Archie Moore has a better top 12 HW wins in their era than Marciano does.

Okay. Valdes was rated above Cockell. I have no issue with anyone considering Valdes the more worthy for a title shot.

LaStarza is a different issue. Layne had beaten Charles and LaStarza in turn defeated Layne. Plus LaStarza had lost a very tight decision to Marciano. He was the #1 contender and there was a controversy to be settled. He had beaten every man he fought except Marciano. Who do you think should have gotten that shot in September of 1953?

 

He deserved it more than Don but after fighting several number ones and having a horrendous cut the fight before he gets a gimme to test said nose. Don was also on a nice streak of ten wins against decent comp. Beating Farr, Matthews x3, LaStarza. Given he caught all at the right time.
I wish he would have knocked out Baker and Nino it would have put some of these convos to rest. I don’t think they would have been particularly difficult fights. Nino would have been a fun fight for sure.

 

Valdes,because he had just beaten Charles,Charley Doc Williams and another guy.Lastarza got a split dec and that's his only really big win. A couple of fights previously Lastarza had been floored and beaten by journeyman lhvy Rocky Jones,he beat him in the rematch,but was floored again.Lastarza wouldn't have gone anywhere near Charles,like he didn't at least ten dangerous heavyweights.
Layne had gotten the verdict over Charles is how I would put it..
In a blatantly obvious hometown decision, Referee Jack Dempsey scored 2 rounds for Layne, 1 round for Charles with 7 rounds even. Most objective observers felt Charles had won. During the fight Layne butted Charles repeatedly without caution from the referee.

Legendary cornerman and trainer Ray Arcel said,"Instead of adding dignity to the fight game, Dempsey has added disgrace."


"While there still may reamin lingering doubts in the minds of some fight fans as to the superiority of Rex Layne over Ezzard Charles, the International Boxing Club made its stand clear Saturday by offering Layne a title shot at the winner of the Rocky Marciano-Jersey Joe Walcott fight. Even as the fans continued their arguments over referee Jack Dempsey's verdict Friday, which gave the underdog Layne a surprise decision over Charles, the IBC stepped forward with its blessing for Layne." -Salt Lake Tribune

Unofficial scorecards

• Ring Magazine - 5-5 Draw
• Salt Lake Tribune - 6-3-1 Charles
• Rocky Mountain News - 5-3-2 Charles

And in Rex's previous fight he had lost to Mathews.

 

yes, that’s true and Moore beat Johnson 4 times proving Moore was an absolute stud!

 

valdes should have gotten a title shot over Cockell, but Moore was definitely superior to Valdes. The rematch was a very competitive fight but Moore definitely deserved the win. Oh, Moore was not that competitive vs Marciano besides the knockdown. Marciano obliterated Moore.

Marciano-Valdes was a fight Marciano’s management wanted. I think it just so happened Cockell was chosen first. They 100 percent planned to get to Valdes next.

 

Louis knocked out Nino Valdes in 1 round in 1950

 

Spin. Spin. Spin. You should go into politics.

Layne's win over Charles. I haven't seen it. Klomptin said he saw the film a few years back and posted he thought Layne won. Jack Hurley thought Layne won. So did Dempsey. My take is it was a close fight and a draw or one round either way is probably fair.

"Ray Arcel"

Was working Charles' corner.

"the IBC stepped forward"

So did the National Boxing Association. Here are their next ratings out on October 10, 1952:

Champion-----Rocky Marciano
1-----Jersey Joe Walcott
2-----Rex Layne
3-----Ezzard Charles
4-----Roland LaStarza

"offered Layne a title shot"

When did this come off?

LaStarza and Jones-----"but was floored again"

Okay. But LaStarza won easily on all cards. One official gave LaStarza 9 rounds. Without seeing the knockdown, there is no way to judge if Roland was badly hurt or if this was one of those caught off balance slip-knockdowns.

Jones-----"journeyman"

Here are the NBA ratings on July 7, 1953

Heavyweight
Champion-----Rocky Marciano
1-----Ezzard Charles
2-----Roland LaStarza
3-----Dan Bucceroni
4-----Bob Satterfield
5-----Tommy Harrison

light-heavyweight
Champion-----Archie Moore
1-----Harold Johnson
2-----Joey Maxim
3-----Yolande Pompey
4-----Rocky Jones
5-----Danny Nardico

Why was Jones so highly rated? Because he had not only beaten LaStarza, he had beaten Harrison.

"And in Rex's previous fight he had lost to Harry Matthews"

Which in your spin is a negative for Rex rather than a positive for Harry. Hard to see how this impacts Charles losing to Rex.

