Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

Magoo,

Lastarza was the # 1 rated contender in the world by Ring Magazine when he took on Marciano.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...2tVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3z4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=3806,3790773


Why should the # 4 rated Valdes have been given a shot over the # 1 rated Lastarza????

 

"arguably lesser men"

Folks in 1954 didn't judge Charles a lesser man, I think. If he were the lesser man, Valdes would have fought him in the elimination fight.

There is a 11 bout winning streak, but there was also a four bout losing streak just prior to that in late 1952 and early 1953. Valdes had lost to Moore, Johnson, and Baker. Moore was clearly the better contender all this time, beating not only Valdes twice, but men who beat Valdes--Johnson and Baker.

"political situation"

I think the fact that no British or European fighter had challenged for the title since the 1930's probably played a part in Don C getting a shot.

 

Magoo,

Comment on this:


Here are the Ring Magazine ratings of Marciano's challengers when he fought them

1953:

May: Jersey Joe Walcott - # 1 rated

September: Roland Lastarza- # 1 rated

1954

June: Ezzard Charles- # 1 rated
September: Ezzard Charles- # 1 rated

1955

May: Don ****ell- # 2 rated
September: Archie Moore- # 1 rated



What could Marciano have done any different during his title reign to enhance his legacy in your eyes?

 

Bingo

 

Also, the Marciano-LaStarza bout had already been signed before Valdes fought Charles. And prior to fighting Charles, Valdes had not been rated at all, I think. He went into that fight having lost four of his last five.

 

Thank you. Hopefully Maghoo reads this, and correctly changes his opinion on Lastarza's title shot.

 

I wasn't alluding to Ezzard Charles.

Never had a problem with Moore getting a title shot either. And if losing some fights PRIOR to going on an impressive winning streak should keep a man from title contention, then you'd have a lot of undeserving challengers in the first half of the 20th century.

How many Cubans or Latin Americans did within that time frame?

 

Lastarza's rating was undeserved or at least not as justified in 1953 as Valdez's was between 1953 to 1955. His win over rex Layne was seen by many as a robbery and he had two very recent defeats to Dan Buccerino and and a nobody named Rocky Jones. No way did this trump Valdez's 11 fight winning streak and win over Charles or his 13 month run as #1 contender. Point is if Lastarza's claim to a title shot was valid then so was Valdez's.

 

1. Yes, that is why Valdes was going to get his shot with Marciano in 1955. I already informed you Valdes-Marciano was planned for 1955.

2. Lastarza had arguably beaten Marciano in their first fight. That gives him a lot of leverage and a huge motive for Marciano taking on Lastarza in a rematch for the title.

 

"Cubans or Latin Americans"

One. Godoy.

However, how many top contenders (defined by top five) were there in the 1940's and early 1950's from Latin America? Godoy and Valdes were the only ones.

I have read that the IBC owed Jack Solomons (sp?) after he allowed Turpin to come over to fight Robinson in 1951 in a big money fight.

*Just a point, and it is not meant to weigh in the balance at all, but although Valdes was Cuban, he was controlled by Americans (and probably if you got under the surface, the mob, just like Carnera).

 

Magoo,

You talk about Lastarza's number 1 rating being "Undeserving". What about Valdes # 1 rating? Tell me, did he deserve to be # 1 rated during his time periods over Archie Moore? Moore beat Valdes, and beat two men(harold johnson and bob baker) who also beat Valdes during that time period.

 

Straw man argument. Moore didn't beat Valdez until May of 1955 after Valdez had already been a top 3 guy for two years, and a number 1 guy for 13 months of those two years. Yeah if a guy hangs around in the wind long enough he's going to get taken down. As for Moore beating guys who also beat Valdez, there were plenty of guys who were taking apart Greg Page, but that doesn't erase anyone's opinion of Holmes ducking him.

 

I can see the validity in your second point, but not the first. Valdez was forced to jump through additional hoops that shouldn't have had to, ie, fighting Moore, rematching Charles, etc.. Other challengers didn't necessarily have to do this. Why didn't Lastarza rematch Layne?

 

Archie still was the most deserving of a title shot over Nino even though Archie was not rated at the time at heavyweight he should have gotten the shot before Don Kocell but we all know about the testing of the split nose. Nino lost 2 times in eliminators in 1955 to 1st Archie then Bob Satterfield.