charles v tommy harrison 1953, can you see this guy losing to valdes?

1. "better than not winning any fights in a series"---Oma had plenty of these also.

2. "Hurricane Jackson, Earl Walls, Bob Baker, Heinz Neuhaus, etc"--You think Oma was going to beat these men? What evidence in his record would there be?

3. Layne defeated two champions right before and right after they were champions, Walcott and Charles. Oma stopped Lesnevich on cuts, but Gus had only fought 1 round in 4 years and never did that well against heavies. He was starched by Woodcock later in the year. Woodcock later also ko'd Oma.

4. Common opponents--I can't find anyone who defeated Layne that Oma defeated. Layne defeated Walcott, Charles, and Satterfield, all of whom defeated Oma.

5. Layne's win over Charles was tight and controversial--granted, but the fight was close--Nat Fleischer scored it 5-5 in rounds--Layne was able to fight Charles close and go the distance. Oma was stopped by Charles.

6. Layne did go downhill after Marciano, and he might have been lucky against Charles, but it is also true he fought LaStarza and Neuhaus very close and with luck might have gotten decisions in those fights. Layne certainly did better against Neuhaus than Oma did with Woodcock.

7. You mention all the contenders Oma defeated, but Layne also had a number of important wins besides his big three--Turkey Thompson, Cesar Brion, Bob Dunlap, Joe Kahut, Dave Whitfield, Bob Garner, Henry Hall, and Willie Bean, plus the draw with Neuhaus. While Oma might have beaten a few more "name" opponents, his list is made up more of second-tier guys and fringe contenders, and faded former names like Nova, no one to compare with Charles and Walcott, and not that many who can match up with Satterfield and Thompson, especially if you discount opponents who also beat Oma.

8. These ratings are always personal and arbitrary, but I rate Layne higher because he beat Walcott and Charles and I don't see a good case for elevating Oma over him off wins over fringe contenders.

 

I don't know, maybe.

He beat other HWs on par with them, and they've lost to HWs on par with him.

Oma defeated a champion who was a reigning champ.

Tell that to Melio Bettina.

Lesnevich did well enough against heavies that he was actually considered a viable challenger for Joe Louis and was next in line to fight him at one point.

Others scored it wider than that.

In the end, the sole judge/referee scored seven rounds even and gave it to Layne 2-1-7. Any way you look at it, Layne was still the recipient of a bizarre and almost certainly fixed decision.

So had Layne.

But that time span comprises most of his tenure as a contender, which means that most of the time he was ranked he was essentially a fraud living off a likely fixed win while losing all other notable fights around that time.

How would you describe the names you just listed for Layne?

Many of the names you just listed under Layne were considered faded as well. In fact, even Walcott and Charles were considered faded at the time he fought them.

 

1. Oma defeated a reigning champ--of a lighter division. And Lesnevich was just returning from four years off while Oma had been fighting right along.

2. "Tell that to Melio Bettina"--okay. fair enough. I think you have the better side of the argument here. Lesnevich did do well in 1947 as a heavyweight.

3. "others scored it much wider than that"--Perhaps, but Fleischer certainly was considered one of the better judges of fights around. He stated in his article on the fight that 10 of the other 11 ringside reporters favored Charles.

4. "bizarre and almost certainly fixed"--Dempsey's scoring was bizarre, no doubt about that, calling 7 rounds even. "Almost certainly fixed" seems way over the top. Dempsey was the choice for ref by the Charles camp, with his old pal Ray Arcel in Charles' corner. It is hard to see why Dempsey would go on the take for a fix, and if he did, why he would score the fight so bizarrely, thus calling attention to the odd scoring. What exactly would be the point of a fix, anyway?

5 "living off a fixed win"--Frankly, unless some convincing evidence can be produced, this isn't a useful argument. There have been plenty of disputed decisions in boxing history and if the editor of Ring Magazine scored this fight five rounds each, this is not one of the worst ones. If one has to claim a fix to dismiss a fighter's achievements, one is on shaky ground. The reading I have done, especially Fleischer, indicates Layne came through with the performance of his life, even better than against Walcott, whether he was lucky getting the decision or not. He performed well against LaStarza in his next fight also.

