Marcianos 3 minute bomb run on the durable Don Cockell

marciano was a two-fisted machine. both hands, every angle, all the time.

 

Would you have really rated him over Moore in 1954, even taking his win streak into account?

 

No. I would have him rated over cokkel which is all that matters.

 

These were big money fights. Outdoor events that sold better than any of Ninos outings. As number one contender Only 1500 fans witnessed Nino taking Jack Flood seven rounds. Pitiful box office appeal really.

This was a fair result. It is always important when two contenders fight. However it could not have erased the appalling contest Nino had in the Garden with James J Parker that absolutely stank the place out and really ruined his reputation with that audience because the powers that be still felt Archie Moore was the more colourful and therefore more outstanding contender.

I would very much like to see you produce examples of lies I have produced. How dare you claim that I am lying. What is it I have said that you would like to be unfactual? that the governor of New York Athletic commission said there wAs little between Valdes and Cokkell? That in the scheme of things, though Archie Moore was indeed the most outstanding contender of that era he did not do much better than Don cokkell against Marciano?

 

Except it obviously did because every major boxing organization promoted Valdes to number 1 status and most logical contender status....the highest achievement one can receive as a contender...the proof is in the pudding choke. Al Weill passed up on Marcianos Number 1 most logical contender because he had a 5” height advantage, FOOT reach advantage, and a big punch to open up Rocky’s nose. Cokkell was the easy soft touch.



“Moore colorful”

Didn’t you argue in the other thread Freddie Mills drew better than Archie Moore so he deserved the title shot instead? LOL. Now suddenly by 1955 Moore has become colorful?

So I guess legitimacy does not matter at all. All that matters is whether a fighter could draw?

 

I'll repeat just in case you ignored the rest of my message that debunked your list

Walcott beat Charles twice when he came into his own, and had the only knockout in 4 fights. Walcott>Charles

LaStarza beat Layne

Satterfield beat Valdes

Besides that your list is fine. Id put old Joe Louis lower but that's just me, he did do well against Charles and beat down decent competition like Savold and Brion twice. I'd also put LaStarza over Moore simply because LaStarza gave Marciano a better fight, where as Moore was bashed in and only won 1 round on one of the judge's scorecards

 

You remind me of myself when I was 17. Cocky arrogant and full of yourself. Think you know everything

I’m going to bet you are in your early 20s. If so, you still have a lot of time to learn. Here’s the reality. You still don’t know jack ****, but you have plenty of time to learn. So keep your mouth shut and listen to the people who have knowledge on the era. Back in 2005-present I learned a lot from veteran posters here. My advice to you is become a student of this forum

Start with Clarence Henry....

I will respond to you later. I am busy at the moment.

 

Yeah I learned who he was

He had a good resume, beating Baker and and Satterfield (in the first round, damn), and avenging his loss against Jimmy Bivins. I was surprised I never heard of him. Though he was beaten by Moore and Harold Johnson

He he was likely someone I glanced over while researching the era, my bad

 

I just saw something even wackier than this thread is getting: an ad for 2019 Season tickets for the Texas Rangers.

 

Marciano didn't get Cockell like others did, but I don't know that it's fair to question his power just because other guys were able to end it sooner. There are plenty of examples of lighter punching fighters stopping a common opponent faster than a harder puncher. It should also be noted that it was an off night for Rocky against a man who was no doubt very motivated and of the mindset to not go down or be stopped.

Rocky's punching style had also changed during the second portion of his title reign. He turned more into an accumulation puncher looking to beat down whatever stood infront of him rather than his earlier fights where he'd load up and aim to end the fight with one punch. It helped keep him up on the scorecards more. Cockell and Moore took terrible beatings, but they were able to see the punches coming and take the steam off the shots so they could whether the storm better. Walcott did a good job of doing the same in the first fight, but he was completely unconscious when he got caught clean with a punch he didn't see coming in their first fight and dropped quickly when the same happened in their rematch.

To answer whether or not Cockell showed durability...of course he did. He was in against a huge punching heavyweight champion and refused to fold on his own after taking several big punches. People can (and will) debate the type of power puncher Rocky was, but what can't be debated is that he was a big puncher and it'd be foolish to get careless with him.

