Lineal Rankings System

"Why did Valdes have to meet Moore in an eliminator?"

You got it backwards. Why did Moore have to meet Valdes?

Moore had already defeated Valdes. He had also KO'd Baker who had beaten Valdes. He had the year before KO'd Harold Johnson who had beaten Valdes. He had beaten Henry who had beaten Baker and Satterfield. He had beaten Slade. And he had KO'd Satterfield.

Moore was the clear #1 contender going into 1955.

Moore was not in Folley's position, but in Machen's, only much stronger because he had already beaten Valdes who was the next in line.

The Ring ratings are only paper ratings. All real fans knew that Moore was the best available opposition out there for Marciano.

 

I didn't dodge the question. I told you. Neither were the #1 contender. Moore was. So Moore deserved the shot at Marciano.

 

I’m done with you if you keep bringing up Moore. Moore is not on trial here. Cockell is, for the last time


Did fat boy cockell deserve his May 1955 title shot over Valdes....yes or no?

 

Who deserved the title shot between fat boy cockell and Valdes?

 

Okay, I think the real contender ratings going into 1955 should have been

1-----Archie Moore
2-----Bob Baker
3-----Nino Valdes
4-----Don Co-kell

So Valdes is marginally the higher ranked contender, by my lights.

In the paper ratings you put so much stock in, Valdes was the #1 contender, and I think reasonably should have gotten a shot before Co-kell.

But Valdes in a way made his own bed. He was offered an elimination with Charles going into 1954, the winner to get Marciano. He passed and so Satterfield was subbed. Charles won and moved back into the #1 contender spot. That led to two fights with Marciano as Charles was the better draw and there was a demand for a rematch after Charles' great effort in the first fight. Most fans, rightly or wrongly, thought of Charles as the better contender.

 

"LaStarza rode the Marciano split decision to the #1 rating"

To a great extent. I agree that this is a fair criticism of LaStarza. I would point out though that it is exactly the same thing Zora Folley did in 1957 and 1958, and you have no problem with Folley. Follley rode a decision over Valdes in 1956 to the #2 rating in 1958, and then to the #1 rating when he drew with the #1 Machen.

The difference is that when LaStarza fought an elimination with Layne, he won the decision.

Also, though, you are unfair in that both Layne and Bucceroni were top contenders, and beating them helped LaStarza.

You said Bucceroni was highly rated only because he beat LaStarza. That is certainly part of it as LaStarza was high in the ratings. But Bucceroni also defeated Tommy Harrison and Jimmy Slade, both of whom got into the top five heavyweights in monthly ratings which have been posted on this thread. You yourself posted two 1954 ratings with Slade #4 at heavyweight. Also Bucceroni came into the heavyweight division after being rated highly at light-heavyweight for a couple of years.

 

Just a bit off, but Nat Fleischer has a long comment in the October, 1953 issue or The Ring on how the top contender is selected. Fits in with all this and several other recent threads--

On the NBA mandating the champion fight his #1 contender:

"As for the selection of the leading contender, the NUMBER ONE rated boxer, as the proper opponent in a bout for a world championship, there again the NBA hit a snag. Boxing today is a highly commercialized sport. The promoter of a world heavyweight title has a huge investment. He refuses to take any chances on a flop. He insists that the most colorful contender or the one who is likely to draw most in a given locality, be the opponent of the title holder.

"In Europe, the choice is made from the two top men. In New York, the same procedure takes place. But in Europe the champion has no say in the choice. That is done by a championship committee of the European Boxing Union whereas in New York the title holder has the final say. The NBA, however, is on record against both plans. Its choice rests on the outstanding contender and that is what the NBA hopes to foist on all states and all commissions."

There is then a long paragraph on the return bout clause for the Marciano-LaStarza fight and how the contract was signed before the fight, but will not actually be filed until after the fight, thus skirting the New York State's prohibition of return bout contracts, ending with "so far as New York is concerned, its rules have not been violated."

"No matter what the NBA does in-re the return bout clause and its insistence that the leading contender only may be given the title shot, the above situation will exist. Illinois would gladly accept the championship bout under the same conditions that did New York and so would Michigan, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, or any of the other states that can stage a world title fight."

I post this w/o comment as I think it contains interesting information.

 

I do want to say about the "top contender" and "return bout clause" controversies that my view from the 21st century is that the cure proved worse than the disease. We are far less likely today to see the actual top two guys fight, I think, then we were then. We just have a whole bunch of rival sanctioning bodies with their own champions and top contenders.

 

The difference is Folley proved his worth as a fighter by defeating 21 top 10 fighters and staying ranked inside the top 10 for 10 straight years . Lastarza was protected his whole career then after his title at age 26 he drifted into obscurity.

We really don’t know how good he is.


