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

You're providing me with info I already have.I gave the top ten for Dec 1954 the year and month Cockell made no 2. Posting stuff like Neuhaus ,he had been stopped by Valdes means what? Valdes was number 1 for 2 years and would tuck chubby Don up in bed early when he fought him soon after the Marciano fight .Baker would have stopped Cockell and early ,as Slade had done.Turpin was conceding bags ot weight to Cockell and floored him multiple times before stopping him.
Baker lost to Satterfield,Henry and Moore dangerous , rated men.How would Cockell have done against them? How many dangerous, rated heavies did he beat?

Ray didnt avoid Turpin for a 3rd fight Turpin dropped decisions he should have won and made the fight not credible. Bottom line the best like Baker lost to rated heavies not middleweights and light heavies such as Turpin and Slade.The Germans doubted Neuhaus deserved the draw with Layne .The AP doubted Lastarza deserved the win over Layne and that Layne deserved the win over Charles,which doubts are important and which should we dismiss as being ,inconsequential? Cockell was made number two for European circulation purposes,nobody in the UK never mind the US, gave him the slightest chance against Marciano.Don fancied his chances so much he extracted a promise from John Simpson his manager that, whatever the circumstances he would not stop the contest!

 

"Ray didn't avoid Turpin for a 3rd fight. Turpin dropped decisions he should have won and made the fight not credible."

Turpin defeated Robinson on July 10, 1951. Robinson regained the title on September 12, 1951. Most observers thought there would be a rubber match and many thought it would be richer than the second fight, which had set the middleweight record. Turpin did not lose any decisions to drop out of the contention. He was undefeated until he at last got to fight for the vacant title against Bobo Olson on October 21, 1953. He won eight straight fights during that period. Robinson elected to defend against Olson, whom he had already stopped, and Graziano in early 1952, and then tried for the light-heavy title against Maxim. Robinson retired following that fight and didn't return to the ring until late 1954 and didn't regain the title until December, 1955. The Ring and other boxing outlets expected in a rubber match in 1952 between Turpin and Robinson. It did not come off and would have if Robinson wanted it.

No reason to go further on Don C as almost everyone you are listing--Valdes, Baker, Satterfield, Henry, Slade--lost to Archie Moore who was Marciano's next defense. Personally, as it is a world championship, I have no problem with the champion defending against a leading contender from somewhere outside the United States. There hadn't been an international defense since 1940. Valdes would have been a better choice, but Don C was not a bad one. He had beaten three rated contenders who were considered good enough by the folks at the time to get Don C to the #2 rating.

"which doubts are important and which should we dismiss as inconsequential"

Thanks for undermining your main argument on this thread. The difference is that at least LaStarza and Layne got the decision and won their fights. Nauhaus didn't even do that. Was he supposed to get a shot at Marciano off a draw with Layne?

I am all in favor of agreeing to disagree, but didn't want that misinformation about Turpin to stand without rebuttal.

 

You don' t think Cockell would have also lost to Satterfield,Baker,and Henry?Weknow he lost to Slade and Valdes by early ko.I never suggested Neuhaus was a viable title defence I just pointed out a degree of double standards on your part.I accept your thanks for my help imo you need it!
You're right ,and I'm wrong ,Turpin did not lose,but his bout with Humez was so poor he might just as well have.