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

Well they didn't go for a a big gate with Cockell did they?lol

 

Dishonest, phoney,you're getting close now.

 

In an article printed in the April 54 issue of the Ring titled "I believe," Charles states, "Nino Valdes caught me on the worst night of my entire career and gave me a licking. I deserved it for taking too much for granted. But that's all in the past. I won't take any credit from the Cuban. He beat me fairly. I know I lost that one, but blame myself. I'd like a return bout. I've tried to get it but without success. His manager demanded too much."
- This is consistent w/ public statements from Valdes' manager during the same time that he saw no reason to consent to a rematch.

No, to land a title shot, you pursue whatever course of action does the most to separate you from other prospective challengers seeking the same. @ any given time, that could mean pursuing a rematch w/ some1 who beat you, it could mean consenting to a rematch that you might personally perceive to be "unnecessary," it could mean accepting the short end of some purses. LaStarza was able to get his shot after beating Layne only once, while Cockell had to beat Matthews 3x before he got his - sometimes that's just what a fighter has to do. if you choose to quibble over $ or "fairness" or shy away from risks instead of leaping @ whatever opportunities are afforded to you, then you have yourself to blame as much as any1 for a title shot not simply falling into your lap.

 

ironically, Cockell had shown himself to be a more dependable $-maker in the US than Valdes had. According to this NY Times article on the Valdes-Jackson fight (Valdes' biggest fight between the Charles & Moore fights), "The crowd was 4,465 and the receipts were $14,286," which are hugely disappointing numbers for MSG. Conversely, for Cockell's US debut, "A crowd of 14,868, which paid a record $96,606 to see the scrap," & his next US appearance (just before facing Rocky) was "before a crowd of 16,000 in Seattle's baseball stadium," who "paid $100,000 to watch the battle."

 

For starters, a 2nd win over Charles virtually guarantees that Charles doesn't get a shot ahead of Valdes, which is a significant point given that Charles ultimately ended up being the very fighter who got a shot ahead of him.

2nd, there's a huge difference between repeating a win over a living legend like Charles & beating a massively less known & credentialed fighter like Neuhaus. Also, even after losing to Valdes, Charles continued to rate as high as #2-3 thru the rest of the year, whereas Neuhaus only rated #5-7 during the same time frame.

Rematching conquered opponents was nothing unusual in that day - Marciano engaged in numerous rematches both before & after winning the title, Charles had a gagillion of them thru his career. After Harold Johnson upset Charles, Al Weill said he would consider "Johnson, if he beats Charles, again" for Marciano's next opponent. Charles & Johnson were even scheduled for a rematch that November, but Johnson pulled out w/ an ear infection.

I said "he steered clear of" fighters who recently beat him, & his "people were very selective in what risks they took." He certainly was no Liston who blazed a path thru the division & definitively established himself as the best available challenger. Over the 2 years between the Charles & Moore fights, he only fought 2 ranked opponents, neither of whom rated higher than #5 @ the time, & neither of whom happened to be among the fighters who previously beat him. Heck, he didn't even rematch Archie McBride after the fight that cost him his #1 ranking.

When Bob Baker returned to the #4 spot in late 54, he clamored for a rematch Valdes, but Valdes didn't consent to it until after his own disastrous loss to Satterfield made it necessary.

 

It's not that beating Neuhaus was a better win than beating Charles, only that it was a better win than Baker would have been at that point. It's true that by late '54 Baker had steadily climbed back up the ladder and was ready to fight one of the top contenders. He also challenged Don Cockell and was ignored, but that was no obstacle to Cockell getting a title shot.

No one insisted that Charles avenge his losses to Valdes and Johnson before getting a title shot, nor that Cockell avenge his loss to Jimmy Slade. It's only Valdes who is held to this impossible standard where it's not enough that he beats multiple ranked opponents, he also owes rematches both to men he's already beaten and to men he lost to before becoming a contender.

Valdes was selective about what risks he took? Probably. You could say that about virtually any contender. Valdes wasn't Sonny Liston, but he was the best available challenger, with the arguable exception of Ezzard Charles, and in a fair world would at least have got his title shot immediately after Charles did. I'm sure you know that the span between his fights with Charles and Moore was actually well under two years. During the one year after beating Charles, Valdes beat two more ranked contenders and would have faced a third if Earl Walls hadn't pulled out of their scheduled meeting with a hand injury. This is not the record of a protected fighter.

Because he was up against local hero Harry Matthews. Not because the people of Seattle were turning out in their thousands for the Don Cockell fight.

