Thoughts on Vitali vs Dragon

Hey now, were you not suppose to show me an example of fighters ducking a 39 year old champion? I await that reply.

We have been over Holmes before. At the tail end of his career he meet Witherpsoon, Williams, and Spinks. He did not fight Page. Page was only worthy of a shot for a small window, and when David Bey beat Page, Holmes picked Bey next for a title shot.

 

You are not grasping what I am saying. Vitali will be 39 soon. He owns a belt, and is offering millions yet top contenders such as Haye or Valuev have either backed out of fights or won't take the offer which is at least 2 million dollars. I have never seen this before!

Please show me proof of a non champion saying no thanks to a legitimate title shot to a 39 year old Archie Moore when Moore had the belt and the contender did not.

 

Forgetting Thomas and a Witherspoon rematch for starters?

But anyways, as soon as you show me where you mentioned "champion" in your original statement i'll be right on it.

Suzie's done a pretty fine job tho.

 

Can you expand on this and post the top 30 for the same time please? I just want to see the 1954 equivalent of Sosnowski for comparison purposes....thanks :yep

 

Rahman had beaten Sanders, and was number 1 for a while, why didn't VITLAY fight him?

 

In the same way that it's not Lewis's fault that Sanders lost to Rahman, who got the title shot. The same thing happened with the Jones V Tarver thing, people claiming Jones ducked Tarver when in fact Tarver lost a title eliminator, to Harding I think-who got the shot at Jones.

Klit-ites still try to claim to this day that Lewis ducked Sanders, and it's just as stupid as claiming that Marciano ducked Valdes.

 

So in other words, you can't reply with facts...again.

JT can also reply. Please show me fighters turning down offers for a title belt shot, and a market friendly pay day vs. a 39 year old fighter?

This is a 1st as far as I can tell. Not only has Vitali come back at age 37+ after a 4 year layoff ( Which is extremely rare ), he is also viewed as too much of a risk for top contenders in Haye and Valuev.

 

Can we all just take a minute to deal with the fact that a postfight thread on Vitali VS Sosnowski has now gone ten pages?

 

Seriously, though, the big money in those days was in the live gate, so matching Marciano and Henry indoors in the winter of 1952 was probably never in the cards. If they were matched, it would have been in June to September of 1952, probably in Yankee Stadium. By that time, though, Henry had lost to Harold Johnson and then also to Archie Moore, and dropped out of the top rung.

 

Spin it how you want, the problem is that Valdes probably never deserved to be ranked #1 in 1953. Why not Moore who had defeated him? Why not Johnson who had beaten him and his conqueror, Bob Baker?

This is the rankings for the period ending August 18, 1953 in the October, 1953 issue of Ring. This was after the Valdes-Charles fight.

Champion---Rocky Marciano

1---Roland LaStarza
2---Ezzard Charles
3---Dan Bucceroni
4---Nino Valdes
5---Tommy Harrison
6---Bob Satterfield
7---Heinz Neuhaus
8---Don Cockell
9---Earl Walls
10--Harry Matthews

Valdes assumed the #1 position because Charles lost to Harold Johnson in a very close fight. Considering that Valdes had been shut out by Johnson himself, I don't think I would agree with having him leapfrog Charles on the basis of a Charles loss, but I can understand the reasoning.

Valdes was not #1 for over a year. He did not assume that rating until late 1953 and he lost it in early 1954 with a bad performance against the second-tier Archie McBride after openingly ducking a rematch with Charles, the winner to get Marciano. Satterfield subbed for Valdes and Charles ko'd him to get the #1 rating and the shot at Marciano. Satterfield would later slaughter Valdes.

I think the case is much stronger for Valdes getting a shot in 1955 rather than Cockell. I agree with that one, and agree that it is legitimate to criticize Marciano for fighting Cockell rather than Valdes. Charles being aced out of a title shot because of one loss to Valdes, who in turn refuses a rematch and has lost to all sorts of contenders, doesn't sound all that fair to me.