Rocky Marciano vs. George Godfrey

Ring ratings are far more reflective of where people deserve to be ranked than any of the alphabet organizations, which have frequently been suspect, and downright atrocious.

He was also 38 years, and visibly slowing down, despite putting in an excellent performance against Marciano in their first bout. Safe to say he didn't have much left either way.

He was anywhere from 39 to 41, the latter of which most sources support.

I don't have an "irrational position". I'd saying giving your favorite fighters excuses for losses where they were giving otherwise excellent performances, while allowing none for fighters you dislikes, is far closer to the mark.

And yet, not a single one of them was ranked.

So was the 73-68-10 Ted Lowry.

I agree. He was very inconsistent, but he was still number one contender, and deserved a title shot, especially over the likes of Cockell, and nobody who points this out is a "hater".

I do. This would've been widely reported in the press, and I've yet to find a single report about it.

Yup all three of them! He had two losses while at his absolute best, against a peak Liston a H2H monster. And another disputed split decision against the best fighter of the Mid-60s not named Ali, when he was injured.

It was his eight pro fight, against a good fighter. He was thrown to the wolves early unlike the vast majority of fighters who wouldn't be fighting anyone nearly as good as Marshall that early in their careers and likely caught laughing, when he was hit in the jaw. Marshall was shown to do funny antics in the ring as seen by his bout against Johnson so I don't doubt the story.

Laughably untrue, just like your previous claim that Ali was legitamitely knocked down and hurt against Wepner.

Liston cleaned out the division and beat the very best fighters there were out there. He didn't discriminate based on weight.

Their's far more in Charles loss to Valdez than Liston's loss to Marshall.

As I stated, when they signed in January. Valdez was still number one contender. He only lost that ranking in his uninspiring win over Mcbride in FEBUARY, as solomondeedes pointed out. https://ibb.co/br4Gj9d

I agree. Valdez caught lightning in a bottle the night he beat an excellent version of Charles. He was the better man that night despite your laughable excuses to the contrary.

 

Valdez refusing an eliminator with Charles is an oft-repeated claim with zero source. Do you have any source for Valdez specifically being promised a title shot if he could beat Charles in the rematch?

Yes. This was my point. Valdez deserved a title shot. One is not a hater for pointing out that fact.

 

Ring magazine ratings are completely unofficial. Neither Marciano, nor any other champion, picked opponents according to Ring magazine. You are just plain objectively wrong. I have to go out with the family so I will address the rest of this later. You are having a fit over a guy who was 11-6 during Marciano's reign, and #1 for 8-10 months.

 

In top form Godfrey was an amazing fighter, but so was Marciano, so the fight could go either way.

 

You have lost this point outright.

Ring magazine ratings are completely unofficial. Neither Marciano, nor any other champion, picked opponents according to Ring magazine. You are just plain objectively wrong. And you are having a fit over a guy who was 11-6 during Marciano's reign, and #1 for 8-10 months.

He was the best in the world when Marciano fought him, and ATG, and no one was saying he was slowing down until Marciano beat him.

He was 39, and three years off of his legendary performance against Durelle

It is a moot point one way or the other. Valdez was 11-6 during Marciano's reign, and was not given the #1 spot for beating Charles because he was in such a hole losses wise.

Nardico was ranked at LHW and Layne would get a ranking back within the year Matthews beat him.

In the developmental stage of Marciano's career. Sure. So was Vingo, for that matter who Marciano said was his toughest fight.

He was #1 for less than a year and lost the eliminator in 8 months...there is no argument that Marciano owed him a shot. None. What is more, Moore had already beaten him, and the papers were saying that Marciano was trying to duck Moore, not Valdes. There is no way to spin this.

More on this latter.

Forgotten what this was about. something about Willams...irrelevant.

I've heard the laughing narrative, and don't buy it. Having his jaw broken by a LHW cuts agains the narrative of Liston ans a rugged monster.

He enjoyed a significant weight advantage over most of his best opponents including Machon, Foley, And Patterson.

Rubbish.

But this isn't true. Charles was #1 by January according to the organization sanctioning the title fight. You can cite Ring rankings, or Swagdelfadeel ratings, or wishful thinking ratings all you want...Charles was #1, and the man Marciano was obligated to fight. Valdez was #1 for 8-10 months from October 53 to May or July 54, officially losing the spot in 54.

And yet it wasn't enough to get him the #1 spot because he has so recently lost 4 fights.

 

In the April, 1954 issue of The Ring, Charles said the Valdes fight was his worst off night. He said that his manager had tried and was trying to arrange a rematch, but the Valdes camp refused.

After the Satterfield fight, Charles publicly stated he was willing to fight an elimination with Valdes.

I believe Charles.

I have read that Valdes was offered an elimination, but off hand I can't say where and am too old to again research it. But what seems unarguable to me is that if Valdes had fought a rematch with Charles and beaten him, there would have been no way to deny him a title shot.

