Nino beat more ranked heavyweights than ; Moore,Marciano,Cockell,Lastarza. Here is174 1/2'bs Cockell being stopped by162 1/2 lbs Turpin. Randy Turpin vs Don Cockell
Do you think that Nino Valdez was a big 6'3", 200+ pound heavyweight of comparable ability to later 6'3", 200+ pound contenders like Witherspoon?
He beat more ranked contenders. I think he was of superior ability to. Mathews,Cockell,that version of Louis,Layne,Lastarza ,and apart from@ Walcott Moore and Charles,whom he beat.superior to every other one of Marciano's opponents. I also think Valdes would have fitted in okay with Page Witherspoon Bruno Coetzee Young Bey Tucker Tubbs Thomas Jones Ocasio Williams Cooney LSpinks M Spinks Biggs Cobb Dokes Knoetzee Bugner Evangelista Coopman Dunn Pulev Martin Tillis Snipes Mercado Berbick Bodell H Cooper B Cooper Roman Weaver Tate Ledoux Ward Merritt Boudreaux Boytsov Glazkov Arreola Helenius Solis Stiverne Ortiz Breazeale Gomez Kownacki Miller Hunter Wach PIanetta Purrity Mormeck Wallin Thompson Mason Ackinwande Izon Seldon Oquendo Jefferson Bean Auston Brock Kevin Johnson K Johnson Leapai Franklin Takam Barrett Perez Virchis Dimitrenko McCline Mormeck Grant NGannou Brewster Lyackovich Molina Harrison Hope that answers your question?
It answers my question. We'll just have to disagree, then. I don't see much special about Valdez to rate him alongside heavyweight Michael Spinks or Tim Witherspoon in terms of actual ability as a heavyweight. All of your criticism of the quality of Marciano era contenders supports this, frankly. Compared to, say, Spinks's accomplishment of beating an older Larry Holmes, it doesn't say much for Valdez that he maxed out at almost getting a shot at the king of a bad era.
This assumes he didn't get a shot at Marciano because he lost to Moore. You could equally say he didn't get a shot because Weill didn't fancy him as an opponent for his meal ticket. Ranked while Marciano was, either ranked or Champ were. Walls,Henry,Baker,Valdes,Maxim,Neuhaus,Williams,Gardner,Slade Johnson,Summerlin,Wallace,Norkus,Bivins,Oma,Sys,Harrison,Jackson, Satterfield, and Dunlap.
Whether Marciano ducked him or not is irrelevant. I'm talking what he actually accomplished in the fights he had. He never beat the king of an era you rightly criticize as weak, with a division filled by lightheavyweights. Michael Spinks, to take one of the examples above, did beat an old Larry Holmes. That alone is enough to put Spinks out of Valdez's orbit. Valdez can defeat as many ranked guys from a weak era of lightheavyweights as he pleases (and lose to others), but I don't think that makes him comparable to the likes of Spinks or Witherspoon.
Yes, three men whose frames are bast suited for LHW or smaller. However you want to say it. You have all the facts but can't put them together. Valdes lost to smaller men, so beating him would have proven nothing. Nor did Marciano have anything to prove. He beat the best in front of him. That is how one becomes great.
I gave you a long list of heavyweights I think he holds his own with,from the 50's to the present era. Spinks might very well beat a Marciano the same age as Holmes was, does that prove,that he is better than the Valdes who beat number one contender Charles? Light heavyweights? Valdes beat London 211 DeJohn 204 & 2001/2 Erskine 1961/2 Holman 204 Richardson 2021/2 Cockell 215 Jackson190 Sys 204 Neuhaus 2121/2 Wallace 1981/2 NB I don't believe Marciano would duck anybody.
Louis Moore Charles Walcott Ali Holmes Joshua Dubois Lost to smaller men. No,you become great by beating good/great opposition, not by wracking up an unbeaten streak a third to half of which are sausages that would fit in Lamar Clark's resume. And when your best opponents are: 33,37,38 ,and 41 respectively , there will inevitably be asterisk attached to your resume. I think that puts it together rather well!
And I disagree that Valdez would hold his own with the good 80s guys his own size. They didn't lose to tiny heavies/lightheavyweights like Moore and Satterfield, in weak divisions like the one you characterize Marciano as ruling. Cockell, as has been frequently pointed out, was a fat LHW who lost to a middleweight. Lots of the other guys you mentioned fought in a division where top guys included an ancient Joe Louis, LaStarza, a very small Ezzard Charles, etc. In other words, just like Vandez, mentioning their sizes alone -- or even their contender status -- doesn't tell the story. You need to look at the environment they came from. And that's an environment where men their size just weren't that good. An environment where the #1 guy was Rocky Marciano, whom you have characterized elsewhere as being small, not really a strikingly powerful puncher, crude, and easy to hit. Rocky's best opponents were old and/or small...and highly rated. So Nino ought not impress us very much as a heavyweight contender. It didn't take much to be one, by later standards. And the opponents who were Nino's own size whom he fought didn't even achieve what Nino managed. They needn't impress us much, either.
I know about the era, Louis was champ when I was born . I never mentioned in any of these Marciano threads,[only 1 of which is mine ,and that one a year and a half old ,]that he reigned in a weak era ,though I believe he did. "Tiny heavyweights ",like Moore dropped Marciano and caused him,by his own admission to momentarily black out. Something Moore could not manage to do in two fights with Valdes. I sense a growing hostility coming here so I think I will just let others continue with my old thread,I don't see anyone changing their opinion and posters saying stuff like "you cant put it together",though they invite tempting vocal oblivion,are hardly conducive to a balanced argument,so to avoid more Deja Vu. Bye!
That's fine. I'm not being hostile. I just disagree with you about how good Valdez was. Anyway, take care.
Matthews has a career upside that is generally ignored. One can knock his best wins, but he lost only to five men, one an experienced winning fighter when Harry was 17, one an undefeated heavyweight champion, two top five black murderers' row contenders, and a man who was a European and British Empire champion and a top five contender. Baker, Valdes, and Henry all lost to much lesser fighters than any Matthews lost to--think Buford, Zuany, Gilliam--and Matthews had a much longer career and more fights, and was rated over a longer period, from 1942 to 1954, and fought both younger and older or to about the same age. Not many can say they lost to only five men over a 19 year career in which they were rated in three different divisions. Matthews was a respected fighter in the early 1950's. The Ring Mazazine picked him over Robinson as the best p4p fighter of 1951.
"If Cockell and LaStarza were ranked near the top that would indicate the lack of talent" Unlike Manuel Ramos in 1968? Or Ford Smith in 1935? Or Tom Heeney in 1928? All top five contenders. Ramos and Heeney got title shots also. I think Cockell has a good chance of running the table if matched with this trio.