Russ Anber on Marciano.

There was no point in fighting Valdes. He wasn't the best around. If he fought Valdes, people would have said he ducked someone else. Moore beat Valdes, so Marciano then went after Archie.
Cockell was a safer fight than the others but thats because Marciano's team wanted to test out his nose after having it split by Charles.

 

11-2 in his last 13 fights coming off two knockout wins over ranked punchers coley wallace and bob satterfield

Charles was the # 1 rated contender by mid 1954, not valdez. Valdez lost his # 1 ranking to charles. Valdez was unrated until he suddenly beat charles. remember valdez lost FOUR times in 1953.

Sweet dude we won 10 fights in a row against average competition, not to mention he was given a gift hometown decision over B level 185lb archie Mcbride. Charles beat better competition.

Ive seen the fight, charles was robbed vs harold johnson. I scored the fight 6rounds to 3 1 even for charles. In comparison Valdez was SHUTOUT by harold johnson 10 rounds to 0.

No this is not true. The ones throwing the bottles in the ring vs valdez cuban fans. You have to remember he was fighting in his home country. Checkout the newspaper reports, you will not find one which didnt think archie clearly won. The fight was close to even going into the 12th, and archie won the last 3 rounds to clearly establish he won the fight. There was no controversy, read the post fight newspapers or ringside opinions everyone felt moore clearly won.




You also have refused to accept my point Weill and Gleason arranged a fight between valdez and marciano to happen in the winter of 1955 in Miami where it would draw there, However Moore and Valdez were staged in a final eliminater and valdez LOST clearly and cleanly. Had valdez won, he gets his title shot.



I am a fan of nino valdez, i feel he looks very good and dangerous on film, and him and marciano would have been a battle. but to accuse marciano of ducking him is plain outrageous and to think valdez would have beaten him is even more outrageous. Charles was the better choice than valdez. Charles was # 1 contender, not valdez and charles had proven himself a consistent top contender and great fighter and bigger draw.

 

Valdez lost four strait in 1953..Shutout by Harold Johnson,Beaten clearly by Moore( I spoke to people who said Archie had an easy time) Beaten by Billy Gilliam who in his next fight lost to Charles...Gilliam also lost in 4 out 5 fights to Bob Baker who was KO'd in 1 rd by Bob Satterfield and Gilliam was TKO'd in 4 byColey Wallace. Charles went on to KO Satterfeild in 2 and Walace in 9, to very energetic and impressive performences. Baker lost by Ko to Moore. The win that Valdez had over Charles two judges had it 5-3 and 5-3 a close boring fight. Valdez went on to have a good 54 but his 53 (4 strait losses were hard to overcome) then he lost in an elimination to Moore again. A lot of eye witnesses felt that Valdez was lucky to get the nod over Archie McBride. ANYWAY after Valdez loss to Moore in 55 put a deserved Moore in front of him for a title shot,Valdez was given the chance to make himself marketable for a title shot vs Marciano but was badly beaten by 174lb Bob Satterfield and lucky to get up at the count of 9 in the 10th rd. This loss robbed Marciano of a last decent payday and his 50th win and 44th Ko...there was no one left....anyway we can always say Why did Snipes get the title fight against Holmes instead of Coetzee (COETZEE had him down 2 times and was robbed) still Snipes got the title fight. In the Case of Valdez it was HIS 4 Losses that put the tarnish on him and he finished poorly vs Moore and Satterfield in 1955 with losses. I think you are really stretching here Mendoza...but if there was time Marciano should have fought him, he could have put him before Cockel but Marciano fought his # 1 contender 5 times and once he fought his #2 and that was Cockel after Marciano's split nose affair with Charles......Nice try Dr.Z

 

Also Mendoza claims valdez beat charles clearly and cleanly, while many think valdez was "robbed" against moore. Yet on the scorecards, valdez beat charles by only 1-2 rounds while moore beat valdez by 3 to 4 rounds

 

Nice try what? Valdes beat Charles in 1953 and won ten fights in a row until May 1955. Valdes was #1 ring ranked, and Rocky should a given him a title shot on June and September 1954. Instead, Rocky gave an aging Charles back-to-back title shots. Again, please read the dates I am talking about.

Instead, Marciano picked a guy ( Charles ) in 1954 twice that Valdes had recently beaten, and was but 2-2 in his last four fights before the first title shot. Since when does a guy who is 2-2 in his last four fights, and recently lost to the #1 guy get a title shot before the #1 rated guy?

I am all ears Bummy. The Cockel fight was a weak defense. I suppose every champion is entitled to one or two. Why Rocky took 9 rounds to stop Cockel is beyond me. Had Marciano picked Valdes instead of Cockel, I suppose this would be much to do about nothing. However, he did not. Some feel that Marciano's management did not want to fight Valdes. His choice of opponents when Valdes was at his best and highly rated signals to me there is some truth to this. I'm sure Rocky would fight Vlades. That is not my point.

I know you are a big Rocky fan here, but these are the facts. I am not talking about Marciano's 1955 defense and final fight vs Moore.

