Charles - Layne 2: Was Dempsey in the tank ?

Well....let's see the last 300 times you brought this fight up. Articles were produced that gave a round by round and were fair to Layne. Some were convinced by this, some were not. Your opinion always swayed by the context of the Maricano argument. If someone was building up Charles...he lost to Layne. If someone was building up Layne...he lost to Charles. Are you expecting something different?

 

It was certainly a curious score card,wasnt Layne a one time protégé of Dempsey's?
ps Don't take any notice of Mongoose.

 

Yeah he hates my guts because he tried to get me banned and failed, questioned my sexual preferences and called me a pa*d*phile the guys a C**T. Not worth worrying about.

 

I haven't seen the fight.
I don't think the consensus was too far off what Dempsey had. Everyone seemed to agree it was close. Dempsey possibly just had the courage (or lack of) to call 7 rounds even because they were close, from what I remember.

 

I don't think anyone convincingly beat Charles (beyond dispute) including Walcott, between his knockout loss to Walcott and facing Marciano. Charles really was a great heavyweight.

 

This one stunk to high hell. 7 rounds even? Refereeing your own protege?

 

Fantastic fighter. I rate him above Holyfield at heavyweight. It was only really special fighters that beat him convincingly.

 

Great fighter , but not a great heavyweight imo.

 

Unless you've seen the fight or have clear evidence suggesting those 7 rounds weren't close, I'm not sure 7 rounds even can be condemned out of hand. But then, I'm favourable towards even rounds. I never understoood the problem some people have with scoring even rounds, to the point they'd rather see (on others' scorecards) the close rounds scored for the fighter they have losing the round. Makes no sense.

Was Layne really Dempsey's protege ?