Could Roland Lastarza have succeeded in other eras?

[mr. magoo]

Roland Lastarza was a pretty decent fighter in my eyes. At one point, he was rated as the best defensive heavyweight of all time, and better than average boxing ability as well. He may very well have been one of the toughest challenges that a youthful Marciano ever had. Roland's career deteriorated following his second match with the Rock. He sustained an inordinate amount of punishment to both of his arms, resulting in the need for extensive surgery. After this point, he was never quite the same fighter again.

In my opinion, Roland fought a very defensive style of boxing that was not terribly aggresive and nor did he have much sting to his punches, or so it would appear. This may have been the limiting factor which prevented his rising to champion status.

Does anyone think that he might have been a champ in a different era, or at least a legitimate title threat in most?

[rydersonthestorm]

I doubt he would be a champ in any era but i have no doubts he could be a contender in quite a few. Even in todays weak heavyweight ranks i could see fighter's like wlad and tua being able to hand out too much damage for roland to deal with.

[OLD FOGEY]

Roland Lastarza was a pretty decent fighter in my eyes. At one point, he was rated as the best defensive heavyweight of all time, and better than average boxing ability as well. He may very well have been one of the toughest challenges that a youthful Marciano ever had. Roland's career deteriorated following his second match with the Rock. He sustained an inordinate amount of punishment to both of his arms, resulting in the need for extensive surgery. After this point, he was never quite the same fighter again.

In my opinion, Roland fought a very defensive style of boxing that was not terribly aggresive and nor did he have much sting to his punches, or so it would appear. This may have been the limiting factor which prevented his rising to champion status.

Does anyone think that he might have been a champ in a different era, or at least a legitimate title threat in most?

Fighters have grown so large that after the 1960's or so it is difficult to see LaStarza being very successful at heavy. He might do well at cruiser, though. I think he would have been a contender in earlier eras. He had excellent boxing skills. A champion? Only if he got the right guy, such as Hart or Burns and possibly Braddock or a fading Sharkey, on the right night.

[mr. magoo]

Well,

Although we've been hitting the whole size thing a bit too much this week, I can't help but notice that Lastarza never broke the 200 pound mark. In addition, he had a hard enough time putting away guys were within the same 180-190 range. I certainly don't think that he'd have much to offer in terms of being able to actually hurt larger heavyweights from later periods, however his stamina and trmendous defensive skills may tend to frustrate a lot of guys, leading to some close decisions and perhaps even a few late stoppages.

[dalek]

he'd have a chance today for sure.avoiding wlad,the others really are a mediocre lot.

[janitor]

I think that he would have been a solid contender in any era but as others have said the championship would always have eluded him unless you can realy cherry pick a weak point in the lineage such as Leon Spinks. He is certainly the type of fighter who could have potentialy exploited a divided title to pick up an alphabet strap.

He might just have had a shot if Marciano had not been around as there would have been a bit of a vacum between Walcott & Charles being old but servicable and Floyd Patterson coming along.

[mr. magoo]

He might just have had a shot if Marciano had not been around as there would have been a bit of a vacum between Walcott & Charles being old but servicable and Floyd Patterson coming along.

Now, that would have been an intesting matchup. Only of course, if both men were in their prime. Floyd and Roland were right around the same size. Patterson had a great offensive arsenal, whereas Lastarza's defense was one of the best. I don't know if a 21 year old Patterson had the experience to penetrate the defensive abilities of a prime Lastarza. I also question weather or not he had the power to overcome Roland's stamina and work ethic. That would have been a tough pick.

[mcvey]

Roland Lastarza was a pretty decent fighter in my eyes. At one point, he was rated as the best defensive heavyweight of all time, and better than average boxing ability as well. He may very well have been one of the toughest challenges that a youthful Marciano ever had. Roland's career deteriorated following his second match with the Rock. He sustained an inordinate amount of punishment to both of his arms, resulting in the need for extensive surgery. After this point, he was never quite the same fighter again.

In my opinion, Roland fought a very defensive style of boxing that was not terribly aggresive and nor did he have much sting to his punches, or so it would appear. This may have been the limiting factor which prevented his rising to champion status.

Does anyone think that he might have been a champ in a different era, or at least a legitimate title threat in most?
Lastarza was a good boxer ,with a good chin ,but he lacked real power,the second Marciano fight ruined him.

[Joe E]

Roland would have been Cruiser Champ in this day and age.

[rydersonthestorm]

I doubt that he wasn't agressive enough and against a huge puncher like haye he would have been in trouble.

[Luigi1985]

I doubt that he wasn't agressive enough and against a huge puncher like haye he would have been in trouble.



:lol:

[rydersonthestorm]

I don't know what you find so funny, a defensive fighter is a bad bet against somebody who has serious 1 punch ko power.

[Luigi1985]

I don't know what you find so funny, a defensive fighter is a bad bet against somebody who has serious 1 punch ko power.


