The NYSAC rejected Nino Valdes as a worthy challenger after the Parker fight

Valdes never had a title shot "set up with the NYSAC". The NYSAC took his manager's check but made no promises, and rightly so because they were in no position to decide who Marciano would fight. If, as Gleason hoped, Marciano made a winter defence in February 1954 it wouldn't have been in New York, it would have been somewhere warmer, probably Florida.

It shows how disinterested Al Weill was in the idea of facing Valdes that his own preference for a winter defence was, of all people, Danny Nardico. Marciano himself went so far as to tell the press the Nardico fight was going to happen in Tampa in February, and Nardico actually went into training for his title shot. This was after Valdes's win over Heinz Neuhaus which earned him the Ring #1 contender spot, and well before he lost prestige with his clear but relatively unimpressive win over James Parker.

As for the NBA ratings, Valdes was the NBA's sole logical contender for three consecutive quarters, or nine months. That's not insignificant, not when all of Marciano's title defences took place over just 28 months. The NBA actually announced that they were elevating him to the logical contender spot in September 1954, shortly before the second Marciano-Charles fight.

 

To demonstrate the credibility of the NBA's ratings.Nardico had 4 fights in1954
Charley Norkus Jan L TKO
Charley Norkus Mar L UD
Rueben Jones 40-19-2 Jun WKO
Paul Andrews Jun L TK0
Nardico then retired,but came back in Oct 1956,had 1 fight and retired again.
Nardico never beat a class heavyweight and was himself really a LHvy

 

Perhaps this boils down to what you wish to believe?

 

Someone explain to me the whole $5K downpayment thing.

That’s $62K in today’s money, and it looks like a state goverment, state-funded agency opening soliciting bribes. I knew New York was corrupt, but … damn.

Why did a challenger have to pay money to get a title shot? At least the WBA and WBC had the decency to pretend it wasn’t happening and made people do it under the table in small bills in a brown paper sack.

And if they weren’t promising a title shot, wtf were they taking money for? To consider it?

Then the idea of someone winning but not looking good enough and being demoted in the rankings is pure garbage. We can come up easily with a mile-long list of winners who didn’t look good still getting title shots in and around this time. Hell, guys even lost their way into title fights.

 

A bond for what? What are they assuring here … that he’d show up if he got a title fight, lol?

 

No, per the printed ratings, his time as logical contender started in October 1954 and ended in July 1955 - 9 months. Or if you want to ignore those ratings and say that it ended with the loss which cost him that status, you must also say that it started with the win which earned it. So that's 10 months from the win over Tommy Jackson to the loss against Archie Moore.

Anyway, the only reason I pitched in on this was that the post you originally quoted contained the false claim that Valdes had a title shot "set up" but then lost it due to a change of heart after the Parker fight. You haven't attempted to defend that, just made a generic point about not everyone thinking Valdes was all that great. So I think we're good here.

 

I'm not disputing what you say,I'm simply saying I place more credence and authenticity in the 50's Rings ratings than in these alphabet organizations. The Ring ratings existed and many, many boxing aficionados respected them and used them as their ,"go to" when they wanted to assess a fighters capabilities, so they weren't in any sense" fictional".
You've made this thread and seem very prickly about it now that posters are contributing to it and not necessarily agreeing with your opinions
I think my point is proven vis a vis Danny Nardico being ranked in 54,I cannot see the justification for that.
You've sparked a debate so it's all good,just calm down a bit mate!

 

That's the theory - it's a forfeit to guarantee the fighter's appearance. If the title shot were arranged and Valdes failed to show up, he would lose that bond money. If everything went to plan, he would get it back. Really it's more a question of grabbing a headline and showing you're serious about the challenge.

 

This is true. The same thing was done to Bob Baker shortly after. The tourney to find a successor to Marciano after he retired was not a 3-man tourney but a 5-man tourney involving Moore, Patterson, Hurricane Jackson, Bob Baker and Johnny Holman. Baker beat Holman in the first phase of the tourney over 12 rounds and the belief was that he would be fighting the winner of the upcoming Patterson-Jackson fight. But then he was told his involvement was hinged on not just winning but looking good in the process. And they just arbitrarily dropped him from the tournament. Cruel? Yes. But as you mentioned, things were different back then. Live gates were everything and if you wanted to be on TV you had to look good to the public and the promoters.