1950s Heavy weights underrated?

Many?

 

I don't think Layne would beat the likes of Arreola.

 

Rex knocked out Satterfeild. Outpointed Walcott. What’s Arreola’s best two wins?

 

Everyone fought everyone worth while? This is patently not true.

 

I'm saying head to head Arreola beats Layne.

 

That is his level imo.Truth is Layne would be a club fighter today.lol
Do you see Layne going 10rds with Vitali? Twelve with Stiverne? Eight with Wilder?

 

Arreola beats Rex Layne on the basis that Arreola has no good wins?

Chris is a guy who came up at a time where contenders don’t even fight each other. Instead They compile a run of wins over sparring partners then lose a title fight. The stats bare this out. I think it is unfair on Arreola to compare him to any contender who could beat rated fighters.

Arreola cannot develop into a fighter who can live under the 1950s system. Because he is not winning live fights. He loses live fights. He’s a big lug. That’s it.

As janitor says, the top fighters are always good. But down the ranks it is thin.

 

On the same steroids that plagues the HW division today Rex wins all those fights hands down. He was a seasoned contender who could win live fights. How many “live” fights did Vitali even win?

 

Maybe he would, and maybe he wouldn't, but Layne is unequivocally the better fighter on paper.

 

He beats him on the basis that he is better defensively, has as much power , and has a better chin.
Don't talk about contenders fighting each other because we know half the 50's guys avoided the iron of the division and Layne missed many of them himself !

 

One win over an inconsistent Walcott, a gift over Charles , and a win over cruiser Satterfield who knocked him down.

 

Why would I even care?

Do you think I would give Areola more respect for lasting longer in a losing effort, that I would give Layne for actually beating somebody of consequence?

 

We match fighters as they were /are.So stop with the BS!