Did Nino Valadez ever deserve a shot at Rocky?

Fair enough. Some. But personally I wouldn't consider a win over Valdes among Marciano's top five victories.

By the way, according to Ring Magazine and Sports Illustrated in 1955, Al Weill was pushing for Marciano to defend against Big Bob Baker rather than little Archie Moore in the late summer of that year. Weill ran into determined opposition from the press and public and Moore got his deserved shot.

 

Remember that we never saw a heavyweight champion fight the #1 contender, from 2002 to 2013.

Just to give it some context.

I don't think the evidence that Al Weil was avoiding Valdez is very convincing.

Is it possible?

Sure but if they had picked Valdez, you could have probably made an equally convincing argument that they were avoiding somebody else.

Someone might have said that Marciano was feasting on these big limited fighters, and avoiding the master boxers who would have exposed him.

 

There in February there was a thread called something like, "Did Marciano consciously duck his top contender" or something like that. Anyway, it became apparent in that thread and this one as well that it's mostly Don Cockell people had an issue with. I responded with a message that I believe is still relevant here:

"I'm not trying to denigrate anyone here, but really, a title defense against Don Cockell really was going for the low-hanging fruit because of his rating, which was inflated. Let's look at him for a moment. He was a career light heavyweight who was forced to move up to heavy due to glandular problems and he only had 10 fights at heavyweight before Marciano. He beat a 40 year old Tommy Farr and a decent win over LaStarza. But it was his 3 fight series with Harry (Kid) Matthews that got him there, which I've always found most interesting.

Why 3 fights? Seriously, why 3 fights with Matthews? They didn't appear to be anything special, so why 3? I have a theory. Al Weill was not interested in Don Cockell. I believe he wanted Matthews. Nice and small, a good-looking marketable kid that had already been clocked by Rocky in 2. He was perfect, so they matched them and then they matched them again and then they matched them again and poor little Harry just couldn't nick a win from Cockell. And even a carnival barker like Weill wouldn't be able to convince the public or Ring mag or the NBA that they were signing Matthews for the title. The alternative of course, was Baker or Valdes, so Weill was stuck with Cockell. After the title fight Cockell only had 2 more fights. He was slaughtered in 3 by Valdes and then was stopped by Kitione Lave. One of those great heavyweights from Tonga. In 72 fights Lave had one recognizable name amongst his wins. Don Cockell.

Again, despite saying, "Oh, man, Don was the #2 contender!" I would suggest looking at the whole chess board. And if it is ratings that intrigue you, look at the NBA ratings for the last 6 months of '55. Baker and Valdes were #1 and #2 in that order. But the difference was, their respective careers warranted a title shot."

 

What were the actual records of Valdes and Cockell when the choice was made in early 1955.

Valdes had 22 fights since 1950. He was 17-4-1 with 11 KO's. He was durable and hadn't been recently stopped. His edge over Cockell was the Charles victory. He was on an 11 bout winning streak.

Cockell was 20-2 over his last 22 fights going back to early 1950. He had 10 KO victories. His edge over Valdes is he had been a good fighter longer and had more wins over one-time top ten fighters. His two losses were by stoppage. He was clearly less durable than Valdes and prone to cutting. He was on a 10 bout winning streak.

Valdes had been a preliminary fighter until late 1952. Cockell had won the Euro light-heavyweight title back in 1950.

Which one would have been the bigger draw at the gate is hard to say. Americans were familiar with Valdes. Besides his losses, there was also a dubious decision over Archie McBride in Havana in 1954. Cockell had drawn well against Matthews. And the defeats to Turpin and Slade were in England.

So going in I would give Valdes the edge, but not by a great deal. It is what happened to the two later than makes Valdes in retrospect the much better opponent. Cockell, already chubby, puts on 13 lbs. and is stopped in three on cuts by Valdes. He then gets taken out in 2 by Lave. The Lave defeat could be spun as taking the luster off of Valdes' victory. Losing to Lave showed that Cockell had lost it completely.

Valdes not only beat Cockell, but made a strong comeback in 1957 and 1958, rising back to the #2 position. This run makes him legitimately the far stronger contender overall.

*on Valdes being #2 after beating Cockell. Considering he was coming off losses to Moore and Satterfield, this indicates to me that Cockell was considered a good scalp. How were the two rated by the NBA going into their bout? I know The Ring had Cockell #3 and Valdes #4.

 

If you don't defend against your no1 contender it is inevitable that questions will be asked as to why? Would you at least agree on this?
Would there ever be a convincing argument that he was avoiding Cockell?

