Rocky Marciano vs. George Godfrey

All due respect, you "remembering" reading something means absolutely nothing, nor does it fulfil the evidence requirement unless you provide a source.

As for your question "Do you have any evidence that Valdes tried for a rematch and was refused?". Well no, because I never made that claim in the first place. Why would Valdez want a rematch with a man he'd already beaten decisively? If it was in fact, an eliminator bout, that obviously makes things different but their is absolutely zero evidence, Valdez was offered a title shot if he would beat Charles in a rematch.

 

I posted an SI article in the other thread where they accused Marciano of ducking Moore and called Valdez a "bum." The ladies had a panic attack and gave me the "how dare you," when all I was doing was quoting a contemporary article.

As for their ratings, I know you are arguing the same, but the ratings they citing are fantasy. Citing Ring magazine ratings is fine for proving prestige, and would been be more or less official for the 1920s when we really don't have anything else to go on, but a champ is obligated to fight the #1 according to the organization sanctioning the fights, not a magazine. They have no leg to stand on here. They have been pushing a fiction, and to keep pushing it is pretty shameful.

 

I don't think he ever actively lobbied for a rematch. He did express willingness to fight Charles again but said, reasonably enough, that he would expect a pretty hefty purse.

He wasn't simply waiting for a title shot to appear, though. While Charles was busy trying to get a return bout with Harold Johnson organised, Valdes was off to Europe to knock out 5th ranked Heinz Neuhaus, which earned him the Ring #1 spot.

 

"you 'remembering' reading something means absolutely nothing"

Fair enough for you. It is decisive for me.

"Why would Valdez want a rematch with a man he'd already beaten decisively?"

To prove it wasn't a fluke. If I were Valdes' manager and my goal was a shot at Marciano, I would have been eager for a rematch with Charles if I thought my guy would win it. Valdes had a spotty record. There was not a consensus that he was the #1 contender. He was not rated #1 by the National Boxing Association which was the official sanctioning body. A win over Charles in a rematch would have strongly strengthened his claim.

"There is absolutely zero evidence Valdes was offered a title shot if he would beat Charles in a rematch."

And there is zero evidence Valdes would not have gotten a title shot if he beat Charles again and left no doubt who was the better man. I don't accept your underlying premise that Valdes was greatly feared. Marciano was champion from September, 1952, to March, 1956. During that period, Valdes went 12-7.

Valdes was more highly rated than Cockell and so had a better claim to a title shot in 1955.

 

Neuhaus was rated #8 in the NBA rankings on July 7, 1953. Bob Satterfield was rated #4. Coley Wallace #6. Valdes KO'd Neuhaus, while Charles KO'd Wallace and Satterfield. Valdes strengthened his claim, but Charles strengthened his more.

"he would expect a pretty hefty purse"

Or demanded a pretty hefty purse. But if I were his manager I would not have haggled over money if I thought he would beat Charles and force a Marciano match. That is where the real big money would have been.

It appears to me it is obvious Gleason was quite willing to bide his time rather than roll the dice.

*off topic but Harry Matthews was the #7 rated heavyweight on July 7, 1953.

 

And in the Ring ratings for July Neuhaus was ranked 10th. But by the time he fought Valdes he had improved his standing by beating Karel Sys in a European title defence. I made it clear that I was talking about the Ring ratings - in part because I don't know where the NBA ranked Neuhaus in November and neither do you.

Satterfield, incidentally, was ranked 7th by the NBA when he fought Charles.

You're creating this narrative where Valdes refused a definite offer of a rematch which would definitely have earned him a title shot if he'd won, but the facts just aren't there to support it. There's no details of any offer being made - nothing about money, date, venue. There's certainly no indication that he was ever guaranteed a title shot for a second win against Charles.

 

I'm having a fit? You're the one calling everybody haters because they think Valdez deserved a title shot.

Are you having a laugh mate? Their were contemporary papers criticizing him for being to old, and saying he should retire.

His prime was around the time of the Louis fights,

Three years is an eternity in boxing. Look at Bowe.

Did they fight at LHW? No? Then it means nothing.

Yes but he wasn't ranked when they fought, so my point that Matthews didn't beat any rated fighters stands.

