"Cockell moved from #4 to #2 only after higher rated fighters like Jackson and Charles were beaten" With Cockell also defeating Matthews a second and third time. Valdes also moved from the #4 to the #1 position in 1953 when Charles lost to Johnson and LaStarza lost to Marciano, coupled with Valdes beating Neuhaus. He dropped back behind Charles when Charles won a couple. He moved back ahead of Charles when Charles lost to Marciano, coupled with Valdes beating Jackson. I don't know what selecting this or that date to point at where these contenders were in thier musical chair ratings game actually means. Fleischer moved contenders back and forth on the basis of activity as well as consistant performance.
The point is comparing the significance of their respective wins. To suggest that Cockell's wins must've been bigger or more impressive than Jackson's because he ultimately attained a higher ranking is misleading, because it discounts the fact that Jackson also lost a fight in between. Jackson's wins initially put him ahead of Cockell in the rankings, and it was his subsequent loss to Slade that dropped him down below Cockell (with Cockell moving up a spot) without Cockell even having a fight in that time.
But then what is the point of bringing up how Jackson was viewed going into '55 as opposed to how he had been viewed in early and mid '54?
Well, not only Jackson, but Valdes was rated behind Cockell in the summer of 1955. This was after Cockell was slaughtered by Marciano and Valdes lost a close decision to Moore. Explain this.
I don't have access to all these monthly rankings you refer to. I did find the Rankings from the August, 1954 issue of Ring Magazine with the ratings for the month ending in June. Champion---Rocky Marciano 1---Ezzard Charles 2---Nino Valdes 3---Don Cockell 4---Jimmy Slade 5---Roland LaStarza 6---Hurricane Jackson 7---Dan Bucceroni 8---Bob Baker 9---Earl Walls 10--Heinz Neuhaus For whatever reason, both Jackson and Bucceroni at this point were rated behind LaStarza as well as Cockell. The Slade fight might have convinced Nat that he had overreacted to Jackson's earlier victories and this was his more considered judgement.
Cockell had lost to The Champ, Valdes had lost to someone rated much lower; it's expected that Valdes' ranking would take a bigger hit. That didn't necessarily mean people's prior assessments of either fighter had been altered, as evidenced by the fact that Valdes was still favored to beat Cockell even after suffering another loss to Satterfield. I don't see anything unusual about what happened to Jackson's rating. When he beat the highly rated Bucceroni his own ranking went up to #3; when he lost to a fighter previously unrated at HW, his ranking understandably dropped a few notches; and when he beat Norkus after that his rating went back up a notch. There's nothing in that pattern that shows people "revised" their initial thoughts on how impressive or significant the win over Bucceroni had been - particularly given that he was deemed good enough to be in an eliminator for a title shot soon after that.
1. "Valdes was still favored to beat Cockell even after losing to Satterfield" This is important evidence. I have been trying to find the betting odds on that fight. Could you give me a source that I could google up? 2. "when he lost to a fighter previously unrated at HW" Slade had been rated highly at lightheavyweight in the Ring yearly rankings in 1950, 1952, and 1953, and was coming off a win over the heavyweight Clarence Henry a few months earlier, and had beaten Cockell. 3. I am confused about why the higher rankings you quote prove or are even evidence of Jackson or his wins being viewed as more impressive than Cockell's when in a later post you claim that Cockell being rated over Valdes in 1955 does not reflect on how the two fighters were then viewed with Valdes still being favored over Cockell. You do seem to be arguing from both sides of the street. 4. As for Valdes dropping under Cockell in 1955---He didn't lose to just anyone. He lost to a fighter who was at worst the second most respected in the division, and went the distance with him while Marciano slaughtered Cockell. I also think it undercuts an argument that the decision in the Moore-Valdes fight was controversial. 5. "eliminator for a title shot"--Who was actually billing this fight as an eliminator, though. American promoters used that term back then for almost any fight between highly ranked fighters. It only meant that the guy who won was in the hunt and the guy who lost fell out of it.
if a young kid with a 16-2 record gets knocked out by a top contender, he can come again if he goes back to the drawing board. when you follow boxing it happens all the time theres nothing to speculate. a 16-2 kid is never a "sure thing" against a decent contender. especialy in the 1950s. I think we should all know that much.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lcrJrlUVvc[/ame] charles v tommy harrison, can you imagine this guy losing to valdes?
