Rocky Marciano vs. George Godfrey

Instead insults you could bring some facts like Charles winning 9 fights before those 2, and of those 4 he won 2 by KOs over Wallace and Satterfield.
Yeah, we get it, you don't have any facts other than insults and you bring half of the record because you only like it that way.

 

Mcvey...he himself noted that he wasn't very aggressive. There isn't a lol, here. It was also mentioned IN THE VIDEO YOU POSTED.

Do you know what "fighting small" means?

 

Go look at the ratings. Charles was #1 by January.

Every era has poor quality guys climb the ranks through a little luck and good timing.

Not "considerably," no. Somewhat past it. You understand that two of them were champions when he beat them, right?

Not really, Layne, LaStarza, Matthews...

By they way, again, emoticons belittle you. They aren't arguments, they are posturing. I am not going to insult you...I actually thinks its beneath you.

For four months. Then he got it back and lost it again to a LHW you think was washed up. He was a middle-of-the-pack guy.

You do that.

He had a couple of highs and a lot of very low lows. He's not the first guy who caught lightening in a bottle.

No, and this is more useless posturing. He himself described that he caught Charles off guard with a change of style. It isn't hard to understand. Charles was head and shoulders the better man, just like Lewis is better than Rahmen, Klitschko is better than Sanders, Dempsey is better than Meehan, etc.

 

Untrue. Valdez was still number 1 in January. https://www.newspapers.com/article/chippewa-herald-telegram/142425522/

Name one era since, where any fighter as bad as Cockell made it to number 2, or better yet was the most logical contender for the title according to you?

Walcott was 38 years old, and at the end of the road.

Moore was in his 40s, and had at least 176 fights by that point. Fair to say he had some milage.

The fact that Layne reached number 2 speaks volumes about the era. Slow, undertrained, chubby at 200 pounds, etc I'll grant you that he had the heart of a ****ing lion though.

Matthews never beat a single ranked heavyweight.

LaStarva wasn't bad.

I'm not "posturing". I'm using the laughing emoticon because it's clear you have an agenda.

I never said washed up. I said considerably past it. He objectively was not a "middle-of-the-pack" guy when he was number one.

I did, and as solomondeedes stated, it's literally a fan 70 years later telling this story with nothing to back up. I certainly couldn't find anything during an extensive search through the archives.

I agree. He was a very inconsistent fighter, but the fact remains he deserved his shot at the title. Nobody's a hater for stating the number one contender deserved a title shot but was rejected in favor of guys lower than him, in at least two fights/

I'm showing your double standards. You give Charles all these excuses, but Williams gets no such reprieve for his post-shooting losses, nor does Liston in his EIGTH pro fight/

Doesn't say much about Charles at that point in his career if he's caught off guard by a guy being aggressive and is unable to adjust.

 

Top Post!

 

Cheers mate! Means a lot coming from you!

 

I posted the official ratings of the sanctioning organization, as represented by Boxrec.

He was world champion. Rocky ended his road.

He was world champion, and Rocky did not end his road. He fought on. And he was not in his 40s.

There was nothing wrong with Layne. He beat very good fighters including Walcott, Thompson, Satterfield (who beat Valdez), and Brion. He won a disputed one against Charles himself...McVey says it was a robbery, I heard otherwise but not seen it to judge. His only problem is that you need him to be poor to justify your irrational position.

He beat Layne. Not sure if Layne was ranked when he beat him, but as derived above, Layne was at one point ranked and very good.

Mustcato, Reynolds, and Beshore were also ranked at one time. Not sure if Nardico was ranked at heavy but he was a good fighter.

He beat Charles in '56.

90 victories overall.

LaStarza was one of Marciano's toughest fights.

It's posturing, and beneath you.

He was a Corrie Sanders, Rahmen type who had highs and low lows. He got to #1, but always lost it, and was oft beaten by guys he had no business losing to. Middle of the pack.

I am going to further research this. They were known to be in talks so I hardly find it unbelievable.

As we have shown, that is not true.

Williams is not in this conversation...he had enough prime losses. Liston the issue is not so much the loss as having his jaw broken by a LHW. It somewhat cuts the narrative of the invincible iron man. Liston was actaully a bit of a weight bully. But that is a differnt conversation.

Charles was a vastly superior fighter who got the #1 contendership back. By rankings and economics, of course they wanted to fight Charles.

And I disagree. Sometime fighters catch lightening in a bottle.

 

I think either Rocky Marciano would find a way to win, or George Godfrey II would find a way to lose, or both.

 

Not top post. He wasn't. The OFFICIAL rating was that Charles was #1. They must be citing the Ring magazine rating, which is prestigious, but unofficial.