 

Valdes lost 4 in a row in 1953 (Harold Johnson SHUT OUT) Archie Moore, Bob Baker, And Billy Gilliam....In 1954 Valdez beat EZZ in a close boring fight 2 Judges had it 5-3.. Valdez had a win streak in 54(although some say he really lost to McBride)..Billy Gilliam then lost to Charles and was Stopped by Coley Wallace...Baker was KO'd in 1 by Bob satterfeild...Charles KO'd Satterfeild in 2 then Ko's Wallace in 8...overshadowing Valdez....NOW IT WAS UP TO AN ELIMINATION..between Valdez and Moore for the right to fight for the title...Moore won again and got the shot in 1955...Marciano was hoping that Valdez could be marketable and Valdez got a chance fighting 175lb Satterfeild but was badly beaten and dropped for a 9 count in the 10th rd...this was in 1955...Valdez blew it in 1953 and then again in 1955....4 looses in 53, really dropped Valdez Stock and Moore,Satterfeild,Johnson,Baker, dominated him,and Gilliam beat him, Charles blew out Satterfield in 2who KO"D BAKER in1, Ko'd Wallace who KO"D Gilliam,and beat Gilliam right after Nino lost to him....Moore beat Valdez 2 times.....I dont think anyone saw Nino as a real threat to Marciano, he could not get past Moore who was dominated by Marciano and then Valdez was beaten Badly by Bob Satterfeild in 1955, If Valdez would have beaten Moore, he would have won the elimination...If he would have beaten Satterfeild he may have been the Rock's 50th fight....Marciano fought the best around and I am a fan of his...but because he fought his # 1 contender 5 times out of 6 defences and his # 2 contender once...Why did Marciano take so long to kill Cockell? why did Evander Holyfield struggle with Bobby Cyz then in his next fight KO Tyson....Did you think Cockell gave him a hard fight or did you expect an early Ko...why did Marovic go 12 with Lewis, why did Ruddi Lubbers go 15 with ALi or Cobb with Holmes...or Gody with Louis...or Sharkey with Jeffries

 

Valdez was not # 1 rated, Charles was # 1 rated. valdez lost his top ranking in march 1954. Charles got the title shot because he was the better fighter, more consistent top contender, and he beat better fighters, and valdez DUCKED a mandatory rematch with ezz.

I have valdez on film. he was good. He was a skilled big man with a top jab and devastating power, but he had alot of flaws too. I would have loved to see marciano vs valdez, it almost happened in 1955, but valdez simply lost his most important fights. It would have been a battle/a tough fight, but if you dont think marciano would have clearly beaten valdez, then you to rethink your anaylsis

Then why did Marcianos Management schedule a Date in Fall of 1955 for marciano to fight Valdez in Miami?? Dont avoid this question

Choosing a top 20 heavyweight of all time coming off 2 knockouts over top 10 contenders and # 1 rated by ring magazine is what you call being selective?? Are you saying Nino Valdez was a better heavyweight than ezzard charles?



What about holmes fighting scott frank, marvis frazier? or jeffries fighting jack munroe?

 

here are the Ring Magazine rankings for August, 1954

Champion--Rocky Marciano
1. Ezzard Charles
2. Nino Valdes
3. Don Cockell
4. Jimmy Slade
5. Roland LaStarza
6. Hurricane Jackson
7. Dan Bucceroni
8. Bob Baker
9. Earl Walls
10. Heinz Neuhaus

I would point out that Charles is the #1 contender. You might question this as Valdes beat Charles, but then again Baker had beaten Valdes, so why is he rated only 8th while Valdes is #2. The answer, of course, is a judgement on their whole careers. Charles had the best career record of any of them.

You keep harping on Charles' two losses, perhaps fairly, but he was 11-2 in his last 13 fights with one of those losses controversial. If Valdes fought Marciano in June of 1954, he would have been 9-4-1 in his last 14 fights.

Cockell is being put down by everyone including me, but he actually the strongest won-lost record of the top contenders. If he fought Marciano in June of 1954, he would have been 18-2 in his last 20 fights with an eight bout winning streak. He had lost only to Slade and Turpin, and had wins over nine men who at one time or another were rated Ring fighters--Lloyd Marshall, Albert Yvel, Freddie Beshore, Nick Barone, Albert Finch, Tommy Farr, Johnny Williams, Harry Matthews, and Roland LaStarza.

This is the Ring ratings for August of 1953, the first month after Valdes defeated Charles
Champion--Rocky Marciano
1. Roland LaStarza
2. Ezzard Charles
3. Dan Bucceroni
4. Nino Valdes
5. Tommy Harrison
6. Bob Satterfield
7. Heinz Neuhaus
8. Don Cockell
9. Earl Walls
10. Harry Matthews

Notice that Charles, despite his loss, is still rated higher.

 

What are the ratings for May 1954, before Marciano gave Charles a title in June 1954? Might Valdes have been rated higher? My point is Valdes, not Charels deserved the June 1954 title shot.

