1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Harry Kid Matthews vs the following men

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by SuzieQ49, May 11, 2018.



  1. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    33,928
    654
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    You can make up all the garbage you want

    Valdes was marcianos manadatory challenger when he fought ****ell. If the Marciano ****ell fight has been in today’s era, rocky would have been stripped for failing to fight his number 1 mandatory Valdes
     
  2. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Junkie Full Member

    6,202
    546
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    Mine is the 1976 Ring Record Book, page 117. I consider this a good source.

    For Don C, he has the longest odds of anyone who fought Marciano for the title at 7-1, but the odds aren't that much longer than Moore at 4-1, so it indicates that Don C did have some credibility as a contender in 1955.

    The Ring Magazine of August, 1955 (covering to June 22) discussed Bob Baker as Marciano's next opponent and speculated that his odds would be 6-1.

    I also find the Patterson odds interesting. Jackson's odds were 5-1 in 1957. Harris went in at 4-1 in 1958. London though was a much longer shot at 10-1. Johansson was 4-1. Indicates Harris had credibility as a challenger. Why Jackson at longer odds than Harris? He had already lost to Patterson. He also had two defeats to Slade, and one to Whitehurst, while Harris was coming in undefeated.

    It is interesting to compare the odds of Don C against Marciano to Walcott against Louis. The Ring Record Book has Don C fighting at shorter odds. Even if we accept your 10-1 odds, that is the same as Walcott had. Joe's spotty early record and losses to Maxim and Ray probably explain this. We have to remember that Maxim wasn't a champion yet either. No one knew what would happen in the future, so that loss was probably viewed more negatively than we would today.

    By the way, I would guess that if Machen had been given a shot at Patterson in 1958 without an elimination, the odds would have been fairly close, something like 7-5. Just my guess, though.

    As it might be brought up, why is there such a difference between Machen and Valdes? Machen was undefeated in 24 fights. Valdes was 11-4 in his last 15 fights.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2018
    choklab likes this.
  3. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Junkie Full Member

    6,202
    546
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    "rocky would have been stripped"

    Of course. That is why we always have a flock of "champions" these days.

    Makes a joke of things.

    But I thought the champion had one year between facing the #1 contender. As Rocky had fought the #1 ranked Charles in September of 1954, didn't he have until September of 1955 to face his next #1. Or is the time span now shorter. I can never keep up with what the politicians are doing.

    The weakness of Valdes' case was he that had lost to the other contenders, Moore and Baker. Moore had beaten them both. Once Moore began to lobby for a title shot, he couldn't fairly be denied except by the really strange argument that what happened in the ring was less important than the NBA's paper ratings, or politics trumping results.
     
  4. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    33,928
    654
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    This is Harry Wills all over again although for a much less time span. He had been waiting in line as the number one, and he is being asked to fight guys like Sharkey and Tunney in 1926 to get a shot at jack Dempsey. Valdes should have gotten the may 1955 date with Marciano. Period.


    Does that seem fair to you or even logical that a number one "most logical contender" doesn't get a direct title shot at Marciano but has to fight an eliminator first?

    What eliminator did number 2 ****ell win to get his title shot?

    Marciano bypassed his number 1 mandatory Valdes, to fight the number 2 ****ell. This is a fact.

    Norris wanted Moore and Olson to fight - and Moore said he would if the winner could fight Marciano.

    Don ****ell was the #2 contender.

    While he waited for he Marciano fight, Valdes fought twice - in December 1954 and January 1955 - scoring two knockouts.

    Yet, for some reason, Valdes is told he has to fight Moore and Marciano signs to fight the 10-1 lower-rated ****ell instead.


    The fact is Nino Valdes was the number-one contender. He had a ONE FOOT reach advantage over Marciano. (If Marciano beat guys with a greater reach advantage than that, please let me know.) And Valdes could bang.

    The head of the IBC wanted to make Marciano-Valdes and he wanted it in February 1955. Valdes was knocking guys out in tuneups preparing for Marciano. And Marciano's manager (also an IBC matchmaker) said they'd consider it, but instead he gave the shot to a guy more Marciano's size and rated below Valdes (****ell).

    Roadblocks were put in Valdes' path and, unfortunately, he didn't make it around them. You can say Valdes wouldn't have won against Marciano (I definitely favor Marciano). Maybe he wouldn't have. But the fact is we'll never know because Marciano's camp took steps to try to get around facing him.

    There was no rationale for the champ's camp to insist the light heavyweight champ fight the number-one heavyweight contender ... while the champ fought the (10-to-1 underdog) #2 contender instead.

    Moore wasn't the top contender at heavyweight. ****ell wasn't. Valdes was.

    The IBC officially named Valdes as "the logical" contender. (Since they couldn't name a "mandatory" that's how they identified the person they wanted a champ to fight next.)

    So, instead, something illogical took place.
     