*My own guess, and it is only a guess, is that Valdes' management felt that a Charles rematch was dangerous, and so the "smart" move was to allow Charles to have his shot. They gambled that after Charles fought Marciano in June, they would get the next shot in September. But the nature of the first fight made a rematch popular. And then Moore, who had beaten Valdes, decided to go for the heavyweight title, muddying Valdes' claim.

As the cliches go, there are tides in the affairs of men, so strike while the iron is hot.

 

Some good points here.

I have read articles in The Ring and Sports Illustrated from 1955, and it was indeed Moore that Marciano was accused for fearing and ducking. Al Weill actually was publicly pushing for a Bob Baker defense, which ended up getting a lot of pushback.

On The Ring, it should be noted that the ratings everyone quotes are the annual ratings, reflecting usually late December. Ezzard Charles was #1 contender in The Ring's updated monthly ratings at the time of the Marciano fights. So even citing The Ring makes no sense.

 

But not when Marciano signed to fight him in February. To be fair, Charles actually was #1 when Marciano signed to fight Roland LaStarza instead the previous year, so he was sort of due.

 

Do you know if Valdez was actually offered an eliminator against Charles as in, he was told if he beat Charles (again) he'd get the title shot?

 

Valdes fought Archie McBride on Saturday, February 20, 1954. He won, but very unimpressively. The Ring in their next rating dropped him to second.

Manassas Daily Independent--February 22, 1954--"Valdes received an unpopular split decision over the obscure Archie McBride in Havana."

Nevada State Journal--"Ezzard Charles top heavyweight on challenger's list. Nino Valdes drops to third after poor showing."

The Marciano-Charles fight was signed on Wednesday, February 24, according to the AP report on February 25.

So the argument that The Ring rated Valdes ahead of Charles would be at best technical. The magazine hadn't gone to print yet. But everyone concerned would have been aware that Valdes was going to lose his top rating.

And I think this is a moot issue anyway. The Ring was only a magazine to begin with, not an official body. Plus over the summer Charles was their #1 contender when he faced Marciano.

 

I remember reading a columnist who stated that Bobby Gleason was not interested in an elimination with Charles. Unless Charles is lying about wanting a rematch and trying for one, the issue is moot, as Gleason was playing it safe and not interested.

I do know Charles said after the Satterfield bout that he would fight anyone for a shot at Marciano.

A question for you. Do you have any evidence that Valdes tried for a rematch and was refused?

 

Valdes dropped to #2 after his win over McBride, not #3 - this has been covered on this thread.

https://ibb.co/br4Gj9d

So as I said, he was #1 when Marciano signed to meet Charles. There's absolutely no reason to think that "everyone would have been aware" that Valdes was going to lose the top spot. That's even if we imagine that the Marciano-Charles contract was hastily scribbled in the four days following the McBride fight.

The reality is it had been clear for a while that Charles was the favourite to get the June title shot. Meanwhile, Valdes's manager couldn't even get Al Weill on the phone.

https://ibb.co/8Y3NdW4

 

No, I've seen people say Valdes was offered an eliminator against Charles, but what they mean is he was offered a rematch. There's no evidence any promises were made.

 

You definitely have a better source for The Ring ratings. The Nevada State Journal was either just wrong or referring to some other ratings. Other magazines, notably the Police Gazette, did ratings.

However, this reprint does show that Valdes fell behind Charles and was not the #1 contender.

What were the NBA ratings quarterly ratings?

January 9, 1954
Champion--Rocky Marciano

Outstanding boxers
1--Ezzard Charles
2--Nino Valdes
3--Dan Bucceroni
4--Roland LaStarza

April 13, 1954
Champion--Rocky Marciano

Logical contenders
1--Ezzard Charles

Outstanding boxers
1--Nino Valdes
2--Don Cockell
3--Roland LaStarza

So the NBA by April considered Charles in a class by himself as a challenger, and had previously considered him the #1 contender.

As for the second article. It seems a bit of a puff piece. I don't remember reading anything about why there wasn't a rematch with Charles. As for Weill not taking Gleason's calls, there could be a lot of reasons. Why go over the same ground again and again.

It is true that the IBC had penciled in Charles by this point as the next challenger. And they were the promoters.

But my question stands. Have you any evidence that Gleason ever lobbied for a Charles rematch? Or did he just opt to wait for a title shot to come open.

*by the way, thanks very much for printing these ratings. I am going to study them more, but saw two interesting things. Harry Matthews was #9 at heavyweight as late as March, 1954. I don't know how many times it has been posted Matthews that was never rated at heavyweight. The Ring rated him off and on over a three year period. Secondly, Jimmy Slade, who was just trashed as a nothing on another thread, was the #3 light-heavy contender. He was highly rated in both the heavy and light-heavy rankings.

**The $16,000 gate for the Valdes-Charles fight is not impressive. Don Cockell and Harry Matthews drew about $100,000 that same month in Seattle.