Lastarza v Henry,Satterfield,Valdes,Baker?

Bucceroni was far from unrated. He was rated #4 at light-heavy in the 1951 rankings. He had been #8 in 1950.
In 1952, he moved up during the year. In the April ratings, he came in #3--

Champion--Joey Maxim
1-----Archie Moore
2-----Harry Matthews
3-----Dan Bucceroni
4-----Harold Johnson
5-----Danny Nardico

Bucceroni was dropped out of the ratings in late 1952 for reasons not clear to me, as he was not losing and beat Nardico in November. In 1953 he moved into the heavyweight ratings and moved up through the year because of consistent wins. He was #3 by the time of the Marciano-LaStarza fight.

By the way, LaStarza was actually higher rated than #4 during the summer of 1952. He dropped down one spot after Layne defeated Charles.

In June, after the Walcott-Charles fight

Champion--Jersey Joe Walcott
1-----Rocky Marciano
2-----Ezzard Charles
3-----Roland LaStarza
4-----Coley Wallace
5-----Clarence Henry

"Charles only lost to Layne"

and LaStarza never lost to Layne.

Again I will point that Charles got and lost a shot at regaining the crown from Walcott after beating Layne the first time, so this Layne KO isn't relevant.

 

Layne was the #2 contender coming off a win over Charles. Bucceroni was the #3 contender that summer.

What all this boils down to if you have beaten every man you have fought and came closer to beating the champion than anyone, you might earn a high rating.

 

"Baker and Henry were in the top 5 in 1950-1952"

What has this to do with LaStarza's rating in 1953? If Henry and Baker or their fans have any complaints they would be better directed at the champions of that era, Charles and Walcott.

Nor is the rating after 1954 relevant.

Who are "they"

"They" were obviously wrong. Jones was coming off a win over Tommy Harrison who was a rated contender that year. Jones wasn't that good, but the Ring staff obviously didn't think he was so bad that they dismissed LaStarza as you demand. As for the fix talk, the 2nd fight was at New York, so I assume the Ring staff would have watched it, and they didn't share your view that LaStarza looked so awful that he could only win through a fix. In fact, they found him rather impressive.

Henry lost to Frank Buford and got back into the ratings, but who can be sure anyone was all that bad in an era in which top men were frequently upset.

 

If a ranked fighter loses to a no hoper, but wins the rematch, then they are usually allowed to advance in the rankings based on future wins.

It is not something that follows them around like a criminal record.

Your argument seems to be more based on the premise that La Starza was not very good, than the premise that the correct procedure was not followed by Ring Magazine.

There would have been ways not to make LaStarza the #1 contender, but it would have been difficult.

 

Well I declare!

 

Nino Valdes blew some of his credibility in New York when he fought terribly against James J Parker soon after making a name for himself through beating Charles. Had the decision went to Parker (and it could have) and Nino rematched Parker immediately (as Lastarza and Jones) he wouldn’t have lost much ground. It might have been better than not fighting Parker again. However the Parker fight was so bad nobody would have wanted to see the rematch.

Come to think of it, Maybe Charles wouldn’t have lost any ground if he had of got his rematch with Valdes?

 

Valdes more than made up for it when he destroyed hurricane Jackson in 2 rounds in Madison square garden. New York Times was so impressed they demanded Marciano face him next or nobody

Funny,

Lastarza stunk out the joint at Madison square garden against brion in 1949, a horrible affair...then of course he was involved in a fixed fight in 1953 that’s on film vs club fighter Rocky Jones

But hey, Lastarza gets number 1 rated for a period of just 2 months...Marciano immediately signs to fight him!

Valdes is Number 1 rated for 16 months...marcianos camp makes Valdes fight in an eliminator against a hall of famer!!!

 

Buford was coming off a win over Turkey Thompson who entered the year rated number 3 in the world by ring magazine

 

Charles also beat Layne a second time in April 1953 and Charles one sided victory over Layne still wasn’t enough to overtake lastara despite a much better overall body of work

 

Charles actually was ranked ahead of LaStarza at this point. LaStarza got the title shot despite being ranked #2. As it turned out, by fight time Charles had lost to Nino Valdes and Harold Johnson, which let LaStarza slip past him and fight Marciano as #1 contender.

 

Interesting...so when Marciano signed to fight lastarza he was number 2, not number 1?

 

That's right - the fight was signed in July, before Charles's loss to Valdes cost him the #1 spot.

 

Take notice janitor and Edward

Charles was the number 1 contender, not lastarza when marciano signed to fight lastarza

Charles in 53 was a year younger and less battle worn...would have been a better opponent for Marciano

 

But LaStarza was the number one contender when he stepped into the ring.

It is a point, and I am certain you will run with it, but my take is what did Charles have to complain about?

How many number one contenders, or even top five contenders, did he defend against?

Lesnevich--coming off losses in his last two major fights against Mills and Maxim (at light-heavy)
Valentino--ranked 9th at the end of 1948. Did not fight in 1949 until October against Charles.
Beshore--I think I read somewhere he was ranked 9th.
Louis--Okay.
Barone--not rated at all at heavyweight. Rated fairly high at light-heavy.
Oma--rated #9 by The Ring at end of 1950.
Walcott--rated #7 by The Ring at end of 1950. Coming off a loss to Layne.
Maxim--Although he was fighting at light-heavy and I don't think had won a fight against a top heavyweight for at least 2 years, got a high rating at heavyweight at #3. Also had lost three times already to Charles.
Walcott--now coming off two losses.

Who didn't get a shot? Well, all the young guys who were in the top five. Baker, Henry, and Layne--plus Savold who was a championship claimant and would seem to have been a logical opponent for Charles in order to clear things up.

I understand off a previous post that Marciano and LaStarza signed in July, but certainly LaStarza was the #1 contender by fight time, with Charles blowing his rating. Given Charles' own track record as champion, I can't see debiting Marciano that much for making what I think was a very logical defense against LaStarza, given the controversial decision in their first fight and Roland's win over Layne.

I think you have a much better case with Don C getting the shot ahead of Valdes.

I am an agnostic now, but put another way off my Catholic upbringing, defending against LaStarza is at most a pretty minor venial sin for Marciano in the long run of boxing history, but I don't even consider it a venial sin.

 

Just on LaStarza, a lot is being made of the Jones' fights, but it doesn't mean much to me as the "story" told doesn't make any real sense. Jones knocks LaStarza down and cuts him up, but then is told to lose the fight. Who told him? The only evidence apparently would come from Jones himself decades later, and I have no idea if he was properly quoted.

But certainly, two points stand out. Layne was the #2 contender, and Marciano the champion. Everything I have read indicates the worst that could be said about the Layne decision was that it was a close fight.

As for the 2nd Marciano fight,

LaStarza performed very well. Here are the scores:

Harold Barnes-----5-5
Arthur Susskind---6-4
Ruby Goldstein----7-3

This is the summation off the AP

"But this was no cake walk for the 29-year-old champ who won the title from Jersey Joe Walcott just a year and a day ago. While he was able to stave off the Rock's heavy guns, Roland gave a splendid account of himself."

This film is widely available and I agree. LaStarza gave a solid performance.

If anyone has a film of the Jones fight proving a fix, let's see it.