Was Harold Johnson undeserving...

Right.....back then, a portion of the Boxing fans sometimes heard the opinions of the "sportcasters" doing the Regional telecasts of fights, or the "National telecast" like Gillette/ Pabst Friday night fights. Then fans got together at their factory jobs and discussed the situation themselves. There wasn't any Teddy Atlas around going ballistic, and calling for a Federal Commission to be established to investigate why Johnson was getting his so-called "deserved" title-shot against Moore.

 

In 1958, Yvonne Durelle beat Clarence Hinnant, who was rated #6, then Durelle (who was rated #2) fought Anthony, who was rated #3, and Anthony won by stoppage. Then Durelle came back and beat Mike Holt, who was rated #9 (and the Commonwealth champ) and then Durelle fought Moore for the title (and it was a classic deserving of a rematch).

By comparison, all Harold Johnson did that year was NOT FIGHT in the light heavyweight division.

So I don't know if Yvonne Durelle was less threatening than Harold Johnson, because Johnson never fought Durelle. And Johnson never fought Tony Anthony, who beat Durelle that year. Johnson didn't fight any light heavyweights that year ... and he fought no rated heavyweights ... yet remained the top light heavyweight contender by the NBA. (Seems fishy)

Archie Moore had already knocked out Harold Johnson in a title defense and beaten him four times in total. He'd already knocked out Anthony in a title defense. He hadn't faced Durelle yet, who was facing top 10 contenders and beating some. Moore fought him, and it was a great, all-time encounter.

By all accounts, better than any of the Moore-Johnson fights or the Moore-Anthony fight.

That's also context.

 

Sure we can argue about his rating. We argue about ratings all the time in boxing. For some reason, you act like Harold Johnson's NBA rating is based on merit.

Yet, he didn't beat anyone to merit that ranking at light heavyweight in 1958 or 1959.

He was placed in the number-one spot and given a vacant title shot, just like a dozens of other fighters have in the history of the NBA/WBA, the WBC, the IBF, the WBO and the others.

You posted the rankings. Who did he beat to earn the top contender spot at light heavy in 1958 and 1959?

I agree, Harold Johnson was a helluva fighter. But he got his title shot with Moore and got stopped. He wasn't deprived of anything he was "owed."

Had he gotten a SIXTH fight with Moore, whose to say he doesn't get wasted in three rounds like Durelle did when he rematched with Moore (after doing so well previously).

It wasn't like Johnson WASN'T STARCHED in his next fight after Moore, at light heavy, against Billy Smith.

http://static.boxrec.com/e/ef/Oakland_Billy_Smith_KOs_Harold_Johnson_U1266666INP.jpg

You seem to want to assume Johnson's NBA rating was totally legit and that he'd beat Moore if they fought a SIXTH time.

But the guys Harold beat during that period doesn't support that his rating was legit. And considering Moore knocked Harold out in their fifth fight doesn't mean Moore couldn't do it again sooner the next time. (Especially since Smith pulled it off immediately after.)

I'm not trying to disparage Johnson. He was an excellent fighter. And he became a fine champ later.

But Moore didn't owe him a sixth or seventh or eighth fight. Johnson lost to Moore four times, and won ONE 10 rounder against Moore nearly a DECADE earlier by a single round.

Other guys beat Moore easier than Johnson did that one time and they didn't lose to Moore on four other occasions on top of that.

Archie Moore didn't owe anybody anything.

 

Moore stripped of his title for not facing Harold Johnson after a 6 month mandate. Once more, that does not support your claim that Moore patently avoided the top dogs..blah blah balh.

TWO years. Which you will find I noted way back in the other thread when i stated Johnson was #1 when Moore faced Durelle both times.

All I said was they did quarterly top 10 lists, which they did. Here's an example:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GikiAAAAIBAJ&sjid=F6QFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1594,2413252&hl=en

Nowhere did I deny the existence of monthly ratings or publications, that's a Strawman.

Another Strawman.

post #8

"But it is true. The NBA had 3 groupings: logical contenders, outstanding boxers, and honorable boxers. Outstanding and Honorable usually had numerical values, but they weren't #1 contenders as we understand the term at present.

Here's another example: As you can see Pompey's #3 Oustanding is actually higher than Hecht's #1 Honorable in summer 1955 lol. I now believe Hecht was never rated above Pompey, you got their grouping system confused."

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AAIBAJ&sjid=pvYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=933,1580544&hl=en

I've done addressed all this.

 

Here's my trouble with his reasoning. His entire argument in favor of Johnson is the NBA rating in the late 50s. Yet, the NBA rated Durelle as high as #2 and #3, they rated Pompey their #3 (outstanding) behind Patterson and Johnson. But he argues these guys are ham and eggers, bums, talks horrible trash about them. So I guess the NBA's rating doesn't matter if it's a fighter he don't like.

Exactly. I just don't see that strong of a case or demand for the fight like he's making it out. The only article I found on the subject from Sports Illustrated, ripped the NBA for mandating Johnson and stripping Moore so abruptly.

Durelle seems to be the most logical choice for a defense in 58. He's the highest rated fighter, Moore had not already beat. He deserved his shot. Arguing Anthony deserved a rematch when he got battered by Moore just the previous year doesn't make any sense to me.

 

I'm sure Moore wasn't keen on rematching Johnson ,and that Johnson was the outstanding challenger wherever he was ranked,Moore was aging and he knew Johnson would always be a tough fight.Moore was trailing on points in their last fight and had been floored,before rallying and stopping Johnson,he wanted easier nights. Moore said of Johnson,"Harold makes you do all the work."

