VIDEO: Bob Satterfield beats Nino Valdes

Marciano and his management had the opportunity to choose between Valdes and Cockell and chose Cockell, thus Moore and Valdes who were left out fought each other. Any real arguments? Because I don't see your point. I didn't say that Marciano wasn't justified in fighting Moore over Valdes, I criticized him for picking Cockell over Valdes.

To further prove my point:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AIBAJ&pg=4086,2678578&dq=valdes+cockell&hl=en

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...pg=5334,1160187&dq=valdes+moore+cockell&hl=en

Both Moore and Valdes were available, Cockell was simply the one opponent who made the most "sense" for a returning Marciano to face when it comes to risk/reward ratio. Marciano-Cockell was a disappointment money-wise but Cockell posed no danger to Rocky as a blown up overweight light heavyweight.

 

"You can't count out Valdes's career best win over Charles because Charles is supposed to have been better. "

-Layne outpointing Walcott in 10 also looks great on paper. I would rather hold judgement until we can get a better understanding of how the fight went down aside from Valdez's own account.

"Mauriello was well washed up "

-Articles from the time expressed concern that the promising Brion was being thrown to the wolves too soon when the Mauriello fight was annoucned oddly enough. Jackson got better opportunites because he was wild in the ring and a wilder character outside it, making headlines by blaming his mother for his loss to Slade. Meanwhile, Brion was a bore beyond his brave efforts against Louis.

"Marciano hardly fought anyone in any place at any time, not that I blame him, but that's how it was."

Marciano only defended in the Warmer Months from May-September because Weills filled up stadiums with him. $$$$

I'm sure Ezzard Charles would have loved that luxory as Champion but he wasn't a draw like Rocky.

"However I do not think that Marciano's ability to deal with bigger men with ability can be proven by the accomplishments of others."

I don't think it proves anything but Satterfield/Valdez is certainly food for thought. Valdez struggled tremendously to land the jab and Satterfield was just using a leaning crouch not unlike Rocky used against Louis. Louis' jab and footwork I might add looks much better than want Nino showed on this outing.

Satterfield's big damaging right hand parade that set the tone in the 3rd also wasn't caused by precise counter punching but Valdez carelessly trying to wrestle hiim. Frustrated, Valdez kept trying to walk in and hold, resulting in three breaks. He tried again, only to eat a short right that badly hurt him. In response, he tries to lean on Satterfield only to eat several more bombing rights that grotesquely swell his eye shut.

 

Its not that marciano or weil were reluctant or selective to fight the best contenders. size did not come into it, they always went for the biggest fight that could be made for the most money. In doing so they were limited to fighting outdoors when the ballparks were availible between may and september. marciano liked to have a 3 month camp, he retired in april because that was as late as he could leave it to go into training for an outdoor fight.
had there not have been bigger fights to make weil would have had no option but to go on the road and making smaller indoor money where they would have found a spot for valdes. this is what charles had to do between the walcot series. weil took a huge piece of marciano who had to pay alie colombo out if his share so weil had to find the biggest payday to keep rocky sweet.
they were not wary of valdes. Its just how it looks now after generations of bigger heavyweights but at the time giving away weight was never an issue. marciano gave away weight 27 times. liston only 6 times. so what? valdes got 2eliminators and had been beat by a number of marciano victims, nobody was that wary at the time and now we have seen more of valdes its obvious why nobody was wary.

 

Whatever the arguments - from watching this one and from watching the bit I've seen of Valdes against Baker Nino wouldn't have stood much of a chance against Rocky - Ez said Nino caught him on the worst night of his career and clammered for a rematch to get even but they wouldn't have it - but yeah Nino looked a good fighter all said but not a great one.

 

It appears like your a bit obsessed with these measurements. Joe Louis was 6'2 214lb. That is nearly the same size as valdez, and bigger than Bob Baker. You depict Baker and Valdez as these world class big studs, then leave Louis out of the picture. Louis in 1951, was rated as the # 2 heavyweight contender in the world. He was also 6'2 214lb. So Joe Louis fits your criteria of a 210lb + highly rated contender whom marciano "Never beat".

