Ranking the Heavyweights 1946-1955, Top 15

Your two last posts have emphatically confirmed Suzie Q's assessment of you.

 

Lets look at Mathews best wins,.
Charles. After being badly beat up and stopped by Marciano in their second fight Charles won 8 of his next 15fights before facing Mathews .He was damaged goods.
Beshore.He had won 2 of his last 8 fights,they were over 13-14-1 Art Henri and 7-4-1 lhvy Rocky Jones.
Layne. Like Charles , he had been terminally ruined by Marciano,he had won 4 of his last 6,but closer inspection shows 2 of those wins were over Bill Peterson, a career opponent who was 56-42-8,the other two victories were over another third rater BobGarner 47-39-4, and regular loser 9-11-0 Johnny Pretzie.
These three wins over this diminished trio are Mathews notable victories at heavyweight.
You said." Mathews fought mainly against heavyweights."
Let's examine that statement.
Mathews had 104 fights,his first few were at featherweight,he then began taking on lightweights and super lightweights,before progressing to tackling the welters and middleweights .He didn't fight a light heavyweight until October 1941[Dan Gill].Mathews didn't take on a heavyweight until 1950,Phil Muscato. Out of a total of 104 fights Mathews had less then 30 against heavyweights.
What is depressing about your idiotic and off the wall statements is not your lack of knowledge,but the fact that after being provided with the information that you lack, you are none the wiser ,because you simply refuse to absorb the information and invent ridiculous excuses as to why you've refused to do so.There is an excellent trilogy of books in print about "Deacon Jack Hurley," the man who re-invented Mathews into a hyped title challenger , written by John Ochs,a man who knows the subject inside out,I would recommend you read them, but I know you won't, because you have no interest in widening your knowledge or educating yourself on the subject of boxing.You are content to remain the village idiot.

 

1. Coddled? Hmm, they did a ****-poor job then because my whole post was about how he took losses he didn't need to take.

2. He beat good HWs of the era and only lost to Marciano and Cockell at HW.

3. Valdes is vastly overrated anyway. Got that size fetish.

4. Cockell was undefeated at HW at the time and an overachiever against Marciano.

5. Great point, really understand what you are saying now.

Why would I care what you consider yourself?

This content is protected

This content is protected

Both consider themselves the best living HW.

I am inclined to believe you do indeed know the details of Mathews a bit better than I do given my Mathews understanding comes from the internet, articles at best kind of thing, but what the **** am I supposed to learn from your post outside of your opinion? You are not speaking my language at all. You have five numbered points, one of them gave me something to look into, the first one. You tell me what the **** I am meant to do with the other four? Suzie tells me X is better than Y is not worth anything. Suzie says X wasn't very good is not worth anything.

The **** do you expect out of me? Ok sir, thanks, now when the subject comes up I can copy and paste your opinion or rephrase it to pretend like it is my own all the way up until some astute poster pushes me for anything remotely resembling a detail.

 

Nah, you struggle with any opinion not your own or derived directly from the author you see as the man for the era. I'm probably more ignorant than Ra here and I can see holes in this argument without much effort. Maybe try speaking to us instead of shoving some rando author's opinion at us with very little to support it outside of "read his book". I understand it's a pain in the dick to post book info, it's what all my most celebrated threads are, I understand completely. But if you spent half the time telling us what any given book actually says, just an excerpt or two, you wouldn't need to spend so much time telling others what that author's opinion is. At the end of the day posting the pertinent information is not as fun to you as sharing opinion so maybe step the **** down from that high horse.

Most of the rest of it is you being a dick about his word play. The thread itself puts context in 46-55. Most of those fights were at HW.

And the damaged goods...well why is that true for everyone not named Mathews? If Harry gets no credit for his wins over Marciano leftovers why does he get credit for his losses post Marciano? Most people who fought Marciano retired five fights or less after facing him, I don't dispute the idea they were damaged I'm just questioning why that a one way street that can only work against Mathews.

In fact, pushing the issue one could argue that both Mathews and Charles were post Marciano and so both damaged while Cockell had yet to face Marciano any of the times he beat Mathews and was undamaged by The Rock while fighting a Marciano damaged man.

See what I mean, not informed and not pretending to be but that was not hard and if I'm honest you just seem like a dick who is getting pissy we won't adopt some author's opinion solely on the basis that he is the man for the era. There are plenty of authors I disagree with, they disagree with themselves, and I've never once read a history book that begins with any form of " I don't really know what I am talking about" They are all the man as far as they and their circles are concerned.

 

I've no problem with anyone's opinion,if its informed ,though I must confess apart from ancient cestus fighters I dont think you can teach me much.
Ras stated most of Mathews fights were at heavyweight,they weren't, no more than a third of them actually.
Damaged goods who says its a one way street?
Charles had two very gruelling battles with Marciano and this was after he had already had 100 fights

Do you think Mathews less than 2 rounds blow out by Marciano left him damaged goods?He wasn't that special to begin with ! Hurley told him he didn't know how to fight when he first took him on!

Cockell got his title shot after beating Mathews and Lastarza neither of whom were much to begin with, both were protected fighters Lastarza was on the way out when Cockell got him.Cockell was basically finished by Marciano and I got that from his mouth not from any book. You always want someone to do the leg work for you .If you want to know about Harry Mathews read those books on him! Don't get your limited and ill informed opinions from ****ing Box Rec.
I've no interest in educating you on the subject,nor in debating with a twat who is under the mistaken impression ,he is a lot smarter than he actually is.Now take this where you want I really couldn't give a flying ****.