Moore hadn't made much money from the title and God knows he had waited long enough to get his chance.
He was number 1 in1945, no3 in 46,no2 in47,no3 in 48,no2 in49,and no1 in 1950! .It's not an excuse that he didn't fight Johnson again but understandable that he wanted to defend against some easier opponents.imo.Johnson was a consummate technician but hardly Mr Box Office,I'm guessing,[no more than that,]that Moore got better paydays against Durelle and Pompey.Was Johnson a better fighter than those 2? Yes. Would he have been favourite to beat them both ?Yes. Should Johnson have gotten another title shot againstMoore ?Yes but,boxing is a business not a crusade as Moore's long wait for his chance proved.

 

I'm not sure why there's so much arguing about rankings. Whether it RING magazine or NBA or any other alphabet.
Rankings don't mean **** really.

It's easy enough to form our own opinions.
I think Harold Johnson was deserving simply for the fact he always gave Moore a decent fight and was generally better than the other light-heavies of the time.

But it definitely looks like both Moore and Johnson were spending much of their time campaigning at heavyweight against second-rate HWs, mostly.

 

I don't see the criticism of Moore's defense against Pompey at all.

Johnson was not an active fighter at the time and was not in the ratings. He has nothing to do with it, regardless of Johnson being a better fighter than Pompey. Moore had to defend against someone who was active. Pompey was certainly a long-standing contender.

Ring Yearly Rankings

1951--Pompey #9
1952--Pompey #4
1953--Pompey #3 Hecht #6
1954--Pompey #8 Hecht #6
1955--Pompey #2 Hecht #3
1956--Pompey #5 Hecht #1
1957--Pompey #2 Hecht #9
1958--Pompey #9

The NBA ratings seem to be rather similar, with Pompey appearing in the top five more often than not in the samples posted on this thread. Pompey was a worthy contender in 1956 for Moore. Johnson wasn't available as a contender. And pointing to Pompey's one-punch stoppage of Hecht in early 1957 might be hindsight, but it sure weakens the case for Hecht as the guy Moore should have fought.

I don't see the criticism of Tony Anthony either. He appears to have been the #1 contender in the summer of 1957 and was a dangerous puncher.

The bottom line for me here is that Moore and Johnson were ATG's at light-heavy. The rest of these "unworthy" contenders--Pompey, Anthony, Durelle, Rinaldi, and for that matter Bowdry and Von Clay and Eddie Cotton, were simply typical contenders who had decent careers, but weren't up to beating ATG's.

The second bottom line for me is that it was Moore, not Johnson, who fought the top contenders in the 1956 to 1961 era.

 

I agree, Yolande Pompey and Tony Anthony were reasonable challengers. They were on the same level with the other standard contenders of the era. There weren't blatant attempts at 'soft touches' or anything like that.

Harold Johnson was a level above, but he had a career dip with a couple of KO defeats in the mid-1950s (one where he might have been drugged ??).

I'm guessing all this is being discussed in fine detail in the klompton - Kentucky Cobra tussle but I can't be bothered to follow that.
It's simple enough.

Moore did avoid Johnson at some point, in the late stages of his reign. That's pretty much well-known.

 

"Schoppners three best wins at lhw were Speiser, Hinnant, and Clay. Johnson had already beaten Hinnant and Clay before Schoppner."

Your opinion of Schoppner's top three lhw contenders. Clay and Hinnant wouldn't be on my top five list of Schoppner's best opponents--Speiser, Willi Hoepner, Artenio Calzavara, Albert Finch, and Santo Amonti would be my top five. Hoepner especially was a contender for years and was clearly better than Hinnant or Clay.

Pompey--As I said in a previous post, what was Moore supposed to do? Wait for Johnson? Pompey had reversed his only losses by KO revenges and was highly rated.

Rinaldi--well, actually he had beaten 7 fighters who had appeared in the yearly rankings at one time or another--Artemio Calzavara, Santo Amonti, Germinal Ballarin, Johnny Halafihi, Sixto Rodriquez, and Johnson's best 1956 to 1960 lhw opponent, Sonny Ray. And of course, Moore. After his title challenge, he would go on to beat Calderwood and hand Schoppner his only defeat. He was rated the #2 contender behind Moore & Johnson in 1961, and the #2 behind Johnson & Mina in 1962. Actually, no one Johnson fought at lhw between 1956 and 1961 was rated as highly as Rinaldi or had as good a career.

My take is that the NBA was almost totally American centered with Johnson getting the championship by beating Yanks who weren't the best out there--Jesse Bowdry and Von Clay. If the NBA were serious, Schoppner for certain should have been in the mix.

I don't dispute that Johnson was better than any of these guys, but the 1956 to 1960 thing is a big hole in his career and would raise all sorts of questions if he hadn't stepped up again in 1961 and 1962.

 

I'm not Glass City Cobra. That's some joker with too much time that started a parody account, likely Dino Velvet or someone like that.

 

****, yeah, sorry, I was just going to edit that.
My apologies.

 

I think an issue which should be raised here is if Johnson perhaps didn't really want to fight Moore again. His level of opposition from 1956 through 1960 raises all sorts of questions. Why didn't Johnson and Anthony fight? What about all those rated Europeans, especially those who had lost a fight or two and would have had little to lose trying their luck with Johnson? But Johnson fights none of them. He just sits on his rating.

Was he waiting for Moore to get too old, or perhaps too heavy to make the weight?

Before this thought is dismissed, don't forget Moore had beaten Johnson four of five and stopped him in their last meeting. Johnson was then 26 and Moore 37. We can argue that time was on Johnson's side, but could Johnson, or more likely his management, have had doubts. If he took another shot at Moore and lost, he might have been totally derailed.

If Johnson was indeed playing the waiting game, it worked. He ended up winning the NBA championship by beating the ordinary Jesse Bowdry--Moore aside, hardly the toughest foe out there.