If Marciano Had Fought Valdes,Baker,& Henry?

Two things stand out to me. One is a lack of a signature win. Lots of names. Some once near the top. But Bivins? Years past his best. Layne? Fading toward retirement and losing to everyone. Baksi? Laid off two years and 25 lbs over his former fighting weight.

The best wins are probably Valdes and Holman. Holman had some good wins but a lot of losses. Between the fall of 1952 and the fall of 1956, Valdes fought 23 times and had 13 wins and 10 losses.

The bottom line is that Bob Satterfield defeated Valdes and Holman more decisively than Baker did, and stopped Baker in one.

Baker failed consistently against the better men--Henry, Satterfield, Moore, and Jackson, before the wheels came completely off in 1957.

The second point is Baker is one of those contenders who never gets over the hump against the really top men but hangs in there a long time--like Lee Savold. Baker was more consistent than Savold, especially when young, but was not around nearly as long. I don't see his wins resume as more impressive than Savold's.

 

Yes. Despite the fact that he would have lost one of those.

 

"environment"

Frankly, other than on records, I don't see how one can any longer make historical comparisons, if size is considered.

Usyk, the current champion is 6' 3" and weighed 226 for his last fight. Only the "giants" Willard and Carnera were bigger.

Yet he is small by the standards of the modern heavyweight division he is fighting in. Usyk has had 7 fights since moving up from Cruiserweight. He has been outweighed by 27, 38, 19,. 23, 12, 39, and 55 lbs in those fights. Six of the seven were inches taller. Fury was 6 inches taller. His opponents average 6' 5" and 251 lbs.

This is perhaps shocking, but Usyk is a relatively smaller man in his heavyweight division than Marciano was in his. "Light-heavyweight" Charles was in fact taller than Marciano and heavier in their second fight. Light-heavyweight champion Moore was the same height and weight in their fight.

So I find these historical debates, when focused on size, sterile. These are just two vastly different worlds.

I also notice that the only sport in which historical debates are hung up on size debates is boxing. The fans of other sports seem to concentrate on achievements.

 

"the fact"

The only fact is all three lost to Moore and Marciano defeated Moore.

 

So if the best have been beaten by smaller men, then why is size and argument at all? You've just argued against your position that beating Valdez proves anything.

I have an extant thread, recently revived, detailing how good Rocky's title competition actually was. That says it all.

 

Yes and no. I think he has to avenge the controversial Lastarza decision. Valdes was his number 1 contender when he won the title so not facing him makes it look like his management didn't fancy it. Which is a bad look. Valdes should be on his resume. I think he wins but you never know in boxing. Not having the big guys of his era looks bad even if Archie Moore handled them, we needed to see Rocky handle them too ideally.

For me Marciano is a special fighter due to his insane conditioning and I see that winning out against all.

 

just for info, let's take a look at Cockell and Baker and their resumes in the spring of 1955, when the decision of which one to fight would have been made.


Baker had a great start to his career, but from the autumn of 1951 he went a bit off the rails.

In his last 21 fights, Baker was 15 wins, 5 losses, 1 draw, with 2 KO victories and 3 KO defeats During this period he had beaten unranked but had been or would be ranked Cesar Brion, Nino Valdes, Doc Williams, Joe Baksi, and Coley Wallace. He had defeated only two fighters who were rated when he beat them. Jimmy Slade and Rex Layne. Slade was impressive, as he had KO'd Cockell. A big plus for Baker. Layne not so much. He had lost to Cockell victims Matthews and LaStarza. Valdes had been unrated and on a losing streak when Baker beat him but was now a top contender. This could be viewed as a plus for Baker. How much is for each to decide.

Baker had a great early career, winning his first 26 fights, among which were the unranked at the time, but at times ranked, Marty Marshall, Johnny Flynn, Rusty Payne, Sid Peaks, Omelio Agramonte, and Jimmy Bivins. Bivins was certainly at his best the best Baker ever defeated, but was far past his best.

Henry, Satterfield, and Moore had KO'd Baker. Certainly all top punchers. An unimpressive series with Gilliam, including a loss, drags him down some. His highest rated victim was Jimmy Slade at #4 in 1954.


Don Cockell--started his career very young. Since the spring of 1950, when he was 21,

He had 22 fights. He had won 20, lost 2, with 0 draws. Both of his defeats were by KO.
He had won ten fights by KO.

During this run, he had beaten then unranked but ranked at some time Freddie Beshore, Nick Barone, Albert Finch, Renato Tontini, Tommy Farr, and Johnny Williams. (Williams was rated #6 going into 1953, but had fallen from the rankings. He would return in 1954 and 1955) Four men were rated when Cockell fought them. Lloyd Marshall, Albert Yvel, Harry Matthews, and Roland LaStarza.