 

$96,606 gate for the Cockell fight
Walcott 2 $321,794
Charles1 $543,002
Charles2 $352,654
Lastarza $435,817
Moore $,948,117

Valdes Jackson was not a title fight so it isn't relevant.
You don't think Valdes would have drawn a bigger gate than Cockell in a world title fight with Marciano?

 

There's nothing remotely unique or "impossible" about any standard here. LaStarza rematched 2 of his conquerors on his way to a title shot, which in turn rematched Marciano w/ an opponent he had previously beaten. Cockell fought (& beat) Harry Matthews 3x in the span of a year on his way to his shot. Both Charles & Harold Johnson were expressly told by Al Weill they could get a shot if either 1 beat the other in a rematch, & a rematch was even scheduled. Heck, Moore had to rematch Valdes in order to get his shot, even though he'd already beaten Valdes decisively in their 1st fight only 2 years earlier.

Charles ended up getting a shot @ Marciano w/o rematching Valdes or Johnson, but he did have a gazillion rematches before ever getting his 1st shot @ a title, & had many more after that. When a fighter spends a decade or more demonstrating that they're 1 of the greatest in history, instead of squandering opportunities out of pride, greed, &/or insecurity, they've built a rep that can survive an occasional loss.

Valdes didn't just fail to avenge 1 loss, he somehow managed to "miss" all 4 of the fighters that consecutively beat him just prior to embarking on his winning streak, even as all 4 remained title aspirants themselves (even Bill Gilliam floated in & out of the top 10 during this time). he also failed to rematch Archie McBride after the fight that initially cost him his #1 ranking. That's a heckuva lot of "coincidences" when it comes to matchmaking.

Can you say it about Charles & Moore?

The best available challenger was Moore, who had not only beaten Valdes decisively 2 years earlier, but also stopped Johnson & Baker around the same time that both beat Valdes (& Johnson had beaten Charles), & also had recent wins over Maxim x3, Clarence Henry, & Jimmy Slade to boot.

What exactly is "a fair world" supposed to look like in boxing, or life in general?

-Is it "a fair world" that Charles was initially bypassed for a title shot in favor of LaStarza, which in turn provided Valdes w/ his opportunity to fight Charles & thus ascend up the rankings in the 1st place?

-Is it "a fair world" that Valdes could've potentially gotten a title shot ahead of Moore or Baker, 2 fighters that he failed to beat in 2 tries apiece around the same time frame?

-Is it "a fair world" that McBride didn't get the decision over Valdes?

Valdes had bigger/better opportunities & avenues for making a title fight, but chose not to pursue them & ultimately paid the price for his (or @ least, his manager's) lack of initiative. That to me is "a fair world."

 

I can see why this took you 3 days to put together.

Yes, everyone boxes rematches somewhere along the line. Valdes's win over Archie McBride was itself a rematch of a loss he'd suffered back in 1948. That's not a fact which comes up a lot because most would consider it irrelevant, but it does satisfy your rule that to deserve a title shot a man must win some rematches - even if they're not of his most recent losses, nor against particularly outstanding opponents.

Speaking of which, your suggestion that there was something wrong with the decision in the McBride fight doesn't stand up. The fight was closer than most expected, but the Associated Press agreed that Valdes deserved the win.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/ledger-enquirer-valdes-mcbride/203579795/

I would agree that Charles should have had a shot ahead of Roland LaStarza. There was some controversy about this at the time, so it was fortunate for the promotion, and for Marciano's record of nearly aways facing his #1 contender, that by fight time Charles had lost to Valdes, which allowed LaStarza to slip past him into the #1 spot.

Absolutely they were selective. Moore hadn't faced a ranked heavyweight since winning the light-heavyweight title back in 52. Charles, between failing to regain the title from Walcott and meeting Valdes, faced two ranked heavyweights - the ageing Jimmy Bivins, whom he'd beaten twice before, and who was coming off a loss to unranked light-heavyweight Tommy Harrison, and Rex Layne, who was coming off a loss to Harry Matthews when he beat Charles in 52, and a loss to Roland LaStarza when he lost to him in 53. After his losses to Valdes and Johnson, Charles faced Coley Wallace and Bob Satterfield, both ranked 9th at the time and both known to have shaky chins - no one could have been better selected to convey the impression that the 32 year old Charles had suddenly metamorphosed into a ko puncher. Moore and Charles are both legends of the sport, but neither was cutting an imperious swathe through the elite of the heavyweight division in the period we're talking about.

