Molten Lava Vitriol For Rocky Marciano

Nope
Chronology
Charles no1 v Valdes 11th Aug 1953 Winner Valdes;

Charles v Johnson 8th Sep 1953 Winner Johnson;

Charles v Wallace Unranked 14th Dec 1953 Winner Charles;

Charles v Satterfield no 9 .13th Jan 1954 Winner Charles;

Charles gets a title shot with Marciano 17th Jun 1954
VALDES DID NOT LOSE TO MOORE UNTIL 2ND MAY 1955

Valdes v Agramonte18th July 1953 Winner Valdes;

Valdes v Charles no1. 11th Aug 1953 Winner Valdes;

Valdes v Charley Doc Williams 13th Sep 1953 Winner Valdes;

Valdes v Matt Daniels 29th Sep 1953 Winner Valdes;

Valdes v Heinz Neuhaus no8 . 15th Nov 1953 Winner Valdes;

Valdes v Archie McBride 20th Feb 1954 Winner Valdes:

Valdes v James J Parker 2nd March 1954 Winner Valdes;

Valdes v Karel Sys 22 May 1954 Winner Valdes;

Valdes v Tommy Jackson 14th July 1954 Winner Valdes :

Valdes v Jimmy Walls 11th Dec 1954 Winner Valdes:

Valdes v Jack Flood 25th Jan 1955 Winner Valdes;


Valdes v Archie Moore 2nd May 1955 Winner Moore;

Valdes goes unbeaten from ;

21st11th 1953 His last loss


Until 2nd May 1955;

Now tell me Charles deserved a title shot more than the man who beat him and took his number 1 spot?


VALDES WAS NEVER OFFERED A TITLE SHOT!

 

McVey, you yourself posted a video claiming that he was. You yourself acknowledged as much.

You can post a chronology, but Charles was #1 when Marciano fought him. Marciano haters are the only people in history that I know of who complain about a fighter fighting his #1. You would have to ask the NBA why they made that decision.

I would think that some of the reason is, as I have demonstrated, Valdez was not a highly respected or marketable fighter.

 

Charles was rated #1 when Marciano fought him.

Louis was on a seven fight win streak against good competition.

Those facts aren't going to change.

 

This movie was based on Marciano...

This content is protected

 

Produce it please? Im not complaining about Charles getting a shot,in due course,Im saying he got one instead of a more deserving challenger who had beaten him and replaced him as the number 1 challenger!

Charles fought Marciano in1954 here are the Ring ratings for that year and the previous one.
1953 1954 1955
Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Nino Valdes
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Dan Bucceroni
4. Roland LaStarza
5. Earl Walls
6. Don Cockell
7. Clarence Henry
8. Tommy Harrison
9. Bob Satterfield
10. Coley Wallace

1954
Rocky Marciano, Champion

1. Nino Valdes
2. Don Cockell
3. Ezzard Charles
4. Bob Baker
5. Earl Walls
6. Heinz Neuhaus
7. Rex Layne
8. Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson
9. Charley Norkus
10. Jimmy Slade.

You claimed Valdes did not get title shot because he lost to Moore, so Charles got the chance.

Charles fought Marciano in Jun 1954.
Valdes did not lose to Moore until May1955,nearly a year later!

Neither did Valdes lose his number 1 spot until then!

You are wrong on all counts, so now stop making excuses for Valdes being ducked by Marciano's management. Posting the facts doesn't make you a hater,but ignoring them makes you a fan boy.

 

People always blame guys like Allie Weil but then their heroes who use them to get rich, they never blame those guys. Those guys are pure as the driven snow. Meanwhile, they're really Carmella Soprano, baking ziti for the local priest, using personal trainers, wearing fur coats, agonizing over how their hubbies are the bad guys. Al Weil was a saint!

 

You can say many things but Joe louis was a shot fighter, pure and simple. And that is a fact

 

No facts are not going to change,no matter how much you ignore them.

Valdes not getting a title shot had nothing to do with him being beaten by Moore,that happened almost a year after Charles had jumped the queue,leapfrogging over the man who had beaten him, and taken his number 1 ranking!

Louis beat 2 ranked men on his comeback.
Savold who was more used up than Joe was and Brion, an in and outer .Louis was steered clear of punchers on his comeback, and his own power was a thing of the past.

 

I didn't claim that. He lost the #1 spot three times. The last time was because he lost to Moore. He lost it the first time because the NBA gave it back to Charles after Charles got a victory. It happens in boxing all the time. I am not sayin it is right, but Marciano is surely not at fault, and there is not way to make it so.

Are you disputing that Charles was #1 when Marciano fought him? He fought Charles in June of 54, and Charles had been named #1 in April.

 

Except that he wasn't. He objectively was not. He wasn't what he once was, but he was still one of the best.

 

Addressed in the other post. Charles was #1 according the the NBA ratings. I didn't say that he lost the spot by losing to Moore...that came later.

 

Louis was the faintest shadow of his former greatness. Every contemporary writer commented on this. Couldn't pull the trigger on openings, no right hand, seemed disengaged from the action. He was there to pay tax bills and was shopworn goods.

Ezz was 2-2 in his last four fights and went on to continue being a .500 fighter, He was 100 fights into the a bruising line of opponents. He was breaking.

 

Ranked #2 in the world when Marciano beat him.

FACT!

You haters are the only people I have every seen who attack a fighter for fighting the highest ranked people he can get his hands on.

 

A .500 fighter who was 100 fights into a bruising career and fighting over his natural weight. Scoreboard.

The tallest midget is no claim to fame.

 

#2 in the world on a seven fight win streak. He was a very good opponent at the time.

The problem is that you guys just don't know anything about the era of boxing.