Lastarza v Henry,Satterfield,Valdes,Baker?

Charles definitely has his criticisms for his title reign, but at least he was a very active champion

1. I am not arguing against Lastarza getting a title shot for Marciano to clear up his record

2. I am arguing Lastarzas record did not merit a number 1 ranking. Losses, struggles with brion Bucceroni Jones and Layne just isn’t enough when you have hammers out there like Moore Johnson Valdes baker satterfield Henry Walcott Louis Charles

 

"LaStarza's record did not merit a number 1 ranking."

After Charles blows a fight to Valdes who was coming off 4 losses in 5 fights?

Who was supposed to be the #1 contender when LaStarza stepped into the ring with Marciano?

Valdes? But he had been losing streak before turning it around against the end-of-the line Agramonte, and then against Charles. He wasn't rated going into the Charles fight.

Bucceroni? He had been beaten badly by LaStarza in their 2nd fight.

I think LaStarza was a very logical #1 contender. His manager might have played the first Marciano fight for all it was worth, but that fight was indeed an important weight in the balance.

 

So Marciano only believed himself to be facing the #2 contender!

How many times in the last decade, have we seen two of the best three heavyweights in the world face off?

What is a relatively rare occurrence today, was bread and butter for Marciano!

 

Suzie

I think you are confusing all-time rankings with rankings at any given month. Those nine names you listed are important if we consider where to put LaStarza on an all time list, but some of them were retired, some had fallen out of the ratings, some were rated in a different division, etc.

LaStarza seems to have defeated four men who were rated when he fought them. Not outstanding, but how far behind other highly rated fighters was he?

Patterson got to #1 in both the light-heavy and heavy ratings with the only rated fighters he had beaten Jimmy Slade, Willie Troy, Dave Whitlock, and Hurricane Jackson.

Johansson got to the title with I think only one victory over a rated fighter, Machen.

How many rated fighters had Willie Pep beaten before he got a title shot? Only two.

Pascual Perez had not beaten any rated fighters before winning the championship. Neither had Carlos Monzon. I think Carmen Basilio had only actually beaten two fighters rated at the time he fought them going into his fight with DeMarco.

*when I say rated, I mean apparently rated at the time fought according to the Boxing Register.

 

Earl Walls is a cousin of my barber

 

But how does LaStarza compare to other top contenders?

George Foreman--he was 37-0, an impressive statistical record. According to the Boxing Register, he had beaten only two fighters rated when he fought them--Peralta and Chuvalo. Kirkman had been rated before, I think. Wepner would be years later, but was a journeyman at this point.

How many top black contenders, or even past it black contenders, had Foreman fought and beaten?

None.

Foreman got to a top rating and a championship fight w/o fighting any dangerous black opponents.

Floyd Patterson--according to box rec had four four rated fighters before winning the title against Moore. Troy was a middle. Whitfield a fringe contender at light-heavy. And then Slade and Jackson.

Carlos Monzon--went into the Benvenuti fight w/o a win over a ranked contender. Eder Jofre--had only four wins against three rated contenders. Carlos Zarate--has only four wins over ranked fighters ever, and none before his first title shot.

I think it a unfair to trash LaStarza this much. He was a carefully managed fighter, but he was not the champion. Even if he fought the guys you claim he ducked, would that have helped them get a title shot? I can't see it doing much for them before the summer of 1953, and why should LaStarza then fight anyone when he has a match coming up with Marciano?

The champions responsible for most of these men not getting title shots would have to be Charles and Walcott, and in the case of Valdes, we can add Marciano. LaStarza playing his cards carefully to get a title shot is really not why Henry or Baker or Satterfield didn't get shots.

As for LaStarza's wins, you dismiss them, but he actually beat higher ranked guys than quite a few men who got title shots, including as I pointed out, Foreman.

I also think it fair to add that Roland LaStarza actually performed well in his title chance, giving Marciano a good go. Their fight was The Ring's fight of the year that year.

 

Foreman never lost embarrassing to Rocky Jones, nor did he need the mob to tell Rocky Jones too "cool it" in between rounds 2 and 3 in the rematch to prevent a second loss. Nor did light heavyweight dan bucceroni beat up foreman. Foreman was undefeated.

2ndly,

How many contenders actually wanted to fight Foreman? He might have been the most intimidating contender of all time. Besides being a dominant olympic champion. He was six foot 4, 220lb, he punched like a Mack truck, he had strength like no other. Compare that with lastarza, a small short defensive boxer from New York with little punching power, who often retreated. I know plenty of contenders challenged him, baker Henry Moore and Charles 4 of them. Lastarza admitted he turned all of them down because he didn't want to lose his rating. Any evidence of foreman turning down challenges from other contenders?

