Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

HEGrant,

I thought you said "Valdes sure fought small".

 

Why is it that some people think a victory over Nino Valdes looks better than a victory over any version of Joe Louis?

 

I would like to see this as well. McVey uses double standards in boxing, often criticizing one fighter for doing something, then ignore /defend the other guy for doing the exact same thing.

Sure Rocky hit on the break at times, but his wife beating idol AKA Jack Johnson did the same, and he doesn't care. In fact Johnson was once DQ'd for going low.

 

AP had it 7-6-1 for Moore going into the final round. Moore won the last round, making their final card 8-6-1 for Archie Moore. Again, they had ARCHIE winning. Not valdes. The Referee scored the fight 8-5-2 for Archie Moore.

 

HEGrant is all over the place.

FIrst he is saying "Valdes size, reach" is something Marciano's never seen before, and it would have been interesting to see.

But then I posted a quote of him saying "Valdes sure fought small."

So which is it? Is Valdes size and reach advantage a threat to Marciano or are these advantages nullified by "Valdes fighting small"

 

I've given you a name and a source Peter Wilson the sportswriter from the Daily Mirror, he said Moore was lucky to get the decision.Wilson was the premier British sportswriter of his era.And I provided a link that says the AP press had it even going into the last round .
The Pittsburgh Post Gazette May 3rd 1955.

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

Now you provide a rebuttal

How's that? and tell your parrot the same.

 

HeGrant is a pretty good poster. He knows Valdez would rank no higher than 4th ( I say 5th ) on the best opponents that Rocky beat, behind Walcott, Charles, Moore, and Lastarza.

 

Riding on coat talis you illiterate moron? Well you picked the wrong horse .I've provided a verifiable source, and a link.

 

Right, Peter Wilson. He was the guy who thought referee Arthur Mercante did an appalling job in Ali vs Frazier 1. Who else shared that silly opinion?

 

Your taking it from all side here. Ed has already shown you how wrong you were on Louis' weights.

PS: Its coat tails, not coat talis, you moron.

 

Interesting article on Valdes-Moore II
http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...YNWAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8-QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2725,6290439
Valdes basically admits the Moore defeat cost him his shot at Marciano

 

My rebuttal is easy.

The final AP scorecard was 8-6-1 for Archie Moore. Therefore, since Moore won round 15, they had to have scored the fight 7-6-1 for Archie Moore after 14 rounds. Do you agree? There is no possible way they could have had the fight even after 14 rounds, if their final scorecard was 8-6-1 for Archie Moore. That is unless the AP had two separate scorecards, which in case would mean that it would be another scorecard that had Archie Moore winning.

Moore-Valdes II was not a controversial decision. Close fight? Yes, but a fair accurate decision.

 

Source?

 

The primary souce I have provided states the AP press had the fight even going into the last round. Do you know that Braddock penalized both men for foul blows? if you don't perhaps you dont know as much about the fight and the scoring as you think you do? I provided a named sportswriter Peter Wilson who stated in his book that Moore was lucky to get the decision and he was ringside.
Valdes fought the last 2 rds with a completely closed left eye, maybe that is why he faded ?

You asked for a sportswriter who scored it for Valdes I provided one..

 

So Valdes got his eye closed by a 38 year old former middleweight who the press described as looking "Fat" at the weigh ins of Valdes-Moore II.(Moore weighed in a career high 196lb). Why didn't Valdes protect that eye better?