:good exactly. can you imagine the uproar if marciano had not rematched lastarza!! there is no way valdes would have got past charles twice. especialy before charles fought marciano.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AIBAJ&pg=5707,2808725&dq=charles+valdes&hl=en http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AIBAJ&pg=5425,3177503&dq=charles+valdes&hl=en http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PAYqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2yQEAAAAIBAJ&dq=valdes%20jackson&pg=5370%2C1792883 http://news.google.com/newspapers?i..._wFAAAAIBAJ&dq=valdes jackson&pg=5630,1203690 http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AIBAJ&pg=2538,2386174&dq=charles+valdes&hl=en http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...OgFAAAAIBAJ&dq=valdes charles&pg=5833,2995630
Love how Rocky gets criticized for one time in his life not defending against the #1 challenger. Who fought the #2 once instead of the #1 in Valdes. This was coming off that nose injury so Marciano probably wanted something easy to test that nose out. What other champions fought as consistently the top ranked guy like Marciano? No one... the criticism is silly.
It's amazing how you keep on using a badly deteriorated Louis as an big win for Rocky. The argument is so flawed I would actually think you were joking if you simply did not keep the same position time and again. It's simply a weak argument.
First you call Louis an "All time puncher" in 1950, then say he was "washed up" a year later in 1951. Which is it? Bottom line is that a 25 year old Nino Valdez was flattened in 1 round by a 37 year old Louis in a live exhibition. This tells us something. So you make exuses for Nino being "green" when he lost to Louis, yet side step a valid exuse of charles being past his prime when Nino beat him in 1953. I don't think a rational boxing fan out there can make a case charles was the same fighter in 1953 that he was when he fought Louis in 1950. Louis certainly faced a younger, LIGHTER, sharper, faster version of Charles. I don't know about you, but I think it had something to do with Charles 32 years of age and overweight 193lb that caused him to not be able to dance away out of Valdez range. Charles was a ripped 182lb, on top of 28 years of age when he fought Louis in 1950, he certainly had the tools then to get himself out of trouble from the big man whenever he pleased. Agree to disagree then. I put a lot more weight into knocking out an Aging All time great who happened to be 1. Much Bigger 2. Highly Rated 3. Coming off a winning streak and 4. Much more experienced than I do to beating a couple of talented rated erratic big heavyweights who never made their mark on the division. Well Lets break things down then... How are either of the two going to beat him? Valdez, though powerful, does not have the all time great finishing abilities and punching power needed to put an experienced veteran like Louis away. Especially when it took Rocky at his very best 8 gruelling rounds. So Kayo is out of the question. I wouldn't rule out Louis being able to stop Nino. If Louis connects flush on a couple big hooks or crosses, Nino is going down. Will Nino be able to persevere if Louis decks him early? Lets look at the jab factor. Is Nino going to outjab Louis? Nino had a long and powerful jab, but he was far from clever with it. He threw it all the time, never changed his pace, it became predictable. Louis, despite the shorter jab, knew how to use it and when to throw it. Even at 37, He snapped it out their with timing and precision that marked up opponents faces something fierce. He had pop in it too. Even Ezzard Charles, one of the all time great master boxers, could not get away from Joe's jab. I think Joe wins the jab battle here, and this could be a major factor in a fight, since both relied on their jabs. When we take a look at boxing skills..Nino was clumsy and off balance at times. Louis on the other hand, was an outstanding technician with very solid fundamentals. I would say the gap between the two in terms of "skill" is not even close..and this can be verified on film. I like Louis in this one by unanimous decision. As far as Bob Baker. Well I certainly think he has a much better chance than Valdez, because Baker was the much better technician. I still favor Louis here though.
No weaker than the argument that a win over Nino Valdez would look better than a win over Joe Louis. True or False? I would just like to make a small comment here. No one, I repeat no one including myself, has ever used this win as a trademark for rocky's "big" victories. It is you, and you only, who continues to put words into other peoples mouths. Had you taken the time to read the last 2 pages, you would see why I responded in the context that I did, and you would also find this topic of conversation had nothing to do with how "big" a victory Louis was for rocky's legacy, but rather how a win over Louis stacks up in comparison to a win over Nino Valdez.
This is some very shaky logic here. For starters, Valdes didn't quite "avoid" a rematch with Charles; he asked for a bigger share of the money than Charles was willing to split with him (Charles referred to this in a Ring magazine interview prior to challenging Marciano). Secondly, rematch or no, a single win over Charles plus another over Hurricane Jackson were bigger and more impressive than any wins Cockell had had to that point. Also, to suggest that Valdes' right to a title shot is shaky because he had previously lost to Moore, Johnson, and others is questionable, as Charles had lost to Valdes and Johnson and had gotten two title shots already. Moreover, look at who Cockell had lost to in recent years - the likes of Jimmy Slade (who Moore had also beaten) and middleweight Randy Turpin, both by KO as well. The Turpin loss especially was still fresh in people's minds and referred to repeatedly in media reports prior to the title fight. On top that, Cockell's biggest win to that point over LaStarza had been widely denounced by the American media (whether rightly or not) as a bad decision. All things considered, there's no way Cockell could ever be viewed as or billed as a more deserving or more dangerous challenger than Valdes.
Compared to Larry Holmes, Marciano was a saint in terms of fighting "the This content is protected challengers out there".
