VIDEO: Bob Satterfield beats Nino Valdes

[My2Sense]

This was Satterfield's biggest career win and arguably his best performance, and the fight that signaled the decline of the once "feared" Valdes.

JuMxhz67e7E
ay8PTt2X7Jo
xYLGARUzpAI
FT9iJyk0HHw&feature=channel
hud8V6UVGbM&feature=channel

A year prior to this fight, Valdes had been rated as the #1 HW contender across the board, following his quick blowout of Hurricane Jackson. That fight was supposed to earn the winner a title shot, but Valdes had to wait first while Marciano rematched Ezzard Charles, then laid off while recovering from his severe nose injury, then chose to come back against Don Cockell, rated below Valdes. Ultimately, Valdes lost a close, somewhat disputed decision to Archie Moore, who then went on to get his title shot instead. In his next fight, he took on Satterfield, who had himself previously been in position to become a possible opponent for Marciano but had been KO'd in an eliminator with Charles. Since then, Satterfield's career had gone into a slump, losing a string of fights, and he was a heavy underdog going against Valdes. However, Satterfield used his savvy and slippery infighting skill to frustrate Valdes at close quarters and score repeatedly with overhand rights. Valdes' lack of genuine defense was exposed badly in this fight, and on top of that he failed to show the sort of fire and intensity that had typified his previous performances (even losing ones). Valdes was never able to get to Satterfield's reputedly shaky chin, and was essentially outclassed from start to finish.

True to form, Satterfield was not able to capitalize on the momentum gained from such a big win, and settled back into his usual inconsistent habits. For Valdes, this fight was a huge blow to his reputation, and he never truly recovered the form or rating he had had at his peak. Not long afterward, he had another ugly, lackluster loss to Bob Baker, and after that was used as a stepping stone for up-and-comers like Eddie Machen (who surprisingly KO'd him) and Zora Folley. Years later, when Patterson was the champ, Valdes managed to carefully work his way back up the rankings, eeking out some close wins over a few fringe contenders and scoring a come-from-behind KO over Harold Carter; however, he was a shell of what he once was, and he was exposed by Chuck Powell and sent spiralling back down the rankings for good.

[Joe E]

This was Satterfield's biggest career win and arguably his best performance, and the fight that signaled the decline of the once "feared" Valdes.

JuMxhz67e7E
ay8PTt2X7Jo
xYLGARUzpAI
FT9iJyk0HHw&feature=channel
hud8V6UVGbM&feature=channel

A year prior to this fight, Valdes had been rated as the #1 HW contender across the board, following his quick blowout of Hurricane Jackson. That fight was supposed to earn the winner a title shot, but Valdes had to wait first while Marciano rematched Ezzard Charles, then laid off while recovering from his severe nose injury, then chose to come back against Don Cockell, rated below Valdes. Ultimately, Valdes lost a close, somewhat disputed decision to Archie Moore, who then went on to get his title shot instead. In his next fight, he took on Satterfield, who had himself previously been in position to become a possible opponent for Marciano but had been KO'd in an eliminator with Charles. Since then, Satterfield's career had gone into a slump, losing a string of fights, and he was a heavy underdog going against Valdes. However, Satterfield used his savvy and slippery infighting skill to frustrate Valdes at close quarters and score repeatedly with overhand rights. Valdes' lack of genuine defense was exposed badly in this fight, and on top of that he failed to show the sort of fire and intensity that had typified his previous performances (even losing ones). Valdes was never able to get to Satterfield's reputedly shaky chin, and was essentially outclassed from start to finish.

True to form, Satterfield was not able to capitalize on the momentum gained from such a big win, and settled back into his usual inconsistent habits. For Valdes, this fight was a huge blow to his reputation, and he never truly recovered the form or rating he had had at his peak. Not long afterward, he had another ugly, lackluster loss to Bob Baker, and after that was used as a stepping stone for up-and-comers like Eddie Machen (who surprisingly KO'd him) and Zora Folley. Years later, when Patterson was the champ, Valdes managed to carefully work his way back up the rankings, eeking out some close wins over a few fringe contenders and scoring a come-from-behind KO over Harold Carter; however, he was a shell of what he once was, and he was exposed by Chuck Powell and sent spiralling back down the rankings for good.Thanks for the video 2.

[Bummy Davis]

Very good fight good to see 2 heavyweights still able to fight 10 active rounds. Looked like Bob was ahead most of the way although Nino looked at least 5 inches taller than him. Nino was going to be Marciano's # 50 if he got past Satterfield. Satterfield was not only a puncher he had skills and Nino was good but Bob was dominated by Ezz and Nino lost to Baker, Moore 2 times. He did edge an out of condition Ezz but refused to rematch Ezz. Ezz was dynamic with his KO over Satterfield and Wallace. Archie also beat Bob by KO

Still skill level was good and condition of both men as well. I like the left hook by Bob in the end. Match that with the right hand he landed vs Baker with his 1st rd KO

I thought both men looked good

Thanks for the flick

[mcvey]

Thanks for this I hadn't seeen it.
I wonder how many ,after watching this, would give Valdes a live shot against Marciano?

[choklab]

im so glad this has been up-loaded!! thank you! thank you!!

Nino is a guy I have tried to read as much as I can find on him since there is evidence he deserved a shot at the title. I have a copy of nino v brian london but since this was his last fight i feel its not a fair gauge of his full powers.

valdes destroyed cockell and was seen as a superman by the british press (just as joe baksi was after creaming uk's best talent) by many respected writers like colin hart until the myth snowballed into nino being some kind of uncrowned champion.

even though his american record record never stacked up evrytime nino came to London he won by impresive KO. all this was before records and film were as accesable and writers would prefer colourful storys by fred "nosher" powel a journeyman heavyweight who later became a stuntman and bit part actor (apearing in fight scenes wearing a flat cap in the john wayne film "brannigan") about how hard valdes hit him in sparring sessions in london. the story goes that nino broke all the heavy bags in the gym and nosher asked him to hit him only in the arms, after a week of sparring nosher had such sore arms he begged nino to hit him in the head.

This Satterfield film proves what i had always suspected that against american opponents valdes wasnt exciting anyone over there, and this has to be the reson why nino wasnt seen as any kind of real threat to marciano.

As big as he was for that time I cant see how nino would have presented any kind of threat to rockys title. satterfield could back him up and land with ease.

[TheGreatA]

This, along with the first Harold Johnson fight, is one of the few times I've ever seen Satterfield use his boxing skill instead of going all-out to score a knockout. He used upperbody movement and counter punching, this mixed with his awesome power made him a threat to anybody. Going into this fight, Valdes and his manager were already saying that they had made a mistake in taking this fight. They were proven right as Satterfield turned in one of his better performances and outpointed Valdes, intimidating the much bigger man with the power he possessed in both hands.

Valdes is, as advertised, strong but sloppy and mechnical, possessing a good jab but little in the way of defense. Still got the job done in most of his fights. He may have beaten Satterfield on another night due to his power and ability to take a punch, but he was simply outboxed and outpunched here.

[he grant]

I have not seen a lot of Nino and have to say I'm not hat impressed. He was big and strong for that era with some basic skills and power but seemed very slow and hittable ... if Satterfield was able to survive him , Marciano would have destroyed him ... a claim to fame of blowing out Hurricane Jackson does not Hall of Fame material make ... imagine if Tyson or Frazier fought Hurricane ?

Nice footage though and thanks for posting it ...

[choklab]

Satterfield turned in one of his better performances and outpointed Valdes, intimidating the much bigger man with the power he possessed in both hands.

Valdes is, as advertised, strong but sloppy and mechnical, possessing a good jab but little in the way of defense. Still got the job done in most of his fights. He may have beaten Satterfield on another night due to his power and ability to take a punch, but he was simply outboxed and outpunched here.

satterfield may have put a more thoughful performance in here than he did against layne, baker and charles but wasnt exactly up on his toes. Nino did not look intimidated. he was just beaten to the punch over and over and had no real answers against this opponent. I didnt see satterfield do anything marciano could not. he crouched low, countered and drew leads also.

valdes would undoubtably look beter against another bigger hevyweight but for me, this is just another CLASIC EXAMPLE of a good smaller heavyweight making a bigger heavyweight every bit as good look slow, tired and sloppy.

going by this I can only asume ezzard charles badly underestimated nino that one time in miami. since nino had already lost to sevral of charles's victims maybe he took nino too lightly when they fought? charles certainly had a picnic against satterfield. perhaps charles had new zest for being a champion again when marciano ocupied the title since after a 4 fight series with walcott he knew he would be unlikly to get another chance. I cant see the charles effort against satterfield losing to this version of valdes!

[The Mongoose]

satterfield may have put a more thoughful performance in here than he did against layne, baker and charles but wasnt exactly up on his toes. Nino did not look intimidated. he was just beaten to the punch over and over and had no real answers against this opponent. I didnt see satterfield do anything marciano could not. he crouched low, countered and drew leads also.

valdes would undoubtably look beter against another bigger hevyweight but for me, this is just another CLASIC EXAMPLE of a good smaller heavyweight making a bigger heavyweight every bit as good look slow, tired and sloppy.

going by this I can only asume ezzard charles badly underestimated nino that one time in miami. since nino had already lost to sevral of charles's victims maybe he took nino too lightly when they fought? charles certainly had a picnic against satterfield. perhaps charles had new zest for being a champion again when marciano ocupied the title since after a 4 fight series with walcott he knew he would be unlikly to get another chance. I cant see the charles effort against satterfield losing to this version of valdes!

Charles came into that fight at his career heaviest I believe, doubtful it was in muscle like the Marciano rematch. Valdez also seemed to be at his most confident peak.


When I fought Agramonte in Havana I stopped him in ten," he said, "and Omelio had gone ten rounds twice with Joe Louis and it gave me confidence when I stopped him. I was in very good shape for Omelio and I was not hurt when we fought. Then the offer came for a fight with Charles in Miami Beach in less than a month and I did not stop training. Hipnosis had nothing to do with that win. I was in the best shape of my life that night -sharp as a razor- and I felt so strong and so fast that I believed no one could beat me. That night I felt like fighting."

Valdez used his size and weight to neutralize Charles, mauling the former champion, scoring solid punches, winning on points. It was the greatest victory of Nino's career. He returned to Havana as a national icon.

"Charles was a very dangerous fighter," Nino reflected years later, "but I surprised him. I moved very agressively on him and used my weight and size and I broke his rhythm and confused him. He hit me a few good shots and I hit him back with a few good ones too. I beat him but Ezzard Charles was something special."


I read somewhere that Valdez' people refused to rematch Charles which may have hurt his standings. Can't validate that at the moment however.

[TheGreatA]

satterfield may have put a more thoughful performance in here than he did against layne, baker and charles but wasnt exactly up on his toes. Nino did not look intimidated. he was just beaten to the punch over and over and had no real answers against this opponent. I didnt see satterfield do anything marciano could not. he crouched low, countered and drew leads also.

Never claimed that he was on his toes either. Valdes did look intimidated to me in the end, he had felt Satterfield's power and seemed to have given up on winning. I'd say that Satterfield was (surprisingly) more slippery and defensive-minded than Marciano was, he was mostly waiting to counter while Marciano brought pressure at all times. This doesn't necessarily mean that a fight between Marciano and Valdes would have gone any differently. In my opinion Valdes's size, strength, jab may have made the Rocky who fought Cockell (since that's when the match-up was closest to happening) look somewhat sloppy in the early stages but I see Marciano coming on strong late and stopping Valdes, something Satterfield couldn't manage.


going by this I can only asume ezzard charles badly underestimated nino that one time in miami. since nino had already lost to sevral of charles's victims maybe he took nino too lightly when they fought? charles certainly had a picnic against satterfield. perhaps charles had new zest for being a champion again when marciano ocupied the title since after a 4 fight series with walcott he knew he would be unlikly to get another chance. I cant see the charles effort against satterfield losing to this version of valdes!Different fights, different fighters. Satterfield was extremely wild against Charles and was begging to be knocked out in case he couldn't catch Charles first. Satterfield was erratic, in the first fight against Harold Johnson he boxed very well against the boxing master himself, in the rematch he was knocked out cold in 2 rounds by Harold much like he was against Charles.

Valdes as we all know was big and had a good jab and was probably able to score enough on a more flat-footed, easier to hit Charles than the prime Charles of 5 years ago while being able to hold the smaller man off in the clinches. Satterfield with his speed and awesome punching power usually did well against bigger men, see his fights against Bob Baker and John Holman. He feasted on heavyweights who were big and slow.

[OLD FOGEY]

My2Sense---Thanks very much for posting this for two reasons:

1. I still catch myself humming that old Pabst Blue Ribbon ditty, and hearing it again, I understand why. The catchiest commercial tune ever.

2. I have seen some of Valdes before, including his "ko" of Jackson on the three knockdown rule, with two of the three knockdowns appearing to be pushes, and have always felt he is overrated today. He looks very slow to me, with a poor defense, and his power was not top tier. Satterfield, Moore, and Harold Johnson were far more dangerous.

[choklab]

I respect your knowledge and analysis of fights but my intepritation of marciano differs somewhat. Im not saying marciano was intensionaly a slippery eel of a fighter but he was all elbows, shoulders and unco-ordinated movement that was equaly dificult to penetrate. his stance was not dissimular to satterfields, he threw the same over hand right that valdes had no answer for. marciano was an excelent counter puncher, he had to be to get in close. the famous KO against wallcot was one of the finest timed counters you will ever find. he knew what he was doing and his awkwardness is still misinterpretated as mindless lack of fundamentles. rocky saved his presure once he countered his way in. his wild caveman onslaughts were saved until his oponent was defencless.

This valdes- satterfield fight once and for all ends the myth that marciano could not have coped with a good modern sized heavyweight. it ends the nonsence that the weight and strength of the bigger man without the slick moves spells doom for the sawn off powerhouse. what it is in fact is another example in long, long line of examples of bigger heavyweights coming unstuck against old school boiled down heavyweights with a beter workrate.

charles clearly improved on his loss to valdes. it was a blip in form rather than decline in charles.

[TheGreatA]

I respect your knowledge and analysis of fights but my intepritation of marciano differs somewhat. Im not saying marciano was intensionaly a slippery eel of a fighter but he was all elbows, shoulders and unco-ordinated movement that was equaly dificult to penetrate. his stance was not dissimular to satterfields, he threw the same over hand right that valdes had no answer for. marciano was an excelent counter puncher, he had to be to get in close. the famous KO against wallcot was one of the finest timed counters you will ever find. he knew what he was doing and his awkwardness is still misinterpretated as mindless lack of fundamentles. rocky saved his presure once he countered his way in. his wild caveman onslaughts were saved until his oponent was defencless.

This valdes- satterfield fight once and for all ends the myth that marciano could not have coped with a good modern sized heavyweight. it ends the nonsence that the weight and strength of the bigger man without the slick moves spells doom for the sawn off powerhouse. what it is in fact is another example in long, long line of examples of bigger heavyweights coming unstuck against old school boiled down heavyweights with a beter workrate.

charles clearly improved on his loss to valdes. it was a blip in form rather than decline in charles.

I disagree that Marciano was an "excellent counterpuncher". Certainly I've never seen too many true exhibitions of counter-punching by Marciano, he is usually the one initiating all the punching exchanges. Not sure if I'd call the Marciano-Walcott KO necessarily a counter punch either. Both threw at the same time, Marciano got in first and with greater punching power. While it can be said that Marciano maneuvered Walcott into the knockout punch, it cannot be said that Marciano slipped Walcott's punch and countered him with his own. That's what Satterfield does.

The difference between the aggressor and the counter puncher:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Satterfield was timing his counter right over Valdes's low left. Satterfield was actually great against jabbers because of his overhand right and timing, he was also able to land it consistently on the textbook technician Harold Johnson.
Marciano did not care to "sucker" an opponent into a right, he mainly threw it over and over until he could eventually land it when the opponent had worn down.

There were similarities between their stance and use of upperbody movement but Marciano used it mostly to slip jabs and close the distance. Satterfield would slip the punch and then counter with the right hand.

Satterfield vs Valdes is not actual proof of anything other than that Satterfield could beat big heavyweights. In the end it was not Marciano in there against Valdes. Saying that Marciano would have easily dealt with Valdes or any other big heavyweight is simply speculation.

The Valdes fight does show that Charles had slipped as it's unlikely that a peak Charles would have been troubled and beaten by Nino.

[The Mongoose]

The Valdes fight does show that Charles had slipped as it's unlikely that a peak Charles would have been troubled and beaten by Nino.

Charles was certainly capable of having off nights, especially during the limbo period after he lost the title where he was a consistent for a stretch. Certianly, his unusual career high weight should be food for thought.

Even during his "prime" he had a hard night against Violent Ray, even though some felt he deserved a close nod. Of course, he came back and easily crushed Ray in the rematch.

"Elmer (Violent) Ray, who is an old alligator wrestler out of Florida, was around today hollering for a shot at Joe Louis' heavyweight championship. He started putting up the holler immediately after coming in with a split 10 round decision last night in MSG over Ezzard Charles, a Cincinnati light heavyweight. Ray barely managed to get the nod of two of the officials, after putting up a hot rush down the stretch, particualarly in the 7th and 9th when he forced Ezzard to grab and hold. The third official voted for Charles." -Associated Press

[TheGreatA]

Charles was certainly capable of having off nights, especially during the limbo period after he lost the title where he was a consistent for a stretch. Certianly, his unusual career high weight should be food for thought.

Even during his "prime" he had a hard night against Violent Ray, even though some felt he deserved a close nod. Of course, he came back and easily crushed Ray in the rematch.

"Elmer (Violent) Ray, who is an old alligator wrestler out of Florida, was around today hollering for a shot at Joe Louis' heavyweight championship. He started putting up the holler immediately after coming in with a split 10 round decision last night in MSG over Ezzard Charles, a Cincinnati light heavyweight. Ray barely managed to get the nod of two of the officials, after putting up a hot rush down the stretch, particualarly in the 7th and 9th when he forced Ezzard to grab and hold. The third official voted for Charles." -Associated Press

Charles was still testing waters at heavyweight, weighing 174 pounds, when fought the strong, hard-punching Elmer "Violent" Ray who was probably a bit better than Valdes, or atleast equally as good, but with a different style. He was more of a swarmer. From what I've heard Charles deserved the win. The fight with Valdes was also close but not as much of an injustice from what I've heard.

I can't imagine Valdes being able to land on a prime Charles consistently enough to capture a decision under any circumstances, his only chance would be a knockout. Based on what I've seen on film, Charles did become more hittable in the 1950's. I don't think 191 was a bad weight for Charles in 1953, only 4 months later he looked fine at 190 against Coley Wallace.

[OLD FOGEY]

I disagree that Marciano was an "excellent counterpuncher". Certainly I've never seen too many true exhibitions of counter-punching by Marciano, he is usually the one initiating all the punching exchanges. Not sure if I'd call the Marciano-Walcott KO necessarily a counter punch either. Both threw at the same time, Marciano got in first and with greater punching power. While it can be said that Marciano maneuvered Walcott into the knockout punch, it cannot be said that Marciano slipped Walcott's punch and countered him with his own. That's what Satterfield does.

The difference between the aggressor and the counter puncher:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


Satterfield was timing his counter right over Valdes's low left. Satterfield was actually great against jabbers because of his overhand right and timing, he was also able to land it consistently on the textbook technician Harold Johnson.
Marciano did not care to "sucker" an opponent into a right, he mainly threw it over and over until he could eventually land it when the opponent had worn down.

There were similarities between their stance and use of upperbody movement but Marciano used it mostly to slip jabs and close the distance. Satterfield would slip the punch and then counter with the right hand.

Satterfield vs Valdes is not actual proof of anything other than that Satterfield could beat big heavyweights. In the end it was not Marciano in there against Valdes. Saying that Marciano would have easily dealt with Valdes or any other big heavyweight is simply speculation.

The Valdes fight does show that Charles had slipped as it's unlikely that a peak Charles would have been troubled and beaten by Nino.

"Saying that Marciano would have easily dealt with Valdes or any other big heavyweight is simply speculation."

He dealt with Louis and the Louis of even 1951 was, in my judgement, better than Valdes. I don't want to get into speculating about Marciano against the modern heavyweights of a later era, but I think he could have handled all the big heavies of his own era. They just weren't that good, as this film shows.

I would also point out that it is even greater speculation to assume that Valdes or Baker would have beaten Marciano when they failed so consistently and miserably against Moore and Satterfield.

My own take is that Valdes' pawing attempts to jab Satterfield while leaving himself open to overhand rights probably gives a good insight into how a Marciano-Valdes fight would have played out.

I agree that Charles under any circumstances losing to Valdes is evidence that he had gone back.

[TheGreatA]

"Saying that Marciano would have easily dealt with Valdes or any other big heavyweight is simply speculation."

He dealt with Louis and the Louis of even 1951 was, in my judgement, better than Valdes. I don't want to get into speculating about Marciano against the modern heavyweights of a later era, but I think he could have handled all the big heavies of his own era. They just weren't that good, as this film shows.

Louis's peak weight was around 200 pounds. Nino was 6'3, 215 with a 80" reach at the time of the Satterfield fight. Looking at his frame, he probably wouldn't have had much trouble weighing at 220-230 these days. Louis I think was always better off fighting at around 205.

I'm very honest about Valdes's abilities, or lack of them, and don't think he would have stood much of a chance against Marciano, but I also don't excuse Marciano for not having fought him when the opportunity was there for them to meet only because Valdes went onto lose to a bunch of fighters. He did also go onto crush Don Cockell, the man who got a title shot instead of him.

The only world class opponent over 200 lbs that Marciano fought was old Louis. Him fighting Valdes or Baker would have given us some indication on his ability to handle a 6'3, 210+ lb opponent. Satterfield proved it over and over by bombing out the likes of Valdes, Baker, Cleveland Williams, John Holman but Marciano didn't.


My own take is that Valdes' pawing attempts to jab Satterfield while leaving himself open to overhand rights probably gives a good insight into how a Marciano-Valdes fight would have played out.It may be of some indication but it's not "proof" which would be something definite and not simple speculation. It's easy to point out to one fighter who did one thing and say that another one could have easily done the same, despite never actually having proved it. For all we know Marciano could have struggled greatly with Valdes, he did have some troubles dealing with clubfighter Johnny Shkor's strength early.

[choklab]

I disagree that Marciano was an "excellent counterpuncher". Certainly I've never seen too many true exhibitions of counter-punching by Marciano, he is usually the one initiating all the punching exchanges. Not sure if I'd call the Marciano-Walcott KO necessarily a counter punch either. Both threw at the same time, Marciano got in first and with greater punching power. While it can be said that Marciano maneuvered Walcott into the knockout punch, it cannot be said that Marciano slipped Walcott's punch and countered him with his own. That's what Satterfield does.

The difference between the aggressor and the counter puncher:




Satterfield was timing his counter right over Valdes's low left. Satterfield was actually great against jabbers because of his overhand right and timing, he was also able to land it consistently on the textbook technician Harold Johnson.
Marciano did not care to "sucker" an opponent into a right, he mainly threw it over and over until he could eventually land it when the opponent had worn down.

There were similarities between their stance and use of upperbody movement but Marciano used it mostly to slip jabs and close the distance. Satterfield would slip the punch and then counter with the right hand.

Satterfield vs Valdes is not actual proof of anything other than that Satterfield could beat big heavyweights. In the end it was not Marciano in there against Valdes. Saying that Marciano would have easily dealt with Valdes or any other big heavyweight is simply speculation.

The Valdes fight does show that Charles had slipped as it's unlikely that a peak Charles would have been troubled and beaten by Nino.

marciano used his overhand right the same way. he knew how to time shots. his execution of seting up a slickster like walcott in the rematch was excelent as was the kid mathews with left hooks. baker had valdes all over with left hooks. hed have hung more hooks on valdes than hats on a hat stand.

satterfield was backing valdes up, closing him down, roling and lowering himself to draw leads just like rocky. knowledgable fight fans of newyork who watched valdes would know it would be an eay win for rocky. i dont think valdes-marciano would have been a big draw. i remember reading lamotta teased valdes when they were bouncers at a strip club that valdes couldnt have been much of a heavyweight if he couldnt knock out the guy he did.

johny shkor wasnt a club fighter, he got good write ups beat, rated heavyweights and held his own with many name fighters. he was a headliner in boston. sure marciano got him at the end but he was bigger than valdes. bill wison was a big guy with over 40 kos who continued after losing to rocky, rocky beat big guys.

there were points in charles's long career where he was "treading water" purly to maintain his position within the ranks and other times where he landed big fights that could lead to something where he shone. a fighter had to know when to hold something back. i think in a long active career it has to be that way otherwise you burn out. sometimes they mistime the opponent, its a risk worth taking if you have debts. charles was simply caught out against valdes during a treading water moment. he shone against baksi, did not impress against ray. shone against layne, did not impress against valdes. shone against satterfield etc. even as a champ he did it. the barone fight was a stinker by all acounts but he got good write ups against valentino. charles only truly slipped after the two marciano fights. the evidence of a shot fighter is when they stop knocking out rated guys, charles did this in back to back fights before fighting marciano.

[TheGreatA]

marciano used his overhand right the same way. he knew how to time shots. his execution of seting up a slickster like walcott in the rematch was excelent as was the kid mathews with left hooks. baker had valdes all over with left hooks. hed have hung more hooks on valdes than hats on a hat stand.

satterfield was backing valdes up, closing him down, roling and lowering himself to draw leads just like rocky.

Still not an exhibition of "counter-punching". Rocky did not wait for his opponents' to lead and then counter over their jab with the right hand. With his height and reach he would also find it more difficult to reach the taller man. Marciano's best chance is to bore in, keep pressuring and hammer Valdes with punches to the body and head until the latter gives in (see the Cockell fight). He's going to walk through some punishment in order to accomplish it.

Marciano is not going to outjab Valdes, he's not going to counter him with right hands over the top, he'll simply beat on him until Valdes has nothing left. That's what he did.

johny shkor wasnt a club fighter, he got good write ups beat, rated heavyweights and held his own with many name fighters. he was a headliner in boston. sure marciano got him at the end but he was bigger than valdes. bill wison was a big guy with over 40 kos who continued after losing to rocky, rocky beat big guys.

Shkor was coming off a 1 round KO loss to Walcott and retired after losing to Marciano. He was not a good fighter. Wilson was hardly a notable opponent and was over his best weight when fighting Marciano. I meant world class opponents, Baker and Valdes with all the flack that is given to them were atleast once top rated in the division. Wilson and Shkor not so much.

there were points in charles's long career where he was "treading water" purly to maintain his position within the ranks and other times where he landed big fights that could lead to something where he shone. a fighter had to know when to hold something back. i think in a long active career it has to be that way otherwise you burn out. sometimes they mistime the opponent, its a risk worth taking if you have debts. charles was simply caught out against valdes during a treading water moment. he shone against baksi, did not impress against ray. shone against layne, did not impress against valdes. shone against satterfield etc. even as a champ he did it. the barone fight was a stinker by all acounts but he got good write ups against valentino. charles only truly slipped after the two marciano fights. the evidence of a shot fighter is when they stop knocking out rated guys, charles did this in back to back fights before fighting marciano.

Or maybe we should praise Charles's opponents for presenting him with difficult stylistical match-ups instead of making up excuses about how Charles wasn't as well prepared as he could have been and at the same time discrediting the men who gave him tough fights.

Charles impressed against Ray after having been on the wrong end of a bad decision by knocking Ray out due to added experience in fighting heavyweights.

Ezzard was never all that impressive against Layne who made the fights ugly.

Valdes simply fought the fight of his life against a past his prime Charles to win a close decision. Not hard to imagine because Charles could be hit during his post-title comeback and he employed more of a slugging style.

[OLD FOGEY]

Louis's peak weight was around 200 pounds. Nino was 6'3, 215 with a 80" reach at the time of the Satterfield fight. Looking at his frame, he probably wouldn't have had much trouble weighing at 220-230 these days. Louis I think was always better off fighting at around 205.

I'm very honest about Valdes's abilities, or lack of them, and don't think he would have stood much of a chance against Marciano, but I also don't excuse Marciano for not having fought him when the opportunity was there for them to meet only because Valdes went onto lose to a bunch of fighters. He did also go onto crush Don Cockell, the man who got a title shot instead of him.

The only world class opponent over 200 lbs that Marciano fought was old Louis. Him fighting Valdes or Baker would have given us some indication on his ability to handle a 6'3, 210+ lb opponent. Satterfield proved it over and over by bombing out the likes of Valdes, Baker, Cleveland Williams, John Holman but Marciano didn't.

It may be of some indication but it's not "proof" which would be something definite and not simple speculation. It's easy to point out to one fighter who did one thing and say that another one could have easily done the same, despite never actually having proved it. For all we know Marciano could have struggled greatly with Valdes, he did have some troubles dealing with clubfighter Johnny Shkor's strength early.

1. "Louis' peak weight was around 200 lbs."

This was his prewar peak and no one can argue Louis was at his peak after the war let alone in 1951. However, Louis was under 205 only once after the war. His peak postwar performance, and better than anything Valdes ever accomplished in my judgement, was against Walcott in 1948. Louis came in at 213 1/2 for that fight. He was 211 plus for Savold in 1951 and looked the best he did in his comeback. Valdes weighed 204 for Jackson in 1954, 207 for Cockell in 1955, and 206 for Bethea and Dejohn in 1958. The fact is Valdes was about the same weight as Louis at about the same age throughout his career. He actually weighed as little as 179 in 1945, lighter than Louis ever scaled. Both Louis and Valdes weighed at max about 218 in condition. Valdes did scale 244 for Powell, but he was 26 pounds heavier than for any other fight and was knocked out. I think he was just out of shape if this weight if correct.
Bottom line--there is no evidence Valdes could successfully carry more weight than Louis. These men were about the same weight, give or take a pound or two. Valdes was slightly taller and had a small reach advantage. Louis was much the better fighter and equally big.

2. "Louis was better off fighting around 205"

I don't know what the evidence of this is--He weighed 211 and change for Mauriello. 213 1/2 when he ko'd future champion Walcott. 216 when he first beat Brion. 211 and change when he ko'd Savold. Louis did weigh 203 for Bivins and blamed his failure to knock Bivins out on coming in too light.

3. Cockell--Well, Valdes certainly destroyed Cockell, who would be blasted out even more convincingly by Kitione Lave in his next fight and then retire. Cockell came in at a bloated 218 for Valdes, thirteen pounds heavier than he did for Marciano. While the Cockell fight was probably Marciano's worst on film, he still dominated Cockell and pounded him into helplessness.

4. By the way, Marciano fought five opponents over 210 lbs and knocked them all out, including Louis and Shkor, who were heavier than anyone Satterfield ever ko'd. He fought 11 opponents 200 lbs or more, and knocked them all out. His record in this regard is not unusual. Satterfield also did better against 200 plus fighters, losing only a smelly fight to Holman after having stopped Holman twice. Moore had 25 or so fights against men over 200 lbs and only Muhammad Ali defeated him. Harold Johnson beat every one of the several over 200 lb men he fought, including Valdes, Godoy, Gilliam, etc. Marciano, Moore, Satterfield, and Johnson all did much better against the 200 plus pounders. It might have something to do with the big fellows in that era not being very good. And by and by, Louis fought many men over 200 lbs but never lost to any of them.

[he grant]

Louis's peak weight was around 200 pounds. Nino was 6'3, 215 with a 80" reach at the time of the Satterfield fight. Looking at his frame, he probably wouldn't have had much trouble weighing at 220-230 these days. Louis I think was always better off fighting at around 205.

I'm very honest about Valdes's abilities, or lack of them, and don't think he would have stood much of a chance against Marciano, but I also don't excuse Marciano for not having fought him when the opportunity was there for them to meet only because Valdes went onto lose to a bunch of fighters. He did also go onto crush Don Cockell, the man who got a title shot instead of him.

The only world class opponent over 200 lbs that Marciano fought was old Louis. Him fighting Valdes or Baker would have given us some indication on his ability to handle a 6'3, 210+ lb opponent. Satterfield proved it over and over by bombing out the likes of Valdes, Baker, Cleveland Williams, John Holman but Marciano didn't.

It may be of some indication but it's not "proof" which would be something definite and not simple speculation. It's easy to point out to one fighter who did one thing and say that another one could have easily done the same, despite never actually having proved it. For all we know Marciano could have struggled greatly with Valdes, he did have some troubles dealing with clubfighter Johnny Shkor's strength early.

Terrific and honest post ...

[Bummy Davis]

[quote=TheGreatA;6338729]Never claimed that he was on his toes either. Valdes did look intimidated to me in the end, he had felt Satterfield's power and seemed to have given up on winning. I'd say that Satterfield was (surprisingly) more slippery and defensive-minded than Marciano was, he was mostly waiting to counter while Marciano brought pressure at all times.
unquote]


I respect your knowledge and analysis of fights but my intepritation of marciano differs somewhat. Im not saying marciano was intensionaly a slippery eel of a fighter but he was all elbows, shoulders and unco-ordinated movement that was equaly dificult to penetrate. his stance was not dissimular to satterfields, he threw the same over hand right that valdes had no answer for. marciano was an excelent counter puncher, he had to be to get in close. the famous KO against wallcot was one of the finest timed counters you will ever find. he knew what he was doing and his awkwardness is still misinterpretated as mindless lack of fundamentles. rocky saved his presure once he countered his way in. his wild caveman onslaughts were saved until his oponent was defencless.

This valdes- satterfield fight once and for all ends the myth that marciano could not have coped with a good modern sized heavyweight. it ends the nonsence that the weight and strength of the bigger man without the slick moves spells doom for the sawn off powerhouse. what it is in fact is another example in long, long line of examples of bigger heavyweights coming unstuck against old school boiled down heavyweights with a beter workrate.

charles clearly improved on his loss to valdes. it was a blip in form rather than decline in charles.


