Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

Moore also beat Valdes in 1953

 

Why shouldn't he have had to do this? When did Valdes undisputedly prove himself the outstanding contender for Marcianos throne? When did Valdes ever make a statement that read "Ok, Marciano has no choice but to take me on right now over any other challenger."

 

Because he had already beaten Charles and was ranked at the top of the division long before he faced Moore for the second time.. And when did Lastarza or ****ell "undisputedly prove themselves as outstanding contenders for Marciano's throne?" His claim to a title shot was equally if not more so deserved than either of those guys and being a top three guy for two strait years, with 13 months of that time being ranked #1 should have been enough. Not trying to build a case for Valdez being a martyr nor am I directly accusing Marciano himself for not making the fight, but from what I can see, the man deserved a crack at the title..

 

The difference between Holmes-Page and Marciano-Valdes is Page WON his title eliminator (against snipes) for the MANDATORY right to face Holmes. Valdes LOST his title eliminator(against moore) for the MANDATORY right to face Marciano.

 

Irrelevant.. He was in contention for the title long before those fights ever happened.

 

I never realized that a man who was ranked at the top of a division for TWO years and number ONE for a duration of more than a year needed to WIN a title eliminator. Page wasn't ranked #1 nearly that long. Hence my earlier statement, " extra hoops"

 

RING MAGAZINE RATINGS FOR 1953 AND 1954

1953
Nino Valdez
Ezzard Charles
Dan Bucceroni
Roland LaStarza
Earl Walls
Don ****ell
Clarence Henry
Tommy Harrison
Bob Satterfield
Coley Wallace

1954

Nino Valdez
Don ****ell
Ezzard Charles
Bob Baker
Earl Walls
Heinz Neuhaus
Rex Layne
Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson
Charley Norkus
Jimmy Slade

I rest my case

 

The defeat to Bucceroni is not a good argument. Bucceroni was a top man, actually rated higher than Valdes at the time of the Marciano-LaStarza fight, and LaStarza destroyed him in a rematch. I think Bucceroni was knocked down something like five times in losing a very one-sided fight.

LaStarza had 56 fights up to his title shot, and had beaten everyone but Marciano he had ever fought. The Jones fight was bad, but he did reverse it.

Valdes never reversed any of his 1950's losses.

By the way, who exactly is arguing that Valdes didn't deserve a shot. I have posted repeatedly that he was slightly more deserving than Don C in 1955. The issue that has been brought up is did Valdes deserve a shot over Charles in 1954? I think, on balance, no.

And, in retrospect, it is obvious Moore was the best contender out there.

 

On the other hand, does a man who won't fight an elimination, or can't win one, deserve to be "ranked at the top of a division for TWO years and number ONE for a duration of more than a year."

I think he was simply overrated in the rankings.

I think in the 19 fights from late 1952 through 1955 he was actually 12-7, and the big 11 fight streak was far from being totally against the top men out there.

 

How does it feel to live your life so close minded? :-( It must suck

I've already given you a clear, concise reason why Charles was chosen over Valdes

He was rated higher than Valdes

This answers the question to your thread. Care to refute my point?

 

What exactly does this prove?

 

HeGrant,

Can you give some examples please?

 

I don't think I have ever commented on this blog about Larry Holmes because I simply don't know enough about his era to judge who he should have or shouldn't have fought. He obviously had a strong record.

This strikes me as narcissistic. Some might defend Marciano simply because they are defending Marciano. Holmes isn't in the picture.

"cooked ratings"

We all react differently to different cooking, as this thread proves. I frankly don't quite see why a fighter who wins one big one and then basically tries to sit on his rating necessarily deserves to be considered ahead of those who beat him (Moore, Johnson, Baker) etc., and continued fighting more top men.

Bluntly, I think the ratings were cooked in favor of Valdes, not against him.

 

If you're going to use this argument then you'd have to dismiss the ratings of a lot of other challengers in history including some of the men Marciano fought. Valdez did what he had to do.. He made the #1 spot and stayed there for a while. The rest was up to the forces that be and as it turned out those forces elected to pass him by.

Ezzard Charles was one of the best in the division. Heinz Nuhaus and Omelio Agramante weren't slouches either. If we look at what Lastarza and ****ell were doing in their previous 10 or 11 fights prior to going in against Rocky, it pales next to what Valdez was doing.