Bob Baker was the highest regarded HW of the crop of prospects that included Rocky?

You're on your game with 40's and 50's fighters. :good

 

It is not Rocky's fault that Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles, former GREAT middleweights or light heavyweights, either way you look at it, there the best of the divsion.

These guys were still great fighters, even though they were long in the tooth, still beating the young guns of the era, All one can ask for a champion to do is face the best, and Rocky did that.

If Moore can beat Valez, I think Rocky could do it also. They were just a higher level of fighter imo. Rocky clean out his era.

Something Holmes, Patterson or even Jack Dempsey and Johnson didnt do.

 

You can make criticisms of anybodys title reign but the bottom line is that Marciano defended against a more consistantly high level of opposition than any other lineal champion that didnt loose the title in their first or second fight.

Of your six title defences five of them were against the #1 contender and the only one that wasn't was against the #2 contender (Cockle).

That means that 83.34% were against the #1 rated challenger and 100% were against a top 2 rated challenger. His quality control was second to nobody from Sullivan to Klitschko.

Some people have suggested that Cockle was a tune up to test Marciano's nose. If he was then it has to be said that a #2 rated heavyweight contender is a prety damn high level to set a tune up oponent at. It would be like Wladamir Klitscko using Alexander Povetkin as a tune up opponent.

 

Marciano fought quality opponents in all of his defenses but is defending the title 6 times in 3 years against top ranked opponents any better than defending many more times against the same amount of top quality opponents but with some lesser defenses in between?

There were a lot of good people who were left out from the title picture during Marciano's reign, partly due to their inconsistency perhaps but also because Marciano was a less active champion than most of the men who fought before him. That is until Patterson who defended his title about once a year.

Cockell was #2 rated but there were critics who felt it was a case of Marciano handpicking his opposition.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1129641/index.htm

Perhaps Rocky deserved an easy fight but when you fight one or two times a year, you better fight quality opposition every time out. That's the same problem we face today in boxing when the fighters don't compete as often.

Of course we now have a handful of titles so everyone who is worth anything gets to hold atleast one of them.

 

I've read quotes from insiders claiming that Weill had to be persuaded on many of Marciano's fights. He was concerned about matching Marciano up with many of the men out there, according to some accounts.
And some say he really didn't want Valdes because valdes was big and strong.
That's no knock on Marciano whatsoever, just a vague anecdote about his manager.
I dont think there's much controversy or doubt over saying Weill was a control-freak and protective.

 

You could look at other weight divisions however. Rocky was unquestionably one of the best heavyweight champions in history because very few fighters in that division have had title reigns of any length.

Rocky's achievements look incredible statistically but I'm not sure if simple statistics are what we should be looking at.

Floyd Mayweather for example, on paper, has beaten the #1/#2 at SFW, the #1 at LW, two #1 ranked fighters at LWW, the #1 & #2 at WW and the #1 at LMW. He has been great at picking the right opposition at the right time but I think most can agree that his record could be a lot better considering all the fighters that were around. Even now he is fighting the #1 LW and #2 p4p fighter as a "tune-up".

Marciano, or more so his managers, were what I'd consider the pioneers of how prospects are brought up and managed today. He built an impressive record, taking on the right contenders when his managers felt he was ready and then picked his challengers while Marciano reigned as the champion, defending his title much less actively than the men that had come before him (aside from Jack Dempsey and Jim Braddock).

I'm not going to complain too much because Marciano did take on the best of the best. I do think he could have fit a title defense against someone like Nino Valdez in there, maybe even Baker, Henry or Satterfield who would have all been interesting opponents.

In truth though, Cockell was not viewed as a great challenger despite his high rating. Samuel Peter was number 2 but few view him as a true threat.

Even Kirk Johnson was a number 2 contender for the title in his time. So was Carl "The Truth" Williams when he fought Tyson. Tommy "Hurricane" Jackson was number 1 when Patterson fought him.

It was simply a case of taking on what was essentially a far less dangerous number 2 compared to the number 1 Nino Valdez (who later went onto destroy Cockell in 3 rounds).

 

Just to let everyone know...Joe Louis at 6'2 214lb with a # 2 ranking by Ring Magazine was JUST AS BIG and JUST AS HIGHLY RATED as Bob Baker was when marciano beat him. Thought this FACT might be relevant in this discussion.


