Why Didnt Lastarza Fight The Following?

So if I want to know who were generally considered top light heavyweights in 1978 or top lightweights in 1939, the Ring rankings are of absolutely no use whatsoever?

You imply that “official” rankings should be more trusted. Even when you know the mob ran the sport or that more recently the WBA, WBC and others have been shown to be completely corrupted. But they are official and not somebody’s opinion so these hold more weight in your eyes?

Smfh.

 

That is my point. Why was Lowry in any comparison to LaStarza? LaStarza when he got his title shot had beaten every fighter he had fought except Marciano and had come closer to beating him than anyone. Sure he was carefully managed, but careful management doesn't automatically rule one out as a good fighter.

Who had he beaten? Layne, Bucceroni, and Brion. Lots of guys got title shots w/o beating anyone of that caliber. How many top fighters had Frank Moran beaten before getting not one but two title shots? How many had Bill Brennan beaten? You make much of dismissing guys in lower weight classes, but how many heavyweights had Gibbons beaten? Or Carpentier?

If those there at the time strongly thought LaStarza was worthy of a shot, I don't see much point in second guessing it.

 

Moore for one. He had beaten Valdes in 1953, but had to fight an elimination with him in 1955 before getting Marciano. Moore took the fights which were demanded to earn his shot, and to stoke up a big gate.

A fighter having to prove himself again and again was not unusual in that era.

Layne--Why didn't he get a direct shot after beating Walcott and Satterfield? Instead Walcott got two shots. Why didn't Layne get a direct shot after edging Charles? Instead he had to fight an elimination with LaStarza.

Marciano--Why didn't he get a direct shot after KO'ing Layne, who had beaten the incumbent champion, and Joe Louis. Instead he had to wait in line behind Charles and then fight an elimination with Matthews.

John Holman--why didn't he get a shot after KO'ing Charles?

LaStarza is an anomaly in that era. He rode his unfinished business with Marciano, consistency, and a couple of big wins, into the fight with Marciano. Folks at the time wanted to see that fight.

As for Valdes, had Charles beaten Marciano, I think Nino might have gotten a direct shot w/o going through Moore or Baker or Johnson who had beaten him. His win over Charles would have given him validity against Charles which was lacking on a third party basis.

 

Yes, the Ring's month-to-month ratings are a bit more helpful because they are more current than the annual ratings. If you compare the Ring's annual ratings in its February issue with its ratings in the surrounding months, the fighters are often ranked quite differently, ostensibly because the annual ratings are an overview of the past year rather than the ratings as of the release date of the February issue. Even so, the monthly ratings are still, as you say, just an opinion of Nat Fleischer or Eddie Borden or whoever compiles them. I dare say Fleischer had veto power over Eddie Borden. I think that may be part of the reason Borden left the magazine and moved for a while to Boxing and Wrestling where he took over the rating system for a while.

Fleischer was based in New York and his office was at Madison Square Garden. He may not have been in MSG's pocket, but his ratings were influenced by his office environment. Also, as I think you have written in previous threads, Fleischer's livelihood depended on selling magazines. So he liked to season his ratings with fighters from markets where his magazines sold well. This is not to say that his ratings were totally corrupt, but they were subject to some other-than-strictly-fistic influences. That's why it's good to look at other rating services at the same time, like the NBA, Boxing and Wrestling, and Boxing Illustrated. They were also subject to their own extraneous agendas, but I have found them generally to be just as helpful in pointing me in the right direction for my independent research as the Ring ratings. If a person is an historian, he still has to do his own digging and make his own determinations.

 

Moran had lost to Gunboat Smith.

Why are ratings necessary? You either defeated worthy opponents or you didn't.

Moran got two shots without beating anyone as good as Layne. Brennan hadn't beaten a heavy as good as Layne either.

And neither had beaten all their opponents other than the incumbent champion with that loss by split decision.

I am not saying that Moran or Brennan didn't necessarily deserve a shot. Only that they were less worthy than LaStarza.

And why are ratings suddenly critical when you ignore them with LaStarza who was the #1 contender?

 

Was you playing the clarinet?

 

Modern or traditional jazz?

 

Also because Charles was an active champion and he had cleaned up the division pretty well and needed a challenger for a payday. He had beaten Walcott twice and figured he could beat him again. And, as you say, Walcott was pretty well-known because of the Louis fights, and he had always put on a reasonably good show in his prior fights so he figured to draw as well as anyone else at the time.