Who were the best punchers during Marciano's era?

My picks

Moore
Walcott
Charles
Louis
Satterfield
-------------------
Henry
Holman
Walls
Layne

Why the ones who didn't make it didn't make it---

Henry--I think he is somewhat overrated both as a puncher and generally, possibly because the only two fights readily available on film (or at least the only two I have seen) are his most impressive, the Satterfield and Baker ko's, but that's about it for impressive ko's, except perhaps the ko of the lightheavy Murphy. I don't see rating him a better puncher than the old Louis. Much is made of Louis only ko'ing 3 of his last 10 opponents, but Henry only ko'd 4 of his last 13 (and 2 of those ko's were of nobodies), 6 of his last 18, or 8 of his last 24. Louis failed to knock out Bivins or Agramonte in 3 fights. Henry also failed to knock either out in four fights. Henry went the distance three times, losing once, to the ordinary Frank Buford. Henry's ko of Baker is impressive, but standing pretty much alone as a sign of punching power.

Walls--probably a harder puncher than Henry, but most of his victims were way past it, except perhaps Layne, who was certainly slipping.

Holman--Another who feasted on old guys, but he has a much more impressive list than Henry or Walls--Ezzard Charles, Elmer Ray, Bob Satterfield, Billy Smith, Cesar Brion. I would consider him the strongest alternative to my top five.

Layne--The best fighter of this group off accomplishments, but I don't see him as a top echelon puncher.

 

Henry nearly KO'd Agramonte and had Bivins and Holman on the canvas. Better results than Louis's in the 50s.

 

I can't agree with this.

Louis did not knock out either man in three tries. He had Agramonte down and in big trouble in one of their fights, and had Bivins in trouble in the last round of their fight.

Henry did not do better. He failed to knock out either man in 4 fights. His knockdown in the second Bivins fight was for four, but he was himself stopped by Bivins in their first fight.

To spin that as favoring Henry is pure spin.

As for having Holman down for a three count, so what?

Holman was stopped 7 times in 45 fights, including by Toxie Hall, Embrell Davidson, twice by Satterfield, etc. He seems to have been a rather weak jawed fighter whom Louis didn't fight.

I would point out that of the five men Louis failed to knock out:

1--Two were better than any heavyweight Henry fought and far better than any he stopped, Charles and Marciano.

2--Two also fought Henry twice, and Henry failed to stop them, Bivins and Agramonte.

3--The last, Cesar Brion, was considered to be very durable, and Henry didn't fight him.

 

How is it pure spin when

Henry put Agramonte down twice while Louis put him down once
Henry had Bivins down while Louis didn't

This along with Henry having KO wins over Bob Baker and Bob Satterfield in comparison to Louis's lone KO of note against Lee Savold make for better results in the 1950's.

If you're going to criticize Henry for his amount of KO's, keep in mind that Louis only stopped 3 of his last 10 opponents, one of them on cuts and another in the 10th round. It's difficult to make a case that he hit harder except by going back to his pre-1950's career which is reasonable I guess.

 

Williams was a popular headliner who spectacularly knocked out journeymen. He was a big puncher against journeymen, he never knocked out any good fighters- especialy not in the early 1950s. 95% of williams's fights were in Texas and Florida as the "house fighter" where they were happy to watch him smash up profesional losers.

when Cleveland Williams was 27-0 over a selection of hand picked victims in 1953 he lost to Sylvester Jones because he was too "inexperienced" to beat a less experienced fighter with a 8-3 record who decked him twice.

In 1954 (having beat Jones in a return fight) big cat was still too "inexperienced" at 31-1 to beat his first "step up" opponent as the house fighter, veteran name fighter bob Satterfield who was 25lb lighter and was 1-2 that year. before that period clevland big cat williams was not recording better wins than many other untested fighters.

Agramonte was shot to pieces when he fought the big cat. the cuban was so washed up he was 7-13 since 1950 and had been KOd 6 times only to go the distance with 25-0 williams in 53'. more capable journrymen good enough to take williams into the later rounds had all been KOd earlier by better fighters.

It was not until 1961 that williams was seen as any kind of force at world level but even by then he was only dangerous against severly overmatched fighters.

 

You can't be recognized as a highly dangerous puncher if you don't get opponents out of there though.

 

Louis is a legend and based on his reputation alone I wouldn't pick anyone over him. Not one for speculation though, just going by results which are not in Louis's favour over the younger, fresher punchers of the era.

 

"Louis only stopped 3 of his last 10 opponents"

Yes, and Henry only stopped 8 of his last 24 opponents, over half his career.

You are comparing Louis who had only ten fights in the fifties with Henry, who had 27. Henry should have more ko's.

"Baker and Satterfield"

Do you really think Louis would not have ko'd Satterfield?

Baker is the only really impressive ko by Henry. And certainly nothing Louis did or didn't do is as hard to explain as Henry going the distance three times with the mediocre Frank Buford, who was knocked out 16 times in 60 fights.

Bottom line--however much Louis had faded, and whatever one thinks of his faded punching power, I find no convincing evidence that Henry was a better puncher.

*No matter how much spin is used, Henry failed to stop Bivins and Agramonte in a total of four fights, and in fact was ko'd himself by Bivins.

 

True enough. And Henry didn't get Agramonte, Bivins, or Holman "out of there"

 

In the early 50's he KO'd Baker, Satterfield and Davidson along with having Agramonte and Bivins on the canvas. It's easy to see why he would have had a puncher's reputation, and it is backed up on film.

A minor correction, he actually had 11 KO's in the 50s. Compared to Louis's 3, that's a better % if it comes down to that.

Would he have done it in the first? Not necessarily.

Having one really impressive KO is better than what Louis managed unless you're more impressed with taking out a 36 year old Savold instead of a 25 year old Baker.

I think he comes up better as far as results go in the 1950's. Obviously it's Joe Louis we are talking about so Henry wasn't necessarily a harder puncher but he had the youth and the speed that may have made him more dangerous as a puncher. As I've said, there's too much speculation going on what Louis could have done instead of what he actually did in the 50's.

You may call it "spin", I would call it a comparison between two boxers who failed to stop the same opponents. Who made more of an impact with his power? Henry managed to score 2 knockdowns to Louis's one, and had Bivins on the floor unlike Louis. That's very minor stuff but it's in Henry's favour. As for a novice Henry being stopped by Bivins in the 40's in a questionable fight, it hardly matters.

 

In comparing the ko percentages between Louis and Henry in the fifties, one must remember

A--20% of Louis's bouts were against ATG heavyweight champions. Henry fought no one like that, but would have had to have had five such bouts, at least, to match Louis.

B--Louis did not have "off" fights such as Henry did. The worst opponent Louis fought was Andy Walker, a journeyman at best, but Louis at least stopped him. Walker proved better than Frank Buford in a long series of fights. Henry did not stop Buford in three fights, and even lost one to him. I don't see Louis going the distance with Buford three times no matter how faded he was.

C--Ko'ing Satterfield in the first round--If Louis caught him, he would ko him in the first. Who knows if Satterfield would be as aggressive against Louis as he was against Henry.

D--That brings up the question of whether Bivins and Agramonte were willing to trade with Louis in the same manner they were willing to trade with Henry. Lasting the distance with Louis might have meant something to a second-tier fighter. Lasting with Henry? Probably much less. I would like to see films of these fights before judging them.