Did Nino Valadez ever deserve a shot at Rocky?

Welcome back.

 

I am not into head to head but find it interesting that beating big guys who lost to other little guys improves one head to head versus beating the little guys who beat those big guys.

 

I don't even buy into that. The idea that Marciano should have fought Valdez is a modern conceit amongst boxing fans. I think at the time they just looked at him as an oft-beaten guy who they couldn't particularly make a lot of money off of.

Still, he did deserve his chance.

 

If I’m reading it correctly it would seem be beat Bivins several times while ranked as well as Curtis Sheppard twice. Baker was in and out of the rankings. He wasn’t ranked at the time but would be later. It’s kind of just semantics. In the 50s many of the better fighters were jumping in and out of rankings because they all fought the best often (the most fights amongst ranked men took place that decade besides the 20s down). You had Satterfield, Valdez, Layne, Bivins, Baker, and more just jumping in and out of rankings every year. But I suppose if we are arguing about why Moore wasn’t ranked then, I would still argue he should have been ranked after beating Bivins and especially after beating Henry.

 

Your assuming that all of Marciano's defenses had to be against the current #1 contender.

No other champion in history has been held to that standard.

 

That's up to you I think it safe to assume a Valdes fight would have generated more $$$ than did the Cockell massacre.
ps Wasnt Cockell an oft beaten guy and by domestic level opponents many of whom were light heavies? And wasnt he floored multiple time sand stopped by a middleweight? Valdes ever stopped by a lhvy or a middle?
[url]1951-12-04[/url] 181 [url]Jimmy Slade[/url] 178¼ 22 4 3
Harringay Arena, Harringay
L
TKO 4/10
[url]event[/url] [url]bout[/url] [url]wiki [/url][url]scores[/url]
time: 2:39 | referee: [url]Andrew Smyth[/url]
Slade floored Cockell twice in the first round. After a nearly even second round, Slade sent Cockell down again in the third for a "7" count. In the fourth round, Cockell was dropped twice more and "was now a mere punching bag, " causing the referee to stop the fight. (See Boxing News, December 12, 1951, page 4.)

 

I'm assuming nothing of the sort.What I am saying in answer to the OPs question is that Valdes deserved a title shot.
If your position is that he did not ,then how can a defence against Cockell be justified?
It's really that simple.

 

You gave a bunch of names,all I've done is point out that,when Moore beat them most were not ranked.I've absolutely no argument with Moore getting his deserved title shot at Rocky.

 

You don't think a victory over Valdes the number one contender would have enhanced his later standing? Do you think his one-sided ,sloppy, foul fested win over Cockell enhanced his legacy in any way?

 

I know, was just pointing out I thought some of the other guys were ranked as well.

 

My position is that he did deserve a title shot, probably should have got one at some point, but that he was never the overwhelming standout among the contenders.

Put it this way, I don't think that there is a villain of this story.

 

You are always the overwhelming standout when you are the number one contender,and inevitably, when that number one contender is by passed ,questions will be asked.
If there is a villain, my pick would be Al Weill.