just edge it in career consistancy and that they suffer from the greater focus on the USA scene.