You are on to something there Marciano was an off rythym fighter( a Rytym Breaker) and an excellent counter puncher but not in the traditional way also he could execute a punch quickly and from odd angles never easy to time. Much more wisdom to this then given credit.

[choklab]

Still not an exhibition of "counter-punching". Rocky did not wait for his opponents' to lead and then counter over their jab with the right hand. With his height and reach he would also find it more difficult to reach the taller man. Marciano's best chance is to bore in, keep pressuring and hammer Valdes with punches to the body and head until the latter gives in (see the Cockell fight). He's going to walk through some punishment in order to accomplish it..

there are many examples of marciano counter punching in all of his filmd fights. the right hand that troubled charles moments before he crashed in round2 came over a jab. more often rock feinted his way in. he would feint then atack when the guy pulled back. rarely he ate punches on the way in. the taller they were the less he got hit. he was no stalone or gene fulmer. sure rock got hit but it was within an exchange.

Marciano is not going to outjab Valdes, he's not going to counter him with right hands over the top, he'll simply beat on him until Valdes has nothing left. That's what he did..

yes i agree he would also bore in but this swarming was only when his opponent was tired. to begin with he would stalk and counter or feint his way into an exchange to begin with. in his championship fights he started like this. my hunch is rock would simply clip valdes during an exchange numbing him in the usual way. timber!


Shkor was coming off a 1 round KO loss to Walcott and retired after losing to Marciano. He was not a good fighter. Wilson was hardly a notable opponent and was over his best weight when fighting Marciano. I meant world class opponents, Baker and Valdes with all the flack that is given to them were atleast once top rated in the division. Wilson and Shkor not so much..

shkor went the distance with bivins and baksi amoung others and KOd mauriello when he was rated who nearly knocked out louis. thats a good fighter. it was a good win for walcott, he got another shot at the title out of what he did to shkor.


Or maybe we should praise Charles's opponents for presenting him with difficult stylistical match-ups instead of making up excuses about how Charles wasn't as well prepared as he could have been and at the same time discrediting the men who gave him tough fights.

Charles impressed against Ray after having been on the wrong end of a bad decision by knocking Ray out due to added experience in fighting heavyweights.

Ezzard was never all that impressive against Layne who made the fights ugly.

Valdes simply fought the fight of his life against a past his prime Charles to win a close decision. Not hard to imagine because Charles could be hit during his post-title comeback and he employed more of a slugging style.

charles really knocked layne silly in their first fight, it was a good finish. charles was knocking out rated fighters after losing to johnson and valdes, he redeemed himself by beating beter guys than valdes, a faded fighter cannot do that. they edge guys on points charles was still icing people cold.

[Bummy Davis]

1. "Louis' peak weight was around 200 lbs."

This was his prewar peak and no one can argue Louis was at his peak after the war let alone in 1951. However, Louis was under 205 only once after the war. His peak postwar performance, and better than anything Valdes ever accomplished in my judgement, was against Walcott in 1948. Louis came in at 213 1/2 for that fight. He was 211 plus for Savold in 1951 and looked the best he did in his comeback. Valdes weighed 204 for Jackson in 1954, 207 for Cockell in 1955, and 206 for Bethea and Dejohn in 1958. The fact is Valdes was about the same weight as Louis at about the same age throughout his career. He actually weighed as little as 179 in 1945, lighter than Louis ever scaled. Both Louis and Valdes weighed at max about 218 in condition. Valdes did scale 244 for Powell, but he was 26 pounds heavier than for any other fight and was knocked out. I think he was just out of shape if this weight if correct.
Bottom line--there is no evidence Valdes could successfully carry more weight than Louis. These men were about the same weight, give or take a pound or two. Valdes was slightly taller and had a small reach advantage. Louis was much the better fighter and equally big.

2. "Louis was better off fighting around 205"

I don't know what the evidence of this is--He weighed 211 and change for Mauriello. 213 1/2 when he ko'd future champion Walcott. 216 when he first beat Brion. 211 and change when he ko'd Savold. Louis did weigh 203 for Bivins and blamed his failure to knock Bivins out on coming in too light.

3. Cockell--Well, Valdes certainly destroyed Cockell, who would be blasted out even more convincingly by Kitione Lave in his next fight and then retire. Cockell came in at a bloated 218 for Valdes, thirteen pounds heavier than he did for Marciano. While the Cockell fight was probably Marciano's worst on film, he still dominated Cockell and pounded him into helplessness.

4. By the way, Marciano fought five opponents over 210 lbs and knocked them all out, including Louis and Shkor, who were heavier than anyone Satterfield ever ko'd. He fought 11 opponents 200 lbs or more, and knocked them all out. His record in this regard is not unusual. Satterfield also did better against 200 plus fighters, losing only a smelly fight to Holman after having stopped Holman twice. Moore had 25 or so fights against men over 200 lbs and only Muhammad Ali defeated him. Harold Johnson beat every one of the several over 200 lb men he fought, including Valdes, Godoy, Gilliam, etc. Marciano, Moore, Satterfield, and Johnson all did much better against the 200 plus pounders. It might have something to do with the big fellows in that era not being very good. And by and by, Louis fought many men over 200 lbs but never lost to any of them.


Baker lost to Moore, Valdez lost 4 strait in 1953,to Moore,Baker,Harold Johnson(who lost to Archie Moore and Billy Gilliam (who lost to Charles his only win of significance was a close one over a less than top form Ezzard and they would not rematch Charles. Valdez then won a disputed decision over Archie McBride in Havana (most felt he lost)

Ezzard came back fit as ever with a blistering KO over Satterfield and Wallace. He also beat Billy Gilliam (who beat Valdez

Moore beat Nino 2 times and beat 2 men who beat Nino, Baker and Harold Johnson. Who should Marciano have fought? the bigger man or the Best man

Marciano was going to make Nino his 50th defence but he could not get past the 180lb Satterfield

The best men were not the biggest at that time and from the look of the video if Valdez was 6"3, then Satterfield was closer to 5"10 not the 6"2 he is listed on boxrec and Satterfield weighed 180

If Marciano had fought Baker or Valdez and not the better men who beat them (Marciano's # 1 contender) what would we be saying now

Marciano KO'd tall men 6"4 and 6"5 and also KO'd Hefty men 254Lbs 2291/2 and 220 but what does that prove. they were clearly not the best of there time

Joe Louis fought and beat Primo Carnera and Buddy Baer but these men were in line for a title shot and Louis was clearing out the top 10

Dempsey fought 6"6 Willard but Willard was Champ

an older Joe Louis was way past his best but I think that version still beats any version of Nino from what I can see

From the way Marciano Ko'd big guys like Louis and Vingo and Layne I really do not see Nino or Baker being any sort of threat to Rocky but if Marciano did not fight Ezzard in the rematch or give Moore a chance then Rocky would have a serious mark against him.

Its easy to say well Marciano should have fought the biggest and not the best fighters of his time but up until that point who was the best Champion or challenger over 200lbs ,Louis, Jeffries and of those 2 and Marciano they all fought the best of there time.

[choklab]

Baker lost to Moore, Valdez lost 4 strait in 1953,to Moore,Baker,Harold Johnson(who lost to Archie Moore and Billy Gilliam (who lost to Charles his only win of significance was a close one over a less than top form Ezzard and they would not rematch Charles. Valdez then won a disputed decision over Archie McBride in Havana (most felt he lost)

Ezzard came back fit as ever with a blistering KO over Satterfield and Wallace. He also beat Billy Gilliam (who beat Valdez

Moore beat Nino 2 times and beat 2 men who beat Nino, Baker and Harold Johnson. Who should Marciano have fought? the bigger man or the Best man

Marciano was going to make Nino his 50th defence but he could not get past the 180lb Satterfield

The best men were not the biggest at that time and from the look of the video if Valdez was 6"3, then Satterfield was closer to 5"10 not the 6"2 he is listed on boxrec and Satterfield weighed 180

If Marciano had fought Baker or Valdez and not the better men who beat them (Marciano's # 1 contender) what would we be saying now

Marciano KO'd tall men 6"4 and 6"5 and also KO'd Hefty men 254Lbs 2291/2 and 220 but what does that prove. they were clearly not the best of there time

Joe Louis fought and beat Primo Carnera and Buddy Baer but these men were in line for a title shot and Louis was clearing out the top 10

Dempsey fought 6"6 Willard but Willard was Champ

an older Joe Louis was way past his best but I think that version still beats any version of Nino from what I can see

From the way Marciano Ko'd big guys like Louis and Vingo and Layne I really do not see Nino or Baker being any sort of threat to Rocky but if Marciano did not fight Ezzard in the rematch or give Moore a chance then Rocky would have a serious mark against him.

Its easy to say well Marciano should have fought the biggest and not the best fighters of his time but up until that point who was the best Champion or challenger over 200lbs ,Louis, Jeffries and of those 2 and Marciano they all fought the best of there time.

:goodi have often wondered if its to do with the gloves that there became an obsesion with not giving away too much weight after the 6oz period. prior to that history proves a stong man of 190 had too much workrate for 200plus heavyweights and just as much power. providing they were not too old 190 guys generaly had an edge. they choped up the big guys and puled away when heavier guys got tired.

I belive the 190 guys started puting weight on when they could make less impresion with 8 ounce gloves. its funny how in the modern era age plays less of a role in determing a peak since the heftier fighters have slowed the pace down.

[TheGreatA]

1. "Louis' peak weight was around 200 lbs."

This was his prewar peak and no one can argue Louis was at his peak after the war let alone in 1951. However, Louis was under 205 only once after the war. His peak postwar performance, and better than anything Valdes ever accomplished in my judgement, was against Walcott in 1948. Louis came in at 213 1/2 for that fight. He was 211 plus for Savold in 1951 and looked the best he did in his comeback. Valdes weighed 204 for Jackson in 1954, 207 for Cockell in 1955, and 206 for Bethea and Dejohn in 1958. The fact is Valdes was about the same weight as Louis at about the same age throughout his career. He actually weighed as little as 179 in 1945, lighter than Louis ever scaled. Both Louis and Valdes weighed at max about 218 in condition. Valdes did scale 244 for Powell, but he was 26 pounds heavier than for any other fight and was knocked out. I think he was just out of shape if this weight if correct.

And that was the fight immediately before he took on Marciano, weighing in at 203 against Jimmy Bivins.

Valdes weighed 179 when he had just turned 17 years of age, which is about as relevant as Pacquiao fighting at strawweight early on.

After age 23, he never weighed less than 200 pounds. At his peak he weighed in at 210 to 215 pounds, this while trained down for greater stamina with rather skinny legs (but a big upperbody). That's the same weight as Sonny Liston or Muhammad Ali in their primes.

Bottom line--there is no evidence Valdes could successfully carry more weight than Louis. These men were about the same weight, give or take a pound or two. Valdes was slightly taller and had a small reach advantage. Louis was much the better fighter and equally big. When looking at their frames I see Valdes as the bigger man with the reach of a true super heavyweight.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


I don't know what the evidence of this is--He weighed 211 and change for Mauriello. 213 1/2 when he ko'd future champion Walcott. 216 when he first beat Brion. 211 and change when he ko'd Savold. Louis did weigh 203 for Bivins and blamed his failure to knock Bivins out on coming in too light.I'm talking about a prime Louis, not the old man who only fought on to pay his taxes. At his peak he weighed around 200 pounds, sometimes less, sometimes more. Against Marciano he was a shell of a man and could no longer train down to his ideal weight.

3. Cockell--Well, Valdes certainly destroyed Cockell, who would be blasted out even more convincingly by Kitione Lave in his next fight and then retire. Cockell came in at a bloated 218 for Valdes, thirteen pounds heavier than he did for Marciano. While the Cockell fight was probably Marciano's worst on film, he still dominated Cockell and pounded him into helplessness.The point is that Valdes was better than Cockell who got the title shot before Valdes did. He was rated higher and beat him head-to-head, what more proof does one need?


4. By the way, Marciano fought five opponents over 210 lbs and knocked them all out, including Louis and Shkor, who were heavier than anyone Satterfield ever ko'd. He fought 11 opponents 200 lbs or more, and knocked them all out. His record in this regard is not unusual. Satterfield also did better against 200 plus fighters, losing only a smelly fight to Holman after having stopped Holman twice. Moore had 25 or so fights against men over 200 lbs and only Muhammad Ali defeated him. Harold Johnson beat every one of the several over 200 lb men he fought, including Valdes, Godoy, Gilliam, etc. Marciano, Moore, Satterfield, and Johnson all did much better against the 200 plus pounders. It might have something to do with the big fellows in that era not being very good. And by and by, Louis fought many men over 200 lbs but never lost to any of them.I don't really care about how he did against big opponents who weren't any good, who were not even above clubfighting level. Rocky never faced a world class 210+ lber unless you count old Louis who in his true prime weighed just 200 pounds.

The rest did well against ranked 210+ lbers but Rocky never faced any. There is no proof whatsoever that Rocky Marciano is a giant killer of any kind when his best opponents weighed less than 200 pounds. One might say that Marciano could have done well against big heavyweights who had any semblance of ability, but there is no definitive proof.

[TheGreatA]

there are many examples of marciano counter punching in all of his filmd fights. the right hand that troubled charles moments before he crashed in round2 came over a jab. more often rock feinted his way in. he would feint then atack when the guy pulled back. rarely he ate punches on the way in. the taller they were the less he got hit. he was no stalone or gene fulmer. sure rock got hit but it was within an exchange.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

2:00

Not what I'd call a counter-punch but a follow-up punch of a combination. As I said previously, Marciano is the one who initiates the punching exchanges and that's where he is a real danger. You can't trade punches with Marciano and that's why Valdes would eventually fall. But it's not because Marciano is some masterful counter-puncher because he is not.

Marciano got hit against almost everyone he ever fought due to his style so it'd be safe to say that he'd be hit against Valdes too. The question is if Valdes can bother Marciano with his power and strength. Maybe during the early stages.

yes i agree he would also bore in but this swarming was only when his opponent was tired. to begin with he would stalk and counter or feint his way into an exchange to begin with. in his championship fights he started like this. my hunch is rock would simply clip valdes during an exchange numbing him in the usual way. timber! This sounds more plausible than Marciano counter-punching over Valdes's jab. I believe he'd pressure Valdes, make a brawl of it and get the better of the brawl in the end. Marciano was good at closing the distance and would gradually up his pace while the opponent tired but I don't see him as much of a counter puncher.


shkor went the distance with bivins and baksi amoung others and KOd mauriello when he was rated who nearly knocked out louis. thats a good fighter. it was a good win for walcott, he got another shot at the title out of what he did to shkor. Almost everyone beat Shkor, he was just not a world class fighter. He beat Mauriello once but a lot of mediocre fighters have KO'd good fighters, one win doesn't make you a good fighter. Keep in mind that Shkor, a washed up journeyman, did give Rocky some trouble early on with his strength. Valdes, who was plain better, may have presented the same problems.



charles really knocked layne silly in their first fight, it was a good finish. charles was knocking out rated fighters after losing to johnson and valdes, he redeemed himself by beating beter guys than valdes, a faded fighter cannot do that. they edge guys on points charles was still icing people cold.He KO'd Layne in the end but it was a very sloppy fight until the KO, in which Charles allowed Layne to outwork him at parts. If Charles fought Valdes the same way then it's no huge surprise to me that he lost a close decision. The only fighter Charles beat during his "comeback" that was arguably better than Valdes was Satterfield, and we all know how inconsistent Satterfield could be. He lost to some opponents that Valdes beat, that's boxing.

[choklab]

I don't really care about how he did against big opponents who weren't any good, who were not even above clubfighting level. Rocky never faced a world class 210+ lber unless you count old Louis who in his true prime weighed just 200 pounds.

The rest did well against ranked 210+ lbers but Rocky never faced any. There is no proof whatsoever that Rocky Marciano is a giant killer of any kind when his best opponents weighed less than 200 pounds. One might say that Marciano could have done well against big heavyweights who had any semblance of ability, but there is no definitive proof.

louis best weight was 200 pounds but as he matured (and was still the best heavyweight of his day at 213) he weighed more. by the training he did one has to conclude both weights were the lowest he could achieve at that time since he was a big man just under 6 feet 2 inches tall. valdes size advantage over Louis is neglegable. I think we are talking about a snack and a glass of water in weight and a haircut in height. Louis talent advantage over valdes even by 1950 standards is NOT neglegable. old Louis was beter.

[TheGreatA]

louis best weight was 200 pounds but as he matured (and was still the best heavyweight of his day at 213) he weighed more. by the training he did one has to conclude both weights were the lowest he could achieve at that time since he was a big man just under 6 feet 2 inches tall. valdes size advantage over Louis is neglegable. I think we are talking about a snack and a glass of water in weight and a haircut in height. Louis talent advantage over valdes even by 1950 standards is NOT neglegable. old Louis was beter.

All I know is that old Louis did not do better against Ezzard Charles or Agramonte compared to Valdes. Tough to say whether he was truly better or not. The competition he faced during his comeback, most of whom went the distance with him, doesn't tell much about what he truly had left at that point. Against Charles and Marciano he could only be competitive early on until running out of stamina. He still gave Marciano some troubles for the first 6 rounds.

[choklab]

The only fighter Charles beat during his "comeback" that was arguably better than Valdes was Satterfield, and we all know how inconsistent Satterfield could be. He lost to some opponents that Valdes beat, that's boxing.


I know laynes not easy on the eye and yes he also beat charles eventualy but rex had more going for him at the point he first fought charles than nino surely? I think going by this valdes the saterfield, layne, maxim, bivins and 210 pounder gillium who charles beat during that time were beter and walace would have given nino a run for his money also. they are all good fighters.

[choklab]

All I know is that old Louis did not do better against Ezzard Charles or Agramonte compared to Valdes. Tough to say whether he was truly better or not. The competition he faced during his comeback, most of whom went the distance with him, doesn't tell much about what he truly had left at that point. Against Charles and Marciano he could only be competitive early on until running out of stamina. He still gave Marciano some troubles for the first 6 rounds.


yes perhaps louis was at the stage where he could no longer knock out top men by 1951, unlike charles was when he fought marciano.

[choklab]

had charles got the rematch with nino we would have heard no more about him.

[TheGreatA]

I know laynes not easy on the eye and yes he also beat charles eventualy but rex had more going for him at the point he first fought charles surly? I think going by this valdes the saterfield, layne, maxim, bivins and 210 pounder gillium who charles beat during that time were beter and walace would have given nino a run for his money also. they are all good fighters.

Layne was coming off a jaw-breaking KO loss to Marciano though and was never truly the same afterwards, not that he ever was truly great. But after the Marciano loss he could hardly buy himself a win.

I wouldn't say that Maxim or old Bivins were better. Gilliam beat Valdes (who was on a losing streak) by a split decision but I wouldn't say he was truly the better fighter of the two. Wallace was a disappointment of a pro, I certainly wouldn't favour him over Valdes but anything could happen.

Now Satterfield did beat Valdes but I believe that Valdes could have beaten the Satterfield who fought Charles. He was not fighting disciplined at all and was very wild and open while attacking. With Satterfield's brittle chin he could very well have been knocked out fighting like that.

All of these contenders were inconsistent and thus it's easy to find losses to inferior fighters on their records, but they could also beat anybody on any given night.

[My2Sense]

Here's Valdes' win over Hurricane Jackson:

xucbDkwcH5A

[mcvey]

Entertaining but sloppy.
Its interesting that Jackson is described as being one of the biggest heavyweights of the time,he looks like a big Light heavy ,by today's standards.Jackson was mentally deficient,and had the mental age of a Lennie Small
Valdes got so close at times he smothered his own work,while Jackson's right hand was down to his waist, inviting the Cuban to land his right hand.
I wonder if part of the aura surrounding Valdes was his size?

[Unforgiven]

Valdes looks sharper against Jackson, but he's still got some very awkward-looking "footwork". I mean, he makes Jackson's balance look on point in comparison, and Jackson's known for having the most "awkward" and incorrect style of them all !
Valdes just look off-balance most of the time, but I do believe he hit hard and he looks accurate with his punches when he has Jackson hurt. And Jackson was a big lanky guy.

Valdes has some good results on his record, and is spoken of highly by old-timers here in the UK at least. He came over to England and beat some of our best heavyweights, and terrified people who saw him sparring in the gym. I dont think the British heavyweights were great or anything. But Valdes was clearly a formidable contender and when he was right he was dangerous. Any suggestion that he was a real threat to Marciano seems off though. But I do think Al Weill was concerned and over-protective. He didn't really fancy taking on Valdes if he could take on someone smaller and more predictable (for example, an assumed "washed-up" Charles, or a Don Cockell).

[mcvey]

Valdes looks sharper against Jackson, but he's still got some very awkward-looking "footwork". I mean, he makes Jackson's balance look on point in comparison, and Jackson's known for having the most "awkward" and incorrect style of them all !
Valdes just look off-balance most of the time, but I do believe he hit hard and he looks accurate with his punches when he has Jackson hurt. And Jackson was a big lanky guy.

Valdes has some good results on his record, and is spoken of highly by old-timers here in the UK at least. He came over to England and beat some of our best heavyweights, and terrified people who saw him sparring in the gym. I dont think the British heavyweights were great or anything. But Valdes was clearly a formidable contender and when he was right he was dangerous. Any suggestion that he was a real threat to Marciano seems off though. But I do think Al Weill was concerned and over-protective. He didn't really fancy taking on Valdes if he could take on someone smaller and more predictable (for example, an assumed "washed-up" Charles, or a Don Cockell).

Weill took the fight with Cockell as a tryout for Rocky's nose [split in the Charles fight].
Marciano ruined Cockell he was never the same after that fight.

[TheGreatA]

I wouldn't say that there was any controversy about that stoppage.

[OLD FOGEY]

My2Sense=Thanks for posting this.

I have seen this film in years. Valdes looks a lot better here, but I still think the last two knockdowns look more like pushes, although Valdes might have rabbit punched Jackson down the last one. Hard to tell. One thing, though, Jackson seemed to be recovering pretty well by the end. He did not look in real bad shape by any means and it also appeared Valdes was punching himself out. I wonder what would have happened if there had been no three knockdown rule. By far the best Valdes performance I have watched.

*Just as an aside, it is interesting to compare how the Gavilan-Bratton and Nardico-LaMotta fights from the same era were allowed to continue with a man helpless and not fighting back, but three knockdowns, a couple of which look like borderline pushes, ended this fight. I think they should have stopped the LaMotta fight earlier. This one could have been let go. Jackson could still defend himself.

[The Mongoose]

All I know is that old Louis did not do better against Ezzard Charles or Agramonte compared to Valdes. Tough to say whether he was truly better or not. The competition he faced during his comeback, most of whom went the distance with him, doesn't tell much about what he truly had left at that point. Against Charles and Marciano he could only be competitive early on until running out of stamina. He still gave Marciano some troubles for the first 6 rounds.



-In terms of achievements, 50-51 Louis and 53-54 Valdez were about even and to argue otherwise would be tedious hair splitting. They even share a common opponent in Cuban Contender Omelio Aragmonte, though Louis probably caught him at a better point in his career. And of course, both finished their respective runs as the number one contender however they lost to Marciano and Moore respectively before they could get their opportunity to cash in.

-The Charles performance isn’t a fair gauge for Joe Louis as he was coming off a two year lay off. And Valdez lost to lesser opposition than the recognized Heavyweight Champion during his slump prior to his big contender run.

-Valdez might have scored the most impressive single victory with his upset decision of Charles that shot him up the rankings. However, Joe Louis did brutally KO Ring #2 Lee Savold to hold his number one position.

-Valdez stopped awkward rising contender Hurricane Jackson while Louis twice defeated awkward rising contender Ceaser Brion. The first fight was disappointing but the way Louis handled Brion in the rematch was very well received by the press at the time, and the bloodied and battered 24 year old was praised for taking punishment that would have sent most fighters to the canvas. The article “Louis Pounds Brion Hard” went so far as to suggest that while he was very slow of foot, Louis’ punches had their old snap again.

-In notable busy fights, Louis outpointed the faded Bivins, who still sporadically found his way in the top ten with the occasional upset and also stopped the tough battle tested Freddie Breshore. Meanwhile, Valdez outpointed battle tested Doc Williams and the tough Parker.

Of course the name Joe Louis also has a certain prestige that elevates him. However, on the flipside he was also under a great deal of pressure to not only beat quality fighters but knock them out as if he was a young man, and in fights like Aragmonte he seemed to get caught up in that and tried to force things too much while his opponent was to able pick up on that and run for his life and go the distance.

[TheGreatA]

-The Charles performance isn’t a fair gauge for Joe Louis as he was coming off a two year lay off. And Valdez lost to lesser opposition than the recognized Heavyweight Champion during his slump prior to his big contender run.

I'd say it's entirely fair. Louis was certainly not better off against Marciano, he had only gotten older. You don't take into account that Louis had numerous exhibitions and many of those exhibitions were more like real fights. Prior to fighting Charles, Louis had massacred Pat Valentino (who gave Charles a fairly tough fight).

Film of the exhibition can be found here:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

-Valdez might have scored the most impressive single victory with his upset decision of Charles that shot him up the rankings. However, Joe Louis did brutally KO Ring #2 Lee Savold to hold his number one position.

Savold was equally as old as Louis was though. He was only rated number 2 because the British recognized him as the heavyweight champion due to an upset win over Bruce Woodcock. I can't see the Louis of 1951 beating Charles and he didn't either.

-Valdez stopped awkward rising contender Hurricane Jackson while Louis twice defeated awkward rising contender Ceaser Brion. The first fight was disappointing but the way Louis handled Brion in the rematch was very well received by the press at the time, and the bloodied and battered 24 year old was praised for taking punishment that would have sent most fighters to the canvas. The article “Louis Pounds Brion Hard” went so far as to suggest that while he was very slow of foot, Louis’ punches had their old snap again.


I've seen the Brion fight and Louis was easy to hit at that point and had also gotten very slow, far from what he had been at his peak. He was also backed up alarmingly easily and spent more time against the ropes than he should have. Brion was not an impressive fighter from what I saw.

-In notable busy fights, Louis outpointed the faded Bivins, who still sporadically found his way in the top ten with the occasional upset and also stopped the tough battle tested Freddie Breshore. Meanwhile, Valdez outpointed battle tested Doc Williams and the tough Parker.

Bivins was another equally as old fighter as Louis. He did not prove that he could deal with a young, rising prospect who could take the fight to him in the later rounds. He didn't have the power, he didn't have the speed and he didn't have the stamina.

[Unforgiven]

Interestingly, Joe Louis knocked Nino Valdes out in the 1st round of an exhibition in 1950.

[Bummy Davis]

Here's Valdes' win over Hurricane Jackson:

xucbDkwcH5A

A decent win by Valdez, However Jackson was 16-2 and his 2 previous loses were to Archie Moore victims, Jimmy Slade and Bert Whitehurst

I would have loved to see Marciano/Valdez and I think Marciano wanted it but Nino was inconsistent, he lost 4 in 1953 and most felt he lost the Havana fight with Archie McBride, in the meantime Archie was on a 50 fight win streak ( marred with a DQ and a disputed decision that he avenged with a stop over Harold Johnson) 2 wins over Valdez a KO over Bob Baker a win over Clarence Henry and others.

Valdez lost an elimination to fight Marciano with his loss to Moore and then his final chance vs Satterfeild

Marciano fought his # 1 contender 5 times and his # 2 once (after a split nose)

Its funny but many of the all-time great gave shots to unranked fighters, including Ali, Holmes, Frazier after Ali 1 (Daniels and Stander)

Although Marciano only had 6 defenses, I think his record for fighting the best is up there at the top

Does anyone really think Marciano should have fought Nino over Archie and does anyone really think in retrospect that Nino was more of a threat than Moore.

I think Nino vs Marciano would have had some exciting moments but I do not see Nino (from these films and others) having the skill level, defense or the power of Archie Moore but It would have been a good notch on Marciano's record but because of Rocky being anxious to get away from Weil I think he made a better choice for his legacy in fighting Moore

[The Mongoose]

"I'd say it's entirely fair. Louis was certainly not better off against Marciano, he had only gotten older. "

A year older and in much better shape. He had improved significantly in the second Brion fight and this is noted by the writers at the time. The differing circumstances regarding Charles/Valdez and Charles/Louis should be took into account and not held at face value. Are we to believe that Valdez remarkably improved after his losing streak against ranked fighters in a year's time or did he just benefit from catching Charles on a bad night? Hmmmmmm

"Savold was equally as old as Louis was though. He was only rated number 2 because the British recognized him as the heavyweight champion due to an upset win over Bruce Woodcock. I can't see the Louis of 1951 beating Charles and he didn't either."

-This is speculative and not really relevant to the point.

"I've seen the Brion fight and Louis was easy to hit at that point and had also gotten very slow, far from what he had been at his peak. He was also backed up alarmingly easily and spent more time against the ropes than he should have. Brion was not an impressive fighter from what I saw."

-Neither was Tommy Jackson. Jackson stopped the faded used and absused Layne but Brion was by all accounts robbed against a prime rising Rex Layne. Also Brion was a phyiscally powerful 6'3" who hovered in the 195-200+ lb range most of his career, only backing up Louis in the early rounds of the rematch before getting busted up.


Dawson wrote:
“Plunging and tossing like a rudderless ship, Rex Layne, Lewiston, Utah, heavyweight, somehow or other managed to gain a decision over Cesar Brion, from the Argentine, in ten dull rounds of fighting at Madison Square Garden last night. And if there is any consolation in a moral victory, Brion has it. A crowd of 5,768 booed the verdict and it was plain that many, if not the majority, thought Brion had won.”

"Bivins was another equally as old fighter as Louis. He did not prove that he could deal with a young, rising prospect who could take the fight to him in the later rounds. He didn't have the power, he didn't have the speed and he didn't have the stamina."

I guess the same could be said for Valdez than.

[TheGreatA]

A year older and in much better shape. He had improved significantly in the second Brion fight and this is noted by the writers at the time. The differing circumstances regarding Charles/Valdez and Charles/Louis should be took into account and not held at face value. Are we to believe that Valdez remarkably improved after his losing streak against ranked fighters in a year's time or did he just benefit from catching Charles on a bad night? Hmmmmmm

I wouldn't say in "much better shape". He beat Brion clearly in both fights and was not overly impressive in either fight against a man he would have easily stopped at his peak.

Valdes claimed it was his best ever fight, Ring Magazine named him the "progress of the year" and he didn't go onto lose in almost 3 years after that. It's possible that he did learn from his losses.


-This is speculative and not really relevant to the point. Not speculative when it's the truth. Savold was as old as Louis, he achieved his ranking due to upsetting Bruce Woodcock whom the British wanted to recognize as the champ and Louis did lose to Charles. I don't see what's speculative about that. A win over Charles is better than a win over Savold.

-Neither was Tommy Jackson. Jackson stopped the faded used and absused Layne but Brion was by all accounts robbed against a prime rising Rex Layne. Also Brion was a phyiscally powerful 6'3" who hovered in the 195-200+ lb range most of his career, only backing up Louis in the early rounds of the rematch before getting busted up.
To Jackson's credit he had also beaten Clarence Henry who was one of the top contenders of the era. After losing to Valdes, he went onto beat Ezzard Charles, Bob Baker and gave Floyd Patterson a tough fight. He was once the number 1 ranked heavyweight contender in the world. Brion was a fringe contender. I'd say that Jackson was a level above Brion.

I guess the same could be said for Valdez than.Valdes at the very least had stamina and strength and he was naturally bigger than Louis. Now I do not think Valdes would have done any better against Marciano than Louis, possibly troubling him early and being stopped late, but fighting old Louis is not the same as fighting Valdes. Is Marciano's only claim to having fought a world class big man fighting an old Joe Louis?

[TheGreatA]

A decent win by Valdez, However Jackson was 16-2 and his 2 previous loses were to Archie Moore victims, Jimmy Slade and Bert Whitehurst

I would have loved to see Marciano/Valdez and I think Marciano wanted it but Nino was inconsistent, he lost 4 in 1953 and most felt he lost the Havana fight with Archie McBride, in the meantime Archie was on a 50 fight win streak ( marred with a DQ and a disputed decision that he avenged with a stop over Harold Johnson) 2 wins over Valdez a KO over Bob Baker a win over Clarence Henry and others.

Valdez lost an elimination to fight Marciano with his loss to Moore and then his final chance vs Satterfeild

Marciano fought his # 1 contender 5 times and his # 2 once (after a split nose)

Its funny but many of the all-time great gave shots to unranked fighters, including Ali, Holmes, Frazier after Ali 1 (Daniels and Stander)

Although Marciano only had 6 defenses, I think his record for fighting the best is up there at the top

Does anyone really think Marciano should have fought Nino over Archie and does anyone really think in retrospect that Nino was more of a threat than Moore.

I think Nino vs Marciano would have had some exciting moments but I do not see Nino (from these films and others) having the skill level, defense or the power of Archie Moore but It would have been a good notch on Marciano's record but because of Rocky being anxious to get away from Weil I think he made a better choice for his legacy in fighting Moore

No but he should have fought him over

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[The Mongoose]

"I wouldn't say in "much better shape". He beat Brion clearly in both fights and was not overly impressive in either fight against a man he would have easily stopped at his peak. Valdes claimed it was his best ever fight, Ring Magazine named him the "progress of the year" and he didn't go onto lose in 3 years after that. It's possible that he did learn from his losses."

-Louis/Brion was by no means a return to form but he was impressive enough to have writers and fans proclaiming that he was the clear number one contender to the Charles/Walcott winner, about as much as Valdez accomplished during his run.

Well, undefeated for less than 2 years. And outside of Jackson, Nino also didn't fight another legitimate opponent until Moore and Satterfield...and we know what happened there.

