The Quality of Marciano's Opponents

"LaStarza's claim to fame are"

More I think his performances against Marciano.

 

There is always a certain amount of “career navigation” for most challengers.,up to the 1980s most challengers were expected to have beaten a few decent “name fighters”. Lastaza had beaten the required amount because Layne and Bucceroni were highly rated. There was a pretty good gate for Marciano v Lastarza. 44,542 fans. Polo grounds worthy. This wasn’t some low interest indoor fight. The public wanted it.

I was just explaining how unpredictable things can be. Did you think it was a shock when Larry lost to Spinks? Did you expect it?

Beating Bucceroni, Layne and Brion for anyone else not called Roland would have been enough to make it to a title fight. What did Tim Witherspoon do to make it to the title? Same question for Vaughn Bean?

You don’t seem to like Orlin Norris very much.

Louis was past his best beating Savold. Ali was past his best beating Shavers. Both guys were beating good guys.

I think everyone else pretty much does.

is this “taking into account of where Cockel was in his career?

 

Vaughn Bean had the right connections. I have nothing against Norris except in my opinion he quit against Tyson. Savold wasnt a good guy,he was a washed up 2nd rater at best.

Cockell lost to Turpin and Slade when he was prime.
Bucceroni and Brion were not ranked.

 

Lennox Lewis lost twice in his prime too. What comes afterwards that counts. Plenty of greater men lost fights in their prime. You don’t think Cockell didn’t put things right on his long 10 fight unbeaten HW run?

calling out Slade and Turpin defeats in another division is like squawking about 24 year old Jimmy Ellis losing to Rubin Carter and George Benton before Ellis put his own 10 fight HW run at the title together.

Nobody ever does though

 

This is the self-licking ice cream cone argument. Marciano is great because he beat LaStarza. LaStarza is great because he gave Marciano problems.

Well, I'm convinced.

 

"Marciano is great because he beat LaStarza"

No. Marciano is great because he beat everyone. Stopping LaStarza is not one of Marciano's top five wins.

"LaStarza is great because he gave Marciano problems"

You have to do a lot more than that to be great. But doing well against a champion is a mark in any fighter's favor.

 

you could say the same about a lot of guys. Norton is great because he gave Ali problems. Witherspoon is great because he gave Holmes problems. Tucker is great because he gave Tyson problems. Tommy Farr is great because he gave Joe Louis problems.

 

This thread has a lot of of a certain kind of evaluations, which read for example like this one,

concerning Max Schmeling:

He was KO'd in one by journeyman Gypsy Daniels. He was a cheese champ, winning the title while on the floor claiming a foul. He lost his title by decision to a slipping Jack Sharkey. Steve Hamas badly outpointed him. Schmeling was brutally KO'd by Max Baer and destroyed in one round by Joe Louis.

All this is true for a poster focusing utterly on his failures. And who then stamps his feet in anger with anyone who says this is true but not the whole story with Max Schmeling.

This is the problem with any stick will do to beat this dog type posters. You end up being so one-sided your argument collapses under its own biases.

 

"Norton is great because he gave Ali problems."

According to the Boxing Register, Ken Norton was 4-7-1 against rated opponents.

 

No I don't. Cockell beat Mathews who was a paper tiger and a diminished Lastarza who was a protected fighter all his career.
The difference being Cockell was 12 lbs heavier than Turpin and . for the Slade fight both men weighed in at heavyweight. Whereas Ellis was153lbs for the Carter fight.

 

Norton was not a great fighter in my book, but he would run through Lastarza like Hitler through Poland! Tommy Farr was a tough man and a game, skilled boxer ,but he was never a great fighter as the results of all his US fights emphatically prove!
Tucker was a good skilled heavyweight who would absolutely beat the **** out of Cockell,he was a very good fighter,but never a great one. Witherspoon was as good as you can be without being great.imo.Similar to guys like Billy Graham,in a different era Tim may have ascended to that altar but scandalous treatment by King and his own disillusionment,thwarted that possibility.

 

Whom are you equating with Max Schmeling.
Lastarza?
Savold?
Woodcock?
Mathews?
Who?,

What evidence was there that Sharkey was,"slipping"when he fought Schmeling for the vacant title?
Schmeling beat
Louis
Sharkey And most everyone except for Gun Boat Smith thought he did it twice
Uzcudun x2
Walker
Neusel
Louis
Dudas
Thomas
Foord
Hamas
Stribling
Risko
All, to use your treasured expression ,ranked at one time or another and 2 of them being world champions.
Put
Savold
Lastarza
Cockell
Mathews
Woodcock
Put their best wins all together and they won't match that resume!
Stop with the fabricated arguments that depend on you putting words in others mouths,words they have never uttered,its pretty dire and beneath you, just.

 

Lastarza also beat Jones and Buccerino. I also never said it was that great a win. So maybe try a different angle.

Matthews had wins over
Charles
Lloyd Marshall
Murphy
Nardico
Muscato
Reynolds
Rex Layne
That’s a decent list. I don’t give a **** if his corner picked guys better for his style. That’s what a manager is supposed to do. The man went 90-7 by luck I suppose. What a joke. I also don’t take sports writers seriously enough half of them can’t predict a thing. As I said a common opponent has enough respect for Matthew to pick him. Hurley was a pos who was trying to save his career from the bad decisions he made for his fighter.

 

You mentioned his winswa

A win over a past it Marshall, a light heavy who had won just I of his last 5 fights and was having his last one doesn't qualify you as a heavyweight contender.

Charles was washed up it was criminal to put him in with Mathews at that sad stage of his career . Mathews wouldnt have gone near him if he weren't ,Ezz had won just 1 of his last 3,would be thrown out in2 rds in his next fight,2 months later,for being unable to put up a fight.

This content is protected

Charles would win2 of his next 7 and thankfully retire.The very fact that you even mention this disgrace shows 2 things ,how desperate you are and how little you know about that period of boxing,despite your confident assertions you know more than me!


Murphy was a good light heavy a come forward face first tough guy thoroughly outboxed by Maxim.
Nardico was a career Lhvy who couldn't beat the best in his division.

Muscato was never more than a 3rd rater, and he wasn't even that when he fought Mathews, he had lost his last 6 and his last 3 of the by ko.

Reynolds,and Mathews were middleweights when they fought Reynolds was 6-1-0.whilst Mathews had had 40 fights! Reynolds would have 4 more fights, win2 of them and retire.


Layne was damaged goods. The fact that this is all you can offer totally explodes the paucity of your argument!

 

Beating second raters is what good fighters do. Matthews was also old when he met Charles. I never said Marshall and Charles were prime. But they were talented fighters worthy of mention. The record reminds me of a Cooney like quality. Mostly older heads. Nardico was a good fighter so was Murphy and so was Layne. Idk what u expect out of every fighter. Very few accomplished perfection actually that Total is so few it’s zero. Hurley should have taken the shot against Maxim. I think he wins. But he was a greedy scumbag and went for the gold.