Harry Kid Matthews vs the following men

But you keep thinking in terms of who was better overall. In 1955 it was a toss up between the two of them, Cokkell and Valdes. They were lumped together. Neither stood out. It made no difference which one went first. The #1 or the #2.

Valdes was told if he wanted a shot he had to beat one of the guys who held a win over him. Marciano fought the winner after Cokkell. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Technically that is correct, however often rules allow for a champion to meet either his number one or number two top contender within a time frame.

The situation with Valdes was Charles took his turn. That rematch was the shot that Nino deserved. After the rematch there was an eight month period where it became obvious that men who beat Valdes previous to his raking had as good an argument to challenge for the title. Interest in nino fizzled out. Moore was much higher profile. Beating Moore in an eliminator would have made Nino bigger box office. Ninos position as number one contender had become under threat because two guys who beat him were in the rankings.

But yes, Valdes should have went ahead of a Charles rematch.

 

I rate them as contenders--
1---Moore
2---Valdes
2---Baker
4---Don C

I wish Marciano had defended against Valdes rather than Don C. But in the long run of heavyweight history, this is sort of minor in my judgment, as neither was really the top man out there. Just my opinion.

The real injustice would have been Moore not getting a shot.

The problem with Valdes was that in 1955 he had already lost to two of the other top contenders, Moore and Baker. He would end up losing again to both. In 1957 and 1958 he had already lost to the top contenders, Machen and Folley.

So at both of his career peaks he was up against guys who had beaten him and against whom he was 0-7 for his career in the contest for a title shot.

I think he was some ahead of Don C for a shot, but there wasn't a world of difference between them in early 1955. Marciano's handlers had the option of picking one or the other.

 

Moore deserved a title shot way before Valdez and Moore got it!! Remember Valdez lost 4 fights in a row in 1953 Harold Johnson 176lbs & 5"10 lost by UD, Archie Moore 180lbs 5"11, lost by UD, Billy Gilliam lost by SD & Bob Baker lost by UD,

Valdez had a few good wins to end 1953 but most felt he lost to 184lb Archie McBride to begin 1954 but Nino went on to fight well in 1954 and recieved an elimination fight with Archie Moore and lost again so Archie deservedly recieved the title shot (remember Archie KO'd Bob Baker (who beat Nino & KO'd Harold Johnson(who beat Nino) all in this time period.

Nino was given another shot to fight Marciano 3 months later in a match with the 5"10, 183lb Bob Satterfield and lost badly UD getting dropped in the final round for a 9 count.

Marciano fought his # 1 contender 5 out of 6 times and when he fought Don Ckle Don was ranked #2. Valdez, Moore, would have been more of a challenge than Don but Moore who beat Valdez 2X did recieve the title shot.

I think Marciano fought his best contenders & taking one easier fight against the # 2 because of his split nose against Charles in prior fight was resonable.

Marciano wanted a 50th fight but Patterson lost to Maxim & Cus was keeping Floyd at 175lb unless Rocky retired, Liston was only in his 8th fight. They tried to prop up Valdez but Nino lost badly to Bob Satterfield and Satterfield already was KO'd by Charles in 2rds, beaten by Moore and was not marketable for a title shot. Remember only money could have kept Rocky in the game and with none around he ran from Al Weil & his 50% cut after expenses

Valdez would have been a pretty win for Rocky 50-0 but it wasn't in the cards

 

Here is some random articles from trove (because it is easiest to search) so it will give an Australian Slant.


Little between Marciano and Cockell for next opponent
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...Term=valdes cockell &searchLimits=

Cockell says he is not UNDERestimating Valdes. And (LOL) he must be tough, otherwise Marciano would not have chosen him.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...Term=valdes cockell &searchLimits=

Marciano says the one who brings the most money is next (which is probably the truth)

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...Term=valdes cockell &searchLimits=

Robert Christenbury says there is little between them
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...Term=valdes cockell &searchLimits=

Valdes Threatening to pull out of the Cockell fight because he wansnt allowed to wear white pants (second thoughts?)
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...Term=valdes cockell &searchLimits=

Marciano himself suggests that Moore might be better than both of them
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...Term=valdes cockell &searchLimits=

this one suggests that Cockell Valdes showed that Cockell was washed up more than Valdes had improved.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/...Term=valdes cockell &searchLimits=

 

if you also argue Arno Koelblin was better than Tommy Farr in 1937 because he was the Euro champ while Farr was only the British Empire champion, and that Heinz Lazek was better than Max Schmeling in 1938 because he was the Euro champ and Schmeling might not have been the official champion of anything.

Rather silly argument, really. Don C was higher rated than Neuhaus from 1953 through the Marciano fight.

Valdes' edge on Don C boils down mainly to the Charles fight.

By the way, the British Empire was a pretty big deal back then--you know the sun never sets and all that. Lots of boxing countries involved.

 

Great info. Just as I imagined. Very little to chose between valdes and Cokkell in 1955.

 

Take it up with Christenberry....

Robert Christenberry, chairman of the New York State Athletic Commission, and America's "Mr. Boxing," said on Sunday that world heavyweight champion Rocky Marciano should fight either Britain's Don Cockell or Nino Valdes, of Cuba, for the title. Mr. Christenberry said that Marciano, who was "a great champion," should choose his next opponent."If you take the records of Cockell and Valdes there is very little between them," Mr. Christtenbery said.

 

Sort of off the point of that post which was about Neuhaus.

But just exactly how much did the Jackson win mean in early months of 1955?

Jackson came into the Valdes fight 16-2-1. He burst into the ratings with wins over Henry, Layne, and Bucceroni. But it was Henry's last fight, and you always maintain that Henry was injured and finished. Layne was on a losing streak. Bucceroni was the big win, but it was devalued a bit by a later loss to Cesar Brion. Layne and Bucceroni and Brion had all lost when younger and at least in the cases of Layne and Brion, better, to Roland LaStarza. Hard to see any of these fights putting Jackson above LaStarza. There was also a win over Norkus, who would jump into the ratings later in the year by outpointing LaStarza, before losing to Charles in early 1955.

But Jackson had also earlier lost only two fights before fighting Valdes to the always in an out Jimmy Slade. And yes, Slade had a win back in 1951 over Don C, and that weighs in, but it also weighs in that Valdes was not even a main event fighter that far back.

How does all this compare to Harry Matthews? Well, Matthews, other than his losses to Don C, had lost since his 18th birthday back in 1940 only to three fighters each of whom also defeated Archie Moore--Eddie Booker, Jack Chase, and Marciano. No one out there had a better record than Matthews against common opponents. Charles had losses to Layne and Marshall. Matthews beat them. Marshall was old for Matthews, but Layne lost to Matthews just months before beating Charles. Walcott also lost to Layne but beat no one who beat Matthews. Henry had lost to Buford who was KO'd by Matthews. Satterfield had also lost to Layne.

You dismiss Matthews on the basis of his losses to Don C, but the observers of the time didn't necessarily, and why should they? Matthews losing to Don C proves Matthews is no good? But considering only Marciano had beaten the man since he turned 21, why can't these be viewed as imposing victories for Don C?

We all have hindsight opinions, but the bottom line is that the NBA spoke for a few important boxing states, and quite a few backwater boxing states. The NYSAC and the British and Euro authorities had a say also, and they considered Valdes and Don C to be on the same plane.

The November 16, 1954 quote from NYSAC chairman Christenberry proves that.