Haye didn´t even prove himself against the CW-elite, and now you favour him against a very good HW who had an iron chin? Sorry, that´s just too directly that you´re biased...

[Joe E]

Lastarza handled Marcianos power without being knocked un conscious,handled Rex Layne as well. I think he could handle Hayes Power,out box and out smart as well.

[rydersonthestorm]

He hasn't yet proved himself, if he beats mormeck then he will easily have shown he is a top fighter. Also just becuase one guy is a good fighter doesn't mean that a less talented fighter can't beat them, styles make fights. Also how you can accuse anyone of being bias with half the stuff you say is a right cheek.

[Luigi1985]

He hasn't yet proved himself, if he beats mormeck then he will easily have shown he is a top fighter. Also just becuase one guy is a good fighter doesn't mean that a less talented fighter can't beat them, styles make fights. Also how you can accuse anyone of being bias with half the stuff you say is a right cheek.


Lame counter, try again, I give you one more try...

[rydersonthestorm]

Also as stated he got wrecked by marciano in the second fight, and putting your amrs up to defend against a quick powerful and skilled boxer isn't a good defence.

[Luigi1985]

Also as stated he got wrecked by marciano in the second fight, and putting your amrs up to defend against a quick powerful and skilled boxer isn't a good defence.


Marciano had at least twice the power Haye has, and we know that LaStarza made 2 good fights, when a SMW is able to drop and hurt Haye, and a featherfisted "puncher" like Fragomeni also, I have no doubts that LaStarza would KO Haye...

[rydersonthestorm]

Yeah your not bias, either fool, how does marciano punch twice as hard as haye, that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't know what you find so funny, a defensive fighter is a bad bet against somebody who has serious 1 punch ko power.

I don't understand the logic of this post. I would think a fast stepping defensive fighter is the best possible bet against one punch ko power--for example, Tunney against Dempsey. You cannot knock out what you cannot hit.

[Luigi1985]

Yeah your not bias, either fool, how does marciano punch twice as hard as haye, that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.


Haye has a nice padded KO-record, but he stopped nobody until now. Fragomeni quitted because of the bodypunches (he wasn´t trained that well and is 38 years now, even though it was a close fight until the 9th round), against Thompson, a good fighter, but only with a mediocre chin, and old and shot at that point, he gassed out and was TKO´d, Other fighters like the Danish one he needed to land punch after punch until he finally TKO´d them late... not as spectacular as like you try to hype him...

[rydersonthestorm]

Yeah but he could be hit though, thats the problem, it's not like he was super elusive like willie pep, he took alot of punch'sto the arms and slipped them, against a guy that hits as hard as haye i don't think it's a good combo.

[Joe E]

Also as stated he got wrecked by marciano in the second fight, and putting your amrs up to defend against a quick powerful and skilled boxer isn't a good defence.Yeah,he was wrecked, by Rocky Marciano,never the same again.

[Joe E]

Marciano would've wrecked David Haye too,probably within 8.

[Luigi1985]

@ hotti_killer, yeah, we all agree, you say indirectly that Marciano fought only bums, even today CW´s would easily beat them. I completely agree, Haye would KO LaStarza in the first 2 rounds... :thumbsup

[rydersonthestorm]

Your a moron, where have i ever said that marciano foguth bums, your to up your own arse and old fighters arse's to give a decent opinion on anything. You can't even give reason why you think roland would beat haye, you just say yeah marciano punch's twice as hard which is the most bias thing i have heard in this thread.

[Luigi1985]

Your a moron, where have i ever said that marciano foguth bums, your to up your own arse and old fighters arse's to give a decent opinion on anything. You can't even give reason why you think roland would beat haye, you just say yeah marciano punch's twice as hard which is the most bias thing i have heard in this thread.


I´m biased now? Hell, some of you forums-kiddies here are funny, excatly the thing I say to you, you try to contort! LaStarza was one of the best fighters in his era, he had a great defense, very good chin, good skills and enough power to KO a at CW chinny fighter. Like I wrote, Haye, who hasn´t even proved himself at CW right now (against the elite) should now beat one of those good HW-fighters like LaStarza? Laughable!

[rydersonthestorm]

He fought in an era of some of the worst competion ever in the heavyweight ranks and came up short, where as if haye beats mormeck he will be the cruiserweight champion of the world in an era when the cruiserweight division is pretty strong.

[Luigi1985]

He fought in an era of some of the worst competion ever in the heavyweight ranks and came up short, where as if haye beats mormeck he will be the cruiserweight champion of the world in an era when the cruiserweight division is pretty strong.


Bullshit, the division wasn´t weak, it was a solid one. Surely better than the Tyson-era, or now the "era of the fatties and chubbies"...

[Joe E]

He fought in an era of some of the worst competion ever in the heavyweight ranks and came up short, where as if haye beats mormeck he will be the cruiserweight champion of the world in an era when the cruiserweight division is pretty strong.So Haye would have beaten Joe Walcott,Ezzard Charles,Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano?

