What boxers did Rocky Marciano consciously and deliberately duck, if any?

We’re comparing the 1951 Joe Louis who stepped foot in the ring vs Marciano at 6’2 213 3/4lb . Not a 1930s Louis.

I’ve already proved that baker was no bigger than the 1951 Joe Louis as evidence by his constant weigh ins around 210lb in his most important fights

 

Louis was ranked no 6 in Dec 51 the previous year he was no1 a couple of places above Clarence Henry.does that mean he necessarily beats Henry in 51 ?

 

NOPE! We are comparing both mens weights in their most important fights!
And Baker is clearly heavier!

Again YOUR stipulation, and I gave examples of 9 of Louis'most important fights 5 of which took place in the 1940's 2 as late as 47 and 48! I repeat Joe Louis was six feet one and a half inches tall .and if you don't accept that you are calling him a liar!

 

What you've proved ,and conclusively, is that you are not big enough to admit you are wrong!

 

Facts and figures do not lie you have no rebuttal here.Just BS and bluster.

 

I never brought up Clarence Henry I said Joe Baksi

 

LOL you are delusional. You don’t understand logic

 

You’ve already been beaten and multiple posters have called you out on it

take your ball and go home

 

I understand when somebody runs out of excuses and resorts to insults.

 

Of all the things to debate, height is the most sterile, because we don't know how these men were measured and by whom and under what circumstances. (barefoot, shoes on, high-heeled boots, etc.)

For example, Bob Satterfield's height is given on box rec as 6' 2" while Ezzard Charles is listed as 6' even. Take a look at the film of their fight. Charles is noticeably taller than Satterfield. So are the 6' 1" Rex Layne and Clarence Henry. Off the eye test, my guess is Satterfield was at least an inch shorter than 6', and possibly only 5' 10" or so. He was not a tall, rangy guy, but stocky and powerfully built.

Of the real old timers, Jim Jeffries is sometimes listed at 6' 2 1/2" but was measured by a Harvard physician as exactly 6'. That squares with film of him with such as the 6' 1" Corbett.

As for the men discussed, my guess is Baker was not really 6' 2". He appears shorter on film than Coley Wallace, who is listed as 6' 2" by box rec but was listed as 6' 1" by the old Ring Record Book. Baker is a blocky guy, not tall and rangy like Valdes.

As for Louis, Baker, and Valdes, as well as Baksi, sorry but they are all about the same size, at between 210 and 215 in condition, but possibly able to get slightly lower now and then. Louis looks to me to be the best conditioned. Baker always has slight love handles, even at his lower weights. Valdes is tallest, followed by Louis, and then Baker and Baksi.

 

I know this is a long shot ,but I am guessing Joe Louis knew how tall he was?
Did Satterfield ever write his autobiography stating he was 6' 2" because Louis says in his that he was six feet one and a half.
As to weights NOTHING was mentioned about conditioning what the criteria was is ;

WHO WAS BIGGER AND THAT WAS CLEARLY AND IRREFUTABLY BAKER BY SEVERAL POUNDS

Louis never weighed as heavy as 225, his maximum weight for a fight 218 was for the Charles fight before which he had been retired for 2 years!
Louis' average weight for his 1951 fights was 208.82lbs
Baker's average for 1951 was 219.53lbs!
Here are Suzie's stats [and spelling] for Baker in his important fights.
212lb vs Clarence Henry
214lb vs Bob Satterfield
211lb vs Clarence Henry
227lb vs Nino Valdes I
209lb Vs Archie Moore
213lb vs Nino Valdes II (Title Eliminater)
211lb Vs John Holman (Title Eliminater)
213 1/2lb vs Hurricane Jackson II (Title Eliminater)
Below are mine for Louis

Braddock. title shot 197 1/4lbs
Farr. 1st defence 197lbs
Schmeling. return grudge match198 3/4lbs
Godoy. title defence rematch after close dec win199lbs
Conn1 .199lbs
B Baer 2. rematch after being floored in the 1 st fight 206 1/2lbs.
Walcott 1. 211 1/2bs
Walcott 2. put the record straight fight, after close controversial win 213 1/2lbs
Realising he had been hoist by his own petard Suzie then tried to escape by saying
"We aren't comparing1930's Louis here" Neither am I, 5 of those fights were in the 40's. 2 in 47 and 48.


There is absolutely no room for wriggling here, its conclusive, Baker was the bigger man!
Important in the grand scheme of things NO!
Important that it shows a poster incapable of admitting they are wrong and resorting to insults YES!

I like Suzie,I like his posts, I like his passion, and enthusiasm for the sport,and the trouble he takes to post interesting material for our benefit.
On this occasion however I feel he has let himself down badly , dissapointing, but I'm sure he won't care what this " troll" thinks. Perhaps I just caught him on a bad day.

 

If you want my opinion, you are confusing heavier with bigger, which aren't exactly the same thing. For example, Don Cockell weighed 218 lbs. for Valdes, and Valdes weighed 207. Do you think Cockell was the "bigger" man? At times in my life I have weighed more than any of these men. I am certainly not as big, and never have been, as they are. In a way being fat makes you big, but in other ways it doesn't.

Baker was certainly heavier than the young Louis, but what exactly does that prove. Louis was able to knock out a world champion at 213+ and looked in top shape. Baker never accomplished anything to match that. Period. Louis simply was the better big man.

As for sterile height arguments, my point is that whatever height you credit Louis as, we don't really know the exact heights for someone like Baker. He is listed as 6' 2" but that might be with shoes on or rounded up. Unless we are certain all these men are measured barefoot, getting worked up about height is foolish.

By the way, height not only varies with age, it varies during a single day. A man is often taller in the morning than in the evening. The effect of gravity if you stand a long time.

 

We aren't comparing ability I never suggested Baker was on a par with Louis.
Baker was heavier than the 1947 and 48 versions of Joe Louis too!
Neither do I care how tall Baker was.however I do believe Joe Louis knew how tall HE WAS!

At 73 I'm aware height varies with age,Im about 2 inches shorter than I used to be but that didnt happen whilst I was in my 30's!

Im not worked up,I'm as chilled as can be,just dissapointed one of our best posters has reacted the way he has. Well, C'est la vie!

 

Was Cockell at 218 lbs. for Valdes bigger than Louis at 213 for Walcott and Marciano? I don't see that, so I don't see your points as anything but trivial.

Being in lesser shape doesn't make you bigger. It makes you heavier.

"I never suggested Baker was on par with Louis."

Which is the bottom line and the only really relevant point here. Not debating a lb. or two or a quarter inch of possible height.

 

Fitness was never part of the criteria so why do you insist on saying he may have been heavier etc?
If I have a bigger chest than you ,bigger biceps,forearms ,neck ,thighs, calves,.I'm BIGGER! Its that simple! Don Cockell was a solid block of a man with a barrel chest, thick, neck arms,and legs.I know I met him!

There is no debate about Louis' height, and now I'm out!