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

I’ve already broken down how many good to great men Layne beat from 49-52. Walcott, Charles, Satterfield, Thompson, Kahut, Dunlap, Whitlock. That’s not bad and not to be dismissed because he lost to Marciano, Charles, Matthews and slipped against some bum.
Look at today’s contenders tell me how many ranked men each beat in the top ten. Absolutely disgraceful.

 

Was beating heavyweight champion Jersey Joe Walcott a lesser achievement than beating welter and middle champion Walker. Was edging Charles in a tight decision a lesser achievement than getting a win over Sharkey on a foul in a fight in which Schmeling was losing.

And Layne had wins over quite a few other good men, like Satterfield, Thompson, Brion, Dunlap, and others.

Schmeling had been KO'd in one round by Gypsy Daniels in 1928. That was a worse defeat than any Layne had suffered prior to his fight with LaStarza.

I am not knocking Schmeling. I think he was the 2nd best heavyweight of the 1930's. And Layne is not Schmeling. But it is easy to see why beating Layne in February, 1953 was viewed as a good achievement.

 

Look at today's top 10 (ANY OF THEM) and tell me who is rated in the top 10 who lost to a 14-9-2 journeyman, a light heavyweight contender, or an unranked 12-2 heavyweight within 12 months of today, let alone anyone preparing to fight for a title?

I don't care who anyone beat in 1949 if, in 1952, he was losing to unranked novices, barely 500 journeyman and light heavyweights.

Ratings are supposed to change. Guys who lose to light heavyweights and journeymen with 500 records shouldn't be rated AT THE VERY TOP of the top 10 the same year. Especially if they don't even try to avenge those losses (like Layne).

If Joseph Parker lost to any combination of Shawndell Winters, Johnathon Rice and Jean Pascal ... Parker wouldn't end the goddamn year rated as one of the top heavyweights ... even if he beat Shawndell in a rematch.

If he lost to Shawndell Winters and Johnathon Rice in the same handful of months ... it wouldn't matter that he beat Andy Ruiz in 2016. He'd no longer be considered a top 10 heavyweight.

Put most of those ratings from back then under a microscope like we do with ratings now, see which contenders were losing fights they had no business losing, and you'll find bad rankings everywhere.

All people are admitting to when they say "well, you could lose to Postman Pat back then and it was no big deal" is "Yeah, that doesn't make any sense. Those ratings are garbage. But that's the way it was."

RATINGS may not be great NOW ... but you can easily point out instances when it was ACTUALLY WORSE then ... because ratings orgs or RING today wouldn't still rank Joseph Parker at the end of the year if he lost to to any combination of journeymen and light heavys ... like LaStarza and Layne did that year.

Bad ratings are bad ratings ... whether it was 1952 or 1982 or 2012.

 

Bad ratings are bad ratings and I don’t necessarily agree he should have been number 1. BUT he should have been ranked.
If Tyson fury lost to a journey man (almost did) but came back and beat AJ he would be ranked again. I think your view there is completely irrational. Plenty of people got shots that on paper didn’t deserve it but stepped up. Andy Ruiz comes to mind as he had done zip in his career (less then Lastarza for sure) but managed to win it. He was given the shot based on potential as well. Eye test said he can at least fight. You don’t even want to give Lastarza that credit who looks sound to most on film.

 

I do, unlike you I don't have double standards for any era.

Roland was nothing special and he was protected, but he didn't look bad against Layne.

 

He beat Walcott, most thought he lost to Charles, none of the others were anything special.We are discussing LASTARZA .If you want to put current fighters under your microscope make another thread,who they have or haven't faced is totally irrelevant to the merits and historical standing of Roland Lastarza.He has a weak resume and all the window dressing in the world won't change that!

 

Not only was he nothing special ,neither was Layne!

 

This is silly.Walker weighed 170lbs for Sharkey whith whom he drew, two fights later Sharkey was the champ!
Walker beat plenty of heavies including Risko x2Uzcudun, with whom he also drew,Ruggirello,Dekuh,Kristner,and Levinsky.Describing him as a "welterweight and middleweight," is disingenous at best, and dishonest at worst. Schmeling had been ko'd in1928? What exactly was then light heavyweight Max's standing as far as the world ratings were concerned at the time?
Dempsey was ko'd in1 rd by Jim Flynn he must have been **** right?
You're not so much scraping the barrel now as boring a hole through the bottom of it!lol

 

Layne was decent, historically not great but not bad either.

 

Decent,thats about it,he would be 50/50 with Chris Arreola,in fact I'd pick Arreola to beat him.A split dec win over him is Lastarza's best claim to fame.

 

Layne fits into the narrative because Lastarza beat him. It doesn’t fit your narrative for Layne to have actually have been a decent contender.

 

Layne accomplished more than Arreola in his era. I don't care about your hypothetical H2H accomplishments, I care about the real results.

 

I never said Layne wasn't a decent contender ,please don't attempt to second guess me , you aren't equipped for it.
Rex had the credentials to be a contender and merit a title fight in the weak era he was active in.
Which still doesn't make him anything special in the long scheme of things, so please park your agenda in the space provided.

 

You are entitled to your opinion and I am still entitled to mine.[just about].
Tommy Burns accomplished more in his era than either Layne or Arreola would you make him favourite over either?

 

The title is misleading. Who rates Lastarza high in Marciano's resume? High as in 1-2-3 heck 4. Not a single person. No one, that's who. At best he's 5th.