Rocky Marciano vs. George Godfrey

Have you ever heard of the quote "styles make fights"?
Just because fighter A beats fighter B and fighter B beats C doesn't mean Fighter A automatically beats C. For the record, I favor Marciano over Valdez and Baker, but them not providing any challenge for Marciano is non-sense. He struggled with far lesser fighters.

 

There are styles and levels, and these men were not on Marciano's level. I just recently posted a Sport's Illustrated article where Valdez was called a bum, in his day. The idea that Marciano should have beat some of the big fighters is entirely an affectation of the present, kicked around by people who don't know what they are talking about.

 

Will do, and yes, the point stands.

 

1. No fighter who steps in between the ropes is a bum.

2. Even more nonsensical is calling the number one contender a bum.

3. Calling Valdez a bum, hurts Marciano more than anything. This "bum" had a far more decisive victory against one of Marciano's greatest victories, and another of Marciano's biggest victories went life and death with him.

4. Valdez undeniably deserved a title shot as number one contender. Instead Marciano fought........... Charles, who Valdez already defeated decisively.

 

Valdes was the number 1 contender at the end of 1953 and 1954,and he beat Charles who got the title shot instead of him.

A Bum?
Valdes was
1. in 53
1.in54
6.in55
6.in57
2. in58
He beat
Charles .no1
Cockell.no2
McMurtry. no5
DeJohn.no10
Neuhaus .no8
Jackson.no8 And
London
Erskine
Summerlin
Sys
Carter
Agramonte
Doc Williams
Holman
Richardson

 

Wilson was stopped in the 1st round with a badly cut eye,hardly conclusive of anything.
"The bout was stopped because of a deep cut over Wilson's left eye. Marciano concentrated on using his left hook in the brief fight. The crowd of 3,351 booed the quick ending because Wilson was a willing and strong opponent, but the fight had to be stopped because of the severity of Bill's injury."
Wilson by the way, was never anything more than a willing trial horse.

The idea that Baker or Valdes would NOT present a challenge to Marciano is actually what is stupid.

 

I posted the sports illustrated article where they called him as such. Could be the fact that he was a 6'3" guy who had a penchant for loosing to LHW. Anyway, I am talking about he perception of the day...not my words. But there he had no grat reputation in his day, and you understand this.

 

A cut is a win. So Lennox didn't beat Vitali? Punches cause cuts.

No, I think the idea that a guy with 18 losses, including to LHW and subpar fighters, who had no reputation in his day outside of Cuba and Miami, would have troubled the undefeated man is what is stupid.

 

I am telling you all how he was perceived in his day, and I posted an article last time out we had this argument. It is not my word. Getting upset over it is a diversion. The point is, again, and again, and again, and again...THERE WAS NO GREAT INTEREST IN A FIGHT WITH VALDEZ BECAUSE HE WAS NOT THAT GOOD.

The entire idea that Valdez is some kind of important left on table comes entirely from modern haters who don't really know anything about boxing in the day. He was perceived in his day a nothing special, and yes, sometimes called a bum.

 

I give Marciano a chance - and it's 1 % chance if the fight isn't fixed. Don't get me wrong, I like Marciano, but he is just too small.

 

Yes, everyone who thinks the outstanding number one contender never got the title shot he deserved, is a hater.

Do you hear yourself?

Again, if Valdez wasn't that good, that speaks volumes about Rocky's top wins. Valdez beat Charles far easier than Marciano did, and took Moore to the limit in a bout, many thought he deserved the decision in even if the general perception was that Moore shaded it.

It also speaks volumes about that era in general if a fighter who is not "that good" reaches number one contender status.

I'll have to do further research on Valdez, and watch more fights. If he's not as good as you suggest, and I've been overrating him all this time, I'll have to reevaluate him and the era, and by extension, Marciano's legacy. Marciano is currently my number 3 ATG heavyweight, but that is very likely to change if Valdez wasn't "that good" yet still made it to the very top of the division, and decisively beat one of Marciano's top three wins, and went life and death with another.

 

Absolute non-sense.

 

Absolutely laughable, anyone would use Schkor as evidence of anything. Schkor was nothing more than a journeyman (being absolutely generous to him) at his best, and he wasn't even at his best against Marciano. He was at the end of his career.

Then again the guy you're replying to also doesn't think Valdes, the outstanding number one contender deserved a title shot against Marciano, and thinks those who disagree are merely haters.

Safe to say he's not the most objective poster on the matter.

 

He kept losing the spot. There was nothing outstanding about him.

Valdez beat Charles on an off night. If you didn't notice, the guy had 120 fights. He wasn't going to be at his best every night. Valdez lost to Moore twice, who lost to Charles twice. He lost to Satterfield, who lost to Charles. He lost to Billy Gilliam, who lost to Charles. He lost to a number of mediocre to poor fighters. He wasn't that good.

This should have NOTHING to do with how Marciano is regarded. Charles was an ATG, but one who fought all of the time, and consequently occasionally lost one.

 

Fair enough. I guess we can just as easily say Charles had an off night when he lost to Marciano. Valdez did have a lot of losses, but that was because of complacency and inconsistency, but he did lose one out of three so I guess he wasn't that good. In turn, the fact that he made it to number one, beat a fresher Charles than Marciano did, and took Moore to the brink in a controversial loss, speaks volumes about that era.

So not only was Valdez not as good as I thought he was, but I'm forced to reevaluate the era, and Marciano's competition based on Valdez's success.

Oh and Marciano STILL didn't fight him, even though he was the mandatory contender.

Maybe Marciano's not quite as great as I thought he was. I now see, I was grossly overrating him putting him at number 3. Not quite sure if he's even in my top ten at this point.

On a side note, it's hilarious that you criticize Williams for his post-shooting losses, but when Charles loses less than a year before some of his best performances against Marciano, you give him the excuse of an "off night" for a fight you haven't even seen. You can't make this stuff up.