Why Didnt Lastarza Fight The Following?

Oh well, I'm a pretty devoted follower of the old stuff.

 

Shake my head with an extra word in there.

 

Just on Walcott:

Layne had wins by the summer of 1951 over

Walcott
Satterfield
Thompson
Brion
Dunlap
Kahut
Whitlock
Hall
Garner

All had been or would be rated. Not a bad list. And the issue is why does a fighter who loses decisively to another fighter deserve not one but two more title shots while the winner is sidelined?

If you think Walcott obviously deserved a title shot more than Layne in the summer of 1951 after Walcott had lost in consecutive fights to Layne and Charles, we just disagree.

 

The world was a different place between 1978 and 1939. Comparing how ratings worked in those two eras is like comparing apples and oranges. However I give much more weight to the ratings of the NBA in the 1950s (the era we are discussing) than I do Ring. Everyone cried when Oscar DLH bought the ring because a promoter would be able to influence ratings for his own gain but thats exactly what Fleischer ALWAYS did. The NBA ratings were put together by a voting commission of elected or appointed state officials who typically had a deep connection and history to the game and whose purpose it was to attempt to bring some order to it. Back then there werent sanctioning fees etc. I have never seen any evidence that the Mob exerted any influence over the NBA in any meaningful or lengthy sense. Why would they need to when the controlled the managers and the fighters and could match fighters in fights that would legitimately move them up rankings or fix those fights in order to do so? But such instances would have influenced the Ring's ratings as well (especially considering Fleischer often turned a blind eye to the Mobs corruption of the sport) and so again, their ratings wouldnt have been any better and given his biases, need to promote certain fighters to sell his magazines, and ties to local promoters they were worse. Complaining that LaStarza got a title shot because he may or may not have been thought of highly in an aggregate rating from one month of a year completely out of context and totally unofficial is pathetic. Ive never understood why Fleischer's opinion and that of his old NY cronies is taken as gospel. Frankly, until the WBC and WBA were taken over like banana republics by third world dictators and moved off shore their ratings were better and more topical than Rings ratings and they had the added bonus of being official and dictating who actually got title shots. In the 60s and 70s Ring didnt even recognize junior divisions meaning they were ranking fighters in divisions they had never fought in simply because they thought they had the clout to foment change, which they didnt, which shows you that their influence resided largely in the minds of those running Ring magazine and nowhere else.

 

As for Holman, he is an interesting comparison with Valdes.

Both men defeated Charles in their 34th fight. They had the following records at that point:

Valdes--23 wins, 8 losses 3 draws.
Wins by decision over name fighters--Ezzard Charles
Wins by KO over name fighters--Omelio Agramonte
The rest of his wins, mainly Cuban heavies and American preliminary fighters who were largely unknown. His name opponents, Johnson, Baker, Gilliam, and Moore, plus Archie McBride a few years earlier, had all beaten him. As late as 1952 he fought an 8 round draw with Joe McFadden, certainly no better than Toxie Hall.

Holman--23 wins, 10 losses, 1 draw
Wins by decision over name fighters--Sid Peaks, Willie Bean, Dale Hall, Turkey Thompson, Gene Jones
Wins by KO over name fighters--Elmer Ray, Larry Watson, Julio Mederos, Cesar Brion, Ezzard Charles

What is obvious is that Holman had been in against much tougher opponents top to bottom. Yes, he lost his share, but so had Valdes, only Nino had a lot of losses to lesser lights. I know some of these fighters had seen better days, but this is an impressive list, way more impressive than Nino's.

And Charles? Well, he was coming off the two losses to Marciano, but had won two, and was still good enough to beat Holman in a return. Charles was now two years older and was on a cusp of a severe decline, but that is hindsight. At the time he beat Charles, it was a big win for Holman, adding to a slew of other impressive names on his resume.

Holman would lose only the rematch to Charles in 1955, winning his other fights and coming out of the year ranked #4. Valdes lost that year to Moore, Satterfield, and Baker and came out of the year ranked #6.

What puts Valdes in retrospect above Holman is not his record through 1955, but his comeback in 1957 and 1958 when he beat a number of name opponents, including Holman. In his comeback, Valdes fought them all, having no choice really after all the losses in 1955 and 1956 if he was to get back to a high rating and a possible title shot. The early Valdes was much more carefully managed, including the coolness to a rematch with Charles.

Moore and a rematch versus Charles and a rematch--so two years is okay but one is too soon?

"What sort of gate would he have drawn with the champion?"

A question worth asking of Valdes as well as Holman.

 

Good post. I feel like I am learning something here.

 

That would be a semi rare film. It's hard to picture Layne outboxing Chalres. Okay if you say so.

 

Klompton : Bucceroni was rated #2 in the HW division immediately after LaStarza lost to Marciano. Prior to that he was rated 3 or 4.

Mcvey : I've only the end of year rankings.

Mendoza: Then perhaps you should stop saying so and so wasn't ranked. I've seen you make this mistake often on these type of threads. As a general rule of thumb, if a fighter losses a fight in a particular year, he's going to drop in rank and may move out of the annual rankings. This doesn't mean he wasn't ranked during the year.

I'd like to see a full month by monthly ranking from 1924-2019. That would be worthy of an archive!

 

Agreed... a fighter who was ranked #3 in February of a given year and at the time he lost to a certain opponent might be ranked as low as #9 by the end of the year or even not at all.. The two problems with using Ring ANNUAL ratings are :

1. They don’t reflect what a fighters actual rank was at the time of a given match

2. The ring is not the dictating force of the sanctioned titles that these men defend or fight for. Hence the WBA, NBA, WBC or whatever may have a guy ranked at #2 while the Ring may not acknowledge that man as being ranked at all.

so in short to say that “ this man wasn’t ranked “ or “ this man never beat anyone who was ranked “ on the basis of Ring annual ratings is a moot and debunked argument.

 

Yes but how many mandatory contenders by WBA or WBC and the other sanctioning bodies have we seen that were in no way among the top 10 guys in the world in their weight class due to either corruption or incompetence by the ranking bodies?

I don’t think you’re going to find a lot of guys in the top three in The Ring annual rankings who would have Ben outside the consensus top 20 or 30 by the experts of the day. But I can sure find you some WTF guys by the alphabets.

Now they’re the authority? So 100 years from now, people looking back should consider Bermaine Stiverne as the top contender when Deontay Wilder fought him the second time?

 

I agree with what you’re saying. But if a champion defends against a magazine contender and not a sanctioned one then he no longer has a title. Your response also doesn’t address the fact that ring annual ratings don’t capture the fighters true status at the exact time of a given meeting which was the MAIN point of my post.