Rex's outside game, defense and balance are just horrible. How was this guy ever an entity in the heavyweight division?
Rex was strong and game. A rough handfull. Dangerous with a right hand and in it to win it. He is landing against a great fighter here and closes the gap quite well. No shame in coming short late in a fight against the magnitude of a Ezzard Charles. The guy also beat Walcott and gave Joe Louis a tough exhibition. Rex is not that bad. He's nothing pretty but effective at a good level. I think Rex was about as good as Gerrie Coetzee. And I would expect him to beat the same kind of guys Coetzee could too.
His conditioning left something to be desired too, he would fit in well with some of the fat boys masquerading as heavyweights today. He shows all the skills of Chris Arreola. What were his corner doing sending him out for the 11th?
I get the similarities, I just can't see Arreola beating Walcott, Turkey Thompson, Bob Satterfeild or even Cesar Brion. At least Rex looked that bad fighting good fighters where as Chris looks like that against mismatched guys. But I get where you are coming from, same kind of thing style wise. Quite crude and tired looking but game.
He was not strong. Dempsey himself complained about how weak he was and needed to improve in that department. I don't think he was a good as Coetzee who had better feet, better use of range and a true equalizer in his right hand.
Then what's your explanation from him beating Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles 2 years before Marciano did? He certainly beat Walcott a lot easier than Marciano did.
"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down. But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of piiss and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right." - John Garfield (RIP)
Speaks horribly for the era. A small, slow heavy without great mobility who fights hands down and can't seem to control distance should not be the standard bearer of an era. BTW, wasn't Dempsey the sole arbiter for both the Charles and Walcott wins? The same Dempsey who picked Layne to be his protege? The Dempsey who scored 7 rounds even in the Charles fight? Wow...
"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down. But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of piiss and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right." - John Garfield I won't comment on Layne-Charles. Layne-Walcott there is film of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98dk-tzqU78 Here is Layne finding a way to clearly outpoint a hall of fame heavyweight near his prime. I think he shows a good left jab, a fast heavy right, and does a ton of great work driving walcott to the ropes and attacking his body. Here is Layne winning a slugfest against one of the biggest punchers of the entire decade. Here he shows a big right hand, fantastic chin, and incredible amounts of heart. Layne took some HUGE bombs from Satterfield here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKUlBPErrn0
OK, I am being a bit harsh. He's a very entertaining, very game fighter with some cute defensive skills, also. In the heavyweight ranks, you don't need to be the complete package to be successful. That is for sure. I will rewatch these fights over the next days.