[mr. magoo]

He fought in an era of some of the worst competion ever in the heavyweight ranks and came up short, where as if haye beats mormeck he will be the cruiserweight champion of the world in an era when the cruiserweight division is pretty strong.

You can't deny that Lastarza might have been competitive at the cruiserweight ranks. Even Evander Holyfield in the peak of his cruiserweight reign might have had some degree of difficulty with a defensive master like Roland. I'm not saying it would happen, but we can't dismiss the possibility. This was a man who's chin and stamina was proven against top rated heavyweights. Lastarza was for the most part a great fighter until his rematch with Marciano. I can't imagine what having extensive surgery on both arms has to do to a fighter, particularly one who relies so heavily on his defense. Therefore, we can't use his later defeats as an accurate measure to label him as being one kind of a fighter or another. As for his lack of power, that might have been different had he been fighting at a lighter weight class.

[Luigi1985]

So Haye would have beaten Joe Walcott,Ezzard Charles,Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano?


Definitely, and all in the first 3 rounds, only Marciano would get beaten a bit later because of cuts. Don´t you agree? It seems to be that you´re a biased hater... :patsch












:lol:

[rydersonthestorm]

I didn't say that did i, again making up bullshit, he would have a chance against walcott and charles, i don't think he would beat marciano and would'nt stand a chance against loius.

[Luigi1985]

You can't deny that Lastarza might have been competitive at the cruiserweight ranks. Even Evander Holyfield in the peak of his cruiserweight reign might have had some degree of difficulty with a defensive master like Roland. I'm not saying it would happen, but we can't dismiss the possibility. This was a man who's chin and stamina was proven against top rated heavyweights. Lastarza was for the most part a great fighter until his rematch with Marciano. I can't imagine what having extensive surgery on both arms has to do to a fighter, particularly one who relies so heavily on his defense. Therefore, we can't use his later defeats as an accurate measure to label him as being one kind of a fighter or another. As for his lack of power, that might have been different had he been fighting at a lighter weight class.


You´re right, and let´s not forget, Haye isn´t a ATG-CW or so, he´s only a young and talented fighter, who struggled with limited opposition like the 5´8 and 38 years old Fragomeni yet, so we must wait until we can match him with some great/ good HW´s of history...

[rydersonthestorm]

To magoo he might well have done well but haye is a legit heavyweight who weighs 230 and boils down to 200lbs, i think you have to be able to hurt him to stop him coming forward and i don't see roland doing this. Also i know haye is somewhat untested but it's funny how alot of these people who blatently nut hug the older fighter's make up any excuses they can for there loses and then will not accpet that a guy like haye just didn't train and went out partying and that the only reason he lost to thompson.
Also if haye does become the cruiserweight champ he will be the top fighter in a division that is much stronger than the current heavyweight ranks and might be the strongest the cruiserweight divison has ever been.

[Joe E]

I didn't say that did i, again making up bullshit, he would have a chance against walcott and charles, i don't think he would beat marciano and would'nt stand a chance against loius.Jersey Joe would have made Haye look like a rank amateur and Ezzard Charles would have won an U.D.over him in relative easy fashion.

[rydersonthestorm]

Coming from a guy who names himself joeezzard, i guess your not bias either lol

[Luigi1985]

To magoo he might well have done well but haye is a legit heavyweight who weighs 230 and boils down to 200lbs, i think you have to be able to hurt him to stop him coming forward and i don't see roland doing this. Also i know haye is somewhat untested but it's funny how alot of these people who blatently nut hug the older fighter's make up any excuses they can for there loses and then will not accpet that a guy like haye just didn't train and went out partying and that the only reason he lost to thompson.
Also if haye does become the cruiserweight champ he will be the top fighter in a division that is much stronger than the current heavyweight ranks and might be the strongest the cruiserweight divison has ever been.


When Haye is so great compared to a fighter like LaStarza, how can you explain me, that he struggled so much with the likes of a Fragomeni? Or that he was hurt against a former SMW? Or TKO´d by an old and shot Thompson? Sorry, that´s not hating to Haye, or defending the old-timers, but it seems to be that you rate a matchup because of 3 things: Size, weight, and the time they fought/fight...

[Dempsey1238]

I like Charles by knockout.

[rydersonthestorm]

Not really i just rate haye, if you don't train and live the party lifestyle your not going to do well, do you not think haye has looked alot more impressive since the fragomeni fight (due to the fact he actually trains and wants to be a top boxer)and don't think that roland is as great as you think, who did he beat for you to think he was so great, also beating fighters that win as many as they lose and only have about 20 fights doesn't make you an all time great.

[Joe E]

Coming from a guy who names himself joeezzard, i guess your not bias either lolWhat if I called myself Louis or Marciano or Lastarza?The out come would still be the same.Lastarza U.D. Haye.