  5. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    33,928
    654
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    Speaking of Moore-Valdes II


    the IBC was a dirty organization. Carbo, Gibson, Palermo were all convicted of federal crimes. (Jim Norris only avoided prosecution by using his influence). Al Weill was this collection of criminals' matchmaker ... in addition to being Marciano's manager. And the trials of those guys showed you could just as easily fix a fight through proper matchmaking as you could by paying off one of the participants.


    In an era when there were fights on national television four nights a week, in major cities all over the U.S., how the hell did Moore-Valdes ... a heavyweight eliminator featuring the #1 heavyweight contender and the light heavyweight champion of the world ... end up off-television, in minor-league ballpark ... in the freaking desert (when all Vegas had were a half-dozen hotels on a single strip of road ran by the freaking MAFIA) ... with the referee (who didn't like Valdes) serving as the sole judge? Within a couple years, just about everyone involved in making that fight (excluding the fighters themselves) were charged with conspiracy and extortion.

    In an era when every major fight was televised, they buried that one in the desert. I checked, there were NO major fights in Vegas in the years before that or that year. Just this one. And, that night, the Moore-Valdes fight wasn't televised (if Nevada even had the infrastructure or capability to broadcast it). Instead, the Virgil Akins fight from New York was the featured fight.

    If you don't think that situation was ripe to manipulate, you've got your head buried in the sand. Al Weill couldn't have done a better job making sure nothing favored Valdes. Of course, Fat Boy Don made out with a title shot without having to beat anyone impressive or take on any outrageous eliminators.
     
  6. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Junkie Full Member

    6,202
    546
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    While I think this thread should die, I can't let this pass.

    "Harry Wills all over again"

    There is no comparison between Wills and Valdes. Wills had been the top contender or a top contender for a decade. None of the other contenders had beaten him or anyone who had beaten him.

    Valdes had lost to Moore, and had lost to Johnson and Baker who had also lost to Moore, and Valdes had never reversed any of them.

    To be in a similar position, Wills would have had to lose in 1923 and 1924 to Tunney, Gibbons, and Risko, and failed to reverse any of them, while supposedly being the #1 contender over Tunney.

    "Does it seem to you that the number one 'most logical contender' doesn't get a direct title shot."

    That would be Moore, who had beaten Valdes. Why was this paper "most logical contender" a 2-1 underdog to Moore in the 1955 fight?

    "Roadblocks were put in Valdes' path"

    As they should have been. Why should he just jump into a title fight over Moore. Moore had beaten him and beaten other guys who had beaten Valdes. If Valdes beat Moore, he would have proven his rating was justified.

    "There was no rationale for the champ's camp to insist the light-heavyweight champ fight the number one contender."

    Are you sure they did? They just chose to fight the #2 contender. The Moore-Valdes fight was a heavyweight title fight sanctioned by Nevada. I don't know if it was any kind of official elimination.

    "Valdes was knocking guys out in tune-ups."

    Journeymen at best. Why wasn't Valdes eliminating Moore and Baker rather than fighting the likes of Jack Flood? Valdes was obviously trying to sit on his rating and hoping for a title shot w/o taking unnecessary chances. I suppose I can't blame his management, but it is not the way to move ahead of Moore in the eyes of the public.

    "Don Co-kell"

    I could argue against him. He was #2 to Valdes and I think Valdes somewhat the better contender in 1955. Hindsight allows us to see Valdes was much the better contender off what happened later, but that might not have been so clear in 1955.

    But I could question a lot of challengers. Why did Walcott get two shots in 1951 after losing to Rex Layne while Layne had to fight roadblocks like Satterfield and Marciano? Layne would seem on the face of it to have a better case over Walcott than Valdes had over Don C, let alone Moore.

    "Something illogical took place."

    Not to me. Moore was the obvious top contender, and he got his shot at Marciano.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2018
    choklab likes this.
  7. edward morbius

    edward morbius Boxing Junkie Full Member

    6,202
    546
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 5, 2011
    A lot of dubious arguments here.

    "The IBC was a dirty organization."

    Sure, but according to Jack Kearns, the IBC had nothing to do with this fight.

    "fights on national television four nights a week"

    I lived through the era, and I don't recall any more than two weekly national fights, one on Wednesday and one on Friday. But this doesn't mean that all the big fights were on TV by any means, at least in my area. The Folley-Machen fight in 1960 and the Liston-Folley fight in 1960 were not televised in the upper midwest. I would have known. I don't think the networks were really willing to pay all that much, so the live gate was still more important.

    "minor league ballpark"

    Still bigger than most indoor stadiums. And the Patterson-Harris and Patterson-Rademacher championship fights were in minor league ballparks. Anything west of St. Louis or south of the Mason-Dixon line had to be minor league back then.

    The actual attendance was 10,800 and the gate $102,000. That was very good. The Charles-Valdes fight drew 3500. What was the attendance for Valdes-Jackson? And this fight was probably subsidized by the casinos to draw in the high rollers.