From the Associated Press: "Valdes Choice Over Cockell Don Cockell of England, making his first appearance since being laid low by heavyweight champ Rocky Marciano, was a 4-5 underdog in his comeback bid against Cuba'd Nino Valdes at White City Stadium tonight." Because rankings shift up or down based on a fighter's most recent fight; they don't alter how prior fights were/are viewed. Any way you look at it, Valdes still lost to a guy not rated or respected on par with the one Cockell lost to. I don't see how, since Cockell moved up in the rankings off a decision that was controversial as well. United Press, June 3, 1954: "Jackson or Valdes Scheduled to Meet Marcano Next Fall If you care to look beyond the nearing heavyweight title bout between champion Rocky Marciano and Ezzard Charles you will notice that Marciano's next rival in event of victory will be either Tommy (Hurricane) Jackson or Nino Valdes. This became clear as the old mill stream when these two television stars were signed for a July 21 elimination which will give the survivor time to prep for a meeting with Marciano. All of which is predicated, of course, on the champion upholding the 3-1 odds favoring him over Charles June 17. It may be said right now that neither of the potential challengers figures to perform the feat if Charles cannot - but the price is right. And both Jackson and Valdes are big enough to be built up into a threat, if only on paper."
Sure can. He doesn't have the footwork or reflexes he had back in the '40s and is laying on the inside and leaving himself open quite a bit. He could definitely have potential problems with a bigger, taller, stronger, and more powerful opponent (as opposed to the blown-up light-heavy that he's in with here).
For you younger folks, the UPI writer here was Oscar Fraley, much better known for writing "The Untouchables" with Eliot Ness, which became a huge best seller, then a popular TV show with Robert Stack as Ness, and later a movie with Robert DeNiro as Al Capone. This is what Fraley says in this article about Jackson: "Jackson, the only known boxer with a double uppercut, usually loses fights he is supposed to win and wins fights he is supposed to lose. He came into prominence by knocking out Rex Layne, a not too spectacular performance considering that everybody was doing that. But he added to his prestige by winning from Clarence Henry, and then they offered him to Dan Bucceroni. The Philadelphia butcher boy was waiting for a promiosed $100,000 shot at Marciano. He decided to pick up $10,000 during the interlude and Jackson, a 4-1 underdog, stopped him in six heats. Jackson then went against Jimmy Slade and the 'Hurricane' was a baffled zepher as he lost the decision. It didn't stop him, however, and he bounced back to knock out Charley Norkus in five rounds. The heavyweight division is loaded at the moment, because still waiting hopefully are Bucceroni and Britain Don Cockell. Both beat Roland LaStarza and Harry Matthews. There hasn't been so many possibilities since Joe Louis ruined the division with his bum of the month club. But if the winner of the Valdes-Jackson bout looks good, he is a cinch to meet Marciano in September." Comments- 1. Jackson went into the Bucceroni fight a 4-1 underdog. If he was viewed as a worldbeater, it had to be on the basis of stopping Bucceroni, even though Bob Murphy had also done it and in fewer rounds. 2. "Both beat Roland LaStarza and Harry Matthews"--this is in error. Bucceroni never beat Matthews. Also, Bucceroni only split with LaStarza, while Cockell beat both without losing. 3. All of this just seems to be Fraley's opinion. He provides no quotes from promoters or other bigwigs backing up his assertion that the winner of this fight probably gets the next shot. *Just as an aside--as Fraley had been the UPI boxing writer since 1940 and thus a close observer of the heavyweight division over the years, that line "the heavyweight division is loaded at the moment" is interesting. He obviously felt Valdes, Jackson, Cockell, and Bucceroni were all decent challengers, and that this group of challengers was better than any such group since 1941. We might disagree, but he was at ringside.
