Lastarza v Henry,Satterfield,Valdes,Baker?

Good post but a couple things

1. There’s talk marciano could have dumped Lastarza in 5 or 6 but carried him because Lastarza called him punch drunk

2. Why did Lastarza refuse to fight all the top black heavyweights? He essentially drew the color line

3. How do you explain him getting floored and beaten up by 14-9 rocky Jones?

4. Consistency. It’s not hard to be consistent when your management is feeding you a pile of cab drivers, sanitation workers, and steam boat captains....Valdes baker satterfield and Henry all had much tougher schedules against men of all races, big punchers, and hall of fame fighters

 

How ironic...because what stood at the time was Valdes was the number 1 mandatory “only logical contender” by NBA and RING, yet you try to rewrite history and argue cockell deserved a shot as much as Valdes.

”whoever beat layne at that point gets the show”

Ezzard Charles beat him, Willie James beat him, Harry Matthews beat him at that point. Where was their shot?


Lastarza ducked the top black fighters. He admitted it in a RING interview. You think a fight with Bucceroni or Brion was a bigger fight for lastarza than against Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott, or joe Louis? Or Archie Moore? Lastarza would have gotten much higher pay days against these guys, but his rating would have dropped dramatically when he lost



You agree in hindsight that those 4 were better than lastarza. Well this is a fantasy head to head matchup. We can use hindsight here..if you know those 4 are better, than pick them over lastarza or state your case otherwise

 

I think that LaStarza would loose more than he won against this group, but he could spoil his way to some wins.

 

yes I get what you say. If Charles went ahead of Rollie in a title shot on account of knocking out Rex first then next losing controversially to Layne I could see that as a strong case too and I could make as much of a case for Charles landing it as I do for your pal Don going ahead of Nino. I accept that.

Mathews got an eliminator out of beating Layne. When Charles beat Layne the first time Rex was fresh off a loss to Rocky. It meant less than when Layne was awarded a result over Charles. That was the opportune time to beat Layne. And Rollie was the guy who hit the jackpot.

I’m not sure there was a deliberate navigation around these guys. Rollie lived off that SD with Rocky. He had the opportunity to rematch Jones and Bucceroni. The win over Bucceroni was quite sensational. Five knockdowns. There was no need to seek guys like Charles once Rocky was champion. Layne beat Charles and before Charles could reverse this mishap then Rollie landed a fight with Layne stealing his thunder. Had Henry done this he could have been that guy. Or whoever.

I think these guys are all 50-50 to be fair. Lastarza could go 2-2 against them and I’m not certain nobody among the others would go any better than 2-2 within this group seeing as Baker lost to Satterfeild And Satterfeild lost to Layne. We don’t know if Baker was ever better than Lastarza and that’s the best guy Henry beat.

 

Mcvey would have been interesting had you mentioned hurricane Jackson vs lastarza...

Against common opponents Jackson beat 3 men who hold victories over lastarza

 

Lastarza went 2-2 vs bucceroni and jones, two weak fighters

Baker, Valdes, Satterfield and Henry were much better fighters than bucceroni and jones

Satterfield fought a much better version of Layne than lastarza did

I think we do know baker is better than lastarza. Baker beat Julio Mederos who knocked out a 27 year old Lastarza. Baker also beat Layne and Brion much easier than lastarza did. Baker also beat Valdes 2x...lastarza never beat anyone as good as Valdes.

 

I think that LaStarza is a bit better than his critics are making out here.

Yes he was beatable, and yes he was carefully managed, but he still has tangible accomplishments.

He earned his spot as the #1 contender, by beating a very dangerous fighter, who held wins over both Walcott and Charles.

You don't do that by being a complete stumble bum.

 

1. The Layne he beat was no longer a dangerous fighter. Layne was a force on his way up in 50-51 but by 53 he was shopworn, and had stopped training regularly often showing up to fights in dreadful shape

Here’s what the late great Joe Rein aka John Garfield had to say

"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. After 1951 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 **** and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right."

Layne in 52 lost to 11-2 steamboat captain Willie James, and to light heavyweight Kid Matthews. Right after the lastarza defeat, he got creamed by Charles and knocked out by earl walls

2. Layne Charles was a dubious hometown decision with 7 rounds scored even from the lone scoring official who happens to grow up in that same state. The first and third Charles fights are on film, and all we see is Charles kicking the crap out of Layne. The second fight was filmed too, it’s out there somewhere

3. Layne may have deserved the decision against Lastarza. I have three newspaper articles which scored the fight to Layne. Lastarzas lack of dominance over other contenders is alarming.

4. If lastarza earned his number 1 rating by squeaking by a shopworn erratic Layne who was coming off two very bad losses, then losing to tomato can rocky jones...then I can’t think of a less qualified number 1 heavyweight challenger in ring history.

Why should lastarza have been number 1?

What did he do to earn a place above Clarence Henry? Henry beat satterfield and baker 2x only losing to Moore and Johnson in 51-53. Lastarza lost to Rocky Jones, Dan Bucceroni and barely squeaked by Layne and Brion.

