-
-
Competitive does not equal a high standard.Lets get that ridiculous assertion out of the way first ,two debutees who have never laced on a pair of gloves can put up a competitive fight.Originally posted by Marchegiano
Lads
Am I the only man here who can speak to any era, period, with confidence and depth? Yes, the answer to that is yes. My sig alone shows more research and sharing information than you ****ers even try to muster and it's just the threads I can fit in a sig. This isn't meant to be an insult, it's a brag. I do, most certainly, know something you ****ers do not. Think about that **** while you read this next paragraph.
The fifties HWs is the most competitive era boxing has to offer for HWs. Rather than actually exploring that you needle ****s win/loss whore it and call it weak. It's fucking embarrassing. Most of you are smarter men than that. Most of you are better researchers than that. What in the actual ***********?
Protected? Gee oh, I'm sure, so much more protection in the ****ing fifties than today, you can see it in men's ability to get and win titles without a resume. ****in' mooks.
You can see that in their ability to move up ranks without fighting ranked opponents. Ya ****in' mooks
You can see it in their ability to inspire **** all nothing. Mook pricks.
If the qualifier for strong and weak era is win/loss records than Wlad actually reigned over one of the strongest and most competitive eras of all time didn't he ya goofy pricks?
But, but, but x lost to y, and y has so many losses It's ****ing dumb. Especially since every single one of you have lived through and understand well exactly what it actually takes to fight a career's worth of fights without losing very often.
The fact that hangovers from the previous decade such as Louis and Walcott,Savold were still ,champions were highly ranked,amply illustrates the paucity of great talent in the division.
No serious student of the game would contend that the 50's was a decade of great depth as regards the heavyweight division
Roland Lastarza gave an interview to the Ring in which he said his manager refused fights with several ranked men ,hoping that his previous close loss to Marciano would eventually parlay him a shot at the title.
What had Lastarza done to merit a title shot?
After the close fight with Rocky, Lastarza fought;
Walls12-21-2
Fuller 16-15-3
Simmons A Marciano sparring partner 7-6-1
Spagnola 20-7-3
Lowry 67-58-10
Kennedy 25-4-1
Simmons 8-9-1 Sparring partner again
Mitchell 55-12-2
Felton 16-19-1
Lowry67-62-10
Bucceroni 39-2-0 Lost
Wilson 45-16-2
Schneider16-5-2
McFadden 6-2-1
Buccerioni 41-2-0
Jones 14-9-2 A lhvy lost and was knocked down
Jones 15-9-2 Jones still a lhvy
Then Rollie gets lucky he gets a match with Rex Layne ,now in terminal decline since his brutal ko by Marciano and squeeks a split dec over him.This enables Lastarza to gain some superficial credibility as a challenger and he gets his long cherished title shot.
Seventeen fights in which he fought just two men of any class one, Bucceroni split a pair with him ,and Rollie lost to a journeyman lhy who floored him. Thirteen of those guys were journeymen/ham & eggers.
The title shot that he bypassed getting in the ring with the following contenders for!
Williams
Gardner
Sys
Baker
Henry
Neuhaus
Bivins
Walls
Louis
Charles
Walcott
Maxim
Oma
Baksi
Yes Lastarza was a masterfully protected fighter,all credit to his manager but the plain truth!
He beat just one ranked opponent, a past his sell by date Rex Layne.
Your sig? What does that mean,and how does it indicate you are any kind of expert on this decade?
I'm reminded of that wise old proverb.
"Self praise is no recommendation."Last edited by Ivich; 06-03-2022, 01:13 PM.Comment
-
- - He trying to tighten everyone's huggies around their temples.
Not a good survival tactic as this 1993 Darwin Award Winner shows.
Comment
-
It has only been in recent tames has a loss become so awful, as promotions are predicated on the idea of the immovable object vs. The irresistible force. Being that fighers work strictly with flesh & bone, the idea is silly. It caters to ****** consumers who are too lazy to understand resume and skill when generating enthusiasm for a match. MMA has handled it better, pressing HOF level fighters into crappy records via tough matchmaking, old skool style.Originally posted by Marchegiano Lads
Am I the only man here who can speak to any era, period, with confidence and depth? Yes, the answer to that is yes. My sig alone shows more research and sharing information than you ****ers even try to muster and it's just the threads I can fit in a sig. This isn't meant to be an insult, it's a brag. I do, most certainly, know something you ****ers do not. Think about that **** while you read this next paragraph.
The fifties HWs is the most competitive era boxing has to offer for HWs. Rather than actually exploring that you needle ****s win/loss whore it and call it weak. It's fucking embarrassing. Most of you are smarter men than that. Most of you are better researchers than that. What in the actual ***********?
Protected? Gee oh, I'm sure, so much more protection in the ****ing fifties than today, you can see it in men's ability to get and win titles without a resume. ****in' mooks.
You can see that in their ability to move up ranks without fighting ranked opponents. Ya ****in' mooks
You can see it in their ability to inspire **** all nothing. Mook pricks.
If the qualifier for strong and weak era is win/loss records than Wlad actually reigned over one of the strongest and most competitive eras of all time didn't he ya goofy pricks?
But, but, but x lost to y, and y has so many losses It's ****ing dumb. Especially since every single one of you have lived through and understand well exactly what it actually takes to fight a career's worth of fights without losing very often.Comment
-
Yours is unassailable logic, and your characterization of Roland LaStarza is bullet proof. His marketability as a pleasing, degreed war veteran is illustrated by his segue onto millions of television screens in a co-starring role. That Valdez, Baker and others never got a shot is too bad. Marciano's bucket of blood style precluded a "parade of challengers" pace like those set by Louis, Ali, Holmes, Lennox, Wladimir....and then there was Archie Moore, ever manning the gate.Comment
-
Not one refutation of my pointsJust a silly blurb.From Mr Charlatan masquerading as some kind of expert!Originally posted by Marchegiano
You ain't talking to Q Rules now Sunshine!
I've done my research! Mr Wanker!Last edited by Ivich; 06-03-2022, 01:20 PM.Comment
-
My earlier post endorsed my points re the 50's and Lastarza being a protected fighter.Originally posted by marchegiano
Its now time for you to produce proof that my post was wrong /inaccurate
if no such proof surfaces I believe we can rest assured that you were in fact talking out of your pompous rectum!Last edited by Ivich; 06-04-2022, 04:33 AM.Comment
Tweet
Comment