How do you have these these three ranked against each other? I realize Roland beat Rex by a split decision and they are more easily compared as contemporaries, but I'm talking entire body of work among these three. Interested in opinions.
it seems to be written by most writers of the time that he was average (layne) and not a great, really top notch contender (liebling off the top of my head being one...although i havent any reference to hand)....but something has always bothered me concerning him....in 1950 he beat jersey joe walcott, and in walcott's next fight he fought ezzard charles for the world heavyweight title - and lost, and in walcott's next fight he got a rematch with charles which he won the title.......but....after layne beat walcott in 1950 layne went on an unbeaten streak of 8 fights until he met rocky marciano, but he was never furnished with a shot at the title (unlike walcott with numerous shots and coming off losses too).
I think Rex was a case of not really coming back from a serious loss mentally, he survived Bob Satterfeild, got off the floor, many young contenders did not (Big Cat Williams,Bob Baker,Nino Valdes,etc.) Rex was 34-1-1 and had beaten the man that he lost and drew to by KO. Nat Fleischer had him listed as the next Dempsey and future champion but after the devastating one punch KO by Marciano he was never the same. I think a lot of opinions of Rex are based on his career after R.M. loss....Rex was a tough B--**** I think he was too strong for Strib ...and LaStarza may have been better in most area's for Strib
