Great fight! Charlie Powell vs Norkus

Joe Louis himself said dmato protected Patterson from facing big punchers so when he fought Johannson he wasn’t prepared how to react when he took a big punch

 

Thank you. I was really not trying to build up Powell, but that 244 just sounded way out of the ballpark. 224 is flabby, but reasonable.

"Was supposedly 'one fight' away from a championship match."

Is it possible Valdes would have gotten the shot London got if he had beaten Powell? This line seems to imply as much. I don't know when D'Amato signed for the London fight. Of course, this performance took Valdes off the table for any consideration. Strange that Valdes would have come into such an important fight overweight.

 

The problem with arguing Valdes should have gotten the shot London got is that Valdes was KO'd by Powell in early March while the London fight was on May 1. Such a crushing defeat took Valdes completely out of the title fight picture.

As mentioned, Powell would have been a much better choice for a May, 1959 "tune up" fight.

But like I earlier posted, I think tune-up fights at heavyweight potentially screw the #1 contender out of his well-earned shot. I don't see why second-tier fellows should get the first crack at the champ. What happens if they win? How long is the title put on ice?

 

London-Patterson was already signed prior to Valdes fighting Powell. That match had no bearing.


In my estimation, Valdes entering 1959 had already done more than enough in 1957-58 to earn his title shot. I mean how many title eliminators does a guy have to win? Powell was a nobody at the time, surely that wouldn’t have been the win where damato goes “ok he beat Powell now we definitely have to fight this guy!”

Let’s look at he reasons why Valdes earned London’s shot

1. He was highly rated, rated number 2 by both the NBA and RING

2. He disposed of an impressive group of contenders 57-58. Harold Carter the RINGs number 3 heavyweight in the world, Johnny Summerlin who was told by damato he would get a title shot if he beat Valdes. Mike DeJohn and Wayne Bethea, both top 10. Joe Erskine, undefeated. Pat McMutry, a highly regarded prospect.

After London loss to Cooper, that should immediately DQed him from any hope of a title shot

 

London Patterson was already signed prior to Valdes Powell taking place. Irrelevant. Valdes was the number 2 heavyweight in the world when Patterson signed to fight London

And you mention Valdes loss to Powell. What about London’s loss to Cooper? Why is it ok for Brian London to get a title shot coming off a loss?

 

Wasn’t an important fight. Wasn’t an eliminator. Valdes had already established himself number 2 in the world and had won eliminators over summerlin and carter. Powell was actually considered a “tune up” or “workout” for Valdes

After Valdes squashed mcmutry in 1, damato completely avoided negotiations for Valdes getting a title shot and waited for Brian London to lose to Cooper so he could select a “soft” opponent

What I find funny is summerlin is told by damato “beat Valdes you get a title shot”. Valdes knocks him out in 5, he never receives the title shot summerlin was supposed to get. Then in his next fight, Valdes knocks out the number 3 heavyweight in the world Harold carter. Still, no title shot?

 

Despite having lost to Folley by decision back in 1956, I think Valdes was actually doing more to "earn" a shot. Folley simply sat on his rating after the Valdes fight and two less than awesome split decisions over Bethea. It was Valdes who was taking on the contenders while Folley was padding his record with pushovers.

With Folley, it was "I outpointed Valdes back then and look at all the guys he is beating now. So give me a fight with the champion."

Machen was all by himself going into 1958 as the logical next challenger.

In fairness, why should the winner of Valdes-Summerlin get a shot rather than Machen. Machen had beaten them both.

Valdes I think was a better challenger than London, even if he was going back. He had certainly done enough to earn a shot. I won't dispute that point with you, although Johansson was the clear #1 contender.

 

I also find it funny how chokelab says “Machen and Folley losing to Johannson and Cooper freezes them out of a title shot!”

While after London loses to Cooper he boasts, “London was the next best thing after Cooper he deserved his shot!”

So despite maintaining a top 1-2 ranking for 2-3 years, Folley and Machen get frozen out of a title shot due to 1 loss while London who barely cracked the top 5 for a period of 2-3 months is due his title shot even after a loss?

 

I’m fine with that... but remember the ring and nba promoted Folley to number 1 in the world in 1958 so they thought very highly of him.

Folleys consistent top 5 ranking in the world by both nba and ring from 1956-1964 all those years, at some point should have earned him a title shot don’t you think? Especially since In 1958 and 1960 he earned number 1 status.

It’s shameful when no hopers like radamacher mcneeley and London get title shots, while a fighters whose been highly rated for that long gets frozen out while in his prime

 

Agree about Machen..he should have been given Harris title shot

 

But Suzie, one thing. London was a tune-up, get the rust off, fight.

You are right that he was selected because he was less dangerous, but in a twisted way that is all right, as Johansson really has earned the first crack but now has to sweat out London landing a lucky (very very lucky) punch and putting Ingo's shot on hold for perhaps years.

 

Machen should have been given a shot earlier in the year.

His poor performance against Folley clouded his chances.

I think Harris was a worthy contender, much more qualified than London or McNeeley, and at least on the same plane as Folley. I know we disagree on this.

 

I agree Machen should have been first in line for title shot

Why did Machen have to fight two title eliminators against both Folley and Johannson to earn his title shot?

What title eliminator did Roy Harris win?

 

My opinion is Harris should have never gotten a title shot before Eddie Machen, based on what Machen did in 56-57

You make a good case about Harris record being at least as impressive as Foley’s going into 58, but Folley was still the higher rated fighter and let’s face it Folley was the tougher matchup for Patterson

Harris could box a little, but he couldn’t hit, wasn’t particularly big, didn’t have a great jab, didn’t have top notch defense, Harris looked stiff in there not fluid at all


Folley, however, was a top class boxer with an elite jab, a fast accurate right hand punch which could hurt you, he was very slick and good at counterpunchering

 

"the ring and nba promoted Folley to number 1 in the world in 1958 so they thought very highly of him."

Apparently wins over Art Swiden and Pete Rademacher got him to #1!?

"they thought very highly of him."

That is for certain. So highly he didn't have to beat anyone of note to leapfrog undefeated fighters in the ratings.

But I believe ratings should be on accomplishment, not on whom the raters think highly of or don't think highly of.