VIDEO: Bob Satterfield beats Nino Valdes

:good:good fantastic post! great info. cockell was just as worthy.

 

its a pity lastarza did not hang with those guys, his fights with marciano proved he had a good chance against most of them. like you say his people had done their work getting him in the running for a shot so they didnt fancy taking a chance against charles, baker and co when they were on the brink - just like gleason did for valdes after he registered that win against charles. the problem with all these contenders was preserving a ranking over a 4 to 6 fights a year when the champ fought but 2 times a year waiting for the ballparks to be availible.

 

Middleweights who were not so successful moved up and won titles in heavier weights, Jimmy Ellis lost and was dropped by Hurricane Carter, George Benton and others but moved up to heavy and beat Quarry, Bonavena,Patterson, and others

Light Heavy Champ Vincente Rondon who became light heavyweight Champ and went the 10 rd distance with Earine Shavers was stopped by Bennie Briscoe and others as a middleweight.

Just recently Maurice Harris heavyweight was stopped by middleweight Scott Lopeck at that weight but went on to beat many top ranked contenders and most felt he beat an aged Holmes

 

1. My point about Johnson, Fitz, and Dempsey wasn't putting Cockell in their class. They were rated by Nat Fleischer #1, #3, and #4 among all time heavyweights. Almost everyone else would have put them in their top ten in the 1950's. My point is that if they were knocked out, or in Dempsey's case dropped nine times, by middleweights, it is a weak argument to say Cockell was to be dismissed for being stopped by a middleweight, and by one who looked in 1951 and 1952 like an exceptional fighter before getting into drugs.

2. "Jackson was favored by some to ko Valdes"--Who are these "some" and how numerous are they? As there were hundreds, if not thousands, of boxing writers and sports writers, it is probably always possible to find "some" making almost any prediction. I will grant that being favored speaks well for Jackson. It does not speak well for Valdes.

3. No doubt Valdes was rated ahead of everyone, which makes it strange that he was an underdog to a man who had lost by UD three months earlier to Jimmy Slade. It is hard to see why the ko of Norkus impressed anyone very much when Norkus had been stopped by Ike Thomas (1-4) and by George Washington (4-12).

4. I am far more impressed with Cockell's wins over Matthews and LaStarza than you are--and they apparently were considered pretty impressive at the time--they got Cockell to the #2 rating. I am somewhat less impressed than you by Jackson's victories over Layne, Henry, Bucceroni, and Norkus. Jackson was rated #5 after these victories. He got up to Cockell's position in the ratings only after wins not only over Charles, but also over Baker.

 

Norkus was not "stiffened" but cut. Coming into the Jackson fight, he had scored two upsets over Danny Nardico in what were generally regarded as the best fights of 1954. Later he beat Cesar Brion, Roland LaStarza and unbeaten Charlie Powell.

 

You are right. He was stopped by Thomas (1-4) because he took a bad beating in the 6th and 7th rounds and could not answer the bell for the 8th. He had suffered a bad cut and a broken nose.

You are teaching me to be very careful with my language.

Your point, though, is not well taken. The first Nardico fight, which I have seen on film, was exciting because Norkus was knocked down several times before coming on late.

Norkus did edge Brion via split decision later, and a few months later upset LaStarza. Unless someone had a crystal ball, though, I don't see how this impacted how the Jackson win over Norkus was viewed at the time of the Valdes fight. Norkus had in fact been stopped by Brion a few years earlier. He had been stiffened by James J Parker in 1951 in a preliminary to the first LaStarza-Bucceroni fight. According to the March, 1952, issue of The Ring, page 42, "Parker, 184, flattened Charley Norkus, 190, Bayonne, with a one-two in the fifth." There is a photo on page 9 of that issue of Norkus flat on his back, his arms outstretched with the referee bending down to remove his mouthpiece. It is captioned "Here we see Norkus on the canvas immediately after the doleful ten had been completed."

I think the bottom line was Norkus had been at best a journeyman who defeated the erratic Nardico but had suffered several crushing defeats over the years. How did stopping him prove Jackson was better than Valdes unless people didn't think much of Valdes?

By the way, dragging in future fights also downgrades the Bucceroni fight as he went from the Jackson stoppage to a defeat by Brion.

 

It's not about being careful. Saying Norkus was "stiffened", as in knocked out cold, is simply misleading, when the reason he was stopped was due to cuts. It'd be appropriate to say he was "stiffened" by Parker but not in this case. It's the same as saying that Jose Napoles was "stiffened" by Billy Backus.

