Why did Marciano Choose to defend against Charles than Valdez ?

fixed

 

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...t7kzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2u4HAAAAIBAJ&pg=3156,128714

Looks like Moore went into the Valdes fight with a heart problem, looked terrible in training camp, and showed up a "fat" 197lb...at 38 years old...Yet Nino Valdes still couldn't beat him.

 

United Press had the fight scored 8-6-1 for Archie Moore.

 

I shouldn't step in, but off the primary source listed by McVey, there is no indication what the final vote was. It merely says it was even going into the final round.

8-6-1 was the UPI vote,

Do you have a primary source, or actually any source, stating what the AP vote was?

On the other hand, the article McVey brought over indicates Moore won the last round and therefore the fight.

It wasn't unanimous, but the consensus seemed to be that Moore won the fight, and it doesn't seem to have been particularly controversial.

Nor was Braddock's scoring out of line with the UPI and AP.

 

Is the United Press different from AP?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...fQZAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XSMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6817,5593306

 

Ok Mcvea,

It appears I confused the UP with the AP. I will concede that point to you. Either way,

UP scorecard 8-6-1 Archie Moore
AP scorecard- 8-7 Archie Moore
Braddock- 8-5-2 Archie Moore

All scored the fight for Archie Moore

 

Peter Wilson

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...y-how-the-mirror-covered-172989#ixzz36ENFWgbL


The funny part is the only thing Mercante accidentally did wrong was poke Frazier in the face on a break.

 

Here's that source .
IN CONTEXT.

This content is protected

 

Nno he didn't he stuck his finger in his eye you clown.atsch

 

"eye of the beholder"

I just quoted Fleischer on the fight.

"Didn't you crab about using words."

Yes. But I certainly agree with Churchill on consistency.

My own opinion on Marciano. He was rough and always on the edge on rules, but this is kind of the norm for American fighters, especially heavyweights. Dempsey, Baer, Liston, Foreman. Backhands, hitting men down, hitting after the bell, and what have you.

All were dirty by British or Euro standards. None were DQ'd by an American referee.

We simply have different standards, and not only in boxing. Our sports have always taken a "boys will be boys" laissez faire attitude to the rules.

In baseball pitchers deliberately "beaned" batters in the days before helmets, and "loading up the ball" with foreign substances was an art form. "Spiking" was common on the base paths.

Old films of NFL football show an almost laughably dirty sport with guys cold-****ed when far out of bounds, piling on, and almost every conceivable dirty tactic. Forearm smashes to the face were the tackle of choice for many. I recall a great linebacker who always wore what appeared to be plaster casts on his forearms (as if he had a broken arm) which he used as clubs against the ball carriers.

Much of this has been cleaned up in recent decades, but it was once the norm. American fans wanted their sports rough.

I am not arguing who was right or wrong vis-à-vis the rest of the world, only that this is the way it was.

The bottom line is many of these fouls (hitting to the back of the head, kidney punches) weren't fouls at all in America, and others (butting, thumbing, lacing) were winked at. Americans weren't interested in fights being decided by DQ's.

 

You'll concede that point, and the fact that I provided a named writer who thought Valdes beat Moore? That's two out of two for me then,and I thank you for being gracious enough to admit it,unlike the clown who is acting as your echo at the moment who has never admitted he was wrong [when was he ever right?],since he has posted here.

 

McVea,

I was wrong on that point, however don't get carried away. Your point was made, but so was mine. AP scored the fight for Archie Moore, not Valdes. The judge, AP, and UPI all had Archie Moore winning the fight on near identical scorecards. So I ask you to admit the fight was not a controversial decision.

The judge, UPI, and AP all scored the fight for Archie Moore. The detailed fight reports claim valdes eye was completely closed, and he lost the last few rounds. Moore did more damage, and closed the show. How can you make a claim Valdes deserved the victory?

 

Does Peter Wilson have a scorecard?

I have posted 3 reliable scorecards that all had Archie Moore winning the Valdes fight. I also posted a newspaper article that stated "Most everyone at ringside had Moore winning the fight."

 

Marciano hit Moore after the bell,he hit Charles after the bell , he hit Lastarza after the bell and he hit ****ell after the bell. Marciano hit ****ell low several times, he hit Lastarza low several times . Neither of those offences has ever been "winked at" they are fouls and if perpetrated more than once should lead to a point deduction,if continually applied they are universally DSQ offences and always have been . Hitting to the back of the head, butting ,thumbing and lacing are and always have been fouls punishable by points deduction and eventually if continued dsq. Forearms? Marciano was always very free with his. Amerrican Football or Baseball has absolutely nothing to do with the rules of boxing and how they are applied. Marciano was a fighter who commiitted fouls in virtually all of his title defences and not only got away with them he wasn't even warned .He was a dirty fighter END OF.

 

I don't make any claims other than Peter Wilson thought Valdes deserved to win and the AP had the fight level going into the last round.

I never said it was a controversial decision I just rebutted you stating everyone voted for Valdes.