Marciano vs LaStarza II

1. LaStarza was a natural heavyweight in his era. He weighed normally between 185 or so and 190. Ketchel was a middleweight. Choynski a supermiddleweight. Conn and Gibbons lightheavies. LaStarza was significantly bigger than they were and there is no way to spin that.
Basically, Marciano was fighting a man his own size and was at a height and reach disadvantage. I don't see any possible way to spin out of that.

2. I think Choynski moved better, off the film. He may have hit harder but I don't know if he really hit so hard that it would matter. Opponents praised his power, but his ko percentage is actually lower than LaStarza's and LaStarza fought much bigger men. LaStarza was 20 lbs heavier and clearly more durable. Gibbons may have had a better chin, but off the Dempsey fight I would dispute that he moved better than LaStarza. He moves occasionally but moves in fits and starts--he moves suddenly about and then stops as Dempsey walks up to him. The fight with Dempsey was fought mainly in close. LaStarza was a well-schooled fighter who made his movement count. Also, Gibbons was a lightheavy and 32 when he fought Dempsey. His record was made mainly against middles and lightheavies. Other than the ill Miske, who is hard to judge because of his physical condition, Gibbons never defeated a top heavyweight.
I stick to my evaluation that LaStarza would be at least even money against Choynski, Ketchel, and Gibbons.

3. Well, the Savold, Cockell, and LaStarza fights. Savold lost every round and was sent to the hospital. Cockell lost all but one round and was battered into helplessness. LaStarza did better, holding his own for 6 rounds or so, but he was behind on the cards at the end and was battered into helplessness. It does seem that Marciano is being held to a higher standard here. None of these men hurt him. He emerged unmarked from all three fights. There is no dispute who the better man was. All were stopped.

4. By the way, you compared LaStarza to modern super-heavyweights. What chance to you think Choynski, Ketchel, or Gibbons would have against Holmes or Lewis?

 

Depends which one. I think LaStarza could give, say, Jeffries, Tunney, Louis, Frazier, or Holyfield about as much trouble or more than he did Marciano in their second fight (which is not nearly as much as you're making it out to be here).

Ugh. No foul punch had any visible effect on LaStarza at any time in that fight. It is NOT like Rahman-Tua, in which Rahman was obviously knocked practically senseless by Tua's late foul shot. Marciano landed a couple of low blows which did not hit "vital" areas and a couple on the break, neither of which was really a great shot. This is pure rationalization.

In his very last fight before this one, he fought what was described as a fast-paced and entertaining match against Layne and secured the victory with a strong surge in the last two rounds.

That was at least an excuse which was used afterwards. This is the kind of excuse that is rather subjective and gets thrown around all the time in any random defeat, though; you don't generally lend credence to someone saying "I was overtrained" after he loses a fight and draw it as a card to discredit the winner. This is grasping at straws.

And the third judge had it 7-3. LaStarza would've gotten a split decision if he'd won four of the last five rounds. That is absolutely a solid lead.

Marciano was never in any significant danger of losing this fight. His difficulty was short-lived and far from monumental. You are making a lot out of a little and seem to be examining the situation with a considerable negative slant.

 

Choynsky was a p4p hitter but had an average chin imo.

 

Mendoza--Just one thing on your scoring--If LaStarza won 3 of the last 5 rounds, Marciano still wins the fight, but LaStarza clearly was not going to win the 11th which effectively all but put the fight away even without the knockout.

That the fight was closer than 7-3 is your opinion, but I disagree. The most effective punches either man was landing were Marciano's body punches--check the two brutal rights within about 20 seconds of each other in the fourth round. Those two punches alone could give Marciano that round as neither man was landing effectively to the head. I think a 7-3 score was about right.

 

Ketchel a miscat? the dude died at 24 years old before he had a chance to wreak havoc in the heavyweight division. He had already knocked out big durable heavyweight porky flynn, and fought a draw with # 1 heavyweight contender sam langford. Ketchell was a better suited heavyweight than choynski and gibbons IMO. Jack Johnson threw him around like a ragdoll because johnson was a chizzled 205lb at his peak, he would have done the same to choynki had joe faced that version of johnson

Norfolk was blind and shot when he fought gibbons. carpeniter was not a heavyweight. greb was a middleweight. where gibbons win over a big heavyweight?

 

but on film gibbons kept low hands, stuck his chin out, and did not pocess the basic boxing fundamentals lastarza had.

 

It seems to me Mendoza thinks Rocky looked alot better in 1951-1952 than 1954-1955. It seems he prefers the faster slugger version of rock 1951-1952 than the defensive volume punching marciano of 1954-1955

 

15 to 20 lbs is a big deal, especially in being able to clinch effectively. Gibbons had a world of trouble tying Dempsey up in close and paid the price. Tunney, 15 lbs heavier, handled Dempsey in the clinches. Yes, one could focus on age, but I think size and strength were the critical factors here.

I just don't see LaStarza as being as bad a fighter as you seem to. He was a heavyweight in size in the context of his era, he had excellent movement and was elusive--on balance, a fine defensive fighter. He had at least pretty good durability. His offense was not as good, relying on basic jab, one-twos, but he shows more offensively than Gibbons did against Dempsey.

I still see LaStarza as at least even money against Choynski, Ketchel, and Gibbons.

As for the three fights you see as poor performances:
1. Savold--won every round and put Savold in hospital
2. Cockell--won all but one round and battered Cockell into helplessness
3. LaStarza--was decently ahead on points and building lead when he stopped LaStarza with a vicious flurry.

I just don't see any of these as bad performances.

As for if Marciano couldn't do better against these men, what would he do with better men? He fought better men and beat them. Why not argue that if Liston looks unimpressive, as he did, against journeyman Willi Besmanoff, he has no chance against Patterson or Folley.

 

I agree.

Although I don't think Gibbons "stayed away" better. As I said, he moved in abrupt spurts but was not consistently elusive. Dempsey was on top of him most of the fight.

 

I dont think the Dempsey Gibbions fight was a good showing for Dempsey. Here was Dempsey taking on a light heavyweight, and Dempsey could not blast him out of there like Frazier did Foster or Ali did Foster.

All Gibbions did do was hold in that fight, Dempsey would charge in, and Gibbions would tie up Dempsey while Dempsey lands rabbit and body punchings, and yes kidney punchings. Gibbions show NO movement in that fight outside of fighting like John Ruiz.

 

LaStarza was fairly active on TV and a few movies in the sixties and seventies. He was a thug in the classic POINT BLANK with Lee Marvin, and an ominous hitman in THE OUTFIT with Robert Duvall and Robert Ryan. He was a regular on 'The Gallant Men' TV show and I remember seeing him in an episode of Perry Mason as a hood.