6. "Walcott and Charles were considered faded"---Perhaps by some, but Walcott went on to win the title two fights later, and Charles was favored to win the title back. If faded in someone's opinion, they were clearly among the very top heavyweights in the world, and rated that way.

7. Many of Layne's names were considered faded--This is true of practically every top fighter in history, but Thompson was just two close decisions away from being the #3 contender. Brion and Dunlap had their top ratings still ahead of them. The bottom line is that against Charles, Walcott, Satterfield, and Thompson, Layne went 4-2. Oma did not have an equally strong record against such top competition.

8. Layne was stopped by Charles--Oma was stopped in ten. Layne survived through ten three straight times. No matter how it is spun, Oma getting stopped 17 times undercuts his claims as a really top man. He was obviously chinny.

9. My major criticism of Oma would not be that he feasted on faded fighters. Only Nova was clearly in the past. It is that he lost pretty consistently to the top level guys, and ALWAYS lost to the very top heavyweights. Layne didn't always lose to the top men.

 

The fight was in Layne's hometown, and it's not uncommon for an "outside" official to go in on a hometown fix. As for why he would choose to score the rounds bizarrely, perhaps Charles dominated some of the rounds so clearly that he thought he would look even worse to outright give those rounds to Layne.

The consensus among reporters appears to have been that Charles won at least 5 rounds, yet Dempsey only gave him one. If the decision wasn't an intentional fix, then the only other likely explanation is that Dempsey is an incompetent scorer.

On the contrary, if it only takes a claim of a single fix (or bad decision at the very least) to dismiss a fighter's achievements, I'd say it's the fighter's achievements that are on shaky ground.

But if he doesn't deserve the decision, then he doesn't deserve it. What's the difference if he gave "the performance of his life"? - plenty of other fighters have done that against Charles (and other HOFers in general) as well. Giving a performance didin't launch him back up the rankings; being given the "W" did.

Mauriello was rated #1 or 2 at the time Oma beat him, and would continue to be for another year or so afterward; and Baksi and Flynn were each rated in the top 4 or 5 when Oma beat them.

But the flipside to that is that Oma was good enough to beat legit top fighters over a number of years, whereas Layne had a couple big wins on the way up (one over a guy Oma had also beaten), and then consistently lost almost every notable fight he had thereafter, with only a single highly dubious decision keeping him relevant.

 

1. On Layne's hometown and fix---If there is evidence of a fix, then give it. Otherwise it means nothing to me. I doubt if a world famous figure like Dempsey was in 1952 would jeopardize his reputation for a fix. Why? I don't think it was worth it for anyone to fork over the money which would have been necessary to buy a Dempsey even if he was willing to sell out, which I doubt.

2. On Dempsey not being able to give Layne rounds---Well, Fleischer gave him five. I don't see any reason Dempsey couldn't have scored it 5-4-1 or some such.

3. Dempsey was an incompetent scorer--This was Fleischer's position. But he said the fight could have been scored for Layne.

4. According to Fleischer, while the press voted for Charles, the verdict was very popular with the crowd which greated it with wild cheering.

These are excerpts--Ring Magazine, October 1952, page 10

"Those rugged western fight fans many of whom had travelled hundreds of miles to see the contest, left convinced that Layne again would beat Walcott whom he had outpointed before Jersey Joe won the world crown.

They pointed to the victory over Charles, a former world title holder, as convincing proof that they now had in their midst the 'uncrowned champion'. That's how they felt about it and there was nothing anyone could say that could convince them otherwise.

The closeness of the fight and dissent among Charles' followers who had laid 2 to 1, had no standing with the west."

"Dempsey's decision didn't meet with favor among the newspapermen, almost all of whom had Charles ahead by one or two rounds. Of eleven reporters, ten voted for Charles.

"But the greatest criticism came because of the weird scoring of the referee. Dempsey had seven rounds even out of the ten, with one for Charles and two for Layne. How any official can score so many draw rounds without subjecting himself to severe criticism for avoiding an issue, is beyond comprehension."

"In my opinion, the fight was a draw.
"I handed Layne five rounds and six points and had the same tally for Charles."

"I had seen Layne in four of his previous battles, but in none did he show as much as he did in this one. He was at his best as a result of extensive training under the watchful eyes of his manager-trainer, Marvin Jensen. He displayed many weaknesses, however, the most obvous being lack of defense."