Should Marciano's win over a 37 year old Joe Louis hold as much weight as a win over Valdez or Baker? I think so. why not? Were the 53-55 Valdez and baker better than the 1950 Joe Louis? Hard to tell, I doubt it though. Louis for all his setbacks, still had the finest jab the division had to offer in 1951. He also still was was equipped with very solid fundamentals and elegant boxing skills. He could still show some pack in his wallop at times too. Baker and Valdez were simply not good enough to knock Louis out, and I have my doubts that they would have been able to outjab and outbox even a 37 year old Louis. If we look at facts, we see a 37 year old Joe Louis boxed Valdez in a live exhibition right around 1951, and Louis flattened the younger Valdez in the first round. While this is not technically the real thing, it certainly points the evidence more toward Louis favor than Nino's.

My opinion is that a knockout victory over a 6'2 214lb 37 year old Louis should be viewed as highly as a win over a valdez or baker. Yes, Valdez and Baker would have been younger big victims for marciano. but does younger age equate being better? No I don't think so.

You have to view a spade as a spade. There is no mounting evidence that suggests baker and valdez were better than a older Joe Louis. Therefore, you must give marciano credit for dismantling a world class opponent to whom he spotted a 68-2 record and had a good 30lb on him in weight.

 

Jackson was 16-2 when Valdes beat him, He had already lost to lightheavyweight Jimmy Slade and Burt Whitehurt. Archie Moore beat those 2 already

Valdes lost 4 in 1953 and was eliminated in 1955 by Moore and Satterfeild

Charles should have gotten the rematch 1st after his great performance vs Marciano after his 2 spectacular KO's over Wallace and Satterfeild and Charles also beat Valdez conquerer Gilliam

Moore beat Valdez 2 times from 1953 to 1955, If it had been the other way around. Marciano would have fought Valdez but Rocky fought the better man to his credit

From 1953 to 1955 Valdes lost ot Harold Johnson,Archie Moore 2 times,Billy Gilliam,Bob Baker,Bob Satterfield....Marciano rightfully rematched Charles after a dominant but tough war...I dont see your point...Had Valdez beat Moore it would have been him to get the shot instead of Archie and there was a very short window of time that Valdes was loss free that was 1954 but most felt he did lose that fight in 1954 in Havana to Archie Mc Bride

1953 Valdes loses 4 strait
1954 good run but disputed win over Archie McBride in Havana
1955 loses to Moore and Satterfeild

 

Cockell was always going to fight Marciano first because of international boxing politics. If Marciano had ko'd Charles, according to Bill Cayton, Cockell would have been the next opponent in September 1954. It had much to do with the heavyweight championship having been basically an American monopoly. No Brit had challenged for the title since 1937. No European since 1938. No non-American since Godoy in 1940. Thirty straight heavyweight fights had been an all-American affair. Valdes was Cuban, but he was American controlled and managed. And the IBC owed Jack Solomon for allowing Turpin to fight in America. Moreover, both Bruce Woodcock in the late forties and Cockell in the fifties were clearly better than some of the second-rate Americans who got shots. Woodcock had knocked out Lesnevich and Oma. Cockell had beaten Beshore, Barone, and LaStarza.

Here are excerpts from a November 15, 1954 article in the New York Times which gives a pretty good picture of what the situation was.

"London, Nov 14, AP---Robert K Christenberry, president of the World Boxing Committee, said today he will ask the group to select either Britain's Don Cockell or Cuba's Nino Valdes as Rocky Marciano's next opponent for the world heavyweight championship.

"Christenberry, also chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission, said he would enter the proposal at the committee meeting tomorrow. He added that if Cockell and Valdes are accepted as the top contenders, he would suggest that Marciano choose which one he wants to meet this winter.

"The other contender, Christenberry said, would meet the winner of the first bout sometime next spring.

"Valdes, the Cuban champion, is listed number 1 challenger behind Marciano with Cockell, the European and British champion, number 2, in United States rankings.

"Christenberry arrived by plane from New York today for the World Committee meeting with Livingston Osborne, chairman of the Illinois Athletic Commission, who will represent the National Boxing Association.

"The world Committee was formed a year ago by boxing officials of the United States, Britain, and France to screen championship fights in order to prevent dual claims for world titles."

1. Christenberry was probably the most powerful political figure in boxing.

2. Valdes was rated above Cockell in the United States. Was he by international groups? Christenberry seems to put them on the same level.

3. "Marciano" selecting an opponent would obviously be subject to what the promoters wanted. I can only speak for myself if I were a promoter. I would take Cockell. Valdes had not only lost to the real #1 contender, Archie Moore, but to Harold Johnson and Bob Baker, both of whom Moore stopped. And Valdes avoided a rematch with Charles. How can I really sell him as the top contender, regardless of ratings that the public probably didn't care about. Cockell could be sold as the British champion and if the fight were held in New York or Boston, where it should have been, there would probably have been an influx of British sports fans to shore up the gate. Cockell had the advantage of never having lost to Moore.

