VIDEO: Bob Satterfield beats Nino Valdes

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AJ&dq=tommy hurricane jackson&pg=1672,4049819

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAIBAJ&dq=don cockell turpin&pg=5873,2825665

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=31297

 

1. Jackson did beat Charles twice. I don't know if I would describe a fighter who lost two of three to Jimmy Slade as "fantastic", though. A J Liebling represents one pole about the controversial Jackson. This writer the other.

2. The preview of the Marciano fight represents standard opinion, I think. Marciano was too good for Cockell. Pointing to Cockell's losses to Turpin and Slade (as they would have pointed to Valdes' losses) and mentioning his wins over LaStarza and Matthews.

3. Cockell looks totally unimpressive on this film against a pretty poor opponent. British Pathe also has a film of the Cockell-Farr fight if you want to bring it over. I don't know how myself.

*A film of excerpts of the 1953 Moore-Valdes fight is now on youtube. This one is very interesting. Valdes certainly gets the worst of it, but he does show durability, his strong suit. I don't know how to bring that over, but perhaps you can.

 

Atleast he did win one over Slade unlike Cockell who was knocked out. I'm not saying I think Jackson was fantastic, but he was highly regarded by some, and had a few impressive wins.

His wins over LaStarza and Matthews did not seem to be very highly regarded.

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=30783

Sad sight to see old Farr get beaten down.

I agree he was unimpressive, and seemed to be made for Marciano even more so than Valdes with his face first brawling style. As a light heavyweight he was more of a boxer, but perhaps the extra pounds he was carrying forced him to be a slugger.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=212869

Keep in mind that this was one of Valdes's first big fights, a year prior having given up on boxing he worked on sugar fields of Cuba until Gleason took an interest on him. Their second fight was closer.

 

tommy jackson was a rank novice, brought on much too fast against faded names without paying his dues. he was once a sparring partner of marciano.

don cockell landed 2 fights against mainstream name fighters whos stock was still high -and was a british champ unbeaten as a heavyweight.

nino valdes was unbeaten since beating one former champion but had not rematched any of the 4 guys who beat him back to back prior to that.

archie moore was an outstanding contender who had wins over baker, valdes and johnson. he even had to fight valdes twice to get his shot.

 

watching valdes-jackson it is alarming to think either fought for the heavyweight title but outrageous that it was jackson who actualy did!!

 

Times are important here and the window of opportunity to fight Marciano was messed up by Valdes for the most part by losing in an elimination, I dont think anyone would think he was a harder opponent than Moore who beat him 2 times

 

yes. the timing was never right to make marciano valdes hapen. cockell just landed the beter oponents. lastarza and mathews may also have lost to valdes but cockell got them first where as valdes just sat on that close win over charles and was ticking over in missmatches. charles totaly trumped valdes with beter wins to earn his shot. i think if moore had to beat valdes twice and baker to prove himself an "outstanding" contender then valdes should have rematched charles to prove it was no fluke. or take lastarza and mathews before cockell?
all anyone can say about valdes is that thanks to him losing eliminators and landing the wrong fights at the wrong time people can now say marciano didnt get to defend the title against a modern sized heavyweight. or that because valdes couldnt beat enough lightheavyweights he didnt get his shot...

 

1. Jackson---Fair enough. He had some good wins, but mostly over men who were on the way down--something which could be said about many contenders, including of course Cockell. I do remember that Jackson's true worth as a fighter was an issue of much controversy.

2. Cockell---Also fair enough. He boxed well as a lightheavyweight, but seemed more a swarmer at heavy. He certainly was no threat to Marciano. Valdes? I don't think so either. He was durable enough to last, but I see no reason for Weill to fear him, and no one has presented any real evidence that Weill did. There were many possible reasons involving inside boxing politics to explain picking Cockell, such as the IBC connection with Soloman.

3. Valdes-Moore---Well, Valdes did not look that much better against Satterfield. Other than the in my opinion "fluke" fight with Charles, he fought to his level and his level was below that of the top men. From late 1952 through 1956, his peak run, he won 13 and lost 10.

*And thank you very much for posting the films.

 

1. "Jackson was actually favored to beat Valdes"

I reread your post and this really stuck out. You spin this as meaning that Jackson was viewed as some sort of great fighter. Well, his record was 16-2-1 and he had lost a UD three months earlier to Jimmy Slade. Yet he is favored over Valdes after his big win over Charles and his big run. I would spin it as showing the low esteem Valdes was held in for such a high ranking fighter. I can't imagine Moore, Johnson, or Charles going into a Jackson fight at this point as the underdog.

2. You also overrate Jackson's victories. Layne--coming off a losing streak and two crushing ko's to Earl Walls, and he had earlier lost to both Matthews and LaStarza. Henry--was coming off 3 losses in his last five fights to Johnson, Moore, and Slade. Also had an eye injury and retired right after the Jackson fight. Bucceroni--was on a winning streak and had beaten LaStarza in a close fight in 1951, but was slaughtered in a rematch in which he suffered five knockdowns. He had also, like Danny Nardico, been knocked out by Bob Murphy. Harry Matthews had badly beaten Murphy. Norkus had upset Nardico, who then was stopped much more quickly by Paul Andrews and retired. Less than a year earlier Norkus had been stopped by the 1-4 Ike Thomas. Matthews had also beaten Nardico.
I am not saying these wins meant nothing or should be dismissed, but they are no where near the sensational achievements you crack them up to be.

