Standout contenders and fighters of the 1940's heavyweight scene?

I can see the argument for Lee Q Murray, but he is a bit of an enigma, in the mold of George Godfrey.

One of those fighters where the more you learn about them, the more confusing the picture becomes.

Franklin I have never really been sold on.

He strikes me as being something of a flash in the pan.

At the very least if he is in the argument, then Pastor is in it as well.

Nova leaves a bit of room for interpretation, but he was certainly highly regarded by the press.

There were some who thought that eh could beat Louis, before fat Tony gave them a reality check.

I agree that Baer was finished, but he was still in the argument based on inertia at this point.

He was at the end of a long run of form, which Nova was about to end for good, but Louis Baer II was very much on the cards.

It does seem to be a bit odd.

I think that Godoy gets a bit underrated, because a lot of his opponents were dangerous South American contenders, who did not get the same media exposure and opportunities as their North American peers.

Make no mistake, there was a strong heavyweight scene in South America back then.

 

He was suspected of it. But Oma was stopped 17 times, the most I know of from anyone who was a rated contender for years.

He had a glass jaw so Woodcock stopping him is certainly no surprise. I have not seen a film of their fight to judge any KO punches.

 

I'll try to dig out a report from his second.

 

Maybe. Show the proof

 

"Fleischer wanting to promote readership in the UK"

Evidence? The National Boxing Association was an American boxing organization with no direct connection to Europe. They would not have been trying to improve magazine sales in the UK. How do the ratings of the last quarter of the year NBA ratings compare to The Ring yearly ratings for Woodcock?

Woodcock rankings:

1945
The Ring--#5
NBA--#8

1946
The Ring--#4
NBA--#3

1947
The Ring--#9
NBA--only rated five contenders in their last quarterly ratings and Woodcock not among them.

1948
The Ring--not rated
NBA--#10

1949
The Ring--#5
NBA--#3

So Woodcock actually did a tad better in the NBA ratings. Hard to see the NBA motivation to rate him other than their evaluation of his record and his ability. Quotes are never definitive and one should check facts to see if they back up the quoted opinion.

 

Savold lost 41 times dude

 

What has this to do with a post on Nat Fleischer?

But to your point, Fritzie Zivic lost 65 fights, but defeated Henry Armstrong, Jake LaMotta, and Charley Burley, and gave Sugar Ray Robinson a tough time. Kid Gavilan lost 30 fights. Ezzard Charles 25 fights. This is because they fought a lot of good fighters, unlike guys like Bruce Woodcock.

And Lee Savold's total record is misleading because he lost so often when he was green. 13 of his defeats were as a teenager. 22 were before his 22nd birthday (if box rec is correct. The Ring Record Book had him born a year later in 1936). He came into the Buddy Baer fight in October 1939 with a record of 47-26-2. From the Baer fight on, when he moved up into contender status, he had 67 fights.

In those 67 fights, heavily against rated opposition, he went 51-15-1 with 43 KO victories. He was stopped only 4 times, by Harry Bobo, Elmer Ray, Joe Louis, and Rocky Marciano. He defeated over this period more than 20 fighters who were rated at one time or another.

I don't want to overrate Savold. He lost consistently to the top men. But he was a pretty solid contender once he got his boxing legs under him. How much do you want to drag him down because of his struggles when he was still green and learning?

I have no problem rating him above Woodcock.

 

Losses are ALWAYS gleaned 'Contextually'...

NO ONE holds Early Career Losses or End of Career Losses as a Negative - those Losses Are Expected and MOST People Know That!

you are also Right JT, the MORE Fights fighters participate in, OF COURSE they will show 30, 40 or 50 Losses out of Either side of a 150 fight or MORE, 200 even.

anyway, when you take 37 losses and 15 of them are Young losses in the early years and say 9 more at the End of careers, well that is 24 losses, leaving 13 losses throughout their PEAK Years, 13 losses out of say 91 Peak Year Fights against 'other' Great & Top fighters...

Well that's a helluva record, period! and the Official Ratings are ALWAYS Seen as a Good Gage too.

Nice Posts Sir.

 

I've no info on the NBA and never mentioned them.What is YOUR evaluation of his record and ability? I say every time he stepped up in class against a real heavyweight he was soundly drubbed except for the "Oma Coma Aroma" fight,and the Savold "win".

 

I'll dig it out.
Oma and his manager Willie Ketchum both had close underworld ties.Jack Solomons the promoter was attempting to rehabilitate Woodcock after he had been thrashed by Joe Baksi in 7 rds the previous year.
Oma and his manager spent their time in the UK in nightclubs with 2 hookers rumours and allegations were rife that Oma was going into the tank for big money.A lethargic Oma offered little in the fight hardly throwing a decent punch.In the 4 th rd the crowd began shouting lie down to Oma,Oma took a light tap on the chin clutched his belly and dropped to the floor to be counted out. Jack Gutteridge ,Reg's Uncle was his second when Oma went down Jack rushed into the ring to remove Oma's gumshield,Oma opened his eyes winked at him and promptly closed them again .
Peter Wilson the premier British boxing writer of the time ,writing in the Daily Mirror had a three word headline next day , Oma?Coma? Aroma! Before our esteemed friend MR JT rushes in with that's not conclusive proof! Lee Oma gave an interview to Budd Shulberg in which he admitted he laid down for a big purse on the condition he took a dive in the 6th rd.Oma said try as he may he couldnt get his chin in the way of Woodcock's punches,and that his corner told him to "make a fight of it to make it all look good" he caught Woodcock with a right to the head in the 3rd and hold to hold him up in a clinch so as not to lose the money he and his manager had bet on Woodcock.
Because of the scare Oma decided to take a splash earlier than planned and subsided in the 4th.
After the fight Oma and his manager took off for France without the purse money the BBBOC had with held it but they did have their winnings to spend.Peter Wilson wrote an article in the Daily Mirror in1955 in ti he said he was in New York in a Broadway bar and Lee Oma was behind the bar.Wilson said Oma told him losing to Woodcock was more difficult than winning some fights.


Savold came to the UK with his manager Bill Daly,a close friend of Frankie Carbo Woodcock went down clutching his groin in the 4thrd and Savold was dsq'd.In1998 Reg Gutteridge stated that after the fight he was informed that Daly had arranged the whole thing for the purposes of making a lucrative return match.50,000 fans packed the White City Stadium to see the rematch in June1950. In143 fights the first Woodcock bout was the only time Savold was dsq'd.

 

Getting knocked out while out of shape because of ignoring training for nightclubs was what Oma was known for. So it wouldn't be definitive proof. But both of these fights seem to smell and if Oma says he tanked it, I accept he tanked it.

But even if the Oma fight had been on the level, I still think Savold rates above Woodcock.

 

I agree. That is why I rate Savold above him.

That post was about Nat Fleischer. I only pointed out that the NBA, which was not trying to sell magazines in Britain, rated Woodcock at least as high, and in fact a tad higher, than Fleischer. Woodcock did have an impressive won-lost and KO record, which seems to have impressed the raters and possibly Fleischer.

The National Boxing Association quarterly ratings are printed at box rec, along with The Ring yearly ratings.

 

Oma actually possessed talent. He was cute shifty fluid and had skills in his prime. He was his own worst enemy