We come full circle to the constantly repeated claim that Valdes wasn't denied a title shot - it was right there waiting for him if only he'd done this or that or something else. But no one can ever actually point to the day Marciano or Weill or anyone else stated that Valdes would be in line for a title shot if he could just get that one more big win, because it never happened. He got the wins which made him the Ring #1 contender, and the NBA's sole logical contender, but it was never enough.

 

In fighting Johnson (for a 5th time in his career), Moore was facing an opponent who was demonstrably better than many of the ranked hws of that era. In fact, heading into the Moore fight, Johnson held recent wins over the 2 highest ranked hws @ that time along w/ the likes of Bivins, Henry, & Satterfield. As I noted earlier, Weill was even eyeing "Johnson, if he beats Charles, again" for Marciano's next opponent after LaStarza, before Johnson backed out of a scheduled Charles rematch & then redirected his attention back down to lhw.

It was also Moore who "went before the NBA in his effort to force a heavyweight title match with Rocky Marciano" & insisted "that he fight Nino Valdes" for a 2nd time.

It wasn't by choice that Charles "only" fought those contenders - he was also poised to face #2 ranked LaStarza during that time, but LaStarza "had turned down the National Boxing Association proposal that he and ex-champion Ezzard Charles should fight an elimination."

Also, Bivins was an established ATG in his own right w/ a notoriously difficult style, + he was already "scheduled to fight former chamption[sic] Ezzard Charles on Nov. 26" when the Harrison upset happened. On top of that, Charles then pounced on Bivins' conqueror Harrison & beat him shortly afterward as well.

Again, the Wallace & Satterfield fights only happened after Charles "was tentatively set for a rematch with Johnson, November 4 but Johnson" backed out "due to an ear infection." Seeking an immediate rematch w/ a fighter who's just beaten you is the polar opposite of being "selective."

That's a somewhat ironic disparagement of Satterfield, given Valdes' own inability to demonstrate KO power against the very same opponent.

The NBA openly said that a win over Neuhaus would not be sufficient to elevate Valdes to the role of "logical contender" & that @ least another bigger/better win would be necessary in order for that to happen. Valdes' response was to seriously damage what growing rep he had (& cost himself his #1 Ring ranking) by settling for a controversial SD over a journeyman in his very next fight, then he botched a showcase attempt at MSG that cost him the support of the influential NYSAC, & he ultimately didn't face another ranked contender (#5 - the same ranking as Neuhaus) until 8 months after the Neuhaus fight, which would ultimately be the only ranked contender he faced in a span stretching more than a year.

Meanwhile, "The NBA's Winter ratings advanced former champion Ezzard Charles, of Cincinnati, to the No. 1 challenger position on the strength of his knockout of Coley Wallace last month." If Valdes consents to rematch (& assuming he actually beats) the fighter who was rated just behind him & was his foremost competitor for a title shot, then he personally shuts the door on the scenario of Charles overtaking him in the rankings & getting the shot ahead of him.

Regardless, it's not a champion('s manger)'s job to handhold an aspiring title claimant & remind him that it's his responsibility to make as compelling a case as possible for a title shot. As you noted yourself, Charles readily consented to fight Layne 2nd & 3rd times & Bivins a 5th time w/o ever being certain that any single 1 of these fights would net him a title shot. He was also willing to fight the #2 contender while already being ranked #1 & signed for an immediate rematch w/ Johnson after losing to him. In the same vein, Moore self-financed a massive media campaign & personally lobbied the NBA for an opportunity to rematch Valdes, despite already having the best credentials of any hw outside of Charles. Yet to suggest that Valdes make an even remotely similar effort by consenting to rematch even just 1 contender that he'd beaten or had beaten him is somehow an unheard-of & "impossible" standard for that day?

 

Archie Moore fought Johnson in a mandatory defence of his light-heavyweight title against a man the NBA had been demanding he face since the previous year, even threatening to strip him of his title. It's not a compelling example of how he took on all comers in his campaign at heavyweight. Moore wanted a shot at the heavyweight title, but he tried to get it without having to face any ranked heavyweights along the way. Your own clipping about how he "insisted that he fight Nino Valdes" actually says that at that point he was only interested in facing Valdes for the vacant championship in the unlikely event that Marciano was stripped of the title for having a sore nose.

As for Charles, you're giving him credit for fights that were discussed but which never actually happened. I don't doubt that he was willing to fight Roland LaStarza for $35,000 and a title shot for the winner. Valdes's manager said he'd give Charles a rematch as long as he got the same purse percentage as Charles got in their first meeting and as long as the winner was guaranteed a title shot, but of course that offer was never on the table.