"Saying that Marciano would have easily dealt with Valdes or any other big heavyweight is simply speculation." He dealt with Louis and the Louis of even 1951 was, in my judgement, better than Valdes. I don't want to get into speculating about Marciano against the modern heavyweights of a later era, but I think he could have handled all the big heavies of his own era. They just weren't that good, as this film shows. I would also point out that it is even greater speculation to assume that Valdes or Baker would have beaten Marciano when they failed so consistently and miserably against Moore and Satterfield. My own take is that Valdes' pawing attempts to jab Satterfield while leaving himself open to overhand rights probably gives a good insight into how a Marciano-Valdes fight would have played out. I agree that Charles under any circumstances losing to Valdes is evidence that he had gone back.
Louis's peak weight was around 200 pounds. Nino was 6'3, 215 with a 80" reach at the time of the Satterfield fight. Looking at his frame, he probably wouldn't have had much trouble weighing at 220-230 these days. Louis I think was always better off fighting at around 205. I'm very honest about Valdes's abilities, or lack of them, and don't think he would have stood much of a chance against Marciano, but I also don't excuse Marciano for not having fought him when the opportunity was there for them to meet only because Valdes went onto lose to a bunch of fighters. He did also go onto crush Don Cockell, the man who got a title shot instead of him. The only world class opponent over 200 lbs that Marciano fought was old Louis. Him fighting Valdes or Baker would have given us some indication on his ability to handle a 6'3, 210+ lb opponent. Satterfield proved it over and over by bombing out the likes of Valdes, Baker, Cleveland Williams, John Holman but Marciano didn't. It may be of some indication but it's not "proof" which would be something definite and not simple speculation. It's easy to point out to one fighter who did one thing and say that another one could have easily done the same, despite never actually having proved it. For all we know Marciano could have struggled greatly with Valdes, he did have some troubles dealing with clubfighter Johnny Shkor's strength early.
marciano used his overhand right the same way. he knew how to time shots. his execution of seting up a slickster like walcott in the rematch was excelent as was the kid mathews with left hooks. baker had valdes all over with left hooks. hed have hung more hooks on valdes than hats on a hat stand. satterfield was backing valdes up, closing him down, roling and lowering himself to draw leads just like rocky. knowledgable fight fans of newyork who watched valdes would know it would be an eay win for rocky. i dont think valdes-marciano would have been a big draw. i remember reading lamotta teased valdes when they were bouncers at a strip club that valdes couldnt have been much of a heavyweight if he couldnt knock out the guy he did. johny shkor wasnt a club fighter, he got good write ups beat, rated heavyweights and held his own with many name fighters. he was a headliner in boston. sure marciano got him at the end but he was bigger than valdes. bill wison was a big guy with over 40 kos who continued after losing to rocky, rocky beat big guys. there were points in charles's long career where he was "treading water" purly to maintain his position within the ranks and other times where he landed big fights that could lead to something where he shone. a fighter had to know when to hold something back. i think in a long active career it has to be that way otherwise you burn out. sometimes they mistime the opponent, its a risk worth taking if you have debts. charles was simply caught out against valdes during a treading water moment. he shone against baksi, did not impress against ray. shone against layne, did not impress against valdes. shone against satterfield etc. even as a champ he did it. the barone fight was a stinker by all acounts but he got good write ups against valentino. charles only truly slipped after the two marciano fights. the evidence of a shot fighter is when they stop knocking out rated guys, charles did this in back to back fights before fighting marciano.
Still not an exhibition of "counter-punching". Rocky did not wait for his opponents' to lead and then counter over their jab with the right hand. With his height and reach he would also find it more difficult to reach the taller man. Marciano's best chance is to bore in, keep pressuring and hammer Valdes with punches to the body and head until the latter gives in (see the Cockell fight). He's going to walk through some punishment in order to accomplish it. Marciano is not going to outjab Valdes, he's not going to counter him with right hands over the top, he'll simply beat on him until Valdes has nothing left. That's what he did. Shkor was coming off a 1 round KO loss to Walcott and retired after losing to Marciano. He was not a good fighter. Wilson was hardly a notable opponent and was over his best weight when fighting Marciano. I meant world class opponents, Baker and Valdes with all the flack that is given to them were atleast once top rated in the division. Wilson and Shkor not so much. Or maybe we should praise Charles's opponents for presenting him with difficult stylistical match-ups instead of making up excuses about how Charles wasn't as well prepared as he could have been and at the same time discrediting the men who gave him tough fights. Charles impressed against Ray after having been on the wrong end of a bad decision by knocking Ray out due to added experience in fighting heavyweights. Ezzard was never all that impressive against Layne who made the fights ugly. Valdes simply fought the fight of his life against a past his prime Charles to win a close decision. Not hard to imagine because Charles could be hit during his post-title comeback and he employed more of a slugging style.
