Rocky beatdowns in the rematches

[JeffR]

“This argument has gotten a little ridiculous.”

Yes it has. The whole thread has gotten ridiculous. The original premise of this thread was supposedly that the originator wanted other board members’ opinions as to why Marciano “beat down” his opponents in rematches. Anyone who responded with an opinion that differed from the originator was then “educated” as to why their opinion was “wrong.” In other words, what you really have is a Marciano idolater seeking a forum to advance his agenda.

[phlboxarc]

I have the complete film of the Jones rematch and believe me LaStarza looked terrible. Jones was approached at the morning weigh-in by Jimmy White (Amato) a shadowy figure who was a mob contact man and manager and told Rocky "we don't wan't any of that stuff that happened in Akron."
Jones had two good rounds then was told to "cool it."
LaStarza NEVER fought a danerous opponent except Marciano and thats a fact if you know any of the fighters from his era. I am not saying that LaStarza was a coward but he (or, excuse me, his management) refused matches with Henry, Charles, Baker, and Archie Moore. In an article in RING magazine after his career LaStarza admitted as much, saying he wouldn't take those matches because he "deserved" a rematch with Marciano and thought he was offered the other matches by the IBC only because they were trying to knock him out of "his rightful shot at Marciano." Boo Hoo Hoo. Real, confident fighters go out and prove they deserve their shot by beating dangerous fighters to force a showdown with a champion.
Again, let me reinterate-when Marciano fought LaStarza the first time Rocky was boxing for the first time after the Vingo tragedy. Rocky had threatened to quit boxing. Is it any wonder he was not the usual agressive Marciano but an understandably gunshy, tenitive boxer that night ?

[phlboxarc]

I have LaStarza's fights on film against Bucceroni (1+2), Layne, Jones (2), Marciano (2), Mederos, Cockell. Please tell what fight LaStarza looks great on. He was a decent defensive fighter with hardly no aggression at all and it looks to me he had no confidence.

[hawk5ins]

Folks think highly of his power.

I don't think they necessarily think highly of Cooney.

Herb Goldman aside.

Hawk

[Elmer Ray]

“This argument has gotten a little ridiculous.”

Yes it has. The whole thread has gotten ridiculous. The original premise of this thread was supposedly that the originator wanted other board members’ opinions as to why Marciano “beat down” his opponents in rematches. Anyone who responded with an opinion that differed from the originator was then “educated” as to why their opinion was “wrong.” In other words, what you really have is a Marciano idolater seeking a forum to advance his agenda.

i dont appreciate the personel attack. this was not what i had in mind with this thread. its not my fault cyberboxingzone clearly is not a pro marciano forum, in fact most here do not think much of marciano, its ok though.

i think highly of rocky, i rate him 5th. so does the IBRO. yet marciano will always have his critics out there, more than most champions

[hawk5ins]

I think you are confusing "Do not think much of Marciano" and those who "don't see things exactly as you do".

From what I've seen of this site, no it is NOT a Marciano hero worship site. In fact, I don't see it hero worshiping any fighter.

That's a good thing.

Any fighter is open to criticism. Marciano is certainly no different than any other great fighter in the sports history.

A lack of Idolatry is IMO a GOOD thing.

Hawk

[hagler04]

Elmer, I've seen LaStarza on film as well, as he is not the defensive wizard you make him out to be. He was a good all around small HW (even for that era) with good skills but I see not one special attribute of his on film-he did everything pretty well and at that time it made him a contender. I see Machen, Doug Jones, and even Bonavena all beating him. I don't see a comparison to Ellis as valid, as Ellis, despite being a former middleweight, hit harder, was faster, and more active. I'd pick him to dismantle LaStarza as well.

BTW-why would his management avoid matches with dangerous fighters if they had confidence he would beat them? They basically turned down easy money according to that logic . . (and remember, Marciano was NOT highly regarded at all when he first fought LaStarza)

Some Marciano fans pump up his opposition to try to get themselves to believe he went through a murderer's row . . .sorry but the wide majority of boxing historians would disagree. The perfect example is Rex Layne . . .on the Marciano fan-site you would believe he was the George Foreman of the 1950s. Look at him on film vs Marciano and you see a crude, slow brawler with little skill with a visible paunch in belly.