My2sense, I believe you need to reread this passage again. "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. This content is protected I highlighted the important part. It claims Marciano's management planned to fight BOTH challengers. in that case, does it really matter which order the sequence happens? Never did Marciano's management outright duck Valdez in favor of Cockell. All they did was simply bypass Valdez first, in order to book a fight the following year with Valdez. What Marciano's management did was 1. Get a nice tuneup in after a series of gruelling title defenses against # 1 rated contenders and 2. Allowed the Marciano-Valdez fight to build up some more, so the gate would build up to respectable numbers by the time the fight came around. Marciano's management had every intention of fighting Valdez. Baker too. Baker and Valdez have no one to blame but themselves for their A. Erratic losses and B. Pivotal losses at crucial times (Valdez title eliminator to Moore)
4 loses in 1953 and 2 in 1955....he was unbeaten in 1954 but most felt he lost in Havana to Archie Mcbride
That controversial hometown decision over Archie Mcbride in 1954 was one of the reasons Valdez lost his # 1 rating to Ezzard Charles that year. Valdez was lucky to escape with a win in that one. I would also like to throw something out there. For those that feel Valdez in 1954 was the overwhelming # 1 challenger to Marciano's crown, then where does Harold Johnson fit in. Johnson shutout Valdez in 1953, and beat Ezz Charles in 1954. What kind of arguement could be made for Valdez being rated over him?
He was an all-time great puncher having an exhibition against a young, green part-time fighter who worked a job at sugar fields in Cuba and fought inactively against mostly local opposition. What's not taken into account is that Valdes didn't fight for almost 2 years from 1950 to 1952, having given up on boxing, until coming across a manager who got him fights against big names like Archie Moore and Harold Johnson, whom Valdes lost to, but he learned from every fight. That's why he was named "Progress of the Year" by Ring Magazine. He had raw talent but no technique and learned whatever he skills he had "on the job". I've been arguing against people who believe Charles was in his prime against Marciano. And I would agree. But a lot of people on this thread do not agree. I believe Charles was not in his prime during the 1950's and that's part of why Valdes was able to upset him. He was slower, more flat-footed, easier to hit. However there are people who feel Charles was as good as he ever was, and continued to be until the Marciano fights. I'm not saying I count out the win. However I do not think that Louis proved during his comeback that he was much better than a Valdes. He lost to Charles decisively, atleast Valdes did beat him in a close fight, whether Charles was in his prime or not. His best wins were over Lee Savold, equally as old as Louis himself, Agramonte, whom Valdes also beat, and Cesar Brion whom Louis failed to impress against. Bivins was not really a world class fighter at that stage. The younger Valdes did seem to have advantages in strength and stamina over Louis. Louis during his comeback was pushed back by Marciano (no surprise there), Cesar Brion and even the small Beshore. Louis had a good jab but Valdes was also a good jabber although not a good defensive fighter, but Louis's reflexes had also slowed and he was increasingly easier to hit. Valdes was a mauler and could possibly bother Louis with his strength and smothering style, which is what Charles admitted that he had problems with. It's entirely possible that the older man would tire against the younger man, allowing Valdes to take the initiative. Of course it's also possible that Louis with his skill and experience is able to pull it out, Valdes was not unbeatable and he was inconsistent. Anyway, leaving it up to fantasy fights is too much speculation for me. As I've stated previously, I believe Marciano would knock Valdes out, but he didn't prove it. He would present a different stylistical match-up compared to smaller, more agile and skilled fighters (that Marciano mostly fought) who bothered Valdes. Valdes admitted that he had a hard time dealing with speed. Since I've seen the likes of Joe Louis and Gene Tunney criticized for not fighting certain black contenders, Robinson criticized for not fighting Burley, Jeffries and Johnson criticized for not fighting enough big men, I don't see why the Valdes case couldn't be brought up about Marciano. Unbeaten from mid 1953 to mid 1955. That's two years.
Vladez lost 4 strait in 1953 and he only rematched 2 of those loses and that was to Moore and Baker he lost again 2 times. He won a disputed decision to Archie McBride in 1954 and did not rematch him. Then he lost to Moore and Satterfeild and Baker in 1955..for a total of 3 losses out of 5 in 1955. Then Valdes went on to lose 3 out of his 1st 4 fights of 1956...Valdes was not consistant and he lost key fights that would have gained him a title shot...remember there was only one champ in those days and Marciano has one of the top records for fighting his number 1 contender.... Big A you dwell on size but Big guys were not the best guys back in the day....Nino lost 10 fights in 4 years, the only year he did not have a loss was 1954 and most felt he lost to McBride Talk about Big Men well Valdes had serious trouble with small men Valdes lost to Moore who was 5"11 180lbs,(Valdes had a 29lb advantage) Harold Johnson who was 5"10 174(Valdes had a 34lb advantage) ,Satterfeild who was 5"10 183lbs,( Valdes weighed 215 and had a 32lb advantage) Eddie Machen 6" and 192lbs ( Valdes had 24lb advantage but was stopped in eight rds. Zora Foley (Valdes had a 14lb advantage So Big A Valdez was much bigger than these men and lost to all of them and that is not to mention Archie McBride who most felt beat Valdes and Archie weighed 184 to Nino's 215 and Archie was 5"11 (Nino had 31lb weight advantage So I think these loses to men who weighed 32lbs to 17lbs less then him proves Nino had trouble with small heavyweights Nino lost to all those small men