I also have the fight on film and this is not quite true. It was a give and take affair where both men were knocked down several times, first Nardico, then Norkus, then Nardico, then Norkus and so on, but it was Norkus always in control, with Nardico always staying in there due to his punching power and toughness. In their second fight, which I also have, Nardico simply beat him up. As is often the case, both fighters became quite popular due to the wars they had with each other, even if they weren't top class fighters in reality.

They did not, but it shows that Norkus was a capable fighter, not only a journeyman. Norkus had already made his mark with three consecutive KO upsets over good opponents (Nardico, 16-1 Boylston, 40-4 Wilding) and was top 10 ranked in the division at the time Jackson stopped him so it's a notable win.

This win, along with Jackson's wins over Clarence Henry (who was still top 10), Archie McBride (whom Valdes struggled with), KO over Rex Layne who was still top 10 ranked in 1954 and KO over top 3 ranked Dan Bucceroni, made Jackson a top fighter in the division.

It'd be appropriate to say that Bucceroni was ruined by Jackson and was no longer highly rated at the time he lost a split decision to Brion, his last career fight, as he had lost to Heinz Neuhaus also. I'm not saying Bucceroni was great but he was seen as very good at the time Jackson stopped him.

 

1. on "stiffened"---Okay. Okay. I already conceded the point and will try to be more careful with my language.

2. Norkus was stopped by Ike Thomas in June of 1953. Thomas had a career record of 5-11-3 with 2 stoppages, one of Norkus. Norkus took a beating in the 6th and 7th rounds, suffering a cut and a broken nose. The fight was stopped. No matter how you spin it or how inaccurate my original wording, this was not impressive.

3. It has been a long time since I saw the Nardico-Norkus fight. My memory is of Nardico being down several times in the first three rounds, but rallying to knock Norkus down in the 4th and the 7th. Norkus hardly seemed "in control" during these middle rounds. I thought he was on the floor at the bell in the 7th round. Norkus then rallied to drop Nardico and beat him helpless in the 9th. I concede that Norkus was clearly better than Nardico and also beat him in a return.

4. But how good was Nardico? His big win over an aging LaMotta was sandwiched between losses to Bucceroni and Maxim, and soon thereafter he lost badly to Larry Watson. Other than the LaMotta fight, his biggest win was a 10th round ko of Nick Barone. Cockell stopped Barone in six shortly thereafter. And did Nardico ever beat a ranked heavyweight? His biggest heavyweight win was probably over Bernie Reynolds who was way past it by that time. After losing to Norkus, Nardico was ko'd by Paul Andrews in four.

5. Wilding and Boyston had flashy won-lost records, but these were 8 round preliminary fights and neither was all that much. Wilding had not even been rated in the British Empire ratings printed in The Ring in over a year. Boyston had been off for a year and a half and had been ko'd by Nardico in his only effort to step up.

6. Those Ring rankings at the end of the year are interesting. After beating Brion, Powell, and LaStarza, Norkus was #9. Slade, who beat Henry and Jackson, was #10. Jackson himself was ranked #8. But Rex Layne was ranked #7 ahead of all of them despite being stopped by Jackson.

7. I repeat that I am not saying that Jackson's wins over Layne, Henry, Bucceroni, and Norkus should be dismissed, just that I am not that impressed with them versus Cockell's wins over Matthews and LaStarza. Despite all the talk about how impressed everyone was by Jackson in 1954, he somehow ended up the year rated behind the well past his best Layne. Valdes' biggest wins rating wise to the end of 1954 were over Charles and Neuhaus, who to that point were rated ahead of Jackson.

 

maybe some were simply excited by jackson as a draw rather than genuine high regard?

or was it that jacksons buble was burst? remember he was the kid with 18 fights valdes had already been exposed.

the media wanted a colorful character, jackson was fun while it lasted, i doubt hard core boxing folk had much expectations of him other than he was fun to watch win or lose.

turpin was scary on a good night.

 

These ratings were very volatile with people going up and down, often based merely on activity. Matthews was 9 years older than Jackson and had been rated as early as 1942. LaStarza was 4 years older and had been rated as early as 1949. Both rose to #1 contender status, as did Jackson, although Matthews did so at lightheavy. He was ranked #2 at heavyweight by the NBA in 1952 when he fought Marciano.

If going by ratings, these are the ratings from the August, 1955 issue of The Ring for the month ending June 22, 1955:

Champion---Rocky Marciano
1---Archie Moore
2---Bob Baker
3---Don Cockell
4---Nino Valdes
5---Hurricane Jackson
6---Ezzard Charles
7---Earl Walls
8---John Holman
9---Rex Layne
10--Heinz Neuhaus

This was before Valdes fought Satterfield.

How highly Jackson was rated in 1955 or 1956 did not effect how he was viewed in 1954. How highly Matthews and LaStarza were ranked in 1951 to 1953 did effect how they were viewed in 1954.