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

I thought we had agreed to differ?

 

I am cool with that.

But I will reply to a post with a premise I don't agree with and I think is very misleading.

 

You have to rate these guys in their time .. LaStarza was a talented guy that would have been a cruiser today .. not big but had some skill and talent, had some charisma and a lot of heart .. he was better than a lot of guys that fought for the title but he had the misfortune to go against a best like Rocky who in my opinion is one of the top five P4P heavyweights of all time .. That said of course he's behind Walcott, Charles, Moore as a Marciano victim ..

 

Lastarza was a solid contender. Good defensive skills and stamina with a lot of experience. I think Marciano beating him the first time around was probably a better win given that the rock was still developing while Roland was 37-0. But not a bad name to have on your win list

 

Okay. let's attempt to respond. I've never called Lastarza a hype job ,I called him a protected ,carefully managed, and overated fighter and I stand by that.Mathews record was built up on nobodies and journeymen out in the boon docks, a fact his own manager confirmed,indeed reading John Ochs trilogy gives great insight into Jack Hurley and therefore Mathews.Hurley was offered a title shot against Maxim but turned it down ,opting for a fight with Marciano and if victorious a title shot with Walcott.
Squires was favourite to beat Burns and in one fight, I forget which dropped him.The situation regarding the heavyweight contenders in the early1900's was complicated in as much as white challengers tended to leap frog over often more deserving black fighters.Added to this there were not so many big men around as in the 50's.

 

Agreed. Some modern thinkers tend to undervalue the importance of The Ring in years gone by. It's easy to sit here, in the year 2021, and say the Ring was crap and their ratings were crap. but that doesn't make it true. The Ring we have today is not the same as the one we had then. If The Ring had LaStarza as the #1 Contender at the time, that's good enough for me. That makes him a quality win on The Rock's record.

 

In 54 they had Cockell no 2 over
Charles
Baker
Walls
Neuhaus
Layne
Jackson
Norkus
Slade
That good enough for you too?

 

I'm not going down through your whole list, but as an example I'll take Charles vs Cockell for rankings, since you listed Charles first: At the end of 1954, using their last 7 fights, from about the middle of 1953:

Charles was 3-4-0 - Won: Watson (37-19-2), Lost: Valdez (22-8-3), Lost: Johnson (41-5-0), Won: Wallace (21-2-0), Won: Satterfield (32-14-2), Lost: Marciano (45-0-0), and Lost: Marciano (46-0-0). Combined Records of the 6 men: 199-48-5 (80.567% W-L %).

Cockell was 7-0-0 - Williams (51-6-3), Matthews (84-4-6), Baccilieri (11-3-5), Arthur (24-3-0), LaStarza (54-3-0), Matthews (86-5-6), and Matthews (86-6-6). Combined Records of the 5 men: 140-21-14 (86.957% W-L%).

Imagine it's the end of 1954 and you're being paid to rank these two fighters fairly for Ring Magazine. (For me, Cockell would rank ahead of Charles at that moment in time.) Remember you're not being paid to predict who would win in a head to head match up. You're being paid to rank them according to what they've done in the ring LATELY, and not what you think might happen later, but what has happened in the ring lately.

------------

Edit: 97 year old deleting duplicate words. Ha!

 

Charles had lost to 2 ranked fighters and beaten Wallace and Satterfield. Cockell had beaten a washed up Lastarza ,a washed up Mathews. and 3 Euro level guys.he had also been stopped in 4 rds by no 10 Slade, 2 years earlier.
In 54 Bob Baker beat
Baksi
Davidson
Wallace x2
Slade
In 54 Jackson beat
Norkus
Bucceroni
Henry
Layne
Yet both were rated lower than Cockell?

 

I'm not going to take the time to statistically evaluate all of the top Heavyweights around at the end of 1954. It's a shame you weren't there at the end of '54 to straighten those guys out at Ring Magazine! I'll also have to agree to disagree with you on who knew what about boxing in those days.

Many times, Boxing 's Lineal Champions have been determined by fights based off of Ring's Rankings (when the Title Holder retired). They definitely were "The Bible of Boxing" back in the day. Even today, though not as respected as they once were, they generally do know who the real Lineal Champion is, and their rankings are still not that bad.

 

I've been a subscriber for about 30 years,they are still the best ratings imo but not now and not then, infallible.
I was a little too young in 54 ,only 6.
I think those I mentioned Charles,Baker,and Jackson, deserved a higher ranking than Cockell.
Are you aware Fleischer often included overseas boxers in his top tens to increase world wide sales?
It's a fact.

 

Have you seen Cockell's wife? Everything has to be considered in these rankings.

https://editorial01.shutterstock.co...is-career-shutterstock-editorial-1821918a.jpg

 

She left him. I met him once ,very ,very nice man modest and really honest.

 

Walls? Lost in 1954 to Tommy Harrison and Edgardo Romero. Romero makes Willie James look like Joe Louis.

Jackson? Lost in 1954 to Jimmy Slade and was KO'd by Nino Valdes.

Norkus? Was KO'd in 1954 by Jackson. On August 6, 1953, he was stopped by Ike Thomas (1-4).

Baker? After a bad stretch in 1953 and early 1954 in which he was stopped by Satterfield, and lost to Clarence Henry, and was stopped by Archie Moore, started on a winning streak over second-stringers in 1954.

Jimmy Slade?--lost 3 of 5 in 1954. Lost to Harold Johnson, Baker, and Floyd Patterson. Beat Clarence Henry and Jackson. In late 1953 he had lost to Dan Bucceroni and James Parker.

Nauhaus?--He had been stopped by Valdes in late 1953. Won against so-so Euro opposition in 1954, but even the Germans seem to have doubted he deserved the draw he got against Layne in late 1954.

Don C--Since March of 1950 he had gone 20-2. He lost badly in 1952 to Slade, who did make it as high as a top five rating, and to Randy Turpin, at the time considered p4p one of the best in the world. Good enough that Robinson avoided a million dollar rubber match. Of the 20 wins, all were over fighters with winning records. He defeated nine men who were world rated at one time or another in a total of twelve victories during this run. Four were rated when he fought them. It isn't hard to see why Don C was rated ahead of this group who were each losing fights over a period in which Don C was winning them all.

 

She left him? Well then. All the more reason to rank him high. The sympathy ranking!