The NYSAC rejected Nino Valdes as a worthy challenger after the Parker fight

The NYAC was/is a state athletic commission they only have jurisdiction in NYS here are some of their sanctioning decisions.
Rocky Graziano licence revoked for not reporting bribe offers. Joe Louis 4 round exhibition with Johnny Davis recognized as a world's title fight.
Joe Frazier's fight with Buster Mathis recognized as a final eliminator for the heavyweight title.
Frazier fights with
Zyglewicz
Ramos
Bonavena
Recognized as world title fights.
Yes ,all in all , l believe what I want to believe, give credibility where I think it is deserved,and withhold it from where I think it isn't.

 

Obviously he wasn't "banned from contention". It just means Christenberry was setting aside whatever thoughts he'd ever had of complying with Gleason's request that he insist Valdes get the next shot after Marciano dealt with Ezzard Charles. Not that he would have had the authority to do that anyway, but his support would have been an asset.

 

I'm not trying to fool anyone,dishonest?Point out anything in my post that isnt true?
"and said that he is not yet ready to be a challenger." That is what you stated.
In the previous 7 months,he had beaten the no 3 and the number 8 Ring rated contenders and won his last 7 fights.
Q Was that or was it not , a better recent record than Cockell's who the NYAC had no problem recognizing as a challenger ?
How about Lastarza whose previous 3 fights were
Rocky Jones14-9-2 L
Rocky Jones W knocked down by Jones
Rex Layne split decision the press either gave it a draw or a win for Layne.
Was Lastarza more deserving of a title chance than Valdes?
Yes? or No?

 

Before the NBA changed it's name to the WBA every body that recognized world title fights was regional.

New York isn't a normal jurisdiction and was even less so back then.

 

• 
  Nino Valdes of Cuba demanded top rating among heavyweight contenders today because of his impressive victories over European champion Heinz Neuhaus, Sunday, and ex-world champion Ezzard Charles on August 11th. The kayo - at 2:10 of the 4th round - was witnessed by 19,000 fans here in the huge indoor Westfalen Halle. Most of the fans were bitterly disappointed when they saw Neuhaus suffer the first kayo in his career of 33 professional fights. They had figured him a potential world champion." -United Press
  
  • This victory elevated Valdes to #1 contender in Ring Magazine's heavyweight ratings.
• "Ezzard Charles' dream of becoming the first man in history to regain the world's heavyweight championship lay all but shattered today under the wreckage of his surprise loss to obscure Nino Valdes of Cuba. Valdes stunned a crowd of 3,500 last night as he took Charles' best punches and came on to win the unanimous 10 round vote of two judges and the referee. Charles entered the ring at 191 pounds, a little over his usual fighting weight, and he allowed that the extra poundage made him a little sluggish." -United Press

 

not that I have to put this link up, nor do I have a particular interest in this, but Valdez did get a No.1 Ratings annually 2 years running...

I don't know about the NBA, but here you go...
mind you, I found these BoxRec 'RING MAG' listings contrary to the magazine itself, though someone suggested 'they', the Ratings 'might' actually be from the Feb of the next year, to be caught up to the actual Ring Ratings 'two' month delay in gathering all fight reports for the preceding months, in this care Year End.

I don't know, but the RING Stuff is all on line now if someone wants to check.

https://boxrec.com/wiki/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Heavyweight--1950s

 

The main reason Cockell got the shot was politics as he was British. I'm critical of Marciano's competition but fighting the periodic Brit and European is something all the long reigning American champs since have had to do. You can't just give Americans title shots for years at a time. Hence why Valdes beating Neuhaus was so important. Neuhaus was the guy in Europe. If he hadn't lost the Euro's would be pushing for Neuhaus to get a shot.

Marciano's resume is just about as weak as it could have been for a guy who reigned as long as he did. But the guys he was fighting weren't blatantly unqualified and any of the rematches by themselves were fine. It really becomes a problem when you add it all up and throw in the fact he retired after.