Bucceroni got exposed by 175 by Irish bob Murphy. He went up to heavyweight and got dominated by Nino Valdes victim hurricane jackson. Bucceroni wasn’t a good fighter. Lastarzas loss to him was considered “embarrassing”.


Based on the evidence I laid out you about the rocky Jones disasters, I believe Roland was severely overrated as a fighter. Are you going to address Lastarza Jones? I made serious allegations. If they are true you need to serious re evaluate Roland as a fighter

 

Good, you admit Valdes should have gotten a title shot over cockell.

Charles and Moore are both NOT on trial here like I said earlier they both earned their shot


Fat boy Don was on trial and I made my case. Valdes deserved the title shot more than don and was the better fighter


I don’t understand why you think baker should have been over Valdes heading into 1955. Baker suffered a devastating one round knockdout loss to Satterfield in 1954. Valdes didn’t lose in 1954 and defeated Jackson and Neuhaus that year. The Valdes loss to baker was a thing of the past.

I actually think Neuhaus and cockell compares favorably, both were around the same level and had similar careers

 

How could you say Valdes was only marginally better than cockell when he beat better competition, was rated higher, and easily beat cockell in 3 rounds?



Valdes Jackson was an elimination bout. Valdes dominated. No credit here?

I think you undersell Valdes performance in Moore eliminator. Valdes took Moore 15 very close rounds, the fight came down to the final round.

Let me ask you this

What if cockell had to fight Moore in an eliminator? How competitive would don have been? I see an easy knockout win for Archie

Speaking of eliminations

What elimination bout did cockell win to earn his shot? It certainly wasn’t that overrated overprotected light heavyweight from the west coast Matthews....or the corpse of Roland Lastarza

The only live heavyweight cockell faced prior to Marciano was Slade...who ruined cockell in 4 rounds

 

Let’s face it...cockell is one of the worst looking heavyweight title challengers ever on film. He was short, fat, he couldn’t crack an egg, he couldn’t take a punch, and he was slow. New York Times described cockell as “fat doughboy who has no chance vs Marciano”.

Valdes with his height reach weight punching power strength and left jab would have proved a much tougher opponent for any champion


Valdes fought much tougher competition than cockell at heavyweight


How would don have done with Valdes opposition 53-54?

Don vs

Moore 2x
Johnson
Charles
Baker
Jackson
Neuhaus
Sys
Agramonte


Don loses to everyone there besides maybe sys and agramonte ...

How would Valdes have done with dons competition?

Valdes easily beats everyone except Marciano




Of course cockell fought Valdes eventually and nino exposed what we already knew

 

Lots of good points. Some poor ones. Among the poor ones--

"The draw with McFadden certainly doesn't compare with Co-kell's knockout losses to Jock Taylor and 30-11 Goodwin."

Sure doesn't. Don C was 18 years old for those two fights. Valdes was 28 when he drew with McFadden. One thing with Don C's record is that quite a few of the losses you are talking about were before he turned 21.

Harry Matthews--well there are two ways of looking at Matthews. He fought 19 years, and lost to five men, one when he was still 17 to a man with well over 100 fights and a strong winning record. The other four were to Eddie Booker, Jack Chase, Rocky Marciano, and Don C. The first three men also defeated Archie Moore. These aren't exactly bad losses. And Matthews fought Booker and Chase still short of his 21st birthday.

At 19 Matthew defeated former world champion Al Hostak. He was rated at one time or another at middleweight, light-heavyweight, and heavyweight. He defeated fighters who were highly rated in all three divisions. After losing to Don C, he still went on a winning streak against some fighters with good stat records. His record is thin on victories over top men, but there are some, and I think one would have a hard time finding many who fought 19 years and were never upset by a second rater and only lost to fighters as good as the ones who bested Matthews.

"Charles, Moore, Johnson, Bivins"

No one considers Matthews as good as these men at their best, and all were the best in their division at one time or another.

"Valdes was still fighting when Don C was long retired."

Yeah, but in 1955 no one could see what would happen in the future. Valdes overall had a better career and two bigger wins in the early fifties, but losses as an experienced fighter to not only Moore and Johnson and Baker, but even Bill Gilliam, puts a question mark over his top of heap rating in 1955. I personally would give him a slight edge over Don C, though certainly not over Moore, Johnson, or Baker.

 

So In your estimation,

Cockell received a title shot despite your opinion he should have been behind Moore, Johnson, baker, Valdes in the ratings?

So in your judgement, marcianos camp bypassed 5 more proven contenders to take on don?



Valdes did not lose to McFadden, you have no fight report. So I don’t think it’s fair to judge Valdes on as if it were a loss when it wasn’t and there is no fight report to speak of. Valdes also knocked McFadden out.


“Billy Gilliam”

He accomplished something only Archie Moore did. He beat both baker and Valdes. Couldn’t have been that bad.

 

Why did cockell get a title shot without defeating Moore in a title eliminator?