You're saying Lastarza was number 1 in September 1953 when he fought Marciano? That he had gone up from Dec 1952 when he was number7 to number 1 on the basis of winning and losing to journeyman light heavy Rocky Jones decisioning lightheavy Bucceroni and getting a split dec over Rex Layne?
You are to Marciano and Dempsey what that imbicel Pernellsweatpea is to Roberto Duran. Every thread you bring your poop and **** on it.
Jack Dempsey is my all time favourite fighter ! ps Best not to employ words like IMBECILE when you can't even spell them! Perhaps you should change your name to ABYSMAL SPELLER? LOL
Yes, absolutely! He was #2 when the contract was signed, and had moved up to #1 when the fight took place!
Ezzard Charles for one. He knocked out Wallace and Satterfeild within 30 days. Both were world rated.
But The Harold Johnson fight was a close SD that most viewers of the film select Charles to have won. One fight after beating Nino Valdes Billy Gilliam Lost to Charles. He then beat Satterfeild who would also later beat Nino. Charles beat Moore x3 and Moore would beat Nino x2. When Charles knocked out Wallace he had just beat Gillium who had just beat Nino.
Janitor made it clear that it was Ezzard Charles who was # 1 contender when he got a title shot both times in fact - Every Marciano title defense except Cokel was a #1 contender
Here is an interesting point. Rocky Marciano defended his title against the current #1 contender, five times, inside a period of two and a half years! Five times! Now answer the following question: How many times have we seen the heavyweight champion fight the #1 contender, or the top two face off if there was no champion, inside the last twenty years? That should give a bit of perspective!
I'd like proof, I'm awkward like that. Im not interested in the last 20 years, we aren't discussing them.
You sure as hell won't find proof to the contrary! Why not exactly? I count four for that period. Let's say it is six. Doesn't that give Marciano's record a bit of perspective?
Firstly, there was no controversy about the loss to Johnson. It was close, but the Associated Press scored it for Johnson and the United Press had it a draw. Secondly, Charles was already contracted to fight Johnson before he fought Valdes, so even if he'd won it wouldn't support the idea that Charles was going round hunting down fighters who held wins over Valdes. Thirdly, Moore and Satterfield didn't have wins over Valdes at the time Charles fought them, and Charles fought Gilliam before his own loss to Valdes. So again, none of those fights back up the idea that "Charles set about beating guys with wins over Valdes".