    "all Vegas had were a few hotels"

    Well, somehow they got 10,800 to attend. Vegas was a gambling and fun center outside of the California blue laws. When I worked there briefly (actually at Henderson) in the 1960's, tons of folks came by bus or train from LA and San Diego to gamble. There were always big weekend crowds.

    "No major fights before that"

    Yeah, Vegas was coming out of nowhere. But some fight had to be the first. Whatever you say, a city where Sinatra, Elvis, Garland, Horne, etc., were entertaining is not exactly just the desert.

    As for the fight itself,

    Moore entered a 2-1 favorite.

    Referee Braddock scored it 8-5-2
    UPI scored it 8-6-1
    I don't want to assume too much with the AP, but they said Moore pulled it out with the last round, so it sounds like something like 8-7.

    No reason to second guess Braddock.

    "Braddock disliked Valdes."

    Did he before the fight or just afterward when the Valdes camp covered their loss by attacking Braddock, as you are by insinuation. I think Braddock was pretty well off, and respected. Why would he take part in a fix?

    Valdes off the descriptions went nuts in the ring after the verdict was announced.

    Moore was quoted by the Australian AP--"I feel great. I won the fights, but I got my lumps." Moore commented that Valdes went "dramatic" to get sympathy from the $2 bettors.

    Jack Kearns stated that the IBC had nothing to do with the fight, which was advertised and promoted as being for the "Heavyweight Championship of the World" as recognized in Nevada.

    Truman Gibson of the IBC was at ringside, which is no surprise as this was an important fight, and commented afterward that Marciano would now have to fight Moore.

    Frankly, Valdes was 13-10 between 1952 and 1956. Claiming a fix on no evidence is not necessary to explain why Archie Moore defeated him.
     
  8. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    20,980
    1,296
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Dec 31, 2009
    Peter Wilson covered Valdes vs Moore in Las Vegas whilst he was in America for the Marciano Cokkell fight.

    In his book “more ringside seats” he describes Las Vegas as it was then. The fight took place in the open air in a disused baseball park surrounded by desert.

    “There was a crowd of 11,000 who had paid over £35,000. And really the crowd was something like the extras in a movie of a ghost town.

    Out on the white stone seats were old silver miners and prospectors with their jeans and grey beards. In the medium priced seats there were the slick gamblers and at ringside there were the high priced entertainers, imported from New York and California by the gambling’s bosses who will pay any sort of money just to attract the big Money gamblers to their own particular hotels.”

    Of the fight itself Wilson wrote that it was a rough tough fight from the word go. Moore was ahead until he got tired in the late rounds but that he still hurt Nino to the body and closed his eye in the 13th. He thought that Moore might stop him in the 14th.

    “In the 14th I thought Moore might finish it off, as he so often does late in a fight, but he had taken so much on the ropes earlier on and he was so much over his best fighting weight that he couldn’t quite pull it off”
     
  9. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,083
    150
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 6, 2004
    SuzyQ

    You talk about the different groups of fighters (west coast vs East coast).

    Is there any chance that you could confirm which fighters were from which group (for argument sake the top top 10 or 15 from each group). I would be interested to compare the results of cross over fights. Team West vs Team East, so to speak.
     
  10. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    33,928
    654
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    DID Don ****ell deserve a title shot before Archie Moore and Nino Valdes?


    Chokelab thinks ****ell deserved it
     
  11. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    33,928
    654
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005

    You still think ****ell deserved that title shot?
     
  12. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    33,928
    654
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    Did ****ell deserve a title shot over Valdes and Moore?


    Yes or no?
     
  13. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    33,928
    654
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    Edward morbius and I teamed up to make a top 50 heavyweight list 1930-60. I’d like to hear your opinion on it go to the thread and post
     
  14. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    33,928
    654
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 14, 2005
    “Somewhat better”

    Except Valdes beat three men rated # 1 Charles # 5 Jackson and # 6 Neuhaus

    ****ell beat # 4 lastara and # 9 Matthews


    It’s not even close. One can argue Neuhaus was better than ****ell since he was euro champ while ****ell was only British champ.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2018
  15. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Boxing Junkie Full Member

    22,612
    247
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 26, 2004


    Rocky was hoping Valdez beat Satterfield in 55 so that would set up a 50th fight for Rocky but the 6"3 Nino was beaten pretty badly by the 5"10 Bob Satterfield and dropped hard in the last round making Nino pretty much unmarketable. Nino may have been a tougher fight than Don CKLE (who fought his heart out) but Nino lost his first shot losing the 2nd time to Moore and then to Bob Satterfield (who already lost to Charles KO2 and Archie. Judging from the Satterfield fight I think 50-0 for Marciano would have been inevitable but at that point a Valdes fight wasnt marketable.
     
    choklab likes this.