"Not speculative when it's the truth. Savold was as old as Louis, he achieved his ranking due to upsetting Bruce Woodcock whom the British wanted to recognize as the champ and Louis did lose to Charles. I don't see what's speculative about that. A win over Charles>A win over Savold."

I was refering to speculation that late 51 Joe Louis could not win a 10 rounder over the Charles that Valdez faced that night.

"To Jackson's credit he had also beaten Clarence Henry who was one of the top contenders of the era. After losing to Valdes, he went onto beat Ezzard Charles, Bob Baker and gave Floyd Patterson a tough fight. He was once the number 1 ranked heavyweight contender in the world. Brion was a fringe contender. I'd say that Jackson was a level above Brion."

Jackson went on to become the number one contender after everyone else faded. He gave a one handed Patterson a tough fight but was humilated in the rematch. Both Jackson and Brion were both tough ranked prospects at the time they met Valdez and Louis.

"Valdes at the very least had stamina and strength and he was naturally bigger than Louis. Now I do not think Valdes would have done any better against Marciano than Louis, possibly troubling him early and being stopped late, but fighting old Louis is not the same as fighting Valdes. Is Marciano's only claim to fighting a world class big man fighting an old Joe Louis?"

Louis had strength and stamina at the time Rocky faced him, just not enough. Not really concerned about the size equation. Satterfield beat several so called World Class Big Men but was stopped by Marciano victims: Moore, Charles, and Layne. Just not a great measuring stick for ability.

[TheGreatA]

Well, less than 2 years. And outside of Jackson, he also didn't fight another legitimate opponent until Moore and Satterfield.

Heinz Neuhaus & Karel Sys were top 10 ranked.
'Doc' Williams was a decent fighter who went onto beat the inconsistent Satterfield.
James J. Parker was another decent fighter with size.

I was refering to speculation that late 51 Joe Louis could not win a 10 rounder over the Charles that Valdez faced. Louis's performance against Charles strongly suggests that the old version of him could not beat Charles. It's even more speculation to claim that he would or that he was better than Charles at that point.

Jackson went on to become the number one contender after everyone else faded and his run didn't last long. He gave a one handed Patterson a tough fight but was humilated in the rematch. Both Jackson and Brion were both tough ranked prospects at the time they met Valdez and Louis. I don't think there's any question that Jackson was the more accomplished contender of the two. Never claimed he was great, but it's a stretch to say that Brion was equally as good or better. He had no real accomplishments to speak of, outside of lasting the distance with better fighters. The best fighters that he beat were beaten by Hurricane Jackson too. Even in the Rex Layne fight, which I have, both fighters looked bad. Most scored it in favour of Layne even if he wasn't impressive.

Louis had strength and stamina at the time Rocky faced him. Not really concerned about the size equation. Satterfield beat several so called World Class Big Men but was stopped by Marciano victims: Moore, Charles, and Layne. Just not a great measuring stick for ability.He did not have much strength or stamina. He was pushed around by almost everyone during his comeback and faded badly after 6 rounds against Marciano, even though he had been competitive up to that point. Clearly not the man he was at his peak, or even a couple of years earlier.

Marciano not competing against world class 6'3, 210+ lbs opponents is the point I'm mainly trying to make here. Like I said, other fighters that Marciano faced or would be favoured against beat top ranked fighters who were bigger than them, but Marciano didn't. Thus he is not deserving of being called a giant killer of any kind.

Harry Greb lost to some middleweights but beat numerous heavyweights. This doesn't automatically mean that the middleweights who beat Greb would have beaten the heavyweights that Greb beat.

[OLD FOGEY]

And that was the fight immediately before he took on Marciano, weighing in at 203 against Jimmy Bivins.

Valdes weighed 179 when he had just turned 17 years of age, which is about as relevant as Pacquiao fighting at strawweight early on.

After age 23, he never weighed less than 200 pounds. At his peak he weighed in at 210 to 215 pounds, this while trained down for greater stamina with rather skinny legs (but a big upperbody). That's the same weight as Sonny Liston or Muhammad Ali in their primes.

When looking at their frames I see Valdes as the bigger man with the reach of a true super heavyweight.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

I'm talking about a prime Louis, not the old man who only fought on to pay his taxes. At his peak he weighed around 200 pounds, sometimes less, sometimes more. Against Marciano he was a shell of a man and could no longer train down to his ideal weight.

The point is that Valdes was better than Cockell who got the title shot before Valdes did. He was rated higher and beat him head-to-head, what more proof does one need?

I don't really care about how he did against big opponents who weren't any good, who were not even above clubfighting level. Rocky never faced a world class 210+ lber unless you count old Louis who in his true prime weighed just 200 pounds.

The rest did well against ranked 210+ lbers but Rocky never faced any. There is no proof whatsoever that Rocky Marciano is a giant killer of any kind when his best opponents weighed less than 200 pounds. One might say that Marciano could have done well against big heavyweights who had any semblance of ability, but there is no definitive proof.

1. "I'm talking about the prime Louis"--What has the prime Louis to do with Valdes, or Marciano. No one is disputing that the postwar Louis was past his best. What is in dispute is whether Louis had slipped so far that he was not as good as Valdes.

2. These are actual weights at given ages for the two fighters. I admit I picked light weights for Valdes who varied about 10 lbs from fight to fight.

21---Louis 200 1/2---Valdes 184 1/2
23---Louis 206---Valdes 199
28---Louis 207 1/2---Valdes 206
32---Louis 211 1/4---Valdes 208
33---Louis 211 1/2---Valdes 207 1/2
34---Louis 213 1/2---Valdes 206

Now I admit that higher weights could be found for Valdes--up to 218 in shape, and Louis also fought at 218 and 216. But it also is clear that there is no SIGNIFICANT difference in weight between the two men at the same age. Valdes was slightly taller with a slightly longer reach. He seems to have been broader in the shoulders. Louis carried more weight in his legs which might explain his superior punching power.

3. "The rest did well against 210 + fighters, but Rocky never faced any"

He faced five, more than 10% of his opponents. One was ranked highly when he fought him--Louis. One had been ranked--Shkor. One was at least a trial-horse, Wilson. That isn't much, but how many ranked fighters over 210 lbs did most of the champions prior to 1960 face and beat? Jeffries--none. Tunney--none. Liston--interestingly, only Henry Clark, I think was actually ranked when he fought him. Valdes had fallen out of the rankings. Williams was not yet ranked. Johnson--well, old Jeffries, and he lost to Willard. Perhaps McVea was over 210 although a teenager. Even the giant killer Dempsey only faced Willard, Firpo, and Morris as men who would have been ranked if there were rankings and went over 210 lbs. Prior to 1960, there just weren't many. Louis was clearly the best champion who defended his title at over 210 pounds between Johnson and at least Liston, if not Ali.

4. "Rocky never faced a world-class 210 + pounder unless you count old Louis"

Old Louis was rated at the top of the heavyweight division, had knocked out the highly rated Lee Savold that summer, and was coming off a one-sided drubbing of Hall-of-Famer Jimmy Bivins. Why wasn't he world-class? Was he losing to a trial-horse such as Bill Gilliam? Was he involved in a disputed decision with a second-rater like Archie McBride? Had he lost four in a row? Did he lose 4 fights in his entire career? The only men who beat the old Louis were arguably the very best heavyweights in the world at the time. You can't say that about Valdes or Baker who were losing to all kinds of far lesser fighters.
And, by the way, according to the CBZ, on March 14, 1950, the old Louis knocked out one Nino Valdes in 1 round in an exhibition in Houston.

[OLD FOGEY]

All I know is that old Louis did not do better against Ezzard Charles or Agramonte compared to Valdes. Tough to say whether he was truly better or not. The competition he faced during his comeback, most of whom went the distance with him, doesn't tell much about what he truly had left at that point. Against Charles and Marciano he could only be competitive early on until running out of stamina. He still gave Marciano some troubles for the first 6 rounds.

Well, Louis ko'd Valdes in 1 in an exhibition in 1950. Both Agramonte and Charles were older and going back when they fought Valdes, and Agramonte didn't do anything against Louis but run. And, it should be pointed out, only the very best ever beat Louis. Bill Gilliam, and even Bob Satterfield, were hardly the very best.

[TheGreatA]

Well, Louis ko'd Valdes in 1 in an exhibition in 1950. Both Agramonte and Charles were older and going back when they fought Valdes, and Agramonte didn't do anything against Louis but run. And, it should be pointed out, only the very best ever beat Louis. Bill Gilliam, and even Bob Satterfield, were hardly the very best.

Fireman Jim Flynn also KO'd Jack Dempsey in one in 1917. I can't say I give much credibility to a knockout loss Valdes suffered during an exhibition against one of the best punchers of all time while not having fought anybody of note at that point in his career.

The very best only beat Louis but more than only the very best would have beaten Louis had he continued fighting after Marciano, see what happened to Charles.

[TheGreatA]

2. These are actual weights at given ages for the two fighters. I admit I picked light weights for Valdes who varied about 10 lbs from fight to fight.

21---Louis 200 1/2---Valdes 184 1/2
23---Louis 206---Valdes 199
28---Louis 207 1/2---Valdes 206
32---Louis 211 1/4---Valdes 208
33---Louis 211 1/2---Valdes 207 1/2
34---Louis 213 1/2---Valdes 206

You also picked high weights for Louis. One could easily manipulate it to look like this:

25---Valdes 218---Louis 200
27---Valdes 214---Louis 199
36---Valdes 224---Louis 203

I'd say look at their frames rather than simply weight. Valdes had skinny legs and wide shoulders, Louis was solid all around. I don't think Valdes was any smaller in stature than the average overweight heavyweight of the past 20 years. Louis was the type of a fighter who fought to his best at 205 when he retained all his handspeed and stamina. Valdes was simply a big, strong durable guy who would have probably been a more difficult opponent to face had he done weight training.

He faced five, more than 10% of his opponents. One was ranked highly when he fought him--Louis. One had been ranked--Shkor. One was at least a trial-horse, Wilson. That isn't much, but how many ranked fighters over 210 lbs did most of the champions prior to 1960 face and beat? Jeffries--none. Tunney--none. Liston--interestingly, only Henry Clark, I think was actually ranked when he fought him. Valdes had fallen out of the rankings. Williams was not yet ranked. Johnson--well, old Jeffries, and he lost to Willard. Perhaps McVea was over 210 although a teenager. Even the giant killer Dempsey only faced Willard, Firpo, and Morris as men who would have been ranked if there were rankings and went over 210 lbs. Prior to 1960, there just weren't many. Louis was clearly the best champion who defended his title at over 210 pounds between Johnson and at least Liston, if not Ali.I believe I made my point fairly clear with this statement:

"Rocky never faced a world class 210+ lber unless you count old Louis who in his true prime weighed just 200 pounds."

Sure he fought five big men, hardly a staggering amount, but outside of old Louis they weren't any good. Shkor was finished as a fighter when Marciano got to him and did give him atleast some trouble early on with his strength. Maybe Valdes would have too.

I'm generous and won't say that the opponent had to be ranked at the exact time when he was beaten. The criticism about Jeffries and Tunney has always been that they didn't face too many big opponents. For both of them you could make the same case as for Marciano that the light heavyweight-sized opponents that they beat did beat bigger opponents, but they themselves didn't.

Liston fought Cleveland Williams, Nino Valdes, Henry Clark, Chuck Wepner, Mike DeJohn and others, there's plenty of proof that he could face similar sized men.

Jack Johnson is also criticized for facing smaller opponents but he did face 210+ lb young McVea, Jim Jeffries, 220 lb Battling Jim Johnson, Sandy Ferguson who was around 200-210, the strong Jack Thompson. Difficult to estimate the weights and the abilities of these fighters. Johnson struggled with some big but mediocre opponents, perhaps Marciano would have too. We don't know.

Old Louis was rated at the top of the heavyweight division, had knocked out the highly rated Lee Savold that summer, and was coming off a one-sided drubbing of Hall-of-Famer Jimmy Bivins. Why wasn't he world-class? Was he losing to a trial-horse such as Bill Gilliam? Was he involved in a disputed decision with a second-rater like Archie McBride? Had he lost four in a row? Did he lose 4 fights in his entire career? The only men who beat the old Louis were arguably the very best heavyweights in the world at the time. You can't say that about Valdes or Baker who were losing to all kinds of far lesser fighters.
And, by the way, according to the CBZ, on March 14, 1950, the old Louis knocked out one Nino Valdes in 1 round in an exhibition in Houston.Savold was equally as old and his high ranking is somewhat questionable for reasons that I've explained earlier. Jimmy Bivins was a hall of famer for what he did in the early 1940's, not for what he was in the early 1950's. Louis was not exactly facing top class opposition who were young and hungry outside of Marciano who knocked him out of the ring and also out of boxing.

Louis was still good enough to beat down a green Valdes and Pat Valentino in exhibitions so he must not have been as rusty against Charles as he is made out to have been. Valdes improved and later upset Charles.

The fact that we have to bring up wins over an old Joe Louis, clubfighter Johnny Shkor and the accomplishments of fighters that Marciano beat as "proof" that he could handle bigger men to me indicates that he did not truly prove it. I'm not saying he couldn't, I'm saying he didn't.

[OLD FOGEY]

Fireman Jim Flynn also KO'd Jack Dempsey in one in 1917. I can't say I give much credibility to a knockout loss Valdes suffered during an exhibition against one of the best punchers of all time while not having fought anybody of note at that point in his career.

The very best only beat Louis but more than only the very best would have beaten Louis had he continued fighting after Marciano, see what happened to Charles.

1. "The very best only beat Louis"

This is a fact.

2. "but more than only the very best would have beaten Louis"

This is an opinion which can never be tested. Louis couldn't beat Marciano, but no one else did. This hardly proves he couldn't have beaten the Rex Layne, Bob Baker, Nino Valdes, and Bob Satterfield level fighters for years.

[The Mongoose]

"Heinz Neuhaus & Karel Sys were top 10 ranked.
'Doc' Williams was a decent fighter who went onto beat the inconsistent Satterfield.
James J. Parker was another decent fighter with size."

As were comeback Louis' competition. Save the uspet for Charles, they were basically beating the same class of fighter.

"Louis's performance against Charles strongly suggests that the old version of him could not beat Charles. It's even more speculation to claim that he would or that he was better than Charles at that point"

Valdez/Charles is an engima that nobody seems to be sure of the exact circumstances. I would be hesitant to draw conclusions from it for the time being other than its a great win on paper for Nino. It was certainly an uncharacteristic shocking loss for Charles who did manage to reclaim his number one ranking by year's end, which leads me to question how convicing Valdez actually was.

"I don't think there's any question that Jackson was the more accomplished contender of the two. "

At the time of their respected fights I must disagree. Jackson had more distinguished names but Layne and Henry were in losing streaks. However, Jackson was labeled an embaressing bust after losing to Jimmy Slade. The NY Times wrote of the fight that "Jackson hasn't even proved to be a good club fighter yet." His bizzarre ragdoll act against Valdez didn't help his case. Brion got good press for beating Reynolds and Tami, but also dropped the ball against LaStarza in a stinker that hurt both men's reputations and had the public crying for Louis to return. However, Brion's efforts against Louis were at least well recieved. I'd say Jackson would only be considered more accomplished if you consider his wins against Baker and the like after the fact.

"He did not have much strength or stamina. He was pushed around by almost everyone during his comeback "

If by everyone you mean Marciano and Brion.


"Like I said, other fighters that Marciano faced or would be favoured against beat top ranked fighters who were bigger than them, but Marciano didn't. Thus he is not deserving of being called a giant killer of any kind. "

Beating Valdez wouldn't change that. Nobody would be big enough or good enough for Marciano's critics. At any rate, Valdez had his chances so its difficult to empathize. Moore deserved a shot before Charles, Cockell, Johnson, and Satterfield(he was overlooked or being overlooked for all of them at one point or another) but he took care of business and did what he needed to do. Nino could of forced Weil's hand but instead he chocked against Moore, Satterfield, and Baker. He should have been able to squeeze past at least one if he was as good as the Charles win would lead us to believe, but that was not to be.

[choklab]

valdes does look much beter against jackson but jackson looks like a rank novice. there is no two ways about it valdes could bang but there is no evidence valdes would have been fancied against charles in a rematch. jackson was an early tv favorite but was brought along much too fast. basicly a crowd favorite who had not paid his dues within the ranks, a bit like the fighters in the "contender tv show" .......only with less experience than peter manfredo.

can i just say i think ageing great fighters get a bum deal unless they are bernard hopkins, ali or larry holmes. Rarely are they rated fairly since comparisons are made not on what they can still do but on what they used to be able to do.

joe louis was beating rated fighters and earned his shot by taking on and beating his way back up to #1. He went the distance more than when he was a young dude, so what? had a new heavyweight beat the same guys under a difrent name he'd still be #1 like old joe was. old ali beat norton, evangalista and shavers on points for the title. old holmes beat carl wiliams, mercer and ferguson on points. old holyfeild beat fres okwando etc..

and why does marciano have to be a giant killer anyway? he beat the best. its not like he did not beat big, rated, ranked joe louis.

[Bummy Davis]

Heinz Neuhaus & Karel Sys were top 10 ranked.
'Doc' Williams was a decent fighter who went onto beat the inconsistent Satterfield.
James J. Parker was another decent fighter with size.

Louis's performance against Charles strongly suggests that the old version of him could not beat Charles. It's even more speculation to claim that he would or that he was better than Charles at that point.

I don't think there's any question that Jackson was the more accomplished contender of the two. Never claimed he was great, but it's a stretch to say that Brion was equally as good or better. He had no real accomplishments to speak of, outside of lasting the distance with better fighters. The best fighters that he beat were beaten by Hurricane Jackson too. Even in the Rex Layne fight, which I have, both fighters looked bad. Most scored it in favour of Layne even if he wasn't impressive.

He did not have much strength or stamina. He was pushed around by almost everyone during his comeback and faded badly after 6 rounds against Marciano, even though he had been competitive up to that point. Clearly not the man he was at his peak, or even a couple of years earlier.

Marciano not competing against world class 6'3, 210+ lbs opponents is the point I'm mainly trying to make here. Like I said, other fighters that Marciano faced or would be favoured against beat top ranked fighters who were bigger than them, but Marciano didn't. Thus he is not deserving of being called a giant killer of any kind.

Harry Greb lost to some middleweights but beat numerous heavyweights. This doesn't automatically mean that the middleweights who beat Greb would have beaten the heavyweights that Greb beat.


your point is weak, who were the big men you speak of "Valdez" who was beaten 2 times by Moore, once by 5"10 180lb Satterfeild and another by 6" 185lb Harold Johnson and Wallace & Satterfeild were Ko'd by Charles and Moore. Baker was Ko'd in 1 rd. by Satterfeild so WHO else was a good Big man who deserved a shot. My motto is fight the best that beat the best.

As far as Marciano fighting his # 2 contender (after the nose injury) as opposed to 5 # 1's I think he was entitled having a tune up fight before fighting another # 1...It was Nino that BLEW 2 title opportunities by losing to smaller men that made them more deserving than him.

[Bummy Davis]

1. "I'm talking about the prime Louis"--What has the prime Louis to do with Valdes, or Marciano. No one is disputing that the postwar Louis was past his best. What is in dispute is whether Louis had slipped so far that he was not as good as Valdes.

2. These are actual weights at given ages for the two fighters. I admit I picked light weights for Valdes who varied about 10 lbs from fight to fight.

21---Louis 200 1/2---Valdes 184 1/2
23---Louis 206---Valdes 199
28---Louis 207 1/2---Valdes 206
32---Louis 211 1/4---Valdes 208
33---Louis 211 1/2---Valdes 207 1/2
34---Louis 213 1/2---Valdes 206

Now I admit that higher weights could be found for Valdes--up to 218 in shape, and Louis also fought at 218 and 216. But it also is clear that there is no SIGNIFICANT difference in weight between the two men at the same age. Valdes was slightly taller with a slightly longer reach. He seems to have been broader in the shoulders. Louis carried more weight in his legs which might explain his superior punching power.

3. "The rest did well against 210 + fighters, but Rocky never faced any"

He faced five, more than 10% of his opponents. One was ranked highly when he fought him--Louis. One had been ranked--Shkor. One was at least a trial-horse, Wilson. That isn't much, but how many ranked fighters over 210 lbs did most of the champions prior to 1960 face and beat? Jeffries--none. Tunney--none. Liston--interestingly, only Henry Clark, I think was actually ranked when he fought him. Valdes had fallen out of the rankings. Williams was not yet ranked. Johnson--well, old Jeffries, and he lost to Willard. Perhaps McVea was over 210 although a teenager. Even the giant killer Dempsey only faced Willard, Firpo, and Morris as men who would have been ranked if there were rankings and went over 210 lbs. Prior to 1960, there just weren't many. Louis was clearly the best champion who defended his title at over 210 pounds between Johnson and at least Liston, if not Ali.

4. "Rocky never faced a world-class 210 + pounder unless you count old Louis"

Old Louis was rated at the top of the heavyweight division, had knocked out the highly rated Lee Savold that summer, and was coming off a one-sided drubbing of Hall-of-Famer Jimmy Bivins. Why wasn't he world-class? Was he losing to a trial-horse such as Bill Gilliam? Was he involved in a disputed decision with a second-rater like Archie McBride? Had he lost four in a row? Did he lose 4 fights in his entire career? The only men who beat the old Louis were arguably the very best heavyweights in the world at the time. You can't say that about Valdes or Baker who were losing to all kinds of far lesser fighters.
And, by the way, according to the CBZ, on March 14, 1950, the old Louis knocked out one Nino Valdes in 1 round in an exhibition in Houston.


Excellent Post and all very true. a friend of mine had a friend that saw that EXhibition

[TheGreatA]

As were comeback Louis' competition. Save the uspet for Charles, they were basically beating the same class of fighter.

Valdez/Charles is an engima that nobody seems to be sure of the exact circumstances. I would be hesitant to draw conclusions from it for the time being other than its a great win on paper for Nino. It was certainly an uncharacteristic shocking loss for Charles who did manage to reclaim his number one ranking by year's end, which leads me to question how convicing Valdez actually was.

You can't count out Valdes's career best win over Charles because Charles is supposed to have been better. By his own words Valdes fought his best fight and was convincing enough to immediately be ranked number 1 in the world after the win. At times Charles would again be number 1, then Valdes. At the time of the Cockell fight, Valdes was number 1. Rocky could have fought him then and added a win over a 6'3, 210+ lb, 80" reach top ranked opponent to his list of accomplishments.

At the time of their respected fights I must disagree. Jackson had more distinguished names but Layne and Henry were in losing streaks. However, Jackson was labeled an embaressing bust after losing to Jimmy Slade. The NY Times wrote of the fight that "Jackson hasn't even proved to be a good club fighter yet." His bizzarre ragdoll act against Valdez didn't help his case. Brion got good press for beating Reynolds and Tami, but also dropped the ball against LaStarza in a stinker that hurt both men's reputations and had the public crying for Louis to return. However, Brion's efforts against Louis were at least well recieved. I'd say Jackson would only be considered more accomplished if you consider his wins against Baker and the like after the fact. Mauriello was well washed up and Reynolds, who also beat Brion, was never very good, even actor Robert Mitchum used him as a doormat in a streetfight (not to be taken seriously). Prior to his fight with Louis, all Brion had was the win over Mauriello in Mauriello's last ever fight, a win over Norkus, who also beat him and who was also KO'd by Hurricane Jackson, and a couple of decent losing efforts against Layne and LaStarza where Brion along with his opponents looked bad. Not a sensational up & coming prospect and never went onto be more than a fringe contender at best.

Jackson was finished off by Valdes in just two rounds as shown in the video that was posted in this thread, and he went onto be a good contender and had already beaten some good men. Valdes was the only man to got rid of the usually durable Jackson in the early rounds.

If by everyone you mean Marciano and Brion.Also against the small but game Freddie Beshore whom Louis stopped on cuts.

Beating Valdez wouldn't change that. Nobody would be big enough or good enough for Marciano's critics. At any rate, Valdez had his chances so its difficult to empathize. Moore deserved a shot before Charles, Cockell, Johnson, and Satterfield(he was overlooked or being overlooked for all of them at one point or another) but he took care of business and did what he needed to do. Nino could of forced Weil's hand but instead he chocked against Moore, Satterfield, and Baker. He should have been able to squeeze past at least one if he was as good as the Charles win would lead us to believe, but that was not to be.I don't think fighters need to force other fighters to fight them. Valdes was number 1 ranked, Marciano could have fought him. Weill admitted that he would hand-pick foes and avoid fighters until they got enough hype behind them so that the risk/reward ratio made sense. Marciano hardly fought anyone in any place at any time, not that I blame him, but that's how it was.

Marciano could have very well fought Valdes and Baker at some point, as they were frequently ranked in the top 5. Rocky wasn't the most active champion. That would silence some critics, seeing him on film beating up on men who outweighed him by atleast 30 pounds. It's part of why Satterfield is as revered as he is, for knocking out opponents far bigger than him, not that he was one of the best of the era. Obviously there were no Lewis's or Klitschko brothers around, but there were a handful of quality fighters with size. Not talking about Johnny Shkor or Big Bill Wilson who were not good fighters.

Again I must clarify that I never claimed to favour the likes of Valdes or Baker over Marciano. This is only a minor complaint. I see Jeffries, Jack Johnson and Tunney catching criticism for not competing against big heavyweights so I don't see why a similar case couldn't be made against Marciano. I know it has been made by others previously, usually by the Marciano haters that visit this site, but often times the discussion derails to senseless arguing from both sides. Here we have stated facts and corrections in a civilized manner.

However I do not think that Marciano's ability to deal with bigger men with ability can be proven by the accomplishments of others or the outcomes of fights against non-ranked opponents. Boxing is all about proving your ability and for me Marciano did not prove that he was a "giant killer". Not saying that he could not beat bigger men who were world class but he did not prove it.

your point is weak, who were the big men you speak of "Valdez" who was beaten 2 times by Moore, once by 5"10 180lb Satterfeild and another by 6" 185lb Harold Johnson and Wallace & Satterfeild were Ko'd by Charles and Moore. Baker was Ko'd in 1 rd. by Satterfeild so WHO else was a good Big man who deserved a shot. My motto is fight the best that beat the best.

As far as Marciano fighting his # 2 contender (after the nose injury) as opposed to 5 # 1's I think he was entitled having a tune up fight before fighting another # 1...It was Nino that BLEW 2 title opportunities by losing to smaller men that made them more deserving than him.

We are going in circles now. Other smaller men than Marciano beating bigger ranked men is not definitive proof that Marciano could have beaten big opponents with ease. He did not prove it because he never faced one, outside of old Louis. I've said it again and again.

You may say he was entitled to a "tune-up", but it shows that Marciano and his management were atleast wary of fighting Valdes and chose to take on an overweight light heavyweight instead.

[Bummy Davis]

You can't count out Valdes's career best win over Charles because Charles is supposed to have been better. By his own words Valdes fought his best fight and was convincing enough to immediately be ranked number 1 in the world after the win. At times Charles would again be number 1, then Valdes. At the time of the Cockell fight, Valdes was number 1. Rocky could have fought him then and added a win over a 6'3, 210+ lb, 80" reach top ranked opponent to his list of accomplishments.

Mauriello was well washed up and Reynolds, who also beat Brion, was never very good, even actor Robert Mitchum used him as a doormat in a streetfight (not to be taken seriously). Prior to his fight with Louis, all Brion had was the win over Mauriello in Mauriello's last ever fight, a win over Norkus, who also beat him and who was also KO'd by Hurricane Jackson, and a couple of decent losing efforts against Layne and LaStarza where Brion along with his opponents looked bad. Not a sensation up & coming prospect and never went onto be more than a fringe contender at best.

Jackson was finished off by Valdes in just two rounds as shown in the video that was posted in this thread, and he went onto be a good contender and had already beaten some good men. Valdes was the only man to get rid of the usually durable Jackson in the early rounds.

Also against the small but game Freddie Beshore whom Louis stopped on cuts.

I don't think fighters need to force other fighters to fight them. Valdes was number 1 ranked, Marciano could have fought him. Weill admitted that he would hand-pick foes and avoid fighters until they got enough hype behind them so that the risk/reward ratio made sense. Marciano hardly fought anyone in any place at any time, not that I blame him, but that's how it was.

Marciano could have very well fought Valdes and Baker at some point, as they were frequently ranked in the top 5. Rocky wasn't the most active champion. That would silence some critics, seeing him on film beating up on men who outweighed him by atleast 30 pounds. It's part of why Satterfield is as revered as he is, for knocking out opponents far bigger than him. Obviously there were no Lewis's or Klitschko brothers around, but there were a handful of quality fighters with size. Not talking about Johnny Shkor or Big Bill Wilson who were not good fighters.

Again I must clarify that I never claimed to favour the likes of Valdes or Baker over Marciano. This is only a minor complaint. I see Jeffries, Jack Johnson and Tunney catching criticism for not competing against big heavyweights so I don't see why a similar case couldn't be made against Marciano. I know it has been made by others previously, usually by the Marciano haters that visit this site, but often times the discussion derails to senseless arguing from both sides. Here we have stated facts and corrections in a civilized manner.

However I do not think that Marciano's ability to deal with bigger men with ability can be proven by the accomplishments of others or the outcomes of fights against non-ranked opponents. Boxing is all about proving your ability and for me Marciano did not prove that he was a "giant killer". Not saying that he could not beat bigger men who were world class but he did not prove it.





We are going in circles now. Other smaller men than Marciano beating bigger ranked men is not definitive proof that Marciano could have beaten big opponents with ease. He did not prove it because he never faced one, outside of old Louis. I've said it again and again.

You may say he was entitled to a "tune-up", but it shows that Marciano and his management were atleast wary of fighting Valdes and chose to take on an overweight light heavyweight instead.


To show you further why your argument is weak
The power that be set up an elimination fight bewteen Valdes and Moore, with the winner to fight Marciano. The fight was set for 5-02-1955 between Moore and Valdez. Marciano could have sat back and waited but because his # 1 Moore and his # 1 Valdez were fighting for the elimination and Marciano agreed to fight the winner Marciano fought his #2 contender Don Cockell the next week 5-16-1955

I think there was a short window of time that Marciano could have fit Valdes or Moore in but being that Moore and Valdes were set to fight, to Marciano's credit he stayed active and fought his # 2 and that was the only time he did not fight his # 1 contender.

You state he should have fought Valdes instead of Cockel but Valdez and Moore were not available so he fought his # 2

[Bummy Davis]

No but he should have fought him over

[Only registered and activated users can see links]






Moore and Valdez the #1 contenders were fighting 5-2-1955 for the title shot elimination so Marciano fought his number 2 contender Don Cockell the next week 5-16-1955 and that was the only time Marciano did not fight his #1 contender in a defense. I give Marciano CREDIT for fighting the next best available contender and staying busy while the other 2 were fighting off to fight him.

[TheGreatA]

To show you further why your argument is weak
The power that be set up an elimination fight bewteen Valdes and Moore, with the winner to fight Marciano. The fight was set for 5-02-1955 between Moore and Valdez. Marciano could have sat back and waited but because his # 1 Moore and his # 1 Valdez were fighting for the elimination and Marciano agreed to fight the winner Marciano fought his #2 contender Don Cockell the next week 5-16-1955

I think there was a short window of time that Marciano could have fit Valdes or Moore in but being that Moore and Valdes were set to fight, to Marciano's credit he stayed active and fought his # 2 and that was the only time he did not fight his # 1 contender.

You state he should have fought Valdes instead of Cockel but Valdez and Moore were not available so he fought his # 2

Moore and Valdez the #1 contenders were fighting 5-2-1955 for the title shot elimination so Marciano fought his number 2 contender Don Cockell the next week 5-16-1955 and that was the only time Marciano did not fight his #1 contender in a defense. I give Marciano CREDIT for fighting the next best available contender and staying busy while the other 2 were fighting off to fight him.

Marciano and his management had the opportunity to choose between Valdes and Cockell and chose Cockell, thus Moore and Valdes who were left out fought each other. Any real arguments? Because I don't see your point. I didn't say that Marciano wasn't justified in fighting Moore over Valdes, I criticized him for picking Cockell over Valdes.

To further prove my point:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Both Moore and Valdes were available, Cockell was simply the one opponent who made the most "sense" for a returning Marciano to face when it comes to risk/reward ratio. Marciano-Cockell was a disappointment money-wise but Cockell posed no danger to Rocky as a blown up overweight light heavyweight.

[My2Sense]

To show you further why your argument is weak
The power that be set up an elimination fight bewteen Valdes and Moore, with the winner to fight Marciano. The fight was set for 5-02-1955 between Moore and Valdez. Marciano could have sat back and waited but because his # 1 Moore and his # 1 Valdez were fighting for the elimination and Marciano agreed to fight the winner Marciano fought his #2 contender Don Cockell the next week 5-16-1955

I think there was a short window of time that Marciano could have fit Valdes or Moore in but being that Moore and Valdes were set to fight, to Marciano's credit he stayed active and fought his # 2 and that was the only time he did not fight his # 1 contender.

You state he should have fought Valdes instead of Cockel but Valdez and Moore were not available so he fought his # 2

Actually, Valdes' fight with Jackson a year earlier had been set up as an eliminator to determine Marciano's next challenger. A few days after Valdes won, Marciano signed to rematch Charles, with a general understanding that he would fight Valdes a few months after that, before the year was out. The win over Jackson made Valdes the Ring's #1 contender, and soon after that the NBA declared that he was the only viable challenger for Marciano. That was all well before Valdes signed to fight Moore.

[The Mongoose]

"You can't count out Valdes's career best win over Charles because Charles is supposed to have been better. "

-Layne outpointing Walcott in 10 also looks great on paper. I would rather hold judgement until we can get a better understanding of how the fight went down aside from Valdez's own account.

