Why is LaStarza a high rated name in Marciano's resume?

Is his record really any worse then people like Wilder or Ortiz who beat no one of note?

 

He turned down fights with Baker,Walls,Henry and several other real contenders he gets no slack from me.

I will say this he showed bags of courage against Marciano,even when reduced to a stationary target he finished the fight on his feet.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right! Oritz is a ducking phoney imo.

 

That's kind of my point. He was ranked #1 ... as everyone keeps saying.

But, as the original poster pointed out, why?

If he was treated like contenders today are treated ... his fights and the ratings of his opponents would all be carefully scrutinized ... fans would be pointing out how often he was hurt against this journeyman or that journeyman ... we'd all hear about which fights fans "didn't think IN THEIR OPINION" he won ... they'd question how a guy who lost 10 months ago to a guy with a 14-9-2 record didn't lose his top 10 RING ratings ... who did he "pay off" to get that ranking ... oh, and look at this montage of fights featuring his worst moments against the worst opponents on his record ... all that stuff.

Instead, people just go, well he was ranked #1. It was "possibly justifiable."

And then people tell you to just ignore it or you must be a Rocky Marciano hater.

I doubt a lot of fighters back then could stand up to the scrutiny fighters today are under. Fans back then tended to take the word of boxing writers. They didn't see and review a lot of fights. They weren't able to scrutinize nearly every fight over and over ... like fans do to boxers today.

Many faults back then - when it came to boxers, ratings, matchups, wins, losses, everthing - were just glossed over.

If you told people he had a close fight with Marciano previously, and you told people he was the #1 contender, then that was good enough for most.

 

I don’t disagree. He wasn’t a bad fighter but overall he didn’t do much with his career. He floundered badly after his title shot like to many contenders. I think he should have beat at least one more contender before getting a shot personally. But I think he was a decent fighter. Nothing special just a run of the mill guy prob given a number one ranking to soon. Happens often

 

I don't think there is any doubt why.

He has made the #1 contender entirely on the strength of his win over Rex Layne.

I think that I am correct in saying, that he moved into the #1 spot, between signing the contract for the Marciano fight, and the fight taking place.

If you have a problem with this choice, then that narrows your field of attack considerably!

 

Oh please.

Let's put these two clowns under the 2021 MICROSCOPE, shall we?

In 1952, Rex Layne LOST to no-name Willie James. Then Layne fought a 500 journeyman Bill Peterson TWO TIMES and won both. Then Layne LOST AGAIN to Harry Matthews, a light heavyweight contender.

Name ANY TOP 10 RING HEAVYWEIGHT CONTENDER today who would still be rated in the top 10 if he lost to an unrated 12-2 opponent (James) and a light heavyweight contender?

Layne would've been gone from the top 10. LONG GONE.

Meanwhile, also in 1952, Roland LaStartza wins a decision over Dan Bucceroni (after LOSING to him FIVE months earlier) and Roland follows that up with a LOSS to the 14-9-2 Rocky Jones. (Picture Shawndell Winters if he had THREE MORE LOSSES THAN HE HAS NOW). Then Roland wins a decision over Rocky Jones.

Neither of these guys, Rex and Roland, at this point, should've been rated in the top 10 AT ALL. They wouldn't be today, that's for damn sure.

Both Layne and Roland ... LONG GONE.

Then out of nowhere Rex Layne wins a 10 round decision in Utah against Ezzard Charles, in Ezzard's first fight after losing his fourth fight with Walcott. Ezzard stopped Layne in their previous fight. In their third encounter a couple months later, Ezzard would drop him three or four times and beat Layne again.

BUT, on this night, the fight goes the distance. And the LONE official' and "celebrity referee" Jack Dempsey scored it two rounds Rex, one Round Ezzard ... SEVEN ROUNDS EVEN for the local boy Rex. And the fans cheered. And the two Utah papers had Charles winning, by the way.

Today, that would be SCANDALOUS. Layne clearly wasn't better than Ezzard.

But based on that (2 rounds to 1, with seven even) scorecard ... REX LAYNE - who today wouldn't be rated going into that fight at all - gets rated #1 by Ring.

(I thought the Ring ratings scandal in the 1970s was bad.)

