Marciano v Valdes

Moore was the better fighter but Valdez may have been a tougher match up for Rocky .

 

We have film of both fighters. Judge for yourself.

Let me give you my opinion.

Valdes was an easier matchup for Marciano. Here is why. Despite the height and reach and good left jab..
Valdes did not know how to utitlize those tools correctly. He had a lot of trouble keeping smaller fighters from closing the distance. In fact Valdes loves to go to war in the trenches but he didn’t have a lot of heart or stamina. Sound like someone who would fare well vs a blitzkrieg like Marciano for 15?

Marciano has trouble with good counterpuncher. Was Moore not one of the best? With some power too boot

Before you say Moore’s legs were gone he was old...take note Valdes Moore fight was even going into round 13..advantage younger man right? Wrong! It was Valdes who got tired and Moore who came on strong once the last 3 rounds to outwork Valdes

So if Valdes can’t last in the trenches against a 38 year old light heavyweight how’s he gonna do it for 15 with a prime Rocky Marciano?


Valdes power: he could hit yes, but any harder than Walcott or Moore? How about Louis who knocked Valdes out in 1 round

 

He

Watch some film of Nino. Tons of it on YouTube. Judge for yourself if you think he has a nightmare style for Marciano

 

I think the key word here is heavyweight. Moore was the better heavyweight than Valdes.

2 head to head victories over him plus Wins over Harold Johnson Bob Baker and Bob Sattefield all of whom triumphed over nino. Nino best Charles who beat Moore three times, but Archie fought a much better version.

To be frank..Moore’s record at heavyweight blows Valdes away.

 

I absolutely agree 100%. Moore was really the more outstanding HW contender. Not Valdes. The side note that Archie was the LH champion (just a tidbit at the time) takes all the luster away from how deserving Archie was of paying his dues in the HW ranks.

And for all that Nino was still a better contender than Cleveland Williams.

 

I favor Williams over Valdes head to head.

Williams was faster more athletic more agile. I think he hit slightly harder too

 

He lost to McBride in 50..but he also should have lost to him in 1954. It was a horrendous hometown split decision win for valdes in which most thought McBride won..and this was Nino 4 years later in his prime.

 

Compared to Nino, Williams was less effective against good fighters. It’s okay to prefer Williams style but the vast majority of Williams spectacular wins were over blond cowboys and guys with thin arms and long necks. It’s easier to get a good write up against that kind of fodder. There were a lot more candy McDaniels, baby booze, graveyard Walters on Williams record than Guys who fought other contenders. Many guys who never fought before and never fought again types.

In comparison to Valdes, Williams only took good fighters close or got knocked out. But like Nino, Williams had a lot of heart and always gave his best. He was worth watching win or lose where as Valdes could stink a place out with his mauling.

Nino at least demolished some guys with world ratings like Jackson and Neuhaus. and as an old man, nino managed to last into the same round Sonny had snuffed Williams out in.

 

Surprised you didn’t bring up nino’s first round knockout win over your favorite “master boxer “ joe erskine


Let’s compare common opponents between Valdes and Williams

Omelio Agramonte, Wayne Bethea, Dick Richardson, John Holman, Alonzo Johnson, Alex Miteff, Bob Satterfield, Eddie Machen

Valdes record: 4-5 with 2 knockouts

Williams record: 6–1-1 with 5 knockouts

Williams completely dominated Valdes in common opponents

 

But it’s at the opposite ends of their careers. Nino was born in 1924. He was a lot older.

It’s like saying Cooney has a better record against the same guys Quarry fought.

 

I think you guys both made good points about Williams and Valdes.

Suzie is correct about Williams being 6-1-1 against common opponents (but I think with 3 KO's rather than 5. I don't think he KO'd Richardson, Agramonte or Bethea)

it is also a fair point that not only was Valdes aging, but in some cases (Miteff and Johnson) he fought much better versions of these opponents.

But one thing really jumps out at me looking at these two fighters. Williams lost only to Satterfield, Liston, and Terrell after 1954, prior to his shooting and his zombie losses to Ali and his later foes, when he was still active but wasn't a live version of the fighter he had been. Liston was an ATG. Satterfield a dangerous puncher who was much more experienced against top opponents and who also beat Valdes. Terrell edged Williams in a close decision after getting stopped by him.

Valdes on the other hand lost a lot. He lost 10 fights between 1952 and 1956, his best years.

Valdes has the deeper resume by far, but Williams is like Marcel Cerdan, whom I defended on this board a ways back. His resume is thin, but the down side is not all that down.

Compared to Valdes, though, his record is statistically padded with a lot of fights against set-ups.

Williams has been overrated by some, but it is also possible to jump to the other extreme, especially by making too much of a loss in a four round fight, never a good test. He other losses prior to his shooting were all to fighters who were at or near the top of the division.

Bottom line for me. I would rate Williams and Valdes about even.

 

I think Eddie Machen is the real common denominator here..

Both fought the same version of Machen. Both Near their primes. Difference is C Williams fought on even terms, with the paper having Williams ahead on their AP scorecard...while valdes twice got destroyed by Machen.


Also, I would say it’s not fair to hold the Satterfield loss against Williams.

1. Williams was barely 20 years old and 15lb below his mature prime weight. No doubt he became more physically mature 5–7 years later

2. Williams took the fight on last minute substitute notice. That’s a challenging task to take on Satterfield without any prior training.

Do you favor Satterfield to beat say the 1962 Cleveland Williams?

1955-1965 Williams only lost to peak versions of Liston and Ali and a razor thin decision to wba champ Terrell

 

Regarding Williams power-

Sonny Liston said Williams hit as hard as himself

Eddie Machen said Williams hit as hard as Liston

Foreman named Lyle, Cooney, and Williams as 3 of the hardest hitters he’s ever shared a ring with either sparring or in a real fight

 

"Valdes twice got destroyed by Machen."

If interested, you can watch the Machen KO of Valdes on youtube under "Machen derrota Valdes"--an Argentinian film.

Actually, the first fight was decently close, and Valdes was hanging close in the second until he got KO'd, but he was really KO'd as the film shows.

"it's not fair to hold the Satterfield loss against Williams."

I largely agree. I think it would have been an extremely difficult fight for almost anyone short of his 21st birthday to expect to win. When on, Satterfield was very dangerous.

"Do you favor Satterfield to beat say the 1962 Cleveland Williams."

My money stays in my pocket. I wouldn't bet on this one. I would narrowly favor Williams, but as I said, my money stays safe in my wallet.

 

To make a case for Williams as a much better fighter than Nino Valdes you have to give him the benefit of the doubt too many times. You have to pretend he might beat Satterfeild if he was older. You have to pretend he would knock out the kind of guys other contenders did knockout. You have to pretend that without the shooting incident he might have done better than Brian London against Ali. You have to pretend that he was better than Terrell and Machen whom he did not beat when it counted.

There is no way of knowing Williams would have done as well against Ezzard Charles. Or that williams could knockout a guy like Jackson who had some good wins without Williams doing something close to these results in real life. We don’t even know if Williams could last 15 rounds with Archie Moore.