Why Didnt Lastarza Fight The Following?

I did not say that you criticized them.

They were the champions, so they controlled who got a title shot and who didn't.

 

Are we talking before or after he fought Marciano? If before, Valdes, Jackson, and Walls would have been considered at best trial horses of the sort LaStarza was generally fighting prior to 1953, and by that time LaStarza was signed to fight Marciano.

Some others? Baksi? Baksi didn't seem to fight any top men between Charles in 1948 and Baker in 1954. He looks to be almost semi-retired.

Oma--There was probably a rather short window for these two to fight. It would have had to have been 1949 or 1950. LaStarza was fighting Marciano and Brion, other young guys on the way up.

Gardner, Neuhaus, Sys, Williams--European fighters. They were on a different continent in an era of more difficult travel.

Walcott, Charles, Satterfield--all lost to Layne whom LaStarza did fight.

Slade, Harrison-lost to Bucceroni whom LaStarza fought.

Certainly the nub of what you are pointing to is well taken. LaStarza was carefully managed. He was hardly tossed into the lion's den fight after fight. Guys like Moore, Johnson, and Henry don't appear as opponents because they were avoided. Clever management and making the most of the split decision loss to Marciano got him a high ranking and a title shot. Would he have gotten the shot if he were black? Perhaps not, but we don't know for certain. Marciano wanted to fight Wallace to avenge an amateur loss. Wallace seems to have been as protected as LaStarza, except he never managed a win over anyone as impressive as Layne or Bucceroni and got flattened by Elkins Brothers and old Bivins.

 

there are lots of matches I’d PREFER to see and I’ll bet that most of them are the same ones you’d like to see too !! Believe me I don’t like the fact that we have multiple champions in every division with most of them not fighting each other either. But the fact that Wilder hasn’t always met the best opponents isn’t necessarily a case of HIM avoiding them.

 

Good for him. And as has been pointed out, he fought some other good fighters (which is why you didn’t include them on your list).

But fact is a lot of the guys you listed didn’t fight all the other top guys either. I’m not sure what the purpose of this thread is, but I don’t see many of the guys you listed as being more title shot worthy than LaStarza.

 

Here is the ratings from the October, 1953 issue of the Ring Magazine. I don't know what the NBA ratings were, but these are available.

Champion--Rocky Marciano
1--Roland LaStarza
2--Ezzard Charles
3--Dan Bucceroni
4--Nino Valdes
5--Tommy Harrison
6--Bob Satterfield
7--Heinz Neuhaus
8--Don Cokkell
9--Earl Walls
10-Harry Matthews

This is to August 18, 1953,

and is just posted for information.

 

Maybe he should have taken part in the first title eliminator he was offered (turned it down) and then maybe just maybe he should have won in his title eliminator. Not a soul was scared of nino. He was an over rated contender of the 50s and no one of that era thinks it’s a crime he wasn’t given a title shot. As a matter of fact Layne was probably more screwed by not getting a shot after beating Walcott. Had Marciano destroyed Nino I’d imagine the posts stating why on earth someone of that caliber was given a shot? You’d mention his numerous losses to other contenders before Marciano destroyed him (would be the inevitable conclusion) making it a worthless win. There was nothing to gain from fighting him period.

 

Layne's title shot evaporated when his poor performance against Cesar Brion made everyone - including his own manager -realise that he needed more experience before taking on Charles.

People say Nino turned down an eliminator, but they're always vague on the details. When exactly was he promised a title shot if he could beat Charles one more time?

 

So I’ve read.

 

The way I understand it, the powers that be broached a Charles-Valdes elimination in early 1954. Valdes' management opted out. Satterfield was substituted for the elimination with Charles. Charles won and got the shot at Marciano and then did well enough in the first fight to warrant a rematch.

That took it into 1955. Now the problem for Valdes is that the other two top contenders, Moore and Baker, had beaten him. It is hard to make the case that he deserved a shot over guys who had beaten him and actually had better overall records.

Still, was Valdes a better contender than Cokkell? Yes. Obviously in retrospect.

As for the late fifties, Valdes clearly deserved a shot before Rademacher and I think London. Harris would be a more problematic question, even in retrospect. As for Jackson, Valdes had a big KO win over Jackson, but had lost a lot while Jackson had been a consistent winner. Patterson only fought once in 1958. I think a fight with Valdes in the late autumn would have been appropriate.

Versus LaStarza though, Valdes shouldn't be in the conversation. He had only recently been a preliminary fighter and had lost four straight when he turned it around to beat a faded Agramonte in July of 1953, and then scored a big upset over Charles in August. By that time the Marciano-LaStarza defense had been signed and was set for September.

Also Valdes' case was hurt by a poor performance against Archie McBride, who wasn't as highly rated as Brion.