Lineal Rankings System

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Boilermaker, Jul 12, 2010.



  1. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    "The Valdes loss to Baker was a thing of the past."

    You certainly push your double standards to the extreme. Baker would also beat Valdes later in 1955. So he beat him twice. You hammer on the ex post facto defeat of Don C by Valdes, so why not the ex post facto defeat of Valdes by Baker? But why is a loss to Baker when Valdes was 29 years old and an experienced fighter merely a thing of the past? It seems more a fact to consider for me.

    The Ring ratings I posted for June of 1955 are really pretty decent, Don C aside,

    Champion-----Rocky Marciano
    1-----Archie Moore
    2-----Bob Baker
    3-----Don C
    4-----Nino Valdes
    5-----Hurricane Jackson

    As I pointed out. Moore had beaten Baker & Valdes. Baker had beaten Valdes. Valdes had beaten Jackson. Throw Don C out, and this looks about the way they should be rated.

    "Baker suffered a devastating one-round loss to Bob Satterfield."

    Yes, and Satterfield beat Valdes in 1955. I do not see why losing to Satterfield should be the pivot of the ratings, as the later fight between Satterfield and Valdes proved. Valdes to this point had not beaten anyone who had beaten Baker, but had lost to Baker himself and also to Bill Gilliam, who lost 3 of 4 to Baker.
     
  2. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011

    A good question.

    Fortunately, Moore got his shot that fall.
     
  3. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005

    We are rating Matthews as a heavyweight here, the al hostak win at 160 is irrelevant


    “His record is thin on victories over top men but their are some”

    At heavyweight? I’d like to hear whom

    Here are the RING Magazine ratings 1950-1955


    February 1950

    Title Vacant
    1. Ezzard Charles
    2. Lee Oma
    3. Turkey Thompson
    4. Jersey Joe Walcott
    5. Bruce Woodcock
    6. Lee Savold
    7. Jimmy Bivins
    8. Pat Valentino
    9. Omelio Agramonte
    10. Roland LaStarza

    February 1951

    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


    February 1952


    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


    February 1953

    Rocky Marciano, Champion

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

    February 1954


    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


    February 1955


    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


    Matthews record here is 2-4. His only top level win was a decision over Rex Layne in 1952, who was coming off a wide decision loss to 11-2 Willie James. He beat Ezzard Charles in August 1956, which He should be given no credit for obvious reasons


    As you can see....Matthews was more coddled than I even imagined...look at how many world class heavyweights he missed out on fighting. I would venture to say Matthews entrance and exit into the heavyweight division is very unimpressive given what I just laid out.
     
  4. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005
    Bottom line...cockell never should have been granted a title shot over either Moore or Valdes. He should have had to fight either one in an eliminator or wait in line. Cockell doesn’t survive 3 rounds with either Moore or valdes

    It goes down as a very poor choice by Weill
     
  5. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005
    .
    You Agree “Valdes was better than cockell, had better wins, was rated higher”. and then you lay out these crap set of rankings that places Don C above Valdes? How is it a decent set of rankings when you don’t even agree with Don Cs placement?

    And why are you talking about June 1955 when the entire day I’ve said repeatedly Valdes should have gotten the title shot over cockell in May 1955



    Baker is NOT on trial here. He was a very good fighter. He would have easily beaten cockell lastarza or Matthews
    If you want to make a case baker should be above Valdes, I’m fine with that.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2018
  6. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005

    You keep bringing up events that took place post Marciano-cockell


    My whole argument ...my only argument is that cockell did not deserve a title shot in May 1955 over Nino Valdes


    Period.


    If you continue to bring up events that took place after May of 1955...I will bring up Valdes one sided drubbing of the fat Englishman..an easy victory for Nino...surely you count head to head matchups as the best manner in which to judge?
     
  7. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    "Ring Magazine June 1952 page 42

    "Lacking the thrills and dramatic finish of the first brawl at Sunnyside Gardens, the return eight between Nino Valdes, 207 1/2, Cuba, and Joe McFadden, 192, Winston-Salem, N. C., produced a hard fought but not too exciting draw at Ridgewood Grove. Profiting from his previous experience, McFadden was not so reckless this time and he did a good job of keeping his chin protected from Valdes' blasting right. Joe scored the better in the infighting while the Cuban had the better of long range operations."

    This was an eight round fight at a second-string venue. Off this, the reporter had no problem with it being judged a draw.

    "Marciano bypassed five more proven contenders to take on Don C."

    This brings up a point I want to make. You are jumping back and forth between paper rankings, and I consider both The Ring or the NBA ratings as paper rankings, and what I would call the real ratings--who were the best out there at the time.

    The paper ratings never necessarily reflect who were the best fighters.

    but your whole argument is that being rated #1 meant that Valdes was the best fighter. He was rated better and I would judge him better than Don C, but these were the #1 and #2 men.

    Except going into their fight, Don C was rated higher. He was rated higher since June.

    But that undercuts relying on the ratings.

    So was Don C in the top five heavyweights out there? Probably not. Was he rated among the top two? Yes.