I will post something on Baker later...A very good fighter in his prime

 

Such a shame Unforgiven has taken the liberty of bringing Nino Valdez name into this thread as a man marciano "ducked" without relaying and showcasing ANY substantial evidence to back up his theory. I really hope the direction of this thread changes course.



Here is the first piece of evidence in this thread about the marciano-valdez debate

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

As you can see Rocky clearly did not duck Valdez. What does Nino Valdez do? He loses ANOTHER title eliminator to Bob Baker in which AP report said "The mistake was in advertising this winner as Rocky Marcianos next opponent in world heavyweight championship. Neither apparently wanted to be marcianos next victim. Baker, in winning, also did a good job of eliminating himself as a prospective Marciano opponent."- Joe Smith New York Times

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

A couple questions for you...


1. Do you think Valdez was stronger than Marciano? Archie Moore and Ezzard Charles who fought both fighters said publicly that Marciano was stronger.

2. Do you really think Weill would be afraid of Valdez size when he threw marciano in the ring with a man as equally as big with a more fearsome reputation in Joe Louis? Louis knocked valdez out in 1 round

3. Judging by the way Valdez was outslugged by 5'11 180lb fighters Archie Moore and Bob Satterfield, do you really think Marcianos management thought this was a bad stylistic matchup for rocky?

 

Louis and Holmes may have been busy, but most of there title defenses were against lesser fighters, Most of Louis's title fights were against Johnny Paychecks, Most of em were keep busy fights, than when a Godney or Conn shows up, Louis clobbers him, than goes on beating the lesser fighters until other top guy shows up.

Holmes avoided a whole slew of fighters, most of Holmes victims are 11-0 type of fighters.

Which rein is better?? Marciano 's 6 title defenses against TOP rank fighters??? Or Holmes running though the prospect gallent?

 

I never said Marciano "ducked" anyone.
Nor have I proposed any theory of him doing so.
You're imagining things.

I was simply talking about Al Weill's reputation. Rightly or wrongly, Al Weill has been described as a manager who turned down some good fighters and had to be persuaded on others. I dont know if it's true. When Marciano was coming up, between the LaStarza and Layne fights, maybe. But there's nothing wrong with that. Everett Skehan's book states Weill had been nervous about matching Marciano with Johnny Shkor at first, implying it was because Shkor was tough and strong and tall. Of course, this too dates back to pre-title times.
I dont care either way, I'm just saying the name Bob Baker comes up sometimes as someone Weill didn't favour much as an opponent. But then so does Joe Louis and even Ezzard Charles. Cockell was favoured over Valdes or Moore because Marciano's nose was just recovering, and they would rather not have him in with a heavy hitter if preferably, according to the Russell Sullivan book.

Again, I'm not presenting any of this as FACT, just relaying discussions and what people write in books. It could just be gossip.
But it's no big deal, because I never accused anyone of ducking anyone.
Personally, I think Marciano destroys them all, and they weren't a particular good crop of heavyweights anyway, and that's probably part of the reason Marciano retired.

 

In fairness, Weill actually pushed for a Baker fight in 1955, but the press was solidly behind Moore and he got the deserved shot. The "Al Weill didn't want to fight Valdes or Baker" theory is just that, a theory. Doesn't seem to be much evidence. Both men failed to get shots because they lost to Moore, Satterfield, and/or Johnson or Henry at key points.

It is a valid point that Marciano did fight Louis who was as big as Baker and Valdes, and, I think, more dangerous.

 

I never really was a huge fan of Holmes' reign but I understand that politics had a lot to do with some of the fights not being made.

I prefer Louis's reign the most, he stayed active as the champion, took on the top ranked challengers and also gave a couple of less heralded contenders their shot.

In my eyes Rocky and his managers were one of the first to begin the business of handpicking challengers. Archie Moore for example had to go through a long campaign of fighting top contenders in order to create enough hype for the fight to make sense to Marciano's manager Al Weill.

Had he lost or looked bad in a fight even once, he probably would not have been given the chance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLvs0AvGK4Y
1:30

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1130163/index.htm