Marciano in the Joe Louis era?

Very well!

In my opinion, if he stayed as a Middleweight, he would never had been anything like what he was as a Heavyweight.

I remember when he fought Rubin Carter, he was nothing like what he was when he fought later on as a Heavyweight.

By the way, on another subject, I knew Carter, as I lived in Paterson when I was a kid.

I lived only a few blocks away from the bar that this happened. I also knew both John Artis and Rubin Carter.

Artis ran the hurdles for Central High School a few years before and I ran distance races for Passaic County Tech, both schools were located in Paterson at the time.

I met Carter several years before at the Riverside Oval in Paterson and he even pitched some softball. One time he and several of his friends went across the street of the ball field and went bowling. I followed him and he asked me to keep score, which I did.

When I was in high school they let me go to the court house several times to do a report on the case. It was some long days, but I reported back what I saw and heard. They had several family members of the people that were killed on the stand. It was pretty sad and some of the items they showed were still full of blood.

I also knew Lt. Vince DeSimone some, and several of my friends knew him very well and they all said he was a honest cop and would never have done what the picture stated he did. Just read the site that Cal Deal has and you can make your own judgement.

Carter was on his way down as a boxer when this happened, just look at his record.

Cal Deal did a GREAT JOB in getting the material together and I read his site many times over the years.

http://www.graphicwitness.com/carter/index.html

I read just about everything about this case and I believe that both John Artis and Rubin Carter were and still are Guilty!

 

Marciano ruled in a weak period. He faced old men and a fat Brit. He was exciting to watch, but he was´nt impressive. A 1947 Walcott coul´ve have beaten him. A prime Charles would´ve outboxed him. Louis himself would´ve KOéd him.
He retired when he started to get hurt by punches. He knew that out there, there was more than a handful of young fighters who could beat him.
Galento vs. Marciano !!! What a brawl !

 

I, myself - hated the movie. Mostly because it did´nt get the facts of boxing correct. Why change the truth in a movie that shoved how the truth was mishandled in order to nail an innocent !!!????
I´ll study the stuff on the link - thanks !

 

"If he had stayed as a Middleweight, he would never have been anything like what he was as a Heavyweight."

He wasn't, anyway.

There had been a lot of fighters who claimed making weight was the cause of their decline at a lower weight. I know of none who jumped two divisions and became champions after being so ordinary at the lower weight. I think this reasonably raises a flag about the level of competition at the higher weight.

 

As a Welterweight/Jr. Middleweight, Willie Pastrano lost to Johnny Cesario, Del Flanagan and Italo Scortichini in the middle to the end of 1953. Cesario was rated in the Welterweight division from April 1948 to April 1949, his highest ratings was #7, so he was past his prime. Flanagan was rated from April 1949 to Oct. 1959, his highest rating was #2. Scortichini was never Rated, as Willie lost to him at the end of 1953 in Willie's 27th Pro bout.

Feb, 1955 he was rated in the top 10 as a Light Heavyweight. That means he was actually was rated by the end of 1954 because the Magazine comes out a few months a head of the actual date. The middle of 1955 he beat Joey Maxim and by the end of that year he beat Rex Layne and was rated #5 in the Heavyweight Division. Now that’s a jump of 3 or 2-1/2 weight classes.

So what does that say about the level of competition for the Heavyweights in the mid-1950's when someone that can lose to a couple of average Welterweights and Jr. Middleweights and then just 2 years later be rated #5 as a Heavyweight.

As you know, Willie became Light Heavyweight Champion in 1963.

 

