Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

Once again, it comes down to ****ell not Charles...getting the shot instead of Valdez. We all seem to be in agreement that Charles deserved it over him.

As far as Don goes, I think a soft touch return fight is understandable after Maricano got his nose split.

The press were the ones that pushed Moore into title contention and deservingly so. With recent wins over Valdez, Henry, Dunlap, Baker, and Charles' rconqueror Johnson and no losses over 175 at that point. Moore/Valdez was logical, though doubtful Valdez was robbed. All articles you can find on the fight agree Moore edged it with a strong finish. If there was a bad decision, it would have got out like all the other ones.

 

Yes the AP felt the margin was wider while Ty Cobb had it by one for Moore in the Nevada State Journal. Ap said all the spectators agreed with the verdict but Cobb disagreed on this. Either way no robbery, it seems.e

 

Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles (x2), and Joe Walcott ( rematch ) were all perfectly understandable and necessary defenses to take over Nino Valdez. Roland Lastarza and Don C-ckell however are questionable as to weather they were more deserving.. Though timing of these fights had just as much to do with the selection as anything else.

 

Well, LaStarza/Marciano was set in stone before Valdez jumped into the ratings with the Charles win.

At the time LaStarza/Marciano was made, Valdez had lost 4 straight. I really don't see an argument for Valdez over LaStarza.

 

Oh I understand that. I'm not saying that Valdez should have been picked in place of Lastarza. Only that he may have been more deserving at the respective times that each man did with they did to earn their shots. But the timing worked out in Lastarza's favor. No question.

 

There's not much on Bucceroni's ledger to set the world alight,and apart from decisioning him and getting a split decision over Layne, Lastarza's tally is pretty thin to justify a number 1 ranking imo. A well managed fighter who was steered into a title shot and found wanting.imo

 

Oh, I understand what you are saying then.

Really, I would overall rank Layne and Valdez over LaStarza.

LaStarza lived off the intrigue of the first Marciano fight. Beyond that his best wins were the disputed decision over Layne, his destruction of Bucceroni in the rematch, and a points win over Brion. He had ability on film but seemed very inconsistent and lazy, supposedly his head was never into boxing.

 

Dubblechin,

Why are you so caught on Valdes "reach" being such a huge problem for Marciano? The guy had NO IDEA how to use his reach. That is why he lost to 5'10 fighters like archie mcbride, archie moore, bob satterfield, and harold johnson.

 

LaStarza found his way to the top spot by beating Layne officially. Layne had just beat the previous top rated contender, Charles. So its a justifiable top rating but not the most convincing either.

There was no way a Layne/LaStarza eliminator rematch was happening but Charles/LaStarza would have settled the matter but there was certainly a demand for a Marciano/LaStarza rematch so I can see why it got the green light.

 

Both claims were legitimate. Marciano needed to put final verification that he could beat Lastarza, while Valdez had established a fairly high ranking at the time. Lastarza's decision over Layne was contested as being iffy, and he had also suffered a defeat to journeyman a few fights earlier. But Valdez had a gift win over someone too.

 

I rummaged through the attic and found a couple of old Ring Magazines (probably originally my dad's) that have somehow survived the years. One interestingly is the October, 1953 issue which covers Valdes' victory over Charles.

Here is the ratings in The Ring up to August 18, 1953

Champion-Rocky Marciano

1--Roland LaStarza
2--Ezzard Charles
3--Dan Bucceroni
4--Nino Valdes
5--Tommy Harrison
6--Bob Satterfield
7--Heinz Neuhaus
8--Don C
9--Earl Walls
10-Harry Matthews

 

I also found the August, 1955 issue of the Ring. Here are the ratings for that month:

Champion--Rocky Marciano

1--Archie Moore
2--Bob Baker
3--Don C
4--Nino Valdes
5--Hurricane Jackson
6--Ezzard Charles
7--Earl Walls
8--John Holman
9--Rex Layne
10-Heinz Neuhaus

 

Thanks, great information. It's easy to get caught up in the year end ratings available online and not see the whole picture.

 

These two issues have some interesting bits--

In 1953 in his Nat Fleischer Says ruminations, Fleischer has something to say which might help explain why a Marciano-Valdes fight in Florida had some hurdles--

"The record for taxes in America is in Florida where besides the federal bite of twenty per cent, there is a state tax of ten per cent, a city tax of five and one of five for the American Legion."

If my math is correct, that means there is a forty per cent tax for any fight in Miami.

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if someplace like Las Vegas had no state or local tax at all. The state's cut from gambling replaced the taxes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 1955 issue included comments on whether Marciano should fight Baker or Moore at Yankee Stadium in September:

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

"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."

**Odd that just beating Valdes wasn't good enough. This certainly raises suspicions that Valdes was really not that highly thought of.

 

Fleischer explained that Valdes wasn't rated higher because of his previous three losses that year.

At the time of these ratings, right after the Charles fight, Valdes was 3-4-1 in his last eight fights.