I actually LIKE Marciano and over time have become more appreciative of how tough he was to face as a fighter. But in almost all other eras of HW boxing, no way does he leave with an undefeated record.

[Elmer Ray]

lastarza did have a lot of flaws but theres no denying he was a great defensive fighter on film. he had a very modern style. on defense, he held his hands high, solid blocking skills, good head movement, very elusive, and his whole offense was based on excellent counterpunching. he was a very polished boxer, and threw very smooth combinations on the attack. his whole style was based on counterpunching and defense. i think very well of lastarza, much more than rex layne. rocky marciano always spoke very highly of roland lastarza, and called roland "the best defensive heavyweight of the era." thats right, out of walcott, charles, moore he chose lastarza. shouldnt rocky's opinion count? lastarza was very elusive on his feet, excellent movement.

lastarza defintley had flaws, like lack of aggresion, power, and deadly offense, and his speed wasnt overwhelming. but he wasnt feather fisted. he knocked down # 3 ranked dan bucceroni 5 times in a shutout preformance.


* lastarza was shot vs cockell and mederos, throw those garbage fights out the window.





i defintley don't say marciano wiped out the "murderers row". in fact, my biggest critisism of marciano is the lack of depth he beat compared to other champions. marciano does not have a lot of quantity on his resume. i would have liked to see marciano subsititute a couple of those ham and eggers and fight clarence henry, bob baker, bob satterfield, nino valdes, earl walls, etc instead.




i defintley dont hype up layne. to be blantant, I dont think much of rex layne. i defintley dont say he was a george foreman slugger. and ur right, he was a slow crude slugger on film. however in his short prime, he was defintley a good world class fighter and he beat some very good fighters. layne was defintley a hard hitter( see satterfield fight) and had a lot of heart, good aggresion, good chin was strong, and was a pretty good inside fighter(see walcott fight). however, he was a awfull crude boxer. his best trait as a boxer was his jab. his defense was awful, hands low, very unpolished as a boxer. these are defintley bad qualities that dont make me think highly of him. however he still managed to beat some very good fighters cause he had a lot of heart, power, will, youthness, and strength. I think more highly of lastarza than layne, but theres no denying layne was a world class fighter and good top contender. in fact, out of all the white hopes(marciano, layne, lastarza, etc) it was layne( NOT marciano) who was thought to be the best of the white hopes to win the title. i dont even rate layne in my top 75 heavyweights of all time, nor do i rate him in my top 25 best heavies never to win a title.


heres what john garfield who saw rex layne live had to say about him

"Throw out the record book on Layne, he was a rugged brawler with a quick, very heavy right. As he got shopworn and discouraged, more and more, he got outworked and beaten down.

But, when he first raged out of Utah -- full of piss and vinegar -- he'd have been a handful for anybody. He could crack with that right."



"Layne looms as the outstanding prospect west of the
Mississippi. He is a hard hitter... Layne has what it takes to be developed
into the next world heavyweight king. He can hit and has an abundance of
courage." - Nat Fleischer wrote in 1951







out of the contenders pre title, i think joe louis was the best one marciano beat. despite being old and past his prime, louis was still a formidable fighter.





in regars to marciano, he defintley did not wipe out the murders row. but theres no denying that he beat the best of his era. the 3 clear best heavyweights of his era charles, walcott ,moore marciano all beat uncontrovesially and desicevley. when you beat the best of your era, you cant do much better than that.