    So as to Marciano, I guess he was supposed to go by the paper ratings, in which Valdes was #1 and Don C was #2.

    But as my post from Fleischer explained, he had a choice between the #1 and #2 paper challengers.

    I think it fair to criticize him for fighting Don C rather than Valdes, but he then redeemed himself by defending against the real #1 guy, Moore.

    As to how these paper ratings should go, you are inconsistent. Don C had been winning against some rated opponents. His losses were years in the past. Valdes had lost 4 times since the last time Don C lost. But with Baker, you switch and say that losses more recent than his win over Valdes should drop him behind Valdes.

    You are also inconsistent about a loss to a lighter man. I remember you rank Jimmy Ellis high at heavy, but he lost to several middles.

    Losing at middle doesn't prove the fighter can't win at heavy.

    Bob Satterfield was beaten by Jake LaMotta, but beat Valdes, Baker, Holman, and Williams at heavy.

    Jimmy Ellis lost to even non-champs like Don Fullmer at middle, but beat Patterson, Quarry, and Bonavena at heavy.

    So I can see why the raters in the fifties didn't hold a loss to Turpin, who had bested a prime Robinson, that much against Don C in the rankings.
     
  8. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    "I will bring up Valdes one sided drubbing of the fat Englishman"

    Are you trying for levity. You have have been bringing up that fight and Valdes' performances post-1955 in almost every post.
     
  9. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005
    You are going way off topic

    I have made my case about the following

    1. Valdes was rated higher than cockell by RING and NBA prior to Marciano defending against cockell

    2. Valdes beat better heavyweights than cockell did

    3. Valdes was the tougher stylistic matchup for Marciano and the better head to head fighter than don cockell


    I think you agree with me on all fronts. My point was made
     
  10. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005
    I am as big as Marciano fan as you are, but die hard Marciano fans like yourself and choke tend to put the homer glasses on involving their favorite fighters.

    If you study the era very deeply..you will find cockell Lastarza Matthews we’re all overhyped, overprotected fighters who were not dangerous fighters at all in the heavyweight division.

    The best heavyweight contenders out there during marcianos throne were Johnson Charles Moore Baker Valdes Henry Satterfield Layne

    Layne faded quickly but he belongs there

    Boxing Historian (RIP the late great)

    Joe Rein was quoted on Rex Layne

    "Throw out the record book on Layne after 1951, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down.

    But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of Piiss and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right”


    Lastarza and Matthews only fought Layne on the list when Layne was shopworn .


    Doc Kearns hid Matthews on the west coast, but never tried to match him up with the west coast best Moore and Henry. Moore in his book made fun of kearns and how much he protected Matthews from punchers


    Cockell was another one who was protected after Slade shatterred his chin. Out of those men he only took on Valdes and was blown out in 3

    Lastarza turned down fights with Charles baker Henry and Moore. His manager Deangelo was on record saying so!!! And later on Rocky Jones a club fighter was ordered on the hand cuffs to prevent him from ruining a Lastarza Marciano rematch
     
  11. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011
    "We really don't know how good he is."

    To a degree, but he was good enough to beat Layne & Bucceroni, and come closer to edging Marciano than anyone did.

    Bucceroni--a lot of A beat B and B beat C and C beat A with you ignoring anything but C beat A.

    Bucceroni lost to Jackson, but beat Slade who won two of three from Jackson. A lot of guys looked bad against Murphy when Murphy was young.

    "Rocky Jones"

    You provide evidence. Who knows how good it is? It apparently comes from Jones himself. I want to stay tasteful here, but when did Jones say this? How old was he and what mental condition was he in? Old boxers do tend to have problems. And how reliable is the reporter?

    Off the description of the fight, it seems odd that if Jones was threatened by the mob, he then went out and knocked LaStarza down and bloodied him up, before deciding to wear the cuffs.

    Whatever, the fights with Jones don't show LaStarza in a good light, but he did defeat better men like Layne and Bucceroni.

    "I believe LaStarza was severely overrated as a fighter."

    An opinion which can be supported.

    I honestly think Matthews was better. He is hard to gauge also, but certainly never had losses that are that hard to explain, the IBC propaganda war against him notwithstanding.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2018
  12. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005
    I thought layne beat lastarza. And this was arguably a non peak version of Layne.

    i have film of Bucceroni he was B level at best. He Also lost to Heinz Neuhaus. Bucceroni is Another guy whose manager kept him away from the big punchers in the division after his Murphy loss. Bucceroni never fought Henry (knocked out Irish bob), Valdes, satterfield, Moore, Charles, Holman, or baker. Based on the films, I think bucceroni had a glass jaw. Without Bucceronis win over lastarza, you wouldn’t have ever heard of his name

    Rocky Jones. There no time table of when Jones said all of this but Chuck Hasson, a well respected boxing historian stated
    Jones was approached at the morning weigh-in by Jimmy White (Amato) a shadowy figure who was a mob contact man and manager and told Rocky "we don't wan't any of that stuff that happened in Akron." Jones had two good rounds then was told to "cool it."


