Lineal Rankings System

Why did Charles get the title shot over Harold Johnson?

Charles lost to Johnson, then lost to Valdes who Johnson beat!

• Promoter Herman Taylor stated before the Charles-Johnson fight that the International Boxing Club promised the winner of the fight the next shot at the heavyweight title.

 

the best heavyweights out there

I would rate them in order-----Charles, Moore, Johnson, Layne, Valdes, Jackson, Henry, Baker, Satterfield,

The A beat B and B beat C and C beat A business is confusing. There is a good case that I wouldn't argue with that during the Marciano era, Moore should be #1. He held wins over Johnson, Valdes, Henry, Baker, and Satterfield, and lost only 1 of 5 to Johnson.

LaStarza and Matthews

Two different fighters. Your case against LaStarza is much the stronger, really. Matthews is more difficult to gauge. Other than Don C, every fighter who was able to beat him after he turned 18 in a 19 year career was also able to defeat Archie Moore.

I noticed Moore claimed he was protected from punchers. Hard to buy when he was matched with Marciano. And at light-heavyweight with Bob Murphy and Danny Nardico. He seems to have had a good enough chin which only failed him against Marciano, but lots of chins failed against Marciano.

Matthews was in one of the most talented light-heavyweight divisions ever, and still The Ring staff thought him good enough to rate him over even Sugar Ray Robinson as their number one p4p fighter for 1951. I certainly consider him inferior to Moore and Johnson, but that is hardly a scathing criticism. My take is he would have been about 50/50 with Maxim, and the favorite over Lesnevich and Mills.

It is hard to tell whom Hurley was avoiding and how much the IBC was simply freezing Matthews out by denying him top fights except against guys they thought could derail him. Moore and Henry were big risk fights with no reward. I can understand Hurley shying away from such match-ups. Matthews was a bigger box-office attraction than either back then. But, in fairness, when tough fights with commensurate purses came up with Murphy, Layne, and Marciano, Hurley took them, with the Layne and Marciano fights clearing the path to Walcott and the championship.

Your take on Matthews is the IBC take. In fact, you could be the mouthpiece for the IBC on not only Hurley but D'Amato. But I think history demands a more nuanced view.

 

"Study the era Edward."

Thanks for the advice.

On Maxim-Matthews, I want to emphasize that obviously Maxim wasn't ducking Matthews. His record indicates he never ducked anyone.

But Matthews defeated Murphy on March 2, 1951. Maxim defended against Murphy on August 22, 1951. This is the time the IBC was freezing out Matthews and the time I was referring to.

When the Justice Department started investigating the IBC for monopolistic practices the IBC was forced to backtrack by offering Matthews a shot at Maxim for the short end of the purse. By this point, Hurley had set his sights on the bigger prize of the heavyweight championship. I remember an article on Hurley back in the fifties in which the reporter thought Hurley wanted to be the big dog in boxing, the manager of the heavyweight champion, and thought Matthews would be the ticket. I think taking the fights with Layne and Marciano, with Walcott in the wings if Matthews won, points to this interpretation being correct.

"Layne was on the downfall."

Layne was in and out with training which led to some bad performances, such as the James fight. But he would bounce back to defeat Charles after losing to Matthews, and I think he was likely focused for a top man like Matthews.

And, remember, sometimes good fighters have problems with guys who you wouldn't think they should have problems with. Frank Buford was nothing much. He was stopped by a lot of guys and had a career losing record. Matthews KO'd Buford in 3. But Buford went the distance three times with Clarence Henry and defeated him once.

 

Charles lost to Valdes first, a month before fighting Johnson.

Personally, I think Charles probably was looking past Valdes to the Johnson fight. It would be understandable as Valdes really wasn't doing much. He had lost his last four fights in the US.

As for Johnson getting a shot at Marciano, I don't know if he wanted it. Johnson was a great boxer, but Marciano handled the clever boxers both before and after. If I were Johnson's management, I would have gone after Moore first, secured the light-heavyweight title, and then taken an if you lose it so what roll the dice fight with an older Marciano. Time would seem to have been on Johnson's side. Of course, the key is you have to beat the guy you choose to fight.

Do you have an article on Johnson and his management talking up a shot at Marciano?

As for Johnson, I have said many times that I consider him the best man of the Marciano era that Marciano did not fight, and I don't think it is close.

 

You want my top 15 of the era

Sure

Purely from 1950-1955


I would rate them in order-----

1. Rocky Marciano
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Jersey Joe Walcott
4. Archie Moore
5. Harold Johnson
6. Joe Louis
7. Clarence Henry
8. Rex Layne
9. Bob Baker
10. Nino Valdes
11. Hurricane Jackson
12. Bob Satterfield
13. John Holman
14. Roland Lastarza
15. César Brion

Hm: Earl Walls

 

I think this is a very good list. My only major disagreement is your ranking Henry above Layne. Layne defeated the #2 and #3 men.

I know your position is that Baker beat Layne 3 times years later, and Henry beat Baker,

but I would say it is like this--

Joey Maxim beat Jersey Joe Walcott and Floyd Patterson. Willie Pastrano beat Maxim. Therefore Willie Pastrano deserves to rate above Walcott and Patterson. No way.

 

Excellent breakdown. I love this system.

 

It’s a horrible system


It doesn’t take into consideration if a fighter was in or out of his prime when the fight took place

 

Thank you

No that’s actually not my position...

When I have two fighters I have a hard time separating..I usually go with the fighter I rate better head to head.