What did lastarza do to earn a place above Charles? Charles beat a better version of Layne by knockout, and had much bigger victories over other rated men

What did lastarza do to earn a place above Harold Johnson. Or Archie Moore? Neither men lost to the likes of rocky jones or Bucceroni from 51-53 and both men beat Henry satterfield and Valdes.


Why wasn’t Roland forced to fight a title eliminator against Charles?

Why didn’t Roland have to go through any top rated black men to earn his high rating? No fights with Moore, Johnson, Walcott, Valdes, Charles, Louis, baker, Henry, Satterfield?

You’re reliance on 1 win over an erratic shopworn Layne is very weak for arguing his number 1 status while ignoring his horrible losses and drawing of the color line against top black men

 

Not every fighter who holds the #1 ranking, is the best contender in the world, but that does not mean that they did not deserve the status.

After the Layne fight, it would have been difficult for Ring Magazine not to give LaStarza their #1 ranking.

Was he lucky to get Layne when he did?

Yes he probably was.

Did he deserve the decision?

You can argue that he did not, but it seems to fall more into the category of "controversial decision", than the category of "robbery."

 

Why should Lastarza have that number 1 rating over Charles? Charles knocked out Layne, plus defeated much more ranked contenders than lastarza. And Charles never lost to rocky jones! It’s asinine to think one controversial victory over Layne should give lastarza the top rating when everyone around that period was beating Layne! What about Moore and Harold Johnson? What had lastarza done to be rated above them in 53?

And how long was lastarza number 1? For what two months? How convenient that the two months he’s number 1 Marciano immediately signs to fight him, while Nino Valdes spent 16 months as number 1 and still had to fight a title eliminator!

 

Your ranking is based on your current position relative to the other contenders, not your overall resume, or even how good you are as a fighter.

LaStarza beat Layne, when he was coming off a win over Charles, so it s logical enough that LaStarza moved ahead of Charles.

There is no need to infer a conspiracy here.

Marciano was defending his title fairly regularly at the time, and LaStarza held the ranking along with a history with him.

 

I think you are reading retrospective stature back onto some of these men. Hindsight is always 20/20 but what did observers think at the time? That is what such a match is made on.

Henry--He had lost to Johnson and Moore, and then took over a year off. When he came back he beat Baker, but lost to Slade and Jackson. He may have been injured, and therefore not the same fighter on his comeback, but what does this say about Baker who lost badly to him?

Baker--was certainly in and out. He lost not only to Henry, but to Gilliam, was blown out in one by Satterfield, and then lost to Henry again and was stopped by Moore.

This is the rankings going into the Marciano-LaStarza fight:

Champion--Rocky Marciano
1-----Roland LaStarza
2-----Ezzard Charles
3-----Dan Bucceroni
4-----Nino Valdes
5-----Tommy Harrison
6-----Bob Satterfield
7-----Heinz Neuhaus
8-----Don C-ckell
9-----Earl Walls
10---Harry Matthews

Neither Henry nor Baker are even in the top ten at this point. If you judge them better for their careers, fine, but I can't see second guessing LaStarza getting the title shot as the #1 contender over two guys who aren't even rated.

Harold Johnson--some of his later stature rubs off on him also. He had been stopped by Walcott, who had lost to Layne. His win over Charles (controversial like Layne's over Charles or LaStarza's over Layne) was in the future. He had split with Satterfield. So he hadn't done as well against either Walcott or Satterfield as Layne had, and Layne also had a win over Charles. Why is it surprising that the rating groups viewed LaStarza beating Layne as a better credit than Henry losing to Johnson?

Satterfield is actually rated at #6 at this point. He has some big wins, especially in retrospect, but a ton of losses also, including again to Layne.

Moore is certainly formidable, but he was the light-heavyweight champion defending his title in that division and not at this point lobbying for a shot at the heavyweight crown, so I don't see him in the mix.

Charles--he had already had a chance to regain his crown. He had then lost to Layne who in turn lost to LaStarza. I don't see a major problem with LaStarza getting the next shot.

The Ring staff of Fleischer, Ted Carroll, and Al Buck who commented on this coming fight all thought it made a lot of sense as a match-up and defense for Marciano. And it is impossible to overlook that there was unfinished business between Marciano and LaStarza. This is a match Marciano wanted and I think in a way needed to clear his record.

 

No it's not....You're failing to include bad losses like Lastarza losing to Rocky Jones in his previous fight! That loss alone prevents any type of win to catapulting him into number 1 status.

Don't even bother bringing up the rematch which is on film, where lastarza gets knocked down, cut, and then jones gets put on the handcuffs in round 3 the rest of the fight to prevent blowing a Marciano lastarza showdown!

 

It doesn't work like that.

You can lose to a hobo fighting for a sandwich, and it does not disqualify you from advancing based on future wins.

Unless a contender loses to a real no hoper, it is generally reflected in the winners ranking.