"Mauriello was well washed up "

-Articles from the time expressed concern that the promising Brion was being thrown to the wolves too soon when the Mauriello fight was annoucned oddly enough. Jackson got better opportunites because he was wild in the ring and a wilder character outside it, making headlines by blaming his mother for his loss to Slade. Meanwhile, Brion was a bore beyond his brave efforts against Louis.

"Marciano hardly fought anyone in any place at any time, not that I blame him, but that's how it was."

Marciano only defended in the Warmer Months from May-September because Weills filled up stadiums with him. $$$$

I'm sure Ezzard Charles would have loved that luxory as Champion but he wasn't a draw like Rocky.

"However I do not think that Marciano's ability to deal with bigger men with ability can be proven by the accomplishments of others."

I don't think it proves anything but Satterfield/Valdez is certainly food for thought. Valdez struggled tremendously to land the jab and Satterfield was just using a leaning crouch not unlike Rocky used against Louis. Louis' jab and footwork I might add looks much better than want Nino showed on this outing.

Satterfield's big damaging right hand parade that set the tone in the 3rd also wasn't caused by precise counter punching but Valdez carelessly trying to wrestle hiim. Frustrated, Valdez kept trying to walk in and hold, resulting in three breaks. He tried again, only to eat a short right that badly hurt him. In response, he tries to lean on Satterfield only to eat several more bombing rights that grotesquely swell his eye shut.

[choklab]

You can't count out Valdes's career best win over Charles because Charles is supposed to have been better. By his own words Valdes fought his best fight and was convincing enough to immediately be ranked number 1 in the world after the win. At times Charles would again be number 1, then Valdes. At the time of the Cockell fight, Valdes was number 1. Rocky could have fought him then and added a win over a 6'3, 210+ lb, 80" reach top ranked opponent to his list of accomplishments.

Mauriello was well washed up and Reynolds, who also beat Brion, was never very good, even actor Robert Mitchum used him as a doormat in a streetfight (not to be taken seriously). Prior to his fight with Louis, all Brion had was the win over Mauriello in Mauriello's last ever fight, a win over Norkus, who also beat him and who was also KO'd by Hurricane Jackson, and a couple of decent losing efforts against Layne and LaStarza where Brion along with his opponents looked bad. Not a sensational up & coming prospect and never went onto be more than a fringe contender at best.

Jackson was finished off by Valdes in just two rounds as shown in the video that was posted in this thread, and he went onto be a good contender and had already beaten some good men. Valdes was the only man to got rid of the usually durable Jackson in the early rounds.

Also against the small but game Freddie Beshore whom Louis stopped on cuts.

I don't think fighters need to force other fighters to fight them. Valdes was number 1 ranked, Marciano could have fought him. Weill admitted that he would hand-pick foes and avoid fighters until they got enough hype behind them so that the risk/reward ratio made sense. Marciano hardly fought anyone in any place at any time, not that I blame him, but that's how it was.

Marciano could have very well fought Valdes and Baker at some point, as they were frequently ranked in the top 5. Rocky wasn't the most active champion. That would silence some critics, seeing him on film beating up on men who outweighed him by atleast 30 pounds. It's part of why Satterfield is as revered as he is, for knocking out opponents far bigger than him, not that he was one of the best of the era. Obviously there were no Lewis's or Klitschko brothers around, but there were a handful of quality fighters with size. Not talking about Johnny Shkor or Big Bill Wilson who were not good fighters.

Again I must clarify that I never claimed to favour the likes of Valdes or Baker over Marciano. This is only a minor complaint. I see Jeffries, Jack Johnson and Tunney catching criticism for not competing against big heavyweights so I don't see why a similar case couldn't be made against Marciano. I know it has been made by others previously, usually by the Marciano haters that visit this site, but often times the discussion derails to senseless arguing from both sides. Here we have stated facts and corrections in a civilized manner.

However I do not think that Marciano's ability to deal with bigger men with ability can be proven by the accomplishments of others or the outcomes of fights against non-ranked opponents. Boxing is all about proving your ability and for me Marciano did not prove that he was a "giant killer". Not saying that he could not beat bigger men who were world class but he did not prove it.



We are going in circles now. Other smaller men than Marciano beating bigger ranked men is not definitive proof that Marciano could have beaten big opponents with ease. He did not prove it because he never faced one, outside of old Louis. I've said it again and again.

You may say he was entitled to a "tune-up", but it shows that Marciano and his management were atleast wary of fighting Valdes and chose to take on an overweight light heavyweight instead.

Its not that marciano or weil were reluctant or selective to fight the best contenders. size did not come into it, they always went for the biggest fight that could be made for the most money. In doing so they were limited to fighting outdoors when the ballparks were availible between may and september. marciano liked to have a 3 month camp, he retired in april because that was as late as he could leave it to go into training for an outdoor fight.
had there not have been bigger fights to make weil would have had no option but to go on the road and making smaller indoor money where they would have found a spot for valdes. this is what charles had to do between the walcot series. weil took a huge piece of marciano who had to pay alie colombo out if his share so weil had to find the biggest payday to keep rocky sweet.
they were not wary of valdes. Its just how it looks now after generations of bigger heavyweights but at the time giving away weight was never an issue. marciano gave away weight 27 times. liston only 6 times. so what? valdes got 2eliminators and had been beat by a number of marciano victims, nobody was that wary at the time and now we have seen more of valdes its obvious why nobody was wary.

[RockysSplitNose]

Whatever the arguments - from watching this one and from watching the bit I've seen of Valdes against Baker Nino wouldn't have stood much of a chance against Rocky - Ez said Nino caught him on the worst night of his career and clammered for a rematch to get even but they wouldn't have it - but yeah Nino looked a good fighter all said but not a great one.

[SuzieQ49]

Rocky could have fought him then and added a win over a 6'3, 210+ lb, 80" reach top ranked opponent to his list of accomplishments.

It appears like your a bit obsessed with these measurements. Joe Louis was 6'2 214lb. That is nearly the same size as valdez, and bigger than Bob Baker. You depict Baker and Valdez as these world class big studs, then leave Louis out of the picture. Louis in 1951, was rated as the # 2 heavyweight contender in the world. He was also 6'2 214lb. So Joe Louis fits your criteria of a 210lb + highly rated contender whom marciano "Never beat".

Should Marciano's win over a 37 year old Joe Louis hold as much weight as a win over Valdez or Baker? I think so. why not? Were the 53-55 Valdez and baker better than the 1950 Joe Louis? Hard to tell, I doubt it though. Louis for all his setbacks, still had the finest jab the division had to offer in 1951. He also still was was equipped with very solid fundamentals and elegant boxing skills. He could still show some pack in his wallop at times too. Baker and Valdez were simply not good enough to knock Louis out, and I have my doubts that they would have been able to outjab and outbox even a 37 year old Louis. If we look at facts, we see a 37 year old Joe Louis boxed Valdez in a live exhibition right around 1951, and Louis flattened the younger Valdez in the first round. While this is not technically the real thing, it certainly points the evidence more toward Louis favor than Nino's.

My opinion is that a knockout victory over a 6'2 214lb 37 year old Louis should be viewed as highly as a win over a valdez or baker. Yes, Valdez and Baker would have been younger big victims for marciano. but does younger age equate being better? No I don't think so.

You have to view a spade as a spade. There is no mounting evidence that suggests baker and valdez were better than a older Joe Louis. Therefore, you must give marciano credit for dismantling a world class opponent to whom he spotted a 68-2 record and had a good 30lb on him in weight.

[Bummy Davis]

Marciano and his management had the opportunity to choose between Valdes and Cockell and chose Cockell, thus Moore and Valdes who were left out fought each other. Any real arguments? Because I don't see your point. I didn't say that Marciano wasn't justified in fighting Moore over Valdes, I criticized him for picking Cockell over Valdes.

To further prove my point:

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Both Moore and Valdes were available, Cockell was simply the one opponent who made the most "sense" for a returning Marciano to face when it comes to risk/reward ratio. Marciano-Cockell was a disappointment money-wise but Cockell posed no danger to Rocky as a blown up overweight light heavyweight.


Jackson was 16-2 when Valdes beat him, He had already lost to lightheavyweight Jimmy Slade and Burt Whitehurt. Archie Moore beat those 2 already

Valdes lost 4 in 1953 and was eliminated in 1955 by Moore and Satterfeild

Charles should have gotten the rematch 1st after his great performance vs Marciano after his 2 spectacular KO's over Wallace and Satterfeild and Charles also beat Valdez conquerer Gilliam

Moore beat Valdez 2 times from 1953 to 1955, If it had been the other way around. Marciano would have fought Valdez but Rocky fought the better man to his credit

From 1953 to 1955 Valdes lost ot Harold Johnson,Archie Moore 2 times,Billy Gilliam,Bob Baker,Bob Satterfield....Marciano rightfully rematched Charles after a dominant but tough war...I dont see your point...Had Valdez beat Moore it would have been him to get the shot instead of Archie and there was a very short window of time that Valdes was loss free that was 1954 but most felt he did lose that fight in 1954 in Havana to Archie Mc Bride

1953 Valdes loses 4 strait
1954 good run but disputed win over Archie McBride in Havana
1955 loses to Moore and Satterfeild

[OLD FOGEY]

Actually, Valdes' fight with Jackson a year earlier had been set up as an eliminator to determine Marciano's next challenger. A few days after Valdes won, Marciano signed to rematch Charles, with a general understanding that he would fight Valdes a few months after that, before the year was out. The win over Jackson made Valdes the Ring's #1 contender, and soon after that the NBA declared that he was the only viable challenger for Marciano. That was all well before Valdes signed to fight Moore.

Cockell was always going to fight Marciano first because of international boxing politics. If Marciano had ko'd Charles, according to Bill Cayton, Cockell would have been the next opponent in September 1954. It had much to do with the heavyweight championship having been basically an American monopoly. No Brit had challenged for the title since 1937. No European since 1938. No non-American since Godoy in 1940. Thirty straight heavyweight fights had been an all-American affair. Valdes was Cuban, but he was American controlled and managed. And the IBC owed Jack Solomon for allowing Turpin to fight in America. Moreover, both Bruce Woodcock in the late forties and Cockell in the fifties were clearly better than some of the second-rate Americans who got shots. Woodcock had knocked out Lesnevich and Oma. Cockell had beaten Beshore, Barone, and LaStarza.

Here are excerpts from a November 15, 1954 article in the New York Times which gives a pretty good picture of what the situation was.

"London, Nov 14, AP---Robert K Christenberry, president of the World Boxing Committee, said today he will ask the group to select either Britain's Don Cockell or Cuba's Nino Valdes as Rocky Marciano's next opponent for the world heavyweight championship.

"Christenberry, also chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission, said he would enter the proposal at the committee meeting tomorrow. He added that if Cockell and Valdes are accepted as the top contenders, he would suggest that Marciano choose which one he wants to meet this winter.

"The other contender, Christenberry said, would meet the winner of the first bout sometime next spring.

"Valdes, the Cuban champion, is listed number 1 challenger behind Marciano with Cockell, the European and British champion, number 2, in United States rankings.

"Christenberry arrived by plane from New York today for the World Committee meeting with Livingston Osborne, chairman of the Illinois Athletic Commission, who will represent the National Boxing Association.

"The world Committee was formed a year ago by boxing officials of the United States, Britain, and France to screen championship fights in order to prevent dual claims for world titles."

1. Christenberry was probably the most powerful political figure in boxing.

2. Valdes was rated above Cockell in the United States. Was he by international groups? Christenberry seems to put them on the same level.

3. "Marciano" selecting an opponent would obviously be subject to what the promoters wanted. I can only speak for myself if I were a promoter. I would take Cockell. Valdes had not only lost to the real #1 contender, Archie Moore, but to Harold Johnson and Bob Baker, both of whom Moore stopped. And Valdes avoided a rematch with Charles. How can I really sell him as the top contender, regardless of ratings that the public probably didn't care about. Cockell could be sold as the British champion and if the fight were held in New York or Boston, where it should have been, there would probably have been an influx of British sports fans to shore up the gate. Cockell had the advantage of never having lost to Moore.

4. Christenberry talks about fights in the winter and spring, but that seems unrealistic considering Marciano had to wait for his injured nose to heal.

[OLD FOGEY]

This Article from the Baltimore Afro-American on Nov 30, 1954, gives some insight on how Moore, Valdes, and Cockell were viewed.

"Boxing officials, promoters, and boxing fans owe it to Archie Moore to see that he gets the chance he deserves of being Rocky Marciano's next championship opponent.

"Archie has not only defeated the number 1 contender, Cuba's Nino Valdes, but his style, experience and ability make him the stiffest test for the Rock.

"Besides, Don Cockell of Britain, the other fight being considered, is an unproven fighter who suffered a knockout at the hand of trial horse Jimmy Slade. Moore stopped Slade."

Later there is this interesting observation:

"The clamor for an international bout seems to be working in favor of Cockell."

[TheGreatA]

-Layne outpointing Walcott in 10 also looks great on paper. I would rather hold judgement until we can get a better understanding of how the fight went down aside from Valdez's own account.

And it's a great win for Layne, not only on paper. Never claimed it wasn't.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

-Articles from the time expressed concern that the promising Brion was being thrown to the wolves too soon when the Mauriello fight was annoucned oddly enough. Jackson got better opportunites because he was wild in the ring and a wilder character outside it, making headlines by blaming his mother for his loss to Slade. Meanwhile, Brion was a bore beyond his brave efforts against Louis. Mauriello was hardly a wolf at the time though, he had lost to the very average Joe Dominic in his previous fight, and never fought again after losing to Brion.

It was Wallman, Brion's manager who said: "When I accepted the Mauriello fight, a lot of guys said I was throwing Brion to the wolves. But I knew what I was doing. The other night a guy named Joe Dominic outpointed Mauriello at Holyoke, Mass."

Maybe Jackson was more exciting but I think he was better too, because he beat better fighters.

I don't think it proves anything but Satterfield/Valdez is certainly food for thought. Valdez struggled tremendously to land the jab and Satterfield was just using a leaning crouch not unlike Rocky used against Louis. Louis' jab and footwork I might add looks much better than want Nino showed on this outing. It's food for thought and this is why I personally believe that Rocky would have beaten down Valdes in the end but I do not claim that my predictions are foolproof. I also think that Robinson would have beaten Charley Burley, Dempsey would have beaten Wills, but I do not excuse them. I'm well aware that Valdes was not Burley or Wills, but he was one fighter that Marciano could have fought.

Its not that marciano or weil were reluctant or selective to fight the best contenders. size did not come into it, they always went for the biggest fight that could be made for the most money. In doing so they were limited to fighting outdoors when the ballparks were availible between may and september. marciano liked to have a 3 month camp, he retired in april because that was as late as he could leave it to go into training for an outdoor fight.
had there not have been bigger fights to make weil would have had no option but to go on the road and making smaller indoor money where they would have found a spot for valdes. this is what charles had to do between the walcot series. weil took a huge piece of marciano who had to pay alie colombo out if his share so weil had to find the biggest payday to keep rocky sweet.
they were not wary of valdes. Its just how it looks now after generations of bigger heavyweights but at the time giving away weight was never an issue. marciano gave away weight 27 times. liston only 6 times. so what? valdes got 2eliminators and had been beat by a number of marciano victims, nobody was that wary at the time and now we have seen more of valdes its obvious why nobody was wary.

I believe it's fairly obvious that they were wary of him enough to fight Cockell instead of Valdes. Cockell was of no threat, Valdes was atleast a little threat with his jab, size. Weill always said that he hesitated to put his fighters against punchers with size. Valdes was atleast a decent puncher with size. Cockell was not.

It appears like your a bit obsessed with these measurements. Joe Louis was 6'2 214lb. That is nearly the same size as valdez, and bigger than Bob Baker. You depict Baker and Valdez as these world class big studs, then leave Louis out of the picture. Louis in 1951, was rated as the # 2 heavyweight contender in the world. He was also 6'2 214lb. So Joe Louis fits your criteria of a 210lb + highly rated contender whom marciano "Never beat".

I never discounted his win over Louis. However Louis, at his peak, which he was far from against Marciano, weighed around 200 pounds in prime condition. In his fight previous to fight Rocky, Louis weighed 203. Valdes to me seems like the bigger man based on height, reach and average weight. I said that if a fight against an old Joe Louis is the only claim Marciano has to having fought a world class big man then it's a claim that lies on rather shaky grounds.


Should Marciano's win over a 37 year old Joe Louis hold as much weight as a win over Valdez or Baker? I think so. why not? Were the 53-55 Valdez and baker better than the 1950 Joe Louis? Hard to tell, I doubt it though. Louis for all his setbacks, still had the finest jab the division had to offer in 1951. He also still was was equipped with very solid fundamentals and elegant boxing skills. He could still show some pack in his wallop at times too. Baker and Valdez were simply not good enough to knock Louis out, and I have my doubts that they would have been able to outjab and outbox even a 37 year old Louis. If we look at facts, we see a 37 year old Joe Louis boxed Valdez in a live exhibition right around 1951, and Louis flattened the younger Valdez in the first round. While this is not technically the real thing, it certainly points the evidence more toward Louis favor than Nino's.

My opinion is that a knockout victory over a 6'2 214lb 37 year old Louis should be viewed as highly as a win over a valdez or baker. Yes, Valdez and Baker would have been younger big victims for marciano. but does younger age equate being better? No I don't think so.

You have to view a spade as a spade. There is no mounting evidence that suggests baker and valdez were better than a older Joe Louis. Therefore, you must give marciano credit for dismantling a world class opponent to whom he spotted a 68-2 record and had a good 30lb on him in weight.Valdes was green and had not fought anybody in 1950 when all-time great puncher Louis fought him in an exhibition. Louis based on the amount of exhibitions he had in 1948-1950 must not have been all that rusty when he faced Charles, who beat him emphatically.

Valdes improved, as noted by Ring Magazine who claimed him to be the "Progress of the Year", and later defeated Charles in a close fight. This proves that, if not outright better than old Louis, Valdes atleast provided a different stylistical match-up as Charles struggled with Valdes while he defeated Louis clearly. Nino claimed it was his strength that won him the fight but Louis could not use his strength advantage against Charles. Perhaps Valdes was stronger at that point.

Thus beating Joe Louis does not equal to beating Baker or Valdes in my opinion. I also do not think that it can be said that Louis was better than either at that point. He did not have any overly significant wins during his comeback and lost clearly to Marciano and Charles.


Jackson was 16-2 when Valdes beat him, He had already lost to lightheavyweight Jimmy Slade and Burt Whitehurt. Archie Moore beat those 2 already

Valdes lost 4 in 1953 and was eliminated in 1955 by Moore and Satterfeild

Charles should have gotten the rematch 1st after his great performance vs Marciano after his 2 spectacular KO's over Wallace and Satterfeild and Charles also beat Valdez conquerer Gilliam

Moore beat Valdez 2 times from 1953 to 1955, If it had been the other way around. Marciano would have fought Valdez but Rocky fought the better man to his credit

From 1953 to 1955 Valdes lost ot Harold Johnson,Archie Moore 2 times,Billy Gilliam,Bob Baker,Bob Satterfield....Marciano rightfully rematched Charles after a dominant but tough war...I dont see your point...Had Valdez beat Moore it would have been him to get the shot instead of Archie and there was a very short window of time that Valdes was loss free that was 1954 but most felt he did lose that fight in 1954 in Havana to Archie Mc Bride

1953 Valdes loses 4 strait
1954 good run but disputed win over Archie McBride in Havana
1955 loses to Moore and Satterfeild

Again this is of no significance to what I said. I didn't claim that Valdes was greater than Moore, because clearly he was not. I said that in early 1955 Valdes deserved a title shot over Cockell, he was the number 1 ranked contender. It was not a very short time that Valdes was loss free, he went unbeaten for around 2 years.

[OLD FOGEY]

Despite all the modern hulabaloo about Weill avoiding big men, he actually was openly pushing for Bob Baker as Marciano's opponent in 1955. This is from Budd Shulberg in Sports Illustrated, July 5, 1955.

"Last year he* (*Moore) knocked out Harold Johnson to retain his light-heavyweight title and took nine rounds to dispose of Bob Baker, Al Weill's idea of the next best thing for Rocky Marciano. This year Archie licked Nino Valdes, who had the #1 heavyweight contender rating, which should have put Moore in with Marciano, but out in San Francisco, after the Cockell fight, Al Weill was still talking Baker. How did Baker rate it if Old Arch had knocked him out and had twice beaten Valdes."

Ring Magazine's August, 1955 issue weighs in on the next contender and presents some evidence on how Baker was viewed.

"Meanwhile, what about Rocky's next opponent? Many names have been mentioned. The most likely choices appear to be Bob Baker, whose name hardly enthralls the fight fans, and Archie Moore.
"It is interesting to go back to March 9, 1954, and Miami Beach. Baker was knocked out that night by Archie Moore in the ninth round."

"It is quite certain that Moore would intrigue the customers more than would Baker."

And this conclusion:

"Baker would be no better than 6 to 1 against Marciano. Perhaps no betting at all."

"Moore, an old man but a wise one, would carry into the ring against the Rock remarkable know-how, the sapience of the old campaigner."

"Moore did not do himself too much good with his 15 round decision over Valdes. Had Archie scored a knockout, he would have commanded immediate attention for a Marciano bout."

Two things stand out to me:

1. Baker--"no betting at all"---sounds like he was really well thought of.

2. Valdes--"Moore did not do himself too much good with his 15 round decision over Valdes"---Just beating Valdes was not even that impressive and still left doubts about Moore. Moore had to knock Valdes out to prove himself. This does not sound to me like Valdes was that well thought of.

3. I can't imagine Joe Louis being so lightly thought of even in 1951 that anyone would write "no betting at all" about him. The 1951 Louis was actually the betting favorite against Marciano. I also can't imagine anyone seriously criticizing a Louis opponent for "only" outpointing him and doubting that he deserved a title shot unless he could knock Louis out.
By the way, in 1951 Louis was on an eight bout winning streak. How many times did Valdes manage to win eight fights in row in his career? Only once, after his four bout losing streak in 1953.

[TheGreatA]

2. Valdes--"Moore did not do himself too much good with his 15 round decision over Valdes"---Just beating Valdes was not even that impressive and still left doubts about Moore. Moore had to knock Valdes out to prove himself. This does not sound to me like Valdes was that well thought of.

I believe the Valdes-Moore fight was fairly close and wasn't viewed as one of Moore's most impressive performances. It's still said that Moore deserves a title shot because he beat the legitimate number 1 contender.

No one is claiming that Weill only looked at size but he did look at the risk/reward factor, and the size of the opponent is a part of it. Weill wanted Marciano to fight Baker instead of Moore who had beaten Baker. However he changed his mind when he realized that the public did not care to see such a fight.

Later he claimed that he did avoid Moore because he didn't want Marciano to fight Moore until the fight had significant hype behind it. He also advised young Cassius Clay to avoid Sonny Liston.

[OLD FOGEY]

I believe the Valdes-Moore fight was fairly close and wasn't viewed as one of Moore's most impressive performances. It's still said that Moore deserves a title shot because he beat the legitimate number 1 contender.

No one is claiming that Weill only looked at size but he did look at the risk/reward factor, and the size of the opponent is a part of it. Weill wanted Marciano to fight Baker instead of Moore who had beaten Baker. However he changed his mind when he realized that the public did not care to see such a fight.

Later he claimed that he did avoid Moore because he didn't want Marciano to fight Moore until the fight had significant hype behind it. He also advised young Cassius Clay to avoid Sonny Liston.

Budd Shulberg said that Moore deserved a shot for beating Valdes and also Baker. However, he never said that Valdes was "legitimately" the number 1 contender. He wrote that Valdes had the #1 heavyweight contender rating. He chose his words precisely. Shulberg clearly thought that Moore had been the number 1 contender for years.

The Ring Magazine said that Moore did not do himself that much good by failing to knock out Valdes. Their take was less pro-Moore than Shulberg's, but neither seemed to think that much of Valdes.

I think the bottom line is the lightheavyweight champion beating the #1 heavyweight contender should have been viewed as an impressive achievement, close or not. That it was not casts doubt on how Valdes was really viewed.

[choklab]

I believe it's fairly obvious that they were wary of him enough to fight Cockell instead of Valdes. Cockell was of no threat, Valdes was atleast a little threat with his jab, size. Weill always said that he hesitated to put his fighters against punchers with size. Valdes was atleast a decent puncher with size. Cockell was not.



.

Valdes was of no threat to marciano, a known quantity in the country it would be staged. cockell was largly an unknown quantity with added international flavour about him who had just as much in the eyes of a paying audience in the US. the worst business decision was staging it on the west coast...
regardless of how easy nino dismissed the "post marciano" cockell, going by these nino fights you would have to give "pre marciano" cockell a chance against valdes. we can all be wise after the event but on paper valdes-cockell is no missmatch.
valdes not geting his shot all boils down to two things,
1.marciano being restricted to two fights a year and not having to go on the road fighting indoors to make a living. marciano-valdes just was not a outdoor event.
2. valdes blew his eliminators to more worthy chalengers.

personaly i would have prefered marciano going on the road fighting 3-4 times a year against less worthy chalengers like jackson, satterfield, valdes, pastrano, walls etc but super fights in big stadiums with higher ranking fighters were there to be had so it never happened. maybe the walcott and lastarza rematches could have been missed out?

[OLD FOGEY]

Valdes was of no threat to marciano, a known quantity in the country it would be staged. cockell was largly an unknown quantity with added international flavour about him who had just as much in the eyes of a paying audience in the US. the worst business decision was staging it on the west coast...
regardless of how easy nino dismissed the "post marciano" cockell, going by these nino fights you would have to give "pre marciano" cockell a chance against valdes. we can all be wise after the event but on paper valdes-cockell is no missmatch.
valdes not geting his shot all boils down to two things,
1.marciano being restricted to two fights a year and not having to go on the road fighting indoors to make a living. marciano-valdes just was not a outdoor event.
2. valdes blew his eliminators to more worthy chalengers.

personaly i would have prefered marciano going on the road fighting 3-4 times a year against less worthy chalengers like jackson, satterfield, valdes, pastrano, walls etc but super fights in big stadiums with higher ranking fighters were there to be had so it never happened. maybe the walcott and lastarza rematches could have been missed out?


Roland LaStarza was the #1 rated contender by Ring Magazine and had lost a controversial decision to Marciano in 1950. This fight made sense.

You're right about Valdes at the box-office. His big fight with Jackson drew 4500, according A J Liebling. Everyone talks about Weill, but it is my money if I am the promoter and I would not lay a whole lot of green out there unless Valdes fights and defeats Moore and proves himself to the public. Backing out of an elimination fight with Charles, the winner to get Marciano, tells us all we need to know about him. If his management thought he had it, they would have taken that fight.

[Minotauro]

Cheers for this.

[choklab]

Roland LaStarza was the #1 rated contender by Ring Magazine and had lost a controversial decision to Marciano in 1950. This fight made sense.

You're right about Valdes at the box-office. His big fight with Jackson drew 4000, according the A J Liebling. Everyone talks about Weill, but it is my money if I am the promoter and I would not lay a whole lot of green out there unless Valdes fights and defeats Moore and proves himself to the public. Backing out of an elimination fight with Charles, the winner to get Marciano, tells us all we need to know about him. If his management thought he had it, they would have taken that fight.


:good exactly. can you imagine the uproar if marciano had not rematched lastarza!! there is no way valdes would have got past charles twice. especialy before charles fought marciano.

[TheGreatA]

"In my mind, the public probably would be confused by Charles fighting Marciano after he was whipped less than a year ago by Valdes."[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Gleason is willing to have Valdes fight Charles but he wants a "pay day" this time. He's willing to give Charles a return fight but wants $30,000 if Valdes wins and $40,000 if Charles evens the score.[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Valdes figures to take the best shot at Marciano. He long has been the heavyweight champion of Cuba, and not only because it is a country which specializes in flyweights and jockeys. On his current invasion, Valdes has won 8 bouts in a row.[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Harry Markson, managing director of the International Boxing Club, said "Valdes rates the next shot at Marciano after the rematch with Ezzard Charles that we hope to run in September."[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Weill said both Nino Valdes, Cuban heavyweight, and Don Cockell, the British heavyweight, "will get their chance."

He admitted that Valdes would be the better opponent in Miami because "We'll get the Cuban trade."

He reported an offer of 300,000$ for Marciano to fight Valdes in Manila and that Jimmy Murray offered the champion a fight in Kezar Stadium, San Francisco. Another offer, Weill said, came from Las Vegas.[Only registered and activated users can see links]

"The National Boxing Association quarterly ratings released today name Nino Valdes as the only logical contender for Rocky Marciano's world champion heavyweight title."

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[PetethePrince]

Love how Rocky gets criticized for one time in his life not defending against the #1 challenger. Who fought the #2 once instead of the #1 in Valdes. This was coming off that nose injury so Marciano probably wanted something easy to test that nose out.

What other champions fought as consistently the top ranked guy like Marciano? No one... the criticism is silly.

[he grant]

It appears like your a bit obsessed with these measurements. Joe Louis was 6'2 214lb. That is nearly the same size as valdez, and bigger than Bob Baker. You depict Baker and Valdez as these world class big studs, then leave Louis out of the picture. Louis in 1951, was rated as the # 2 heavyweight contender in the world. He was also 6'2 214lb. So Joe Louis fits your criteria of a 210lb + highly rated contender whom marciano "Never beat".

Should Marciano's win over a 37 year old Joe Louis hold as much weight as a win over Valdez or Baker? I think so. why not? Were the 53-55 Valdez and baker better than the 1950 Joe Louis? Hard to tell, I doubt it though. Louis for all his setbacks, still had the finest jab the division had to offer in 1951. He also still was was equipped with very solid fundamentals and elegant boxing skills. He could still show some pack in his wallop at times too. Baker and Valdez were simply not good enough to knock Louis out, and I have my doubts that they would have been able to outjab and outbox even a 37 year old Louis. If we look at facts, we see a 37 year old Joe Louis boxed Valdez in a live exhibition right around 1951, and Louis flattened the younger Valdez in the first round. While this is not technically the real thing, it certainly points the evidence more toward Louis favor than Nino's.

My opinion is that a knockout victory over a 6'2 214lb 37 year old Louis should be viewed as highly as a win over a valdez or baker. Yes, Valdez and Baker would have been younger big victims for marciano. but does younger age equate being better? No I don't think so.

You have to view a spade as a spade. There is no mounting evidence that suggests baker and valdez were better than a older Joe Louis. Therefore, you must give marciano credit for dismantling a world class opponent to whom he spotted a 68-2 record and had a good 30lb on him in weight.

It's amazing how you keep on using a badly deteriorated Louis as an big win for Rocky. The argument is so flawed I would actually think you were joking if you simply did not keep the same position time and again. It's simply a weak argument.

[SuzieQ49]

Valdes was green and had not fought anybody in 1950 when all-time great puncher Louis fought him in an exhibition. Louis based on the amount of exhibitions he had in 1948-1950 must not have been all that rusty when he faced Charles, who beat him emphatically. .

First you call Louis an "All time puncher" in 1950, then say he was "washed up" a year later in 1951. Which is it? Bottom line is that a 25 year old Nino Valdez was flattened in 1 round by a 37 year old Louis in a live exhibition. This tells us something.



Valdes improved, as noted by Ring Magazine who claimed him to be the "Progress of the Year", and later defeated Charles in a close fight. This proves that, if not outright better than old Louis, Valdes atleast provided a different stylistical match-up as Charles struggled with Valdes while he defeated Louis clearly.

So you make exuses for Nino being "green" when he lost to Louis, yet side step a valid exuse of charles being past his prime when Nino beat him in 1953. I don't think a rational boxing fan out there can make a case charles was the same fighter in 1953 that he was when he fought Louis in 1950. Louis certainly faced a younger, LIGHTER, sharper, faster version of Charles.

Nino claimed it was his strength that won him the fight but Louis could not use his strength advantage against Charles. Perhaps Valdes was stronger at that point.


I don't know about you, but I think it had something to do with Charles 32 years of age and overweight 193lb that caused him to not be able to dance away out of Valdez range. Charles was a ripped 182lb, on top of 28 years of age when he fought Louis in 1950, he certainly had the tools then to get himself out of trouble from the big man whenever he pleased.



Thus beating Joe Louis does not equal to beating Baker or Valdes in my opinion.

Agree to disagree then. I put a lot more weight into knocking out an Aging All time great who happened to be 1. Much Bigger 2. Highly Rated 3. Coming off a winning streak and 4. Much more experienced than I do to beating a couple of talented rated erratic big heavyweights who never made their mark on the division.

I also do not think that it can be said that Louis was better than either at that point.

Well Lets break things down then...

How are either of the two going to beat him?

Valdez, though powerful, does not have the all time great finishing abilities and punching power needed to put an experienced veteran like Louis away. Especially when it took Rocky at his very best 8 gruelling rounds. So Kayo is out of the question. I wouldn't rule out Louis being able to stop Nino. If Louis connects flush on a couple big hooks or crosses, Nino is going down. Will Nino be able to persevere if Louis decks him early? Lets look at the jab factor. Is Nino going to outjab Louis? Nino had a long and powerful jab, but he was far from clever with it. He threw it all the time, never changed his pace, it became predictable. Louis, despite the shorter jab, knew how to use it and when to throw it. Even at 37, He snapped it out their with timing and precision that marked up opponents faces something fierce. He had pop in it too. Even Ezzard Charles, one of the all time great master boxers, could not get away from Joe's jab. I think Joe wins the jab battle here, and this could be a major factor in a fight, since both relied on their jabs. When we take a look at boxing skills..Nino was clumsy and off balance at times. Louis on the other hand, was an outstanding technician with very solid fundamentals. I would say the gap between the two in terms of "skill" is not even close..and this can be verified on film.

I like Louis in this one by unanimous decision.