And, in his next fight, before getting dropped and battered all over the ring by an angry Ezzard Charles, Rex takes on ROLAND ... coming off his rematch with the no-name Rocky Jones ... and Rex LOSES to Roland ... on what was considered a controversial decision, too.

And Roland gets ranked #1. (Rating Rex #1 was bad enough. Passing the #1 rating along to Roland is probably worse.)

Then Marciano signs to fight Roland ... because ROLAND IS THE #1 CONTENDER.

And everyone goes "Well, Roland must've deserved it. He beat the #1 contender!"

It's laughable.

You want to talk about a dreadful series of ratings and situations culminating in Roland getting rated #1.

That is brutal.

Today, Marciano, Roland, Layne, celebrity referee Dempsey, and the entire Ring Ratings board, the National Boxing Assocation ... would be thrown under the bus.

Back then, people were like, "Okay."

 

So what rankings would you have proposed, and why?

A decision has to be pretty damn awful, for Ring to ignore it!

 

I'm trying to answer the original poster's question.

Two guys who had no business in the top 10, who were both coming off loses to journeymen, who had both lost to Marciano already, somehow fought for the #1 rating because CELEBRITY REFEREE Jack Dempsey couldn't choose a winner in seven of the 10 rounds of the Layne-Charles rematch.

And after another controversial decision, Roland LaStarza walked out with a title shot.

Why is Roland a highly rated name on Marciano's record?

Well, people say it's because he was THE NUMBER ONE CONTENDER.

But he had zero business being rated #1, the guy he controversially decisioned had zero business being the top contender, and Jack Dempsey had zero business being the lone judge in Layne-Charles.

So you got me.

Scandalous scoring. Ineptitude by the ratings body. Take your pick.

It's like in the 90s when we had Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield, and a returning Tyson all active ...

And Botha and Shulz are fighting to be top dog in the IBF ratings.

Who got bribed?

 

Conveniently left out Laynes win over Ezzard Charles. And from November of 1950 through 52 he has wins over Walcott, Brion, Satterfield, Charles. That’s more contenders then Wilded had his whole career. God forbid the man drops a fight or two to damn good fighters like Matthews or Lastarza.

 

The internet puts every fighter under scrutiny, past and present. LaStarza is being subjected to 4 pages and counting of scrutiny as we speak.

 

Back then, a loss to Postman Pat was acceptable, if you either avenged it, and beat a rated fighter.

The best fought each other often, and were expected to pick up losses.

LaStarza's case might perhaps merit a closer look under the practices of the day, but it didn't at the time, and the rest is history.

Why not put modern title challengers under the same lens, and see how thee hold up?

 

I didn't leave it out. That's what HALF THE POST is about.

Then out of nowhere Rex Layne wins a 10 round decision in Utah against Ezzard Charles, in Ezzard's first fight after losing his fourth fight with Walcott. Ezzard stopped Layne in their previous fight. In their third encounter a couple months later, Ezzard would drop him three or four times and beat Layne again.

BUT, on this night, the fight goes the distance. And the LONE official' and "celebrity referee" Jack Dempsey scored it two rounds Rex, one Round Ezzard ... SEVEN ROUNDS EVEN for the local boy Rex. And the fans cheered. And the two Utah papers had Charles winning, by the way.

Today, that would be SCANDALOUS. Layne clearly wasn't better than Ezzard.

But based on that (2 rounds to 1, with seven even) scorecard ... REX LAYNE - who today wouldn't be rated going into that fight at all - gets rated #1 by Ring.

(I thought the Ring ratings scandal in the 1970s was bad.

AGAIN.


Why is Roland a highly rated name on Marciano's record?

Well, people say it's because he was THE NUMBER ONE CONTENDER.

But Roland had zero business being rated #1, the guy he controversially decisioned (LAYNE) had zero business being the top contender, and Jack Dempsey had zero business being the lone judge in Layne-Charles.

So you got me.

 

Champion: Vacant
1. Vacant
2. Vacant
3. Vacant
4. Jukebox Timebomb (emeritus)
5. Vacant
6. Vacant
7. Vacant
8. See #4
9. Vacant
10. Vacant