Could Roland Lastarza have succeeded in other eras?

Roland LaStarza was a capable fighter who was a great defensive
fighter with a good jab. While he was not a big puncher, he boxed
well enough to rack up a number of wins, and some of the fighters
were of decent quality. So, I think that LaStarza could have done
okay in the Dempsey and Louis eras. Don't think that LaStarza
could have beaten either Dempsey or Louis, but he would have
been competitive against the contenders.

Grebfan9
www.firstroundboxing.com

 

More than half of them (7) were heavyweight champions. Three defeated heavyweight champions (Bivins, Maxim, Johnson), all but Johnson were rated at least #3 contender at heavyweight and Johnson should have been as he defeated five #1 contenders over the years, including Machen in the sixties. You are playing ducks and drakes with the divisions. After all, in the last twenty years Spinks, Jones, and Toney have moved up from lightheavy to fight successfully in the superheavyweight class, let alone the old heavyweight division.

And by the way, don't fighters move up from the lightheavies to the cruisers today. You are talking about a man who is fighting at cruiser, not superheavyweight.

 

I know that but i don't class spinks,toney or jones as heavyweights do you? Also haye is only fighting at cruiserweight as he thinks he can get a title there before moving upto heavyweight, so he can be a two weight champion making him one of a few to have done this, thats if he suceeds. Also how do you expalin the loses that fighter's such as walcott etc had to poor competition as well as the obvious good wins and losses he had against good competition?

 

Why do I have to explain anything about Walcott. Haye has lost, after all, and Carl Thompson is not Joe Louis, or even Tiger Jack Fox. Everyone knows Walcott was a journeyman back in the thirties, with no trainer and no backing and holding a full time job.

Spinks and Toney fought or are fighting at heavier weights than Haye is fighting at now, and so for that matter did Moore. Jones fought at 193. What exactly is your point. As I said, you are playing ducks and drakes with the divisions but in fact the heavyweight is merely the unlimited division. If you want to claim modern giant heavyweights are better because they are bigger, stick to that claim. It does not prove any past era weak, though. But also remember that Haye has not in fact beaten bigger men than the fighters you are dismissing as small.

And by the way, these men could not use steroids or growth hormone.

 

I don't think modern heayweights are better becuase they are bigger, again with your claims, i only rate holyfield and lewis as top ten heavyweights from the modern era, i just find it funny how people such as yourselves overlook the faults of old fighters and yet try to make out that modern fighter's are worse becuase tey have done things wrong as well.
Do you class spinks, toney and jones as heavyweights, if so you would be the first person i have ever seen do this just becuase they had a couple of fight's there.
Also which fighter's are you saying use steroids, i hope your not implying guys like haye use stroids etc as you have no evidence for this.
I also feel that the 1950's era of boxing was the weakest until the modern day, as i don't see what fighter's really sttod out as great heavyweights bar marciano and i don't count louis becuase he was not exactly as his peak, joe louis wouldn't lose or get half the results he did have after 1950 if he wasn't well past his best.

 

I might ask why you consider Holyfield a heavyweight when he fought at cruiserweight early in his career

Be that as it may, Spinks was heavyweight champion. Jones was the #4 rated heavyweight in 2003. Toney was the #3 rated heavyweight in 2005, and #4 in 2004 and 2006. Yes, they are heavyweights. Spinks weighed more when he fought Tyson than Holyfield did against Foreman or Bowe.

You are entitled to think any era weak you want but it doesn't necessarily make it a valid position. When Ring Magazine rated the heavyweights, six of the top 21 were active in the fifties (Louis, Marciano, Liston, Charles, Walcott, Patterson). The AP end of the century poll rated Louis, Marciano, Liston, and Walcott among their top ten heavyweights of the century. I agree with them more than you.

 

Maybe LaStarza could have beaten the Hart's, Braddock's, Spinks, and Briggs of boxing. In fact, I think he has a very good chance to beat all four names I mentioned.

I think LaStarza would be a contender up to the 1960's, but I can't see him as a top contender from Ali to present. Roland was a good boxer, he just wasn't a puncher or super defensive.

 

More or less like you say- a very good boxer, but smallish and limited offensively. He would be a legitimate contender in any era, I'm pretty confident. I don't think he would be quite championship level material in most time periods, but if he'd come around in, say, the Schmeling-Sharkey-Carnera-Baer-Braddock era, then I'd imagine he would've had a good shot at getting a stint as champion.

 

I don't know how anyone could call walcott one of the top ten heavyweights of the century, i could easily name ten guys that have done more than him. Previously you stated about 1950-1955, liston and patterson didn't do anything until the late 50's and early sixties so how you can count them i don't know, joe louis was well past his prime even by the start of 1950. So the only guys i accept of your list are walcott,charles and marciano.
You also state that holyfield was a cruiserweight which was true but he is still fighting heavyweight 11 years after he moved from cruiserweight and has had more fights at heavyweight. Did toney, jones or spinks have more fights at heavyweight than at their respective weights, i don't think so. infact jones fought 1 fight at heavyweight so that's scraping the barrel, toney has had 8 fights out of 70 at heavyweight and spinks had 5 fights at heavyweight out of 31 hardly building there legacy's as heavyweights, more like having a few heavyweight fights towards the end of their careers.

 

Yes. Lastarza could have beaten Schemling, Carnera, and lazy Baer.

I view LaStarza as a near equal verison of Tommy Lourghran. I perfer Loughran on film because he had a very good left, and moved a bit better. Loughran fought many of the 1930's heavyweights. He defeated Max Baer, Uzcudun, Jack Sharkey, Godoy, Gross, Schaff, and Braddock.

 

1. On whether so and so is a heavyweight--the heavyweight is the unlimited division--the definition of the heavyweight champion is the man who can defeat any other man in a boxing match. You do not have to be any given weight to quality as a heavyweight.
2. On weak and strong eras--frankly, this is the most foolish and self-serving concept put forward in debates like this. A "strong" era is the period in which your inferior fighter with an inferior record fought. A "weak" era is one in which a better fighter with a better record fought. As you are backing a loser, you can't rely on records. A lawyer who has the facts argues the facts. A lawyer who does not have the facts muddies the waters.
3. On Walcott's rating--I didn't vote on any of these ratings--Panels of experts did:
Ring Magazine 1998--Walcott was ranked #13.
Ebony Magazine 1978--A poll of black sportswriters rating all heavyweight champions--Walcott was #8.
AP--end of the century poll of an AP panel of experts on best heavyweights of the 20th century:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson
6. Holmes
7. Liston
8. Frazier
9. Langford
10. Walcott

 

Youv'e not really come back with much, and you accuse me of trying to muddy the waters, you class a guy with one heavyweight fight as a heavyweight ok.
Also that top ten list is bull****, tyson and and big gerorge should easily be abovr walcott.