Lastarza,Layne, ****ell,Mathews v Usyk ?

[Ivich]

You're not getting off that easily.

1.) Only entertains thoughts he brings up

2.) Only posts opinions

3.) Tries to control narrative with an ironic lack of self awareness.

4.) Cries regardless of how handled

It's not me who is the lazy cowardly ***** here.

Sadly, you're probably older than I am.


I'll address one issue, just to give you something and use it as a vehicle to illustrate how far up your own ass you are:

Did I say LaStarza wasn't protected or did I say the fifties, in all forms of protection, features far less protection than the current era?

Hmm.

See point 1 there? Check

See point 2? Also check

How about 3? I see no comparison, just a dig at LaStarza.Check

How about 4? Oh yes, making you cry is the easiest bit of this endevour.


They know me. This is not for the third party reader. Pep, Willow, bil, Ghost, Queen, trav, they all know I have the goods. You are the man with something to prove and you are failing.





Trav has notes

Ghost has notes

Willow, got them notes son

Queen, not so much, never seen Queen post **** but her opinion. Hmm.....wonder how you will be regarded in this community.


When you pretend to be well researched but make threads that blatantly say you're too lazy to do your own research you should expect me, probably the most quarrelsome man here, to harass the **** out of you until you produce something or signal you know your place.


Why TF would I argue by your terms?

You tried to slyly have a pop at me regarding Lastarza and the 50's I refuted your posts and your rectum fell out!

I don't give a good **** what others think of either you or myself.I dont need or seek the approval of posters here, I've read only two or three that have made a post worth reading! And YOU weren't one of them!

You're a self promoting fraud as far as I'm concerned,constanlty trumpeting your own supposed knowledge ,well I haven't seen any evidence of it so far!
So prove me wrong ,show me how you are some kind of special case that I should respect?
I said you were lazy, not me! Yes I'm older than you and considerably better versed in the art of pugilism from all aspects of the game including participation. Now step up and show us what you've got you spineless vegetable!

[Ivich]

You did **** all nothing.

I made a statement, open ended, you responded with what you call a refute but doesn't actually address what I said.

If you were worth a **** you'd present both ends. Both the fifties protection and the protection featured during Usyk's career.

Dumbass.


Supposed? It's right here you ****** ****. You are the only man here talking about something you've not proven you have any form of depth in.

Good lord you're a ****** ****er.

"protection featured during Usyk's career."
Produce examples of Usyk being protected.
Who did he duck at Cruiser?

[them_apples]

Marciano fans may be warned not to step in it here, but Q.O.O. is not among The Rock's top qualifications for all-time greatness. Great though he may be.
LaStarza was skilled, tough and pretty quick. The 1950 fight was a pick em'. In the rematch Marciano ruined him and packed the college grad off to Hollywood to star in the television show "The Gallant Men".
Rex Layne was a powerful football player and beet farmer who won the 49' national AAU title, so he could box. Like the Rock he posted wins over Charles & Walcott. Both LaStarza and Layne were pegged as future champions early in their careers and may have been if not for a cut here, an upset there and Marciano.
Don ****ell was one of those soft looking guys who can beat up weightlifter types under any rules, any day, and although a career lightheavyweight, once he moved up and beat Beshore, Slade and Johnny Williams he was the best the UK could offer the world between Bruce Wood**** and Joe Erskine.
Harry Kid Matthews like ****ell was small even by Oleksandr Usyk standards, but he could fight. He masterd Eddie Booker of the famed muderers row, and Ezzard Charles as well.
All four guys achieved contender status between 1950 and 55', and along with Walcott, Charles, Louis, Savold, Baker, Valdez, Henry, Oma, Norkus, Holman, Satterfield, Walace, Johnson, Reynolds, Beshore, Gardner, Maxim, Wilson, Gilliam, Shkor, Vingo, Brion, Cavicchi, Bucceroni, Bivins, Neuhaus, Agramonte, Mederos, Kahut, Barone, Bean, Ten Hoff, Harrison, Doc Williams, Henry, Slade, Davidson, Baksi, Marshall, Sys; and all 4 represent the best that Marciano's era could provide him for challenders. Nobody stood out as better than the men who received a shot while Rocky ruled the roost. A couple would have feathered the champion's resume nicely, but they kept flubbing a contest just as their name came up.
We think of him as smallish, but Ukrainian-Light towers over many of the aforementioned ghosts of the nifty-fifties, and although I still view Usyk as a WIP, I take him over the four foils mentioned.

Yeah Rex Layne actually looks pretty good in all his fights outside of rocky. Marcianos styles just sort of nullified his skills. I want to say the same of matthews.

[Ivich]

Yeah Rex Layne actually looks pretty good in all his fights outside of rocky. Marcianos styles just sort of nullified his skills. I want to say the same of matthews.