if u were to ask me the 5 best of marcianos era i would say

archie moore
ezzard charles
jersey joe walcott
joe louis
harold johnson

well marciano beat 4 out of the 5, pretty good

[Elmer Ray]

heres an article for you guys to read, i thought u might be interested



THE RIGHT LAYNE
By NAT LOUBET

REX LAYNE, heavyweight challenger, had just added another victim to his collection. Bob Satterfield, Chicagoan, had been raining punches off Rex's cocoanut-like noggin all night. The cherubic-faced Mormon from Lewiston, Utah, fondeled the sore spots. Satterifeld had been laid to rest in 2:56 of the eighth canto when Mark Conn, the arbiter, halted the contest with Bob helples from a short right to the jaw.
The bout had been an even-steven affair up to the knockout, although Layne had received all his punches in one locality- the cephalic, or, as the inmates of Stillman's Gym would have it, the kisser.
It was suggested right after the contest that Rex had youth, strength, could take and give it, had showed improvement in his boxing form since his last two Garden appearances against Jersey Joe Walcott and Cesar Brion, respectively, but that he was still green and needed much seasoning in the technique of boxing.
Marvin Jensen, the mink-raising guardian of Layne's ring fortunes, rushed to the defense. "He can box a lot better than he has shown since coming East. Did you see that boy punch? Ole Rex here sure has what it takes. He's full of fight.
"Yeah," someone said, "but how long will he be full of fight if he doesn't learn how to protect himself better?"
Rex interrupted: "A couple more fights like this and I'll be playing marbles," he quipped.
Regardless of his record, an enviable on of 32 fights with only one loss, that to Dave Whitlock whom he defeated in two other outings, it is clear that Rex will have his greatest trouble with fast men who can move around. He won't lose anything by picking up a little more polish in the finer points of boxing.

REX started his boxing career while a sergeant with the 187th Regiment of the 11th Airborne Division, located in the Asiatic theatre. He had enlisted in September, 1946, and was mustered out in March, 1948. In the interim, he won regimental and divisional titles. He came close to carrying home the bacon in the All-Japan tournaments in 1947 and 1948, and but a lad by the name of Howard Williams kept him from achieving that end.
It wasn't until 1949 that Layne made the simon-pure "big time." In that year he won the National A.A.U. championship and a few months later turned professional. His amateur record stands at 26 fights, with only four losses.
After Layne's unimpressive win over Cesar Brion we were visited by the mild-mannered, bashful, boyish Rex and his enthusiastic manager, Jensen.
Jensen recounted the thrill in seeing the best of the breed come into its own; how he had thrilled in raising the best mink and now he was seeing "ole Rex" become a serious contender for heavyweight honors.
It was less than two years ago that THE RING picked Layne as a comer, and he has kept faith by making the grade.
A group had gathered and someone said, "Rex has a whale of a right, but why doesn't he use his left more?"
Jensen jumped into the breach. "Ole Rex here has a dandy of a left hand but he injured it in an early fight and only recently has he started to develop it again."
Rex cut in with: "That's right. My left is beginning to shape up again. I feel it in my gym workouts, and I'll be using it more as I go along."
In his fight with Satterfield, Rex showed improvement with that left, and better boxing form, but he is still way off in ring science and unless he learns how to protect himself, how to avoid powerful wallops such as he got in the Satterfield bout, he'll fail to reach his objective. He's too wide open for punishment.

