It only looks that way without watching the films. You watch film of cesar Brion and he’s holding his own with the best out there. Louis, Layne and Charles. He was equal to Rex Layne.
Brion wasn't much,he lost to all the best men he fought. Bucceroni was more of a fringe contender , .and had the same results against the top echelon guys. Layne was damaged goods. Marciano beat the **** out of him. If he wasn't protected ,why no Rollie v Louis Charles Walcott Maxim Satterfield Henry Baker Sys Gardner Williams Baksi Wallace Neuhaus Harrison Dunlop Bivins Walls ?????
you can say the same thing about Tony Tubbs, he lost to all the best guys he fought too yet in his era he wound up with a belt. Brion was one of those unspectacular guys who held his own with anyone for a time. Think Renaldo Snipes. There’s good guys out there who beat everyone up to a level apart from the very best contenders who they take very close. Snipes took Witherspoon and Berbick very close.. Ray Mercer was a bit like that. He took Evander and Lennox close. Sometimes you have to credit those guys. not when he was rated #3 in the world he wasn’t. well Rollie fought Marciano, Layne, Brion and Bucceroni. That’s enough isn’t it? You just named 14 contenders Roland could have fought. How many challengers fought that many contenders anyway? Cleveland Williams fight 14 contenders? Did Ron Lyle or Shavers beat that many?
Tubs isn't the subject under discussion is he? Brion lost to all the best guys so did Bucceroni Two nearly men!
But if you are going to dismiss those nearly men (who happened to be world rated) you end up dismissing everyone who never won a real world title don’t you? You can say every fighter who never won the title lost to the best guys they fought. Tommy Farr lost to all the best men he fought. Joe Bugner lost to all the best men he fought. George Chuvalo and Razor Ruddock lost to all the best men they fought.. Cleveland big Cat Williams really did lose to everyone of the best men he fought but I don’t hear you calling those guys out. In some eras losing to all the best men a guy ever fought is still enough to wind up with a belt of some discription. Like Tony Tubbs or James Smith or John Tate.
Farr did beat Baer and Neusel. Chuvalo was a gate keeper. Williams beat Terrell and drew with Machen, they weren't exactly lining up to fight him! You are trying to make Lastarza what he wasn't, he was a well manoeuvered, protected fighter who lost to a journeyman light heavyweight ,being floored along the way just two fights before he fought for the title,he was kept away from punchers too. To make Lastarza this top guy ,you have to exalt Brion and Bucceroni I understand that, but I'm not buying what you are selling Chok!
Williams also lost to Terrell. Hence he lost to the best guy he beat as well as losing to all the best guys he fought. Each one. Farr also lost to Baer. Hence Farr lost to the best guy he beat as well as losing to all the best guys he also fought. You see how this works as well for everyone else? Chuvalo also got a shot at the title on the back of a loss to 11-4 Eduardo Corletti, a fight I think you witnessed. In fact Chuvalo won just one of his last three fights. By comparison Lastarza had better credence challenging for a title didn’t he? so Williams lost to Terrell, lost to Liston, lost to Satterfeild and drew with Machen... does this mean he didn’t lose to the best guys he beat? I don’t think so. Roland was number one contender. I don’t have to pretend anything. he won his previous fight, he gained revenge over his losses. Beat the top contender. When Rollie challenged for the title Marciano was the only loss Lastarza had that He had not avenged. Lastarza was a top guy. He was #1 rated. Regarded the logical contender. There is no other way to put it.
Plenty of others scored Williams Terrell for Williams including ringsiders! It was a very close fight, very difficult to pick a winner, Williams landed all the punishing shots and had Terrell hurt multiple times throughout! I wouldn’t accuse anyone of having an agenda except yourself! We have all figured you out by now!
Ah so now that means something when lastarza has that title, but in the other thread you argued me to death it didn’t matter when Nino Valdes held that same title.... Your Agenda is clear!
I have rocky jones vs Lastarza on film. Embarrassing for lastarza, he looked dreadful. His punch resistance looked highly questionable and he displayed very limited speed and athleticism. Got exposed by a club fighter
I didn't imply he had to fight 14 contenders and you know I didnt! Actually its 15 I forgot Jackson. However you would have expected him to face a few of them in the normal run of things wouldn't you?
no. It was close and in close fights an audience can turn a verdict into a popularity contest usually because they are not sat there with a pen and paper and scoring round by round. You will find the odd one that fought Williams deserved it but it is a minority view and that was how the officials had it. A minority of three picked Williams. On a thread you were a minority of one who scored for Williams. You had almost a shut out for him as well. Which you are entitled to believe. But was not how the majority have it. The rounds were close fought but the one guy winning the exchanges was nearly always Terrell. There’s nothing wrong in being the minority on this. It’s perfectly acceptable. Your view is less popular. It dosnt mean your wrong. It’s just you have the minority view on this. no more times than Terrell hurt Williams. post the film of Charles vs Brion. Prove me wrong. I want to lose the argument and win the truth. Let’s see that film!