[Deleted by user.]

Bonavena. Stronger better and Bigger. He would maul Rex for a decision

 

Bonavena beat Chuvalo I'm not sure Rex would.

 

Oscar by decision.

 

Bonavena by decision, he was a better fighter.

 

Chuvalo is extremely overrated, Layne would beat him cleanly.

 

The problem I have with Layne is, which was the real Rex?
The guy who beat Satterfield ? Decisioned Charles in a close one ? Outpointed Walcott?
Or the Rex who drew with16-7-6 Andy Walker and16-7-4 Dale Hall?
Lost to 27-3-1 ,176lbs Dave Whitlock? Lost to12-2-1 Willie James?

 

You can ask the same question about Chuvalo, except that he didn't have similar high quality wins. George lost to a lot of mediocre fighters throughout his career.

 

In this case I was referring solely to Layne's all time standing,and not as a comparison to Chuvalo.
However I'm happy to discuss the comparison.
Layne beat
Satterfield
Charles controversial
Walcott
Thompson, Thompson near the end .


Chuvalo beat
Jones no8
Miteff no8
Cleroux no7
Ramos no6
Quarry no5
Layne had the better wins Walcott and Charles ,albeit the Charles one was controversial.
Layne lost to unranked guys like
Whitlock
Mathews
Walls x2
Jackson [54]
Neuhaus
Friedrich
And drew with two journeymen.
Chuvalo has plenty of losses , but most were ranked,and he fought a lot more of them
Ali Champ
Ali no 1
Ellis no6
Foreman no2
Frazier no 6
Terrell no1
Bonavena no 7
Patterson no2
Folley no6
Erskine no10
Cleroux no7
Cleroux no5
Baker no 8
McMurtry no5
Losses to unranked men
Corletti
Mathis
Rademacher
King
Given Chuvalo's chin I think it very possible he absorbs Layne's shots and outlasts him, Rex gassing late on.
You pays your money and takes your choice!

 

First 5 rounds resemble the barroom brawling affairs of the early days of boxing. Two sloppy orangutans slugging over territory with wild hayemakers, mugging, fouls, and close quarters combinations.

I think the longer it goes, the more it swings in Oscars favor. His superior chin and unpredictable, relentless style are too much and he stops Layne perhaps in the 8-10th round. Fans definitely get their money's worth as each round would be fireworks.

 

Comparing Chuvalo's "ranked" contenders to Layne's "unranked" contenders shows how worthless falling back on isolated rankings are.

for example, 8th ranked Alex Miteff (was he?) had lost 2 of his previous 3, and after a close split decision loss to Chuvalo, was stopped in 4 of his next 5. In all he was on a 7 losses in 9 fights collapse with the Chuvalo fight his closest loss.

And the "unranked" Jackson. He was a young guy on the way up rather than a fading gatekeeper like Miteff. Over the next three months he followed up the win over Layne with wins over highly ranked Clarence Henry and Dan Bucceroni to move high up in the ratings. He would stay in the top ten for more than 3 years, rising to the #1 contender spot and a shot at the title.

Another is Ramos at #6. He got the rating by a home town decision over Terrell, seemingly because at last someone put it to Ernie for excessive clinching. Okay. But for his career he was 24-29-3 and would lose almost all his remaining fights.

"Unranked" Matthews was actually the #1 light-heavyweight contender, rated above Archie Moore, and would move into the heavyweight rankings with his win over Layne. The Ring selected him at the end of 1951 as the #1 p4p fighters, replacing Robinson. A mile better fighter than Ramos.

As for the Whitlock, did you look at the NBA quarterly ratings. He was rated between #9 and #6 for his first three fights with Layne. Layne outweighed him by 6 1/2 lbs. in the fight Whitlock won.

Layne lost to Neuhaus and Friedrich when washed up. Neuhaus was for years the Euro champion and rated. Layne had drawn with Neuhaus a couple of years earlier, but for the rematch looked to be going through the motions and badly overweight. Same with Friedrich, whom he had beaten a couple of years earlier.

As for Cleroux. He beat Chuvalo two of three. Quarry? We all know how odd that one was. In fairness to Chuvalo, he was 32 when he fought Quarry.

*I don't see Chuvalo doing much against top boxers like Charles and Walcott, but his style might have made him a load for Layne. Still he was much slower with his hands and if Layne fights smartly and moves about (watch his exhibition against Louis), I think he wins. Layne was certainly the better all-around fighter as his best wins indicate, but styles do make fights, and Chuvalo might have the style to give Layne trouble.

 

What fighter went on to do or not do isnt really pertinent imo. Chuvalo would give Layne problems,imo better chin ,better conditioned,with better stamina.

 

"What fighter went on to do or not do isn't really pertinent."

It seems to me what the fighter does or does not do is the most pertinent of all.

Here is the annual ratings by The Ring from the Feb. 1959 issue, places 8 to 10.

8-----Brian London
9-----Sonny Liston
10----Mike DeJohn

Here is the March, 1959, NBA ratings:

Champion--Floyd Patterson
1----Ingemar Johansson
2----Henry Cooper
3----Zora Folley
4----Brian London
5----Eddie Machen
6----Sonny Liston
7----Roy Harris
8----Charley Powell
9----Nino Valdes
10---Joe Erskine

If all that matters is the ratings for the moment, a win over Brian London in early 1959 would trump a win over Sonny Liston? Come on. The trajectory of the rest of their careers matters a great deal. London was at best, and it is at best, a gatekeeper. Liston went on to be champion and many rate him as a top ten ATG, or at least top 20. Hardly any serious analyst would consider a win over the men rated ahead of Liston to mean more than a win over Liston.

 

I judge him as he is when he fights the subject in question ,not what he goes on to do or not do .If I did that I'd say Ezzard Charles was a mediocre fighter and he obviously wasn't
Any particular reason you left out the underlined?

 

I don't understand what you mean by the underlined, as it is the whole point. But, and it is my fault for not preparing myself better for my original post, you quoted me before I made my argument, which is now up on the post.

Ezzard Charles was indeed a mediocre fighter from about 1956 or so. He was not earlier.

In fairness, this isn't hard and fast. One must take into account the fighter's whole career and also what he was doing at the time. But ratings are, after all, often arbitrary, and my point is if you have been rated and will be in the future, not being rated at that moment isn't the whole issue. Baer when he fought Farr is a good example.

My main disagreement is your position that being unrated or rated lower tells us definitively what a fighter is. No. It just doesn't in many cases.