4. Christenberry talks about fights in the winter and spring, but that seems unrealistic considering Marciano had to wait for his injured nose to heal.

 

This Article from the Baltimore Afro-American on Nov 30, 1954, gives some insight on how Moore, Valdes, and Cockell were viewed.

"Boxing officials, promoters, and boxing fans owe it to Archie Moore to see that he gets the chance he deserves of being Rocky Marciano's next championship opponent.

"Archie has not only defeated the number 1 contender, Cuba's Nino Valdes, but his style, experience and ability make him the stiffest test for the Rock.

"Besides, Don Cockell of Britain, the other fight being considered, is an unproven fighter who suffered a knockout at the hand of trial horse Jimmy Slade. Moore stopped Slade."

Later there is this interesting observation:

"The clamor for an international bout seems to be working in favor of Cockell."

 

And it's a great win for Layne, not only on paper. Never claimed it wasn't.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=t3IxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0A8EAAAAIBAJ&dq=charles%20valdes&pg=7487%2C7631809

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...VAEAAAAIBAJ&dq=charles valdes&pg=4708,5303166

Mauriello was hardly a wolf at the time though, he had lost to the very average Joe Dominic in his previous fight, and never fought again after losing to Brion.

It was Wallman, Brion's manager who said: "When I accepted the Mauriello fight, a lot of guys said I was throwing Brion to the wolves. But I knew what I was doing. The other night a guy named Joe Dominic outpointed Mauriello at Holyoke, Mass."

Maybe Jackson was more exciting but I think he was better too, because he beat better fighters.

It's food for thought and this is why I personally believe that Rocky would have beaten down Valdes in the end but I do not claim that my predictions are foolproof. I also think that Robinson would have beaten Charley Burley, Dempsey would have beaten Wills, but I do not excuse them. I'm well aware that Valdes was not Burley or Wills, but he was one fighter that Marciano could have fought.

I believe it's fairly obvious that they were wary of him enough to fight Cockell instead of Valdes. Cockell was of no threat, Valdes was atleast a little threat with his jab, size. Weill always said that he hesitated to put his fighters against punchers with size. Valdes was atleast a decent puncher with size. Cockell was not.

I never discounted his win over Louis. However Louis, at his peak, which he was far from against Marciano, weighed around 200 pounds in prime condition. In his fight previous to fight Rocky, Louis weighed 203. Valdes to me seems like the bigger man based on height, reach and average weight. I said that if a fight against an old Joe Louis is the only claim Marciano has to having fought a world class big man then it's a claim that lies on rather shaky grounds.

Valdes was green and had not fought anybody in 1950 when all-time great puncher Louis fought him in an exhibition. Louis based on the amount of exhibitions he had in 1948-1950 must not have been all that rusty when he faced Charles, who beat him emphatically.

Valdes improved, as noted by Ring Magazine who claimed him to be the "Progress of the Year", and later defeated Charles in a close fight. This proves that, if not outright better than old Louis, Valdes atleast provided a different stylistical match-up as Charles struggled with Valdes while he defeated Louis clearly. Nino claimed it was his strength that won him the fight but Louis could not use his strength advantage against Charles. Perhaps Valdes was stronger at that point.

Thus beating Joe Louis does not equal to beating Baker or Valdes in my opinion. I also do not think that it can be said that Louis was better than either at that point. He did not have any overly significant wins during his comeback and lost clearly to Marciano and Charles.

Again this is of no significance to what I said. I didn't claim that Valdes was greater than Moore, because clearly he was not. I said that in early 1955 Valdes deserved a title shot over Cockell, he was the number 1 ranked contender. It was not a very short time that Valdes was loss free, he went unbeaten for around 2 years.

 

Despite all the modern hulabaloo about Weill avoiding big men, he actually was openly pushing for Bob Baker as Marciano's opponent in 1955. This is from Budd Shulberg in Sports Illustrated, July 5, 1955.

"Last year he* (*Moore) knocked out Harold Johnson to retain his light-heavyweight title and took nine rounds to dispose of Bob Baker, Al Weill's idea of the next best thing for Rocky Marciano. This year Archie licked Nino Valdes, who had the #1 heavyweight contender rating, which should have put Moore in with Marciano, but out in San Francisco, after the Cockell fight, Al Weill was still talking Baker. How did Baker rate it if Old Arch had knocked him out and had twice beaten Valdes."

