Are we seeing a pattern here? It wasn't the greatest era, but Marciano and his management, were obviously looking to fight the best!
Do you think every boxer you listed in the OP was in their prime in this time frame? And for every win and loss? It doesn’t matter. If Ezzard and Joe Walcott lost to Layne, beating Layne is a solid win for LaStarza. But ANSWER THE QUESTION: Layne’s resume is every bit as good as some of those you listed in the OP, so why isn’t his name on that list?
Nope I left him off because he was a diminished fighter imo who never got over being beaten up by Marciano and Lastarza still only squeezed by Layne on a split dec After the Marciano fight Layne was ko'd by Charles beat three trial horses lost to 11-2-1 Willie James being floored 3 times along the way and lost to Harry Mathews.In the 7 months between the Marciano and Lastarza fights Layne added 7 lbs of pork to his waistline as well. If you think Layne was the same fighter after the Marciano fight as he was prior to it then you must accept he was very capable of being beat up by ham and eggers such as James and downgrade his ability accordingly. If you want to say Lastarza getting a split dec over that version of Layne is noteworthy that is up to you. Now I've given my reason for not naming him and you can accept it or not, I really couldn't GAF!
I haven't seen the fight but the reports I have read state Charles deserved the decision. I can make no further comment .
I think you will find 37 fights Lastarza was ranked no 10 when he fought the 25 fight unranked Marciano,and that Marciano assumed his rating when he got the dec over him. inMarch 1950 Within a year or so of this fight Clarence Henry fought. Bivins Holman Payne Thompson Dunlap Agramonte Bob Baker fought Agramonte x2 Baksi Cestac Payne Bivins Henry Several of these guys were ranked I'd venture they were seen as more, or at least as dangerous opponents as the untested Marciano.
I don’t care if Layne was the same fighter after losing to Marciano. I do think it’s hilarious that you completely ignore that two fights before losing to LaStarza that Layne beat Ezzard Charles. THAT is why the LaStarza win over Layne is meaningful, which you very well know — the proof being that you purposely didn’t mention it. Face is, Roland was a viable contender. Every ranking says so. He had a narrow loss to Marciano, beat a Layne who was fresh off a win over Ezzard and also Dan Bucceroni (who you also managed to overlook on purpose), Cesar Brion and a still-useful Ted Lowry. Is it the best resume ever put together to earn a title shot? No, but far from the worst. Which you well know.
They are an opinion and using the annual rating is nothing more than a snapshot of an unofficial opinion at the very end of the year. They are about as unhelpful as they can despite the weight that some put on them for no other reason than they are easy to find via a quick google search.
You have it your way I'm under the impression Layne did not deserve the dec over Charles ,Klompton disagrees and he has seen the film of the fight,but I've never read a ringside report that agrees with the verdict,maybe Klompton has some that concur with him? You keep saying Im deliberately doing this and deliberately doing that to foster some agenda, I'm not and your accusations would be rather offensive if I gave a flying **** about your opinion, fortunately I don't!
