Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

For the Walcott rematch, Marciano made far less than Jersey Joe.

Figures from Marciano-Waltcott II
According to the New York Times

Chicago May 15 (UP) – Facts and figures on the Marciano-Walcott fight:

Crowd – 13,266 (paid); 2,768 (passes, press, ushers, etc.) total 16,034

Gross gate - $331,795
Net gate - $253,462.37
Television revenue - $300,000
Total net - $553,462.37
Marciano’s share - $166,038.60
Walcott’s share - $250,000
Balance to promoters - $137,423.40

 

Well,

in 1939 Joe Louis defended against Jack Roper in LA--gate $87,000

in 1949 Ezzard Charles defended against local hero Pat Valentino in SF-gate $167,000

in 1955 Rocky Marciano defended against Don C in SF--gate $196,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------

All the Dempsey fights prove is that Dempsey drew in the 1920's more than Marciano in the 1950's. I don't see the relevance.

Nor to Valdes' drawing power. It only points to why Marciano wanted to fight Moore.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even the "dirty fighting" can be in the eye of the beholder. Here is Nat Fleischer in The Ring on the Don C fight:

He comments on the British scribes focusing on 'the illegal manner in which he moves in for the attack, swaying low from the waist.'

Fleischer's response-

"While this is not permitted in Europe, there is no rule in American boxing against this style and since C---kell was fighting for the crown in America, the abuse hurled on Rocky for battling him this way is unfair.

"Never in the fifty years I've covered sports, has a referee warned a boxer in our country for using that style. Why should Rocky have changed it to oblige the British scribes, or Teddy Waltham, representative of the British Board of Boxing Control.

"If such style is banned universally, that would be a horse of another color, but so long as fights are staged in the U. S. and the rules pertaining to that portion of the British complaint is not altered to make it illegal, Rocky would be within his rights to continue to use that style. As for the other complaints, that's something for the referee to decide."

Fleischer mentions that Don C butted Marciano three times and was warned once by the referee for fouling.

This was his final judgment-

"Talk of C---kell losing the fight in San Francisco because of the tactics employed by Marciano is the bunk."

I guess everyone sees things differently.


*By the way, if Marciano was dirty for the reason given, so was Dempsey, not even considering any other fouling.

 

Matthews fought a lot in the northwest, but the fight with Don C was his biggest gate by far out there.

All this doesn't deal with Valdes and Jackson only drawing 4500 for a fight between top contenders.

Promoters are going to notice that.

*My bottom line point is that there is no evidence that Valdes was a bigger draw or particularly excited the fans.

Moore alone seems to have done that.

 

Dubblechin

Once again no one other than valdes and his manager thought valdes beat Moore. I posted a newspaper article that stated everyone at ringside thought Moore won.

Find me one source that thinks valdes beat Moore? Valdes himself doesn't count. You really think Valdes would admit defeat Moore even if he thought he lost? Of course Valdes is going to say he won. Problem is, NO ONE at ringside thought Valdes won.

 

Marciano avoiding Latin fighters...

 

The man beat his #1 contender more times than most champions and gave some rematches to tough customers. Valdez probably should have gotten a shot at "some" point.. But his rise to the top of the ratings was short lived by his own doing in failing to impress viewers, failure to rematch charles, and inability to beat Archie Moore. Valdez may have deserved a title shot over Don ****ell but truthfully, there isn't much of a case to call him a ducked opponent. He needed to maintain his #1 status longer than a combined 10 months which was broken in half by a brief demotion in the rankings.


P.S. Would the moderators please adjust the board to allow the spelling of Don ****ell's name?

 

Good Post Magoo.

Here are the problems I have with what some people are saying. Magoo, tell me if you agree or not.

1. Moore-Valdes II being a controversial decision, the judge was fixed ahead of time, and the TV camaras were blacked out to ensure Moore would win.

2. Marciano ducking Valdes because his camp was afraid of Valdes long reach, punching power, and size

3. Al Weill had no intention of every putting Marciano in the ring with Valdes

4. Valdes was more dangerous than Charles and Moore

5. Valdes has a strong chance to beat Marciano

 

Very accurate

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

 

In the eye of the beholder ? Didnt you crab about using words?

They didn't focus on Marciano coming in weaving and ducking below the waist line, they focused on his fouls.

Butting hitting low ,hitting after the bell and hitting a man on the floor ,are fouls in any country, get real!
What anyone else mayhave done in a ring by way of fouling is irrelevant ,one does not excuse the other.
The referee in the ****ell fight was extremely lenient towards Rocky anyone who doesnt accept that is either totally biased, blind ,or both .