3. As for Matthews and LaStarza. Well Matthews had beaten Layne, and had beaten the Murphy who ko'd Bucceroni, and had beaten Nardico when he was younger and better. He had lost one fight in 10 years, to the reigning heavyweight champion. LaStarza had beaten Layne and Bucceroni and every other fighter he had fought other than Marciano.

4. I have the Ring ratings for the month immediately after Valdes defeated Charles. LaStarza was ranked #1, followed by Charles and Bucceroni. Valdes was ranked #4.

 

1. On being ko'd by a middleweight--If I were the promoter and a fan questioned Cockell's credentials on this basis, here's my answer---Bob Fitzsimmons was ko'd by a middeweight (Jim Hall) before winning the heavyweight championship. Jack Johnson was ko'd by a man who now and then made the middleweight limit and often fought in the low 160's, (Joe Choynski). Choynski also drew with Jim Jeffries. Jack Dempsey was knocked down nine times by the mediocre middleweight Johnny Sudenberg, but three years later was the best heavyweight in the world. Mickey Walker was ko'd by the 143 lb Joe Dundee but went on to defeat several top heavies and fight a draw with future champion Jack Sharkey. Archie Moore was ko'd by the middleweight Eddie Booker. And Gene Tunney's only loss was to the middleweight Harry Greb. Greb himself was ko'd by the middleweight Joe Chip but never by a heavyweight. And none of the men who defeated these great fighters otherwise defeated a middleweight as great as Sugar Ray Robinson.

2. "There was nothing that would make Valdes an exceptionally hard sell"

The big fight with Jackson drew a below average crowd of 4500. Doesn't seem the public was very excited about either man. What about Cockell. Well, his fight with Matthews in 1953 drew, according to Nat Fleischer in the Ring, Oct, 1953, page 13, "a Northwest record gate of $96,606 and a gathering of 14,868 persons"

Fleischer goes on to comment further on Cockell:

"Now that Cockell has met with American approval in a sensational battle that received world-wide attention and the British Empire king proved that as a drawing card in this country he is far superior to most of the heavies who have been paraded over and over again in the leading stadiums of the country."

"Cockell's triumph over Matthews by a split decision, snatching victory from what looked like a sure defeat by a courageous rally in the final two rounds, definitely places the British Empire champion in a position where he must be given consideration by the American contenders. When he dropped Matthews three times in the ninth round, he gave an exhibition of what American fight enthusiasts love best in a fighting man--hitting power and 'guts' considering the gash on his face. That's what would make him a good attraction against our best talent and would help the publicity in a world title fight should he reach that stage."

"But boxing must be grateful that the Seattle fight turned out to be as good as it did. The IBC can now count on an added starter, a colorful foreigner, a good hitter, when mapping out its future heavyweight program."

 

In fairness, Fleischer mentioned that he did not think Cockell was as good as Farr or Woodcock. He said Cockell was not among the top contenders, whom he listed as Charles, Moore, and LaStarza.

It has been repeated over and over that Valdes deserves more credit against Jackson because it was a ko. Actually, the fight ended because of the three knockdown rule, and to my eyes a couple of the knockdowns seemed to be pushes. Fleischer does comment on this rule regarding Cockell:

"Had the bout taken place in New York or most of the National Boxing Association states, it would have been stopped automatically in the ninth following the third knockdown."

Jackson had never been knocked out, but had fought only 19 fights. Matthews had been fighting 16 years and had only been stopped on cuts by Eddie Booker, and then by Marciano. For their entire careers, Jackson was stopped 4 times in 44 fights. Matthews 3 in 103. I honestly think Cockell was the one who showed the best power in these two fights.

 

I like Lastarza at his fighting best over Cockell. Lastarza was a bit better. what do you think fog man? Also how do you see a valdez vs lastarza fight going? its a shame lastarza did not take on any of the better black contenders like valdez, baker, henry, louis, charles, moore, walcott...i think it would have told us a lot more about him historically. There has been some evidence that jimmy fats deanglo dodged those men out of fear of losing...because he was promised a return bout with marciano for title and didnt want to jeopardize his man. what do u think of this?

 

Valdes--was not a contender until about one month prior to the Marciano fight. I don't think Roland ducked him.

Walcott--when would he have fought Walcott? Roland would have been too young prior to Walcott winning the championship. I can't blame him for not fighting Walcott. He just didn't have the experience.

Louis--I think the same. Perhaps this fight could have been made in 1951, but do you have any evidence this was ever in the works.

Charles--Well, Charles got a title shot against Walcott. LaStarza was clearly near the top of the line after Marciano won the title. LaStarza fought Layne, who had beaten Charles. I think his management would have been stupid to take a Charles fight in 1953 when Roland was next in line for Rocky.

Baker and Henry--perhaps you are correct here.

Moore and Johnson--probably.


I like LaStarza more often than not against Cockell.

By the way, off what I have seen of Nino, I think LaStarza would probably have outpointed him in 1952 or 1953 if they had fought. Valdes just seems too sloppy and wide open with a slow, pawing jab.