Rocky Marciano vs. George Godfrey

And the IBC was run behind the scenes by its puppet master Frankie Carbo.

 

Fighters win and fighters lose. Cockell was 10-0 up to his fight with Marciano. #3 in the world. Not a bad opponent at all considering that all of Marciano's others were #1.

The important this with these threads that now has to be addressed is that you have been using totally fictional ratings. Valdez was #1 for 8-10 months for one stretch only--not enough to be any kind of true mandatory. In fact, he was 11-6 during Marciano's undefeated reign.

 

It wasn't the point of the post. The best men Liston fought were significantly smaller than he was. That was the point.

 

Here are excerpts from a very long article printed in Sports Illustrated on June 20, 1955. Lots of interesting Info here I think. so I thought I would share with the board:
---------------------------------------------
With Arthur M. Wirtz, his Chicago partner, James D. Norris controls 60% of the stock of Madison Square Garden.

To Jim Norris the Garden is only part of his boxing-hockey octopus centering around the International Boxing Club, of which he is president.

(goes on to list what what he owns including two NHL hockey clubs)

In such an organization the Garden is becoming a tarnished link in a long chain. It has assumed the aspect of a mere part of the Norris empire, which includes such sports arenas as the Detroit Olympia and the Chicago Stadium.

From the days of his youth 48 year old Jim Norris has been the buddy pal of thieves and killers, gamblers and fixers. He began this association with the scum of the Chicago underworld and extended it to the garbage of New York and Miami.

The nine Board of Directors of MSG are Norris, General John R. Kilpatrick, Wirtz, James I. Bush, retired utilities executive, Edward S. (Ned) Irish, executive vice-president of the Garden, Daniel Topping, co-owner of the New York Yankees, Henry Crown, sole owner of the Empire State Building, and Benjamin C Milner and Edwin J. Weisl, of the law firm of Simpson, Thacher, and Bartlett, which handles legal matters for the Garden.

Five years ago Norris, Wirtz, and Hopalong Cassidy, the then owners of the Cole Brothers Circus, merged with the Barnes Brothers Circus. The Garden may well have a circus in the spring, and a Jim Norris circus at that.

Boxing today is in the three-fingered grip of Norris (via the Garden and IBC), the International Boxing Guild (a mutual benefit association of managers), and Frankie Carbo, the underworld boss of boxing.

On the second floor of Madison Square Garden are the offices of Nat Fleischer's boxing magazine, The Ring, and the Internation Boxing Club and its president, James D. Norris.

The wealth of James D. Norris has been estimated at a quarter of a billion dollars.

 

Some comments

$250 million in 1955 is equivalent to about 3 billion today.

I printed the bit about the circus because of the involvement of Hopalong Cassidy. I assume they mean by Hopalong Cassidy the actor William Boyd. One of boyhood heroes mixed up with Norris who is also entwined with Frankie Carbo! No doubt I will now be totally cynical.

What stands out is how Norris is entwined both with the underworld and the pillars of society. Makes one wonder about the general relationship of the underworld with the financial elite.

On the Norris-Carbo relationship. I wonder who was the dog and who was the tail? Hard to buy that Carbo could push such a wealthy man around.

It is most interesting that the president of the IBC was The Ring's landlord and that Fleischer and Norris had offices on the same floor. It makes one wonder about the influence of the IBC on The Ring ratings, if any.

 

During the 50's I believe there were more champions and contenders owned by the mob and, as a result more fixed fights ,than at any other time in the 20th century. Norris presided over this decade and there is a book entitled James Norris And The Decline of Boxing.
It doesn't make me wonder,whatever his faults,I believe Fleischer was for the good of boxing 100%.
Fleischer sometimes made editorials going as far as he could without positive proof mentioning some of these curious results.One such editorial about mob owned Jimmy Carter was entitled "A Dangerous Habit" referring to Carter's penchant for dropping over the weight decisions ,and reversing them when fighting for the title.

