We didn't see many matches between them except for Layne vs Baker when both had seen better days (Baker won all three). Layne and LaStarza were probably about as good at their best but they did benefit from better management. None of the contenders in those days really stood above the rest.
Interesting question 1--Layne because he beat both Walcott and Charles. The losses to Baker came when he was way over the hill, and the LaStarza fight was very close. He also ko'd Satterfield who slaughtered Baker and Valdes. 2--Valdes because he beat Charles. 3--Henry--well, he ko'd Baker, and also Satterfield, but failed against champions Moore and Johnson. 4--Baker--Consistent, but poor performances against top men Moore, Satterfield, Jackson, etc undercut him. Biggest wins over Valdes bettered by Satterfield and Johnson. 5--LaStarza--Gave a young Marciano a really close fight, and edged Layne, but I put him at the bottom off his whole career. Too carefully managed. *By the way, I don't see that Layne was carefully managed at all.
He was early on. A lot of his opponents were brought in to pad up his record. Layne did take on Jersey Joe Walcott, and won. His management did not actually expect him to win, but they thought he would get some much needed experience. After winning that fight, they stated that Layne was still a work in progress and not ready for a title fight against Charles. His management did not exactly "hand-pick" his opponents but they did a good job managing him at the early stages. After Marciano beat him, Rocky became the new sensation though and Layne failed in a crossroads bout against Charles which basically put an end to his days as the top heavyweight prospect.
Fair enough, but it is difficult to believe that anyone would have considered Thompson (even when Layne fought him), Walcott, or Satterfield to be anything but dangerous opponents. And then Marciano and Charles. Also, Layne did edge Charles in a rematch, even if controversial, which put him back near the top of the ratings for a spell.
They all fought tough guys, except LaStarza, but Valdes and Henry probably had it the toughest. Once coming to the United States, after being put against Joe Louis in exhibitions that were more like legitimate contests, Valdes was met with Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, Harold Johnson and Bob Baker as opponents. After that, Bobby Gleason took over as his manager and he fought a string of easier opponents while living off the win over Charles. They could never make the Marciano match however.
Valdes certainly fought more than his share of tough opponents--and as he lasted a bit longer, perhaps more than Layne. I am just a bit more impressed with Layne's top wins over Walcott, Charles, and Satterfield than I am with Valdes' top wins. *why Henry, though. He never fought a heavyweight champion while Layne fought three.
Layne had an impressive run although I do not really recognize the win over Charles, but he outworked Walcott and outlasted Satterfield who was an inconsistent performer one must admit. Layne was a rough and tough mauler. I'm not sure if he was necessarily better though or if he only matched up better against them. Valdes could have had Layne's number for all we know. The win over Charles seemed to be a more decisive one than Layne's.
I have read the Ring Magazine reports on both the Layne and Valdes victories over Charles, and Valdes won solidly, while the Layne victory was very controversial, but not necessarily unfair. Besides Referee Dempsey, Jack Hurley had Layne winning, and Nat Fleischer had it 5-5. It was a close fight. One difference, though. I think Valdes surprised Charles who was not expecting a tough fight and might not have been in the best of shape. I can't believe Charles took Layne lightly, as Layne had banked a win over the reigning champion, Walcott, and was fighting in his hometown. It is instructive that Valdes' management skirted a possible rematch, even an elimination bout with the winner to get Marciano. Satterfield substituted for Valdes.
