Marciano vs. Norton

I don't know much about Valdez, but I know Marciano was only interested in fighting names that would draw good bank by 1954.... Charles was indeed slipping, but still capable in '54..... And, point being, Marciano earned damn good bank with them two fights with Ol' Buzzard Charles.....:yep

How Rocco got stuck defending against Don "The ****" Cockell in '55 is anyone's guess.?.?:huh

"Marciano vs. Moore" was a great fight......:thumbsup

MR.BILL:hey

 

People seem to forget that Valez had a very poor showing in the next fight, (And he refuse the rematch with Charles) while Charles rebounded with kos over Shatterfiled and Wallace.

Marciano didnt duck Valez. Valez just had a few months in 1954, and other few in 55, before poor showings, and Archie Moore knock him off for good in 55.

It was relly nothing compare to say Harry Wills being number 1 for 7 years in a row.

 

Because the first fight was such a close gruelling crowd pleasing battle, that they were forced to put on a show again a couple months later. and marciano wanted too prove he could knock charles out. You see, Marciano actually gave rematches after close fights, unlike larry holmes who ran away from rematches. Rematches are VERY important.

So you want Marciano to fight Charles in June, then 2 months later in August take on Nino Valdez? what kind of hectic schedule is that? Give the man some time to train for Valdez.

This content is protected

Once again...If you just beat your #1 rated challenger in a 15 round gruelling fight that is CLOSE on the cards, then your pretty much expected to give a rematch and prove your superiority over him. It may be hard for you to understand because your boy larry holmes NEVER gave rematches after controversial decisions....but Rocky wanted to show the the world he could knock charles out. Plus the fans were calling for a rematch after a great first fight.

Valdez after the upset win over charles was still 1-4 in his last 5 fights...How could Marciano give a title shot to a man who was 1-4 in his last 5 fights? Valdez did not really establish himself as a true title challenger until early 1955 and at that point Marcianos management began negotiations with Gleason, Valdez manager and they came to a agreement for a winter date in Miami.

Your spinning facts around. You could say Charles won 11 out of his last 13 when he fought Rocky. Also if you want to go by numbers, when Valdez beat Charles...Nino was coming off a 1-4 record. So you want marciano to give a title shot to a man who went 1-4 in his last 5 fights?

After Charles win over top 10 rated Bob Satterfield in 1954 here is what the IBC had to say about Ezzard Charles....."

This content is protected

Ultimatley, I think history shows us Marciano gets far more credit for beating hall of fame # 1 rated Ezzard Charles than he would have if he beaten Nino Valdez. Perhaps your the only exception. Historians certainly agree with me.

If your going to be picky like this...then why don't you try to make a case for harold johnson. afterall, he beat BOTH ezzard charles AND nino valdez in 1953. Why should valdez and charles get a shot over johnson?

 

The Cockell fight was more a test run for the nose to see how it would hold up. If it came undone vs Cockell, Marciano at least could gamble with Cockell.

Besides, you would think after 2 fights with Walcott, one with LarSarza, and back to back wars with Charles, you think he was allow one of thsos give me title defenses.

Its like asking why did Ali defend against Wepner(After Foreman)
It was not like Patterson, one softy after other, while Machen and Folley were left in the cold.

 

Then can you explain to me why 5'10 185lb glass chinned Bob Satterfield outslugged Nino Valdez for 10 rounds, yet Marciano wouldn't be able too?

Then why did he take on and knockout 6'2 214lb Joe Louis? Was Nino Valdez better than Louis? I dont think so. Especially since Louis knocked out Valdez in one round in a live exhibition in 1950.

 

Marciano deserved a "Gimmie" defense by 1955........ Though Cockell was a stubborn son of a *****.... I got that fight laying around here....

MR.BILL

 

Dont watch it Bill. Probably the rocks worst fight. You want to see rocky at his best, pop in his fights with Louis, Layne, and Walcott

 

New York Times for one. Also the Lowell Sun. and others. Also Reg Gutteridge described Vingo as a "very hard hitter". I have a great vingo article from new york times before the marciano fight sent to me by boxing historiand barry deskins. its great! Charlie Goldman told rocky specificully before the fight to watch Vingos power. Marciano claimed Vingo was the hardest hitter he'd faced. Does that not have merit?

Bob Satterfield had a low KO percentage, could he hit??? low ko percentage can be attributed to many things. Even Henry mentions he read newspaper articles that stated Vingo was a big puncher.

 

Yes, I read it in several places. Here's the facts

Of the 7 bouts Vingo won by knocked out, their combined record was 45-107-4 and was stopped a total of 65 times by the end of their career.

Of the 9 bouts that Vingo won by decision, their combined record was 71-96-4 and was stopped a total of 39 times by the end of their career.

Of the 2 fighters (Marciano & Lindsay) that beat him, their combined record was 77-7-2 and was stopped only once.

Maybe he was a powerful puncher BUT wasn't a good finisher. I really can't explain why he didn't have a lot more KO's if he was such a powerful puncher. He fought Washington twice, and failed to KO him either time. Washington was KO'ed 17 times during his career.

As far as Satterfield goes, he was an outstanding puncher, he had 35 KO's in his 50 wins and 79 bouts and he also fought a lot better competition then Vingo did.

 

Thats my interpretation. Marciano had a steel chin, and it seems to me Vingo was the closest to floor Marciano before Walcott. Hit marciano with a right hand that send rocky roaring backwards shaking his head apparently.

Obviously, but satterfield DID have a low knockout percentage for such a devastating puncher. Same with Hatchetman Sheppard.

 

Agreed

 

"Marciano-Louis" is my favorite and most painful to review of my tapes.... Every time I review my tape / tapes, I hope Louis can pull-it-out and win.... But he never does..... Louis keeps getting stopped / parked in the 8th stanza.....
:|

"Marciano-Walcott 1" is my # 2 fight I like of Rocco's...... Jesus, being ringside for that fight back in '52 would've been a major woody popper for me.......
:hey

I suppose "Marciano-Moore" from '55 is my # 3 fight of Rocco's to review.... I always liked Moore, but he was out-gunned in a classic fight...
:bbb

I never cared for Ol' Buzzard Charles..... I respected him, but he was too bland for me..... He lacked imagination..... Though a good boxer with skill...
:deal

SR.BILLARDO:rasta

 

Good stuff Billl! you seem to be a 1970s fan. What do you think about Mac Foster?

 

Cockell sure as hell was game. But man oh man, he was knocked from pillar to post. I recall Marciano hitting Cockell with a forearm smash, and Cockell fell into the ropes, saved by the bell. I forget which round it was. In later years Marciano would joke during his television series that he didn't expect a fat guy like Cockell to actually come and give him a fight.

 

Btw, Brocky wasnt it true, though, that Marciano was also set to fight Earl Walls? But, of course, Marciano retired and named his top challengers to face off for his vacant crown.