[Luigi1985]

Not really i just rate haye, if you don't train and live the party lifestyle your not going to do well, do you not think haye has looked alot more impressive since the fragomeni fight (due to the fact he actually trains and wants to be a top boxer)and don't think that roland is as great as you think, who did he beat for you to think he was so great, also beating fighters that win as many as they lose and only have about 20 fights doesn't make you an all time great.


How sweet you are when you´re searching for new lame excusses! Agreed, Haye is/was the only fighter ever who was a party-animal! Otherwise he would be the Undisputed Cruiserweight Champion of the World, and the p4p-nr 2 behind PBF! :good

[rydersonthestorm]

Your a joke, you can say roland was done for becuase of his beating from marcinao and his arms etc, other says oh what if dempsey/liston hadn't off took a dive etcetc, but when it comes to a modern fighter they are not allowed to make mistakes. Also haye isn't the only fighter to be a party animal but alot of those other fighter's actually trained, he was by his own admission to arrogant before and didn't tain enough, now he does and he koed the non weak chinned heayweight bonin easily and when he beats mormeck he will have acheived alot more than roland ever did.

[Luigi1985]

Your a joke, you can say roland was done for becuase of his beating from marcinao and his arms etc, other says oh what if dempsey/liston hadn't off took a dive etcetc, but when it comes to a modern fighter they are not allowed to make mistakes. Also haye isn't the only fighter to be a party animal but alot of those other fighter's actually trained, he was by his own admission to arrogant before and didn't tain enough, now he does and he koed the non weak chinned heayweight bonin easily and when he beats mormeck he will have acheived alot more than roland ever did.


When did I come with the excusses you wrote now? Wake up, you dream again. Secondly, he KO´d Bonin, the iron-chinned warrior or what? Oh, sorry, I forgot, he survived nine rounds against the legend "A-Farce" Harrison for example, Bonin is a perfect example of a fighter with a padded record, before he faced Haye, he stepped in the ring with a bodybuilder, who had no fights at boxing and made his first fight, and with zero skills, and he was floored, that should tell you enough...

[rydersonthestorm]

He may not be a great heavyweight but he isn't weak chinned and isn't that bad either, the way haye took him out was impressive even if you don't like that fact. Also if haye beats mormeck as stated before he will have acheived alot more than roland in a dvision that is stronger than the one roland fought in, the cruiserweight top ten is probably the best it's ever been.

[Luigi1985]

He may not be a great heavyweight but he isn't weak chinned and isn't that bad either, the way haye took him out was impressive even if you don't like that fact. Also if haye beats mormeck as stated before he will have acheived alot more than roland in a dvision that is stronger than the one roland fought in, the cruiserweight top ten is probably the best it's ever been.

And what has that shit to do with the things we usually discussed?


LaStarza TKO 8 Haye :good

[mr. magoo]

[quote]To magoo he might well have done well but haye is a legit heavyweight who weighs 230 and boils down to 200lbs, i think you have to be able to hurt him to stop him coming forward and i don't see roland doing this.

Well first of all, I don't know that much about Haye, and nor did I claim that Lastarza would beat him. I simply suggested that Roland might be a force in the cruiserweight division in most eras, and I don't think that it's beyond the realm of possibility.


Also i know haye is somewhat untested but it's funny how alot of these people who blatently nut hug the older fighter's make up any excuses they can for there loses and then will not accpet that a guy like haye just didn't train and went out partying and that the only reason he lost to thompson.


Another point of interest: favoring one fighter over another, does not necessarily make a nuthugger. Secondly, I personally believe that giving a fighter a pass for having extensive surgery after the worst beating of his life, is a more acceptable excuse for future losses than that of a fighter who chooses specifically not to train and " parties". The reason for my preference between these two explanations, is that one of them has to do with choice. If a fighter goes out drinking, smoking, gambling and whoring when he's supposed to be working his ass off, then he deserves to lose. You also have to question what Haye's future is going to look like if he has the tendency to exercise these behaviors from time to time.

[rydersonthestorm]

My point is most of the people who post in this classic boxing section are quick to say so and so lost becuase he was old or he was injured or he took a dive or the conditions in the old days where worse. Then when a modern fighter loses for any reason they don't accpet that it might be becuase he didn't train or he was injured etc. I was not specifically refering to roland more of a general observation about alot of the posters in the classic section. Also haye learned the error of his way's and now trains properly, he used to be a model etc and go out partying in london evry night and now he just wants to do well at boxing. Also he drains 30 pounds to make cruiserweight so that shows up why he sometimes lacks abit of stamina, people just see what they want to and don't look beyond the simple things.

[Luigi1985]

My point is most of the people who post in this classic boxing section are quick to say so and so lost becuase he was old or he was injured or he took a dive or the conditions in the old days where worse. Then when a modern fighter loses for any reason they don't accpet that it might be becuase he didn't train or he was injured etc. I was not specifically refering to roland more of a general observation about alot of the posters in the classic section. Also haye learned the error of his way's and now trains properly, he used to be a model etc and go out partying in london evry night and now he just wants to do well at boxing. Also he drains 30 pounds to make cruiserweight so that shows up why he sometimes lacks abit of stamina, people just see what they want to and don't look beyond the simple things.