 

In addition to almost always being at a reach and a height disadvantage, Marciano was outweighed in some 30 of his 49 career fights.

His weight advantage in the 3 title fights you mentioned was 1/4 -2 lbs while surrendering height and reach.

So let's dive deeper. Marciano has had 5 or more lbs on his opponents just 8 times, half of which was within his first 5 fights as a pro. The only significant fights being Harry Mathews (7 lbs) and Ted Lowry 2 (6 lbs).

So factually:

30 opponents were bigger
11 were 1/4-5 lbs smaller
8 were 5-13 lbs smaller (4 were gimmes at the start of his career)

You failed to make a case for Marciano being a size billy. And if that wasn't your point than you just cherry picked two facts without context for absolutely no reason. So good job. I might entertain you again next year.

 

Valdes of one of the left over contenders that Maricno didn't have time to face. Certainly Moore was more deserving than he and that was Rocky's last fight.

 

As has been stated many times, Cockell was the first fight back after the nose split, and after fighting all #1 contenders, fighting the #2 is a hell of a voluntary. It is not at all indicative of any pattern.

 

Ring Magazine had Valdes number 1 at the end of 1954 and 1955.
Would you consider Cockell among Marciano's top victories?
My top 5 for Rocky would be;
1.Walcott1
2.Charles1
3.Moore
4.Charles2
5.Layne

The reason no Louis.past his sell by date ,and going to be taken by whoever of the top guys with a punch got to him first.
No Walcott 2 Walcott quit cold imo.
No Lastarza2, Protected fighter who really didn't merit a title shot and got one on the strength of their close fight earlier,2 fights previously he lost and was knocked down by a journeyman lhvy .By the logic of this defence Lowry deserved a shot!
Mathews hyped lhvy cleverly manoeuvred into a title shot he didn't deserve.
Cockell as above.

 

If he beats Valdez then Cockell moves into the #1 spot by default, then somebody somewhere, is harping on about the fact that he didn't fight Cockell.

 

Lastarza looks very good in his fight against Layne. Which is why he earned a shot. I used to hold your opinion till I watched that fight. He was a good fighter and well touted (def protected too). I agree with your top 5 wins for him.

I like matthews too. Under rated imo. Only one I didn’t think was very good that got a shot was Don. But I understand why he did.

 

I ,made no attempt to call Marciano a size billy? I just presented the facts.,I find them useful.
I'll never entertain you anytime,you know exactly why, and what I and others think of you,and it has nothing to do with boxing.

 

Nobody was calling for Cockell fight ,nobody stateside gave him the semblance of a chance and I've only been able to find 2 who did in the UK.I don't condemn Marciano for taking an easy one I just get pissed when posters try and justify him being picked over Valdes and posting tosh like ,"well Valdes lost fights ,"as though Cockell didn't and Cockell ,whom I met and liked ,was beaten by journeymen when well into his prime.
One poster even said the fouls Marciano committed against Cockell were no big deal!
Hitting below the belt,butting,after the bell ,and whilst an opponent was down are ,"no big deal ?Yeah right " Marciano was never warned for a single infraction,.Cockell was!
Getting the pudgy challenger into a 16 foot ring and locating a biased referee wasn't enough? Marciano was going to beat the **** out of Don in any circumstances he didn't need the," extra assistance."

 

Bottom line , Cockell was the #2 ranked Ring Magazine contender.

 

Here's one more parting gift for you...

I know my post triggered you. I knew you would see it and would just have to respond even if you didn't have an argument against it. You wanted to argue against me but was too much of a coward to actually make a point cause you know what happens when you go against me with your strawmen, you get made a fool, lose your temper, and say.....well, we both know what types of things you say.

No. You won't stop entertaining me. I'm not the one who spent a year quoting someone that informed me I was on ignore. You been chasing and chasing ....it's been very entertaining.

It has everything to do with boxing. You become so enraged with people over their opinions you make disgusting comments I will continue to remind people of, and there's nothing you can do about it. That's your legacy.

Yeah....the people here that hate me are an elite group.... you are in the same company of such beloved tunnel vision posters like Dino Velvet, Swag..etc. I'm very broken up about that. Ha ha.

I'm putting you on ignore again but maybe you can clear the air on this. When that poster a long time ago was describing a boxing gym experience when he specified being a little boy, you said "I bet your coach was making you swallow something salty" what were you taking about? Maybe it's not as dirty as it sounds, a weird UK thing perhaps? Not sure why you panicked and deleted if a misunderstanding.