In 1955 LaStarza and Rex Layne were out of contention. The guys chosen to participate in the "tournament" or "series of eliminators" were Moore, Patterson, Parker, Tommy Jackson, Baker and Holman.

"Was Lastarza more deserving of a title chance than Valdes?"

No. But it's not the same thing. You got to remember Moore and Valdes was for a vacant belt and the standard for those is always more stingy then a champ defending his title. Someone being worthy of a title shot against a recognized champion is(or was) a much lower bar then someone fighting for a vacant title because beating the challenger is establishing the title claim. Valdes and Parker were very worthy to fight for a world title in 1955 and 1956 that's not why their fights with Moore weren't recognized or why Frazier's with Mathis wasn't.

At this point the last few vacant HW titles had been decided by tournaments or "series of eliminators" with the idea being that when the process ended all the people who could have disputed the result would have been eliminated. A single matchup really can't do that. That's why the WBA did a tournament and it took time for Frazier to claw recognition from Ellis. They weren't thinking "these two guys aren't worthy to fight for a world title compared to fights we've sanctioned in the past. " they wanted a title fight to build consensus.

 

Worthy Top and credible fighters, but yes the Moneymen moved in those whom they had stock in, or could then bet on or against when such fights were made and likewise denied others more worthy at times...

"it's a Racket"

 

Even according to Ring rankings, Valdes had been supplanted by Charles atop the hw rankings by the end of Feb '54, around the time the 1st Marciano-Charles fight was being finalized. From https://digmichnews.cmich.edu/?a=d&...-01.1.6&e=-------en-10--1--txt-txIN----------:
"Ex-champion Ezzard Charles recaptured the top perch among heavyweight contenders in the Ring Magazine's ratings today..."
"Charles, who challenges Rocky Marciano for the title on June 17, switched positions on the list with Nino Valdes of Cuba, now No. 2.
Ezzard won his last two bouts by knockouts over Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield, whereas Valdes made a poor showing in his last fight while winning an unpopular split decision over obscure Archie McBride in Havana."

I think it's also worth noting that Valdes entered his fights w/ Hurricane Jackson & Moore as the underdog both times, suggesting that, irrespective of any "official" ranking he may have held @ any given time, the boxing public simply wasn't entirely sold on him.

@ any rate, I think Valdes has himself (or @ least, his manager) to blame as much as any1 for not getting a title shot. A rematch win over Charles would've almost certainly guaranteed him a shot (or @ least, ensured that Charles couldn't get the shot ahead of him), but his manager turned down or priced themselves out of a rematch. he also could've solidified his standing by settling old scores w/ recent conquerors like Moore & Baker, but he steered clear of them for nearly 2 years, then ultimately lost to them once he consented to rematch them (conversely, look @ how quickly LaStarza came back & rematched Bucceroni & Rocky Jones en route to his own title shot). Ultimately, the burden is on a prospective challenger to make his case for a title shot, but Valdes' people were very selective in what risks they took over the 2 years after he beat Charles. Then again, if he'd taken more risks, he might've had his bubble burst a lot sooner than he did. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced he even wins a rematch w/ the Charles of the Coley & Satterfield fights, who had better transitioned into being a powerpuncher by then.

 

There's really no reason to believe Valdes would have got a title shot if he'd won rematches with Ezzard Charles or Bob Baker. Any more than he did for beating Charles the first time, or for beating Heinz Neuhaus or Tommy Jackson, who were both ranked ahead of Baker when he fought them. Certainly no promises were ever made. As you say, Valdes was the underdog against Jackson, so that fight doesn't support the idea that he was being steered away from risky opponents.

 

Have you a primary source that Charles or his manager actively sought a rematch with Valdes?
So took land a title shot ,you have to beat a ranked challenger twice? How many times did Lastarza beat Layne?
How many times did Cockell beat Lastarza? Hiw many times has the underdog in the betting for a heavyweight fight won?
Valdes v Charles
Walcott v Layne
Marciano v Louis
Walcott v Charles3
Ali v Liston
Douglas v Tyson
etc etc etc?
Walcott v Layn