Rocky Marciano vs. George Godfrey

He was good enough to beat the number one contender Ezzard Charles and take his ranking,but Charles still got the title shot instead of him. Modern haters ? What a crock of **** Joe Louis was the Champ when I was born.Valdes was top ten ranked in 5 different years which definitely indicates he wasnt a bum, nor was he perceived as being one!
Charles with 94 fights was worn out when he fought Valdes,but fresh when he fought Marciano with 96 and 97 fights! Is that how it worked? Penchant for losing to lhv's? Charles had also lost to LHVY Johnson 3 fights earlier!

Charles had lost 2 of his last 4 fights when he got his title shot against Marciano.
You're ridiculous!

 

Because Charles took the #1 spot back. It is astonishing that you drone and on thread after thread without admitting this simple, objectively true fact.

Except that it is objectively true that he was, and I have shown you as much. Again, there is no debate here, you are just ingnoring facts.

He wasn't worn out, he just didn't expect Valdez, who was known to lack aggression, to jump on him like he did. Valdez himself said so IN THE VIDEO YOU POSTED.

Not the issue with Charles. The issue is there is this ridiculous canard that Valdez' size would have trouble Marciano, when in truth, his size didn't trouble anyone because he fought small.

Charles was #1 contender for beating a guy who beat a guy who had recently beat Valdez. He got the spot back according to the ratings board. Again, you are ignoring facts, and that is ridiculous.

 

Ezzard Charles is one of my favorite fighters. I have a thread somewhere that no one responded to asking who would have won had he and Marciano fought in their primes. I've never said a bad word about Charles.

It astonishes me that you guys keep talking about this like Charles didn't get the #1 spot back. He beat Corey Wallace, who had in turn beaten Billy Gilliam, who had beaten Valdez as recently as '53. He also beat Satterfield. The ratings board consiered this enough to give the spot back to Charles. You can disagree with their decision, but that was their decision.

Sure, whatever. Nothing wrong with the era...there was legendary fighters in it and some good young guys. Valdez was stuck in the middle of all that. But think whatever you like.

Because he was only mandatory contender for a few months. They did offer him a contract, by the way, as discussed in a video that Mcvey himself posted. Valdez threw a chair at Al Weil because he didn't like it.

You guys are hilarious. Marciano is an undefeated legend who beat four legends in six fights, as well as a handful of the best young contenders. His family and his fans give a bucket of warm ****.

Actually, I have the intelligence to study up on what I am talking about. Valdez himself said he caught Charles by surprise because he had the reputation of not being aggressive, and he came out aggressive that night. So please, spare me the postering. It's not a good look.

 

Wallace was known as being a Joe Louis look a like, Gilliam was not ranked,neither was Satterfield.Charles had lost 2 of his last 4 fights when he got the title shot.

 

But it was enough in the eyes of the ratings board to give Charles the #1 spot back, and Marciano went on to fight his #1 contender.

 

On the question of who was ranked #1 - it's true that Charles was #1 when he fought Marciano. It's also true that he was ranked #2 behind Valdes when Marciano signed to meet him in February 1954.

Valdes lost the #1 spot at the end of that month, not because of Charles's wins against Wallace and Satterfield (both lightly regarded fringe contenders who were heavy underdogs against Charles in spite of his recent losses) but because of his own tame performance in outpointing Archie McBride.

https://ibb.co/br4Gj9d

 

But that was a year after Valdes had first been the number 1 ,so why didn't Marciano fight Valdes?

 

Say what you want about Valdes, but a win over him in place of the foul filled slaughter of Cockell, would look a lot better on RM’s record!

 

But he won 9 fights before those 4, and last two were KO wins against Wallace and Satterfield.
So no, Charles was no old or past prime as you want to bring.
You forgot to mention what I said just to discredit Marciano, which shows that you use emotions instead logic and facts.

 

8/11/53 Valdez beats Charles

9/24/53 Marciano defends against LaStarza

1/9/54
Ezzard Charles is NBA #1 again

6/17/54 Marciano beats Charles

Valdez was #1 for about four months, one month in which Marciano had a fight scheduled. He was not obligated to fight Valdez three months after the LaStarza fight.

What is more, Al Weil offered Valdez a contract at some point AS PER THE SOURCE YOU POSTED.

At some point, you have to start being honest with yourself.

 

Listen stupid Catchweight NOT ME is excusing Charles for losing to Valdes because of the amount of fights he had on his clock.I pointed out he had more when he lost to Marciano and he then changed his tack.Do try and keep up!

 

I am using the RING ratings, and don't call me a liar!

 

Well no, that's not why he got the spot back. He got the spot back because Valdez looked underwhelming in his victory against McBride. When Marciano signed to fight Charles, Marciano was number one.

In an era, where Don ****ing Cockell makes it to number two, I'd say their are serious serious, reservations about the era.

All of whom considerably past their prime.

Marciano's resume was lacking quite a bit in good young guys to put it lightly.

Well he wasn't stuck in the middle, when he was number one contender.

I'll check out the video and get back to you.

And for all that, someone who wasn't "that good" beat one of his best wins, and gave another all he could handle.

You know what's not a good lock? Giving a fighter an excuse for a loss because his opponent is aggressive. Pathetic. You go on and on about Williams' post shooting losses, but Charles gets a pass because his opponent was aggressive.

 

"Valdes fought small." "Valdes wasn't aggressive"LOL

1950s Cuban Heavyweight Nino Valdes - Colorized Footage Compilation (youtube.com)