I know, there are some posters (like everywhere) who really always favour the old-timers, but the same exists with people who always favour the modern fighters, because of the weight/size-shit. I think, that I´m honest/unbiased enought to make good predictions, I mean, look, here at our example (LaStarza-Haye), I would only favour LaStarza, because he was a tricky fighter with great defensive skills and a very good chin, and he proved against the best HW´s of his era that he was a tough fighter. Haye, like I wrote 10000 times yet, struggled even against limited CW-opposition, but to be fair, he´s young and we must wait how he looks when he reach his prime...


but all in all, I really can´t see why you call me a moran (although I´m one :lol: in general) only because I pick an against elite-HW´s proven fighters against one who isn´t even against CW-opposition...

[rydersonthestorm]

No it was becuase of the way you responded, if you had just written what you wrote now i would have said fair enough

[Luigi1985]

No it was becuase of the way you responded, if you had just written what you wrote now i would have said fair enough


I wrote it so, because you always sound a bit disrespectful indirectly to some fighters...


But let´s finish our "verbal- battle", I´m tired. :thumbsup

[mr. magoo]

Luigi1985] I think, that I´m honest/unbiased enought to make good predictions,

Ahem....:roll:

[Luigi1985]

Ahem....:roll:


Well, that´s your opinion, who cares? Many very good posters here know/ say that I have boxing knowledge and make fair and realistic predictions...

[rydersonthestorm]

Which fighter's have i been disrespectful to, saying i think lennox lewis punch's harder than marciano etc what disrespect.

[mr. magoo]

Well, that´s your opinion, who cares? Many very good posters here know/ say that I have boxing knowledge and make fair and realistic predictions...

Ahem....:roll:

[Luigi1985]

Ahem....:roll:


Once again a great smiley-post, mr. magoo, do you have another one for me? It is full with so much informations about boxing, history, action, etc...

[rydersonthestorm]

Come of it luigi you haven't done that all thread until your last post to me, pot calling the kettle black, not matter what you think about my boxing rational at least i give reasons as to why i say the things i do.

[Luigi1985]

Come of it luigi you haven't done that all thread until your last post to me, pot calling the kettle black, not matter what you think about my boxing rational at least i give reasons as to why i say the things i do.


But the things you give us aren´t logical, a fighter with a questionable chin, who was hurt against a light-hitting SMW for example, against a proven HW with very good chin...


the outcome could only be one, and that´s a KO for Roland...

[OLD FOGEY]

He fought in an era of some of the worst competion ever in the heavyweight ranks and came up short, where as if haye beats mormeck he will be the cruiserweight champion of the world in an era when the cruiserweight division is pretty strong.

I have not problem with your arguement that Haye might turn out to be better than LaStarza when all the results are in. The opposite might also turn out to be true.
I do think "an era of some of the worst competition ever in the heavyweight ranks" is the usual sort of over-the-top statement always made by modernists and which just sours the debate.

1951-1955 Hall-of-Fame fighters rated at heavyweight or who fought a rated heavyweight:
Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Jersey Joe Walcott, Jimmy Bivins, Rocky Marciano, Harold Johnson, Archie Moore, Joey Maxim, Floyd Patterson, Sonny Liston, Willie Pastrano, Ingemar Johansson. With 12 Hall-of-Famers competing, why is the competition poor during this five year period?

[rydersonthestorm]

Half of those guys are hall of fame from fighitng at light heavyweight not heavyweight, so i don't really count that as a heavyweight fighter of the time. The light heavyweight division at the time was one of the best ever, and joe louis was not really anywhere near his best even by 1950. Also half these fighter's lost to poor competion in many of there fight's this doesn't make them bad fighter's but i don't rate them as highly as heavyweight contender's as you do.

[Grebfan9]

Roland LaStarza was a capable fighter who was a great defensive
fighter with a good jab. While he was not a big puncher, he boxed
well enough to rack up a number of wins, and some of the fighters
were of decent quality. So, I think that LaStarza could have done
okay in the Dempsey and Louis eras. Don't think that LaStarza
could have beaten either Dempsey or Louis, but he would have
been competitive against the contenders.

Grebfan9
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[OLD FOGEY]

Half of those guys are hall of fame from fighitng at light heavyweight not heavyweight, so i don't really count that as a heavyweight fighter of the time. The light heavyweight division at the time was one of the best ever, and joe louis was not really anywhere near his best even by 1950. Also half these fighter's lost to poor competion in many of there fight's this doesn't make them bad fighter's but i don't rate them as highly as heavyweight contender's as you do.

