Lastarza v Henry,Satterfield,Valdes,Baker?

"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 is these dangerous black contenders pre 1955 had been given as many title opportunities as the black contenders post 1955."

Perhaps prior to 1937. But after that, the champions not defending against black contenders were for the most part black. Marciano had 4 of 6 defenses against black men. Ingo's only defense was against Patterson. Your whole case is going to rest on Valdes who refused a title eliminator with Charles and then lost a title eliminator to Moore. I don't dispute that Valdes was a higher rated contender than Don C, but he was not a better contender than Moore. No Way. What else is there? Charles over LaStarza? But Charles got shots at both Walcott and Marciano, and Marciano had unfinished business with LaStarza.

"Jones"

Show this film and let's look at it. Your own description undercuts a fix. Jones knocks LaStarza down and cuts him up. What if LaStarza didn't beat the count? What if the fight was stopped on cuts? Is it possible Jones just punched himself out. Or a LaStarza counter punch effected him more than you think? LaStarza might have looked poor in this fight, but Jones couldn't have been all that good off his record, so what is so surprising about him losing.

Whatever, LaStarza did look pretty good against Marciano on a film I have seen.

As for what happened to white contenders, I think a whole bunch of major social and economic developments caused boxing to loose popularity with whites, if not as fans, certainly as participants.

1---economic boom (more and better jobs)
2---fewer children (this could be a really big factor. Families with fewer children. One-parent families with the parent being the mother. Is a boy as likely to become a fighter with only a mother?)
3---increasing education. Are college kids as likely to get into boxing?
4---the American Empire and the need to keep a large standing military. The army and navy as a career might be a better option than boxing. (if you don't think we have or are an empire, I apologize for insinuating it)

So I think huge social factors are probably the cause of the vanishing white American contenders, with the same causes perhaps now impacting American blacks more than they did in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

"beating better fighters"

Okay. LaStarza's best win was Rex Layne.

"having higher peaks"

His peak was barely losing a split decision to Marciano, and therefore coming closer to beating Marciano than anyone did.

Those two are decent accomplishments. Layne is a better fighter than any Mauriello defeated, I think. Marciano is a better fighter than any that Mauriello came that close to beating.

"Bivins" "Ring magazine had Mauriello higher in 1945"

I don't agree with this rating either.

"Bivins should have gotten a title shot in 1946"

But he lost three fights that year to drop out of contention. I don't know who is to blame. I can't see blaming Louis.

 

On the last point, obviously not top to bottom, but the dominant champion was black. If your point is it took a while for a black influx of talent after Louis broke the color line, that I think is correct.

 

I think Lastarza benefited from a stylistic matchup against Marciano, which is why he was able to perform so well in both fights and gave a great account of himself. He certainly didn't look out of his depth in the second fight on film.

Lastarza also benefited from good management and perfect timing to squeeze into the number 1/2 spot depending if we're talking about when the fight was made or when it actually took place.

Why you guys have taken 6 pages to debate this is behind me. You guys clearly weren't going to reach an agreement and could have spent your free time more wisely.....

That's the advantage of hind sight ^^^

 

Yes. It was a close split decision. Lowry was a UD.

Most of the underpinnings for Lowry "winning" come from one newspaper article in which the writer seemed to expect Marciano to be KO'd because Lowry got in some good shots, and was surprised that Marciano came on strong in the late rounds.

But whatever is said about Marciano, a good chin and extraordinary stamina were among the assets which led him eventually to become champion. I think the reporter might have been judging Marciano by the standards of normal fighters. The bottom line for me is that the three officials all voted for Marciano, and w/o a film I am not going to draw extreme conclusions to contradict them.

 

"you . . . could have spent your free time more wisely"

Come on. I'm old and retired. I enjoy these debates. It would be boring if folks just agreed. And I think oiling up the aging and rusting mental gears might actually be good for me.

If the subject doesn't interest someone else, why does that person read it? He can just move on to another topic.

 

"Your friend talks about Mauriello 'shamelessly avoiding black fighters'"

And I mentioned that I don't agree with the extreme Suzie takes this sort of criticism with both Mauriello and LaStarza.

But the issue of that thread was whether Ray was a better heavyweight than Mauriello. To me, he clearly was.

*You listed 23 fighters here that LaStarza didn't fight. In the Robinson-Armstrong thread I listed 29 rated fighters George Foreman missed from 1969 to 1977 and 26 from 1990 to 1997 for a total of 55.

But Foreman is an ATG and Hall-of-Famer. LaStarza was merely a decent contender. I question why LaStarza is subject to such extreme trashing. There are a lot of challengers in title fights less worthy than he was to get a shot.

As I noted in one of these threads, Foreman did not fight a dangerous black contender on his way to the Frazier title fight. The only rated fighters he had fought were Peralta and Chuvalo. And taking the easy way to a title shot? Joe Frazier refused to take part in the NBA tournament in 1967. But like Foreman, an ATG heavyweight even if he elected to pick and choose opponents on his way to the top.

 

You like Tami Mauriello. You should really like Lastarza then. Their records are quite similar

Both were New York boys who rose to number 1 by the New York Ring

Both men beat a few good but not great contenders (oma, Savold, Layne, Brion)

Both men failed to beat the best contenders in the division (Bivins, Walcott, Ray, Murray, Moore, Charles, Henry)


Both men fell of a cliff before there 26th Birthday (losses to Skhor, Lesnevich, mederos, norkus)

Difference is lastarza gave a young Marciano a difficult fight, while Tami got annihilated by an aging Louis

 

“
His peak was barely losing a split decision to Marciano, andtherefore coming closer to beating Marciano than anyone did.”


Marciano fought lastarza in Jan 1950. Had he reached his peak yet? I would say no

1. The fight came directly after the Vingo tragedy where Marciano nearly killed a man. Was rocky gun shy in there?

2. Is was the first top 10 opponent rocky ever fought

3. Lastarza claimed Marciano improved “5000” percent for the rematch


Good scalp by lastarza, but it’s not like he took a peak Marciano to the brink of defeat

 

"not like he took a peak Marciano to the brink of defeat"

Good point, but it doesn't erase that he came closer to beating Marciano than anyone, and that he gave Marciano a decent go in their title fight.

I think Marciano would be widely criticized today if he hadn't defended against LaStarza and cleared the deck about that split decision. Frankly, I don't see criticizing Marciano for fighting a #1 contender who had come that close to beating him. It is really a strange argument to me.

I can see your position about Valdes over Don C. But this one, no.

 

I’ve actually said I have no problems with Marciano defending against Lastarza

I have issues with Lastarza being number 1. I don’t think he deserved that. I think New York took care of him

I have no issues with Louis defending against mauriello

I have issues with mauriello being number 1 I don’t think he deserved that. I think New York took care of him

 

Never really thought of it that way, maybe I'm a little to reluctant to agree to disagree. Didn't realise your age either ed, hope you didn't take offence by that.