I just think had Henry vs Layne happened both at their best....Henry would have won by knockout every time. Layne had a quick heavy right, an underrated jab, and in his prime a cast iron jaw...but he learned really learned how to box or defend. He was completely mismanaged and poorly trained. Henry was a seasoned, smooth boxer, who happened to be a huge puncher. He also was skilled a infighting. He was dangerous early, and could end a fight at any moment. I think Henry would have finished what satterfield started on Layne. Layne would have charged right into Henry, and to do that, you need Marciano like weapons which Layne did not possess..Henry would have overwhelmed Layne with his combinations on the inside and knocked him out with a left hook. Bad matchup for Layne


Listen, Henry was a really big puncher. He was young. In his prime. He had quick hands. He could box. The type of heavyweight Weill wanted no part of unless he had to fight him. Even joe Louis didn’t want to tangle with Henry. Marciano vs Henry in place of Lee Savold would have been great for boxing fans in 52. Harold Johnson outboxed everyone in that era, and Henry basically took him to a stalemate for 10 rounds. Baker Henry is on film, it was a war! Both looked really good. Baker was undefeated. Henry’s left hook is eye opening. I also have satterfield Henry on film, 1 round of hagler hearns type action. Henry gets off the floor and lays satterfield out cold with a brutal left hook. Henry beat a lot of top 10 guys: Baker 2x, satterfield, dunlap, Thompson, Payne, Bivins, Agramonte 2x, Murphy, Holman.

Archie’s win over Henry rates up there as one of the best of the era. Moore was pretty much at his peak here.

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/...and-the-light-heavyweight-picture-id551552273

 

Regarding Layne..

He beat my number 2 and 3, but also lost to my number 9 three times, my number 11 twice, and my number 14. He was also very lucky to escape with a decision over my number 15.


James Dawson, New York Times, scored the bout 7-3 for Brion, giving Layne rounds 1, 2 and 8. Associated Press scored the bout 7-3 Layne.
Dawson wrote:
“Plunging and tossing like a rudderless ship, Rex Layne, Lewiston, Utah, heavyweight, somehow or other managed to gain a decision over Cesar Brion, from the Argentine, in ten dull rounds of fighting at Madison Square Garden last night. And if there is any consolation in a moral victory, Brion has it. A crowd of 5,768 booed the verdict and it was plain that many, if not the majority, thought Brion had won.”


Yes he beat my number 3 clearly

He beat my number 2 but it was very controversial. Many ringsiders thought Charles won. And Dempsey’s scorecard looked very fishy in laynes hometown. In laynes other 2 fights against Charles, he got utterly dominated. I hate to say the second fight was a fluke win, but it kind of was with a sketchy result. Not a Valdes-Charles type win which was much more impressive since he took 7-8 out of 10 rounds against charles.

Laynes win over satterfield was great


His wide loss to Willie James is hard to ignore. Was he out of his prime? Still puzzling he could lose so badly to a club fighter on an off night

I thought Layne deserved the decision over lastarza

Layne-Andy Walker the papers all had walker winning

I think Layne had a short prime. He was all but finished after the Marciano and Charles back to back KO losses. Ruined his confidence. When Layne was at his best, I think he was dangerous. For sure.

 

Whatever your system is, it’s not accurate for this era at all


Take 1952 for example




“1 Rocky Marciano W Savold, Mathew, Walcott& others
2 Joe Walcott W Charles L Marciano
3 Harry Mathews W Layne, Lowrie, Wills & others L Marciano
3 Rex Layne W Charles & Others L Mathews & others (pre rank)
4 Ezzard Charles W Bivins, Brion, Reynolds L Walcott, Layne
5 Tommy Harrison W Bivins Bascon&Others L Olsen & others (pre Rank)
6 Jimmy Bivins W Wallace, Bascom & others L Harrison Charles
7 Archie Moore w Johnson slade henry Dunlap Maxim & others
8 Coley Wallace W Dunlap & others L Bivins
9 Bob Dunlap W Brion, Peterson & others L Moore, Wallace
10 Cesar Brion W Bacon Kahut others L Dunlap Charles
11 Wayne Bascom - W Watson, Powell L Brion, Watson, bivins,
12 Toxie Hall - W Watson, Holman, Culbertson & others L Powell & b Johnson D Simpson
13 John Holman - W Watson & Others L Watson Hall
14 Watson W Bascom Holman L Bascom Holman Hall
16 Clarence Henry w Jones L Johnson Moore
17 Bob Satterfield - w Johnson L Henry Johnson
18 Harold Johnson - W Moore & Others L Moore D Sys
19 Billy Gilliam W Baker & Others L Riviera, Baker (pre Rank)
20 Bob Baker -W Gilliam L Gilliam”


Kid Matthews at number 3, while Henry and Baker are at 16 and 20 is laughable...anyone who knows the era knows baker and Henry were top 5 heavyweights in the world around this time. Not only were they both talented big punchers, but they were getting ducked by every manager who controlled a fighter with a padded record (cough cough Matthews)

The fact you list “Lowry and H Wills” on Matthews win column is laughable and speaks volumes how protected he was. Lowry was a club fighter at best, while wills was a tomato can

Baker H Johnson Henry would have destroyed about 80% of the people you rated above them . I mean Dunlap got spanked like a little boy by Henry and you rated Dunlap 9th lol

Your 1953 and 1954 rankings were even worse with Charles only being rated # 10 and # 17 both years on your list while fat boy cockell somehow climbed to number 3. Anyone who knows the era knows Charles was still a top 5 heavyweight in the world 1953-54 and he proved it with his dominance over Harrison Layne satterfield and Wallace and 15 round war with Marciano

And your rankings of H Johnson and A Moore are laughable. They should be top 5 every year 1953-1955