More than half of them (7) were heavyweight champions. Three defeated heavyweight champions (Bivins, Maxim, Johnson), all but Johnson were rated at least #3 contender at heavyweight and Johnson should have been as he defeated five #1 contenders over the years, including Machen in the sixties. You are playing ducks and drakes with the divisions. After all, in the last twenty years Spinks, Jones, and Toney have moved up from lightheavy to fight successfully in the superheavyweight class, let alone the old heavyweight division.

And by the way, don't fighters move up from the lightheavies to the cruisers today. You are talking about a man who is fighting at cruiser, not superheavyweight.

[rydersonthestorm]

I know that but i don't class spinks,toney or jones as heavyweights do you? Also haye is only fighting at cruiserweight as he thinks he can get a title there before moving upto heavyweight, so he can be a two weight champion making him one of a few to have done this, thats if he suceeds. Also how do you expalin the loses that fighter's such as walcott etc had to poor competition as well as the obvious good wins and losses he had against good competition?

[OLD FOGEY]

I know that but i don't class spinks,toney or jones as heavyweights do you? Also haye is only fighting at cruiserweight as he thinks he can get a title there before moving upto heavyweight, so he can be a two weight champion making him one of a few to have done this, thats if he suceeds. Also how do you expalin the loses that fighter's such as walcott etc had to poor competition as well as the obvious good wins and losses he had against good competition?

Why do I have to explain anything about Walcott. Haye has lost, after all, and Carl Thompson is not Joe Louis, or even Tiger Jack Fox. Everyone knows Walcott was a journeyman back in the thirties, with no trainer and no backing and holding a full time job.

Spinks and Toney fought or are fighting at heavier weights than Haye is fighting at now, and so for that matter did Moore. Jones fought at 193. What exactly is your point. As I said, you are playing ducks and drakes with the divisions but in fact the heavyweight is merely the unlimited division. If you want to claim modern giant heavyweights are better because they are bigger, stick to that claim. It does not prove any past era weak, though. But also remember that Haye has not in fact beaten bigger men than the fighters you are dismissing as small.

And by the way, these men could not use steroids or growth hormone.

[rydersonthestorm]

I don't think modern heayweights are better becuase they are bigger, again with your claims, i only rate holyfield and lewis as top ten heavyweights from the modern era, i just find it funny how people such as yourselves overlook the faults of old fighters and yet try to make out that modern fighter's are worse becuase tey have done things wrong as well.
Do you class spinks, toney and jones as heavyweights, if so you would be the first person i have ever seen do this just becuase they had a couple of fight's there.
Also which fighter's are you saying use steroids, i hope your not implying guys like haye use stroids etc as you have no evidence for this.
I also feel that the 1950's era of boxing was the weakest until the modern day, as i don't see what fighter's really sttod out as great heavyweights bar marciano and i don't count louis becuase he was not exactly as his peak, joe louis wouldn't lose or get half the results he did have after 1950 if he wasn't well past his best.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't think modern heayweights are better becuase they are bigger, again with your claims, i only rate holyfield and lewis as top ten heavyweights from the modern era, i just find it funny how people such as yourselves overlook the faults of old fighters and yet try to make out that modern fighter's are worse becuase tey have done things wrong as well.
Do you class spinks, toney and jones as heavyweights, if so you would be the first person i have ever seen do this just becuase they had a couple of fight's there.
Also which fighter's are you saying use steroids, i hope your not implying guys like haye use stroids etc as you have no evidence for this.
I also feel that the 1950's era of boxing was the weakest until the modern day, as i don't see what fighter's really sttod out as great heavyweights bar marciano and i don't count louis becuase he was not exactly as his peak, joe louis wouldn't lose or get half the results he did have after 1950 if he wasn't well past his best.

I might ask why you consider Holyfield a heavyweight when he fought at cruiserweight early in his career

Be that as it may, Spinks was heavyweight champion. Jones was the #4 rated heavyweight in 2003. Toney was the #3 rated heavyweight in 2005, and #4 in 2004 and 2006. Yes, they are heavyweights. Spinks weighed more when he fought Tyson than Holyfield did against Foreman or Bowe.

You are entitled to think any era weak you want but it doesn't necessarily make it a valid position. When Ring Magazine rated the heavyweights, six of the top 21 were active in the fifties (Louis, Marciano, Liston, Charles, Walcott, Patterson). The AP end of the century poll rated Louis, Marciano, Liston, and Walcott among their top ten heavyweights of the century. I agree with them more than you.

[mr. magoo]

Once again a great smiley-post, mr. magoo, do you have another one for me? It is full with so much informations about boxing, history, action, etc...

Well, let's try it again and use a different emoticon this time.

Ready?

Here goes:

:bananamaniac Ahem :bananamaniac


I think that shows incredible boxing knowledge.

[Mendoza]

Roland Lastarza was a pretty decent fighter in my eyes. At one point, he was rated as the best defensive heavyweight of all time, and better than average boxing ability as well. He may very well have been one of the toughest challenges that a youthful Marciano ever had. Roland's career deteriorated following his second match with the Rock. He sustained an inordinate amount of punishment to both of his arms, resulting in the need for extensive surgery. After this point, he was never quite the same fighter again.