Even when prime Layne was losing to journeymen like:
Andy Walker16-7-6
Dale Hall 16-7-4

[Ivich]

You don't see how you can only speak on your own terms? I do, they do. You're being exposed.

Did Moore fight Nino for mando or simply attain undisputed LHW?

"Several ranked men" is all you had to say about LaStarza, then you begin a list of guys he did fight with a ranked man. Because you're ****ing lazy and didn't check.

So, to that, Usyk fought 0 ranked men to get his title fight, which is at least 1 less than LaStarza and Moore, but sure he's not protected.

Beat up a retired boxer and a past prime who never achieved anything, and did not even have to do that because he was already assured a title shot, but, Roland said he'd wished he fought more ranked fighters....hmm.

Again, eras when everyone has to fight one another and feature losses like candy are not weak. Eras where men are gifted position for doing nothing are. That's how you ended up with Mormeck as a title contender and did not end up with Layne as a title contender. Ya dumb lazy prick.

Usyk beat the two top ranked contenders to get his cruiserweight title.When did Lastarza do that?
Usyk was the undefeated Cruiserweight Champion when he went up to heavy he was also in the top ten p4p rankings,and ranked in the heavyweight top ten. He hadnt lost to a lhvy journeyman 2 fights previously to fighting for the title and he hadn't been floored either!
Lastarza only beat one single opponent who was ring ranked top ten when he fought him look it up!

Rex Layne who was never the same fighter after Marciano brutalised him.

Nowhere have I said or implied Lastarza said he wished he had fought more ranked fighters.
WTF has Archie Moore to do with anything?
He earned his shot by beating Johnson multiple times Maxim multiple times and Cestac,Baker ,Henry,Valdes x2 Slade, and Dunlap In short the guys that Lastarza avoided!

[Ivich]

LaStarza was never a CW. Trying to bend some rules for some credit?

Moore was the closest analog to Usyk from the fifties. Do I need to remind you, you chose focus on LaStarza not me. I said the fifties has less protection than now. TF is wrong with you son?

LaStarza did defeat two ranked HWs though. Hmm.

Moore and Usyk have nothing in common except they were both professional boxers.The only fighter Lastarza beat who was ranked when he beat him was Layne .Name another? Lastarza was a heavyweight during his career, have I ever stated other wise? Along with your pomposity and self regard ,do you also suffer from reading difficulties?

[Willow The Wisp]

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.
The fact that hangover from the previous decade such as Louis and Walcott,Savold were still ,champions/ highly ranked,amply illustrates the paucity of great talent in the division.
No serious student of the game would contend that the 50 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."

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.

[Willow The Wisp]

Two of my favorites getting on each others nerves. Oh, the humanity. Lol

[Willow The Wisp]

You're not getting off that easily.

1.) Only entertains thoughts he brings up

2.) Only posts opinions

3.) Tries to control narrative with an ironic lack of self awareness.

4.) Cries regardless of how handled

It's not me who is the lazy cowardly ***** here.

Sadly, you're probably older than I am.


I'll address one issue, just to give you something and use it as a vehicle to illustrate how far up your own ass you are:

Did I say LaStarza wasn't protected or did I say the fifties, in all forms of protection, features far less protection than the current era?

Hmm.

See point 1 there? Check

See point 2? Also check

How about 3? I see no comparison, just a dig at LaStarza.Check

How about 4? Oh yes, making you cry is the easiest bit of this endevour.


They know me. This is not for the third party reader. Pep, Willow, bil, Ghost, Queen, trav, they all know I have the goods. You are the man with something to prove and you are failing.





Trav has notes

Ghost has notes

Willow, got them notes son

Queen, not so much, never seen Queen post **** but her opinion. Hmm.....wonder how you will be regarded in this community.


When you pretend to be well researched but make threads that blatantly say you're too lazy to do your own research you should expect me, probably the most quarrelsome man here, to harass the **** out of you until you produce something or signal you know your place.


Why TF would I argue by your terms?

Brutal. Lol

[Ivich]

Her going through the annual ratings at the moment. She'll be back, with something ******.


It is my hope to get something even dumber than Archie Moore has nothing to do with Oleksandr Usyk but Roland LaStarza does, but that one was so ****ing tardy I'm pretty sure even her lack of any self awareness ass is starting to catch what I am doing to her.


C'mon Tinkerbelle, shouldn't take this long to respond. You know I can see you on the active list right? Scroll down hun. We both know what you're doing.

Neither have anything to do with Usyk imo
In case it passed you by what I did was match, Usyk against Layne,Lastarza,Mathews and ****ell I never once mentioned Moore.
You're not giving me a hard time Sweetie you're just mugging yourself off with your infantile personal insults to me because your vanity has been pricked.
If it gives you some illusion and comfort that you are winning something here, you go right ahead swearing and bombastically pontificating in your vain effort to prolong the farce that you are some kind of expert. That's perfectly fine with me.