Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

Valdes proving he was superior to Cokkell after Donny C' had been through marciano proberbly says as much about what happened to Don against Rocky as Nino being able to beat him so much easier.

Don beat Lastarza right after Marciano. that did not make Don better than Marciano.

Nino had made a splash with his Jackson win but The public never had much faith in erratic and raw Tommy.

Earlier when Nino was 1-4 in his last 5 he refused a rematch eliminator with Charles. Valdes's Neuhaus win could not compete with Charles wiping out Walace and Satterfeild. Especially in light of refusing Charles.

Archie Moore had been calling out Rocky for as long as Nino was rated and he always held a win over Nino. Archie beat Baker. From Moore's stand point the IBC made him jump through way more hoops. He beats Harold Johnson and Baker by knockouts already holds a win over Nino but is asked to do it again then come down from 197 to 176 to meet bobo Olsen before taking on Rocky!

By comparison Nino did a lot less. He lost to Moore, baker and Johnson beats Charles, won't rematch him, beats Jackson then loses to Moore again.

 

Dan Bucceroni was a pretty good fighter. Golden gloves champion in the amateurs. Good wins in the pros. Only stopped twice in 50 something fights and retired with a pretty solid record.

 

funny but the short guys that beat Valdes were 5"10 but all weighed much lighter than Valdes's 211lbs I think Johnson weighed 176lbs but almost scored a shut-out

 

Interesting, and possibly correct.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up this interesting speculation?

 

Moore and then Johnson were the more dangerous opponents, the 5'10 176lb Johnson shut Nino out in there fight and Archie beat him 2X, then the 5"10 Archie McBride got a bad decision and then the 5'10 Bob Satterfield owned Nino and had him down for a 9 count in the 10th round.....There is nothing in Nino that Weill should have been afraid of and Charles, Lastarza, Moore were more dangerous and Nino should have been afraid of the little guys because he had a losing record against them.....Marciano would have ruined Valdes like he did the better bigger men he fought. Nino was a big slow target.

I think most of the constructive posters asked the right questions and got some good answers.

I think this thread fortified my belief that Marciano had one of the best records of fighting his # 1 contender, rematching tough fights and being the sole unified Champ, possibly only Joe Louis has a better record and Ali fits in there somewhere

If the truth was a snake He Grunt it would have bit you on the forehead but I have never seen you admit you were wrong so I dont expect it now

 

Even the worst British fanboys who were at the arena in London for that fight admit that LaStarza won the fight. Don Cokkell was a good slugger but LaStarza outboxed him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgeb7DrZc2s

 

Valdes didn't have the stamina or the punching power to stand a chance against Marciano. He had a 51% KO ratio, compared to Marciano's 88%. Valdes was also chinny, compared to Marciano's steel jaw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEbJjwbv21M

 

Cokkell outboxed Lastarza. Roland got a fair shake in London. Don could fight and he earned his shot.

 

Weill confided in you?

Seems pure speculation unless you have evidence.

Counter-evidence anyone might produce?--Weill did publicly push for a Marciano-Baker fight in 1955. Baker was every bit as big as Valdes and beat him twice.

"styles make fights"

Yes, and Valdes' style is all wrong for Marciano. Marciano is not going to stand straight-up on the outside and engage Valdes in a jabbing contest. Marciano is going to press. And Valdes doesn't have the mobility to keep away from him. If Marciano couldn't nullify a reach advantage, he would have lost to many opponents. Extra reach won't make my difference in my judgment, and in fact it might be a disadvantage to have long arms against an opponent who forces the fight to the inside. Just my take on styles.

 

Beatle,

Valdes did have the stamina and the punching power to stand a chance against Marciano. He also had the size and the reach to stand a great chance. Marciano never fought a guy with a foot reach on him.

And people always seem to base their opinion of Valdes on ONE video - against Bob Satterfield.

He'd just finished a two-year run where he beat three or four top 10 contenders (including the #1-rated Charles) and roughly six weeks before Satterfield he lost an eliminator with Moore that he thought he deserved to win.

If you based Jimmy Young's entire career on watching him against Ossie Ocasio, that would be unfair. Young had gone on a similar run and after losing a split decision to Norton in an eliminator was never the same.

Yet, everyone seems to acknowledge how good Young was for a brief period, ignoring Young's terrible loses to Roy Williams, Randy Neumann, Earnie Shavers, Ocasio (twice), Michael Dokes, Gerry Cooney, Greg Page, Tony Tucker, Tony Tubbs, and on and on.

Valdes was very good in spots. And the moment Rocky's manager chose to avoid him was during a period where Nino was the legit mandatory and Marciano was struggling

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging how dangerous an opponent Valdes was at that time. He was.

 

DUBBLECHIN

I think where the disagreement would be is in considering Valdes more dangerous than Moore or Charles, or for that matter, Baker.

Some seem to, and I think there is nothing in his record to indicate he was.

It is not only the film of the Satterfield fight--there is also film against Moore, Baker, Machen, etc., The one fight I have seen in which he looks impressive is Jackson. I have never seen a film of the Charles fight, but he must have looked very good in that one.

"stamina"

Not much evidence on film or in his record that Valdes had exceptional stamina. He seems to have often weakened in the late rounds.

 

Stamina: Valdes did not have good stamina. Every film I have seen shows Valdes getting tired in the late rounds in his fights. Valdes died in the last 3 rounds vs a 38 year old light-heavyweight at the peak of his career in 1955. Cost him a title shot against Marciano. Marciano would put up a workrate valdes has never seen before, and would not be able to cope with. Valdes would get broken down both mentally and physically by Marciano. Valdes does not see round 15.


Punching Power: Valdes did not possess the big punching power needed to threaten Marciano. Marciano had a granite chin. He took flush bombs off bigger punchers than Valdes. More importantly, Rocky was the bigger puncher than Valdes with both hands. Rocky had an all time great right hand, and if he lands it flush on Valdes, Valdes would go to sleep. Mark my words. Marciano is the bigger hitter, better finisher, much better stamina, and has the much better chin than Valdes..so if the two trade punches, whom do you think will come out on top?

1. Valdes did not, I repeat, did not know how to use his size and reach advantage on oppponents. Valdes lost to 5'10 180lb fighters Bob Satterfield, Archie Mcbride, Archie Moore, Harold Johnson.

2. Marciano fought Joe Louis, whom sported a 10" reach advantage on Marciano. Louis was also 6'2", only 1" shorter than Valdes. Louis weighed the same as Valdes, 214lb.