Ring Magazine's August, 1955 issue weighs in on the next contender and presents some evidence on how Baker was viewed.

"Meanwhile, what about Rocky's next opponent? Many names have been mentioned. The most likely choices appear to be Bob Baker, whose name hardly enthralls the fight fans, and Archie Moore.
"It is interesting to go back to March 9, 1954, and Miami Beach. Baker was knocked out that night by Archie Moore in the ninth round."

"It is quite certain that Moore would intrigue the customers more than would Baker."

And this conclusion:

"Baker would be no better than 6 to 1 against Marciano. Perhaps no betting at all."

"Moore, an old man but a wise one, would carry into the ring against the Rock remarkable know-how, the sapience of the old campaigner."

"Moore did not do himself too much good with his 15 round decision over Valdes. Had Archie scored a knockout, he would have commanded immediate attention for a Marciano bout."

Two things stand out to me:

1. Baker--"no betting at all"---sounds like he was really well thought of.

2. Valdes--"Moore did not do himself too much good with his 15 round decision over Valdes"---Just beating Valdes was not even that impressive and still left doubts about Moore. Moore had to knock Valdes out to prove himself. This does not sound to me like Valdes was that well thought of.

3. I can't imagine Joe Louis being so lightly thought of even in 1951 that anyone would write "no betting at all" about him. The 1951 Louis was actually the betting favorite against Marciano. I also can't imagine anyone seriously criticizing a Louis opponent for "only" outpointing him and doubting that he deserved a title shot unless he could knock Louis out.
By the way, in 1951 Louis was on an eight bout winning streak. How many times did Valdes manage to win eight fights in row in his career? Only once, after his four bout losing streak in 1953.

 

I believe the Valdes-Moore fight was fairly close and wasn't viewed as one of Moore's most impressive performances. It's still said that Moore deserves a title shot because he beat the legitimate number 1 contender.

No one is claiming that Weill only looked at size but he did look at the risk/reward factor, and the size of the opponent is a part of it. Weill wanted Marciano to fight Baker instead of Moore who had beaten Baker. However he changed his mind when he realized that the public did not care to see such a fight.

Later he claimed that he did avoid Moore because he didn't want Marciano to fight Moore until the fight had significant hype behind it. He also advised young Cassius Clay to avoid Sonny Liston.

 

Budd Shulberg said that Moore deserved a shot for beating Valdes and also Baker. However, he never said that Valdes was "legitimately" the number 1 contender. He wrote that Valdes had the #1 heavyweight contender rating. He chose his words precisely. Shulberg clearly thought that Moore had been the number 1 contender for years.

The Ring Magazine said that Moore did not do himself that much good by failing to knock out Valdes. Their take was less pro-Moore than Shulberg's, but neither seemed to think that much of Valdes.

I think the bottom line is the lightheavyweight champion beating the #1 heavyweight contender should have been viewed as an impressive achievement, close or not. That it was not casts doubt on how Valdes was really viewed.

 

Valdes was of no threat to marciano, a known quantity in the country it would be staged. cockell was largly an unknown quantity with added international flavour about him who had just as much in the eyes of a paying audience in the US. the worst business decision was staging it on the west coast...
regardless of how easy nino dismissed the "post marciano" cockell, going by these nino fights you would have to give "pre marciano" cockell a chance against valdes. we can all be wise after the event but on paper valdes-cockell is no missmatch.
valdes not geting his shot all boils down to two things,
1.marciano being restricted to two fights a year and not having to go on the road fighting indoors to make a living. marciano-valdes just was not a outdoor event.
2. valdes blew his eliminators to more worthy chalengers.

personaly i would have prefered marciano going on the road fighting 3-4 times a year against less worthy chalengers like jackson, satterfield, valdes, pastrano, walls etc but super fights in big stadiums with higher ranking fighters were there to be had so it never happened. maybe the walcott and lastarza rematches could have been missed out?

 

Roland LaStarza was the #1 rated contender by Ring Magazine and had lost a controversial decision to Marciano in 1950. This fight made sense.

You're right about Valdes at the box-office. His big fight with Jackson drew 4500, according A J Liebling. Everyone talks about Weill, but it is my money if I am the promoter and I would not lay a whole lot of green out there unless Valdes fights and defeats Moore and proves himself to the public. Backing out of an elimination fight with Charles, the winner to get Marciano, tells us all we need to know about him. If his management thought he had it, they would have taken that fight.