As far as Bob Baker. Well I certainly think he has a much better chance than Valdez, because Baker was the much better technician. I still favor Louis here though.

[SuzieQ49]

It's amazing how you keep on using a badly deteriorated Louis as an big win for Rocky. The argument is so flawed I would actually think you were joking if you simply did not keep the same position time and again. It's simply a weak argument.

No weaker than the argument that a win over Nino Valdez would look better than a win over Joe Louis.

True or False?

It's amazing how you keep on using a badly deteriorated Louis as an big win for Rocky.

I would just like to make a small comment here. No one, I repeat no one including myself, has ever used this win as a trademark for rocky's "big" victories. It is you, and you only, who continues to put words into other peoples mouths. Had you taken the time to read the last 2 pages, you would see why I responded in the context that I did, and you would also find this topic of conversation had nothing to do with how "big" a victory Louis was for rocky's legacy, but rather how a win over Louis stacks up in comparison to a win over Nino Valdez.

[My2Sense]

"Marciano" selecting an opponent would obviously be subject to what the promoters wanted. I can only speak for myself if I were a promoter. I would take Cockell. Valdes had not only lost to the real #1 contender, Archie Moore, but to Harold Johnson and Bob Baker, both of whom Moore stopped. And Valdes avoided a rematch with Charles. How can I really sell him as the top contender, regardless of ratings that the public probably didn't care about. Cockell could be sold as the British champion and if the fight were held in New York or Boston, where it should have been, there would probably have been an influx of British sports fans to shore up the gate. Cockell had the advantage of never having lost to Moore.


This is some very shaky logic here. For starters, Valdes didn't quite "avoid" a rematch with Charles; he asked for a bigger share of the money than Charles was willing to split with him (Charles referred to this in a Ring magazine interview prior to challenging Marciano). Secondly, rematch or no, a single win over Charles plus another over Hurricane Jackson were bigger and more impressive than any wins Cockell had had to that point. Also, to suggest that Valdes' right to a title shot is shaky because he had previously lost to Moore, Johnson, and others is questionable, as Charles had lost to Valdes and Johnson and had gotten two title shots already. Moreover, look at who Cockell had lost to in recent years - the likes of Jimmy Slade (who Moore had also beaten) and middleweight Randy Turpin, both by KO as well. The Turpin loss especially was still fresh in people's minds and referred to repeatedly in media reports prior to the title fight. On top that, Cockell's biggest win to that point over LaStarza had been widely denounced by the American media (whether rightly or not) as a bad decision. All things considered, there's no way Cockell could ever be viewed as or billed as a more deserving or more dangerous challenger than Valdes.

[SuzieQ49]

Love how Rocky gets criticized for one time in his life not defending against the #1 challenger. Who fought the #2 once instead of the #1 in Valdes. This was coming off that nose injury so Marciano probably wanted something easy to test that nose out.

What other champions fought as consistently the top ranked guy like Marciano? No one... the criticism is silly.

Compared to Larry Holmes, Marciano was a saint in terms of fighting "the very best challengers out there".

[SuzieQ49]

My2sense,

I believe you need to reread this passage again.


"Christenberry, also chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission, said he would enter the proposal at the committee meeting tomorrow. He added that if Cockell and Valdes are accepted as the top contenders, he would suggest that Marciano choose which one he wants to meet this winter.

"The other contender, Christenberry said, would meet the winner of the first bout sometime next spring.


I highlighted the important part. It claims Marciano's management planned to fight BOTH challengers. in that case, does it really matter which order the sequence happens? Never did Marciano's management outright duck Valdez in favor of Cockell. All they did was simply bypass Valdez first, in order to book a fight the following year with Valdez. What Marciano's management did was 1. Get a nice tuneup in after a series of gruelling title defenses against # 1 rated contenders and 2. Allowed the Marciano-Valdez fight to build up some more, so the gate would build up to respectable numbers by the time the fight came around.

Marciano's management had every intention of fighting Valdez. Baker too. Baker and Valdez have no one to blame but themselves for their A. Erratic losses and B. Pivotal losses at crucial times (Valdez title eliminator to Moore)

[Bummy Davis]

And it's a great win for Layne, not only on paper. Never claimed it wasn't.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Mauriello was hardly a wolf at the time though, he had lost to the very average Joe Dominic in his previous fight, and never fought again after losing to Brion.

It was Wallman, Brion's manager who said: "When I accepted the Mauriello fight, a lot of guys said I was throwing Brion to the wolves. But I knew what I was doing. The other night a guy named Joe Dominic outpointed Mauriello at Holyoke, Mass."

Maybe Jackson was more exciting but I think he was better too, because he beat better fighters.

It's food for thought and this is why I personally believe that Rocky would have beaten down Valdes in the end but I do not claim that my predictions are foolproof. I also think that Robinson would have beaten Charley Burley, Dempsey would have beaten Wills, but I do not excuse them. I'm well aware that Valdes was not Burley or Wills, but he was one fighter that Marciano could have fought.



I believe it's fairly obvious that they were wary of him enough to fight Cockell instead of Valdes. Cockell was of no threat, Valdes was atleast a little threat with his jab, size. Weill always said that he hesitated to put his fighters against punchers with size. Valdes was atleast a decent puncher with size. Cockell was not.



I never discounted his win over Louis. However Louis, at his peak, which he was far from against Marciano, weighed around 200 pounds in prime condition. In his fight previous to fight Rocky, Louis weighed 203. Valdes to me seems like the bigger man based on height, reach and average weight. I said that if a fight against an old Joe Louis is the only claim Marciano has to having fought a world class big man then it's a claim that lies on rather shaky grounds.

Valdes was green and had not fought anybody in 1950 when all-time great puncher Louis fought him in an exhibition. Louis based on the amount of exhibitions he had in 1948-1950 must not have been all that rusty when he faced Charles, who beat him emphatically.

Valdes improved, as noted by Ring Magazine who claimed him to be the "Progress of the Year", and later defeated Charles in a close fight. This proves that, if not outright better than old Louis, Valdes atleast provided a different stylistical match-up as Charles struggled with Valdes while he defeated Louis clearly. Nino claimed it was his strength that won him the fight but Louis could not use his strength advantage against Charles. Perhaps Valdes was stronger at that point.

Thus beating Joe Louis does not equal to beating Baker or Valdes in my opinion. I also do not think that it can be said that Louis was better than either at that point. He did not have any overly significant wins during his comeback and lost clearly to Marciano and Charles.




Again this is of no significance to what I said. I didn't claim that Valdes was greater than Moore, because clearly he was not. I said that in early 1955 Valdes deserved a title shot over Cockell, he was the number 1 ranked contender. It was not a very short time that Valdes was loss free, he went unbeaten for around 2 years.


4 loses in 1953 and 2 in 1955....he was unbeaten in 1954 but most felt he lost in Havana to Archie Mcbride

[Bummy Davis]

Roland LaStarza was the #1 rated contender by Ring Magazine and had lost a controversial decision to Marciano in 1950. This fight made sense.

You're right about Valdes at the box-office. His big fight with Jackson drew 4000, according the A J Liebling. Everyone talks about Weill, but it is my money if I am the promoter and I would not lay a whole lot of green out there unless Valdes fights and defeats Moore and proves himself to the public. Backing out of an elimination fight with Charles, the winner to get Marciano, tells us all we need to know about him. If his management thought he had it, they would have taken that fight.



Very Well Said O.F. :good

[SuzieQ49]

That controversial hometown decision over Archie Mcbride in 1954 was one of the reasons Valdez lost his # 1 rating to Ezzard Charles that year. Valdez was lucky to escape with a win in that one.

I would also like to throw something out there. For those that feel Valdez in 1954 was the overwhelming # 1 challenger to Marciano's crown, then where does Harold Johnson fit in. Johnson shutout Valdez in 1953, and beat Ezz Charles in 1954. What kind of arguement could be made for Valdez being rated over him?

[TheGreatA]

First you call Louis an "All time puncher" in 1950, then say he was "washed up" a year later in 1951. Which is it? Bottom line is that a 25 year old Nino Valdez was flattened in 1 round by a 37 year old Louis in a live exhibition. This tells us something.

He was an all-time great puncher having an exhibition against a young, green part-time fighter who worked a job at sugar fields in Cuba and fought inactively against mostly local opposition. What's not taken into account is that Valdes didn't fight for almost 2 years from 1950 to 1952, having given up on boxing, until coming across a manager who got him fights against big names like Archie Moore and Harold Johnson, whom Valdes lost to, but he learned from every fight. That's why he was named "Progress of the Year" by Ring Magazine. He had raw talent but no technique and learned whatever he skills he had "on the job".

So you make exuses for Nino being "green" when he lost to Louis, yet side step a valid exuse of charles being past his prime when Nino beat him in 1953. I don't think a rational boxing fan out there can make a case charles was the same fighter in 1953 that he was when he fought Louis in 1950. Louis certainly faced a younger, LIGHTER, sharper, faster version of Charles.


I've been arguing against people who believe Charles was in his prime against Marciano.

I don't know about you, but I think it had something to do with Charles 32 years of age and overweight 193lb that caused him to not be able to dance away out of Valdez range. Charles was a ripped 182lb, on top of 28 years of age when he fought Louis in 1950, he certainly had the tools then to get himself out of trouble from the big man whenever he pleased.

And I would agree. But a lot of people on this thread do not agree. I believe Charles was not in his prime during the 1950's and that's part of why Valdes was able to upset him. He was slower, more flat-footed, easier to hit. However there are people who feel Charles was as good as he ever was, and continued to be until the Marciano fights.

Agree to disagree then. I put a lot more weight into knocking out an Aging All time great who happened to be 1. Much Bigger 2. Highly Rated 3. Coming off a winning streak and 4. Much more experienced than I do to beating a couple of talented rated erratic big heavyweights who never made their mark on the division.

I'm not saying I count out the win. However I do not think that Louis proved during his comeback that he was much better than a Valdes. He lost to Charles decisively, atleast Valdes did beat him in a close fight, whether Charles was in his prime or not. His best wins were over Lee Savold, equally as old as Louis himself, Agramonte, whom Valdes also beat, and Cesar Brion whom Louis failed to impress against. Bivins was not really a world class fighter at that stage.

The younger Valdes did seem to have advantages in strength and stamina over Louis.

Well Lets break things down then...

How are either of the two going to beat him?

Valdez, though powerful, does not have the all time great finishing abilities and punching power needed to put an experienced veteran like Louis away. Especially when it took Rocky at his very best 8 gruelling rounds. So Kayo is out of the question. I wouldn't rule out Louis being able to stop Nino. If Louis connects flush on a couple big hooks or crosses, Nino is going down. Will Nino be able to persevere if Louis decks him early? Lets look at the jab factor. Is Nino going to outjab Louis? Nino had a long and powerful jab, but he was far from clever with it. He threw it all the time, never changed his pace, it became predictable. Louis, despite the shorter jab, knew how to use it and when to throw it. Even at 37, He snapped it out their with timing and precision that marked up opponents faces something fierce. He had pop in it too. Even Ezzard Charles, one of the all time great master boxers, could not get away from Joe's jab. I think Joe wins the jab battle here, and this could be a major factor in a fight, since both relied on their jabs. When we take a look at boxing skills..Nino was clumsy and off balance at times. Louis on the other hand, was an outstanding technician with very solid fundamentals. I would say the gap between the two in terms of "skill" is not even close..and this can be verified on film.

I like Louis in this one by unanimous decision.


As far as Bob Baker. Well I certainly think he has a much better chance than Valdez, because Baker was the much better technician. I still favor Louis here though.

Louis during his comeback was pushed back by Marciano (no surprise there), Cesar Brion and even the small Beshore. Louis had a good jab but Valdes was also a good jabber although not a good defensive fighter, but Louis's reflexes had also slowed and he was increasingly easier to hit. Valdes was a mauler and could possibly bother Louis with his strength and smothering style, which is what Charles admitted that he had problems with. It's entirely possible that the older man would tire against the younger man, allowing Valdes to take the initiative. Of course it's also possible that Louis with his skill and experience is able to pull it out, Valdes was not unbeatable and he was inconsistent.

Anyway, leaving it up to fantasy fights is too much speculation for me. As I've stated previously, I believe Marciano would knock Valdes out, but he didn't prove it. He would present a different stylistical match-up compared to smaller, more agile and skilled fighters (that Marciano mostly fought) who bothered Valdes. Valdes admitted that he had a hard time dealing with speed.

Since I've seen the likes of Joe Louis and Gene Tunney criticized for not fighting certain black contenders, Robinson criticized for not fighting Burley, Jeffries and Johnson criticized for not fighting enough big men, I don't see why the Valdes case couldn't be brought up about Marciano.

4 loses in 1953 and 2 in 1955....he was unbeaten in 1954 but most felt he lost in Havana to Archie Mcbride

Unbeaten from mid 1953 to mid 1955. That's two years.

[Bummy Davis]

Vladez lost 4 strait in 1953 and he only rematched 2 of those loses and that was to Moore and Baker he lost again 2 times. He won a disputed decision to Archie McBride in 1954 and did not rematch him. Then he lost to Moore and Satterfeild and Baker in 1955..for a total of 3 losses out of 5 in 1955. Then Valdes went on to lose 3 out of his 1st 4 fights of 1956...Valdes was not consistant and he lost key fights that would have gained him a title shot...remember there was only one champ in those days and Marciano has one of the top records for fighting his number 1 contender....

Big A you dwell on size but Big guys were not the best guys back in the day....Nino lost 10 fights in 4 years, the only year he did not have a loss was 1954 and most felt he lost to McBride

Talk about Big Men well Valdes had serious trouble with small men Valdes lost to Moore who was 5"11 180lbs,(Valdes had a 29lb advantage)

Harold Johnson who was 5"10 174(Valdes had a 34lb advantage)

,Satterfeild who was 5"10 183lbs,( Valdes weighed 215 and had a 32lb advantage)

Eddie Machen 6" and 192lbs ( Valdes had 24lb advantage but was stopped in eight rds.

Zora Foley (Valdes had a 14lb advantage

So Big A Valdez was much bigger than these men and lost to all of them and that is not to mention Archie McBride who most felt beat Valdes and Archie weighed 184 to Nino's 215 and Archie was 5"11

(Nino had 31lb weight advantage


So I think these loses to men who weighed 32lbs to 17lbs less then him proves Nino had trouble with small heavyweights

Nino lost to all those small men

[TheGreatA]

Vladez lost 4 strait in 1953 and he only rematched 2 of those loses and that was to Moore and Baker he lost again 2 times. He won a disputed decision to Archie McBride in 1954 and did not rematch him. Then he lost to Moore and Satterfeild and Baker in 1955..for a total of 3 losses out of 5 in 1955. Then Valdes went on to lose 3 out of his 1st 4 fights of 1956...Valdes was not consistant and he lost key fights that would have gained him a title shot...remember there was only one champ in those days and Marciano has one of the top records for fighting his number 1 contender....

Big A you dwell on size but Big guys were not the best guys back in the day....Nino lost 10 fights in 4 years, the only year he did not have a loss was 1954 and most felt he lost to McBride

Talk about Big Men well Valdes had serious trouble with small men Valdes lost to Moore who was 5"11 180lbs,(Valdes had a 29lb advantage) Harold Johnson who was 5"10 174(Valdes had a 34lb advantage) ,Satterfeild who was 5"10 183lbs,( Valdes weighed 215 and had a 32lb advantage) Eddie Machen 6" and 192lbs ( Valdes had 24lb advantage but was stopped in eight rds. Zora Foley (Valdes had a 14lb advantage

So Big A Valdez was much bigger than these men and lost to all of them and that is not to mention Archie McBride who most felt beat Valdes and Archie weighed 184 to Nino's 215 and Archie was 5"11(Nino had 31lb weight advantage


So I think these loses to men who weighed 32lbs to 17lbs less then him kind of proves Nino had trouble with small heavyweights

You aren't really saying anything that I haven't already responded to several times during this thread.

You're using hindsight but we're talking about early 1955 and before that, when Valdes went unbeaten for 2 years with wins over notable opposition and was generally recognized as the number 1 contender. The big chance to fight Valdes was when Marciano's management chose Cockell, a blown up light heavyweight, over him, despite stating that Valdes was probably the better choice of the two.

Baker and Valdes were among the best. Valdes admitted that he had troubles with smaller, faster men but this is not definitive proof that Marciano would have had an easy time with him.

If we go by Marciano's two most significant fights against "big" opponents, against Johnny Shkor he was having some struggles with Shkor's strength early on, and keep in mind that this was a trialhorse who was coming off a one round KO loss to Walcott and retired after losing.

Against Louis, the fight was close to even after 6 rounds, with Louis doing good work solely with the left jab, until Louis gradually wore down. It's possible that Valdes would have given him some rough moments, especially at the time of the Cockell fight, Marciano's least impressive performance.

Marciano only fought one world class opponent who was over 200 pounds, and that was old Joe Louis. Thus there are legitimate questions about how he would have done against 6'3, 210+ lb, 80" reach opponents. Had he fought Valdes, Baker there would be less questions if we saw him on film beating them down.

[OLD FOGEY]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

1. Dempsey and the tournament--Well, Charles was willing and in fact fought Satterfield in an elimination. Valdes balked.

This excerpt from a column by Morris McLemore from the Miami News on 12-17-1953 (and remember this is Valdes' hometown paper and by a writer who we can assume saw from ringside the Valdes-Charles fight) the day after the Charles-Wallace fight.

"Today's question, however, does not concern Wallace. Specifically it concerns the chances Charles has of appearing against Marciano or---and he no doubt would prefer this---his chances of meeting the careening Cuban, Nino Valdes, in a return fight. Valdes was awarded a decision here last August chiefly because Charles couldn't lift his hands high enough to swat him.

Valdes won that one, however, and Bobby Gleason is too smart a potato to let the caramel fellow go against Charles again. So that leaves Marciano about the only possible opponent for Ezzard. Gleason will bellow about that but subside when promised a later opportunity, if getting one's tiger beaten to a pulp by Marciano can be termed an opportunity.
Wallace was no competition for Charles, unless the television was a complete liar. If Charles---a candid sort---was in fine fettle he claimed after the match, however, very likely he's the only living heavyweight capable, with a tailwind, of outspeeding Marciano long enough to vex him.

Valdes will be knocked stiff as a laundered shoelace by Marciano and I can't see any reason to expect Rocky will do less to Danny Nardico, the Tampa native with plenty of nerve, a good right hand, and local influence."

2. Gleason on fighting the #1 contender---Marciano did. The #1 contender in the summer of 1954 was Charles.

3. Weill's interview with the Miami paper---Well, it is no big surprise that Valdes would draw better in Miami. Would he draw better anywhere else? Note that Weill says he is willing to fight Valdes as well as Cockell.

4. NBA rates Valdes top contender---So. The NBA was a collection of State Athletic Commissions from the boondock states. The NBA was a subsidiary member of the World Boxing Committee, which was chaired by the head of the New York State Athletic Commission, and was certainly the top international organization. In November, two months after this, that organization rated Cockell and Valdes on equal footing.

5. Gleason's money demands--If you buy this smokescreen, you buy it. Tommy Loughran fought Jack Sharkey for free in 1933 to get his shot. Jersey Joe Walcott fought Lee Oma at a loss (yes, to meet the guarantee Walcott's manager had to turn over $4500 to Oma) to move into position to challenge Louis. Valdes wanted $40,000. Why not ask that they throw in the Hope diamond as a sweetener?

[Bummy Davis]

You aren't really saying anything that I haven't already responded to several times during this thread.

You're using hindsight but we're talking about early 1955 and before that, when Valdes went unbeaten for 2 years with wins over notable opposition and was generally recognized as the number 1 contender. The big chance to fight Valdes was when Marciano's management chose Cockell, a blown up light heavyweight, over him, despite stating that Valdes was probably the better choice of the two.

Baker and Valdes were among the best. Valdes admitted that he had troubles with smaller, faster men but this is not definitive proof that Marciano would have had an easy time with him.

If we go by Marciano's two most significant fights against "big" opponents, against Johnny Shkor he was having some struggles with Shkor's strength early on, and keep in mind that this was a trialhorse who was coming off a one round KO loss to Walcott and retired after losing.

Against Louis, the fight was close to even after 6 rounds, with Louis doing good work solely with the left jab, until Louis gradually wore down. It's possible that Valdes would have given him some rough moments, especially at the time of the Cockell fight, Marciano's least impressive performance.

Marciano only fought one world class opponent who was over 200 pounds, and that was old Joe Louis. Thus there are legitimate questions about how he would have done against 6'3, 210+ lb, 80" reach opponents. Had he fought Valdes, Baker there would be less questions if we saw him on film beating them down.


He fought the best, not the biggest but by Valdes record vs small men and Marciano being the best of them, I fear my guess would be that Valdes would not have down well. Coming up Marciano fought the 6"4 Vingo and Vingo was a good fighter at that level of their careers. Marciano fought the slick, fast pinpoint punchers and for that small period of time that Nino shared the number 1 spot he was always behind Moore for a title shot.

I guess Marciano wanted to fight the best and did not expect some guy named Big A to question that because he should have fought the biggest who lost to most of the small heavyweights he fought.

I wonder if you pick hairs with all of the ATG's or are you selective

[OLD FOGEY]

This is some very shaky logic here. For starters, Valdes didn't quite "avoid" a rematch with Charles; he asked for a bigger share of the money than Charles was willing to split with him (Charles referred to this in a Ring magazine interview prior to challenging Marciano). Secondly, rematch or no, a single win over Charles plus another over Hurricane Jackson were bigger and more impressive than any wins Cockell had had to that point. Also, to suggest that Valdes' right to a title shot is shaky because he had previously lost to Moore, Johnson, and others is questionable, as Charles had lost to Valdes and Johnson and had gotten two title shots already. Moreover, look at who Cockell had lost to in recent years - the likes of Jimmy Slade (who Moore had also beaten) and middleweight Randy Turpin, both by KO as well. The Turpin loss especially was still fresh in people's minds and referred to repeatedly in media reports prior to the title fight. On top that, Cockell's biggest win to that point over LaStarza had been widely denounced by the American media (whether rightly or not) as a bad decision. All things considered, there's no way Cockell could ever be viewed as or billed as a more deserving or more dangerous challenger than Valdes.

1. Financial demands---well, Morris McElmore in Nov of 1953 predicted that Gleason would avoid Charles and wait. Whatever else is said, his prediction was right on. Gleason wanted $40,000, a huge amount for a fighter who drew 4500 fans for an elmination with Jackson. He wasn't going to get it and knew it. And what was his bargaining chip? If Charles doesn't give Valdes basically the entire purse and fight for nothing, Charles will get the shot at Marciano for the title while Valdes keeps fighting backwater fights for chickenfeed. I am certain that scared the crap out of Ezzard and his management.

2. The Charles fight was more impressive than any single Cockell win, but I would say the LaStarza win and the wins over Harry Matthews were probably next in line. Jackson was a newcomer and hadn't had 20 fights yet. He was the #5 contender, but LaStarza and Matthews had been rated higher. Seeing Jackson as the better fighter is mainly hindsight, based on what happened in 1955 and 1956.

3. Charles had lost to Valdes and Johnson--Johnson beat Valdes much more decisively. I don't see the Johnson loss as that much of an issue. Charles was an ex-champion with scads of big victories over the years. Valdes' only real claim is that he upset Charles. Avoiding a rematch took most of the wind out of his sails, though.

4. Turpin was a pretty formidable fighter prior to ruining his career with drugs. He defeated Robinson badly, and showed pretty strongly in the rematch until caught in the tenth. Although a third fight was considered a probable million dollar gate, Robinson wanted no part of it despite the public clamor. Cockell had won 10 in a row. He had won 20 out of his last 22 going back to 1950, ten by knockouts. In his last 22 fights, also going back to 1950, Valdes was 17-4-1 with 11 knockouts. Charles was a bigger win than any by Cockell, and Cockell was less durable, being stopped by Slade and Turpin. Both though were rated fighters. Valdes had fought a draw with nobody Joe McFadden in 1952 and had lost to the marginal Bill Gilliam. He had beaten Charles, Jackson, and Neuhaus, but Jackson was still pretty unproven. I would give Valdes a slight edge if judging from early 1955, but these two were closer than some would admit. Having seen highlights of Cockell against Turpin, he showed much more skill than Valdes. Cockell was a solid boxer. He had been a rated lightheavy in 1950 and 1951 when Valdes was a preliminary fighter, and had been the European and British Empire lightheavy champion. The London Times mentioned in their preview of the Marciano fight, that Cockell was in fact undefeated as a heavyweight. The Times did not think he would win, but thought him a worthy challenger.

5. As for Cockell being a former lightheavy, a common criticism, so was Satterfield, who beat Valdes. Moore and Johnson, who beat Valdes, were still lightheavies. Charles, Valdes' big win, was also a former lightheavy. Going back to 1892, Corbett, Fitz, Burns, Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Braddock, and Charles among the champions, and Langford, Greb, Walker, Loughran, Conn, Johnson, Moore, etc, among the contenders were either former lightheavies or still lightheavies, or even former middles. The fact is the really big fellows lost more often than not to these former lightheavyweights. Observers in 1954 or 1955 would simply not have put a fighter down for being a former lightheavyweight.

[Bummy Davis]

1. Financial demands---well, Morris McElmore in Nov of 1953 predicted that Gleason would avoid Charles and wait. Whatever else is said, his prediction was right on. Gleason wanted $40,000, a huge amount for a fighter who drew 4500 fans for an elmination with Jackson. He wasn't going to get it and knew it. And what was his bargaining chip? If Charles doesn't give Valdes basically the entire purse and fight for nothing, Charles will get the shot at Marciano for the title while Valdes keeps fighting backwater fights for chickenfeed. I am certain that scared the crap out of Ezzard and his management.

2. The Charles fight was more impressive than any single Cockell win, but I would say the LaStarza win and the wins over Harry Matthews were probably next in line. Jackson was a newcomer and hadn't had 20 fights yet. He was the #5 contender, but LaStarza and Matthews had been rated higher. Seeing Jackson as the better fighter is mainly hindsight, based on what happened in 1955 and 1956.

3. Charles had lost to Valdes and Johnson--Johnson beat Valdes much more decisively. I don't see the Johnson loss as that much of an issue. Charles was an ex-champion with scads of big victories over the years. Valdes' only real claim is that he upset Charles. Avoiding a rematch took most of the wind out of his sails, though.

4. Turpin was a pretty formidable fighter prior to ruining his career with drugs. He defeated Robinson badly, and showed pretty strongly in the rematch until caught in the tenth. Although a third fight was considered a probable million dollar gate, Robinson wanted no part of it despite the public clamor. Cockell had won 10 in a row. He had won 20 out of his last 22 going back to 1950, ten by knockouts. In his last 22 fights, also going back to 1950, Valdes was 17-4-1 with 11 knockouts. Charles was a bigger win than any by Cockell, and Cockell was less durable, being stopped by Slade and Turpin. Both though were rated fighters. Valdes had fought a draw with nobody Joe McFadden in 1952 and had lost to the marginal Bill Gilliam. He had beaten Charles, Jackson, and Neuhaus, but Jackson was still pretty unproven. I would give Valdes a slight edge if judging from early 1955, but these two were closer than some would admit. Having seen highlights of Cockell against Turpin, he showed much more skill than Valdes. Cockell was a solid boxer. He had a rated lightheavy in 1950 and 1951 when Valdes was a preliminary fighter, and had been the European and British Empire lightheavy champion. The London Times mentioned in their preview of the Marciano fight, that Cockell was in fact undefeated as a heavyweight. The Times did not think he would win, but thought him a worthy challenger.

5. In fact, the World Boxing Committee rated the two as equal.

6. As for Cockell being a former lightheavy, a common criticism, so was Satterfield, who beat Valdes. Moore and Johnson, who beat Valdes, were still lightheavies. Charles, Valdes' big win, was also a former lightheavy. Going back to 1892, Corbett, Fitz, Burns, Dempsey, Tunney, Schmeling, Braddock, and Charles among the champions, and Langford, Greb, Walker, Loughran, Conn, Johnson, Moore, etc, among the contenders were either former lightheavies or still lightheavies, or even former middles. The fact is the really big fellows lost more often than not to these former lightheavyweights. Observers in 1954 or 1955 would simply not have put a fighter down for being a former lightheavyweight.


:good:good:good

[PetethePrince]

Compared to Larry Holmes, Marciano was a saint in terms of fighting "the very best challengers out there".

Indeed.

[choklab]

Observers in 1954 or 1955 would simply not have put a fighter down for being a former lightheavyweight.


:goodexactly. this is a modern argument only.

[My2Sense]

My2sense,

I believe you need to reread this passage again.


"Christenberry, also chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission, said he would enter the proposal at the committee meeting tomorrow. He added that if Cockell and Valdes are accepted as the top contenders, he would suggest that Marciano choose which one he wants to meet this winter.

"The other contender, Christenberry said, would meet the winner of the first bout sometime next spring.


I highlighted the important part. It claims Marciano's management planned to fight BOTH challengers. in that case, does it really matter which order the sequence happens? Never did Marciano's management outright duck Valdez in favor of Cockell. All they did was simply bypass Valdez first, in order to book a fight the following year with Valdez. What Marciano's management did was 1. Get a nice tuneup in after a series of gruelling title defenses against # 1 rated contenders and 2. Allowed the Marciano-Valdez fight to build up some more, so the gate would build up to respectable numbers by the time the fight came around.

There's nothing anywhere in that whole article that mentions what Marciano's team thought of any of this. The article only talks about what Christenberry is going to ask for when he goes before the WBC. As it is, Marciano's team had already said before signing to rematch Charles that if they did rematch him, they would fight Valdes next after that, probably before the end of that year.

The article also doesn't say what the WBC's response to Christenberry's request is. Two days later, after the meeting had finished, that same source reports, "The committee ranked Cuba's Nino Valdes as the No. 1 heavyweight contender."

Baker and Valdez have no one to blame but themselves for their A. Erratic losses and B. Pivotal losses at crucial times (Valdez title eliminator to Moore)

Most of Marciano's challengers weren't even as consistent as Valdes had been. From late '53 to early '55, he had an 11-fight winning streak, longer than any streak a fighter had entering a challenge of Marciano except Moore.

[My2Sense]

The Charles fight was more impressive than any single Cockell win, but I would say the LaStarza win and the wins over Harry Matthews were probably next in line. Jackson was a newcomer and hadn't had 20 fights yet. He was the #5 contender, but LaStarza and Matthews had been rated higher. Seeing Jackson as the better fighter is mainly hindsight, based on what happened in 1955 and 1956.

It isn't hindsight that makes the Jackson win look better. Jackson had gotten a lot of acclaim for his surprising stoppages Bucceroni, Layne, and Norkus, plus another win over Clarence Henry. He certainly was rated higher and seems to have been held in much higher regard than Matthews was when Cockell fought him. In fact, Jackson was actually favored to beat Valdes, and I've come across more than one pre-fight article that picked him to win by KO. In general, I'd say Valdes' win over Jackson was more explosive, more impressive, and probably even more shocking than Cockell's over LaStarza or Matthews.

Turpin was a pretty formidable fighter prior to ruining his career with drugs. He defeated Robinson badly, and showed pretty strongly in the rematch until caught in the tenth. Although a third fight was considered a probable million dollar gate, Robinson wanted no part of it despite the public clamor.

Turpin may have been great at one time, but the fact is he was still only a great middleweight. The loss to Turpin (and particularly the fact that he had been KO'd) was repeatedly brought up in reports as a big mark against Cockell. Conversely, Valdes at least had earned some good notices crediting him for showing toughness and guts in losing competitive decisions to Moore, Baker, etc. around that same time. I don't see how Valdes' losses could be seen as more embarrassing or more damaging to his credibility as a leading HW contender than Cockell's were.

In fact, the World Boxing Committee rated the two as equal.

When did they do that? These were the WBC's rankings in late November '54:

Heavyweight Class (Champion, Rocky Marciano, Brockton, Mass.) -
1. Nino Valdes, Cuba
2. Don Cockell, Britain
3. Bob Baker, Pittsburgh

This was after Christenberry had gone before the WBC earlier that month and asked them to rate Valdes and Cockell evenly.

[he grant]

I would have liked to see Marciano fight Valdez instead of the light touch Cockell. It's obvious his management felt they needed a light touch to see if his nose would hold up ... people forget just how serious a cut it was and the concern if it would ever fully heal ... of course Nino would have posed a far different challenge than any match up we saw and no one knew this better than Weil ... that being said, he fought Cockell, the light touch , instead of the much better Valdez whose stock was high at the time .. still, other than the Cockell fight, Rocky did fight the best out there .

[OLD FOGEY]

It isn't hindsight that makes the Jackson win look better. Jackson had gotten a lot of acclaim for his surprising stoppages Bucceroni, Layne, and Norkus, plus another win over Clarence Henry. He certainly was rated higher and seems to have been held in much higher regard than Matthews was when Cockell fought him. In fact, Jackson was actually favored to beat Valdes, and I've come across more than one pre-fight article that picked him to win by KO. In general, I'd say Valdes' win over Jackson was more explosive, more impressive, and probably even more shocking than Cockell's over LaStarza or Matthews.



Turpin may have been great at one time, but the fact is he was still only a great middleweight. The loss to Turpin (and particularly the fact that he had been KO'd) was repeatedly brought up in reports as a big mark against Cockell. Conversely, Valdes at least had earned some good notices crediting him for showing toughness and guts in losing competitive decisions to Moore, Baker, etc. around that same time. I don't see how Valdes' losses could be seen as more embarrassing or more damaging to his credibility as a leading HW contender than Cockell's were.



When did they do that? These were the WBC's rankings in late November '54:

Heavyweight Class (Champion, Rocky Marciano, Brockton, Mass.) -
1. Nino Valdes, Cuba
2. Don Cockell, Britain
3. Bob Baker, Pittsburgh

This was after Christenberry had gone before the WBC earlier that month and asked them to rate Valdes and Cockell evenly.