In my opinion, Roland fought a very defensive style of boxing that was not terribly aggresive and nor did he have much sting to his punches, or so it would appear. This may have been the limiting factor which prevented his rising to champion status.

Does anyone think that he might have been a champ in a different era, or at least a legitimate title threat in most?

Maybe LaStarza could have beaten the Hart's, Braddock's, Spinks, and Briggs of boxing. In fact, I think he has a very good chance to beat all four names I mentioned.

I think LaStarza would be a contender up to the 1960's, but I can't see him as a top contender from Ali to present. Roland was a good boxer, he just wasn't a puncher or super defensive.

[mr. magoo]

Maybe LaStarza could have beaten the Hart's, Braddock's, Spinks, and Briggs of boxing. In fact, I think he has a very good chance to beat all four names I mentioned.

I think LaStarza would be a contender up to the 1960's, but I can't see him as a top contender from Ali to present. Roland was a good boxer, he just wasn't a puncher or super defensive.

I agree with most of what you stated here, but I also find it interesting how you mentioned that he wasn't super defensive. I say this because I read that Roland Lastarza was actually viewed as one of the greatest defensive heavyweights of all time, or at least up to that point in history.

[Marciano Frazier]

Roland Lastarza was a pretty decent fighter in my eyes. At one point, he was rated as the best defensive heavyweight of all time, and better than average boxing ability as well. He may very well have been one of the toughest challenges that a youthful Marciano ever had. Roland's career deteriorated following his second match with the Rock. He sustained an inordinate amount of punishment to both of his arms, resulting in the need for extensive surgery. After this point, he was never quite the same fighter again.

In my opinion, Roland fought a very defensive style of boxing that was not terribly aggresive and nor did he have much sting to his punches, or so it would appear. This may have been the limiting factor which prevented his rising to champion status.

Does anyone think that he might have been a champ in a different era, or at least a legitimate title threat in most? More or less like you say- a very good boxer, but smallish and limited offensively. He would be a legitimate contender in any era, I'm pretty confident. I don't think he would be quite championship level material in most time periods, but if he'd come around in, say, the Schmeling-Sharkey-Carnera-Baer-Braddock era, then I'd imagine he would've had a good shot at getting a stint as champion.

[rydersonthestorm]

I don't know how anyone could call walcott one of the top ten heavyweights of the century, i could easily name ten guys that have done more than him. Previously you stated about 1950-1955, liston and patterson didn't do anything until the late 50's and early sixties so how you can count them i don't know, joe louis was well past his prime even by the start of 1950. So the only guys i accept of your list are walcott,charles and marciano.
You also state that holyfield was a cruiserweight which was true but he is still fighting heavyweight 11 years after he moved from cruiserweight and has had more fights at heavyweight. Did toney, jones or spinks have more fights at heavyweight than at their respective weights, i don't think so. infact jones fought 1 fight at heavyweight so that's scraping the barrel, toney has had 8 fights out of 70 at heavyweight and spinks had 5 fights at heavyweight out of 31 hardly building there legacy's as heavyweights, more like having a few heavyweight fights towards the end of their careers.

[Mendoza]

More or less like you say- a very good boxer, but smallish and limited offensively. He would be a legitimate contender in any era, I'm pretty confident. I don't think he would be quite championship level material in most time periods, but if he'd come around in, say, the Schmeling-Sharkey-Carnera-Baer-Braddock era, then I'd imagine he would've had a good shot at getting a stint as champion.

Yes. Lastarza could have beaten Schemling, Carnera, and lazy Baer.

I view LaStarza as a near equal verison of Tommy Lourghran. I perfer Loughran on film because he had a very good left, and moved a bit better. Loughran fought many of the 1930's heavyweights. He defeated Max Baer, Uzcudun, Jack Sharkey, Godoy, Gross, Schaff, and Braddock.

[OLD FOGEY]

I don't know how anyone could call walcott one of the top ten heavyweights of the century, i could easily name ten guys that have done more than him. Previously you stated about 1950-1955, liston and patterson didn't do anything until the late 50's and early sixties so how you can count them i don't know, joe louis was well past his prime even by the start of 1950. So the only guys i accept of your list are walcott,charles and marciano.
You also state that holyfield was a cruiserweight which was true but he is still fighting heavyweight 11 years after he moved from cruiserweight and has had more fights at heavyweight. Did toney, jones or spinks have more fights at heavyweight than at their respective weights, i don't think so. infact jones fought 1 fight at heavyweight so that's scraping the barrel, toney has had 8 fights out of 70 at heavyweight and spinks had 5 fights at heavyweight out of 31 hardly building there legacy's as heavyweights, more like having a few heavyweight fights towards the end of their careers.

