Why is LaStarza a high rated name in Marciano's resume?

I'd certainly call Burns and greater, more impressive fighter than either.

I don't know about Arreola (Burns never faced someone that big), but I think it's safe to favor Burns over Layne.

 

To repeat my quote--"Was beating heavyweight champion Jersey Joe Walcott a lesser achievement than beating welter and middle champion Walker?"

Was not Walker welter champion until he was 25, and middle champion until he was 30? This sentence does not require that he was either when he fought Schmeling. Nor was Walcott heavyweight champion when he fought Layne or Layne would have become heavyweight champion. But Walcott was at one time heavyweight champion. Walker was never heavy or light-heavy champion. This is just a factual statement.

And my question stands. Is beating the heavyweight champion Walcott a lesser achievement for a heavyweight than beating a fighter who was only champion at much lighter weights? That Walker did something at heavyweight doesn't obviate that he was never more than a light-heavyweight. And Walker certainly wasn't as accomplished at heavyweight as Walcott.

Schmeling was KO'd by Daniels in one in 1928. As far as I know, only The Ring rated back then, and possibly only once a year. Within one year Schmeling was a top contender, rated #2 in the world in 1929 at heavyweight, and would become champion in 1930. I think that he became a top contender and champion is more important than that he wasn't rated by an American publication which might not have even known who he was in 1928 because they weren't following European boxing that closely.

Hard to see what dragging in Dempsey proves, other than after a bad loss he also became champion two years later.

Both Schmeling and Dempsey got blown out in one round two years prior to becoming champions. One to a Euro journeyman and the other to a faded veteran on his last legs.

I think what this shows is that it is more important in the end whom one can defeat than whom one loses to.

 

Did Burns accomplish more? I think he was only champion because Jeff retired and Johnson was frozen out after losing a questionable decision to Hart.

Hart seems to be Burns' only really big win at heavyweight. Layne's wins over Walcott and Charles could be viewed as more impressive than anything Burns did. Layne simply could not go in the back door to the championship like Burns could. When Burns did face Johnson, he lost badly.

Burns was more accomplished in the sense he became champion. In quality of scalps, I don't think so.

 

So would I but that doesn't mean I'd pick him to beat either.

 

You don't need to repeat your quote I can read.To put it into context would you say Harry Wills beat one time lightweight Sam Langford ?Or Joe Frazier ko'd onetime middle weight Jimmy Ellis? How about Jack Dempsey ko'd ex flyweight Georges Carpentier?

Both whom you defeat and who defeats you are important, you just want to give the one that suits you the most gravitas.

 

I repeated the quote because it didn't print out, so I wanted to make it clear what I was referring to.

As for Walker's size, in fact he weighed 174 for Schmeling and Max weighed 188. This fight was on 9/26/1932

When Walker fought Young Corbett III in a middleweight elimination two years later, on 8/14/1934, he weighed 157 to Corbett's 155.

Walker was 5' 7"

You are going off on tangent after tangent without answering the central question. Is beating the heavyweight Jersey Joe Walcott a greater achievement for a heavyweight than defeating the much smaller Walker? I say definitely.

 

I've no problem with your question just the way in which it was a couched. yes ,it's a greater achievement ,but one that must be qualified with the nonentities he also lost to .

 

Burns beat two current worlds champions and a British Empire champion.When he beat O Brien he could justifiably have claimed the light heavy crown too since both were inside the weight.He took his title around the world, making, for the time a record number of defences.
That's more accomplished than anything either Layne or Lastarza did

 

I think Layne had lost five fights prior to his fight with LaStarza.

Nonentities?

Dave Whitlock--beat Layne once and lost to him three times. Was rated in the top ten light-heavies in 1948, 1949, and 1955.

Rocky Marciano--undefeated world heavyweight champion

Ezzard Charles--former world heavyweight champion.

Harry Matthews--rated as high as #1 light-heavyweight contender. Also rated at heavyweight. Undefeated over more than 50 fights since 1943. The Ring rated him the #1 p4p fighter in the 1951 yearly rankings, replacing Robinson.

Willie James--okay. This is your best case, I guess. 6' 3" fighter who was considered promising and became the New England heavyweight champion. His win over Layne might be considered a downer for Layne. James went on to KO Bert Whitehurst, a fighter who later twice went the distance with Sonny Liston. He KO'd Olympic champion Ed Sanders in 1953. Sanders died after the fight. James had only one more fight before quitting boxing. One of you guys has posted he was a "bum" but he seems more a tough journeyman who had talent but a weak jaw.

 

Fair enough. But I wouldn't rate Hart and O'Brien with Walcott and Charles.

How good were the men Burns defended against?

 

Whitlock and James were non entities. Mathews was a hype job. The Charles win will be forever tainted. Whitehurst was knocked out of the ring in the last round against Liston in their 2nd fight the final bell saved him from a ko.Bum is not a word I use to describe a professional boxer.We are not going to find common ground here,so think it best we fold our tents.

 

They were reigning champions which neither Walcott or Charles were.Lang and Squires were legitimate contenders of their time.

 

Wrong again. Matthews was far from a hype job. Whitlock and James were C fighters. Period. A C fighter can get lucky and grab a win here and there. The Charles win is only tainted in your mind. Being a close fight doesn’t mean anything is tainted just means it was a close fight. Layne had good competitive fights with everyone he fought. It’s obvious you have a severe bias against the 50s era. Unwarranted imo as you literally think every fighter of that era is “overrated” or a “hype job”. Was a good era that had its old leftovers competing late into the 60s and even the 70s. That’s not a sign of a weak era.

 

Mathews own manager told him when he took over the reins,"you dont know how to fight yet ".you've been out here away from the real competition."eg
In his 45th fight Mathews fought2-9-2 Tommy Fair in his51st he fought Bobby Gato33-45--11.I suggest you read the Jack Hurley trilogy by John Ochs before attempting to teach better informed posters to suck eggs
The Charles win is tainted because many ,if not the majority did not think he deserved the victory.
I have no bias against any era some of the finest fighters were plying their trade during the 50's.
These would include:
Carter
Brown
Ortiz
Charnley
Saddler
Turpin
Pep
Bratton
Robinson
Basilio
DeMarco
Perez
Williams
Lamotta
Kingpetch
Marino
Graham
Tiger
Saxton
Giardello
Shirai
Moore
Johnson
Patterson
Maxim
Gavilan
Perhaps you should learn to limit your comments/accusations to those that make logical sense?

 

"Lang and Squires were legitimate contenders of their time."

As Layne and Matthews were fifty years later.

And if you are going to call Matthews, or LaStarza, hype jobs, what about Squires? He rose to contender status beating guys I never heard of except for Peter Felix, got a shot at Burns, and then lost 9 of 10 the rest of the way, all by KO. Me not knowing about them doesn't prove these Squires victims couldn't fight, but in the end, Squires does not have as good a won-lost record as Willie James and his best scalps might not even match those of James.

Matthews was good enough to impress The Ring as being the best p4p fighter in the world at his peak.