There was no reason why Charles should have been rated over Valdez when Valdes recently beat Charles and won 10 fights in a row ( 3 contenders ) , while Charles was 2-2 in his last two fights before getting back to back title shots with Marciano. Be fair minded OLD FOGEY.

Here is what you need to know. Ring Magazine didn't not always rate fighters fairly. They also aren't quick to change ratings month to month due to tardy printing issues.


Sometimes Ring Magzine does things to suit their own agenda. This is boxing. Sometimes rankings are " arranged " a certain way un-purpose that have nothing to do with performances in the ring. Charles leap frogging Valdes by losing twice ( Once to Valdes ) and fighting less is one of these occasions where the Ring Magazine Ratings were wrong.

Bottom line is this. Valdes was #1 anual ring rated because he was winning and did not get a shot.

 

A few quick quotes;

"Ezzard Charles had replaced Cuba's Nino Valdes as the No. 1 heavyweight contender." - L.A. Times, Mar 2nd, 1954 (AP report published in a few other papers on that date)

"Ring Magazine lists Ezzard Charles as the leading heavyweight contender." - Newport Daily News, Mar 2nd, 1954

"Ex-champion Ezzard Charles recaptured the top perch among heavyweight contenders in the Ring Magazine ratings." - Mar 2nd, 1954, Vidette Messenger

Again, the main reason being given for the move was because of Valdes' narrow and controversial split decision against an unranked, Archie McBride.

 

Mendoza you are not paying attention to fact...the 3 of the 4 men that beat Valdez in 1953 Moore,Johnson(shutout win over Valdez)Baker,Johnson, and Gilliam were then beaten...Baker by Moore and Satterfeild by KO (Satterfeild KO'd in 2 by Charles, Gilliam by Charles and KO'd by Coley Wallace who was then KO'd by Charles...Moore then TKO'd Johnson....Valdez had a decent win streak but many felt he lost the controversial split decision to Archie McBride, then Valdez was given a chance for elimination with Moore in 1955 and HE LOST AGAIN.....Then he was given a shot to redeem himself vs Satterfeild and was DOMINATED and dropped for a 9 count in the 10th by Bob. Ring magazine was really good at there ratings and I have to give them credit for following closely the chain of events to determine there ratings.

 

Champions can not fight every contender but it is great when they fight the man that beat the man and deserving Challangers. Its funny but Mendoza you have a double standard when it comes to fighters like Holmes who avoided Co Champs and # 1 contenders Dokes,Page,Thomas,Tate,Weaver,Coetzee...and failed to rematch Witherspoon and Williams.......Marciano may have not been able to fight everyone in his 6 title defences but he fought the best

 

Well, Marciano-Frazier posted on another thread that Valdes was dropped following the McBride fight to the #3 spot. That was well before the June fight.

"Charles leap frogging Valdes by losing twice (once to Valdes) and fighting less is one of these occasions where the Ring Magazine were wrong."

Your opinion, but Charles didn't exactly leapfrog Valdes--Charles was the #1 contender going into the Valdes fight. Valdes was unrated and had lost four of his last five. Prior to that, he was a preliminary fighter who had beaten no one at all of substance. Because of this poor record, Valdes was not rated ahead of Charles even after beating him. I agree with that call, by the way. Valdes was simply not yet a top contender. He had to prove his victory was not a fluke. Charles then loses to Johnson, a top rated fighter who had swamped Valdes only a few months before, but many feel Charles was robbed. At this point the Ring, also because Valdes is scoring some victories, moves Valdes ahead of Charles. But when Charles ko's Satterfield, who, by the way, has a damn good case for being rated ahead of Valdes himself off his crushing ko of Valdes' conqueror Baker, and Valdes barely slips by with a disputed decision over the ordinary McBride, Charles goes back to #1.

Personally, I would rate Charles over Valdes in 1954.

As for Valdes being #1 at the end of 1953, I agree with SuzieQ. It is an odd rating giving all the losses Valdes had recently suffered. The major reason for this strange rating is that Moore and Johnson were rated at lightheavy only although both were clearly better than Valdes and the other top heavies, with the possible exception of Charles.

Bottom line--I just don't see Valdes as outstanding. He lost ten fights--Johnson, Moore, Gilliam, Baker, Moore again, Satterfield, Baker again, Machen, Machen again, and Folley between late 1952 and 1956. He deserved a shot against Marciano over Cockell, but even that is a fairly close call as Cockell was on a 20-2 run, better actually than Valdes ever managed.

In an article entitled "Who Next for Marciano?" in the August, 1955, issue of Ring, the author had this to say about Archie Moore as a possible opponent for Marciano:

"Moore did not do himself too much good with his 15 round decision over Valdes. Had Archie scored a knockout, he would have commanded immediate attention for a Marciano shot."

They are saying that the lightheavyweight champion LOST PRESTIGE by not being able to knock out Valdes and by only defeating him by a decision for the second time.

 

All championship opponents are "hand-picked:. It's not like the challengers get to pick.

And by the way, who was more deserving than Charles?