And Walcott was probably physically stronger than Layne too. But when a 200 lb man drops his head and bull rushes into your stomach, butts you in the chin, hooks your arms, sticks an elbow in your face, beats your ribs for 12 rounds, it doesn't matter if you are 30 lbs heavier and can dead lift more in the gym. You think John Ruiz could bench more than Rahman? I think this is a similar fight.
Layne was past his prime when he was fighting those guys. He peaked early then faded. I have fight reports on all three baker reports..he lost clearly in the first two, and the third was very close, with baker still edging it. Still Layne had 3 chances and couldn't come away with 1 win over baker. Neuhas Should have been beatable for Layne, Valdes destroyed him in 4. Lastarza may have been a bad decision, I've read Layne deserved the nod. Jackson vs a prime 1950 Layne would have been very interesting
Boxing Historian the late Joe Rein was quoted on Rex Layne "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."
If Layne was so weak, then how come he backed up and outmuscled jersey Joe Walcott a few years before Walcott beat up Ezzard Charles and Rocky Marciano
Of course he was past his best, which is what makes these performances against contenders (two of which were leading at the time) so interesting. Baker only clearly won the first. The second was close, Baker edged it by one round on all scorecards which is why they rematched less than a month later. The third was a split decision and reads like a brutal war with both men being staggered.
A little stiff in the collar there Mac, I answered the question and added a few matches to the answer. It would be impossible to match anyone with out a hypothetical time machine because if Bruno had to go backwards he couldn't take his juice with him.
Bruno was not great but he hit like a truck and had a very solid jab everything Layne did Bruno does better.
I think the Bob Satterfield fight showed a lot of what was in Layne and he got off the floor to win. Post Marciano he was ruined mentally for the most part. I like the shot Coetzee win for Bruno as impressive although he fought gallant in a few losses but the folding memory's of Witherspoon and Smith always lingered
Do you think Bruno's power was comparable to Satterfield's? Satterfield was 58lbs lighter than Bruno.
I sat next to him ringside once, he was giving out little cards with his autograph on it, he is a very large gentleman, he would make Layne look like I did next to him SMALL!
I'd say Bruno hit harder . Apart from china chinned Satterfield and 176lbs Dunlap who the f*ck did Layne ever ko whose worth mentioning ? Stats don't tell the whole story but Bruno has an 84% ko ratio .That looks pretty damn good alongside Layne's 49%!