The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

I don't think the 50s was a deep era,the fact that pre war,past prime guys were still rated indicates that it was not.
I see Wallace was rated number 10 at the end of 1953.
In which other years was he rated ?
Which wins would justify him ever being ranked no 4?

 

He beat plenty of top guys in The Joe Louis Story.

 

Wallace broke into The Ring rating in early 1952 when he KO'd Aaron Wilson. He was rated #10 for the ratings ending on Feb 18. The ratings to April 18, (June issue) were thus:

Champion--Jersey Joe Walcott
1--Ezzard Charles
2--Rocky Marciano
3--Roland LaStarza
4--Coley Wallace
5--Clarence Henry
6--Johnny Williams
7--Bob Dunlap
8--Cesar Brion
9--Bob Baker
10-Jimmy Bivins

*aside--I notice this group is much younger than the current heavyweight top ten. The "old" take is based entirely on Walcott at 38. Bivins was 32. Charles 31. The rest in their twenties. Wallace would stay highly ranked until KO'd by Bivins in the fall, but would return to the ratings in 1953 and stay into 1954.

NBA ratings July 9, 1952
Champion--Jersey Joe Walcott
1--Rocky Marciano
2--Ezzard Charles
3--Archie Moore
4--Roland LaStarza
5--Coley Wallace
6--Clarence Henry
7--Harry Matthews
8--Karol Sys
9--Heinz Neuhaus
10-Johnny Williams

NBA ratings July 7, 1953
Champion--Rocky Marciano
1--Ezzard Charles
2--Roland LaStarza
3--Dan Bucceroni
4--Bob Satterfield
5--Tommy Harrison
6--Coley Wallace
7--Harry Matthews
8--Heinz Neuhaus
9--Earl Walls

 

"Because I looked like Joe everybody expected me to knock everyone out."

 

We were discussing the Ring's ratings, not the NBA's.

 

I will repeat a question I asked before.

What does Archie Moore's win over Harold Johnson in 1954 say about Moore?

More importantly, what does it say about Johnson? Moore was 37 or 40. Johnson 26. Johnson was in his physical prime. So did this fight prove that Johnson was mediocre and the division weak? Or does it prove that Moore was exceptional? And that Moore can't be lumped with the average or normal fighter?

 

The first rating was The Ring's.

 

It proves that Moore was a better light heavyweight than Johnson.something I think we all knew !

 

I rating, you stated he was rated by the Ring for years,but you did not provide proof of that.

 

You have already posted the proof on this thread. You posted the info that Wallace was rated #10 in the 1953 annual ratings, which came from the February, 1954 issue.

 

I think everyone can deduce that from Moore winning.

But what does it say about age and prime?

 

I didn’t say Louis was prime but he literally went on a long fighting streak to get back into form for a title fight. He looked old against Marciano but certainly wasn’t helpless. Old lion v young lion is very common in boxing and it’s prob split evenly in wins and losses. Marciano deserves credit for a still viable win against an ATG.
U know well enough Laynes losses pilled up after Marciano and was a stud before that. He has wins over Satterfield, Turkey Thompson and Brion as well as putting up sd losses against Baker, Lastarza and other decent contenders. He was never that hard a trainer and extremely declined once he lost to Marciano. U can’t take away his excellent wins. Close fights count as wins if they won.
U can’t argue Moore wasnt on the best winning streak of his career while also facing some difficult opposition as champ. Moore imo is the best contender to ever live to never win the title w the best HW resume. This is an opinion that is very subjective I’ll give u that.

 

Every writer who saw Louis in the lead up to the Marciano fight commented that he was a one-armed fighter, a ghost of his former form, a jab and no right hand, no timing, no snap for the openings where he would previously pulverize opponents. . It is no secret that he was only fighting to pay Uncle Sam.

Layne was soft of body and hard of spirit. Dempsey took him under his wing as a protege but was turned off by the boy's lack of physical strength and further lack of engaging in any training to compensate for said lack. He beat a Thompson at the very end of a 70+ fight career. He went life and death with Satterfield who, though he could punch, was 27-10 for a reason. Layne could take punishment like a champ. That was his best asset.

Moore was 43 years old and was taking advantage of the same depleted heavyweight landscape that Marciano was ruling. There was a reason that an ancient lightheavy was able to make such a splash in the division, the reason being the division sucked at that point.

 

The division didn’t suck. Once again was the best era ever for contenders fighting other contenders. Unlike today where we r lucky to get one fight of ranked opponents they would consistently get 6 fights a year. People got Ls due to fighting better competition.
As far as Layne goes his record was just as good as any contender throughout history. Everyone’s record is filled w old timers, up and comers, stepping stones etc. He gets slandered from the likes of u because he had the audacity to lose to Marciano. Compare his record to anyone’s it holds up. He was not perfect but neither were 100% of contenders

Moore was not 43. U know this. They were beating men that went on to beating 60s contenders so I’d say 50s were strong enough.

Louis was obviously on the down side. No one is arguing that. But if u can give credit to Fury for beating a 90 year old Wlad u can give credit to Marciano for beating a younger Louis. Not the best wins in the world but these r trials every young fighter makes when fighting. U don’t think Louis knocked out old heads and deserved credit for doing so? As did Wlad and Lewis etc. they’re average age of opponent was higher than Marciano’s by the way but we won’t hear u talking about that

 

That is for one year, not many years.