I respect your post as well and my words extremly weak may have been strong, I think there were both strong and weak in every era, in fact I think the 80's were weak but there were still fighters that may have done very well in any era....Funny but even today i see some fighter that could have done well in any era...I hear so much about the 70's being the BEST and I remember going to the garden watching Quarry/Foster...Shavers/Ellis...Quarry/Shavers...Ali/Shavers...Quarry/Lyle they were all exciting fights and there were fighters in that era that were capable of fighting in any era but I dont see one era being better than the next...size,training methods,steriod drugs,weights, have changed the way the heavys look but you give something up to gain something...In this case there were era's that heavys trained for 15 rounds and they fought fast and hard...I think today we have the Heavys with solid amatuer careers (inspired by Ali,Frazier,Foreman,Klitschko) bringing that experience into the pro's but most of the Heavys Tyson,Lewis for 2 never Ko'd anyone after the 8th rd...(tyson vs Ribalta KO10 once) and to watch Big Shannon Briggs or Sam Peter breathing hard after 8 rds makes me wonder what Joe Louis would be doing if they could last that long with him.....Still Ali, Frazier and Foreman could have fought in any era and so could Walcott, Louis,Charles,Marciano,Moore,Dempsey,ConnTHE Klitschko's, and some of the contenders of the 80's Tyson,Tucker,Thomas,Coetzee,Weaver, 90's Byrd,....Toney, Holyfield...so I was always an avid fan of the sport and I see the good with the Bad....the 70's had very good fighters but if we could interchange contenders of all the era's I would not be suprised to see a lot of suprises...

 

Willie Pastrano was 17 in 1953. Pastrano was a boxing prodigy, but he not unique in growing several divisions from his mid-teens to his early twenties. Jimmy McLarnin was a bantam as a teenager who matured into a welter. Billy Conn was a welter losing to almost everyone in 1935 at 17. Within four years he was light-heavy champion with his aim set on Joe Louis. I think an immature boy like Pastrano is a terrible comparision with Ellis who was 24 in 1964 and had been at boxing quite a while as an amateur and professional.



Ellis turned 24 in Feb, 1964. Pastrano in Nov 1959, after years of beating second-tier heavyweights. However, Pastrano never scaled the heights at heavyweight that Ellis did. Conn turned 24 in late 1941, after his great fight with Joe Louis.

 

i've given you an example of Bob Foster which you have seemed to ignore. He was a great light heavy champ but he lost to heavies in the 60s. If they were as weak as you incorrectly claim then shouldn't great natural light heavies like Foster defeat the alleged weak 60s heavies.

 

Bob Foster was a natural 175lber...and best at that weight....Hagler was a natural 160 lber and lived at 160 his whole career ....Duran was a natural 135lber and best at that weight...Monzon was a 160lber his whole career...Hearns was his best at 147.....Kelly Pavlick looks to be a natural 160lber......Sandy Saddler was 126 and a freak at that weight...a lot of these guys have advantages over there opponents in there natural division and lose it as the moved up...some people are sucure at there weights unfortunatly for Foster when he ( matured as a fighter )he had Frazier and Ali in that division....Foster was a natural 175 and one of the greatest at that weight (he could hit) but gave up his advantages and could not compete at heavy with Ali and Frazier....He was a natural 175lber...but he could have beaten most of history's cruiserweights...except possibly 1-2 and would have beaten a few good Heavy's if he could give up the punchers mind and use more strategy but he was a beast at 175 and a puncher and he fought that way vs Ali and Frazier....Certain guys a starving for weight gain(B_HOP) some fighters need to stay put and stick with success

 

So what your saying is that Willie was under 20 years old when he beat Maxim and just 3 weeks past his 20th birthday when he beat Rex Layne. So that shows you how weak the Heavyweight division was when a 20 year old like Pastrano could be rated #5 in the world.

In 1965, Angelo Dundee became Ellis's trainer and manager. Ellis was not happy with the way his boxing career was going had written a letter to Dundee asking for his help after seeing what he had done with Muhammad Ali. Bud Bruner trained Ellis for his first twenty professional fights, the last being his loss to George Benton in November of 1964. Soon afterwards, Ellis went up to his true natural weight and he became a much better fighter while training under Dundee.

 

Jimmy Ellis won a tournament of the eight best active heavyweights--Frazier did not enter. Pastrano had no where near a similar success at heavyweight. Maxim was rated at lightheavyweight, not at heavyweight, and he was in the process of a severe decline. He only won 1 of 7 after losing to Pastrano and that was to an unrated fighter. Layne was fading out of the picture and would not win another fight. Neither Maxim or Layne was even a rated heavyweight by the time they fought Pastrano. Name the heavyweights who were rated on the day Pastrano defeated them and who was rated the highest? They were mainly fading veterans--Layne, Holman, Norkus--and/or fringe contenders at best--Bygraves, London, Cavicchi, Besmanoff. Pat McMurtry was probably the highest rated of any heavyweight that Pastrano beat. Roy Harris was certainly the best overall and Pastrano lost to him.