JENSEN has been the butt of a great deal of criticism from New York scribes for the manner in which he has brought Layne along. His critics claim that his boy was too green for the likes of a Walcott; should never have been in with an awkward spoiler like Brion, and that Satterfield was too strong a puncher for the Utah youngster.
"He's being fed to the lions," has been the cry. But Layne has defeated all three, and by so doing, he is now in a spot to demand recognition as a top challenger. After all, success is what counts, and Layne has come through with victories. His T.N.T. sock and courage have done that for him.
Critics assert that Jensen has not had the experience in the pro league. Yes, he's developed a bevy of amateurs, but the manager of a big-time professional is different, has been the butt of the criticism.
Well, Jensen had to take more chances than other managers or else not get any matches at all for Layne. He was up against it and has won out. The choices that he accepted have all worked out well for Layne, despite the fact that the opposition was exceedingly tough.
Some claim that Layne must receive expert tutoring in boxing technique, tutorin that an old-timer must give. Well, Jensen has one of the best old-time managers in his corner in Joe Woodeman, former manager of Sam Langford, who should be able to advis properly.
We recall a conversation with Jensen prior to Layne's fight with Walcott in which he stated that he wasn't advancing the easy way. "I'm sure Walcott can be beaten by Rex. I've studied the movies of his previous fights and I know what I'm doing. He continued: "There's too much picking of opponents today. If a man wants to be champ he must prove that right by fighting the best."
Results talk, and Layne is up there, but we would like to see him taught more of the finer points. Continuing to take two to land one is likely to end as Layne himself stated: "A couple more fights like this and I'll be playing marbles."
We were shooting the bull a few days prior to the Satterfield affair. Someone made a crack about how Layne looked too young to be of age.
Joe Woodman said: "He'll be 23 in June." He turned to Layne, who was present. "Right?"
Rex said: "I was born June 7, 1928."
"What time?" someone joshed.
Someone else cut in: "Did you ever do anything else but fight for a living?"
"Sure," laughed Rex. "My father owns a farm in Lewiston and I worked on it until I went into the army."
"Say, Rex," interrupted a bystander, "you're not married, are yuh?"
--------- This goes into a lot of talk about Layne's family and whatever else, so I'll just cut to the end-------
We asked Joe Woodman, who has been close to the youngster, what kind of boy he is.
"A grand lad," said Joe. "He lives a clean life, trains hard and is a good family man-and don't forget... a darn good fighter."
The last time we saw Layne was the day after his fight with Satterfield, when he was in THE RING office with Jensen.
"What's you ambition?" Rex was asked.
"What a question to ask a fighter," he countered. I want to be a champ and some day have a restaurant of my own like Jack Dempsey."
Both Dempsey and Gene Tunney had seen Layne in his fight with Satterfield and were high on him. "Polish up his defense and you have a prospective champ," was their chorus.

[hawk5ins]

Pull out a wonderful article from the same publication, telling us how wonderful and impressive Micheal Grant was as well, prior to facing Lennox Lewis.

It is however what the perception of Grant was after that and several other bouts that will tell us the true measure of the man.

Trotting out an article about Layne when he was in the first couple of years in his career, doesn't really tell us anything accurate about him IMO. \

Hawk

[thumper3852]

Just to keep things in some perspective:

I think that the article reinforces only that Layne was held with some regard at that point. After Marciano did the number on him, it becomes specualtion on whether Layne was a bum or if Rocky really was as good as he seemed because he beat a touted fighter.

I don't think Jerry Quarry's rep ever sufferred or was questioned for beating the much touted Mac Foster, for example, so why would Marciano's? He beat a guy that many thought had a lot of promise and getting beat by Marciano doesn't automatically qualify Layne as a bum any more than many of the fighters he beat (everyone he faced).

Even after the Marciano fight (Layne was favored to win that by the way), it is conjecture to say whether Lane's 15 additional losses made him a bum or that he was not the same fighter after Marciano kayoed him.

[Elmer Ray]

my point wasnt too talk layne up. i dont think much of him. my point was to share the article for everyone to see

[Elmer Ray]

my point wasnt too talk layne up. i dont think much of him. my point was to share the article for everyone to see

[hawk5ins]

Thump,

The comparison was made in that Grant was JUST as promising a prospect pre Lewis as was Layne.

I am not calling Grant a bum, but it would be likewise rather silly to go around and try to make more out of Lewis's win than it was.

And by trotting out Pre-Lewis articles to prove my point how much credit Lewis should receive for that victory.

What IS useful is to get an entire career perspective of the fighter. IMO Layne and Grant would fall short.

Hawk

[thumper3852]

Pre fight hype about fighters with good looking records made fat by beating carefully picked opposition, or more aptly put, tomato cans has always been there. It sells tickets, which is what the whole sport has always been about.

In my lifetime there have been a bunch, but the one that always stands way out is Buster Mathis. A great record against the likes of Mert Brownfield, Waban "Tugboat" Thomas, etc, and what do you know, Buster is matched against Joe Frazier for a version of the title. Of course, Joe took him apart, as he did with most everyone he fought, and we all know Joe was indeed the real thing. But what was Buster? Did Joe show Buster was a pretender or did he beat a pretty decent fighter that just wasn't ready for a Frazier because he hadn't been in with better fighters that would have give him the seasoning that he needed to compete with the real deals? What exactly should Frazier be given credit for by beating Buster. What definition should be used for Buster?

