Rex Layne Highlight Reel!

I don't get butt hurt by you ,I just think its a shame your overweaning ego and need to lord it over everyone negatively detracts from the many excellent posts you make,but that's you isn't it.

• Ring Magazine - 5-5 Draw
• Salt Lake Tribune - 6-3-1 Charles
• Rocky Mountain News - 5-3-2 Charles

 

Yes good scrap,but Layne leads with his face leaning in like that,lucky for him Lastarza was no banger.

 

Any word on why Walcott gets the title shot against Charles immediately after losing pretty easily to Rex? Having previously lost to Ezz, a seemingly shot 36yo Joe would have surely been figured a pretty lousy B-side compared to a white 22yo guy starting to look the goods.

 

satterfield was a banger, a massive one at that

 

Pretty interesting that JJW thought Rocky so amateurish and artless considering their respective performances against Layne about 7 or 8 months apart.

 

Walcott was a company man for the IBC. I don't know the exact situation with Marv Jensen and Layne, but my guess they were outsiders without the connections to the IBC and thus the mob. Somewhat like Matthews. Perhaps another poster has more knowledge about Jensen and can give us the low down.

 

No doubt about that!

 

It obviously wasn't always. I have seen very different speed versions of Louis-Baer and Louis-Marciano. It is very possible veteran cameramen continued to use their old systems for years, perhaps decades. Sort of like Orson Welles preferring b/w movies to color and only working in b/w. Or Charlie Chaplin continuing to make silent movies as late as 1936. Or perhaps the filming was done by a financially strapped company which couldn't afford to update equipment.

Just an aside. I doubt that human reflexes have improved on the whole.

 

Not sure what versions you are referring to but the Louis-Baer and Louis-Marciano fights were both major productions filmed by experienced professional companies. Both were filmed at 24fps which was fairly standardized by the late 1930s. I can speak to this because I have original theatrical prints of both in 35mm. The only real deviations from this are home movie footage which was typically filmed at 17/18fps (sometimes less, sometimes more) and in the early/mid 1930s you would get films that mixed silent and sound formats. This is predictable though as those films typically used silent film, shot at 18fps, for the beginning and ending of a round which was filmed by a different camera from far away and sound film shot at 24fps for the rest. Occasionally you get silent 18fps footage used for extreme closeups shot from ringside as well. Canned crowd sound is then laid over the silent portions, sometimes taken from the actual crowd sound of the fight but not synced. All that being said those switches in film speed are, again, predictable and easily discernible. If you have seen versions of Louis-Baer and Louis-Marciano projected at an incorrect speed thats likely because of poor transfer from someone who didnt know what they were doing or a poor VHS dupe. VHS dupes lose speed generation after generation but even then the loss is relatively miniscule. But mixing formats was pretty much gone by the 1940s, particularly for these bigger productions. Most of the footage of Layne that came from Marv Jensen's collection was shot on silent 16mm home movie footage, albeit shot by a professional, at 18fps. His fights with Walcott, Satterfield, LaStarza, Marciano, and Brion were all filmed at 24fps. Id have to go back and check again to see what the first Charles fight was filmed at because it was a different outfit than the films Marv Jensen was having done shot in Utah. My guess is that it was 24fps as well. Charles 3 was definitely 24fps because it was a 16mm sound kinescope. The point of all of this is that for the major productions in one of the big east coast cities like New York the speed should be pretty accurate for 99% of the professionally filmed fights from the late 1930s on. The silent home movies or non/semi professional films that some people might be used to seeing poor copies of on youtube or in their old VHS or on the trader circuit is a little more iffy. Thats due less to the camera men and more to the people who were transferring these films to VHS/DVD etc. I would also add that even in the silent era speeds were pretty uniform by the mid 1910s or earlier. The major cause of deviation in the speed of these films isnt the speed at which they were shot but the frame rate at which they were transferred. Charlie Chaplin movies werent shot with Chaplin running around super fast like he had been shown for decades. They were shot at the correct speed of the time which was usually about 15 or 16fps. The problem was that for decades people were either lazy or were transferring those silent films on equipment that could only transfer at the sound speed of 24fps. Take a film shot at 16fps and transfer it at 24fps and everything is sped up. Before the advent of sound, if you went to a movie theater to watch Jack Dempsey-Jess Willard you would have seen a beautiful picture projected at lifelike speed.

 

Imagine arguing the point about a fight you’ve never seen.

 

Yes he was ,and he dropped Rexy didn't he.

 

The newspapers I quoted saw it, and from ringside,live and in colour, not on film , in black and white 70s years later . Both were local papers and voted for Charles.
Do you think the term," highly dubious," is so far wrong?
The Ring magazine voted a draw ,two local papers in Layne's home town voted against him, the referee scored 7 rounds even! You don't accept the possibility of home cooking deciding the result? Touching. Posters have been arguing the rights and wrongs of the Johnson v Hart decision on this forum for decades, anyone living seen it?
Let me give you a little background if I may,some years ago a thread concerning Zora Folley v Karl Mildenberger surfaced I can't remember the actual context and it doesnt matter now. Regarding the result which was a draw in Germany with a German referee,I posted this.
"Veteran Zora Folley gave young Karl Mildenberger a boxing lesson Friday night but the judges evened it up and called it a draw - a verdict that stunned most of the 12,000 fans that jammed the Messehalle here to watch the two highly ranked heavyweights in what was billed as an elimination match. Folley carved out cuts under Mildenberger's eyes and repeatedly scored with solid left jabs and straight right hands over the southpaw efforts of the German challenger. By the end of the 7th round Mildenberger had cuts under both eyes while Folley bled from the nose as a result of Mildenberger's left. Referee Otto Nispel took it upon himself to stop the fight time and again to warn Folley on butting and in the 8th round Nispel stopped the fight while he took Mildenberger to his corner and wiped the blood off his face so a doctor could come to the ringside and examine the cuts. Mildenberger, although clearly outclassed, never stopped trying and absorbed a tremendous amount of punishment from the American. He was still trying gamely in the 9th and 10th while Folley was content to coast and that was all the judges seemingly needed." -European Stars & Stripes
Klompton who had seen the fight immediately,rudely , and very arrogantly responded, vehemently claiming the decision was correct.I accepted his opinion and publicly deferred to him on this forum .
However, what I'm not prepared to do is lay down and automatically concede to some ego maniac who hasnt the slightest ounce of manners in his make up.Mr Steve Compton has written a book on Harry Greb which was well received by the boxing public.that may well make him an authority on Greb but it doesnt make him the Pugilistic Messiah on all boxing matters he imagines himself to be.

• 
  

 

Yes, this is a perfect example. You pontificate on Folley-Mildenberger without having seen it. Ive seen it. Yet youll quote Stars and Stripes, a military publication, despite the fact that Folley was an army boxer. I could go on and on about why the descriptions you put so much faith in from boxrec are incorrect and biased but youd rather keep your panties in a twist and continue to be upset that someone with a little more information on the subject called you out. Its not material that you dont like me or think Im abrasive. Whats material is you are wrong and ignorant for continuing to debate a fight youve never seen by quoting a small number of reports, one of which was authored by an employee of Charles, while ignoring anything that might be contrary to your close minded opinion because it was the underpinning of your original house of cards argument.

 

The relevance is that Rex was just 22. And it was a similar number of fights that Williams had when he met Satterfield.

29-1-2 Layne aged 22.
33-1 Williams aged 20.

saterfield was 5 losses and three years more worn against Williams. And Cleveland still couldn’t win!

 

Williams was a late substitute. Satterfield was 30 years old.