 

I'm not arguing Moore's superiority to Valdes,but rather Valdes' superiority to Cockell and Lastarza

 

We are talking heavyweights. My point is the vast majority thought Charles was robbed against Layne,and the correctness of their opinion was confirmed in the rematch. No spin just how I see it.
Had Marciano fought Valdes,I think he would have beaten him.but thats not a get out for the Marciano camp not fighting him,any more than my thinking Dempsey stops Wills justifies that fight not happening.

 

"Because Valdes had just beaten Charles, Charley Doc Williams, and another guy"

What this has to do with the LaStarza fight is a head scratcher. Here is the timeline.

July 16, 1953-----New York Times. "Marciano and LaStarza sign for a title fight at the Polo Grounds on September 24."

July 18, 1953-----Valdes KO's Agramonte in 10

August 11, 1953-----Valdes outpoints Charles in 10.

So Marciano and LaStarza signed for their title fight when Valdes was not even a rated fighter and was coming off four straight losses.

Here are the NBA ratings after the Marciano-LaStarza fight. From October 13, 1953

Champion-----Rocky Marciano
1-----Dan Bucceroni
2-----Ezzard Charles
3-----Roland LaStarza
4-----Nino Valdes

Note that the #1 contender had been beaten by LaStarza.

Doc Williams? I can't find any evidence Doc Williams was ever rated in the 1950's at all, nor ever at heavyweight. Why is this win by Valdes so big?

 

"We are talking havyweights"

??????

"My point is the vast majority thought Charles was robbed"

What did the majority at the fight really think? Nat Fleischer was actually at the fight. Here are some quotes from his report in The Ring.

Fleischer-----"Many persons flocked to Utah to see the fight." "They left the area acclaiming Layne the next heavyweight champion."

Fleischer-----"These rugged Western fight fans . . . left convinced that Layne would again beat Walcott whom he had outpointed before Jersey Joe won the heavyweight crown. They pointed to the victory over Charles . . . as convincing proof that they now had in their midst the 'uncrowned champion.' The closeness of the fight had no standing with them."

When Layne's hand was raised as the winner,

Fleischer-----"The throng went wild and thousands flocked closer to the ring despite a deluge that drenched the spectators"

So the huge crowd definitely thought Layne won. In fairness, they were Layne fans. But it is certainly not true that the "vast majority" thought Charles won.

"the correctness of their opinion was proved in the rematch"

So Joe Frazier did not deserve the decision over Ali in 1971 because Ali beat him in the rematches? More spin.

Why did Layne do better in this one did than in his other two with Charles?

Fleischer-----"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 Marv Jensen."

And I might add, it is not at all surprising Layne put on a better show in this fight. Most competitors do better before the home folks. Across almost every sport. Often leads to upsets.

Fleischer-----"In my opinion the fight was a draw." Dempsey and Hurley had Layne winning.

Here is the point your case rests on.

Fleischer-----"Of eleven reporters, ten voted for Charles."

One might argue they were more objective? Possibly. But the fly in the ointment is that Charles was an IBC contracted fighter and Layne independent. I worked for a newspaper back in the day. Reporters were not highly paid. Could an organization with the resources of the IBC "buy" opinions? It was not unknown. I have no idea. What we do know is these were small time papers out in the boondocks. How much boxing expertise did these reporters have? Do they compare with Dempsey, Hurley, and Fleischer?

I stick with my take that there is no convincing evidence the decision was unfair.

 

"Layne was washed up when he fought LaStarza"

Here is the NBA ratings for January 5, 1953

Champion-----Rocky Marciano
1-----Jersey Joe Walcott
2-----Ezzard Charles
3-----Rex Layne
4-----Roland LaStarza

Layne and LaStarza fought on February 13, 1953.

So the #3 contender, who has wins over the #1 and #2 contenders, is washed up.

"Bucceroni, a puffed up lhvy"

Like Dempsey and Tunney?

Bucceroni was highly rated at heavyweight. In the October, 1953, ratings, he was the #1 contender.

 

Al Weill didn't want that fight.

 

Do you think the Valdes of 1950 was the same fighter as the 1953/55 version?

 

The Ring scored the fight a draw. Ten out of eleven papers scored it for Charles,and that is not convincing evidence?
Who is spinning now? The IBC connection is just projection on your part,to quote you ,there is no convincing evidence,that played a part in the decision,it may well have done ,an exciting brawler who most importantly was white, getting a dec over a less than charismatic black fighter is a real possibility,but you cant cite it as a fact!

The FOTC had judges not a referee givinga lone decision and how many even rounds did they score?