So we can go to the whole record and make an opinion. Fraziers's is a no brainer, he proved to be a great fighter. But in Buster's case, in order to be fair, you have to question what the fallout of having him fight and get kayoed by a guy like Joe was on the rest of his career. Well, the really good ones get over it don't they? The answer is, not necessarily, and that's because the beating may have come at such a crucial stage of a career that his confidence or self image is forever battered and shattered, which may be what happened to guys like Mathis. Would Grant have been a different fighter had he not got whipped on by a Lewis at that stage, would Foster have been if not for what happened at the hands of a Quarry? Who really knows? Lots of fighters are shot after one big loss, but the question remains in some cases, should they have even been in that match-up? I think Foster yes, Mathis, no way, and Grant I just don't know (and don't givvafuk).

I guess the point is that I agree you have to look at the whole picture, but the whole picture can actually extend beyond just simply a view of the records. No doubt the main thing about a fighter's rep is the fight he fights, but lots of influences, such as management/trainers and even hype, do make their mark in a fighter's fight.

[hagler04]

Mathis-Frazier was a VERY competetive fight and cannot be compared to the beating that Lewis dished out to Grant or even Quarry-Foster (although Foster did win the first 3 rounds of their affair) To say he shouldn't have been against Fraizer, who he went 10 hard rounds with, is not very accurate. I see Mathis as a very good contender in his prime who basically lost a battle with diabetes and weight control and thus never reached his potential.

[TKO11]

Agreed. Mathis was in fact winning the Frazier fight fairly handily through 10 rounds. Joe was in as perfect a condition as you could be, and just eventually wore him down and got him.

[thumper3852]

That then is a potential answer to the question of how Buster should be defined....... "as a very good contender in his prime"........and I don't tend to disagree with the assessment. However, wouldn't Buster, given his very obvious talents, have been much better served and an even more capable opponent for Frazier than he proved to be had he been matched up with some better competition on his rise to contender status? He had only went 10 rounds once, and given his weight issues, it's no suprise that stamina was an issue against a guy like Frazier. Finally, what effect did that loss have on Buster as he went on with his career? Despite his tools and talents, he only ever defeated one ranked fighter, George Chuvalo.

Just something to chew on...I realize this gets a bit off the track of the thread, but it did stem from the isue of a Rex Layne/Marciano match....honestly it did.

[thumper3852]

...and Frazier was ahead on 2 judges cards and even on referee Mercantes' card. I do agree with you that it was a competitive fight, however.

[TKO11]

Thumper - I don't know if I've ever seen the official scores for Frazier/Mathis. Do you have them? If you do, could you post them please?

I had Mathis up by 2-3 points through 10. But my card is well likely to be different from the officials, as it was held in NYC where aggression is always given a lot of weight. Joe was doing his usual seek and destroy mode, but he was getting hit a lot more than he was hitting; clearly though his shots had much more to them than Mathis's. Still Buster looked very good up to the KO, which was like watching a wrecking ball tear through a building. When Joe finally caught him, he made no mistakes.

[thumper3852]

I got it on boxrec

TKO 11
~ Time: 2:33 | Referee: Arthur Mercante 5-5 | Judge: Jack Gordon 6-4 | Judge: Tony Castellano 7-2 ~

[Elmer Ray]

like layne was ruined in the marciano figh, mathis was ruined in the frazier fight. look at who layne beat and his record before marciano fight, then look at laynes record after he suffered two brutal back to back KO losses to marciano and charles. same with buster. both were never the same again.

[GorDoom]

Hasn't this horse been flogged to death already? C'mon guys, this thread has run it's course. Everything has been said & it's morphing into other subjects.

At a certain point it's time to move on to other subjects. It's just boring lip flapping at this point.

GorDoom

[kikibalt]

Elmer Ray

I remember seeing Rocky Marciano refereeing a fight between Micky Northrup
and Johnny Malloy back in 1951 at the Hollywood Legion Stadium.

Frank B.

[mike]

talk about brutal- i dont mr. lastarza would want to ever be subjected to this thread.