You've twice called me a **** here ,well let me tell you I've never read a post by you that was worth a cup of cold ****!
Rasta ,whatever his name is dug me out a couple of years ago and has continued his little feud ever since .
You are sticking your ignorant nose into something you know **** all about, similar to your grasp of 50's and 60's boxing!

 

But he didn’t beat the good HWs of that era. The best heavyweights of that era were Marciano, Moore, Walcott, Louis, Charles, Johnson, valdes, Henry, baker, satterfield. How many of those men did Matthews defeat?

Valdes vastly overrated according to your eyes, yet he mopped the floor with your beloved cockell in 3 rounds knocking him down and slicing him up. What does that say about cockell?

 

Henry had some "curious "results which may have been down to his management.Baker looks very good on film, as you know he had bad hands issues. Lastarza's list of avoided contenders is a very, very long one. He was the benificiary of the ko Rocky put on Layne ,his narrow win over the chastised Layne made
him on paper ,a credible opponent for Rocky.His loss to journeyman light heavy Rocky Jones , being dropped along the way exposed him as the false alarm he really was.I was trawling through Mathews record today and I was struck by the amount of non punchers he faced.Maybe someone knew something?

 

Oh yes, making with the goods and not being a dick over a dissenting opinion.

It is not my fault you'd rather write a paragraph on me than the information I am asking for. It isn't my fault you see yourself in a certain light and can't handle any perceived challenge to that without shelling up into a little immature *****. It's not my fault you can't handle, as a grown as man, the language I use.

No one can teach anyone anything if they're already indoctrinated into another idea. I didn't come here to teach anyone anything I asked why you're being a dick about offering the information. The only reason you're talking about who can teach who what is because I bruised yer sissy ego. I've not even begun to flex, and check the juxtaposition before you front at me. You are an ******* you talks about what you've read. I am the mother ****er who actually posts it. Plenty for me to teach you or anyone else because if you paid any attention at all I don't actually teach **** I show people what I've read and *GASP* allow them to form their own opinions rather than crucify them for not getting inline with my favorite author's narrative I told them to get in line with without providing anything beyond I read X book and this is his opinion so **** you.

As far as legwork goes, I post information directly from the books I feel provide the best explanation all the time. I'm not the one here claiming anyone's book is worth a **** you are and you want me to just take your word for it without anything else to go by but what McVey says while he's being a pissy candy ass toward some other man. This isn't my legwork you lazy ****, it's yours. My threads have exactly what I am asking you for. When I make a claim I always provide the source information. You made the claim, you back it up.

I don't think I minced words. I believe everyone who ever faced Marciano was changed by Marciano.

It's funny that you mention boxrec, that's where my beef is anyway. What is it you or Suzie believe you've shared that is meant to be information beyond what can be learned from boxrec? Mathews beat Charles after Marciano beat the **** out of Charles? Oh gee ya don't ****in' say. LaStarza and Mathews had a management team that looked out for their best interest during a time when most were being pushed to fight too often and against too steep competition too early? Well gee golly, I thought this record with damn near no decent names I recognize was just mysterious not manufactured. Him got wins after those guys lost doe? Yeah, so I see.....what the **** is in this book you keep claiming will show me the real Harry? Seems like everything you have to said I already saw and I'm pretty damn sure Ra did too. Seems like you own aptitude of getting yer ***** all dried and cracked due to presentation have ******ed your ability to actually make the point you wanted to in the first place.

Nothing says you don't give a **** quite like minging about what I just said to you, yeah? I'm not a ***** like you, I am still quite interested in whatever shade this book casts on Mathews.

 

So when Marciano ****s up Charles that makes the Mathews fight not matter but Valdes ****s up Cockell after Marciano ****s up Cockell gets full credit and you're being fair? No, you're giving excuses in either direction to fit your narrative.

and again what is it you think you've said that is not on boxrec?

I don't even know what to say to the first bit. Ok pal, thanks for sharing.

 

When Matthews fought Charles in 56, Charles was coming off 6 losses in his previous 10 fights. He was a shot fighter. At 200lb he was in dreadful shape. His movement was gone, he stood there in the center of the ring with his feet stuck in the mud. His handspeed had deteriorated to becoming very slow. He pushed his jab, no longer snapped it. His reflexes were so eroded he was getting beat to the punch by club fighters.

Matthews gets no credit for beating Ezzard Charles in 1956

 

You made uniformed comments on Mathews then twice insulted me after I had not even engaged with you on this thread.MY motto is if you don't know about a subject, don't come on here pontificating on it ,as you did! Want to know about Mathews buy the ****ing books! I wanted to and on Klompton's recommendation I did and educated myself on him. Do the same ,then you wont keep making a **** of yourself talking about things you know **** all about.
Ra is a cretin and you are not much better, sticking your stupid nose into areas on which you are wholly ignorant. Go back to your ancient cestus fighters which the vast majority of us have zero interest in .If I want to learn about the bareknuckle days I have Bells ,Pierce Egan, and Fights For The Championship to refer to I don't need some third hand crap from an unbalanced ding bat who is so off the wall he often qualifies his posts by stating,
"I know I come as a ****" . News flash you sure do!
You want to continue in this vein fine ,I can insult you 24/7.
No problem.Make your choice you sad and weird anorak!

 

Apologies to the OP ,but insults must and will be responded to in similar manner.

 

I feel the top 5 would look more like
1st rocky marciano
2nd joe Louis (would have been first but were talking about when he started to fade, but the Louis that beat Walcott and conn was still a very formidable opponent)
3rd Archie Moore
4th ezzard Charles
5th joe Walcott