Lineal Rankings System

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


  1. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,025
    1,855
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    Matthews appearing in a bunch of light heavyweight ratings is meaningless because he wasn’t accomplishing the same ratings as a heavyweight. We are strictly discussing the heavyweight division

    I believe you rate Henry over Matthews at heavyweight correct?

    “Al Hostak, Milo Savage (2), Watson Jones, Phil Muscato, Anton Raadik (2), Bob Murphy, Freddie Beshore (2), Lloyd Marshall, Jose Besora, Dave Whitfield (2), Danny Nardico, Rex Layne, Ezzard Charles”

    Most of these men were light heavyweights. I’ve never disputed Matthews being a top notch light heavyweight. He was. I question whether or not he was a top level heavyweight. I suspect he wasn’t.

    “Let's keep going, Nino Valdes 16 men with 17 wins

    Omelio Agramonte, Ezzard Charles, Doc Williams, Heinz Neuhaus, Karel Sys, Hurricane Jacksson, Don C, D-ck Richardson, Joe Erskine, John Holman, Wayne Bethea, Mike DeJohn (2), Johnny Summerlin, Harold Carter, Pat McMurtry, Brian London

    and Bob Baker, 15 men with 19 victories

    Marty Marshall, Johnny Flynn, Rusty Payne, Omelio Agramonte (2), Jimmy Bivins, Cesar Brion, Nino Valdes (2), Doc Williams, Joe Baksi, Coley Wallace, Jimmy Slade, Rex Layne (3), John Holman, George Chuvalo, D-ck Richardson”


    A much more impressive heavyweight resume than Matthews. Bigger men, bigger punchers, higher rated heavyweights. Higher quality and more depth. Valdes and Baker blow away matthews in resume at heavyweight .
     
  2. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,109
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    "strong record"

    Cavicchi's only defeats were on fouls through 1955. I think he looks like a good athlete on film. If I were starting a football team and had to guess which heavyweight contender from 1950 to 1955 would probably be the best bet to make the team, I think I pick Franco behind only Charlie Powell as a prospect.

    But Cavicchi started boxing as a pro at 24, and I don't think he ever learned enough to take advantage of his physical gifts. When things started going sour for him, they went pretty far sour. Still, Willie Pastrano had some nice things to say about him, and unlike most big guys, he seemed able to keep up with a fast moving guy like Pastrano.

    Perhaps with an earlier start and better training Cavicchi would have really made a splash.

    As is, he was a good Euro type, perhaps better than Neuhaus, whom he beat twice, but was at best a fringe contender on the world stage.

    I did not put Cavicchi on my top 15, but I think he was an interesting prospect.
     
  3. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,025
    1,855
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    Pitcher A.

    I have no problems with you rating Layne over Henry and Baker.

    I have problems with the following

    Anyone rating ****ell and kid Matthews above Valdes, Henry, Jackson and baker at heavyweight
     
  4. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,109
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    I didn't rate Matthews among the top 15 heavyweights, which included Valdes, Henry, and Baker,

    but I think he was a worthy fighter, and hardly the bum the IBC crowd and their media stooges made him out to be.
     
  5. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,025
    1,855
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    Nice post, If cavvichi had fought a few more world class fighters we could have really figured out how good he actually was
     
  6. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,025
    1,855
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    I think he was a very good light heavyweight. He beat Irish bob Murphy. I question his ability to take a punch at heavyweight. Losing 3x to don ****ell is a poor result, as is drawing with Freddie Beshore.
     
  7. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,109
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    Layne was losing more or less to everyone when Baker got to him.

    Baker handled Valdes and these are his best wins, I think.

    My own reaction was that like most big guys, Baker was relatively stiff, with little torso movement and what appeared to be marginal head movement. He might have been fast "for a big guy" but he really was not fast either of foot or hands. And, whatever his early potential might have been, he wasn't that much of a puncher.

    Valdes was less skilled, in fact to me not all that skilled at all. He also seemed slow. His advantage over Baker, and why he probably did a bit better against the field even if he couldn't handle Baker, was that he was big and rough, and had a good punch. This kept him in the hunt, even if he pretty consistently lost to the top men.