 

"Jackson beat Henry when Henry was legally blind"

This is another statement which seems far-fetched. Check what the term "legally blind" actually means. Basically, you can't see. Why not only Jackson, but Bob Baker and Jimmy Slade, would have to go ten rounds with a blind man who couldn't see their punches coming certainly would raise issues about them.

but Henry wasn't blind, though he had suffered an eye injury, according to Jet Magazine, in a gym accident. After a year layoff, his physician cleared him to return to fighting, but apparently a re-injury caused him to retire.

What did Henry do after his boxing career? I found out. He worked as a stuntman in Hollywood, according to a 1992 article in The Ring. Here is what I eventually discovered, from an article at a site called boxing.com which quotes The Ring article:

"What was Henry doing in Hollywood. Why making ends meet as a stuntman, reports The Ring in its March, 1992 issue. 'Forty years ago the very mention of Los Angeles heavyweight Clarence Henry's name sent even top-ranked contenders into hiding and for good reason. What man in his right mind would want to risk not only a hard-won reputation, but expose his still unscrambled brains to Clarence's awesome punching power? When the stuntman, a member of that unenviable club of extraordinarily talented black fighters who were too good for their own good was asked, 'which was more dangerous, getting into the ring with Jimmy Bivins or diving off a cliff?' Henry replied, 'The cliff is a piece of cake.'"

I know something about movie studios, and no way would they hire someone blind or close to it to do stunts as they would be wide open to be sued if anything went wrong.

Clearly this "legally blind" claim is wildly exaggerated, if this article is at all accurate. I don't know what actually is true, but Henry had to have had respectable eyesight after his boxing career to do the work he did.

 

Everyone rates Nino over Cokkell now because Nino won when they fought. But you can’t credit this info with people living then at that time before that happened.

At that time (and now) who cares if the champ fights his number one or his number two?

Besides, Everyone rated Moore over Nino and Rocky knocked Archie out.

 

Everyone rated Nino over Cockell THEN that's why he was number 1 for 2 years!
Who cares if a champ fight his number one or two?
Well apart from his number one,the boxing public I should think!

We've had about 30 threads dumping on Dempsey for not defending against his number one .
And the same about Johnson!

 

Within boxing folks Moore was always viewed as better than Nino and Cokkell though. The whole time Nino was ranked people knew Moore had already beat the pants off Valdes and Moore was beating up Baker as well, another guy Nino had lost to.

So to some eyes, deciding who was the next best contender to Archie Moore Seems rather a minor quibble. It was either Nino or Don. Nobody seemed to see much difference.

 

He suffered a detached retina in the gym in 1953 and I’ve been told went legally blind in one eye by 1954. There is a reason Clarence was in his FINAL career fight when he fought Jackson despite being in his 20s. Even if he wasn’t legally blind, he still had a severe eye injury (detached retina) that caused him to retire. He went into the Jackson fight with an eye injury. Yet you sit here trying to defend Jackson’s victory while you make excuses for all of marcel Cerdans injury’s.

Do you believe Jackson would have beat a prime, healthy Clarence Henry?


Henry he was a stuntman but you can be a stuntman with a poor sight in one eye. Henry was seen in 1991 still being in great physical shape as a stuntman despite having poor eye sight in one eye

The late John Garfield/Joe Rein said this

“Before Henry was blind in one eye ('n even then), he was a thing-a-beauty to watch -- silky smooth 'n lethal -- a CLOSER.

The guy that lost to Hurricane Jackson wasn't even a pale imitation of Henry. No way a healthy live henry ever loses to hurricane jackson."


He saw both fighters live ringside and in the gym sparring. I trust him.

Speaking of Henry’s Value

"Clarence Henry has been rated on par with jersey joe walcott, the heavyweight champion, and challengers rocky marciano and Ezzard Charles."-New York Times March 18 1952



Funny how you like to defend certain fighters because you think they have s good resume (Jackson) but when it comes to graziano you make all kinds of excuses for his garbage 160 resume. I guess it helps now that you have a stooge following you around (choke)