Ranking the Heavyweights 1946-1955, Top 15

Great list, solid effort...

My thoughts:

I’d consider Moore over Ray, but we never saw Walcott vs Moore so we don’t know how that would have gone. Ray went 2-3 vs Walcott and Charles but did not beat anyone else on the list. Moore dominated Valdes, Baker, Henry, satterfield , and H Johnson

Id say Ray over Moore is fair

Could Charles have beaten a 46-48 louis? Not so sure


Hurricane Jackson shouldn’t be above Henry. Jackson fought a nearly blind Henry, whom suffered permanent eye damage in the Archie Moore fight. Henry had a short prime before his injury, but he was very explosive and dominant. Knocked out baker and satterfield (whom valdes went 0-3 against). Took Harold Johnson to the brink of defeat. Ring magazine rated Henry a “near equal” to Marciano, Charles, Walcott in 1952. I know Jackson looks good on paper but he wasn’t that good. He caught baker when he was on the slide as well.

I would flip flop the two


Too high: Rex Layne

Lots of bad losses in his prime. Lost to obscure Willie James, light heavyweight Harry Matthews, and was lucky to escape with a draw against Andy Walker. Times had Brion clearly beating Layne as well. Twice knocked out by earl walls.

Despite his win over Walcott and questionable decision vs Charles, he had too many bad losses. Baker beat him 3 times.

Too high: Cesar Brion. Decent fighter but More of a record padder. He never beat anyone of note. Lost to Layne, whom Walls knocked out twice.


Too low: Bob Baker. He went 5-0 against your number 7 and 8. He was ranked top 5 by ring magazine for half the decade and was next in line for a title shot against Marciano in 56. Has a lot of depth to his resume. Really solid boxer, good size, had hand problems later on in his career.


Too low: Earl Walls. Hard hitting Canadian. Twice knocked out Rex Layne. Ranked top 5 by ring magazine in 54-55

 

You know nothing about the era. Matthews was an overhyped West coast light heavyweight whom had no business at heavyweight.

Lastarzas manager jimmy Deangelo ducked every top black fighter on the market from Charles to bob baker...one of the most protected fighters of the era. Lastarza got beat up by nobody rocky Jones then in the rematch got floored before Jones “was put on the cuffs” according to historian chuck Hasson. Lastarza ended up getting the decision

Edwards rankings are pretty spot on

 

Baker Henry Valdes Would have all mopped the floor with lastarza and Matthews. Luckily for Matthews and lastarza, their managers wouldn’t let them anywhere near those guys!

 

Your rating of lastarza is perfect. he had an abysmal loss to rocky Jones, and one historian told me when lastarza was floored again in the rematch, Jones was placed in handcuffs the rest of the fight by the mob.

I actually think Louis might be above Charles. Could Charles have beaten Louis in 1946-48?

 

I think Turkey Thompson should rate. He iced Elmer Ray for example.

Spots 8-15 to me are pretty close.

 

Glad to see this post getting these lengthy replies. I know many complain about the constant heavyweight threads, but I feel I'm learning something here. Reason I joined the forum

 

I can't see much wrong with this list.Solid!

 

Why Charles above Louis?

 

He has to lose points for being so erratic..I mean he got floored and easily outpointed in his prime by Willie James, a ham n egged club circuit type fighter. According to newspaper reports, he was lucky to receive a draw against Andy Walker, and my scorecard had Brion over Layne 6 rounds to 4. These are very bad losses for “one of the best” of the decade

Charles win is extremely controversial. The fact jack Dempsey, one of laynes entourage, was a referee shows a conflict of interest...and his scorecards 6 rounds even...? Most ringsides thought Charles clearly won...and in the first and 3rd fights Charles Kicked the crap out of Layne...i am going to say the 2nd fight win was a result of hometown cooking and a bias ref.

The Walcott and satterfield wins are very nice...but when you take into account the embarrassing James loss, loss to lightheavyweight Matthews, two knockout losses to Walls, loss to lastarza, highly questionable decisions against Walker, Brion, and Charles...you are looking at a situation where the bad outweighs the good.


We can’t just ignore those 2 knockout wins over Layne, especially since Layne was in his prime and is your number 7. They were dominating knockout wins. I’d say either include walls or move down Layne.

 

Mathews had one hell of a winning streak and considering the position he was in himself not many of his losses are unforgivable or speak much to a lack of skill or ability. Very much veterans with good winning record while he's still early in his career then latter on he had a hard time accepting Cockell had his number.

Mathews is a top five of the decade for me.

Correct me fellas if I am wrong but at HW Mathews went on a win streak just under 35 fights no? Like 33 or some such sat inside his overall close to 60 fight win streak no?

Harry began his career light and does well there but has a problem with taking fights he's not ready for. In his sixteenth fight he was fighting a man with a 98-27 record. It's a bit much for someone so green especially considering how often they were fighting back then. Harry takes that loss and moves onto to 35-1 before losing back to back to a 56-7 and a 60-4 so he's at like 35-3 then he goes on a 20+ fight win streak picking up a win over the former 98-27 who was then 137-37, steps up in weight then continues another 30+ fight win streak until being stopped by the man who owns the era outright. Three losses to Cockell and Harry ends his career at 90 wins to 7 losses. Dude easily could have ended his career with 90 wins and two loses. Only two at HW ever beat him and both were very good at the time and Cockell kind of got a gift, at least that's how Harry felt about it which is why Harry fought him so many times. It's a bit of a JMM-Pac situation.

Speaking of win streaks and Cockell he too was unbeaten at HW at the time of his Marciano fight.

 

I consider myself very knowledgeable on the era


1. Matthews was a west coast hype job who was coddled and protected by his manager

2. He was a decent light heavyweightf, but too small and fragile to be a good heavyweight

3. Heavyweights of the era like Louis, Henry, Charles, baker, Moore, Jackson, Walls, Johnson, valdes, Walcott, Satterfield would have dominated him either knocking him out or winning wide decisions

4. He lost to cockell 3 times. cockell was not a good fighter

5. You are vastly overrating him but I’m sure his grandchildren appreciate it