1. WBC ratings--Thanks for finding this. I stand corrected. You guys are teaching this old dog a thing or two about googling. Keep up the good work.

2. This article you pointed out, while rating Valdes #1, did indicate that the IBC would recognize a title fight between the champion and any of the top three contenders.

3. "Turpin was only a great middleweight"--so was Harry Greb who had defeated Tunney badly, and so was Mickey Walker who fought a draw with Sharkey a year before Sharkey won the title.

4. Turpin ko'ing Cockell--Watching Cockell, his big weakness was durability. He looked like he had real skill and talent, but he sure seemed chinny, and he also cut frequently. Valdes' big edge was in being more durable.

5. I'm not certain how the Jackson fight was viewed. Valdes gets an edge for stopping him, but the KO, at least to my eyes, is a little flukey. Jackson was hurt, but he looked like he was pushed down a couple of times. As for LaStarza, he was #4 at the end of 1953. I don't know his exact rating on the day of the Cockell fight, but he had beaten every opponent he had fought up to that time except Marciano, and was one fight past being the #1 contender. Matthews was rated #8, I believe, when he fought Cockell the first time. He had an even more interesting record. His only loss since 1943 had been to Marciano. Beating him did make Cockell a contender off Nat Fleischer's report of the fight. As for Jackson, Bucceroni was a very impressive win, although LaStarza had proven himself better in their one-sided rematch. Layne was losing fight after fight by this time, including total blowouts to Walls, and Henry was coming off a loss to Slade and immediately retired with an eye injury. Norkus was a journeyman, not as highly considered as Cockell victim Johnny Williams. Jackson was a legitimate #5 contender, but I think there were still plenty of questions about his true stature.

6. My bottom line would be that Cockell was certainly a hard sell, with the bad losses in 1951 to Slade and 1952 to Turpin, but Valdes was not much better. I don't think the Jackson fight really proved he was top level. His reputation rested heavily on the Charles fight, which was somewhat undercut by Valdes skirting a rematch. A draw in 1952 with Joe McFadden, a loss to Bill Gilliam in 1953, a disputed decision against the journeyman Archie McBride in 1954, plus losses to Moore, Johnson, and Baker in 1953, and none reversed. I would hate to be the promoter trying to sell Valdes to a skeptical public.

7. Moore was beyond debate the real #1 contender, with Harold Johnson close behind.

[OLD FOGEY]

The relentless regurgitation of "Weill was afraid of Valdes because he was so big" has not been backed up in my opinion with any facts.

1. The articles printed have Weill saying he was willing to fight Valdes as well as Cockell.

2. The Budd Shulberg article from 1955 indicates Weill was actually pushing for a fight with the equally big Baker who had beaten Valdes and would again.

While posters have been stating Weill's intentions as if they were his closest confidants, no one has offered evidence, let alone proof, of claims that Weill feared Valdes.

3. I think there is more evidence Weill feared Moore (for good reason) than that he feared Valdes or Baker.

[Bummy Davis]

Well if we are really splitting hairs I guess we would have to go back to the period in time where Valdes could have really been considered a title threat and lets focus on that time frame and the decision to fight Charles instead.

Lets start at the end of 1952, and compare the 2 leading up to the decision to fight Charles

From 11-2-1952 to 2-20-1954 ( the 2nd Archie McBride fight) Valdes fought 10 times with a record of 6-4 and because of the disputed victory over McBride ( remember Mcbride had already beaten Valdes when McBride was 9-1)

arguably Nino lost his luster in a fight that was perceived as a hometown decision but his last 10 or lets go back a victory to his last 12 fights and Valdes was 7-4-1 (with the disputed win over Mcbride) his total record at that time was 26-9-3 but Nino up till the disputed win over McBride was 7-4-1 and the critcal point of time was the begining of 1954 because thats when the decision was made for the 6-17-54 title fight Marciano/Charles

Now lets look at Charles record at that point in time from 10-8-1952 Ezzard Charles had only 2 losses in 13 fights for a record of 11-2-0 but Charles overall record was 83-10-1

Now I am trying to focus on that time period

NOW Nino's big win over Tommy Jackson did not take place until 7-14-1954 and that was after Marciano and Charles fought for the 1st time

Nino had lost to Gilliam, Baker,Moore,Johnson but he had a close victory over Charles, beat Omelio Agramonte and Hein Neuhas

Charles lost a close decision to Nino and a disputed decision to Harold Johnson but beat Bernie Reynalds,Jimmy Bivins,Ceasar Brion,Rex Layne,Billy Gilliam,and two explosive KO's one at the end of 1953 12-16-1953 over Coley Wallace and a blistering KO over Bob Satterfeild

So at the beginning of 1954 when the decision was made to fight Charles over Valdes, Charles record from in his last fight of 1952 to February of 1954 was 11-2

lets even go one fight further for Valdes and take the end of 1952 until 3-12-1954 and give the win over James Parker, Valdes was 7-4

Now this point in time was critical because that was where the decision was made to fight Charles over Valdes

Marciano went on to fight Charles, Marciano won clear but combative decision and Charles, a former World Heavyweight Champ put up a gallant effort in a war
a rematch was a natural and we all know bout the split nose

so Ninos big win over Tommy Jackson was 7-14-1954 and the rematch with Marciano/Charles was set for 9-17-1954 so we have to assume the rematch was set at that point. Marciano had the split nose accident and Moore and Valdes had to fight to decide who would challenge Marciano

Moore was light heavy Champ but had already beaten Valdes and 3 of the men that had beaten him. Valdes was a top Heavyweight contender but at that point in time was on a 50 fight win streak (marred by a DQ and disputed decision over Johnson who he stopped in a return. Everyone one KNEW MOORE should be 1st in line for a title shot but its not like Marciano was sitting back he was busy fighting a tough rematch

Because of Marciano's busy schedule and injury and the fact that Moore vs Valdes 2 was set for 5-2-1955, Marciano fought his # 2 contender Cockell

even if Nino was available and Marciano fought him before Moore there would have been a clammer and Ninos big victory over Jackson was not until 7-14-1954 but he still did not surpass Archie for deserving a title shot.

Marciano was due a tune-up fight because of the nose and Moore/Valdes fighting for elimination

The point I am trying to bring out is even if in that short window in time that Valdes beat Jackson and made himself worthy, Archie was still 1st in line
The elimination fight between Moore and Valdes was 10 months after Valdes big victory over Jackson

So your argument could be that Marciano could have fought Valdez instead of Cockell, and then bypassed Moore

When Moore beat Valdes the 2nd time in 5-2-1955, Marciano was ready to fight the winner 9-21-1955

There was a small window from Valdes 7-14-1954 victory over Jackson and the elimination between Moore and Valdes. Marciano was ready 4 month later and beat Moore.

Marciano wanted to fight Nino and they gave Nino a fight with Satterfeild 8-17-1955 and in that fight he was dropped and lost badly so that killed any Big $ market for Marciano Valdes and with no one left to fight Marciano walked away from victory # 50

Times of events are important here

Great A

Do you see where you are really picking hairs

Do you see where your argument is weak

[TheGreatA]

Because of Marciano's busy schedule and injury and the fact that Moore vs Valdes 2 was set for 5-2-1955, Marciano fought his # 2 contender Cockell
Again, Moore vs Valdes 2 was set only after the Marciano-Cockell fight was made because both of them were left out despite being more deserving than Cockell.

[OLD FOGEY]

It isn't hindsight that makes the Jackson win look better. Jackson had gotten a lot of acclaim for his surprising stoppages Bucceroni, Layne, and Norkus, plus another win over Clarence Henry. He certainly was rated higher and seems to have been held in much higher regard than Matthews was when Cockell fought him. In fact, Jackson was actually favored to beat Valdes, and I've come across more than one pre-fight article that picked him to win by KO. In general, I'd say Valdes' win over Jackson was more explosive, more impressive, and probably even more shocking than Cockell's over LaStarza or Matthews.



Turpin may have been great at one time, but the fact is he was still only a great middleweight. The loss to Turpin (and particularly the fact that he had been KO'd) was repeatedly brought up in reports as a big mark against Cockell. Conversely, Valdes at least had earned some good notices crediting him for showing toughness and guts in losing competitive decisions to Moore, Baker, etc. around that same time. I don't see how Valdes' losses could be seen as more embarrassing or more damaging to his credibility as a leading HW contender than Cockell's were.



When did they do that? These were the WBC's rankings in late November '54:

Heavyweight Class (Champion, Rocky Marciano, Brockton, Mass.) -
1. Nino Valdes, Cuba
2. Don Cockell, Britain
3. Bob Baker, Pittsburgh

This was after Christenberry had gone before the WBC earlier that month and asked them to rate Valdes and Cockell evenly.

"he seems to have been in much higher regard than Matthews"

A very debatable view. Ring Magazine actually rated Matthews as the "best all around fighter" p4p for 1951, replacing Sugar Ray Robinson. He had been ranked the #1 lightheavy contender over Moore for a while. Matthews had lost only to the reigning heavyweight champion, Marciano, since 1943, and in his whole 20 year career lost only to five men, one an experienced journeyman when he was 17, the other four were Marciano, and top five contenders Jack Chase, Eddie Booker, and Cockell. Matthews never lost to any but top men except for the loss to Burke at 17.

As for Jackson, you might view him as great fighter or prospect, but there were plenty who thought he was a joke. Here is A J Liebling in THE SWEET SCIENCE. I substituted Jackson's name for a description of Jackson which would offend a modern reader:

". . . if (Jackson) could beat even a fair fighter, it meant that two hundred and fifty years of painfully acquired experience had been lost to the human race; science was a washout and art a vanity, and Freddie and Whitey had queered thier own game."

Ouch. Hardly a description of a respected fighter. A few years later, Jackson's inept performances in 1957 against Patterson and Machen led to his being banned in major American boxing venues.

[TheGreatA]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[OLD FOGEY]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

1. Jackson did beat Charles twice. I don't know if I would describe a fighter who lost two of three to Jimmy Slade as "fantastic", though. A J Liebling represents one pole about the controversial Jackson. This writer the other.

2. The preview of the Marciano fight represents standard opinion, I think. Marciano was too good for Cockell. Pointing to Cockell's losses to Turpin and Slade (as they would have pointed to Valdes' losses) and mentioning his wins over LaStarza and Matthews.

3. Cockell looks totally unimpressive on this film against a pretty poor opponent. British Pathe also has a film of the Cockell-Farr fight if you want to bring it over. I don't know how myself.

*A film of excerpts of the 1953 Moore-Valdes fight is now on youtube. This one is very interesting. Valdes certainly gets the worst of it, but he does show durability, his strong suit. I don't know how to bring that over, but perhaps you can.

[TheGreatA]

1. Jackson did beat Charles twice. I don't know if I would describe a fighter who lost two of three to Jimmy Slade as "fantastic", though. A J Liebling represents one pole about the controversial Jackson. This writer the other.

Atleast he did win one over Slade unlike Cockell who was knocked out. I'm not saying I think Jackson was fantastic, but he was highly regarded by some, and had a few impressive wins.

2. The preview of the Marciano fight represents standard opinion, I think. Marciano was too good for Cockell. Pointing to Cockell's losses to Turpin and Slade (as they would have pointed to Valdes' losses) and mentioning his wins over LaStarza and Matthews.His wins over LaStarza and Matthews did not seem to be very highly regarded.

3. Cockell looks totally unimpressive on this film against a pretty poor opponent. British Pathe also has a film of the Cockell-Farr fight if you want to bring it over. I don't know how myself.[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Sad sight to see old Farr get beaten down.

I agree he was unimpressive, and seemed to be made for Marciano even more so than Valdes with his face first brawling style. As a light heavyweight he was more of a boxer, but perhaps the extra pounds he was carrying forced him to be a slugger.

*A film of excerpts of the 1953 Moore-Valdes fight is now on youtube. This one is very interesting. Valdes certainly gets the worst of it, but he does show durability, his strong suit. I don't know how to bring that over, but perhaps you can.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Keep in mind that this was one of Valdes's first big fights, a year prior having given up on boxing he worked on sugar fields of Cuba until Gleason took an interest on him. Their second fight was closer.

[choklab]

tommy jackson was a rank novice, brought on much too fast against faded names without paying his dues. he was once a sparring partner of marciano.

don cockell landed 2 fights against mainstream name fighters whos stock was still high -and was a british champ unbeaten as a heavyweight.

nino valdes was unbeaten since beating one former champion but had not rematched any of the 4 guys who beat him back to back prior to that.

archie moore was an outstanding contender who had wins over baker, valdes and johnson. he even had to fight valdes twice to get his shot.

[choklab]

watching valdes-jackson it is alarming to think either fought for the heavyweight title but outrageous that it was jackson who actualy did!!

[Bummy Davis]

Well if we are really splitting hairs I guess we would have to go back to the period in time where Valdes could have really been considered a title threat and lets focus on that time frame and the decision to fight Charles instead.

Lets start at the end of 1952, and compare the 2 leading up to the decision to fight Charles

From 11-2-1952 to 2-20-1954 ( the 2nd Archie McBride fight) Valdes fought 10 times with a record of 6-4 and because of the disputed victory over McBride ( remember Mcbride had already beaten Valdes when McBride was 9-1)

arguably Nino lost his luster in a fight that was perceived as a hometown decision but his last 10 or lets go back a victory to his last 12 fights and Valdes was 7-4-1 (with the disputed win over Mcbride) his total record at that time was 26-9-3 but Nino up till the disputed win over McBride was 7-4-1 and the critcal point of time was the begining of 1954 because thats when the decision was made for the 6-17-54 title fight Marciano/Charles

Now lets look at Charles record at that point in time from 10-8-1952 Ezzard Charles had only 2 losses in 13 fights for a record of 11-2-0 but Charles overall record was 83-10-1

Now I am trying to focus on that time period

NOW Nino's big win over Tommy Jackson did not take place until 7-14-1954 and that was after Marciano and Charles fought for the 1st time

Nino had lost to Gilliam, Baker,Moore,Johnson but he had a close victory over Charles, beat Omelio Agramonte and Hein Neuhas

Charles lost a close decision to Nino and a disputed decision to Harold Johnson but beat Bernie Reynalds,Jimmy Bivins,Ceasar Brion,Rex Layne,Billy Gilliam,and two explosive KO's one at the end of 1953 12-16-1953 over Coley Wallace and a blistering KO over Bob Satterfeild

So at the beginning of 1954 when the decision was made to fight Charles over Valdes, Charles record from in his last fight of 1952 to February of 1954 was 11-2

lets even go one fight further for Valdes and take the end of 1952 until 3-12-1954 and give the win over James Parker, Valdes was 7-4

Now this point in time was critical because that was where the decision was made to fight Charles over Valdes

Marciano went on to fight Charles, Marciano won clear but combative decision and Charles, a former World Heavyweight Champ put up a gallant effort in a war
a rematch was a natural and we all know bout the split nose

so Ninos big win over Tommy Jackson was 7-14-1954 and the rematch with Marciano/Charles was set for 9-17-1954 so we have to assume the rematch was set at that point. Marciano had the split nose accident and Moore and Valdes had to fight to decide who would challenge Marciano

Moore was light heavy Champ but had already beaten Valdes and 3 of the men that had beaten him. Valdes was a top Heavyweight contender but at that point in time was on a 50 fight win streak (marred by a DQ and disputed decision over Johnson who he stopped in a return. Everyone one KNEW MOORE should be 1st in line for a title shot but its not like Marciano was sitting back he was busy fighting a tough rematch

Because of Marciano's busy schedule and injury and the fact that Moore vs Valdes 2 was set for 5-2-1955, Marciano fought his # 2 contender Cockell

even if Nino was available and Marciano fought him before Moore there would have been a clammer and Ninos big victory over Jackson was not until 7-14-1954 but he still did not surpass Archie for deserving a title shot.

Marciano was due a tune-up fight because of the nose and Moore/Valdes fighting for elimination

The point I am trying to bring out is even if in that short window in time that Valdes beat Jackson and made himself worthy, Archie was still 1st in line
The elimination fight between Moore and Valdes was 10 months after Valdes big victory over Jackson

So your argument could be that Marciano could have fought Valdez instead of Cockell, and then bypassed Moore

When Moore beat Valdes the 2nd time in 5-2-1955, Marciano was ready to fight the winner 9-21-1955

There was a small window from Valdes 7-14-1954 victory over Jackson and the elimination between Moore and Valdes. Marciano was ready 4 month later and beat Moore.

Marciano wanted to fight Nino and they gave Nino a fight with Satterfeild 8-17-1955 and in that fight he was dropped and lost badly so that killed any Big $ market for Marciano Valdes and with no one left to fight Marciano walked away from victory # 50

Times of events are important here

Great A

Do you see where you are really picking hairs

Do you see where your argument is weak



Times are important here and the window of opportunity to fight Marciano was messed up by Valdes for the most part by losing in an elimination, I dont think anyone would think he was a harder opponent than Moore who beat him 2 times

[choklab]

Times are important here and the window of opportunity to fight Marciano was messed up by Valdes for the most part by losing in an elimination, I dont think anyone would think he was a harder opponent than Moore who beat him 2 times

yes. the timing was never right to make marciano valdes hapen. cockell just landed the beter oponents. lastarza and mathews may also have lost to valdes but cockell got them first where as valdes just sat on that close win over charles and was ticking over in missmatches. charles totaly trumped valdes with beter wins to earn his shot. i think if moore had to beat valdes twice and baker to prove himself an "outstanding" contender then valdes should have rematched charles to prove it was no fluke. or take lastarza and mathews before cockell?
all anyone can say about valdes is that thanks to him losing eliminators and landing the wrong fights at the wrong time people can now say marciano didnt get to defend the title against a modern sized heavyweight. or that because valdes couldnt beat enough lightheavyweights he didnt get his shot...

[OLD FOGEY]

Atleast he did win one over Slade unlike Cockell who was knocked out. I'm not saying I think Jackson was fantastic, but he was highly regarded by some, and had a few impressive wins.

His wins over LaStarza and Matthews did not seem to be very highly regarded.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Sad sight to see old Farr get beaten down.

I agree he was unimpressive, and seemed to be made for Marciano even more so than Valdes with his face first brawling style. As a light heavyweight he was more of a boxer, but perhaps the extra pounds he was carrying forced him to be a slugger.



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Keep in mind that this was one of Valdes's first big fights, a year prior having given up on boxing he worked on sugar fields of Cuba until Gleason took an interest on him. Their second fight was closer.

1. Jackson---Fair enough. He had some good wins, but mostly over men who were on the way down--something which could be said about many contenders, including of course Cockell. I do remember that Jackson's true worth as a fighter was an issue of much controversy.

2. Cockell---Also fair enough. He boxed well as a lightheavyweight, but seemed more a swarmer at heavy. He certainly was no threat to Marciano. Valdes? I don't think so either. He was durable enough to last, but I see no reason for Weill to fear him, and no one has presented any real evidence that Weill did. There were many possible reasons involving inside boxing politics to explain picking Cockell, such as the IBC connection with Soloman.

3. Valdes-Moore---Well, Valdes did not look that much better against Satterfield. Other than the in my opinion "fluke" fight with Charles, he fought to his level and his level was below that of the top men. From late 1952 through 1956, his peak run, he won 13 and lost 10.

*And thank you very much for posting the films.

[My2Sense]

"Turpin was only a great middleweight"--so was Harry Greb who had defeated Tunney badly, and so was Mickey Walker who fought a draw with Sharkey a year before Sharkey won the title.

No, those fighters were both proven greats above and beyond 160. Greb beat other great LHWs like Tommy Loughran and Tommy Gibbons and warrants a spot in the division's all time top 10 IMO.

Turpin ko'ing Cockell--Watching Cockell, his big weakness was durability. He looked like he had real skill and talent, but he sure seemed chinny, and he also cut frequently. Valdes' big edge was in being more durable.

I don't really see what difference this makes though. In the end, Cockell is the one who was battered down by a genuine MW only a few years earlier, regardless of what skill he might've had; while Valdes is the one who had beaten a great former HW champ and had at least acquitted himself well in losing efforts to other top HWs. Valdes had also shown (particularly with his surprisingly quick KO of Jackson) that he was very powerful in addition to being big and durable.

As for Jackson, Bucceroni was a very impressive win, although LaStarza had proven himself better in their one-sided rematch. Layne was losing fight after fight by this time, including total blowouts to Walls, and Henry was coming off a loss to Slade and immediately retired with an eye injury.

But what could you say about Cockell's wins over LaStarza and Matthews? LaStarza was coming straight off a brutal beatdown by Marciano, while Matthews had been blown out surprisingly quickly by Marciano and never really established himself as a significant force at HW.

Norkus was a journeyman, not as highly considered as Cockell victim Johnny Williams.

I don't know about that. Norkus did spend much of his career as a journeyman, but he was at a career peak in the year he lost to Jackson - which in fact was his only loss that year, bookended by some pretty decent wins before and afterward. He appears to have gained a fair amount of respect for his two wins over Danny Nardico just prior to the Jackson fight. That Jackson not only beat him, but KO'd him was generally considered very impressive, and restored much of the credibility that had been damaged by his prior loss to Slade.

Jackson was a legitimate #5 contender, but I think there were still plenty of questions about his true stature.

There were questions, but as said, no more than there were for LaStarza and Matthews when Cockell beat them.

My bottom line would be that Cockell was certainly a hard sell, with the bad losses in 1951 to Slade and 1952 to Turpin, but Valdes was not much better. I don't think the Jackson fight really proved he was top level. He reputation rested heavily on the Charles fight, which was somewhat undercut by Valdes skirting a rematch. A draw in 1952 with Joe McFadden, a loss to Bill Gilliam in 1953, a disputed decision against the journeyman Archie McBride iin 1954, plus losses to Moore, Johnson, and Baker in 1953, and none reversed. I would hate to be the promoter trying to sell Valdes to a skeptical public.

There was nothing that would make Valdes an exceptionally hard sell. Charles and LaStarza both had their share of critics and criticisms as well, but they had already been sold. With Valdes being a big man (for his era) with a big punch, on a winning streak with two big wins (one by KO) over top 5 contenders in that span, and rated across the board as #1, he actually was fairly easy to sell; and has been posted already, there were at least a couple big money offers for Marciano to fight him. Cockell is the one who had fattened (not simply moved up) his way up from 175, had crushing KO losses to smaller men just a few years earlier, and his biggest win thus far (unlike Valdes') was roundly questioned in the States as a gift. There's no angle where Cockell was an easier sell than Valdes. Any criticism you could make of Valdes, you could make the same but moreso of Cockell - and indeed, that's the view the press and most of the public generally took of the match as well. Heck, a promoter probably could've had an easier time selling someone like Bob Baker, despite his being ranked a spot or two below Cockell at that time.

"he seems to have been in much higher regard than Matthews"

A very debatable view. Ring Magazine actually rated Matthews as the "best all around fighter" p4p for 1951, replacing Sugar Ray Robinson. He had been ranked the #1 lightheavy contender over Moore for a while. Matthews had lost only to the reigning heavyweight champion, Marciano, since 1943, and in his whole 20 year career lost only to five men, one an experienced journeyman when he was 17, the other four were Marciano, and top five contenders Jack Chase, Eddie Booker, and Cockell. Matthews never lost to any but top men except for the loss to Burke at 17.

But how was he viewed at the time Cockell actually fought him, and at that weight class?

As for Jackson, you might view him as great fighter or prospect, but there were plenty who thought he was a joke. Here is A J Liebling in THE SWEET SCIENCE. I substituted Jackson's name for a description of Jackson which would offend a modern reader:

". . . if (Jackson) could beat even a fair fighter, it meant that two hundred and fifty years of painfully acquired experience had been lost to the human race; science was a washout and art a vanity, and Freddie and Whitey had queered thier own game."

Ouch. Hardly a description of a respected fighter.

Of course there were those who questioned his abilities, but for every critic you can find, there were more who thought highly of his recent performances. On the whole, there was enough respect for him that he was favored to beat Valdes when they fought, and was picked by some to KO him - something that Moore, Baker, and others had failed to do.

A few years later, Jackson's inept performances in 1957 against Patterson and Machen led to his being banned in major American boxing venues.

That was about 20 fights later, and by that time he was showing wear and tear. A year or so prior to that, he had still been considered a leading contender, and he'd given the same Patterson a pretty tough, competitive fight.

[choklab]

[quote=My2Sense;6365288]There was nothing that would make Valdes an exceptionally hard sell. Charles and LaStarza both had their share of critics and criticisms as well, but they had already been sold. With Valdes being a big man (for his era) with a big punch, on a winning streak with two big wins (one by KO) over top 5 contenders in that span, and rated across the board as #1, he actually was fairly easy to sell; and has been posted already, there were at least a couple big money offers for Marciano to fight him. Cockell is the one who had fattened (not simply moved up) his way up from 175, had crushing KO losses to smaller men just a few years earlier, and his biggest win thus far (unlike Valdes') was roundly questioned in the States as a gift. There's no angle where Cockell was an easier sell than Valdes. Any criticism you could make of Valdes, you could make the same but moreso of Cockell - and indeed, that's the view the press and most of the public generally took of the match as well. Heck, a promoter probably could've had an easier time selling someone like Bob Baker, despite his being ranked a spot or two below Cockell at that time.


[quote]


valdes had been exposed having lost 4 fights in a row, he then beats charles who he wont rematch who in turn trumps valdes by landing beter fights that ezz converts into beter wins than the sory streak valdes puts together. meanwhile cockel lands 2 names that mainstream sports fans have heard of, ie lastarza and mathews. don beats them and hes a european who is unbeaten as a heavyweight. forget the size of the man. valdes being a modern sized heavyweight breaks no ice in the 50's since light heavys routinly aced big guys. its a toss up. cockell or valdes? on paper its even, there is no difrence. neither stood a chance against rock in the eyes of the fan. both were hard to sell. neither was an uncrowned champion. there was no injustice. neither matched archie moores credentials.

[OLD FOGEY]

It isn't hindsight that makes the Jackson win look better. Jackson had gotten a lot of acclaim for his surprising stoppages Bucceroni, Layne, and Norkus, plus another win over Clarence Henry. He certainly was rated higher and seems to have been held in much higher regard than Matthews was when Cockell fought him. In fact, Jackson was actually favored to beat Valdes, and I've come across more than one pre-fight article that picked him to win by KO. In general, I'd say Valdes' win over Jackson was more explosive, more impressive, and probably even more shocking than Cockell's over LaStarza or Matthews.



Turpin may have been great at one time, but the fact is he was still only a great middleweight. The loss to Turpin (and particularly the fact that he had been KO'd) was repeatedly brought up in reports as a big mark against Cockell. Conversely, Valdes at least had earned some good notices crediting him for showing toughness and guts in losing competitive decisions to Moore, Baker, etc. around that same time. I don't see how Valdes' losses could be seen as more embarrassing or more damaging to his credibility as a leading HW contender than Cockell's were.



When did they do that? These were the WBC's rankings in late November '54:

Heavyweight Class (Champion, Rocky Marciano, Brockton, Mass.) -
1. Nino Valdes, Cuba
2. Don Cockell, Britain
3. Bob Baker, Pittsburgh

This was after Christenberry had gone before the WBC earlier that month and asked them to rate Valdes and Cockell evenly.

1. "Jackson was actually favored to beat Valdes"

I reread your post and this really stuck out. You spin this as meaning that Jackson was viewed as some sort of great fighter. Well, his record was 16-2-1 and he had lost a UD three months earlier to Jimmy Slade. Yet he is favored over Valdes after his big win over Charles and his big run. I would spin it as showing the low esteem Valdes was held in for such a high ranking fighter. I can't imagine Moore, Johnson, or Charles going into a Jackson fight at this point as the underdog.

2. You also overrate Jackson's victories. Layne--coming off a losing streak and two crushing ko's to Earl Walls, and he had earlier lost to both Matthews and LaStarza. Henry--was coming off 3 losses in his last five fights to Johnson, Moore, and Slade. Also had an eye injury and retired right after the Jackson fight. Bucceroni--was on a winning streak and had beaten LaStarza in a close fight in 1951, but was slaughtered in a rematch in which he suffered five knockdowns. He had also, like Danny Nardico, been knocked out by Bob Murphy. Harry Matthews had badly beaten Murphy. Norkus had upset Nardico, who then was stopped much more quickly by Paul Andrews and retired. Less than a year earlier Norkus had been stopped by the 1-4 Ike Thomas. Matthews had also beaten Nardico.
I am not saying these wins meant nothing or should be dismissed, but they are no where near the sensational achievements you crack them up to be.

3. As for Matthews and LaStarza. Well Matthews had beaten Layne, and had beaten the Murphy who ko'd Bucceroni, and had beaten Nardico when he was younger and better. He had lost one fight in 10 years, to the reigning heavyweight champion. LaStarza had beaten Layne and Bucceroni and every other fighter he had fought other than Marciano.

4. I have the Ring ratings for the month immediately after Valdes defeated Charles. LaStarza was ranked #1, followed by Charles and Bucceroni. Valdes was ranked #4.

[OLD FOGEY]

No, those fighters were both proven greats above and beyond 160. Greb beat other great LHWs like Tommy Loughran and Tommy Gibbons and warrants a spot in the division's all time top 10 IMO.



I don't really see what difference this makes though. In the end, Cockell is the one who was battered down by a genuine MW only a few years earlier, regardless of what skill he might've had; while Valdes is the one who had beaten a great former HW champ and had at least acquitted himself well in losing efforts to other top HWs. Valdes had also shown (particularly with his surprisingly quick KO of Jackson) that he was very powerful in addition to being big and durable.



But what could you say about Cockell's wins over LaStarza and Matthews? LaStarza was coming straight off a brutal beatdown by Marciano, while Matthews had been blown out surprisingly quickly by Marciano and never really established himself as a significant force at HW.



I don't know about that. Norkus did spend much of his career as a journeyman, but he was at a career peak in the year he lost to Jackson - which in fact was his only loss that year, bookended by some pretty decent wins before and afterward. He appears to have gained a fair amount of respect for his two wins over Danny Nardico just prior to the Jackson fight. That Jackson not only beat him, but KO'd him was generally considered very impressive, and restored much of the credibility that had been damaged by his prior loss to Slade.



There were questions, but as said, no more than there were for LaStarza and Matthews when Cockell beat them.



There was nothing that would make Valdes an exceptionally hard sell. Charles and LaStarza both had their share of critics and criticisms as well, but they had already been sold. With Valdes being a big man (for his era) with a big punch, on a winning streak with two big wins (one by KO) over top 5 contenders in that span, and rated across the board as #1, he actually was fairly easy to sell; and has been posted already, there were at least a couple big money offers for Marciano to fight him. Cockell is the one who had fattened (not simply moved up) his way up from 175, had crushing KO losses to smaller men just a few years earlier, and his biggest win thus far (unlike Valdes') was roundly questioned in the States as a gift. There's no angle where Cockell was an easier sell than Valdes. Any criticism you could make of Valdes, you could make the same but moreso of Cockell - and indeed, that's the view the press and most of the public generally took of the match as well. Heck, a promoter probably could've had an easier time selling someone like Bob Baker, despite his being ranked a spot or two below Cockell at that time.



But how was he viewed at the time Cockell actually fought him, and at that weight class?



Of course there were those who questioned his abilities, but for every critic you can find, there were more who thought highly of his recent performances. On the whole, there was enough respect for him that he was favored to beat Valdes when they fought, and was picked by some to KO him - something that Moore, Baker, and others had failed to do.



That was about 20 fights later, and by that time he was showing wear and tear. A year or so prior to that, he had still been considered a leading contender, and he'd given the same Patterson a pretty tough, competitive fight.

1. On being ko'd by a middleweight--If I were the promoter and a fan questioned Cockell's credentials on this basis, here's my answer---Bob Fitzsimmons was ko'd by a middeweight (Jim Hall) before winning the heavyweight championship. Jack Johnson was ko'd by a man who now and then made the middleweight limit and often fought in the low 160's, (Joe Choynski). Choynski also drew with Jim Jeffries. Jack Dempsey was knocked down nine times by the mediocre middleweight Johnny Sudenberg, but three years later was the best heavyweight in the world. Mickey Walker was ko'd by the 143 lb Joe Dundee but went on to defeat several top heavies and fight a draw with future champion Jack Sharkey. Archie Moore was ko'd by the middleweight Eddie Booker. And Gene Tunney's only loss was to the middleweight Harry Greb. Greb himself was ko'd by the middleweight Joe Chip but never by a heavyweight. And none of the men who defeated these great fighters otherwise defeated a middleweight as great as Sugar Ray Robinson.

2. "There was nothing that would make Valdes an exceptionally hard sell"

The big fight with Jackson drew a below average crowd of 4500. Doesn't seem the public was very excited about either man. What about Cockell. Well, his fight with Matthews in 1953 drew, according to Nat Fleischer in the Ring, Oct, 1953, page 13, "a Northwest record gate of $96,606 and a gathering of 14,868 persons"

Fleischer goes on to comment further on Cockell:

"Now that Cockell has met with American approval in a sensational battle that received world-wide attention and the British Empire king proved that as a drawing card in this country he is far superior to most of the heavies who have been paraded over and over again in the leading stadiums of the country."

"Cockell's triumph over Matthews by a split decision, snatching victory from what looked like a sure defeat by a courageous rally in the final two rounds, definitely places the British Empire champion in a position where he must be given consideration by the American contenders. When he dropped Matthews three times in the ninth round, he gave an exhibition of what American fight enthusiasts love best in a fighting man--hitting power and 'guts' considering the gash on his face. That's what would make him a good attraction against our best talent and would help the publicity in a world title fight should he reach that stage."

"But boxing must be grateful that the Seattle fight turned out to be as good as it did. The IBC can now count on an added starter, a colorful foreigner, a good hitter, when mapping out its future heavyweight program."