1. On whether so and so is a heavyweight--the heavyweight is the unlimited division--the definition of the heavyweight champion is the man who can defeat any other man in a boxing match. You do not have to be any given weight to quality as a heavyweight.
2. On weak and strong eras--frankly, this is the most foolish and self-serving concept put forward in debates like this. A "strong" era is the period in which your inferior fighter with an inferior record fought. A "weak" era is one in which a better fighter with a better record fought. As you are backing a loser, you can't rely on records. A lawyer who has the facts argues the facts. A lawyer who does not have the facts muddies the waters.
3. On Walcott's rating--I didn't vote on any of these ratings--Panels of experts did:
Ring Magazine 1998--Walcott was ranked #13.
Ebony Magazine 1978--A poll of black sportswriters rating all heavyweight champions--Walcott was #8.
AP--end of the century poll of an AP panel of experts on best heavyweights of the 20th century:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson
6. Holmes
7. Liston
8. Frazier
9. Langford
10. Walcott

[rydersonthestorm]

Youv'e not really come back with much, and you accuse me of trying to muddy the waters, you class a guy with one heavyweight fight as a heavyweight ok.
Also that top ten list is bullshit, tyson and and big gerorge should easily be abovr walcott.

[mr. magoo]

1. On whether so and so is a heavyweight--the heavyweight is the unlimited division--the definition of the heavyweight champion is the man who can defeat any other man in a boxing match. You do not have to be any given weight to quality as a heavyweight.
2. On weak and strong eras--frankly, this is the most foolish and self-serving concept put forward in debates like this. A "strong" era is the period in which your inferior fighter with an inferior record fought. A "weak" era is one in which a better fighter with a better record fought. As you are backing a loser, you can't rely on records. A lawyer who has the facts argues the facts. A lawyer who does not have the facts muddies the waters.
3. On Walcott's rating--I didn't vote on any of these ratings--Panels of experts did:
Ring Magazine 1998--Walcott was ranked #13.
Ebony Magazine 1978--A poll of black sportswriters rating all heavyweight champions--Walcott was #8.
AP--end of the century poll of an AP panel of experts on best heavyweights of the 20th century:
1. Ali
2. Louis
3. Marciano
4. Dempsey
5. Johnson
6. Holmes
7. Liston
8. Frazier
9. Langford
10. Walcott

This is an interesting list, and one that I realize these experts put a lot of time and data into making the determinations. I find it interesting however, that Langford had such a high rating, given that he was never a lineal champion. Still, I suppose there were a lot of reasons that may not be easily seen on the surface. He was fighting during a rather turbulant period in the division, and who's opportunities were possibly limited due to his being black at the time.

On a different note: What do you think about a matchup between Roland Lastarza and say a prime Jerry Quarry. How would you see that fight going?

[OLD FOGEY]

This is an interesting list, and one that I realize these experts put a lot of time and data into making the determinations. I find it interesting however, that Langford had such a high rating, given that he was never a lineal champion. Still, I suppose there were a lot of reasons that may not be easily seen on the surface. He was fighting during a rather turbulant period in the division, and who's opportunities were possibly limited due to his being black at the time.

On a different note: What do you think about a matchup between Roland Lastarza and say a prime Jerry Quarry. How would you see that fight going?

To a very close decision--Quarry proved he could outspeed big, very hard hittting, but perhaps plodding fighters such as Shavers, Foster, and Lyle. He certainly has the stronger resume by far. LaStarza, though, I think was faster and more elusive and Quarry tended to have trouble with the slick, fast-stepping boxers such as Machen and Ellis. Basically a toss-up, but if pressed for a choice, I would choose Quarry because of his better resume.

[mr. magoo]

To a very close decision--Quarry proved he could outspeed big, very hard hittting, but perhaps plodding fighters such as Shavers, Foster, and Lyle. He certainly has the stronger resume by far. LaStarza, though, I think was faster and more elusive and Quarry tended to have trouble with the slick, fast-stepping boxers such as Machen and Ellis. Basically a toss-up, but if pressed for a choice, I would choose Quarry because of his better resume.

Probably a good pick. And I agree that this fight would likely be a decision, as neither of these men were tremendous hitters and both were very durable. I think Quarry was the better offensive fighter, while Lastarza had a better defense. I'm not sure if either man would pressure the other enough to make it a very exciting fight, but in any event, it would likely be close.

[mr. magoo]

If you mean would he have done something as a heavyweight in other era's then the question would be what era do you mean?If you mean before Sonny Liston then i would guess he could be affective against other 175 pound or 180 pound guys but against any heavyweight champion from Liston till today then they answer woud be no because just like Marciano he wasn't a true heavyweight and never fought any true heavyweights.If Lastaraza was alive and fighting at heavyweight today he would be knocked out all the time just like Rocky Marciano would be.

Well let's think about this for moment.

Given that the perameters for what defined a " true heavyweight ", were different back in those days, then by definition, they were in fact true heavyweights in their time.