    I would note that against smaller, but much faster men, Moore, Johnson, and Satterfield,

    Baker and Valdes went 0-6,

    if you add in Henry, it is 0-8,

    with the one upset Valdes over Charles.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
    choklab likes this.
  8. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,025
    1,855
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    Disagree on baker. He had fast hands, for any man of any size. So For his size, his hands were very fast.


    Look at this impressive 5 punch combination by baker at 0:20

    Baker kept a high guard, was technically sound, he had skills and he had handspeed. He threw nice combinations at times and mixed up the uppercuts with his hooks and straight punches very well.



    Valdes was slow but he was very strong and powerful. He had an underrated jab


    Watch 0:10-0:17. Throws a crisp long 80” jab. Moves out of range then slides back in with another jab

    Also how about that right hand that floors Jackson? Jackson had an iron chin. Impressive early destruction.

    You underrate Valdes win over Charles. It’s an impressive clear victory over a former champion who went on to give Marciano 15 grueling rounds the following year. From 1951-1954 it was Charles only clear cut loss considering the controversy around the layne and Johnson losses.

    Valdes took the fight to Charles. Mauled him and beat him up on the inside. Tired Charles out with his size and strength. He also landed his long left jab a few times according to a former Charles associate I talked to in person. My source said Charles told hi, was “surprised by Valdes jab”
     
  9. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,025
    1,855
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    Yes Valdes and Moore lost to Moore Johnson and satterfield but 2 of these men were hall of fame fighters. Satterfield was a ferocious puncher. No shame in losing to these men. Why criticize men for fighting top level competition and losing? It’s better than padding your record against C level competition your entire career. And Valdes beat Charles, a hall of fame fighter.

    What’s lastarza don C and Matthews record against Charles, Moore Johnson and satterfield?

    It’s 0-0...because their managers wouldn’t throw them in the ring with the likes of those men!
     
  10. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,025
    1,855
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005


    How about Matthews style? He keeps both hands far too low, he lunges and leans with his head to avoid punches rather than block of bob and weave. His movement is very herky jerky, not fluid and smooth. His punches are fast but very weak, he arm punches, doesn’t get any torque or rotation into his punch. He’s also small.
     
  11. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    23,251
    2,766
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    Baker looks a good boxer, as they all were. I don’t think his technique necessarily eclipses the overall ability of Lastarza, Mathews and Cokkell though you might prefer him.
    This was a better win but perhaps this was a poorer version of Charles spreading himself too thin whilst he was on tour with so many fights? Robinson managed to lose to Turpin in similar circumstances. Unlike Turpin Valdes would not rematch however. Nino was effective but he lost often enough or fought bad enough against C level guys like Parker, Doc Williams and Mcbride not to appear much better than Mathews and co.

    you might not prefer his style and that size of fighter but at the end of the day nobody was ruling out that style of fighter or that size of fighter when they were winning fights and legitimately climbing the ratings.
     
  12. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    23,251
    2,766
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    Who did this for their “entire career”? If these guys padded their records for their “entire careers” how come they were not completely found out when they did step up? Each of them won legitimate fights that were either world title eliminations or top contenders. This would not have been possible if what you are saying was the case.

    You might prefer the other kind of fighter and that’s okay. There is nothing that shows these men were undeserving or not making the grade. I suggest there was nothing anybody could know at the time that made them look in anyway inferior to the ones you prefer.
     
  13. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,109
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    "You underrate Valdes win over Charles."

    I don't think so. I had him #8 in the 1950-1955 era. I had him #9 in the 1946 to 1955 era. If we are rating from the 1930 to 1960, say, I would place him somewhere in the 20's for that era. As always, folks can disagree with any rating. The first decade of his career, Valdes was ordinary. He then began moving. He had the big win over Charles, a very good win over Jackson, and other nice wins. He also had a lot of losses. 19 for his career, 14 from 1952 to 1959.