"Charles was his own worst enemy, as was the case in his recent fight with Walcott for the crown, because he didn't take advantage of the many openings given him for a concerted attack and his failure to follow through when he stunned his opponent with deep punches to the midsection.

"Deviating from his habit in his previous bouts against top men, Layne followed up his blows and was sharper on the attack than ever before. He had a big margin in the first six rounds but lost that advantage in the final sessions."

"Dempsey said to me after the bout: 'I gave the fight to Layne as I saw it. He was the aggressor. He carried the fight to Ezzard and was always willing to make a battle of it. That's more than I can say of Charles. I awarded the bout to Rex because of his aggressiveness. Charles was too cautious. You cannot give a man a round for failing to fight. He wouldn't follow up his punches while Rex did. Ezzard fought only when he wanted to while Layne bored in continuously.'"

(*aside--is this a fix, or just old-school)

When Dempsey raised Layne's hand as the victor,

"The throng went wild and thousands flocked closer to the ring despite a deluge that drenched the spectators immediately after the verdict was rendered."

Reading this, it appears that the problem is that fighting on Layne's home turf before a Layne crowd, Charles did not go out and put the fight away without doubt, but instead fought a cautious and ultimately close fight. The press thought he won, but he seems to have left it close enough for a reasonable verdict the other way.

5. Layne's record is on shaky ground other than the Charles fight--a spin as weird as Dempsey's scoring. First place, Layne's effort against Charles was clearly better than Oma did against Charles. Also, Layne in a separate fight defeated Walcott, a better win than Oma ever had. Layne also stopped Satterfield, while the best Oma could do was a close, hometown decision after a devastating ko defeat.

6. I agree with your point about Oma lasting a few years longer, but years of lesser if respectable fighting does not overcome really high level peak performances in my judgement. Lee Savold was a rated heavyweight as early as 1939 and as late as 1951. Few endured this long in the ratings. How high do you rate him? Do you rate him over Elmer Ray? Bob Baker? Nino Valdes? None were rated for as long a time span.

7. You didn't mention him, but I must admit that looking at Nova's record, he did not collapse as much as I had assumed. After losing to Louis, he only lost to Mauriello (2), Savold (2), Oma, and Baksi. Still, Nova was losing to all the better men he faced.

8. Thinking more on it, I wouldn't concede that Walcott and Charles were "faded" at all. Other than to Layne, both lost only to each other or to Louis or Marciano over a several year period. It might be possible to argue that they were not quite what they had been, or had gone back a bit, although even this is debatable, but saying they were "faded" is not convincing.

 

It is interesting that Charles was a 2 to 1 favorite over Layne.

Charles was a 5 to 1 favorite over Oma.

Ring Record Book, 1976 edition, page 117.

 

What "evidence" exactly are you looking for? He was brought in and paid by Layne's promoter, and was a known friend of Layne and his camp.

Fleischer gave him 5, others gave him only 2 or 3. Who knows if and what Dempsey saw that he could give.

Others reported that the reaction was more "mixed."

The UP:
"The more than 23,000 fans greeted the decision with mixed feelings..."
"Following the decision a surprised hush fell over the crowd momentarily broken only by the wails of Charles' manager, Mintz,..."

A local Salt Lake City report:
"There are two pictures in most fans' minds of the Rex Layne who won a decision over former Heavyweight Champion Ezzard Charles Friday night.
The first and most vivid is the scene of a badly battered and badgered Layne hanging on for dear life in the ninth and tenth rounds as Charles cut him and stung him with jolting left hands to the stomach and head.
The second is of Layne with his hand held high in victory by the referee and lone judge, Jack Dempsey.
The first was real and believable. But the second had its doubts in the minds of many of the record 23,000 fans who paid over $135,000 to watch the fight."

But then does that mean fighters like Hasim Rahman or Corrie Sanders are necessarily better than fighters like John Ruiz or David Tua because they each had a notable higher level performance at some point?

Over Baker, yes.

You can read numerous reports from that time referring to Walcott as "faded," "aging," "looking old," etc. when he lost to Layne, and criticizing Charles' form in his fights following his KO loss to Walcott.

That would mean the odds for the rematch were much narrower than those for their first fight, when Charles was around a 3-1 or 4-1 fave, despite the fact that Charles had brutally battered him in that fight - an indication that people did in fact think Charles had slipped in that interim.