[OLD FOGEY]

In fairness, Fleischer mentioned that he did not think Cockell was as good as Farr or Woodcock. He said Cockell was not among the top contenders, whom he listed as Charles, Moore, and LaStarza.

It has been repeated over and over that Valdes deserves more credit against Jackson because it was a ko. Actually, the fight ended because of the three knockdown rule, and to my eyes a couple of the knockdowns seemed to be pushes. Fleischer does comment on this rule regarding Cockell:

"Had the bout taken place in New York or most of the National Boxing Association states, it would have been stopped automatically in the ninth following the third knockdown."

Jackson had never been knocked out, but had fought only 19 fights. Matthews had been fighting 16 years and had only been stopped on cuts by Eddie Booker, and then by Marciano. For their entire careers, Jackson was stopped 4 times in 44 fights. Matthews 3 in 103. I honestly think Cockell was the one who showed the best power in these two fights.

[SuzieQ49]

I like Lastarza at his fighting best over Cockell. Lastarza was a bit better. what do you think fog man? Also how do you see a valdez vs lastarza fight going? its a shame lastarza did not take on any of the better black contenders like valdez, baker, henry, louis, charles, moore, walcott...i think it would have told us a lot more about him historically. There has been some evidence that jimmy fats deanglo dodged those men out of fear of losing...because he was promised a return bout with marciano for title and didnt want to jeopardize his man. what do u think of this?

[OLD FOGEY]

I like Lastarza at his fighting best over Cockell. Lastarza was a bit better. what do you think fog man? Also how do you see a valdez vs lastarza fight going? its a shame lastarza did not take on any of the better black contenders like valdez, baker, henry, louis, charles, moore, walcott...i think it would have told us a lot more about him historically. There has been some evidence that jimmy fats deanglo dodged those men out of fear of losing...because he was promised a return bout with marciano for title and didnt want to jeopardize his man. what do u think of this?


Valdes--was not a contender until about one month prior to the Marciano fight. I don't think Roland ducked him.

Walcott--when would he have fought Walcott? Roland would have been too young prior to Walcott winning the championship. I can't blame him for not fighting Walcott. He just didn't have the experience.

Louis--I think the same. Perhaps this fight could have been made in 1951, but do you have any evidence this was ever in the works.

Charles--Well, Charles got a title shot against Walcott. LaStarza was clearly near the top of the line after Marciano won the title. LaStarza fought Layne, who had beaten Charles. I think his management would have been stupid to take a Charles fight in 1953 when Roland was next in line for Rocky.

Baker and Henry--perhaps you are correct here.

Moore and Johnson--probably.


I like LaStarza more often than not against Cockell.

By the way, off what I have seen of Nino, I think LaStarza would probably have outpointed him in 1952 or 1953 if they had fought. Valdes just seems too sloppy and wide open with a slow, pawing jab.

[choklab]

1. On being ko'd by a middleweight--If I were the promoter and a fan questioned Cockell's credentials on this basis, here's my answer---Bob Fitzsimmons was ko'd by a middeweight (Jim Hall) before winning the heavyweight championship. Jack Johnson was ko'd by a man who now and then made the middleweight limit and often fought in the low 160's, (Joe Choynski). Choynski also drew with Jim Jeffries. Jack Dempsey was knocked down nine times by the mediocre middleweight Johnny Sudenberg, but three years later was the best heavyweight in the world. Mickey Walker was ko'd by the 143 lb Joe Dundee but went on to defeat several top heavies and fight a draw with future champion Jack Sharkey. Archie Moore was ko'd by the middleweight Eddie Booker. And Gene Tunney's only loss was to the middleweight Harry Greb. Greb himself was ko'd by the middleweight Joe Chip but never by a heavyweight. And none of the men who defeated these great fighters otherwise defeated a middleweight as great as Sugar Ray Robinson.

2. "There was nothing that would make Valdes an exceptionally hard sell"

The big fight with Jackson drew a below average crowd of 4500. Doesn't seem the public was very excited about either men. What about Cockell. Well, his fight with Matthews in 1953 drew, according to Nat Fleischer in the Ring, Oct, 1953, page 13, "a Northwest record gate of $96,606 and a gathering of 14,868 persons"

Fleischer goes on to comment further on Cockell:

"Now that Cockell has met with American approval in a sensational battle that received world-wide attention and the British Empire king proved that as a drawing card in this country he is far superior to most of the heavies who have been paraded over and over again in the leading stadiums of the country."

"Cockell's triumph over Matthews by a split decision, snatching victory from what looked like a sure defeat by a courageous rally in the final two rounds, definitely places the British Empire champion in a position where he must be given consideration by the American contenders. When he dropped Matthews three times in the ninth round, he gave an exhibition of what American fight enthusiasts love best in a fighting man--hitting power and 'guts' considering the gash on his face. That's what would make him a good attraction against our best talent and would help the publicity in a world title fight should he reach that stage."

"But boxing must be grateful that the Seattle fight turned out to be as good as it did. The IBC can now count on an added starter, a colorful foreigner, a good hitter, when mapping out its future heavyweight program."


:good:good fantastic post! great info. cockell was just as worthy.

[choklab]

Valdes--was not a contender until about one month prior to the Marciano fight. I don't think Roland ducked him.

Walcott--when would he have fought Walcott? Roland would have been too young prior to Walcott winning the championship. I can't blame him for not fighting Walcott. He just didn't have the experience.

Louis--I think the same. Perhaps this fight could have been made in 1951, but do you have any evidence this was ever in the works.

Charles--Well, Charles got a title shot against Walcott. LaStarza was clearly near the top of the line after Marciano won the title. LaStarza fought Layne, who had beaten Charles. I think his management would have been stupid to take a Charles fight in 1953 when Roland was next in line for Rocky.

Baker and Henry--perhaps you are correct here.

Moore and Johnson--probably.


I like LaStarza more often than not against Cockell.

By the way, off what I have seen of Nino, I think LaStarza would probably have outpointed him in 1952 or 1953 if they had fought. Valdes just seems too sloppy and wide open with a slow, pawing jab.

its a pity lastarza did not hang with those guys, his fights with marciano proved he had a good chance against most of them. like you say his people had done their work getting him in the running for a shot so they didnt fancy taking a chance against charles, baker and co when they were on the brink - just like gleason did for valdes after he registered that win against charles. the problem with all these contenders was preserving a ranking over a 4 to 6 fights a year when the champ fought but 2 times a year waiting for the ballparks to be availible.

[My2Sense]

"Jackson was actually favored to beat Valdes"

I reread your post and this really stuck out. You spin this as meaning that Jackson was viewed as some sort of great fighter. Well, his record was 16-2-1 and he had lost a UD three months earlier to Jimmy Slade. Yet he is favored over Valdes after his big win over Charles and his big run. I would spin it as showing the low esteem Valdes was held in for such a high ranking fighter. I can't imagine Moore, Johnson, or Charles going into a Jackson fight at this point as the underdog.

That likely did play a part, but it's worth noting that Jackson was actually favored by some to KO or stop Valdes, something that Moore, Charles, and others had already tried and been incapable of doing. That point does reaffirm that there was a genuine high regard for Jackson at this time, regardless of how Valdes might've himself been perceived.

Whatever low esteem there might've been for Valdes, the end result is that he far exceeded expectations by KOing Jackson so quickly. When the fight was over, there was a genuine high regard for him, as shown by the fact that he was roundly proclaimed the clear #1 contender by all parties.

You also overrate Jackson's victories. Layne--coming off a losing streak and two crushing ko's to Earl Walls, and he had earlier lost to both Matthews and LaStarza. Henry--was coming off 3 losses in his last five fights to Johnson, Moore, and Slade. Also had an eye injury and retired right after the Jackson fight. Bucceroni--was on a winning streak and had beaten LaStarza in a close fight in 1951, but was slaughtered in a rematch in which he suffered five knockdowns. He had also, like Danny Nardico, been knocked out by Bob Murphy. Harry Matthews had badly beaten Murphy. Norkus had upset Nardico, who then was stopped much more quickly by Paul Andrews and retired. Less than a year earlier Norkus had been stopped by the 1-4 Ike Thomas. Matthews had also beaten Nardico.
I am not saying these wins meant nothing or should be dismissed, but they are no where near the sensational achievements you crack them up to be.

You can see from reports that fans and the media were generally very impressed with Jackson's wins. It wasn't just for beating guys like Norkus and Bucceroni, but that he stopped/KO'd them as well.

I have the Ring ratings for the month immediately after Valdes defeated Charles. LaStarza was ranked #1, followed by Charles and Bucceroni. Valdes was ranked #4.

Valdes supplanted LaStarza as the #1 contender a couple months after that, when he KO'd Heinz Neuhaus, the Ring's #5 contender at that time.

From the AP:
"Valdes, first foreign heavyweight in years to become No. 1 contender, proved his right to a shot at Rocky Marciano's title recently by knocking out European titleholder Heinz Neuhaus in Dortmund, Germany.

The rise of Valdes to the post previously occupied by Roland LaStarza is the major change in the ratings released today by editor Nat Fleischer."

In the rankings released in February '54, Valdes is rated 1st, Charles 2nd, Bucceroni 3rd - ahead of LaStarza. Bucceroni was stopped by Jackson the following month.

On being ko'd by a middleweight--If I were the promoter and a fan questioned Cockell's credentials on this basis, here's my answer---Bob Fitzsimmons was ko'd by a middeweight (Jim Hall) before winning the heavyweight championship. Jack Johnson was ko'd by a man who now and then made the middleweight limit and often fought in the low 160's, (Joe Choynski). Choynski also drew with Jim Jeffries. Jack Dempsey was knocked down nine times by the mediocre middleweight Johnny Sudenberg, but three years later was the best heavyweight in the world. Mickey Walker was ko'd by the 143 lb Joe Dundee but went on to defeat several top heavies and fight a draw with future champion Jack Sharkey. Archie Moore was ko'd by the middleweight Eddie Booker. And Gene Tunney's only loss was to the middleweight Harry Greb. Greb himself was ko'd by the middleweight Joe Chip but never by a heavyweight. And none of the men who defeated these great fighters otherwise defeated a middleweight as great as Sugar Ray Robinson.

Fighters like Fitz, Johnson, and Dempsey had all established themselves as consensus #1 HW contenders before fighting for that title, the exact thing Cockell had not yet done, and in general had been much more proven and impressive at HW than Cockell. Tunney had proven his superiority to Greb in multiple return matches before moving up to pursue a HW title shot (and Tuprin was no Greb anyway; remember that he had been beaten by Bobo Olson and KO'd in 1 by Tiberio Mitri since KOing Cockell).

[Bummy Davis]

That likely did play a part, but it's worth noting that Jackson was actually favored by some to KO or stop Valdes, something that Moore, Charles, and others had already tried and been incapable of doing. That point does reaffirm that there was a genuine high regard for Jackson at this time, regardless of how Valdes might've himself been perceived.

Whatever low esteem there might've been for Valdes, the end result is that he far exceeded expectations by KOing Jackson so quickly. When the fight was over, there was a genuine high regard for him, as shown by the fact that he was roundly proclaimed the clear #1 contender by all parties.



You can see from reports that fans and the media were generally very impressed with Jackson's wins. It wasn't just for beating guys like Norkus and Bucceroni, but that he stopped/KO'd them as well.



Valdes supplanted LaStarza as the #1 contender a couple months after that, when he KO'd Heinz Neuhaus, the Ring's #5 contender at that time.

From the AP:
"Valdes, first foreign heavyweight in years to become No. 1 contender, proved his right to a shot at Rocky Marciano's title recently by knocking out European titleholder Heinz Neuhaus in Dortmund, Germany.

The rise of Valdes to the post previously occupied by Roland LaStarza is the major change in the ratings released today by editor Nat Fleischer."

In the rankings released in February '54, Valdes is rated 1st, Charles 2nd, Bucceroni 3rd - ahead of LaStarza. Bucceroni was stopped by Jackson the following month.



Fighters like Fitz, Johnson, and Dempsey had all established themselves as consensus #1 HW contenders before fighting for that title, the exact thing Cockell had not yet done, and in general had been much more proven and impressive at HW than Cockell. Tunney had proven his superiority to Greb in multiple return matches before moving up to pursue a HW title shot (and Tuprin was no Greb anyway; remember that he had been beaten by Bobo Olson and KO'd in 1 by Tiberio Mitri since KOing Cockell).

Middleweights who were not so successful moved up and won titles in heavier weights, Jimmy Ellis lost and was dropped by Hurricane Carter, George Benton and others but moved up to heavy and beat Quarry, Bonavena,Patterson, and others

Light Heavy Champ Vincente Rondon who became light heavyweight Champ and went the 10 rd distance with Earine Shavers was stopped by Bennie Briscoe and others as a middleweight.

Just recently Maurice Harris heavyweight was stopped by middleweight Scott Lopeck at that weight but went on to beat many top ranked contenders and most felt he beat an aged Holmes

[OLD FOGEY]

That likely did play a part, but it's worth noting that Jackson was actually favored by some to KO or stop Valdes, something that Moore, Charles, and others had already tried and been incapable of doing. That point does reaffirm that there was a genuine high regard for Jackson at this time, regardless of how Valdes might've himself been perceived.

Whatever low esteem there might've been for Valdes, the end result is that he far exceeded expectations by KOing Jackson so quickly. When the fight was over, there was a genuine high regard for him, as shown by the fact that he was roundly proclaimed the clear #1 contender by all parties.



You can see from reports that fans and the media were generally very impressed with Jackson's wins. It wasn't just for beating guys like Norkus and Bucceroni, but that he stopped/KO'd them as well.



Valdes supplanted LaStarza as the #1 contender a couple months after that, when he KO'd Heinz Neuhaus, the Ring's #5 contender at that time.

From the AP:
"Valdes, first foreign heavyweight in years to become No. 1 contender, proved his right to a shot at Rocky Marciano's title recently by knocking out European titleholder Heinz Neuhaus in Dortmund, Germany.

The rise of Valdes to the post previously occupied by Roland LaStarza is the major change in the ratings released today by editor Nat Fleischer."

In the rankings released in February '54, Valdes is rated 1st, Charles 2nd, Bucceroni 3rd - ahead of LaStarza. Bucceroni was stopped by Jackson the following month.



Fighters like Fitz, Johnson, and Dempsey had all established themselves as consensus #1 HW contenders before fighting for that title, the exact thing Cockell had not yet done, and in general had been much more proven and impressive at HW than Cockell. Tunney had proven his superiority to Greb in multiple return matches before moving up to pursue a HW title shot (and Tuprin was no Greb anyway; remember that he had been beaten by Bobo Olson and KO'd in 1 by Tiberio Mitri since KOing Cockell).


1. My point about Johnson, Fitz, and Dempsey wasn't putting Cockell in their class. They were rated by Nat Fleischer #1, #3, and #4 among all time heavyweights. Almost everyone else would have put them in their top ten in the 1950's. My point is that if they were knocked out, or in Dempsey's case dropped nine times, by middleweights, it is a weak argument to say Cockell was to be dismissed for being stopped by a middleweight, and by one who looked in 1951 and 1952 like an exceptional fighter before getting into drugs.

2. "Jackson was favored by some to ko Valdes"--Who are these "some" and how numerous are they? As there were hundreds, if not thousands, of boxing writers and sports writers, it is probably always possible to find "some" making almost any prediction. I will grant that being favored speaks well for Jackson. It does not speak well for Valdes.

3. No doubt Valdes was rated ahead of everyone, which makes it strange that he was an underdog to a man who had lost by UD three months earlier to Jimmy Slade. It is hard to see why the ko of Norkus impressed anyone very much when Norkus had been stopped by Ike Thomas (1-4) and by George Washington (4-12).

4. I am far more impressed with Cockell's wins over Matthews and LaStarza than you are--and they apparently were considered pretty impressive at the time--they got Cockell to the #2 rating. I am somewhat less impressed than you by Jackson's victories over Layne, Henry, Bucceroni, and Norkus. Jackson was rated #5 after these victories. He got up to Cockell's position in the ratings only after wins not only over Charles, but also over Baker.

[TheGreatA]

It is hard to see why the ko of Norkus impressed anyone very much when Norkus had been stiffened by Ike Thomas (1-4) and by George Washington (4-12).


Norkus was not "stiffened" but cut. Coming into the Jackson fight, he had scored two upsets over Danny Nardico in what were generally regarded as the best fights of 1954. Later he beat Cesar Brion, Roland LaStarza and unbeaten Charlie Powell.

[OLD FOGEY]

Norkus was not "stiffened" but cut. Coming into the Jackson fight, he had scored two upsets over Danny Nardico in what were generally regarded as the best fights of 1954. Later he beat Cesar Brion, Roland LaStarza and unbeaten Charlie Powell.

You are right. He was stopped by Thomas (1-4) because he took a bad beating in the 6th and 7th rounds and could not answer the bell for the 8th. He had suffered a bad cut and a broken nose.

You are teaching me to be very careful with my language.

Your point, though, is not well taken. The first Nardico fight, which I have seen on film, was exciting because Norkus was knocked down several times before coming on late.

Norkus did edge Brion via split decision later, and a few months later upset LaStarza. Unless someone had a crystal ball, though, I don't see how this impacted how the Jackson win over Norkus was viewed at the time of the Valdes fight. Norkus had in fact been stopped by Brion a few years earlier. He had been stiffened by James J Parker in 1951 in a preliminary to the first LaStarza-Bucceroni fight. According to the March, 1952, issue of The Ring, page 42, "Parker, 184, flattened Charley Norkus, 190, Bayonne, with a one-two in the fifth." There is a photo on page 9 of that issue of Norkus flat on his back, his arms outstretched with the referee bending down to remove his mouthpiece. It is captioned "Here we see Norkus on the canvas immediately after the doleful ten had been completed."

I think the bottom line was Norkus had been at best a journeyman who defeated the erratic Nardico but had suffered several crushing defeats over the years. How did stopping him prove Jackson was better than Valdes unless people didn't think much of Valdes?

By the way, dragging in future fights also downgrades the Bucceroni fight as he went from the Jackson stoppage to a defeat by Brion.

[TheGreatA]

You are right. He was stopped by Thomas (1-4) because he took a bad beating in the 6th and 7th rounds and could not answer the bell for the 8th. He had suffered a bad cut and a broken nose.

You are teaching me to be very careful with my language.

It's not about being careful. Saying Norkus was "stiffened", as in knocked out cold, is simply misleading, when the reason he was stopped was due to cuts. It'd be appropriate to say he was "stiffened" by Parker but not in this case. It's the same as saying that Jose Napoles was "stiffened" by Billy Backus.

Your point, though, is not well taken. The first Nardico fight, which I have seen on film, was exciting because Norkus was knocked down several times before coming on late.I also have the fight on film and this is not quite true. It was a give and take affair where both men were knocked down several times, first Nardico, then Norkus, then Nardico, then Norkus and so on, but it was Norkus always in control, with Nardico always staying in there due to his punching power and toughness. In their second fight, which I also have, Nardico simply beat him up. As is often the case, both fighters became quite popular due to the wars they had with each other, even if they weren't top class fighters in reality.

Norkus did edge Brion via split decision later, and a few months later upset LaStarza. Unless someone had a crystal ball, though, I don't see how this impacted how the Jackson win over Norkus was viewed at the time of the Valdes fight. Norkus had in fact been stopped by Brion a few years earlier. He had been stiffened by James J Parker in 1951 in a preliminary to the first LaStarza-Bucceroni fight. According to the March, 1952, issue of The Ring, page 42, "Parker, 184, flattened Charley Norkus, 190, Bayonne, with a one-two in the fifth." There is a photo on page 9 of that issue of Norkus flat on his back, his arms outstretched with the referee bending down to remove his mouthpiece. It is captioned "Here we see Norkus on the canvas immediately after the doleful ten had been completed."

I think the bottom line was Norkus had been at best a journeyman who defeated the erratic Nardico but had suffered several crushing defeats over the years. How did stopping him prove Jackson was better than Valdes unless people didn't think much of Valdes?They did not, but it shows that Norkus was a capable fighter, not only a journeyman. Norkus had already made his mark with three consecutive KO upsets over good opponents (Nardico, 16-1 Boylston, 40-4 Wilding) and was top 10 ranked in the division at the time Jackson stopped him so it's a notable win.

This win, along with Jackson's wins over Clarence Henry (who was still top 10), Archie McBride (whom Valdes struggled with), KO over Rex Layne who was still top 10 ranked in 1954 and KO over top 3 ranked Dan Bucceroni, made Jackson a top fighter in the division.

By the way, dragging in future fights also downgrades the Bucceroni fight as he went from the Jackson stoppage to a defeat by Brion.It'd be appropriate to say that Bucceroni was ruined by Jackson and was no longer highly rated at the time he lost a split decision to Brion, his last career fight, as he had lost to Heinz Neuhaus also. I'm not saying Bucceroni was great but he was seen as very good at the time Jackson stopped him.

[OLD FOGEY]

It's not about being careful. Saying Norkus was "stiffened", as in knocked out cold, is simply misleading, when the reason he was stopped was due to cuts. It'd be appropriate to say he was "stiffened" by Parker but not in this case. It's the same as saying that Jose Napoles was "stiffened" by Billy Backus.

I also have the fight on film and this is not quite true. It was a give and take affair where both men were knocked down several times, first Nardico, then Norkus, then Nardico, then Norkus and so on, but it was Norkus always in control, with Nardico always staying in there due to his punching power and toughness. In their second fight, which I also have, Nardico simply beat him up. As is often the case, both fighters became quite popular due to the wars they had with each other, even if they weren't top class fighters in reality.

They did not, but it shows that Norkus was a capable fighter, not only a journeyman. Norkus had already made his mark with three consecutive KO upsets over good opponents (Nardico, 16-1 Boylston, 40-4 Wilding) and was top 10 ranked in the division at the time Jackson stopped him so it's a notable win.

This win, along with Jackson's wins over Clarence Henry (who was still top 10), Archie McBride (whom Valdes struggled with), KO over Rex Layne who was still top 10 ranked in 1954 and KO over top 3 ranked Dan Bucceroni, made Jackson a top fighter in the division.

It'd be appropriate to say that Bucceroni was ruined by Jackson and was no longer highly rated at the time he lost a split decision to Brion, his last career fight, as he had lost to Heinz Neuhaus also. I'm not saying Bucceroni was great but he was seen as very good at the time Jackson stopped him.

1. on "stiffened"---Okay. Okay. I already conceded the point and will try to be more careful with my language.

2. Norkus was stopped by Ike Thomas in June of 1953. Thomas had a career record of 5-11-3 with 2 stoppages, one of Norkus. Norkus took a beating in the 6th and 7th rounds, suffering a cut and a broken nose. The fight was stopped. No matter how you spin it or how inaccurate my original wording, this was not impressive.

3. It has been a long time since I saw the Nardico-Norkus fight. My memory is of Nardico being down several times in the first three rounds, but rallying to knock Norkus down in the 4th and the 7th. Norkus hardly seemed "in control" during these middle rounds. I thought he was on the floor at the bell in the 7th round. Norkus then rallied to drop Nardico and beat him helpless in the 9th. I concede that Norkus was clearly better than Nardico and also beat him in a return.

4. But how good was Nardico? His big win over an aging LaMotta was sandwiched between losses to Bucceroni and Maxim, and soon thereafter he lost badly to Larry Watson. Other than the LaMotta fight, his biggest win was a 10th round ko of Nick Barone. Cockell stopped Barone in six shortly thereafter. And did Nardico ever beat a ranked heavyweight? His biggest heavyweight win was probably over Bernie Reynolds who was way past it by that time. After losing to Norkus, Nardico was ko'd by Paul Andrews in four.

5. Wilding and Boyston had flashy won-lost records, but these were 8 round preliminary fights and neither was all that much. Wilding had not even been rated in the British Empire ratings printed in The Ring in over a year. Boyston had been off for a year and a half and had been ko'd by Nardico in his only effort to step up.

6. Those Ring rankings at the end of the year are interesting. After beating Brion, Powell, and LaStarza, Norkus was #9. Slade, who beat Henry and Jackson, was #10. Jackson himself was ranked #8. But Rex Layne was ranked #7 ahead of all of them despite being stopped by Jackson.

7. I repeat that I am not saying that Jackson's wins over Layne, Henry, Bucceroni, and Norkus should be dismissed, just that I am not that impressed with them versus Cockell's wins over Matthews and LaStarza. Despite all the talk about how impressed everyone was by Jackson in 1954, he somehow ended up the year rated behind the well past his best Layne. Valdes' biggest wins rating wise to the end of 1954 were over Charles and Neuhaus, who to that point were rated ahead of Jackson.

[choklab]

That likely did play a part, but it's worth noting that Jackson was actually favored by some to KO or stop Valdes, something that Moore, Charles, and others had already tried and been incapable of doing. That point does reaffirm that there was a genuine high regard for Jackson at this time, regardless of how Valdes might've himself been perceived. ).


maybe some were simply excited by jackson as a draw rather than genuine high regard?

Whatever low esteem there might've been for Valdes, the end result is that he far exceeded expectations by KOing Jackson so quickly. When the fight was over, there was a genuine high regard for him, as shown by the fact that he was roundly proclaimed the clear #1 contender by all parties.).
or was it that jacksons buble was burst? remember he was the kid with 18 fights valdes had already been exposed.


You can see from reports that fans and the media were generally very impressed with Jackson's wins. It wasn't just for beating guys like Norkus and Bucceroni, but that he stopped/KO'd them as well.
).

the media wanted a colorful character, jackson was fun while it lasted, i doubt hard core boxing folk had much expectations of him other than he was fun to watch win or lose.



Fighters like Fitz, Johnson, and Dempsey had all established themselves as consensus #1 HW contenders before fighting for that title, the exact thing Cockell had not yet done, and in general had been much more proven and impressive at HW than Cockell. Tunney had proven his superiority to Greb in multiple return matches before moving up to pursue a HW title shot (and Tuprin was no Greb anyway; remember that he had been beaten by Bobo Olson and KO'd in 1 by Tiberio Mitri since KOing Cockell).

turpin was scary on a good night.

[My2Sense]

I am far more impressed with Cockell's wins over Matthews and LaStarza than you are--and they apparently were considered pretty impressive at the time--they got Cockell to the #2 rating. I am somewhat less impressed than you by Jackson's victories over Layne, Henry, Bucceroni, and Norkus. Jackson was rated #5 after these victories.

Actually, Jackson's wins got him all the way to the #3 spot, higher than Cockell initially was after having already beaten Matthews and LaStarza. What ultimately put Cockell ahead of Jackson was not his wins but rather the fact that Jackson lost to Slade in between, which dropped him down I believe to 6th place, with the Norkus win putting him back into the top 5.

Bucceroni was rated higher than LaStarza in March of '54 and had even been offered $100,000 to challenge Marciano in September. Moreover, the nature of Jackson's win was far more decisive, shocking, and impressive than Cockell's over LaStarza. Cockell's win is described in reports as at best a very narrow decision, with some describing it as questionable and others even deriding it as a gift. Meanwhile, Jackson completely dominated Bucceroni from the outset and battered him into a stoppage. Cockell moved from #4 to #2 only after higher rated fighters like Jackson and Charles were beaten and dropped from their spots. I don't see how and in what way Cockell's wins can be considered bigger or more impressive than Jackson's, and the media reports from that time don't seem to share that view either.

[My2Sense]

I repeat that I am not saying that Jackson's wins over Layne, Henry, Bucceroni, and Norkus should be dismissed, just that I am not that impressed with them versus Cockell's wins over Matthews and LaStarza. Despite all the talk about how impressed everyone was by Jackson in 1954, he somehow ended up the year rated behind the well past his best Layne.

So did Matthews and LaStarza, though; in fact, neither of them were ranked at all by the end of '54. Norkus was rated over both of them as well by that time.

Ultimately, Jackson was good enough to return to the top 3 the following year and even get as high as #1. The same cannot be said for LaStarza or Matthews.

[My2Sense]

maybe some were simply excited by jackson as a draw rather than genuine high regard?


or was it that jacksons buble was burst? remember he was the kid with 18 fights valdes had already been exposed.




the media wanted a colorful character, jackson was fun while it lasted, i doubt hard core boxing folk had much expectations of him other than he was fun to watch win or lose.



Do you actually know any of this, or are you only speculating at what people might've been secretly thinking?

[My2Sense]

Middleweights who were not so successful moved up and won titles in heavier weights, Jimmy Ellis lost and was dropped by Hurricane Carter, George Benton and others but moved up to heavy and beat Quarry, Bonavena,Patterson, and others

Light Heavy Champ Vincente Rondon who became light heavyweight Champ and went the 10 rd distance with Earine Shavers was stopped by Bennie Briscoe and others as a middleweight.

Just recently Maurice Harris heavyweight was stopped by middleweight Scott Lopeck at that weight but went on to beat many top ranked contenders and most felt he beat an aged Holmes

None of those had happened yet, so they certainly couldn't have been incorporated into any promotion. Besides which, all those fighters had to face uphill battles for respect and earn their acclaim at the higher weights as well. None of them were given free passes for their prior losses upon moving up, either.

[OLD FOGEY]

So did Matthews and LaStarza, though; in fact, neither of them were ranked at all by the end of '54. Norkus was rated over both of them as well by that time.

Ultimately, Jackson was good enough to return to the top 3 the following year and even get as high as #1. The same cannot be said for LaStarza or Matthews.

These ratings were very volatile with people going up and down, often based merely on activity. Matthews was 9 years older than Jackson and had been rated as early as 1942. LaStarza was 4 years older and had been rated as early as 1949. Both rose to #1 contender status, as did Jackson, although Matthews did so at lightheavy. He was ranked #2 at heavyweight by the NBA in 1952 when he fought Marciano.

If going by ratings, these are the ratings from the August, 1955 issue of The Ring for the month ending June 22, 1955:

Champion---Rocky Marciano
1---Archie Moore
2---Bob Baker
3---Don Cockell
4---Nino Valdes
5---Hurricane Jackson
6---Ezzard Charles
7---Earl Walls
8---John Holman
9---Rex Layne
10--Heinz Neuhaus

This was before Valdes fought Satterfield.

How highly Jackson was rated in 1955 or 1956 did not effect how he was viewed in 1954. How highly Matthews and LaStarza were ranked in 1951 to 1953 did effect how they were viewed in 1954.

[OLD FOGEY]

Actually, Jackson's wins got him all the way to the #3 spot, higher than Cockell initially was after having already beaten Matthews and LaStarza. What ultimately put Cockell ahead of Jackson was not his wins but rather the fact that Jackson lost to Slade in between, which dropped him down I believe to 6th place, with the Norkus win putting him back into the top 5.

Bucceroni was rated higher than LaStarza in March of '54 and had even been offered $100,000 to challenge Marciano in September. Moreover, the nature of Jackson's win was far more decisive, shocking, and impressive than Cockell's over LaStarza. Cockell's win is described in reports as at best a very narrow decision, with some describing it as questionable and others even deriding it as a gift. Meanwhile, Jackson completely dominated Bucceroni from the outset and battered him into a stoppage. Cockell moved from #4 to #2 only after higher rated fighters like Jackson and Charles were beaten and dropped from their spots. I don't see how and in what way Cockell's wins can be considered bigger or more impressive than Jackson's, and the media reports from that time don't seem to share that view either.

"Cockell moved from #4 to #2 only after higher rated fighters like Jackson and Charles were beaten"

With Cockell also defeating Matthews a second and third time.

Valdes also moved from the #4 to the #1 position in 1953 when Charles lost to Johnson and LaStarza lost to Marciano, coupled with Valdes beating Neuhaus. He dropped back behind Charles when Charles won a couple. He moved back ahead of Charles when Charles lost to Marciano, coupled with Valdes beating Jackson. I don't know what selecting this or that date to point at where these contenders were in thier musical chair ratings game actually means. Fleischer moved contenders back and forth on the basis of activity as well as consistant performance.

[My2Sense]

"Cockell moved from #4 to #2 only after higher rated fighters like Jackson and Charles were beaten"

With Cockell also defeating Matthews a second and third time.

Valdes also moved from the #4 to the #1 position in 1953 when Charles lost to Johnson and LaStarza lost to Marciano, coupled with Valdes beating Neuhaus. He dropped back behind Charles when Charles won a couple. He moved back ahead of Charles when Charles lost to Marciano, coupled with Valdes beating Jackson. I don't know what selecting this or that date to point at where these contenders were in thier musical chair ratings game actually means. Fleischer moved contenders back and forth on the basis of activity as well as consistant performance.

The point is comparing the significance of their respective wins. To suggest that Cockell's wins must've been bigger or more impressive than Jackson's because he ultimately attained a higher ranking is misleading, because it discounts the fact that Jackson also lost a fight in between. Jackson's wins initially put him ahead of Cockell in the rankings, and it was his subsequent loss to Slade that dropped him down below Cockell (with Cockell moving up a spot) without Cockell even having a fight in that time.

[My2Sense]

How highly Jackson was rated in 1955 or 1956 did not effect how he was viewed in 1954. How highly Matthews and LaStarza were ranked in 1951 to 1953 did effect how they were viewed in 1954.

But then what is the point of bringing up how Jackson was viewed going into '55 as opposed to how he had been viewed in early and mid '54?

[OLD FOGEY]

But then what is the point of bringing up how Jackson was viewed going into '55 as opposed to how he had been viewed in early and mid '54?

Well, not only Jackson, but Valdes was rated behind Cockell in the summer of 1955. This was after Cockell was slaughtered by Marciano and Valdes lost a close decision to Moore. Explain this.

[OLD FOGEY]

The point is comparing the significance of their respective wins. To suggest that Cockell's wins must've been bigger or more impressive than Jackson's because he ultimately attained a higher ranking is misleading, because it discounts the fact that Jackson also lost a fight in between. Jackson's wins initially put him ahead of Cockell in the rankings, and it was his subsequent loss to Slade that dropped him down below Cockell (with Cockell moving up a spot) without Cockell even having a fight in that time.