1. "Louis' peak weight was around 200 lbs." This was his prewar peak and no one can argue Louis was at his peak after the war let alone in 1951. However, Louis was under 205 only once after the war. His peak postwar performance, and better than anything Valdes ever accomplished in my judgement, was against Walcott in 1948. Louis came in at 213 1/2 for that fight. He was 211 plus for Savold in 1951 and looked the best he did in his comeback. Valdes weighed 204 for Jackson in 1954, 207 for Cockell in 1955, and 206 for Bethea and Dejohn in 1958. The fact is Valdes was about the same weight as Louis at about the same age throughout his career. He actually weighed as little as 179 in 1945, lighter than Louis ever scaled. Both Louis and Valdes weighed at max about 218 in condition. Valdes did scale 244 for Powell, but he was 26 pounds heavier than for any other fight and was knocked out. I think he was just out of shape if this weight if correct. Bottom line--there is no evidence Valdes could successfully carry more weight than Louis. These men were about the same weight, give or take a pound or two. Valdes was slightly taller and had a small reach advantage. Louis was much the better fighter and equally big. 2. "Louis was better off fighting around 205" I don't know what the evidence of this is--He weighed 211 and change for Mauriello. 213 1/2 when he ko'd future champion Walcott. 216 when he first beat Brion. 211 and change when he ko'd Savold. Louis did weigh 203 for Bivins and blamed his failure to knock Bivins out on coming in too light. 3. Cockell--Well, Valdes certainly destroyed Cockell, who would be blasted out even more convincingly by Kitione Lave in his next fight and then retire. Cockell came in at a bloated 218 for Valdes, thirteen pounds heavier than he did for Marciano. While the Cockell fight was probably Marciano's worst on film, he still dominated Cockell and pounded him into helplessness. 4. By the way, Marciano fought five opponents over 210 lbs and knocked them all out, including Louis and Shkor, who were heavier than anyone Satterfield ever ko'd. He fought 11 opponents 200 lbs or more, and knocked them all out. His record in this regard is not unusual. Satterfield also did better against 200 plus fighters, losing only a smelly fight to Holman after having stopped Holman twice. Moore had 25 or so fights against men over 200 lbs and only Muhammad Ali defeated him. Harold Johnson beat every one of the several over 200 lb men he fought, including Valdes, Godoy, Gilliam, etc. Marciano, Moore, Satterfield, and Johnson all did much better against the 200 plus pounders. It might have something to do with the big fellows in that era not being very good. And by and by, Louis fought many men over 200 lbs but never lost to any of them.
there are many examples of marciano counter punching in all of his filmd fights. the right hand that troubled charles moments before he crashed in round2 came over a jab. more often rock feinted his way in. he would feint then atack when the guy pulled back. rarely he ate punches on the way in. the taller they were the less he got hit. he was no stalone or gene fulmer. sure rock got hit but it was within an exchange. yes i agree he would also bore in but this swarming was only when his opponent was tired. to begin with he would stalk and counter or feint his way into an exchange to begin with. in his championship fights he started like this. my hunch is rock would simply clip valdes during an exchange numbing him in the usual way. timber! shkor went the distance with bivins and baksi amoung others and KOd mauriello when he was rated who nearly knocked out louis. thats a good fighter. it was a good win for walcott, he got another shot at the title out of what he did to shkor. charles really knocked layne silly in their first fight, it was a good finish. charles was knocking out rated fighters after losing to johnson and valdes, he redeemed himself by beating beter guys than valdes, a faded fighter cannot do that. they edge guys on points charles was still icing people cold.
Baker lost to Moore, Valdez lost 4 strait in 1953,to Moore,Baker,Harold Johnson(who lost to Archie Moore and Billy Gilliam (who lost to Charles his only win of significance was a close one over a less than top form Ezzard and they would not rematch Charles. Valdez then won a disputed decision over Archie McBride in Havana (most felt he lost) Ezzard came back fit as ever with a blistering KO over Satterfield and Wallace. He also beat Billy Gilliam (who beat Valdez Moore beat Nino 2 times and beat 2 men who beat Nino, Baker and Harold Johnson. Who should Marciano have fought? the bigger man or the Best man Marciano was going to make Nino his 50th defence but he could not get past the 180lb Satterfield The best men were not the biggest at that time and from the look of the video if Valdez was 6"3, then Satterfield was closer to 5"10 not the 6"2 he is listed on boxrec and Satterfield weighed 180 If Marciano had fought Baker or Valdez and not the better men who beat them (Marciano's # 1 contender) what would we be saying now Marciano KO'd tall men 6"4 and 6"5 and also KO'd Hefty men 254Lbs 2291/2 and 220 but what does that prove. they were clearly not the best of there time Joe Louis fought and beat Primo Carnera and Buddy Baer but these men were in line for a title shot and Louis was clearing out the top 10 Dempsey fought 6"6 Willard but Willard was Champ an older Joe Louis was way past his best but I think that version still beats any version of Nino from what I can see From the way Marciano Ko'd big guys like Louis and Vingo and Layne I really do not see Nino or Baker being any sort of threat to Rocky but if Marciano did not fight Ezzard in the rematch or give Moore a chance then Rocky would have a serious mark against him. Its easy to say well Marciano should have fought the biggest and not the best fighters of his time but up until that point who was the best Champion or challenger over 200lbs ,Louis, Jeffries and of those 2 and Marciano they all fought the best of there time.