 

1. "What 'evidence' exactly are you looking for?"--Any at all. Dempsey was paid. Of course. He was always paid--I think his fee was something like $5000--Did you expect him to referee for nothing? The Charles camp actually suggested Dempsey, apparently because Arcel felt this would guarantee that Charles would get a fair shake. I don't know if Dempsey was a known friend of Marv Jensen, but he was a very old and very close friend of Ray Arcel, who worked Charles' corner.

2. "Fleischer gave him five, others gave him 2 or 3."--The Deseret News of 8-9-1952 has extensive coverage of the fight. The column by Bill Johnson on page A-3 quotes a pair of experts who were at ringside.

Jack Hurley---"You can't ever let up with a kid like Layne. No matter where he is, he's always got a chance. He's got youth; he's a very tough cookie; he's just naturally bull strong--and he's dead game. That's a combination hard to whistle down. Charles didn't press the fight enough to win. I scored it 6 to 4 for Layne."

Frank Yazzolino, a well-known manager--"You could just see Ez's mind and face start to get worried along about the third round. He was pretty anxious, and so were Jake (Mintz) and Tom (Tannas). I figure Rex won that one about 6-4 or 6-3 and 1 even."

This idea that everyone thought Charles won is just not true. Interestingly, of the most respected experts, Fleischer saw it a draw. Hurley saw Layne winning. And so, of course, did Dempsey.

3. In fairness, the beat writer for the Deseret News scored it 5-3-2 for Charles. Excerpts:

"It was a great fight, an excellent show; and it was close."

"For Rex, the triumph was undoubtedly the greatest of his career, easily the most significant. He had to be and was--at his best."

4. "Who knows if and what Dempsey saw that he could give."---??? I don't know exactly what this means, and I wouldn't presume to speak for Dempsey anyway. This is Dempsey as quoted by Fleischer in The October, 1952 Ring Magazine, page 35:

"I gave the fight to Layne as I saw it. He was the aggressor. He carried the fight to Ezzard and was always willing to make a battle of it. That's more than I can say of Charles. I awarded the bout to Rex because of his aggressiveness. Charles was too cautious. You cannot give a man a round for failing to fight. He wouldn't follow up his punches while Rex did. Ezzard fought only when he wanted to while Layne bored in continuously."

5. This debate has inspired me to google info on the Layne-Charles fight and I must say I have been surprised. A much better case can be made for Layne than the usual "everybody thought Charles won" take. Of the three world famous boxing figures who weighed in on who won this fight--Dempsey, Hurley, and Fleischer--none thought Charles won. Dempsey and Hurley voted for Layne. Fleischer for a draw.

 

1. If either Rahman or Sanders had victories over both Lennox Lewis and Wlad Klitschko, would you still rate him behind Tua or Ruiz? I wouldn't.

2. Reports from the time calling Walcott "fading", "aging" etc.---And he was knocking out Harold Johnson and Ezzard Charles.

*I have to step out of this debate for a bit. I used to work for the St Paul Pioneer Press back in the early sixties and I saw firsthand their sportswriters and also the sportswriters from other major papers. Perhaps this gives me a juandiced view, but these guys were not exactly the ultimate voice of authority. All seemed to have serious drinking problems. They were almost always drunk by the end of a game. They also bet on events which of course meant that they had a vested interest in the outcome. In boxing, if A fights B and the writer bets on B, will he give A a fair shake in his reporting of a close decision?

Stepping back in, I don't buy as gospel the opinion of writers saying someone is faded. I would prefer judging on the films and the record.

2. Odds were 3 to 1 Charles over Layne in 1951. Shorter odds than Charles over Oma.

3. Thinking Savold better than Baker--And not Valdes? Why do you consider Valdes better than Baker?

 

i've been wondering about that! could never find the name...

 

No, I expected that the ref/judge might be assigned by a body of commissioners rather than brought in by the promoter of one of the fighters.

