Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

Everyone at ringside scored the fight for Archie Moore. AP scorecard had Moore winning, and it was identical to Braddocks. Seems like it was a fairly easy fight to score.

Perhaps if Valdes wanted to fight Marciano so bad, he wouldn't have gassed against a fat 38 year old light-heavyweight, and would have closed the show on Archie Moore.

 

Logical post

 

HEGRANT

My answer is None.

My answer is Jersey Joe Walcott




Let me ask you a question HEGrant,

1. Name a large, young, talented, skilled, hard hitting heavyweight who was around during Marcianos era?

 

Nah, I am prety sure Revolver is dead.

 

Bob Baker,Earl Walls.
Clarence Henry wasn't very big but he fits the rest of the criteria.

Dont see those names on Rocky's sheet.

 

We see the same for Jack Johnson, and many of his looses or draws are full of excesses from his fans. Rocky's career doesn't have many excuses. He fought the best three out there as champion.

I have never seen anyone rate Valdez over Charles, or Walcott. Moore defeated Valdez. I do think Marciano resume would look a little better if he fought Valdez over Don ****ell. Net-net--Valdez would be the 4th or 5th best name on Marciano's resume.

Getting back to Valdez, he was a bit gun shy of the action. Watch Satterfield vs Valdez and you'll see a guy shy big man go into his shell. What do you think Rocky would do to a fighter, even a bigger one with this type of safety first attitude?

 

Looses? Full of excesses?
Mendoza speak.

 

If this forum had a deposit of a dollar for every time you tried to spin a Johnson loss or draw, it would be enough to pay for the servers for a month.

 

Is that Harold Johnson? He is the only Johnson conceivably relevant to this discussion.
if you want to talk about any other Johnson why not make a separate thread ,and get your arse kicked yet again. I look forward to it!

 

I don't mean to seem rude here but you have replied to my quote with a load of old shite.

I said had Valdes kept winning he would surely have received his title shot.

Do you disagree with that assertion?

 

great post mendoza

 

None of those men fit the criteria.

Clarence Henry wasn't big(185lb)

Bob Baker wasn't a big puncher

Earl Walls wasn't skilled


Once again, no one from Marcianos era matches the description

 

You answered your own question HEGRANT.

First you say Valdes fought small and would get killed by Marciano because he had no idea how to impose his size advantage, yet now you say valdes would have been a challenge for Marciano because of his size?

 

We see the same for Jack Johnson, and many of his looses or draws are full of excesses from his fans. Rocky's career doesn't have many excuses. He fought the best three out there as champion.

I have never seen anyone rate Valdez over Charles, or Walcott. Moore defeated Valdez. I do think Marciano resume would look a little better if he fought Valdez over Don ****ell. Net-net--Valdez would be the 4th or 5th best name on Marciano's resume.

Getting back to Valdez, he was a bit gun shy of the action. Watch Satterfield vs Valdez and you'll see a guy shy big man go into his shell. What do you think Rocky would do to a fighter, even a bigger one with this type of safety first attitude?

Thanks, I think it summed things up nicely.

You might be better off ignoring McVey's input, as he has a track record for being shall we say a bit harsh on accomplished white heavies not named Dempsey.

Of course Dempsey never fought Wills who viewed as the #1 contender a lot longer than Valdes was, or for that matter Greb who fought many of the same guys, and in some cases had an easier time.