1. Thanks for the link to the AP report to the odds--Valdes a slight favorite, with the two considered pretty well-matched. I wonder if Cockell's 218 lb weight effected the odds at all. 2. "They don't alter how prior fights were/are viewed"--Unless I misunderstand you, I disagree. I think later results and with them rankings do effect how prior fights are viewed. If for example, B is undefeated and A beats him, A jumps up in the ratings. If B quickly losses to C, D, E, F, etc, that devalues A's achievement. If B goes on a long winning streak, the glow of success also burnishes A's reputation. 3. Cockell moved up in the rankings after a controversial victory over LaStarza. Valdes drops after a supposedly controversial (I haven't seen substantial evidence it in fact was controversial) defeat to Moore. Cockell held his rating despite being slaughtered by Marciano. As Cockell won his close fight, and Valdes lost his, I think the situations are different. As the AP report states, Valdes' losses to Moore and Satterfield dropped him entirely out of the ratings, which seems quite a fall if he was not even seen as the clear loser of the Moore fight.
My take on Jackson--I think he was quite overrated: 1954-Stops the slumping Layne, and the slipping Henry. After these wins, is still a 4-1 underdog against Bucceroni. Stops Bucceroni, but Bucceroni had been stopped by Murphy and beaten badly in the second match by LaStarza. He would never win another fight. These are good wins for Jackson, but these wins probably look slightly better on paper than there really were. Jackson then loses to Slade, stops the fringe contender Norkus, and is blown away by Valdes. The rest of year he fights set-ups. 1955--A better year. Jackson defeats the erratic Slade, and then defeats Charles twice. Charles is clearly slipping, though, and also loses this year to John Holman, Toxie Hall, and Young Jack Johnson. There is also some dispute over the decision in the 2nd Charles fight. Jackson stops the faded Layne on cuts after falling behind, and then loses the rubber match to Slade. Nothing here proves Jackson is really top level. 1956--Jackson's best year. He defeats Baker in a close fight. His fight with Patterson, losing by s split decision, is in retrospect by far his best performance. However, Patterson had suffered a broken hand. Jackson then meets Baker in an elimination and gets a split decision. Off IMDB, this was certainly a close fight, with the press voting 9-4 for Baker. Jackson might have gotten lucky. 1957--Jackson is matched with Patterson and Machen, the first men he had fought who were at the top of the division and at the top of their game and arguably the top heavyweights in the world when Jackson stepped into the ring with them. He loses every round in both fights and is viewed as so inept that he is banned from major venues. 1958-1960--a few wins over second raters in boondock fights, ending in defeats by the journeyman Monroe Ratliff and a ko by the nondescript Hans Kalbfall. A lot of fighters lasted longer, beat more men closer to their best, had more tough fights etc, than Jackson but never achieved such a high ranking. His two best opponents, Patterson and Machen, utterly destroyed him. So did Valdes. He lost 2 of 3 to Slade. His best wins in retrospect, over Baker, were close and controversial. There are a lot of "names" on his resume, but all except perhaps Baker and Bucceroni were either rather severely on the way down or fringe contenders.
gillium and wallace were as big and as good as valdes and charles had no problem. maybe wear and tear was geting to charles after he stopped fighting for titles but if we stick with film evidence hes still a great fighter in 53-54. im tired of hearing about charles's legs not being the same, show me a fight before 53 where he moved more? he mixed it up with louis quite a bit in 50'- it was no shoe shine on the run. you say he didnt have the same reflexes he had in the 1940s but charles boxed for only 3 years then took 2 years out for the war. when he returned in 1946 he had not won a fight since 42'. ezzards peak realy started in 1947. remember there is no film evidence of his career before this period interupted with frozen titles of the war years where many talented fighters fought chiefly exhibition stuff among themselves. I am as aware as anyone of his record and the great names he fought pre 47 but with nothing at stake and the regularity of rematches one wonders if a lot of these fights were of the "freindly" variaty. including valdes, charles had lost to but 4 men in over 45 fights since launching himself as a heavyweight and he beat2 of the 4. charles beat gillium, moore and satterfield who all beat valdes easily. on paper valdes beating charles is an odd result especialy when its sandwiched either side of impresive wins against beter guys than nino. you cant blame nino its just odd.