Lastarza and Mauriello compare well

Both golden boys from New York. Both rose to number 1 status by the RING by defeating good white opposition, but avoiding the top rated black men. After losing their title shot, both men fell off a cliff at ages 24 and 26 losing to tomato cans like Johnny Skhor and Julio Mederos. Both men were retired well before 30.


Here's the problem, Lastarza was protected on his way up then after losing the title, began losing to all the divisions tomato cans. It certainly didn't help his career legacy


Patterson, oh he was definitely protected. Damato wouldn't let him near any of the divisions biggest punchers or any large ranked men until he fought Moore for the Vacant title.

 

Marciano could have dumped Lastarza in 5 or 6 but carried Lastarza to round 11 to make him pay for the poor choice of words "punch drunk" Roland called Marciano. Rocky told his brother Peter this. Peter told me personally. I believe him.

Roland fought ok for the first few rounds, but he didn't have the size or punching power to actually threaten to beat Marciano.

 

Isn’t it funny,

White heavyweights “dominated” the lineal title pre 1960 but the only black men who got title shots 1900-1955 were J Johnson, B Johnson, Louis, Lewis, Walcott, Charles, and Moore. I might be forgetting someone but that’s only 7 names!

Post 1955 how many black men received title shots? How many more black heavyweight champions than white champions post marciano? Is that just a coincidence that once black men were not shunned from title opportunities, they began dominating the heavyweight scene. Can you imagine if quarry was heavyweight champ and drew the color line against ali and Frazier?

I just wonder had more very talented black men received title shots pre 1960 how many more black heavyweight champions would there have been?

Some very talented black men were denied there rightful opportunity.....Sam Langford, Elmer Ray, Harry Wills, Joe Jeanette, Sam Mcvey, George Godfrey, Jimmy Bivins,

And less ones who were still dangerous. Turkey Thompson, Lem Franklin ,Larry gains, Kid Norfolk, Lee Q Murray, Clarence Henry, Nino Valdes, Roscoe Toles, Bob Baker,

 

"Foreman never lost to Rocky Jones"

This is true.

"nor did he need the Mob to tell Rocky Jones to "cool it" in between rounds 2 and 3"

Foreman probably could afford a better scriptwriter. I would laugh at this in an old b/w grade Z movie from Monogram or some such studio. You buy that story whole hog, but I don't. Let's stick to something like reality.

"How many contenders actually wanted to fight Foreman?"

So all the black contenders were afraid of him, but Peralta, Chuvalo, and Kirkman weren't. Interesting. Hard to buy that second-tier white guys and trial horses and tomato cans were willing to get into the ring with Foreman but contenders wouldn't risk it.

"Compare that with LaStarza"

So your point is that because LaStarza wasn't as threatening, all the black contenders wanted to fight him, but in the later case of Foreman the same type of contenders ducked for cover. But if they pick and choose, why shouldn't LaStarza?

What is missing here is Janitor's point. LaStarza was only a contender and doesn't have to fight every guy who wants to fight him. His first lookout was to himself. He had as much right to pick and choose as everyone else. The road to the title never went through LaStarza. No one was kept from a championship fight because of LaStarza not fighting him, with the possible exception of Charles in 1953, but Charles got several title shots.

If guys like Henry, Baker, Satterfield, and Valdes never got a title shot, it had nothing to do with LaStarza.

"After losing title shots, both men fell off a cliff at ages 24 and 26"

Yes, and we could add Nova mostly fell apart also after losing to Louis. Roy Harris had a good 1959, but then fell apart after losing to Liston. On the other hand Bivins and Baker and Machen and Folley and Valdes had equally bad losses but bounced back and kept going. This unquestionably effects legacy. Why was this so? Lots of possible answers and everyone will have a guess. One explanation is the options outside of boxing. If you have somewhere to go and something to become it must be a lot harder to pay the price needed to stay at or close to the top in boxing. LaStarza became an actor. Harris a lawyer.

"Patterson . . . was definitely protected."

And got his title shot. Another New York fighter.

"Both rose to #1 status by The Ring by defeating good white opposition."

Yes, and there were still enough good white fighters for them to be legit #1 contenders. That would not be true by the sixties and later, until the influx of eastern European fighters around the turn of the century.

 

"Marciano could have dumped LaStarza in 5 or 6"

"Rocky told his brother Peter this."

