Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

The compelling evidence is they didn't fight him, even though they fought all their other number-one contenders.

Why did they choose ****ell over Valdes? Was ****ell an easier fight?

 

Nino Valdes was handed back his $5000 bond to challenge Marciano because of his very poor showing against James J Parker. I can't think of any more Damming evidence. In light of all the poorest challengers for world titles that were actually allowed to challenge champions on the strength of recent fights one can only wonder how awfully Nino must have looked. Can you imagine?

 

And then Valdes beat two more top five contenders, got ranked number-one, they accepted his bond, he became the logical contender, and offers poured in from all over for a Marciano-Valdes fight.

Imagine how good that must've felt for him.

Can you image?

 

Without hindsight, In 1954 I don't think on paper Cokkell was an easier fight. Nobody was handing Cokkell back his bond to challenge Marciano. Don was not a journeyman made good. Don was champion of the British empire and had a good run as a heavyweight.

Baker, Satterfeild and Moore were better than both Valdes and Cokkell.

 

Everyone gave Valdes more chance against Marciano than ****ell,who was so lowly regarded the fight drew peanuts.There were big $$$ offers for Marciano to fight Valdes. You said ****ell was unbeaten at heavywweight going into the Marciano fight he wasnt, he had been absolutely thrashed by Slade and kod by unheralded Wilson. ****ell's best wins were over past Marciano victims, a ruined Lastarza who was a carefully managed fighter who somehow missed out on the Iron of the division,and an over hyped Mathews who wasnt anything really.
I have Ring magazines of those times and Valdes was seen as a dangerous challenger, no one ever said that about ****ell.
Valdes looks a class above ****ell on film what on earth are you talking about?

 

If we followed that logic consistently, we would have to say that every time a champion has fought somebody other than the #1 contender, they were ducking him.

That does not in itself amout to a case.

 

Of course Nino proved he was better than Don. But he needed to fight him to prove it.

1954 Nino is getting his bond handed back and Don is beating Lastarza.

Lastarza rightly or wrongly was a better name than Jackson and nino.

Nino creamed Cokkell. I have the magazine with the report and also his next fight that he lost to kitone lave. Don never won another fight after Rocky.

I wish Rocky did take valdes, like you say he did not have to. I don't think Nino quite erased his journeyman losing spree by 1954.

 

Do you also have the boxing news report that gave Cokkell a chance of beating Rocky Marciano? Sounds ludicrous now but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Boxing news picked Cokkell to beat Rocky!

Cokkell was a poor challenger. We know that now. Yes Nino was better, he later proved it, but nobody was given a chance against Rocky back then... apart from the British press who felt (ludicrously as it turned out) that Don could outpoint Rocky.

Who exactly gave Nino a chance to beat Rocky?

 

I can't believe a thread about Marciano missing Niño Valdes is nearly 20 pages deep already. Obvious some posters for whatever reason are hellbent to diminish Marciano's legacy. Charles, Walcott and Moore were all better boxers than Valdes and far greater quality wins. To argue against Marciano having not fought Valdes, a fighter with less skills and stamina, so ardently shows a bias against Rocky. Marciano has one of the most impeccable resumes regarding fighting his best opposition available in history.
Valdes had his chance had he defeated Moore, he lost and the rest is history. Stop trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
If you want to argue that Marciano theoretically may have struggled against a fighter with a superior physical advantage so be it, but to knock down his resume for lacking Valdes on it is absurd. James J. Jeffries, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Larry Holmes, Lennox Lewis and a host of others have far better misses on their ledger than does the Rock.

 

Actually, even on paper, ****ell wasn't considered much at the time.

People seemed to remember Don getting wasted by Randy Turpin more than they remember Valdes-Gillium.

I don’t know if you can open this without a subscription to the New York Times, but if you can, read this article.

timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1955/05/16/80773974.html

I’d post the PDF of the article, but I can’t include links in my posts because I’m a new member.

If you want to try another search for it outside the Times, here is the headline and first paragraph.

Sports of The Times; Chosen With Care
By ARTHUR DALEY
May 16, 1955,
NOT even distance can lend enchantment to tonight's fight for the world's heavyweight championship. Rocky Marciano will square off against Don ****ell, an Englishman who bestirs memories of the Fat Boy in Charles Dickens' "Pickwick Papers." The battler from Battersea was chosen carefully by Al Weill, the over-solicitous protector of the Brockton Blockbuster, to be bombed on the San Francisco proving grounds.


The article doesn't get much nicer after that. People weren't pleased with Weill's choice.

 

:good seems like people are :smoke :rasta:hat too much

 

Yes Cokkell was a poor challenger. The American press were proven correct. The British press, the boxing news in particular gave Don a better chance. They were proven wrong.

Nino was better than Don. But Moore and Baker were both better than Nino. It was proven before Moore and Baker rematched nino and after.