National_Boxing_Association's_Quarterly_Ratings:_1953

In fact, I think that is the problem you guys are running into: you are using THE RING or some other unoffical ratings system. Valdez was only #1 for less than a year between October 1954 and July 1955m and of course the second Valdez fight was in May, so for all practical purposes, he was number one for about eight months.

 

Bottom Line.
Charles convincingly lost to Valdes the number 1 contender but Valdes did not get a title shot.
Layne lost to Baker 3 times.
Drew with 2 journeymen Hall and Walker.
Lost to Charles twice ,[whom Valdes beat,] being dropped 3 times in 1 fight and being dropped and stopped in the other.
I don't say Charles was robbed against Layne the papers did.
I never said Valdes fought small and he didn't ,he was an upright boxer
Layne drew with Neuhaus whom Valdes stopped.
Layne lost to Friedrich whom Valdes stopped.
Layne lost to Jackson whom Valdes stopped.
Yet , according to you Layne was fine and Valdes was overated .
I also never said Valdes was not aggressive
Stop attributinq statements to me I never made!

 

"Charles was #1 contender for beating a guy who beat a guy" "He got the spot back"

Charles was always rated ahead of Valdes in the National Boxing Association ratings until after the Marciano bouts. The NBA ratings were official ratings. The Ring was only a magazine.

A problem with Valdes is that he was offered an elimination against Charles and refused it. Satterfield was then subbed.

While Marciano should have defended against Valdes over Cockell, the fact is that Moore was the real #1 contender, having beaten not only Valdes, but Baker and Johnson, both of whom had beaten Valdes.

 

"Name one era since where any fighter as bad as Cockell made it to number 2"

I would say 1967 and 1968.

First thing, Cockell was #2 in The Ring, but only #3 in the NBA ratings, always behind Valdes and Charles. And of course the real #1 contender, Moore, was rated only at light-heavyweight.

Thad Spencer in 1967 rose to the #1 ranking in the October and November NBA rankings. His career was at best spotty. He had lost to Chuck Leslie, a figter with a career record of 23-23-5. He was stopped in 1966 (a year in which he ranked #3 in The Ring's annual rankings) by Bill MacMurray, a career 28-24-3 fighter. He lost 2 of 3 to Amos Lincoln. He got to be #1 beating Ernie Terrell in 1967. He would not win another fight. He was stopped by Jerry Quarry, Leotis Martin, Billy Walker, Mac Foster, and Jose Luis Garcia. Lost decisions to Tony Doyle twice, and Ron Stander, and drew with Charley Reno. Spencer's overall record was 32-13-1 with 14 KO's and 7 KO'd by.

The next year Manuel Ramos got to #4 in The Ring's rankings off wins over a fading Eddie Machen and Terrell again. His overall career record is 24-29-3.

The argument that either is better than Cockell is based entirely on the assumption that beating Terrell in 1967 somehow makes them better, but Terrell losing to these men makes me wonder if Terrell by this time was not grossly overrated.

Cockell "was the most logical contender"

I certainly don't believe that.

I think off overall heavyweight history, Cockell was far from the bottom of men who got shots at the title. He had decent skills.

 

Yeah, I finally figured out what they were talking about with all this. Valdes was #1 for 10 months officially, really 8, and as you say, Moore had already proven to be the better man.

 

Sorry, but the BOTTOM LINE is that Valdez was not #1 when you claim he was. He was ONLY #1 for 8-10 months between October 53 and May-July of 54, and that is really not enough time to make it out like Marciano owed him a shot on spot, especially since Moore had already proven to be the better man. I am sorry, but now that I figured out that you guys have been talking about unofficial ratings all of this time, this is really over.

 

I don't think Terrell was ever the same after the beating he took at the hands of Ali. I also think Spencer, while inconsistent looks much better on film than Cockell.

Their's no shame in losing to Quarry, Martin, and Foster. All were top ten contenders,

Also Cockell himself wasn't lacking in embarrassing losses. He had about 12 losses before fighting Marciano. Including to the 40-23-6 Jimmy Slade who was dropped four times by a green Patterson, and ran away to the extent his purse was withheld because of his perceived cowardice. This guy dropped Cockell four times, rendering him "a mere punching bag, " as described by the press.

I said "according to [Catchwtboxing] you" because he made the claim that Valdez never deserved a title shot, (which by extension means Cockell, the next highest ranking contender deserved it) and those thinking otherwise are merely haters.

Well obviously he was better than guys like Wepner, and those who were granted a title shot they didn't deserve. But Cockell was number 2,