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

Wlad lost to Purrity in 98, I don't think he was rated then.

16 of his first 45 opponents had losing records another was a debutee,he was wrapped in cotton wool.

 

Yes but Ring Magazine would have to take the result at face value when compiling their rankings.

A decision has to be pretty unpardonable before they will ignore it.

 

Basically end of the thread.

Anyone can see why Roland got the fight. Opinions of his career resume or ability in retrospect don't really matter if that's the real question being asked.

He's hardly the least qualified or most scandalous man to challenge for the lineal title. A contender hanging on to his rating after trading wins with a lesser regarded opponent is hardly an alien event.

An opponent getting a rating after a possible controversial decision win is hardly earth shattering either. Unless it was an extreme robbery, RING or the NBA or org holds the official result as rule. The crocodile tears for Layne being rated after beating Charles are hard to take serious. Like...did Oscar get his belts back because a lot of people felt he beat Tito?


LaStarza got a big win at the right time and most importantly people wanted to see him and The Rock fight. Simple as that. I don't think anyone rates him as Rock's biggest win either but LaStarza is note worthy, he was a well regarded contender and put out some game efforts on film. The Layne win and Rocky rematch are very good fights.

Was LaStarza a well managed fighter who benefited from favorable match making and being a draw? Absolutely. But let's not pretend great handling isn't often the difference between journeymen and contenders.

 

A boy from the Bronx challenges for the title in the Polo Grounds surprise,surprise ,it made money.

 

And that he may have.

Show the film so I can judge.

Jack Dempsey, Jack Hurley, and Nat Fleischer were at ringside.

It is a weak argument to question a fight one hasn't seen and base a whole slew of conclusions on that.

 

Max Schmeling in his last 8 fights before fighting Joe Louis in 1936 was 4-3-1.

In the old days they were matched tough, so the losses aren't the whole story.

For what it is worth, I have seen the LaStarza-Layne fight and think LaStarza edged the decision. Layne definitely had the better overall career.

 

Roland had fought a close fight with Marciano in 1950, so there was a reason besides LaStarza having a good statistical record for the match to be made.

 

I don't think that you need to sell anybody the idea that LaStarza was a carefully managed fighter.

 

It's a weak argument to focus on one fight. Dempsey was there well fine ,what did he say? Did he score 8 even rounds?

• Unofficial AP scorecard - 4-4-2 Draw
• Unofficial UP scorecard - 5-4-1 Layne
• Attendance - 7,180

I'm basing my opinion of Lastarza on his record he was a protected fighter

Schmeling had beaten Uzcudun,Hamas,Neusel,Foord ,Walker
His 3 losses were to Hamas which he avenged with a ko,Max Baer and a hotly disputed loss to Jack Sharkey,that's rather different to losing to a journeyman with a
12-2-1.record

 

The Charles fight was seen as a robbery too!
Many thought Brion beat Layne.

James Dawson, New York Times, scored the bout 7-3 for Brion, giving Layne rounds 1, 2 and 8. Associated Press scored the bout 7-3 Layne.
Dawson wrote:
“Plunging and tossing like a rudderless ship, Rex Layne, Lewiston, Utah, heavyweight, somehow or other managed to gain a decision over Cesar Brion, from the Argentine, in ten dull rounds of fighting at Madison Square Garden last night. And if there is any consolation in a moral victory, Brion has it. A crowd of 5,768 booed the verdict and it was plain that many, if not the majority, thought Brion had won.”

Associated Press: “22-year-old Rex from Utah’s sugar beet land failed to live up to the gaudy promise of his Nov. 24 upset over tired old Jersey Joe Walcott.”

Wilder is not the subject under discussion.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

Watch the fight for yourself. Close but I had Layne winning. You put to much emphasis on what media says. Most don’t know **** about boxing. Especially in regards to fights we can watch.

 

Didn't the ropes keep LaStartza up about a minute into the first round?

 

We have to be careful about using the word robbery here.

There are decisions that you disagree with, there are decisions that odd but justifiable, and then there are robberies.

Have any of these key fights that we are discussing, met the criteria of being a robbery?

You need to think about that!

 

Reminds me of this one.

This content is protected