And I still think comparing a 17 year old boy to a 24 year old man is strange.

It is a reasonable point that Ellis improved with Dundee as his trainer.

 

One problem is that his contemporaries did better. Doug Jones, who ko'd Foster, also ko'd Folley and gave Ali a tough fight. Harold Johnson defeated Jones badly in a title defense and also beat Eddie Machen. Gregorio Peralta stood up pretty well to Foreman twice, drew with both Bonavena and Lyle, and beat a great many journeymen, including a ko of Jose Urtain.

Foster is one of the most difficult fighters for me to evaluate. Of his seven top opponents--Ali, Frazier, Tiger, Terrell, Folley, Jones, and Mina--he lost to six of them decisively. He rose to the top of the lightheavies by beating Eddie Cotton and Henry Hank, both of whom failed against top lightheavies such as Harold Johnson and Maura Mina, and won the title from a 39 year old blown-up middleweight. His title defenses were against a rather ordinary bunch. On the other hand, he was green when he lost to Jones and Mina and perhaps Terrell, and he was getting old when he lost to Ali. He was both experienced and still in his twenties only for the Folley fight. Folley beat him very decisively, but Doug Jones, also moving up from lightheavy, fought a close fight with Folley the first time around and ko'd him in a rematch.

Bottom line--Foster's lack of success might tell you more about the lightheavyweight division of his era rather than the heavyweight. Foster is also one of the few, if not the only, lightheavy champion who fought at heavy quite a bit but never beat anyone of note--even second tier fighters. The only heavyweight "name" on his resume is the washed up Willi Besmanoff.

 

Maxim was last rated until September 1956, Pastrano beat him on June 28, 1955. He was also rated in the Heavyweight division at one time. Layne was last rated in February 1956, Pastrano fought on December 19, 1955. After losing to Willie, Layne was dropped from the ratings.

After losing 3 out of 4 bouts, and 4 out of 6 bouts, Layne was still a rated heavyweight. He did lose to Bob Baker 3 times during that time and another time to Tommy Jackson. I guess that shows you that the division at that time had to be pretty weak for that to happen.

Again, for a fighter that just turned 20, to be rated #5 speaks for itself. As you said, he only beat fading veterans and was still rated that high. I wonder WHY?

 

I can't speak for Nat Fleischer and his rating system.

I am surprised Layne was rated at all, but he had only lost to top contenders. Again, I can't speak for Nat Fleischer.

I am more impressed myself with beating top men, which Pastrano never really did at heavy--I am not going to speculate on what factors or connections led him to such an excessively high rating all through the mid-fifties, but I would say that he was obviously a promising young fighter who went on to have a decent career and become lightheavy champion. I don't think he ever defeated a man ranked as a top five heavyweight when he fought them. I don't see Pastrano having any chance of winning a tournament, or really going all that far in one, either in 1955 or later.

By the way, Floyd Patterson, Ingemar Johansson, Sonny Liston, Eddie Machen, Zora Folley, and Harold Johnson were fighting, but not rated as highly at heavyweight as Pastrano. Again, I can't speak for Nat Fleischer.

Interestingly, in 1957 the unbeaten Roy Harris defeated Pastrano, and also had a win over Baker, who shortly before had been a highly rated heavyweight. The result--Pastrano was ranked #3 by RING in the 1957 yearly ratings. Harris #4. Again, I cannot speak for Nat Fleischer.


And I repeat again--I don't think any loss by any fighter at 17 proves anything.

 

at the end of the 60s Ellis beat 3 good heavies Patterson, Bonavena and Quarry (yeah old fogey these are your weak heavyweights LOL). But he only won these fights on points. His style of boxing worked. If he went in slugging with these fighters i think you would've seen a different result. Now did Ellis change his style of fighting more for these heavyweight fights or was it the result of Dundee's training/tactics. I haven't seen Ellis as a middleweight but he was 198 pounds for the Quarry fight in 1968 and only 155 pounds against Rubin Carter in 1964. He put on 3 stone (over 40 pounds) in fighting weight in 4 years. If he was 24 years old against Carter then i agree that he was fighting underweight greatly for his natural size.