I don't have access to all these monthly rankings you refer to. I did find the Rankings from the August, 1954 issue of Ring Magazine with the ratings for the month ending in June.

Champion---Rocky Marciano
1---Ezzard Charles
2---Nino Valdes
3---Don Cockell
4---Jimmy Slade
5---Roland LaStarza
6---Hurricane Jackson
7---Dan Bucceroni
8---Bob Baker
9---Earl Walls
10--Heinz Neuhaus

For whatever reason, both Jackson and Bucceroni at this point were rated behind LaStarza as well as Cockell.

The Slade fight might have convinced Nat that he had overreacted to Jackson's earlier victories and this was his more considered judgement.

[My2Sense]

Well, not only Jackson, but Valdes was rated behind Cockell in the summer of 1955. This was after Cockell was slaughtered by Marciano and Valdes lost a close decision to Moore. Explain this.

Cockell had lost to The Champ, Valdes had lost to someone rated much lower; it's expected that Valdes' ranking would take a bigger hit. That didn't necessarily mean people's prior assessments of either fighter had been altered, as evidenced by the fact that Valdes was still favored to beat Cockell even after suffering another loss to Satterfield.




The Slade fight might have convinced Nat that he had overreacted to Jackson's earlier victories and this was his more considered judgement.

I don't see anything unusual about what happened to Jackson's rating. When he beat the highly rated Bucceroni his own ranking went up to #3; when he lost to a fighter previously unrated at HW, his ranking understandably dropped a few notches; and when he beat Norkus after that his rating went back up a notch. There's nothing in that pattern that shows people "revised" their initial thoughts on how impressive or significant the win over Bucceroni had been - particularly given that he was deemed good enough to be in an eliminator for a title shot soon after that.

[OLD FOGEY]

Cockell had lost to The Champ, Valdes had lost to someone rated much lower; it's expected that Valdes' ranking would take a bigger hit. That didn't necessarily mean people's prior assessments of either fighter had been altered, as evidenced by the fact that Valdes was still favored to beat Cockell even after suffering another loss to Satterfield.




I don't see anything unusual about what happened to Jackson's rating. When he beat the highly rated Bucceroni his own ranking went up to #3; when he lost to a fighter previously unrated at HW, his ranking understandably dropped a few notches; and when he beat Norkus after that his rating went back up a notch. There's nothing in that pattern that shows people "revised" their initial thoughts on how impressive or significant the win over Bucceroni had been - particularly given that he was deemed good enough to be in an eliminator for a title shot soon after that.

1. "Valdes was still favored to beat Cockell even after losing to Satterfield"

This is important evidence. I have been trying to find the betting odds on that fight. Could you give me a source that I could google up?

2. "when he lost to a fighter previously unrated at HW"

Slade had been rated highly at lightheavyweight in the Ring yearly rankings in 1950, 1952, and 1953, and was coming off a win over the heavyweight Clarence Henry a few months earlier, and had beaten Cockell.

3. I am confused about why the higher rankings you quote prove or are even evidence of Jackson or his wins being viewed as more impressive than Cockell's when in a later post you claim that Cockell being rated over Valdes in 1955 does not reflect on how the two fighters were then viewed with Valdes still being favored over Cockell. You do seem to be arguing from both sides of the street.

4. As for Valdes dropping under Cockell in 1955---He didn't lose to just anyone. He lost to a fighter who was at worst the second most respected in the division, and went the distance with him while Marciano slaughtered Cockell. I also think it undercuts an argument that the decision in the Moore-Valdes fight was controversial.

5. "eliminator for a title shot"--Who was actually billing this fight as an eliminator, though. American promoters used that term back then for almost any fight between highly ranked fighters. It only meant that the guy who won was in the hunt and the guy who lost fell out of it.

[choklab]

Do you actually know any of this, or are you only speculating at what people might've been secretly thinking?


if a young kid with a 16-2 record gets knocked out by a top contender, he can come again if he goes back to the drawing board. when you follow boxing it happens all the time theres nothing to speculate. a 16-2 kid is never a "sure thing" against a decent contender. especialy in the 1950s. I think we should all know that much.

[choklab]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

charles v tommy harrison, can you imagine this guy losing to valdes?

[My2Sense]

1. "Valdes was still favored to beat Cockell even after losing to Satterfield"

This is important evidence. I have been trying to find the betting odds on that fight. Could you give me a source that I could google up?

From the Associated Press:
"Valdes Choice Over Cockell
Don Cockell of England, making his first appearance since being laid low by heavyweight champ Rocky Marciano, was a 4-5 underdog in his comeback bid against Cuba'd Nino Valdes at White City Stadium tonight."


I am confused about why the higher rankings you quote prove or are even evidence of Jackson or his wins being viewed as more impressive than Cockell's when in a later post you claim that Cockell being rated over Valdes in 1955 does not reflect on how the two fighters were then viewed with Valdes still being favored over Cockell.

Because rankings shift up or down based on a fighter's most recent fight; they don't alter how prior fights were/are viewed.

As for Valdes dropping under Cockell in 1955---He didn't lose to just anyone. He lost to a fighter who was at worst the second most respected in the division, and went the distance with him while Marciano slaughtered Cockell.

Any way you look at it, Valdes still lost to a guy not rated or respected on par with the one Cockell lost to.

I also think it undercuts an argument that the decision in the Moore-Valdes fight was controversial.

I don't see how, since Cockell moved up in the rankings off a decision that was controversial as well.

"eliminator for a title shot"--Who was actually billing this fight as an eliminator, though. American promoters used that term back then for almost any fight between highly ranked fighters. It only meant that the guy who won was in the hunt and the guy who lost fell out of it.

United Press, June 3, 1954:
"Jackson or Valdes Scheduled to Meet Marcano Next Fall
If you care to look beyond the nearing heavyweight title bout between champion Rocky Marciano and Ezzard Charles you will notice that Marciano's next rival in event of victory will be either Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson or Nino Valdes.
This became clear as the old mill stream when these two television stars were signed for a July 21 elimination which will give the survivor time to prep for a meeting with Marciano. All of which is predicated, of course, on the champion upholding the 3-1 odds favoring him over Charles June 17.
It may be said right now that neither of the potential challengers figures to perform the feat if Charles cannot - but the price is right.
And both Jackson and Valdes are big enough to be built up into a threat, if only on paper."

[My2Sense]

charles v tommy harrison, can you imagine this guy losing to valdes?

Sure can. He doesn't have the footwork or reflexes he had back in the '40s and is laying on the inside and leaving himself open quite a bit. He could definitely have potential problems with a bigger, taller, stronger, and more powerful opponent (as opposed to the blown-up light-heavy that he's in with here).

[OLD FOGEY]

From the Associated Press:
"Valdes Choice Over Cockell
Don Cockell of England, making his first appearance since being laid low by heavyweight champ Rocky Marciano, was a 4-5 underdog in his comeback bid against Cuba'd Nino Valdes at White City Stadium tonight."




Because rankings shift up or down based on a fighter's most recent fight; they don't alter how prior fights were/are viewed.



Any way you look at it, Valdes still lost to a guy not rated or respected on par with the one Cockell lost to.



I don't see how, since Cockell moved up in the rankings off a decision that was controversial as well.



United Press, June 3, 1954:
"Jackson or Valdes Scheduled to Meet Marcano Next Fall
If you care to look beyond the nearing heavyweight title bout between champion Rocky Marciano and Ezzard Charles you will notice that Marciano's next rival in event of victory will be either Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson or Nino Valdes.
This became clear as the old mill stream when these two television stars were signed for a July 21 elimination which will give the survivor time to prep for a meeting with Marciano. All of which is predicated, of course, on the champion upholding the 3-1 odds favoring him over Charles June 17.
It may be said right now that neither of the potential challengers figures to perform the feat if Charles cannot - but the price is right.
And both Jackson and Valdes are big enough to be built up into a threat, if only on paper."

For you younger folks, the UPI writer here was Oscar Fraley, much better known for writing "The Untouchables" with Eliot Ness, which became a huge best seller, then a popular TV show with Robert Stack as Ness, and later a movie with Robert DeNiro as Al Capone.

This is what Fraley says in this article about Jackson:

"Jackson, the only known boxer with a double uppercut, usually loses fights he is supposed to win and wins fights he is supposed to lose.
He came into prominence by knocking out Rex Layne, a not too spectacular performance considering that everybody was doing that. But he added to his prestige by winning from Clarence Henry, and then they offered him to Dan Bucceroni.

The Philadelphia butcher boy was waiting for a promiosed $100,000 shot at Marciano. He decided to pick up $10,000 during the interlude and Jackson, a 4-1 underdog, stopped him in six heats. Jackson then went against Jimmy Slade and the 'Hurricane' was a baffled zepher as he lost the decision. It didn't stop him, however, and he bounced back to knock out Charley Norkus in five rounds.

The heavyweight division is loaded at the moment, because still waiting hopefully are Bucceroni and Britain Don Cockell. Both beat Roland LaStarza and Harry Matthews. There hasn't been so many possibilities since Joe Louis ruined the division with his bum of the month club.

But if the winner of the Valdes-Jackson bout looks good, he is a cinch to meet Marciano in September."


Comments-
1. Jackson went into the Bucceroni fight a 4-1 underdog. If he was viewed as a worldbeater, it had to be on the basis of stopping Bucceroni, even though Bob Murphy had also done it and in fewer rounds.

2. "Both beat Roland LaStarza and Harry Matthews"--this is in error. Bucceroni never beat Matthews. Also, Bucceroni only split with LaStarza, while Cockell beat both without losing.

3. All of this just seems to be Fraley's opinion. He provides no quotes from promoters or other bigwigs backing up his assertion that the winner of this fight probably gets the next shot.

*Just as an aside--as Fraley had been the UPI boxing writer since 1940 and thus a close observer of the heavyweight division over the years, that line "the heavyweight division is loaded at the moment" is interesting. He obviously felt Valdes, Jackson, Cockell, and Bucceroni were all decent challengers, and that this group of challengers was better than any such group since 1941. We might disagree, but he was at ringside.

[OLD FOGEY]

From the Associated Press:
"Valdes Choice Over Cockell
Don Cockell of England, making his first appearance since being laid low by heavyweight champ Rocky Marciano, was a 4-5 underdog in his comeback bid against Cuba'd Nino Valdes at White City Stadium tonight."




Because rankings shift up or down based on a fighter's most recent fight; they don't alter how prior fights were/are viewed.



Any way you look at it, Valdes still lost to a guy not rated or respected on par with the one Cockell lost to.



I don't see how, since Cockell moved up in the rankings off a decision that was controversial as well.



United Press, June 3, 1954:
"Jackson or Valdes Scheduled to Meet Marcano Next Fall
If you care to look beyond the nearing heavyweight title bout between champion Rocky Marciano and Ezzard Charles you will notice that Marciano's next rival in event of victory will be either Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson or Nino Valdes.
This became clear as the old mill stream when these two television stars were signed for a July 21 elimination which will give the survivor time to prep for a meeting with Marciano. All of which is predicated, of course, on the champion upholding the 3-1 odds favoring him over Charles June 17.
It may be said right now that neither of the potential challengers figures to perform the feat if Charles cannot - but the price is right.
And both Jackson and Valdes are big enough to be built up into a threat, if only on paper."


1. Thanks for the link to the AP report to the odds--Valdes a slight favorite, with the two considered pretty well-matched. I wonder if Cockell's 218 lb weight effected the odds at all.

2. "They don't alter how prior fights were/are viewed"--Unless I misunderstand you, I disagree. I think later results and with them rankings do effect how prior fights are viewed. If for example, B is undefeated and A beats him, A jumps up in the ratings. If B quickly losses to C, D, E, F, etc, that devalues A's achievement. If B goes on a long winning streak, the glow of success also burnishes A's reputation.

3. Cockell moved up in the rankings after a controversial victory over LaStarza. Valdes drops after a supposedly controversial (I haven't seen substantial evidence it in fact was controversial) defeat to Moore. Cockell held his rating despite being slaughtered by Marciano. As Cockell won his close fight, and Valdes lost his, I think the situations are different. As the AP report states, Valdes' losses to Moore and Satterfield dropped him entirely out of the ratings, which seems quite a fall if he was not even seen as the clear loser of the Moore fight.

[OLD FOGEY]

My take on Jackson--I think he was quite overrated:

1954-Stops the slumping Layne, and the slipping Henry. After these wins, is still a 4-1 underdog against Bucceroni. Stops Bucceroni, but Bucceroni had been stopped by Murphy and beaten badly in the second match by LaStarza. He would never win another fight. These are good wins for Jackson, but these wins probably look slightly better on paper than there really were. Jackson then loses to Slade, stops the fringe contender Norkus, and is blown away by Valdes. The rest of year he fights set-ups.

1955--A better year. Jackson defeats the erratic Slade, and then defeats Charles twice. Charles is clearly slipping, though, and also loses this year to John Holman, Toxie Hall, and Young Jack Johnson. There is also some dispute over the decision in the 2nd Charles fight. Jackson stops the faded Layne on cuts after falling behind, and then loses the rubber match to Slade. Nothing here proves Jackson is really top level.

1956--Jackson's best year. He defeats Baker in a close fight. His fight with Patterson, losing by s split decision, is in retrospect by far his best performance. However, Patterson had suffered a broken hand. Jackson then meets Baker in an elimination and gets a split decision. Off IMDB, this was certainly a close fight, with the press voting 9-4 for Baker. Jackson might have gotten lucky.

1957--Jackson is matched with Patterson and Machen, the first men he had fought who were at the top of the division and at the top of their game and arguably the top heavyweights in the world when Jackson stepped into the ring with them. He loses every round in both fights and is viewed as so inept that he is banned from major venues.

1958-1960--a few wins over second raters in boondock fights, ending in defeats by the journeyman Monroe Ratliff and a ko by the nondescript Hans Kalbfall.

A lot of fighters lasted longer, beat more men closer to their best, had more tough fights etc, than Jackson but never achieved such a high ranking. His two best opponents, Patterson and Machen, utterly destroyed him. So did Valdes. He lost 2 of 3 to Slade. His best wins in retrospect, over Baker, were close and controversial. There are a lot of "names" on his resume, but all except perhaps Baker and Bucceroni were either rather severely on the way down or fringe contenders.

[choklab]

Sure can. He doesn't have the footwork or reflexes he had back in the '40s and is laying on the inside and leaving himself open quite a bit. He could definitely have potential problems with a bigger, taller, stronger, and more powerful opponent (as opposed to the blown-up light-heavy that he's in with here).


gillium and wallace were as big and as good as valdes and charles had no problem. maybe wear and tear was geting to charles after he stopped fighting for titles but if we stick with film evidence hes still a great fighter in 53-54.
im tired of hearing about charles's legs not being the same, show me a fight before 53 where he moved more? he mixed it up with louis quite a bit in 50'- it was no shoe shine on the run.
you say he didnt have the same reflexes he had in the 1940s but charles boxed for only 3 years then took 2 years out for the war. when he returned in 1946 he had not won a fight since 42'.
ezzards peak realy started in 1947. remember there is no film evidence of his career before this period interupted with frozen titles of the war years where many talented fighters fought chiefly exhibition stuff among themselves. I am as aware as anyone of his record and the great names he fought pre 47 but with nothing at stake and the regularity of rematches one wonders if a lot of these fights were of the "freindly" variaty.
including valdes, charles had lost to but 4 men in over 45 fights since launching himself as a heavyweight and he beat2 of the 4. charles beat gillium, moore and satterfield who all beat valdes easily. on paper valdes beating charles is an odd result especialy when its sandwiched either side of impresive wins against beter guys than nino. you cant blame nino its just odd.

[My2Sense]

gillium and wallace were as big and as good as valdes and charles had no problem.

What makes them "as good" as Valdes? Neither one ever reached the heights he did in his career, and neither one ever showed they were good enough to beat a HOFer and/or ex-champ.

maybe wear and tear was geting to charles after he stopped fighting for titles but if we stick with film evidence hes still a great fighter in 53-54.

The film evidence shows him looking uncharacteristically flat-footed against Harold Johnson and getting outboxed by a LHW, a division that he once ruled in his peak in the late '40s.

What great fighter(s) did Charles beat in '53 or later to certify that he was still great?


im tired of hearing about charles's legs not being the same, show me a fight before 53 where he moved more?

His rematch with Lloyd Marshall, for starters.

Even against Bernie Reynolds a year earlier, I'd still say he looked quicker and sharper than he did in '53.
I4WXv0A6uDw
z2PutDflPYo


ezzards peak realy started in 1947. remember there is no film evidence of his career before this period interupted with frozen titles of the war years where many talented fighters fought chiefly exhibition stuff among themselves.

The Marshall rematch is on film and that was before '47

I am as aware as anyone of his record and the great names he fought pre 47 but with nothing at stake and the regularity of rematches one wonders if a lot of these fights were of the "freindly" variaty.

How were they "friendly" when most of those fights featured KOs and/or knockdowns?


including valdes, charles had lost to but 4 men in over 45 fights since launching himself as a heavyweight and he beat2 of the 4. charles beat gillium, moore and satterfield who all beat valdes easily. on paper valdes beating charles is an odd result especialy when its sandwiched either side of impresive wins against beter guys than nino. you cant blame nino its just odd.

It's not "odd" if he's clearly past his peak and slowing down then, as film evidence shows him doing. On top of which, claiming Valdes is inferior to certain fighters on the basis of having lost to them undermines your whole point that fight results are sometimes "odd" and don't prove anything. You can't have it both ways.

[My2Sense]

If for example, B is undefeated and A beats him, A jumps up in the ratings. If B quickly losses to C, D, E, F, etc, that devalues A's achievement.

Not necessarily, because that could just as well mean A ruined B, or that B simply started declining afterward for whatever reason. Using that logic, Cockell's win over LaStarza should be devalued because he lost his next fight to Norkus after that and generally went downhill afterward.

If B goes on a long winning streak, the glow of success also burnishes A's reputation.

Again, not necessarily; what if B has notably improved since losing to A? If that's your argument, then Valdes' win over Jackson should be viewed as even more impressive since Jackson went on to be a top 3 contender over the next couple years afterward. Likewise, Jackson's win over Layne should look better because Layne actually went on a win streak afterward and worked his way back up the rankings.

Cockell held his rating despite being slaughtered by Marciano.

Actually he didn't; he fell to the #4 spot afterward, just one spot above where Valdes had fallen.

As the AP report states, Valdes' losses to Moore and Satterfield dropped him entirely out of the ratings, which seems quite a fall if he was not even seen as the clear loser of the Moore fight.

I wouldn't say so, given that Satterfield was unrated at the time Valdes lost to him.

[My2Sense]

My take on Jackson--I think he was quite overrated:

1954-Stops the slumping Layne, and the slipping Henry. After these wins, is still a 4-1 underdog against Bucceroni. Stops Bucceroni, but Bucceroni had been stopped by Murphy and beaten badly in the second match by LaStarza. He would never win another fight. These are good wins for Jackson, but these wins probably look slightly better on paper than there really were. Jackson then loses to Slade, stops the fringe contender Norkus, and is blown away by Valdes. The rest of year he fights set-ups.

1955--A better year. Jackson defeats the erratic Slade, and then defeats Charles twice. Charles is clearly slipping, though, and also loses this year to John Holman, Toxie Hall, and Young Jack Johnson. There is also some dispute over the decision in the 2nd Charles fight. Jackson stops the faded Layne on cuts after falling behind, and then loses the rubber match to Slade. Nothing here proves Jackson is really top level.

1956--Jackson's best year. He defeats Baker in a close fight. His fight with Patterson, losing by s split decision, is in retrospect by far his best performance. However, Patterson had suffered a broken hand. Jackson then meets Baker in an elimination and gets a split decision. Off IMDB, this was certainly a close fight, with the press voting 9-4 for Baker. Jackson might have gotten lucky.

1957--Jackson is matched with Patterson and Machen, the first men he had fought who were at the top of the division and at the top of their game and arguably the top heavyweights in the world when Jackson stepped into the ring with them. He loses every round in both fights and is viewed as so inept that he is banned from major venues.

1958-1960--a few wins over second raters in boondock fights, ending in defeats by the journeyman Monroe Ratliff and a ko by the nondescript Hans Kalbfall.

A lot of fighters lasted longer, beat more men closer to their best, had more tough fights etc, than Jackson but never achieved such a high ranking. His two best opponents, Patterson and Machen, utterly destroyed him. So did Valdes. He lost 2 of 3 to Slade. His best wins in retrospect, over Baker, were close and controversial. There are a lot of "names" on his resume, but all except perhaps Baker and Bucceroni were either rather severely on the way down or fringe contenders.

But you could put the same sort of spins on any contender being discussed in this thread to say they are "overrated." For example, LaStarza dropped an upset decision to Bucceroni who Jackson stopped easily, and also another to Rocky Jones before beating either of them, and got his title shot with a tough, grueling decision win over Layne who Jackson and Walls KO'd easily. The same year Cockell beat him he also lost to Norkus. Likewise, you could point out that Cockell was embarrassingly KO'd by Slade (who Jackson lasted the distance with three times and managed to beat once) and Turpin, and got his high HW ranking with tough wins over Marciano leftovers who never did anything substantial afterward.

[OLD FOGEY]

But you could put the same sort of spins on any contender being discussed in this thread to say they are "overrated." For example, LaStarza dropped an upset decision to Bucceroni who Jackson stopped easily, and also another to Rocky Jones before beating either of them, and got his title shot with a tough, grueling decision win over Layne who Jackson and Walls KO'd easily. The same year Cockell beat him he also lost to Norkus. Likewise, you could point out that Cockell was embarrassingly KO'd by Slade (who Jackson lasted the distance with three times and managed to beat once) and Turpin, and got his high HW ranking with tough wins over Marciano leftovers who never did anything substantial afterward.


You certainly can and many do. The thing that stands for LaStarza is that he gave Marciano two good fights. Jackson failed utterly when he stepped up against Patterson, Machen, and even Valdes, except for the first Patterson fight which is by far his best historical showing, but undercut by Patterson fighting with a broken hand. The second was a disaster.

I don't consider Cockell an outstanding contender. He was Marciano's weakest defense, but a decent fighter, somewhat along the lines of the later Roy Harris, a challenger with some credentials but who had never proven himself a really outstanding contender, and seems a level below the top men.

In my judgement, the same is basically true of Valdes and Jackson.

[OLD FOGEY]

Not necessarily, because that could just as well mean A ruined B, or that B simply started declining afterward for whatever reason. Using that logic, Cockell's win over LaStarza should be devalued because he lost his next fight to Norkus after that and generally went downhill afterward.



Again, not necessarily; what if B has notably improved since losing to A? If that's your argument, then Valdes' win over Jackson should be viewed as even more impressive since Jackson went on to be a top 3 contender over the next couple years afterward. Likewise, Jackson's win over Layne should look better because Layne actually went on a win streak afterward and worked his way back up the rankings.



Actually he didn't; he fell to the #4 spot afterward, just one spot above where Valdes had fallen.



I wouldn't say so, given that Satterfield was unrated at the time Valdes lost to him.

Cockell basically held his rating as in the August Ring rankings he was #3. Moore was now rated at heavyweight but if he had been earlier, he would have been #1 and Cockell #3 then. Valdes and Baker changed positions, Baker going from #3 to #2 and Valdes dropping from #1 to #4.

I don't see why a defeat to Satterfield should be viewed as that devastating as Satterfield had also knocked out the #2 man, Baker, and also John Holman twice, who was ranked in the first half of 1955, as well as top lightheavyweights like Billy Smith and Paul Andrews. He had also beaten Harold Johnson. Yes, he lost all kinds, but clearly could beat top men when on his game.

[choklab]

What makes them "as good" as Valdes? Neither one ever reached the heights he did in his career, and neither one ever showed they were good enough to beat a HOFer and/or ex-champ..
actualy gillium beat valdes that says hes "beter" and walace beat marciano, albeit in the amatuers. marciano is a HOFer so it qualifys on both counts.


The film evidence shows him looking uncharacteristically flat-footed against Harold Johnson and getting outboxed by a LHW, a division that he once ruled in his peak in the late '40s..
i havnt seen this film so i cant comment. johnson was a fine fighter, no disgrace losing here. I have seen charles v valentino in 49 and hes no beter than he was v satterfield, walace or harison.

What great fighter(s) did Charles beat in '53 or later to certify that he was still great?.

charles faced 8 good guys in 53. harison, layne, gillium and wallace were all rated when he beat them that year. can you imagine someone beating that many rated guys in a year? in 54 he KO'd satterfield hes not a nobody is he?

Even against Bernie Reynolds a year earlier, I'd still say he looked quicker and sharper than he did in '53..

its splitting hairs. its like saying joe louis was quicker and sharper for the 2nd conn fight than he was against mauriello..or holmes was sharper against frank than he was against marvis frazier..its the same guy!!

The Marshall rematch is on film and that was before '47.

il take your word on that.



It's not "odd" if he's clearly past his peak and slowing down then, as film evidence shows him doing. On top of which, claiming Valdes is inferior to certain fighters on the basis of having lost to them undermines your whole point that fight results are sometimes "odd" and don't prove anything. You can't have it both ways.

charles was clearly still formidable. in 53 he put in some championship quality fights amoung the majority of the 8 times he fought. up against consistantly strong oposition its imposible to shine each time..in 1954 he fought only 3 times. slowing down is off the mark. I apreciate he was clearly past it against young jack johnson. in 1955 charles fought 3 times in a month, 2 times in april and 2 times in august thats when he slowed down. there was no championship class performances in 1955 for charles.

[My2Sense]

actualy gillium beat valdes that says hes "beter" ...

Only if you think Valdes beating Charles says he's better than him.

and walace beat marciano, albeit in the amatuers. marciano is a HOFer so it qualifys on both counts.

No it doesn't; nothing in the amateurs "qualifies" in the pros.

I have seen charles v valentino in 49 and hes no beter than he was v satterfield, walace or harison.

Yes he was; he moved his legs and boxed a lot more against Valentino, whereas against those other guys he was much more flatfooted.

charles faced 8 good guys in 53. harison, layne, gillium and wallace were all rated when he beat them that year.

Gilliam wasn't.

can you imagine someone beating that many rated guys in a year?

Sure can - Valdes beat Charles, Neuhaus, and Jackson in the span of about 9 months, for example.

Charles used to beat 2-3 times that many rated fighters in 12-month spans back in his prime.

in 54 he KO'd satterfield hes not a nobody is he?

No, but he was a somebody who was notably succeptible to being KO'd.

its splitting hairs. its like saying joe louis was quicker and sharper for the 2nd conn fight than he was against mauriello..or holmes was sharper against frank than he was against marvis frazier..its the same guy!!

It's not "splitting hairs," it's the whole crux of the issue here. Charles' all-around movements visibly slowed between those two years, which means he's not "the same guy" in those two years.


charles was clearly still formidable.

At his peak he was more than just "formidable." He was one of the very greatest fighters of all time.

in 53 he put in some championship quality fights amoung the majority of the 8 times he fought. up against consistantly strong oposition its imposible to shine each time..

Yet when he was at his peak, that's pretty much what he did.

[choklab]

Yes he was; he moved his legs and boxed a lot more against Valentino, whereas against those other guys he was much more flatfooted..

valentino was a crowder charles did what he had to do against a brawler, sidesteped and picked him off. he timed valentino just the same with the same sharp right that did for walace and harison. it was still pin point in 53-54. sure he moved a litle since this was required but he was no dance master. charles did stand his ground more, perhaps he adapted his economy it did not make him faded. he had legs enough to take marciano to the wire when a damaged, run down, spent force could never do that.








Charles used to beat 2-3 times that many rated fighters in 12-month spans back in his prime..

he never did fight 12 rated oponents a year, thats more than an entire top ten if my maths is corect. going by anual ring ratings he had no more than 6 fights per year against "at that time rated opponents" until 1955 when 8 of the 11 fights he fought involved guys rated at the time he fought them.



No, but he was a somebody who was notably succeptible to being KO'd..
and a great fighter still talked of today.


It's not "splitting hairs," it's the whole crux of the issue here. Charles' all-around movements visibly slowed between those two years, which means he's not "the same guy" in those two years..
his game plan adapted against different styles of fighters. he got hit in his peak and later. barone was unrated and went 11 rounds. if you fight a lot of times a year something suffers with even peak guys. even louis was stale in some fights during his most active run.



At his peak he was more than just "formidable." He was one of the very greatest fighters of all time..

agreed.

Yet when he was at his peak, that's pretty much what he did.
no peak charles never shone in each fight in his pre 50s fights, check the barone fight. check the ray fight. check the maxim title fight, when boxers were that active they often held something back for another night. you cant shine doing that.

[My2Sense]

valentino was a crowder charles did what he had to do against a brawler, sidesteped and picked him off.

But when Valdes, Satterfield, and others tried to crowd him post-'52, he couldn't side step them anymore. He was mugged around at close quarters and forced to go toe-to-toe.

he timed valentino just the same with the same sharp right that did for walace and harison.

He didn't time them the same way; Wallace and Harrison were boxers who didn't look to crowd him and gave him room to unload.

he had legs enough to take marciano to the wire when a damaged, run down, spent force could never do that.

His chin and heart took him to the wire against Marciano more than anything - and he only had the latter when they fought the second time.

he never did fight 12 rated oponents a year, thats more than an entire top ten if my maths is corect. going by anual ring ratings he had no more than 6 fights per year against "at that time rated opponents" until 1955 when 8 of the 11 fights he fought involved guys rated at the time he fought them.

He had THIRTEEN fights against rated contenders between November '41 and March '43, winning nine of them. He could fight more than 10 rated opponents in a year because he fought contenders from more than one weight class (plus rankings change month to month anyway).

and a great fighter still talked of today.

No, a popular crowd pleasing contender still talked of today. He fell short of genuine greatness in his career, by lacking both a reliable chin and consistency.

no peak charles never shone in each fight in his pre 50s fights, check the barone fight. check the ray fight. check the maxim title fight, when boxers were that active they often held something back for another night. you cant shine doing that.

He whupped Barone and Maxim; what was wrong with those performances?

[choklab]

But when Valdes, Satterfield, and others tried to crowd him post-'52, he couldn't side step them anymore. He was mugged around at close quarters and forced to go toe-to-toe.

charles opted to go toe to toe. his experience and bravado got the beter of him, there was nothing he had not seen before and he knew what he could still do.



He didn't time them the same way; Wallace and Harrison were boxers who didn't look to crowd him and gave him room to unload.

this is true to some extent of those two. charles opted to draw them in. he punished both rated contenders severly.


His chin and heart took him to the wire against Marciano more than anything - and he only had the latter when they fought the second time.

there was nothing but conditioning and balls left the second time i agree with that. first time was a difrent person it was the same guy who was tearing up the division knocking out rated guys.


He had THIRTEEN fights against rated contenders between November '41 and March '43, winning nine of them. He could fight more than 10 rated opponents in a year because he fought contenders from more than one weight class (plus rankings change month to month anyway).

that was a whole other career that ended sour with the 2 losses before going in the army. I am aware of that but was that his prime, the 3 short years as a kid growing through the divisions? as great as his wins were there he lost his final two fights badly then took 2 years out.

when charles came back in 1946 he had not won since 42'. an old head on young recoverd body. he never fought such a crazy schedule of rated oponents per year again and was was beter for it. his peak as a seasoned fighter began in 48 when he made the heavyweight ratings.



No, a popular crowd pleasing contender still talked of today. He fell short of genuine greatness in his career, by lacking both a reliable chin and consistency.

he was the guy to beat. he sent groomed prospect big cat wiliams into semi retirement.


He whupped Barone and Maxim; what was wrong with those performances?

barone was unrated. dan parker wrote charles was "as intresting as a snail". the maxim title fight was a bore. one paper left a 3 inch blank space to describe the events of the fight!!

[My2Sense]

charles opted to go toe to toe. his experience and bravado got the beter of him, there was nothing he had not seen before and he knew what he could still do.

He went toe-to-toe because his legs and reflexes weren't working as well as they used to and left him with no other choice.


first time was a difrent person it was the same guy who was tearing up the division knocking out rated guys.

No it wasn't. His legs weren't as fast, his punches weren't as quick or sharp, and his jab wasn't as quick or authoritative.


when charles came back in 1946 he had not won since 42'. an old head on young recoverd body. he never fought such a crazy schedule of rated oponents per year again and was was beter for it.

He had 7 fights against rated opponents (out of 13 fights altogether) from February '47 through January '48.

he was the guy to beat. he sent groomed prospect big cat wiliams into semi retirement.

That still doesn't make him a great fighter.

barone was unrated.

He was rated as a LHW, just as Harrison was.

dan parker wrote charles was "as intresting as a snail".

Most others wrote otherwise:

Charles "battered the rugged, rock-ribbed, steel-jawed Barone into submission in 2 minutes 6 seconds of the eleventh round, ending a battle which, for savage fury, will take its place among the toughest Charles has encountered."
-James P. Dawson

"The crowd almost tore down the Cincinnati Garden Arena as the king of the heavies handed Barone his first knockdown and knockout in 53 fights."
-Associated Press

the maxim title fight was a bore.

The fight is on film and shows it being anything but a bore. Charles took it to him and beat the piss out of him the whole fight.

one paper left a 3 inch blank space to describe the events of the fight!!

The ones that actually did describe the events of the fight agree that it was a savage slaughter by Charles.

"The dark-skinned Cincinnati gladiator battered Joey Maxim, world light-heavyweight champion, through fifteen rounds of one-sided, though bitter, fighting...

Taking command at the outset, Charles pummeled Maxim almost uninterruptedly with a withering fire that would have claimed as a victim early a less hardy and courageous fighter."
-James P. Dawson