 

The fact that little blob was #3 just speaks volumes for the depleted era that Marciano fought in. Marciano's results must be measured in the context of his meager opposition. The most strapping and daring lads of that generation had died on beaches, in jungles and in the miserable snow of WW2.

 

Every era has poor fighters who climb in the ratings.

 

There is no Don Cockell in the past 40 years.

 

The ****? have you seen the garbage that has made it to CHAMPION in the lats 40 years.

Absolute delusion.

 

Tell me the 5-10 lardo with a 70" reach, no quicks, no power, who got KO'd by a middle who was champ.

I'll take the answer off air.

 

Who was 10-0 against some good competition before his shot. The problem is, you are trying to frame the good and bad, here. Sorry if you like body beautifuls...he wasn't one. But he was a pretty good fighter overall.

 

Again, Valdez was the much better choice over Cockell for a title shot, and no amount of spin can take that away.

For the umpteenth time, I was referring to the period BEFORE Valdez lost to Moore.

As I said, if this so called bum became number one contender and beat one of Marciano's best wins, that's reflective of how poor the era was, and by extension Marciano's competition, so you're not doing Marciano any favors with your comment.

He wasn't in his prime. It's night and day the difference between this Walcott and the one who fought Louis. While still an excellent fighter, he was noticeably slower and more critically had far slower reflexes.

If you think Walcott was as quick and mobile for Marciano as he was for Louis, their's really nowhere to go from there.

He did not have a "second prime". Absolute non-sense.

Regardless three years can be an eternity in boxing. Look at Frazier from '71 to '74, Ali from '75 to '78.

I don't know how clear I can be. Layne's opponent was ranked at light heavyweight. They fought at heavyweight. Do you know how easy it would be for a top ten contender to sweep the top ten of the division below him then say he deserves a title shot because he beat ten ranked opponents?

I agree. I don't give Marciano to much slack for not facing Valdez. I just take issue with you saying anyone who thinks Valdes deserved a shot are merely haters.

I've already addressed this. We're going around in circles at this point.

Let me know what you find.

He had three losses in the period that I (and the vast majority of people) consider his prime. One of them was when he had damaged hands.

What other losses would you say was in his prime?

Yet he mysteriously was named the second best fighter (and possibly the best) in the world according to the NBA ratings you champion so much.

Nah, a dumb excuse to me is something more along the lines of excusing a loss for one's favorite fighter because his opponent was to aggressive.

I've already said, Valdez deserved a title shot up until he lost to Moore. Of course Moore deserved the fight over Valdes. I was saying Valdez specifically should've gotten the shot, that Cockell got.

You accused Liston of being a weight bully which means, he cherry picked his opposition based on their weight. Feel free to list the big guys he intentionally ducked.

Again anyone's jaw can be broken, depending on where it's hit. It says zero about his punch resistance. Ali got his jaw broken by Norton, yet took much harder shots from Liston, Foreman, Frazier, Shavers, etc.

You have an agenda because your favorite fighters get excuses, while those you dislike have no such luck.

In the time period we're talking about where Valdez deserved a shot, he lost ONCE to Moore, and that was before he was even a contender.

I wouldn't bring this up if I were you. Charles had 11 losses in that same time frame.

 

I could see this argument if it was a controversial or even close decision. But it was as decisive as you could get.

That's, that's not how it works. We have zero evidence of anything that did not happen so your post is pointless. I could just as easily say there is zero evidence Valdez wouldn't have beaten Rocky had they fought.

I literally never once said Valdes was feared. I even said I think Marciano would've beaten him handily. I only take issue with the statement that only "haters" think he deserved a title shot.

Charles wasn't much better at 17-8.

I agree. Which is why I'm puzzled that you're agreeing with catchwt so much and praising him for raising good points, when he's calling people haters for having this viewpoint.

 

The tallest midget in the room is still a midget. It was a depleted era. No fault of Cockell's. He was full of heart, a plodder, and really a middleweight but sick with a condition. Again, the fact he could make waves in the big boy division speaks volumes of the state it was in when Marciano reigned.