Not what the film shows. Rocky might have been a bit embarrassed about getting out-boxed in the early rounds and was giving himself cover.

Bottom line for me is that LaStarza did respectably against Marciano in both their fights.

I agree that it is very unlikely Roland could have beaten Marciano over 15 rounds ever.

 

Why were there so many “good” white contenders pre 1955 but not post 1955? Maybe the influx of black men being granted title shots completely changed the landscape of the division. What if these dangerous black contenders pre 1955 had been given as many title opportunities as the black contenders did post 1955?

“Rocky Jones”

Laugh all you want. I’ve seen the film. Lastarza looks dreadful. Lastarza was Floored and cut up. He looked like he was about to go. Then all of a sudden, Jones stops being aggressive stops fighting hard. Lastarza didn’t do much in return, but did enough to come back and steal the decision. Why did Jones stop fighting! He admitted he was on the handcuffs after the fight. In my opinion, number 1 contenders shouldn’t be struggling this much with that caliber of a fighter which speaks of lastaras lack of abilities. The New York RING magazine actually promoted lastarza in there next set of rankings just for barely avenging an embarrassing loss against this club fighter. Like Mauriello, lastarza May have been number 1 rated, but on ability he was never the best contender in the world at any point.

Charles, Baker, Moore, and Henry challenged lastarza to fights in 1952-1953. LastarAs manager hung up the phone on all of them. Lastarza admitted in a RING interview years into retirement he ducked all of these men out of fear of losing his promised title shot.

“His first lookout was himself”

Yes. Just don’t rate him highly in a historical sense when other contenders throughout history accomplished far more by beating better fighters, had higher peaks, and not ducking the top competition


“Bivins”

NBA rated him higher than Mauriello, but the New York RING magazine had Mauriello higher in 1945. Why is that? Hometown cooking?

“Bivins, Machen, Folley, Valdes, baker”

Machen and Folley finally did get their title shot years later out of sympathy for how good they were in their primes.

Baker screwed himself losing to hurricane Jackson in title eliminator

Bivins should have gotten a title shot in 1946 based on his work from 1942-1945

“Valdes”

Was number 1 rated most logical by NBA for nearly a year, Defeated 3 men who earned world title shots.

 

That’s possible. I would have liked to have seen lastarza in the ring vs Moore or Charles in 53.

 

You raise a great interesting historical points here, but I think to a degree you draw an erroneous conclusion.

Your error is what logicians call "false cause." That is ascribing a causal relationship to two historical currents where the real cause of both might be elsewhere.

Prior to 1955 (or 1960)

The color line almost certainly prevented more black champions, first by denying title shots to such as Jackson and Wills (and also Langford) and also in a hidden way by denying training and fight opportunities to black talent. Jeffries would probably have been champion anyway. Dempsey and Tunney were good fighters who might have been champions anyway, but the issue is clouded. After Louis and the fall of the color line, there is only Marciano and the brief reign of Johansson.

"Is that just a coincidence that once black men were not shunned from title opportunities, they began dominating the heavyweight scene."

First, I think they had been dominating the heavyweight scene since the mid-thirties.

Second, and I think this is your potential error, although no one can speak to this in anything but theoretical terms, you leave off half of the post-1960 equation.

I remember going through The Ring's annual rankings decade by decade and totaling up the number of American black, and white, and foreign heavyweights. The number of black Americans was remarkably stable from the 1950's through the 1990's. Every decade 21 to 23 black Americans were ranked. What shifted was that the number of white Americans making the ratings collapsed after the 1950's. Western Europeans followed about a decade later.

So my guess, and it is only that, is that black fighters would have been much stronger at the championship level from the 1880's through the 1950's, but there would have been a representation of white champions.

But the domination from 1960 to 2000 is due not only to the fall of the color line, but to the abandonment of boxing by white Americans. Why? The tremendous postwar economic boom simply made boxing an unattractive option. Also, the percentage going to college boomed, and boxing was not a college sport.

Now in the early 21st century, I wonder if we are seeing the abandonment of boxing by black Americans. Oh, not totally. There will be a few remnants like Jerry Quarry or Gerry Cooney or Tommy Morrison,

such as Deontay Wilder today,

but the old-time domination of the 1937-2000 era might be over.

 

How many more black men would have been world heavyweight champions had they been given their rightful title shots?

“Mid 30s”

I think talent wise yes, however only 4 black men received title shots from 1935-1955. Walcott Charles Moore and Lewis

How many white men received title shots from 1935-1955

If you believe black men were dominating the scene during his era, than the only conclusion you can draw is that the color line wa being drawn