This is a bit of a bizarre one. Jack Dempsey was the referee and he turned in a 2-1-7 card in favour of Layne. He had seven drawn rounds. Ray Arcel called him "a thief" and Ezzard's management went a bit mental too. AP said that many ringsiders "believed Charles had earned at least a draw." Any inside line, anyone? Any thoughts? My read is that Layne got the nod in a close fight that could have gone either way but that's a default setting. It's important, because it would complete Layne's Walcott\Charles pair. I don't think there is readily available footage of this one.
A detailed Round by Round, looks like despite the controversy, it could be Layne's best performance. [url]http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19520809&id=ropaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IU8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4979,3324589[/url]
Nat Fleischer in his write-up for The Ring, scored it 5-5 in rounds, although he would have given the edge to Charles on the New York supplemental points system (because Charles won the last round). Jack Hurley scored it 6-4 for Layne. It appears to me off the fact that the best known boxing figures-Dempsey, Fleischer, and Hurley-had the fight close or Layne winning that this was probably not the robbery that Charles' camp claimed. I don't think it was on TV and doesn't seem to have been filmed, so the spinning of this serious loss to folks who had not and would never see the fight is not surprising.
Interesting. I hope it surfaces. I have never seen it, but the first and third fights are commonly available.