    Why he floored him in the rematch? Chuck Hasson explained

    “A fight I am told Rocky was more intent on giving Roland a beating for all of the talk that he "was afraid" to meet LaStarza again than KOing him early which I believe he could have done easily. .I have the complete film of the Jones rematch and believe me LaStarza looked terrible“


    “Better men Layne Bucceroni”

    Layne on paper looks decent, except I thought Layne won the fight, and was not at his peak here. Bucceroni I have already covered. He does not impress on film, and his record was filled with weak hitters after the knockout loss to Irish bob. Bucceronis management slipped up with Jackson. Jackson couldn’t hit but he had Marciano like stamina and he just broke Bucceroni down and exhausted him


    Matthews..who knows if he was better. His manager, doc Kearns overprotected him out west against ham n eggers. He refused fights with the two best west heavyweights Archie Moore and Clarence Henry. Moore made fun of Mathews in his book. Said doc Kearns laughed when Archie challenged Matthews “your way too tough for us Archie”

    Matthews hardly tested himself against the best of the era. He lost three times to fat boy don who wouldn’t even crack the top 10 of the era
     
  13. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,244
    Sep 5, 2011

    "Matthews hardly tested himself against the best of the era."

    He goes for the heavyweight title, and fights Layne who holds a decisive win over the champion. His next major opponent is Marciano, who has an awesome KO record and has a KO of Joe Louis on his resume. This is coddling? The Marciano fight was an elimination. If Matthews won, his next opponent would have been Walcott.

    Marciano, Walcott, and Layne were the three top rated heavyweights that year. This isn't trying to test yourself against the best? This seems to me to be going for the gold against the top men.

    Matthews had nothing to do with Kearns. Kearns managed Maxim. Jack Hurley managed Matthews. Matthews was not an IBC fighter, so he was denied fights to such an extent that the US Senate got involved. After Matthews beat Murphy decisively in Madison Square Garden, it was Murphy who got a title shot against Maxim. Of course, we never talk about this duck, do we? Because Mr Gray and his front, Jim Norris, and the IBC henchmen and their stooges in the media, all said that Matthews was a hyped nothing, we have to accept that as Truth with a capital T.

    Interestingly, in February 1952 The Ring chose Matthews to replace Robinson as the best overall fighter in the world. While this might be a bit much, it is quite an odd honor for a hyped nothing.

    I have seen Matthews on film twice. He got KO'd by Marciano. He looked very good outpointing Murphy.
     
  14. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005
    Sorry I meant Hurley

    Study the era Edward. Hurley cashed out Mathews against Marciano. That’s the only reason he took the fight! He knew Matthews had no shot af winning.

    Archie Moore made fun of Mathews for how protected he was. Hurley refused a fight with him and Henry
    Hurley told Archie “your way too tough for us”

    Hurley himself admitted he protected Matthews on the west coast his entire career until he could cash him out against Marciano or a title fight with Walcott. But he wasn’t about to blow that shot by taking on Moore baker or Henry!

    He beat Rex Layne when layne was coming off a wide decision loss to 11-2 Willie James! Layne was on the downfall

    I’ve seen Matthews against Murphy...meh, above average boxer at best. Bob baker looks a lot better on film and is a lot bigger.


    Maxim did not duck Matthews


    Hurley rejected a shot at Maxim in 1952. An article in THE RING, June, 1952 issue written by Barney Nagler, profiles Jack Hurley and gives his reasons for rejecting the bout:

    A. Matthews would have to sign an exclusive contract with the IBC.
    B. Matthews would get $20,000 of a $100,000 purse, with $40,000 going to Maxim and $40,000 going to the IBC. Hurley claimed he would have accepted the fight if Matthews got $40,000.

    "Over a year ago I asked Doc Kearns if he'd fight Matthews." Kearns replies he would for $50,000. Hurley goes on to relate in detail that amount was reasonable for a west coast fight, even with Maxim, who Hurley does not consider box-office. When the IBC vetoes that fight, Hurley contacts US Senator Harry P Cain from Washington State. There is soon an investigation, not only by congress, but also by the Justice Department, of the IBC. Hurley meanwhile has begun negotiating with Walcott for a crack at the heavyweight title, Walcott to get $250,000. In the midst of this, the IBC and its representative, Al Weill, offer Hurley an ultimatum to accept a fight with Maxim.

    "They didn't make the offer until after I announced I wasn't interested. They didn't make it until they were sure I wouldn't accept. My job is to get money. Matthews ought to be a professional, he never had an amateur bout, but even if he isn't, I am.
    "With the radio and television, The IBC figured Maxim-Matthews would do $100,000 net. They say they must give Maxim 40%, which is all right because he is champion. They are willing to give Matthews 20%. For the use of the hall, the IBC has to get $40,000.
    "What's wrong with giving each fighter $40,000 and the IBC taking 20%. The IBC doesn't appear on tele
     
  15. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,273
    Sep 14, 2005

    Hurley did a fantastic job managing Matthews...protected him very well on the west coast

    Kept him away from Archie Moore and Clarence Henry