:goodi have often wondered if its to do with the gloves that there became an obsesion with not giving away too much weight after the 6oz period. prior to that history proves a stong man of 190 had too much workrate for 200plus heavyweights and just as much power. providing they were not too old 190 guys generaly had an edge. they choped up the big guys and puled away when heavier guys got tired. I belive the 190 guys started puting weight on when they could make less impresion with 8 ounce gloves. its funny how in the modern era age plays less of a role in determing a peak since the heftier fighters have slowed the pace down.
And that was the fight immediately before he took on Marciano, weighing in at 203 against Jimmy Bivins. Valdes weighed 179 when he had just turned 17 years of age, which is about as relevant as Pacquiao fighting at strawweight early on. After age 23, he never weighed less than 200 pounds. At his peak he weighed in at 210 to 215 pounds, this while trained down for greater stamina with rather skinny legs (but a big upperbody). That's the same weight as Sonny Liston or Muhammad Ali in their primes. When looking at their frames I see Valdes as the bigger man with the reach of a true super heavyweight. This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected I'm talking about a prime Louis, not the old man who only fought on to pay his taxes. At his peak he weighed around 200 pounds, sometimes less, sometimes more. Against Marciano he was a shell of a man and could no longer train down to his ideal weight. The point is that Valdes was better than Cockell who got the title shot before Valdes did. He was rated higher and beat him head-to-head, what more proof does one need? I don't really care about how he did against big opponents who weren't any good, who were not even above clubfighting level. Rocky never faced a world class 210+ lber unless you count old Louis who in his true prime weighed just 200 pounds. The rest did well against ranked 210+ lbers but Rocky never faced any. There is no proof whatsoever that Rocky Marciano is a giant killer of any kind when his best opponents weighed less than 200 pounds. One might say that Marciano could have done well against big heavyweights who had any semblance of ability, but there is no definitive proof.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmG1vcaH3yY[/ame] 2:00 Not what I'd call a counter-punch but a follow-up punch of a combination. As I said previously, Marciano is the one who initiates the punching exchanges and that's where he is a real danger. You can't trade punches with Marciano and that's why Valdes would eventually fall. But it's not because Marciano is some masterful counter-puncher because he is not. Marciano got hit against almost everyone he ever fought due to his style so it'd be safe to say that he'd be hit against Valdes too. The question is if Valdes can bother Marciano with his power and strength. Maybe during the early stages. This sounds more plausible than Marciano counter-punching over Valdes's jab. I believe he'd pressure Valdes, make a brawl of it and get the better of the brawl in the end. Marciano was good at closing the distance and would gradually up his pace while the opponent tired but I don't see him as much of a counter puncher. Almost everyone beat Shkor, he was just not a world class fighter. He beat Mauriello once but a lot of mediocre fighters have KO'd good fighters, one win doesn't make you a good fighter. Keep in mind that Shkor, a washed up journeyman, did give Rocky some trouble early on with his strength. Valdes, who was plain better, may have presented the same problems. He KO'd Layne in the end but it was a very sloppy fight until the KO, in which Charles allowed Layne to outwork him at parts. If Charles fought Valdes the same way then it's no huge surprise to me that he lost a close decision. The only fighter Charles beat during his "comeback" that was arguably better than Valdes was Satterfield, and we all know how inconsistent Satterfield could be. He lost to some opponents that Valdes beat, that's boxing.
louis best weight was 200 pounds but as he matured (and was still the best heavyweight of his day at 213) he weighed more. by the training he did one has to conclude both weights were the lowest he could achieve at that time since he was a big man just under 6 feet 2 inches tall. valdes size advantage over Louis is neglegable. I think we are talking about a snack and a glass of water in weight and a haircut in height. Louis talent advantage over valdes even by 1950 standards is NOT neglegable. old Louis was beter.
All I know is that old Louis did not do better against Ezzard Charles or Agramonte compared to Valdes. Tough to say whether he was truly better or not. The competition he faced during his comeback, most of whom went the distance with him, doesn't tell much about what he truly had left at that point. Against Charles and Marciano he could only be competitive early on until running out of stamina. He still gave Marciano some troubles for the first 6 rounds.
I know laynes not easy on the eye and yes he also beat charles eventualy but rex had more going for him at the point he first fought charles than nino surely? I think going by this valdes the saterfield, layne, maxim, bivins and 210 pounder gillium who charles beat during that time were beter and walace would have given nino a run for his money also. they are all good fighters.