Peter Wilson was ringside, here is his opinion.

"I believe there would have been a different result had the fight taken place in Britain.
I do not mean that ****ell would have fought any differently or could have shown better form.
But I do think marciano would have been disqualified.
Take these examples.
In the 1st rd Marciano landed a kidney punch.At the end of the 3rd he landed after the bell.
Inthe 4th rd he straightened up sothat his head caught and cut ****ell's forehad causiga gash which worried ****ell for the rest of the fight .
In the 5th rd Marciano landed so low that ****ell reeled back into the ropes.He landed low again inthe next round ,then trapped ****ell on the ropes and hit him3 times after the bell.
In the 7th rd Marciano butted and bored-as he had done almost nonstop thoughout the fight- and landed another low blow at thend of the round.
And the appalling thing was that I never once saw referee Brown even caution the world champion".
BTW Wilson was ringside for Valdes v Moore, he thought Moore was lucky to get the decision.
Here is an American writers view Joe Williams, in the" NY World telegram and Sun."
"Marciano violated practically every rule in the book.He hit after the bell, he used his elbows,and head in close quarters,several times punched below the belt,and once hit ****ell when he was down.
If ****ell should get the idea that anything goes in the American ring short of wielding a knife, or pulling a gun you couldn't blame him"

The fight was held in a postage stamp ring too.

I'm not sitting here saying ****ell would have won the fight without Marciano's fouling he wouldn't, he had no chance before the fight was signed, but that in no way excuses Marciano's fouls.

Marciano was a dirty fighter in some defences, let's not pretend otherwise and he was blatant about it .
He hit Moore after the bell ending the 4th round had rung

Here is an extract from a report of the second Lastarza fight.


"Marciano was a 6-to-1 favorite. LaStarza built up an early lead on points. Marciano fought clumsily and outside the rules. In the second round, he was warned by referee Ruby Goldstein for head butting. In round three, he hit on the break and after the bell. Rounds six and seven were punctuated by low blows. Then, in round seven, Marciano landed a brutal body shot above the belt and the tide turned".

If you don't accept this then I'm afraid your credibility just flew out the window.



Cherry picking one Louis defence against a no hoper ,Bob Roper 16years earlier, a time when Louis was fighting every month is ,well, disingenuous would be a kind description.

Marciano had one real good pay day ,that was against Moore and Moore was the draw not Marciano.This was because he took out national adverts ,and put up mock wanted posters saying" Wanted Rocky Marciano by Sheriff Archie Moore," Moore ran a 6 months campaign to get Marciano into the ring.
The Ring Magazine had Moore on the cover ,arms outstretched chasing after the title which had wings attached to it. I have the magazine. Moore's three financial backers spent
$56,000 on a publicity campaign to get him his title shot.

 

Peter Wilson was ringside he thought Moore was lucky to get the decision.Source," More Ringside Seats",page 78.

Seems to have been a closely contested fight with Valdes pressing the action and Moore coming on strong in the last couple of rounds.


"1955-05-02 : Archie Moore 196½ lbs beat Nino Valdes 209½ lbs by PTS in round 15 of 15

• Location: Cashman Field, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
• Referee: James J. Braddock 8-5

"In the rough battle, referee Jim Braddock took one round away from each battler because of low blows. There were no knockdowns but each was knocked back onto his heels several times during the exciting slugging match. Archie Moore was bleeding from the nose and mouth at the finish, and his left eye also was swollen. But he could see very well. Nino Valdes forced the fighting in nearly every round and tried to impale his bobbing-weaving opponent with long left jabs and whistling rights. In the 13th session, Nino's left eye was closed tightly shut and he fought on half-blinded and fatigued. Moore's superiority in the 14th and 15th rounds clinched the fight and gave Moore his 20th straight victory." -United Press

• Scorecard: Jim Braddock (referee and sole judge) - 8-5-2 Moore
• Unofficial UP scorecard - 8-6-1 Moore
• This bout was not permitted to take place in California due to Physician's claims that Archie had a heart ailment. However, Las Vegas doctors gave him a clean bill of health.
• Attendance - 10,800 ".

The AP press had it all even going into the lst round.


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0TkxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7GoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4826%2C535381

 

McVea,

What was Peter Wilsons scorecard? Name me one source that had Valdes winning against Moore on their scorecard. Name me the exact quote and the scorecard?

I already posted a source showing "Most everyone at ringside had Moore winning the fight".

AP scorecard and Braddocks were both identical. Both had Moore winning. Just accept that it was a close but clear decision victory for Moore. No controversy.

 

And Moore winning the fight. One judge scorecard and AP scorecard. And "Most, Everyone at ringside".