This isn't true. He was far more deserving than Cockell. Their is no getting around this no matter how big a fan of Marciano you are.

I wasn't referring to the period after Moore beat him. I was referring to when he was number one contender prior to his loss to Moore,

It's been three days. Find anything yet?

You made a laughable claim that Williams had enough prime losses..... he lost to two men in his prime. One was a H2H monster, and the other was a disputed split decision where Williams came into the fight injured.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I don't see it being unreasonable at all given multiple people reported it, and Marshall was known for his goofy antics in the ring. Wouldn't surprise me at all if an experienced Liston, started laughing.

But they WERE the best opponents out there. So it isn't true, he was picking his opponents based on their weight which is what a weight bully. He also fought men bigger than himself or the same size like Williams and the aforementioned Valdez.

Charles was number one contender, previously world heavyweight champion and came very close to regaining it on multiple occasions.

Liston was in his eigth pro fight and years away from a ranking.

But their's no use in trying to reason with someone with such a blatant agenda.

I'll concede "swagdelfadeel ratings" got a chuckle out of me.

 

But as we have shown, he didn't. He was #1 for less than a year, and a champion does not owe a #1 a shot in an eight month time frame.

I have posted a paper article in which they accuse Marciano of trying to fight a "bum" (there words, not mine) like Valdez instead of Moore. This makes since since Moore has already beaten Valdez. We are seeing a pattern here where, if you don't like the reality, you just make up your own.

No, he was one of the rare fightr where his ring intelligence gave him a second prime, which is why he was champ.

If means different things to different fighters. Bowe was a trainwreck, and not a good example to translate to anyone else.

Have you forgotten that you are championing a fighter who lost to a LHW twice? Lost his #1 spot to a LHW? Of course it means something.

Extremely sad splitting hairs.

Rubbish. Cockell was ranked 3# and 10-0 before the fight. Valdez #1 and 11-4. A champion does not have to face his #1 every time (though Marciano came close!) and they were pretty interchangeable.

I have lost the point here, and it isn't really worth finding. Valdez was #1 for 8-10 months, and lost it to a man who had alrfeayd beaten him. He was 11-6 during Marciano's reign.

Well no, I am going to go buy some books. Again the stupid emoticons.

So you are going to define his prime so that you can reduce his losses to two. Great. Look, the guy wasn't that good. HIs best accomplishment was splitting a couple with Terrell. I realize you like him. You are welcome to.

It sounds like dumb excuse to me.

Kind of like Marciano fighting Moore instead of Valdez.

Liston didn't fight too many good big men. Williams would have been the big name...the guy whose best accomplishment was going 1-1 with Terrell.

Lost the point here. I am just going to summarize at the end.

Which says nothing about his overrated punch resistance.

Sure. I have an agenda because I use real ratings.

So here we are again. Valdez was a guy who was #1 for less than a year, and lost twice to a LHW that Marcino went on to fight. He was 11-6 during Marciano's reign. Not that good.

 

• "Former middleweight champion Randy Turpin, still middleweight king of Britain, added British national and empire light heavyweight crowns to his collection last night after stopping Don Cockell in the 11th round of their scheduled 15 round bout at White City Stadium. Turpin, weighing 162, floored Cockell twice in the 11th before the referee stopped the bout at 1:10 of the round. Cockell, who scaled 174 1/4 pounds, also hit the canvas in the 3rd round after a hard right to the jaw." -International News Service
• Cockell down a total of three times during the fight.
• After this bout Turpin immediately challenged both Ray Robinson to a 3rd bout for the middleweight title and Joey Maxim for the world light heavyweight title.

Jimmy Slade's short hooks punched down Cockell's guard from the start and made way for a left hook to the chin in the 1st. Cockell took a count of 6. A short right floored Cockell for a count of 7. Cockell rallied in the 2nd, but in the 3rd he was down again from a left hook. He took an 8 count.

In the 4th, two-fisted attacks from Slade had Cockell on the ropes, he dropped to his knees but wasn't counted. A right and a left hook to the chin dropped him again,now for a count of 6. Slade was hammering away, Cockell went down on his knees again, rose and was met by more blows before the referee stopped it.
Have you forgotten Marciano defended his title against a man who was brutalized and stopped by a162lbs middleweight and a 178lbs lhvy? lol
A fat man whom Valdez would subsequently stop in3 rds?

