Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

Thanks guys for clearing that up, I knew 10 months was about it and Then Valdes lost again. Suzie thanks for posting the Louis KO's Valdes in1, I heard Joe was heavy for that fight like 225+ but that's what I heard not sure but it shows how great Louis was

some good point were brought out and Charles was number 1 contender in both title shots, he had some electrifying wins over Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield and looked to have that before Sam Barodi spark back then showed it again in Marciano 1.....watch those 3 fights IMO Charles best 3 fights at heavyweight but I love that era

 

HEGrant,

Do you believe Valdes classifies as "world class" big, strong, hard hitting? If the answer is yes, then explain to me why Valdes was unable to beat a 38 year old blown up light-heavyweight in two opportunities?

 

Do you see Valdes doing any better against Marciano than Charles did in their first fight?

 

It seems to me that the whole Valdes obsession is a bit phoney.

Valdes was 13-10 from 1952 to 1956, and was 11-10 against fighters with winning records. He only managed to get above .500 against fighters with winning records because of the controversial win over McBride.

I can't see how anyone who isn't impressed with Marciano beating Louis or Moore, or Walcott or Charles, would be impressed with beating this guy.

You mentioned Moore, but Baker also beat Valdes twice and had a better run during this period, and Satterfield easily beat both Valdes and Baker.

If Marciano had fought and beaten him, Valdes would go from being "young, big, and skilled" (?) to being a big oaf who was barely a .500 fighter in his prime and was an obvious set-up who only got his high rankings through politics.

Bottom line--the "big, young, and skilled" Valdes and Baker were 0-6 against puffed up light-heavies Moore, Johnson, and Satterfield.

This is just a weak argument.

 

"I think you are dismissing the Jones fight too easily."

I described it as "bad"

I thought that was fairly blunt, but how about awful? Terrible?

Joking aside, Jones was certainly a bad loss, but Jones did have a win over another rated fighter that year, Tommy Harrison, and ended up being ranked at #9 light-heavy in The Ring's yearly rankings, for what that is worth.

But LaStarza is not alone in having a really embarrassing performance in 1952. Valdes went to a draw with Joe McFadden, who was not even as good as Jones.

 

Charles was a much better fighter. Yes, Nino Valdes got a questionable decision win over Charles in 1953 (in Cuba! I mean Miami lol)... Harold Johnson also got a questionable split-decision win over Charles 4 weeks later. Charles came back with wins over Coley Wallace KO10 and Bob Satterfield KO2.

Valdes had lost decisions to Harold Johnson, Archie Moore, Bob Baker, and a few others at this point and he had been knocked out twice. He went on to lose decisions to Johnson, Moore, and Baker again. He also lost twice to Eddie Machen (once by KO) and Zora Folley. No shame in lose any of these fighters, but he clearly lost to them and was clearly not as good as Charles or Marciano.

Actually, other than that win over Charles... who did he really beat to deserve a shot at Marciano over Charles?

Valdes wasn't bad, but let's not make him out to be more than what he was.

 

You hit it home with this...there are a few that are asking good questions and are trying to make a fair analysis

but there are some with an agenda and know matter what was proved it would be to no avail....so if you squeezed the **** out of them there would be nothing left

 

actually it was not me who produced proof on that particular time. Was it Mongoose or Bummy? I myself was wrong about miteff being rated in 1961 and owned up. Talk about feeling sheepish!:good

 

I for one do not consider Valdez to be a contender of any real historical significance. And his record shows as clear as day on paper that he lost a fair amount of fights both important and unimportant. My only issue is that the man was a top 3 heavyweight for a full two years and was even ranked as high as #1 for about 10 months ( per suzieQ's updated correction. ) The timing of these ratings of course may have coincided with other pre-set obligations that Marciano had with other fighters. I don't know. But Valdez was on a pretty active winning streak and beating some decent opponents including an elite top 3 fighter whom Marciano fought not once but twice. Does his legacy suffer for not facing Nino Valdez? probably not. But in an era where competition was sort of middle of the road in quality and consisting of only one title, he does appear on the surface to be a man who the parade passed by.

 

our memories dont serve us well all the time and these forums are to learn and discuss. Its great to learn something.

 

Magoo,

This is a fair arguement. I agree Valdes should have gotten a title shot at some point(Not just from Marcianos camp, but Pattersons camp too in 58 ). Nino DID deserve one shot at the title either by Marciano or Patterson. Valdes should have gotten a title shot over Don Kockell, Pete Radamacher, and Brian London. Did Marciano duck Valdes? No. Did Marciano's camp have strong intentions of giving Valdes a shot at the title? Yes. The stars simply did not align at the right time. Valdes beats Moore in 55, and it sets up a huge mega showdown with Marciano.

 

I agree with this

 

Magoo,

I would further add I think Marciano missing on a 1956 fight with Floyd Patterson hurts his legacy more than anyone else. It would be a huge win on Marcianos resume, a win over a young, prime ATG future hall of famer(rather than just old ATG future hall of famers). I also think a win over Clarence Henry in 1951-52(coming off the baker and satterfield knockouts) would have meant more than any victory over Nino Valdes. Henry was in his prime, a decorated amateur, very powerful, highly rated(# 3 in the world), and perhaps the most dangerous fight out there at the time.

 

Fair enough on both of your responses.

On Floyd Patterson, its not really something I hold against Rocky. He was having back problems and needed to retire.. And frankly I don't think Cus wanted Floyd in the ring with him anyway. But yes it would have been a feather in Marciano's cap to have a win over a young olympic gold medalist who was looking rather sharp in the pros.

 

If Marciano defended the belt 3 times a year instead of 2, would be intersting which fighters he would have squeezed in.

Valdez would certainly have got a shot.

Some others that may have earned one:

Harold Johnson, Clarence Henry, Bob Baker, Bob Satterfield, Earl Walls, and Dan Bucceroni.

I think Johnson above all may have even deserved a shot over Valdez. He had wins over Toxie, Slade, Henry, Valdez, Satterfield, Moore, and Charles. I believe he had a choice of Maricano or another shot at Moore for the LHW title, but chose Moore. I wander why his management did that if indeed true. Stupid costly move.