Why was Ezzard Charles given a shot at Marciano?

charles was the #1 contender and a serious threat to marciano. he was coming off two spectacular knock out wins of rated contenders. in the previous year 1953 charles fought 6 rated contenders, imagine that?. since losing closly to walcott ezz only lost a hometown decision in utah against layne (who he knocked down 3 times in a rematch) a split decision against hall of famer harold johnson (many poster on here belive charles deserved to win) and another "home town" loss to valdes who would not rematch him. Nobody but walcott (who he beat 2 times) had beat charles beyond dispute in over 50 fights since the war.
satterfield had iced cleveland big cat wiliams who was being groomed as a potential chalenger. coley walace was just as well thought of at that time. as well as beating marciano as an amatuer walace knocked out billy gilium who went the distance with charles and had beat nino valdes but charles iced him, dishiing out a master class that ruined walace for good. satterfield v charles would have been a big fight on the back of that.
charles had not been a popular champion coming after joe louis but with walcott gone and new hopes wiped out by veterans ezzard had put exciting wins together again. he decked jimmy bivins who was still rated, knocked out bernie renolds quicker than marciano, knocked out rated harrison, walace and satterfield. marciano v charles was a natural.

 

Well done.

 

It was the Satterfield win as well as Charles being a former champion that got him the shot. The division also wasn't exactly packed with talent.

 

Marciano had to fight someone in '54..... The division was pretty shallow with marketable names at the time..... Buzzard Charles getting a shot would sell tixs.......

MR.BILL

 

Something else that needs to be remembered is what a great fighting champion Ezz was. Not popular coming after Louis, but he defended the title at a blistering pace like the one Joe set before WW II, and he was also a great gentleman of exemplary conduct. He was hardly a precursor of Liston in how he was viewed by the public.

 

Proof on that?

What posters, whoever I have seen mention it has said it was a close fight that could have went either way.

Again proof

 

From what I've read the Layne loss may have been a bad decision but the Valdes decision was just. There were those who felt that Charles should have avenged his losses to Harold Johnson and Nino Valdes before taking on Marciano, but since there wasn't all that much talent around and with Charles being the most well-known name coming off a recent win over Satterfield, he was given the shot.

The other two challengers who were considered for a title shot were Dan Bucceroni and Nino Valdes. Harold Johnson had the best recent success, but he was campaigning for a light heavyweight title shot. Hurricane Jackson went onto beat Bucceroni, and Valdes beat Jackson in an "eliminator". Cockell was given a title shot instead.

 

I read an article you posted that Charles could not get a rematch with Valdes. You also said this yourself. Not sure why you're shying from that sentiment now.

 

I posted no such article.

Valdes's manager did want a big payday for a rematch but it's not the same thing as not being able to get one.

Regardless of whether he could have gotten a rematch or not, there were people who felt he should avenge his losses.

Jack Dempsey was one of them:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...J&pg=6500,932440&dq=jack+dempsey+valdes&hl=en