(I am certain many will be surprised by Marshall. But he was the #8 ranked light-heavyweight in the NBA ratings of 12/27/1950. He was ranked from the summer of 1950 into 1951)

Harry Matthews was the #7 rated NBA heavyweight in the July 9, 1953 quarterly ratings. Cockell defeated him on August 7, 1953.

Roland LaStarza was the #4 rated NBA heavyweight in the quarterly ratings released on January 9, 1954. Cockell defeated him on 3/30/1953. LaStarza was still rated #4 in the April 13 ratings.

Cockell had defeated 11 ever rated fighters to this point, (Ginger Sadd years earlier) but several were in the light-heavyweight class. Baker had defeated 13. Cockell had defeated 4 fighters rated when he fought them--2 at heavy and 2 at light-heavy. Baker had defeated 2 at heavyweight.
------------------------------------

Cockell lost to Marciano and then completely collapsed, putting on a lot of weight (which he certainly didn't need) and lost badly to Valdes and even more decisively to Lave, who I don't think beat any other name fighters. Then retired.

Baker still had his best wins ahead of him. He beat the then highly rated Valdes in December of 1955, and Holman in 1956, although his decline from 1956 on was steep.

Cockell was much spottier than Baker in his early career, but started much younger. Their records in the 1950's is open to judgment.

*my comment is that there have certainly have been many contenders over the years who got title shots with lesser credentials than Cockell. Cockell was rated #3 and Baker #4 when Cockell fought Marciano.

 

I was comparing the overall careers of Savold and Baker.

Folley was a similar type, and not necessarily better if his record is scrutinized.

 

"How many heavyweights in that group and how many were ranked?"

As I posted, as far as I can tell, both Cockell and Baker defeated two men ranked at heavyweight when they fought them. Baker beat Slade and Layne. Cockell beat Matthews and LaStarza. Cockell also beat two light-heavies, Marshall and Yvel.

As for how many ever ranked heavyweights (up to the spring of 1955) each defeated? Baker defeated ten. Cockell five.

"You should get credit for beating burnt out cases?"

For each to decide. I am just point out who was rated and who wasn't. Baker beat a lot of formerly rated men also.

"Slade? How did Cockell fare against him?"

Poorly. And this is the best argument for Baker.

But one opponent doesn't necessarily decide everything. Baker beat Slade, but Slade beat Henry and Jackson, both of whom beat Baker twice. A beats B and B beats C and C beats A.

"I go by The Ring ratings."

The NBA is official. But the Ring ratings?

1952--neither Cockell nor Baker rated.

1953--Cockell the #6 rated heavyweight, Baker not rated at all.

1954--Cockell rated #2. Baker #4. (going into the 1955 championship fight)

The Ring actually rated Cockell higher than the NBA.

 

The albatross of Marciano's reign was always Don Cockell. I've said this before that I don't really think even Al Weill wanted him. I truly believe he wanted Harry (Kid) Matthews. Matthews was small, colorful, had already been knocked out by Rocky and had built himself back into the ratings. All Harry had to do was get past Cockell. They had a 3 fight series and poor Harry couldn't nick a win. Now there wasn't anything overly special about their bouts I've heard, so why 3 fights? I think old Al was just hoping for one win from Harry, but when it wasn't coming, he was stuck with Don. To tell you what writers and those among the fight beat thought of Don....

A nameless manager who it was said surreptitiously - without naming him - and was part of the promotional drive for the fight, stated behind closed doors: "The bum won't last three rounds with Rocky but don't quote me."

Another unnamed manager who claimed to have seen Cockell fight 5 times: "This is one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on a sucker public."

NY writer Pat Robinson wrote: "We personally haven't been under so much pressure to help build up a palooka since the time they tried to sell us Johnny Paychek as a worthy contender against Joe Louis. Don't say we didn't warn you."

Archie Moore was quoted as saying: "They are talking about a Marciano title defense against Don Cockell, the British champion. My sparring partner can whip Cockell, and Al Weill knows it. Weill is a disgrace to boxing."

 

the alliance forged between Solomons & Jacobs, for insuring BIG Money INTERNATIONAL Contests was the Only Concern here, especially from the British contingent Jack Solomons...

to repeat Auzzie Great and foreign campaigner to Britain, Fred Henneberry, in hope of Empire Title spring boarding for another World Title opportunity, whom eventually left the UK in disgust at all the B S'ing just at the onset of the War, going straight to America...

he Stated - "British Boxing IS Racket Laden".

Solomons, like King, like Duff, like 'most' of them 'wrapped up' Boxing in their own little packages.