"In this case, there was the peculiar angle of the selection of a referee (Jack Dempsey) who was known to be extremely friendly with the Rex Layne camp."
"That he was brought in as part of the build-up for the card was no secret, and that his presence did assist in giving Utah its richest fight in history is a fact."
-The Pittsburgh Press

I don't doubt that there were dissenters somewhere who justified the fighter getting the decision, as you could find with almost any controversial decision. But all reports agree that Charles clearly won a fair share of rounds, usually at least 4 or 5. Dempsey is the only one who somehow gave Charles only a single round. No matter how you look at it, Layne was still the lucky recipient of some bogus scoring.

It means that Dempsey might not himself have seen 5 rounds that he could justifiably give to Layne and so scored rounds even instead.

Possibly, if one of those wins was questionable somehow.

That only proves he still had his power, which is often the last thing to "leave" a fighter as he declines; what about his other attributes?

The film shows that Walcott was quicker all-around (particularly with his feet) in the late '40s, while his movements were slower and more stationary around the time he fought Layne in the early '50s.

Both the film and record shows that Charles became uncertain of himself after being KO'd by Walcott - he couldn't decide whether he wanted to be a boxer or a slugger, light/speedy or heavier/stronger, etc. - and this led to inconsistent performances.

I don't know that any of these guys are necessarily "better" than one another; none of them were ever more than just good, solid contenders at any point in their careers.

Having said that, I'd say Valdes would rate over Baker (which he actually did do for much of the time they were both active, anyway) because he was rated as a serious contender for longer periods of time and had more successes against fellow contenders.

 

1. Dempsey was a celebrity referee. He was not the only one--Benny Leonard, Max Baer, Jimmy Braddock, and others also were highly paid celebrity refs--He was brought in and paid, of course, by the promoter, but he had to be approved by the state athletic authorities. Dempsey had been refereeing fights, including championship fights, for years, including Ross-McLarnin, Steele-Hostak, and Baer-Comiskey. These celebrity refs were brought in not only for their impact on the gate, but also because they were considered honest and more impartial than local referees. Dempsey was actually requested as the ref by the Charles camp.

2. Pittsburgh Press--"Dempsey was extremely friendly to the Rex Layne camp"--Well, read any biography of Dempsey. Look at the index. I think you will see the name of Ray Arcel there because he was a close lifelong friend of Dempsey's. Marv Jensen or Rex Layne will probably not be mentioned. Dempsey was a gregarious man and was "friendly" with all kinds of people in boxing, including Jake Mintz. What evidence has anyone that he was particularly close to anyone in the Layne camp?

3. I must also say that being a "friend" of someone is not at all convincing evidence to me that a man of Dempsey's stature, probably by far the best known living ex-athlete in America and one of the best known and most popular men in the country, and as far as I know financially secure, would risk everything by taking part in a fix.

4. Dempsey's scoring--I won't defend it and no one did at the time, but if he could find only two rounds to give to Layne, he only found one to give to Charles.

5. "I don't doubt there were dissenters"--This is the nub of it. Firstly, the word "dissenters' is loaded, assuming there is a consensus that Charles won. That consensus is from press reports. Of the four men that I would consider experts who weighed in on who won the fight, Fleischer, Hurley, Yazzolino, and Dempsey, NONE voted Charles the winner. Frankly, I am not as interested at what someone like Oscar Fraley thought as what Jack Hurley thought. The bottom line here is that the best judges voted for Layne. This alters the equation for me. In the absence of film, I have to judge that Layne probably deserved the decision.

6. On Walcott being "faded"--All this is the usual ducks and drakes parsing similar to "prime", etc. Walcott moved more against the big and very dangerous Louis than he did against the smaller and far less dangerous punching Charles and Layne. Why is that a surprise? Walcott was actually beaten more decisively by Charles in 1949 than he was in the spring of 1951. In the summer he won by turning aggressive. Why is it a surprise Charles followed his example? Bottom line--the "faded" Walcott whom Layne defeated immediately did much better against Charles than Oma did, period. Faded or not, Walcott was a tier above Oma at any point.

 

There is no debate..Rex Layne is heads and tails above Oma. i think the charles and Walcott fights speak for themselves. Layne is capable of defeating two high calibre great fighters..while Oma is not.

On Film..Oma looks awful. There is not anything I see that I like. With Layne, he has a excellent jab, a fast and accurate powerful right hand, excellent workrate and stamina, and a sturdy chin.

 

Yep he had a sturdy chin all right.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5chxdyedNw[/ame]