One Punch Knockout or Gradual Beatdown?

All the "Weak Era" talk you see on these forums just seems to be a way to say I don't want to give credit to a guy. "Strong Era" usually is code for I want to give more credit to a guy than he is do. Its all a bunch of ****.

All supposed eras are different, but no more different than any snapshot in time. More difference between a single year than any grouping of years. There were points when more boxers were fighting, and there was more quality top to bottom but the top 10 and fringe that defines the sport has always been the same shuffling of genuine contenders, pretenders, lucky one fight wanders, mainstays..etc.

Overall it seems strength of management is the largest determing factor between fighter's competition in any time frame. There will always be guys who are going to have an easy road to the top, always will be guys who are going to be lame duck Champions, and there will always be guys who take on all comers.

 

Along with Gene Tunney.

 

No Whitlock was first mentioned by another, possibly Bummy . I had actually never heard of him before this thread. Saying he was once no 10 as alight heavyweight has about as much relevance to the heavyweights as saying Jimmy Ellis was once beaten by Ruben Carter,or ,that Ezzard Charles was beaten by Di*k Richardson.

 

So the heavyweights of the 1940's are on a par with the 1970's?OK.:think

 

"Whitlock was first mentioned by another"

Okay. Fair enough.

My only point is that being rated at light-heavy in 1948 (10) and 1949 (7) when the division was loaded with talent speaks well of him.

 

I would say the 1940's were very much on par with earlier decades,

and in my judgment tougher competitively because of the fall of the color line.

Comparing it to later decades at heavyweight is very subjective because the on-going explosion in size of athletes in all sports, as on a size basis the old decades would have a hard time competing.

 

Which point in 1940? Which point in 1970?

 

i just clicked on this to laugh at the nonsense because i was bored.

Actually worth reading for the most part, well done, never thought i'd see a marciano thread i could say that about.

i'd call it a 1 punch ko.

 

"Layne's record against big punchers, even decent puncher is not very good is it?"

He fought three of the Ring Magazine's top 100 all time punchers, Marciano, Satterfield, and Walcott, and defeated two of them.

He also defeated Turkey Thompson who would probably be next on the list of big punchers he fought (with the possible exception of Charles)



*I think one could make a case for Thompson as the top punching heavyweight of the forties next to Louis. He KO'd 39 of 72 opponents, including Bandit Romero, Glen Lee, Buddy Knox, Gus Dorazio, Pat Valentino, Eddie Blunt, Elmer Ray, Kid Riviera, Lee Q. Murray, and Al Hart.

Bob Pastor survived 6 first round knockdowns to come back and outpoint him.

Although only 5' 8" or so, he stopped the giant 296 lb. and 7 foot (according to the old Ring Record Books) Ben Morosz.

Thompson is an interesting fighter who has totally fallen through the cracks and for whom, I think, there is no surviving film footage.

 

"He owed half a million to the IRS. The only way he could make any money was fighting."

He found out that the interest on what the owed the IRS built up faster than any money he could make--after he paid taxes on the new income, plus alimony to his ex-wife, and the cut his managers got, etc.

There was no financial reason to fight. He couldn't get out of the hole.

I remember once seeing the tax schedule from the fifties, and I think it was 50% for anything over $16,000, going up to 91%. Once you got behind you stayed behind.

I think another question is would Holmes and Foreman have fought on so long if they had to pay 91% in taxes.

First the Kennedy, and then the Reagan, tax cuts brought the top rates way down.

 

It's ok ,I don't really want answer.

 

Turkey Thompson was done in1950 when he fought Layne he lost his last 5 fights and Layne was no 3 on that list.
What he did in the 40's doesn't carry much weight in the 50's.


Ben Morosz was a giant
for his time but he was 6' 8", he was also a third rate journeyman whose record was W21 L17.

 

Well, if we go early 40s against late 70s I would take a prime Joe Louis, the Baer Brothers, Conn, and Pastor over a declined Ali, Jimmy Young, Bobick, and Ken Norton.

Or did you just intend to group all the best fighters who had a toe in the decade and try to pass them off as representation as to what heavyweight boxing was like in that decade?

 

A gradual beat down to me takes a lot longer then 6 rounds and does not include a ten count for the most part.

Gradual beat downs are more like 9-12 rounds of punishment with a TKO stoppage.

The shot Rocky hit Layne with could have KO'd him far sooner than round 6.

Further more Layne looked fine before the KO shot. When a fighter falls face first, he's out. See 20 second in at the below link:

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WotIszdTyDA[/url]

 

I have the FULL FIGHT which I've already said at least twice. Your interpretation of a gradual beat down has no relevance or interest to me.