    I said he was big, strong, rough, a good puncher, and he was reasonably durable. His speed and skills might be better than the typical huge heavyweight of the era, but compared to the lighter fellows he was not fast and not all that skilled.

    Nino was the biggest good fighter of his era in all around size--height, weight, reach. If he was fast and skilled, as well as being big and a good puncher, and fairly durable, why did he lose 14 fights between 1952 and 1959? He should have been another Louis or Liston in that case.

    And I'm not saying he is without any skills. He looks like Sugar Ray compared to Firpo or Galento. But next to Satterfield or Johnson, over whom he had immense physical advantages, it is silly to say he compared to them in either speed or skill. The Satterfield-Valdes fight is on youtube. Put it on here and explain to me what you see.

    It is a reasonable point that he beat Charles more clearly than Layne or Johnson. I think, though, that Charles was focused for those two. He might not have been for Valdes with the Johnson fight coming up the next month. Also, Valdes lost a bit of stature by refusing to rematch Charles, even with the winner getting Marciano. Implies his management wasn't that convinced he could handle Charles.

    "He had an underrated jab."

    It didn't work that well against Satterfield, who easily slips it and counters with his right. Valdes seems to paw with that left quite a bit against Bob.

    "Jackson had an iron chin."

    He was stopped 4 times in 44 fights. A decent, but not outstanding ratio. The best three punchers he faced, Patterson, Machen, and Valdes, stopped him, but none put him down for the count. Apparently, off boxrec, Hans Kalbfell was the one to do that with an older Jackson. Valdes deserves full credit for KO'ing Jackson, but most of the guys who could punch that he lasted with--Charles, Henry, Layne--were past their best and well on the downhill slope, so I think "iron jawed" is way too strong.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
  14. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,109
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    "No shame in losing to these men."

    No, but given their huge size advantages, there must be some flaws to explain why Baker and Valdes couldn't dominate these men. Lack of speed and head movement are two of the obvious flaws. The lack of speed is relative to these much smaller men, not to other big fellows.

    I'm not criticizing them for fighting top competition. I rate them above LaStarza and Don C, and above Matthews at heavy. All these men have better statistical won-lost records for their careers. It is the level of competition which puts Valdes and Baker above them.
     
    choklab likes this.
  15. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,986
    1,109
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    I don't prefer his style either, but he isn't unique. I watched his fight with Nardico, and then put on the 1934 fight between McLarnin and Ross, and McLarnin fights basically the same way as Matthews, a low guard and hands spread, relying on quickness and foot speed and head and torso movement for defense.

    But it worked for McLarnin, (and also Tony Canzoneri), and it worked pretty well for Matthews. Murphy and Nardico on film miss often and miss badly. As for offense, this style seems to create problems for the other guy as the punches appear to be coming in at more varied angles. I am talking about McLarnin as well as Matthews, as I know you will point out that Nardico and Murphy were hardly top flight defensive fighters.

    "His movement is very herky jerky, not fluid and smooth."

    Well, is this figure skating? A couple waltzing look fluid and smooth. A couple dancing the polka look herky jerky. But the couple doing the polka are moving a lot faster. The point is moving fast, not gracefully. Your values are off kilter here. Herky jerky might even be an advantage, because it might make it more difficult to anticipate where he is going to be.

    "He is small."

    Matthews was a natural light-heavyweight.

    "His punches are fast but very weak."

    Matthews scored 61 KO's in 103 fights. My take is he definitely does not hit as hard as Moore or Satterfield. He definitely hit harder than Maxim. Harold Johnson and Matthews are probably petty much at the same level as punchers.

    Hard to judge how hard he could punch, but he stopped a lot of guys, apparently put Ted Lowry down for the count, KO'd the 207 lb. Buford who went the distance with Henry three times. He clearly could punch,

    but there simply isn't enough top opposition to really gauge where he fits in as a puncher.

    Going into the Marciano fight, he had won 35 straight, 28 by KO's.
     
    choklab likes this.


Sign up for ESPN+ and Stream Live Sports! Advertisement