 

Liston fought;
Williams
Besmanoff
Summerlin
Valdes
DeJohn
Machen
Harris
Folley
Bethea
Who did he miss on his climb to the title?

 

"Cockell himself wasn't lacking in embarrassing loses." "The 40-23-6 Jimmy Slade"

Cockell lost badly to Slade. But Slade was highly rated in both the light-heavyweight and heavyweight classes from 1952 to 1956. For example, he was rated #4 at light-heavy in the October, 1953, NBA ratings. He was #4 at heavyweight in the October, 1954 NBA ratings. He was still #9 in the January, 1956 NBA ratings. He rose even higher in The Ring ratings. He was rated #3 at light-heavy in the March, 1954 ratings posted on this thread.

Slade beat about ten men who were rated at one time or another. He had wins over among others Hurricane Jackson (twice), Clarence Henry, Yvon Durelle, and Earl Walls. He went to a close split decision loss to Harold Johnson. Normally he hung in there with good men.

I believe that his win over Cockell is only his fourth best win, behind the two over Jackson and the one over Henry.

He did seem to be over his head against Patterson, but Patterson was a future heavyweight champion.

Bottom line, losing to Slade per se was not embarrassing for Cockell. Getting KO'd was more the issue.

 

Cockell was ko'd earlier in his career by a single body shot.
He was a good light heavyweight, a Euro level heavyweight, and a real nice guy but ,imo never really world class .

 

"no reason to think . . . that Valdes was going to lose the top spot."

Valdes didn't have the top spot with the folks that mattered--The NBA and the IBC.

"That's ever if we imagine that the Marciano-Charles contract was hastily scribbled in the four days following the McBride fight."

Why not? The next year Archie Moore KO'd Bobo Olson on June 22 and signed to fight Marciano on July 1. I see no reason why negotiations would have to drag on and couldn't be done in a day. What exactly is there to haggle about? If you are satisfied with your percentage, sign.

 

Here is what boxrec has on the Charles-Satterfield fight. From the AP

"A revitalized Ezzard Charles, 189, dropped a bomb on Bob Satterfield, 180, in Chicago Stadium last night to touch off a gigantic buildup for a heavyweight title bout with Rocky Marciano. Charles gets the chance to become the first fighter in history to regain the heavyweight crown."

"Charles has earned the chance. It will not be necessary for him further to prove his right as the #1 contender."--Truman Gibson of the IBC

This fight clearly settled the issue. Satterfield was believed to be far more dangerous than Neuhaus. That was accurate. As a matter of fact, he was arguably more dangerous not only than Neuhaus, but also Valdes, as his later fight with Valdes would prove.

Valdes was sitting it out.

"There's no details of any offer being made--nothing about money, date, venue."

If Valdes was not going to fight the top rated contender, why talk money, date, or venue for a Marciano fight. That is really putting the cart before the horse.

By the way, the IBC is the critical opinion..

 

I don't know why you're dragging up a 2-day old post which you responded to at the time. If you remember, you said that Charles was ranked #1 by the Ring when he fought Marciano, and I pointed out that he was ranked #2 when Marciano signed to fight him. Since you're the one who brought up the Ring ratings, this "the NBA ratings are the only ones that matter" line doesn't work here.

If you read that paragraph back, you'll see that I was referring to the lack of any details of an offer to fight Ezzard Charles again.

Valdes wasn't sitting anything out. While Charles was inactive for 3 months following his loss to Harold Johnson, Valdes was knocking out Heinz Neuhaus. Neuhaus was ranked 5th by the Ring. Where was he ranked by the NBA? Well, no one's quite sure, but even after his loss to Valdes he was ranked 8th, just one place behind Satterfield, so I'd say it's reasonable to assume that he was previously ranked at least a couple of places higher.

https://ibb.co/t8LjttG

As for Satterfield, yes he was dangerous, but he was also notoriously inconsistent and fragile, and a 3-1 underdog against Charles in spite of Charles's recent losses.

And the IBC was a promotional outfit. When did their opinion become "critical"?